Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

First Church of Munzer…on the barricades…what about doctrine?

December 6th, 2014 · No Comments

http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2014/12/03/jesuskashmir-videos

We have touched on the idea a new Reformation of the Reformation with a revolutionary church of Munzerian communists. But the issues of doctrine in Xtianity are difficult to manage. There is a large set of videos at YouTube: the issue of Jesus and Kashmir is one of the staples of New Age rethink as to Xtianity. In an age of skepticism these doctrines enter hard times. The New Age claim on Jesus as a kind of yogi or buddhist is an engaging theme and it is appropriate to serve a drink of water to those baffled by the Xtian complexity.
I was a sophmore atheist and the case of the cruxifiction seemed an obvious issue: case closed. But over time the issue is dwarfed by a larger question: as the props of the religion collapse the larger religion shows its real mystery. Is this a problem for our conceived new church? I have no idea and don’t really care: I have proposed an exit vehicle for Xtians to ride on the question of communist postcapitalism in the context of the maze of, say, marxist historical materialism. The latter now seems as mythological as religion.
In the case of the Munzerian church I would say I don’t care. We can do with or without such a doctrine, mindful that those who doubt the cruxifiction still fail to solve the question of this larger religion. That’s my point: noone has improved their understanding of Christianity by doubting the resurrection. Strangely they are as confused as they were before. That’s because the overall emergence of Xtianity is still mysterious. As to the cruxifiction we have no real knowledge in detail of what happened. The figure Gurdjieff was asked this, and he simply said, ‘I wasn’t there’. And Gurdjieff was recorded as able to project an image of his face to a disciple across space. Hardly once in a thousand years does an occultist come upon the real possibilities. And Gurdjieff was a small fry, was a reminder that only rarely does man observe as fact the rare and virtually unknown forms of occult power substituting myth. The sudden feeling of presence of the dead seems to enter the confusion. Gurdjieff often insisted on this: almost all of the religious facts known to man are dwarfed by what has been forgotten. But this other explanation also fails, perhaps. That’s the secret: it is a designed impossible situation: noone can figure it out.
The question of Jesus in India would be decisive factual way out. But here again we are unsure.
This buddhist Jesus is partly skulduggery from buddhist/Indian sources who rightly attempt to teach mediation to Xtian flatlanders. Be my guest, but. Was Jesus a buddhist? I can see problems with that. If he was he didn’t understand it and had some undivulged reason to substitute prayer for meditation.
There is an equally suggestive explanation: that Jesus touched the hidden stream of Egyptian gnosticism, which was old by millennia and passed somehow into the Judaic world. The somehow is right in front of us in the tale of Moses which is mythological, but the myth reveals the hint to the reality. Moses passed some stream ancient Egyptian proto-monotheism into the world of the Israelites.
Whatever the case, the case of Jesus is unique. A Munzerian church has better things to do than defend the miraculous. That’s because the larger miracle of the emergence of a new religion dispenses with faith: the overall framework is extraordinary and stands on its own.
The tale of the three wisemen makes it clear there were three sources of the Jesus mystery, and the relationship of John the Baptist, Paul, and Jesus in a triad is another enigmatic signature of the gnostic mummies risen from their tombs to spread holy water on a new religion. Go see the movie. The one with Boris Karloff is almost esoteric.
I used to listen to operas while studying. Sometimes it was a shock to discover the translations of the text behind the music. One was so used to the music behind the words that it didn’t matter what the divas were saying. The real irony of Xtianity is that the real miracle got lost in the emerging saga of the Sufi Jesus and his magical powers.

The gospels seem to be recording an series of occult manifestations they didn’t understand and ended up recounting with difficulty. I have often thought the whole confusion was a case of the disciples feeling the astral presence of a newly dead person. It happens all the time, but tends to devolve into imagination.

The problem with skepticism is that hidden spiritual powers did it that way against all reason, and the skepticism of many. We can’t understand how and why. But they were as skeptical as modern men, I think, but did it this way against the high probability of failure.
But there is a final riddle: readers of WHEE will know of the two levels in history: macro action and free action. In a different but analogous fashion, the world of the disciples saw a brief contact with a spiritual power in the form of a man, who may or may not have fully grasped the full situation. He clearly understood it as we see from the symbolism he used. But the whole point it seems is that the whole of the life of Jesus, so brief, and briefer as a phase of teacher, was soon over and the result rapidly passed into the realization of the people involved. These guides knew that ‘man makes himself’ and must as soon as possible be left to the creation of religion on his own. The whole religion split into two levels, the level of an emerging religion with a spectacular t-zero starting point and a teacher in material terms passing into a larger field of spiritual unknowns. Those unknowns have come to be called the Cosmic Christ. I would suspect what Bennett suspected: that Jesus was in the field of demiurgic powers who alone had the spiritual resources to create an immense and difficult course correction for a degenerating civilization. Whatever the case, the two levels are distinct: the higher level could no longer easily enter the religion to change something like its sudden foundational testimony to the resurrection. They had one shot, and the rest followed as they watched and used lesser interventions with individuals perhaps through prayer and contemplation, but the larger movement was the result one chance at bat for the whole shebang. So even demiurgic powers have trouble changing history: the accumulation of causal momentum makes changing the direction difficult, what to say of the starting point.
I think a future Munzerian church would simply pass all able-bodied persons regardless of their mythical attachments. The Reformation points to a future in a new era and the larger story of the Axial Age and the evolution of religion will soon counsel some new strain of skepticism and belief. The age of Feuerbach was a flop but the new dialectic of secularism/religion will be the one to pass judgment on these old questions. There is a danger the useless issue of the resurrection will put everyone into a muddle. Relax it was always that way. Darn’d if I know. The real issue for modern semi-marxist Munzerians is the new starting point called the Reformation. The older legacy will recede slightly into the past as the work prophesied by Munzer, by the Quakers in revolutionary England, and the abolitionist lays a foundation for, by the way, still another blend of teachings, a sort of marxist saga and an Xtian macrohistorical saga. The communism of economic finalists reblends with the communism of underground churches. Meanwhile I hope buddhists will keep trying to make their case. It is time for Xtians to not only deal with capitalism but to learn something about consciousness and the lore of meditation. One of three hidden streams is resurfacing, to the astonishment of Xtians who now learn what Jesus meant by sleep and the duty to ‘Watch, for ye know not’.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment