|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Oct 18, 2000 05:43 PM
Todd Lorentz wrote:
When we look at the Sacrifice in Ancient Religions, being it a self-sacrifice or a narration of a divine tragedy (f.e., the sacrifice of Osiris, Purusha, Chronos, and others), we are ALWAYS in presence of a cosmological event, a fundamental Day in the Sacred History (or Cosmo-History). It is known too that sacred rituals had the mission to make this sacrifice ACTUAL (making that Primordial Day or that Primordial Events present in the ordinary present).
Jesus did not *have* to die on the cross. That was a choice made by
the authorities of the time. Jesus did not simply come to demonstrate a
few initiations and then get crucified. He came as a teaching disciple,
like many before and after Him, in Service to the Plan and to Humanity.
That He was crucified and martyred for His teaching is not an unusual
occurance throughout history. For an example of this, look at what the
"authorities" attempted to do to H.P.B.
That is the case of the Mass since nearly two thousand years ago, and the case, in other traditions, of other ceremonies.
The Jews had a sacrificial rite, their national day, when they celebrated (as a fundamental day in their sacred history) the Day when Moises gave freedom to the Jews and they departed from Egypt.
I am not saying nothing new. This is known in the anthropology of religions and the studies about the estructure of the Religious Cosmovision.
In this line of thougts, we can understand why the entirety of Christianism, as an Ancient Religion, is built upon two facts: the Death of Christ and His Resurrection. In accordance to the words of the Bible, these were the first facts communicated by the Disciples when they received the Holy Spirit. And these were also the first facts communicated in Athens by St. Paul, when he talked about the "Insaness of the Cross".
Not only that. St. Paul says that by the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, we are not only saved of the "original sin", but we are made "sons of God".
What I trie to say is that the Death of Christ, for those who believe that there really was a death, couldn´t be interpreted, saying at the same time that we are making a correct interpretation of the Sacred Truth behind the Bible, as a "contingency" (a matter of bad luck, or a merely prophan fact of injustice).
I mean, a prophan scientist or a prophan philosopher will probably say that Jesus was merely a good person that suffered an injustice in an ancient trial.
But if we suppose that the Bible, as the Vedas, the Koran, the Tripitaka and so on, contain the same and old Sacred Truth (or esoterical truth), then we will have to say that the same truth is everywere, with different words, different methods of realization, different adaptations of doctrine, and different emphasis, but always the same. I think that is our point of view.
So, in this point of viwe, we can recognize little real differences, but the fundamental truths in every Tradition. Fundamentally, then, each one is doctrinally correct.
Under this supposition, that is yours and mine I think, wouldn´t we agree that if we say the Death of Christ was nothing but an injustice in a trial, merely "a choice made by the authorities of the time", then we will have to say honestly that the fundamentals of Christianity as a Supposed Sacred Tradition, are wrong? Isn´t it still clearer if we say, as HPB, that a Divine Christ was never in a person?
Because if those opinions were true, and if we are not only honest but also coherent people, what is then the rest of Truth in Christianism -and I am not talking about the exoterical actual christianism, but of its same Sacred Texts-? It will appear as a Mainly False Doctrine that has, there and there, merely some little pieces of truth.
It could be so, of course. But then we will have to say things clear.
The question is:
1. Are we making an interpretation of the authentical doctrine of the
Bible? -that supposes, in the beginning, a biblical point of view, of course!-,
2. Are we making other thing?
Biblically talking, where can we find that the Death of the Christ was merely "a choice made by the authorities of the time"? We find, in dozens of places, other thing. A Sacred fact, a Cosmological fact. A Mistery.
Just as in the case of the sacrifice of Osiris, Purusha, and so on.
Then, if the death of the Christ really means much more than a prophan political fact, there is still something amazing.
In the case of Osiris, Purusha, Orfeo, Krishna and so on, we recognize that we are in front of "Myths". I use this word not to mean stupid ideas of old non scientist men, of course. I use this word in its sacred meaning. Seeing Myths not in a prophane point of view, but in a deeper, esoterical, point of view.
I said that in those cases we are in front of myths, because in their respective Traditions, that was the function of those histories.
In the case of Christianism, however, at the same time that the history of Christ has the same function, it is said by the Bible, and His Disciples, that this is a real history. Real milacres, real Death, real Resurrection.
That is the particularity of christianism among the Holy Sacrifices in Ancient Traditions, as I see it.
So, if we certainly can recognize ancient mythical teachings in the Life of Christ, there is a question that remains unsolved ... Why did this history went beyond the Myth and ended in the Real Death of Christ? There must be, then, something more.
If we accept that we can´t be biblically correct if we say that a Divine Christ didn´t exist, or if we say that there was no death, or that there was merely a death, will we have to choice between Christianism and Oriental Teachings? Is that a neccesary choice?
I think no.
The same Orient Doctrines teaches that Avataras exist. Everything indicates then, under a biblical point of view integrated in a Universal Tradition, that Christ was an Avatara. A very High Avatara. And the death of such an Avatara in the Earth, going beyond the Myth, must have a essential and very great meaning. I understand, then, that Rudolf Steiner centred Antroposophy in the explanation of the Misteries of Christ. I don´t mean, of course, that he was in the right explanation.
So I think we have a third biblically supported option: not only the choice between Christianism or Oriental Doctrines.
But if this third option is to recognize that Christ was an Avatara (a very High Avatara), then many things must be questioned. Because it means that the Christ was not a 7th degree human iniciate. Also, that the Christ is not a Buddha.
That does not mean that the doctrine of Christ is higher than the Doctrine of Budism. May be the mission of such an Avatara was not specifically to found a new esoterical doctrine, and that doctrine -that existed- was an accidental (altough important) fact in his mission. May be his mission was after all specifically His Life, for purposes that we don´t know except in biblical fraseology.
In accordance to Buddhism, as far as I can understand, there are a lot of beings higher than the human being. But at the same time, when a human being, or any other being, "illuminates", reaches not the following grade on that scale (such a scale still belongs to the relative universe of Maya, of eternal Manvantara). Illumination means getting out of any scale, of any relative universe, reaching the Infinite there where one is now.
Imagine that letters represent beings ( letter c represents the human
being, and letter a represents a simple being). The traditional idea
c -------------------------- Infinite
Illumination is to reach the Infinite, being a human. Illumination is not to reach state d or f or any other, because who live in d, e or any other finite state, may well not be illuminated.
So if we recognize that the Christ was a High Avatara, even if we say that he was in Z, and Buddha in C, Buddha is in Infinite. From a christian point of view, we´d have to say that the Christ was in Infinite too.
May this be the beginnig solution to the "problem of Christ"?. Of course, the purpose of his Life, Death and Resurrection still remanins as a Mystery.
I would like to have an open discussion about these matters. A discussion where if one guives some "interpretation", he says what process and presuppositions of his lecture, and what texts, guive that conclussion. Not only: "HPB, or AAB, or whosoever, said that".