Carlo Suares: Cipher of Genesis: The Gospels: 3: Judas, or Jesus Accepted
The Cipher of Genesis was first
published in French in 1967, and then in English in 1970.
The Passion of Judas appeared in 1973.
These texts not only anticipate by forty years the core of the
Gospel of Judas in acknowledging Judas as Jesus' "favorite disciple" and partner, but go much further into
the heart of the myth by showing its relation to history and grounding in a plain reading of critical passages
in the New Testament Gospels.
We recall that in the previous chapter, Peter, or Jesus Rejected Suares has shown us Jesus identifying Peter as
Satan: Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but those that be of men (Matt xvi, 23) This follows Peter's flash of inspiration in recognizing Jesus as
Ben-YHWH, not the Khristos which Jesus warned against (Matt xvi, 15,20).
In contrast to Peter, Judas accepts Jesus' mission to the darkness and receives Satan from Jesus.
Verily, verily I say unto you: He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. (John xiii, 20-27)
Two Satans: A Satan who resists Jesus and a Satan who accepts Jesus and delivers him to darkness. Suares reveals Judas as Jesus' partner and the only disciple Jesus trusted to fulfill his mission. This would be gnostic enough, 35 years before the Gospel of Judas, but the revelation deepens in the reasons why Jesus/Judas represent a turning point in the history of human psychological development -- for the first time, YHWH has found a full partner in the human psyche, a resistance capable of receiving His immanence.
He who receives Judas receives Jesus; he who receives Jesus receives God.
The author of John's Gospel, whoever he may have been, was familiar with Aleph-Bayt. We shall probably
never know how any of the Gospels came to be written. It is possible that the original texts were already in the
Hellenistic language currently spoken at that time. And perhaps the opening words of John's Gospel, In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, were an attempt to translate
for a public who, in any case, could not have understood the ontological meaning of the
letter-numbers (or the simple fact that
in Bereshyt are the elements which create Elohim, and not the reverse). Strangely enough, in their attempt,
throughout the centuries, to simplify this difficult language for the understanding of all, the authorities have rendered it
incomprehensible. The simpler the text, the less (in this case) its meaning.
In the beginning of this book, it was stated that the composite Elohim expresses the life and action of Aleph. It was also pointed out that no letter-number -- whether Aleph, Bayt, or any other -- has its full meaning except in its relationship to others. This is because each letter-number is a symbol for one aspect of life's totality. Likewise, every colour in the rainbow is of and in the light.
In revealing the ontological meanings of the letter-numbers and of their schemata (including Elohim) the Qabala permits us to grasp intellectually that which John's Gospel, in any ordinary languare, projects under vague symbols.
The original theme developed by John is: the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not (or received it not) (John 1:5). That image can be and has been interpreted in a thousand ways. We feel justified in thinking that that darkness is the Hhosheykh, mentioned in Genesis as opposed to Awr (light). It is the cosmic receptacle of undifferentiated energy which comes to life when it is fertilized. In the psyche Hhosheykh is an energy that has not yet been structured.
Only when the psyche becomes cognizant of its structured elements can it die to the perception of itself as continuity. It can then free itself from that which appeared as being "contained" in its sphere of consciounsness, but was in fact its "container." It can open itself to the unutterable reality of Aleph. Then, the marvellous pulsation of life-death can permeate it and the individual is called upon to partake of the universal life.
John the gnostic was congnizant of that truth and he also knew that it was necessary to strike and wound and transpierce the slumbering minds of his time. He, undoubtedly, was one of the two disciples who contributed to the enacting of the tremendous drama of death and resurrection, the other disciple being Judas.
Peter's incomprehension, coming after the lightning flash of intuition which he had earlier had as Simon, left Yhshwh no hope of making himself understood except by one or two of his disciples. But how to "stage" so grandiose a symbol? We do not intend to to try to fathom what could have gone on in the mind of Jesus. We only wish to point to the fact that aside from the outwardly observed historical events, the collective psyche pursues its own mythological course. This may well be a determining factor as regards the reality of our world as history records it. At certain times of great psychological crisis and of transformation of human consciousness, the collective myth can even project its images with such violence that they materialize into all sorts of manifestations, termed occult -- such as parapsychical phenomena, magical appparitions, and mysterious historical (or hysterical) happenings.
It is likely that such events occurred around the person called Jesus, whether he really lived during the time of Pontius Pilate or whether he lived, as many people suppose, about a hundred years previously in the person of a Master of Wisdom among the Essenes. Even taking into account the extravagance of popular imagination concerning his miracles, it is highly probable that this personage did have exceptional powers. These powers, as well as his teachings, have profoundly influenced the human psyche. People find themselves in the impossible situation of "believing" what he taught and at the same time being unable to put these teachings into effect. Who among his believers ceases to worry about tomorrow, either in this world or in the next? Who amongst them relinguishes his possessions, either here or in the hereafter? Or accepts still more blows from an enemy who has already struck him once? Or loves his enemy, etc., etc.? Nothing of all this teaching influences our stubborn desire for self-perpetuation.
Thus, while a great many seek, few find. And from the inner conflict arise our hypocritical morals and all the self-justification invented by a guilt complex which has been festering for two thousand years. The Rabbi saw that, in his time, the direct comprehension of his teaching was impossible. Thus he was compelled to revert to a symbol.
Whether the characters of this drama actually existed or not is irrelevant: they will live and act in the psyche as long as it is not understood that that myth belongs to mythology.
If the name Judas, burdened with twenty centuries of hatred, is synonym of traitor, it is because it stirs up reactions such as Peter's This shall not be, modified after the event into: "Woe, it has been!" and ending in utter confusion. The grief is inconsistent with the facts that the event occurred according to the Father's will; that the will was a sacrifice; that the sacrifice was a redemption; that had it not happened the believers would not have been redeemed from sin; and so on, and so on ...
The psyche entangled in its contradictions knows deeply in itself and does not want to know that if "it had not been" life would be peacefully lived in ignorance of its ill-defined culpability.
Of course the psyche does not want to "deny itself" and "lost its life", but craves for continuity. The real culprit, the offender, is none other than Jesus for having stated his necessity as being everyone's necessity. So Jesus is elinimated and sent to an imaginary heaven -- and the scapegoat is Judas. As to Peter's church, it rests upon an intricate system of self-preservation originally established in opposition to Jesus' essence: Israel. That was the beginning of theological anti-semitism.
Judas, the "traitor" became identified with the "deicides", the Jews. Peter's successors declared themsleves to be what they actually were, princes of this world; and the Devil was invented in order to allow the real Satan to operate undisturbed.
These remarks lead us to the deep, vast, sorrowful, cruel drama enacted by mankind. It is difficult to see it in its innermost structure. If it could be thus seen -- not only by the few -- it would mean a sudden ripening of our state of being.
Let us examine it through John's central symbol: the light, impersonated by Jesus, shines in darkness and the darkness personified by Satan and its princedom (mankind) does not receive it. Obviously, Jesus' purpose is to be received.
Now let us translate this in terms of Qabala: the Rabbi having declared himself Ben Adam is for the time being the personification of the timeless Israel. He is the beginning in the end and the end in the beginning. He does not belong to the time-process. But he wished to and must "die" in his contact with with historical process, which is of time. He whose name is YH-Sheen-WH, that is YHWH in action (Sheen), wants to and must descend deeply into the world (the legend says that he descended so deeply as to go as far as Hell, where he spent three days).
The first time, in Caesarea of Philippi he -- or the Aleph in him -- had been recognized but not acknowledged by Peter-Satan. John's Gospel, in the narration of the Last Supper, now shows us, as we read it, that Judas-Satan acknowledged him and obeyed him.
The Schemata of Jesus and Judas are most revealing:
(Jesus) Yhshwh:The Sheen in YHWH, for Jesus, and the Dallet in YHWH for Judas, are remarkably placed, in inverse order, preceding and following Waw (6).
It is to be noticed that Yehoudi in Hebrew means Jew. Its spelling Yod-Hay-Waw-Dallet-Yod where the final Hay of YHWH is replaced by Dallet-Yod means that one of YHWH's Hay (life) becomes, with the Jews, an existential resistance to YHWH in coniuncto oppositorium, without which YHWH would only be an abstraction.
These oppositions are perfect illlustrations of the double contradictory movement so constantly expressed in the Hebrew myth. This movement of life and existence can be compared to a belt that joins two rotating wheels, one above the other. Seen on one side the belt appears to have an ascending motion, seen on the other, it seems to descend. When the movement is very swift, superficial observers do not see it. Thus the revelation appears to them to be fixed, established, by an Abraham, a Moses or a Jesus.
We must now quote the translation of John XIII, 2: And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon's son, to betray him ... and we ask: What -- or who, in that archaic belief -- is the devil?
The origin of this word is to be found in the resistance set by the letter Dallet, as we have just seen it (devil, demon, diable, daimon all with a D).
In Jesus-Yhshwh, the Sheen is a cosmic action. The Hebrew root Sheen-Dallet (Shed) means violence, ruin, and ultimately, devil. This is one of the many evidences of the forgeotten cabalistic origin of the Hebrew language.
The necessary resistance to life, without which life cannot evolve its structures, has become, by the ever-static will of the psyche, a "traitor". In fact, that which gives Judas his impulse is none other than Jesus' Daimon: his active principle.
The Rabbi was very observant of the cabalistic was of thinking. having identified himself with Aleph, he compelled himself to play his part. He knew that Aleph is helpless and cannot act, but is acted upon. Aleph is buried in Eretz, immersed in Adams's blood, murdered when the primordial female prevails, spent when darkness does not "comprehend" it ...
Jesus repeatedly, but in vain, tried to have himself arrested. He openly challenged the other rabbis: he attracted enormous crowds; he violated the Sabbath; he raised a scandal in the synagogue; he was socially subversive; and all having been of no avail, he chose to set the Last Supper in the habitual place where he always met his disciples, instead of escaping as he was begged to do.
Are we really supposed to believe that the officers and men did not know that place? That they had not had many better opportunities of arresting Jesus? That they had to be led in the night by Judas? Of course not! Judas and the darkness are more in accord with the myth than with what can have happened, if it ever happened at all.
Jesus has come to fulfil the Scriptures, which means that he must bring them to consummation. They must come to their mythical end. Mythologically, the light (or Aleph) is neither accepted by darkness nor can it give itself, and we are to understand that that situation has been in that deadlock ever since the beginning of time.
Any event pertaining to the myth must be perceived in its general context. The one single purpose of the myth is to reveal the possibility of YHWH's penetration into the human race (YHWH being considered in the sense given by the code).
In the beginning Cain, personifying "his father" YHWH annihilated Abel, the conditioned man, by his mere presence. Later, in an epic metaphysical poem, the no. 2 of the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob triad had to appear in disguise so as to insert what he actually represented (no. 3) into Canaan. He succeeded, but Esau facing no. 3 (Jacob), felt that he was dying. Later still Jacob fought during a whole "night" (integrating the total darkness of the mind) to avoid being killed by Elohim, but he was wounded by him in Kaf-Yerekh: 20.800-10.200.500 (translated: the socket of his hip) which means that in his "container" (20) the totality of undifferentiated cosmic energy -- or unconscious darkness -- (800) came into existence (10) and became cosmically (200) alive (500). Thus wounded, Jacob "limped", the schema being 90.30.70.
That was Elohim's penetration in the body, an event pertaining to evolution in time. Another vital penetration had to occur in the psyche, in the inner life lying in darkness, and that had to transcend time: it had to be YHWH's. But that which is timeless is not in existence in time.It is not in existence: this means that it must die in it. Life must die when plunged into existence.
Jesus came to play the part of Aleph. He revealed himself at the symbolic age of 30, was delivered to darkness and acknowledged with the payment of 30 pieces of silver, dying at the age of 33. None of those numbers has any historical foundation, but they are mathematically correct in the myth: Jesus is twice in 30 and dies in twice 3.
We are here in a deep mystery which can be solved as a mathematical equation, but only apprehended through Qabala.
Jesus is the 2nd Person of a Trinity. He is in the same situation as was Isaac: the events are beyond his control, but can they be taken in hand by someone else? Yes and no. The person who will be able to carry on will have to be clearly designated by Jesus (as Jacob was designated by Isaac) and will have to receive his formal investiture.
Isaac had not the power to act but had the power to transfer his power to Jacob, and Jacob became Isaac's fulfillment.
Likewise, in mathematical cabalistical logic, the Rabbi Yod-Hay-Sheen-Waw-Hay had not the power to act but had the power to transfer his power to a chosen disciple, so as to fulfil through him the purpose that the myth had been pursuing even before the world was (John xvii, 5).
We have read the story of the Last Supper a thousand times in the four Gospels; and the more we thought about it, the more incomprehensible it seemed. We could not find where or how there was any betrayal in it. Verily, verily I say unto you that one of you shall betray me never rang true; for nothing, either in the beginning or in the end of this narrative, corresponds to what would have happened if a man -- or a god -- had been betrayed in the pesecution of his plans. On the contrary, the details of the narrative appeared more absurd in proportion as our conviction grew that they had to do not with an historical fact, but with a psychic reality.
We felt that the narrative was a turning-point in the evolution of the human psyche and that the projection into the narrative of the idea of betrayal was an artifice, in extremis of the psyche, to save itself from any shadow of co-operation in the drama. Here, it was felt was the account of the last game between the two players we had come to know so well: the "mythified" son on heaven and the "mythified" son of earth. And we became convinced that the narrative, whether or not it had been tampered with in the course of ages by translators, interpreters, priests or vox populi, was a libellous record.
Not having the authentic record of this important incident (just where are such accounts to be found?), we could not enquire -- as one could in the Book of Genesis -- into each letter-number, to discover its true meaning. For no sacred number-language exists in Greek or Latin. The only hope there was of finding clue lay in the study of other translations to see whether they had been less dishonest than the English version, and whether, if so, they could put us on the track of something.
By good luck, the well-known French traslation by Louis Second, Doctore of Theology, have a clue. Here it is: En vérite, en vérite, je vous le dis, L'un de vous me lirvera (John xii, 21). The concluding phrase, here, means: One of you will hand me over - or deliver me. All of a sudden we had the thrill of discovering something fantastic: the true story of Judas. And the traitor, we saw, is not Judas; the traitor (or rather one of them) is none other than the interpreter who in any one of the false versions has misread the text. As you remember, Jesus is there reported as having said, "One of you shall betray me."
Let us look carefully at the text of John, and notice how the author attempts to make us understand the true picture. If we suppose that Jesus had announced in the presence of the apostles that one of them would be a traitor, what would have happened? Just imagine these men surrounding their beloved Master. Imagine yourself in the situation of the Master telling you, "There is a traitor among us." You, knowing that you were not a traitor, would have jumped to your feet and seized any kind of weapon you could lay your hands on. There would have been eleven of you. Andthe twelfth would have been quickly overcome and made captive. This is so evident that the very fact of it never having been put forward is just one more proof of how colossal is the psychic barrier, the taboo which humanity has raised against this narrative of Judas for two thousand years. It hardly seems credible, but one must concede that it is so..
John's text is so important that it must be quoted in full.
John xiii, 18-19: I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfulled. He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it comes that when it is come to pass ye may believe that I am he.
In the light of Qabala these verses could hardly be clearer: Jesus is not speaking of all the apostles, but of Judas whom they may think he has chosen by mistake. However, he knows that he has chosen him to fulfil the Scriptures concerning Ben-Adam. According to Genesis xxv, 26, the human-to-be seed, Jacob-Ben-Adam, was in the womb holding Esau-Edom's heel, lifted up against him. Eventually, Esau-son-of-the-earth was compelled to confess that Jacob-son-of-YHWH was inded the carrier of the seed, and Jacob gave him bread as a token of communion. Esau lived, but there was no truce.
However, the fulfilment of the myth and of man must necessarily be an integration in one single individual of the two aspects of vital energy first symbolized by Cain and Abel, then by Jacob and Esau, and now by Jesus and Judas. This is exactly what Jesus says: "now I tell you, before it happens, so that you may believe that I am he". He, meaning obviously Judas if we simply read the text as it is, considering that the "he" mentioned two lines ahead is him.
John xiii, 20-27. Not withstanding the clarity of these statements Jesus insists: Verily, verily I say unto you: He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He will send Judas and Judas will be his alter ego.
Then: When Jesus had thus said he was troubled in spirit. Why was he troubled in spirit? What could have thus perturbed him? In uttering those words he must have suddenly realized in absolute fact that he, Son-of-YHWH, had actually become incarnate. He had become also son-of-the-earth. It must have been a terrific experience.
We now come to the dramtic dénounment and in quoting it I will substitute a more adequoate expression for the deadly, the destructive word, "betray."
...and (Jesus) testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall HAND ME OVER (OR, DELIVER ME). Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved. Simon-Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Here again the text is so clear that it cannot be misunderstood if we do not interpret it wilfully in such a fashion as to infer from it the opposite of what it says.
In spite of two thousand years of theology, the only one with whom Jesus communes is Judas, and however bewildering for the minds that can only function one way, the direct effect of that communion is that Jesus introduces Satan into Judas.
And now, having materialized Satan, Jesus speaks to him as a master to his dependant: That thous doest, do quickly!
John xiii, 28-30: Now no man at the table knew with what intent he spake unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast: or that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
None of the eleven were aware of what was happening. We know that they were half asleep, or mesmerized, or probably overwhelmed by the tremendous outpouring of energy that was to shatter forever the foundations of the human mind.
The most decisive words of any myth in any time had been uttered. And now had come the moment of suspense.
And whose words, for some of those men, so deeply slumbering, have meant "go and buy cakes" ... Moreover it was night: what a time for such errands!
But John is now aware. He, so near his Master, as actually to be touching him, must feel the tremendous vibrations. What is it that he sees? How does he know? Many years later when dictating his Gospel to his disciples, he stated that Satan entered into Judas. Was it a conclusion? A knowledge acquired at the end of his life?
We cannot answer these questions, and they are not relevant. Our real quistion is: this suspense is not of time, therefore it is now, here, facing us and in us. Do we see it? Do we feel it? Do we understand it?
Here are, in us, standing face to face, Jesus and Judas. Who are they? What are they? And we hear Jesus giving his order: What you are to do, do it quickly, and John has just told us that this order is given to Satan who has taken possession of Judas.
Have we emptied our minds of all the infantile ideas and pictures of the "devil"? Have we deeply integrated every myth and mythology? Are we actually inside the inexplicable mystery of all that existes? If so, we can understand and rejoice: John xiii, 31-32.
Therefore when he was gone out, Jesus said Now is the son of man glorified in him. If God be glorifed in him, God shall also glorify him in himself and shall straightway glorify him.
We can no longer be deterred by the real meaning expressed in such a symbolic and archaic way: the fact has been stated already: he that recives the one that Jesus sends receives Jesus and receives the one that sent Jesus. It is clear that Jesus sends Satan. So he who receives Satan receives Jesus, hence he receives God.
In terms of traditional religion this statement, in spite of it being so clearly written in John's Gospel is monstrous and frightening.
In terms of gnosis it is the statement of a simple fact: there is only One energy, only One life, only One movement. All is one and one is in all. The One is the one game of life and existence, of energy as energy and of energy as its own physical support, which is its own resistance to itself, without which nothing would be.
Carlo Suares: Cipher of Genesis Part 3, Chapter 3 p.194-206. Bantam, 1973
|The Passion of Judas|