Bibli-idolatry

[Marsh]

But who's definition of love?

Love as eros? agape? philia?

Thomas

If God is love, and you can't divide God, then you can't divide love. That sort of division is a Greek thing and, in my opinion, is irrelevant to Christianity.

 

[Marsh]

I was involved in a discussion of this topic on another message board, and thought I'd share what I posted there on the subject. Some of this repeats what others have already posted here, of course. Just my 2¢...

BIBLIOLATRY
Since the subject has arisen, and some have shown interest in it, here are a few thoughts on bibliolatry. The following consists of a definition of bibliolatrry, and commentary which I acknowledge to be my own opinion. Some will take issue with my opinions, and that is fine. We al need to examine the implications of this problem in the modern church.
The word "bibliolatry" means, simply, "worship of the bible." Now, I daresay you will find few Christians who would admit to worshipping the bible, but the evidence of many posts on this board and other Christian boards I visit tells a different story.
Bibliolatry occurs when the book is substituted for the One Whom it reveals. It occurs when "proof texts" are quoted to justify personal prejudices or preconceptions, regardless of how much those prejudices and preconceptions differ from the witness and testimony of Jesus Himself – as when the bible was used in pre-civil War America to justify slavery, and in antebellum American to justify segregation.. It occurs when the bible is used to support hate disguised as "righteousness" and self-exaltation disguised as humility. Instead of approaching a situation with the question in mind, "What does Jesus want done in this instance," the situation is approached with an arsenal of bible verses that may or may not reflect the love and compassion of the Lord. When "proof-texts" are quoted to support the minimizing of another human being for any reason whatever, the bible has been substituted for the Lord. "Stone them!" has been substituted for "Neither do I condemn you."
Bibliolatry has its origins in two phenomena that have developed, not from the onset of the faith, but within the last 200 years: the idea of "inerrancy," and the idea of "literalism." "Inerrancy" holds that there are and can be no inconsistencies or errors in the bible. "Literalism" demands that stories such as the Genesis 1-2 stories , the Noah story etc., be taken as literal history.
Once it has been made clear – and it has – that there are inconsistencies in the bible (some have been discussed on this board), and that there is much in the book that cannot be taken literally without violating the very structure of the universe that God created, then holding on to the inerrancy/literalist approach to the bible becomes a substitution of the bible for truth, and the bible takes the place of a living Lord. It means that no one, not even God Himself, is permitted to have a new idea or suggest a course of action that cannot be "supported" by one or another proof text. The bible, then, become, in effect, God, because there is no other resource for learning Truth but the book; God can only speak if He says what is in the bible.
Perhaps the most visible problem with bible worshipers is that they do not use the bible as it was ntended to be used -–as a guidebook for spiritual growth and development. Instead, they use it as a weapon. They are like spirital ninjas, armed against a host of enemies real and imagined. Homosexuals are the enemy: they will slice them up with a verse from Leviticus. Catholics are the enemy: they will slice them up with their interpretation of the fourth commandment. I think of it as the "Don Quixote School of Christianity." There are real enemies, as we are advised in 1 Peter 5:8. But the bible-worshipers are sidetracked fighting imaginary enemies – windmills, as it were.
And that is bibliolatry. It is worship of a book, It is the reason so many refer to the bible as "the Word of God," forgetting that the bible itself says that the Christ is the Word of God, and does not say that "the Word became book and dwelt among us." It is a distraction to the work of the Kingdom. As Lewis wrote, "There have been some who were so occupied in spreading Christianity that they never gave a thought to Christ. …it is the subtlest of all snares."

Actually, that's at least $1.25 worth; don't sell yourself short

 

[Dogbrain]

If God is love, and you can't divide God, then you can't divide love. That sort of division is a Greek thing and, in my opinion, is irrelevant to Christianity.

Why, then, did the New Testament use words that did distinguish these "divisions"?

 

[shawn]

Just like light can be divided into colors....it is still light, but of different frequencies.

 

[bananabrain]

My children range in age from 16 to a year old. I do not treat all of them the same but try to act in an age-appropriate manner to each. Could not the same be true regarding our relationship to the Father as a whole species?

that is certainly our experience. when we were children, G!D Picked us up when we fell over, Helped us to walk, Fought our battles for us, Taught us the difference between right and wrong, Smacked us when we were naughty -all from love - but as we grew older and more mature, G!D Did less for us, as we learned to do things for ourselves, to pick ourselves up, to control our emotions, to conceptualise, to reason independently, to defer gratification, to plan for the future, to challenge G!D's authority and to individuate. hence G!D's delighted laughter after the episode of the "oven of achnai" (BT bava metzia 59b), "My children have defeated Me!"

one's children may infuriate, exasperate and drive one to despair, but the love is always there.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[taijasi]

(The following response has been sitting in my browser for a week. Apologies for the delay; only this evening have I felt the proper motivation to continue it!)

I said:

Thomas, I am asking you to think about it. ...
What I have done is invited you to Ponder.
​

How can I think about something you won't tell me?

No you haven't ... you've given me nothing to ponder with.

What is this love of which you speak?

+++

Alas, what can I say? God has given you precisely what you need in order to think, in order to ponder and in order to Love. The most that I can do is to open the invitation. I can't quite do that on God's behalf, but I can certainly smile and recommend it as a fellow human being ... Interfaith member, spiritual aspirant, etc. What I do not expect is for you to come to the same conclusions I have, because this is not something so precise as mathematics.

We are not operating within a bubble. Our world is rather much larger, and there are quite a few more variables than we can predict at any given moment ... so that at best I can assure you that I have several ideas in mind, some degree of Inspiration which I am considering, and very good reason of my own to believe that a Love transcending Agape does exist.

Just how I might share with you this internal content of my consciousness (let alone link you to your own, or find a corresponding glimmer where these sublime Ideas mutually reside) is the conundrum with which I am faced. But I will do my best, if I am able to make it through the rest of the dialogue ...

I said:

On point B, it is not required of the Christian to believe that her own nature is utterly and irredeemably sinful.
​

You said:

Not if you're Orthodox/Catholic. If you are Lutheran, Calvinist etc., it is required. It is their doctrine. Martin Luther asserted that humanity has been utterly and irredeemably corrupted.
​

Although my own familiarity is with the Lutheran Church, liturgy, practices and so forth, I will gladly agree with the Orthodox and Catholics on this one. Remember, I am no theologian, and while I do my best to follow certain of the arguments and logic, I will by no means agree just because such & such is the status quo ... or because most Christians profess thus & such. I must appeal, above all, to my own Reason and Intuition (to the Christ within, or as near as I can make it out at any given moment).

I said:

For while Christian theology seems to say we are capable of Redemption, and provides the methodology (soteriologically speaking) of Christ Jesus for that process, there is precious little dwelt on these days (that I can see) of just HOW this happens.
​

You said:

Well, that is your opinion. I don't happen to share it. Shall I direct you to the resources available to answer your question?
​

Sure! Isn't that part of what our discussion should be about? Helping each other by sharing what has been meaningful and helpful in our own life and search? All I ask is that you either give me some highlights, or direct me to one or two primary sources ... or perhaps to a useful commentary if you feel that there is one.

My own familiarity is with some of the Christian mystics and only some of their writings, but as this thread is exploring the possible usefulness of numerous sources (texts, experiences, authorities, etc.) in addition to the Bible, I think it would be appropriate to bring a few which you consider most outstanding to the forefront. Perhaps those from within the past 100 to 200 years, even during the 20th Century, would be helpful? Obviously there's potential there for a parallel thread!

In this instance, where can we learn about the spiritual (non-physical) components, or non-coporeal attributes of our being ... their character and composition, the process whereby we may seek to elevate our spiritual status in accordance with Divine Will, and perhaps also what agencies there already exist, or may be considered as coming into existence, in order to assist Humanity with this (seemingly vast, momentous and tremendous) undertaking?

Even a little bit that helps clear up questions and concerns regarding the life after death, preparation for such, and the nature and type of experiences which we can look forward to `there' ... would be helpful. I know of such texts; in what direction would you point me?

I do not say that so-and-so will have addressed these questions so precisely, or dealt with just these and no other types of questions, but these are the subjects which first come to mind ... I'm sure there will be other approaches which various commentators might take.

I said:

But here we must remain on different sides of the table. For you are anthropomorphizing, and I do not believe this is a useful or an accurate method of approaching or understanding the Divine.
​

You said:

No, I am not. If you think about it, you are. I have said God has no need of man, you say God is dependent upon man ... how anthropological can you get?
​

You must forgive me. I am attempting to do as the Romans would do ... and you see, my heart is far from the Vatican, save for the great faith that I have in those of Christ's Elect who still manage to work therefrom. And I'm sure there are few!

Since I believe in a God Whose Throne(s) is/are established (or Bridging, actually) in the very HEAVENS ... and since I do not accept the Roman Catholic teaching of a seat for Christ in the Vatican City ... we actually ARE starting with different metaphysical assumptions (!) entirely. Yet I would have to admit that it is a bit transparent simply to say, "You are anthropomorphizing, so your entire logic is in error!"

To be clear, I do believe that the Divine has a firm foothold on our planet, but I believe the manner and method of this relationship to have little to do with Rome, or with the Vatican, or with this or any other Catholic Pope. And this, not because I am not a Roman Catholic, but because I do not believe in a Christ or God Whose primary form or appearance is either physical, or fashioned after any KIND of human being.

The Heavenly Father, and I just take this as a given, exists TRANSCENDENT of all that is earthly, all that is physical, and all that is formed in the mortal, limited and limiting mind of man. Christ, inasmuch as Christ affirmed that He and the Father are ONE, was clarifying that in His own Higher Nature (the GREATER that is within Him, as well as Transcending Him) ... is unified - ALREADY Unified - with our Heavenly Father.

But the Christ Himself (even as does the Father) maintains an outer Presence, appearance, and various means of contacting or communicating with Humanity ... and the other Kingdoms (the Angels, the animals, and even less evolved kingdoms). These are, perhaps collectively, spoken of as the HOST, yet as I told you, I am no theologian. I am idealistic in much of my philosophy and spiritual understanding, but I also refuse to submit myself to untested theories.

Once I HAVE tested them, and found them to be lacking, I have no choice - if I am logical and thoughtful - but to give them a back seat to something that makes more sense. Even if but for the moment, or for a time, I find myself working with a framework, and an overall understanding of things, which works for me ... helps ME to organize my thoughts and life ... and most important of all, advances me toward the Purpose and Goal(s) which govern my life.

It is at least partially for this reason, and partially for others, that you and I regard the Godhead, and apparently even the Wonderful `extensions thereof' into our world(s) ... so differently. You and I may see things less eye to eye than folks like Nick, wil, et al, but this is no reason for the false duality (sic) which leads to what you have spoken of before as polemics. Thus, I will trust that I may expect nothing but Goodwill from you, even as I seek to express the same to you, regardless as to the various differences in our personal views and philosophies. For, it does not matter who might have originated a particular doctrine - even the Lords Buddha, Christ, or others Themselves. The moment we find ourselves in agreement, and adopt the same to greater or lesser extent, we have immediately placed our stamp of approval upon them, and made them our own.

I said:

You, Thomas, have repeatedly made no distinction between Godhead and God in manifestation. You confound the two, and say that God can be at one and the same time knowable by humanity at and on each level.
​

You said:

There is but one God, who transcends all modes and all distinctions ... so it aseems to me you fall into a panentheist error of assumption. Please indicate where you interpret my writings to say such, and I will be happy to correct you.
​

I will not disagree that God ultimately transcends all modes and distinctions, including what is often spoken of as Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. In practice (within your philosophy and theology), clearly you seem to prefer the God with attributes presentation, while I would rather err on the side of God without attributes. So long as we both agree that the UNKNOWABLE is precisely that, and thus transcends everything that we might imagine about, or try to ascribe to said Unknowable ... then perhaps neither of us is in error.

My point is simply that if you wish to speak of the Godhead, or Absolute, then you must clarify that you are not referring to the Unknowable and Unmanifest, but rather to the expressed portion thereof (and perhaps the undiminished God, despite this expression, as indicated in the Mahabharata) ... which is all that we might reasonably speculate upon, since it is only the LATTER `God' to Whom and with Whom Humanity may relate - and vice versa. To say otherwise, on this last point, is an absurdity and a logical fallacy, and only reveals that we have not properly understood the distinction - AT ALL.

What distinction? The one which asserts itself at every juncture and reminds you that your God beyond distinctions is not `one' about Whom and which you may then go right on ahead and pretend to understand or one-up your neighbor & fellow Seeker/Aspirant regarding ... simply because you feel like tossing around some kind of flowery language or high-falutin' philosophical jargon. We, neither of us, prove a thing by such absurdity ... except perhaps, our obstinacy.

 

[taijasi]

If God needs, then love is eros. I speak of agape. A love without condition. A love founded not on need, but in delight.

My argument is based on metaphysics — you seemn to base yours on sentimentalism.

Oh, Thomas, Thomas. Ever the king of the straw-man argument ...

This shows me that you really do have things compartmentalized quite successfully. I suffer the same limitation in varoius ways, but is this an admirable condition in either of us?

Love does not exist in an erotic capacity over here in these laboratory test tubes ... while philos limits itself to another set of test tubes resting on a separate shelf, then Agape carefully cordoned off by yet a third set.

If this is your view of things, let's just stop while we're ... behind.

Your DELIGHT is far closer, in any number of ways, to erotic love, for while the Victorians may have dashed the ideals to bits, and the Puritans may have taught us all how naughty such things are ... heavy-handing it, both groups, with a plentiful dose of screwed up theology on our supposed Fall from Grace (thoroughly proving that the Theosophical revival was sorely needed, this apparently still REMAINING so on plenty of counts) ... the truth is, as Christ taught us:

"Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:31)
​

So much for your elaborate Apokatastasis!

The Buddha Himself even stated, at least in the lay tradition, that had there been a more alluring, enchanting experience or desire than sex ... He would not have become a Buddha!

Yet you wish to say things like, this DELIGHT is more related to our awe and appreciation of (or attempt to appreciate) the Wonders of the Lord. Do you not?

Yes, I know the argument, and the Mystical Path is not unfamliar to me.

What I think we should do, is try and see where we AGREE upon at least a general definition of these three terms - eros, philos, agape - if we wish to try and discuss things.

However, in the meantime, both as a Christian and as a philosopher, I find myself agreeing with Marsh, who said:

If God is love, and you can't divide God, then you can't divide love. That sort of division is a Greek thing and, in my opinion, is irrelevant to Christianity.
​

I wouldn't even say it's Greek. I would just say it shows the fragmentation, compartmentalization and inadequacies of our own, mortal minds ... and proves how little we tend to understand of God to begin with.

God IS Love

If we accept that this is a Transcendental and Timeless Truth ... which we are determined by the current nature of our Being to only understand in part, then perhaps with that caveat we can try to talk about things.

And that, of course, still requires being on common ground. I know there's plenty of strong undertoe, but where there's a Will, there's a Way.

I'm game!

 

[Thomas]

Oh, Thomas, Thomas. Ever the king of the straw-man argument ...

Taijasi, please can we agree to cut the sarcasm and the jibes, and keep to the point? The discussion then should be more fruitful all round.

This shows me that you really do have things compartmentalized quite successfully.

Well I thank you for that complement, although I do think your view of things as 'compartmentalized' might reflect your own thinking, rather than mine.

Like yourself (I believe) I recognise orders and hierarchies, and in that sense my view is that the Christian philosophical, hermetic, theological and metaphysical lexicon deploys its terms according to the realities they signify, for the sake of precision, rather than a convenient 'compartmentalisation'.

Love does not exist in an erotic capacity over here in these laboratory test tubes ... while philos limits itself to another set of test tubes resting on a separate shelf, then Agape carefully cordoned off by yet a third set...

Actually you might want to have a peek at Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical "Deus caritas est" — he discusses aspects of eros and agape at some length.

If this is your view of things, let's just stop while we're ... behind.

This is the kind of thing I'd rather avoid. Please do not presume that I am where you are.

What I think we should do, is try and see where we AGREE upon at least a general definition of these three terms - eros, philos, agape - if we wish to try and discuss things.

Actually what I think you should do, as you started this little discussion, is present some real and meaningful data to support the assertion you have previously made.

Eros, philos and agape have a long and well-documented history in the lexicons of Greek philosophy and Christian theology, I don't think it will help if we try and re-invent the wheel? I can offer some short definitions if you want something to work with?

What we need to get to is this as-yet anonymous fourth term ... and that's the one we are waiting for you to explain.

I'm game!

Then lay on, Macduff.

... but perhaps there are greater expressions of Love which barely even begin where AGAPE leaves off.

I ask again, really? And if so, what?

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Taijasi, please can we agree to cut the sarcasm and the jibes, and keep to the point? The discussion then should be more fruitful all round.

Thomas, I will make you a deal. If you agree to stop with the straw-man attempts, I will agree to reduce the sarcasm to a minimum. How bout it?

Please do not presume that I am where you are.

Good point. In so many cases, this can get us into all sorts of trouble! Sometimes it is a benefit of the doubt thing, or just a careless error. Other times it is somewhat unavoidable. But I do think you make a good point.

Actually what I think you should do, as you started this little discussion, is present some real and meaningful data to support the assertion you have previously made.

Eros, philos and agape have a long and well-documented history in the lexicons of Greek philosophy and Christian theology, I don't think it will help if we try and re-invent the wheel? I can offer some short definitions if you want something to work with?

What we need to get to is this as-yet anonymous fourth term ... and that's the one we are waiting for you to explain.

While I do understand (and share) your wish to have it laid out plain & simple, I can only offer hints (for reasons I have already made clear).

Let me try to show some parallels, adopting my own thinking as best I'm able to a Christian framework, and perhaps you can fill in some blanks or make adjustments (in acknowledgment of your aforementioned appreciation of hierarchies, orders, etc.) where you see fit. In particular I will probably need help with some of the metaphysics, as I can only really approach this as an aspiring esoteric Christian ... and preferably as a garden variety spiritual aspirant in general.

... but perhaps there are greater expressions of Love which barely even begin where AGAPE leaves off.

I ask again, really? And if so, what?

The first thing I will do is show some correlations. In retrospect, I should have created the table below outside of the browser window and pasted a graphic, but this is off the cuff. As I say, I am trying to ADAPT and be flexible. Things are a bit messy, but I've added spacing and tried to be brief.

Kingdom of Life.......Active Mode(s) of Consciousness.....Metaphysical Principle

..Mineral/Stone........`slow physical growth'....................Vital (encased in form) aka ???

..Vegetable/Plant......attn to phys. growth processes.......Vital, aka ???

..Animal...................attn to emotion, budding mind.........Emotional w/some intelligent activity

..Human...................attn to emotion, mind, budding........Mental/mind, Nous
.................................SOUL or Spiritual awareness

..Kingdom of Souls.....bridging mind to Soul, with Spirit......Solar Angel/Divine Mind
.................................beginning to become active

..The Father's House..Soul/Intuitional, with Spiritual Will....Liberated Soul, Monad
.................................becoming the focus......................Angel of the Presence
.................................................................................(Redeemed), aka ???

..7 Spirits b4 Throne..Para-Nirvanic, purely Spiritual or.....Spiritual Monad, held w/in
.................................Divine awareness (beyond us!)......the Heart of God

+-+
Probably there are points that might need some fine tuning, but that's what discussion is for. These are not the full range of the Kingdoms of Evolution, for even the Lesser Mysteries of Christianity show us that Jacob's Ladder ascends far beyond our ability either to comprehend or to fathom. The best that we may do is acknowledge that Life precedes us - both here upon this planet, and in the Cosmos at large - by many millions, perhaps billions of years (even if esoteric sources say trillions, as a modest estimate).

Likewise, we cannot foresee an end to the path that stretches out ahead, so to be able to chart out just these few of the most obvious Kingdoms of Life is by no means to take into account all the Kingdoms of Divine Evolution ... or, Progress (a process which involves the descent into the worlds of form every bit as much as the ascension from enslavement, or attachment to - matter).

Also, a word about the relationship between Kingdoms, Consciousness and Principle. While I am familiar with this from numerous points of view, and from within several traditions, I cannot claim great familiarity with how this is taught in the modern Christian, let alone Catholic, catechisms. So, once again, I must ask that especially where I have left an `aka ???' ... perhaps others can provide assitance?

Certainly I have additional terminology that I could use, but I would prefer to avoid Sanskrit, so the Greek correspondences, or perhaps Hebrew, even Kabbalistic terms, might be useful. If we are not careful, however, we can become lost in the jargon, and it is the relationship between the various components in the chart which I was hoping to comment upon.

The structure itself is that the Kingdoms category emphasizes the outer organizations or groupings of Seven Hierarchies of Lives (as taught in all world religions, including Christianity), the Consciousness category focuses on what is happening within each of these kingdoms ... and the Principle category refers to what spiritual centers might be said to be awakening from the standpoing of the Divine Mind, or Divine Plan. While we cannot begin to know the full content of the latter, we can at least see certain correlations, meditate on certain hints, and venture speculation on probably additional parallels.

The chart is not complete, however, if I do not address the question at hand. You wanted to know something about this Love that I suggest is beyond Agape Love, and having provided the skeletal framework for such an idea, I will put the rest of the pieces together ... once again, as best I'm able in the moment (this is also a condensed version of the above):

Kingdom........Consciousness........Principle.......Type(s) of Love Most Active

Mineral............Dense physical.......(Vital)............none active
Vegetable........Physical growth......Vital..............none active
Animal.............Emotional/mental....Emotion/mind..eros overlaps w/human eros
Human.............Noetic/Soul(Love)...Nous/Soul......eror, philos, some Agape
5th Kingdom.....Solar/Spiritual.........Solar Angel....philos by default, Agape developing, and ???

Father's House..Intuitive/Will.........Liberated Soul..Agape by default, Law of Attraction**

7 Spirits..........Divine (Pure) Spirit..Monadic, aka?..Agape perfected, Law of Attraction**


Once again, in retrospect, I question the wisdom of taking the time to put this into a chart, but then, it is at least a starting point. I am headed out the door, here just as I approach the Heart of the subject (sic!) ... yet - I have a feeling `IT' isn't going anywhere, even if I do.

But I did highlight what needs addressing for a future post. It is the Law of Attraction, which is one of 3 Laws governing our System, corresponding to the 3 Aspects of the Trinity. The Law of Economy relates to the Holy Spirit, the Law of Synthesis relates to the 1st Aspect, but what I have hinted at might possibly be approached under this framework of the Law of Attraction.

All I ask is that you not object at the outset to the terminology, for there are surely no words for the three Laws to which I am referring which fully or accurately reflect the Reality. The best we might do is try and discuss what such a Law or Laws encompass. And, though I am short of time, I would say that the Law of Attraction is the primary of these three Laws for our particular System, because - as that great Spiritual Truth indicates for us in simplest terms, GOD IS LOVE.

This does not suggest God is not Will, or that God is not Activity also (expressing via a Father and a Holy Spirit Aspect, respectively). Yet during this cycle (however we choose to understand that expression), GOD IS LOVE ... hence even the other two of these Three Great Laws are subsidiary.

What about the place of eros, philos, Agape within that rubric? Do I suggest that Agape is entirely transcended and left off altogether for some greater expression of this Law of Attraction?

Yes I do, actually, for one thing that I have learned (if not also put fully into practice) is that - The Greater always includes the lesser.

Thus, although we have precious few examples of Agape perfected and demonstrated for Humanity, it is not contrary to logic whatsoever to assume that HAD WE already perfected Agape in terms of its expression within and through the Human Kingdom (as have those Kingdoms transcendent of us, long, long ago) ... it is SAFE TO VENTURE A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS, imho, that had we so done, yet a Greater Love, being a more direct and perfect expression of this GREATEST LAW of our SYSTEM - would have already come into partial expression, perhaps even now being as familiar to us as Agape.

For while we share eros with the animal kingdom, and can point out distinctions in expression but not in the fundamental type of Love which this represents (the passions, the appeal of the male for the female and vice versa, the urge to mate and to create, as well as what demonstrate w/in Humanity as romantic attraction ... and here, this mysterious 4th type of Love already finds a reference, INclusive as it is) ... so too we see the seed of PHILOS, or Brotherly Love already developing within these, our animal brethren, yet only come to its greater maturity within Humanity.

Surely we would not deceive ourselves into believing we have perfected our kinship with our animal brothers, thus we must acknowledge that our own Agape has yet to have developed to the point where this is possible. Meanwhile, the 5th Kingdom (to which Christ referred, and which we know already exists) does not share this limitation of ours when it comes to how they regard the first four Kingdoms upon our planet. Or rather, there are no obstacles for their philos as regards the rocks, the trees, the birds and the bees ... but Humanity itself does provide the current focus and challenge for this perfection of Love (both philos and Agape Love) between and within the 4th and 5th Kingdoms.

In short, we are the bottleneck at this point upon our planet, as we do not demonstrate PHILOS between all members of the One Body, we do not even BEGIN to demonstrate Agape between same, let alone toward our Spiritual Superiors (the 5th, and especially the 6th and 7th Kingdoms) ... as we - unfortunately - DO NOT even properly demonstrate philos, or Agape, for the FIRST three of God's Kingdoms of Life, here on Planet Earth.

I wish it were otherwise, but this is why ours is the planet of great travail, and suffering. From a Spiritual pov, this may all be in the wink of an eye, yet none of us is yet privy to this pov exclusively, or shall we say, in the form of a Liberated Solar Angel (Soul, Spiritual Being, what-have-you, ???). Thus, we are working on AGAPE Love as the immediate priority, even while in course of development ours is not actually the task of fully perfecting even THAT Great expression of the One LAW of Attraction (Love is the LAW, not a Principle, or type of Consciousness, or merely a `good idea').

Ahead of us, are they for whom philos is the default, while Agape is in the perfecting. `They' require US in order to do so, yet - even though this is an apparent CONTRADICTION - I believe it is also true that the Spiritual (5th) Kingdom has willingly Sacrificed Themselves in order to help bridge between our awareness ... and the beyond (5th and Greater Kingdoms). This is not a contradiction, because the Solar Angel is not consumed in this process; it's more like, it must `babysit' us. And for its own progress, such a step is one option, but not the only option. But these are subtle points.

The perfection of Agape, as Christ surely demonstrated, is possible for a human being, in the flesh, WITHOUT being required to ascend permanently into Heaven (the Pillar in the Temple which goes out no more). Such going out may become voluntary, yet if Christ was not such a PILLAR (even the very TEMPLE, demonstrated for us), I don't know who was! So our goal, not immediately, but as humans so to speak, is collectively to perfect the Agape Love, and to Love unconditionally as did the Christ.

I run out of space and time, but God's Love does neither, as it is ultimately Responsible for, and the very PURPOSE for the existence of ... BOTH. And this, according to the LAW OF ATTRACTION.

By the way, ironically, the best short expression of this law which I notice on Wiki is under the very first definition, referring to the Colorado gold rush in late 19th Century America ... from the New York Times, 1879:

"moving in obedience to some occult law of attraction that overcomes all obstacles in their progress to their destination"
​

I underline and stress the portion which should receive our attention, thus making it less hidden, I hope.

 

[taijasi]

Ah, that post is excessively long, and I already have afterthoughts that might help clarify, even simplify! Maybe later ...

All I ask is that if you must apply Manjushri's sword of discernment, you also remember to first consider the forge of Hephaestus. In other words, please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Seldom are things black & white, as we well know!

cheers ...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Taijasi —

All I ask is that if you must apply Manjushri's sword of discernment, you also remember to first consider the forge of Hephaestus. In other words, please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Seldom are things black & white, as we well know!

cheers ...

I'm pushed for time at the moment, and haven't the space to offer an answer to the many details raised in your post.

One thing I wanted to point towards however, and you reflect this in the above, is that systems and structures are our own creation as we order our experience into some cohesive methodology.

I found this whilst looking around: A right brain | left brain exercise, also online here.

The point, again one you raise, is that systems, structures, orders, such as the sevens, etc., are discernments of the left brain, which creates objective 'realities', or at least seeks to render those realities as accessible to intellectual investigation.

The right brain deals with the totality of things, the holisticity of things. It's more subjective ...

... for this reason I view eros/agape as a twofold process, inbreathe and outbreathe, movement and rest ... and I would try to steer the discussion in that direction, rather than determine a level or strata to which it can be applied.

"For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him." Colossians 1:16

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

I've been having a :cough: discussion on another board about the accuracy of the bible. I think there is some pretty dark stuff in the OT, and have been questioning the legitimacy of it all. It would seem that many get quite offended when you question scripture. It's almost as if they believe I'm questioning God himself!

Are people falling prey to bibli-idolatry?

Any thoughts?

Questioning a book by humans should never be equated with questioning the existence of god. When I lived in the US, I had occasion to visit a couple of churches, once for a wedding and twice for funerals.

What I noticed different from Scotland is that in the middle in front of the pulpit there was a bible. Only one was a real book. Three times (in Fundamentalist Churches "Bible Believing") the Bible was a ceramic structure made to look like an open Bible. The pages were not real but it was trimmed in gold.

I noticed how many American preachers hold the Bible in their hand over their heads suggesting an object of worship.

The message was clear. Worship the Bible; do not question it. I am sure none of those people would admit that the Bible is a god. One can question if Protestants worship the Bible in a similar way Catholics worship Mary. Catholics refuse to admit that Mary is the replacement for the goddess Brigit, Danu, Diana, and Fatima (for Muslims).

I see this as wrong. The Bible is not God. The Bible is a very flawed book full of childish fantasy, history of wars, and approval of unprovoked attacks on unarmed Canaanite cities with genocide and taking of girl sex slaves. The Bible does not present a flattering story of God. People who read the bible too closely are led to disbelieve in the God described.

The 4th Century Christian Church even deified the redeemer, Jesus. Jesus never claimed to be a god but on multiple occasions indicated, he was doing God's work, was not a good as God, was subordinate to God, possessed less knowledge than God possessed. It was clear that the early followers of Jesus did not regard him as a God.

The fact that Jesus followers lived in a Pagan Empire where they were the minority would be expected to syncretise the Jesus followers toward polytheism. Paul and Arius made Jesus a created God subordinate to the High God. Athanasius and Constantine made Jesus a full-fledged God. To keep the illusion of monotheism they merged Jesus with JHWH (Father), and Spenta Maingu (Holy Spirit.) The Trinity pattern was typical of Indo-European religions

The adoption of the Trinity made conversion of Roman, Greek, Celtic, and Teutonic pagans to Christianity.

When the Church fathers felt the need to put all "sacred" writings together in one book and exclude others made for a book of questionable reliability. Scholars report over 500 errors and contradictions in the Bible. I only makes it harder for those who believe in that God.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

Hi Taijasi —

If one considers the various hierarchical systems of being, distributed according to level, or domain, or sphere of operation, such as the one you present, and such as those others that exist within a purely Christian metaphysic, then one must also address the issue that, as man is not omniscient, then these are constructs of the intellect, to aid his grasping certain fundamental realities.

For who can fathom the Mind of God?

The very fact that man can know and see and speak of these distinctions indicates that, in some way, he is not bound by them, else he would see only his own place and those below ... for whilst the higher knows itself, and those below it, the lower does not necessarily know and see the higher, and only does so when and if the higher chooses to reveal itself to the lower.

The answer lies in the idea of man made in the divine image, man made capax dei, the capacity for God, because man, like God, is called to enjoy a freedom that knows no bounds, which for man means the freedom to transcend his own nature, and thereby transcend all levels, orders, domains, sphere ...

Also, a word about the relationship between Kingdoms, Consciousness and Principle. While I am familiar with this from numerous points of view, and from within several traditions, I cannot claim great familiarity with how this is taught in the modern Christian, let alone Catholic, catechisms. So, once again, I must ask that especially where I have left an `aka ???' ... perhaps others can provide assitance?

In terms of Kingdom, Consciousness, Principle — the Father is the Principle-Beyond-Principle, the Son is the Logos, the Principle-Conscious in that He is the Logos of All, and manifests all things that are thus visible (and invisible) to consciousness as such; the Holy Spirit is the Principle-Kingdom in which all things 'live and move and have their being' ...

But never forget this this is an analogy — it is not what is, but a way of understanding what is — for the Father is wholly and entirely in the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly and entirely in the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is wholly and entirely in the Father and the Son.

In Christianity, Christ is the Logos of God. If God speaks, then He is the word spoken, He is the first sound, He is the Principle and Logos of all words, all sounds. 'He is before all else, and by Him all things consist'

The word designates order out of chaos, but in the first instance, the chaos is not disorder, it is that which is beyond all orders, all forms, all determinations.

Thus the fathers speak of the Father as the arche anarchos ('principle without principle') in the same way that Anaximander speaks of the apeiron ('the boundless'). When speaking of the Son, He is the arche (the principle) or Logos or Verbum.

St Maximus the Confessor talks of the Logos, and of the logoi. The logoi are God's plan or ideas, which have no existence or being in themselves, but are brought into being by the Arche, according to the will of the Arche Anarchos, in which all things are, without distinction.

Thus God knows both you and I before the foundation of the world because we are in Him, unrealised, undifferentiated, unmanifest, unreal ...

In the metaphysics of Eriugena, who was inspired by Maximus, who was in turn inspired by Dionysius the Areopagite, these logoi exist as real in as much as they participate in the Logos, which is their ontological source and origin.

Thus in the Christian Tradition, as intimated in the text of St Paul in the post above, man by his birthright and invitation stands outside and free of all orders, hierarchies, levels, domains, modes, sphere, etc.

Here is St Maximus on the relation of the Logos to the logoi:

1) The supreme and apophatic theology of the Logos .... the being beyond being, and according to which He is participated by no-one in any respect, except this then, that the one Logos is the many logoi and the many logoi are the one Logos.
2) The one Logos is the many logoi according to the benevolent creative and preserving procession of the One towards all beings.
3) The many logoi are the one Logos as bringing them all together according to the reference and providence which returns and guides the many into the One, like as into an all-governing principle or a centre which contains the beginnings of the radii that extend from it (St Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua 7)

Therein one finds the esoteric of eros and agape, the love that seeks for the good of itself, and seeks for the good of the other ... by which then God's love for us is both eros, He seeks in us the good to which we are ordained and called into existence to be, and agape, in that He seeks in us the good to which we are ordained and called into existence to participate in Him.

Thus eros and agape stands outside of all levels, etc., etc., but rather applies in all of them.

Eros and agape are not intellectual constructs, nor are they limited nor determined to any particular place in the order of things ... they signify an order of engagement, of participation and of being.

An exemplar of this teaching is found in the writings of St Luke:
"And ... there came from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus. Who, when he was come to us, took Paul's girdle: and binding his own feet and hands, he said: Thus saith the Holy Spirit: The man whose girdle this is, the Jews shall bind in this manner in Jerusalem, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. Which when we had heard, both we and they that were of that place, desired him that he would not go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, and said: What do you mean weeping and afflicting my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but to die also in Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when we could not persuade him, we ceased, saying: The will of the Lord be done. And after those days, being prepared, we went up to Jerusalem."
Acts 21:10-15

Agabus is in receipt of one of the Seven Fruits of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Spirit is in him, and he realises the Spirit as much as he is able ... he tells Paul that if Paul goes up to Jerusalem, he will be arrested, and handed over to the Roman authorities. If this is the word of the Holy Spirit, what right has Paul to refuse the prophet?

Because the same Spirit is with Paul, but at a higher level ... Agabus is motived by Eros, he does not want Paul to go, nor do any of them, because they don't want to lose him. Paul is determined to go, however, even though he knows, without Agabus having to tell him, that such an action will cost him his life. Why? Because he is moved by agape, not by eros, he seeks not for his own life, but to fulfil the will of Christ, to follow Christ wherever Christ leads Him, without question ... that is agape.

Thus, in Christian Scripture, we have the widow at the Temple, the publican in the Temple, who are called into the presence of the most High God, surpassing all others, because of their simple faith, because of their agape ...

"Be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect" — Impossible ... except in Love, then all things are possible.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Amergin, we must be kindred Souls!

What a wonderful, wonderful post! I couldn't have begun to say what you have said, let alone so succinctly and right-on.

I think the poor guy has his work cut out for him (Jesus, that is), and just getting Christians to understand what you've said - both about him and about the Bible - is a tremendous challenge. He may have his hands full ... for some time to come ...

Thomas, thanks for the earlier post (I've pondered it some), and thanks for a lengthier reply as well. I'm in a position now that you've been in before. Starting a new job, and/or having deadlines and one's hands full in various capacities ... so forgive me if it takes a day or two to compose a proper response. I do appreciate the time you've taken to read my lengthy posts, however, and will do my best to address what you've posted. Meanwhile, I may toss out a few, spur-of-the-moment answers by way of short reply.

cheers,
Andrew

 

[taijasi]

For who can fathom the Mind of God?

You and I can, and everyone can, for He gave us a `piece' of it (i.e.,God's Mind, just as God's Love, resides within us - at least in spark or embryo). If we disagree on this point, we will not be able to agree on much else!

As for God's Omniscience, as well as the Perfection of Love on a relative scale, even this is something I would argue that we can attain. But this will relate only to God-in-manifestation, which I prefer not to call `the Absolute.' Or, if we must distinguish, then our Omniscience is - in miniature - what God's-in-manifestation (Omniscience) is ... on a Grand scale. For God's Being must scale to our level, degree and type of being (we are, after all, fashioned in the likeness of our Creator(s)) ... if we are to be expected to learn to scale OUR being to God's.

The argument is simple: God must first show us, and do this is a manner which God knows we can emulate ... else it is ridiculous to believe, either as a god or as a high school biology teacher, that the student, the trainee, the learner, will be able to reproduce. And this is why esotericists (such as Nick, myself, and most others I have met) almost universally believe - not simply in Rebirth - but also that the very God in whom we live, and move, and have our being INCARNATES.

While I would disagree with quite a few Gnostic ideas, such as the hard & fast duality wherein matter is inherently `evil,' I certainly agree with the idea that YES, even GOD, and Gods, incarnate. For God is man on a higher scale, and man is a god, on a lesser scale. This is not pride; it is Gnosis ... and Faith! Yes, Brother, I Believe!! - in Ephesians 4:13 ... and I do leave the door open for improved understanding, but I'm pretty happy with the sense it currently makes, too!

In short, we must have something to relate to. And I do not believe it is sufficient to say that this is Jesus of Nazareth, because - Jesus was an advanced Initiate, as was St. Paul after him, as were others before, and as have been others since. You and I may disagree over particulars regarding Jesus the MAN, but I think we have much more agreement regarding the Christ as a *somewhat* particular expression (for our planet, and for this Earth's Humanity) ... of God's UNIVERSAL, All-Embracing LOVE. And this, surely is Agape, whether or not it is anything `Greater.'

The degree to which God-in-manifestation is not bound by the distinctions we are ... whether we are speaking of a Jesus or a Paul, a Buddha or a Christ, or even the LOGOS of a planet or a Solar System ... is only the degree to which THAT Evolving Unit, spiritually *and* materially speaking (for matter is but the vehicle of spirit) is in advance of another, such as ourselves. Christian theology may disagree on some of these points, yet I have left certain notions by the wayside, and cannot return to them - in this lifetime - as tenable points. I can accept that you may believe them, or that others may believe them; but not I.

So, if we wish to emphasize a God utterly Transcendent, then I will nod, and in my terminology this is - the UNKNOWABLE. This is the ONE to Whom and which Christ and the Apostles Hymned, in G.R.S. Mead's Hymn of Jesus (and that's Hymn OF, not to). We really can't say aught about that - UNKNOWABLE - for, as you point out, this is a ... condition? no ... God? umm, errr .... Being? hmmm ... state? well, uhhh ... experience? ahhh, uhhh, hmmm.

You see? We can say nothing about the unknowable. That's why we call it - unknowable!

And I don't agree with the notion that we can merge these two, and say that all distinctions disappear at that level (perhaps they do, perhaps not) ... and then begin to speak as if we are still speaking of - The Unknowable!

Anyway, I think I agree with much of what you said in the first part of this most recent post ... certainly that we have a great degree of Freedom, however, I do not believe that this Freedom is absolute. I do like the direction in which you are pointing, which is where our real freedom is, and imho, that is definitely in transcendence, in transcending our current limitations, whatever those happen to be. The sky, so to speak, is the limit in this regard, and I consider pride to be only so much evidence that we have not thus transcended, since it indicates attachment to ego, ego itself being a temporary, though necessary, illusion.

The objectivity of these various levels, hierarchies of being and so forth, however, is something I would strongly argue for, but not because I disagree with you that these, too, will one day be transcended - both in our experience and as intellectual constructs. Alice Bailey's Teacher made this same point, on several occasions.

But if we do not have a framework, a context, a frame of reference, etc. for considering a particular notion, then it will make little sense to us. We must be able to make certain connections, and sometimes just the right connections, or else we might as well not have had the experience to begin with. Some experiences may even take years (lifetimes?) to fully `sink in,' so I would not argue that they are truly superfluous. But if a person who is going through the stages of ego development full-blown, with almost his entire focus on intellectual and scholarly pursuits, is one day confronted by a mystic, experiencing all the characteristics of the mystical experience and seeking in earnest to walk THIS path of unfoldment ... then these two individuals may have very, very little that they can discuss. At best, the mystic will try to `accommodate' the intellectual, but there will be precious little for the latter to grab ahold of in relating to the former, since in terms of the intellectual's frame of reference, the mystical experience just ain't there!

In broad brushstrokes, the Ageless Wisdom indicates that Humanity evolves early on through stages of entire self-absorption, both spiritually and materially speaking, wherein physical survival and reproduction occupy almost 100% of our focus ... and this is a fairly lengthy stage, though the entirety of Humanity is now fairly well past it, and we recapitulate it within the first 7 years or so of life. Following that we have emotional development, which is the next 7 years, but as this characterizes Humanity at large, and shows up in the group consciousness as additional, self-directed concerns, we have not fully come through this stage. Thus, while Atlantis lies far behind, the majority of humanity remains - emotionally polarized.

The stage of mental development follows, and from puberty to early adulthood the average person's intellectual faculties develop, as s/he learns in our school systems and undergoes a very important transformative stage in personal development. This is where great numbers of Humanity are now gathered, and it is these Intelligentsia who can guarantee and safeguard our planet's future ... and lead us safely onto the path of spiritual unfoldment, en masse, if we observe - in great enough numbers - Christ's instructions, and take Him at His Word (see below, from John).

Yet the invitation is not to amass more knowledge, to puff out our egos, or to seek psychic unfoldment and go off exploring the astral world ... it is, instead, to plunge oneself into spiritual service, to try to regard the separated self as essentially an illusion, and to recognize that it is only as we learn to Work Together that we can move past this critical, yet dangerous stage of our planet's evolution. The Mystical Path, followed soon after by that of Occultism proper, describes the last few incarnations, perhaps 5, perhaps 20, just depending, during which the individual Soul - via the well-developed, increasingly well-rounded personality - transmutes all remaining selfish urges, drives, and separative personality habits into Spiritual assets, using these latter for the Good of the Group, even unto the sacrificing of all that one has come to regard Holy ... for the `RICH' man cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

And these are the 10%, the critical mass, which many believe are capable of guaranteeing and safeguarding the future progress of the entirety of Humanity ... not because the 10% will do the WORK for the 90%, for this is not what Christ came to do FOR us, despite what some Christians seem to have come to believe. Or at least, I should say, I think plenty of folks are in for a pretty rude awakening, if they cross over and think they can just sit down at some figurative table, fists clenched, fork & knife in hand, saying, "Let's eat!

Ain't gonna be like that.

So you see, with too many different assumptions, we end up talking past each other, and I have been a part of this experience, from one side of the equation or another, on countless, countless occasions. Add to that that I cannot accept any other than the Path of Rebirth as the explanation for Life's (read God's) method of teaching and guaranteeing that we, each & every Soul, gain the experience, the discernment, the Wisdom and the Love-in-Action (not in potential, but demonstrated, as every Great Initiate has born witness to) for which we have been created and brought into incarnation.

For purposes of discussion, I sometimes pretend that it does not matter whether the other person believes in rebirth or not ... and yet, without so believing, s/he will not have the same framework to `stick pieces into' which, I am convinced - sooner or later - s/he will need to have. It may, of course, be just as well that so & so pursue the religious or spiritual course s/he is currently on without trying to artificially force the issue and syncretize beliefs. On so many occasions the Theosophical Masters, or Great Teachers in the tradition in the Ageless Wisdom Tradition, have stressed the point that each must walk his own path, of his own choosing, without outside coercion. Or, to be precise, each must come to THE Path.

This goes hand in hand, however, with the implicit understanding that we must all, in one lifetime or another, undergo the same great learning process, overcome all the same challenges and shortcomings, and develop the same core set of Virtues which exist latent, or dormant within the human Soul (or Spiritual being). Until then, we may develop all of our PERSONAL faculties, become great, towering Intellects, or perhaps be psychics of great renown. However, we will not have yet set foot upon the SPIRITUAL Path, and this - whether you are Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist or a New Ager - is something I hope we can all agree upon ... as being at least one crucial part of our Purpose in being here!

Of coure, in Buddhism, these Cardinal Virtues are identified as the Paramitas ... while I have always felt comfortable with St. Paul's term - Christ in you, the Hope of Glory, if because I have been drawn to the Mystical as well as the Occult path now for several lifetimes (and does it look like I'm anywhere close to Mastery!?! ).

One further note here, because it summarizes all I might hope to say, and all I personally believe, regarding this Love greater than Agape Love which I have mentioned. Christ spoke of this, and He summarized it in the following words, this affirmation and promise to us which is found in Scripture:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32)​

Here is the seed thought which I think we might consider if we wish to imagine a Love Greater than This, where `this' includes all that we mean by Agape. And this ONLY makes sense if we can imagine for a moment, that the Christ is here speaking in a more Universal capacity, certainly in His Identification with the Logos - which Theosophists believe does not occur until a high Initiation ... and perhaps the Christ is even expressing something much, much higher. Certainly He speaks not just as the Planetary Logos, or one of the Seven Spirits before the Throne - but also as representing the Most High God, Whom and which Theosophists call the Solar LOGOS.

The simple, direct presentation of this ability of the Christ, however, the authority with which He speaks these words, and the true, inner significance of the promise itself ... is what I think we should focus upon. For I feel that this is a perfect expression (and Christ's was and remains the most Perfect thus far, for our Humanity) of God's Love, and this is what Alice Bailey's Teacher identifies as the LAW of Attraction, all other Laws in our System being - subsidiary.

Apologies - I have skipped most of your recent post, because I have yet to read it! But I will do so, and will respond when time permits.

Take care ...

~Andrew

 

[Thomas]

You and I can, and everyone can, for He gave us a `piece' of it (i.e.,God's Mind, just as God's Love, resides within us - at least in spark or embryo). If we disagree on this point, we will not be able to agree on much else!

I'm glad you can see that, as it underlines the whole premise of Christianity, and from which everything flows. In the beginning God said, let there be light ...

This supposes three things: The source of light, the light, and the illuminated ...

... all creation shares in these three to a greater or lesser degree. All of it is illuminated, from within, and from without, all is a source of light (although only God is the source without a source, everything else either reflects or reacts), and all is illuminated. In In the sensible world, the gaze is twofold ... but in the spirit, it is one, because the intellect is the light of the mind, and Christ is the Intellect of God ... so the art is to see the world, through divine eyes.

And that is to see into the essence of things.

From heart to heart.

+++

It is a given that God cannot dollop Himself out piecemeal ... so the 'piece', or the 'spark' is in fact a direct and unmediated openness of God to our existence ... it can't be that there's little pieces of deity scattered throughout the cosmos, because God is One, Simple, and so on ... the spark is the reverberation of the word He speaks in us. I suggest that word is 'come' ... but that would be just another analogy, and a whole other debate.

+++

The Mind of God is not subject to any condition; it is Absolute, Infinite and unconditionally free ... and it is to participation in this freedom that the human soul is called. As much as we participate in that Mind, and in that life, we too enjoy absolute freedom.

This is what St Augustine calls 'capax dei' — the capacity for God. It is this that the Greek fathers referred to man as sharing in the 'anarchos' nature of God, even the angels do not share in this freedom to the same degree, although their beatitude is of a different order.

That highlights the issue we have with those who try and incorporate gnostic 'systems' and/or esoteric 'orders' that are fixed to a hierarchy of levels through which the person is obliged to ascend, step by step, be degree, etc ... all they're doing is putting invented barriers between man and God. In the end they all become elitist, as is only too evident if one examines their histories. These structures are external to the heart.

The reason why there are so many systems is man's knowledge is not absolute, so he constructs according to the insight and capacity oif the intellect. It's a left-brain thing, to render his experience and his reflections intelligible.

As for God's Omniscience, as well as the Perfection of Love on a relative scale, even this is something I would argue that we can attain.

I am glad you can agree with me on that ... that omniscience, of course, is not 'another' omniscience, as logically two omnisciences negate that quality in the other ... you cannot have two absolutes, or two infinites ... rather we can attain to the One Omniscience in Christ, the Logos of God ... that's what Paul means by 'putting on the mind'.

But this will relate only to God-in-manifestation, which I prefer not to call `the Absolute.' Or, if we must distinguish, then our Omniscience is - in miniature - what God's-in-manifestation (Omniscience) is ... on a Grand scale.

Why? Only if you choose to settle for a provisional and relative determination. By your own choice you're bring a veil down between you and the Absolute.

Consider the writings of a Mystic Meister Eckhart, or a Dionysius, the founder in many ways of "Christian Mysticism" (as opposed to generic mysticism) ... a score, more, of others I could name. They see clear through the manifest orders, the domain of appearances ... their vision surpasses all that can be seen, and looks upon the incomparable and superluminous 'Divine darkness' of "Being-beyond-being".

That is what Christian apophatism is founded in ... this is where that journey begins...

For us, if all things are in God, and God is in all things, then again such determinations as 'God-in-manifestation' is nothing more than an inability to see God as the ontological origin of all things. If the object in view is in any way relative, or conditional,or determinate, then it is not God! Thus I would see the idea of 'solar logos' as a provisional and naturally-ordered determinate of something sensed but unseen — this is what Paul meant when he pointed out to the Greeks the statue of the unknown god and said 'This is of whom I speak to you" ...

For those with the eyes to see, all shapes, structures, forms, hierarchies, orders, levels, domains, dissolve into a transparent and luminous reality of the Absolute.

I think what you mean by 'God-in-manifestation' we would call Divine Ideas, Divine Theophanies, Divine Essences, etc. What the Orthodox call 'energia' — God in manifestation, as opposed to God in Himself, which is His essence. That is a theological distinction between Latin and Orthodox, as we believe we can participate in the Divine Essence, the Orthodox do not.

But we do not entirely disassociate theophanies from their ontological cause ... rather we acknowledge them, and pass through them, to the contemplation of 'the one thing necessary'.

For God's Being must scale to our level...

Oooh, careful ... that was Luther's error! To determine thus means to rationalise God according to one's own shortcomings. There can be no 'must' with regard to the Absolute. That we can know God is because God chooses to be known, not because any created order must know anything.

degree and type of being (we are, after all, fashioned in the likeness of our Creator(s)) ... if we are to be expected to learn to scale OUR being to God's.

I think the likeness is 'subjectivity' ... one cannot scale subjectivity, one becomes one with the other subject ... I think you're trying to apply a left brain condition to a right brain comprehension ... ?

I can agree that one can live a more or less virtuous life, but that is according to the scale of human nature. I don't think one can scale one's nature up to become another nature ...

To live in the divine nature requires the invitation of the Divine, in the first instance, in the same way that knowledge of the Divine is dependent upon the Divine disclosing that knowledge. There is no necessary reason why we must or need to know of God. One can live a perfectly full and adequate and virtuous life — according to any human norm — and be an atheist.

The argument is simple: God must first show us, and do this is a manner which God knows we can emulate ...

He did. In His only-begotten Son. But must? I don't think so.

From everything I've understood philosophically, theologically, metaphysically, esoterically and ontologically, any God that is subject to 'must', is not a God at all.

That's tantamount to saying 'You must love me!" — that's not love at all.

And this is why esotericists (such as Nick, myself, and most others I have met) almost universally believe - not simply in Rebirth - but also that the very God in whom we live, and move, and have our being INCARNATES.

Well I too believe in Incarnation, but not in rebirth ... the one does not necessitate the other, quite the reverse in fact ... so if we were to discuss this, I would ask for greater detail in the deployment of terms.

The Scriptural point, by the way, is that WE live, WE move and WE have our being in the Divine Ambience, if you like, the grace of Divine Plenitude ... not that God lives and moves and has being in or because of us ...

For God is man on a higher scale, and man is a god, on a lesser scale. This is not pride; it is Gnosis ... and Faith! Yes, Brother, I Believe!! - in Ephesians 4:13 ... and I do leave the door open for improved understanding, but I'm pretty happy with the sense it currently makes, too!

Actually if you take man as the mean, as you seem to, then that's anthropomorphism — you're making God in your image, rather than assuming you are made in His. The difference is that He is perfect, we are not, so anything we assume of God, because God 'must' be like us, will bear the image of our imperfection.

In short, we must have something to relate to.

Why? Is not nature enough? For the illumined mind, a flower says it all. What you're saying is, you want more.

And I do not believe it is sufficient to say that this is Jesus of Nazareth, because - Jesus was an advanced Initiate, as was St. Paul after him, as were others before, and as have been others since.

Well, here you're off into your own thing, and here's the issue: you're fitting the message of Christianity into a preconceived structure, and that's the very point.

You're saying Christianity must mean this, because that's what Theosophy says. My point is no, if you want to correctly grasp Christianity, you have to seek out what it means, not what external commentary has to say upon the matter.

I have no wish to argue what you believe, Andrew, only to correct the errors in what you assume I believe. I do not see things as you see them.

... God's UNIVERSAL, All-Embracing LOVE. And this, surely is Agape, whether or not it is anything `Greater.'

Well if it is God's then how can anything be greater? For to be greater, the lover must be greater than God. Now you come back to the point at the outset ... what love is greater than the love that puts the other first? what is greater than God?

As an aside:

The objectivity of these various levels, hierarchies of being and so forth, however, is something I would strongly argue for, but not because I disagree with you that these, too, will one day be transcended - both in our experience and as intellectual constructs. Alice Bailey's Teacher made this same point, on several occasions.

And you are free to do so ... they are real in as much as you choose to believe in them.

But I am saying my teachers are Christ and Scripture, then the Mystics, yours is cataphatic, mine is apophatic ...

But if we do not have a framework, a context, a frame of reference, etc. for considering a particular notion, then it will make little sense to us.

Only if one depends upon such things. Not everyone does.

Yet the invitation is not to amass more knowledge, to puff out our egos, or to seek psychic unfoldment and go off exploring the astral world ... it is, instead, to plunge oneself into spiritual service,

Then all one needs is love.

Love greater than Agape Love which I have mentioned. Christ spoke of this, and He summarized it in the following words, this affirmation and promise to us which is found in Scripture:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32)​

But that is agape! "Greater love (agape) hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13.

Frankly I think you're missing the simple, and trying to spin a complex doctrine that's is not there ... and if it is there, what is this love called?

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

But that is agape! "Greater love (agape) hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13.

Frankly I think you're missing the simple, and trying to spin a complex doctrine that's is not there ... and if it is there, what is this love called?

Thomas

Indeed, the greatest love is the decision to do what is best for another, despite how one may or may not feel. I believe Agape tops out every other form of love combined...as it is also greater than Faith and Hope.

These three...but of these...

 

[taijasi]

+++

The Mind of God is not subject to any condition; it is Absolute, Infinite and unconditionally free ... and it is to participation in this freedom that the human soul is called. As much as we participate in that Mind, and in that life, we too enjoy absolute freedom.

Ok, let me ask this then: Freedom to do, say, think or feel what? I agreed with you, because I think we do not often, or certainly not always, associate Freedom with Responsibility. One of my favorite quotes along these lines is a Bob Dylan quote, pointing out that the two go hand in hand. There is a moral imperative which all of us fall under (again, in conformity with God's LAW of Love, and not just a hope that we will cooperate) ... and this means that as we come into a greater measure of the Light - which you have described - we also have a Responsibility to share that Light with one another (and even with `lesser' Kingdoms), even as God has shared it with us. But I don't think we're in disagreement here; I'm just curious about what we will `do' (-say, think, feel, etc.-) with our `Freedom'?

That highlights the issue we have with those who try and incorporate gnostic 'systems' and/or esoteric 'orders' that are fixed to a hierarchy of levels through which the person is obliged to ascend, step by step, be degree, etc ... all they're doing is putting invented barriers between man and God. In the end they all become elitist, as is only too evident if one examines their histories. These structures are external to the heart.

The reason why there are so many systems is man's knowledge is not absolute, so he constructs according to the insight and capacity oif the intellect. It's a left-brain thing, to render his experience and his reflections intelligible.

No, I cannot agree with this. What I do agree with is that often enough, those who are too attached to hierarchies do certainly become elitist, their thinking becomes rigid, and this only sets up the ability to abuse our earthly power ... something which does not, as a rule, occur in the world of the Soul, and beyond. The Catholic Church throughout the centuries is one of the BEST examples of just this sort of abuse, and history bears witness to the many, many tragedies that have resulted - the TRAVESTY of Christ's simple, by-the-heart example which you have called attention to. You may feel the call to defend your (specific & particular) Faith at this point, yet you cannot possibly believe that this is an all-or-nothing enterprise (sic), and while Q may gladly rush to defend your earthly institution as well, I think you know exactly what I'm getting at. Reform may be underway, yet my point, and the excellent example - remain.

I would almost agree that such structures are external, but with the caveat that they are not external to the portions of God's Being in which and Whom we live, move and have our being. You see, there is an overlap here. It is not that God is out there, somewhere, and in some magical yet inexplicable way we partake of that Divine Nature ... with a dozen complicated Greek words, or Sanskrit terms, needed to explain the relationship. Some of the same Teachers who were present during Christ's day, even during His Ministry, remain with us to explain our relationship to Christ and God, as Sons of God- often in very clear, intelligible and `user-friendly' language (writing in the 19th and 20th, if not also the 21st Centuries). But of course, one must be open to this sort of thing.

And if our God is one of a truly progressive, progressing Revelation, wherein modern man CAN BE and IS expected to draw closer - closer even than during Christ's previous appearance among us - then we should remain open to the possibility that what I have just said is ... `Gospel.' Call it a new gospel if you must, but many thousands of believers such as Nick and myself accept implicitly that Christ's own closest (current, rather than former) Disciples walk and talk, live and breathe, Teach and Love ... amongst us, today. And, some of us believe that the Christ Himself is preparing to appear in the physical, just not at all as the fundamentalist Christian often believes!

As for the intricate hierarchies and orders of being which many esotericists stress, I would encourage you to look at these as a form of learning which appeals to certain types of intellects, or minds (what esotericists call a 5th ray mind, especially), yet I think the majority of students who persist in their studies will assure you that they understand exactly what you're getting at. In fact, I have probably heard a lot more about left brain, right brain distinctions, and the need for learning to integrate these two modes of perception/experiencing ... from New Agers, than from Catholics, Christians, or any other group of religious folk. Not that it isn't increasingly studied and better understood by scientists and the layperson in general, but I think esotericsts were probably well ahead of this curve, as we - many of us - have been making certain associations along these lines for ... at least decades.

We have to be careful, of course, as it's a catch-22, and if you truly wish to call me at that game (one left-brained tendency being precisely this approach of categorizing, systemitizing and imposing too great a structure upon things), then what I'm about to say will mean very little. But in some esoteric teachings you will find details given as to which esoteric principles correspond with which portions of the brain, with the right or left eye, and also the 3rd eye or Ajna/brow center. Yet, you see Thomas, if you do not agree that there are such a thing as chakras - whirling energy centers, not only within man's being, but also within that of the animals, the Devas (or Angels), and so forth, right on up to the greatest levels imaginable, and `down' to the microscopic and subatomic, then - once again - we will find ourselves on so different a footing that further discussion on many points will become impossible.

The student of more than an introductory level of knowledge or awareness, even if s/he has not ever directly, clairvoyantly observed a `chakra' (a whirling wheel, or vortex of energy within the subtler ethers), may in fact have a great deal more genuine understanding of what chakras are than a clairvoyant, precisely because his or her higher CENTERS of consciousness are more awake, attuned to one another, and - as a whole - attuned to the spiritual (SOUL) levels of consciousness. Yet, here again, you must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you say, "ahh, but that model of understanding just doesn't work for me" ... then what I must do is ask, "then how do you, personally, understand and regard these various chakras, or energy centers, which are not only at the HEART of all, living beings, but which also govern the very flow of energies from the center to the periphery and back to the center again?"

Center of whom or what? Indeed. Of the Solar System, of God, of Christ and of the Cosmic Christ ... of the entire Cosmos, and of every such Cosmos!

The point here is not that one must implicitly accept certain ancient teachings of the Vedas, or any other Holy Book ... this is, or was at least, a discussion of `Bibli-idolatry,' right?

What I'm getting at, is that the very ideas you might wish to reject out of hand, or wish to suggest as being too heavily laden with hierarchies and rigid structures, modes of thinking which do not seem necessary for you (or perhaps, I would say especially, for those with mystical inclinations) ... ARE quite useful, even necessary, for others who wish to understand the SAME God (how many are there again?), that God's Created or Manifest Cosmos (*how* many Songs of the Lord are there again, in this UNI-VERSE?), and our relationship to and with each other (and how many are there again, of me, or of you, or any, given individual?). Hmm, seeing a theme here?

So, YES, I do agree that we can both/each stand and point quite proudly, or perhaps just with awe, with wonder, even in humble, reverent Silence ... toward the Heavens, toward a Flower, toward the smile of a newborn infant or - even as we find in one popular depiction of the Lord Incarnate - toward the flaming, because Christ/Soul-Infused human-divine heart. I think it's the NEED, the feeling that one MUST make these distinctions, and that one MUST - even if it is with our last, dying breath - emphasize our being somehow LESS THAN the Divine ... this insistence upon focusing on man's MEEKNESS as compared with God's Unboundedness ... to which I react the most negatively, or feel as being MY biggest turnoff. And this is part of why I am not a Christian in the conventional sense, much less a Catholic, although I would quite likely visit, if not regularly attend, a LIBERAL Catholic Church, and perhaps even become an active member of such ... were there one anywhere nearby.

Yet I will not cast aside my mind's `crutches,' call these what you will or regard them unnecessary as YOU may ... since for me, they provide precisely that *structure* which helps me to organize my life, to prioritize my greater goals, and to FIT my various types and examples of spiritual or religious experience INTO. AHA!!! And that's the caveat; see next paragraph!

Do I assert that the *structure* is greater than the experience, greater than the Divine Beings or Being to Whom and which it refers? Certainly not. It may seem that way, but this is just an observation, which we can all make so, so easily within the other person, yet all too seldom within our OWN thinking and manner of regarding the world ... an observation of the finger pointing at the shining star, rather than the reverent, silent meditation
upon the star itself, and perhaps the Joyous recognition of just what the Teachers have been talking about when They affirm HIERARCHY.

For you see, this is not a thing which merely occupies a temporary place in man's all-too-feeble, incapable mind, or mortal consciousness. Rather, the Spiritual Hierarchy, as esotericists use this term, is both a proper name and a description of the very HEART of our Being, of God's Being ... of ALL Being. It is not something theoretical, and it is not something which exists - only in our left-brain, or in the mortal mind. It exists in the very stuff of life, the DNA helix, the wonderful double-spiral, which is found within EVERY CELL, of ALL LIFE upon our planet ... and probably elsewhere in Cosmos, in one form or another. In fact, that same spiral we already know to occur naturally, for the Golden Ratio or Golden Mean is implicit within nature (is that the word I want, or do I mean EXPLICIT? - for it is in the chambered nautilus, and it is found governing the proportions of the very physical body of man ... yet why dwell on thoughts that give you grief, for if DaVinci's own contributions do not sit well with you, let's just go back to DNA, and ponder how many miles upon miles upon miles of that stuff exist - within all of us).

I like to just call this Hierarchy Jacob's Ladder, and this Ladder ascends to, through and even beyond Highest Heaven. Let us not place limits upon God's Creation, for even the manifest portions are revealed to us but through a glass darkly, and what we call `mater' - err, Mother - I mean, umm, MATTER ... ... is actually much, much darker, so to speak, than we have even begun to realize. I say this sort of tongue in cheek, but you know exactly what I'm talking about. I prefer to `translate' what science is only just now (or in recent decades) beginning to `discover' as being yet additional confirmation of what the Ancients (especially as expressed in the Vedic Wisdom, including that portion of the Mahabharata known as The Song of the Lord) knew long, long ago.

They KNEW - because they perceived or experienced it much more directly than we do, on the whole - that even if we account for all of material reality, even as far as the eye (or average telescope) can see, we have as yet only perceived or accounted for a tiny FRACTION of the totality of God's `Creation' ... and, you will have to forgive me, I cannot keep this up ... it just becomes pure, simple absurdity to pretend that we really have a CLUE about that Totality, since - hey, let's face it - There is more UNDER Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in some high falutin', fancy schmancy, super-cooked-up philosophy, ol' Horatio!

Horatio is you, and Horatio is me, but Thomas (and Q, et al), I must wrap this part up. I would like to emphasize that I really do think it's better to find points of agreement rather than to focus on divergences. We may prefer different *systems* of thought, and different approaches to structuring our experience, our contemplations, and even our spiritual aspirations ... yet, it's as I've said, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and this is where we are called, and challenged often enough, to see where we AGREE, rather than disagree. It's not that we can simply go down the list, find points of agreement, and assume that via such accord we have magically, mystically, automatically discovered `Reality'. Ha!

I think you know I don't believe that. Nor are the points upon which we disagree irrelevant, for you see, if we apply Occam's Razor when it comes to spiritual or religious experience, even to philosophical thinking, imho, we often end up tossing out precisely what it is we were after or needed - even when or although we don't *think* we are missing it, or don't realize that we are any worse off. What we don't know CAN hurt us, and all too often, it's because we need more of the picture (if not quite the whole darn thing) in order to take ... the next step!

 

[taijasi]

I am glad you can agree with me on that ... that omniscience, of course, is not 'another' omniscience, as logically two omnisciences negate that quality in the other ... you cannot have two absolutes, or two infinites ... rather we can attain to the One Omniscience in Christ, the Logos of God ... that's what Paul means by 'putting on the mind'.

Yes; it's because I have something of the mystical experience in my past - and I do mean this incarnation - that I can agree with you, even finding no issue whatsoever with the way you've worded it. It's because I think and believe there is One Reality, One Truth, behind all of our experiences, underlying ALL that we ever can experience. It is the unnamed and unnameable Tao ... and, once we say that, what have we done to or with that `Tao'?

So, language unites, and language cripples. We may, if we are careful, draw closer together, and in Unison and/or Unity (subtle, even not-so-subtle differences here), we may thus approach the Divine. Or, we may find ourselves pondering the significance of the statement: The mind is the great slayer of the Real. What was the occult instruction which follows?

Let the disciple slay the slayer.​

Why? Only if you choose to settle for a provisional and relative determination. By your own choice you're bring a veil down between you and the Absolute.

Yes and no, but it depends upon the person, and upon which stage of the Path s/he is treading ... as to whether or not this will make sense or find its proper place. For example, a Teacher of mine used to say, "Argue for your limitations - and they're yours!"

However, Evolution Itself (and this means God, acting for our own best interests until *we ourselves* are able to do likewise, individually, as groups and one day as a whole) ... has provided us with a veil, or perhaps several such veils, that we may only gradually come to behold, ponder upon, and even increasingly understand - who we are, where we have come from, why we are here, and how we may best go about fulfilling our Purpose (which addresses the question of `where' we are going). I use this word *increasingly* so much, because the moment we try to lock our picture of Creation into static, rigid states of being, we lose a picture of Creation which is fluidic, ever-moving, ever-stretching toward something greater, better or more developed.

It is not that we cannot or do not come to phases of rest, or periods of bliss, but what I have found is that we go through alternating stages of increased activity, including conflict in between, wherein we are challenged to *be more than we have been* ... and this is a picture of our Being (and God's, on a greater scale) which fits the facts. This fits what we observe around us, in nature, and within each other. This is how a child grows, having emerged from relative stasis, happiness, the *primordial bliss* of the womb of MATER/Matter/Mother ... then progresses, grows, unfolds its latent potential, and reaches toward possibilities which may even be utterly unforseen from within the earlier stages ... stretching all the way to and through adulthood, ideally attaining increasing Wisdom as it learns from life's experiences - the wisest among us knowing how foolish it is to say, "This is good," or "This is bad" - and in the perfect human, reversing the flow of energy entirely so that we are not a SUCK on the environment around us, but rather a GIVER of LIFE Itself, Life more abundantly.

//sighhhhh//

Why are these things so hard to see? Perhaps because ... it takes several points of view? Several combined perspectives and sets of experiences, even sometimes spanning many decades, centuries, or even entire ERAS of world development ... for greater, more accurate understandings of Reality to blossom and spread? We could speak of the negativities involved, all the points of friction, yet I much prefer to summarize ALL of these various points of friction and challenge as simply being the Opportunity-creators. These are the collective Classroom, the subject matter which Life's Teachers have available to help show us what to do and what not to do, in order to fulfil our Purpose here. The positive view is that which extols Virtue and reveals vice as simply a lack, defining sin as the missing of the mark, such that the SOUL itself becomes this (Saggitarian) archer, ever aiming for the next Goal along the Way.

And we are not divorced from God as Souls. We may be Fallen, yet to understand this we must only look around, and realize that this refers to the forces of inertia, existing as complacency and apathy upon emotional levels, and as rigidity of thinking and attachment upon mental levels. Without the conditions of this world, which we ourselves have created and perpetuated under the Law, we would not even be able to imagine and perceive the next, let alone strive for improvement. So strange, that we have created such elaborate, patchwork myths to try and explain the most natural thing in the world - Life Itself, Self-Evident, and yes, Self-Existing. That we ourselves would and do partake of this same Nature, as we seem to agree, yet perhaps only when nuanced just so ... is actually the only thing that CAN make sense, for indeed, as soon as we begin to divide the One, we get into all sorts of trouble, and end up having to REPAIR a philosophy and a Perfection which needs no repairs, needs no improvements, but which really only needs application, until we have mirrored in whole what we already, currently mirror in part.

It does seem a bit complicated and confusing at times, certainly to me, when my brain is stressed, or when I'm having an off day, or when my frustration level rises to a certain point ... or just when I'm going through something I may not yet have proper perspective on. As a note to self, I may have to Wiki up a review of the `Problem of the One and Many,' yet I do not have to go into it confused, or with complete cluelessness, for after all, whose *problem* is this? It's back to seeing darkly, vs. the type of understanding which we are Divinely intended to have, and are increasingly having. And for that, we must die to self ... often enough including the death of the outer form, with release from certain limitations. Yet as St. Paul and as Jesus before him (and the Buddha's Arhats, and enough of 'em since) have demonstrated, this dying daily which brings about the increase of Soul that God intends ... does NOT necessarily mean we must sit around, waiting for the afterlife!

Consider the writings of a Mystic Meister Eckhart, or a Dionysius, the founder in many ways of "Christian Mysticism" (as opposed to generic mysticism) ... a score, more, of others I could name. They see clear through the manifest orders, the domain of appearances ... their vision surpasses all that can be seen, and looks upon the incomparable and superluminous 'Divine darkness' of "Being-beyond-being".

"There is a Peace which passeth understanding ..."

And while the Mystic is learning to contact and experience that Peace sporadically at first, then with some hope of regularity ... the Occultist is learning to contact his Soul at Will. He is learning to yield to the spiritual Will rather than that of his OWN, lower self - and even Jesus found himself wrestling with the last vestiges of the latter, for such is recorded in Scripture as characterizing the Gethsemane experience. The Occultist does not discount the experience of the Mystic in the least, for this is his own past, and there is overlap, as it may require several lives to enforce the kind of disciplining (of the lower self) which is needed to tread the path of Initiation to its natural conclusion.

That is what Christian apophatism is founded in ... this is where that journey begins...

So I would say, based on my experience and that of fellow Servers, and others who have had all variety of religious and spiritual experience (not to mention study, and the pursuit of a life of Service in earnest, and not just as a passing phase) ... that indeed, our journey has just begun, for even if a number of us here may find ourselves upon the path of discipleship (and there are dozens of disciples who regularly and periodically post to Interfaith.org), we are truly only beginning to discover and to fathom life's Mysteries. Eternity means *without end* ... and Infinity means *without limit*. We do not break through all barriers immediately, and all boundaries do not disappear in the wink of an eye, even at death.

One day, once we have fulfilled our purpose here, and only when we are truly prepared, ready and eager, I am positive that we shall be called to step beyond, and to tread the way of the Greater Mysteries, even leading unto the Highest. But that day is yet to come, and we have many, many *little steps* to take ... before the greater Glory is revealed.

I still hope to respond to the rest of your post, Thomas, this one and the earlier. Meanwhile, I want to share a thought from a book entitled, Gifts of the Lotus: A Book of Daily Meditations, which presents a different theme each month, day by day. For today, during a month whose topic is Truth, there is the following:

A doctrine or truth, presenting itself without proof on the bare value of its own nobility, is as disturbing a factor to the majority of men as would be the stranger without name or country. We are afraid of it; it is to us an invasion from an unknown world. And such it is; it is an invasion from another world, from the only real world, the world of Reality.​

Such thoughts, and the Divine Philosophies (or rather, Philosophy, singular) which spring therefrom, come into being *from above downward* as it were, as the Yggdrasil ... rather than being constructed, by MAN, from below upward. Thus the Truth precedes us, just as it must ultimately absorb us; meanwhile we are invited and welcomed by it, DRAWN by it, for even while we may exist here upon earth, we may LIFT IT UP - in our hearts, in our minds, and in our daily actions.

Peace,

~Taijasi

 

[bob x]

Then all one needs is love.

Now I've got that song in my head...