Are we evolving to become less spiritual?

[bob x]

This is highlighted by the phrase "I am spiritual, but not religious" (taking 'religion' to mean a union between the self and the Other, however you determine that other to be)

Why would you take it that way? Most people I know who would use such a phrase mean exactly the opposite, that 'spiritual' means a union between the self and the Other, while 'religious' means an attachment to some "big ego" (some exclusivist institution).

 

[taijasi]

Big-S spirituality does ... that's the distinction I'm drawing out. Big-S Spirituality is the Indwelling Pneuma or Shekinah or Barakah ... it's not about you ...

Coming from someone who rejects the idea of `Christ within,' I think you're skating on thin ice, Thomas.

Although I certainly agree with some of your points, or even most of them overall, I think it's safe to say that plenty of people have just plain grown up when it comes to their understanding of religion ... especially *organized* religion. And this is the direction of the paradigm shift, or the emphasis of a definite transition that has been taking place for decades [or even since the Scientific Revolution, as pointed out].

It would be helpful, however, to recognize that a definite Community of Believers, which includes a growing number of students of the Ageless Wisdom, are most certainly NOT drifting out of touch with Nature and the Supernatural [read Metaphysical]. Rather, they are now coming into incarnation in accordance with Plan ... in order to fulfill Divine Purpose. And truly, that Will is being done. Are we so blind that we do not see?

Many folks can see plain as day that behind all the trappings, the Mysteries have ceased to be mysterious. Too few priests and *ordained* [granted, plenty of them SELF-ordained] nowadays are able to explain much at all about the why ... and it's not because they are so enlightened that they are *genuinely* able to respond: "Things are just so," a la Zen Buddhism or Taoism. Rather, they have no idea!

While SOME folks are insightful enough, confident/hopeful enough or else just plain GULLIBLE enough not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, others can see of what make are the Emperor's New Clothes. And I can't blame them for saying, "NO THANKS!"

But I do admire the tenacity of those who have the genuine understanding, insight or optimism ... such that they keep striving for the truly Spiritual, even if they do cast out the offending member along the way ... which is often enough a community of yes-men, or virtual lemmings. And when you suddenly realize you're soaring with the buzzards and turkeys, well ... an `Aha!' moment comes over you, and you realize, it may be *you* that is finally ready to move on. It's called, being AHEAD of the rest of the bell curve. And yes, it happens with regard to spirituality and religion, just as everywhere else!

Perhaps it is a simple matter of a man, or woman, needing to have his/her own Epiphany before the recognition of the *Christ within* ... or `Buddha Nature' can occur. Once it does, however, and once the person has been lifted OUT of the ego, experiencing that which is transcendent .... beyond, it becomes entirely understandable - for some of us - why these people forsake: either their entire religious background and TRADITION [since in their eyes & newfound spiritual experience it is precisely TRADITION which has failed & forsaken them!] ... or at least why things can never again be viewed through their former, NOVITIATE eyes!

And yes, if you haven't quite managed, or had the experiences necessary to join that Community of Believers, then let me speak plainly:

Your experiences either of a religious OR Spiritual nature may require, for some period of time, a path of solitude. You may need to *go it on your own*. And while those all around you are jumping for Joy and shouting Jesus [or Mohammed, or Krishna], it will, quite possibly, cease to make much sense for you.

The problem is, too many people at this stage of the Path lose heart, lose faith, lose their optimism ... and, depending on how religious the person has been hitherto, it is entirely too tempting to retreat, run back into the pack [the safety of numbers], and give up on the stage of learning to think for oneself.

For that is essentially what we must go through. And it is neither entirely religious, nor Spiritual (with either a big S or a small s), for surely if we have the Faith and even a modest amount of experience on life's path we can recognize: ALL that we have, ALL that we are, and ALL that we are capable of Being or Becoming must fit into what I would call a `Divine Framework,' somehow or another, even if we may very well spend the entire rest of our lives [as we all shall] seeking to understand this ... and cooperate.

Our problems come from Rebellion [ahem!] ... and from the refusal to believe that as Complex as things may seem [and be], there is nevertheless ALWAYS a sub-plot, or a CONTEXT, into which "all of this" MUST fit. We forsake God, not because we don't want to believe, or because we don't really believe "deep down," certainly not because we *can't* believe [for I would argue that in fact, NO human being is actually capable of pure atheism, but that is a different, and somewhat difficult point to explain in detail].

The reason we struggle, and ultimately, ALL of us [remember the ROCK] end up forsaking God, is precisely because no matter how far across the bridge you may find yourself - even amidst your most profound and Soul-inspiring religio-Spiritual experience - sooner or later, at some point, and usually tout de suite once we catch a mere *glimpse* of how God sees all of this [us, God's own Being, Life, the Universe, EVERYTHING ... helps if you know what happened for Arjuna during his big talk with Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra] ... once we see that, we must needs fall away, like an Angel out of Heaven, and before we know it, kaboom! There we are, feet firmly back on the ground again, feeling thick as a brick.

It's a hard realization, that the FIRMAMENT is the opposite pole of God's BEING than the physical ground we walk around on, such that MIND is actually far, far more SOLID ... even if, lo and behold, MANAS [the Sanskrit for Mind, when found in individual MAN, as also the ROOT of the WORD for MAN ~ is this getting through yet?] ... MANAS ends up being just the ~ "tip of the mountain" ... and sure enough, there's quite a bit below the surface, namely Spirit, Soul and ... [HOW much of our universe again does science account for as being *visible matter*? Wiki sez: Probably LESS than 20%, although imho, that's nuts, if physical matter is more than a fraction of a %, I'd be damn surprised]

Remember, the astral plane, full of glamour, and the lower mental, full of illusion, are so misleading and confusing to us, that in fact, these definitely NON-physical realms actually would fit neatly into the ANTI-Spirit category afaic ... so unless you're pretty much already across that BRIDGE [oh, so many NAMES we can give `IT'], you kind of have the Catch-22 syndrome. People have one or two out-of-body experiences, and these manage to convince them that there's a lot more to life than the physical. And of course, they're right!! But then, once they've tried to devour all of the self-help, New Age, and ancient alchemical books at the Narnes and Boble, is it any wonder they're more confused than ever ... either ready to run for the cover of the nearest old-time-religion-foot-stompin'-tub-thumpin' primitive Baptist congregation ... OR - toss the poor baby OUT with the bathwater, forsake it all, and say, "Gimmie a latte, I'm done with this s**t!" [?]

What makes me feel okay is that there are always Those Who can, and do say, "We Know; We Understand." They do so, because They Love, They show only Compassion ... and, from Their high post, They can foresee that sometimes the world does have to go through a more materialistic, or even destructive cycle, before it can get back on track again. And this we do, age after age, no matter what the lapse, even when the cost is high.

Those who think the WHOLE is tending toward a lower spirituality have merely forgotten to take into account a larger perspective. And those who say things are only getting better ... forgot to take something in, as well. What does this mean? Ah well, haven't you figured it out by now? In the tiny, there is a complexity. It increases, and we are `only just' becoming aware of that. Same is true for the Macro, yet regardless of scale, there are also BASICS. There is an ABC, and yes, there are LAWS ... which apply, whether we know, or consciously observe them or not.

That's why it really doesn't matter if the churchman reject x, or y, out of hand. It is no different than Jesus, or the Buddha, walking by unrecognized. Neither is diminished by our failure to nod and bid them Good Day. On the other hand, Jesus could heal NO ONE in his home town ... and even the Buddhas are - likewise - powerless where those around them cannot be reached [for our materiality, our shortsightedness, and our foolishness]. Jesus cannot heal the man whose karma is heavy, and where the lessons have yet to be learned. Neither can he heal the man who, though willing to learn, is incapable in his present incarnation, either through faulty equipment [such as blindness, due to prior violation of the LAW] ... or through the conditions of the world, which similarly prevent certain advancement.

Even in the Bible it is made clear that the blind man [who certainly DID sin prior, lest we make the error of ascribing INjustice to God, rather than to our own FOOLISH actions, IGNORANT of the Law and its workings, as is the case] ... this blind man was born blind "that the Glory of the Lord could be made manifest." The man who cannot understand this, and realize that it affirms the Law of Rebirth, and Cause and Effect, will not be able to Love his Lord as the God of JUSTICE, as well as of Mercy, of Compassion as well as a God of PERFECTION.

Our world does not yet appear Perfect, in large part because we ourselves have yet to ACCEPT it as such. And while this seems like so much `New Agey' affirmational nonsense to some, THESE skeptics are precisely those who sin greatest against the very Divine Process(es) which ENSURE ... that by and through our Cooperation, Perfection en potentio does indeed work itself out, IN TIME, within each AND EVERY particular(!). In other words, TRY believing, and accepting, that God's actually "got your back," just as surely as [God's] got the next guy's ... and that always, even when it seems otherwise, the reverse is nevertheless True ...

... and Lo! Before you know it, I happen to know on good authority, our planet will look and be a *whole lot* closer to `Perfect' than you even thought possible. Argue for limitations, and attempt to explain why we're all still so screwed up [much less why we MUST remain so] ... and guess which part of that Problem/Solution equation you're ardently and fervently supporting!

Ahhh, so there. Trungpa's book, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism is probably an excellent read for some of us; Goodness knows I would certainly benefit. I hope I get around to it sometime!

Meanwhile, although I hate to knock all the ritual and ceremony that's present in many of the world's Faiths, I've got to say, those who are ready to outgrow it are - simply and Truthfully speaking - to be praised and *supported* for their strength and resolve, commitment and determination, when it comes to this stage of their growth. [And yes, that's growth of the SOUL, stored in the Temple of Solomon, for those who understand it ... not an expansion of ego.] Many will make a clean break, yet be able to come `full Circle,' once they are able to realize what Underlies every Tradition ... from a higher turn of the Spiral.

If they decide to chase another rainbow, however, they will be supported on the Inner Side, and likewise, as they come to their proper Community on the physical plane, they will find what they need there, among old friends to continue on the Way. Thus it was for me, for dozens and SCORES of fellow disciples whom I've had the honor and privilege to meet over the years ... and thus it will be for those to come.

Serving from within every great Tradition are Those who Know, and these, often working unseen, unnoticed and pretty much completely unsuspected, form the true Heart and core of that Faith [if appreciated in their Collectivity, on the Inner Planes, transcendent of the specificities of time & space]. These are the esoteric sources of Inspiration, the True Apostolic Succession [of every lineage, not simply the Christian], and their concern is most certainly the Spiritual rather than the purely religious (as we distinguish, with our tendencies to classify, divide and categorize) ... yet for these individuals, there simply IS NO DIFFERENCE.

Namaskar

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew –

Invariably it seems, my responses to your posts inevitably result in a stream of invective and abuse, so on this occasion I shall tread trepidatiously. Rather than tackle the point of disagreement, I will endeavour to confine myself to what I see as hermenetic differences between our two outlooks.

Coming from someone who rejects the idea of `Christ within,' I think you're skating on thin ice, Thomas.

I don't reject it ... I defend the authentic transmission of the idea. What I reject is the relatively modern notion that 'Christ' signifies a constituent part of human nature, that 'Christ within' is something in my possession, as it were. Rather, we view Christ as Logos, immanently present to all created logoi.

Your experiences either of a religious OR Spiritual nature may require...

We view the separation of religion and spirituality as a false dichotomy — it was unknown in the Christian Tradition until the 17th century, and I would argue it was unknown in the Wisdom Traditions also. it's vigorously rejected today by the Orthodox Patriachates, although the Roman Catholic view is somewhat more lenient.

But for traditional metaphysics, the way of the (esoteric) essence is in the (exoteric) forms ... and without an engagement in those forms, the essence is inaccessible and largely undreamed-of by those not initiated into the Mysteries. That's what Hermeticism and Alchemy is all about.

So whilst many assume they have 'out-grown' religion, what they're looking at is its fallible, carnal shell, as it were, and they judge it accordingly, with no awareness or reference to the essence within. They can't see the wood for the trees, as the saying goes. Nor should obe judge books by their covers.

On the other hand the great mystics, from whom we derive our spiritual knowledge, have all, and always, belonged to a religious tradition, and observed its exoterisms as a vehicle of grace ... an exemplar is the relationship of the Sufi with Orthodox Islam, for example. In the case of Christianity, the margin is blurred precisely because orthodox Christianity is 'an esoterism in plain sight', as far as the pre-Reformation denominations are concerned.

The false dichonomy lies in the fact that Christian spirituality is love, and love is dynamic, it is active — so what one does, even the most mundane act, is 'spiritualised' or more accurately 'sacramentalised', because one does it for the love of God. What you can't see, and what cannot be seen, is a spirituality not in action; where there is no activity, there is no spirituality.

Consider the beatitudes ... or the Judgement according to Matthew:
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."
What is intersting here is that the just ask "When?" because they are unaware of the activity of the Holy Spirit within, and this is the way of 'the Anonymous One', because they have no ego about what they do, that's why they're the meek of the beatitudes, that's why they're the poor of spirit, not because they're impoverished, but because they do not seek to possess it.

Note also there are no references to gnostics, esotericists or any other pseudo-spiritual elite — just plain old folks doing their plain old thing ... being thoughtful of, and nice to, others.

On the other hand, Jesus could heal NO ONE in his home town ...

Actually He could, and did ...

Even in the Bible it is made clear that the blind man [who certainly DID sin prior, lest we make the error of ascribing INjustice to God, rather than to our own FOOLISH actions, IGNORANT of the Law and its workings, as is the case] ...

Nope, you've got that bit absolutely wrong. Christ rejects the idea of physical impediment being the result of sin, as was the common view of the day.
Luke 13:1-5
"And there were present, at that very time, some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answering, said to them: Think you that these Galileans were sinners above all the men of Galilee, because they suffered such things? No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe, and slew them: think you, that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? No, I say to you; but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish."
I see no reason to impute injustice to God on this matter.

this blind man was born blind "that the Glory of the Lord could be made manifest."

Quite.

The man who cannot understand this, and realize that it affirms the Law of Rebirth...

Sorry, but it does no such thing. It affirms that God disposes all things according to His plan. Nor does it mean God caused the man to be born blind so Christ could heal him, because that's in effect a gratuitous display of power, if not the divine equivalent of a charlatan's 'table-rapping' trick.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Sam Albion]

you're right: "In ...[your]... short lifetime ...[certain] spiritual views... have become less 'fashionable' of late"...

...but that doesn't mean Man has given up on God. I don't believe we are evolving to become less spiritual. I think we're evolving to become more... sophisticated, in our thinking, the be more agile, mentally, but I do not think anyone is completely ready to give up on... "spiritual" ideas, and ideologies, just yet.

And we probably never will. No matter how old we become, magical thinking fuels the hopes and fears of mankind... We won't give up on the Gods. But yes, our tastes for Gods change over time, old Gods die, like Tinkerbelle, when man does not believe in fairies...

Yes, Mankind has grown bored of being bullied into accepting religion, mankind has grown weary of charlatans and snake oil sellers, and the infalliability of priests and kings, but that does not mean people do not still believe in God....

 

[taijasi]

Hi Andrew –

Invariably it seems, my responses to your posts inevitably result in a stream of invective and abuse, so on this occasion I shall tread trepidatiously. Rather than tackle the point of disagreement, I will endeavour to confine myself to what I see as hermenetic differences between our two outlooks.

You're a Catholic; I'm not. If that accounts for our differences, fair enough.

we view Christ as Logos, immanently present to all created logoi

You and I regard the concept of Logos and logoi differently. So, not much can be said. If we don't agree that there is nothing ontologically different between `Christ within' and `Buddha nature,' then no wonder we don't get along. Either someone's just being a stick in the mud, or we're getting hung up over semantics.

The Ageless Wisdom recommends that we do not try to understand the 2nd Ray, defined as `Love-Wisdom,' by attempting to identify two *distinct* energies or qualities present. Certainly it is the 2nd Ray which corresponds most directly [proceeds directly] from the 2nd Logos. And yes, it is said that in the Soul nature of some 2nd Ray disciples, the Love nature can be seen to predominate, while within others it is the Wisdom nature which comes to the fore. Already then, it is understandable that the student may become confused and feel that there is a contradiction in the Teaching. There is not.

But of course, aren't we already looking at things on different footing? Like I said, we don't speak the same language ... yet.

We view the separation of religion and spirituality as a false dichotomy

Yeah, I did point out at the end of my post that those who get caught up in excessive categorization and compartmentalization will tend to see things this way, while from the perspective of Those Who Know [using `Buddhi,' the Intuition] such dichotomies will vanish. But then, it was you that was railing on like this not so long ago. And Thomas, neither of us is free from the kind of dualities in our thinking which still get in the way of Higher Understanding.

The best we can hope for [and aspire to] is the occasional glimpse, the flash of Inspiration ... a moment of true Insight, wherein all outer divisions [and divisiveness] fall away. Then, true Unity is revealed and the resolution of all conflicts becomes Known. I believe Peter Gabriel speaks to this ...

But for traditional metaphysics, the way of the (esoteric) essence is in the (exoteric) forms ... and without an engagement in those forms, the essence is inaccessible and largely undreamed-of by those not initiated into the Mysteries. That's what Hermeticism and Alchemy is all about.

Fine, but don't get confused. Don't get caught up in the forms ... because the ones you're speaking of don't correspond with what Plato was indicating. He most certainly meant the esse/essence(s) ... and by no means the individual instances, or instantiations thereof. That's why, whether you say chair, or I say `silla,' we can both be speaking about the same thing ... and someone who understands both Spanish and English will know what we're talking about no matter who says it. Further, a child can draw a picture, and whether it is a Windsor-back, or the throne of the King of Norway, the basic idea will be communicated ... certainly if these are shown side by side, along with a pic of a simple folding chair, and if the question is asked: "What do all three of these represent?"

But of course, for some folks, this is asking too much, because it requires that we simplify. And that does not require any kind of high initiation, even if it is sometimes required that an Initiate remind us how important it is that we do it!

Don't get too caught up in the outer forms - the *opposite* of the Platonic Forms, or Ideals [Eidos/eidolon] - since it is always the true Esse/essence(s) which we're interested in. Remember, although the latter may be, and ultimately MUST be revealed within, or via the latter, given our current station on the Ladder of Life, it is also required that we learn to make the distinction, to be able to know the OCCUPANT of the vehicle(s) as separate from the car itself. Otherwise, you've posited a God who does indeed just kind of float out there in space, and then I'm 100% with Chris and I think you've built a little Stairway to Heaven all in your own head ... which is pleasant and poetic, and may help you to sleep at night, but hey, let's face it, once you croak, all that hard work is just gonna be toast.

No, the Firmament is abstract, relative to the concrete, in the sense that it is the Universal, the Ideal [from which spring ALL Ideals, Eidos & the eidolons]. The shakiest footing of all, is that which seems most firm beneath our feet. In this, the Gnostics and Manicheans are of course on the right track, and the River Jordan is well understand in its esoteric significance by the person who can grasp this. Otherwise, we are spiritual materialists, at best ... or perhaps pure idolaters.

Then again, I've noticed the pot likes to call the kettle black pretty damn near every day around here. I suppose I'm not the only one who might feel tempted to say, "All in a day's work" ... and I assure you, it's not simply because I prefer to minimize friction that I'm a little more quiet at IO recently. Frankly, Thomas, when it comes to these long, maximum-verbosity posts, it's really just a bit of exercise on my part, because it sure as hell seems a waste of time on yours. That might seem backwards, but I said it the way I mean it. The reverse, also, applies.

So whilst many assume they have 'out-grown' religion, what they're looking at is its fallible, carnal shell, as it were, and they judge it accordingly, with no awareness or reference to the essence within. They can't see the wood for the trees, as the saying goes. Nor should obe judge books by their covers.

Yes, some are not ready yet to "put off" the shell ... for we must first make ourselves one with this essence which you mention. But they have glimpsed the wood, that is for certain. I think it is you who have gotten a bit too comfortable camped out here beneath one certain tree. And yes, this wood is FULL of them.

I happen to believe they all share a common ROOT, but that is something far deeper than human eyes can see ... since even when He walks right by, it is really up to Him whether or not you perceive. We do get better, but not while we have our face pressed so firmly against the bark that we can't see past our own little false oasis.

Maybe it's time to turn around, humble yourself, and do what the Sage of the Shakyas did. Behold the forest, have the cojones to face a little bit of Mara for a change ... and recognize that not only under your own Tree [Tradition] do the Roots [ROOT] of the Father(s) run.

On the other hand the great mystics, from whom we derive our spiritual knowledge, have all, and always, belonged to a religious tradition, and observed its exoterisms as a vehicle of grace ... an exemplar is the relationship of the Sufi with Orthodox Islam, for example. In the case of Christianity, the margin is blurred precisely because orthodox Christianity is 'an esoterism in plain sight', as far as the pre-Reformation denominations are concerned.

The Master KH is a Sikh. The Tibetan Master DK presides over a large group of Tibetan lamas from time to time (from the esoteric perspective) ... and has been known by some as the Abbot of so & so Monastery. The Master M. wears a turban and will likely be recognized by some as a Hindu, while the Lebanese Master is known by His followers [including the Jebel Druz] as an Arab, presumably Muslim.

What's your point? These are the highest Initiates on the planet. The Buddha Shakyamuni is the most recent, but Maitreya will succeed Him. At least four Buddhas preceded Shakyamuni, depending on which brand of Buddhism you're studying ... but earlier forms of Buddhism would likely not resemble the Dharma as Siddhartha Gautama presented it. Nor would the Christianity which St. Augustine mentions be the same that was practiced by the earliest Christians after Christ Jesus. Here again, we need to understand the difference between the exoteric and the esoteric. If you want to say it's a little like the contents of the egg vs. its thin, outer shell, I'll go with that.

What's on the inside depends on when you ask. It may be something very primordial (`soup' it has been called) and difficult to distinguish as much other than a type of homogeneity [let's avoid the advanced metaphysics; it's really distracting] ... or it may begin to demonstrate how "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny." After a certain point, you will have a chicken, a dolphin, a human being or a Logos. Please don't throw the Hiranyagarbha out simply because you can recognize that bathtime is finally over.

The more we begin to understand, the more we realize how little we actually understand ... or `KNOW' ... and yes, in this GNOsis, humbling as it is, there are definitely, definite things that can be said. We can even affirm that both perspective are true ... for awhile [relatively speaking]. Duality exists; and so, too, does non-duality. Either face it [the facts], or aspire to ... or don't. Either struggle, as all of Humanity [individually, collectively] in the relative here & now [don't blink, even a few thousand lifetimes are over b4 u know eet, and guess what! it's almost time] ... or postpone the inevitable. Really there's not much choice, but the how & the where & the when definitely leave us a certain amount of latitude.

And I suppose if we're a bit jaded, or confused, or misled, it can and will sometimes seem/feel a lot like a cookie-cutter kind of `operation' ... but it's times like that when I remind myself: All those [these] friends from far, far away (the `far-off worlds,' Master M. calls them) are really and truly, damn near all of them, here to HELP. Yeah, we do have our own, `in-house' Help, but you can see with what lack of respect [belief, recognition, etc.] some of us regard Them ... and you can see what great Co-Operation [not] some of us are determined [come hell or high water] to [not] give them. OUCH.

And yeah, you can say that again.

Oh dear. Have we preceded to the sort of mindless drivel again that you just cannot bear to follow, dear Thomas? Oh well. I'll stop making sense then for awhile.

The false dichonomy lies in the fact that Christian spirituality is love, and love is dynamic, it is active — so what one does, even the most mundane act, is 'spiritualised' or more accurately 'sacramentalised', because one does it for the love of God. What you can't see, and what cannot be seen, is a spirituality not in action; where there is no activity, there is no spirituality.

I agree utterly. Now replace Christian with Buddhist, swap that out with Islamic, and replace either of these with Egyptian/Coptic ... even touch on the Atlantean relgions, forgotten as they are. If you are the one wearing the blinders, please don't expect me to walk off that cliff behind you, no matter how kind you are trying to be along the way. Sure, that thirsty man lying there on the road will welcome the water from your wineskin, my Aquarian WATER BROTHER. But he will NOT likely topple after you over the cliff, simply because you have had the Good Samaritan tendencies to help him along the Way. This is something that you need to consider. Thank Christ and your other encounters with the Great Ones, plus your Father in Heaven for your Virtue(s); but do not mistake the vessel in which they are carried. The `i' is merely being formed into a Chalice; the Chalice holds the water for the pouring.

"Water of life I am, poured forth for thirsty Men." Such are the words of the Aquarian (rather than the Piscean) Christ to all of Humanity, spoken so recently in our yearly sojourn around the Wheel ... and now, just as He told us, being spoken for ALL the world to hear ~ for 2000 or so years to come.

Don't forget that we begin our journey in ARIES, however, when Christ [the Soul, present within every person] says to us: "I come forth, and from the plane of mind I RULE." Simultaneously, from the perspective of matter, the form, the phrase is spoken: "Let form again be sought." How many more *agains* do you think we should spend here? 10? 100? 1000?

I think the answer should be reserved for oneself. Let it be a rhetorical. And if it upsets some to consider that they might actually have to be Responsible for their thoughts, words, actions and intentions ... then maybe that will teach us to THINK more CAREFULLY. And plan, and speak, and ACT more carefully. Yes, you are right Thomas. ACTIONS are where we can see true Spirituality!

But ignorance and Spirituality are not good bedfellows, even if nescience can be likened to the condition of the oak while yet within the acorn.

Let us not be the father, the nurturer or even the occasional water-boy of LIES. For I tell you, every WEED amidst these Roots shall be pulled. We are cultivating a Most Beautiful Garden.

 

[taijasi]

Consider the beatitudes ... or the Judgement according to Matthew: "... And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

So we are told, to address ONE Master of the Wisdom is to address any of Them, and to address Them all. Will you trip here, merely because you see your own feet?

Jesus made clear that "[He] and the Father are One." And those who know the Masters to be Initiate, to stand precisely where Jesus stood when He uttered those words, know that likewise, this phrase applies to ALL who take a certain Initiation. So too, in time, it will apply to me and to you.

Or, here again, kick against the pricks ... insist upon your limitations ... and watch!

What is intersting here is that the just ask "When?" because they are unaware of the activity of the Holy Spirit within, and this is the way of 'the Anonymous One', because they have no ego about what they do, that's why they're the meek of the beatitudes, that's why they're the poor of spirit, not because they're impoverished, but because they do not seek to possess it.

Here again, for the person not yet initiate, those who are fed on the MILK of St. Paul's epistles, it is certainly true that as the Spirit moves its INNER workings will quite likely remain only partially appreciated. They may be unaware that a Mahatma has walked past them in the grocery store. Not only have stranger things happened, but things such as this occur every day.

Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit refers to a type of Higher Understanding, on the other hand, it would be absurd to suggest that we experience such a disconnect that we are essentially ourselves one moment, suddenly become infused and innervated at another - speaking in all manner of tongues, with all sorts of hitherto unpossessed, unknown, unsuspected Wisdom - then as quickly returned to our prior state, left stupefied, mystified, and possibly none-the-Wiser.

Or then, in certain circumstances, would this not describe exactly what is seen to occur, and what is experienced on the part of the one experiencing the Divine Obsession. Perhaps it would help if someone who had actually HAD that happen to them was capable, or prepared, to make some kind of statement. Hmmmm. [And here I'm by no means volunteering or suggesting myself, or anyone else here at IO. For, those I know who fit the bill would never speak of such things, or certainly not quite like this.]

I do agree that we require a certain Humility ... before we may expect this kind of Divine Obsession; yes, I'll grant you that. The word used in the Ageless Wisdom is `detachment.' You may hope for the world's Liberation, you may yearn with all your heart & soul, hungering and thirsting as do those who thirst for Righteousness, for all of the world to gain its Freedom and share in Peace, Brotherhood, Cooperation and Enlightenment ... yet only through detachment, plus a seasoned, understandable enough maturity, will we come to see that such cannot occur overnight, or for all the planet all at once, or even for a single, living soul ~ save through intense Labor, and through earnest Aspiration.

This is the sweat of the brow [ACTION], plus the necessary response, evoked within the Human Heart BY God [or by God's GRACE, the Catholic will say] ... shewing forth within each of us as INVOCATION. And this we know as Prayer, Meditation ... Call & Response ... Communion, which is COMMUNICATION. It amazes me that people still do not believe that when we speak forth, calling upon God, God Responds. Which is more reasonable: That we should expect God to conform to our personal limitations and restrictions, conditions and peculiarities of language? Or that we should make at least some modest effort [let alone sincere, diligent application] to try and learn something of the Divine Language, and - speaking to God - also see if we might discern something of this ANSWER which eternally has issued forth in Response?

Gee whiz, Perfessir, is it really that simple?
Simple? Yes. I mean ... yes and no.

Start here. Try this on for `size.' Futurama Galaxy ... and in Portugeuse, in case you still aren't paying attention in that direction!

Okay, now let's check another reflex/reaction: Healing

I think you will find in time, if you have any doubts at present, that where Healing is, God is. Did that healing come to one human (or more) through another (or more)? Hmmmm. Or to animals via humans? Hmmm. To the Vegetable Kingdom? Hmmmm. And thus to the Mineral, and the entire Globe.

[... and let's not forget about the Deva Kingdom, either ... the Kingdom of God, of Heaven or of Souls!]

Healing, in short, IS a form of Communication from, because it requires Communion with - God. Where God is, Love is; and where [esoteric] Healing is, there too, Love is. It will catch on; these things just take time ... perhaps not unlike learning to respond to [~] at the Heart of our Galaxy, although that's getting a bit ahead of OurSelf[ves] ... Ha!

Note also there are no references to gnostics, esotericists or any other pseudo-spiritual elite — just plain old folks doing their plain old thing ... being thoughtful of, and nice to, others.

Why sure, Thomas, I can agree that it would be nice to "be thoughtful of others," and express intentional acts of kindness ... "doing unto" as we ourselves prefer to be done unto. And there's no need to call all sorts of attention to ourselves, and look for our name in lights, and expect that big pat on the back. When the Masters see those who expect and require all of this, they know, as always, that EGO is still in the way.

They don't care either if you spit on Their shoes. You wouldn't know your own Master if He walked right by you now ... would you?

Not while you're busy high-browing yourself over everyone who doesn't hum your tune, or whistle with just the right pucker, the way you keep demanding and expecting them to. Frankly, some of us don't LIKE your tune. We're quite happy with the one we have, thank you. Meanwhile, although we can see quite plainly that you MEAN well, and even that sometimes you manage to DO quite well - both for self, and others - we really just want you to lipread [since you have your fingers stuck quite deep into your own ears there]:

WATCH OUT FOR THAT CLIFF!!!

On the other hand, Jesus could heal NO ONE in his home town

Actually He could, and did ...

Quibbling, missing the point ... alright, now you're right on the precipice.

Nope, you've got that bit absolutely wrong. Christ rejects the idea of physical impediment being the result of sin, as was the common view of the day.

ahhhhhhhhhhh ... Kersplat!!!

There he went. Oh well, tried to warn you. Oh, dear Nicodemus. Maybe I've got you figured all wrong after all. Christ had a sit-down with that bloke now, didn't he. I assure you, I won't interrupt.

[The Bible, clearly Christ Himself, especially in certain episodes, teaches us] the Law of Rebirth

Sorry, but it does no such thing. It affirms that God disposes all things according to His plan. Nor does it mean God caused the man to be born blind so Christ could heal him, because that's in effect a gratuitous display of power, if not the divine equivalent of a charlatan's 'table-rapping' trick.s

Keep aiming, oh Sagittarian one. You'll hit the mark ...

 

[taijasi]

The Foo Fighters certainly don't need nice fancy smocks to see what Good is active in the world today ...

`My Hero'

This isn't really my musical preference, but when I understood the lyrics it became much easier to appreciate.

 

[Thomas]

You're a Catholic; I'm not. If that accounts for our differences, fair enough.

Yes it does.

You and I regard the concept of Logos and logoi differently.

Yes we do.

If we don't agree that there is nothing ontologically different between `Christ within' and `Buddha nature,' then no wonder we don't get along. Either someone's just being a stick in the mud, or we're getting hung up over semantics.

I tend to view that as a rather dogmatic and fundamentalist 'I am right and there can be no argument' position, if you ask me.

I would have rather thought it more a matter of hermeneutic. The distinctions between the two traditions are hermeneutic, and that's where the most fruitful dialogue occurs.

The Ageless Wisdom recommends that we do not try to understand the 2nd Ray, defined as `Love-Wisdom,' by attempting to identify two *distinct* energies or qualities present...

But I speak of the wisdom of God (cf 1 Corinthians 2) that was before all Ages, and before the Age of Ages, and we have the mind of the Logos of God (1 Corinthians 2:16) that is subject to no qualitative or quantitative determination.

But of course, aren't we already looking at things on different footing? Like I said, we don't speak the same language ... yet.

Evidently not. And I pray in time you will come to understand.

Yeah, I did point out at the end of my post that those who get caught up in excessive categorization and compartmentalization will tend to see things this way,

Then I suggest you harken to your own words.

The best we can hope for [and aspire to] is the occasional glimpse, the flash of Inspiration ... a moment of true Insight, wherein all outer divisions [and divisiveness] fall away.

Speak for yourself ... I have a better hope (cf Hebrews 7:19, 7:22, 8:6, 10:34, 11:16 and 11:35), I hope in Him. There is need of nothing other.

Fine, but don't get confused. Don't get caught up in the forms ...

That is precisely my message to you, if you would but see it.

... Oh dear. Have we preceded to the sort of mindless drivel again that you just cannot bear to follow, dear Thomas? Oh well. I'll stop making sense then for awhile.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Matthew 11:15, 13:9, Mark 4:9, 4:23, 7:16, Luke 8:8, 14:35).

God bless, for He is risen!

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

So we are told, to address ONE Master of the Wisdom is to address any of Them, and to address Them all.

I'm not sure whom you are addressing ... I address the One True God, "above every name that is named" (Ephesians 1:21).

Jesus made clear that "[He] and the Father are One." And those who know the Masters to be Initiate, to stand precisely where Jesus stood when He uttered those words,

Not quite, as He did not say 'I and the Father are many' ... and Jesus is incarnate of, not initiated into, for He said 'ego eimi' (John 8:58) which is above all initiation.

know that likewise, this phrase applies to ALL who take a certain Initiation.

I am an initiate.

So too, in time, it will apply to me and to you.

It applies to you now, if only you would admit of it. (cf Acts 17:28).

Or, here again, kick against the pricks ... insist upon your limitations ... and watch!

Taijasi — you constantly try and impose your alien limitations upon me, when Christ offers me the way, the truth and the life ... He offers Himself for me, without limitation.

Here again, for the person not yet initiate, those who are fed on the MILK of St. Paul's epistles, it is certainly true that as the Spirit moves its INNER workings will quite likely remain only partially appreciated.

Taijasi, it is evident by your rejection of the content of Christian Revelation that you are not an initiate even unto the milk of St Paul.

Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit refers to a type of Higher Understanding...

Which it isn't ... the Holy Spirit refers to God.

I do agree that we require a certain Humility ... before we may expect this kind of Divine Obsession; yes, I'll grant you that.

No, no more of your conditioning and limitation ... humility is humility, it's not 'a certain' humility ... it is humility.

God bless,

Thomas