Hi Nick —
I'm not sure how you determine 'governed by consciousness' —
To me, the universe as a physical entity is governed by natural laws. For some those laws speak implicitly of a creator — the big question not of 'how', but 'why' — for others, those laws speak only of the 'why' of it within themselves ...
Its axiomatic for me that consciousness is a quality of the soul, and there is more to the life of the soul than the physical — the first scientific philosophical investigation of the world began when man wondered 'how' things work, and the meta-physical investigation began when he asked 'why'.
It seems natural to man, for he is by nature inquisitive, to ask if there is not 'more to it than that', if there is not something 'outside the box' of the phenomenal world.
In making sense of it all, man is intimately aware of his own consciousness that can not only encompass all that is seen, but also speculate on all there might be that is not seen.
Man unites the universe in his consciousness, it becomes one thing, 'the world', to him, but it is still distinct from him. It is inevitable that he will speculate upon a mode of consciousness of things in which their very natures are transcended. But here's a paradox, he cannot transcend his own nature, nor can he make the nature of another his own ... he cannot be anything other than a man.
He seeks the One Thing that unifies all, something which must, by its nature, contain the nature of all things and also of itself.
It is towards this idea of unity, of one-ness, that the law of consciousness is directed, and this is the foundation of natural moral law, a law written 'in the heart' (cf Romans 2:15) that seeks the perfection — the good — not only of self, but of all things, the significant aspect of which is that all things should exist in right relation to all other things.
Sorry ... I'm rambling.
In Patristic metaphysics, they speak of the Son as Principle (Gk: Logos and/or Arche) and the Father as Principle without Principle (Arche Anarchos).
Nothing is impossible for God, as your wonderful quote from Simone Weil states, but the Son has made the possible so that Creation might exist.
Indeed. Is not the infinite always 'NOW', whereas the finite is 'NOW' only momentarily, being fixed as it appears, and thus becomes history and in that sense 'written' ... ?
Oh dear ... huge discursion into 'living in the moment' and living in receipt of the moment ...
Precisely. The created is not its creator.
Yes to the latter bit — the body is just the material form of the soul, it's not other than the soul in that aspect. But then, in the reports of beatific and even bliss experience, people record fragrances, sounds, colours, sensations, all consonant with the order of their experience. This is how the body knows God.
Re the former, yes God is outside time and space as He is Transcendant, but in the Christian Tradition He is also Immanent in, and indeed acts in time and space, Eckhart would not have refuted that.
It does, but I must decline. I'm doing a degree course (BA Divinity), and plan to go on beyond that, so I cannot commit to such a project. Good luck with it.
Thomas
I'm not sure how you determine 'governed by consciousness' —
To me, the universe as a physical entity is governed by natural laws. For some those laws speak implicitly of a creator — the big question not of 'how', but 'why' — for others, those laws speak only of the 'why' of it within themselves ...
Its axiomatic for me that consciousness is a quality of the soul, and there is more to the life of the soul than the physical — the first scientific philosophical investigation of the world began when man wondered 'how' things work, and the meta-physical investigation began when he asked 'why'.
Man unites the universe in his consciousness, it becomes one thing, 'the world', to him, but it is still distinct from him. It is inevitable that he will speculate upon a mode of consciousness of things in which their very natures are transcended. But here's a paradox, he cannot transcend his own nature, nor can he make the nature of another his own ... he cannot be anything other than a man.
I disagree in that I don't believe Man is conscious but rather asleep with the possibility of awakening as suggested in virtually all the traditions initiating with a conscious source. So from my perspective we are not Man but rather the seed of man with the seed of a soul.
It is towards this idea of unity, of one-ness, that the law of consciousness is directed, and this is the foundation of natural moral law, a law written 'in the heart' (cf Romans 2:15) that seeks the perfection — the good — not only of self, but of all things, the significant aspect of which is that all things should exist in right relation to all other things.
Yes to the latter bit — the body is just the material form of the soul, it's not other than the soul in that aspect. But then, in the reports of beatific and even bliss experience, people record fragrances, sounds, colours, sensations, all consonant with the order of their experience. This is how the body knows God.
<H4 align=center>THE FIRST METHOD OF PRAYER
</H4>The distinctive features of the first method of prayer are these. When a person stands at prayer, he raises hands, eyes and intellect heavenwards, and fills his intellect with divine thoughts, with images of celestial beauty, of the angelic hosts, of the abodes of the righteous. In brief, at the time of prayer he assembles in his intellect all that he has heard from Holy Scripture and so rouses his soul to divine longing as he gazes towards heaven, and sometimes he sheds tears. But when someone prays in this way, without him realizing it his heart grows proud and exalted, and he regards what is happening to him as the effect of divine grace and entreats God to allow him always to be engaged in this activity. Such assumptions, however, are signs of delusion, because the good is not good when it is not done in the right way.
If, then, such a person is pursuing a life of stillness and seclusion, he will almost inevitably become deranged. And even if this does not happen to him, it will be impossible for him to attain a state of holiness or dispassion. Those who adopt this method of prayer have also been deluded into thinking that they see lights with their bodily eyes, smell sweet scents, hear voices, and so on. Some have become completely possessed by demons and wander from place to place in their madness. Others fail to recognize the devil when he transforms himself into an angel of light (II Corinthians 2:14); and, putting their trust in him, they continue in an incorrigible state of delusion until their death, refusing to accept the counsel of anyone else. Still others, incited by the devil, have committed suicide, throwing themselves over a precipice or hanging themselves.
Re the former, yes God is outside time and space as He is Transcendent, but in the Christian Tradition He is also Immanent in, and indeed acts in time and space, Eckhart would not have refuted that.
1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
OK, makes sense to me. Metanoia is the "turning toward-" the willingness to open. Theosis is what can result from the grace of God and the assistance of Christ. For me it seems though that the more willing I am to open to Christ the more Christ acts to open me wider. earlHi Earl —
If Eriugena was around we could ask himThe Division of Nature is a definite case of thinking outside the box!
And yet I agree ... but then for us, full metanoia is a gift of the Holy Spirit — the 'meta' aspect is beyond the human into the divine — by adoption or as we say, filiation, although I prefer the Orthodox term theosis. So we don't work metanoia, it is worked in us ... by our incorporation into a greater nature than our own.
The work we do then, in your words, is that radical opening of the heart to what we are told is there even though we don't yet know what is there — it is and can only be an act of faith in one's tradition, the heart stepping out of its own knowing, its own light, through the veil, into the Spirit, and its knowing.
You can't think it. You have to do it.
+++
Of course then, those who do open new ground, beyond the perceived limits of the box, invariably become suspect ... Origen, Eckhart, de Chardin, Merton; it's not a short list by any means ... if only because their words are often obscure, and liable to misinterpretation. The lives of the mystics are often testimony of a 'raw deal' at the hands of their superiors.
If we didn't factor human nature into the discussion, we'd be talking about an intellectual utopia. Even a genius like Aquinas, whose advance was so measured, so precise, his method so rigorous as to be an exemplary model studied even today, still left his commentators room to doubt his philosophy ... I don't think they ever questioned his orthodoxy.
Thomas
Namaste Thomas,my 'argument' with subsequent developments of anti-traditional denominations in the West — post-reformation Christianity — is that to my mind at each step, each successive denomination, they seek to rationalise and thus limit the scope of Revelation, to bring it within man's grasp. Spiritual realities are reduced to signs and images, to myths and metaphors, and I think this strikes at the heart of your question ... so my inclination is always the other way ... not go out, but go deep.
+++
How does one put on the mind of Christ? You can't — it's His mind, not ours ... As I have been musing much of late, a nature cannot be other than itself, a nature cannot transcend itself ... transcendance by definition requires an exterior agent ... How do we do it then?
By imitation. By following His example, "not as I will but as thou wilt" ... and even simpler than that: "you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." John 13:34-35 and in that brotherly love, we shall taste the brotherly love of filiation, theosis, "you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you" John 14:17.
I think what we are straying from is getting stuck in 2000 year old understandings, understandings which have long outlasted their day and been held together by 'it's the inerrant word of G!d and can't be contradicted' type statements when in reality not only has science contradicted and society moved on, but it contradicts itself.
So I don't see us moving away. Some day when we can let go of what we hold onto for far to long as sacred, we'll find it easier to die daily and grow and see heaven in our midst.
Yep. The analogy is a good one. I read somewhere that Plato's Cave spelt the death of mythology, quite a philosophical treatise, have you come across it?As I see it, we are in Plato's cave.
That seems to sum us up quite nicely.The box itself is the cave which contains within it a myriad of smaller boxes and their various interpretations.
To acknowledge there might be more to life than me ... ?To think outside the box means first to experience the inner realization of ourselves in the cave.
Yep ... the individual logoi opens to the Logos.This realization is essentially metanoia which opens us to a new quality of intellect the heart is attracted to.
That's a good point, but we must allow that man invariably wants to know the new box before he abandons the old (sensible, in its way) ... fools rush in, and all that.Normally people argue about whose box is bigger and/or better or even if they exist as in atheism. The Christian experiences the value of leaving the box (cave) itself and what it requires to do so rather than relishing the egotistical joys of self justification and argueing boxes.
Namaste Thomas,Oh, that's a bit of an old chestnut, Wil. The 'contradiction' question has long since been resolved ...
If we let go of the Sacred, then in the light of what wisdom do we seek to shape ourselves, I wonder ... with what tools do we fashion the world ... and in who's image?
Well ... if that's how you see it ... but then maybe God looks at it differently?If God does act in time and space it would appear he does a selective and a bad job.
Precisely! If you insist on sitting under a coconut tree in Paradise, you're still likely to get brained ... but ... the point is, in this life God says "thou art always with me, and all I have is thine" (Luke 15:31). Like the elder brother of the Prodigal, we take it for granted, and we just don't see it.Jesus however said that being in the world, towers will fall on all people and our imagined goodness has nothing to do with it.
Indeed, but the way of it is love ... else we turn metanoia into some elite intellectual exercise like the Cathars or the Albigensians, the Gnostics and the Pelagians, the secret brotherhoods down through the ages ...It is through metanoia leading to re-birth that Man becomes consciously connected to the above.
Yes, indeed, Thomas, my sense of it is metanoia is as much a changed "heart condition" as it is a changed mental one. EarlWell ... if that's how you see it ... but then maybe God looks at it differently?
Precisely! If you insist on sitting under a coconut tree in Paradise, you're still likely to get brained ... but ... the point is, in this life God says "thou art always with me, and all I have is thine" (Luke 15:31). Like the elder brother of the Prodigal, we take it for granted, and we just don't see it.
But He's still there ... and the world will not be transformed until we are ...
Indeed, but the way of it is love ... else we turn metanoia into some elite intellectual exercise like the Cathars or the Albigensians, the Gnostics and the Pelagians, the secret brotherhoods down through the ages ...
... where would they put the robber on the Cross in their scheme of things? The publican in the temple? The widow, the prostitute, the child playing in the dirt? The disowned and the dispossessed? The very people whom Jesus walked with, talked with, ate with and drank with.
Thomas
Yep. The analogy is a good one. I read somewhere that Plato's Cave spelt the death of mythology, quite a philosophical treatise, have you come across it?
To acknowledge there might be more to life than me ... ?
But then, immediately man wants to organise the box according to himself. That was the serpent's promise, really, and Jesus' rebuke of Peter (which reminds me, we must talk elsewhere ...)
But He's still there ... and the world will not be transformed until we are ...
John 17
6"I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
Indeed, but the way of it is love ... else we turn metanoia into some elite intellectual exercise like the Cathars or the Albigensians, the Gnostics and the Pelagians, the secret brotherhoods down through the ages ...
Nick A, you seem to be making the assumption that one does not encounter a "higher" consciousness by "faith in Jesus." My reading of Christian contemplatives and my own personal, limited experiences might suggest otherwise. Though, relative to "consciousness expansion" I would agree that typically some form of contemplative or meditative practice is integral to that. earl
Nick A, I only have 2 words for you: Meister EckhartThe first quote listed in particular is a testimony to the realization of what you speak. earl
Meister Eckhart
Actually lied-have more than 2 words. I made a somewhat similar statement recently in some other thread or another that ultimate faith was none other than the faith to totally open the heart-mind of consciousness which is attainable via Christ. I'm sounding more like Thomas in my older age, but you appear to want to speak of "esoteric Christianity" but without the Christ part.
Mrs. Schucman, co-author of "A Course in Miracles", who said "suffering did not exist" died a painful death from pancreatic cancer barely a year after publishing the book "A Course in Miracles". Schucman, a Columbia University professor and psychologist, was an acquaintance of Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.. Fr. Groeschel gave a eulogy at her funeral. Fr. Groeschel wrote, "This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did not exist spent the last two years of her life in the blackest psychotic depression I have ever witnessed." Fr. Groeschel is a holy, practical, wise, no nonsense priest, and psychologist. During an October 1994 lecture on "Discernment" given at Holy Cross Church, Rumson, N.J., Fr. Groeschel stated that he believed that Helen Shucman's experience with the channeled "spirit" was possibly a true diabolic manifestation. Fr. Groeschel's experience as a psychologist and priest included being called upon by his Bishop to investigate reported diabolic manifestations in his New York City diocese. In the lecture Fr. Groeschel described one experience — called as an exorcist — where he witnessed objects unexplainably being thrown about a room. At the end of a lengthy discussion he attributed that particular experience to paranormal manifestations — but not diabolic in nature. According to Fr. Groeschel, Helen Schucman's "channeled spirit" denies that our Lord Jesus Christ came to the earth in the flesh. An abstract of "the Course" can be written based solely on two lines of the "spirit" channeled writings.