So our passages of concern all feature a reference to light. So my opening is light as metaphor. When reading the Tao Te Ching I realized that the metaphor of light/darkness may not mean the same in differing cultures and in differing spiritualities. It was a long time ago and I'm not sure of the passage. But on the face it looked very much like the opening of John's gospel. But it said something very different. For the message was the Tao (the Way -- the do in Bushido and Kendo) transcends light and darkness. But also, darkness was not bad. The metaphor was not light overcoming darkness the way the dawn dispels the night. Darkness was fertile and rich like black soil.
The Thomas passages:
Logoi 11: This starts very much like the canonical Jesus saying about heaven and earth passing away. But it takes us someplace else I have no notion about where. Intellectually I think it may relate to certain Gnostic myths -- that our souls divide upon entering the earth -- one half becomes male and the other female. But I'm uncertain about this or what the implications may be for me or anyone else if this is true.
(11) Jesus said: This heaven shall pass away, and that which above it shall pass away; and they that are dead are not alive and they that live shall not die. In the days when you were eating that which is dead, you were making it alive. When you come in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you have become two, what will you do?
Logoi 24:I feel more on familiar territory here. It sounds like the canonical Jesus and his "you are the light of the world" and also the Quaker approach to the inward Christ. If you have an inward Light but it does not give light to the world it is not really an inward light. Mysticism without consequences for how we live is a false mysticism.
(24) His disciples said: Teach us concerning the place where thou art, for it is necessary for us to seek after it. He said to them: He that hath ears, let him hear. There is a light within a man of light, and it gives light to the whole world. If it does not give light, there is darkness.
Logoi 61: This passage gives me trouble -- again it echoes certain sayings of Jesus but seems to be saying something different. I seems to me to relate more to what James said than Jesus -- if you pray with a wavering mind (two minds) do not expect to receive anything from the Lord. There is a very black/white either/or thing going on here which I don't like -- but that's in the bible too. For me, and I trust for many others here, spirituality is more about grey journeying a path towards light rather than -- you're either pure light or plunged into darkness with nothing in between.
(61) Jesus said: Two shall rest upon a bed; one shall die, the other live. Salome said: Who art thou; O man? And whose son? Thou hast mounted my bed, and eaten from my table. Jesus said to her I am he who is from that which is equal; to me was given of the things of my Father. Salome said I am thy disciple. Jesus said to her Therefore I say, when it is equal it will be filled with light, but when it is divided it will be filled with darkness
Logoi 77: A clear unequivocal witness to the Cosmic Christ. This is Orthodox christology. It is also the christology of -- for example, Teilhard de Chardin. This is then (finally) familiar territory for me. The key question, the same one we brought to John, is this. When Jesus says things like this -- is it because he is the One sent? The incarnation of the One True God? Or is it because he has so deeply connected to God's spirit in meditation, prayer and obedience that he has become transparent and the spirit speaks through him? I tend towards a high christology -- I embrace the traditional doctrine of Incarnation. Others here see Jesus as a mystic and take the other approach. Maybe both are true.
(77) Jesus said: I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Cleave a (piece of) wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there.
Logoi 83:This is another that escapes me but it it also draws me. It is something maybe I will work with. I take it to mean, that God is accessible only through images (symbols). Light itself is an image/symbol. The symbols in some sense hide the light which they carry to us. There is also a promise that God (the "Father") will reveal himself to us -- and then the images will be hidden in the light (rather than the other way round).
(83) Jesus said: The images are revealed to the man, and the light which is in them is hidden in the image of the light of the Father. He shall be revealed, and his image is hidden by his light.
This is a longish posting. And I am to an extent frustrated with it. I may have a reputation for approaching matters of spirit intellectually but I hope I journey thought the intellect towards the Spirit. Here I'm stuck trying to parse out the grammar. To tease out the implications for me for faith or spirituality or holy obedience will require much more searching than this space allows.
2 comments:
David, I see what you mean about Thomas not being "your" scripture. For me, it's still my scripture as It's about Jesus, but the sayings are so obscure and without context, that if I didn't already know Jesus from the other gospels, they would have little meaning for me.
about your question below - why was the manuscript in the movie found in Brazil ...
it was actually found where the G of T was found and then taken to the Vatican for translation. When the gnosticness of it began to be revealed, the translators were ordered to put it away. But one of them, a South American priest, stole it and took it to Brazil, to finish translating it. He died while doing this and the manuscript was lost there.
" Darkness was fertile and rich like black soil." And not just the Tao, David. Look at Psalm 139:12. The sense here may be that darkness is only negative to us until we become what we're meant to become.
The meaning of metaphors changes with the context throughout the Bible. Look at fire in the statement of Dives and Lazarus, and then in so many other places like Acts 2.
And then the customary metaphors of Ezekiel may not be those of Paul.
When I entered seminary after many years in science, the difference in the uses of language impressed me tremendously. I coined two categories: proper language for science and poetic language for religion. In science a word has one and only one meaning to those in the discipline. In religion each word has its own personal meaning for each of us.
Scholars have suggested that Thomas is much closer to the Tao, and to other Eastern religions than James or Paul.
Post a Comment