Analogue 14: The Hidden Revealed

 ANALOGUE 14

Yeshua took everyone by surprise, for he did not reveal himself as he truly was, but only according to the capacities of those who were able to perceive him. Though everyone was susceptible to mortality, nevertheless he revealed himself to all. To the great ones he revealed himself as great; to the little ones he became small. To angels he revealed himself as angel, to humanity as a man. Yet in all of these the Logos itself was the hidden secret, though some who saw him realized they were seeing themselves. So when he revealed himself to his students in glory on the Mountain, he was no longer small, but grew great and enabled his students also to become great, so that they might perceive his nobility. On that very day, in an act of great thanksgiving, he cried, “O You who have united Perfected Light with Sacred Spirit, come bind our angels to the icons.”

SYNOPSIS 

• The Analogue teaches that the nature of Revelation is that the hidden is revealed according to need and capacity. It is also how Yeshua both reveals himself while some things remain hidden.
• The doctrine and work of adequation (adequatio) according to inner capacities is introduced: Yeshua enables us to be more adequate, that is, possessing greater capacities.
• Behind everything made explicit in this text is the hidden secret or mystery of Yeshua—the inner Logos and goal of the work which is to increase capability, restore unity, and alchemically bind the Angel to the Icon.
• The term "seeing ourselves” has to do with the inner ability to see the transcendent nature of the true Self.
• Nobility—the original state of humankind—becomes manifest in Yeshua.
• The unique prayer of the Transfiguration turns it into a Eucharistic act of great vision.
• Restoration (the act of reconciliation and union), is ultimately what binds the Angel to its Icon (or original Image).
• The binding of Perfect Light and Sacred Spirit (the uniting of the masculine and feminine principles) is also hidden. This initial union is necessary in order to then bind the Angel to the Icon through the mystery of inner alchemy.
• What Yeshua was experiencing and seeing on the Mountain of Transfiguration was full human realization. He became a completed human being with the capacity to be catalytic and spark the same evolutionary spiral, affecting others and making them as receptive as he was (as Analogue 1 suggests).

COMMENTARY

The Revelation on the Mountain 

In this singular analogue we have a prime example of how Philip relates to, but is also quite different from, the canonical Gospel tradition. His is the telling of the many mysteries that Yeshua knew and which became part of his first students’ understanding of him, though other parts were hidden from or not deeply understood by all of them. Without this Gospel we are only privy to the public ministry which forms the core of the canonical tradition (the Gospel of John, of course, being an exception). Though all of the Gospels available to us are filled with treasure, in this particular analogue we are given access to one of the deepest of mysteries—who Yeshua was, according to his own understanding, and what was the peak experience that most deeply changed that perception for him. As he underwent this and other visionary experiences throughout his lifetime, what inner realities did he come to know? This relates especially to the singular event that today we call the Transfiguration whose inner secret and meaning is disclosed to us here. More importantly, we learn not only about Yeshua’s experience but about our own relationship to his which determines the quality of our own being.

The unique nature of Yeshua as the charismatic figure in his day was indeed discussed among the inner circle of his students. Some aspects of that discussion are made known to us in this analogue. The description of what happened to Yeshua on the mountain takes us into the hidden secret of his catalytic power and how that power affected his own students and the people of his day. It appears that he was able to accomplish in them what the first Analogue suggests, creating transformative receptivity and spiritual experience. It was through the force and energy of his own being that Yeshua was able to catalyze others, and in this analogue we are shown the key to this ability: the transformation of his own interior nature. His wisdom teachings certainly held power, but through his own spiritual evolution he became catalytic, able to create in others the conditions for the possibility of visionary experience, change and transformation. 

The Secrets Inside Yeshua’s Heart  

Earlier in Analogue 10 it was said that Yeshua held certain secrets in the container of his heart: The human, the angel-archetype, the mystery, and the Father. He possessed or embodied these things not merely as ideas but as realities at his core. In some mysterious way they had become part of his own ontological nature, and their powerful effects were observable in the environment around him. The secret was hidden within him, perhaps even from him, until at the event of the Transfiguration something of his true nature was revealed, though only for a brief time. The question is, how did he realize and internalize these realities? What was his experience of them?

What Philip describes in this analogue may be the answer. It appears that Yeshua came personally to fully know these aspects within himself at a particular moment in time. Through a visionary experience they revealed themselves to him on a mountain. In this telling, he also becomes an example of the way in which revelation both displays and conceals at the same moment. It is said that in the very manifestation of his work in the outer world, he himself and his true nature remained hidden, except perhaps for a small handful of disciples. It was on Mt. Tabor, however, that they came to be fully known, yet even there they were apparently also paradoxically concealed.

In all revelation a deeper principle is at work: anything disclosed is always according to (and dependent upon) the receptivity of the one who is receiving it. Accordingly, the capacity of the observer to see certain things determines what can be known and understood. What the students near him actually saw and heard on that day ultimately depended on who they already were; each was given an experience according to their capacity and perhaps also their need. It is clear from the canonical descriptions of this event that though his three students saw something of the outer effects of his transformation, they were not yet fully capable of understanding everything that was occurring. In fact, in the canonical Gospels we are told they were very busy dealing with their own fears and consternations. Perhaps it was only later as their capacities grew that Yeshua was able to teach them the secrets of his own experience, and perhaps that is how, what they understood, came to be recorded later in this Gospel text. 

The Doctrine of Adequation 

According to a teaching transmitted by Thomas Aquinas called the doctrine of Adequation, a person must become adequate for the truth that they ultimately receive. We each see according to (and through) the lens and capacities of our own being. Only when someone is ready can they receive certain truths, otherwise they remain hidden. Capacities within the observer determine everything—the timing, the mode, the level of revelation, and the depth of meaning. If the inner capacity is limited, so is the perception of a revelation and the ability to understand its truth. We typically imagine that we can perceive any truth that is available to us in our world, but here we are being told that if we are not ready for it, it will escape detection, failing to be detected on the screen of our consciousness.

Within the prophetic tradition, Yeshua’s role was to prepare and open the eyes of those around him. As any skilled teacher would, he spoke directly to the capacities of each individual, both small and great. Behind all of these revelations, however, was the hidden activity of the Logos which was speaking and acting as the agent of Revelation. The Logos was the divine Word (or Manifestation) being expressed by the eternal Sources. It was the Voice of the eternal Logos who was at work in and speaking through the person of Yeshua. The same Source-point for the Logos that was in Yeshua also lies deeply within every soul. None are without it, but for many, if not most, it escapes detection, and so we do not hear the eternal Word nor detect our own true nature, living bereft of that hearing and that vision. Philip explains that it is only when we hear and begin to understand it through Yeshua that we start to truly understand ourselves.

The Visionary Experience on Mount Tabor 

Philip’s account takes us to the same place of Transfiguration as do the canonical Gospels, Mt. Tabor, located in Galilee in the northern region of Palestine. In this telling, however, the author gives us a glimpse of something that is entirely new to the Christian West and not described in the canonical tradition: the Gospel of Philip describes what was actually spoken by Yeshua on that mountain, whereas the other Gospels speak only about what the students saw or perceived. Philip tells us directly what Yeshua’s own deep experience actually was. Yeshua was a visionary and this was a visionary recital, for he not only perceived from the depths of his own immanence, he was also taken to the heights of transcendence. Before the discovery of this Gospel, we had never heard what he himself had encountered at that crucial moment. Now we know!

It was there that Yeshua’s vision and awareness expanded magnitudes greater perhaps than he had ever experienced before. It is possible to understand this description as an expansion of his consciousness. Not only did he receive a great vision, something new also clearly unfolded inside of him. At that moment it appears he was also able to catalyze his students’ conscious capacities. Alongside him, they moved into a greater seeing than they had previously known; they were able to see or sense something beyond their previous capacities. Yeshua’s powers of perceptions were at maximum capacity, and the meaning of what he saw and heard he took (or integrated) inside himself. While he, along with his students, perceived these things as outward signs, he also then internalized them, saying in that moment “Come bind the Angel to the Icon,” which has deep metaphysical and mystical significance—at that moment the higher Angel of his being was united to his temporal image. It seems probable that from this time forward his students’ relationship with him changed, for the text says that they had seen his nobility. This may seen an odd word to use, but it suggests grandeur, dignity, royalty and virtue in proportions beyond the norm. Perhaps they were able to perceive Yeshua, not merely from their own earthly vantage points, but from the perspective of heaven. It seems that both he and his students’ capacities took a step forward toward a new station of spiritual evolution and understanding. This became a moment of true metamorphosis, which is what the word “transfiguration “ actually means. Their ordinary forms and capacities were transcended and remade: they not only saw, but their own inner natures were deeply affected by that vision and encounter.

Yeshua’s Eucharistic Declaration 

Philip describes Yeshua’s experience as act of Eucharistic thanksgiving. It is from that inner ecstatic state that he cries out in exultation in the mysterious declaration: “O you who have united Perfected Light with Sacred Spirit, come bind our angels to the icons.” In the realm of the divine unity, a state of being is described when Light perfected is bonded to (or inseparable from) sacred Spirit. There also the Angel is united to its icon, that is, to its own manifest image, becoming a single whole. This is mystical language which stretches our imagination and understanding. It is an ecstatic expression of the unfolding of some inward reality that they each knew in their own way and took back with them when they descended from that mountain.

This appears to be the declaration of what some have called a form of spiritual marriage. Separated parts became united. In our realm, light is not perfect. It is mixed with shadows and scattered out in the darkness. In some ways. light is still growing or forming within each of us. When its transformation is complete, however, it is one with the sacred Spirit, and in that condition, the Angel who is the archetype of our being and its manifestation in time are fully united, the two becoming one.

The Archetypal Secret 

As in St. John’s Gospel, Yeshua is here described as united to and expressing the Logos. This is a Greek term that describes the intelligent structure and pattern of all things. The Logos is understood to be the divine Word speaking itself, which creates and patterns the cosmos. This pattern is its Word or the expression of God. The pattern itself is the logos or divine design of all creation upon which it is built. Far from being simply words-in-themselves, they are its inner logos (unique pattern). As a human being, Yeshua was understood to have lived out and manifested this same deep cosmic patterns of the Divine Reality in his own personal way as one unique expression of God. He was not simply living according to the pattern of his own ego but as a manifestation of the divine Mind and Consciousness. Being a spiritual master and practitioner of Wisdom, Yeshua incarnated this same deep structure of the universe, giving it expression as God’s Word speaking directly to us, expressing the higher, intelligent design of the divine Mind in human form. This secret was located at the heart of his being, and became fully realized for him at the very moment of Transfiguration (his metamorphosis), when he united to the Archetype of his own being on the mountaintop.

This description of Yeshua points toward a profound understanding of the nature and design of all human beings for which he was a template. The use of the word icon in this analogue suggests that what we are now is an image of something far larger or greater. You might imagine seeing a twodimensional sketch or photograph, and then imagine that compared to the actually experience of being in and around its manifestation as a magnificent Gothic cathedral. To put it plainly, what we are presently is an image of our own archetype which predated our coming to earth and will outlast our life on earth. We each have an archetypal self which we “image” here on earth. We are its icon, pointing in different ways to that larger pattern which was the design or model of who we originally were and who we are meant to become. We are now in that process. The archetype of our being is also saiwe know little of this, or catch but brief glimpses of this reality, but the truth is that when we are ready and have the capacity for it (that is, when we are adequate), we will begin to know our own Angel or archetype and be bonded ever more deeply to it, perhaps even while we pass through our experience of this earth, in order to become the ultimate embodiment of all of these previous manifestations.

This analogue expresses, therefore, a great sacred teaching which heretofore was a secret hidden from us. It expresses the depth of Yeshua’s own visionary seeing which heretofore had not been fully understood in our interpretations of the Gospel tradition in the West. Now, in this Gospel, the content of Yeshua’s seeing becomes clearer, as does the motivation for his work. Not only did Yeshua experience these things, but they became essential to his secret teachings, the mysteries, which he was able to convey to the rest of his students, including Philip, who were not with him on the Mountain. You can see then that there is a progression in these analogues. His teaching concerning metanoia (reorientation of one’s being) leads him to the vertical axis, which precedes and then leads to its ascent, symbolized by the mountain. On that peak, Light and Spirit, Angel and Icon were united for him. This catalyzed the trajectory of his following work which will be explored and expressed in the rest of the text.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION 

1. Seeing reality through the lens of our own being is central to an understanding of what spiritual perception actually means. This has been called the Doctrine of Adequation (becoming adequate for what one perceives). Look back on your own spiritual history and consider those moments when your own perceptions about what is true were changed. What widened your ability to see?
2. Have you ever had a visionary experience—a peak experience of some kind? Describe that in your journal. What stands out for you about it now?
3. Do you sense that Yeshua has revealed himself to you? Describe that in a journal entry. How would you describe your understanding of Yeshua at this moment? What is your relationship with him now?
4. What is your understanding of the term Logos? Reread the opening chapter of the Gospel of John concerning the meaning and work of the Logos. How is John’s Gospel another description of the “inner secret” or the deeper meaning of Yeshua’s work and life?
5. What is the meaning of the phrase, “...Some who saw him realized they were seeing themselves”? How might Yeshua be mirroring you?
6. The story of the Transfiguration is repeated throughout the Gospel tradition. Clearly something unusual happened to Yeshua on Mt. Tabor. Philip’s telling of this event is remarkable. What impact does it have upon you? How might it change the way you think about yourself or the way you perceive your future?
7. Read the accounts of the Transfiguration from the canonical Gospels and compare them with Philip’s description. What do you notice? (Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36. II Peter 1:16-18 also mentions this.)

Notes for Reference and Study 

A. Mount Tabor is a conical-shaped mountain off the southern edge of the highlands of Galilee. It is unique and stands out from the rest of the landscape. There is now a church on its summit, but in Yeshua’s day, located some miles from his home village of Nazareth, it would likely have been entirely deserted and a good hiking distance for a single day’s excursion. 

B. The Doctrine of Adequatio (or Adequation) was taught by Thomas Aquinas using a Latin formula: adequatio rei et intellectus. In this seminal work, A Guide for the Perplexed, E. F. Schumacher explains the teaching in this way: “What enables man to know anything at all about the world around him? … Nothing can be known without there being an appropriate ‘instrument’ in the makeup of the knower. This is the Great Truth of “adequatio” (adequateness), which defines knowledge as: the understanding of the knower must be adequate to the thing to be known.” Understanding in the knower has everything to do with the inner development and maturation of the one knowing. In other words, there must be commensurate growth in one’s being in order to know a spiritual truth beyond what one already knows. Developmentally we also see that many levels of understanding are dependent upon the growth of cognition in an individual through their processes of maturation. Math and language are particular examples: one can only understand certain mathematical concepts when one’s brain has developed sufficiently, making one adequate for the knowledge. 

C. The meaning of the ancient Greek term Logos was developed as a biblical term by Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE- c. 50 CE), a Jew living in the Greco-Roman world of Alexandria, Egypt, who attempted a synthesis between the prophetic tradition of the Hebrews and the philosophical tradition of the Greeks. These philosophical and theological developments became part of the language of discourse in the first-century world of Judaism and Christianity. John’s Gospel uses that language in its attempt to explain who Yeshua was, recorded in the first chapter of that Gospel in the famous words “In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Philo connects the Greek word logos with the Hebrew word debar. Both are translated “word” in English which often misses the larger concepts of manifestation, expression, and intelligent pattern or design. Logos is also said to be present in the human mind as reason and intelligence and in nature as balanced and replicating patterns, often according to precise mathematical proportion, as for for example in the Nautilus shell. 

D. Various words are used in this passage that suggest not only the quality of Yeshua’s being but also the nature and level of his consciousness. Words like “greatness” and “nobility” suggest both an expansion of consciousness as well as a inner depth in the levels of his own being. We have to remember that the terms used then, like ours today, struggle to express the extraordinary nature of what was occurring, trying to convey the transcendent and the inexpressible using words that resonated for them. We would not necessarily choose the same words today, but they are very suggestive about certain similar sensibilities, which fill the mystical literature of the ages in their attempt to find words for extraordinary human experience. These are terms that fit both with mystical discourse as well as with the literature of peak experiences that take one outside the norms.

 

E. In this analogue we are hearing language that may no longer convey today what they apparently meant then, nor does our regular religious teaching adequately make room for these ideas and their metaphysical meaning. An example would be the term Angels. We have traditional images and meanings, some of which have suffered from serious contemporary reductionism or have become empty of meaning entirely. Angels are seldom taken seriously today except to decorate the modern imagination with sentimental forms that carry no weight. C.S. Lewis sought to rehabilitate our understanding of these beings with literary images that found a more solid metaphysical foundation in his space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength are worth reading if only for that very reason). In mythological and Jungian language, however, Angels serve as expressions of what we might call archetypal realities. Archetypal forms are cosmic and universal, expressing patterns far beyond any form of temporal or rational limitation. You might imagine that you yourself has a primordial archetype, and that this archetypal form is alive and intelligent. In some parlance it would be proper to designate it as an Angel—the Angel of your archetypal being. Such a teaching is traditional but not readily available in modern theology, though it existed throughout the patristic age and into Thomistic Catholic theology, philosophy and metaphysics in the late Middle Ages. The traditional Greek term eikon or icon (sometimes translated as “image”) has suffered a similar fate in modern English usage. Whereas it traditionally stood for a reality that had eternal significance, it now primarily refers to a painting representing a religious saint of some tradition or, most recently, has simply become a signifier for actions in computer technology. Philip, of course, was not using this term to describe a painting, a picture or a religious icon, and certainly not a symbol on a computer screen. This word in Greek, used in the early Christian Scriptures, indicated that we are “icons” or images of the living God—made or created in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27-28). The two terms, image and likeness, also have deep significance in early patristic theology (see Olivier Clement’s The Roots of Christian Mysticism). Philip sees that what we are now are images (or icons) of our own Angel-archetype, both of which, of course, find their source in God. In this Gospel these finer and earlier distinctions are being made, offering perhaps a more complex metaphysical understanding than we are used to, pointing us to the way in which we are related to Ultimate Reality.

Notes for the Translation

• “Mortality” (or “death”) could also be understood as “diminishment” and “loss”.
• Here the phrase “some who saw him realized they were seeing themselves “ is taken to mean that this a step forward in the understanding of those who perceived or witnessed the Christ event. It could, however, be translated to mean the opposite, that those that saw him were under the illusion that they were only seeing themselves. It is unclear which meaning one should take, but in this translation the decision was made to use the former.
• The word “great” may have to do with social status (the Mighty), but it could easily refer to beings of a higher order among the “little ones” (the humble ones) to whom he came. “Greatness” could also refer to immensity or vastness as well as to nobility.
• The phrase “great thanksgiving” is actually eucharistia in the original text, indicating that Yeshua offered up a Eucharistic prayer, which in our contemporary understanding is one of remembrance and thanksgiving.
• In the words Yeshua is said to have cried out in thanksgiving, the terms “united" and “bind” could also be understood and translated by the term mate or mated in the original, which gives a stronger sense of the uniting between male and female. These terms themselves are grammatically gendered, “united” as masculine and “bind” as feminine.
• “Perfected Light” is light that has been completed (the Greek term, teleios).
• The word for “icons” could be rendered “images”, but in the original it is precisely the term eikon.