--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: <snip> > > Christian theology developed as various layers of Hellenic > > polytheism were grafted onto Semitic monotheism. This > > shotgun wedding was recently called a "bastard union of > > the inherited conglomerate" and rightly so. It only became > > de rigueur in the parlors after being made de jure by > > Constantine. Such is the history of this Godly > > "illumination" made popular by privileging the "faithful" > > (City people) over the pagans (country folk). > > * * You are probably aware that I am essentially with you > in your take on Christianity; to me the Gospels appear to > have been carefully constructed by the Romans specifically > for political, anti-Semitic purposes. Nonetheless, > underneath that there appears to be an archetypal layer of > initiatic wisdom with interesting parallels to MMY's teaching > of consciousness-expansion.
Rory, it's a little scary how clearly you've articulated what I was fumbling around trying to figure out how to say! I don't think the r/d/c-Trinity parallel has much of anything to do with what may be underneath the Gospels, however; the Trinity doctrine was a later development. But just in general, it's my suspicion that a fair amount of of dogma (not just of Christianity) originated in "initiatic wisdom," although by the time the less-than-wise had got done fashioning it into dogma according to their own exoteric understanding, its esoteric origins had become almost unrecognizable. (And there may be plenty along those lines that became so unrecognizable nobody has yet managed to recognize them.) That said, I wouldn't insist on a r/d/c-Trinity parallel; as you go on to note, it could well be purely imaginary. > Perhaps I am imagining it, but then I don't draw a hard- > and-fast distinction between imagination and actuality; > for me imagination plays a crucial role in our perception > of "actual" reality. I suppose it does, but on the other hand I'm perfectly willing to draw a distinction in specific cases where it seems called for. Otherwise it can be like MMY's tendency to draw analogies between his principles of consciousness and the principles of science, and then assume genuine correspondence. There's no reason not to have fun flexing one's speculative muscles. It may even be useful as a mental exercise to attempt to perceive isomorphisms between apparently starkly different systems of thought. Probably best not to engrave them in stone, however.
