Hello All
I would appreciate honest responses here from anyone since I want to learn if you distinguish between the secular and esoteric as I do or find it irrelevant without arguing or insult. Recent events have made me concerned with this. There would be no reason for me to initiate any topics of interest to me if this distinction isn’t at least politely respected even if found wanting by some of you.
Religion, and in this case Christianity, as I understand it, came into existence because of man’s possibility for re-birth. Re-birth is an inner experience or transformation, an actual change or development of human being itself much like an acorn transforming into an oak.
This requires not only great effort on the part of the pre-Christian but also great efforts on the part of the guide. Jesus was the ultimate guide.
The Church itself from the inner or esoteric perspective, is the organization of people desiring to pursue this change in their being. Part of self knowledge rests on the idea that we are one “type” of human being of which there are other types. We are then able to learn from each other. Actually ancient astrology understood human essence types quite well.
But the point is that an organization of people dedicated to the cause of Inner growth had to include the basic human types and their interaction in the presence of the teacher, and in this case Jesus, would allow each to profit from seeing other aspects of themselves though less dominant from being a different type.
But the main objective of this organization is not to do this or that but in maintaining a certain conscious quality within this spiritual organization. This conscious quality would allow, through the help of the Holy Spirit, this inner transformation that the cooperative organization of people seeks to further. The teachers and students are not determined by earthly considerations but by the degrees of acquired consciousness in the cause of re-birth.
Initially then, I believe, that the church was esoteric in that it had the concern for the “inner man” as its prime objective.
However, as is normal, those with less conscious awareness find certain ideas and methods objectionable. Gradually people begin to stray from the purpose of the original teaching and try to “improve” it so that it seems more fair. The esoteric or inner consideration begins to change in favor of earthly or secular considerations.
Instead of the concern being for the “inner man”, the secularization of the church changes the concern into outer “appearances”. The emphasis gradually moves from the inner man into external culture. The emphasis changes from recognizing the value of the process in favor of external cultural “results”.
This distinction and the difficulty of retaining it is pointed out several times in the gospels as in Matthew 22: 21 “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.†and also the very profound description of Jesus anointed at Bethany where Mary poured the precious ointment on Jesus much to the annoyance of some disciples.
This raises the question of how to consciously balance the esoteric with the secular within ones own perception.
Christianity, or religion in general, has no meaning for me without this distinction between the esoteric and the secular, the inner man and the man of “appearances”.
So I’m asking if any of you also differentiate in this manner? Do you distinguish between the organization of people dedicated to the growth of the inner man and the organization of people dedicated to responding to culture?
IMO the esoteric often exists within the secular without its knowledge but privately keeps an eye open for the presence of “black sheep.”
