The second coming = WWJD

[Ahanu]

I thought that you were saying that Christ consciousness and some things that Paul says are different ways of describing the same experience.

Yes, I describe Christ consciousness as an experience. It is an intrinsic, transformative reality.

However, you miss the core argument, because you miss the gap between experience and articulation (phenomenal consciousness overflows access consciousness). Just having different words that are interchangeable isn't enough to grasp the point.

What I am saying is that the "different ways" are there because of the inherent difficulty of putting certain experiences into words at all. In other words, our internal experience is more complex than what we can ever fully express with language. This gap explains the appearance of difference descriptions throughout human history.

The language we choose for articulating our experience is always limited by our historical and cultural context. We are limited by the conceptual tools available to us at the time.

 

[Ahanu]

I thought that you were saying that Christ consciousness and some things that Paul says are different ways of describing the same experience.

Observe that even now, @Thomas is illustrating my point. By concluding "it's pneuma all the way down" and leaving out some key details about it, he's reinterpreting Paul's concept of pneuma to fit a modern cosmology instead of embracing Paul's first-century understanding of pneuma as something tied to a literal multi-layered cosmos. He is adapting Paul's articulation to a contemporary worldview. As far as I am concerned, he is practically demonstrating the gap between experience and articulation.

 

[Longfellow]

Observe that even now, @Thomas is illustrating my point. By concluding "it's pneuma all the way down" and leaving out some key details about it, he's reinterpreting Paul's concept of pneuma to fit a modern cosmology instead of embracing Paul's first-century understanding of pneuma as something tied to a literal multi-layered cosmos. He is adapting Paul's articulation to a contemporary worldview. As far as I am concerned, he is practically demonstrating the gap between experience and articulation.

I can see that possibility.

Why do you call it “Christ consciousness”? Do you think that Jesus was the first to experience a it?

 

[TheLightWithin]

The "air" - what we call today the lower atmosphere - which Paul is fond of mentioning is itself filled with tangible elemental spirits and demons that could cause real harm to you.

Yes. I've met them on the very rare occasion.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I'm never sure of the mirror analogy. Scripture speaks more of immanence, I'm not sure a mirror implies that? If we say that the indwelling presence 'shines out' of the person (although not necessarily) then we might say that person mirrors the Lord.

I've seen that analogy before by others - does it come from Bahai scripture?

 

[TheLightWithin]

There's more to life than experiencing things.

Ummm.... ???

 

[Thomas]

I've seen that analogy before by others - does it come from Bahai scripture?

Well the mirror analogy is older, but the Baha'i have their interpretation of it.

 

[Thomas]

Observe that even now, @Thomas is illustrating my point. By concluding "it's pneuma all the way down" and leaving out some key details about it, he's reinterpreting Paul's concept of pneuma to fit a modern cosmology ...

No I'm not – please do not make assumptions about what or how I think, to fit your agenda.

For further discussion – as we have gone over this at length – I suggest a look at the entry for Stoicism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, which presents a picture of pneuma as
"Fundamental to Stoic physics and the explanations of natural phenomena it offers are the two principles (archai), the active principle and the passive principle ...

... the active principle, which is identified with God or Zeus ... acts on the passive principle ... primary matter.

Primary matter is eternal, unqualified, formless, and inert. Primary matter is suffused throughout by the active principle in order to create objects in the world. The active and the passive principles in this way both constitute the cosmos and all objects in it. The Stoics stressed that they are entirely blended, or mixed “through and through”..."
Hence, as I said, 'pneuma all the way down.'

If you're referring to the up/down image as a reflection of the ancient view of the firmament as material concentric spheres surrounding and enclosing the earth as incompatible with modern cosmology, then fair enought, in which case, I would say "it's pneuma, through and through".

+++

In regard to spiritual matters, I think modern cosmology has nothing to offer. While the Ancient Cosmologies are utterly wrong when viewed from a strictly materialist standpoint, in Scripture and metaphysical discussion that was never really issue anyway – or rather, what interests me, and them, and what is relevant in the discussion of the Divine and the spiritual worlds, does not fall within the remit of, nor depend upon, a materialist physics.

In terms of interpreting Paul, especially regarding terms like pneuma, I follow Hart in his claim that neither he, nor you, nor I, have any sure idea of precisely what Paul is saying. We can only conjecture, and that, of course, is shaped by our pre- and wider conceptions of the question. Why I like Hart (and others of like mind) is that he adverts the question, but leaves it open, rather than stating 'dogmatically' what the answer must be.

+++

I find modern cosmology wondrous and awe-inspiring when considering the beauty and immensity of nature, but I find it tragically materialist and impoverished when it comes to the contemplation of the spiritual realm. It might see to the far distant realms of the material galaxy, but other than that, it's in the dark.

I draw some little consolation, in that regard, to the rekindled interest in panpsychism as a serious area of study.

I think its a mistake to assume that because Paul's, and indeed the Ancient's, view of cosmology lacked our current understanding of a material, cosmology, that his and their spiritual and metaphysical discourses are therefore undone and have nothing meaningful to say.

They thought the physical replicated the spiritual ... not in this case.

In my head I am entirely at home in modern cosmological speculation, although not wedded to it.

In my heart I am with the ancients, and my experience suggests they have more to offer than a spiritless modernity.

So I can think and speak in terms of 'ascent' and 'descent'; of God above, of Jesus' ascension, but at the same time, and without contradiction, know that God is everywhere, that the Kosmos is more than its material manifestation, and without periphery and without centre, and that while I can speak in terms of 'presence' and 'absence', I know that "in Him we live and move and have our being", and even then, in recalling the verse, my mind goes as quickly to Epimenides, who was talking of Zeus, as it does to Paul, who was quoting him.

As far as I am concerned, he is practically demonstrating the gap between experience and articulation.

Such a gap is always there, and beyond even that ... I can speak of experiences I have had, and no doubt others can be quick to offer some psychodynamic explanation for my narrative, but then have they had the same order of experience as I?

 

[wil]

Bottom line..to me.

Whatever one can do, read tea leaves, roll bones, flip tarot cards, read the bible quran tao or upanishads....to be a better person, help the world and environment, our fellow man...is alright with me

 

[Ahanu]

No I'm not – please do not make assumptions about what or how I think, to fit your agenda.

You haven't clarified what assumptions you think I am making about how you think to fit my agenda here.

For further discussion – as we have gone over this at length – I suggest a look at the entry for Stoicism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, which presents a picture of pneuma as

I have seen it before.

"Fundamental to Stoic physics and the explanations of natural phenomena it offers are the two principles (archai), the active principle and the passive principle ...

... the active principle, which is identified with God or Zeus ... acts on the passive principle ... primary matter.

Primary matter is eternal, unqualified, formless, and inert. Primary matter is suffused throughout by the active principle in order to create objects in the world. The active and the passive principles in this way both constitute the cosmos and all objects in it. The Stoics stressed that they are entirely blended, or mixed “through and through”..."
Hence, as I said, 'pneuma all the way down.'

Hence I said pneuma was understood as existing in gradations of tension and functionality. The hierarchy of pneuma was directly linked to their multi-layered cosmology. You can't separate pneuma from their cosmology! For Paul and others in the Greco-Roman world, the idea of a "pneumatic body" or a "glory body" was not merely figurative; it tied in with the idea of a literal physical transformation into a finer, incorruptible substance capable of ascending through these very real, subtle, celestial spheres. If you're saying that his ancient cosmological view is irrelevant, then I would say you're changing something crucial in Paul's worldview.

If you're referring to the up/down image as a reflection of the ancient view of the firmament as material concentric spheres surrounding and enclosing the earth as incompatible with modern cosmology, then fair enought,

Okay.

in which case, I would say "it's pneuma, through and through".

So? Are you trying to flatten the ancient cosmos? You want to keep the ancient term pneuma and discard ancient cosmology? Again, you can't unlink pneuma with their cosmology. "Through and through" in gradations, however. This worldview is wedded to a multi-layered cosmos with a hierarchy of powers in nature. For Paul, Christ followers become gods, but not the God.

You said:

In regard to spiritual matters, I think modern cosmology has nothing to offer. While the Ancient Cosmologies are utterly wrong when viewed from a strictly materialist standpoint, in Scripture and metaphysical discussion that was never really issue anyway – or rather, what interests me, and them, and what is relevant in the discussion of the Divine and the spiritual worlds, does not fall within the remit of, nor depend upon, a materialist physics.

In terms of interpreting Paul, especially regarding terms like pneuma, I follow Hart in his claim that neither he, nor you, nor I, have any sure idea of precisely what Paul is saying. We can only conjecture, and that, of course, is shaped by our pre- and wider conceptions of the question. Why I like Hart (and others of like mind) is that he adverts the question, but leaves it open, rather than stating 'dogmatically' what the answer must be.

I disagree. Thiessen, along with scholars like Troels Engberg-Pedersen, disagree too with the idea ancient spiritual discussions were independent of their cosmological understanding. Paul conceived of pneuma as an actual substance - the very substance of "the astral beings of heaven, the gods." His spiritual concept of the resurrected body ties his idea to a subtle material and cosmological reality prevalent in his time. The heavens in Paul's worldview were much closer and filled with these tangible substances and beings. Paul's spiritual concepts were framed within that cosmological and physical understanding.

Burnett notes that Thiessen and others "point out that . . . Paul, when he talks about a pneumatic body . . . he does not mean a non-corporeal body or incorporeal body . . . He's thinking spirit is actually substance." It's not just conjecture. The idea is based on historical and contextual evidence. For example, recall Thiessen says that "Paul came from the city of Tarsus, a known hotbed of Stoic philosophy," and that the concept of pneuma as a subtle, material substance was "the conceptual air that most people in the Greco-Roman world breathed." These are the people Paul communicated with. That's why I like scholars like Thiessen: They aim to put Paul in his historical and cultural context.

I find modern cosmology wondrous and awe-inspiring when considering the beauty and immensity of nature, but I find it tragically materialist and impoverished when it comes to the contemplation of the spiritual realm. It might see to the far distant realms of the material galaxy, but other than that, it's in the dark.

Your personal opinion doesn't negate the original, integrated nature of ancient thought around pneuma and cosmology.

I draw some little consolation, in that regard, to the rekindled interest in panpsychism as a serious area of study.

I think its a mistake to assume that because Paul's, and indeed the Ancient's, view of cosmology lacked our current understanding of a material, cosmology, that his and their spiritual and metaphysical discourses are therefore undone and have nothing meaningful to say.

The point is you're reinterpreting Paul. You want to discard the material aspects of ancient cosmology while retaining the spiritual ones. It's inconsistent cherry picking.

 

[Ahanu]

I can see that possibility.

Why do you call it “Christ consciousness”? Do you think that Jesus was the first to experience a it?

I first encountered the term Christ consciousness in Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus. She would not agree with the definition of Christ consciousness summarized in @Thomas' post above, and she has written quite extensively about it in her book, mentioning it multiple times throughout its pages. For example, Thomas narrows down Christ consciousness to common sense. Bourgeault would point out that it is not about common sense. It is about a sense of oneness (which she also terms nondual awareness). She describes this experiential state as being achieved through a process of continual self-emptying and prayer.

When I speak of "Christ consciousness," I am talking about the mode of perception and active being that Jesus embodied. His life, teachings, and ultimately his impact on human civilization gives us a real demonstration of what this consciousness looks like in its purest form.

Christ consciousness is a process of learning to "see with his eyes, to feel with his heart" - a shift in one's entire being.

Christ consciousness has different degrees or stages.

Baha'u'llah, speaking of the highest stage within Christ consciousness, says: "That is, forsaking the wilderness of the 'unity of existence', they attain unto the ultimate abode of the 'true appearance of the Divine Unity'. So clearly will they witness in this stage God’s all-encompassing mercy that in every created thing, both in the world and in the souls of men, they will behold Him Who hath been interpreted as the Holy Outpouring. No longer will they close their eyes to any beauty, nor stop their ears from hearkening to any voice. For there is no prohibition in this stage and no debarment, inasmuch as in all things they will discern, with both their outer and inner eyes, the revelation of the signs of Him Who is the King of all names and attributes, and in every atom they will find a door that leadeth to the garden of Divine Unity and the city of pure abstraction. 'Where’er I turn my gaze, ’tis Thee Whom I behold.' So entirely will the hearts of the wayfarers be transported by longing for the ecstasies of this station that they will come to conceive no stage apart from this stage, to see themselves as abiding within the court of the Beloved and circling round His sanctuary, and to consider it as the ultimate abode of them that search and the uttermost station of such as have attained."

At this stage of Christ consciousness is in perfect alignment with the divine will of Christ. It embodies the transformative power Christ wielded because it is a station of complete self-effacement.

 

[Longfellow]

I first encountered the term Christ consciousness in Cynthia Bourgeault's Wisdom Jesus. She would not agree with the definition of Christ consciousness summarized in @Thomas' post above, and she has written quite extensively about it in her book, mentioning it multiple times throughout its pages. For example, Thomas narrows down Christ consciousness to common sense. Bourgeault would point out that it is not about common sense. It is about a sense of oneness (which she also terms nondual awareness). She describes this experiential state as being achieved through a process of continual self-emptying and prayer.

When I speak of "Christ consciousness," I am talking about the mode of perception and active being that Jesus embodied. His life, teachings, and ultimately his impact on human civilization gives us a real demonstration of what this consciousness looks like in its purest form.

Christ consciousness is a process of learning to "see with his eyes, to feel with his heart" - a shift in one's entire being.

Christ consciousness has different degrees or stages.

Baha'u'llah, speaking of the highest stage within Christ consciousness, says: "That is, forsaking the wilderness of the 'unity of existence', they attain unto the ultimate abode of the 'true appearance of the Divine Unity'. So clearly will they witness in this stage God’s all-encompassing mercy that in every created thing, both in the world and in the souls of men, they will behold Him Who hath been interpreted as the Holy Outpouring. No longer will they close their eyes to any beauty, nor stop their ears from hearkening to any voice. For there is no prohibition in this stage and no debarment, inasmuch as in all things they will discern, with both their outer and inner eyes, the revelation of the signs of Him Who is the King of all names and attributes, and in every atom they will find a door that leadeth to the garden of Divine Unity and the city of pure abstraction. 'Where’er I turn my gaze, ’tis Thee Whom I behold.' So entirely will the hearts of the wayfarers be transported by longing for the ecstasies of this station that they will come to conceive no stage apart from this stage, to see themselves as abiding within the court of the Beloved and circling round His sanctuary, and to consider it as the ultimate abode of them that search and the uttermost station of such as have attained."

At this stage of Christ consciousness is in perfect alignment with the divine will of Christ. It embodies the transformative power Christ wielded because it is a station of complete self-effacement.

Why is it called "Christ consciousness," putting Christ's name on it. Does anyone think that He was the first to reach that station?

(later) They think that He is the best example of it?

 

[Ahanu]

Why is it called "Christ consciousness," putting Christ's name on it.

Okay. So why not call it divine consciousness? Mostly for historical and exemplary reasons. For example, people might say Buddha-nature. It recognizes a particular religious figure served as an unparalleled embodiment of a spiritual reality.

And, no, Christ was not the absolute first. The oneness and utter self-effacement that Baha'u'llah describes in the highest spiritual stations were equally present in all of the Manifestations of God.

(later) They think that He is the best example of it?

For many that use this term in the Western world this might just very well be the case!

Jesus's teachings, when stripped of later dogma (like the Trinity) added on to them and understood experientially, reveal unconditional love, forgiveness, unity, and a direct relationship with God. These are all key markers of this state of consciousness. His willingness to self-empty, to suffer, and to ultimately surrender to the divine will offers a path to what Bourgeault terms non-dual awareness.

Also, consider the social transformation he made. His message was about abolishing animal sacrifices, replacing the physical temple, challenging the authority of the old guard (like the Pharisees and the Mosaic law), and promoting non-violent resistance under Roman occupation.

"Abandoning the speculative, ontological 'substance Christology' of the classical period, Baha’u’llah describes the 'quickening power' unleashed by Christ’s sacrifice and its impact on civilization . . . the pervasive power of Christ’s influence lent a cultural vigor to the West, contributing to its masterpieces of art, its discoveries of science, its human values and even its temporal power . . ."
-Christopher Buck

"We speak today very easily, if not always sincerely, of the intrinsic dignity of every human person. For us, this is merely a received piety, and one of immemorial authority. And yet, if we take the time to wonder just how old a moral intuition it is, there is a good chance that our historical imagination will carry us only as far back as the 'Age of Enlightenment' and the epoch of the 'Rights of Man.' But our modern notion that there is such a thing as innate human worth, residing in every individual of every class and culture, is at best the very late consequence of a cultural, conceptual, and moral revolution that erupted many centuries earlier, and in the middle of a world that was anything but hospitable to its principles."
-David Bentley Hart

 

[Longfellow]

Okay. So why not call it divine consciousness? Mostly for historical and exemplary reasons. For example, people might say Buddha-nature. It recognizes a particular religious figure served as an unparalleled embodiment of a spiritual reality.

And, no, Christ was not the absolute first. The oneness and utter self-effacement that Baha'u'llah describes in the highest spiritual stations were equally present in all of the Manifestations of God.



For many that use this term in the Western world this might just very well be the case!

Jesus's teachings, when stripped of later dogma (like the Trinity) added on to them and understood experientially, reveal unconditional love, forgiveness, unity, and a direct relationship with God. These are all key markers of this state of consciousness. His willingness to self-empty, to suffer, and to ultimately surrender to the divine will offers a path to what Bourgeault terms non-dual awareness.

Also, consider the social transformation he made. His message was about abolishing animal sacrifices, replacing the physical temple, challenging the authority of the old guard (like the Pharisees and the Mosaic law), and promoting non-violent resistance under Roman occupation.

"Abandoning the speculative, ontological 'substance Christology' of the classical period, Baha’u’llah describes the 'quickening power' unleashed by Christ’s sacrifice and its impact on civilization . . . the pervasive power of Christ’s influence lent a cultural vigor to the West, contributing to its masterpieces of art, its discoveries of science, its human values and even its temporal power . . ."
-Christopher Buck

"We speak today very easily, if not always sincerely, of the intrinsic dignity of every human person. For us, this is merely a received piety, and one of immemorial authority. And yet, if we take the time to wonder just how old a moral intuition it is, there is a good chance that our historical imagination will carry us only as far back as the 'Age of Enlightenment' and the epoch of the 'Rights of Man.' But our modern notion that there is such a thing as innate human worth, residing in every individual of every class and culture, is at best the very late consequence of a cultural, conceptual, and moral revolution that erupted many centuries earlier, and in the middle of a world that was anything but hospitable to its principles."
-David Bentley Hart

Just for information, it was never called "Christ consciousness" in those words until after that expression was popularized by Yogananda. Sometimes it was called "Christ mind," and maybe other expressions with "Christ" in them, but not "Christ consciousness. Anyway now that expression is applied to a wide range of philosophies, sometimes contradicting each other, and mostly not at all influenced by the teaching of Jesus in the Bible, but only pulling verses out of context and interpreting them to agree with one philosophy or another.

(later) I take that back. Some of the philosophies that have re-labeled themselves that way could have previously been influenced by the teachings of Jesus, and maybe Bourgeault's is one of those.

 

[Ahanu]

Just for information, it was never called "Christ consciousness" in those words until after that expression was popularized by Yogananda. Sometimes it was called "Christ mind," and maybe other expressions with "Christ" in them, but not "Christ consciousness. Anyway now that expression is applied to a wide range of philosophies, sometimes contradicting each other, and mostly not at all influenced by the teaching of Jesus in the Bible, but only pulling verses out of context and interpreting them to agree with one philosophy or another.

Words are redefined all the time. When was the term god first used?

I do not care about labels. I care about the reality behind the labels.

 

[Longfellow]

Words are redefined all the time. When was the term god first used?

I do not care about labels. I care about the reality behind the labels.

The point is that "Christ consciousness" has widely different meanings, and mostly nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. Of course, with the popularity of that expression, likely it has also been applied to some philosophies that *are* influenced by His teachings.

 

[Ahanu]

The point is that "Christ consciousness" has widely different meanings, and mostly nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

From the posts I provided above, how does my definition of Christ conciousness have nothing to do with Christ? Be specific.

 

[Longfellow]

From the posts I provided above, how does my definition of Christ conciousness have nothing to do with Christ? Be specific.

I said "mostly." Maybe you haven't seen all the philosophies that are calling themselves "Christ consciousness," starting with Yogananda's.

 

[Ahanu]

I said "mostly." Maybe you haven't seen all the philosophies that are calling themselves "Christ consciousness," starting with Yogananda's.

No, I have not.

 

[Ahanu]

I've been thinking of the ground for living the best life we can as an appreciating, nurturing kind of love for all of nature including all people everywhere, seeing the best possibilities in ourselves, in other people, in society and in the world around us, and wanting to help bring them out. I can see how a person could look at that saying of Jesus and think that He's talking about that, but looking at the larger context, I think that what He means by it is much more than that.

So what does the much larger context say about “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" in Christ's teachings?