Baptism by Logos

[Guest guest]

Dear Dharma,

 

You wrote:

> So it seems to me to be *trying* to make

> an entirely different word of "baptism" to try

> to use it for the seven chakras/planes/stages

> themselves

 

*Trying*, well why not, Dharma?

> But in Christianity it already has a definite meaning.

 

Nobody owns the word, and is it really "trying" to say that Jesus saw

the greater meaning of it already when he added "baptism by fire"?

That it got subsequently limited it again by 'Christianity' can not

withhold us from restoring the greater significance and seeing deeper

implications.

> You correlate the seven sacraments with the seven chakras/stages, but

baptism

is just one of the sacraments.

 

In that sense yes, but remember that in Jesus' days 'the sacraments'

were not invented, formulated or formalized. Jesus' own expanded meaning

of baptism by water into baptism by fire evolved into the sacrament of

Confirmation, as mediated through bishops in the R.C. Church.

 

Sacrament comes from 'sacrare', which means 'consecrating' or indicating

the sacred purpose, moving the ordinary into the sacred realm, which in

my words is restoring, acknowledging and celebrating the ordinary as the

sacred.

 

It is a beautiful word that, 'baptism'. And when we use the word in the

larger, unlimiting context it truly reveals its purifying, annealing,

forging, (alchemical if you wish) and 'meta' aspects along the whole

spectrum of divine light as exemplified and realized by grace, love and

truth incarnated as the human/divine.

 

As you may have understood from what I wrote, 'baptism' comes from

dipping, dunking, quenching, and I illustrated that human growth follows

the transition from element to element towards greater finery.

 

Jesus already daringly talked about baptism by fire, and as his

disciples already opened the door to baptism through the holy spirit,

additional possibilities of the meaning of that baptismal process (other

than just a formal limited and ritualized baptism by water) is

warranted.

In fact, as you say, Peter did not disagree.

 

What I also say is that these baptisms (transitions from one element

into another) concomitant with the stages of growth of the human/divine,

do not have to be ritualized as they are 'innate', they can be

celebrated... but they are not a 'sine qua non'.

 

They are inborn in the human/divine can be recognized and celebrated

independent from formal religious constraints. Not what religionists

make of ritual baptism: without it no salvation. That is pretty

conditional.

 

We are to as free as we can be...

 

I am fully aware of the traditional meanings of baptism, sacraments,

etc, steeped in catholicism as I was.

Also the traditional meanings of the elements are quite well known to me

as well as the confusion that arises from the various literary sources,

but I feel that we as a now-living humans do not have to be according to

book and scripture, but that the writings have to be according to who we

are... and who we are is always greater than what is written already....

 

Dharma, not that I feel that you disagree with me, such is of no

concern, I may just want to urge you to allow a greater freedom than

what is already and written by other great people on whose shoulders we

may stand to see a little further. (Who said that again?)

 

Love, Wim