Sermon 7—Philip 5

7—Philip 5

In my Introduction to The Gospel of Philip, I read the following from Wikipedia:

“As in the other gnostic texts, the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip defends the tradition that gives Mary Magdalene special insight into Jesus' teaching, but does not support twenty-first-century inventions concerning Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife and mother of his offspring.”

The idea that Jesus had a wife is a conventional heresy, in the physical sense; but in terms of the Father/Mother God we have discussed in previous sermons, it is a subject that warrants expansion. Here is the text from Philip:

“32. There were three who always walked with the

Lord: Mary — His mother, His sister, and Mary   Magdalene— who was called His companion. So, there were three Maries: His mother, His sister, and His companion.”

Isenburg comments:

“(What was it that allowed these three women to be the companions of Jesus rather than the Twelve?)

The wording of the paragraph indicates that ‘Mary’ or ‘Miriam’ was being used as a spiritual name or title representing a spiritual function. Miriam was the sister of Moses who was a true leader and elder of her people who stood up to Moses, had the support of Aaron, and was greatly beloved when she died.”

Thus Mary, physically the “COMPANION” of Jesus, may or may not have been Jesus’ consort, but symbolically she seems to have been a counter-weight in the balancing act Jesus was performing. Then we get into the various mythological themes that suggest that Mary was Her own incarnation of Spirit.

First, a Wikipedia survey recapitulates the conventional wisdom concerning Mary:

Mary Magdalene (/ˈmæɡdələn/ Hebrew: מרים המגדלית‎‎, original Biblical Greek: Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή), literally translated as Mary the Magdalene or Mary of Magdala, is a figure in Christianity who, according to the Bible, traveled with Jesus as one of his followers. She is said to have witnessed Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Within the four Gospels she is named at least 12 times, more than most of the apostles. Based on texts of the early Christian era in the third century, it seems that her status as an “apostle" rivals even Peter's.

The Gospel of Luke says seven demons had gone out of her, and the longer ending of Mark says Jesus had cast seven demons out of her. She is most prominent in the narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus, at which she was present. She was also present two days later, immediately following the sabbath, when, according to all four canonical Gospels, she was, either alone or as a member of a group of women, the first to testify to the resurrection of Jesus. John 20 and Mark 16:9 specifically name her as the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection.

Ideas that go beyond the gospel presentation of Mary Magdalene as a prominent representative of the women who followed Jesus have been put forward over the centuries.”

A Wikipedia article on Mary mentions that in the Gospel of Thomas Mary is a subject of controversy even among the original disciples: 

“The Gospel of Thomas, has two short references to a "Mary", generally regarded as Mary Magdalene. The latter of the two describes the sentiment towards female members of the early Gnostics:

“Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

When the Gospel of Thomas was written, people commonly assumed that men were superior to women.

The manuscript gives 114 "secret teachings" of Jesus. Mary is mentioned briefly in saying 21. Here, Mary asks Jesus, "Whom are your disciples like?" Jesus responds, "They are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Let us have back our field.' They (will) undress in their presence in order to let them have back their field and to give it back to them". Following this, Jesus continues his explanation with a parable about the owner of a house and a thief, ending with the common rhetoric, "Whoever has ears to hear let him hear".

Notice the similarity between this scripture and one of my favorite sayings of Jesus:

Luke 7:32: 

“They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.”

There are several episodes in the gospels that indicate that Jesus thought of His disciples as children. He is all-loving and all-forgiving, but there is no doubt that He is aware of His superior position in the cosmic choir. This is a function of the main thrust of Philip: that there are graduated levels of spiritual awareness, with Jesus at the top and us scattered around at various levels beneath Him.

Getting back to Mary Magdalene, The Gospel of Philip echoes the other disciples’ jealousy of Mary, about which Wikipedia makes this comment:

“Others' irritation from the love and affection presented by Jesus to Mary Magdalene is claimed in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip. The text is badly fragmented, and speculated but unreliable additions are shown in brackets:

“As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...Lord was] Mary Magdalene. [...He] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...were jealous]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness." The Lord said, "Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be." 

Here Jesus is saying, “Open your eyes and you will see why I love her—it’s so obvious, that if I have to explain it to you, you will never get it!” The remark, "Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be,” says all explanations of essence were given before time began. This is very little help in explaining why Jesus loved Mary Magdalene more than the other disciples, UNLESS we go deeper into the Individualities of Spirit manifested in the various personalities included in Jesus’ entourage.

The Christian-Reincarnation.com website makes these remarks:

“On a somewhat lower level Sophia came into being, the Wisdom, as an emanation of Barbelo. She is also called “bride of Christ”.” 

Another source mentioned in Wikipedia says:

“In the Pistis Sophia, possibly dating as early as the 2nd century, the best surviving of the Gnostic writings, Pistis Sophia presents a long dialog with Jesus in the form of his answers to questions from his disciples. Of the 64 questions, 39 are presented by a woman who is referred to as Mary or Mary Magdalene. Jesus says of Mary:

"Mary, thou blessed one, whom I will perfect in all mysteries of those of the height, discourse in openness, thou, whose heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all thy brethren". 

Again from Wikipedia:

“In the Bahá'í tradition there are many references to Mary Magdalene in the sacred writings of the Bahá'í Faith, where she enjoys an exalted status as a heroine of faith and the "archetypal woman of all cycles". `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, said that she was "the channel of confirmation" to Jesus' disciples, a "heroine" who "re-established the faith of the apostles" and was "a light of nearness in his kingdom". `Abdu'l-Bahá also wrote that "her reality is ever shining from the horizon of Christ", "her face is shining and beaming forth on the horizon of the universe forevermore" and that "her candle is, in the assemblage of the world, lighted till eternity".`Abdu'l-Bahá considered her to be the supreme example of how women are completely equal with men in the sight of God and can at times even exceed men in holiness and greatness. Indeed he claimed that she surpassed all the men of her time, and that "crowns studded with the brilliant jewels of guidance" were upon her head.”

One more quote from Wikipedia expands on the Jesus/Mary relationship. Of interest is the comment down the page about kissing:

“The Gospel of Philip describes Mary's relation to Jesus by Coptic variants of the Greek κοινωνός (koinōnos). That work uses cognates of koinōnos and Coptic equivalents to refer to the literal pairing of men and women in marriage and sexual intercourse, but also metaphorically, referring to a spiritual partnership, and the reunification of the Gnostic Christian with the divine realm. Mary Magdalene is mentioned as one of three Marys "who always walked with the Lord" and as his companion (Philip 59.6–11). The work also says that the Lord loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often.  Author John Dickson argues that it was common in early Christianity to kiss a fellow believer by way of greeting, thus such kissing would have no romantic connotations. Kripal writes that "the historical sources are simply too contradictory and simultaneously too silent" to make absolute declarations regarding Jesus' sexuality. Bart Ehrman concludes that historical evidence tells us nothing at all about Jesus' sexuality—"certainly nothing to indicate that Jesus and Mary had a sexual relationship of any kind". Ehrman (a scholar of the Greek New Testament and Early Christianity) says that the question people ask him most often is whether Mary Magdalene and Jesus of Nazareth married each other.

The Gospel of Jesus' Wife, a Coptic papyrus fragment unveiled in 2012, presents Jesus as speaking of his wife: "My wife ... she will be able to be my disciple." If genuine, it appears to date to around the 6th to 9th centuries AD, and would suggest that some Egyptian Christians of that period believed that Jesus was married. Although it does not contain the name of Mary Magdalene, there has been speculation that she is the woman referred to. However, there is substantial scholarly concern about the fragment's authenticity, with a number of scholars regarding it as a modern forgery.”

In the Huffington Post we read Simcha Jacobovici’s comment:

“The publication on Nov. 12, 2014 of the book I co-wrote

with Prof. Barrie Wilson, The Lost Gospel: Decoding the Ancient Text that Reveals Jesus’ Marriage to Mary the Magdalene, has caused a worldwide theological firestorm, including demonstrations in India. I was even the butt of one of Bill O’Reilly’s attacks and have challenged him to an on-air debate. So far, he’s demurred. 

I think the reason for all this negativity is that the proof for the historical marriage between Jesus of Nazareth and the woman known as Mary the Magdalene has become overwhelming. Even before our findings, everything — everything — pointed to a marriage, and nothing — nothing — argued for Jesus’ celibacy. The only thing that continues to argue for Jesus’ celibacy is 2000 years of theological bullying. This may come as a shock to most people, but the fact is that none of the four Gospels say that Jesus was celibate. The Gospels call Jesus “Rabbi” (Matthew 26:49, Mark 10:51, John 20:16). Rabbis, then as now, are married. If Jesus wasn’t married, someone would have noticed.” 

Talk about bullying! This author’s uncompromising confidence in a proposition so remote, and basically unprovable, is slightly off-putting, although quite adorable in its adolescent enthusiasm. My feeling goes two ways:

1. 1.I don’t have any big problem with the idea that Jesus the rabbi was married, but
2. 2.the arguments in favor of Jesus’ celibacy are founded on two facts:

1. 1.the highest level of Christian devotion has always been the priest, the proof of whose undivided devotion to God has always been his celibacy; and
2. 2.in the Gospel of Thomas it is declared that sexual activity compromises the devotee’s commitment to the spiritual life. 

Furthermore, many Eastern religions proclaim the necessity of celibacy to achieve the highest levels of spiritual awakening. 

For instance, Yogananda’s Self-Realization Fellowship encourages marriage, but not sex, as sex drains the kundalini power necessary to awaken the crown chakra.

On the other hand, The Gospel of Philip is all about the sanctity of the so-called “Bridal Chamber”, a term which represents the relationship of man to woman both metaphorically as in spiritual union, and pragmatically as a physical union. The Buddhist practice of tantric yoga incorporates sex as a pathway to spiritual enlightenment.

Thus the whole issue of Jesus’ celibacy and His relationship to Mary Magdalene becomes significant, depending on which doctrine you adopt. One wonders, since the teachings of Jesus apply to so many graduated levels of consciousness, whether He would recommend one path over another, or attribute to the whole issue little or no importance. 

The last Mary Magdalene material I will present is from the Gospel of Mary. This is another one of the Gnostic texts where the protagonist is said to have been given secret (private) knowledge directly from Jesus:

“Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them. 

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.

8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,

9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.”

Notice that this story is narrated as a vision within a vision. This is a very trippy concept, because it draws attention to the layer-within-layer aspect of cosmic identity. It makes us wonder where one level of consciousness begins and another ends. As I grow in spiritual awareness, I am ever more impressed with the fact that my experience of myself is becoming divided into different resolutions of ego consciousness; the cross-talk between these levels of resolution makes for a contrapuntal matrix of inter-related, inter-dependent ego definitions.

To recapitulate the primary ideas about Mary Magdalene:

1. 1.Mary Magdalene is, above all, a symbol. ‘Miriam’ was being used as a spiritual name or title representing a spiritual function. 
2. 2.“On a somewhat lower level Sophia came into being, the Wisdom, as an emanation of Barbelo. She is also called “bride of Christ”.
3. 3.As a representative of the Feminine Principle, Mary may be thought of as the embodiment of the Holy Spirit.
4. 4.Mary may have merely a member of Jesus’ traveling entourage, but she may also have been the flesh and blood “Bride of Christ”.

You can see from the foregoing, that the subject of Jesus and Mary’s personal relationship is food for argument and dissention, since many nuggets of doctrine depend on it. To me, the whole subject amounts to the same sort of noseyness that prompts us to guess which Hollywood starlet is sleeping with which leading man. My opinion of Jesus is unchanged whether I think of Him as a sexually active father or as a celibate saint. The hot issue is how the Spirit enters and integrates groups of people into One Spiritual Identity—and the magic of this Spiritual activity goes uncompromised in my mind either way. So, provocative as all this is, let us now return to the Gospel of Philip. It will be no surprise that the text revisits the subject of the Masculinity and Femininity of God, the Holy Spirit, as mentioned before, being the Feminine aspect:

“33. The Father and the Son are single names.

But the Holy Spirit is a Double name. For They are

everywhere: They are above, They are below, They are in

the hidden space, They are in the open (space).

(At that) the Holy Spirit is open below and hidden

above.”

The Antonov Commentary develops the idea of multiple identities, a concept that bears on the Mary Magdalene issue. He mentions Divine Individualities representing the Creator in different aspects, or states:

“In a collective sense, denoting concrete Divine Individualities— the Representatives of the Creator.

The Holy Spirits, coming from the Abode of God-the-Father, are present in Their different states above the surface of the Earth (“the open space”) and inside our planet (“the hidden space”).

However, the Holy Spirits below the surface of the Earth can be seen by a spiritual warrior and can be invisible above it to a worldly person.”

Once again, Philip is referring to a hierarchy of consciousness states, the Earthly and the Heavenly, the Visible and Invisible. It is interesting how the spirit dwells on Earth and in Heaven, and is visible or invisible in either context depending on the level of soul evolution on the observer.

How quickly we come to casual conclusions about what we see on the Earthly plane, when a deeper consideration, viewed from a higher perspective, may reveal a higher truth. Notice the expression, “spiritual warrior”; indeed, to fight through the labyrinths of Material Illusion (we say, “Maya”), to get at this higher Truth, is the act of a warrior, determined and resolute, armed with the “Armor of God” to defeat the snares of Satan’s delusive trickery.

The next section is reminiscent of Section 16 that says bad things happen for good reasons:

“16. The earthly rulers thought that what they did they did by their own power and will. But in reality the Holy Spirit in secret accomplished all that through them — accomplished as He considered appropriate. They also sow everywhere the true knowledge, which existed since the beginning. And many people see it while it is being sown, but only a few of them recall about it by the time of the harvest.”

Here is the new verse, which says much the same thing:

“34. Saints are served by evil powers as well. These

powers are blind because of the Holy Spirit: they think

that they serve their men, but in fact they work for the

saints.

A disciple once asked the Lord about something worldly.

The Lord answered him: “Ask your mother — she will

give you of the things that are alien to Me”.

This is definitely a tough love remark from Jesus, but He tells it like it is---don’t bother ME with Earthly concerns, go ask your mother. We have just encountered this type of sarcastic treatment of His disciples in the episode above, where Jesus calls His disciples blind because they cannot see why He loves Mary Magdalene. I do not think these are mean-spirited remarks, I think they point toward a teaching style that is Jesus’ stock in trade. He is always saying to His disciples, “Go do it, experience it, yourself, don’t take my word for it.” Later on we will encounter the term “salt”, referring to the nitty-gritty, no-nonsense aspect of Truth. Truly Jesus’ teaching was overflowing with compassion, but I don’t think He suffered cream-puff devotees very patiently. We have mentioned that one argument against Jesus’ involvement in reincarnation is that He places a high priority on the Cosmic, Now, not the Cosmic procrastinate later.

The Antonov commentary that follows describes the energy levels of these evil powers:

“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.”

I find this thought especially provocative: evil spirits can only enter the coarser abodes of evil, but more perfect creatures can not only enter the abodes of evil, but can command them. This has to do with the idea of exorcism, at which Jesus and other saints were adept; it must also suggest that more perfect creatures can touch the evil ones and through grace convert them into Sons of God.

Remember that such conversions are not easy or painless, witness the Apostle Paul’s period of blindness, after his encounter with the Master on the road to Damascus. Every conversion requires the shedding of an old skin to be replaced by the skin of the New Man. The Rod and Staff of the Shepherd hurt like the dickens when applied, but, without that merciless application, no spiritual progress is possible. In the following verse from Philip the gifts of spiritual grace are said to contain “salt” a metaphorical reference to the pain of tough love inflicted by the Shepherd—the same type of “salt contained in the blind man remark and the “go ask your mother” remark:

“35. The apostles said to their disciples: “Let all our

gifts contain salt”. By salt they called wisdom. Without it,

one’s giving must not be performed.”

Okay, so we need salt in our wisdom, but such wisdom cannot be delivered in ANY form without the Spiritual attendance of an Ascended Master—the expression “well-grounded” is used:

“36. But wisdom cannot be well-grounded without a

Son…

The true Wisdom can originate only from God-the-

Father. And the most perfect Mediator of the Father’s

Wisdom is His Son-Christ.”

Once again, we have a paradoxical semantic construction: we think of “well-grounded” as a basis or root, but in this case the base or root of the spiritual knowledge is heavenly; perhaps we should say, “But wisdom cannot be well-ceilinged without a Son.”

The Isenburg translation has a bit more to it; for one thing the “salty” wisdom is identified with Sophia, the feminine principle; expanding on the reference to the feminine principle, it goes on to say that the Holy Spirit gives birth to many children:

“The apostles said to the disciples, "May our entire offering obtain salt." They called Sophia "salt". Without it, no offering is acceptable. But Sophia is barren, without child. For this reason, she is called "a trace of salt". Wherever they will [...go] in their own way, the Holy Spirit [...goes], and her children are many.”  

This is such a wonderful thought—that spirit gives birth to spirit—that spirit DESIRES to give birth. Note the idea that Sophia, the embodiment of the Feminine Principle, is “salty”. The Feminine is associated with the physical, the emotional, the earthbound (indeed, one Gnostic text mentions that the entire material world was born out of the negative grief and despair of Sophia). But remember that without the masculine principle, there can be no begetting, so the buck passes again to the Father, i.e. the proselyte becomes a Son through the inheritance of the Father’s estate--that is, the spiritual life is transmitted to the Son by way of the etherized blood of the Father:

“37. What the Father possesses belongs also to His Son.

While the Son is small, He is not entrusted with what belongs to Him. But when He becomes adult, the Father

gives Him all that is His.”

Always reminding us of the multi-dimensional structure of existence, Antonov reminds us:

“Incarnated in a body, an infant Christ cannot manifest all His Divine abilities. They are given to Him as His earthly body matures.”

Going on, Philip develops the idea of soul development on the Earthly plane. The ups and downs of our Earthly careers are put in context, by suggesting that everything that happens to us, good or ill, is by Divine Will and Intervention:

“38. Those people who go astray from the Path were

born on the Earth also according to the will of the Spirit

of God. Yet, they go astray from the Path also according

to His will. Thus, lamps are kindled and put out by the

same Spirit.”

Although the doctrinal catechism becomes more and more convoluted and murky, in terms of dogmatic definitions, I am impressed by the HUMANITY of this section. There is nothing about this doctrine that is etched in stone, but all is expressed as a flow of energy from on High to Below and back again.

Antonov expands by pointing out that:

“First, God puts obstacles on the Way to Him: by overcoming them we develop ourselves. And only those people who are worthy, i.e. mature enough, can overcome these obstacles.

Second, there is another point that God possesses all the Power and Authority necessary for preventing unworthy people from approaching His eons: no one can enter the Abode of the Father against His Will.

The worthiness of spiritual warriors is determined from the ethical and intellectual criteria, which are closely related with each other, and from the degree of the subtlety of the consciousness.”

The next verse is shocking in that it brings in the Terrestrial bottom line to our Earthly careers—Death:

“39. There is simple wisdom. But there is also wisdom

consecrated by death: this wisdom has cognized death.

The wisdom which has not cognized death is small wisdom.”

We always knew this was lurking in the background, because we always knew that the final Boarding Pass onto the Transcendental Airplane was Death. In this life, we are invited to plant one foot in Heaven and one foot on Earth, but Death is the final moment when our Earthly investments yield their Heavenly rewards, and we loose the bonds of carnality to embrace pure spirituality.

Once again, Isenburg’s translation has a bit more to it:

“Those who have gone astray, whom the spirit begets, usually go astray also because of the Spirit. Thus, by one and the same breath, the fire blazes and is put out.  Echamoth is one thing and Echmoth, another. Echamoth is Wisdom simply, but Echmoth is the Wisdom of death, which is the one who knows death, which is called "the little Wisdom".” 

The “Little Wisdom” is really a very heavy wisdom indeed, because it is suggested that the wisdom of death is the impulse behind material creation. From The Gnostic Account of the Fall and the Creation of the Material World we read:

“As a result of the new harmony established by "Christos and Holy Spirit", a new, unpaired Aeon, Jesus, is created, who is the "perfect fruit of the Pleroma", and expresses in his being the attributes of all the other Aeons.

The Christ-Aeon meanwhile shapes the "formless entity" into a new Aeon, called Achamoth (from the Hebrew Hokhmah, "Wisdom"), who becomes a kind of lower Sophia.

Achamoth, realising she is outside the Pleroma and unable to return, experiences emotions such as grief, fear, etc. Jesus then descends from the Pleroma and separates her from these emotions, which then become the substance or primal matter of the Cosmos, i.e. Psyche (Soul/Mind) and Hyle (Matter/Darkness). 

The material world is thus derived ultimately from a projection of the sufferings of Achamoth.  Inasmuch as Achamoth (like Sophia above her, and the Demiurge below her), is in many respects a mythological macrocosmic counterpart of the human ego, she is tormented by the longing for ultimate truth only able to produce a sort of bastard rationalism that has to be "crucified away" before she can be redeemed [E.R.Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, pp.19-20]

Achamoth, the Lower Sophia, then shapes the psyche into a god.  As Hans Jonas explains: "He is called "father" of the right-hand things (i.e. the psychical); "artificer" (demiurge) of the left-hand things (i.e. the hylic or material), and "king" of them all, i.e. of all things outside the Pleroma" [Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion,  p.190]

The idea of a Demiurge ("Artificer", World-Creator) is a popular concept taken from Plato's Timeus.  The Demiurge does not create out of nothing, as the Christian God does (such a concept was ridiculous to the Greeks) but rather shapes the original chaos or matter into form.”

You can see that the Gnostic perspective becomes more and more involved the more we learn about it; knowledge of the complicated philosophical world out of which sprang the simplicity of Jesus’ doctrine dramatizes the radical departure that His new religion represents. Simplicity notwithstanding, the elegance of the interplay of light and dark in the Gnostic cosmography entices us with good reason. Much of the preceding mythological background reads like a complicated novel, a story with characters as rich and various as the most involved soap opera; and yet, the final cadence leaves us right back where we started—alone with Jesus stationed at the entrance to His Heavenly Abode, inviting us to come in.

Antonov’s Commentary contains even more such nuggets of stimulating concepts:

“Most people live on the Earth not thinking about the fact that our opportunity to change our own destinies for hundreds (usually) of years between incarnations and for the next incarnation (if it will take place) is limited in time. Later, it will be impossible even to dream about such a change. But if people live remembering about the coming end of the incarnation, then this prompts them to advance on the spiritual Path and allows them to differentiate perfectly between that which has value and that which has not — in front of the coming death.

The most radical and effective decision of a spiritual warrior, for whom the knowledge about death has become an ally, is the decision to master the control over death through developing the ability of dematerializing the body. If such a person has also passed through clinical death and has been to the other world without impediments from the material shell, then this becomes a very essential addition to the meditative experience and provides absolutely reliable knowledge about life there and about what is necessary to do in order to fulfill everything to the maximum.”

I am especially attracted to the idea of the spiritual warrior confronting death, which reminds me of many passages in Casteneda. From The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge we read:

“A man goes to knowledge as he goes to war: wide-awake, with fear, with respect, and with absolute assurance. Going to knowledge or going to war in any other manner is a mistake, and whoever makes it might never live to regret it”

From Journey to Ixtlan, we read:

“Death is the only wise advisor that we have. Whenever you feel, as you always do, that everything is going wrong and you're about to be annihilated, turn to your death and ask if that is so. Your death will tell you that you're wrong; that nothing really matters outside its touch. Your death will tell you, 'I haven't touched you yet.”

In a world where death is the hunter, my friend, there is no time for regrets or doubts. There is only time for decisions.” 

Tell me this doesn’t sound a bit like the Jesus who preaches not reincarnation, but the one and only NOW of existence!

In conclusion let me reprise some of the main points of this presentation:

1. 1.The feminine principle is symbolically represented by Mary Magdalene, and provides much food for thought on the subject of celibacy, and, by extension the elements of light and dark that comprise the Pleroma.
2. 2.The issue of celibacy bears on the various strategies the proselyte may use to enter the Bridal Chamber.
3. 3.The proselyte may not enter the Heavenly Abode, but The Sons of God may travel freely up and down the Cosmic Continuum, for any reason, but especially to aid the proselytes Below in reaching the Above.
4. 4.The Divine Wisdom is not all sweetness and light, but must contain a dram of salt, some difficulty which makes the ultimate conquest all the sweeter.
5. 5.All these complications dramatize the fact that spiritual progress is very involved; I doubt there is any one doctrine that fits all. That is not to say there is not one Truth, but Truth expressed in language must fit the speaker, and, if we have learned anything from Philip,  it is that every single speaker in the universe has an unique position in the heavenly choir.

Let us pray: Jesus, thank You for giving us just enough and a little more than enough of what we need to get closer to You. Amen.

Sermon 9 – Philip 7

Sermon 9 – Philip 7

The next section of Philip begins with a charming parable which, at face value, has nothing to do with what follows. Remember that as a catechesis, it would not be unusual to have items in a list, the progression of which is not necessarily organic. However, in previous sections of Philip we have seen seemingly disparate elements result in a surprisingly homogeneous whole. Whether they are connected or not, they are beautifully simplified illustrations of spiritual truths. 

The first parable of the donkey warns us that spinning your wheels, spiritually, is something that it is easy to do.

“52. A donkey, walking around a millstone, has walked

a hundred miles. When it was untethered, it remained at the same place.

There are men who walk much, but advance nowhere.

And when evening comes for them, they have seen neither

the city nor the village to which they were going, they have cognized neither the nature of the Creation nor the Power (i.e. God-the-Father), nor even angels. Futile was the work of these miserable.”

The point here is that: all our efforts on this material plane are fruitless if there is no enlightened intention behind the work. Note, again, the author’s use of the word “cognized”; we have previously defined the word “cognize” as: “to understand on a fundamental level”. Philip is reminding us that worldly activity does not contribute to spiritual development unless the Divine knowledge of the Son plays a part. Thus, all our worldly occupations are filled with sound and fury signifying nothing; they travel as far down the spiritual path as a donkey tethered to a millstone.

Antonov’s Commentary:

“The efforts can yield good fruits only if the Goal and the methods of its cognition are clear. Or it is necessary to take the hand of the Teacher and hold tight to it. (The Teacher is the One Who knows the Goal well and is capable of leading another

person to It).”

The next verse of Philip glorifies Jesus, albeit somewhat out of context:

“53. Our thanksgiving — to Jesus! In Syriac, He is called

Pharisatha, i.e. the One Who exists everywhere.

Jesus came to show the crucifixion of that which belongs

to this world.”

If there is any connection to be seen between this sentence and the donkey parable, it is simply that Jesus frees us from the pointless terrestrial millwheel by revealing the emptiness of this world and the glory of the next.

Antonov’s Commentary:

“We have spoken already about the possibility and necessity not only of qualitative but also of quantitative growth of individual consciousnesses. The consciousness of an ordinary man is not larger in size than the man’s body. But thanks to special meditative training, it can be grown up to sizes comparable to the size of the planet and even larger. Only having fulfilled this (together with many other things), one becomes worthy of entering the eon of God-the-Father.”

[Sidebar: Note the idea of an individual consciousness expanding to the size of a planet. This is a restatement of “I am the vine.” Through a spiritual endowment, Jesus is able to encompass the entire consciousness of Earth, including each one of us. Furthermore, this paragraph suggests that we too, through meditative training, may expand our consciousnesses to so encompass the globe. Hoo-yah.

Back to Antonov’s commentary:]

“Jesus traversed this Path long before His incarnation,

which is well known to modern people, and He indeed became the One Who exists everywhere. For example, He, being on the Earth, was at the same time in the Abode of the Father.

He also proved with His death on the cross and with His following appearances to His incarnate disciples that the consciousness does not die together with the body and that one can sacrifice one’s body for the sake of realization of the highest goals.”

Isenburg’s translation, once again has a little more meat on its bones:

“53The eucharist is Jesus. For he is called in Syriac "Pharisatha," which is "the one who is spread out," for Jesus came to crucify the world.” 

"Pharisatha," which is "the one who is spread out,"—I am the Vine! This is of some comfort to me because when I look in the mirror and see how fat I am, I can say I am spread out. Hoo-yah.

Notice that Antonov translates it as, “Jesus came to show the crucifixion of that which belongs to this world,” while Isenburg translates it as. “Jesus came to crucify the world.” This is certainly a disagreement in nuance, if nothing more, but both sentences seem to say that the world is a crucifixion. “Jesus came to show the crucifixion of that which belongs to this world,” says that all terrestrial occupations are crucifixions, and Jesus came to show us this. “Jesus came to crucify the world,” makes Jesus a somewhat more active subject—the implication is that folly is inherent in all worldly activity, and that spiritual knowledge, which the presence of Jesus brings, causes these follies to crucify themselves. Jesus crucifying the world is an image that suggests that Jesus deflates all our self-styled destinies, and replaces them with divine objectives. We should try to remember this when the currents of our earthly projects turn awry, and we wonder what we have done wrong. Perhaps, “The Lord works in mysterious ways,” is a way of saying, “Don’t put your hopes in material things, because these hopes are doomed to disappointment—and rightly so.” 

Going on with Philip, we have another parable dealing, symbolically, with the difference between earthly and heavenly food. This is the second reference in Philip to human food coming from agricultural activity. Remember in Philip Verse 15 we read:

“15. Before Christ came, there was no bread of Heaven. It was like in paradise at the time of Adam: there were many trees — food for animals, but no wheat — food for man. Man used to feed like animals.

But when a Christ — Perfect Man — comes, He brings the bread from Heaven so that people may eat human food.”

There is undoubtedly a symbolic aspect to this concept, but there is also a direct practical application. Human food can be interpreted to mean spiritual food for spiritual beings, but there is also the definite implication that it is the growing of food, (specifically wheat), in a civilized manner that distinguishes man from the brutes who feed off the bush and the vine. Thus, Jesus may be seen as the bringer of civilization, a Kingdom on Earth, born out of its primal origins. Now, in Verse 58 we read practically the same words:

“58. The superiority of man is secret: man has mastery

over animals, which are stronger than man is, which are

greater by appearance and power. However, it is man who

provides them with food. But if man moves away from

them, they begin to bite, slay each other. And they will

eat each other if they do not find any food. But now they will have food because man has tilled the soil.”

Antonov comments:

“In this parable, mankind on the Earth (mankind which consists mostly of psychogenetically young and immature people) is likened to domestic animals in the “Estate” of God. Despite the fact that animals obey the Master, nevertheless they remain beasts in relations with each other if they are given the freedom of actions, and particularly, if there is a lack of food for

them.

The Author of this parable hoped that now when Man-God Christ gave people the true and eternal spiritual food — all people-beasts will be satisfied and will stop being beasts…”

From this parable it is tempting to extract the suggestion that human food ought to be vegetarian. But man’s tilling of the soil implies not only growing food from the ground, it implies a ceremonial process of obtaining spiritual nourishment from the bosom of the Mother God. Thus, the Spirit of God, Sophia, the feminine principle, gives us food for our spiritual growth as well as bread for our bellies. The word “wheat” is not as significant as the idea of food coming through Man to the animals, and, of course, from God to Man. I believe the expression, “tilling the soil” can refer both to a practical physical act, and a symbolic act of abstract character. Again, we are encouraged to “Praise God from Whom all Blessings Flow”, blessings of both a carnal and a spiritual nature. 

Philip goes on to review the proselyte/Son dichotomy, which, in this case, is not unlike the difference between being saved and being sanctified. The author(s) state that it is possible to deceive ourselves with labels, with designations of ourselves as “Christians”, designations which we do not deserve:

“59. If those who were immersed in the Flow [those who were baptized] and having received nothing in It say nevertheless “I am a Christian!”, then they take this name on credit. But if one has really received the baptism in the Holy Spirit, then such a person has the name ‘Christian’ as a gift.

The one who received a gift does not have to give it

back, but from the one who received a credit, this credit

may be taken back.”

Isenburg’s translation is a little clearer: 

“59 If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Christian," he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy Spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back, but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded. This is the way it happens to one when he experiences a mystery.”

Antonov comments:

“John the Baptist performed the rite of the water baptism of repentant sinners. Jesus and the Apostles baptized by the Holy Spirit, asking Him to manifest Himself by influencing the consciousnesses of

the baptized people. (Let us notice that it is not equal to the birth in the Holy Spirit).

The esoteric meaning of such a baptism is to give beginners the first experience of what the Holy Spirit is. In the future, the memory about this experience can inspire the baptized to dedicate the life to changing oneself according to this Standard, to strive for attainment of Mergence with the Holy Spirit.

But other people, who just stood during the baptism and got nothing, nevertheless, assume the title of Christians for themselves. If they in addition will not work on self-improvement in order to become worthy of this title, then they will be considered debtors who did not repay their debts to God. By this, they will burden significantly their destinies.”

Thus, in the Christian community, there is exacted a punishment for making false claims. The sentence “but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded,” is pretty clear. Once again, as we have mentioned before concerning the “Unforgiveable Sin”, we have to deal with the fact that we live in a universe not only of a loving, forgiving God, but of a Just God. Unfortunately, it is never up to us to decide what is fair and what is not, but these scriptures definitely point to the idea that, with Divine Justice, as with any other kind of justice, you get what you pay for. I love the sentence: “This is the way it happens to one when he experiences a mystery.” This is the way things are in the arena of cosmic economics: you get what you pay for.

The question of what is fair and honorable is developed in the next section, as we approach the subject of the Bridal Chamber:

“60. The mystery of marriage is similar to this.

Those who are in a pure marriage are honorable. For

without this, one cannot find peace.”

Isenburg’s translation makes the case a little stronger:

“60 Great is the mystery of marriage! For without it, the world would not exist. Now the existence of the world [...], and the existence of [...] marriage. Think of the [...] relationship, for it possesses [...] power. Its image consists of a defilement.”  

Notice the expression, “Its image consists of a defilement.” This means, a false marriage, one not consecrated by and dedicated to heavenly purposes, is not only not a true marriage, but is actually an abomination whose penalty is the same as any other sin.

Antonov’s Comment:

“Man is the main essence of everything on the Earth.

And the main (earthly) function of man is marriage.

Cognize the pure marriage, for it has great power!

As for its impure form, it exists only as an outer appearance. We have said already that a marriage is a remarkable opportunity for self-development of people longing for the Truth.

We have also discussed what adultery is. It happens: 

a) when people are obsessed with seeking pleasure — to the detriment of their duties before God and other people, and 

b) when partners, engaged in sexual relations, are too different from each other from the standpoint of their spiritual advancement, i.e. partners that need to study in the School of God in different programs, not in the same one.

And now we have to consider what the marriage is.

There is a state registration of matrimonial relations. It

fixes de jure spouses’ relations concerning their property and the rights of children. Such social regulation of marriage is absolutely correct for most people who follow only self-interest and discharge their obligations to other people only under the compulsion of law.

There are also Church marriages. Some Churches assume the right to give or not to give the permission for sexual relations between people, allegedly on behalf of God. Why? — Because Church leaders want to keep the “flock” in awe and obedience. 

But God calls by husband and wife those two who form a firm spiritual union, the sexual relations are a component of this union. God wishes to manage these affairs of people Himself: whom to unite and when, and whom to split. He does this very easily, for example, by regulating the emotions of the partners towards each other.

Defiled forms of matrimonial relations can exist not only in the two forms of adultery mentioned above but also in the disgusting qualities of one or both spouses: such as egoism, harshness, arrogance, violence towards the partner in sexual and other relations, desire to offend and insult the partner.”

Back to Philip; here the discussion of male/female relations is extended into the spirit realm:

“61. Among evil spirits there are both male and female

ones. Male ones long for uniting with the souls which inhabit female bodies, and the female spirits — with souls in male bodies, with those who live alone. And no one can run away from such spirits when they seize an embodied soul, unless they combine in themselves the power of man and woman, i.e. in a marriage.”

You may recall the episode in The Gospel of Thomas about the demon who possessed the body of an unmarried woman, ravishing her sexually every night; remember this was an independent woman who had refused marriage to continue living alone. According to this verse from Philip, the unmarried woman was a prime target for demon possession. This story is not unlike the story of the woman with “the flow of blood” who was healed by Jesus (Matthew 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48); this woman was undoubtedly unmarried, and her affliction was certainly of a sexual nature.

Back to Philip:

“Thus, one receives this power in a marriage, which is a symbolic prototype of uniting in the Bridal Chamber.

When primitive women see a man, sitting alone, they

come to him, flirt with him, and defile him. In the same way primitive men, when they see a beautiful woman sitting alone, molest, rape, and defile her.

But if they see a husband and a wife sitting nearby,

they do not approach them.

In the same way, it can be when one unites by the

consciousness with an angel — then no evil spirit dares to come to such a man or a woman.

Those who have come out of the world cannot be

seized by evil spirits, as it can happen when one is in the world. Now they are above passion… and fear. They become masters of their own nature; they are above earthly desires.

… Sometimes it happens that evil spirits see a single

man and seize him, torture him… And how can he escape

them, being subjugated by his own desires and fear?

Where can he hide from them?

It happens often that some people come and say, “We

want to become believers in order to get rid of evil spirits

and demons”… But if the Holy Spirit had been with them,

then no evil spirit would have cleaved to them!”

Antonov’s comment:

“In this long fragment, Philip, in a parable-allegory manner peculiar also to Jesus, brings the reader to the idea of Union in the Bridal Chamber between a person, as a consciousness, and God-the-Father, as it happens between people in a harmonious marriage. Such a Union provides full protection from evil spirits.

On the early stages of the Path to God-the-Father, spiritual warriors can receive such protection through the real union of the consciousness with the Holy Spirit or just with a pure spirit-angel.”

Philip goes on to draw a more general conclusion from all this:

“62. Do not fear the flesh, nor love it.

If you fear it, it will become your master.

If you love it, it will devour and subjugate you.”

Thus, as Antonov summarizes:

“One can solve this problem radically only by switching the attention to the Highest Goal — God-the-Father.”

Here Philip elaborates:

“63. Either to live in the material world — or to rise in

the highest eons! But not to be found outside!

In this world, there is good and bad. However, that

which is considered good in fact is not good. And that

which is considered bad in fact is not bad. Verily the bad exists outside of this world of matter! It is that which is outside. It is perdition there.

While we live in this world, it is necessary for us to

acquire the Resurrection, so that when we strip off the

flesh, we may be found in Calm, but not walk outside.

Yet many go astray from the Path. It is good to leave this world having not committed sins!”

Isenburg’s translation of this passage runs thus:

“63 He who comes out of the world, and so can no longer be detained on the grounds that he was in the world, evidently is above the desire of the [...world] and fear. He is master over [it]. He is superior to envy. If [powers] come, they seize him and throttle him. And how will this one be able to escape the great powers? How will he be able to [vanquish them]? There are some who say, "We are faithful" in order that [they may avoid] the unclean spirits and the demons. For if they had the Holy Spirit, no unclean spirit would cleave to them. Fear not the flesh nor love it. If you fear it, it will gain mastery over you. If you love it, it will swallow and paralyze you.

And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there! In this world, there is good and evil. Its good things are not good, and its evil things not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil - what is called "the middle". It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle. For many go astray on the way. For it is good to come forth from the world before one has sinned. There are some who neither will nor have the power to; and others who, if they will, do not profit; for they did not act since [...] makes them sinners. And if they do not will, justice will elude them in both cases: and it is always a matter of the will, not the act.”

This translation omits the difficult expression, “But not to be found outside! It is that which is outside. It is perdition there.” This translation also expands the idea that, “In this world, there is good and bad”, by developing the obscure expression, “the middle place”. The section focusses on “He who comes out of the world, and so can no longer be detained on the grounds that he was in the world, evidently is above the desire of the [...world] and fear.” Rising above worldly concerns is the central concept of both translations. The good and bad quandary is to be understood as a distinction of perception—what appears good or bad in Earthly terms is a deception, which is clarified by coming out of the World.

All this talk of the “middle place” reminded me of concepts of death I picked up from The Tibetan book of the Dead, a book that was considered required reading by all hippies in the 60’s (that would be ME), when Eastern religious thought was becoming popular as an alternative to the worn out fundamentalist, right-wing Christian doctrines. From Wikipedia we read:

“The Bardo Thodol (Tibetan: བར་དོ་ཐོས་གྲོལ, Wylie: bar do thos grol), 

Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State, is a text            

from a larger corpus of teachings, the Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation through the Intention of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones, revealed by Karma Lingpa (1326–1386). It is the best-known work of Nyingma literature, and is known in the West as the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

The Tibetan text describes, and is intended to guide one through, the experiences that the consciousness has after death, in the bardo, the interval between death and the next rebirth. 

Any state of consciousness can form a type of "intermediate state", intermediate between other states of consciousness. Indeed, one can consider any momentary state of consciousness a bardo, since it lies between our past and future existences; it provides us with the opportunity to experience reality, which is always present but obscured by the projections and confusions that are due to our previous unskillful actions.

The Bardo Thodol differentiates the intermediate state between lives into three bardos:

1. The chikhai bardo or "bardo of the moment of death", which features the experience of the "clear light of reality", or at least the nearest approximation of which one is spiritually capable;
2. The chonyid bardo or "bardo of the experiencing of reality", which features the experience of visions of various Buddha forms, or the nearest approximations of which one is capable;
3. The sidpa bardo or "bardo of rebirth", which features karmically impelled hallucinations which eventually result in rebirth, typically yab-yum imagery of men and women passionately entwined.

The Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State also mentions three other bardos:

1. "Life", or ordinary waking consciousness;
2. "Dhyana" (meditation);
3. "Dream", the dream state during normal sleep.

Together these "six bardos" form a classification of states of consciousness into six broad types.” 

From the Bardo Thodol itself we read:

“Bardo (the intermediate state after death).

When the expiration hath ceased, the vital-force will have sunk into the nerve-centre of Wisdom (1) and the Knower (2) will be experiencing the Clear Light of the natural condition (3). Then the vital force, being thrown backwards and flying downwards through the right and left nerves (4) the Intermediate State (Bardo) momentarily dawns. At this moment, the first glimpsing of the Bardo of the Clear Light of Reality, which is the Infallible Mind of the Dharma-Kaya, is experienced by all sentient beings.

0 nobly-born, thou wilt experience three Bardos, 

the Bardo of the moment of death, 

the Bardo [during the experiencing] of Reality, and 

the Bardo while seeking rebirth. 

Of these three, up to yesterday, thou hadst experienced the Bardo of the moment of death. Although the Clear Light of Reality dawned upon thee, thou wert unable to hold on, and so thou hast to wander here. Now henceforth thou art going to experience the [other] two, the Chonyid Bardo and the Sidpa Bardo.

From the midst of that radiance, the natural sound of Reality, reverberating like a thousand thunders simultaneously sounding, will come. That is the natural sound of thine own real self. Be not daunted thereby, nor terrified, nor awed.

The body, which thou hast now is called the thought-body of propensities. Since thou hast not a material body of flesh and blood, whatever may come,-sounds, lights, or rays,-are, all three, unable to harm thee: thou art incapable of dying. It is quite sufficient for thee to know that these apparitions are thine own thought-forms. Recognize this to be the Bardo.”

I include this material because it is important to me to affirm the sympathetic connections between the various world religions, and to point out the degree to which all our doctrines may be synthesized into an harmonious whole.

Going on: 

In the next paragraph Philip reminds the weak-willed Christians that you get what you pay for:

“64. There are people who neither want nor can work

(on themselves). Others want and can, but do not do this. Therefore, they do not benefit from such a desire. This only makes them sinners.

As for those who can, but do not want, they will get

their deserts: both for the lack of desire and for the lack

of deeds.”

The next section of the original manuscript is truncated by the ravages of age, but still contains a vivid meaningful image. The story of the burning house is another parable, which the author explicates directly in the following paragraph. Here is the Isenburg translation:

“64 An apostolic man in a vision saw some people shut up in a house of fire and bound with fiery [chains]. And he said to them, "[Are ye] able to be saved?" They did not desire it. They received [their just] punishment, what is called 'the [...] darkness'.  

It is from water and fire that the soul and the spirit came into being. It is from water and fire and light that the son of the bridal chamber (came into being). The fire is the chrism, the light is the fire. I am not referring to that fire which has no form, but to the other fire whose form is white, which is bright and beautiful, and which gives beauty.”  

About this parable Antonov remarks:

“It is about a manifestation of God in the form of Divine Fire. It is quite real. But one can see It only with the eyes of the developed Consciousness, and not with the eyes of the body.

We will close today’s presentation with this meditation on the power of language to express the truth in symbols. We have spoken of this many times, and it is some comfort to me that the ancient writers also pondered this question.

“67. The Truth is not given to this world in clear form,

but in symbols and images. It is not possible to give It in

other forms. So, there are a birth (in the highest eons) and its symbolic image (an earthly birth). One has to reconstruct the Truth through this image. Or: what is the Resurrection in reality? In that way, image after image, man rises.

The same is with the Bridal Chamber: image after image,

comes the Truth, which is Mergence. I say this to those who are not just interested in the words “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, but who gain Them truly for themselves. But those who do not gain Them thus — then even these words will be taken from them.

Verily, one can gain Them by the blessing of God in

the realization of all the fullness of the power of the

Cross, which was called by the Apostles the Right-and-

Left. The One Who has cognized this is no longer a Christian but a Christ.

68. The Lord has everything important in the form

hidden from this world: the baptism, the blessing, the

transfiguration, the purification, and the Bridal Chamber.”

Antonov’s comment:

“As we already saw from the written above, the outer ritual

forms and outer descriptions have nothing in common with the true realization of the things mentioned in this fragment. Sometimes it is difficult to find appropriate words peculiar to the material world, when we speak about the phenomena of the highest eons. Therefore, there is no other way but to use symbols and images. They become quite clear to those spiritual warriors who have matured to realize them in meditation.

In the last paragraph, Philip describes — again in symbols

and images — one of the highest meditations, which is performed in the highest eons. The One Who masters it in the eon of the Father — soon becomes a Christ.”

The sentence, “The Truth is not given to this world in clear form, but in symbols and images,” reprises a point made way back in verse 25:

“25. Usually obvious things are cognized through the obvious, and secret things — through the secret. But in some cases, the secret is symbolized through images of the obvious. Thus come the image of water in the Flow and the image of fire at the blessing (of God-the-Father).”

As you know, the subject of language and its role in conveying the truth and veiling the truth, is a constant preoccupation with me, so it will be no surprise that I cherish this last paragraph. It begins with this precious statement, “Usually obvious things are cognized through the obvious.” We often hear that “less is more”; this is certainly true sometimes, but it is a lot more often true that, “less is less and more is more. The author(s) of Philip certainly agree with me. However, the operative word in this paragraph, for me, is “SYMBOLIZED”—

“the secret is symbolized through images of the obvious”.

Can you guess the next word to come out of my mouth? PARABLE. Parables are always images of the obvious symbolized through verbal structures capable of inspiring the imagination to enter the Cloud of Unknowing. If only we could remember in our arguments over doctrinal details that all these words we vomit out of our mouths are SYMBOLS for realities which cannot be verbalized!

Thus, “The same is with the Bridal Chamber: image after image, comes the Truth, which is Mergence.” Moreover, without committing to any one verbal “TRUTH”, Jesus, guides our minds along wholesome paths, and makes our words romp over a joyous playground of pictures of the invisible. 

Let us pray: Jesus we thank you every Sunday for something. The list of our petty human desires grows like a 7-year-old’s letter to Santa Claus, and we do not apologize for leaning on your everlasting arms. But please have patience with us as we weed through the dross of our desires to the central burning fire of your everlasting Truth. Amen.