Your view is esoteric common sense, in my opinion, if one can even define such a thing. The commonly sited biblical quote of Christ being the truth, and only way to the Father is not about Jesus the individual, but about Christ, the state of being.
I would like to add that the fundamental mystery of Catholic/Orthodox liturgy is the Eucharist, a mystery that has parallels in many traditions. It is a mystical process of absorbing Christ-essence through the energizing of wine symbolizing blood, symbolizing life-force (vitality), and bread symbolizing body, symbolizing the spiritual body or consciousness.
Going to church was supposed to be a participation in Christ-being. The readings, songs and sermons established the presence of Jesus in the awareness of the faithful, and all this went into charging the wine and bread, which was then consumed.
It was meant to literally transform the faithful over time toward greater mystical aptitude, in my opinion. So your explanations are, to me, esoteric common sense. The idea that the bible is a literal explanation (which Protestant pastors still go to lengths to "explain"), is to me esoterically deficient thinking.
Christians have a literal treasure of a religion, if only they would be at least as mystical (at least they are in theory) as Buddhists and the followers of Sanatana Dharma are about theirs. As far as incarnations go, I think no two are identical, and Jeshua ben Joseph with his ritualized life and crucifixion, like the Indian avatars had his own special dispensation of Divine Revelation.
Hi A.C. -- Thanks for the comment. It seems like we've had a lot of the same experiences, though you may be the first person to refer to what I write as "common sense" 🙂. I'll check out your Substack page.
I can see how the label can come off as more than a bit unorthodox, even paradoxical. Maybe not so much if we emphasize the qualifier "esoteric" in the term.
So "esoteric common sense" isn't about the average, or even majority, way of thinking. It's about assessing esoteric thought based on the notion of "having ears to hear". But that's an essay all on its own.
I'm a great fan of Alan Watts, and love the quote. Nevertheless, your own your views regarding Christianity are, to me at least, aligned with how it was intended to be understood by anyone (at least a few millennia ago) who "got it".
I don't see why that kind of thinking cannot be seen as the common sense of the mystical impulse inherent- albeit unrealized- in most human beings. Then, perhaps, assumptions posed as Divine Decree that dilute, and quite often undermine, the mystical potency of the teachings, could take a back seat to actual comprehension. That's my view, at least.
Hi Edward -- Thanks for your comment. I think that what you are saying and what I am saying are not far apart. It seems that you are concerned with the notion of the unique existence of The Christ, of which people can participate. This is not that different from saying that multiple people can be "christ" (anointed). "Christ" is an adjective, not a proper noun. Other than this nuance, I don't see an operational difference between what you've written and what I've written . I wish you the best.
There IS only one Christ. The idea that there can be multiple Christs is a woeful misinterpretation of the gospel.
When I began reading the post, I thought: “How refreshing that someone is speaking about the Christ, the second part of the Godhead, rather than Jesus, the man who put his bodily being in service as the bearer of the Christ during the three years.”--For by and large we are losing sight of the Christ as God and reducing the Christ Jesus to the human individuality of Jesus. What we gain in human comfort we are losing in genuine intimacy with the divine.
But then I saw that the thrust of this post is to negate the reality of the Christ by making His appearance an event that can be replicated, potentially by any human being. This diminishes the appearance of the Christ on earth to something that is created by a human being rather than being the unique occurrence of the Godhead walking on the earth. It again places Jesus at the center of the discussion of the Being of the Christ.
It is true that each of us bears the Christ within her- or himself. It is true that each of us can make the choice to let our Christened nature lead us in life. It is true that we can choose to unite our thinking and willing, indeed, our entire being, with the Christ, and become one with Him. But that does not make us into Christs. There is one Christ, that person of the Godhead that descended to earth two thousand years ago. The heart of mysticism is the striving to attain the immanent experience of that unique divine Being.
Your view is esoteric common sense, in my opinion, if one can even define such a thing. The commonly sited biblical quote of Christ being the truth, and only way to the Father is not about Jesus the individual, but about Christ, the state of being.
I would like to add that the fundamental mystery of Catholic/Orthodox liturgy is the Eucharist, a mystery that has parallels in many traditions. It is a mystical process of absorbing Christ-essence through the energizing of wine symbolizing blood, symbolizing life-force (vitality), and bread symbolizing body, symbolizing the spiritual body or consciousness.
Going to church was supposed to be a participation in Christ-being. The readings, songs and sermons established the presence of Jesus in the awareness of the faithful, and all this went into charging the wine and bread, which was then consumed.
It was meant to literally transform the faithful over time toward greater mystical aptitude, in my opinion. So your explanations are, to me, esoteric common sense. The idea that the bible is a literal explanation (which Protestant pastors still go to lengths to "explain"), is to me esoterically deficient thinking.
Christians have a literal treasure of a religion, if only they would be at least as mystical (at least they are in theory) as Buddhists and the followers of Sanatana Dharma are about theirs. As far as incarnations go, I think no two are identical, and Jeshua ben Joseph with his ritualized life and crucifixion, like the Indian avatars had his own special dispensation of Divine Revelation.
Hi A.C. -- Thanks for the comment. It seems like we've had a lot of the same experiences, though you may be the first person to refer to what I write as "common sense" 🙂. I'll check out your Substack page.
I can see how the label can come off as more than a bit unorthodox, even paradoxical. Maybe not so much if we emphasize the qualifier "esoteric" in the term.
So "esoteric common sense" isn't about the average, or even majority, way of thinking. It's about assessing esoteric thought based on the notion of "having ears to hear". But that's an essay all on its own.
I'm a great fan of Alan Watts, and love the quote. Nevertheless, your own your views regarding Christianity are, to me at least, aligned with how it was intended to be understood by anyone (at least a few millennia ago) who "got it".
I don't see why that kind of thinking cannot be seen as the common sense of the mystical impulse inherent- albeit unrealized- in most human beings. Then, perhaps, assumptions posed as Divine Decree that dilute, and quite often undermine, the mystical potency of the teachings, could take a back seat to actual comprehension. That's my view, at least.
Hi Edward -- Thanks for your comment. I think that what you are saying and what I am saying are not far apart. It seems that you are concerned with the notion of the unique existence of The Christ, of which people can participate. This is not that different from saying that multiple people can be "christ" (anointed). "Christ" is an adjective, not a proper noun. Other than this nuance, I don't see an operational difference between what you've written and what I've written . I wish you the best.
There IS only one Christ. The idea that there can be multiple Christs is a woeful misinterpretation of the gospel.
When I began reading the post, I thought: “How refreshing that someone is speaking about the Christ, the second part of the Godhead, rather than Jesus, the man who put his bodily being in service as the bearer of the Christ during the three years.”--For by and large we are losing sight of the Christ as God and reducing the Christ Jesus to the human individuality of Jesus. What we gain in human comfort we are losing in genuine intimacy with the divine.
But then I saw that the thrust of this post is to negate the reality of the Christ by making His appearance an event that can be replicated, potentially by any human being. This diminishes the appearance of the Christ on earth to something that is created by a human being rather than being the unique occurrence of the Godhead walking on the earth. It again places Jesus at the center of the discussion of the Being of the Christ.
It is true that each of us bears the Christ within her- or himself. It is true that each of us can make the choice to let our Christened nature lead us in life. It is true that we can choose to unite our thinking and willing, indeed, our entire being, with the Christ, and become one with Him. But that does not make us into Christs. There is one Christ, that person of the Godhead that descended to earth two thousand years ago. The heart of mysticism is the striving to attain the immanent experience of that unique divine Being.