This idea is often associated with the concept of transcendence, where the ultimate reality or truth cannot be fully grasped or expressed through conventional forms or concepts. Behind the diversity of forms we perceive in the world, there exists a formless essence that unifies and transcends them all, but we are in an existence that demands that we are mindful of forms in order to survive.
This seems to me to be the paradox that many struggle with. It is also a question of perception of beauty which raises our souls after a long grey winter. It poses the question as to what happens to such perceptions when our physical frames deteriorate. Is beauty only a misconception?
Sorry, I seem to have taken us off topic. The word “performative” has a negative connotation which you may not have intended i.e. that something is fake and inauthentic or only for show. I don’t think that applies to Jesus who by all accounts was authentic. If someone took offense at the proposition, maybe that’s why.
Now, was Jesus a performance artist? Perhaps in a special sense. Like prophets that came before him, he sometimes performed symbolic acts, rather than just preaching words. The Gospel of John emphasizes this point and has been called the “signs gospel.” These acts were not just miracles but rather symbols pointing to the transcendent One. So, if Jesus was a performance artist he was so in the highest sense of the word.
Unity is synonymous with oneness i.e. the quality of one. The ultimate one has no second. It is infinite and unbounded. Every form has extension and boundaries.
Now in deference to this thread’s topic, we could say that Jesus was a per-FORM-ance artist i.e. he brought form to the formless.
Not so. The word “unity” means the state of being one, or oneness, and the opposite of being divided. In mathematics, “unity” is a synonym for the number “one”, which represents a single entity. In terms of monism, the one is uncountable—without a second.
There are three kinds of one like there are three kinds of hearing. Hear me out.
Think about the analogy of this thread. When you go back to the main menu of threads it says there are 78 replies. But then when you click on the thread it says there are 79 because it counts the first one in the total. The main menu is only counting the replies to the first one. And the entire thread, taken as a whole, counts one thread, not 78 or 79–though, it couldn’t even count (have value as) one without them.
Similarly, there is the pie you eat and taste. There is the memory of the pie you eat and taste. Then there is the lucid experience (like a flashback, or a dream) of eating and tasting pie, though there is no pie there, and it is no mere memory, because you can taste it, but it is not exactly the same as actually eating and tasting the actual pie (because it isn’t there).
There is a reason that I’m saying this but I can’t tell you that right now. I’m sorry.
Jesus was a performance artist in the way he embodied the spirit and demonstrated love. The problem seems to have been that although his followers and critics were amazed, their reactions were all too human. His followers started talking about positions in a future realm, and his enemies accused him of serving the devil. It seems that the events happened so quickly that only after the shock of his execution did his disciples follow his lead and find, thereby, how he lived through what they did.
I think the perceived synchronicity of events led to the beliefs expressed in the Gospel of John. In John 11:49-50, we read, “But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.””
The idea of the atonement through Jesus is born here (although it was probably not meant that way) and developed further to include the conviction that the spirit of creation at work at the beginning of time had intervened to save Israel, which was then seen as an atonement “to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” This may have been the inspiration for Paul’s vision.
The problem historically is that even if Caiaphas was right, the destruction came after all in 70 AD. By then, Paul had taken the message to the Roman Empire, primarily among the Greeks, and further developed the idea. This turn of events gravely influenced the relationship between Jewish and Greek Christians. It changed the cultural perception of the event, perpetuating it when Rome came under Christian influence and eventually its rule.
If Jesus’’ mission had been to generate a vast array of theories about his life and legacy, then he was wildly successful. Within Christianity there are thousands of denominations, many claiming to have the unique truth about him.
Outside of Christianity you have several centuries of scholarship on the historical Jesus. While most academic scholars agree that a historical Jesus of Nazareth existed, there’s a wide range of scholarly opinion about the meaning and accuracy and origin of the Biblical stories about him and a dearth of reliable extra-biblical historical information.
The fact that the New Testament (NT) is almost entirely written in Koine Greek has significance suggesting that the NT versions of the story is a Hellenized one. Jesus himself left no writings. According to the Gospel of Mark none of Jesus’ disciples understood him. Did Paul who never met him in the flesh?
The origins of the four gospels are complicated to say the least. Scholars don’t think all of the books attributed to Paul in the NT were actually written by him. They doubt that any of the other books were actually written by the disciples they’re attributed to.
All that said, God speaks to me through the Bible. Go figure!
Receptive spirits recognise the divine in many sources. My favourite book at present is Earth Prayers, 365 Prayers, Poems and Invocations from around the world. They acknowledge the non-dual nature of reality, address the healing of the whole, sacred places, and give praise and thankgivings.
The Tao Te Ching 42 says: “When a wise man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to live it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he believes some of it and doubts the rest.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud at the very idea.
If it were not for that laugh,
it would not be the Tao.”
That seems to be the way it is today and the way it’s been throughout human history. If we think that the situation is deplorable, who shall we blame? For whom is the evolution of consciousness going to slowly?
The question is whether the situation is deplorable, or whether our habits are deplorable. For the habits only humankind is to blame, but how does blaming anyone help. Either we are wise, or we are foolish. I believe that the average person sometimes needs guidance, because so much is made complicated, and it is sometimes performance artists who help us focus on what is important, or what is substantial.
I think that Jesus accused the Pharisees and Sadduzees for complicating the calling of God in his day, just as we can say that there are many “experts” today who complicate the message today, which is essentially simplicity. This becomes more obvious when we are able to leave the fray, and until then, we are often caught up in the competitiveness of society, unable to see clearly.
