Was Judas Right?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Was Judas right? Was Judas really the first courageous Liberal willing to tackle the problem head on?

Did Jesus lose it? Did he think so much of himself that he denied scolding Mary for her selfishness and misguided idealism? Did he neglect his position by not giving a more loving impression for his doubting disciples? Did Judas as the first “Liberal” see that the sacred “oneness” of equality was being openly ignored and became morally obligated to abandon him to the chief priests?

Watcha think?

2

Asking for some Phat cash probably rules out any noble intenions.

3

Adlerian, you missed the point. The chief priests were loaded to the gills as is natural for those in power and the striving should always aim for establishing the sacred “oneness.” Judas’ sacrifice not only serves as example for the desired equality but offers practical participation by taking money himself, bettering his position, and thereby furthering equality. How can you not see this as noble in support of the poor especially when explained in such a caring fashion?

4

Hi Nick,

Jesus gave Mary an opportunity to share her love. An opportunity to serve with all her heart, all her sincerity and in doing so gave the others an opportunity to witness Great love. Also, to offer something precious, something perfect is fitting of an offering to the sublime Truth.

A

5

Hi Lady A

I’m shocked! Where is your compassion? It’s bad enough that Mary makes such a scene and proves herself selfishly melodramatic to the extent that the sacred “oneness” and striving towards equality is openly rejected. But to defend it by love??

OK, so there are “administrative costs” that will siphon some of the profits into the appropriate pockets but even the little that remains from the sale would provide a few square meals.

What good is this costly fiscally irresponsible emotional display and what kind of person accepts it if people are suffering? We must think of compassion and equality. If they would have had the appropriate committee of “experts” at the time, their insights would have made all this unnecessary. But we must be understanding and remember on this occasion, the door was apparently closed to these “experts.”

6

Mary is offering the purity of her heart. Not some emotional fancy… the perfume is symbolic. It is an action of heart. Jesus’ actions appear foolish to those who would govern the heart with the mind. Foolish to those who think they are experts. Jesus was enlightened, the actions of the enlightened appear bizarre to the politically correct person who acts out of ‘right’ thought instead of ‘right’ heart.

A

7

A

The problem isn’t love, but rather what it’s directed at. Haven’t you been reading some current threads? We have the goal of common denominators, loss of exclusivity, and perfected man on earth flourishing in equality.

Mary seems to be rejecting all of this in her expression of love. Can’t you see how horribly old fashioned this is. Mary should have proclaimed her love for equality and donated it to the appropriate authorities who know best how it should be distributed. Now she can proudly claim her love for her fellow man, deny exclusivity, all while celebrating equality as she provides the example for universal love. What an example she would make as a liberal woman.

8

Hello F(r)iends,

A Few Things to Look At:

(1) Why would Jesus state “The poor you will always have with you…” ? Perhaps Jesus stated this because he does not want people to despair when they see the extreme poverty surrounding our world. A poverty that cannot be defeated through any means we humans have.

(2) What relevance does the same statement have to our lives? Perhaps it is a statement that a father does not need to feel guilty for giving his child a toy instead of donating an additional amount to charity.

(3) Is there a difference between making a contribution to god (in the flesh?) versus making a contribution to man? I think it is important to point out that this was no religious leader being given a BMW…

(4) How did the woman come into possession of an expensive perfume? This leads to a few questions: Was the woman wealthy? Could this woman give in other ways, that is, could she help the poor in some way that would not make her act a “waste”?

Can anyone think of some other good questions to ask regarding this situation?

-Thirst4Metal

9

My dear Nick, if I read all the threads in here I’d be here 24 hours a day…give me a break!

I don’t understand what you mean by “what it’s directed at”.

All at the cost of one of the flock who had perfect realisation and perfect understanding. Jesus gave Mary an opportunity to offer what she had, thus helping her accumulate her merit in Heaven. Charity is all very well and good, but it ain’t gonna get you to Heaven.

I wasn’t listening when the ‘experts’ changed the teachings to become more fashionable. There is nothing new under the sun.

Mary loved in the way she loved. With a pure heart. There are so many people that seem to know the right way to do it but yet none of those people are doing it. They are sitting in their sofas philosophising about it. Making lists of what is right and what is wrong. Mary acted on her heart intentions in the moment. I don’t remember Jesus instructing us to store up our treasures on earth. I recall that Jesus said to store up our treasures in Heaven.

I’ve never seen a tree snap when the wind blows. Trees are flexible, and so was Jesus, since Jesus was enlightened he was able to align with the principles of nature. Jesus understood Mary’s heart, therefore was able to accommodate her. Jesus held the mandate of God. I’m wondering what part of that you don’t understand.

When a buddha appears in the world
And expounds various teachings
According to people’s inclinations,
All of the teachings are expedients,
Just for the purpose of breaking through
Obsessions, doubts, intellectual interpretations,
And egocentric ideas.
If there were no such false consciousness
And false views, there would be no need
For buddhas to appear
And expound so many teachings.

  • Yuan wu (1063-1135)

A

10

Hey there oh Liquid one. You’re a tough cookie. :slight_smile:

The purpose of this thread is in response to this trend I’ve been reading recently to bring religions together and to make the commonality of man’s plight its common theme. This is this whole “we are all one” concept.

All this does IMO is to secularize religion thereby loosing its main objective which is individual change.

From the secular position Judas has a point. If the primary good was in our conception of equality, then Judas would be right. However, knowing that we are asleep as in Plato’s cave and governed by illusion, then no sort of equality is possible.

As Jesus said: “11The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” The human condition on earth reflects man’s collective being and cannot change of its own accord. However, individuals have a chance at what society cannot which is a change in being or re-birth.

Mary acted from love and I’ll even suggest that it is deeper than you’re giving it credit for. It is not that she was giving love but she was begging to experience love and to follow it.

Instead of giving all what she possessed and regarded as precious to the collective, she gave it, her self, to what could allow her to escape the human condition by following Jesus into death and re-birth.

One cannot think of helping the human condition from the spiritual perspective or man’s “being” potential if one is part of the condition. One must think first of themselves. In Plato’s cave analogy, the person must first leave the cave.

T4M asks: "Could this woman give in other ways, that is, could she help the poor in some way that would not make her act a “waste”?

When a person gives the entirety of themselves for the purpose of becoming themselves and becomes a “beggar in spirit”, does the fact that it wasn’t aimed at the collective make it a waste? I don’t believe so. It is a uniquely human event that cannot be compromised without its destruction.

So,Lady A, do you see what I’m driving at? I was defending Judas position from the secular perspective which you know I don’t believe in. It is a way of questioning the relevance of the secular perspective in the context of the depth of religious meaning. This is not to deny the question of human injustice but to suggest that nothing genuine can be accomplished by losing the essence of religion, the tendency of the day, which is the recognition of our nothingness and the possibility of inner change.

Mary in her need for the experience of the force of this love which could attract and lead her out of the cave gladly was willing to sacrifice what she possessed for the sake of this pearl of great price. Judas, being earth bound, could not see beyond the goal of collectivism and naturally fell victim to all the egotistic limitations and hypocrisy natural for such earth bound conceptions

This is emotional discrimination free of self deception of a very high order which as you’ve implied, is vastly superior for true understanding to the associative mind in these matters

11

Indeed. I was born on the day of the tough cookie. :wink:

The movement to bring religions together is not to secularize religion - although really, what would be the problem with that? Is religion exclusively for one kind of person? Rather bringing religion together would serve merely to recognise the common religious source. This whole we are one ‘concept’ as you call it is far more than making all religions one. I believe Tentative has a thread called ‘Inside - Outside’, the investigation of that thread is more about recognising that all of us on this planet, the plants the animals, human beings, the sky, everthing is ONE thing. If you fly into outer space and look back down on earth, you see it as being ONE thing. We are all part of this one thing and recognising that is a fundamental clue that serves to unite rather than separate.

However, having said that, it’s not about bringing religions together - it’s about recognising the common teaching in all religions.

Yeah yeah, Judas has a point, but this exercise is of a spiritual nature. Our equality is inherent - this is not a social exercise, but rather an individual manifestation of divine love.

In other words, you will always have the plight of the poor. But after Jesus will not always be here and thus there will not always be an opportunity for Mary to servce Him in this way.

She already experienced love, she was love. She was expressing it. Both as an act of service and an act of example.

That is quite a judgement. Our path is ours alone to walk. We can offer our possessions to the poor, but we can only walk the path, by ourselves, we cannot do it for anybody else, we can inspire others, we can follow others but we can only transform ourselves.

The way you were arguing, one would think you agreed with Judas and while on the one hand Judas has a point, on the other hand, Judas’ point of view, his perception is limited.

A

12

because there will always be those who do not want to act for themselves…

poverty is always a subjective thing… and who gives some holier than thou roller the right to claim this person is in poverty so you must give up half your stuff so we can pretend to care and give it away… that is exactly what democRats do but without the holy titles…

christians and democRats… using poverty to take away your freedom…

render unto caesar…

and when god comes down and takes his share, he can have it…

she refused to bathe, so the guys with which she hung out sprayed her malodorous ass…

-Imp

13

Yes, for the purpose of discussion, I was arguing Judas’ position. I was hoping to find those that that could describe its limitations.

Religion at its essence is the psychology of “being”. Where life as we know it consists of comparisons between remembrances of yesterday and anticipations of tomorrow, the psychology of being concerns itself with the qualitative relativity of “now” as an aspect of our being.

People are different not only as far as human types but degrees of being open. Buddhism for example seeks the elimination of suffering while Christianity seeks its transformation. Different paths serve the different openings These are two different paths but at a higher level, there is no contradiction. The point is that the path touches the place where one can begin to be open. The fallacy of the outside inside mentality is that it assumes we have access to such understanding in practice. St.Paul suggests that we don’t in his description of himself as the “wretched man.” We don’t and Dunamis was the only one to see the damage it can cause.

Try this. Look down upon a street full of people from a building on which you are several floors up. See the crowd milling about as “one.” Keep this perspective, leave the building, and become part of the milling crowd. How long if at all can you retain the perspective you had from several floors up and observe yourself as part of a milling crowd? It is even harder psychologically to remember a balance between individuality and the collective.

Mary is not servicing, she is begging. John provides the psychological description of the same event which is shows Mary’s need to consciously understand what she emotionally knew. So she touches Jesus feet (meaning where Jesus being touches the earth) with her hair (the highest extension of the head in which consciousness resides.)

To assume an equality between Jesus and Mary misses the point entirely. Mary needed Jesus in ways beyond our comprehension since we don’t have Mary’s purity of heart.

Right here is the disagreement we will always have. Where you say “she was love” I say she recognized that she was empty of anything but the self love of egotism. Her great emotional gifts allowed her to experience and admit that she was empty.

This is why I side with those like Plato, Meister Eckhart, and Simone Weil who have such understanding and are unafraid to admit it and face the wrath of the Great Beast. It gives the ability to begin to attentively free oneself of imagination creating a void in which the Holy spirit can enter.

We can transform ourselves to a point but then we need help from above. It can only come when we admit our nothingness. As long as we cannot impartially “Know Thyself”, admit to and accept our emptiness, nothing real can replace it.

14

We don’t even disagree Nick. You see this ‘help from above’ as if God were an entity outside of yourself. You are right of course, but only to a degree. One does not abandon practice even when understands this fundamental truth. One’s practice brings us deeper. Of course we need help from ‘above’. Yet, through practice one begins to understand that this ‘above’ lives within you. You are God as much as God is your Father/Mother/Creator, God is you and you are God. When you understand that Nick, none of this level stuff you speak of matters. That stuff only serves for us to cultivate humility and love - but it is not the final story. One thing is true and a million other things are also true. That is what you struggle to get your head around, not the fact that I disagree with you. I don’t.

A

15

A

Judas came to believe that the true good lies in the quality of life on earth. He couldn’t accept that Jesus was not referring to the kingdom on earth but above earth as a different quality of being. This is why he viewed Mary’s act as a waste as would be natural for all those that take the secular position of the kingdom. The whole idea of “esoteric sacrifice” would be alien to this mindset.

It is precisely through cosmology that we can experience that we are an acorn and the gradations of being into becoming an oak. This is an inner realization independent of external circumstances. There is a big difference between being in the image as potential within a seed and the culmination of this seed into its potential.

An acorn transforms into an oak through a gradual change in its being where it is no longer an acorn. But IMO it is naive for an acorn to call itself an oak other than in potential. It is the same with man on earth. As the wretched man, we can sense something and be called to something but as the seed (acorn) it exists as potential. As soon as we begin to imagine and accept what we are not, we become closed.

16

Yes Nick, some of us are acorns, some of us are tiny little shoots, some of us are little trees, and some of us are big old oak trees. Our Christ nature exists within us not only as a potential, it exists - we just need to step aside. All human beings are sleeping Buddhas, all Buddhas are awakened human beings.

The mistake is in not recognising the oak tree in others Nick. When you see the Oak tree in others, that is when you know you are an Oak tree.

A

17

Hi A

The higher can understand the lower but the lower cannot understand the higher. I agree that it would take an oak to really know an oak.

However it is through the emotions that when in the presence of an oak, a person can experience that they are not an oak in the context of potential. Mary’s purity of emotion, free of egotistic self deception, allowed for this discrimination and she could experience her nothingness. The problem is that only a very few have such realistic emotional discrimination

Judas in contrast lost this sense of scale and began assuming that we were all oaks so the primary good was in sustaining and maintaining the society of oaks. Naturally, those not appreciating this primary goal could become a disturbing influences and as such cause more trouble than it’s worth. Under such circumstances it was the ethical thing to do to get rid of Jesus before his presence caused more trouble than it already has.

Once when Simone weil was teaching she was fired for not following the correct standards of approved education. She then: “thanked her superiors and declared that she had always regarded dismissal as the normal culmination of her career.”

The same thing happened to Jesus. He was not following the approved standards of the “Great Beast” supported by all these imaginary oaks. He was speaking reality and such a career needed to be even more than dismissed but terminated as well.

18

Well Ja, precisely why Judas was NOT enlightened. Well not at that stage anyway. He was too concerned with others’ journeying instead of focussing his attention on his own. Focussing our attention on our own enlightenment, naturally we are able to ‘see’ the other’s heart. His problem was being so concerned with everyone else’s cultivation instead of his own. We are far more able to inspire other’s when we ourselves are doing the work.

And I am not a tree! :wink:

A

19

we have the power to end poverty.

No, this is a story showing jesus was god, and that he felt he should be treated as a god-king while he was on earth, he was greater than the poor.

I think it would’ve been equivalent to getting a BMW.

She was a prostitute remember?

If anything, I think this situation shows that jesus LOVED mary, more than christians are willing to admit. A special “get a room” kind of love.

:wink:

20

A

This is why I asked if Judas was this courageous Liberal believing in the necessity of deciding what other should do without any practical experiential knowledge.

This is the whole point. Normally we react from image. Jesus is teaching essence. Essence is the enemy of image so essential realities must be suppressed for the sake of image.

Inspiration towards what? The charlatan inspires the majority by telling them what they want to hear. The master, the real result of impartial inner work, inspires a small minority capable of facing the truth about themselves in contrast to their potential.

The Great Beast loves the charlatan and his beautiful words but is wary of the master and lack of wonderful pronouncements.

I’m amazed at how many conceptualize the antichrist as some sort of obviously evil person. To the contrary he would be Mr. Wonderful to such a degree that attachment to the earth would appear oh so inviting. Of course, void of and blocking the Christ concept of re-birth, its obvious nature would be recognized by only a few.

Scyth

If any sex occurred between Jesus and Mary it was not something we could be capable of. It would be for the sake of building and directing sex energy for inner work. Sex energy is the creative energy in contrast to love which is the energy of unification. Inner work leading to re-birth is creative.