Mysticism, for instance, depends upon such action. In the Hindu tradition, for example, forms of Yoga (such as Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, Kundalini Yoga, and Jnana Yoga8) are traditionally conceived in these same conventional terms—as actions that produce results. Thus, since the most ancient days, all over the Earth, there has existed this tradition of action, the way of works, the way of action as a kind of magical activity. In the traditions of the way of works, action is conceived as something that always produces results—and, therefore, it is recommended that one perform only those actions that produce “good” results. In contrast to the conventional way (or “magical method”) of works (or “causative” action), however, stands the true esoteric way that has been indicated and pointed to by all the great Spiritual Adepts. The great Spiritual Adepts are traditionally associated with all kinds of lore about their origin, and many models of the universe were reflected in the stories of how a great Spiritual Adept appears and how he or she relates to the Divine Condition of Reality. Structures of the universe—with much “aboveness” and “belowness” and “middleness”, and many “planes”—have always been part of the esoteric traditions. The great Spiritual Adepts are typically presumed to have “come down” from the highest point in the scale of things into this “lower” plane, to bring the esoteric teaching down from on high, and, thus, into the middle and lower “worlds”. Whatever the model of the universe in the context of which any Spiritual Adept is conceived to arise in the human plane, the teaching of the great Spiritual Adepts (whether historical or legendary) always speaks in contrast to the conventional “wisdom” (or popular culture), and (therefore) in contrast to the way of social morality for its own sake, or the conventional way (or “magical method”) of action-leading-to-results. Jesus of Galilee taught people about the all-embracing principle of love as the right and essential motivation behind all social laws—yet, ultimately (and more or less in secret), he was teaching people about the Spiritual “Kingdom”, or Freedom through Spiritual Realization of the Divine Condition (or Spirit-Breath) of Reality. The teaching of the “New Testament” could be summarized as: “Repent from ‘sin’.” That is to say, understand and renounce all forms of “self”-enacted separation from the Divine Condition of Reality and be established in the “Kingdom of God”, or the Divine Source-Condition That Is the Spiritual Divine. Renounce “sinful” (or ego-bound and ego-binding) actions, let all actions be performed in surrender to the Divine Condition of Reality, and (thus) fulfill the Law of Inherence in the Spiritual Divine. “Religious” law is conventionally (or exoterically) conceived in terms of various rules and conventions of social morality. Thus, the “New Testament” teaching has been interpreted and reduced to mean “Repent—or be sorry for, and turn from—your ‘illegal’ and inappropriate social behaviors!” On a more profound level, the “New Testament” summarizes all forms of social morality via the primary law of love (or non-exclusiveness). Thus, the teaching of the “New Testament” has also been interpreted to say “Repent of all acts that are not based on love, and perform all kinds of acts of love, or ‘self’-sacrificial, social, and relational action.” In the “religious” fictions of the “New Testament” Gospels,9 Jesus of Galilee is made to preach about the laws of social behavior, and he is critical, even angrily critical, of the tradition of laws that were extant in his time—systems of behavior that were so complex that an ordinary person could not help but regard himself or herself to be a “sinner”. In the “New Testament” Gospels, Jesus frequently criticizes the “pharisees”, who (along with all the other “religious officials” of the time of Jesus) made the laws (or behavioral principles) whereby one might enter the (socially “objectified”) “Kingdom of God”, and who (the text supposes) made the laws so complicated that neither the pharisees themselves nor the people they taught could ever “enter the Kingdom”. Jesus was very much involved, apparently, in criticizing this over-complicated, “fleshy” conception, this non-Spiritual conception, of the laws. Jesus of Galilee summarized his idea of the moral law of behavior many times. Sometimes, it is said, Jesus just pointed to the summaries from the “Old Testament” tradition: “Love God with your entire being, and love your neighbor as if your neighbor were not other than yourself.” In other words, always surrender to the Divine—and do not be exclusively “self”-serving in your social behaviors. Do not, in any negative (or non-Spiritual) sense, discriminate the apparent individual “self” from any apparent “other”. This more exoteric (or social-behavior) teaching of Jesus was not a new teaching. This social teaching was already basic to the teaching tradition of conventional Judaism. Jesus of Galilee simply emphasized this teaching, in a social and cultural setting where the simplicity of that “point of view” had, under the weight of the “official religious” and political conditions of the times, been lost (or, at least, become very much diminished in practice). However, nothing like the esoteric moral teaching of Jesus of Galilee was fundamental (or even, in general, known) to the “official” Judaism of his time. Jesus’ esoteric version of the “moral law” is stated thus: “See everyone in and as and by means of the Spirit-Breath. Relate ‘self’-sacrificially (or in an egotranscending manner) to others, and, altogether, live the life of love that spontaneously emerges from a heart immersed in the Spiritual practice of Breathing the Divine Spirit-Breath.” Through such teaching, Jesus introduced concepts from a broader cultural base—including Hellenistic and even Eastern influences. That same esoteric teaching appears not only in the undercurrent of the “New Testament”, but also in the communications of all the great Spiritual Adepts throughout history. That esoteric teaching is about Divine Spiritual Communion and always-present Freedom from unhappiness.
31.8www.guardiantext.orgPreviousTable of ContentsNextHome |