The Path and Initiation

2003-4-1 05:10:00

John Z writes:
How important is it to become an initiate?

JJ:
That is like asking, how important is it to become an adult? It is just something that happens (to all but a few) as we grow up.

John Z:
I mean, is it simply an optional "honor" that some may or may not ever want to strive for? Or, is it the main part of the "Path" of progression / happiness?

JJ:
When you are born, you cannot speak a language. Eventually you learn a few words and when you find them useful you want to learn more words. When you achieve a good vocabulary then you seek to use it to your advantage and also learn to read etc.

Becoming an initiate is no more optional than learning to speak. Eventually all of us do it and when we pass the first then we have a strong desire to move on to the second. The initiate often does not know the details of initiation as he passes through them as a natural part of his evolution.

John Z:
What IS the "Path" and where does it lead? Many speak of "progression" but do not clothe that word with substantive direction, and too often it remains in the realm of fuzzy (nebulous) words.

JJ:
The path is that trajectory which leads us in the direction of spiritual evolution, or back into the presence of God and beyond "worlds without end."

The average person is on the path when he chooses kindness over cruelty, love over hate, the will of God over his own will etc. When he chooses the negative, he is said to be off the path, but this is always seen as a temporary condition. When one goes off the path he goes through darkness and suffering until he is forced to get back on. He may stay off the path for a week, a year or for lifetimes, but sooner or later he learns his lessons and returns.

John Z:
I (being LDS) have been of the mindset that the object of our existence it to strive toward a "fullness of joy". Is that the Path?

JJ:
Joy is not the Path, but progressing on the path brings joy. A sense of great peace and inner joy are signs that the pilgrim is progressing on the path.

John Z:
The Bible speaks of a "strait and narrow path", of which the Book of Mormon tells us baptism is the "gate" to that path. Is this the "Path?" DK (and others we've been discussing) are referring to?

JJ:
One of the names of the Path is the strait and narrow path. Physical baptism is not the gate, but is a symbol of the gate.

Here is a quote from my previous writings: The physical act of baptism is a dead work. (See D&C 22) Taking a person and placing him under the water and bringing him out of it, by itself does nothing, even if you have all the authority of the hosts of heaven.

What then is the living work behind baptism?

The living work is the meaning behind the symbol and if a person understands this he could obtain all the benefits of baptism without baptism.

The scriptures basically tell us that we need to be baptized to be saved. If baptism itself is a dead work then what is it really telling us to do to become saved or delivered?

The basic meaning of baptism as many have been taught in church is to have our sins washed away, but if physical baptism is a dead work then what really washes our sins away?

We have learned that the real meaning of sin is error or "missing the mark" therefore the washing away of sin is the removal of error. But what is the error or errors that need to be removed?

The basic error that baptism helps to remove is this. All except those who have the name of God in their foreheads (Rev 14:1) look for authority from a God without. Now when that God without speaks and we accept a great error is created. It is not long before we imperfectly follow the God without and as soon as we disobey, even in the slightest, guilt is created.

Now there are two ways to remove this guilt. The first is to satisfy the demands of an angry "God out there." But the trouble with this method is that it is not long before you break more commandments and guilt returns. The Catholic confession is a good method of alleviating this returned guilt, but this is a temporary measure and you are again dependent on a voice for God out there rather than the Spirit within.

What is the second and permanent way to remove the guilt?

The second way is to remove yourself from the voice of the outer God, or the "beast" as we taught earlier, and subject yourself to the one authority, the Spirit of God within.

This was the difference between the foolish and wise virgins in the parable. The five wise had oil in their lamps, or the Spirit of God in their hearts and this light of the Spirit lead them to the Christ. The five foolish had no oil and had to go buy some from the authorities, but the oil from the authorities without did not light the way and they "missed the mark" or sinned and were not able to find the Christ.

Thus we see that the true meaning of baptism is to remove the error of guilt, permanently, which guilt is caused by an error in thinking. True salvation is the removal of guilt. The scripture could have said: "Wash away the cause of guilt, center yourself on the Spirit within and you will be saved." Because the true salvation through baptism is the salvation or deliverance from guilt, does this mean that the physical act should not be done?

No. It does not. The ordinance of baptism was instituted because it does indeed serve a useful purpose, as do all symbols. Many angelic lives that differ from human evolution, as well as higher aspects of ourselves communicate with symbols. Also the Masters largely communicate with symbols.

The act of physical baptism sends a communication to higher spiritual lives that you are attempting to enter into a higher spiritual life and this symbolic communication therefore sends a message to refined lives who can help you remove guilt and center yourself on living the life of Christ.

John Z:
If so, your comments about the first three initiations overcoming Maya, Glamour, and Illusion (respectively) [see Archive #350] make much sense. If overcoming those things is the REAL essence and of the initiate, I can see how anyone, and everyone can be an initiate. And, I can see the importance of progressing through those three stages of the Path, in the quest for joy.

JJ:
You see correctly.

John Z:
HOWEVER there have been other posts that have made it seem (to me)like NOT anyone or everyone can be an initiate of (say) a third degree ? but only a relative few. I'm referring to statements like:

JJ Archive #536: Before one reaches initiation he is called an "aspirant," if he is sincerely seeking the truth. If you begin a work that affects MANY people this is a sign that you are an accepted initiate

JJ Archive #241: An initiate is one who actually initiates something. A second degree initiate has power to initiate with more FAR REACHING effects than a first degree and a third degree has more FAR REACHING power than a second degree and so on. If you read history and see the people who initiated the greatest change in the world you can then deduce the highest initiates among mankind. Jesus and Buddha initiated tremendous change and are therefore high initiates. On the non religious side so did George Washington and Thomas Edison. These were also initiates and they demonstrated thus because they initiate.

JZ:
From these, and other posts like them, I get the sense that to get very far up the initiate scale, one must do some pretty awesome things. When I read names like Jesus, Buddha, Washington, Edison, Joseph Smith, Pres. George W. Bush, and Winston Churchill, part of me goes, Wow! where do the little folk (the other 99.9%) fit in? How huge of a project does one need to initiate to satisfy the requirement? And, what becomes of those who never rise up to that level or scope of achievement? Is being an initiate, and serving humanity with far reaching efforts that produce tremendous change the only way to progress down the Path? Does that mean the small reaching efforts of the great majority of us, who still are striving to overcome Maya, Glamour, and Illusion (and are perhaps just as effective at doing so) but are doing so on a micro scale, do not count, or do not count as much? What is the real objective of an initiate of the first three degrees ? to overcome Maya, Glamour, and Illusion ? or to spearhead projects that serve or affect humanity on a large scale? I don't see why one can't overcome those three objectives while serving on a relatively smaller scale. My thoughts go to the parable of the talents. Any application here?

JJ:
All initiates do not become famous. The reason I use famous names when talking about them is that we know who they are and can learn from their example. If I were to present an unknown as an example of an initiate then this would not be helpful in teaching the principle.

You mention George Washington as an initiate. What did he initiate? He was a big factor in initiating the United States and the Republic. But was he the only one who saw the vision and worked to initiate it?

No. There were hundreds of them in various stages of initiation. Many of these names we would not recognize.

The same goes for the establishment of Christianity. The Christ was the greatest initiate, but there were many others who became initiates by seeing the vision and assisting in the beginning of a great work.

There are many initiates who are not the one who actually begin a great work, but are able to see the vision behind a work which is set in motion. He will see a place for himself and be a great instrument in moving the work forward.

There are other factors to master besides the initiation of a work. He must master the various elements of his nature as he progresses onward.

The important thing for each of us is to achieve soul contact and get a sense of our next step in fulfilling the Will of God. When he picks this up and follows it, he will move onward with joy and it matters not if he is an initiate or aspirant. Because of reincarnation we have unlimited time to achieve the goal. The present moment is what counts.