Christianity Outside the Box

[Quahom1]

Glad to see you getting warmed up again Thomas.

 

[Nick_A]

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

Hi 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 ...

You seem to appreciate the universe as one level of existence while I see the universe structured upon levels of reality called cosmoses connecting a ladder or hierarchy of intentions.

God is pure being, consciousness, containing all conscious potential. Creation is the beginning of mechanical laws manifesting in time and space. On each descending cosmos there is an increase in mechanical laws and a decrease in consciousness.

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.

But the human condition suggested by St. Paul in Romans 7 is that we are the "wretched man." So as much as parts of us delight in sacred truth, the majority of our collective being doesn't want it and struggles against it.

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.

Here I'm obligated to raise a caution and why I remain far away from some modern teachings. Take from it what you will:

"The Three Methods of Prayer" -- St. Simeon the New Theologian

<H4 align=center>THE FIRST METHOD OF PRAYER

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.

</H4>

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.

If God does act in time and space it would appear he does a selective and a bad job. Jesus however said that being in the world, towers will fall on all people and our imagined goodness has nothing to do with it. It is through metanoia leading to re-birth that Man becomes consciously connected to the above.

Luke 13:

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."

According to Jesus, the Father doesn't intervene.

 

[earl]

Hi Earl —

If Eriugena was around we could ask him The 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

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. earl

 

[Thomas]

Hi Earl —

Now that, I like! As the wise man said, "Now you're cookin'!"

+++

You know that story, attributed to Augustine?

I wonder ... He's thinking about writing a book on the Trinity, walking along a beach, working it out in his head, when he comes across a kiddie emptying the ocean into a hole in the sand? Brief exchange, kiddie says words to the effect: "I'll empty that ocean into this hole before you get your head round the Trinity."

Augustine gets the point. You can't get your head round the Trinity. So the logical step is to think of another book, surely? But he doesn't, he goes ahead and writes it anyway ... so what's the point, I wonder? What did Auguistine get from the exchange?

I think Augustine was struggling to put the whole thing together in his head, but the kiddie showed him that if he could do that, he's dealing with a finite mystery ... but the kiddie taught him that he's dealing with an Infinite Mystery ... there's no end to the Mystery.

As long as he keeps that in mind, he can write his book.

And he did. And it's brilliant ... inspired.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

As this is 'outside the box' can I beg your indulgence and keep posting?

I was eavesadropping on my guardian angel just now, and I swear I heard him mutter 'idiot... '

For a Traditional Christian, 'thinking outside the box' is putting on the mind of Christ ... I mean, who's more 'out of the box' than He? How can you be more out of the box than in Him? There isn't any outside of the Logos ...

+++

As a Tiberman (hmm ... Thomas Tiberman, has a certain ring?) 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.

It's not in what we know, it's in what we do. If only we could give up trying to figure it out, and just got on with the blindingly obvious ... don't think ... don't rationalise ... just do.

Love thy neighbour ... you can't rationalise it, or think your way to it, you just have to bloomin' well get on with it. It's the easiest thing in the world to know (I know my neighbour exists, morwe than I do God) it's the hardest thing in the world to do — I mean, have you seen what some of these people look like? Have you heard what they think about? Just get on with it...

As our Zen bretheren would say: 'Chop wood, carry water ... '

If we all did just that, there'd be no other questions.

Having said all that, as a Tiberian (aren't they in Star Trek?), I think the Loving-Kindness Meditation — mettabhavana — is a blinder! If there is one thing I would bring into the tradition, I think it would be that.

Thomas

 

[wil]

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.

Namaste Thomas,

I agree fully that putting on the mind, that walking the walk is where Christianity and Christians should be headed, but disagree that our western denominations are all straying from that or from Revelation. 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.

It all worked fine when we were trying to understand natural phenomena by explaining it with the supernatural, but our geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists now have an understanding that supercedes that of those writers...who are attributed to revelation. We can see the storm coming, we understand why the locusts swarm, and it can't be blamed on G!d or some critter called the devil.

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.

 

[Thomas]

... and another thing!

When it comes to 'thinking outside the box' — we Catholics get more stick than any other, accused by all and sundry of seeing stuff in Scripture that's not there, like the Holy Trinity ... and for inventing doctrines ... the Eucharist, theosis, the Assumption, Transubstantiation ...

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

As I see it, we are in Plato's cave. The box itself is the cave which contains within it a myriad of smaller boxes and their various interpretations. To think outside the box means first to experience the inner realization of ourselves in the cave. This realization is essentailly metanoia which opens us to a new quality of intellect the heart is attracted to.

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.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

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.

Oh, that's a bit of an old chestnut, Wil. The 'contradiction' question has long since been resolved ...

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.

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?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

As I see it, we are in Plato's cave.

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?

The box itself is the cave which contains within it a myriad of smaller boxes and their various interpretations.

That seems to sum us up quite nicely.

To think outside the box means first to experience the inner realization of ourselves in the cave.

To acknowledge there might be more to life than me ... ?

This realization is essentially metanoia which opens us to a new quality of intellect the heart is attracted to.

Yep ... the individual logoi opens to the Logos.

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.

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.

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 ...)

Thomas

 

[wil]

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?

Namaste Thomas,

I am referring to letting go of what man has made sacred. And it isn't wisdom, it is tradition that has outlived its time.

As far as contradictions go, there are many and some of the resolutions that have been put forth are such stretches.

 

[Thomas]

If God does act in time and space it would appear he does a selective and a bad job.

Well ... if that's how you see it ... but then maybe God looks at it differently?

Jesus however said that being in the world, towers will fall on all people and our imagined goodness has nothing to do with it.

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 ...

It is through metanoia leading to re-birth that Man becomes consciously connected to the above.

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

 

[earl]

Well ... 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

Yes, indeed, Thomas, my sense of it is metanoia is as much a changed "heart condition" as it is a changed mental one. Earl

 

[Nick_A]

Hi 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?

No I haven't read it but I don't see why it should be the case.

To acknowledge there might be more to life than me ... ?

I believe it is the opposite and depends on how we define "me." We are not "present" in our lives. They just happen.just as everything else just happens in reaction to universal laws. If this is the case, questions like "who am I," and "why am I here" become natural.

To acquire presence I believe is the same as the faith OF Christ. Unfortunately faith as a concept has degenerated into faith IN Christ which IMO loses its value.

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 ...)

Yes, the inevitable descent into facets of Christendom led by various experts in self deception. IMO it is only some rare ones that are willing to become like a salmon, avoid these "experts," and swim upstream back to the source.

The same happened to the Church. Simone Weil recognized it which is why she is not part of the Church and considered the Patron Saint of Outsiders.

But He's still there ... and the world will not be transformed until we are ...

But why do you think the world will be transformed? Jesus seems to say that it cannot be by saying he is not praying for the world.

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 ...

But we are incapable of love which is why we need help that is an awakening influence towards consciousness. The quality of love you are referring to IMO is our potential. The higher conscious mind is not the same as the associative dual mind we mistake for consciousness. It is no more conscious than a computer and have you ever seen a conscious computer?

 

[earl]

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]

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

Hi Earl

First of all there is a difference between higher consciousness and the usual experience of altered states of consciousness. A lot of what people call religious experience or the results of faith IN Jesus is really just an excess of emotional energy creating a frenzy and fantasy. The Christian is concerned with the energy of the Spirit which is of a greater quality not initiating from the earth as does our emotional energy and cannot be present as we are engulfed in imagination.

Faith IN Christ is created unconsciously in you while the Faith OF Christ requires consciousness to sustain. The disciples asked Christ to increase their faith even though they believed in him to such a degree as to abandon their secular lives in order to follow him. They lacked the faith OF Christ I know as "presence" which only comes through conscious practice.

 

[earl]

Nick A, I only have 2 words for you: Meister Eckhart The 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.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick A, I only have 2 words for you: Meister Eckhart The 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.

I have respect for what love is capable of it which is why I'm open to admit that we are incapable of anything beyond selective love.

I am open to the value of Jesus sacrifice which is why I respect it enough not to make it an object of idolatry.

We underestimate what we lose by blindly accepting and justifying the human condition. We overestimate ourselves and are not able to experience our nothingness. We live in a dream and people presume that we can know Christ. We don't appreciate how quickly this turns into idolatry at best and demonic as worst.

There is something called "A Course in Miracles" which pretends being in touch with Christ. Yet it might not be the case if you consider how its founder died:

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.

We can say faith in Christ but if this faith is idolatry of a creation of our ego defenses, what actually do we have faith in?

A Christian starts at the begining in recognition of our nothingness and the first step with the help of the Spirit is working on our own being. Yet how many involved in Christendom think they are something special because they "have faith IN Christ." It is like a bargain. I celebrate you and you'll help me out. It doesn't work that way

 

[earl]

So, what have you realized through your experiences with Christ? What are your experiences with Christ? Do your experiences have anything to do with Christ? I value the experiential, the actual, the personal, not simply the thought experiment. I have at times described how I actually relate to Christ in various threads. Practice is in the actual. What do you actually do? earl

 

[earl]

PS, I'm nothing special. Also doubt that whatever suffering Helen Schucman underwent her last few years that it had anything to do with a "diabolical spirit." earl