(THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS [continued(3)])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:69-70][19870329:1210s](THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS [continued(3)])[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

Claims of this sort* upset other religions, such as Buddhism, Judaism and Islam, which do not claim divine status for their earthly leaders. I have some sympathy with Islam's view that Jesus, or Issa, was one of the greatest of the prophets, not (a) God – but not with Islam's** view that Mahommed [sic] is the greatest and the last prophet. Mahommed, where he is original, speaks to a primitive desert society and is too specific to be applied generally: like Moses he was a lawgiver for his time and place***; but great attention should be paid to his writings.

Jesus speaks almost always to Men in their innermost hearts, in matters which do not change with time, place and society: even his parables use situations which are common today all over the World, and they are only examples, not the teachings themselves.

Mahommed (in the Koran) speaks to the minds of early Arabs, and often perceptively; Jesus speaks to the Spirits within Men of all times and places.

In terms of claimed status, the differences between the two are a matter of degree. Mahommed is claimed to be a Man who merely recorded accurately the voice of the Archangel Gabriel speaking the words of God. Jesus is claimed (in my view misleadingly) to be God the Son who spoke his own words in his own way.

*[See last previous entry]

**{(apparent)}

***This, of course, roughly mirrors what many Muslims say about Jesus. <930122>

[cf. [Redbook3:171-172][19870411:2200d]{Archetypes and Qualities(1) [continued(4)]}[11th April 1987].<20160214>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger13122015]

(THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS [continued])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:68-69][19870329:1210r](THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS [continued])[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

Christ is the key to the development of the inner sense. Despite all inaccuracies, contradictions and confusions, the figure of Christ shines through the Gospel descriptions of Jesus. Understand Christ as a way to develop Con-science: then use Con-science to re-examine his* words and actions as reported fallibly by the Gospels.

Jesus is depicted differently in [the Gospel according to] John, compared to to the other three Gospels. This does not make any of them necessarily inaccurate: we may be seeing a different aspect of Jesus, according to the perceptions of the author of St. John's Gospel. But inaccuracies and assumptions may well have crept in.

A great deal of time and energy is wasted on discussing the precise nature of Jesus. Jesus did not say that he was God the Son (unless I have missed it). So far as I can see, only in [the Gospel according to] John** did he say that he was the Son of God. What he did say, frequently, was that he was the Son of Man. He also said, if I remember rightly, that God was the father of all of us: making all of us the Sons or Daughters of God. Claims for an exclusively divine status for Jesus seem to rest less on theological than on procedural statements, e.g. about where he and his disciples would sit in Heaven. Even there, the exclusivity is implied only by Earthly logic.

*(i.e. Jesus's.) <[87]0401>

**{and in [the Gospel according to] M[ar]k.14:62.}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger12122015]

(THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS)[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:67-70][19870329:1210r](THE BIBLE AND CHRIST/JESUS)[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

The Bible is not the Word of God. (Nor, for that matter, is the Tarot Pack.) It is sad to have to say that: as anyone who does still believe that the Bible is the word of God, is likely to take the denial hard. But it isn't. We have brains, and must use them. The Bible is a collection of histories, mythologies, stories, and notes, of varying degrees of reliability as historical records, composed by many different human hands, not all of whom (apparently) were even who (or when) they claimed to be. It is confused, and contradicts itself. Some of it is nonsense. Some of it is outrageous. It is a wonderful book.

The Bible is at its strongest when recording directly the thoughts of its author*. It seems that more of the Bible than is at first apparent may fall into this category. Then we may judge what is said without anxiety about its historical accuracy (although there may, of course, be inaccuracies in the transmission). If we can extend this principle to the reported words of Jesus, we can allow the teachings to stand or fall on their own merits. But by what standard do we judge them?

There is a standard. It is difficult to define; but it has something to do with Conscience, that inward-knowing religious sense which runs through the Bible from the beginning to the end, if rather patchily at times, and is with us still. Conscience is the inner sense of innocence which gives us the knowledge of God and Evil. It is always there, but not always developed.

*[(s)]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger11122015]

(RACIAL POLITICS (1))[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:66-67][19870329:1210q](RACIAL POLITICS (1))[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

I think that a distrust of the Separation is probably also behind my dislike of racial politics in Britain, particularly England, at present (Others might argue that I mislike anything which threatens my position as an establishment-oriented WASP*, except that I'm not**). A degree of Separation is necessary to the survival of each of us, and of each group. When black minorities argued against racial barriers, they were on strong ground: while each of us carries around a degree of race, class, culture and sex awareness, we must be careful how we let them affect our actions. (To argue that none of them should affect our actions at all argues for the collapse of society, and is fantastic.)

When black minority leaders try to create racial groups and barriers in the name of minority rights, I distrust and detest them. My detestation may be stronger than it should be, but it springs I think from distrust of their motives, speeches and actions. The qualities (of the sixteen available) which seem to apply to many of the black political leaders are complication, distraction and fragmentation.

But how does it seem from within their communities? Evidence suggests that they rule by patronage, bullying and fear, along with the hard left movements who generally support them: attraction, ordination and outer action.

In support of this, it seems likely that a community whose unity was supported primarily by Love and Harmony would live peacefully within itself and with its neighbours and superior levels of authority; and, in a democracy, should be able to achieve its just expectations through peaceful action: as, by and large, have all previous waves of immigrants over the previous few centuries, [and] women***, the poor***, and Asian immigrants, so far.

This is, of course, greatly oversimplified; but there is cause for concern that black politicians are exploiting both their own and the wider community by the use of the methods of extreme Separation, which, basically, means evil and misery.

*[White Anglo-Saxon Protestant]

**{Oh No?}

***{Large claims}

[See also [Redbook3:76][19870330:0950a](RACIAL POLITICS (2))[30^th March 1987].]

[PostedBlogger10122015]

{Fairy Tales: The Frog or the Beast}[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:65-66][19870329:1210p]{Fairy Tales: The Frog or the Beast}[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

Fairy tales where the faith of the Princess (or other girl) transforms the frog (or other beast) into a handsome prince perhaps speak, from the other point of view*, of the point at which the male Knight discovers and is transformed by his female Queen. These stories can be taken literally [sic], to show the commencement of a married relationship; or psychologically (some interpretations would have the frog, or Beast, as the adolescent girl's own “male” type sexuality, to be faced and transformed); or spiritually, to demonstrate the relative roles of the male and the female aspects in every individual (male or female) at this stage of development. There is no reason why each interpretation (and possibly others) may not be valid, just because another is: the process may govern many different types of personal and institutional development.

*[See last previous entry.]

[PostedBlogger08for09122015]

{The Tarot Pack (and Quest Romances) [continued]}[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:64-65][19870329:1210o]{The Tarot Pack (and Quest Romances) [continued]}[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

Knights* are looking inwards, but passing through and subject to the outer world. As in many Quest romances, the Knights generally wear the favours of the Queens, whom they seek to please – despite the fact that the Queens generally have Kings; or in other, more proper-seeming versions, the Knight must rescue a Princess, whose father is a King. The Knight moves, encountering and defeating static (or contrary?) knights, Lions, Giants, and Castles, Dragons and even sometimes Witches, and Tyrants: should he fail to overcome these various forms of Knavery, he will fail in his quest, which is to satisfy or release the (static) Queen and follow her and her guidance on the next stage**. (Perhaps the problem for Lancelot was that having satisfied or released Queen Guinevere he imposed his will upon her, one way or another, instead of following her? – leading to the downfall of his King and the triumph of the Knave.)

It is worth mentioning that it is possible to get stuck at any point.

*[See last previous entry.]

**(i.e. the Inner Circle)

[cf. [Redbook3:35-36][19870326:1543p]{Quest Romances}[26^th March 1987]]

[PostedBlogger08122015]

{The Tarot Pack (and Quest Romances)}[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:64][19870329:1210n]{The Tarot Pack (and Quest Romances)}[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

The point is, perhaps, that there are ways and ways of passing round the Outer Circle (ref circles or spirals, above: the fundamental division, in Tarot (78-card pack) terms, being (in this view) between the Knight and the Knave. Let us say that the Kings pass (or are)* within the line of the Inner Circle; the Queens pass in the same direction without (i.e. just outside) or along the line of the Inner Circle (in the Greater Trumps, the female influence increases on the Outer Circle from XI-Fortitude, at Fragmentation, to** XIII-Death, at Simplification; and XIV-Temperance, at Love, marks the point where female and male set out in balance on the inner circle: so possibly the Knight accompanies the Queen, but not for Tarot symbolic purposes: she leads.

The Knights pass in the contrary direction*** within the line of the Outer Circle; the Knaves pass (or are?)**** along or just outside the line of the Outer Circle, in the same Outer Circle direction#* as the Knights.

Possibly cards 10 – 1 of each Suit (the symbol of each Suit representing the Grail symbol of a Cardinal Quarter) represent lower and lower grades beyond (and probably subject to) the Knaves; although the One being furthest from the Knave, can jump direct to be the Ace, at or just outside the Centre (as in many games the Ace can be worth less than 2 or more than [a] King – I understand!). So the last may be first, and the Postboy higher than the Managing Director. But the Fool#** may be anywhere, the Beginning and the End. (But I digress.) Knaves are not looking inwards – generally speaking – but outwards. #***

*(probably, are?) <[87]0401> {but see p158[[Redbook3:158][19870409:1345n](TAROT NUMBERING, AGES AND OCCUPATIONS)[9th April 1987]]}.

*[?]

***[Despite previous sentence.]

****(probably, ARE.) <870401>

#*(if moving.) <870401>

#**(or Joker.) <[87]0401>

#***{and contra-rotation NB.}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger07122015]

[Footnotes subsequently corrected 31012016; RepostedBlogger31012016]

{Pilgrim's Progress}[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:63-64][19870329:1210m]{Pilgrim's Progress}[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

In Pilgrim's Progress, of course, this* occurs near the beginning. Christ is at the beginning and end of both Circles; but could this mean that Pilgrim's Progress is in fact** Inner Circle? ( – with, perhaps, elements of symmetrical Outer Circle progress, as might be expected). This is relevant to me because I feel that I have been through a period of intense inner darkness and dryness like the Valley of the Shadow of Death already; I accept that I have to pass through or near this region again in the opposite direction, as Diversity rather than Distraction (the Star instead of the Wheel of Fortune), but I had hoped to do so in a way that would, perhaps, help it and those within it rather than simply suffering from and reacting to it, as (I think) Christian does in the Valley.

One should not perhaps expect too much precision from Bunyan*** (why not?). St. John of the Cross****, however, invites us to expect precision, dealing as he does generally in direct description rather than symbolic 'fiction'. On the whole, the descriptions referred to seem to fit Outer Circle rather than Inner Circle; but in any case, I will go where I'm told.

*[i.e. the easing of the burden of guilt by the forgiveness of sins; see last previous entry.]

**[cf. [Redbook3:38-39][19870326:1543s]{Pilgrim's Progress: as Outer Circle? [continued]}[26^th March 1987]]

***{Contra-rotation helps here.}

****[cf. [Redbook3:37-38][19870326:1543r]{Corruption and Aridity: The Dark Night of the Soul}[26^th March 1987];

& ref. [Redbook3:53-55][19870329:1210](THE CIRCLES)[29^th March 1987]]

[PostedBlogger06122015]

{Easing the Burden}[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:62-63][19870329:1210l]{Easing the Burden}[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

One point about the past, externally, is that until very recently it has often returned to haunt me with guilt feelings and simple (but intense) embarrassment about various things I have said and done in the past. Quite unexpectedly, and within the last week(s) or so, these shadows from the past have ceased to have power over me – for now, at least; as have the bitternesses I have felt at the past behaviour of other people. I have often tried to abolish these feelings; now they have just gone, without my trying.

One example, of course, is the matter of the flat*. Another is over the [Preserved] Railway extension: I tried to help, but felt I had to resign after a while, and have felt ever since that I had betrayed both the Railway [Preservation Society] and my parent's neighbours**. Last night in bed I found myself composing a letter (in my mind) explaining what had happened (in response to imaginary uninformed criticism), and realised at the end of it that I had done nothing to be ashamed*** or embarrassed about at all.

In other words, I am coming to terms with the past: seeing it as it really is, not exaggerating my own fault; and where I was at fault, accepting the fact that I have been wrong (and no doubt will be again), and that only a human standard is expected of a human being. Until I began writing this, it had not occurred to me that this may be what is described in the easing of the burden of guilt by the forgiveness of sins: a doctrine to which I have not in the past paid all that much attention.

*[[Redbook3:15-16][19860907:0612j]{A Dream: [(6)] of Madness}[7^th September 1986]; 

[Redbook3:19-20][19860907:0612n]{Dreams and Prophecies [continued(3)]}[7^th September 1986]; 

[Redbook3:44-46][19870327:2157d]{Separation}[27^th March 1987]];

**[whose land it affected]

***cf. [Redbook3:51-52] 19870328:2207 {A Dream: Of Loss}[28^th March 1987]?

[PostedBlogger05122015]

{External matters}[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:61-62][19870329:1210k]{External matters}[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

I have not mentioned much about the other, external characteristics of those times; nor do I want to particularly, because there is not much point. But it may be considered relevant that the circumstances in which I lived were confused and unhappy; and I was torn with doubts as to whether I should try to follow the life that called me – trying to put across what I was learning – or the sensible, materially self-supporting and secure life.

It is only very recently that I have become relatively certain that it was right to 'go down' into employment and business rather than forcing myself to speak on soap-boxes – which I dreaded – and live on social security or odd jobs. This is because, if I perceive things correctly,

(a) I should have had to go down anyway in order to make any progress (or was there a chance to go the other way, from the Cyrenians*? I doubt it); and

(b) I didn't know very much then (even less now?).

This conclusion is interesting (if tentative) because at the time I did doubt whether I was doing the right thing, but did not for practical reasons (which seemed like the wrong reasons) see what else I could do.

*[Charity supporting homeless people, for which the writer spent six months as a voluntary residential warden in a (nominally) short-stay hostel for single homeless people, c. April to September 1976.]

[PostedBlogger04122015]

(DEVELOPMENT [continued(8)])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:60-61][19870329:1210j](DEVELOPMENT [continued(8)])[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

The Sufi is a different matter: although surrounded by acolytes and superficialities, he was a powerful and intelligent man. He used some techniques of projection which are known to un-religious people: that does not stop them from being a legitimate part of a course of inward development. On the whole, he struck me as being a straightforward man. Sometimes, just once or twice, he surprised me with comments that seemed to owe more to political than to spiritual awareness.

The primary factor in my decision to stop, was that when it came to the point I could not adopt Islam (as he required – contrary to my reading and understanding of Sufism) if it meant denial of Christianity: which, after some agonising, I decided (rightly or wrongly) that it did. This was difficult as I have believed for a long time that the three Religions 'of the Book' can, ultimately, become One. As the acolytes' written introduction said, only a form of words was required: but if we are not truthful in the Spirit, we are truthful in nothing; and in all the World there is nothing higher than Truth.

[This is also referred to earlier.]

[PostedBlogger03122015]

(DEVELOPMENT [continued(7)])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:60][19870329:1210i](DEVELOPMENT [continued(7)])[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

It is possible that organisations like the School of Economic Science have a role to play in interesting and educating people at an early stage. But such organisations are inherently highly corruptible. From what I have heard of the later stages of [anyone's] S.E.S. involvement, it [is possible that it] has not altogether escaped these dangers;* and even if it has, I suspect that anyone who remained involved in those later stages would remain also at a relatively early stage in their inward development (if any).

*[No suggestion is intended in this entry that the S.E.S itself was or is corrupt in any way.]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger02122015]

(DEVELOPMENT [continued(6)])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:59-60][19870329:1210j](DEVELOPMENT [continued(6)])[29^th March 1987

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

It is perhaps unsurprising that I came to think I was pretty significant: it is extraordinarily difficult for the normal person within the normal World to distinguish the significance of his experience from the significance (or rather, insignificance) of himself, especially when everyone he speaks to about it at first greets it with blank incomprehension. I started attending talks by a Sufi, and by the School of Economic Science in Kensington. The trouble was that I was more than half convinced that I should be teaching them: that I had done it all; although gradually a sneaking sense that perhaps I was only at the beginning, grew, and eventually prevailed, and even before this a (quite proper) lack of confidence prevented me from holding forth in public. It is understandable: early experiences are so intense that it is hard for the tyro to imagine that there is more. But there is. It is hard for him to accept that he must give all this up. But he must, I believe, if he is to continue to develop.

[continues]

[PostedBlogger01122015]