Sermon 13—Philip 11

Sermon 13—Philip 11

Today’s section of Philip once more develops the metaphoric relationship of earthly things to heavenly things. It begins, in a kind of parable-like format, with a typical catechismic breakdown of the primal essences of nature: water, earth, air, and light; with their analogs in the essences of spirit: faith, aspiration, love, and knowledge. This leads to a reflection on the “calm” of creation, but then it quickly turns to various subtleties of inflection of the term “marriage bed” as they apply metaphorically to the spiritual bridal chamber.

“115. Farming in this world requires four essences: water, earth, air, and light. In the same way, the farming of God consists of four essences: faith, aspiration, love, and knowledge.

Our “earth” is faith in which we are deep-rooted; “water” is aspiration that carries us; “air” is love thanks to which we live; and “light” is knowledge that allows us to mature.”

Note the statement, “light” is knowledge that allows us to mature.” We will come back to that. On with Philip:

“… Blessed be those who have not caused grief to any being. Such was Jesus Christ. He greeted all in this world and did not burden anyone with Himself.

Blessed be those who live like this! For they are perfect men! For Logos is like this.

117. Ask us about Him! For we cannot reproach Him for anything! How can we reproach this Great One? He gave Calm (of the Bridal Chamber) to every one (of us)!”

Antonov commentary:

“Let us notice: the Great Ones give calm. The opposite of them, demonic and devilish people bring enmity, hatred, chaos, violence, devastation, suffering.”

The “calm” of creation is one of the great mysteries upon which Philip abundantly expounds. Two weeks ago we read:

“86. The deeds of man result from man’s power.

Therefore, they are regarded as efforts. But man also begets children, which are conceived in calm. The power of man is manifested in deeds, and calm —in children.

You may find that man is similar to God in this respect.

Because God also performs His deeds (in the Creation)

thanks to His Power, but it is in Calm that He begets

His Children.”

Antonov’s Commentary:

“The sexual function can be realized fully only in the deep calm of both partners. Therefore, Philip speaks about children as about the result of the calm of people. The state of God-the-Father in the Bridal Chamber is the deepest tender Calm. His Sons and Daughters come from It.”

I have pondered this question for some time: why does creation proceed from the deepest tender calm? Philip distinguishes between “efforts”, the doing of deeds, (clearly deeds performed in the physical dimension), and “creation”, a somehow magical alchemical event which comes out of a state of deepest calm. Perhaps this refers to the heavenly relaxation of tension that follows a sexual climax; perhaps it is the turning inward that is part and parcel of the creative process, the quiet of that inner room where the truth is revealed in whispered words; perhaps the neutralizing of positive and negative electromagnetic forces is the calm. In the Renaissance, one joking term for a sexual climax was “the little death”—perhaps when we “rest in peace” we “rest in calm”?

Clearly, Philip is suggesting that the higher spiritual consciousness state is a state of calm. Some Eastern religions refer to a state of “equanimity”, or “bliss”, or “nirvana”; all these states must be thought of as “calm”, but Philip further points out that one who knows this spiritual calm not only MAY evoke it in the mundane dimension, but OUGHT to do so.

Here is Philip:

“118. First of all, one should not distress anyone: either big or small, unbeliever or believer; then one should offer calm to those who live in peace and good. There are Those Who can give Calm to those living in good.

Mere kind people cannot do this, because they themselves are still dependent. And They cannot cause grief, (unnecessary) suffering. But those, who are still on the way to becoming like Them, distress people sometimes.

The One Who has mastered the secrets of the Existence brings joy to good people! However, there are those who grieve and feel angry because of this.”

Why do people “grieve and feel angry because of” someone else’s good fortune? How often have we fallen into the trap of coveting the joys of our neighbors? How often have we revisited the ancient wisdom that “misery loves company”?

On with Philip, who continues to draw a parallel between how a farmer takes care of his estate, and how disciples of God tend to their spiritual estates. Note, especially, the expression: “Fleshly forms do not deceive them, and speaking with someone they look at the state of the soul of that person.”

“119. A householder has acquired all sorts of things: children, slaves, cattle, dogs, pigs, wheat, barley, straw, grass, dog’s food, and best food, and acorns. As a reasonable man, the householder knows which food is for whom and thus gives bread and olive oil to the children, castor oil and wheat — to the slaves, barley, straw, and grass —to the cattle, garbage — to the dogs, acorns and bran — to the pigs.

So are disciples of God. If they are wise, they comprehend the discipleship. Fleshly forms do not deceive them, and speaking with someone they look at the state of the soul of that person.”

Note, especially, the expression: “Fleshly forms do not deceive them, and speaking with someone they look at the state of the soul of that person.” This is a reminder that we are all spiritual beings; it is a reminder, lest we forget, in our worldly dealings with people, to avoid making errors of judgment and behavior. We must constantly hold before our spiritual eyes the eternal aspect of ourselves in each other, and love our enemies as ourselves, because we ARE ourselves are our own enemies.

Philip continues by reminding us how easily we are fooled by appearances:

“There are many animals with human appearance in this world. Disciples of God identify them and give “acorns” to the “pigs”, “barley”, “straw”, and “grass” —to the “cattle”, “garbage” — to the “dogs”, “sprouts” —to the “slaves”, and the perfect “food” — to the “children”.”

This passage encourages us to make fine distinctions concerning appropriate social behavior. As we have heard many times, LIKE attracts LIKE and LIKE repels UNLIKE. We need to be sure WHO we are dealing with and what we are giving each to each. We have heard that we are guilty of the sin of adultery merely by becoming one flesh with someone who is not on the same spiritual level with us; likewise, all our interactions with people must be delicately harmonized by communications of the right horse to the right rider. 

Antonov commentary:

“Using images of animals, Philip writes about psychoclassification of people according to the psychogenetic age and the qualities which every one of them developed during the personal evolution. Each of these groups needs “food” appropriate only to it.”

Back to Philip. Here we return to the complicated Proselyte/Son dichotomy; there is a lot of talk distinguishing “creating” from “begetting”:

“120. There is the Son of Man (Christ), and there is the

Son of the Son of Man. The Lord is the Son of Man. And the Son of the Son of Man is the One Who was created by the Son of Man. The Son of Man received from God the ability to create. But He can also beget.”

The distinction between creating and begetting has been a problem for me since the very beginning of the book. At this point, it finally starts to make sense. Here Philip tells us the word “create” refers to earthly creation (perhaps we mean “construction out of things already made”?), while “begetting” refers to the transfer of divine knowledge from a higher level to a lower level, thus RAISING the lower level to the higher level:

“121. The one who has the ability to create (earthly things) — creates (them). The one who has the ability to beget (children) — begets. The one who creates (earthly things) cannot beget (at the same time).

But the One Who begets can also create. And the One

Who creates — also begets. The progeny of such (Perfect)

One is this Creation. This (Perfect) One begets also (other progeny) — not earthly children but Likenesses of

Oneself.

The one who creates (earthly things) acts openly, not hiding. The one who begets acts secretly, in private. But this progeny is not like the Progeny of the (Perfect) One.

The One, Who creates, creates (also) openly. And the

One, Who begets, begets the Sons and the Daughters (also) secretly.”

Antonov commentary:

“This fragment has much “play on words”. This can be seen very clearly if one rewrites it without explanations in brackets. The word to create in the second paragraph means to materialize; this concerns the creation of the world by God-the-Father and the ability of Christs to materialize different objects.

This world created by God-the-Father can be also regarded as His progeny. The Christs beget new Sons and Daughters. They do this secretly from the people of the material world.”

This is a very difficult passage, and the Antonov commentary clarifies it somewhat, but the Isenburg translation is really pretty transparent:

“120 There is the Son of Man and there is the son of the Son of Man. The Lord is the Son of Man, and the son of the Son of Man is he who creates through the Son of Man. 

The Son of Man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget. 

121 He who has received the ability to create is a creature. He who has received the ability to beget is an offspring. He who creates cannot beget.”  

Here, we encounter a contradiction: Antonov says, “The one who creates (earthly things) cannot beget (at the same time).

While Isenburg states “He who creates cannot beget.” What is the significance of the clause, “at the same time”?

Isenburg’s commentary asks the same question:

“(Why cannot a physical parent beget spiritually?)

(It is because outer reproduction copies the demiurge while the spiritual children are inner.)”

Going on with the Isenburg translation:

“He who begets also has power to create. Now they say, "He who creates begets". But his so-called "offspring" is merely a creature. Because of [the heritage] of birth, they are not his offspring but [of the demiurge]. 

[Sidebar: We have encountered the term “demiurge” repeatedly in Philip and have glossed over it in a casual way. In this case a precise definition is needed in order to understand the distinctions Philip is making:

“Demiurge: in Gnosticism and other theological systems, a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual.”

Thus, a “creature” is a son of Earth, while a Son of Man is a Son of Heaven.

Back to Philip:

“He who creates works openly, and he himself is visible. He who begets, begets in private, and he himself is hidden, since [he is focused on the] image. Also, he who creates, creates openly. But one who begets, begets children in private.”    

Isenburg commentary:

“(Why is the Bridal Chamber so private?)

(Because you cannot see a bride with the bridegroom unless you become one.)”

The next section develops the idea of the privacy and tranquility (calm) of the bridal chamber. 

“122. No one can know when a husband and a wife united with each other except themselves, since the tranquility of their union is a secret for the outsiders. If an impure union is hidden, then how much more a confidential mystery is a pure union! It is not fleshly, but pure. It is not determined by passion, but by sober will. It does not belong to the darkness and night, but to the day and light.

A (sexual) union, if exhibited to others, becomes adultery.

A wife is considered unchaste not only if she unites with another man, but even if she leaves her bride-bed and is seen by others.

Let her meet only with her parents, friends of the husband, and the children of her bridal chamber; they may enter her bridal chamber every day. But let others dream of hearing her voice there and of enjoying the fragrance of her incenses! And let them be satisfied, like dogs, with the crumbs that fall from the table.

The Husbands and Wives (of God) belong to the Bridal

Chamber. One cannot see Them unless one becomes as

They are. No one except the Father can see and know the Greatness of Those Who attained the Bridal Chamber, unless one attains the same level of development.”

Isenburg Translation:

“122 No one can know when the husband and the wife have intercourse with one another, except the two of them. Indeed, marriage in the world is a mystery for those who have taken a wife. 

If there is a hidden quality to the marriage of defilement, how much more is the undefiled marriage a true mystery! It is not fleshly, but pure. It belongs not to desire, but to the will. It belongs not to the darkness or the night, but to the day and the light.

If a marriage is open to the public, it has become prostitution, and the bride plays the harlot not only when she is impregnated by another man, but even if she slips out of her bedroom and is seen. 

Let her show herself only to her father and her mother, and to the friend of the bridegroom and the sons of the bridegroom. These are permitted to enter every day into the bridal chamber. But let the others yearn just to listen to her voice and to enjoy her ointment, and let them feed from the crumbs that fall from the table, like the dogs. 

Bridegrooms and brides belong to the bridal chamber. No one shall be able to see the bridegroom with the bride unless he become such a one.”

Most of us here are old enough to remember the John Lennon song, “You’ve got to hide your love away.” I have considered the wisdom of these lyrics many times. At first, it seems cynical—we have to hide because the world is a low-class brothel where every beautiful thing is desecrated, and brought down to its own low level. Philip seems to be saying that the privacy of the marriage bed is a function of inner experience. He is also saying that outer knowledge of an inner experience invites compromise of the purity that obtains between two lovers exclusively devoted to each other. The alchemy of the bridal chamber is a specific mix of energetic identities which ought not to be corrupted by false complementarities. Perhaps too many cooks spoil the broth. Perhaps hiding your love away is the same thing as feeding your pigs the right acorns.

Philip goes on to distinguish between the “visible” and the “hidden”. Obviously, we are to take the “visible” as the fleshly, and the “hidden” as the “private” spirituality. 

“… Abraham in order to perceive the One Whom he had to perceive performed circumcision of the foreskin, showing by this (symbolically) that we should rid ourselves of the fleshly — that which is of this world.

… As long as the intestines of man’s body are hidden, the body is alive. But if the intestines are uncovered and fall out, the body dies. It is the same with a tree: while its roots are hidden, the tree blossoms and grows. If the roots are uncovered, the tree withers.”

I find this point to be radically significant: “while its roots are hidden, the tree blossoms and grows. If the roots are uncovered, the tree withers.” We know that when the roots of a tree are exposed to air, they wither and stop functioning as roots. Likewise, when we hide our love away, it remains protected from worldly corruption, whereas exposing it to outside scrutiny robs it of its potency and vitality. Some primitive African natives won’t allow you to take a photograph of them because they feel you are robbing them of some private essence. Is this true or not? Perhaps more true than we want to admit. 

My whole life I have lamented my failure to achieve a worldly reputation as a composer, but these days I begin to wonder if this was not a blessing in disguise. I have known many famous people who belittled the benefits of fame. I had trouble believing them, but as I approach the ending of my efforts as a composer, I begin to suspect that my pearls were lucky to escape the desecration of swine.

On with Philip:

“It is the same with any phenomenon in the world, not only in the material but in the hidden one as well. Thus, as long as the root of evil is hidden it grows and is strong.

When it gets known, it begins to bloom. But if its root is uncovered, it perishes.”

Here, we start to get into the subject of “knowledge” that will be expanded a few lines down. The implication of this paragraph is that: knowledge of evil things, brought out from its secret place, subjects its roots to the same worldly corruption that destroys the roots of love. Thus, divine knowledge chooses to reveal evil to the world, while keeping righteousness protected in secrecy.

Going on:

“Therefore, Logos says, “Already the axe lies at the roots of trees! If it does not cut up completely, that which was cut will grow again. Hence, it is necessary to drive the axe deep enough so that it tears out the roots.”

And Jesus destroyed those roots in the place where He worked. And He also did this partially in other places.

As for all of us, let us cut into the roots of evil, which we find within ourselves, and tear out evil with its roots from the soul!”

And here comes the role of KNOWLEDGE”:

“We can tear evil out only if we know it. If we are ignorant of it, it will continue to grow its roots and multiply itself in us. Thus it will get the complete control over us, and we will become its slaves. It will enslave us more and more, forcing us to do that which we do not want to do and forcing us not to do that which we want to do… It is very powerful until we know about it in ourselves!”

I believe this is the basic premise of Freudian psychanalysis!

“While it exists, it acts. Ignorance of it is the mother of evil in us. Ignorance leads us to death. And those who have not become free from ignorance have not existed yet as (true) people, do not exist, and will not exist!

Those who are in the true knowledge fill themselves with Perfection as the Truth reveals Itself to them.

Because the Truth, just as ignorance, — while it is hidden, rests in itself, but when it is revealed and recognized, it blooms, being praised. How much more powerful it is than ignorance and errors! It gives us Freedom!

Logos said, “If you know the Truth, it will make you free”.

Ignorance is slavery. Knowledge is Freedom.

Seeking the Truth, we discover its seeds within us.

If we unite with It, It will receive us in the Primordial

Consciousness.”

Antonov commentary:

“Philip discusses the mechanism of repentance and insists on the necessity of paying serious attention to the intellectual work.

Repentance is purification of oneself from vices. Two foundations of all our vices are the following:

1. 1. The ability to intentionally cause suffering to other beings (for example, just by “distressing” them); by doing this we manifest our egoism, the vicious “I”, and a lack of developed love in ourselves. With the hypertrophied “I” and without developed love, one cannot really approach God-the-Father.
2. 2. The absence of permanent orientation of the attention to God-the-Father, the absence of aspiration to Him.

In connection with this, let us discuss faith. Faith as a simple “yes” as an answer to the question “do you believe?” — is too little. The true faith is indeed the permanent and unshakeable remembering about God-Teacher, Who teaches us all the time; it is especially important to remember about this at the moments of critical situations, which are also His lessons for us. The thing which brings one to such a level of faith is large and long intellectual work done under His guidance.

Only thanks to such efforts of spiritual warriors, God becomes for them a Living Reality, and not just a symbol, an abstraction which you are supposed to worship. Thus faith turns into knowledge about Him.

On the highest level of its development, the faith changes— necessarily through the stage of knowledge about Him, knowledge of Him — into passionate Love, which alone can help one to become close to Him and then to enter His Abode and merge with Him.

… Penitential work is not just recalling aloud in front of a “father” all your true and imaginary deeds-sins. Penitential work is studying of oneself as a soul and transforming oneself by introspection and self-education. It is necessary to note that “sins” are not the main things we have to struggle with: they are just manifestations of qualities of the soul which are called vices. Therefore, it is vices that one has to struggle against with the help of the axe about which Jesus and Philip told. And this struggle can be launched in full strength only after one realizes

God — as a Living Teacher.” 

It is interesting that the outer manifestation of inner qualities of the soul are called “vices”. How often have we heard, “It is not you I hate but your behavior”? Maybe this is a lie—maybe your actions are not the problem—it is YOU. In any case, soul development can go both ways: on the one hand, by working on the outer behavior, the “vices”, we impact the inner Man, but also by working on the inner Man, we change our behavior and transform vice into virtue.

We have discussed the issue of imagination creating spiritual reality. We know that Jesus said that if you IMAGINE something it is the same as DOING it; I’m sure this is absolutely true in the higher eons, but on Earth, our inner Man is most truthfully expressed in ACTS. C.S. Lewis was a big believer in the outward manifestation as the true index of an inner reality. Lewis refers to the true inner Man as his WILL. In The Screwtape Letters we are reminded of this, by these familiar words:

“Whatever their bodies do affects their souls. It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out...
As long as [man] does not convert it into action, it does not matter how much he thinks about this new repentance... Wallow in it... Write a book about it; that is often an excellent way of sterilising the seeds which [Heavenly Father] plants in a human soul... Do anything but act. No amount of piety in his imagination and affections will harm [the cause of evil] if [it is kept] out of his will... The more often he feels without acting, the less he will ever be able to act, and, in the long run, the less he will be able to feel.” 

Thus the interplay between the inner and the outer Man results in a composite being consisting of idealized inner realities, and outer worldly manifestations expressed through ACTIVITY.

Back to Antonov’s commentary:

“… The result of the entire work on purification and development of oneself is one’s birth and maturing in the highest eons. As this happens, all the material, fleshly become less and less significant and then is “cut off” completely (at what Abraham hinted by his circumcision).

Then only He remains.”

“Then only He remains.” How we struggle to realize the HE in ourselves, vacillating back and forth between positive and negative polarities seeking that moment of celestial calm in which we are, at one and the same time, born into Being, and absorbed into Non-Being, Oneness with nameless singularity.

Let us pray. Jesus, the mysteries compound daily as we venture farther and farther into the extremities of the Father’s domain. We once were lost but now are found, and, being found, the I AM of Being takes us, lock stock and barrel into His undefined personality, and we are One. Amen.

Sermon 12--Philip 10

Sermon 12--Philip 10

Call to Worship:

Galatians 3:28

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

John 17:21

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

Several weeks ago, in Philip 4, we studied this section from Verse 23 of The Gospel of Philip:

“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

(before 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.”

Remember that The Gospel of Philip has a lot to do with ceremony, especially the rite of baptism. The water of baptism is often referred to as a “flow”. Thus, we also read this passage, from the same section, which refers to baptism as robing oneself in the flow and fire:

“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.”

Last week we heard:

“There is water in water, there is fire in chrism,”

The pairing of water and chrism is one more example of the way Philip constantly makes reference to higher and lower consciousness states; the flow of water represents the terrestrial level of baptism, and the spiritual fire of chrism (the act of anointing) represents the higher consciousness level of baptism, the level necessary for entry into the bridal chamber.

Today’s selection begins with more about being spiritually naked during the rite of baptism:

“101 Therefore, when he is about to go down into the water, he unclothes himself, in order that he may put on the living man.”

This sentence tells us that, during the rite of baptism, we have to strip off our terrestrial clothes in order to don the fiery spiritual array. The subject of nakedness is of interest to me, because the clothes we wear do more than hide our bodies. Remember, from my previous sermon, I quoted Frank Zappa, who said, “Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don’t kid yourself.” This is to say: we all align ourselves with some bumper sticker slogan or other, as a way of pledging ourselves to this or that social allegiance. And it does not stop with the clothes we wear on our bodies. I mean, it is not just the clothes we wear that we use to hide our nakedness from each other, but all kinds of other conventional props: posture, turns of phrase, social cliches, etiquette, and moral attitudes. Any kind of repression or suppression of our natural selves can be thought of as clothing some naked aspect of ourselves we want to keep secret. 

For instance, we hide behind our body language: most of us express ourselves with certain postures or physical habits which often contradict the words that come out of our mouths; we may say, “That noise doesn’t bother me,” while half-turning away, or covering one ear, etc. Our body language reveals the hidden subtext of our thoughts. Does anybody remember those Mad Magazine cartoons where the butler, bowing low and respectfully, is saying, “Welcome home, Master Jenkins,” while his shadow on the wall is stabbing Master Jenkins in the back? Many of us speak out of both sides of our mouths as a way of disguising what we really feel. We do it so often we don’t even notice we are doing it.

As an aspie, reading body language is not my forte, but I know that people are always sending mixed messages—they say one thing, and, with their bodies, imply something else. This is not even to mention the psychic factor: people are generally more psychic than they realize; we freely (though possibly unconsciously) read each others’ minds in all sorts of normal social interactions, such that subconscious messages from others are always registering on a teensy tip of our consciousness— messages of which our conscious minds may be completely unaware, but which our unconscious minds receive and understand completely. Many of our irrational responses to people may be traced back to this phenomenon—our conscious minds may be dumbfounded, but way back in the shadowland of consciousness we truly get it. 

Most people live comfortably this way--we learn how to glean the real message people are sending us, from a combination of their spoken words and their underlying, concealed words. We either unconsciously suppress a reaction to what we really see, or we consciously ignore what we really see--we lie to our conscious minds, offering ourselves rationalizations which closer scrutiny would reveal to be transparent subterfuges; meanwhile our unconscious minds squirrel away the real truth—a truth perhaps to be later hinted at in our body language, our Freudian slips, and our dreams. How skilled we become at disguising the truth in the emperor’s new clothes! The good news, expressed in Philip, is that in Heaven, there is nothing to hide behind— we all are completely visible to each other—hence, we may hope that, in heaven, there are none of the petty misunderstandings that plague us here on Earth.

Going on, Philip associates the ideas of terrestrial and spiritual nakedness with the natural body’s inability to cognize spiritual reality. He discusses the spiritual bridal chamber and its terrestrial analog in matrimonial union:

“103-104. Let me speak about the place where the

Children of the Bridal Chamber abide.

In this world there is a union of man and woman. This

is mergence of energy and calm. In the highest eon there is another form of a union, we just use the same words. In that eon other Consciousnesses abide, They are above all words, They are beyond anything coarse, dense. This is in the place where the Power (i.e. the Father) is; in the same place are the Chosen of the Power.

Those, Who are there, are not the one and other:

They all are One there. And those who live here cannot even leave their fleshly bodies…”

Note the dichotomous distinctions between: 

man and woman, 

energy and calm, 

Power (i.e. the Father) and Chosen of the Power.

These yang-yin pairings appear in just about any philosophy you can think of. Notice that the female principle is associated with calm and the chosen; this is consistent with the idea that the Holy Spirit, the Bride of Christ, is both feminine AND multiple—spiritually composite. It is the union of the Power and the Chosen that creates the pleroma.

Antonov comments:

“Philip explains the symbolism of the text: in the Bridal Chamber of God-the-Father, They do not have sex as incarnate people do. But They merge in Love and exist there as One.”

This is one doctrinal point which has been made several times in Philip, but which we have yet to make extensive comment on: the Holy Spirit is comprised of many individualities incorporated into ONE. Mainstream Christian theology rarely suggests the idea that in merging with the Father we become one with everybody else who has merged with the Father. It may have been implied at different times, but has never been affirmed as doctrine. The ONE-becoming suggested here is equated with carnal sex—by virtue of the “becoming one flesh” idea. In this case the spiritual “mergence” referred to repeatedly by Antonov is simply “becoming one spirit”—the pleroma. This is something we need to think about, because it is not emphasized in the sayings of Jesus. Above, we quoted John 17:21:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

Here is another saying of Jesus from The Gospel of John:

John 14:20 

^“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.”

From Corinthians we read these words of the Apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 6:16-17:

“Or don’t you know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit.”

Thus, as we become one with Jesus, we thereby become one with the Father. But remember, this statement is made by Paul not Jesus. In any case, we must confess that the writings of Paul are, in many cases, more closely related to Gnosticism than many would like to admit.

I am moved to expand a bit on the concept of “one flesh”. The issue of gender is not insignificant when developing a doctrine of belief concerning the afterlife. On more than one occasion Jesus has said things like:

Matthew 22:30:

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

The assumption here is that angels are sexually neutral. It may be that, on a transcendental level of consciousness, gender no longer plays a part, but, as we have seen, even the Creator is sometimes thought of as a Father/Mother God, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that gender distinctions exist on levels of existence higher than the mundane. In a dualistic universe how can we ignore the Ying/Yang quality of gender in all things physical, and maybe more than physical?

Gender identity operates on many levels with many characteristic outcomes. This fact was emphasized in my mind recently when I learned to attach the positive lead from my car jump-starter to the red post and the negative lead to the black post. The attraction of opposite charges and the repulsion of like charges is a pretty basic fact of life, and there is no reason to assume that this principle ceases in its operation as we climb the spiritual ladder. The interplay of positive and negative forces is choreographer of the great cosmic dance, at least as far as the eye can see. 

The dichotomy of the right and left hemispheres of the brain seems an apt analogy: the left brain, guardian of all integral logic systems, verbal structures, particle-like entities, is like the aggressive male creative force, and the right brain, all-embracing mother of emotion and intuition, is like the female procreative haven. As the song goes, “You can’t have one without the other.”

It has been said, many times over the years, about my teaching, that I teach the girls differently than I teach the boys. I have vehemently denied this, because I would never like it to be said that I allow favoritism to influence my teaching. However, I have watched myself closely recently, and I must admit that I MIGHT teach the girls differently. I have to finally admit that my associations with females often include a little bit of that plus/minus attraction, while the minus/minus repulsion with the boys makes me a little harder on them, a little less encompassing. I admit that I enjoy the flow of negative to positive energy between me and the girls, thus, I cannot deny that gender is a crucial ingredient in identity, mundane AND spiritual. I deny that gender identity is only or even mostly sexual, in the sense of carnal sensuality, but is rather a difference in perspective that colors our interactions with each other. 

I have read that soul travelers, out-of-body, have something like sexual encounters on more subtle planes, and I affirm that the animal magnetism I experience is more than merely physical. When I connect with someone spiritually, I am sure that gender plays a part. The confusion comes when our spiritual sensitivities are not sharpened by experience or insight.

Going on, Philip mentions this very difficulty, that many incarnated beings have, in consciously distinguishing their own sense of physicality from a recognition of their spiritual essence:

“105. Not all who have bodies are able to cognize their own Essence. And those who cannot cognize their own Essence cannot use the possibilities given to them for enjoyment. Only those who cognized their own Essence will enjoy truly.”

Antonov’s comment:

“To cognize the highest enjoyment, one has to make great efforts on self-development. Only the one who succeeds in the cognition of God-the-Father attains this.

The cognition of one’s own Essence is the realization of oneself (as a Consciousness) in the Abode of God-the-Father. He is our Higher I, which is cognized when we flow into Him.”

Notice the reference to “enjoyment”. I do not think this term is used in the casual way that we usually use the term. To me the operative word is “joy”; to me this is the key to the Christian life: JOY. All the theology and mysticism in the world cannot compete with the simple fact that spiritual enlightenment leads to joy, terrestrial joy or heavenly joy, there is no difference. In the Abode of God the Father, we receive the peace of Christ, the armor of God, the Power of the Resurrection, etc., but all is accomplished and received in an atmosphere of JOY. Thank you Jesus!

Speaking of the Armor of God, Philip now returns to the subject of the power of Heavenly apparel to control evil: 

“106. The Perfect Man cannot be captured (by evil spirits) and cannot be seen by them. Because they can capture only those whom they see.”

[Sidebar: Remember that the Sons of God may freely travel from one spiritual level to another; add to this the principle we have encountered often in Philip that: lower spirits cannot see higher spirits, but higher spirits, as they pass from higher to lower levels of consciousness, can see all the lower spirits. Thus, we, protected by the armor of God, may escape harassment by evil spirits, and we can, in the name of the Christ. rule them in their own environment. I have personally been attacked by lower spirits many times, especially when they notice I am off my guard, but they instantly flee when I invoke the name of Jesus. I have developed sensitivity to subtle influence because of my adventure with demon possession many years ago, and, although that was the most horrific episode in my life, I thank God that it has led to a heightened awareness of spiritual entities, high and low, who surround me, touch me, and instruct me.

Going on, Philip equates the term we have been using, “the armor of God” with “the perfect light”:]

“There is no way to acquire this boon but by being dressed in the Perfect Light and by becoming the Perfect

Light. If one becomes dressed in It, one merges with It.

Such is the Perfect Light.”

Thus, we escape demonic influence by donning the perfect light of the armor of God.

Antonov’s comment:

“One should seek salvation from evil spirits not in the “protective magic”, not in cursing them, not in the methods of “bioenergetical protection” or in the incantation of sorcerers, but in Mergence with God.”

Philip now goes on to contemplate the true nature of death:

“107. It is necessary that we become men of Spirit before we leave this world (i.e. before the end of this incarnation).

The one who acquired everything in this world, being its master, will not be able to become a master in another world.

Jesus cognized the whole Path up to the end. But, nevertheless, He came to this world as a simple man (i.e.

He did not behave like a “master”).”

This paragraph is suffused with deep meaning, not to mention doctrinal significance. It reiterates the idea, I have suggested before, that Jesus did not preach reincarnation-- not because it doesn’t exist, but because He wanted people to enter the Abode of God the Father NOW, not later; He wanted people to become spiritual BEFORE death. The passage also affirms the idea that treasure on Earth is nothing compared to Treasure stored up in Heaven; that mastery on Earth does not equal mastery in Heaven, but actually the opposite—mastery on Earth leads to nothing but a lower consciousness level in the afterlife.

Going on, Philip mentions how spirit may consecrate flesh, and moreover, how a spiritually enlightened being may use his power to cross dimensional barriers to bring higher energy into as low a physical entity as a piece of bread:

“108. The Holy Man is holy entirely, down to the body.

If one gives bread to the Holy Man, the Holy Man consecrates it, as well as water or anything else that may be given. All this becomes purified. And how will the Holy

Man not purify bodies also?”

Thus, if a holy man can sanctify bread, how much more significantly may he sanctify the bodies of supplicants seeking salvation through Jesus Christ. Notice the similarity between this section and the famous passage from Luke:

Luke 12:27-28

“27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Going on, Philip compares spiritual baptism to a kind of death:

“109. When performing baptism, Jesus “poured” life into bodies and “poured” death out from them.

Therefore, we submerge now in the Flow (of Life), but not in (the flow of) death, so that we are not carried away by it to the spirits of this world. When these spirits blow, desolation happens. When the Holy Spirit blows, bliss comes.”

I love the line, 

“When performing baptism, Jesus “poured” life into bodies and “poured” death out from them.”

Just as the inter-dimensional soul travel of enlightened beings chases away evil in its natural habitat, so does the baptism of the Christ banish death from the bodies of penitent supplicants. We would do well to remember, as we suffer the pains and dissolution of old age, that our physical bodies will be replaced by spiritual bodies that cannot suffer and cannot die. We tend to relate to our physical conditions as real, and our carnal enslavements as permanent. Philip encourages us to remember that the spiritual state offers us freedom from every carnal chain.

“110. The one who cognized the Truth is free. The free one does not commit sin: because the one who commits sin becomes a slave of sin (i.e. burdens one’s own destiny, first of all).

The true knowledge is like a mother and a father (i.e. like wise teachers, advisers, and guardians of their child).

Those who are not capable of sinning are said to have attained freedom. The knowledge of the Truth raises them even more. This makes them both free and above this world.”

We are reminded that we ought to be IN the world, but not OF the world. The world holds us in its enslaving grip, but spiritual knowledge FREES us from this grip, allowing us to travel from height to height in mergence with the Father. How wonderful to see all below as a fantasy, a dream of carnal illusion from which our freedom has awakened us.

The next section affirms the idea that the truth can make you free, only here TRUTH is equated with LOVE:

“But only love creates. The one who becomes free thanks to knowledge, because of Love remains a slave of those who have not managed to attain the Freedom of knowledge yet. Such one brings the knowledge to them and this develops them because it calls them to the Freedom.”

I especially like the idea that, “one becomes free thanks to knowledge”. This touches on the many, many times I have contemplated the epistemological limits of “knowledge”. We have asked the question many times, “What is spiritual knowledge, and how can we express it? Furthermore, what is the relationship of expression to essence? What is it about knowledge that calls us to freedom? How far below the ultimate TRUTH can expression fall before the limitations of verbal expression no longer call us to Freedom, but paint a false face on what we think we know?”

To EXPRESS anything some form of LANGUAGE must be employed. We have often brought up the point that LANGUAGE plays a BIG part in defining a certain kind of knowledge; that is to say, we know that language can never encapsulate the BIG picture, but the language of Truth is a part of the TRUTH, because language is at the heart of consciousness. As Julian Jaynes has declared, the holographic diffraction of the radiation coming from the Right and Left brain (the bicameral mind) results in the effect we call consciousness; and this level of consciousness is the essence of what we can KNOW in this world. The wave-like oscillation of significance that is characteristic of mundane consciousness makes KNOWLEDGE a fluid force that doesn’t like to be pinned –down (particle-ized?) The travel of conscious attention up and down a graduated continuum of consciousness states makes for a complicated scenario of shifting significances and symbologies.

It is so nice to have the matter simplified by the word LOVE. The following passage is a glowing meditation on the selfless character of love:

“Love takes nothing: how can it take something? Everything belongs to it. It does not say, “This is mine! And this is mine!” But it says: “This is yours!”

111. Spiritual love is like wine and myrrh. Those enjoy it who were blessed (by God).

But others also enjoy it — those who stay with the blessed ones. But if the blessed go away, those who are not blessed fall back to their stench. The Samaritan gave nothing but wine and oil to the wounded man. And it was nothing else but blessing. Thus he healed the wounds.

And love covers a multitude of sins.”

Notice the reference to the Samaritan; of course this is a reference to the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke. I mention it because, in the Gnostic gospels, material from the other gospels characteristically make an appearance. This means that the author(s) of Philip were either familiar with the synoptic gospels, or were at least aware of the many stories circulating about Jesus in what must have been a very rich oral tradition. By this I simply remind us that ALL of the gospels were written at a later date that when the described events actually, happened so these reports MUST have existed in some oral form before they were written down. This makes a strong argument that the composition of The Gospel of Philip was very likely contemporaneous with the composition of the other accepted New Testament scriptures.

Let us reread this passage: 

“Love takes nothing: how can it take something? Everything belongs to it. It does not say, “This is mine! And this is mine!” But it says: “This is yours!”  

Notice how similar this is to the famous section from 1^st Corinthians:

“1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”

The passage in 1^st Corinthians raises the term “love” to a very high-minded, supernatural level. The following section from Philip continues to develop the analogy between the type of spiritual love (charity), referred to in Corinthians, to worldly love and worldly progeny; this section uses the same sort of quasi-humorous literary technique that has distinguished Philip from other more relentlessly solemn spiritual writings. It is hard to take seriously the idea that children will not resemble their biological father, but rather the man the mother had in mind during conception (who may not have been the actual father). This is the same line of reasoning that declares that the offspring of unlike (adulterous) parents will be deformed. In any case, whether we take these suggestions literally or not, we are directed to see how things below are echoes of things above.

“112. Those born by a woman resemble the man she loved. If he was her husband, they resemble the husband. If he was her lover, they resemble the lover. It happens that she unites with the husband, as she is obliged to do, but her heart is with her lover with whom she also unites, then her children resemble the lover.”

Remember that earlier in Philip 6 we read that an adulterous marriage (a marriage of souls too unlike to be compatible in any positively fruitful way) may result in flawed offspring. First a reminder from Philip:

“He who has been created is beautiful, but you would not find his sons noble creations. If he were not created, but begotten, you would find that his seed was noble. But now he was created (and) he begot. What nobility is this? First, adultery came into being, afterward murder. And he was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the Serpent. So he became a murderer, just like his father, and he killed his brother. Indeed, every act of sexual intercourse which has occurred between those unlike one another is adultery.”

Now Antonov’s commentary:

“Adultery is the sexual intercourse between people that God does not approve. This notion has nothing to do with the one used by “pastors” of many Churches to intimidate their “flock”, “pastors” who try to control people’s destinies on behalf of God, though God did not entrust this to them! From God’s standpoint, there is a concept of adultery. And He can even punish for committing it, as we have read in this fragment, by incarnating a devilish soul in the body of a child to be born, or through birth of ugly children, imbeciles, and so on.”

The following section contemplates, in ever deeper detail, the attraction of like to like, and the repulsion of unlike by unlike entities in the universe. It’s a simple idea, but an idea that we easily lose track of in our daily battle with terrestrial compromises and mistaken identity. Using a simple analogy, Philip calls our attention to the fact that we become what we are closest to:

“But you, who are with the Son of God, do not get attached also to that which is worldly! Rather be only with the Lord, so that those begotten by you be not similar to worldly people but similar to the Lord!

A human being unites with a human being, a horse — with a horse, a donkey — with a donkey. Representatives of any species unite with those similar to them. In the same way, the Spirit unites with the Spirit, and Logos — with Logos, and the Light — with the Light.

If you become a human being — a human being will love you. If you become the Spirit — the Spirit will unite with you. If you become Logos — you will unite with Logos.

If you become the Light — the Light will unite with you.

If you become one of earthly rulers — the earthly rulers will associate with you. If you become a horse, or a donkey, or a cow, or a dog, or a sheep, or any other animal whether smaller or bigger, you will not be able to associate either with human, or with the Spirit, or with Logos, or with the Light, or with earthly rulers, or with those who are under their rule. They will not lie in bed with you and will not accept your love.”

The Amish folk of Pennsylvania have made this doctrine into a central guideline for the structure of their society: don’t associate with evil things lest you become evil yourself. Perhaps, most of us say, these Amish people have gone too far in rejecting the modern world; but who can deny that association with evil makes us evil?

A long time ago, I heard a lecture by Ken Kesey, author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. He said, among other things that, when somebody cuts you off on the freeway you should give them the finger; but he also said that to play somebody else’s game, personally, socially, or politically, you have to identify with that person—you have to take a little bit of that person into your own head. If you two are like-minded, all is well, but if you two are opposed in some way, and you are getting into the other’s head as a matter of convenience or compromise, you are giving up a piece of yourself, a piece that you might not ever be able to get back. To Ken Kesey the words, “To thine own self be true,” were not an empty slogan, but a rallying cry for people to look at reality with the fresh untainted clarity of a personal now, and not the social definitions and agreement inherent in every bumper sticker on the road. The true non-conformist is not one who rejects a mainstream consensus, but, rather, one who chooses, instead, the road less traveled by. In all things, truly spiritual choices are positive elected inventions, not negative rejections.

Going on with Philip’s discussion of freedom:

“114. Those who were slaves against their will may get freedom. But those to whom the freedom was granted by the mercy of the lord, but who, nevertheless, put themselves into slavery again, — they will no longer be able to become free.”

Antonov’s comment:

“Christ showed people the Path to the full Liberation in the

Abode of God-the-Father. But only a few accepted this offer. Well, this is a grievous choice of others…”

The concept of the “unforgivable sin” plays into this. Remember that in Hebrews we read that once a devotee has seen the light, and then turned away from it, he may not return. 

Hebrews 6:4-6:

“4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 

5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 

6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”

Also, notice the similarity here to the idea from Matthew:

Matthew 22:14

“14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This presentation of Philip verses 101-114, has focused on the various modalities of identity in the vast continuum of consciousness levels of existence. We talked about our clothes as emblems of our inner life, we talked about the effect spiritual baptism makes on our projected identity, we talked about gender identity, and we talked about oneness.

The thing that so interests me about The Gospel of Philip is that it discusses so many subtleties of structure of the spiritual universe which are not developed on the synoptic gospels. As I have mentioned before, there is more of that kind of thing to be found in the letters of Paul, but the Gnostic perspective of Philip goes pretty far beyond anything we find in the New Testament, and much of it CONTRADICTS what we read in the New Testament. The great thing is that these details of doctrine, that I have wondered about for years, are openly discussed in Philip, in practically the same language in which I have been thinking about them. Remember, Philip is to be thought of as a catechesis, so its reason for being is centrally and ultimately as an instruction manual. The final two sermons I will give on Philip delve into even finer distinctions of consciousness states, and will finish up with a grand finale of ecstatic descriptions of the bridal chamber.

Let us pray. Jesus, the universe is so wide we shrink before even a flimsy, modest summary of its magnitude. Without You we would be lost in space, but with You we are safe in the heart’s core of being. Amen.