Sermon 10 –Philip 8

Sermon 10 –Philip 8

Last week we ended our presentation with these inspiring words:

“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.”

In particular we have made note of the expression, “The Lord has everything important in the form hidden from this world.” Today’s presentation, The Gospel of Philip Verses 69-94, begins with further distinctions between Worldly things and Heavenly things, and, moreover, the UNITY of Worldly things and Heavenly things: 

“69. The Lord said, “I came to bring the lowest to the Highest and the outer — to the inner, and to unite them THERE.” He spoke about THAT place in symbols and images. Those who say that God is above are wrong. It is so because about Him, Who is in That place, one may say that He extends below. Yet, at the same time, He — to Whom also belongs everything hidden from this world — is above everything! In fact, it is just nattering: “the inner and the outer, the outer from the inner”… The Lord called the place of destruction the outer darkness. And the entire world is surrounded by it… He also said, “My Father Who is in the hidden.” He also said, “Go into your chamber, close the door, and address your Father Who is in the hidden”, that is, the One Who is in the depth under everything. But the One Who is in the depth under everything is the Primordial Consciousness. Beyond It, there is no one residing deeper. Yet, at the same time, it is said about It: “The One Who is above everything.”

The difficulty with this whole concept is that it is hard for us humans to see two things at once. To believe in a Father who is hidden and yet in everything, who is both above and below, is a difficult row to hoe. Still, spiritual experience gives slight inklings of how this is possible. My puny intelligence responds positively to the idea that “Who is in That place, one may say that He extends below”. To think of an omniscient omnipresent Being Who is capable of limiting His infinite scope for the sake of lil’ ol’ me is a blessing, a comfort, and an inspiration. In Antonov’s commentary, below, an important semantic distinction is made, he says: don’t think of God as a Being on high (up), but rather as a Being Whose evidence is inward, in the depth beneath everything.

Antonov’s Commentary:

“God-the-Father is the Primordial Consciousness existing throughout the whole universe. He is above and below, and in all sides, and beneath each object of the material world, including our bodies. He is in the depth beneath everything, in the deepest, primordial eon.

So, He can be cognized not above, to which direction people usually raise their hands and eyes, but in the depth of the developed spiritual heart, grown up to the galactic size.

Having cognized the entrance to His eon, one becomes

able to come through it to any point of space, including the points beneath one’s own body.

In the last two paragraphs of this fragment, there is a

“play on words”, which is typical of this Gospel. Its meaning is the following: the One Who is beneath everything rules everything.”

I have been thinking about the point Philip makes, repeatedly, about the ability of citizens of the Higher Eon to travel down into the lower Eons and back up again. This is certainly the case with the Saints, who shower down blessings on, and answer the prayers of, Earthly supplicants. One wonders who else may travel down the up staircase from Heaven to Earth. I think we have no reason to doubt that all ascended Beings, that is to say, DEAD PEOPLE, are able to go up and down Jacob’s Ladder, and bestow blessings commensurate with their level of soul evolution. I am sure that the prayers sent to our ascended ancestors are heard, and answered. I am also sure that, as Claudius says in Hamlet, “Words without thoughts never to Heaven go.”

Going on with Philip and his assurance that Jesus has made this soul travel possible:

“70. Before Christ’s coming, many people came out

(from this world). They could not return (immediately) to

the place from which they came out. And they could not

come out (immediately) from the place to which they

came.

But Christ came. And now those who came in can

come out, and those who came out can return.”

The fluidity of soul travel from one dimension to another has become a more central component in my spiritual devotions; as I ascend higher on the spiritual ladder, I find myself often in a kind of cloudy milk shake of shades of individual consciousnesses and corporate consciousnesses. I often find myself lost to my focused consciousness and afloat on a current of spiritual movement which acts on me without my volition. I find that I am in touch with conscious intelligence which is beyond me and above me. Most of my life I have been very focused on the literal consciousness of mind and have not freely relinquished the ego control that fixes me in one dimension. Lately I have allowed myself to drift more freely from one level to another, and I have thus experienced an intensity of spirit consciousness that is new and exciting—not to mention that this new consciousness is actively preparing the way to my death.

Antonov’s Commentary:

“Christ helped His disciples to become closer to Perfection. And now they can, during meditations, leave the world of matter, visit the highest eons, and return again to the world of matter.

Moreover, some of them, being stoned to death for their sermons, afterwards came back to their bodies and continued working in them. Jesus and the Apostles also raised the “dead” to their earthly bodies.”

Moving on, we encounter a typically Jewish historical reference. Adam and Eve are mentioned here in The Gospel of Philip as they often are in other Gnostic Gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas. This is because the Gnostics are always searching for First Causes, such that the Creation is often used as a starting point for some logical extension of a thought. Thus, this discussion of the relationship of Worldly to Heavenly things quite naturally includes a reference to Adam and Eve and the Original Sin:

“71. When Eve was in Adam, there was no death. When

she was separated from him, death appeared. If she enters

in him again and he accepts her, there will be no

death anymore again.”

Antonov’s Commentary:

“This is again a witty “play on words” with a great meaning. The point is that Adam and Eve are not the names of the first two humans, as it is said in the contradictory ancient Jewish fairy tale included in the Bible. Adam means just man, in the aggregate sense of this word. Eve means life. When life, i.e. soul, leaves the body, clinical death happens. But the soul can return to the body.”

Antonov’s irreverent mention, of the “Jewish Fairy Tale” of Adam and Eve, seems slightly disrespectful, especially to people who take the stories in the Old Testament as historical fact. Nevertheless, attributing metaphorical rather than historical significance to Adam and Eve is not without its merits. I don’t in the least mind reading, “Adam means just man, in the aggregate sense of this word. Eve means life.”

Back to Philip:

“72. “My God, My God, why, O Lord, have You forsaken

Me?” He said these words on the cross. Then He separated from that place That Which was Divine. The Lord rose again (in a body) from the dead. He came as He was before. But now His body was perfect, though it was flesh. But this flesh was from the Primordial. Our flesh is not from the Primordial; we possess only a likeness of it.”

One of the most misunderstood sayings of Jesus are these words spoken from the cross: “My God, My God, why, O Lord, have You forsaken Me?” From this we are to assume that Jesus felt abandoned by the Father in His agony. Actually, the words are a reference to Psalm 22; Jesus, in His extremity, was only able to get out the first sentence, expressing despair and hopelessness, but a few more lines of the psalm reveal it as a message of hope, hope that Jesus wanted to share with His disciples present at the crucifixion:

Psalm 22

22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

² O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

³ But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

⁴ Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

As you can see, Jesus’ quotation of the beginning of this psalm contains a message of deliverance—that Jesus’ friends should not lament His passing, but trust in the Lord to deliver Him from His enemies, and return Him to them who inappropriately mourned.

Antonov’s Commentary focusses on this part of the scripture:

“The Lord rose again (in a body) from the dead. He came as He was before. But now His body was perfect, though it was flesh. But this flesh was from the Primordial.”

Antonov’s Commentary:

“Jesus materialized for Himself a new body, which was a concentrated product of the pure Divine Energy, in contrast to His former body born by Mary.”

As we have seen, the Antonov translation often leaves out portions of the text which are damaged by age, with missing words and phrases. Isenburg includes these omissions with reasonable guesses as to what is being left out. Hence, his translation of this portion of the text includes concepts missing from the Antonov version:

72 "My God, my God, why, O Lord, have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34). It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.  [...Jesus was the man] who has been begotten through him who [...came] from God.  The [...Christ rose] from the dead. [...Jesus came] to be, but now [...is made] perfect. [...Christ rose in the] flesh, but this [...spirit] is true flesh. [...The earthly image] is not true, but [...the body] only possess an image of the true.”

Notice that the Antonov version says, “. Our flesh is not from the Primordial; we possess only a likeness of it,” while the Isenburg translation uses a different kind of jargon: “[...Christ rose in the] flesh, but this [...spirit] is true flesh. [...The earthly image] is not true, but [...the body] only possesses an image of the true.”

The new wrinkle here is that Isenburg equates Antonov’s “primordial” with “true flesh”. The idea of the “true flesh” has been a topic of discussion in previous Philip presentations, specifically Philip 3 where I said:

“I had 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.”

Thus, as in every other aspect of The Gospel of Philip we see TWO aspects of something—a lower and a higher aspect; in the case of the word “flesh”, we have one, the carnal flesh, of earthly origin, and, two, the “true flesh” of primordial origin—flesh that lives forever in the mind and memory of God. I have often poo-pooed the idea of people living on the Earth in a new paradise, after the second coming, but the idea of a “true flesh” makes it much more believable. In my current state of mind it is not difficult to imagine a new Earth peopled by spiritual beings clothed in new flesh.

Pursuing the subject of “flesh”, Philip returns to the distinction between animal consciousness and human consciousness:

“73. The Bridal Chamber is neither for animals, nor for

men-slaves (of passions), nor for women driven by passion.

It is for pure women and men who gained Freedom.”

Antonov’s Commentary:

“One’s birth in the eon of God-the-Father, maturing in it, and Mergence with God-the-Father constitutes the completion of the individual evolution of the soul. Only those who are highly developed intellectually, ethically, and psychoenergetically can attain this. They must also liberate themselves from worldly passions and attachments and achieve the purity and Divine subtlety of the consciousnesses.”

Philip continues:

“74. Thanks to the Holy Spirit we are begotten on the

Earth. But we were born again thanks to Christ.

We are baptized in the Holy Spirit.

And after our birth in Him, we united with Him.”

Isenburg’s translation is simpler:

“74. Through the Holy Spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are begotten through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the Spirit. When we were begotten, we were united.”  

Antonov’s Commentary:

“The Holy Spirit, Who controls destinies of people, also controls their birth in earthly bodies.

Then the Author speaks about the stages of cognition of the Divine.

The first stage is baptism, when during the appropriate

meditation a spiritual warrior enters (or is led in) the appropriate eon and for the first time feels the Consciousness Which dwells there.

Then one has to learn to enter this eon by one’s own efforts and to stay in it. It is called the birth in it.

And after the birth and the following maturing in this eon— again thanks to mastering special meditative techniques —one comes to Mergence with the Consciousness dwelling in it.”

In the next section, Philip discusses the higher spirituality as seen from the lower earthy perspective. Notice the reference to mirrors. We can’t read the word “mirror” without thinking of Paul’s “through a glass darkly”. Thus the image of “seeing” is again divided into carnal seeing and spiritual seeing:  

“75. No one can see himself or herself in a flow or in a

mirror without light.

And vice versa: you cannot see yourself in the Light

without the Flow and without a mirror.

For this reason, it is necessary to be baptized in both:

in the Light and in the Flow.

In the Light we receive the blessing.”

This last line, “In the Light we receive the blessing,” implies a declension: to be sure, we need the physicalization of baptism through the flow of water, a prop, a symbol to accommodate the limitations of our weak human minds—but we must also remember the purpose of this physicalization, which is to lead us to enlightenment in the Light.

Antonov’s Commentary:

“In this fragment, two points need to be commented.

The first point is the allegorical meaning of the word mirror.

This is self-examination (looking at oneself) for the sake of discovering vices (with the purpose of getting rid of them) and defects in the development of good qualities (with the purpose of further development of them).

The second point is the word blessing. It has two meanings:

a) blessing for doing something (analogue — “to give consent”) and 

b) transmission of good energy to another person. The full blessing of a Teacher is when both components are merged together. Practically, in the Light we can receive the highest bliss and the blessing with the instructions on providing spiritual help to incarnate people and blessing with particular pieces of advice about entering the eon of God-the-Father.”

Continuing with the subject of baptism, Philip discusses the structure of the temple in which sacrifices are made. At first he seems to be describing the actual physical architecture of the temple, but by the end of the paragraph we perceive that his discussion was allegorical.

“76. There were three buildings in Jerusalem for making

sacrifices. The one, opened to the west, was called

the holy. Another, opened to the south, was called the

holy of the holy. The third, opened to the east, was

called the Holy of the Holiest, the place where a priest

enters alone.

The baptism is the holy.

The redemption of others (through one’s own sacrificial

service) is the holy of the holy.

But the Holy of the Holiest is the Bridal Chamber.”

Clearly, the Bridal Chamber must not be thought of as a physical chamber in the temple; therefore, the two lower chambers, the holy chamber of baptism, and the higher chamber of redemption must also be understood in their symbolic rather than literal sense. The next section confirms this conclusion:

“… What is a bridal chamber if not a symbolic image of

the Bridal Chamber? The latter is above all evil.

Its veil is rent from the top to the bottom, as an invitation

for the chosen to enter.”

Antonov’s Commentary:

“In the last paragraph, Philip speaks about the symbolic meaning of the fact that the veil (curtain) in the Jerusalem temple was rent from the top to the bottom at the moment of the cross death of Jesus.

The most important stage preceding one’s entering the

Bridal Chamber is sacrificial service to God through spiritual service to people.”

The Isenburg translation offers a few more complications:

“76. There were three buildings specifically for sacrifice in Jerusalem. The one facing the west was called "The Holy". Another, facing south, was called "The Holy of the Holy". The third, facing east, was called "The Holy of the Holies", the place where only the high priest enters. 

Baptism is "the Holy" building. Redemption is the "Holy of the Holy". "The Holy of the Holies" is the bridal chamber. Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption; the redemption (takes place) in the bridal chamber. But the bridal chamber is in that which is superior to [...] you will not find [...] are those who pray [...] Jerusalem who [...] Jerusalem, [...] those called the "Holy of the Holies" 

[...] the veil was rent, [...] bridal chamber except the image [...] above. Because of this, its veil was rent from top to bottom. For it was fitting for some from below to go upward.”  

This translation suggests the idea that the levels of spirit consciousness are cumulative, that is to say that sage two includes stage one and stage three includes stages one and two:

“Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption; the redemption (takes place) in the bridal chamber.”

This only makes sense because we have repeatedly been told that the Pleroma includes EVERYTHING. Still, our rational minds perceive things not as a unity, but in parts. It is up to the Cloud of Unknowing to consolidate the parts into an indivisible whole. 

The veil separating all but the high priest from the Holy of Holies is of interest. Here is a concise commentary on this subject from Gotquestions?.org.:

“During the lifetime of Jesus, the holy temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish religious life. The temple was the place where animal sacrifices were carried out and worship according to the Law of Moses was followed faithfully. Hebrews 9:1-9 tells us that in the temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies—the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence—from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin (Isaiah 59:1-2). Only the high priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7) to enter into God's presence for all of Israel and make atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16).

Solomon's temple was 30 cubits high (1 Kings 6:2), but Herod had increased the height to 40 cubits, according to the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. There is uncertainty as to the exact measurement of a cubit, but it is safe to assume that this veil was somewhere near 60 feet high. An early Jewish tradition says that the veil was about four inches thick, but the Bible does not confirm that measurement. The book of Exodus teaches that this thick veil was fashioned from blue, purple and scarlet material and fine twisted linen.

The size and thickness of the veil makes the events occurring at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross so much more momentous. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50-53).

“50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”

So, what do we make of this? What significance does this torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus' death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins. It signified that now the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and Gentile.

When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a temple made with hands (Acts 17:24).

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;”

God was through with that temple and its religious system, and the temple and Jerusalem were left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in A.D. 70, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke. As long as the temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant-- the age that was passing away as the new covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13).

“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father (John 14:6). This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. The faithful enter into the sanctuary by the “blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the veil, that is, through his flesh.” Here we see the image of Jesus’ flesh being torn for us just as He was tearing the veil for us.

The veil being torn from top to bottom is a fact of history. The profound significance of this event is explained in glorious detail in Hebrews. The things of the temple were shadows of things to come, and they all ultimately point us to Jesus Christ. He was the veil to the Holy of Holies, and through His death the faithful now have free access to God.”

In the next verse, Philip reminds us that the lower mind (evil spirits, in this case) cannot perceive the higher levels of consciousness.

“77. Evil spirits do not see and cannot seize Those Who

dressed Themselves with the Perfect Light.

Let such dressing with the Light be secret Mergence.”

The reference to “secret mergence” is significant to me because it reminds me that you can’t make a horse drink. If people you know are not attuned to the spiritual, no amount of proselytizing will have any good effect. To Jesus is granted the ability to reveal Himself to people in degrees commensurate with their perceptive capacities; to us lower beings, not so much. We may hope for this talent to emerge in our developing psyches, over time, but, for most of us, spiritual enlightenment is something to be cherished in secret. I have written on my wall:

“The only truth you can know is your own truth, and the only one you can tell it to is yourself.”

As long as I languish in this physical dimension, I must stand by this statement.

Antonov’s Commentary recalls the term “spiritual warrior”:

“According to these recommendations, the first task of spiritual warriors is to arise in the eon of Light.

The second is to become mature in it, to become a sufficiently large, active, and able consciousness.

The third is to merge with the Consciousness of this eon.

Evil spirits do not see Those Who dressed Themselves with the Light, but only when They stay in the eon of the Light.”

The Isenburg translation substitutes the term “powers” for “evil spirits”, and the expression “sacramental union” for “secret mergence”:

“77. The powers do not see those who are clothed in the perfect light, and consequently are not able to detain them. One will clothe himself in this light sacramentally in the union.”  

The next section makes another sideways reference to Adam and Eve. First let us recall Verse 71:

“71. When Eve was in Adam, there was no death. When

she was separated from him, death appeared. If she enters

in him again and he accepts her, there will be no

death anymore again.”

Now let us go on with Verse 78:

“78. If the woman had not separated from the man,

she would not have died along with the man. The separation from him was the beginning of death.

Therefore, Christ came to correct the separation, to

unite them, and to give the True Life to those who died in

separation, uniting them.”

Also let us remember the commentary from above:

Antonov’s irreverent mention, of the “Jewish Fairy Tale” of Adam and Eve, seems slightly disrespectful, especially to people who take the stories in the Old Testament as historical fact. Nevertheless, attributing metaphorical rather than historical significance to Adam and Eve is not without its merits. I don’t in the least mind reading, “Adam means just man, in the aggregate sense of this word. Eve means life.”

Antonov’s Commentary:

“Philip again jokingly refers to the biblical fairy tale about Adam and Eve. The explanation will be given in the next fragment.”

Whether Philip refers to Adam and Eve “jokingly” or not, it is clear that that mention of woman uniting with her husband is meant to be taken both literally and symbolically.

“79. So, let a woman unite with her husband in the

Bridal Chamber, because Those Who have united in the

Bridal Chamber will no longer be separated.

Eve separated from Adam because she united with

him not in the Bridal Chamber.”

Antonov’s Commentary:

“The true and eternal mergence of the Perfect happens in the Bridal Chamber of God-the-Father.”

In conclusion, let us review the main topics of this section of Philip:

“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.”

“69. The Lord said, “I came to bring the lowest to the Highest and the outer — to the inner, and to unite them THERE.” He spoke about THAT place in symbols and images.”

Don’t think of God as a Being on high (up), but rather as a Being Whose evidence is inward, in the depth beneath everything.

I think we have no reason to doubt that all ascended Beings, that is to say, DEAD PEOPLE, are able to go up and down Jacob’s Ladder, and bestow blessings commensurate with their level of soul evolution. I am sure that the prayers sent to our ascended ancestors are heard, and answered.

The fluidity of soul travel from one dimension to another has become a more central component in my spiritual devotions; as I ascend higher on the spiritual ladder, I find myself often in a kind of cloudy milk shake of shades of individual consciousnesses and corporate consciousnesses. I often find myself lost to my focused consciousness and afloat on a current of spiritual movement which acts on me without my volition. I find that I am in touch with conscious intelligence which is beyond me and above me. Most of my life I have been very focused on the literal consciousness of mind and have not freely relinquished the ego control that fixes me in one dimension. Lately I have allowed myself to drift more freely from one level to another, and I have thus experienced an intensity of spirit consciousness that is new and exciting—not to mention that this new consciousness is actively preparing the way to my death.

Thus, as in every other aspect of The Gospel of Philip we see TWO aspects of something—a lower and a higher aspect; in the case of the word “flesh”, we have one, the carnal flesh, of earthly origin, and, two, the “true flesh” of primordial origin—flesh that lives forever in the mind and memory of God.

“75. No one can see himself or herself in a flow or in a

mirror without light.

And vice versa: you cannot see yourself in the Light

without the Flow and without a mirror.

For this reason, it is necessary to be baptized in both:

in the Light and in the Flow.

In the Light we receive the blessing.”

As throughout The Gospel of Philip, the verses we have pondered today concern themselves with graduated levels of spirit consciousness. Today we have focused more on the idea of hidden or secret knowledge, knowledge revealed through a baptism of light. 

Let us pray: Jesus thank you for these words of guidance. Let us approach ever closer to the Bridal Chamber, the Holiest of Holies and meet you there in blessed unity. Amen.

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.