The Forgotten Spiritual Esotericism of Saint Jesus and the Christian Social Exotericism That Succeeded It – Up? Beyond the Beginner’s Spiritual Way of Saint Jesus and the Traditions of Mystical Cosmic Ascent via Spirit-Breath






Beyond the Beginner’s
Spiritual Way of Saint Jesus
and the
Traditions of Mystical Cosmic Ascent via
Spirit-Breath

By The Avataric Great Sage, Adi Da
Samraj

(this book was later published as
Pneumaton)

Buy
the book




The Forgotten Spiritual
Esotericism of Saint Jesus and the Christian Social
Exotericism That Succeeded It

Apart from the words about Jesus
of Galilee that appear in the “New Testament”, there is
virtually no evidence for Jesus’ existence. References to
Jesus, to a movement in response to him, and to people who
were his followers only begin to appear years (and even
decades) after the time when (as it is “reported” in the
“New Testament”) Jesus is commonly presumed to have lived –
yet, there is no historical evidence for Jesus’ existence
that is contemporary with the time Jesus purportedly
lived.

The books of the “New Testament” were written after
Jesus’ lifetime, even decades afterward. A large part of the
“New Testament” is comprised of the letters of Paul of
Tarsus – and, again, there is no evidence that Paul ever
actually knew Jesus, nor does Paul claim in his writings to
have actually seen Jesus when Jesus was alive. There is
speculation (on the basis of scholarship) that Paul must
have persecuted Jesus and Jesus’ followers before he himself
became a follower of Jesus, yet there is no historical
evidence for it.

The writings of Paul refer to an already
institutionalized tradition about Jesus, a tradition that is
the basis for all of Paul’s preaching. Paul was a
church-maker, an institutionalizer who founded local
churches. The work of Paul was based on his own teachings
about how to “interpret” the presumed (or tradition
bound
) person of Jesus, rather than on the teachings
and activities of Jesus himself. The fact of Jesus’ physical
existence had much less significance for Paul than Jesus’
after-death status as a kind of “Heavenly” being.

The largest part of the content of the “New Testament”
communicates about Paul and his institution-making. The
Gospels (and chapter one of the “Book of Acts”) are the only
books of the “New Testament” with content that is presumed
to be about Jesus himself. Nonetheless-insofar as the report
of the Gospels is biographical at all – the Gospels, in
fact, comprise an institutionalized biography. The Gospels
tell about a Jesus who was “interpreted” by people after his
death, often through stories contrived about him to coincide
with suggestive prophecies within the “Old Testament”, or
the holy book of the Jews – stories claiming to present
evidence of a likeness between Jesus and various Jewish
“Messianic” characterizations that appear in the prophetic
writings of the “Old Testament”. In any case, the
“likenesses” reported in the Gospels cannot be taken
seriously as “eyewitness” observations of a presumably
historical Jesus – they could only have been spoken about
through a process of fabrication (or imaginative religious
inventiveness).

All the stories in the Gospels about Jesus’ early life
before he began to preach are myths. They are a kind of
literary creation for the purpose of establishing an
institution, for the purpose of engendering public belief,
for the purpose of presenting the character proposed to be
Jesus of Galilee in the context of the Jewish prophetic
tradition and the then present-day culture of Judaism, and
intended to coincide with the expectations of the Jews (and
the Gentiles) of the time.

Relative to nearly all of the life-stories about Jesus,
the writers of the Gospels could not have been making use of
information of a factual nature in order to “record”
historical fact. Where, how, and from whom would they have
acquired such information? And, indeed, if there were any
fact-based source for those stories, why do the Gospels so
markedly contradict one another relative to the details? In
fact, the presence of remarkable contradictions between the
separate accounts in the Gospels is one of the outstanding
indicators that make it obvious that the Gospels are a form
of literature, rather than of historical reporting.

The Gospels are a literature of religious propaganda – a
form of religious fiction, made to convince people to join a
particular institutional
religious movement. However, the Gospels are not merely full
of lies. Rather, the Gospels are, taken together, an
outstanding example of a traditional kind of religious
literature that is found in virtually all religious
traditions.

While the Gospels are full of mostly fabricated details
about Jesus’ lifetime, there is, also, no evidence that the
writers have actually quoted (rather than invented) what
Jesus said when he was alive. Why is it, then, that, after
his death, suddenly everybody “knew and remembered” all
these things about him? For example, a private scene between
Jesus and Pilate is described, and a dialogue is reported.
Who would have known of the content of that conversation? No
one – apart from Jesus and Pilate – could have heard these
words. Pilate would not have reported it to anyone
especially
not any of Jesus’ followers. Jesus would
not have had time to tell anyone about it – for he was
immediately taken away and, supposedly, crucified. While
Jesus was suspended on the cross, he would not (under the
circumstances) have reported his conversation with Pilate to
the people nearby, so they could write it down for history.
Nothing of the kind occurred.

Whatever the motives might have been for making a
Jesus myth, the Gospels are a
kind of literary fabrication about a mythologize
human being who either may have lived or, otherwise, who may
never have actually lived. Perhaps the myth of Jesus sprang
from a tradition that existed long before the (presumed)
historical time of Jesus. All kinds of possibilities exist,
because there is no historically reliable factuality to
depend upon.

Clearly, the motive of those who made the books of the
“New Testament”, including the Gospels, was to make an
institution, to communicate about an (essentially)
mythologize and “interpreted”
figure effectively, then, to make a myth of a human being
who (on the basis of that myth alone) has, ever since, been
commonly presumed to have been an actual historical figure.
The Gospel stories are (at least largely) not about an
historical, factual, and actual Jesus – the person as he
would have acted and spoken while he was alive. Everything
that people have speculated about, thought about, felt
about, and “reported” and asserted about “Jesus” has
occurred only after (and even long after) Jesus was
no longer alive – and,
therefore, all of it arose entirely within the writers’ own
sphere of thinking and desiring and intending.

There is nothing that could be said after the lifetime of
such a person as Jesus that would be as relevant to his own
teaching as all that he, himself, said when he was alive.
Whatever Jesus cared to say that was of the nature of a
teaching, or, otherwise, of a revelation about himself, he
would have said during his lifetime. Whatever others have
said afterward is really their own creation, for their own
reasons.

The writers (or inventors and fabricators) of the “New
Testament” wrote largely for the purposes of
institutionalization, and, therefore, in order to achieve a
“victory” for their particular faction, and to “concretize”
the self-image (as well as the public image) of their
institution, and to give their institution the
characteristic of “authority”, and to differentiate it from
other views and institutions – and especially to
differentiate it from the “rival” institution of Judaism, by
referring to “Christianity” as the “true Israel” (thereby
suggesting that the historical tradition of the Jews had
been superseded). And this purpose of the “New Testament”
has created terrible problems for the Jews (and even the
entire world) ever since.

Many have proposed that the right approach to discovering
the “facts” about Jesus is to
examine the “New Testament” Gospels
and, thus and thereby, to determine what about this
person can be said to be based
on “actual” and “historical” evidence, and, on
that basis, to determine “who”
this person was, what he “actually” said,
and what he “actually” taught. Scholars have
undertaken great efforts to
identify the “actual” sayings and the “true”
stories-and to eliminate the
“dross”. Much of this effort is useful scholarly
work. On the other hand, what now remains, after such
scholarship, is rather chaotic, and even mundane – and there
is little or no
suggestion in the
dominant factions of professional scholarship
that the Jesus-tradition
originated in association with esoteric Spirituality.

The result of the (especially nineteenth and twentieth
century) scholarly process is
that some scholars now presume that Jesus of
Galilee may never have existed – and those who assert
that Jesus did exist (as a
naturally living historical person) tend to reduce him to
the status of a rather mundane figure,
who was limited to merely day-to-day social concerns,
and who communicated a socially positive disposition (and
message) of “compassion-toward
all”, and who might even have had a political agenda
of a kind, such that he may be viewed as a kind of social
rebel within Judaism. However, the dominant trends of
professional scholarship are not based on any presumption
that this person Jesus was Spiritually Awakened, and that he
taught an esoteric Spiritual “method”. Indeed, there is
virtually no participation in esoteric Spiritual life and
practice within either the tradition or the scholarly field
of “official” (or exoteric) Christianity that would enable
(or even permit) the straightforward and detailed
understanding of Jesus of Galilee as an ancient example of a
“Spiritual Master” (or an esoteric “Guru”) – a type of human
manifestation that has appeared in all traditions, and
everywhere in the world, since the days of the ancients.

There is, to now, no full professional scholarly
presentation of Jesus, and the “New Testament” Gospels, on
an entirely (and authentically) Spiritual basis-stated with
full awareness and experiential understanding of what is
thus being suggested. Instead, “modern” scholars, in
general, tend (because of their own ignorance relative to
Spiritual matters) to reduce everything to the gross
(physical) dimension of conditional existence. Therefore,
any evidence of a subtle or Spiritual or mystical or
esoteric nature is, rather automatically, presumed to be
myth, or a manifestation of the mind of popular magic. In
other words, what is Spiritual tends to be dismissed in
favor of either what is simply biological (or biographical,
in the sense of the life-person) or, otherwise, what is
merely political, social, and “objectively” cultural.

Who is the Jesus that has emerged from the efforts of
“modern” scholarship? He is a kind of social religious
figure, who was itinerant, and somewhat revolutionary in his
views. There is nothing uniquely and outstandingly important
to religion (or to humankind in general) about such a
person. There have been (and are) endless numbers of such
“good” people. In fact, Jesus (as a presumedly actual
historical figure) was an authentic true Spiritual
Master-and not merely a social-morality teacher. However,
Jesus is only one of many such (fourth-to-fifth stage)
Spiritual Masters and,
therefore, he is not unique. Indeed, the real importance of
Jesus is not in his uniqueness, but in his authenticity-as a
Spiritual Master. It is only the institutional mythologize
of Jesus (as a kind of iconic idol, made of words) that has
made Jesus seem unique, and demanded that he be uniquely
“believed about”-and, as a result, the significance of Jesus
as an authenticator of traditional fourth-to-fifth stage
Spirituality has been lost and forgotten.

2.

As a book based on legend and myth, the “New Testament”
is not different from traditional storybooks found elsewhere
in the religious traditions – for instance, the stories in
Hinduism about Krishna and Rama. There exists, among many
people of the world, a popular tradition of naive belief
that characters such as Krishna, and Rama, and Jesus are
(simply as described in the storybooks) historical persons
even somehow presently existing in realms of a concrete but
subtle kind. However, there are growing numbers of other
kinds of people, who do not require personal belief in the
historical reality of mythological characters, and who
accept religious storybooks as traditional literatures that
convey certain kinds of human truths (and only some
suggestion of ultimate Truth).

The religious figures in all the world’s ancient
traditional stories are largely mythological persons, and
the stories may or may not have anything to do with
historical persons who ever existed. Whatever any individual
may think about such religious figures now, long after the
time when those religious figures could possibly have lived,
is strictly that individual’s own mode of thinking or
believing.

The mythological stories about figures such as Krishna
and Rama were often, it seems (based on the profound depth
of presentation of the traditional literatures about Krishna
and Rama), made by people of some significant level and
degree of Spiritual development – and, from their view, they
were communicating about Spiritual Truth (Itself), by making
popular stories that could be instructive to ordinary (or at
least less Spiritually
developed.) people. The “New Testament”, however, has
virtually no content that suggests it (or any part of it)
was written by persons of great Spiritual development-but,
rather, the “New Testament” bears the characteristics of
“authorship” that suggest it is the product of ordinary
popular storytelling (or Spiritually undeveloped religious
fantasizing) combined with the overriding voices of
institutional managers, who control and modify and build
upon the popular tradition, in order to “concretize” a
propagandistic institutional intention.

The only religious and Spiritual “genius” that has any
voice in the “New Testament” is the person of Jesus. And,
because of this solitary evidence, it would seem appropriate
to presume there actually was a Spiritual Master Jesus of
Galilee – whose life and teachings (although much covered up
and distorted by the institutional and otherwise naive
popular mentality that made the “New Testament” Gospels)
are, nonetheless, at the root of the “official” myth of
Jesus of Galilee.

Completely apart from all the institutionalized
Jesus-making, and all of the institution-based speculation,
and all the post Jesus’ lifetime imaginings and propaganda,
a (very likely, historical) person, named “Jesus of
Galilee”, is presented via a traditional genre of religious
“fiction” – and that Jesus is (by means of literary devices)
associated with certain kinds of characteristics, and
portrayed to be demonstrating and otherwise ‘speaking in a
manner that conveys an ancient, already-existing, tradition
of moral, devotional, and Spiritual representation.

Ultimately, it makes no difference if Jesus is a myth or
not just as, ultimately, it makes no difference whether
Krishna, or Rama, or Osiris, or Zeus existed or not. What is
of significance is the Truth and, otherwise, any kind of
human truths – pointed to by the “concretized” myths.

The “New Testament” conveys the suggestion of a Spiritual
message (or some kind of underlying “secret” of a Spiritual
kind) that is in the domain of the fourth stage of life and
the fifth stage of life – and not at all beyond the fifth
stage of life-as well as, of course, communications of
religious (or devotional) and moral instruction in the
domain of the first three stages of life.

There is, in the “New Testament”, a mythological
representation (or God-“idea”) of the Divine Nature, and a
rather covertly communicated message about “Communion” with
the Spiritual Divine, and, coincidently, there are
communications of “Wisdom” about human existence and right
life. Therefore, the “New Testament” is very much like many
other traditional texts that communicate in the context of
the fourth stage of life,” and which also include material
relative to at least some aspects of the fifth stage of
life.

In this regard, the “New Testament” is very much like the
literature about Rama, in the Hindu tradition. Unlike the
“New Testament” communications about Jesus, some traditional
texts speak of Rama in the manner of what could be called
sixth stage (or Transcendentalist) teachings about
Realization of That Which Is without (or Perfectly Prior to)
form. However, like the “New Testament” communications about
Jesus, most of the Rama literature is in the domain of the
first four stages of life, with some levels of
suggestiveness about Spiritual matters that may be
understood to extend into the fifth stage of life.

In the case of the Bbagavad Gita (which is the principal
text of the Krishna tradition), there are elements of
communication that point toward an Ultimate Realization That
Is of a formless Transcendental (and sixth stage)
Nature-but, fundamentally, the Bhagavad Gita is a moral,
devotional, and mystical text, in which the mythological
figure of Krishna is presented as the means for conveying
the full range of ideas associated with the synthesis of
first-stage-through-sixth-stage Hinduism (as a progressive,
or developmental practice) that the Bhagavad Gita is
principally intended to provide. Thus, Krishna is fashioned
(by literary means) as the principal figure around which to
speak the general tradition of Realization (or Spirituality)
and right human life that is otherwise represented by the
totality of the traditions of Hinduism. Similarly, the “New
Testament” Gospel tradition about Jesus fashions Jesus (by
literary means) as the principal figure around which to
convey a summary of all the moral, and devotional, and
(cryptically represented) Spiritual Wisdom-ideas otherwise
associated with the ancient totality that included exoteric
Judaism and all of the (both
exoteric
and esoteric) traditions of the ancient
world of Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Middle East, and, to some
extent, of India.

3.

Who is this teacher, Jesus of Galilee? What is the
evidence of his life-story? What did he do and say? Not what
people said about him or for him after his lifetime-but what
did he do and say? Not what is believable only from a
scientific-materialistic perspective, or a humanistic
perspective, or any such reductionist perspective-but what
was Jesus himself actually like, as a representative of a
tradition of ancient Wisdom associated with the first five.
stages of life?

From the “point of view” of historical fact, the story
about Jesus’ physical “Ascension” to “Heaven” after his
death is impossible – and even absurd. Jesus is said to have
gone up into the air, in order to reach “Heaven” – yet,
everybody now knows what is up
there
, in the air. People everywhere know that the
“air” above the Earth is a virtually limitless space, full
of many other galaxies. In the present day, it must be
clearly understood that Jesus did not have anywhere to go by
going up into the sky physically.

In the ancient tradition, however, there was a
cosmological view that would have “understood” (and accepted
as fact) that Jesus could literally fly up into the air, and
travel higher and higher, and, eventually, reach “Heaven”.
According to that view, the Deity was above the “firmament”
– which was a crystal vault, from which hung the many stars.
That Jesus “Ascended” up to and via the “firmament” was,
indeed, believable, according to the popular cosmological
view of that time. Yet, that cosmological view has
absolutely no relevance anymore, when examined in the
context of present-day scientific knowledge of the actually
observed universe – and, therefore, the “Ascension-of Jesus”
story must now be seen, clearly, to be a myth (or a literary
invention, intended to play upon the belief-structure
current at the time of the writing of the “New Testament”).
Simply stated, the scientifically-demonstrated evidence of
how the physical world is actually structured conclusively
and irrevocably proves that the “Ascension” of Jesus of
Galilee is (and was originally) an intentionally fabricated
mythand not (as it pretends
to be) an “eyewitness” account of an actual historical
event.

If, however, the “Ascension” story about Jesus is seen in
the context of the total fourth-to-fifth stage tradition
(and authentic experiences) of Spirituality, it remains both
relevant and true, as a symbol for the interior
psycho-physical phenomenon of Spiritual Ascent into a state
of mystical absorption (and brain-concentration) in the
Self-Apprehended and Intrinsically Self-Evident Current of
Conscious Energy That Self-Exists at the root and center of
every living body.

If the “Ascension” story about Jesus is examined as a
kind of esoteric (or hermetic, and intentionally cryptic)
mode of language that speaks (and, yet, hides) a “secret”
teaching (rather than describing an historical and outwardly
physical event), then it is self-evident that the
“Ascension” story (along with most of the other “New
Testament” stories about Jesus) is a form of strategically
fabricated public communication, and that it intentionally
speaks in a conventional and deliberately “concretized”
manner about “secrets” that, it was felt, should not, in
public, be directly and openly stated. After all, according
to the “New Testament” Gospels, Jesus’ own policy, when
speaking to the general public, was to speak only in cryptic
“parables”. And the principal “parables” in the “New
Testament” Gospels are the “stories” of the bodily
“Resurrection” and physical “Ascension” of Jesus.

In the time when Jesus is supposed to have lived, an
esoteric (and already ancient) tradition of Spiritual
Baptism existed, and it can (based on literary evidence) be
presumed to have also been associated with Jesus himself.
That tradition can (based on literary evidence,
and on the experiential knowledge of esoteric
Spiritual processes) be presumed to have included a process
of direct Spiritual Transmission (from Master to disciple),
and, also, a verbal transmission of esoteric instruction
about inwardly-concentrated Spiritual Ascent
– or the mystical (or Yogic) Spiritual process that
is, by necessity, psycho-physically internal, and that,
through the development of inward and upward concentration
(ultimately, in the brain core), expands, experientially,
into a cosmic and supercosmic understanding. That Spiritual
process of Ascent is not about
going up into the physically existing sky. It is
about going up into the “sky of mind”. It is about internal,
or entirely Spiritual, Ascent.

Despite the fact that this ancient understanding and its
Spiritual traditions existed long before the (presumed) time
of Jesus, that Spiritual understanding is not conveyed or
admitted by “official” Christianity. The message of
“official” Christianity is, fundamentally, restricted to the
gross physical domain (or to gross idealism, or
exclusivistic universal “incarnationism”), and, on that
basis, to the institutionalized governing of the social and
moral behavior of human beings, by appealing to the
“official” stories about Jesus in order to reinforce the
desirable behavior.

There is virtually nothing in “official” Christianity
about the esoteric Spirituality that is often suggested by
the “New Testament” Gospel stories about Jesus. However, by
employing physically based
metaphors in the after-lifetime accounting for the
“Resurrection” and the “Ascension”, the language of the “New
Testament” Gospels fabricates a “concretization” of what
was, otherwise, a Spiritual teaching. And that Spiritual
teaching was not, even in its own time, exclusive to Jesus.
Rather, the Spiritual teaching that is hidden and protected
in the “New Testament” (by means of the strategic language
of physical “concreteness”) is, and always was, the
characteristic ancient (and still current) Spiritual
teaching associated (all over the world) with the esoteric
Wisdom of what I describe as the fourth stage of life and
the fifth stage of life.

Because Jesus is not now physically alive (or, otherwise,
Spiritually active via a lineage of living
Spirit-Baptizers), the only matters of significance relative
to him are those that are associated with the contents of
the teachings that are conveyed in the writings about him.
However, for anyone actually practicing the Spiritual Way of
life, the matter of greatest significance is the Spiritual
Master from whom one receives Spirit-Baptism. Therefore,
from the perspective of the actual practice of
Spiritually-active living, what is greater than all the
teachings of the traditions (both ancient and of the present
day) is one’s own Spiritual Master-the Spirit-Baptizer who
serves the devotee’s Spiritual development toward Spiritual
Realization: from physical and moral transformation (or the
development of self-discipline and virtue), and
through devotional outreach
(beyond egoic self), and always toward (or in) the Spiritual
Condition That Is the Divine.

In the context of the fourth and fifth stages of life,
the Spiritual Condition That Is the Divine is always
conceived from the bodily perspective, and, thus and
thereby, presumed to be absolutely Above,. Therefore, Ascent
is the traditional (fourth and fifth stage) process that one
must undergo, in order to go beyond the gross realm of
conditional existence and enter into the realm of That Which
Is Spirit, Above and Beyond the gross.

There is a perennial tradition of teaching about that
practice of Spiritual Ascent – a tradition that has been
steadily conveyed by Spiritual Masters (and by Means of
their Spiritual Blessing-Force) since ancient times. That
tradition began before there was writing, and that tradition
is still current in the world, in the company of Yogis and
Saints of fifth stage Spiritual Realization.

The tradition of Spiritual Ascent represented (and, to a
significant degree, covered up) by the Gospel stories of the
“New Testament” is strictly limited to the first five stages
of life. And, in any case, the “New Testament” is rather
silent about the “how” of Jesus’ Spiritual Ascent. However,
there is some simple suggestiveness about the “how” in the
Gospels such as the story of Nicodemus’s meeting with Jesus,
wherein Jesus told Nicodemus that one must be “born again in
the Spirit rather than the flesh”. Clearly, this reference
to “re-birth” means, “Realize the
`point of view’ and the Condition of Spirit, rather
than that of gross bodily existence”. This statement by the
“New Testament” Jesus belongs entirely within the tradition
of esoteric Spiritual understanding – as do other sayings
that ,are attributed to him, such as, “If your eye is made
single (or one-pointed., your entire body will be filled
with light.” I Indeed, the latter aphorism exactly
summarizes the essential “how” of the practice that accords
with all traditional fifth stage teachings.

Thus, in the “New Testament” Gospels, there exists a
thread of esoteric Spiritual instruction that is conveyed
(and, yet, hidden) by means of aphorisms and stories – and,
altogether, by means of rather homely popular
representations of ancient moral and devotional teachings.
The thread of esoteric Spiritual teaching in the “New
Testament” Gospels exists completely apart from all
the
institutionalization-language, all the institutional
“salvation” messages, and all the rest of the propaganda of
an emerging institution looking for its place, its power,
its dominance over all others, and its feeling of being
culturally superior to all others.

4

There is, in the “New Testament” Gospels, a core
story-line about the person called “Jesus”. That story sits
beneath and within all the overlays of institutional
propaganda and institutionally self
serving
“interpretation”. In other words, there is a
story (or a kind of biography, including a collection of
basic teachings) that seems to represent a core-tradition
upon which the institutional writers of the “New Testament”
Gospels were building their inventions of new religion. At
the core of the stories about Jesus is a core
tradition
that precedes (or is the basis for) all the
Gospel writings of the “New Testament” (all of which were
written even many years after the lifetime of Jesus).

The “New Testament” texts that I have included (and,
altogether, selected, translated, and elaborated upon) in
this book (in the section entitled “The Spiritual Gospel of
Saint Jesus of Galilee”) are the parts of the Gospels that
can be said to be true to the core
tradition
relative to the moral, devotional, and
(encrypted) Spiritual teachings of Jesus (and, otherwise,
relative to the esoteric tradition of the ancients). The
core story is the “New Testament” Gospel story about the
life, doings, and teachings of one who is usually called
“Jesus of Nazareth”, but who, more properly, should be
referred to as “Jesus of Galilee”. The core story transcends
(or stands irreducibly apart from) the institutionalizing
(and the grossly and publicly oriented, rather than
Spiritually oriented) process of “official”
Christianity.

The “New Testament” (as it is commonly presented in
myriad translations and renderings) mostly contains the
institutionalizing and non-Spiritual tradition of “official”
Christianity. Nonetheless, the “New Testament” stories
convey a thread of teaching-truths from the ancient world on
the subjects of moral (or first three stages of life),
devotional (or beginning fourth stage of life),
and Spiritual (or mature fourth stage of life and
fully fifth stage of life) matters.

No actual individual who lived in Jesus’ lifetime can be
said to have communicated Jesus’ doings and sayings, as
Porphyry did about Plotinus (whom he knew), or as Motovilov
did about Saint Seraphim (whose direct and personal
Spiritual Transmission he experienced).

Baba Muktananda (Who was one of My own Spiritual
Teachers) wrote first-person accounts about His Spiritual
Teacher, Bhagavan Nityananda (Who was also one of My
Spiritual Teachers). Baba Muktananda knew Bhagavan
Nityananda personally, and directly experienced His
Spiritual Transmission, as well as His teaching. At the same
time, however, it must be said that Baba Muktananda’s
writings about Bhagavan Nityananda convey not only facts
about Bhagavan Nityananda but also many myths about Bhagavan
Nityananda.

In the Indian tradition, it is common practice for people
to tell (or even invent) stories about their own Masters
that, characteristically, use (or repeat, and embellish, and
revise) stories already commonly told, within the existing
tradition, about “great persons” (or Saints, Yogis, and
Spiritual figures within the Indian tradition altogether).
Whatever that previous tradition already contained, people
also “re-told” it about Bhagavan Nityananda. By doing so,
they were, in accordance with the traditional understanding,
acquiring “merit” – simply by repeating great things about
their own Master. Such is the rule of “merit” in the
traditional setting of India – and the same rule (or
license) existed within the tradition in which the “New
Testament” Gospels were made (or invented). Indeed,
traditional stories about Spiritual Masters (including Jesus
of Galilee) are rightly understood only when thus
understood.

All “storytelling” is a poetic and fictionizing and
propagandistic art. All “storytelling” is literature and
theatre-not “news reporting” or any kind of effort to
rigorously account for “facts”. (Indeed, perhaps because
this difference is self-evident to virtually everyone, even
“news reporters” characteristically refer to their
supposedly “factual” reports as “stories”.)

Traditionally, whether through lore, or mythology, or
imaginative storytelling, historical (or, otherwise,
entirely fictional) personages
are “artistically concretized”
for the purpose of establishing and
propagandistically promoting the “authority” of exoteric
religious (as well as all other cultural, social, and
political) institutions. That process tends to produce
accretions of a kind that are no longer what could be called
“historical” in nature, except in
so
far as they represent the “history” of the
institution itself.

For example, such a process can be seen exemplified in
the earlier part of the twentieth century, in the
institutionally-promoted stories about Shirdi Sai Baba’2-the
stories about whom very quickly reached into the domain of
super-myth, on the basis of very little reliable history.
Because Shirdi Sai Baba lived within the last one hundred
years, some historical reality for the stories must be
granted. Yet, his life is far enough back in time that
(through the “concretizing” process of storytelling) the
reports and legends about him have been transformed into
pure myth.

Narasimha Swami, who lived in the company of Ramana
Maharshi for a while, wrote a biography of the Maharshi –
and, afterwards, Narasimha Swami went on to become an ardent
devotee of the then no-longer-living Sai Baba of Shirdi.
Narasimha Swami compiled much of the early myth-making
literature about Shirdi Sai Baba on which people have
expanded since. The literature about Shirdi Sai Baba is a
useful example, therefore, of the process whereby
myth-of-“God” stories develop within the popular context of
traditional Deity-oriented devotionalism in India. A large
portion of the stories about
Shirdi Sai Baba are no longer about that historical person –
although there does exist some underlying Historical
and reliable biographical information, including a record )
of some of his sayings, and so forth, that has provided an
underying substratum, upon which the myth-making has
proceeded, given to this day.

Broadly public and merely popular religious institutions
are, by nature and by necessity, businesses – and they must,
like all businesses, function
competitively in the “marketplace” of the common world.
Therefore, in order to defend and define themelves, popular
religious institutions (which must pander to the broadest
kind of mass public) tend to develop literature and methods
that are based upon a strategic alteration in the subject of
their propaganda – an alteration
that transforms the subject into a popularly sellable
myth.

It must be understood that the “New Testament” Gospels
convey, not “history”, but a summary of ancient (and not at
all exclusively, or, otherwise, originally, “Christian”)
teachings about moral, devotional, and (at least in a
cryptic manner) Spiritual matters and that they do so in an
anciently accepted literary form, by inventing a (thus)
fictional story about a particular person and his teachings
and doings. And, technically, such intentionally fictional
propaganda – literature is, in general, made without merely
telling “lies” about that particular person and his
teachings and doings (even though the stories that are told
are not, in actual or historical fact, true).

Apart from the institutional and speculative effects that
appear in the language of the “New Testament” Gospels, Jesus
himself is not represented therein as an institutional
functionary (or religious “official”). Whether as the myth,
the fictional legend, or the real historical Jesus, the
central character of the “New Testament” Gospels is not (in
the context of his storied lifetime) portrayed as an
“institutional” figure. The “Jesus” of the “New Testament”
Gospels always intentionally stands outside the Jewish
“official” religion of his own time – just as he also
inherently stands outside the Christian “official” religion
of the present time. Jesus was (apparently) a Jew, by birth,
and (thus) he lived within the context of Judaism during the
Roman occupation of his country. In that sense, Jesus is
.represented as an historical figure in the “New Testament”
Gospels.

In the “New Testament” Gospel stories, Jesus sets himself
apart from Greco-Roman cultural ideas, and apart from the
institutional culture of Judaism. Therefore, Jesus of
Galilee can, himself, be seen to be simply a great teacher,
associated with traditions, but standing apart from them,
within the sphere of his own Spiritual understanding – not
merely within the context of his thinking, but within the
super-normal Condition of his Spiritual Realization and the
experientially-based process of his Spiritual demonstration
– The Spiritually-based Blessing-powers and visions and
teachings of the “outsider” Jesus, as well as the apparent
Spiritual Transmission from his
Guru, John the Baptist, are among the basics of the core
story of the Jesus of the “New Testament” Gospels.

Jesus himself (even as he is shown in the “New Testament”
Gospels) stood outside institutionalization, yet
(paradoxically) he became the most institutionalized and the
most mythologized human being in history. Consequently,
there are countless versions of “Jesus of Galilee” in
everybody’s thinking (and in everybody’s talk). However (at
least as the story goes), Jesus himself was, in his
lifetime, a non-institutional figure who, in fact,
differentiated himself from the larger public institution,
and from the larger public world-including not only the
Greco-Roman world, and the Hellenistic world, but also the
temple world, or the “official” world of Judaism. Jesus
simply and repetitively preached a moral, devotional,
and (ultimately) Spiritual message, using the terms and
modes of the daily language that was associated with the
cultural environment in which he
lived and into which he was (according to
tradition) born.

The teaching reported in the “New Testament” Gospels is
the expression of an independent Spiritual
Masteras is generally the
case with Spiritual Masters in
all traditions. True Spiritual Masters may
themselves become institutionalized within a cultural (or
cultic) setting, and they may
even live and speak within the context of
some kind of institutional (or cultic) framework – yet, they
truly and inherenty stand apart from, and transcend, the
institutional or cultic context.
True Spiritual Masters (or authentic Spiritual Zealizers)
always (inherently, actually, and truly) speak and funcion
freely.

Jesus of Galilee (as the principal figure of the “New
Testament” Gospels) should be
understood to be a Spiritual Master of the fifth stage
degree. He stood apart from institutions and the
institutionalization of his
function. He was a simple itinerant, a wanderer. He spoke
very critically of many things, and was, essentially, simply
blessing people – with his
healing Blessing, his teaching Blessing, and (in the case of
those who were sufficiently prepared) his
S
piritual Blessing.

There is a tradition that suggests Jesus Transmitted his
Spiritual ‘lessing privately’, to an “inner circle” of those
of his followers who were most
prepared to receive the (fifth stage) esoteric Instruction
and the Spiritual Transmission that would enable them to
participate in Divine Communion through the internally
upturned psycho-physical process of Spiritual development
and Spiritual Ascent. There is “Ascension” language in the
Gospels (and in the early part of the Book of Acts) that
should (rightly) be regarded to be
“concretization” – metaphors for the “inner-circle”
teaching and the Spiritually Baptizing work of Jesus.
Reflected in the metaphors of the stories of Jesus of
Galilee is the tradition of both exoteric (or outer, or
public) teachings and esoteric (or inner, hidden, and,
therefore, secret) teachings or teachings relative to the
domain of the public beginner as well as teachings relative
to the “inner-circle” domain of the mature devotee (or the
esoteric domain of the directly Spiritual teachings and of
the direct Spiritual Transmission-work).

Many scholars say that numerous stories in the
“New Testament” Gospels are not
part of the “original” tradition (or
real biography”) of
Jesus – such as, for instance, the story of
Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, and to whom
Jesus said, “You must be born
again, in Spirit.” Whether that visit actually happened does
not make any difference. That story and others like
it are a fundamental part of
what is conveyed through the total body
of stories about the lifetime of Jesus and his work
and his doings and sayings. The
Nicodemus story is an important communication,
because it clearly indicates that the message of
Jesus is a Spiritually-based
message, and that Jesus was a Spiritual worker,
a Spirit-Transmitter, whose
teaching is about Spiritual transformation,
a conversion of life, a fundamental purification of
the life, such that the life
can, thereafter, be turned (and Spiritually conveyed)
to What is Above. Such turning
does not occur by a physical act of
going up into the sky, but by subtle (internal
psycho-physical) Ascent, by
means of the esoteric Spiritual process, into the
inner space which is sometimes
metaphorically called the “sky of mind”.

Clearly, the esotericism of Spiritual Ascent is a
fundamental substructure that
underlies the “New Testament” tradition. The
“official” Christian tradition that was built upon
the substructure that is
Spiritual esotericism strategically suppresses certain
elements (specifically, those
known as “gnostic”), and it, otherwise, “concretizes” (or
converts into a physical event) even such things as the
“Ascension” of Jesus (which, in fact, is a reference to
Jesus’ own life-practice of upward Spiritual absorption,
and, also, a reference to his “inner-circle” teachings about
that same process otherwise referred to via cryptic
references to the “secrets of the Kingdom of God”). The
newly emerging institutional (or “official” and public)
Christian tradition did all of this in order to prevent the
“Ascension” from being viewed as merely speculative and
“mystical” and “gnostic”-and, thus, to prevent the story of
Jesus’ fictional “Ascension” from conveying a
“too-Spiritual” (and, necessarily, esoteric, or non-public)
teaching.

The entire purpose of the “official” tradition of
Christianity is to bring masses of ordinary people into the
sphere of the public (or exoteric) Christian institution,
and (otherwise) to command them relative to their public,
social, and intimate life-activity. Essentially, the message
of the “official” tradition of Christianity is a social
morality, teaching that is conveyed through lore, myth,
legend, and poetically expansive religious language that is
intended to command the lives of people, and entirely in
order to enforce their `right behavior”. Thus, from a
Spiritual perspective, the institutionalizing effect of the
“official” message in the entire “New Testament” is rather
reductionist in its orientation.

Nevertheless, one can still discern the evidence that, at
the origin of the “official”
message of the “New Testament”, is a fourth
to
fifth stage Spiritual Realizer (or, at least, a
fourth-to-fifth stage esoteric Spiritual teaching or
teaching-school). Whether historical or
not
, such is the kind of “Jesus” who, by means of
storied doings and sayings, is
at the heart of the “New Testament” Gospels.

5.

An esoteric teaching of Spiritual Communion-or (to use
the `New Testament” language) a teaching about the “secrets
of the Kingdom of God” – is at
the root of the Gospels of the Christian tradition.
And that esoteric teaching comes directly from the even
more ancient pre-Christian
esoteric tradition about the “method”
Succeeded It (or
psycho-physical technique) of inner mystical (or Spiritual)
Ascent. The esoteric root – teaching at the origin of the
“New Testament” Gospels was about Spiritual Communion, and
not about the physical “Ascension” of Jesus.

Through his esoteric Spiritual teaching-work, Jesus
passed on a pre-Christian tradition of “method” (or of
practice-“technique”) and a process in which anyone else (if
rightly prepared) could also participate. However, the
original (and, apparently, actual) esoteric teaching-school
of Jesus of Galilee was suppressed and lost in the process
of the enforced exoteric institutionalization of
Christianity. Towards the end of the fourth century of the
Common Era (as a result of the earlier strategic initiatives
of Constantine), Christianity became the “official” religion
of the Roman State. At that point in time, Christianity –
which had, from its first public beginnings, always been
mostly of an exoteric nature, albeit with various “gnostic”
and otherwise esoteric groups also claiming to be associated
with Jesus and what they each claimed to be his “true”
teachings became finally codified into an exclusively
exoteric tradition. Nevertheless, there have (often in spite
of “official” pressures against them) continued to be
important fourth stage mystical figures and Spiritually –
activated saintly figures within the institutionalized (and,
especially, “Roman Catholic” and “Eastern Orthodox”) modes
of the Christian tradition.

In summary, the root-tradition from which (or upon which,
or in spite of which) “official” Christianity emerged was
very much more than an exoteric and outer, or merely public,
tradition. That esoteric foundation is suggested by the
so-called “Secret Gospel”, which is a fragment of what is
presumed to have been a more esoteric version of the “Gospel
of Mark”, and which was written for the “inner circle” of
those Christians who were initiated into the practice of
Spiritual Communion with their Spiritual Master, Jesus of
Galilee. Although the practice itself is not described
there, the “Secret Gospel” does suggest there was an
esoteric practice available for those who were prepared for
it. It suggests that there was, on the one hand, the public
message of Jesus’ teaching, and, on the other hand, when
people demonstrated the evidence of maturity, they were
given the esoteric (or “inner-circle”) practice-the “secret”
Spiritual practice.

Presumably, then, there were modes of direct Spiritual
Transmission known within the earliest (or
pre-institutional) Christian tradition (or within the sect
associated with Jesus during his, it may be presumed,
physical lifetime )- as is, for example, suggested in the
story of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. That
story is a “concretized” rendering of a Transmission of
Spiritual Energy. It is similar to the “Shaktipat”
tradition, which still exists, and can also be seen, for
example, in Motovilov’s account of his experience of
Spiritual Transmission from the “Orthodox” Christian Saint,
Seraphim of Sarov (in the nineteenth century). Something of
that very kind appears to be associated with the esoteric
“inner circle” that should be presumed to have existed in
intimate association with the (presumedly, historical)
Jesus.

The esoteric Spiritual teaching-school of Jesus of
Galilee is the pre-institutional original tradition of the
New Testament” Gospels. Apart from the institutionalization
of the “official” Christian message of “salvation” by means
of devotion to the “Resurrection-and-Ascension” Jesus, there
is also (and senior to that mythological Jesus) a suggested
historical Jesus who was a Spiritual teacher, and who did
the “inner-circle” work of Spiritual Transmission, and who
communicated not only a public (or exoteric and
socially-based) teaching but also an esoteric (or Spiritual,
and cosmically-oriented, and psycho-physically based)
“inner-circle” teaching.

A suggestion of just such Spiritual matters appears in
the story of the visit by Nicodemus in the night.
The very fact that the story emphasizes that Nicodemus
visited Jesus at night suggests an occasion of Spiritual
initiation. Suggestively, it was an overnight
event of
purification and preparation, and of receiving
Spiritual instruction having to
do with focusing upwardly (on brain-mediated visions
of inner light and the “Star within”), with the
eventual user-physical sighting
of the Morning Star (in the twilight, just
b
efore it would disappear in the daylight Sun) being
the outer symbolic reference to
the inner light and the inner star of mystical
or fourth-to-fifth stage, and, thus, brain-mediated)
esotericism. During the night,
the ceremonially-bathed initiate would be prepared,
by means of a vigil of instruction and Blessing, for the
interior Spiritual
Baptismal-vision given by Jesus.

Perhaps, in his instruction to the initiate, Jesus would
have identified himself with the Morning Star. Hence, such
aphoristic sayings as, “I am the bright Morning Star,” and,
“If your eye is made single (or one-pointed), your entire
body will be filled with light.” Also, the “Second Letter of
Peter” states: “You should pay attention to [the
teachings], as to a light that illuminates your
path-until the dawn, when the Morning Star rises in your sky
of mind.”18 And, in the “Book of Revelation”, the “Spirit”
is given to say: “I will give the Morning Star[to every
one who persists in the practice that accords with my
teachings, and who perseveres, and overcomes all
obstacles].” And, additionally, Jesus would likely have
uttered other esoteric promises, even such as the “Spirit”
is given to say in the “Book of Revelation”: “To those who
persevere and overcome, I will give an inner and
secretmanna’ [or Spiritual
nourishment], and a white stone [or tabula rasa, or
pristine state] within them, with a new and secret name
on it, which only those who receive it within themselves
will be able to identify and understand.”

As is quite common elsewhere in the fifth stage
traditions of religious and Spiritual schools outside of
Christianity, the initiate would concentrate, inwardly and
upwardly, at the midpoint between the brows, and, thus and
thereby, focus attention at the brain core – or, in terms of
the physical anatomy of the human body, at (and upwardly
from) the point of the hypothalamus and the ventricles of
the midbrain. The initiate would be instructed that he or
she will see the interior equivalent of the Morning Star at
that placeeither immediately
or, otherwise, if and when the practice has been done
diligently and over time. Once such instructions had been
given by Jesus to a new initiate, there would be a laying on
of hands (to directly and physically Transmit the Spiritual
Blessing, by Jesus), and, then (especially if there is a
significant sensitivity to the Spiritual Energy of the
Transmitted Spiritual Blessing), there would be various
kinds of potential mystical (or brain-mediated) experiences.
Such was the principal “secret” indicated in the “New
Testament” Gospels with reference to the “secrets” of the
“Kingdom of God”.

Although this esoteric Spiritual process has been
virtually eliminated from the “official” Christian tradition
(and, thus and thereby,
forgotten – and, in general, denied to all Christian
practitioners), it is (nonetheless, and essentially) the
same process that can be found, to this day, in the
(especially, fifth stage) Yogic traditions of India – and
elsewhere, all over the world.

The process referred to in the “parables” of the “New
Testament” Gospels is not, in fact, about the
blood-“Sacrifice”, bodily “Resurrection”, and literal,
physical “Ascension” of Jesus who, in that case, like a
ceremonial temple-offering of an animal, or incense, or a
ritual prayer, would “disappear” into the sky, and arrive in
“Heaven Above”, to rule on the “right-hand side” of the
“Father”.

At some point, Judaism began to communicate itself in
exclusively monotheistic language, and a doctrinal and
sacramental approach developed that was oriented strictly to
the “male” Deity. Thus, the “female” aspect (and
representation) of the Divine was systematically eliminated,
and what had (originally, in the earliest centuries of the
Hebrew tribal religion) been worshipped as a
“Unity”. (or a “Primal Union”) of male and female
became an exclusively male “God”. In “official”
Christianity, the exclusively “male” tendency (indicated in
the reference to “God” as the “Father”) appears to be a
cultural preference carried over from “official” Judaism.
The esoteric language of Jesus (himself) is not oriented
toward a paternalistic Deity “outside” the human person,
and, thus, “in” the world, but, rather, the esoteric
language of Jesus (himself) is oriented toward the Divine As
Spirit (or Spirit-Breath )- Which, in fact, traditionally,
is often associated with feminine terms of reference (such
as “Shakti”), and Which is, in any case, a reference to the
Divine as a Reality “inside” the human psycho-physical Form,
and, thus, Prior to the world, rather than “in”, or of, the
world. Indeed, the ancient word for “spirit” (in the common
Greek ‘Language of Jesus’ day) is “pneuma”, which means
“breath-energy”. Therefore, in true (or esoteric) Spiritual
practice (as taught by Jesus),
the individual breathes (and, Ultimately, is Absorbed In)
the Divine Spirit (Pneuma, or
Mana)-and, if there is correct Spirit) breathing (or
psycho-physical Absorption In the Divine Spirit Power),
Spiritual practice is inherently effective.

Also, in “official” Christianity, the cultural (and
merely exoteric)) reference for defining the Divine as
“Creator” (or “Cause”) of the
and the Christian Social Exotericism That Succeeded
It world is another carryover
from “official” Judaism. Again, the esoteric language of
Jesus indicates a different (and esoteric, rather than
exoteric) idea of “God”. The “God”-idea of Jesus is the idea
of the Divine As Spirit (or Spirit-Breath) “inside” (and,
thus, Prior to both the world and the human psycho-physical
form. That is to say, As Spirit the Divine Is the Prior
Reality, and, As ‘Such, not “Creator” (or “Cause”)-but,
rather, the Divine Spirit Is Source and Refuge. The Divine
As Spirit, Prior to the body-mind and the world, Is (Itself)
the “Goal” of humankind, whereas the “God”-idea of the
Divine as “Creator” tacitly subordinates the Divine to its
“creations” – and, thus, allows human beings to embrace the
illusion that conditions in and of the world and conditions
in and of the body-mind (or egoic self) itself are the
“Goal” of religion and of life.

The practice (and tradition) of astrology was very
important in the ancient world. Thus, much of the “New
Testament” was written on the basis of a framework of
various kinds of astrological conceptions (and of
astrological metaphors for esoteric conceptions). Take, for
example, the legendary story placed in the “New Testament”
Gospels about the “wise men” from the East, who followed a
Star. Likewise, references to the Sun often appear in the
“New Testament” Gospels, suggesting that the Sun in the sky
is (metaphorically speaking) “God the Father”. Therefore,
also metaphorically speaking, the “Star” (in “New Testament”
language) is Jesus, the “Son” of the “Sun”
a “risen” Star (or Morning Star) that is subordinate
to the “Sun” (because every star disappears in the full
sunlight of day), and that is also “born” of the “Sun”
(because all stars first appear in the night sky, after the
Sun sets). Jesus also (metaphorically speaking) represented
himself as a kind of “Sun-god”-or, that is to say, the
“Star” that is “one with the Father” is the “Sun” (or is, in
its essence, non-different from the essence of the
“Sun”).

The astrologically-based esoteric metaphor of the “Star
within” appears as a kind of cosmological reference in the
ancient traditions, in such aphorisms as “as above, so
below” (meaning, what is outside is also inside). Likewise,
where there is the process of Spiritual Ascent by means of
the Blessings of a Spiritual
Transmission-Master (and, thus, in the Yogic manner
associated with Shaktipat), the inward and upward focus
between the eyes is spontaneously stimulated and awakened,
and internal phenomena appear that have, in their
occurrence, some likeness to what can be called “happenings
in the sky”. Therefore, in the esoteric traditions, the
“inward plane” is sometimes referred to as the “sky
of mind”, or the “interior
sky”, and as having some likeness to the cosmological “sky”
– and a kind of cosmological journey (via interior Sun, and
Moon, and hierarchies of sub-stars, and planes, or worlds,
of experience, leading, at last, to the central Star, That
Shines with the Light That is also all-Pervading) is
suggested (and, in many cases, explicitly indicated) in the
language of virtually all esoteric traditions associated
with the fifth stage of life.

In the traditions based upon the culture of the ancients,
there is a continuity within the domain of the fourth and
the fifth stage traditions – that provides the basis for a
single universal cultural structure. That cultural structure
includes both exoteric and esoteric teachings and practices.
The exoteric teachings are for the general public and the
beginners-the yet “unconverted” and the newly “converted”.
The esoteric teachings are, necessarily, for practice (and
not merely for thinking, and arguing, and rudimentary
adaptation) – and, therefore, the esoteric teachings are
exclusively for those who have already proven themselves in
the domain of the exoteric culture.

On the basis of the principle of “the exoteric precedes
and leads to the esoteric”, the procedure followed by Jesus
and his “inner-circle” devotees was to, first, bring
responsive new “converts” into the exoteric domain (of
beginner-instructions), and, then; at the appropriate time,
the “tested and proven” individuals were invited into the
“inner circle”, where they received the esoteric teachings
and the Spiritual initiation. On this basis, the
preinstitutional school of Jesus of Galilee was built around
a teacher (who was Jesus himself), and his school had both
an exoteric and an esoteric dimension to its activities.

So, who were the people who were actually party to the
“inner-circle” esoteric teaching and the Spiritual
Transmission of Jesus? There are
indications in the “New Testament” Gospels that Joseph of
Arimathea was an initiate, and Nicodemus, too, who is said
to have come with Joseph of Arimathea to collect the body of
Jesus from the cross. Presumably, the twelve “disciples”
were “inner-circle” initiates-but (according to the “New
Testament” Gospels) they seem not to have known that Joseph
of Arimathea and Nicodemus had taken the body of Jesus for
“secret’.’ burial.

The burial tradition of the time of Jesus involved
placing the body in a closed tomb (often, with other bodies,
of recently deceased persons) and left there for about a
year-by which time only the bones remained. Then the bones
were placed in a special vessel (called an “ossuary”), which
might contain the bones of several other people (usually,
from the same family). It is not indicated (in the “New
Testament” Gospels) that Jesus was left alone in a tomb long
enough for his bones to be collected. It is, however,
commonly said (in the “Resurrection”-stories contained in
the “New Testament” Gospels) that the body of Jesus
“disappeared”.

Perhaps the body of Jesus was secretly buried to protect
it from mistreatment by strangers. It may very well be that
only Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus knew of Jesus’ burial
places imply because Jesus’ disciples (and the rest of his
following) were absent (having returned to Galilee
immediately after Jesus’ death). Hence, the exoteric
tradition, which became the dominant tradition of “official”
Christianity, emphasized the mysterious bodily disappearance
of Jesus – or, simply, his physical absence after death, and
which absence soon became “concretized” by bodily
“Resurrection” and “Ascension” myths.

The bodily “Ascension” of Jesus is the principal belief
of “official” exoteric Christianity. The disappearance of
the dead Jesus is reported (in the “absent-from-the-tomb”
stories in the “New Testament” Gospels) but the fact of the
“Ascended” Jesus is not otherwise experienced, except in the
form of ghostly apparitions, mystical visions, and psychic
visitations. The “after-death” physical “appearances” of
Jesus are, clearly, examples of “concretization” work (or
intentional myth-making). However, immediately after the
death of Jesus, there may very well have been dreams and
visions and other kinds of psychic experience on the part of
some of Jesus’ followers. Such “visions of the deceased” are
common even in the present day. Over time, however, these
“visitations” became “concretized”, and, thus and thereby,
were made into exoteric (or physically-based) “official”
doctrines, describing the postmortem Jesus as showing his
“Resurrected physical body” to his disciples, and, then,
“Ascending” bodily into the sky, from the top of a hill (and
disappearing-like the Sun-behind a cloud).

At any rate, whatever may actually have happened to
Jesus’ dead body, the information is now lost. In the year
seventy of the Common Era, Jerusalem was destroyed by the
Romans-and, perhaps in and as a result of that event, all
evidence (and possible knowledge) of where the body had been
placed (or, otherwise, where and how the bones were kept)
was also destroyed. Perhaps, the people who actually
possessed the bones of Jesus, or, otherwise, knew of their
whereabouts, were killed in the event of the destruction of
Jerusalem – or, perhaps, those people simply went elsewhere
(with or without the bones of Jesus).

6.

This book is intended to offer a straightforward
evaluation, summation, and understanding of Jesus of
Galilee, who is readily recognizable as a “type” of human
individual that is otherwise found, throughout human
history, in traditions all over the world. Thus, according
to “type”, Jesus of Galilee is clearly recognizable as an
authentic Yogi-Saint (or fourth-to-fifth stage Spiritual
Master) of the ancient world. Jesus is a Realizer of a
degree that is evident throughout the ancient world, and in
the world even to this day. This is the “real” Jesus. The
otherwise “officially” proposed Christian” Jesus is the
literary product of institutionalization, based upon the
“concretization” of a religious fiction (or myth)-the myth
of the celestial Jesus, associated with an exoteric message
of universal salvation that was intended not only for Jews
but for the total world of non Jews as well.

Originally, the “New Testament” writings appealed to the
tradition of the Jews, or the people of Israel, as the
source of its “new authority” – in order to support the
argument that Jesus was prophesied in the tradition of
Israel, through its prophets and through
various interpretations of the “Old Testament”. That
argument, however, need not be taken seriously, apart from
generally confirming that Jesus of Galilee was, by birth, a
Jew.

Jesus of Galilee did not communicate a Jewish teaching.
Although Jesus was born within the culture of Judaism, he
was not a teacher of Judaism as such. Jesus was an itinerant
Spiritual teacher and he had unique associations with Jewish
“outsiders”, especially John the Baptist. Essentially, Jesus
of Galilee was a man who was “outside” the temple and
“outside” the culture of Judaism.

The “New Testament” is, at its core, an independent
tradition. Christianity separated itself from Judaism, and
became something else. Unfortunately, in making that
separation, the Jewish converts to Christianity maintained a
claim to the holy books of Judaism, and they even claimed to
be the new “true Israel” – and, thus, established a
principle of cultural superiority that, eventually, gave
rise to all the horrors of anti-Semitism that Jewish people
have been made to suffer for centuries. Such is (among other
efforts made on the basis of the absurd presumption of
cultural superiority) a negative result of the
institutionalization of exoteric Christianity. Added to the
absurd presumption of cultural superiority was (eventually)
all of the inherently self-deluding and self corrupting
association with political and social power, when
Christianity became established as an “official”
State-religion, with the power of Rome as its base. In
contrast to all of that egoity of superiority and power
stands the rather humble and simply human figure of Jesus of
Galilee – the socially and politically powerless Jesus, and
his compassion for those who have no power, and his
“criticism” of worldly political and religious power, and
his constant Blessing of all and everyone (completely
without reference to any search for worldly power), and his
teaching about Divine Communion (as a constant
life-experience of heart, and mind, and body, and,
ultimately, of Spiritual Breathing), and his teaching about
authentic human freedom (without any tradition-bound or
political requirements). Jesus was not a warrior, and his
teaching was not about the search for worldly power at
all-but only the search for Union with the Spiritual Divine
(both in this life and Above this world).

Jesus of Galilee was talking (and teaching) about the
process of Realizing freedom by means of Divine Communion.
For Jesus, freedom was about liberation from bondage to the
suffering and the humiliating mortality of this world. Jesus
was not talking about making an institution that would
become the “official” religion of the world-nor was he
talking about a “God” that should become the “official”
Deity of the world. Jesus had none of the characteristics of
a merely exoteric religious (and, necessarily, also
political) figure.

Because Jesus himself established a school of
practitioners of his teaching, an authentic
esoterically-based institution could very well have extended
from Jesus (and continued beyond his physical lifetime) –
but no such institution survived him. Nevertheless, that
institution (had any, as such, survived) would have been an
institution that was simply associated with moral (or
personal “rightlife”) practices, and devotional (or
“God”-Communing and “Guru”serving) practices, and esoteric
Spiritual practices-not political, not revolutionary, and
neither Jewish nor anti Jewish.

The people whom Jesus of Galilee was addressing – who
were, in their disposition, the same kind of person he
was-presumed that suffering was the natural (and not merely
political) state of human beings. Human beings, in that
view, are all humble, mortal, suffering, often ill, and
deprived-regardless of their worldly status (whether high or
low in the human social and political hierarchy). Jesus was
not a social revolutionary, or a social “activist”. Jesus
was, simply, by nature, sympathetic and compassionate.

Jesus of Galilee felt a profound disposition of
compassion for people in their ordinary, natural, human
condition-not just as subordinates of the Roman State, or as
members of an “official” religious institution that was,
itself, essentially a kind of political (or, otherwise,
social-activist) entity. Jesus stepped out of the spheres of
both the power of State and the power of “official”
religion-and, basically, he taught everyone else to do the
same.

Jesus of Galilee extended his Blessing-Regard to al l- as
shown through the reported incidents of his healing work. By
this means, Jesus taught people to understand that “true
religion” is not merely a set of prescriptions for “right
behavior”. Rather, “true religion” is
Communion with the Divine by means of moral (or
“right-life”) disciplines, and by means of devotional (or
“right-heart”) disciplines, and, above all, by means of
Spiritual (or TruthWorshipping) disciplines. According to
Jesus, “true religion” is the life-practice of turning to
the Spiritual Divine “with all your heart, with all your
mind, and with all your strength”.

Such was the teaching of Jesus of Galilee. Such was his
state of Realization. Jesus of
Galilee was a fourth-to-fifth stage Realizer (or Spiritual
Master), who taught a moral, devotional, and Spiritual
“method” (or practice-“technique”) of Divine Communion.
That “method” included the
Transmission of Spiritual Blessing from Master to devotee,
within a school that accepted only rightly prepared people
into its “inner circle” (or esoteric domain).

It seems that the continuity of the original esoteric
school of Jesus of Galilee was broken up at some point. That
school did not survive-or, perhaps, it became (even
immediately after Jesus’ death) so entirely secret that it
was never publicly heard from again. In any case, there is
no evidence of a Spiritually active esoteric order of
devotees of Jesus that has existed continuously from his
physical time of life.

There are, of course, other fourth-to-fifth stage
teachers, teachings, traditions, and schools that, even now,
perpetuate fourth-tofifth stage paths that are virtually
identical to the esotericism of Jesus of Galilee. The
esoteric tradition of Jesus of Galilee is, therefore, still
alive. It is, however, not wearing a “Christian” face. All
fourth-to-fifth stage esoteric Spiritual traditions are,
essentially, the same-because the teachings conveyed within
all such esoteric traditions are based upon the
root-structure (or psycho-physical anatomy) “that is common
to all human beings. Thus, all fourth-to-fifth stage
Spiritual esotericism is about direct psycho-physical
Communion with the Divine Spiritual Reality Itself,
completely apart from myths, and mere ideas, and all the
institutionalized “concretions” of “official” exoteric
religious language.

Even all that is true and Truth is “alive and
well”-regardless of the “official” concepts of the times.
And all that is true and Truth will continue, so long as
there is continuity in the depth of human existence, and the
discovery of it, generation by generation-and so long as it
is not lost in the illusions of superficial-mindedness, and
mere egoity, and the reductionism that confines all and
everything to the materialistically-“objectified” (or
naively “concretized”) view and to the exoteric
earlier-stage-of-life myths about Reality and life.


Up?
Table of Contents