Logion 37 His disciples said: On what day wilt thou be revealed to us, and on what day shall we see thee? Jesus said: When you unclothe yourselves and are not ashamed, and take your garments and lay them beneath your feet like little children, and tread upon them, then [shall ye see] the Son of the living One, and ye shall not fear.
Main Point: In this logion, Jesus refers to becoming unclothed, naked, and unashamed, to become innocent and free from fear. Garments symbolize all that covers our essential self – all of our identifications, roles, even our personalities. To rid ourselves of this outer façade is to become exposed and vulnerable, it is also to become bare of identity. In this state of empty innocence, we are without prejudice and are thus looking with pure eyes into what is truly real. This lack of projection means that we have no experience with which to create fear.
New Light: Dropping our veils prepares us for a sacred embrace, or sacred lovemaking with the divine. This is what the mystics Kabir, Rumi, and Hafiz write about, and why their love poems have the potential to touch us so deeply – because through our own naked exposure and openness, we realize our truest lover is actually God.
Problems / Questions: Such beautiful, romantic notions. But how do we even step in this direction of becoming open, exposed, and naked in our world today? What does this even look like? Working on a psychiatric unit I saw individuals in severe psychosis who untied reason, forgot their names, went naked, and lost control of their being. It wasn’t a pretty picture. Is it suggested here that we must step on this threshold of insanity in order to see and know God? Or is true pathology clinging to this world we think of as rational and sane?
True to my Experience: I see that there is truth embedded in this logion, beautiful truth. And I see that it is poetry. In this poetic truth we are reminded that our conditioning like our outer clothing actually separates us from God. Coincidently, I wrote about this very notion just last week on my blog.
I wrote about this because I realized that I have tended to become very involved in my own little stories. Most of us build up complex narratives of who we see ourselves to be based on our experience and culture. I have clung to my narrative in ways that have caused suffering. I now grasp that the narratives I have kept are not my true, essential self. The stories I have always told about myself are not fundamentally who I am. Loosening my grip on the identity I have assumed, for example that I am my relationships or my profession, or that I am my personality characteristics or my history, allows me to be so much freer to be genuinely open to the presence of God, to even be in true love with God. This is not about losing my grasp of reality, but rather about forging ahead without all my “certain certainties,” or old beliefs and baggage.
On this journey of becoming less encumbered, I have become willing to be less identified, and willing not to know. For me it seems to be true that getting myself out of the way has allowed the gift of an ever deepening communion. I still must live and work and function in this world, but hopefully I do so skillfully, where my identity and personality is functional, where reason and intellect are my servants, but my heart is nakedly exposed to God.
10 comments:
Hi Meredith :-)
I think I understand what you are saying ... about stripping away our "false" selves and becoming vulnerable so we can be united with God. This is, I guess, like the beliefs of Buddhism and Gnosticism - the extinction of the personality (Nirvana literally means extinction).
I can appreciate this but it isn't waht I hope for. I think the true way to become vulnerable is not to discard one's self and be empty, but to expose one's self, warty personality and all, with as much honesty as possible before God - to be transparent, not empty.
I'm part of an group that's doing the online retreat at Creighton together. This week, we are to look deeply at ourselves, especially the parts we don't like, and show them to God. They suggest imagining that you've asked Jesus over to your house (a metaphor for your life) and that you take him with you down to the basement, where you hide the really creepy stuff, and see that he accepts everything about you.
Crystal,
You might like CJ's blog, and this post:
http://thisfragilebreath.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-heart-christs-home.html
It speaks to that metaphor of our home being like our life, open to inspection by Christ.
It seems to me that there are certain stages of this emptying business... and you're right, a certain necessary stage is to become vulnerable, completly honest with who we are - warty personality and all. This is exactly the exposure I am talking about. And once you have bravely exposed all that you typically hide, you become, as you say, transparent. Transparency is showing our nakedness, our real and true humble selves. In this process, we realize something so very important - we are still there - the traits we share are just 'garments' so to speak. This is not the true self, the self empty of adornment. This true self is pure, and not only can receive love, but offer it back in great measure.
You girls, excuse me, women, are right on. You have a tremendous grasp of the meaning of becoming transparent.
As I read it, it came to me that it's a metaphor, and metaphors have multiple meanings; they mean one thing to one person and something else to another.
For example I see in Thomas the working out of Jung's theory re the crucifixion of the ego to make room for the self. Of course the ego does not die; it has a resurrection in a purer form.
I see this also as a process that goes on in stages: you must be born again, and again, and again. Is this the seven veils?
I am certainly not transparent, but hopefully more than I was last year.
Of course it's also an instantaneous affair, whenever you're ready. It's all this and probably much more. It's the Living Word.
I'm tingling with excitement about having found this blog :)
(One off topic question: why is the title spelled like it is? Are we trying to promote spelling reform?)
When you said this...
Loosening my grip on the identity I have assumed, for example that I am my relationships or my profession, or that I am my personality characteristics or my history, allows me to be so much freer to be genuinely open to the presence of God, to even be in true love with God.
...some alarm bells went off, because I feel like I have seen the same sentiments leading to a feeling of anomie and alienation from one's history and culture. As I read on I felt like you weren't going in that direction, and realize that we need to hold those two poles (I am not my relationships and history, but they are deeply important) in tension. I liked how you said they should be "functional".
It reminds me of something I once heard, and really appreciated, when I was at a seminar where Mel Kaiser (a former professor at Guilford) was talking about the book on Isaac Penington he just wrote. He said for Peninton, "forms" (those Quaker boogeymen) are inevitable. We can't completely avoid them, but the attitude we need to take to them is to every morning, when we get up, lay down all the previous day's forms -- and then only take them back up if we are sure God would have us do so.
It's a scary thought, to wake up and try to be ready to walk out of your job, or drop out of school.
Zach, what are "forms"? The only forms I know of are Plato's ... is it a Quaker thing?
Arg, I don't have a simple answer. I haven't read the book yet. But I am pretty sure it means "outward forms" as opposed to inward reality... Outward communion, for example, was a 'form' the early Quakers rejected. I think in this context a form is basically any kind of form-al structure one participates in... one's morning jog, or profession, or membership in organizations... does that help?
Dratted typos ...
Yes, thank you. I don't know a lot about Quaker philosophy - I'm catholic.
Plato's forms were different ... ideal architypes of things. For instance, there is a "form" of a fork floating out there in Platonic heaven. The fork you hold in your hand will participate in the form, or "fork-ness", to the degree it functions well. Gnosticism, which we've been discussing here a lot lately, takes some stuff from Platonism.
Zach,
Thank you for your comments here. I, too, am glad you have found us! Or, shall I say, I'm glad we have found you!
Re: The spelling - I'll leave that for David to defend.
Re: Forms - Pennington is asking us to look carefully at the forms we rely on - to see if they make sense to us each day. Thus, we wouldn't just walk off our job or drop out of school on a moments notice, but rather responsibly and continually evaluate if these forms we employ are of value to the highest consciousness of our Being. If one day we decide that, whoa - they are not working anymore, then that's an honest admission, and though scary, must be responsibly acted upon.
I really appreciated the light you offer about holding the two poles "I am not my relationships and history, but they are deeply important" in tension. Perhaps, even better, we may hold them in some equilibrium, but not rest in these concepts assuming that is all we are.
Nice to meet you, Zach. Come on back for more dialogue.
Howdy Zach.
and welcome.
and the spelling has no good excuse except perhaps comic effect. it started on a website i regularly posted to -- and i had a regular feature called kwoda thweek (Quote of the Week) and the kw for qu thing just stuck.
Post a Comment