RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

Patristic Christianity is two thirds of a religion, and not more. Dualism and Qualified Non-Dualism are grasped and promoted by Patristic Christianity but Non-Dualism is not. In effect, we have from the Patri a Trinitarian Theology but with only the first two hypostases of It apperceived with any thoroughness. Dualism corresponds to the Son or Christ of Trinitarian Theology, Qualified Non-Dualism corresponds to the Father and Non-Dualism corresponds to the Holy Spirit. Non-Dualism is missing in an arrant way from Patristic Christianity.

The exception of developed doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit in the seminal creedal formulations of Patristic Christianity, those from Nicaea and Chalcedon — forcing an appendage onto one of them centuries later — is evidence that Patristic Christianity is two thirds of a religion.

The Patri — Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Tertullian, etc. — were public entertainers, rhetoricians, publicity men, stand up philosophers not Theologians and not hardly Catholic, which Christianity, like every true religion, intrinsically is.

Our customary taxonomy of Christian religion starts from the premise that Patristic Christianity is the standard of the religion, that Patristic Theology defines Christianity. Most of the Protestant Reformers do not question this premise.

But, as you shall have guessed, no doubt, by now, I am going to declare that the premise is invalid. The Truth is the whole. What is two thirds of a thing cannot be the Truth. Therefore, Patristic Christianity is not the measure of Christian religion, which is the Truth. It is not the ‘mainstream.’ Patristic Christianity is a byway of the spiritual renaissance initiated from Jesus and fostered by Paul, Dionysius, Jerome, Columba, Ambrose, Augustine, Benedict, Gregory, Anselm, Joachim of Floris, Francis and Clare, Bonaventura, Huss, Paracelsus, Teresa, Guyon, Leibnitz, Bach, Edwards, Fox, Lee, Eddy, Kandinsky, Teilhard, Tillich, Gould and Graham.

Creedal Christianity is enfeebled Christianity. It is negative, restrictive, contractive and exclusive. The Patristic/Creedal lineage is a byway of the Christian religion, which is positive, enabling, expansive and inclusive.

We are obliged, therefore, to produce an accurate taxonomy of Christianity, one which identifies the “mainline” of the religion along with its relative supports, amplifications and byways. This is the purpose of what follows.

A taxonomy could be made on several bases, each yielding a different result. One base could be the ethnic one, wherein, Christianity would be identified by the tribes that picked it up in their own ways. Another base would be the geographic one, wherein, Christianity would be identified by the terrain and temperature zones that fostered its various subsistences. Another base for a taxonomy of Christian religion would be the jurisprudential one, wherein, Christianity would be identified by the administrative units which, for various reasons and to several extents, receive the allegiance and respect of its adherents..

I am going to employ — you guessed it — yet another base for a taxonomy of Christian religion, namely, the base of inner quality or disposition, what Kandinsky called inner necessity and what adepts call spirituality.

By this means of seeing, this base for a taxonomy of Christian religion, I am identifying five kinds of Christian spirituality. The first is the “mainline.” The other four support or amplify the first or are byways of it. Together, they are the central axis of evolution and involution in, with, on, through and by means of which (kairos) Universe is trending Christologically (telos).

What makes something “mainline” is its wholeness, its catholicity. What makes something a “byway” is its tendentiousness, its provinciality.

The five kinds of Christian spirituality are:

• Heroic Christianity
• Patristic Christianity
• Columban Christianity
• Neo-Platonic Christianity
• Syrian Christianity

Heroic Christianity comprises the “mainline” of the religion. It is developed by Jewish and Pythagorean Sages, lawyers, doctors and clergy through two unique yet communicating aspects: the hermetical aspect and the eremitical aspect.

The hermetical aspect is developed by Dionysius the Areopagite, Paracelsus, Mary Baker Eddy and the medieval warrior monastic orders that have survived, deformed, as Freemasonry. It is connected with the Egyptian/Greek philosophical theology called Neo-Platonism, with Origen and, by these means, with Aryan Saivite philosophy which arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean area through the Oracle (Christ) at Delphi, through schools at Lower Egypt and through eremites at Sinai and North Africa.

The tutelary of this aspect is Hermes Trismegistus, Who is associated with the Element Air, and therefore — by a route I shall not attempt to describe — with Buddhist religion. Jesus (Isa), it will be recalled, occupied several years at a Buddhist convent in Tibet. The three Wise Men were Tibetans.

The eremitical aspect is developed by Jerome of Bethlehem, Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Avila and Jeanne Guyon. It is connected with the Hebrew Prophets, who represent Aryan Saivite religion which arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean area, including Jerusalem, since before the time of Abraham, from the interior of Africa through Upper Egypt and overland from Arabia through Damascus and Beersheba.

Patristic Christianity comprises the so-called catholic churches, the Roman, Greek and Anglican judicatories. It is a byway of Christian religion, developed by scions of the East German and Central Asiatic tribes which gradually assumed the Roman Imperium beginning about 250 AD. The hallmark of Patristic Christianity is autocracy. The curias and popes at Rome, the patriarchs at Constantinople and Moscow and the monarchs at Westminster asserted that the church — that is, they — is the last period of history, and therefore, the final truth. There is no higher truth than the being of the church, no appeal from the hierarchy, the clergy, or in England, the monarch, who absolutely control the means of salvation, the sacraments.

The church may be criticized for being a mixture but it may not be criticized as regards its foundation, for, this is unconditioned, and therefore, neither relative nor questionable. The church, which is the hierarchy, does not participate in history. It is beyond and unaffected by contingencies. The church makes God, every day, in the sacrament of the mass. The hierarchy is beyond question, its processes and actions beyond evaluation, much less redress. The hierarchy is trans-historical, extra-historical, divine in stature, and therefore, insubordinate to every judicatory otherwise known to humanity.

Post-founding Jesuits bent the axis of their Order to apply absolutely the totalitarian claims of the East German, Central Asiatic curias and popes, who have, with infrequent hiatuses, defined and maintained Patristic Christianity in the Roman orbit since the late Third Century.

Columban Christianity comprises an amplification of Heroic Christianity. It developed from indigenous, Jewish and Pythagorean influence among Celtic tribes in Bohemia, France and the British Isles. Columban Christianity emphasizes lay monasticism and draws its inspiration from the Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of Love. In consonance with Celtic practice, Columban Christianity employs counciliarism, decentralization and localization of ecclesiastical government and respect for personal inner necessity.

Neo-Platonic Christianity comprises a byway of Christian religion. It is developed in Alexandria, Upper Egypt and the interior of Africa by academicians on the one hand and by illiterate coenobites on the other. Monophysitism and Arianism are the unique aspects through which Neo-Platonic Christianity generates and expresses itself. Behind these aspects stands the greatest of Alexandrine Theologians, Origen. Origen was a man of many parts. He and Plotinus, the founder of Neo-Platonism, were students of the same teacher, Ammonius Saccas, at the school where Clement taught.

Monophysitism tends to shut the eyes towards history and to concentrate, instead, on magical sacramentalism. Along with Docetism, the belief that Jesus’ physique was illusory, not real, Monophysitism is a tendency of belief that is wide-spread among Christians of all kinds today. It comes from Africa. The desire which drives Monophysitism is to have a God walking around on earth and located in consumables on the altar. Monophysitism is derived from one aspect of the Christological thinking of Origen, the aspect which emphasizes the emanation of degrees of Being, which is a phylogeny of the Logos.

Arianism is characterized by intense moral concern, social concern, questions of ethics and responsibility. It comes from the eschatological/deterministic thinking of Origen. It aims to construct a complete content of life from autonomous reason applied to bible texts. In this, Arianism anticipates the method and objective of conservative, fundamentalist Christianity of the modern period. Arianism is the progenitor of Jehovah’s Witnesses and modern “Christian evangelicals.”

Arianism is instructive in several ways. For example, when compared with later Pelagian attitudes, it shows, as does Augustinian determinism, that moral fiber is actually bucked up by deterministic theology, not diminished by it, as Patristic clergy, who are Pelagian, accuse. Correlatively, moral fiber is diminished by the Pelagian theology of choice, which is promoted by Patristic clergy. This is an irony that must be looked into before it can be understood. Deterministic theology induces morality in society whereas autarchic-choice theology induces immorality. One would expect it to be the other way round. Things aren’t always what they seem.

Another way in which Arianism is instructive is this: the same Neo-Platonic Origenism produces magical sacramentalism and historico-factual indifference on the one hand (Monophysitism) and intense moralism and biblio-philological criticism on the other (Arianism).

Both of these aspects comprise Neo-Platonic Christian spirituality. This is important to remember, that these aspects are flowers on the same stem. They are a byway of Christian religion, just as modern “fundamentalism” is.

Syrian Christianity comprises a support of Christian religion. The word Marionite also refers to this kind of Christian spirituality. Syrian Christianity is developed by descendants of the Christian community at Jerusalem, those who migrated north, east and northeast when Titus came to dismantle Jerusalem in 70 CE.

The intellectual center of Syrian Christianity was the city of Antioch. The humanity of Jesus was remembered and emphasized from first-hand experience. As Trinitarian theology was introduced and disseminated from Sinai, starting about the middle of the Second Century, Antiochene theologians developed habits of thought and literary formulae which preserved the sense of Jesus’ humanity, His historical being, His participation in the exigencies of life and the significance of His Career in the sweep of history. Syrian Christianity maintained the view of Jesus as a human being among human beings.

This was a genuine support to Christian religion because a strong tendency coming from Alexandria, East Africa, Sinai and Arabia was to subsume Jesus’ humanity in a contrived view of His divinity and to in fact take Him for an eidolon having the appearance but not the reality of natural embodiment.

Monarchianism is the name of the Antiochene Trinitarian theology which preserved the awareness of and dedication to Jesus’ historicity. When Monarchianism was overstated, it was called Sabellianism. The gist of Monarchianism is to distinguish between and even to separate, to an extent, the realms of divinity and humanity, or, God and history. There is a Deistic redolence in Antiochene Theology, a redolence that reminds one of some Jewish and Greek philosophical theology. We find this Deism in the Nominalism of Abelard and in the Aristotelianism of Aquinas, who, as scions of Patristic Christianity, come by it honestly. Their Deism derives from the Monarchianism of Antiochene Trinitarian Theology.

Consistently, in various ways and to varying degrees, proponents of Patristic Christianity at Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria favored and supported Antiochene Trinitarian Theology while also more and less employing elements of the Alexandrine feeling, which comprises Neo-Platonic Logos or emanation Theology. The reason is simple. First, a Deistic tone separates divinity from history, or, more to the point, criticism from the church hierarchy. And second, a Deistic tone separates salvation from behavior, or, more to the point, moral dogma from lay and clerical activity, so that any sort of will and desire in the present world is treated as acceptable against the day of the Pelagian death-bed, whereon one verbalizes remorse, accepts absolution and enters heaven.

Syrian Christianity preserves the memory of the historical Jesus. Syrian Christians say with some justification that they are original Christians. The greatest Antiochene Theologian was Nestorius, who imprinted Antiochene Theology on the Syrian Christianity which developed eastward through Iran and Southern Russia into Central, North-Central and East Asia. The Nestorian Church in Central Asia, north of Tibet, preserves the memory of Jesus’ original name, Isa, as well as the memory of his sojourn there and in Tibet itself. The Russian, that is, West German, painter, writer, traveler and ethnologist, Nicholas Roerich, recorded some of these memories and some of their correlative iconography during this century.

Now, we should make some observations.

A first observation is that representatives of Patristic Christianity, in consonance with their impulses, constantly assert that Patristic Christianity is the mainline and the only line of the religion. The motivation of this assertion is political and financial, not spiritual or theological, as is obvious to an adept.

Another observation is that between Antiochene historicity and Alexandrine mystification, or, between Patristic and Neo-Platonic spirituality, popular sentiment always favors the latter over the former. Only Patristic lay and clerical theologians favor the Antiochene emphasis on the historical Jesus. This is a significant difference of opinion. Popular piety endures professional promotion of Antiochene opinion, but it proceeds on its own Alexandrine preference. The desire to have a God walking the earth overwhelms nuances of doctrine, which is epistemology, even when these are both accurate and necessary.

About this we may observe that, at the intuitive level, the popular feeling in this regard is correct and the professional one is wrong. The popular feeling follows the intuitive grasp that God cannot be fundamentally different from man or fundamentally distinct from history. People feel themselves as iron and God as the magnet. The substance is the same, the attraction relentless. So goes the intuitive feeling, which is confirmed by experience. Deism, which is promoted by Patristic Christian professionals, does not stand a chance of acceptance among the masses. It posits separation and distinction where experience says they do not exist. The intuitive grasp of reality overwhelms Deism.

When we move from intuition to articulation, the realm of professional Theologians is entered. The importance of articulation is soon apparent. It can illuminate, it can obfuscate, it can obscure. The one thing it cannot is, be done without. Articulation is necessary if the Elements which comprise the universe are to function in concert. Mishpat, or, Justice, is Cosmic Order. Without articulation there can be no order, no Mishpat, and without order, there is no life. Structure and regularity, all beings and the Elements operating and cooperating in concert — this is the very nature of Justice, or, Mishpat. It is a universal necessary phenomenon, meaning, one which must characterizes the Cosmos Itself. Isaiah’s call for Mishpat is this call for Justice in the Whole, involving all participants, all beings, those unseen as well as those seen. Proper behavior of the principalities and powers with all beings — tauta panta in Pauline Theology — is the aim of professional Theologians. Proper activity (Dharma, Mishpat) ensures peace, prosperity and happiness in the Universe and is gained through correct articulation.

The Deistic bombast of Patristic Theologians tends to drown out the Non-Dualistic calm of Heroic ones. This is on purpose. It means that those who make the most noise about being Theologians are usually not very proper ones and that one is obliged, as in all affairs, to seek out the genuine and hold fast to it when found.

We may observe, also, that the reformation of the 15th and 16th Centuries was a Church Reformation, not a Protestant one. Representatives of Columban and Heroic Christianity stirred in all areas of Europe and set out to reform the spiritual life, which had been deformed by the morally-challenged Patristic autocrats at Rome. The impetus came from Celts in Bohemia. Huss led the way.

This was a Church Reformation, not a Protestant one. No one was protesting. Everyone was rebuilding, re-forming. There was no time to protest. Patristic Christianity had brought the world to another impasse of desperation, as it always does, because of its imperious nature, and everyone knew the thing had to be put back together, the church had to be rebuilt. Several kinds of ways and means were tried, most of them successfully, and no one had any time to do any protesting because everyone was busy building.

It was begun in the 15th Century in Celtic Bohemia and carried through the 16th Century among West Germans in Northern Europe, among Celts in Switzerland, France and the British Isles and among Greeks, Africans, Basques and Italians in Southern Europe. It did not touch the East German and Central Asiatic autocrats at the curia and papacy at Rome.

Correlatively, there was a Reformation among Sephardic Jews who, beginning in 1492, were expelled from Spain. These people brought their high culture and ability to enrich communities in England, Holland, Africa, France and Eastern Mediterranean areas. They were among the early immigrants to North America.

This Sephardic Reformation was begun by the great Sage, Moses ben Maimon, during the 12th Century. Maimonides was a progenitor of the renaissance of Heroic Christianity, during the 13th Century, in monasticism, architecture, literature, civic organization, medicine, theology and all other aspects of culture. Francis, Dominic, Queen Blanche and Louis IX are all spiritual children of this great Sage, Maimonides.

Through Sephardic Judaism, Christianity is linked to the Saivite foundation which is the religious catalyst of Africa, Egypt and post-Mosaic Palestine. Judaism is a unitarian monotheistic deployment of Aryan Saivite religion. Christianity is a trinitarian monotheistic deployment of the same stalk. (Islam is a deployment of Aryan religion, also, but Vaishnava, not Saivism. Between Christianity and Judaism on the one hand and Islam on the other there is some care needed explaining and appreciating.)

Another observation is that there is no essential difference between two groups commonly taken for protagonists, namely, Catholics (Romans and Anglicans) and Reformers. Catholics are right with respect to polity: Theirs is first historically and apparently not only first but also original. Or at least, until the 16th Century, Catholics were strong enough to obliterate any other kind of polity and did, along with all records of the same, so that no one would get any bright ideas. Reformers are right with respect to spirituality. It can go their way as easily and as well as or better than it can go Catholic.

The difference between Catholics and Reformers is over the view of history. Catholics assert that history is closed, that there is only now and no new experience is possible. Reformers assert that history is open, that there is then, now and coming and that new experience is possible at any time, including the past. This is a significant difference of view, but it is not an essential difference such as would compel us to say that Catholics and Reformers are representing different religions. There is no essential difference between Reformers and Catholics, excepting as ego invent some.

The Reformation Principle is that there is always possible fresh experience which is canonically correct, jurisprudentially congruent, Logistically comprehensive and comprehensible and ecclesiastically constructive. This Principle was supported by Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola and Francis Xavier.

The Church Reformation of the 15th and 16th Centuries was a rebuilding of the religion of Love and a rebuke to Patristic Christianity, which is a byway, by Heroic Christianity, which is the mainline.

We may observe that the monastic orders, for the most part, are in the eremitical aspect of the Heroic line. They group around their founders’ names, which serve as names of Gurus. Names of Gurus are Names of God, so far as piety is concerned. The Guru is God for the aspirant. The various Pentateuchal Names of God are, in fact, just this, names of Palestinian, Trans-Jordanian and Syrian Gurus of various periods.

We should observe that this taxonomy recognizes unitarian monotheism as part of the Christian mainstream. Within the hermetical aspect of Heroic Christianity there is strong unitarian monotheism, as with Mary Baker Eddy. An objection to this inclusion would be expected. The answer is that the important aspect of piety is its single-pointedness, and that, if one prefers to be single-pointed as a unitarian monotheist and another prefers to be single-pointed as a trinitarian monotheist, who is to say the piety of one or the other is infructuous on principle? No one can say this because what makes piety effective is its single-pointedness, which is possible with any order of monotheism. We can speak of a Judeo-Christian Tradition because unitarian and trinitarian monotheism have monotheism, the base, in common. In fact, between Judaism and Christianity there is no difference. They are the same religion, Saivite in nature.

Relating to the foregoing, we may observe that Patristic Christianity usually supports a presence of Heroic Christianity within its compass. Lucky thing, too. Without this presence, Patristic Christianity would turn entirely to politics and forget religion. Roman, Greek and Anglican judicatories permit and sometimes support monasticism within their orbits. Monasticism, almost by definition, is Heroic Christianity. Some is Columban and some is Neo-Platonic.

The higher and deeper realms of spirituality, such as monasticism is meant to produce, are all of the nature of Heroic, Columban, Neo-Platonic and Syrian Christianity and none of the nature of Patristic Christianity. Patristic Christianity is a pre-and primary-school of spiritual education. From the secondary level onwards, a Christian aspirant is involved in one of the four other kinds of Christian spirituality. From the graduate level onwards, they are involved in Heroic or Columban Christianity.

We may observe that elements of their pieties are shared between the five kinds of Christian spirituality. The kinds mix, especially Heroic and Columban Christianity with Patristic and Neo-Platonic Christianity. This is not a planned thing, but it happens and is natural and salutary.

It happens because the needs of aspirants are both similar and limited in number and kind and each of the five kinds of Christian spirituality comprises pietistical procedures which satisfy needs of aspirants at phases of their journey. Every aspirant, therefore, during the course of their piety, participates in the piety of each one of the five kinds of Christian spirituality. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is an epigram of the spiritual as well as the biological realm.

This is an important phenomenon, especially for any who take themselves as facilitators of spiritual aspirants. A Guru has to be all things to all people, meaning, all aspirants. The elements of their spiritualities are shared between the five kinds of Christian spirituality and for this reason a Guru has to be a universalist, not a provincial. The punishment for partiality in the office of clergyperson or spiritual facilitator is spiritual disaster for the pretender, and not in this world only but for many that are to come, as well. Misleading seekers is a crime more terrible than murder. It’s consequence is comparable.

Another observation: Anglo-Saxons are East German, not West German, tribals. They align instinctively with the East German (Slavic) and Asiatic populations of East Europe, North-Central and Central Asia and the Balkans. East German, or, Anglo-Saxon tribals and their trainees comprise the Patristic facet of the Anglican Church. This is the political or episcopal facet.

Besides Anglo-Saxons, the other ancient populations of the British Isles are West German (French, Scandinavian, German) and Celtic tribals. These align instinctively with West German (including Russian), French, Scandinavian and Bohemian populations of North and Central Europe. They have affinity, also, with Sephardic Jewry and with Greek, African, Basque and Italian populations of Southern Europe and North Africa. West German and Celtic tribals and their trainees comprise the Columban and Heroic facets of the Anglican Church. These are the spiritual or monastic facets.

The epithet WASP is a misnomer any way it’s used. Applied to Anglo-Saxons it is wrong because these are not Protestants but Catholics. Applied to West Germans and Celts it is wrong because these are not Anglo-Saxons but West Germans and Celts. The people usually called WASPs are West German (German, French, Dutch, Scandinavian) and Celtic Puritans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Christian Scientists, Freemasons, Shakers, Jansenists and Huguenots — people who denounce totalitarian Anglo-Saxon Patristic Christianity and represent the Columban and Heroic facets of the Anglican Church.

… showing, once again, the accuracy of racial slurs … .

Following these observations, we may note that conflict between East German/Central Asiatic Rome on the one hand and East German/Central Asiatic Constantinople and Moscow on the other is an intra-family quarrel, and also, that affinity between East German/Anglo-Saxon (Patristic) Anglicans on the one hand and East German/Central Asiatic (Patristic) Moscow and Constantinople on the other is a predictable fit.

On the macro stage, we should observe that the East German and Central Asiatic tribals who erupted out of the north and north-east to established themselves in Rome changed the character of Christianity at Rome from eremitical Pythagorean, or, Heroic Christianity, as typified by Gregory I, Jerome and Benedict, who were native Romans, to something of their own making, something following the impulses of the Imperium rather than of the Church, something of politics more than of spirituality. Under morally-challenged Patristic autocrats, Christianity at Rome became something of law rather than Love, of forced infusion of Grace rather than abandonment of ego. It looked to hierarchical heteronomy rather than personal autonomy and to sacrament rather than service. They changed the character of the thing.

Gregory I is the last of the Pythagorean/Roman/Greek stock to serve as Bishop of Rome. When Romans took their children to Benedict, they were trying to preserve their culture, counciliar concepts and procedures, from the despotism that was taking over the Empire in the persons of East German and Central Asiatic tribals.

Augustine, too, was looking at this. The Church was already in the despots’ hands by the time he was growing concerned about them. They had thrown out Jerome. They controlled the hierarchy. Augustine did not fully appreciate the strategic situation.

Under Gregory I and Benedict, there was a respite from ecclesiastical despotism as the old families gained a temporary upper hand on the political situation. But eventually, as is often and rightly observed, there was no place in the hierarchy for culture, so thoroughly was it given to drink, debauchery, illiteracy and tyranny, and both humanity and religion had to repair to the monastery to preserve themselves at all.

When humanity and religion emerged from the monastery, after centuries of tutelage under Basil, Jerome and Benedict, the imperious Patristic hierarchy was still in place, but now it had to accept the presence of the other four kinds of Christian spirituality and it could not control the tenor or the direction of continuing spiritual explorations. The pretense of Imperium remained but it could not be enforced.

During the medieval period, in Italy, a so-called feud was conducted between a party known as the Guelphs and a party known as the Ghibellines. Guelphs supported the papacy and Ghibellines supported the aristocracy. Behind this so-called feud is dis-ease between representatives of Patristic (Guelph) and Heroic (Ghibelline) Christianity. And behind this is conflict between descendants of intruding East German and Central Asian despotic populations (Guelphs) and native Italian, African, Greek and Semitic counciliar populations (Ghibellines). The curia and papacy comprised the intruders, as they do today, and the aristocracy comprised the natives, as it does today. The dynamics are produced by different aims in life and different kinds of spirituality.

The Patristic, despotic, Guelph manner is intolerant. The Heroic, counciliar, Ghibelline manner is tolerant. Conflict is caused by intolerance. The tolerant have merely to survive in order to expose the impotence and frustrate the pretensions of the intolerant.

Like all inherently tyrannical impulses, Patristic Christianity attempts to give the impression that it is the only game in town.

Finally, an observation about a way out of this seemingly endless lack of peace caused by the intolerance of Patristic Christianity and the continuing creativity of all other kinds. Patristic Christianity claims to be based on Law, namely, Law as defined by the Mind of Christ, which is identified as the curia and popes, followed by the clerical hierarchy. If there is Non-Dualism (Adwaitha Philosophy, or, Vedantha) in the Law, civil and canon, which can be exposed and exegeted, this would go far in mitigating, even obviating the tyrannical impulses of Patristic Christianity.

A demonstration might proceed on these lines: Law is based on the quality of humility. Law describes what an humble person does ordinarily, without being asked. Unless the quality of humility is present, Law is a blowing of wind into air. Humility is submission to what is internal to oneself. It is submission to one’s own nature. Law, therefore, is a description of one’s own nature.

Furthermore, Law has no prescriptive capacity. It describes normative behavior but cannot compel it. Only human agency can do that — or can try. But even human agency can compel only what is inherent nature to begin with. It cannot compel what is external to human nature or to an individual’s nature. Nothing can.

So, Law is a synonym for one’s own nature. It’s essence is Non-Dualism. Law faces only itself, never an other, for, there is never an other for Law to face.

This line of demonstration eliminates the so-called Pauline doctrine of Law and Gospel. It also spotlights a little irony, which is, that whereas punishment is administered to the body, the culprit is the mind, which cannot be reached by punishment. However, the primary utility of this line of demonstration is to show that even Law, the principle support of tyrannical impulses, intrinsically refutes the need for and justification of tyranny in the first place. Human nature is Divine Nature. It is theonomous and autonomous because of that. Law is one means humanity has of stating this fact.

• • Law is Love.
  • Love is Law.
  • There is no difference.

REASON AND MYSTERY BELONG TOGETHER, LIKE SUBSTANCE AND FORM.
The Rev. Dr. Paulus Johannes Tillich

A Roman Emperor of the 2nd Century had in his private oratory statues of Moses, Jesus and Apollonios of Tyana, the Pythagorean Reformer and Sage who was about 20 years Jesus’ junior. In this distribution of statuary there is learning to be had, doctrine to be realized.

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA