"Christ" is an archetype within the collective consciousness projected outward as form (which some sad fool named "Jesus").
The problem with embodying archetypes in specific individuals is that it tends to deny that, to be an archetype, it must be in each and every mind. The ego denies the archetype by extracting and stripping itself away from it, thereby, separating and dissociating itself from the archetype.
There are many archetypes within the collective consciousness. However, there is only one archetype of truth, although the ego cuts itself off from that truth through numerous forms (living and dead).
If the ego-self is separate and dissociated from the truth (since the ego has given it a form separate from "you") then you're under no obligation to live out and personify in your own form what is separate from you and not a part of you. Truth is therefore, available only to other forms (made "sacred" by the ego) but not the form you identify with as "you." To the ego, "you" are guilty and anything but "sacred."
Therefore, you're off the hook and need not take responsibility for truth in any way whatsoever.
The ego conveniently does this by making forms "supernatural" and "sacred," which is alien and unattainable by "you." Examples of such sacred forms are Christ and Buddha.
Christ could love the 'garbage' and even become the garbage. This is because we made "him" a supernatural embodied incarnation of God, rather than simply an embodiment of a collective consciousness that your localized consciousness is indelibly linked to.
The ego requires sacred forms for two reasons. First, bodies must be conduits to truth, in order that your existence as a body be upheld and reinforced and, second, truth can only be limited to a scarce few bodies, which aids in denying that it is available to all.
Thus, it's easy to resign your 'self' to the fact that you could never do what they did and this is why, after 2000 yrs, no one else ever has and as long as you believe "Jesus Christ" existed...
...you never will.
There never was a form (person) called Jesus Christ nor one called Buddha. However, they both mythically represent archetypes that we all have access to, but must egoically deny. This "story" is in every mind, but if every mind believes only a few can have it, only a few ever will and, as 2000 years demonstrates, only a few ever have. You demand truth and so the ego gives it to you, but only through specific forms, which makes it a very scarce commodity and unattainable by you.
This is the "revelation" that we will eventually realize and "awaken" to and when we realize this collectively, then I imagine there will be nothing we can't do, since all the powers inserted into the forms "Jesus Christ"or "Buddha" will then be available to all of us. Unfortunately, until we can engage in it together, we'll continue to perceive it in only a few "sacred" forms.
Until then, the forms will continue to dazzle the mind with the miracles we could all perform if only we end our idolization of the forms.
Jesus is just alright with me
Jesus is just alright, oh yeah
Jesus is just alright with me
Jesus is just alright
I don't care what they may say
I don't care what they may do
I don't care what they may say
Jesus is just alright, oh yeah
Jesus is just alright Woh oh oh
I don't care what they may know
I don't care where they may go
I don't care what they may know
Jesus is just alright, oh yeah
Jesus, he's my friend
Jesus, he's my friend
He took me by the hand
led me far from this land
Jesus, he's my friend
I don't care what they may say
I don't care what they may do
I don't care what they may say
Jesus is just alright, oh yeah
(Doobie Brothers)Image by Salvador Dali
What a beautiful, breathtaking post.
ReplyDeleteEverything is always available.
And I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
The ego is like some recalcitrant, naughty, abandoned child until it is realised that ego is this wonder, too.
Love, Suzanne
"The ego is like some recalcitrant, naughty, abandoned child until it is realised that ego is this wonder, too."
ReplyDeleteYes and until such realization, it must be spanked for its naughtiness.
Unfortunately, it often comes to enjoy spankings, which then makes spankings counterproductive to "awakening."
Thanks!
mikeS
I can definitely relate to enjoying spankings!
ReplyDeleteHi Mike,
ReplyDeleteGlad you grounded me a little with this (repeated) message. Very familiar from Life Attract. This is a great representation of how your writing has evolved, incorporated and how it personally effects you. If I haven't mentioned I noticed you now claim writer in your repetoire, even though in the past you claimed you weren't. A really good writer, too.
My therapist's observation of me see everything as funny lately is ego mania. Or did she say manical? manic episode? Well, one of those. I guess they all land me in the same place. I guess whatever the episode, I'm not quite thru it yet. Soon...
Barbara
Dear Barbara,
ReplyDelete"My therapist's observation of me see everything as funny lately is ego mania."
Ha! Beware the "therapists."
Laugh on!
Thanks for the kind words!
mikeS
Greetings, Mike,
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems the archetype is the same, but the face alters according to time and culture. It's why the Earth is an interesting observation. It will let one go only so far in the realm of fancies, anywhere, anytime, until it knocks it all down despite any adherence to the gods. It's the only thing not dependent on the definitions of human habitation.
But there are mysteries within the existence of archetypes, themselves. How the mind is in relationship to them in coping with just about anything attributed to the unknowable, the speculative or the repeated patterns in human behavior. The ego seeks shelter from the internal and external storms and therein rests the birth of story the mind comes to depend on. To release the dependency is to release the story and if you release the story you must also face the mourning of its loss and that state of grief is terrifying. The mind will race through every known model until it either implodes or explodes. If it survives, it will come to a calm like no other, and yet, the cockroach will climb through the crack in the rubble and say: "I have survived, what does it mean?" There may be no escape and that is a mystery in itself.
There seems to be a human inclination to set the parameters between the sacred and the profane and I do think the Age of Reason is losing its appeal because we would return to Medievalism in a heartbeat if allowed to do so. I believe there are even those that would bring YOU to the Court of Inquisition if it were at all possible, Mike.
Beware the heretic, he exposes the transparencies. If he is openly guilty, we are absolved of our own secret guilt, or even our doubt. Was the archetype we have named Christ then a heretic made to fit the holy sacrifice between guilt and innocence in our own mind?
Thought-provoking post~
"But there are mysteries within the existence of archetypes, themselves. How the mind is in relationship to them in coping with just about anything attributed to the unknowable, the speculative or the repeated patterns in human behavior."
ReplyDeleteYes and I believe that the ego must keep the archetype at a distance, and never claim it for itself, since closeness is the realization that Christ Consciousness, or Buddha-Mind, is as easily itself as another, in fact, it is itself.
"The ego seeks shelter from the internal and external storms and therein rests the birth of story the mind comes to depend on. To release the dependency is to release the story and if you release the story you must also face the mourning of its loss and that state of grief is terrifying."
that terrifying grief the ego will avoid at all costs, even death is more desired than meaninglessness, since the ego has given 'death' all the meaning it has. Spiraling into abject meaninglessness seems the likely scenario to dissolving all fear.
"I believe there are even those that would bring YOU to the Court of Inquisition if it were at all possible, Mike."
Ha! And they are already starting to appear!
"Beware the heretic, he exposes the transparencies. If he is openly guilty, we are absolved of our own secret guilt, or even our doubt. Was the archetype we have named Christ then a heretic made to fit the holy sacrifice between guilt and innocence in our own mind?
Hmmm...yes, but can he claim the "transparencies" for himself as well and still remain heretical? the problem with "Christ" is that we needed 'Him' to be innocent, which assured our guilt.
Thought-provoking comments!
mikeS