Sermon 5-- Philip 4

Sermon 5-- Philip 4—Verse 23-29

Last week we finished on a climax concerning the immortality of the flesh with these words:

“In Antonov’s commentary he says, referring to the soul development that takes place on the Earth plane, by way of carnal experience: 

“It is thanks to this that the process of qualitative and quantitative growth of the consciousness can take place.” 

He doesn’t say why or how this energy transformation takes place, and he doesn’t say how the physical food is transformed into spiritual food, and this is a problem for those of us who would like a straight rational answer to doctrinal questions. Nevertheless, if we go deeper into his logic, we might eventually stumble onto an essentially truthful answer, if only an answer that raises new questions. Meanwhile, at this point, the ability of Faith to accept irrational premises must be our fallback position.

Recently, in meditation, I was given a metaphor that helped me get closer to an understanding of why “the development of man can take place only in the incarnate state.” I have always thought of carnal life and the afterlife as separate things—first one then the other; but if we think of the carnal life as an appendage of the spiritual life, a permanent imprint on the face of the Cosmic host, then a transcendental relationship between death and life may be perceived. As such, we can see that the experiences in the body do not simply disappear when we pass on to the higher planes, but they continue to resonate in the Mind and Memory of God. 

It was explained to me the activities of Earthly life are kind of like the slow repetitious process of practicing on a musical instrument—a mechanical process which is tedious and essentially meaningless for its own sake, but which is necessary to prepare us for the performance onstage. Without the physicalization of technical practice, spirit would have no channel to express itself through the physical; that is to say, without this physicalization, the body would have no channel through which it could access the ecstasy of musical expression which is purely spiritual. Hence, Terrestrial Life=Practice, Heavenly Life=Performance. These are comfortable thoughts, which work to validate Earthly existence, and which affirm the spiritual resonance of everything we DO on this plane.”

The next section of Philip develops the idea of flesh vs spirit; here we encounter more subtle word play, a pun in fact, where the word “naked” is given both a material and a spiritual meaning:

“23. There are people who are afraid of rising naked.

This is because they want to rise in the flesh. Yet they do

not understand that those who wear the flesh are naked

(in front of spirits and God). But those who undress themselves (of the flesh) in order to become naked (i.e. “naked” souls) — they are not naked anymore.

Neither flesh nor blood can enter the Abode of God.

So, what is that which will not enter? It is that which

is on us. And what is that which will enter? It is that which belongs to Jesus and to His Blood.

Therefore, He said, “They who will not eat My Flesh

and drink My Blood will not have the (true) life in them”.

“What is His Flesh? — Logos. And His Blood is the Holy Spirit. The one who has received These has true food, drink, and clothing. And I cannot agree if someone says that This Flesh will not rise.

So, people got confused. If you say that the Flesh will not rise, then tell me, so that I may honor you as a reasonable person, what will rise?”

This guy’s sarcasm kills me: “then tell me, so that I may honor you as a reasonable person”!? It’s like, “I dare you to justify your position about what will rise and what will remain.” The author intensifies his dare with this threat:

“You better say that the Spirit is this Flesh and the

Light is this Flesh. And Logos is also this Flesh. So, all

what you mentioned is this Flesh. And one must rise in

this very Flesh, since everything is in It.”

Commentary:

“In this fragment, Philip uses a “play on words”, which is typical of this Gospel, as a means for stimulating the reader’s thinking.

Philip begins this fragment with scoffing at the fear of rising naked: the shame of nakedness of the body is not an objectively significant ethical law, but just a moral norm of certain groups of people embodied on the Earth. There are no such “norms of behavior” in the highest eons.”

Here, Antonov again departs from the text and inserts new age concepts which are not properly included in the gospel itself, but which might possibly be inferred from any number of external new age sources. As we have mentioned previously, if there is anything to be learned from the Gospel of Philip it is that there are many levels of consciousness in existence. 

[Sidebar: I just mentioned above that:

“I have always thought of the carnal life and the afterlife as separate things—first one then the other; but if we think of the carnal life as an appendage of the spiritual life, a permanent imprint on the face of the Cosmic host, then a transcendental relationship between death and life may be perceived. As such, we can see that the experiences in the body do not simply disappear when we pass on to the higher planes, but they continue to resonate in the Mind and Memory of God.”

Hence, this idea of resonance in the Mind and Memory of God, necessarily references the outside-time quality of predestination. Obviously the Mind and Memory of God are timeless, and yet there is a sequential parameter to both mind and memory that implies a multi-layered structure, i.e. an outside-Time and an inside-Time quality, some kind of physical/non-physical dimension that flows back and forth between Time and Eternity. Predestination must exist, in essence, outside time, and, in expression, inside Time. Moreover, the notion that, “all what you mentioned is this Flesh. And one must rise in this very Flesh, since everything is in It,” refers to the idea that “Pleroma”, the Fullness of God, includes the Flesh.

Now, one of the conventional Christian objections to the idea of reincarnation is that Jesus never told us we get to try again—to Jesus the time to enter the abode of the Father is NOW, in this life, and no other time; perhaps the reason for this is that carnal identity is included in the Fullness of God—the Grace given by the Mediator cancels all Karmic debts which might require another incarnation to get things right.]

The next section of the Antonov commentary explores the character of the so-called “Pleroma”, the state of all-being in its fullness. It suggests that all consciousness is fluid and expresses itself in both individual identities and corporate identities. Again, this is not unlike the C.S. Lewis idea that we have referred to many times, that becoming more absorbed by God means becoming more ourselves.

Here is the Antonov commentary:

“Individual Consciousnesses in the Abode of the Creator abide in the mutually dissolved, merged state, forming a Whole. However, they can separate again as Individualities with the purpose of performing a specific task in the Creation. Spirits retain their separateness, as well as the appearance and tendencies, habitual for them in the last incarnation. But they also can transform into lumps of energy or assume for a time someone else’s appearance when they converse with incarnate people.

God and spirits hear not only the words which we say but also our thoughts, even the most “secret” ones.

They also see everything existing in the world of matter, in all detail. Not only clothes, under which we hide our bodies, but even the intestines of our bodies are absolutely open to the sight of any non-incarnate being.”

Here Antonov mentions again the idea of “secret”, or you might possibly say, “forgotten” knowledge—knowledge that is apprehended by spiritual intelligence, but which is invisible to the carnal consciousness.

“But embodied people usually do not know about this, do not notice, and even if they knew and noticed, they would not have a chance to hide their nakedness. We are naked before the whole Ocean of non-incarnate universal Consciousness and before many individual consciousnesses. We are visible to all. They examine us, admiring or compassionating, respecting or making fun, loving or hating, despising, foretasting our future suffering… But we do not know this, and even if we knew — anyway we do not have any place where to go, where to hide…

… Then Philip proceeds with discussing that which Jesus allegorically called His Flesh and Blood.

Jesus-“Vine”, for incarnating in a body, “stretched” a part of Himself--Consciousness from the eon of God-the-Father — to the world of matter. And He explained to the disciples that the Path to God-the-Father consists for them in transformation of

themselves into similar “Vines”, but they have to grow in the direction opposite as compared to Jesus: not from God-the-Father — to the matter, but from the matter — to God-the-Father.”

The source for this reference is John 15:1-9:

“15 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

² Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

³ Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

⁴ Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

⁵ I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

⁶ If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

⁷ If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

⁸ Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

⁹ As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.”

It gets to be slightly irritating how Antonov keeps interpolating material from other sources into his so-called commentary on the Gospel of Philip, in this case the Gospel of John; however, the metaphor of the “vine” totally works for me as an aid to imagining how Jesus’ consciousness can connect all of us to Him and to each other. Thus, in considering the many forms and, you might say, CONCENTRATIONS of consciousness, (I have sometimes said RESOLUTIONS of consciousness), included in the all-encompassing Pleroma, the “vine” as an aspect of the Christ Consciousness, may once again be observed to be an instrument of MEDIATION.

Back to Antonov:

“The one who grows by the “roots” to the Abode of God-the-Father and merges there with Him in the embrace of Love— becomes a Christ with time.

In order to traverse this Path, one has to “eat” that “food” which is provided to people from the eons of the Holy Spirit and God-the-Father. This is the “food” of the Divine knowledge. And “Logos” (i.e. “Speaking One”) is the One Who brings this knowledge.

The one who gets born in the highest eons during the life in a material body and who grows one’s own Divine “Flesh” in these eons is a true follower of Christ, a true Christian to become a Christ. After the death of the body, such a person truly rises, attains immortality, and for sure will not die even at the end of the world.”

In verse 24, Philip develops the metaphor of the clothed and the naked:

“24. In this world, people mark themselves in the society by their garments. But in the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments of the chosen are on Those Who robed themselves in the Flow and Fire, on Those Who purified Themselves.”

I was happy to read the statement, “In this world, people mark themselves in the society by their garments.” True then as now. As Frank Zappa said, “Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don’t kid yourself.” I have often wondered how could we dress and NOT wear a uniform? Then, NOT wearing a uniform becomes wearing a uniform. I guess going naked is the only way.

Antonov’s Commentary pursues the idea of layers of consciousness, meaning physical clothing as opposed to heavenly clothing. He talks about the multidimensional creation, and the refinement of consciousness, which takes place in the Bridal Chamber, through these multi-dimensional layers,:

“The Flow is motion of the Consciousness of the Holy Spirit. One’s entering in it is similar to submersion in a cosmic river of Living Divine Consciousness. Different variations of this meditation are called Latihan and Pranava. This represents the real baptism in the Holy Spirit. As we see, it is not similar at all to what is understood as baptism in various sects.

The Holy Spirit pervades all layers of the multidimensional Creation. A Manifestation of the Holy Spirit above the Earth’s surface can be associated with a Flow. His Manifestation inside the planet is designated by Philip as Light. Another Manifestation of Him is Fire. And the Perfect Light is God-the-Father in

His Abode — in the Bridal Chamber.

Baptism, performed sequentially in each of these layers, provides the next stages of purification and refinement of the consciousness of a spiritual warrior.”

Back to Philip:

“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!

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.

Isenburg translates the foregoing in this way:

“It is necessary to rise in this flesh, since everything exists in it. In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on. It is through water and fire that the whole place is purified - the visible by the visible, the hidden by the hidden. There are some things hidden through those visible. There is water in water, there is fire in chrism.”  

Again, the clever logical maneuver that Antonov and Wisenburg agree on: “There are some things hidden through those visible.” Okay then. Still, one section in this verse that is significantly different from the Antonov translation. To remind you, the Antonov translation went like this:

“But in the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments of the chosen are on Those Who robed themselves in the Flow and Fire, on Those Who purified Themselves.”

 The Wisenburg translation went like this:

“In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on.” 

The Antonov version is more colorful, more mystical, but the Wisenburg version is somehow more LITERAL. Either way, we have here another of the paradoxical expressions in which the author(s) of Philip take delight; it once again refers to the hierarchy that exists in the cosmographic structure, and suggests that it is the Heavenly context that elevates the proselyte to the level of a Son. In Heaven the garments are better than those who put them on because THEY ARE IN HEAVEN! Those who put them on are proselytes until they become Sons. At THAT point they become superior to their garments, because all are naked in spirit.

Another term (used here for the first time) is the “chrism”. A brief dictionary definition is:

“A mixture of oil and balsam, consecrated and used for anointing at baptism and in other rites of Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches.”

A Wikipedia article begins thus:

“The English chrism derives from Koine Greek via Latin and Old French. In Greek, khrîsma (χρῖσμα) was originally the verbal noun ("(the act of) anointing," "unction") of χρίειν ("anoint").”

It is not crystal clear what is meant by, “There is water in water, there is fire in chrism,” but I think we can safely say that the sense in which the “chrism” is used here refers to the “ACT of anointing”, not the actual mixture of oil and balsam; thus, “there is fire in the ACT of anointing.” This sentence clearly attributes a transcendental quality to the interaction of spirit and flesh—the ACT of anointing gives the ointment itself supernatural power. This is not unrelated to the Catholic idea that, in the Rite of Communion, the wafer and the wine are magically transmuted into the actual body and blood of Jesus. When we began our survey of The Gospel of Philip we were told that one of the main themes of the book was to be the Holy ritual. This is surely an example of that.

Another expression attributing divine resonance to a ritual is hinted at in the following comment:

"Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Colossians 15:50). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him." (John 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing.”

Once again we encounter paradox: in one place the spirit is said to reside in the flesh, and here it quotes Paul as saying, "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Then it turns around and says it is JESUS’ flesh and blood that provides spiritual food. The only thing that is clear about this catechism is that there exists a transcendental relationship between the flesh and spirit—in the “pleroma”, the fullness of God, there is spirit everywhere.

The next section of The Gospel of Philip dwells on the divine authority of Jesus. On the subject of varying levels of spiritual consciousness, the first sentence talks about the varying degrees to which the divinity of Jesus may be appreciated by the people. Remember that in previous Philip messages we have distinguished between proselyte and Son, perishable and imperishable, winter and summer, parable and Truth, etc.; this section begins by pointing out that not everybody is able to appreciate the ESSENCE of Jesus, but that He is still able to reach everybody’s heart to some degree or other. 

“26. Jesus conquered the hearts of people without revealing His Essence. To everyone He revealed Himself as much as they could comprehend. He did this so: to the great He appeared as great, to the small He appeared as small, to angels — as an angel, and to people — as a man. At the same time, His Divinity was hidden from all. Some, seeing Him, thought that they saw a person equal to them.

But when He revealed Himself to His disciples in the

whole glory on the mountain — at that moment He was not small but truly Great. But before this, He made His disciples great, so that they could see His Greatness. On that day, thanking the Father, He said: “O He, Who united His Perfection and Light with the Holy Spirit, unite us also with the images of angels!”

[Sidebar: It is interesting how Jesus appears in different degrees of reality to those of differing degrees of perceptive capacity, all at the same time. This is, of course, the essence of the parable concept: the parable reveals to its audience the quality of Truth which they are capable of apprehending; thus, a lower level audience can appreciate just so much, while a more highly evolved audience can penetrate to the core of His essence—but first that audience must be elevated to a level capable of comprehending His essence. Thus, 

“He made His disciples great, so that they could see His Greatness.”

This has been a recurrent theme so far in Philip, and it is very gratifying to me, because I have pondered the question of different consciousness levels repeatedly not only in my meditations on spiritual issues, but also on aesthetic issues. The question of writing music that can be appreciated by audiences of varying levels of education and sensitivity has been a constant consideration for me as a creative artist.

Also, the concept of democracy—the idea that all men are created equal-- bears on this question, because, as we know, all men are NOT created equal; the equality of Man is an idealized expression with no basis in practical reality; but, at the same time, all men need to be treated as equals, as they are all derived from the same creative impulse of God the Father. Thus, although the ESSENCE of Jesus may not be visible to the spiritually blind, still, the ESSENCE of the human being is somehow submerged in the core of humanity, hidden but active and alive; and it is this essential core that ultimately binds all humanity together by a single etheric blood relationship.]

The Antonov commentary follows; notice it makes reference to the idea of the AGE of souls, declaring first: that the age of the soul may be very different from the age of the body, thus making different levels of understanding accessible to souls of different ages; secondly, there is an implicit understanding that this idea of different soul ages is based on the principle of reincarnation—in other words, a soul ages through the process of multiple rebirths onto the terrestrial plane. 

I have not completely made up my mind vis a vis the question of reincarnation—I have an intuitive feeling that reincarnation must be a reality, but I also admit the true nature of the spirit, as it appears wedded to the flesh, is much too complicated for me to adequately defend the idea--there are just too many other ways that many psychic phenomena could be explained. Reincarnation is one of these ideas that makes perfect sense to the mind, but which may wind up being a total illusion—like a magic trick that looks like one thing and turns out to be something else entirely. This is one of those things that requires me to keep an open mind, while accepting the fact that many people of Jesus’ day firmly believed in it—the author(s) of The Gospel of Philip certainly did, and Antonov certainly does. Antonov’s commentary begins with an explication of the forgoing quotation of Jesus: 

“O He, Who united His Perfection and Light with the Holy Spirit, unite us also with the images of angels!”

Antonov’s comment:

“In this saying of Jesus, there is a “play on words”. Its meaning is: “Do so that the disciples, at last, become looking like angels!” Behind these words of Jesus there is a regret that even some of His closest disciples could not comprehend Him.

One of the peculiarities of people’s development is that souls, incarnated by God in human bodies, have a very different age, which does not correlate with the age of the body. This determines, first of all, the ability to comprehend information of different levels of complexity (and to a much lesser degree it depends on the age of the body, the nature of upbringing, education, and so on). Souls become mature during many incarnations, about this Jesus, as well as His Apostles, told.

A wise teacher provides help to people taking into account the peculiarities of their age and their abilities to comprehend. A teacher should not give to the students information which is too complex and beyond their comprehending abilities.

The spiritual Path is like a stairway consisting of many steps. And it is necessary to help disciples to get on the step which is next for them, and not to suggest to them to jump through a flight of steps.”

[Sidebar: I vastly appreciate this thought: 

“A wise teacher provides help to people taking into account the peculiarities of their age and their abilities to comprehend. A teacher should not give to the students information which is too complex and beyond their comprehending abilities.” 

This not only applies to the formal relationship of teacher to student, but must equally apply to any form of communication between people on any subject whatever, but especially subjects of a spiritual nature. As we have said many times, many inhuman atrocities have been performed by people convinced that the words they speak are the ultimate truth, and anybody who disagrees is, at best, mistaken, and, at worst, the Anti-Christ. People, who claim a copyright on the TRUTH, tend to be passionately committed to the TRUTH as it is expressed on their own personal level of understanding; the quality of someone else’s TRUTH may sound very different to them, merely by virtue of its elevation relative to their personal TRUTH. The implication is that, “If your TRUTH is expressed in different terms from MY TRUTH, you must be wrong.” This dangerous conclusion has sent many innocent people to the torch; countless millions have been executed because of the idea that, “MY TRUTH is better than YOUR TRUTH.” Therefore, we must never assume that whatever conclusions we may have arrived at about ANYTHING, are written in cosmic stone—the tablet of TRUTH is a constantly evolving document that speaks to all levels of understanding at once, without excluding anybody’s claim to it no matter how partial or even irrational.

Going on with Philip:

“27. Do not neglect the Lamb, for without Him one

cannot see the Gate. And no one will be able to come to the King remaining “naked”. The sacrificial Lamb is Jesus Who went to His cross death in order that the knowledge, left by Him, save people from hell.”

Antonov’s comment:

“The second phrase of this fragment is a continuation of the idea from fragment 23. The “naked” ones are those who show off on the surface of the Earth in material bodies identifying themselves with the bodies and thinking that what they do in secret from other embodied people will be a secret for all. But in fact, they are in full view of all spirits and God. In fact, they are laughable as if they stay naked among other embodied   people and do not notice their nudity.

But one cannot visit the King in a body, thinking about oneself as of the body. One can go to the King only by not identifying oneself with the body, only by having achieved the real freedom from it through meditative training. Indeed, the stages of meditative practices (meditation is work on the development of the consciousness) allow one to receive the true baptism and not the “toylike” one, allow one to be born and become mature in new eons.”

Isenburg’s comment on this passage elaborates on its metaphoric implications:

“The terms ‘angel’ and ‘lamb’ are used to refer to the higher self.  We, the earthly ‘images’ should unite with our higher selves as our true expression if we want to go on farther “into the king”.  We cannot do it if we are “naked” of our soul or ‘wedding garment’ in Roman Christian terminology.”

Going on with Philip:

“28. The Man of Heaven has many more Sons than an

earthly man. If the sons of Adam are many, although they die, how much more are the Sons of the Perfect Man, Those Who do not die and are begotten again and again!”

[Sidebar: This is a very interesting passage, as it reprises several concepts that have previously been presented; included in this short paragraph is the idea of different spiritual levels, the idea that Sons beget Sons, and there is another sideways reference to reincarnation (“Those Who do not die . . . are begotten again and again.”).]

Antonov’s comment:

“The Perfect Man is Christ. His Teachings — at the cost of His cross death and the work of His Apostles — remained on the Earth and continue to beget new and new spiritual Children, Who achieve Immortality in the Abode of God-the-Father.”

The next sections goes back to the very first verse of the book:

“A Hebrew makes another Hebrew, and such a person is called "proselyte". But a proselyte does not make another proselyte.” 

The way spiritual knowledge is transferred from one person to another seems to be of primary importance to the author(s) of Philip; this is a dogmatic principle appropriate to a catechesis, and, as such, depends very much on the LANGUAGE in which the dogmatic principle is expressed. The following paragraph makes a clever distinction between SON and BROTHER.

“29. The Father created a Son, but a Son cannot create

a son. Because the One Who was born in that way (by the Father) cannot beget. A Son makes brothers for Himself, not sons.”

I find this section confusing in the same way I find the opening of the book confusing. The Father creates Sons, but the Son who is now one with the Father cannot make Sons? And if he can make brothers, are they not then also Sons? Perhaps the Son is a Son of Earth and therefore the Brother is a creature of Earth, but still connected by spiritual sympathy? Something like this is implied in the Antonov comment:

“The earthly reproduction is not attractive to a Son of God. Therefore, He begets not earthly children, but spiritual ones — brothers and sisters.”

The passage goes on to reflect on certain community rituals, namely the KISS. The KISS is represented as a means by which Perfection may be bestowed on a man; the Earthly kiss is therefore a symbolic re-enactment of the spiritual baptism that came through feeding on the Word of God. As a Christian ritual, then, it is no surprise that Judas chose to identify Jesus to the Romans by means of A KISS:

“31. There are those who feed from a mouth if the

word of God comes from it. If one feeds like this — one

can become Perfect.

The Perfect can be conceived by a kiss and be born

thus. For this reason, we also kiss one another to become

conceived from the grace which is in each one of us.”

Antonov’s comment expands on the KISS as a symbol of divine love:

“A Perfect Teacher feeds disciples with the word of God from the mouth. And this can bring them to the Perfection. Having been prepared by previous incarnations, psychogenetically mature disciples can be awaked to further advancement by Love of the Teacher. And then they can be born in the

highest eons.

The emotions of tender love help disciples in their spiritual work, supporting, inspiring, and imbuing them with power.”

So, the list of Divine Sacraments mentioned in this section of Philip include, Communion, Chrism, and the Kiss. All this is to direct our attention the idea that physicality becomes imbued with spiritual power not by virtue of the physical components of the rituals themselves, but by virtue of the spiritual power of the intention to merge in transcendental union with the Father. All this takes place in the “Bridal Chamber”.

Next week we begin our discussion with the subject of Jesus’ relationship to Mary Magdalene.

Let us pray: Jesus, the layers of reality, out of which the totality of the universe is composed, constitute a puzzle we will never understand. But we know that the wonder which these contemplations inspire in us must eventually lead to an understanding totally apprehended by the Divine Intelligence made available to us through You. Amen.

Sermon 3 --- The Gospel of Philip 2

Sermon #3  --- The Gospel of Philip 2

Two weeks ago we introduced The Gospel of Philip with these words from Wikipedia:

“Although it may seem similar to the Gospel of Thomas, scholars are divided as to whether it is a single discourse or a collection of Valentinian sayings. . . . . Many of the sayings are identifiably Gnostic, and often appear quite mysterious and enigmatic.”

Several commentators insist that the work is a catechesis, a religious instruction given to a person in preparation for Christian baptism or confirmation, typically using a catechism. 

A catechism is a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians.

Whether we will discover a unifying thread in Philip remains to be seen, but certainly the first eight verses are one unit: they are concerned with displaying an overview of a cosmographical hierarchy involving definitions of proselyte as opposed to a Son of God, (a Man of Truth), and deploring the perishable over the imperishable. This theme is carried on and developed over the next twenty-six verses.

Last week we left off at a consideration of God the True Father and God the Mother. This was an extension of the pairs of spiritual qualities we have been discussing since the first verse of Philip. Going on, the author compares the proselyte level of spiritual enlightenment to winter, and Divine Sonship to Summer.

“7. Those who sow in winter reap in summer.

The winter is the earthly, but the summer is another

eon. Let us sow on the Earth in winter so that we may

reap the harvest in summer!

Therefore, we should not pray to God for the winter,

because the winter is followed by the summer.

But the one who tries to reap in winter will not really

reap but only pluck out the sprouts.”

The metaphor of the preceding section is explicated in the following commentary:

“In warm regions, people sow in winter, not in spring as it is done in cold regions.

The Greek word eons denotes spatial dimensions; among them are those called hell, paradise, the abode of the Creator.

In “winter”, i.e. while we are on the Earth, we have to

work in order that in “summer” we live in sufficiency and bliss of the highest eons.”

It is interesting how the metaphors of Heaven and Earth are mixed with Summer and Winter—Winter is the time of hardship and struggle, but also the time of planting, preparation for the fruition of summer—birth into new life, on Earth as flowering crops, in Heaven as flowering spirituality. In this light the Christmas celebration can be thought of like this: the SEED of the Christ consciousness comes into the world at its darkest hour in preparation for the harvest of summer deeds and events in the Fields of Elysium. Is it any accident that Jesus is said to have been born in Winter and died in the Spring? Does it matter if His body was actually born in Winter or not?

The author goes on to exhort:

“8. The one who does not follow this — will not reap

the harvest. Moreover, such one will not only be without the harvest, but will have no strength in the Sabbath.”

Another mixed metaphor appears here, as Summer and Harvest are equated with the Sabbath—the day of rest. Remember that in Hebrews the author had much to say about Rest in the Lord. The poetry of this section is rich in a complicated overlay of radiant images, each shining through the last.

To summarize this first foray into The Gospel of Phillip, just let me say that the cosmological hierarchy presented in these first few verses represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the complex mystical doctrines we will encounter in this very deep, very enigmatic book. I look forward to sharing more of this material in weeks to come. For now let us cherish this one thought: to be born of the Truth is to be born of the Spirit—to the author of Phillip Truth and Spirit are one and the same. Let us cleave to the Abode of God-the-Father, and claim His estate as the birthright of a Son of God.

Moving on in a different vein, the author reflects on the role of Jesus in creating the Holy Family:

“9. Christ came to “ransom” some: to liberate, to

save. He “ransomed” strangers making them His own.

Afterwards, He set apart His own — those whom He

ransomed by His will.

He laid down Himself (on the Path of sacrificial service) when He Himself willed it — not only when He revealed Himself to people, but from the very day of the Creation of the World, He laid down Himself.”

[Sidebar: The idea of the predestined sacrifice of the Christ from the beginning of the world is an ever recurring motif in all the gospels, and it is crucial to understanding how a Son may bring others to the Abode of the Father, thus creating more Sons. Remember from the opening of Philip:

“Those Who came from the Truth are as They were initially.”

Which is not too far from John 1:1-5

“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

Thus having established Jesus’s precedent established before time began, the sacrifice is spelled out. Back to Philip:]

“He was embodied, and afterwards He — when He

willed — withdrew Himself. He was in the hands of robbers and was taken captive. He liberated Himself and saved also those who were regarded as good and bad in this world.”

After this brief acknowledgement of Jesus’ participation in terrestrial life, we move on to another discussion of the polar opposites with which we were concerned at the beginning of the chapter: proselyte vs Man of Truth, slave vs Son, Winter vs Summer, etc..

“10. Light and darkness, life and death, right and left — are brothers of one another; they are inseparable (in worldly people). Because of this, among them — the good are not good, the bad are not bad, and their life is not life, and their death is not death. So, one should begin with separating all these in oneself. Those who have detached themselves from everything worldly become whole, eternal.” 

Notice that William Blake’s Theory of Contraries is here reprised in the sentence, “Light and darkness, life and death, right and left — are brothers of one another; they are inseparable (in worldly people).” Blake, among others, has maintained that life is made up of the harmonious blending of light and dark, good and evil—both are necessary for existence. HOWEVER Blake did not attached the qualifier, 

“(in worldly people)”—

Blake gives the impression that good and bad go together ad infinitum, but Philip clearly indicates that life and death are brothers of one another IN WORLDLY PEOPLE, implying that other-worldly people, or, you might say, SUPER-worldly people have transcended this dualistic dichotomy, detached themselves from earthly concerns, and live in an holistic, eternal world, in which the tension between opposites does not exist. 

We are discussing two different levels here. The author of Philip seems determined to drive home the point that two levels of consciousness are residing side by side, and the sanctified Christian resides in the higher of the two abodes.

One commentator has paraphrased the section like this:

“The one who has entered on the spiritual Path has to separate in oneself the true, eternal, and valuable for life in the highest eons — from the false, which belongs only to this world. Then one has to cultivate in oneself the first and get rid of the second.

Those Who have accomplished this become eternal in the Divine eons.”

This is a hard lesson to take in, when so many of us spend our

lives struggling to strike a balance between the light and the

dark. So many of us are transfixed by the false sense of

self-importance the world reflects back upon our efforts at

self-recognition; too easily we get convinced that all our

conflicts and compromises are real, when one trip into the Cloud

of Unknowing would make plain the folly of all this to our

hearts and to our minds as well.

The next passage refers to earthly things as a great DELUSION.

This expression is reminiscent of the Hindu term “maya” which

stands for the ILLUSION of material reality. The expressions

are precisely analogous and interchangeable.

Notice, also the opposite pairing, transient vs eternal. The author

of Philip is determined to press home the point that on Earth we

have two possible reference points, the lower and the higher, and

that we ought always to focus our attention on the higher.

Remember, also, that if this were such an easy thing, we would

not have to be reminded of it so often:

“11. The importance attached to earthly things is a great delusion, for they divert our thoughts from the One Who is eternal to that which is transient. And in this case, the one who hears about God does not perceive (behind this word) the Eternal, but thinks about the transient. In the same way, behind the words the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Life, the Light, the Resurrection, and the Church — people do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience). These words are only misleading to worldly people. If they were in the (Divine) eons, they would not use these words among worldly concerns and things, because these notions are related to the (Divine) eons.” 

There are two red-letter sentences here that I want to emphasize. The first is this:

“people do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience),” 

In this sentence, two expressions stand out: “cognized the eternal”, and “through personal experience”. 

The word “cognize” is of extreme interest because it refers to a special type of understanding. The dictionary does not give an especially tricky definition: to know, to understand; but the sentence the dictionary uses to illustrate the word implies a special nuance: 

“The philosopher claims that we can never cognize—in a fundamental sense—anything.”

I think the expression “in a fundamental sense” should be appended to the definition of the word cognize: to understand in a fundamental sense. Thus, to “cognize” the eternal means not merely to understand in literal terms, the eternal, (a feat which would be manifestly impossible), but to achieve an internal apprehension, an identification, a taking in of the resonance of the eternal, to understand in a way that transcends the word “understand”. To cogitate refers to an activity of the BRAIN, but to cognize in a fundamental sense means to mobilize energies in our perceptual apparatus which operate beyond the powers of the brain to contain or comprehend.

And how do we cognize the eternal? Through PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I have said this many, many, many, many times: the ultimate index of spiritual truth is personal experience. Personal experience cancels out every power of the brain to articulate, verbalize, to prove, or otherwise approximate what we know. Thus, to repeat the paragraph from Philip:

“people do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience)”

People—which people do not perceive the Eternal? The people who have not already had a PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of the Eternal. In other words, no amount of dogmatic training can create in the person a cognition of the Eternal—only the birth of the individual INTO the Eternal can do that.

The second red-letter section I wanted to emphasize is:

“These words are only misleading to worldly people. If they were in the (Divine) eons, they would not use these words among worldly concerns and things, because these notions are related to the (Divine) eons.”

“These words (ANY WORDS, especially words like Eternal, and God) are only misleading to worldly people.” This brings us back to the idea of “PARABLE”; worldly people (the peasants, the pagans) cannot be ministered to with the same vocabulary as the initiated because these words, without the reference point of personal experience, mean totally different things to the uninitiated. As William James says,

“As there is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it, so reasonable arguments, challenges to magnanimity, and appeals to sympathy or justice, are folly when we are dealing with human crocodiles and boa-constrictors.”

I don’t think Jesus would refer to the people as crocodiles and boa-constrictors, but I think you get the point-- language makes slaves of us by leading our minds into misinterpretations which lead our bodies into wrong action.  For instance, some people confuse the attitude of “pride” for the attitude known as “self-respect”. How can we have self-love without self-respect, you say? I say, again, the word “respect” is often based on outward signs, definitions, requirements, and, moreover, the conditioning of our attitudes toward ourselves by social (moral?) conventions, conventions which may have once been based on truth, but which have often become perverted traditions whose vitality has been drained out, over the centuries, by false pictures of the self—pictures generated by mundane concepts which are no longer illuminated by personal spiritual truth. Thus, self-respect is nothing more than PRIDE parading around in a dinner jacket. Moreover, self-respect often does not come from a sense of self, but from an outer false ego formulation that is defined by society, not by an inner self perception.

There are so many words like “Pride”, “Allegiance”, “Freedom”, “Justice”, etc., which may be turned, by the verbal pyrotechnics of Satan, into the most hideous deformities. To the uninitiated, words which refer to Eternal identities are misrepresentations; and to the initiated, all such words are not even part of their working vocabulary:

“they would not use these words among worldly concerns and things, because these notions are related to the (Divine) eons.”

Going on, Philip gives us an idea of the kind of vocabulary the initiated would use—or NOT use:

“12. One name is not uttered among that which is

worldly — it is the name that the Father grants to a Son. It

is above all. This name is the Father. The Son would not

have gotten this name if He had not become the Father.

Those who bear this name know this, but They do not

speak about this. But those who do not bear this name do

not know Them.

Names in this world are invented because it is not

possible to cognize the Truth without them.

The Truth is one, but It is presented as Multitude.

This is for our sake: to lead us to the cognition of the One

through love for Multitude.”

I love this section because it reiterates a point I have made time and time again: the use of words to articulate spiritual reality is a game destined for failure, but we do it anyway because:

“Names in this world are invented because it is not

possible to cognize the Truth without them.”

It is not possible to COGNIZE the Truth without names, and yet it is not possible to EXPERIENCE the Truth with them. Words occupy a kind of Limbo position in the cosmography—we can’t live with them, we can’t think without them. Thus, words must be thought of as an aspect of the Christ Consciousness —MEDIATORS between the false and the True. Again:

“The Truth is one, but It is presented as Multitude.

This is for our sake: to lead us to the cognition of the One

through love for Multitude.”

The word “Multitude” has a special meaning, explained here:

“This sentence speaks about the United We — the Totality of All the Perfect Ones Who flowed into the Primordial Consciousness and Who represent Its Essence.”

As C.S. Lewis reminds us, when we surrender our own will to God’s Will, we become more ourselves—HERE, the totality of the Primordial Consciousness is comprised of a MULITITUDE of Perfect Ones who have flowed TOGETHER in to a SINGLE CONSCIOUSNESS. What is the tie that binds us all together?We must give the only answer we know—LOVE.

Notice how cognition always precedes love in this spiritual declension: thus do Aquinas' and C.S. Lewis' both affirm that "Right reason" is an important component of spiritual progress. This passage is not saying that there is no Truth expressed in words, it is saying that words are an important preliminary to nonverbal understanding. 

I've often contemplated the humanity of words. Words are essentially abstract because they represent something in an ideal or an archetypal way—in the mind; but they also are refer to things out there in the physical universe, the material universe. Hence, the expression “Word of God Incarnate” is such a power-packed concept because it leads us to contemplate the union of spirit and flesh, synthesized in the divine personality of Jesus.

The images expressed in painting, poetry, and dance, almost universally refer to physical realities. Pictures (even imaginary pictures, if they are seen with physical eyes), and words (even abstract words like soul and God, if they are understood with the lower, literal mind), must have material referents or they would not exist. It is the WORDS involved in reading that feed the left brain’s appetite for truisms, and promotes self-centered behavior in the service of the ego, that is not even ultimately in service of the self. At the spiritual level, verbal structures no longer serve the intellect—higher mind must take over—a mind state where words can no longer signify a verbal referent; in this mind state, object has become subject, literal consciousness has become self-consciousness.

We have spoken many times of the deception of words: words so often engender cases of mistaken identity--lies disguised as truth, sent by Satan to distract us from the real truth clothed in the Cloud of Unknowing. But we need words to create apprehendable mental images--to cognize them- to share partial knowledge with our worldly brothers(multitude). Still, the goal line, in the race toward spiritual enlightenment, is the dissolution of verbal structures in the Cloud of Unknowing. You might call the Cloud of Unknowing what Philip calls it: the Bridal Chamber. It is really necessary to enter this rarefied environment to experience Divine Love. The beauty is that our minds can somehow hold onto the big toe of rationality, while losing most of itself in the Cloud. Thus it is that Reason reports back to our sequential, literal understanding, (memories In Time),  events that truly unfold Outside Time.

Reason is an aspect of human consciousness that has one foot in the carnal, by virtue of the material referents that all words must have, and one foot in the Eternal by virtue of the abstractions which are the stock in trade of any reasoning process. Screwtape expounds on the role of ARGUMENT in the process of COGNIZING Spirit:

“It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons, we have largely altered that. 

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false," but as "academic" or "practical," "outworn" or "contemporary," "conventional" or "ruthless." Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result! Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don't let him ask what he means by "real."”

The role of REASON in spiritual evolution is complex. We know we cannot trust our thoughts, but we cannot achieve any cognitive apprehension without them. C.S. Lewis, in Surprised by Joy tells how it was a train of reasoning that led to his Christian conversion, and yet he repeatedly warns us not to take our verbalized thoughts too seriously. I think one of the hardest things for intelligent people to give up is the assurance that their thoughts mean something. When Socrates declares that the wise man admits he knows nothing, he is making an intensely difficult statement. It is REALLY HARD to know nothing.

The next passage from Philip mentions the fact that false Truths can be used to lead the people down a wrong path—that false Truths can be used to enslave the people:

“13. The earthly rulers wanted to deceive people,

since they understood that people have the same origin

with the really worthy. They took good names and gave

these names to bad things in order to deceive people and

bind them to the bad in this way. And now these earthly

rulers suggest to people that they keep away from the

“bad” and cling to the “good”. These earthly rulers strive

to make formerly free men slaves forever.

14. There are powers which give (power) to people,

not wishing to save them. They do this (in order to subjugate them). People, wishing to be saved, made sacrifices. But a reasonable one (understands clearly that) sacrifices are not necessary and animals should not be offered to deities.

In fact, those who offered animals as a sacrifice

were themselves like animals (by the level of their development)…When a sacrifice was made (animals were offered to deities). Though animals were offered alive, they died. But the one who offers oneself dead to God — (verily) will live.”

These sentences, 

“There are powers which give (power) to people,

not wishing to save them. They do this (in order to subjugate them).” 

refers to the public propaganda machine that all governments have used, since time immemorial, to keep the people in line and obedient to the status quo. Recently we talked about various types of group PRIDE. In instilling group pride, institutions employ various types of self-aggrandizing phraseologies which are meant to promote parochial loyalties which are socially defensive, and do not operate in service of the self. You may be sure that Satan is at the bottom of a lot of this stuff.

Commenting on this last section concerning animal sacrifice:

The issue of animal sacrifice is related to the larger issue of false gods. We read in Hebrews about the weakness of animal sacrifice, when Jesus' sacrifice was of his blood. I have been reading, in St. Augustine's The City of God, about all the plethora of Latin gods that were prayed to by a population whose attention was divided between a vast number of minor gods whose provinces extended from the weather to the left toenail. Indeed, this might be the worst aspect of polytheism: that seeking gods in everything, may obscure the focus on the Christ Consciousness, and thus make God visible in nothing. I think there is little wrong with seeking little corners of sanctity in our daily duties, like doing the laundry, but let us not miss the big picture

Here, the last paragraph needs to be commented on:

“When a sacrifice was made (animals were offered to deities). Though animals were offered alive, they died. But the one who offers oneself dead to God — (verily) will live.”

The fact is that man is not a body. Man is a consciousness,

a soul. So, it is wrong to say that man is dead if the body has died. It is the body that died, but the man did not.

One can also consider death of man (as a soul, i.e. spiritual

death) in the sense implied by the words of Jesus: “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead!” (Matt 8:22; Luke 9:60).

But in this part of His Gospel, Philip means another death

— the death of one’s lower individual “I” implies the

realization of the Higher I, i.e. Mergence of the developed consciousness with the Creator. Such a person attains the Eternal

Life in the Abode of the Creator in Mergence with Him.

Back to Philip:

“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.”

Interesting expression—human food—the implication is that human is not of this world—to become human (as opposed to animal, another dichotomous pairing) is to become divine. People without the true knowledge about their predestination and the Path, live a life quite comparable to the life of animals. God, through a Christ, gives them spiritual food appropriate to humans.

“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.”

Commentary: 

“The Holy Spirit directs the acts of people when necessary, but people usually are not aware of this. He, among other things, creates — through vicious people— difficulties in the form of temptations and enticements (such as false doctrines) for other embodied people. This is done for the sake of their intellectual development. After all, they are sent here to learn, and not just to live.

The meaning of our lives on the Earth consists in our self-development, which must go in three main directions: intellectual, ethical, and psychoenergetical. And our Teacher is God. Diligent students, after graduating from this School, are invited by the Father, if they are worthy of this, to His Abode to merge there with Him forever. But remedial students remain forever “repeaters”, become slaves of this world.

The time of the “harvest” is the end of the world: the

School is closed, the worthy students move to the Abode of

God-the-Father, enriching Him with Themselves; the lot of the rest is the outer darkness: destruction, death of the souls.

… A special comment has to be made concerning the use of the pronoun They with regard to the Holy Spirit in this fragment. This is not an error: the Holy Spirit is indeed an aggregate of former humans who attained in their development the right to be in the Highest eons.”

To summarize the main points of this section of Philip, we saw that:

“Christ came to “ransom” some: to liberate, to

save. He “ransomed” strangers making them His own.

Afterwards, He set apart His own — those whom He

ransomed by His will.”

“Light and darkness, life and death, right and left — are brothers of one another; they are inseparable (in worldly people).”

“People do not perceive the Eternal, but think about the transient, unless they have already cognized the Eternal (through personal spiritual experience).” 

“One name is not uttered among that which is

worldly — it is the name that the Father grants to a Son. It is above all. This name is the Father. The Son would not have gotten this name if He had not become the Father. Those who bear this name know this, but They do not speak about this. But those who do not bear this name do not know Them.

Names in this world are invented because it is not

possible to cognize the Truth without them.

The Truth is one, but It is presented as Multitude.

This is for our sake: to lead us to the cognition of the One through love for Multitude.”

“There are powers which give (power) to people,

not wishing to save them. They do this (in order to subjugate them).” 

Thus, as a catechesis, in preparation for holy baptism, this section of Philip encourages the proselyte to engage his higher self and enter the abode of the Father through reason, and avoid the false truths of institutional propaganda (meanwhile proclaiming a Christian brand of propaganda that is ultimately equally false). Only personal spiritual experience is legitimately true—only personal spiritual experience enables us to join with the MULTITUDE.

Let us pray:

Jesus, these knotty questions occupy our minds with trivial pursuits, while the Love of God reaches out to us with enfolding hands. Let us continue fighting for understanding in this losing battle, because at the end of strife there is rest in the Lord. Amen.