The Secret: A Cosmic Dream Machine - Page 2

Quahom1 · 04-03-2007, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Belittling anyone, even Biblical literalism, is not cool. Agreed. Nor scorn, so yes, I'll chill. Not even the place for it, I get you.

But I do have a question ... for Blazn, really. If this is no more than the Amen Corner, then why the posts on things like `The Secret?' Why not just post Bible quotes all day, and stick to what you know? Why even broach a topic like The Secret, if it's going to be done where there's no hope of coming to terms?

Perhaps it was my reactionism that capsized the vessel. I see this plain as day. All seemed to be going well ... till a couple of posts that rustled my feathers. I believe the boys from Jethro Tull said it best:

Jump up, look around,

find yourself some fun,

no sense in sitting there hating everyone.

No man's an island and his castle isn't home,

the nest is for nothing when the bird has flown.

Ah, this golden hen. I can't get her to sit for anything!

Mr. Hyde, ha ha. good one

And some call me ...

~andrew

It is a good article for discussion Andrew. Gotta watch what is said about other's ways of believing though (negative remarks don't make for good conversation).

v/r

Joshua

AndrewX · 04-03-2007, 04:55 AM

ROFL ... just out of curiosity, have you read the original article by Montenegro?

Yes, I get your point. By chance, do you get mine?

If I might restate it in a more friendly, abbreviated fashion ... it is simply that I believe:

our existence is not fundamentally separate, one from another, Humanity from the planet, the planet from its Creator(s), and the Creator(s) from Humanity

Distinctions, yes. Degrees of Intelligence, yes. Perhaps also different types. Degrees of Creativity, yes. And Degrees of Power, or Divine Potential, yes.

I realize that Christians choose to ask for these energies, abilities, potentials ... "in Jesus' name." Yet followers of other faiths do so in the name(s) of other Saviors, Prophets, even other names for God entirely.

I look at `The Secret' as an opportunity for Christians to meet with people of other faiths, beliefs, and life paths (some spiritual or religious, others more scientifically or secularly minded) ... and vice versa, and maybe see points of accord. If they are there (these points), they will come to the surface. And the Synchronicity, as it has already been said, will happen.

I can ask this in God's name, and know that I do so with right motivation, right intent. Is it "just a wish?" I think of it more as Invocation, a new presentation of an ancient form of prayer.

You won't get all of America, or the UK, or the world, to join hands in prayer. That may be unfortunate, but I'm afraid it's true - for some time to come. Meanwhile, if people approach Spirituality scientifically, or in some practical form that resonates with them, then what's the difference?

Isn't the power (and again, the Intelligence, the Creativity, the Love) being invoked - or wished/desired - the same as that to Whom and which Christians pray?

I have a much harder time believing that there are multliple gods out there, a literal pantheon of competing entities or forces, all vying for Humanity's attention and worship ... and that "just one" out of all these potential deities is the one true real and Eternal Power ...

... than just thinking, hmmm ... lots of ways to pray and approach God, many different religions, various names and outward means of observation - but gee, One Almighty Ruler Who is "way beyond tribal" at this point.

And that's why `The Secret' doesn't scare me, or give me the slightest cause for concern, or make me feel I need to grab my Bible. I don't buy into it fully, either. But I do not fear it, or feel the need to resist. This is for the same reason that I do not fear or resist Spanish-speakers. I just seek to understand, and find common points of interest. Plus it helps when I go to order Mexican.

Dor · 04-03-2007, 05:25 AM

So Andrew are you a Morman?

Quahom1 · 04-03-2007, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewX

ROFL ... just out of curiosity, have you read the original article by Montenegro?

Yes, I get your point. By chance, do you get mine?

If I might restate it in a more friendly, abbreviated fashion ... it is simply that I believe:

our existence is not fundamentally separate, one from another, Humanity from the planet, the planet from its Creator(s), and the Creator(s) from Humanity

Distinctions, yes. Degrees of Intelligence, yes. Perhaps also different types. Degrees of Creativity, yes. And Degrees of Power, or Divine Potential, yes.

I realize that Christians choose to ask for these energies, abilities, potentials ... "in Jesus' name." Yet followers of other faiths do so in the name(s) of other Saviors, Prophets, even other names for God entirely.

I look at `The Secret' as an opportunity for Christians to meet with people of other faiths, beliefs, and life paths (some spiritual or religious, others more scientifically or secularly minded) ... and vice versa, and maybe see points of accord. If they are there (these points), they will come to the surface. And the Synchronicity, as it has already been said, will happen.

I can ask this in God's name, and know that I do so with right motivation, right intent. Is it "just a wish?" I think of it more as Invocation, a new presentation of an ancient form of prayer.

You won't get all of America, or the UK, or the world, to join hands in prayer. That may be unfortunate, but I'm afraid it's true - for some time to come. Meanwhile, if people approach Spirituality scientifically, or in some practical form that resonates with them, then what's the difference?

Isn't the power (and again, the Intelligence, the Creativity, the Love) being invoked - or wished/desired - the same as that to Whom and which Christians pray?

I have a much harder time believing that there are multliple gods out there, a literal pantheon of competing entities or forces, all vying for Humanity's attention and worship ... and that "just one" out of all these potential deities is the one true real and Eternal Power ...

... than just thinking, hmmm ... lots of ways to pray and approach God, many different religions, various names and outward means of observation - but gee, One Almighty Ruler Who is "way beyond tribal" at this point.

And that's why `The Secret' doesn't scare me, or give me the slightest cause for concern, or make me feel I need to grab my Bible. I don't buy into it fully, either. But I do not fear it, or feel the need to resist. This is for the same reason that I do not fear or resist Spanish-speakers. I just seek to understand, and find common points of interest. Plus it helps when I go to order Mexican.

Well I did read the article. And I have to laugh abit, as the author states this "movement" originated in the 1800s by Swedenborg and friends, when in reality this form of philosophy/theology/theosophy comes from druidic origns circa 350 BCE (and probably older than that).

One of the problems of the melding of this and Christianity is that the two are more or less opposed to each other in base beliefs. One problem that immediately comes to mind is trying to serve two masters (God and self). There is an immediate conflict.

Reality is that though we individually do have "power", we need guidance from that which gave us that power. Without that guidance we go from a potential nuclear power house to a potential nuclear bomb.

The irony of life is that the younger (maturity wise) we are, the less inclined we are to seek guidance, yet the older we become, we tend to look for more guidance. This is for people in general (not any of us specifically). And right now I opine that mankind is a very 'young' race.

Jesus was pretty specific on how we are to receive what we want (and it wasn't a wish list, but an expectation to be fulfilled). He said, "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all shall be given to you" (para).

Then He instructed us again to Seek and you shall find, ask and you shall recieve, knock and the door shall be opened.

As far as Christians being low life sinners...no, that isn't what God wants us to look at ourselves as. What he want's is for us to acknowledge that we are out of balance with God, and we need God to come back into balance with God, and we need His help to do so.

Back to the "secret" concept.

I think there are some good points about the philosophy if taken into proper context. I personally believe in the Arthurian style of Christianity which is strongly influenced by nature's energy within our lives. However, nature takes a back seat to God. That is to say that nature is a tool or a natural balm for life, while God is THE SOURCE of life. I believe Jesus was trying to tell us that as well.

my two cents

v/r

Joshua

Dor · 04-03-2007, 05:38 AM

Thats the problem Q.
In my opinion they all need to meld it with Christianity because they all know it can not stand on its on.

Quahom1 · 04-03-2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dor

Thats the problem Q.
In my opinion they all need to meld it with Christianity because they all know it can not stand on its on.

Well it can't stand on it's own because there is no "guide" to speak of. Their thinking is that God is nice to have around but we hold the answers and the power within ourselves. Yes on the latter, no on the former. The truth is man can not unlock his potential without God using the "key". And God has no intention of allowing the "pandora's box" to fly open and let eveything out at once, no matter how badly man wants it. Now if man sought out God's kingdom first...so to speak then God let's out what is needed at the time for man to develop. Then He let's out a little more as time goes on.

v/r

Joshua

Quahom1 · 04-03-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Andrew quote: Ah, this golden hen. I can't get her to sit for anything!

Well then you need someone like Orson Scott Card's "Arthur Stuart" character, to have the "hen" sit for you (Alvin Maker, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, series).

AndrewX · 04-03-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dor

So Andrew are you a Morman?

Hmmmm. From a Christian frame of reference, you might say, close enough.

Maybe I'm a little bit Mormon, but with definite Gnostic overtones. I'm also quite keen on what Q is saying re Druidry, or at least, the Arthurian legends. I like Path of One's posts, and also the Christian Mysticism of St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, and Joan of Arc. I can't quite tune in yet to Joan's inspirations (her Voices) ... but that's what the Path of Purity is for.

I actually revolt, strongly even, to the notion that mankind is somehow - or in any fashion, for that matter - "greater than" God. Our equality, I maintain, comes from the fact (or so I believe) that for God, and thus for anyone so attuned, there is only ONE, and no second at all. This may seem like a copout of an answer to the problem of the One and the Many, but in essence I believe as the Buddhists believe - the world of mayavic appearances is ultimately illusion.

What this means is not that nothing, or no one, exists, but rather, as Bishop Berkeley maintained, only God does. How can any of us prove this, other than as an interesting intellectual possibility, unless we seek to discover on our own the signficance of Christ's words, "I and the Father are ONE"?

I get lost in all the Christian theology, honestly, and I know this isn't about the Trinity ... but I believe that Christ proceeds from the Father, as does the 3rd Aspect, yet all three - no matter how we seek to understand them - are ultimately the Expression(s) of the Absolute (as Nick has said, speaking as a Theosophist).

From THAT level proceeds the notion, and the fact, of a non-duality with regard to our Being, and God's Being, such that we are all Sons of the One Father ... yet one with Him, even in Essence. The difference, the distinction, can be found in the degree to which any of us - or any group of us - manifests this Inner, Essential Oneness outwardly.

This is an obvious apparent contradiction, to the mortal mind. And so the Mystics have always struggled to express even a hint of this Oneness which they have felt, or experienced, and even that struggle often takes place within the personality, after (in terms of time and space) their original mystical experience.

Are we really any less than they - just because it's 2007, the Internet is here, and we have these discussions and sharings on the Web?

I have long considered myself, at CR and in various other Cyberspatial venues, literally in the company of Saints. A disciple, esoterically defined, may have a different meaning than the more conventional, Christian definition, often exchanged with Apostle.

So while I might not believe that everyone here is Christ's appointed Apostle - as per 2100 years ago - I do think that darn-near everyone, probably everyone, who posts at CR with any frequency, IS a disciple. I just have no problem whatsoever with the idea that various of us have different, or differing, associations ... with perhaps a dozen or more individual Masters, and to penetrate much farther into this line of inquiry gets squarely to the heart of the question about The Secret.

The Secret, to me, is that these various, other avenues, or paths to God - can be known. They can be not merely studied, or speculated upon, they can be understood intimately, personally, and claimed as one's own ... trodden, with much the same goals as those of Christians, seeking to Serve the Lord. Ultimately, all true Teachers are united, as I see it, under the umbrella of the Christ, for He is the Lord of Lords, and Master of Masters - the Teacher alike of Angels and of Men (or so it has been said).

The methods, however, for advancing spiritually - though the same inwardly - will differ from East to West, and even from one Teacher to another. The goal is for there to be cooperation between, and among, all who seek to Serve, yet there are different forms of discipline, and methods of traveling the path. I don't like the way esoteric teachings are trivialized, or efforts made to dumb them down into some supposed set of universally applicable, magical concepts.

This is where I would say that while the essence may be simple, its application is more than a little difficult. In fact, it turns out to be the hardest thing we've ever attempted - either individually, or as a planet, as a race! This is because of the familiar struggle, between the two "natures" of man. Much, if not most, of the confusion, which I see arising in discussions such as these, comes from an inadvertent blurring of the lines, or failure to speak along similar terms, when it comes to this point.

Yes, some differences may be irreconcilable. But what the Occultist comes to accept as the ABC regarding himself, the Divine (or God), Humanity and the world around him ... will either find its complement, or correlation, within the Christian framework, or else the two will ever speak (shout? argue?) with each other across an unbridgeable gulf.

Certain principles are just basic, and Nick has done an excellent job of spelling out what Theosophists believe. I am not quite a Theosophist, and I think Nick's list is a bit lengthy, so I might sum up a couple of noteworthy points here, then I promise to fade out a bit, unless there's an interest.

Hermetic Axiom: `As it is above, so it is below. As it is within, so it is without.' - In short, the Divine has mirrored, or reflected Himself into Humanity. Faithful said this. And the converse is that by studying nature, and Humanity (God's Creations), we can learn something about God.

Spirit and Matter are two poles, or expressions of the same thing, not a fundamental duality, or dichotomy. Further, they meet upon every level of existence, and where they meet, Consciousness is the result. Every speck, every atom, of matter, therefore, has consciousness (as it does Spirit, however latent). These three, Spirit, Consciousness, and matter, are a Trinity (with obvious correspondences in Christianity), and they are synthesized by LIFE, which equates with GOD.

Yet, if no anthropomorphism is applied - and I would eschew such - then a certain type of hierarchy does naturally reveal itself ... simply by the inherent structure of the Universe. LAWS ultimately govern this structure, not the arbitrary whim, or desire(s), of some Being who is Himself subject to these very Laws!!!

This is contradiction. To say that God is above and beyond the LAW is a meaningless statement. We can only say, with the best of our understanding and knowledge, as supported by the Bible, or any other sacred text, that the greatest law is LOVE ... and thus that God, as God, is LOVE. We cannot divorce God's Nature, Being, or `Self,' from the Law of Love. This does not mean that there is nothing "beyond" - but for us, with our present understanding, the point is not even academic! {But challenge me, if you will, by telling me what is Greater than God-AS-Love? Remember, this is the SOURCE of all that we know, the Sustainer, as well as the Future.}

If we feel that Jesus is a magnet, drawing all men unto the Father ... then an esotericist will nod, and affirm that none of us comes to Mastery of the Laws of the Spirit, before we have gained knowledge, right use, and therefore increasing mastery overy the Laws of Consciousness ... yet even while we are striving toward this goal, we must also work to master the least aspect of our being, which is matter, our material aspect - body, emotions, mind. Matter must be brought under control of Consciousness, and Consciousness is in turn mastered by Spirit.

The distinctions are not quite the same as many Christians may be used to. Fair enough. Yet the discussion of the Laws of Attraction rings out to me with more or less clarity as a call to make further inquiry regarding these subjects. If Christ is the magnet that draws the Consciousness of Humanity inward and upward, through the portal of Knowledge, Love and Sacrifice (Service) toward the One Spirit ... then why should we not be studying the application of Christ's teachings to material life in the world today ... just because the motifs, the setting, the challenges, the technology, the political struggles, and religious & cultural settings - are not all thoroughly Biblical?

Matter is not God's outcast, unwanted refuse. It is not "dead" or inert. It is part of God's living substance, and must be Spiritualized through the activity of the Mediating Principle upon it. That Mediator, re the world at large, is US .... HUMANITY, the Consicousness of the Human Family, Spiritually considered. Relative to Humanity, the Mediator is CHRIST. And esotericsts even speak of yet higher centers, which Mediate between our Planet and the `Father's House.'

This is all I can say at 3am, writing in the shadow of one of Christianity's Greatest Adepts, rather than at the hem of his aura. It's a bit to chew on; not sure I can even digest it myself. Just remember: often we see a good bit of ourselves in the world around us, even in freaky people like me. And that's when folks are clear & concise.

Peace ...

~andrew

I, Brian · 04-03-2007, 11:42 AM

As this thread seems to be little connected to mainstream Christianity, and as the discussion is touching a lot more on esoteric issues...I'll move the thread to the Esoteric board.

Thomas · 04-03-2007, 12:57 PM

Hi Andrew –

... it's just the dire heresy of separateness which I think needs to come to an end.

Agreed. But that does not mean assuming that 'God' and 'man' is the same thing, or that man can enter Union with the Divine on his own terms.

With regard to Jesus Christ, put it this way, can you or I say: "No one comes to the Father except by [via] me"?

Thomas

Dondi · 04-03-2007, 01:54 PM

Just a clarification of an earlier post, Psalm 82:6 seems at the surface to proclaim godhood to humanity:

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (KJV)

But if one would read the Psalm in context it is clear in the next verse that there is a complete reversal:

"But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."

This doesn't appear to be a favorable evaluation of man after all, does it? But the whole Psalm entire illustrates how some judge unjustly. Judges are sometimes seen as gods because of the automony of their office. But because God is the judge of them, they will be accouintable for how they judges, in this case, they will die like men.

When Jesus employed this Psalm, look who He was addressing, these scribes and Pharisees that were judging Jesus, calling Him a blasphemer. I'm sure this reference to unjust judges in Psalm 82 wasn't lost on these experts in the Law. They got His point, for Jesus was merely turning their accusations right back at them for what they were doing to the people of Israel (see Matthew 23 - the woes).

These scribes and Pharisees could not see the forest for the trees. After all the miracles and healings Jesus performed, they didn't recognize whom they were addressing. And even after the "Ye are gods" statement, they still sought to take Jesus.

But moving on, I do want to touch on something Andrew said concerning Jesus' "I and the Father are ONE" proclamation. While it is apparent that Jesus here is making Himself equal with God (for the Jews did pick up stones), I keep coming back to what Jesus said in a later chapter in John:

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." - John 17:9-11

And again:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." - John 17:21-26

Well, that's The Secret right there! If we are going to be ONE it is going to have to be in subjurgation with God.

Deuteromony 28:

"And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God....
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:" - Deuteronomy 28:1-2, 15

It is a simple choice of obedience. That's what Laws (even this so-called Law of Attraction) were made for.

Thomas · 04-03-2007, 02:45 PM

Hi Dondi –

The Catholic (and I believe common Christian) understanding of the Psalm follows your exegesis, that 'gods' in this sense refers to the function accorded to the judge.

Referring to the rest of your post, from a general Christian perspective, as long as Christ is perceived as purely human (and even as an avatara) then these and other verses become little more than sentimental nonsense.

Only as the Incarnate Logos can Christ say what He says with anything more than poetic license – as C.S. Lewis wrote, either this man was Bad, was Mad, or He is God.

My contention with the New Age is twofold:
1: We must be discreet to make sure that we are saying that we are glorified in Him, not He is glorified in us
2: When one talks of the 'God in me' one is necessarily talking of something that transcends the human state, so is not 'me' in that sense – in fact I would suggest that it is a rather naive presentation of the idea that I exist because God wills it, so God's will 'underwrites' my being, but is no part of my being in that sense ... 'I' exist because God wills it, but that does not make what God wills Divine ... although in the human context the creature is called to Union with its Creator ... when the creature dies, God no longer wills its being and in this sense that willing returns to God ... where 'I' go might be otherwise, and this is the death spoken of in Scripture. Again, the New Age makes the error of assuming that the 'God in me' is synonymous with 'me'.

Thomas

Dondi · 04-03-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

Referring to the rest of your post, from a general Christian perspective, as long as Christ is perceived as purely human (and even as an avatara) then these and other verses become little more than sentimental nonsense.

Only as the Incarnate Logos can Christ say what He says with anything more than poetic license – as C.S. Lewis wrote, either this man was Bad, was Mad, or He is God.

My contention with the New Age is twofold:
1: We must be discreet to make sure that we are saying that we are glorified in Him, not He is glorified in us
2: When one talks of the 'God in me' one is necessarily talking of something that transcends the human state, so is not 'me' in that sense – in fact I would suggest that it is a rather naive presentation of the idea that I exist because God wills it, so God's will 'underwrites' my being, but is no part of my being in that sense ... 'I' exist because God wills it, but that does not make what God wills Divine ... although in the human context the creature is called to Union with its Creator ... when the creature dies, God no longer wills its being and in this sense that willing returns to God ... where 'I' go might be otherwise, and this is the death spoken of in Scripture. Again, the New Age makes the error of assuming that the 'God in me' is synonymous with 'me'.

Thomas

Good points, Thomas!

It is important to keep a distinction between the Creator and His creation. Yet if God is the light of all men, then His very Person, in the form of the Holy Spirit, ought to transcend our own person. "He must increase, I must decrease" until "Christ is formed in you" (Gal 4:19). We are to be transformed in that "inner man" that struggles to seek dominance. Our whole purpose as Christians is "to be conformed to the image of his Son", who as the last Adam, is leading us to where the first Adam began, but failed.

Not that He trying to make carbon copies of Christ, we still have our our personalities, our egos, but how often do we get in the way of God's will for us?

Thomas · 04-03-2007, 06:00 PM

Hi Dondi – wise words ...

St Maximus the Confessor talks about the self-determining or 'gnomic' will:

"Gnomic Will:
To will, according to Aristotle, is simply to recognize something as good. However, fallen humanity is no longer able to recognize the perfect goodness of God as the sole object of its will. It deliberates, and is attracted to that which it thinks is good (perhaps for selfish reasons) and hence is swayed by inclination.

This will Maximus calls 'gnomic will' from the Greek gnome – inclination or intention.

The human will of Christ belongs to his human nature, the divine will to his divine nature, but any gnomic will – being drawn by inclination – would belong to the human person. By contrast the one divine person of Christ had no such will, because he was never lacking in any knowledge of what was good: ultimate goodness – divinity – was always present to him. The natural human will of Christ was always shaped and ordered by the divine will, thus preventing the type of opposition which the monothelites were so concerned to avoid."
The Sixth Council of the Church

The will of the New Age is drawn by inclination to the affirmation of the self in the face of the world, and tragically by extension, in the face of God. This was an understandable reaction to the desacralisation of the Cosmos brought about by the Enlightenment, and the consequent dehumanisation of humanity by the Industrial Revolution ...

The roots of the New Age lie in the Romance movement, and thus is fatally imbued with a pseudo-mysticism and sentimentalism with regard to the idea of 'self' which distorts and thwarts its noblest efforts (one only has to trace the utter fabrication of the myth of the faerie – who in every culture were always malign and capricious creatures up until the 18th century) ... every good must appeal to the sentimental self (this is why everyone wants to be a mystic, but few enter monasteries or any ascetic practice) ... it is spiritual materialism.

Thomas

Nick the Pilot · 04-03-2007, 06:13 PM

Andrew,

"The Father and I are one."

--> Just to let you know, in Theosophy, the Father refers to each person's Higher Self. It does not refer to a monotheistic deity. It is the task of each person to unite their consciousness with their Higher Self. That is the meaning of the statement.

"The Watcher, or the divine prototype, is at the upper rung of the ladder of being; the shadow, at the lower.... Its Primary, the Spirit (Atman) is one, of course, with Paramatma (the one Universal Spirit), but the vehicle (Vahan) it is enshrined in, the Buddhi, is part and parcel of that Dhyan-Chohanic Essence; and it is in this that lies the mystery of that ubiquity, which was discussed a few pages back. "My Father, that is in Heaven, and I — are one," — says the Christian Scripture; in this, at any rate, it is the faithful echo of the esoteric tenet."
Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 265
The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol. 1, bk 1, sec 7a

"I get lost in all the Christian theology...."

--> You will find the Theosophical explanations of the Logos easier to understand. Espeically because no anthropomorphism is allowed into Theosophy.

"...the primal issuance of a universe ... first takes place in the unmanifested aspect; therefore the primal emanantion [from the Absolute] is also unmanifested. This is termed the Unmanifested Logos (or First Logos) [The Father in Christianity]. All the potencies for manifestation are synthesized in this Unmanifest Logos and the manifestation takes place because of the potentized emanation of thei First Logos, by means of its link or bridge with the manifestation process, termed the Second Logos (or the Unmanifest-Manifest Logos) [The Holy Ghost in Christianity], through the Third Logos (or manifested Logos) [The Son in Christianity], which is represented as responsible for the coming forth in being, or the creative aspect of the Logos. Thus it is the the Divine Plan for the entire period of manifestation ... is present in the Unimanifested Logos and 'constitutes at one and the same time the Mind of the Universe and its immutable Law.' Every entity inherently follows this Immutable Law, and demonstrates that it is in accord with the Law by following its own cyclic activities and continuous change"
Geoffrey Barborka, The Divine Plan p 100
Quest Books

~~~

It is important to note Christianity regards the Son as the Second Logos, while it actually the Third Logos.

It is also important to note Christianity only deals with the manifestation know as this universe, and speaks of the three Logoi. The part about the Absolute, the period of time between universes, and previous universes has been left out of the Christian story, I guess to makes things easier for the readers.