The facebook inspired race hatred Anglo-Saxon with support from their fascists mainland European counterparts are still following me on their social media sites and ran another run in my local high street to see my reaction prior to an attack. This time I informed the police who I understand took decisive action. I thank the UK police for that. I am still capturing the faces of the individuals involved and will begin to post them online as race-hate fascists.
The Truth About Mary Magdalene: an exploration of ‘free’ will, morals, demons and mental illness
Mahatma Gandhiji said ‘reading the Sermon on the Mount gives me as much pleasure as reading the Gita.’
In this essay, I explore the Bible’s treatment of Mary Magdalene, but it is not my intention to rob you of the comfort, support and sustenance the Bible may provide you.
There are some points to note first, before I begin, which provide context to my assessment of, and argument against, the Bible’s characterization of Mary Magdalene. These are as follows:
Jesus, the person, lived several centuries earlier than indicated in biblical history.
His lifetime coincided with the global influence of Buddhism, and it is likely that he – and others of his ilk – would have studied eastern philosophy and made certain self-discoveries through that.
It follows, therefore, that Jesus most likely would never have uttered the statements attributed to him in biblical texts.
Thus, the Bible’s author/s can be said to have created a myth.
Biblical myth, like most other powerful myths, communicate core beliefs that permeate through folklore and storytelling across the ages. They draw on the past, and on real historical personages, and mythologise these.
One such historical figure would have been the real Jesus, who – like Buddhaji – was already a synonym for particular attributes and high-minded values at the time the Bible was written.
Hence, the Bible crystallizes an idea or concept and set of folkloric stories that have gathered force and come to assume a kind of powerful reality.
Taking all this into account, the story of Mary Magdalene’s interaction with Jesus of Nazareth, shines a light on the evolution of kinship, fellowship, and morality, and helps illuminate the theme and process of personal transformation. It does so, I would argue, in quite distinct ways from – and more accurately than – the Bible sets out.
In the Bible, Mary Magdalene is repeatedly described as a prostitute. However, since we know that she comes from a wealthy family, that simply isn’t possible in the terms that we understand prostitution today (and presumably at the time of the Bible’s authorship).
For one thing, wealth confers a particular loosening of moral mores and restrictions – just look at news about the elite in our society, and the almost self-congratulatory rite-of-passage they pass through: various addictions, affairs, etc. The uninhibited freedom of the wealthy elite is the same today as it has ever been.
Mary lived in a time of Roman occupation, and high-society would have mimicked Roman high-life, which in turn mimicked Greek high-life before it. This high-life would have comprised relaxed moral codes and sexual freedoms. In this context, Mary might conceivably have been a courtesan. This differs from prostitution in the sense that it centres on companionship as much as sex, on being an intelligent and witty person with whom to spend time, and being in some ways an equal partner in the interaction.
Given that her brother lived in a leper’s colony, Mary and her older sister would likely also have assumed the role and responsibility of the eldest male family member, meaning interacting with men as equals, and with candour and ease. Twinned with the promiscuity of the wealthy elite of whom she was herself a member, this potentially makes Mary a very unpalatable figure to the religious orthodox of her own time, and those who authored the Bible.
Here was a woman embodying the liberal values and behaviours of high society, exhibiting tomboyish flamboyance, enjoying free interaction with men because of her responsibility – all of which coalesced to subject her to accusations of, and characterization as, a prostitute. Mary thus exemplified all that was pernicious, and was an affront to – the Laws of Moses and the Law of God.
The case of her affair with an older married man with children was likely the perfect foil for making an example of Mary. In a sting set up by the Pharisees, which perhaps her lover colluded in, in exchange for everlasting anonymity, Mary was cast as the ultimate fallen woman.
But there was more at stake than Mary’s reputation – and her possible stoning to death. The Pharisees were also hell-bent on testing Jesus’ adherence to the Laws of Moses and the Law of God.
I’m not necessarily talking about the real Jesus, who, as pointed out earlier, preceded the Bible by several centuries; but then, neither is the Bible referring to him per se, rather to the legend of Jesus, to a man with Jesus-like qualities.
So, what would Jesus do, when confronted with a fallen woman whose death was likely imminent because of her immoralities? In the Bible, he writes in the earth his condemnation of, as well as the hidden secrets of her accusers. As depicted in c.15th paintings, writing in the earth is akin to making a definitive statement, issuing a decree, it is what gives us the saying ‘written in stone’. The real Jesus’ interaction with eastern philosophy and its theatrical, allegorical, and allusive modes of delivering lessons makes it impossible to believe that he would ever have acted in such a way. It is inimical to the way in which people like us, people of our ilk, behave or communicate the god-concept.
What else does the Bible say about Mary Magdalene and Jesus? That she was possessed by no fewer than seven devils. (This number is interesting, as in other cultures the devil is associated with number nine, fifty-four, and even one hundred and eight). The devils made her act in the way she did; they made her promiscuous. From an orthodox religious perspective, the flexible mores and conduct of the wealthy elite are indeed (then as now) anathema to living a moral and correct life in fear of god – they are considered to be under the influence and control of the devil.
The devil is a wonderful invention. – a placeholder and catch-all for all the actions and attitudes, the behaviours and beliefs that hard-right fanatics can’t fathom or explain, and which they don’t wish to try and understand or comprehend because doing so would dent their rigid exclusion of morals and logics other than their own.
But the devil concept is, in its reductiveness, singularly unhelpful.
Jesus, like others of our ilk, would have been vehemently dismissive of the devil concept. While publicly he would have assimilated himself to prevailing language and concept norms, he would have recognised that the ‘devil’ so-called was entirely irrelevant to explaining and resolving Mary’s situation.
Why? Because the devil concept rests on the assumption that a person has free will and a normative moral compass to begin with, and that bad and immoral behaviour results from this being perniciously thwarted. In fact, though, free will, reasoning and thinking are themselves complete fabrications. Which is to say, what comes across as our ‘free’ will is in fact already written into us: pre-ordained.
It is difficult to explain this to laypeople. The pathway to understanding such things entails a process of pain that moves from one’s humiliation, through humility, humbleness, and passivity, before evolving into and merging with the potent vital energy: calmness. And no ascending soul (antrekarna) can make the journey alone, on its own merit and talent; it happens through the grace of a high being and only if one is selected to be given such grace.
So, Jesus knew that Mary’s fallen status was not due to devil possession, and was not a result of her own ‘free’ will as we understand it. Rather, she was pre-programmed by her own bio-chemistry to be the person she was, and to act as she did – that programming establishing itself before conception, crystallizing during gestation, and playing out in the course of her life and actions. Even with all this knowledge, how was he going to save her?
Jesus knew the matter pivoted not on Mary’s adultery per se, but on whether he was seen to uphold God’s law by denouncing her, and saving himself from being labelled a heretic.
It’s important to know here that those of us with psychic privileges have access to everybody’s past, present and future. We see the traps and the miseries that have befallen and will befall people. We see the liars, the deceitful, the haters; just as we see the innocent and the pious. We see the skeletons in everybody’s closet and their virtues. We hear their confessions, their secrets; we provide counsel, support. We are powerful, but we proceed delicately. Such would have been Jesus’ knowledge and role too.
So, what did Jesus do? Well, for those of our ilk, the protection of the defenceless – with no thought for ourselves – is de rigeur. Jesus will have sought to protect Mary; not to hasten her death even if it meant his own. Jesus surveyed the bio-signature (not the same as the debunked concept of the ‘transient aura’) of each of Mary’s accusers, and without naming and shaming them, he made reference to their failings and their skeletons. Doing so causes perceptible changes in mannerism and mental outlook in the person who is being subtly told off, as I have found when deploying the same tactic. We know this tactic better through the now enduring soundbite: ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ So, Mary’s accusers were chastened by Jesus’ knowledge of their own wrong-doings, as the Bible reports.
The Bible also goes on to say that Mary asked for deliverance of her soul, that the devils possessing her were cast out, and her soul was able to move forward unencumbered. How we do make sense of this? On one hand, Mary’s bio-signature pre-determined her actions, so saved from one tragic situation it’s reasonable to assume that she would have reverted to type – to being the uninhibited person she was. We can think of it in terms of the analogy of the repeat offender.
But something did indeed change in Mary. What? How?
Well, she came into the conduction, convection and radiation range of a high being (a Jesus figure) and was enveloped in the latter’s psychic care and protection. This overwhelmed and reconfigured her own bio-structure, and established a bond between her and Jesus that would persist through multiple lifetimes. They would be inexorably drawn together each lifetime – she towards his charismatic protection; he towards the need to help emancipate and liberate her from the cycle of life and death.
What of the Bible’s depiction of how Mary reacted to being saved? It says she washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, and wiped them dry with her hair. At the time, the practice of kneeling down, bending forward, and touching one’s forehead to the feet of one’s saviour (or high being) was globally widespread (outside race-European environments and societies). So this likely is a true depiction of events. Where Mary dried Jesus’ feet with her hair, men would have done so with their beards.
Consequently, Mary would have become a silent observer at Jesus’ feet, a humble server, and a life-long student. Quietly and conscientiously.
What, you are wondering, has any of this to do with mental health?
In contemporary Britian – and elsewhere in the West – Mary Magdalene’s bio-signature which pre-determined her behaviour, and which was misunderstood by the religious right as a manifestation of devil possession, would be cast as mental illness. Here was a woman with deep psychological problems, going back to childhood abandonment, mistreatment, abuse; which she perpetuated or reacted against by her own subconscious set of behaviours.
In today’s mental health landscape, Mary would be prescribed psychotropic drugs to quell her nature, silence the demons, change her chemistry. But the Jesus figure of her time managed to ‘save’ her without resorting to drugs or causing disequilibrium to her internal organs. He extended her his psychic protection, and that altered her bio-structure so deeply and so effectively that she was, so to say, tamed, saved, a model citizen of the society she lived in.
In contrast with the character of Mary Magdalene prior to her being ‘saved’, is the character of the lonely person, the social introvert. At different ends of the spectrum, they are both equally subject to being labelled mentally ill.
Briefly: there is a world of difference between aloneness and loneliness. The former involves active enjoyment in being alone with one’s self, giving oneself over to contemplation, as a kind of pleasurable activity. For such people, the thrill of social engagement pales in comparison. It is a panacea they do not need, though they partake of it happily enough at times and with particular people. Their strength does not cohere in social settings, nor their enjoyment. Aloneness is a skill, but oftentimes just as much a need for people.
Loneliness is the experience of aloneness as a form of unhappy isolation. Sociability is key to people who feel lonely; their sense of self, of inner stability and calm, dependent on others’ company. Their experience of aloneness as isolation consolidates it is their mind as a disease. For them, solace is other people.
It is all too easy to teach that being alone with oneself is a mental health issue; such is the environment we live in today. But perhaps, as with Mary Magdalene, the trick is to take what is written, what is cast as normal and true, and explore what contexts and other realities that narrative – of the fallen woman, or of the lonely person – might be missing; and how the guidance of a high being can bring us to enhanced knowledge of what is in fact really going