The Love of God and Agape

Background studies: The scale of needs (human development) Erik Erikson and scale of justice Lawrence Kohlberg. The works of Ken Wilber on the development of consciousness. Only when the needs are fulfilled then everything is really satisfying. Abraham Maslow, Religion, Values and Peak Experience shows that mature people arrive at peak experience, a natural occurrence of the experience of Oneness. If we work together and in harmony we can have synergy. Let there be justice and let there be light and harmony! Social implications of meditation, transformation of society through understanding. Basic knowledge leads to right action.

Due to the influence of Maharishi a lot of study was done on meditation and to be fair is was shown that his claims were substantially correct, that if a limited practice of meditation is undertaken there will usually be an enhancement both of quality of life and improvement in one's consciousness. Because of this science of meditation Maharishi had approached the school systems in the United States to try to install his system in high schools. The courts in the States rejected his approach not because it wasn't beneficial but because it was religion in essence. However given that the effects of meditation were reduction of anxiety, stress and pain, with mixed reports about attention span and actualization improvements, and some growth acceleration, as well as an increase in the equanimity, field independence, and detachment. that it seemed like there could be a general improvement in the whole population through the practice of meditation. Not only could there be greater self-actualization but also due to meditation there were an increasing number of reports of the experience of bliss, deautomation, ineffable "peak" experiences, extra-sensory perceptions, and the like that were leading to an advent of a new way of understanding ourselves, apart from the positivism that had become the measure of things, or religious forces that required loyalty and obedience, of sorts, to various churches and synagogues. Lawrence Kohlberg had proposed, and it is generally accepted, that as a person grows and develops he/she perceives rules and regulations and or course laws in a progressive scale from birth to maturity. In comparative religion, I felt, there is a huge importance to understanding faith in the light of Kohlberg's scale, as well as the other development scales as understood by psychologists, that faiths are aimed basically at various points of these scales and that is what delimits them. Where Jesus was basically at the top of the Kohlberg scales on justice, such teachings were not given to any but his closest companions on the way. The rest were exhorted to stick with lower levels as had already been established. When it comes to mixing religion and politics, I am against such things, and yet there did seem to be a need to improve ourselves in order to escape the consequences of an increasingly sensual, aggressive, competitive, and even unethical modern world. Hence I would hope to extend a practice and philosophy of oneness into the personal and political life and not to elect any particular religionist to office (as a member student of some religion). The business of politics would seem to be by definition unspiritual! But why, should it be so. What I wanted in dialectic was a spiritual dialectic to counter dialectic materialism. Not dialogue but more like elenchus of Socrates, that show-stopping argument which effect, it was said, was like that of an electric eel, where the result was the inquirer would be rather more "opened" than convinced, more transformed than decided, and more loving new ideals than hating to change.

Although humanity is one, individuals live at different levels. The highest level is the state of undivided oneness, the living realization of the Supreme essence of all existence. The next are progressive encomplication of this essence into the manifest or more concreted life and finally becomes complete inertia or dead matter. There are seven levels according to many traditions but there may be six to ten according to recent thought. When we speak of seven heavens, we are speaking as if the seven levels are in astral form, but are the same seven levels which we live in our minds on earth. The seven heavens and hells are the ordinary life seen from the point of view of the seventh level or the state of oneness or Pure Consciousness, the supreme state of existence. By focusing on these levels one can see one's own life as structured in this way, and from this one can begin to perceive the relation of the seventh to one's present state, and then draw oneself into the seventh as one's own self. One draws oneself as a continuum from the first levels which is earth, primal and death like, through all the layers of consciousness and socialization, into the final end product the living Self realized who has gone through every layer from the bottom to the top. There is no blindness or refusal possible everything must be touched and discovered within oneself before the light finally dawns and one begins to live one's own eternity, beyond all fear. In addition to the above Kohlberg scales for views about law, order authority one also may it is possible to class religious thought according to specific areas of focus, thus Shankarachaya rarely expands below level six, or intellect and mind. While the spread in Christianity is more at 3 (social) 4 love 5 communications and culture, 6 intelligence and pure perceptions. Jesus does not discuss being-in-itself for instance. So one could say that Islam is a 5, 3, 2 scheme with law being focused on obedience (level 4 of Kohlberg -  superiors are important - God is superior.

Late summer 1984: I had been going to University of Toronto to the theology schools to read Christianity ever since I had met Charles Bull at Major street. He had inspired me to get in touch with the anglican schools.

Sophia (my Love) Dec 1/84

There is in India ways the ideal of Ishtadevta or choosing one's personal deity. I contemplated on the empress notion of John Cassian and had decided that a female deity would be to my liking. but then the stock of deities that were available East or West seemed wrong for me.

So I started a diary process to keep track of my thoughts on it. The Song of Solomon being one of my key texts.

The goddess of wisdom. The manifestation, the power and the ecstasy of love. She is the ruler of gyaan spaces and is the companion of the Pure Space or the unmanifest form. Pure consciousness and pure potency is activated by Sophia and brings to fruition through her. she is the companion, the wife, the consort of the soul.

PISTIS SOPHIA According to Bhakti yoga sutra there are five kinds of love on the way of Self-realization. In Bhakti Yog or the way of Love and devotion it is explained that one may know the One, or the God, through total love for that Being. The ways of love differ for different people so it is further said there are at least five kinds of this devotion. These as one who is at peace with himself and uninvolved. One who loves like a friend. One who loves as a mother her child. One who loves as a servant. And finally one who loves like a lover. As a man and a woman, or a woman a man. This last is called Madhurya.

With Madhurya there is no clinging, no selfishness. The motive for love is the greater good, the whole. It is holistic in intention. Not for sex, for social benefit, not for anything except the divine love. It seems improbable that there should be a relationship based on these kinds of ideals. Shyam the deified prince of India is said to be loved by Radha in just this way. Shyam is the Absolute and the first wave of manifestation Radha reflect his being as love. But between ordinary men and women this Madhurya is love between oneself and the God. Or it can be a couple who have gone the way of Love on the path of Self-realization. Rama for example is a married man. His wife Sita lives with him after his reaching Self-realization. Her love for him was then purified by his flame of Knowledge and when she began to know his Absolute nature she fell in love again. She loved his divine love. That became Madhurya for her. It was already manifesting that way. S. What had been her husband she now saw as the Beloved, the incarnation of the God head. She began to know herself as that and could assume the role of Radha in relation to her Krishna. This was an expression of Madhurya.

There is an equivalent in the Western traditions called Coniuntionis Mysterium or Hieros Gamos, the divine marriage. But more often this is seen as the marriage of the soul (female) with the God (male). It is not incarnate, there is no suggestion of an actual relationship.

The term agape is rarely used in ancient manuscripts, but was used by the early Christians to refer to the self-sacrificing love of God for humanity, which they were committed to reciprocating and practicing towards God and among one another. When 1 John 4:8 says "God is love," the Greek New Testament uses the word agapao to describe God's love. In general it connotes brotherly love with wisdom and devotion.

"Kenosis is not only a Christological issue in Orthodox theology, it has moreover to do with Pneumatology, namely to do with the Holy Spirit. Kenosis, relative to the human nature, denotes the continual epiklesis (the part of the eucharistic prayer where the priest invokes the Holy Spirit) and self-denial of one's own human will and desire. With regards to Christ, there is a kenosis of the Son of God, a condescension and self sacrifice for the redemption and salvation of all humanity. Humanity can also participate in God's saving work through theosis; becoming holy by grace" Wikipedia.

Now agape does not sound very much like Madhurya, and perhaps it isn't. The difference concludes in God being conceived as father rather than godhead and viewing the human soul as divinized by unity (theosis).
 

Sophia - Dec 3/84: The muse, the vehicle of art, pure beauty. We are one, one and the same, forever dancing the manifestation of God in glorious divine play. She flashes through me unmindful of my privacy, disrupting my self possession and my self-will and building them up again. Through, the streams of love she takes me to sacred places, secret parlors. We are one in oneness: beyond the two merged into oneness, alone in love. She is after all a form that cannot be grasped.

Dec 7/84 She is the subtle incarnation of the Godhead in the form of a woman, not always a young woman of great beauty and vitality, but she radiates wisdom and strength. She is beneficent to her devotees, and her praise is on our lips constantly. Her wish is our command. We bow to her primal radiant energy of the universe in your beneficent form as Savitri and your ghastly form of Kali, as Uma and Parvati and the lustrous Yashoda, she is the exultant Radha sweet and beguiling. She is the girl child and the ancient crone, and the middle aged woman. She is hag and princess, the virgin and the mother. You are the precious heart of the universe ever sacrificing and giving for the advancement and security of your children and your worshippers. And your children we have among us as great teachers and wonder workers, great healers, the God men of old and the masters of the modern age.

My secret meditation: "Please do not forget me my Sophia, my wisdom and clarified mind. Do not let me go astray in my ascent to your soul, to merge into the Oneness with you in total bliss and harmony. Do not let me fall prey to the assails of the worldly too worldly world. But let me live to foster your creation and love its creatures despite their many failings and let my own be forgotten too. Because to be near Sophia is to be near the One, in the loving presence of the One. To know you is to love you, to love you be One with you and One with the One within - the all One"

Sophia - Dec 7/84: "I wish you were not just an idea but an embodied being, a real woman and not just a space in consciousness. It is too lonely being celibate. I need more loving attention. I need to have company to bring me into life. But I need just the right sort of person, someone who could live with a person like me. I'm really wonderful in many ways, but I seem to be living like an ascetic, vegetarian, celibate, meditating and contemplating my life away. I enjoy my old life of sorts and exercise, films and art, and just plain being with my friends: but more and more I'm dissolving into meditation and the bliss. I'm a wanna-be monk. The woman would have to be quite versatile in order to keep up with me."

Dec 7/84: "Guide me. Help me. You are the God. I am coming to you. I am aiming at you. At oneness with you. Can't you feel my love, don't you see my pain. Where are you? I call for you but you don't answer. I am in the deep sorrow of separation."

"Did i create you? Are you not already there in your essence. I feel your presence sometimes. What matter if I created the form. You are the divine essence of the Form. My angel with a face in heaven. You are the heavenly being, the pre-existent and all pervading. You are the God that was with God. You are the One and the many; the God of all. I adore you with the highest attributes and I merge into you in the depth of contemplation. You clothe yourself in the form so I can know and feel you, and then you walk among us. You talk to me and console me, touching me with your warmth. Your presence is ecstasy. So I call on you again and again. Don't leave me here in my suffering and trials. Please show yourself to me, and touch me with your sweet caress. Smile on me Sophia. Don't forget your friend and devotee, your greatest lover. Show me the way."

Effectively these meditations on Sophia valorized women in my mind. In my day to day affairs I would try to view women as a holism and representation of their highest. I would see them not objectively exactly but more often I would see it from meditation—this effectively matching my own best consciousness with my observation of woman, and in this I would definitely refrain and restrain any possible sexual thoughts. I had a sort of checklist running where I would wonder who their families were, their friends, their hopes and dreams, and in general what were they doing in this world of ours. Occasionally I went overboard and would seem to be doing an interview, when they were simply there for a friendly visit.

The marijuanos canadianos. As a free spirit I found many people who were occasionally smoking hash or grass. Just as there are mescalito Indians who treat the mescaline psychedelic cactus as a sacrament, and just as the Rastafari include the marijuana plant as part of their sacred lore so do some part of the Canadian people treat the grass and hash as an essential part of the lifestyle. They have elaborate rituals around smoking and the perceptions which are part of the stone are the inner being and sacramental visions of their life. Most of them are quite aware that it is a pale copy of the real enlightenment and vision quest. But they feel that grass is better than beer at least, if you know what I mean.

Weed is like Shakti. It's a herb that loves you. It is better than wine, in that wine leads to unconsciousness and egotism. The weed produces joy out of Ojas: it is not surprising that research has shown that testosterone count is lessened, and that sperm counts go down for persistent smokers. Weed is a light caress, sensual, like sex; but it is inward and sensitive as well, and it is hilarity. And definitely it has a mystical edge. They use it in India; in the Shiva Baba camps. In central India it is sold in the market place like guar, or bricks of raw cane sugar. It is a medicine. It is generally regarded as the poor man's refuge. Nevertheless it is called Gaanjaa - a name associated with the Shakti of Shiva. (Shiva is Lord of meditation, the Yogi par excellence whose abode is the high mountain regions of the Himalayan ranges). Every puff is dedicated to the Lord by the baba. In Patanjali "medicine" is mentioned as one of five chief means of transformation, along with Samadhi (the best means), birth, mantra and tapas, but understood again as second hand resort. For some Canadians these things are as religion equivalent to Mescaline and amerIndian natural mysticism. There were many marijuana smokers in Shyam Space and as time went on I found it tiring and a trap. It was the reason for many to travel to India and to enjoin themselves to the spiritual plane over there. Nevertheless it is really not good for a meditator and continuing with it really obscures ones one perception. I won't say it is addictive but it does create a longing and that longing is what is should be transmuted for the love of the spirit and that is where it is really false.

1984. Balaram and I were at a small Mac's somewhere, in Toronto. It was in the days of the fall of 1984 when I went to live at Garnock which was the official or primary ashram of Swami Shyam. He always liked the truck stop look when he went for coffee. I preferred the interesting look. He was talking once again about his friend who was teaching him about the island of Mu. This theory is a lot like the story of Atlantis. When I asked him what Shyam thought about it he said that he said that Shyam had said that it is probably true. Shyam's own proclivities were to recount story of the epics of the India as if there were history rather than myth. He believed that the Mahabharat war was fought in another age with weapons that were far more powerful than nuclear weapons. I found that Balaram being an Estonian had the idea that we should Nuke the commies. I couldn't stand it and had taken exception to his comments saying that there was no winnable nuclear war. and further more the land of Mu sounds like nonsense to me. It was a good time for peace and that it behooves a spiritual man to aim at peace. He reminded me of the Mahabharat and quoted one of the lines from the Geeta which I despise and which goes something like this, "Arjuna I have already killed all these people, if you are not willing to fight everyone will say you have not done your duty as a warrior, and you will be dishonored. If otherwise if you die in battle you will be honored and will go the heaven." these things were true of the Bhagavad Geeta. It is not my greatest love in India literature though. Shyam who at first translated the Vivek Chudamani the Shankaracharya's prime text, and also the Ashtavakra Geeta, both to my liking had come to increasing rely on Patanjali Yog Darshan and the Bhagavad Geeta. Now he had launched into a very angry speech about the ashram at Garnock where we both lived, and who it is who is the house leader and how I shouldn't do this and that and how his brother was likewise a pain in the butt and always trying to order him around. Now Balaram is 6'2" and about 180 pounds and I am only 5'10" and 145 pounds. I felt that he was so roused in his anger about his family that anything that suggested to him that he should or ought was going to get hurt. So I said only that I couldn't handle it any more and it wasn't worth it to me. Balaram and I had gone a long way back and we had spent much time together since 1976 when we both lived at Lincoln. He was an architect and had a fine artistic temperament. He didn't have a very good understanding of religions however and I remember him surprising me with the thought that he didn't really believe man had a soul. That was then. I had spend quite a few hours to explain to him that if he didn't have a soul he could not expect to become enlightened and that enlightenment really didn't mean very much if a man didn't have a soul. So much for catering I thought. He Shyam caters to Balaram and Balaram turns around a tries to roast me with it.

Shyam standing at the top of the hill (75 feet up at most) looking down at me and Yashoda taking and enjoying. we were just standing for a moment of repartee and afternoon chat at the kuteers when i noticed him standing uphill near Malti's house. The sun was behind him and the shadow was strong so he looked very black. I felt that there was a deathliness to his look. It was heavy enough that I couldn't look anymore and tried to walk around the kooteer to get away from the stare. He said nothing. very intimidating.

1984 Kamala had come to Garnock after being in India and with Manoj in BC. Manoj was supposed to be writing a book. mahabir was very happy to have her there and yet she was a painful experience, late 1984 they asked me to leave. There was a scam between her and mahabir. He dutifully says we don't have sex, (even though they lie in the same bed as often as not.) same with turiya before that. I realize that Mahabir while being a brahmachary was still sleeping in the bed with the ladies. That seemed to come from Marriette the chief Montreal ashram

The paraclete (the return of the Messiah according to John). Paracletos - peculiar to St. John in new testament - Jesus was paraclete or heavenly intercessor
 

John XIV 15-17, 26; XV 26-27; XVI 7-11, 12-14

-not necessarily Holy Spirit as said by Christian tradition -independent salvific figure (a) The coming of the paraclete and the paraclete's relation to the father: i. The paraclete will come (but only if Jesus departs) vv? 26, xvi 7,8,13 ii. The paraclete comes forth from the father xv 26 iii. the father will give the paraclete at jesus' request. Iv. The Father will send the paraclete in Jesus' name. v. Jesus, when he goes away, will send the Paraclete from the Father.

Jesus doesn't return himself!
 

(b) The identification of the Paraclete. I. He is called 'another paraclete' xiv 16 ii. He is the spirit of the truth xiv 17, xv 26, xvi 13. Iii. He is the Holy spirit xiv 26. (c) The role the paraclete plays in relation to the disciples. i. The disciples will recognize him xiv 17 ii. He will be within the disciples and remain with them xiv 17 iii. He will teach the disciple everything xiv 26 iv. He will guide the disciples among the way of truth xvi 13 v. He will take what belongs to Jesus and declare it to the disciples. xvi 14. vi. He will glorify Jesus xvi 14 vii. he will bear witness on Jesus' behalf, and the disciples must too bear witness. xv 26-27 viii. He will remind the disciples of all that Jesus' told them. xiv 26 ix. He will speak only what he hears and nothing on his own. xvi 13

(d) The role the Paraclete plays in relation to the world. I. The world cannot accept the paraclete. xiv 17 ii. The world neither sees nor recognize the Paraclete xiv 17 iii. He will bear witness to Jesus against the background of the world's hatred and perfection of the disciples. xv 26 (cf xv 18- 25) iv. He will prove the world wrong about sin, justice and judgment. xvi 8-11 he comes to the disciples and dwells within them, guiding them and teaching them about Jesus, but he is hostile to the world and puts the world on trial. Particular angel or spirit who zealously protected God's interest on earth, rooting out evil.
 

When the idea of self realization is juxtaposed with this paraclete concept there is an big clash. Certainly any claim made about authenticity and divinity is substantially grounded by the unity of spirits in Self-realization. I mused that if I were to be Enlightened as Shyam had said that I might be I could well stand as a paraclete to the Christians were I to assume the role. That is not an exclusive claim— anyone with sufficient realization might do this or be this. But the characteristics of being adverse to the world were not the same. I would not anticipate being a world hater. Nor would I anticipate putting the world on trial. There was a strong clashing of world views within this framework and it made me very alert to the possibilities of an outpouring of anger against anybody who played this role and hurt the sensibilities of believers.

The study "Christianity: the religion without Self-realization has turned out to be incredibly intricate. The study of mysticism is the new frontier for theologians and non-theologians alike. The theist versus the atheist, the monists, the monodists, non-dualists, dualists, . . . the scientists, pragmatitists etc all have an interest in showing the mystical experience demonstrates the validity of their particular position. The great voices in the study of mysticism Inge, Butler, Von Hugel, Underhill, Blackfriars, Katz, Smart, Otto, Stace and so on, have pitched to and fro on the matter of mystics and mystical vision and the conclusions drawn there from. Often they have argued to protect the dogmatic stance of the church (the interpretation and laws of the majesterium).

Those who think that true revelation is one-time only through Jesus deny that other men can really experience God in his essence. To them dogma is the reflection on the experience of God as incarnated in Jesus. However the one who knows God by direct experience of God in himself is the best qualified to give expression to the true nature of Jesus as well.

Dec 5/84 I just showed V. and S.at the ashram my overview of the book. Got blank stares from them. I continue to work in isolation. The theological community will not be happy either to see that I have "resolved" the differences between Christianity (theism) and Vedant (monism). The mystics and the Yogis do no see this as a problem—they are indifferent to the question of ultimate validity of revelation. for them it is a personal experience that gives rise to certainty concerning the spirit. For me it means that a new Christian can emerge who can see his own roots and not be cut off from his own spiritual life.

Civilizations decline with declining spirituality. When they decline they destroy the life of the spirit because one who knows the truth is a threat to the big lie of the decadent civilization (Man for All Season's). The spirit looks to peace while decadence looks to war, the spirit looks to fairness and equality while decadence looks power for oneself by any means and at any cost. The spirit transcend the senses into its own truthful domain, while the declining civilization feeds all its senses without cessation. The spiritual life abandoned is abandonment by the spirit, men grow weaker still. So perhaps this dialectic will draw us closer to the source and away from the brink of despair. The suicidal course of human pride and human power, and the all too animal unspiritual values. Perhaps through the dialectic there can be fundamental and spiritual agreement, and from this philosophical understanding, and finally in the political life peace itself. So even if I am isolated now—perhaps this one small sacrifice will inspire other small sacrifices for peace and harmony, and that all accumulate and become the necessary force for peace: then all will have been very worthwhile.

Dec /84 Today I polished up my preliminary work, the research on the book . . . feel freer because I know that will be able to say what I have to say. The last pieces just fit together. I dragged out the bones of the martyrs and the saints, and they put them selves back together to fight under my banner for the unity of religions. A new Christ and a new church and born in these ideas. Jesus the enlightened the Realized one. I see him suspended in time, in his astral body standing among the company of saints, head and shoulders above the crusty encratics and cenobites of the Mediterranean basin. So I have found the Christian secret text covered with dust and unused in the moldy attics of the theological schools. Christ renewed in the doctrines of the East, the summa of all theologies, the theology of immediate perception and realization. The transcendent Christ for today's divine man—the "metaphysical"— the spiritual science. Self realization Christology. something entirely new.

You see I found evidence that anyone who found a basic unity between god and man was condemned by the church. St. John of the Cross, Julian of Norwich, Eckhart and so on were all censored. Therefore when the theology studied mysticism he found only what the church allowed him to see. Underhill had never read a book by any mystic that had not already been altered by the church. The evidence of the experience of the mystics of the west was never there in its original form, the inquisition had censored any testimony of unity with God in essence and anybody who persisted at expounding on it was either threatened, tortured or killed.

I left off my heap of books, relieved and satisfied, and plunged into the dark night of downtown Toronto. Looking for somebody, an anybody, an inspiration. At Chicago's you sent me a message. The Talking Heads ' Third World' was on the sound system and I remember MG the dancer—the God Lady of TMR. For a moment sipping my soda and reminiscing on the dance piece she did to that tune, and I dwell on synchronicity. How often do they play this tune? Didn't you play it just for me. I remember the number of times I heard Pachelbel's Cannon #4 in D minor, when I had first come to TO. It is special charged pieces of music that I have been hearing by ever smaller margins of coincidence.

Dec 6/84 Today I feel I've resolve the problem of the millennium - the outline of the dialectic between the monotheists and the non-dualists (monists) is finished. As I look up from my desk I know that I have been completely within this question for a whole year.

What does Self Realization have to do with Christianity? Is it possible to solve the eternal dual between Western mind and Eastern. All monotheism is based on the numinous experience of God, while mysticism and Eastern religions general are based on the "mystical" unity of God in man, the experience of oneness. That is, to point to a basic underlying unity and the feeling of unity in our deepest being, accompanied by elevation and joy and with a certainty of having experienced a higher order or deeper dimensions. This experience gives the truth in silence and one is changed in one's nature, the man who remains in this state is now 'God-man/woman'. For the theist religions truths depend on the experience of encountering God in theophany, God in opposition to our creatureliness and who dialogues with us. Thus God is encountered in mysterium, tremendum, fascinans—mystery, awe, and fascination or ecstasy. Those seeming separate experiences are one and the same thing. They are mutually dependent. Through ontological union (Self or God - Realization) one encounters the deeper being of God. The desert fathers talk about being taught by God in prayer or in meditation ( same thing). Through prayer God is encountered—whether inside or out does not matter. The effect is the same.

The mystic union however is the ultimate effect. The "numinous experience" is indeed a valid intervention of God in history. But so is the "Self-Realization event". When a man becomes Self Realized God has placed him/her/itself entirely in the man, while remaining the whole. The man now says 'the father and I are One'. For Christians this event happens after death. This is a misunderstanding of the worst order. All of humanity is robbed by this view of life. The Beatific Vision is for the living, not he dead. This is the resurrection and the life of Christ. This is available to all and has many forms. It is not only available but it is the final turn in the life of every being. All life comes from God and returns to know God in their own nature. In man this means that God realization is the imperative for the true disciple whether of Christ or of Krishna or of whoever is holy . The beatific vision is the merging in one's essence with the Godhead. This is the Christ of faith, the pure consciousness and bliss of the unity and knowledge of the Godhead. This is deification or theosis. The Beatific Vision is the mystic vision and that is ontological union or Self -realization. All knowledge proceeding from the "numinous" experience must ultimately bring us to this state—to the beatific vision or the Kingdom of Heaven.

Dec 8/84. To merge with the source of All as personified being. I have reversed the polarity. The Lord becomes the Empress ( Cassian- Anthony- John Climacus are those who mention the Lord as female - also see the Wisdom of O.T. as goddess and universal etc.). Through presenting this to oneself again and again one attains to communion with the deity. This communion implies the indwelling of God. Not only communion, communication and word or information, but indwelling spirit and homoi ousias or likeness of Being. the indwelling is not contact but confluence. The whole being becomes enlivened by divine energy. Human nature ascends (transforms) as divine nature descends ( see Aurobindo especially).

Easter 84 I went with CB a young theology student to a Easter mass at the Anglican church which I was really beginning to like. During the ceremony the lights were darkened and then from the back came a single candle. A large candle about three feet long, and four inches in diameter was brought in the back of the church. The organist started with a deep and strong feeling and the minister proceeded down the isle slowly. As he passed each rank of pews the congregation on each side lit small tapers which they had in their hands, from the main candle. As they proceeded the church began to glow with the candle-light. The organ music stopped as they arrived at the alter and then there was a great swell in the music and a hymn was sung praising God and the resurrection of the Christ. It was magnificent. After a few prayers we were all asked to greet each other and the service stopped as we turned to each neighbor shaking hands and kissing cheeks. It was a warm ceremony. I realized that Christianity was really a community spirit. A table fellowship as it is sometimes called.

The eucharist: I always had to struggle with the churches view of the transubstantiation and equivalent meaning of the eucharist. It seemed to me that Jesus did not really like to eat meat, especially not lamb. He refers to his followers as his flocks. He asks Peter to feed his sheep. He refers to his best as shepherds. He holds a lamb in his arms and teaches them. And at one point he had mentioned that they would even eat him. "What kind of teaching is this?" They asked him. "That is a hard lesson." Some people who were with him left him. The bread is the teachings and the scripture and represents the mannah (bread) that was sent from heaven after escape from Egypt. The wine is the spirit, the energy and the fire, that holy power to transform and energize, and to enable ascent.

So at Easter when he gives the bread and says this is my body, and the wine and says it is his blood, in my view I see fields of wheat as his body, sunlight standing in the good black rich earths, and fresh pressed fruit juice as his blood. The wine of course is best likened because it is natural cleanser and good for the heart and has "spirit" of a physical kind. When he passes the bread to his disciples he is saying first that he is the spirit of the land, close to nature and that he is of course referring to the fact that the death of his body, and that fact that his blood would be shed, is to be remembered. One does not intend the symbol to be in fact his body to be transmuted, but the reflection on the many deaths in society by war, by civil conflict and by neglect and the fact that he would undergo death to save lives. They say that the church is the body of the Christ and that the church is the people of God. Every time one eats bread he should remember the processes that go into planting, weeding, harvesting, threshing and grinding, and finally cooking. That is a social process. The difference between wine and wheat is that wheat is cut down and replanted in season, and that the seed of it has to be stored and held back from consumption. Wine is a standing vine and stands between harvests, regenerating from itself in the spring. Again there is harvesting, pressing and storing until it has matured. Wine removes bacteria from water. Has nutritional properties and of course has psychotropic properties. Throughout the gospels there are metaphors and parables based on farms and households. Leaven bread and unleavened bread, wine, figs, salt, corn. The only exception is meat. Fishing activities are a metaphor. But slaughter of animals is not. No one is seen to eat meat. The only context for that is passover and of course his death and resurrection. So in taking the eucharist bread one should not think of the flesh of Jesus symbolically consumed one should think of the sustaining power of the earth, the social structures around it and his sacrifice of his flesh to sustain peace and love. Otherwise, I reckon. He would have carved up a sacrificial lamb and given the disciples pieces of it.

At the beginning of the fifth century, St. Augustine and John Cassian were at odds concerning the doctrine of grace. To Cassian grace was the antidote to pride, the one of seven or eight evils of Evagrius. Other wise he understood self effort to be the rule. Augustine's doctrine of grace was fashioned on St. Paul's idea of the redeemer. We receive grace gratuitously, without merit on our part. It is a given and not a priori for knowledge of God. Cassian's idea was that we have to earn our keep through efforts and without it there can be not grace. Cassian was a very high Christian in that time and held a prominent place in Marseilles (Province). He was very close to Pope leo II, who had Blessed Cassian inscribed in Latin on one of his special chalices. Cassian had a prominent role in the Catholic Church and was on equal footing with augustine. But Augustine's doctrine of grace was finally accepted. It is unfortunate because this doctrine is actual elitist, pessimistic, anthropologically negative. This is where corporate Christianity began to list sadly.

St. Paul who when asked by what authority he spoke, replied that he had been to the third heaven. He claimed that there is a hierarchy of being that is levels of human existence. It means that to really do the dialectic we have to be able to have some authority of that kind. What does he mean by going to or being-to the third heaven. Does anyone have any authority about that in this era. . If I want to have anything authoritative to say about he Christ would it not be necessary for me to go to the third heaven? In the Judeo-Christian view the seventh is reserved for the Messiah, even Moses was not there and according to a few neither was Christ. In other words it would be required to be that I am self realized myself. But this is not the claim. What I say is this: surely, my experience is of minor heavens and hells, many visions and many voices, but my word is really this: I have seen and stood in the presence of woman and men who are supposed to be holy and they were very good to me, and have been for a long time. Only a few of them were from European and north American cultures. What level I do not know. To know I would have to know what level I am at. what heaven? it unfortunate to think that I never met a Christian saint in all my travels. Surely St. Paul's authority is by now, obscure, while in his day it must have been a rational statement calling upon a common manner of speaking and experience: today all that has vanished.

That is a challenge to the Christians, indeed for any religion, let them bring foreword anyone at all, who will answer from this really holy state. If you say that Christ, was the only begotten Son of God, has one forgotten being begotten in divine Love, have lost it; lost the power. Christians should have that Enlightenment, the highest if only they knew the metaphysics of Oneness. I think my questions are authentic, "Who are you", "Where have you been", "what do you know". To the old-time orthodox the theologian isn't just a logician or scholar, indeed that is scribe or Pharisee, but a man or woman who has fully explored or assimilated the highest state of consciousness, and who speaks existentially about God. If a one is a Buddhist why can't one ever find a Buddhist who is truly living Nirvana. Or for that matter where is the Jeevan Mukti the self-realized one of India?

There will be the Christianity of the Paraclete: this is the consciousness of the paraclete or Self Realization or Divine manifestation in the name of Christ the Christ who is paraclete or advocate of highest thought -- living culture within the culture and contexts of Christianity and yet coming from without -- many of the saints approached this paracletism and yet fell just short beaten down by dogma. The paraclete is original and spiritual, holy and perfected, as ever man may be. He is living ontological union he justifies and glorifies Christ. That is not impossible.

Apr 26/84 "To many philosophers it seems that here is no way of proving the existence of a One, and that there is no adequate way of showing that any particular theory of the One is true" Religion and the One, Frederick Copplestone pg 26.

Proof here being constituted in discursive thought. The one is a priori indefinable. How can there be a proof. Yet we experience this unity in many cultures over all history. We have a vast collection of writings concerning this one. We have the testimony of many sincere people concerning its existence. We seem to be caught on the horns of the dilemma. On the one hand something is being proposed that seems to be true and yet we try to prove the truth of it seems to evanesce. The more we try to grasp it the more firmly it disappears. The resolution here is to recognize that this is meta-intellectual-knowledge of the One which presupposes a certain condition of the human perceiver. The condition is itself a transformation effected by the perception of the oneness. We can know about the One, those who know the One through experience have said that it cannot be exactly symbolized and a fortiori there is no logical proof of it. What cannot be defined is not an object of logic or science. But that does not mean that the experience of this one is not real knowledge. Nor does this prevent us from positing that experiencing this is the proof of it. That is the problem of philosophic and scientific evaluation of Oneness. An ordinary man or even extraordinary men do not have Self-Realization in their repertoire of experiences. It is so rare an experience that it verges in the domain of mythical things. Yet it is documented in many cultures and in fact is quickly becoming an almost universal "belief" in an otherwise agnostic modern era.

"Since we have in Christ God's final and definitive revelation and self-disclosure: these later Christian revelations must be theologically if not also psychologically, have an essentially different character." Visions and Prophecies , K. Rahner, Herder Freiberg, Palm Publishers, Montreal, 1963 .

God is certainly disclosed and Self-disclosed anew and in total truth for the Self-realized. The sense of ultimate and final etc., is true for every Self-realization. This statement reveals the extraordinary gall of the Christians theologians. They have presumed here to own all religious truth — all ultimate religious truth. To Rahner there is no possible paraclete. God cannot possibly send anything after Jesus. This statement is absolutely not true to Christ and not true religion and the unity of religions. It is precisely this opinion which makes the dialogue with other faiths a farce. Eckhart was nearly put the inquisition for attempting to state indirectly that it was not so. The whole presumption of this is Only Son of God, which is thought to be an existential and historic truth is actual an ontological claim with no substance. Not only is Christ not the Only Son of God, but we may not even have an accurate record of the statements he made, his revelation having been buried in the progressively narrow Christian mind for 2000 years after his death.

The revelation of Jesus is testimony among thousands of men and women in ages past and ages afterward about the existence of God and the joy thereof. Christ did not say "I am the only truth and the only light", and the statement no man comes to the father except through me refers to his Self-mastery. The statement that it is recorded that God said "this is my beloved son with whom am well pleased" can no way be construed to mean only son. Everywhere in the Bible men are referred to as Sons of God. Why then is Jesus to be construed as the final revelation of God. Every Self-realization is the true revelation of God.

This dogmatic position is an impediment to the progress of the mystic within Christianity as well. Many of the Christian mystics have been censured for making ontological claims concerning their unity with God. With this removal of Christ from the realm of creatures and nature all the Christians following him are cast into hell again; the Hell of duality and ignorance concerning their true natures. Or as Sartre said, "the other is Hell." Because they believe themselves to be creatures only, how can they ever remove themselves from the ignorance of mere creatureliness of animal nature? Man is literally God from the start and through one means or another may be transformed into such nature as one is said to have become God. If you believe in permanent separation between God and man there can be no unity of the essential kind. Every one who believes this will come to God in this way. They won't even make the attempt to see further.

Christians do not look closely at the state of Jesus Christ nor ask questions of his consciousness, that is they haven't until lately, and because of this they do not think about themselves properly either. As they think so they become, and as one learns so one realizes. Everything in Christianity becomes the a shadow of the past. The holy spirit dies, God removes to the edge of the universe, and materialism and politics again take over the minds of the masses of Christian believers. When Nietzsche says "God is dead", he really means that the Church and the lay public are dead to God. And why not. If Christ is God's final revelation why should the layman listen to anybody at all, even the priests are bound to be ignorant in one degree or another.

Only the man who knows God has authority to speak of God. A man may talk about Christ but no one but the Self Realized can adequately convey the truth that Christ wished to speak. Only the Son's of God or the enlightened may speaking full truth about spiritual matters, disciples, devotees, followers and so on can only give partial renditions of this same truth.

It is the presence of Jesus that made his words so truthful. Any truth second hand seems to lose its flavor, but especially the words of the real Holy one. If you hear these words from the man himself you will see god talking though the man about god and this experience gives rise to the certainty that the words are truthful. After these same truths are written down they still have the truth value as words, but they require greater and greater understanding to perceive them. Only a being like Christ could nowadays read the Bible and really know what he meant. So the idea that Christ had the final and complete revelation is deadly to the very idea that Christ was trying to say. The kingdom of Heaven or Beatitude of everyone is at hand. It means that if everyone tries to unite himself with God in his own lifetime then Godly existence will reign on earth.

The Christians made this claim and gave themselves power and authority over men's souls. So the general public now feels if anyone makes a claim to have united with God or speak in God's name they worry that such person will try to claim the minds of everybody and lord it over their souls, and so have come to hate such thoughts. Everyone who disagreed with the majesterium and their exclusive claims was sent to Hell or put to death or both. They began to kill the prophets again, an irony that is written in the blood of Jesus himself. Once again the sanhedrin papacy take the kingdom of Heaven by violence, and show themselves to be perfect hypocrites.

Ontological unity - Self-realization, this concept is very fundamental an does not always find expression in religion. It means realization of the transcendent unity. Realization means to make real. In other words it is existential. This will be the battle ground for philosophy and theology for the next few decades. Is it meaningful to us? if it is true then certainly everything is touched by it, it is like a singularity. Everything around it is well defined but within the centers there is no definition. Epistemological note: Franklin Merrell-Wolfe (American studied philosophy, physics, is mystic and explorer -- gold miner)  remarks that the epistemologist wants deal with himself phenomenologically. But the result will depend upon his state of evolutionary growth (Wilbur, Schuon). He will perceive differing phenomenological points of view according to his state  (Tart, Deikman). In any case Ont. Union contains the only certain knowledge (other than logical and scientific truths which do not deal with the Subject proper - see Vitgenstein etc). because of identity of knower and known. The extreme of Self realization has been avoided in the belief that pain is the final truth and death its instrument. Aristotle's definition of God is the Vedanti's definition of Self.

The drift into the supernatural is difficult to avoid. Ontological union is automatically mystical and supernatural. We are drawn to the idea of Self realization psychologically but are repelled scientifically and historically. How can miracles be a fact of life, how can supernormal powers be existential. these things attend heavily in the discussion of Unity consciousness. The terrain of the soul becomes for the modern a region of fear and repulsion, the supernatural implies hell for him because he has been threatened by the fear of god in guilt. Encounters with the depths become too threatening for us and why argue against so that we not again be sucked into the overpowering unforgiving jurisdiction of institutional religion. Because we are threatened we will not even begin to thing about it lest it be true so cutting off our own heads. yet these things abound in lesser obviousness in our day today lives and will not removes themselves despite our willful blindness. We are thrust into a no man's land of relative truth which keeps us in constant tension against our own knowing. We begin to fear the very truths which we are in souls. It is man's great misfortune.

Dearest Naach,

I am glad that you made a niche. The blessings of God if you remain tuned in they certainly work & you are quite a miracle of God on earth. So keep helping yourself & others in a miraculous way. With your miracle I am tuned in as your

Shyam Self

I'll comment on this note later. Essentially in the middle of my work he has insulted me though I didn't know it until I learned more Hindi language.

The philosophy: rational, concerns itself with proofs, is the domain of the intellect. Theology: based primarily on belief (faith), tries to appear rational nevertheless. metaphysics: operates on direct evidence of higher realities and assumes the experiential knowledge of the same realities.

Metaphysics represents a path. There are two basic descriptions of miraculous events in the Bible. Those events that are portrayed with god as the primary agent and those that are portrayed with man as the primary agent and within that God is referred as the sine qua non. Miracles of the first type would be God parting the waters of the Red Sea, bringing mannah from heaven, or testing his prophet through a burning bush, and so on. The second kind would be the various healings and so on, walking on water etc. where it is said Elisha or Jesus or others did such and such. These same then in turn ascribe the action to God. These two are vastly different views and have very different consequences. The direct intervention of God is history is something unique to the creedal position of monotheist truth claims and at the same time they are the least credible. In the old testament the emphasis is on the events of the first kind. In the NT the emphasis is on events of the second kind. The supernatural events becomes more anthropocentric. In the old testament God comes to man from without. In the new testament Man comes to God from within. The old decalogue governs the society and is objective, the new decalogue governs the man and is subjective. God is no longer wrathful God of justice (and history), but now is the living God of peace (and eternity). The change in this view is a paradigm shift within the continuum of history of the Jews. The focal point of this shift should have been in the death and resurrection of Christ. In Christ we have God (Son of God) "dying" and coming back to life. But God cannot die. If the man brought himself back to life, he then didn't die for our sins but because of them. The redemption lies in our transformation, because if we are not transformed no sins are remitted. The question of the miraculous supernatural and otherworldly becomes the entire focal point of the faith.

So when the scientist encounters this faith he must reject nearly the whole thing. He is thrown into agony between his reason and his faith. To be scientific he rejects the miraculous and to be religious he must reject science. Because he cannot remain within the confines of objective and rational thought as a scientist he feels threatened by his own subconscious and by intuitions which cut through the limitations of the senses. Because he doesn't pursue the religious existential (he avoids his true nature concentrating only on the sensible and rational), he derives no benefit from the beatifying grace which is inherent in the pursuit of spiritual things. The wisdom which should be common sense for him remains occult and his practical knowledge remains impersonal and does not serve him in the pursuit of the real and personal.

I loved Jesus Christ. He was very witty and he was revolutionary. I saw him in the context of the Indian yogic culture, and in that light he was magnificent. Underlying his teachings there is an idea of 'yoking' but he did not say it clearly and directly. I don't think he could find the proper atmosphere for his teachings. That is why he spoke in parables. My idea is to write 'deinstitutionalized christology'. That is to say that Christ himself did not seem to be interested in creating large institutions. He had abandoned any place of his own and was content to be a wanderer. He seems to have expected big changes and did not want to put down any roots. I often felt like him. His life as a man in society who is with a noble ideal and will not betray his sense of truth under any circumstance attracted me as it had many others.

40 Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."

(Morton Smith: Lost Fragment:

And Jesus got angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. just then a loud voice was heard from inside the tomb. Then Jesus went up and rolled the stone away from the entrance to the tomb. He went right in where the young man was, stuck out his hand and grabbed him by the hand and raised him up.)

43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.

Jesus said to them. "Take off the grave clothes and let him go."

(Morton Smith: Lost fragment:

The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg him to be with him. Then they went inside the house (incidentally he was rich.)

Six days later Jesus gave him an order; and when the evening had come, the young man went to him dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent that night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God's domain. From there Jesus (got up) and went to the other side of the Jordan.)

In the old testament as in the new, there are many events that we just do not witness today—that is the ordinary fruit of a spiritual path and those extraordinary events which are said to be done by God. Some good examples come from Exodus when the power of God is depicted as having parted the waters to let the Jews pass over the sea, sending mannah from heaven, or the writing of the laws on tablets of stone on Mount Sinai. The accounts given are perhaps reinterpretation and embellishment of some historic events. There are categorical differences between types of miracles. Like the healings of Jesus are inherently more credible than the parting of the Red Sea.

We like to claim Jesus as a historic figure against this background of the miraculous. However some of the gospels are plainly mythic in character. Christ's virgin birth is lifted from Zoroastrian sources. I had difficulty myself assigning the proper interpretation to the gospels, because my world view had been transformed through meditation experience. Now that I have myself begun to experience the depths of meditation I realize that the possibilities are greatly expanded. "Miracles" could happen. But does that now mean that Christ was born of the Holy spirit and that Mary was in fact a virgin. NO! The word virgin as it turns out is a misconstrual of the word chaste and so on. Even a modern theologian would not necessarily stand behind the immaculate conception no matter how catholic he might be. How then does God 'talk' to us. Isn't that just imagination or interpretation of the experience of 'God.' Is God really personal and does He speak to us in fact. Does he choose certain people to speak through. Can an angel in fact appear to someone with a message? Even though I have experienced for myself as I thought the Baptism by fire (Holy Spirit) through India I still wouldn't vouch for any of these things. What is the meaning of revelation. How can there be contradictions within supposedly revealed texts. All of the Koran, the Torah, the New Testament, and the Vedas are suppose to be revealed. Yet they are plainly contradictory.

It seemed that the malaise of modern man is the relativity of his values. There does not seem to be any settling the gap between modern science and conventional Judeo-Christian religious understandings. What was the truth then. To me it was the experience of Self-realization. There was a definite point, a definite state or experience unique in its nature, by which humanity could determine that values were not all relative. It was a fixed pole by which to measure values. The truth was the experience of Self realization. It is an exact experience albeit seemingly known only to a few but nevertheless of constant or fixed description (though not exactly definable). Self realization could become a science if sufficient numbers of individuals were available to make the experiment. The guesstimate today is that one person in one million might reach Self-realization. Let us assign some ten million people and let them will prove (God willing) that all Self-realizations are the same state and that this state is transcendent, unique and is the Truth. Yes the Truth. That truth will determine what are the prime values of humanity. So many people suffer from these kinds of problems it would be worth it to try.

The faiths of the Children of Abraham are not going to agree. There is just no room for a consensus among them. They are all supposed to be based on revelation and yet they will not agree. There is no room for flexibility. from within the faith there is the possibility that at least one's own faith is a true revelation, but as a secular humanist outsider like I am, they appear to be very similar and yet contradictory. My prejudice is scientific. That is why Yoga which is so clearly psychological and methodical and Vedanta which is so clearly philosophical in direction, as systems are so much more satisfying to my modern mind. They seem also to be better 'fits' better solutions to a modern world. The Vedanta framework can easily accommodate the monotheist traditions theologically but certainly not visa versa. As a matter of fact is appears that monotheistic fundamentalism is threatening the life of the planet.

There had been an upset in one of the centers that I lived in and I left to go to Montreal late 1984: Swami Shyam wrote after I had written to him about my feelings on Christianity. I had pointed out that there seemed to be little expression of Self-realization in that religion.

He said, "Write a book. The very title "Christianity is the Religion Without Self Realization" will sell like hot cakes. At least people will like to know what you have said in it and then they will get your message and will realize. So far my knowledge about Christianity is concerned, I think it is simply because of Christianity that you have realized the Self because it made you free from studies. Those points mentioned in your letter are very pertinent and your sense of perfect Realization is going to prove that your Guru was perfect. .. I just love you.

... Christ was right. But the followers think he died so all his righteousness and the truthfully spoken words have no meaning for these folks. therefore, when you write a book, tell them Christ never died - he is still alive and he talks, he walks, he comes to your garden alone or with friends, he will always be on earth, only the Christians have to open the eyes but with getting them operated first, so far as their blindness is concerned. Anyway, I am in harmony with your words so I have been speaking like that, but you know it's only one God everywhere, whether the man is blind or with vision. So this book you must write. Never think that it is going to be published but write."

Now SCS plainly means himself when he says that Christ is still walking in his garden with friends. Shyam had sent a letter that had upset me somewhat and that was one saying in certain terms that he was the Christ Consciousness and that I should continue working with Christianity and should 'operate on the eyes of the Christians"

Having prayed and consorted with and espoused the thought, the concept, the image of a shakti, a companion, and a mate in Toronto, I was suddenly pushed, by fate as it were, to move to (Montreal) Royalville. I had finished with the preliminary work on the mystic/Christian dialectic in Toronto and though busy developing a teaching (a following) in the Garnock Ashram, I left the Ashram suddenly and passing a week a Jer's apartment took the train down to Montreal.

Late 1984: Mahabir and the Kamala incident. Mahabir has brought Kamala from Montreal. His new wife we wonder. She comes by and stays. she was living with Monoj, says he is writing a book. She begins to manipulate Mahabir. Soon we are all uncomfortable as she demands that the Hatha Yoga room have a table of flowers set in the middle. Anybody who wants to do yoga has to move the table. "Mahabir had joked that he is going to buy a sofa and put it in there," and use the front room which was much smaller for satsangs. I felt a bit fed up as I was teaching in there before that. I think it was after that I started smoking again. Sitting in the back of Garnock my pal Mahabir - and totally out of character-- wants to smoke a cigarette. NO I said. Not mine. He does anyway. Later Balaram, Mahabir and Kamala form a clique and want me to leave. Udhaar and Dadaji and everybody else know that is a painful burden there—and the reason is that I just don't get along. Kamala tries to hold my hands most sincerely and suggests that it was unfortunately necessary, or something, and that she hopes I understand. That was more than I could bear. I took my hand back and went downstairs and packed up. Later her bookwriting Manoj turns out to be going to Bolivia and goes to jail somewhere. I don't see him until 1987 at Montclair.

Frederick Streng, Understanding Religious Life.

Passover. This Jewish springtime celebration, with its unleavened bread and sanctified wine, is not simply an education for the children in the family or a reinforcement of social solidarity. This ritual is an expression of thanksgiving to God and a re-presentation of God's redeeming activity. Briefly, the first Passover (described in Chapter 12 of the biblical book of Exodus) was announced by God to Moses and Aaron, leaders of the community of Israel enslaved in Egypt. Having given instruction for the selection, slaughter, and preparation of a lamb or kid, God said the following words:

        This is the way in which you must eat it [the roast lamb, unleavened bread and
        bitter herbs]: you shall have your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet and
        your staff in your hand, and you must eat in urgent haste. It is the Lord's Passover.
        On that night I shall pass through the land of Egypt and kill every firstborn of man
         and beast. Thus will I execute judgment, I the Lord, against all the gods of Egypt.
        And as for you, the blood [from the lambs] will be a sign on the houses in which
        you are: when I see the blood I will pass over you: the mortal blow shall not touch
        you, when I strike the land of Egypt.2

In writing about the major Jewish festival of Passover, Jacob Neusner, professor of Jewish studies at Brown University, points to the ultimate significance of the Exodus from Egypt:

To be a Jew means to be a slave who has been liberated by God. To be Israel means to give eternal thanks for God's deliverance. And that deliverance is not at a single moment in historical time. It comes in every generation and is always celebrated. . . . Jews think of themselves as having gone forth from Egypt, and Scripture so instructs them. God did not redeem the dead generation of the Exodus alone, but the living too—especially the living.3

Thus, the Passover, for a practicing Jew, is the symbolic re-presentation and celebration of Jewish self-identity, a liberation from bondage to any emotional, social, historical, or political situation. To be free to live life fully, responsibly, and with love of others is possible in everyday life when life is experienced as the extension of God's action."

For Jesus the struggle is two-fold. His critics are those who think that the temple is the single focus of the faith. They are scribes pharisees, seducees, and the sanhedrin. He says "this body is the temple." He points out that Jerusalem has been killing prophets. Secondly the kings of Israel have begun to yield to Roman ideologies. King Herod kills St. John the Baptist for a song (dance by the evil Salome). The Romans are slowly strangling even their religious freedom. Jesus is the lamb of God. But that lamb is seen as sacrificed. The enslavement is clearly a bondage of ignorance built into institutions, special interest groups, corporations. For these aggregates spring up to manage crisis or serve a purpose, and begin to age and sooner or later long after their useful purpose has expired, they continue only to serve themselves. Acceptance of foreign ways and foreign gods is beginning to rot Israel. His sacrifice is plainly a metaphor. It is a huge step up from the conventional thinking of the time. In a sense Jesus goes up against both church and state. Incredibly the criminal that was released instead of Jesus was called Barnabbas, where this is from abba (father), and bar (out of, or son of). The mob (at the instigation of the elders and the sanhedrin)  released a common criminal in the place of the Son of God.

So who killed Jesus? Not the Jews -- as that would be refusing to see it as an intra-jewish affair. No! it was the same forces that are killing him today, politicians, theologians, religious authorities, militants who want worldly power, nationalist jingoists, reactionary insurrectionists, satanists using mobs as stooges and more. The list of cumulative forces that culminate in the death of the Christ is --though uncertain and ill-defined -- quite penetrating, extensive and powerful. When you say the Jews killed Jesus as parts of the New Testament seems to say, you destroy the meaning and beauty of Christ's sacrifice to guide his people, to lead them away from slavery, in the second exodus away from bondage to the promised land of the inner world - heavenly peace - the freedom of the soul from the corruptions of secular power. For Jesus had predicted apocalypse within a generation and it was so -- the Romans smashed into Israel and put a bust of Caesar in the holy of holies. To believe that he is coming again is not to believe him in the first place. Because Jesus never left really. Believing he left and is not present in the spirit is again not to believe him at all. For Jesus the Christ did not die. And furthermore any one who quotes an old testament prophet with respect to fulfillment of current affairs doesn't understand them either. Whatever was predicted happened in their own time else they were not prophets.

May Pure love return to you in love always. Amen.

AND I LEAVE ASHRAM

On the train I felt happy to be on the road again. This was my 50th move in 40 years. At the same time I was totally exhausted. My quest for enlightenment in the world or to enlighten the world had suddenly been interrupted. I felt a great need for peace and yet my lust for life was unremitting. I was now fully dissatisfied with myself even though having entered into a completely new domain of human existence. With my displacements into "heavenly things" I had found only a hell.