OK, da prezentiram meni jedino suvislo učenje o uskrsnuću. Ono je, naravno, zastarjelo po pojmovima i jeziku; nije ni na koji način "dokazano"; operira starim pojmovima zastarjele fizike, a i metafizike; ... no jedino ima, koliko-toliko glavu i rep. Svi značajni teolozi kršćanstva i sl. religija su nesuvisli ili zapravo ništa ne kažu. Ovo je univerzalna gnoza koju je skicirao, glede uskrsnuća, Valentin iz Aleksandrije (heretik), a dosta jasno opisao iranski sufijski šejh 1820ih (između kršćanstva i islama tu nema razlike). Autoritet je Henry Corbin, a prikaz prepričava, ukratko, sada pokojni kritik Harold Bloom (kraće i jasnije od Corbina).
.............
Glede preciziranja koja se tiču svjetlosnog Vodiča, prona-
lazimo ih i kod Zozime i kod gnostika na koje on sam upu-
ćuje. To je, zapravo, onaj svjetlosni čovjek koji govori ustima
Marije Magdalene, kada ona preuzima na sebe, tokom inici-
jacijskih razgovora Uskrsnuloga sa njegovim učenicima, odlu-
čujuću ulogu na koju ukazuje knjiga Pistis Sophia, Novi Za-
vjet religije svjetlosnog čovjeka: “Snaga koja je istekla iz Spasi-
telja i koja sada predstavlja svjetlosnog čovjeka u nama... Go-
spodine moj, ne samo da svjetlosni čovjek u meni posjedu-
je uši nego je moja duša čula i razumjela sve riječi koje si ka-
zao... Svjetlosni čovjek u meni me je usmjerio; on se veseli i
kipti u meni kao da želi izaći iz mene i ući u tebe.” ....
Ono što je važno zapaziti jeste to
da je riječ o analogiji odnosa koji pretpostavljaju četiri pojma,
a to je u osnovi ono što je na dopadljiv način izrazila angelo
logija valentinijanske gnoze: anđeli Kristovi su sam Krist, jer
svaki anđeo jest Krist uveden u pojedinačnu egzistenciju. Ono
što je Krist za skupinu svjetlosnih anđela, to je svaki anđeo
za svaku pojedinačnu dušu. U mjeri u kojoj postoje dijade,
u toj mjeri se također stvara konstitutivni odnos svjetlosnog
pleroma.
...................................................
Each human being, Corbin comments, possesses four as-
pects of a body. Corbin charts them, and I adapt them here in
simplified form:
1. The “elemental” or apparent body, the one that we can
see, touch, and weigh: it is accidental and perishable.
Let us call it the “apparent body,” for convenience.
2. Within (1) there is a hidden body, also elemental but es-
sential and imperishable: “spiritual flesh,” as Corbin
calls it, which I will adopt.
3. The traditional “astral body,” not elemental yet still ac-
cidental, not everlasting, because it will be reabsorbed
by divinity in the resurrection. I will call it the “astral
body” proper.
4. The eternal, subtle body, essential and angelic, the ulti-
mate guarantee of individuality, and akin to the zelem of
Kabbalah and the “immortal body” of the Hermetic
writings. Let us call it the “angelic body.”
What are the advantages, spiritual and expositional, of this
fourfold scheme? Its added complexity is to give us two ver-
sions of the astral body of tradition, “astral” yet not eternal,
and “angelic” or everlasting. The relation between the “appar-
ent body” and “spiritual flesh” is parallel to that between the
“astral body” and the “angelic body.” Since orthodox, Sunni Is-
lam interpreted the Koran as literally as many Christians have
read the New Testament, resurrection to them meant the return
to the “apparent body,” just as it was. But in the Shi’ite Sufi vi-
sion, both the “apparent body” and the “astral body” eventually
vanish, while a fusion of “spiritual flesh” and “angelic body”
ultimately abides. That “spiritual flesh” is equivalent to the an-
cient Gnostic metaphor of the “spark,” or innermost self, which
is no part of Creation but is already a particle of God, since it is
as old as God. When Gnostics, ancient or modern, speak of the
Resurrection as already having taken place, they mean that they
firmly distinguish between the outward body and the spark. The
Sufi “angelic body” is akin to the ancient Gnostic “Angel Christ,”
the fulfilled form of the surviving sparks. But there still remains
the subtle imaginal distinction between the “astral” and “an-
gelic” bodies. What can we gain by resorting to this distinction?
Essentially, the Shaikhis’ complexity renews the ancient
Gnostic difference between soul (or psyche), and self (or
pneuma, or spark). The “astral body” is like the Gnostic soul,
and both are impermanent. The spark, or “spiritual flesh,” sur-
vives and rejoins a more authentic soul, in a fusion of self and
angelic soul that truly is the Resurrection Body, and that guar-
antees a survival of individual identity, while dispensing with
the accidental “apparent body” and accidental soul, or “astral
body.” Whatever new difficulties are involved in this concep-
tion of the Resurrection Body, we have gained an imaginal un-
derstanding of the spiritual conviction and knowledge that one
can experience what it is to be “spiritual flesh” in this life.
