Let us examine now the interplay of Greek philosophical categories and the Name of Jesus in the formation of the Canon.

The Greek-and Hebrew-encased doctrines and dogmas of the New Testament are historically conditioned. They point to important realities, but they are not canonical in the sense of being catholic, necessary structural elements (standards) of Christian Religion. The Name is the Canon. The Name envelops Itself in a number of types of structure (male aspect) and also puissance (female aspect). Examples include Christian Science, Franciscans, Carmelites, Jesuits, Benedictines, Dominicans, Augustinians, Hieronymeans, Bohemians, Jansenists, Nestorians, Quakers, Puritans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Shakers, Mennonites, Hutterites, Moravians, Amish, and others. These are Christian structure and puissance in which the Name enwraps Itself.

The structure of the Religion is the Name of Jesus. The power of the Religion is the Name of Jesus. This is the gist of the First through Twenty First-and-forward Century Church. The Name of Jesus is the answer to the problem of piety. Everything is in the Name.

The rubrics of Greek schools of philosophy were used, including by St. Paul, to make Christian experience intelligible to both Greek and Jewish audiences. In the process of being used, these rubrics were also transformed, some of them, into a unique character which we call Christian.

By the Fourth Century, in most territories of the Empire, the rubrics of Neo-Platonic theology and Stoic philosophy were in such wide-spread use by Christian writers that folks then, as now, took them for the structure of Christian Religion, for the only way in which Christian Religion can be done and preached. But this was then and is now only an appearance.

Christianity can be practiced, preached and explained in rubrics other than those of Neo- Platonic theology and Stoic philosophy, which were used at the Councils of Nicæa and Chalcedon for Christian Creedal formulation. This is a novel thought, but true. 40 In fact, the stature and nature of Christ can be described and even more precisely defined using rubrics other than those of Neo-Platonic theology and Stoic philosophy than it can be using those rubrics.

The rubrics of Neo-Platonic theology and Stoic philosophy that were used by the Councils do not do a good job. They do a sloppy job. In high glee, Arians made this observation regarding the statement produced at Nicæa. Operationally, homoousias comes to the same thing as homoiousias does, they said. And they were right. The Nicene victors were insufficiently discriminating about the nature of language. What they said says almost the opposite of what they meant to say. The two natures dogma promulgated at Chalcedon has long been recognized 41 for an intellectual as well as a pietistical howler. 42

It can be argued that the rubrics of Neo-Platonic theology and Stoic philosophy were the best thing available for defining the Religion at the time of the Councils. It is at least true that they were the only rubrics allowed to define the Religion at that time.

Defining something, however, is a negative activity. Definition involves exclusion. The Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds are non-Catholic instruments because they are exclusionary. And they are non-Apostolic constructions for the same reason. The existence of a Creed is evidence of a loss of inspiration. The pneumatics were dead or sequestered and the church opted for Creeds. It was unavoidable. But it was a loss, an anti-Catholic action.

Whether or not Stoic and Neo-Platonic philosophical categories were the only rubrics available for the promulgation of Christian Religion then, 43 they are not the only rubrics available for that purpose today. In fact, we have others and we have better ones. We have the originals, Vedic rubrics, and we should use them.

Today, it cannot be argued, successfully, that the rubrics of Greek philosophy are the only way to discuss or even to define Christian Religion. For example, to argue Apostolic Succession from the New Testament, which defines Christianity in terms of Greek philosophical rubrics, is permissible provisionally, but absolutely it is a non sequitur. To argue Apostolic Succession from the New Testament is justified only so long as one is able to maintain that only the rubrics of Greek philosophy can be employed to discuss and define Christian Religion. And one cannot maintain this. One can maintain, about our situation today, that the rubrics of Greek philosophy are the only ones known to be useful for discussing and defining Christian Religion so far as most of us are aware. This is very different from maintaining that only the rubrics of Greek philosophy can be employed to discuss and define Christian Religion.

There are Vedic as well as other rubrics which can be employed to discuss and even to define Christian Religion, based on the operation of the real Ground, which is the Name of Jesus. So, a doctrine such as Apostolic Succession can be appropriate in one context, which defines Christianity using the rubrics of Greek philosophy, but simultaneously inappropriate or even non-existent in another context, which defines Christianity using the rubrics of another syntax or semantics.

This insight leads to the question, which philosophies comprise rubrics of capacity adequate to discuss and define Christian Religion? It is a pertinent question.

Scriptural precedent for this insight, which is the puissance for driving another Reformation, 44 is Jeremiah 7:22. You'll have to fill in some elisions of the logical and the pneumatical steps between that and this, but you have the brains and probably the time also, and I want to invite you to make the effort.

The Epistemology of Non-Separation ...

The Christian Kerygma is the Name of Jesus.

The Fifth Dimension (Essentia) is Elegance.

ho orthos tes physeos logos
the right reason of nature
the source and fountain of virtues

anima naturaliter christiana
the human soul is by nature Christian

apophthegmata epigrams heirophantes
expounders of sacred mysteries

to on
Being Itself

chresmoi
Divine Oracle

thespidzo
prophesy

athlos
struggles,

labors finis = telos = swa-dharma
intrinsic aim, inner necessity

The story of Jesus' birth from a virgin woman is a myth, not a fact. The purpose of the story is to announce that Jesus' ætiology is independent of historical contingency. The story, however, encourages the docetic-monophysitic tendencies of Christian thinking. These tendencies are strong among lay people and clergy, who tend to be lazy, superficial and premature in their conclusions. By excluding the agency of a human father, the story deprives the New Being (Christ) of full participation in the human condition.

The myth shows a poverty of concepts, that a virgin birth story would have to be used in order to claim divine origin for Jesus. It derogates life. It says that life is not good enough for God, that life is dirty, not divine. It is a slap at the object of its devotion, Mary Herself. Mary and Joseph were ordinary wife and husband who gave birth to several children. They were very poor. Jesus was one of their sons.

Virgin birth narratives were a customary inducement to veneration in Hellenic Culture. They were fabricated as elements of public relations campaigns. The narratives of the Careers of Alexander, Pythagoras, Plato and Apollonios of Tyana include virgin birth stories. Virgin birth narratives associated with the birth of Jesus were in this tradition.

The virgin birth narratives which we have that are associated with the Career of Jesus are several and varied. The version which made it into the Christian Canon is collated. We should assume that other versions, probably to a considerable degree of esoterism, existed at one time but are no longer available for viewing.

Virgin birth stories are always intended to support an attitude which, in other circumstances, the Church labels Marcionite and Gnostic: denigration of ordinary life processes. The locus classicus in the Christian Canon of these stories is the Lucan Gospel, the one favored by Marcion. The Johannine account of Jesus' Career, the one most accurate, does not contain this type of story.

The birth of Jesus was accompanied by some extra-ordinary phenomena. A display of supernal light in the pre-dawn sky occurred as He emerged from His mother's womb. Nature paid homage to the infant God had prepared and brought for a salvic mission. The births and deaths of all Great Ones are accompanied by extra-ordinary phenomena of nature. The births and deaths themselves, however, are ordinary.

All life is holy. All life is one.

Jesus took birth as a Great One, as the Messiah looked for by Jews, and some Gentiles, to teach humanity the way to Blessedness. He took birth as a human being, not as a Person of the Holy Trinity. Nor did He ever become such a Person. Tertullian's preference for the Logos' accepting human essence (appropriation) rather than becoming it (transformation) is correct. It has some of the right sense of things. The kenosis dogma of Philippians 2:7 is an unnecessary fabrication. It is part of a prevarication. It is not from the pen of Paul.

Jesus did not realize he was a Great One, and specifically the Messiah, until his 25th year, when he was resident at a monastery in Tibet, possibly Hemis. He spent some 18 years on spiritual pilgrimage, yearning for salvation and realization. When he got both, he became aware that he was the Messiah foretold by Hebrew prophets, and at that point he returned to Palestine and began the few, brief years of teaching and healing which the New Testament more or less relates. He had powers that are associated with Divinity.

The principle of Threeness may be made to support Christian Religion, but it should be obtained directly from the Vedic Ur-Type and not from an embellishment or inflation of the facts. If we want primal Threeness as the foundation of Christian Religion, as Alexandrine students did, after the suggestion of a Sage, this should be done without lifting Jesus into one of the aspects of The Three. Christian Trinitarian discourse should comprise either versions of Vedic usage or supreme abstraction. Either course is acceptable.

The principle of canonicity is the philosophy of Non-Dualism. Once we use this light to see by, canonical texts are easily identified and arranged. Everything lays to hand and resort to inflation of Jesus' ontological stature is unnecessary and even distasteful.

Jews and Mohammedans have always been right in their assessment of Jesus' stature: he was an aspirant. Mohammedans and Christians have always been right in their assessment of His mission: he was the Christ.

Jesus took birth as an aspirant, a human being. He always was this. But He was a Great One, such as come only once every few thousand years, and He most assuredly was the Messiah, the Savior from Distress, who was looked for in Hebrew (Jewish) Religion.

The person is in the name, the name is in the person. The physical frame, the body, may not be present, but the person is present when their name is spoken. This is true of both human and divine persons.

All names are Names of God. 45 Speaking or thinking any name draws God and the speaker near.

But not all names are plenipotentiary Names of God. Not all can draw Him near enough to the speaker to effect salvation for the speaker. This is the important point Sages wish humanity to understand. It makes a great amount of difference in the happiness of a life whether the resident understands this simple fact or not. Many do not understand it and do not have happiness for that reason, at least. Only certain Names have the capacity to save. Only certain Names are plenipotential for salvation. These are the few Names of He and of Great Ones, Saints and Sages whom He sends so that their Names may be used to call upon Him. The Names of Great Ones, Saints and Sages are Names of God.

The Names of God which are plenipotentiary are soteriologically effective. They have salvic teleology. Their genius, their direction-of-action is the delectation of every heart.

The Name of Jesus is what is important about Jesus because this Name is a plenipotentiary Name of God. It was given to all humanity for the very purpose of their gaining their hearts' desire: liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Furthermore, the Name of Jesus was given to animate and inanimate nature, who delight in Him also, for the same purpose. This is why St. Francis preached to the birds and other animals. All the Saints and Sages, Great Ones and Avathars of the Lord do this. Salvation is for all.

Repetition of the Name draws God and the speaker near enough together to effect salvation for the speaker and happiness for God.

Salvation is the elimination of distress, the warding off of harmful influences and the drawing near of the aspirant to their desire, God. Salvation may be compared with the phenomenon of a moth being drawn into the flame because of the light it emits.

It is said that the devotee is more powerful than God because their devotion binds God to themselves. Such devotion is compelled and nourished by repetition of the Name. Repetition of the Name is a functional omnipotence. How soft His Heart is! To the true devotee, God is their servant!

God has plenipotentiary Names other than the Name of Jesus, and these, too, are soteriologically effective. He is unconcerned which of His plenipotentiary Names we use to call upon Him. He answers equally to each and all.

However, He will not be pleased -- and neither will we be with the result -- if we call upon Him with a Name which is not plenipotentiary. Most Names are not.

And this caution: we should choose the plenipotentiary Name which is sweetest to us and stick with that one for our spiritual discipline. If we employ this limitation, which concentrates effort and prevents dissipation, our journey will be quick and smooth.

When water is an unknown depth below the surface and we have pipe enough for a 1000 foot descent, we should sink one 1000 foot hole rather than two 500 foot holes or four 250 foot ones.

Tolerance is a good quality because it is realistic. If we are being tolerant, we are being realistic. The desire to win is appropriate in a very few situations of life. Most of our life is situations in which we should want just to play the game, not to win. No one ever really wins. What happens is that one party doesn't play well enough and thereby defaults the game. Victory trades sides as rapidly as partners in a square dance. And this: winning involves inflicting pain, a thing which has a recoil a winner will rue. Tolerance is the answer because it is realistic and not reactant.

Christian Religion is the spiritual discipline of repeating and meditating upon the Name of Jesus, the Christ, the Oracle, the Messiah, in order to bring God near and in order to come near Him for the purpose of being saved from distress and delectated in, with, over, under, around and through His Supernal Sweetness.

A plenipotential Name of God is not necessarily the Name of a Person of the Godhead, however That is taken, whether Unitarian or Trinitarian. The Name of a Great One can be the Name of that Personality and also a Name of God without being the Name of a Person of the Godhead. The Name of Jesus is such a Name. It is the Name of a Great, specially-sent Personality. It is a Name of God. It is not a Name of a hypostasis of the Godhead.

Jesus does not need to be built up into a Second Person of the Holy Trinity in order for his Name to have soteriological puissance. He was an aspirant given birth for the very purpose of drawing mankind Godward by means of repetition of His Name. His ontological stature does not have to be inflated, as the final redactors of the New Testament have done, in order for His Name to possess soteriological capacity. His Name was given to humanity for just that reason and is plenipotential as given.

40- Francis Xavier's children tried it in China. Return

41- By Christian Theologians. Return

42- There is no end to the process of clarification which the two natures dogma inspires. It cannot be clarified because it is nonsense. Return

43- And I doubt that they were. Return

44- This time of both Protestant and Catholic Churches. Return

45- All forms are Forms of God, although that is not our focus here. Return

Adwaitha Hermitage
August 14, 1993
Revised, May 3, 1994

Beginning

Reverse