8-- Philip 6
This week, our survey of The Gospel of Philip begins with a long section on lower and higher consciousness, comparing the lower to animal consciousness and the higher to consciousness informed by the Holy Spirit. The Antonov translation deletes a goodly chunk of text, dismissing it as damaged, but Isenburg submits a provocative reconstruction:
“There are domestic animals, like the bull and the ass and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man ploughs the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he is nourished, he and the animals, whether tame or wild.
Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he ploughs, preparing for everything to come into being. For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, the right and the left. The Holy Spirit shepherds everyone and rules all the powers, the "tame" ones and the "wild" ones, as well as those which are unique. For indeed he shuts them in, in order that they will not be able to escape.”
This section reminds us of the Son’s power to control the coarser energies of existence; the lower powers are submissive to the higher power, allowing the Perfect Man to command the “tame” and the “wild” alike. We recall from last week Antonov’s comment on Verse 34:
“The coarser in their energy nature individual consciousnesses are, the coarser and farther from God-the-Father are the eons where they live during their non-incarnate state. They have no ability to enter the abodes of more perfect consciousness and do not see those who live in the eons more close to
God-the-Father.
However, more perfect creatures of the spiritual world are able not only to enter coarser eons, but also to control their inhabitants, and the latter may not even know about this. God personally or through worthy spirits controls all other spirits and embodied people, including the most primitive ones. And they are used by Him for correcting other embodied people— both sinful and righteous, for example, when the latter need to reform, to be redirected, and so on.”
Thus, Philip reminds us that the Sons of God may fluidly transition from one consciousness level to another, and command all those abiding in the lower levels
In the next paragraph we find ourselves, once again, talking about begetting Sons as opposed to creating Sons. But notice the abrupt flip into the subject of adultery; this is not just a reference to physical adultery, but has to do with the begetting of Sons through the Father, as opposed to sons begotten of the Serpent:
“He who has been created is beautiful, but you would not find his sons noble creations. If he were not created, but begotten, you would find that his seed was noble. But now he was created (and) he begot. What nobility is this? First, adultery came into being, afterward murder. And he was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the Serpent. So he became a murderer, just like his father, and he killed his brother. Indeed, every act of sexual intercourse which has occurred between those unlike one another is adultery.”
The Antonov translation truncates this section into this short paragraph:
“42. First, adultery takes place, then a murderer is
born from it. He was a son of a devil before; therefore, he
becomes a murderer of people now and kills his brothers.
Every (sexual) intercourse of dissimilar people is adultery.”
It is interesting to note that it is not only sexual intercourse out of wedlock that is deplored, but sexual intercourse of dissimilar people. Dissimilar people? Who or what is meant by the expression, “dissimilar people”? This is hard to understand unless we turn to the symbolic meaning, i.e., the reference to the very first verse of the book: “A proselyte does not make another proselyte.” This whole large topic has very much to do with the idea of the conversion of the heathen. Clearly, this is not as simple as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would have us believe.
Jesus has gone on record on the subject of adultery:
Matthew 5:27-28:
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Thus, the involved version of this subject given by Philip is vastly simplified by the clarity of Jesus’s pronouncement. Nevertheless, the subject of adultery, in its most potent symbolic form, is all about the transfer of consciousness from lower to higher levels, and can become quite involved, not to say, confused.
C.S. Lewis gives us this powerful aside in the Screwtape Letters:
“His real motive for fixing on sex as the method of reproduction among humans is only too apparent from the use He has made of it. Sex might have been, from our point of view, quite innocent. It might have been merely one more mode in which a stronger self preyed upon a weaker – as it is, indeed, among the spiders where the bride concludes her nuptials by eating her groom. But in the humans the Enemy has gratuitously associated affection between the parties with sexual desire. He has also made the offspring dependent on the parents and given the parents an impulse to support it – thus producing the Family, which is like the organism, only worse; for the members are more distinct, yet also united in a more conscious and responsible way. The whole thing, in fact, turns out to be simply one more device for dragging in Love.
Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh”. He did not say “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love”, but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh”. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured.”
Antonov’s Commentary runs thus:
“Adultery is the sexual intercourse between people that God does not approve. This notion has nothing to do with the one used by “pastors” of many Churches to intimidate their “flock”, “pastors” who try to control people’s destinies on behalf of God, though God did not entrust this to them! From God’s standpoint, there is a concept of adultery. And He can even punish for committing it, as we have read in this fragment, by incarnating a devilish soul in the body of a child to be born, or through birth of ugly children, imbeciles, and so on.
God is not against sex in general. It is according to God’s design that the population of human bodies on the Earth is maintained thanks to sex. Through sexual interactions people also learn — under the guidance of the Holy Spirit — what kind of a person they should be and what kind they should not be. Sexual relations between people are also a means by which God
teaches us love, wisdom, and power. The most general principles of correct behavior in the sphere of sexual relations are: — tactfulness, abandonment of egoism, acting not for oneself, but for the sake of the partner, for the sake of mutual harmony,— abandonment of coarseness in emotions, words, deeds, attempts to cultivate in oneself and to give to the beloved the
subtle tenderness — the most precious emotion on the Path to the Perfection.
May one change partners? Or must one live the whole incarnation with one partner? The answer is: of course, one may! Because by changing partners we can learn much more in the art of giving our love.
However, birth of children certainly imposes duties on both parents. But if one is obsessed with seeking sexual pleasure, having forgotten about everything else, this will be the sin of adultery, and God will point out this mistake, for example, by inflicting venereal diseases.
In the second paragraph of this fragment, the Author
writes about another kind of adultery, and this is related, first of all, to people who already walk the spiritual Path. It concerns the adequacy of the partner. An adequate partner is not just the one whom you like and who agrees with you, and with whom everything goes well (though this is also important), but the partner must be a completely like-minded person and the closest companion on the Path to God-the-
Father.
If there is a significant difference in the age of souls, in the degree of the energetical refinement of the organisms and subtlety of the consciousnesses, if one of the partners is not firm in following the killing-free nutrition, which is the only ethically and bioenergetically correct one, then such relations will be a serious obstacle for another partner who is more faithful and closer to God. And this will be adultery from God’s standpoint, i.e. an inadmissible and punishable act.”
At this point I must confess to having had such an adulterous relationship: for 25 years I lived with a woman who was NOT like-minded with me at all. We started out like-minded, but when I went through my conversion to Christianity, I left her behind, and most of the rest of our marriage was spent in opposition to each other on many, many fronts. I won’t say our children are imbeciles, but both my sons inherited a lot of the worst of both of us, and I often wish my sons had not been born. I know this is harsh, since I love them both as any father loves any son. Nevertheless, if these souls had been born to more like-minded parents, they might have inherited healthier bodies and brains than we gave them. Truer words were never spoken than these words of Jesus:
Matthew 10:34–36
“34Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
Not that I repent the life I led—I participated in the play with my eyes wide open. Moreover, I have always felt the hand of Fate guiding my steps through this life, and I have no regrets about any of the trials and penances that I have been taxed with; there was indeed a great Gordion Knot of Karmic involvement that needed to be worked out between me and my wife and my children, and I accept this punishment as right and fair. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of a “happy” career on this planet, that has mostly been denied me, and I attribute this failure MOSTLY to a bad marriage.
In keeping with the general form of the catechesis, Philip abruptly drops the subject of adultery and goes obliquely to this lovely parable of the Dyer:
“43. God is like a dyer. Just as good dyes, which are
called colorfast, get destroyed only with the things dyed
in them, the same happens when God works. His dyes do
not fade. They are immortal thanks to His work of the
“dyer”.
God baptizes in the Flow those whom He baptizes.”
The Antonov Commentary:
“The first baptism, given by God, happens in the Flow of the Holy Spirit. God gives it only to the worthy ones. Such a baptism transforms them so that His “dyes” are never washed out.”
The Isenburg translation and commentary add a bit more to the mix:
“God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called "true", dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water.”
The Isenburg Commentary”
““God is a dyer” refers to a meditation technique used in the ancient world to peer into a cup of dyed water until the eye tires and other realms are seen. It is striking that phrases like “they become immortal by means of his colors” is in close proximity to “You saw Christ, you shall become Christ”. (In the following section.) It is also interesting that becoming Spirit and Christ are in the past tense but “shall become Father” in a future tense.”
The idea of a Son/Past and a Father/Future is interesting indeed, and harmonizes beautifully with the primary thrust of The Gospel of Philip: that there are different levels of spiritual consciousness, and we need to step up to the higher ones. Hope is an impulse toward and a vision of a future seen through the Father’s eyes. With Hope in our hearts, Time disappears, and only Love remains.
The metaphor of the Dyer appears elsewhere in the Gnostic Gospels. The following comments are from the olinrevelation NewWebsite.
The Story of Jesus in the Dyer's Shop
“A story is told within the apocryphal Syriac Infancy Gospel of young Jesus entering the shop of a dyer named Salem and proceeding to toss all of the cloth given to the dyer to dye into a tub containing indigo dye. The dyer, convinced that his business was ruined, became furious at Jesus and began to scold him. Jesus, however, remained calm and assured the dyer that he would color each piece of cloth the color it was supposed to be. Jesus then proceeded to pull each piece of cloth from the tub and, miraculously, as Jesus pulled each piece of cloth from the tub, it changed color to the color that the dyer had originally intended to dye it.
Superficially (forgive the pun), the story appears to simply describe what might be called a "parlor trick". But it seems clear that, on further inspection, there is far more to the story than what first meets the eye. The indigo dye in the tub, in fact, was very likely the dye that was used, among other things, to color the blue strands of the tassels, known as tzitzit, attached to the four corners of prayer shawls. The dye was made from sea creatures known as chilazon. Unfortunately, it is not known what sea creature chilazon originally referred to, but modern researchers have suggested that it was either cuttlefish or sea snails since a dye can be synthesized from either that will produce blue or purple depending upon whether or not the dyed cloth is promptly exposed to light. It should also be noted that the dye itself does not appear indigo but rather as a grayish color; the blue or purple color the dye produces appears only after a cloth soaking in the dye has been removed from the dye and exposed to air.
Thus it would appear that the miracle being described in the Syriac Infancy Gospel is actually nothing more than the result of the natural chemical transformations associated with the chilazon dye, known as tekhelet. But here again I think it would be unfortunate if one were to casually dismiss the story as being entirely explained by natural phenomena and therefore, lacking any evidence of miracles, of no significance. There is, in fact, profound religious significance in the act of transforming something that was originally gray, the color of lifelessness, into something that is full of color, which represents life. And ascribing Jesus as the source of the relevant transformations is essentially suggesting that Jesus is both the breath (the air) and the light, a message that is unmistakably Christian.”
The story of the Dyer is reprised in Philip several verses down, but I have interjected it here, as we ought to put all the dye stories together. I like this version better than the one in the Infancy Gospel, because there is more to it—in this version the fabrics come out not as the various colors they were intended, but as all WHITE :
“54. The Lord once came to the dye-works of Levi. He
took 72 different dyes and threw them into the vat. Then
He took all fabrics from it, and they were white. He said,
“Even so the Son of Man works”.
Antonov’s Commentary:
“Philip describes one of the miracles performed by Jesus. By this miracle, Jesus showed His disciples the following principle of the work of a Teacher: a Teacher takes a group of disciples who originally are very different (multicolored) and “whitens” them in the common “vat” of the spiritual School. They, as
souls, should become white like the Divine Fire. The phrase “the Son of Man”, by which Jesus often called
Himself, means: “A part of the Father incarnate among people in a body born by a woman”.
Thus, with the story of the dyer more fully explained, it is possible to see a connection between it and this next section:
“44. It is not possible to perceive anything of the Imperishable unless one becomes like It. In the world of the True Life, everything happens not in the same way as among worldly people: they perceive the sun although they are not the sun, they perceive the sky and the earth and all other objects, not being them. But in that world, you perceive something, and you become it.
Thus you perceive the Holy Spirit, and you become
Him. You perceive a Christ, and you become a Christ. You perceive the Father, you become the Father.
In that world you perceive everything, but you do not
perceive yourself. But you perceive yourself as That One,
because you become the One Whom you see.”
I think this section is related to the Parable of the Dyer in this way:
the sentence “It is not possible to perceive anything of the Imperishable unless one becomes like It,” echoes both the idea that “Every (sexual) intercourse of dissimilar people is adultery,” and the idea that “As the good dyes, which are called "true", dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed.”
What is being said here, both in the version where the cloth comes out vary-colored, AND in the version where everything comes out white, is that there is a unity between like things in the universe; those entities which share common qualities also share common experiences and destinies, you might say, “synchronicities”. The idea that if you IDENTIFY with the Christ, you become Christ, is an underlying cantus firmus of this entire book. Indeed the Pleroma, the unified totality of God, connects us all in the over-arching PERSONALITY of God—the Christ.
Antonov’s comment on this section is simply this:
“Philip shares His personal impressions from the highest meditations taught by Jesus, in this case from the meditations of Mergence with God.”
In other words, if you merge with God, you come out the right color, but the right color is all one color.
Going on with Philip:
“45. Faith begs. Love gives. One must not receive without faith. One must not give without love. Therefore, in order to beg we believe, and in order to give truly we love. But the one who gives without love does not benefit from such giving.
46. The one who has not received the Lord yet is still
a Hebrew.”
Antonov Commentary:
“These words were written for readers-Hebrews. Their
meaning is: The one who has cognized God stops perceiving oneself as a representative of a particular nationality, religion, gender, or age group: all these become things of the past and there remains only the perception of oneself as a consciousness aspiring
to the Beloved.”
Going on with Antonov’s translation:
“47. The first Apostles called Him thus: Jesus Nazarene
Messiah, that is Jesus Nazarene Christ. The last word is
Christ, the first is Jesus, in the middle — Nazarene.
The word Messiah has two meanings: Christ and King.
Jesus in Hebrew means Savior. Nazara is Truth. Nazarene
is the One Who came from the Truth. So, Christ is King. Thus, Nazarene is King and Jesus is also King.”
The Isenburg translation is almost identical, but instead of “Christ and King” it says, “the Christ and the measured”. In this case the term “measured” refers to this definition: the higher self, the Christ, measures what is redemptive and true. Thus, this definition of Messiah includes the concept of MEDIATOR, by virtue of the power of redemption, and the power to communicate the truth, the Truth mediated by the Son.
Here is the Isenburg translation:
“47 The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.”
At this point Isenburg suggests that there is a distinction between the “Nazarene” and the “Christ”. Is there a case of multiple identities here? Or does the Pleroma include distinct levels of structure even of the Messiah?
On a related subject, on the term “measured”, I would like to recall a semantic connection I learned many years ago from Arthur Koestler’s great book, The Sleepwalkers; this is a book about standout geniuses in history who made groundbreaking discoveries. At the time I read this book I was involved in contrasting Eastern with Western aesthetic orientations, so the sentence that struck me was this (I paraphrase): “from the same Sanskrit root, was derived, in the East, the word “Maya” the Indian word for Earthly illusion, while in the West the word became “Metron”, the key to measuring the universe. These two opposing orientations to life offer an explanation for why Western Man has overtaken the world with his technology-based constructions, while the Eastern Man has remained behind, living his natural life among the emanations of Mother Earth. Remember that the Christ is given credit for the impetus behind Modern Man’s concept of civilization; civilization organized at a higher level than the beasts who feed off the bush and the vine. It cannot be denied that the values of the Catholic Church, corrupt as it very often was, nevertheless transformed the world from a primitive culture into a civilized culture. The “measurement” of the cosmos became a stock-in-trade of the Western Man—thus, although Jesus pointed the way to a heavenly abode, it must never be forgotten that, for Jesus, Heaven on Earth was here and now.
Going on, Philip mentions the pearl, as a commodity of great price, equated with the inherent, immutable value of Sonship; he goes on to discuss something of the social position of Christians in this early period:
“48. A pearl, even if it is cast down into the mud, is
not despised. And if one covers it with balsam, it does not
become more valuable. But it is always valuable to its
owner. It is the same with the Sons of God: wherever They
may be, They are still of value to Their Father.
49. If you say, “I am a Jew!” — no one will move. If
you say, “I am a Roman!” — no one will be disturbed. If
you say, “I am a Greek, a barbarian, a slave, a free man!”
— no one will flinch. But if you say, “I am a Christian!” —
everyone will tremble. Oh, if I could receive this rank,
which is unbearable for the earthly rulers!”
This section is a little hard to understand in light of the conventional wisdom that the early Christians were persecuted and sacrificed for sport in the Roman arena. What does it mean, “everyone will tremble”? Perhaps the controversy surrounding the early Christian church is the cause of such trembling? Wikipedia provides some background that may prove helpful:
“Prior to Nero's accusation of arson and subsequent anti-Christian actions in 64, all animosity towards Christians was apparently limited to intramural Jewish hostility. In the New Testament (Acts 18:2-3), a Jew named Aquila is introduced who, with his wife Priscilla, had recently come from Italy because emperor Claudius "had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome". It is generally agreed that from Nero's reign until Decius's widespread measures in 250, the anti-Christian policies by Romans were limited to isolated, local incidents. Although it is often claimed that Christians were persecuted for their refusal to worship the emperor, general dislike for Christians likely arose from their refusal to worship the gods or take part in sacrifice, which was expected of those living in the Roman Empire. Although the Jews also refused to partake in these actions, they were tolerated because they followed their own Jewish ceremonial law, and their religion was legitimized by its ancestral nature. On the other hand, they believed Christians, who were believed to take part in strange rituals and nocturnal rites, cultivated a dangerous and superstitious sect.
During this period, anti-Christian activities were accusatory and not inquisitive. Governors played a larger role in the actions than did Emperors, but Christians were not sought out by governors, and instead accused and prosecuted through a process termed cognitio extra ordinem. No reliable, extant description of a Christian trial exists, but evidence shows that trials and punishments varied greatly, and sentences ranged from acquittal to death.”
Notice the mention of Aquila and Priscilla in this regard. Remember that it has been suggested that Priscilla wrote the book of Hebrews, which in turn suggests that the composition of Philip is roughly contemporaneous with the general social climate of 100 C.E. By this I mean that: the “trembling” associated with meeting Christians on the road, might be thought to come from the controversy surrounding the new religion, as it was in those first tender years, before it was firmly established, as it came to be one or two hundred years later.
Perhaps the key to understanding the passage is in the remark:
“Oh, if I could receive this rank,
which is unbearable for the earthly rulers!”
This is a crystal clear reference to the Romans, whose violent reaction to the new Christianity must have been due, in part, to the apparent growing strength, in numbers, of the burgeoning sect. The earthly rulers must have felt superior to the Christians, but they must also have feared for their own old way of life, which could be seen gradually slipping away from them, usurped by a group of weirdo converted Jews.
The next passage is expressed in very provocative language:
“50. God is an Eater of men. Men are consumed by
Him. Formerly men sacrificed animals. But their souls were
consumed not by God.”
Antonov’s Commentary:
“The meaning of that which we call organic life on the
planet Earth consists in the development of consciousness incarnated in its containers — the living bodies. Having begun their evolution as primitive energetic microformations on the lattice of minerals, having passed then through many incarnations in vegetal, animal, and human bodies, some souls finally become Godlike and flow into the Creator
— the Primordial Universal Consciousness, thus being consumed by Him. This constitutes His Evolution. We are its participants.
Moreover, spiritually developed people, at the final stages of the personal evolution, sacrifice themselves, their individualities— for the sake of Merging in Love with the Primordial Consciousness. For such people it is natural, because they are in the state of highest love for the Highest Beloved! From the outside, it may seem as sacrificial self-annihilation.
In ancient times, the echoes of wishes of God about sacrificial love reached the human masses. And people began to kill animals as a sacrifice to Him, eating afterwards their corpses and offering souls as a gift to God or to imaginary “gods”.
Jesus Christ was against such primitivism, suggesting that people must refuse killing animals as a “sacrifice to God” or for using their bodies for food.”
Going on, Philip once again compares imperishable entities with perishable entities by contrasting the strong glass vessels tempered by fire (a metaphor for the spiritual breath of the Holy Spirit), with the weak clay vessels created from the mere dust of the earth:
“51. Glass vessels and clay vessels are both made by
means of fire. But glass vessels, if broken, can be remade,
for they came into being through a breath. Clay vessels, if
broken, are thrown away, for they were made without
breath.”
This a very transparent analogy as Antonov’s Commentary points out:
“It is possible to melt down pieces of glass and make new vessels from them, while pieces of burned clay can only be thrown away. There is a wise allegory here. Both glass and clay, when used for production, go as if through “baptism in fire”. Glass also goes through “baptism by the breath” (the analogy with the Flow of Pranava), but clay does not. The baptism in the Pranava must precede the baptism in the Divine Fire. Therefore, “baptism in fire” of clay vessels cannot give a lasting result.
The point here is that in spiritual work it is necessary to move from stage to stage: one must not jump over several stages, it is impossible to remain in the Divine Fire without strengthening oneself first in other variations of Mergence with God.”
To summarize the subjects included in this portion of Philip, we have seen that:
- 1.The primitive Man and the Perfect Man are constantly at odds with each other, but the Perfect Man can travel through the various Consciousness levels.
“The Holy Spirit shepherds everyone and rules all the powers, the "tame" ones and the "wild" ones, as well as those which are unique.”
This is not unlike the various “travel stories” of history, including The Divine Comedy, which has Virgil leading Dante through all the apartments of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven, to Paul Twitchell’s The Tiger’s Fang, a new age tour of the astral plane, on to the various books written by people who have had near-death experiences and come back with tales of being led through the afterlife by a guide who eventually returns them to Earth.
- 2. We considered the subject of adultery, and found a slightly unorthodox interpretation of that term.
- 3. We found an attractive new Jesus parable, the Parable of the Dyer.
- 4. Finally we talked about the new Christianity as perceived by the Roman-dominated world of ca. 100 C.E., and how the packaging of person does or does not influence the inner Man.
Next week we will begin by hearing some charming parables that do not appear in the synoptic gospels. Let us pray:
|
Jesus thank you for the fire that tempers us, molds us, and clarifies us. We crave the dye that will make us white as snow, and we know that, at your touch all will be transformed to radiant colorless light. Amen.
