![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticusFrom a conversation I was having in a chat recently:
In my own view, Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul of the Christian tradition) would seem to be a rather tragic personage, and on his own abilities and personality, a sort of pseudo-knower (Gnostic). Granted, he must have been quite wise and intuitively-gifted, and probably had a fair number of profound spiritual experiences of his own. However, like many other failed initiates of his era, it seems apparent that he never bothered to master any of the systems of practice he had been involved with prior to starting his own cult (classic blunder of failed initiates). And thus he never effectively dealt with his own ego issues prior to having the bright idea (on the Road to Damascus, surely) of starting his own religion. And predictably, the cult he did found ended up being permanently tainted by his own ego-flaws. Paul could be seen as a classic example of the junior initiate who betrays the mysteries by sharing some of the teachings with the masses; which he most certainly did when he dumbed down some of the inner teachings (which he undoubtedly pilfered from whatever mystery cults he did actually belong) into into silly parables and simple doctrinal talking points. He would have called these digestible tidbits, 'milk for babes.'
Yes, it seems Saul was a rather complicated character. He was caught between two worlds, the Jewish and Hellenic (Platonic, to be more specific), and as a result had an inner identity conflict he tried to resolve though the hybrid cult he ended up trying to spread all over the Mediterranean. I suspect that earlier in his life he was an avid reader of both Plato and Philo's Jewish take on Plato's philosophy. And as I alluded to above, he probably also belonged to one or more Hellenic mystery cults, likely each with a Platonic or Neo-Pythagorean core theme; his lifetime and geographic region would have made a plausible case for him possibly having been a student of the great 1st century CE Neopythagorean sage Apollonius of Tyana, or perhaps a student of an offshoot school of his.
So at some point Saul had the bright idea of trying to convert fellow Jews to his own peculiar, rather dualistic and partially-Judaized interpretation of Platonic doctrines. And when that mostly failed he took his strange new cult doctrine to the non-Jews; mostly the Hellenes of various Anatolian cities of the Roman Empire. And for one reason or another, disaffected Hellenes were eventually joining his cult in droves, though in the letters we're clued into the probable reality that the laity and clergy were taught very different doctrines. In other words, the common rabble, with their vulgar, wordily understanding of reality, were starkly differentiated from the initiates who had tasted the first fruits of Gnosis. At this point in early Christianity, the Knowers and Hearers (to use the old Pythagorean organizational model) were members of the same Church body. At the new religion spread around further and gained more members it started schisming off into different sects. Undoubtedly, there were many hearers who were deemed unsuitable for initiation into the ranks of knowers, but that didn't stop them from thinking they had things figured out on their own, and the more egocentric among them would go off and forms their own churches, sans-knowers. And we all know how history proceeded from there.
I would agree with Nietzsche's assessment of Pauline Christianity being 'Platonism for the people.' This does indeed seem like what Saul was attempting to accomplish in spreading his new cult ideology around the Eastern parts of the empire. But this all raises the question, what did Saul actually himself believe? My best guess is that his beliefs were a combination of what I mentioned above (Judaic Platonism), coupled with a grab-bag of mystery school doctrines which were circulating around during the 1st century. Two primary ideas he would have understood were, (1) the cycle of rebirths human souls experience over countless lifetimes, and (2) the Precession of the Equionixes, which is the esoteric doctrine which informs on the Astrological Ages we experience here on Earth. A thorough understanding of the latter doctrine would inform the initiate that humanity at the time was entering a long 'dark age' and thus the next 6,000 years or so would be a time of sorrow, ignorance, crass materialism, degeneracy, non-virtuous living, and a whole host of other spiritual ills. In other words, a terrible time to incarnate on this planet. Perhaps to Saul, the best viable alternative would be to gain sufficient Gnosis in order to ascend into 'The Kingdom of Heaven' which really was just his own quasi-Judaized way of referring to Plato's realm of Perfect Forms. The idea was, "we must get out NOW, before it's too late!!" And here Saul conveniently borrowed the immanency and urgency of Messianic Jewish time-perception and incorporating it into his own bastardized set of public teachings. He may of purposefully withheld the (true) doctrine of reincarnation from the Hearers, possibly thinking that telling the truth would undermine the sense of urgency he was trying to convey to his followers. Though some of the later, more mystically-inclined Church Fathers like Origen (along with many of the so-called 'Gnostics') would openly profess the reality of reincarnation. Again, the problem with the teaching of reincarnation is that it undermines and subverts the sort of microscopic time scales Abrahamic religions revolve around (this is the #1 reason why the post-Nicene Roman Church tried so virulently to expunge this doctrine from the written record). If there are indeed countless lifetimes available to a human soul to grow and evolve, then the message of "Immediate Salvation in this very lifetime, noowwwwwww!!' is rightly seen as being immensely infantile, especially when foisted upon less-mature human souls.
In summary, I believe Saul of Tarsus was a failed initiate of the higher mysteries and an ardent popularizer of Platonism (or rather, his own understanding of Platonism). He tried in vain to share some of these teachings with the masses and as a result ended up creating countless more problems than he solved. Hell, even the New Testament (a direct product of Paul's teachings) warns against this very act!!
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
-Matthew 7:6
As we know, the original core of initiates that constituted the leaders of early Christian movement were eventually trampled underfoot by the uninitiated literalists and dogmatists who later took over the church and remade it in their own cruddy image.
What a tragic figure indeed Paul was!
In my own view, Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul of the Christian tradition) would seem to be a rather tragic personage, and on his own abilities and personality, a sort of pseudo-knower (Gnostic). Granted, he must have been quite wise and intuitively-gifted, and probably had a fair number of profound spiritual experiences of his own. However, like many other failed initiates of his era, it seems apparent that he never bothered to master any of the systems of practice he had been involved with prior to starting his own cult (classic blunder of failed initiates). And thus he never effectively dealt with his own ego issues prior to having the bright idea (on the Road to Damascus, surely) of starting his own religion. And predictably, the cult he did found ended up being permanently tainted by his own ego-flaws. Paul could be seen as a classic example of the junior initiate who betrays the mysteries by sharing some of the teachings with the masses; which he most certainly did when he dumbed down some of the inner teachings (which he undoubtedly pilfered from whatever mystery cults he did actually belong) into into silly parables and simple doctrinal talking points. He would have called these digestible tidbits, 'milk for babes.'
Yes, it seems Saul was a rather complicated character. He was caught between two worlds, the Jewish and Hellenic (Platonic, to be more specific), and as a result had an inner identity conflict he tried to resolve though the hybrid cult he ended up trying to spread all over the Mediterranean. I suspect that earlier in his life he was an avid reader of both Plato and Philo's Jewish take on Plato's philosophy. And as I alluded to above, he probably also belonged to one or more Hellenic mystery cults, likely each with a Platonic or Neo-Pythagorean core theme; his lifetime and geographic region would have made a plausible case for him possibly having been a student of the great 1st century CE Neopythagorean sage Apollonius of Tyana, or perhaps a student of an offshoot school of his.
So at some point Saul had the bright idea of trying to convert fellow Jews to his own peculiar, rather dualistic and partially-Judaized interpretation of Platonic doctrines. And when that mostly failed he took his strange new cult doctrine to the non-Jews; mostly the Hellenes of various Anatolian cities of the Roman Empire. And for one reason or another, disaffected Hellenes were eventually joining his cult in droves, though in the letters we're clued into the probable reality that the laity and clergy were taught very different doctrines. In other words, the common rabble, with their vulgar, wordily understanding of reality, were starkly differentiated from the initiates who had tasted the first fruits of Gnosis. At this point in early Christianity, the Knowers and Hearers (to use the old Pythagorean organizational model) were members of the same Church body. At the new religion spread around further and gained more members it started schisming off into different sects. Undoubtedly, there were many hearers who were deemed unsuitable for initiation into the ranks of knowers, but that didn't stop them from thinking they had things figured out on their own, and the more egocentric among them would go off and forms their own churches, sans-knowers. And we all know how history proceeded from there.
I would agree with Nietzsche's assessment of Pauline Christianity being 'Platonism for the people.' This does indeed seem like what Saul was attempting to accomplish in spreading his new cult ideology around the Eastern parts of the empire. But this all raises the question, what did Saul actually himself believe? My best guess is that his beliefs were a combination of what I mentioned above (Judaic Platonism), coupled with a grab-bag of mystery school doctrines which were circulating around during the 1st century. Two primary ideas he would have understood were, (1) the cycle of rebirths human souls experience over countless lifetimes, and (2) the Precession of the Equionixes, which is the esoteric doctrine which informs on the Astrological Ages we experience here on Earth. A thorough understanding of the latter doctrine would inform the initiate that humanity at the time was entering a long 'dark age' and thus the next 6,000 years or so would be a time of sorrow, ignorance, crass materialism, degeneracy, non-virtuous living, and a whole host of other spiritual ills. In other words, a terrible time to incarnate on this planet. Perhaps to Saul, the best viable alternative would be to gain sufficient Gnosis in order to ascend into 'The Kingdom of Heaven' which really was just his own quasi-Judaized way of referring to Plato's realm of Perfect Forms. The idea was, "we must get out NOW, before it's too late!!" And here Saul conveniently borrowed the immanency and urgency of Messianic Jewish time-perception and incorporating it into his own bastardized set of public teachings. He may of purposefully withheld the (true) doctrine of reincarnation from the Hearers, possibly thinking that telling the truth would undermine the sense of urgency he was trying to convey to his followers. Though some of the later, more mystically-inclined Church Fathers like Origen (along with many of the so-called 'Gnostics') would openly profess the reality of reincarnation. Again, the problem with the teaching of reincarnation is that it undermines and subverts the sort of microscopic time scales Abrahamic religions revolve around (this is the #1 reason why the post-Nicene Roman Church tried so virulently to expunge this doctrine from the written record). If there are indeed countless lifetimes available to a human soul to grow and evolve, then the message of "Immediate Salvation in this very lifetime, noowwwwwww!!' is rightly seen as being immensely infantile, especially when foisted upon less-mature human souls.
In summary, I believe Saul of Tarsus was a failed initiate of the higher mysteries and an ardent popularizer of Platonism (or rather, his own understanding of Platonism). He tried in vain to share some of these teachings with the masses and as a result ended up creating countless more problems than he solved. Hell, even the New Testament (a direct product of Paul's teachings) warns against this very act!!
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
-Matthew 7:6
As we know, the original core of initiates that constituted the leaders of early Christian movement were eventually trampled underfoot by the uninitiated literalists and dogmatists who later took over the church and remade it in their own cruddy image.
What a tragic figure indeed Paul was!
(no subject)
Date: 2021-04-23 02:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2021-04-23 03:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2021-04-24 12:30 am (UTC)Perhaps! The only other thing I heard of Ashoka was his call to pacifism after his conquest of india. Ashoka's call seems more proselytizing whereas Constantine's was about internal stability.