Go for it, Gonzo! Snowalker, maybe you can comment on the following.
I scanned the lectures for a (very) little while. I read some bits about objectivity/subjectivity and "the evil of intertia." All very nicely put. Without making any conclusions, I just wanted to point out the main thing that concerned me during my rapid scan. The introduction page says Pathwork does not ask you to leave your religion and it reiterates this in the section on Jesus. But the clearly heavy bias favoring Jesus seemed at odds with that introductory message, and certainly seems to draw away from the universality of these lectures. I know that so much channeled material (same goes for pretty much any literature) seems to be designed to get something across to a specific audience -- this material probably having been developed in a predominantly Christian culture, etc., etc., and there may be an attempt to separate Jesus from religion. But this bias seems really heavy amid talk of objectivity.
_http://www.pathwork.org/lectures/unedited/019.PDF
...whether you want to believe it now or not. Jesus, the man, was the incarnation of the Christ. And this spirit is the highest, the most exalted of all created beings. He is the first direct and inborn creation of God. His substance is the same as the substance of God. All of you have some of this substance, that which I call the higher self or the divine spark, that which has to come out through spiritual development gradually. But no other created being has this substance to quite the same degree as Christ. And there is the difference.
... He was the Messiah!
Later, it says of Jesus, "his act of courage was the greatest deed ever committed." Also, the following suggests, if not an endorsement, then, at least, no warning against "great religions."
... You can reach a stage of development through every one of the great religions, also the non-Christian ones, in which you can experience absolute truth. And no spirit of the world of God will ever tell you to leave your church or your temple or your faith. For if you have found what you need in happiness, in spiritual food in the faith you are accustomed to, remain there. Enough of basic, fundamental truth, enough of what you need for your spiritual development is contained, as I said, in all the great religions. And it is only up to you to find out what these truths are that you need for your personal development and put it into practice. When I speak of satisfaction of your faith, I do not mean that it satisfies your surface conscience. That is not enough. It has to satisfy your spirit ...
OK, we can agree that someone telling you to leave your religion would be controlling. And, maybe, somehow, with enough hard-fought discernment, you can derive some basic, fundamental truth from "great religions" (but, man, you'd have to weed out quite a lot!). And, I can imagine, that if you discovered this truth, it might be satisfying. But again, there's no warning about the control that the doctrines of these religions impose. In other words, the whole paragraph doesn't really say much of
anything. I could say you can "reach a stage of development" from studying a stone on the ground, and maybe you can "experience absolute truth" doing this, and it would certainly be "up to you to find out what these truths are that you need for your personal development and put it into practice." There is no suggestion of danger in these "great religions." Does someone else interpret it another way? Is it a very subtle way of saying the people need the experience of a "great religion," if only to discover that it's mostly man-made for the benefit of psychopaths?
Do you see what I mean that it doesn't say anything, really? You can say that two musicians with vastly different musical aesthetics are "influenced by Britney Spears." One is so attracted that he finds satisfaction in trying to sound as much like her as possible. The other is so repulsed that he finds satisfaction in trying to sound nothing like her. Then there is everything in between. So, it is basically meaningless to say that a musician can find his true musical direction through a study of Britney Spears. But if you said that, what would people
think you mean? Maybe I'm trying to be too open in my interpretation of this particular Pathwork lecture. :)
_http://www.pathwork.org/lectures/unedited/042.PDF
CHRISTMAS BLESSINGS...
Greetings in the name of God and Jesus Christ! I bring you blessings, my dear ones, very special blessings tonight. At this time of the year, the strong forces of love, coming from the King of the universe, touch all spheres, and whoever is open and in quiet harmony can receive this force that is a blessing for your body, your soul, and your spirit. However, it is so difficult in many instances for this force to penetrate into your soul. ... ask Christ to show you where a root in yourself builds up a wall that stands between you and these blessing forces.
But, earlier, in the section on Jesus, it said you shouldn't pray to Jesus, but only to God. I haven't read enough to discern the difference between praying to God and asking God.
The next bit sounds like it could come from any evangelical Christian.
If you seriously long, pray for, and search for a realization of Jesus Christ's personal love for you, the answers will come forth. Perhaps the first answers will not be recognized as such. They may have something to do with specific barriers that prevent you from this experience, this reality. It may be new (or again old) material on your path, in your work that needs to be done for your purification process. But these are answers. And once the barriers begin to go, you will experience what it means to feel Jesus Christ's personal love for you.
I haven't read enough to understand the goal of feeling Jesus Christ's personal love, or why I should or merely might be in the position of seriously longing and praying for it.
Any comments from someone more familiar with this material?
