Christ said, "Love God with all your heart, mind, and body" first.
"Love neighbors as self", second.
I stand fast. Can't love man without loving God first.
have a good one.
The Church of Peter & the Temple of St. John
- Thread starter Bruce Michael
- Start date
Christ said, "Love God with all your heart, mind, and body" first.
"Love neighbors as self", second.
I stand fast. Can't love man without loving God first.
have a good one.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
He said that, Q, for the benefit of those who continue to make a distinction. Because not every person is aware of the God within the man (despite God's Presence within every human heart), nor the fact that Mighty God is a Living MAN ... it was necessary to speak as Christ spoke.
I may not agree with you, but I salute the DIVINITY within you.
Nor does that Divinity arrive, or exist, because you "asked for it," prayed for it, etc. You can curse it, and it remains unaffected. Your karma, on the other hand, would probably not be so great. And of course, we can deny it ... but that changes nought.
What an interesting world it would be if we didn't have to first ask a man his religion, in order to call him `brother.'
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Matt 25:44-45
44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
Are you saying there is no distinction between God and man?
That's still a distinction – God and man.
Now you acknowledge the distinction, between the 'you' and the divinity 'within you' ...I may not agree with you, but I salute the DIVINITY within you.
So the distinction stands - between that which is Absolute, Infinite, Eternal, and that which is contingent, finite, ephemeral.
Thomas
Aposite words from the Angelic Doctor:
It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower.
Summa Theologicae, I, 12, 4.
Thomas
It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower.
Summa Theologicae, I, 12, 4.
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
As above, so below. It is not that I don't believe in a distinction. But I, myself, distinguish - in my faith - between the Absolute, and the conditioned, manifest Cosmos. `God,' though partaking much more fully of the Infinite than I do, is not a Being of a different nature entirely.
Where we now stand, God once did. Where God now stand, one day we shall too. But neither God, nor myself, in such terms (overly-simplistic, granted) ... partakes during our manifested, conditioned existence - of the full, or true nature, of the Absolute.
In at least one, metaphysical reading of the words of Sri Krishna to Arjuna, this can be understood by the expression, "Having permeated the entire Universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain."
No doubt this could be expressed in Christian terms, rather than via the Wisdom of the Bhagavad Gita ... yet I cannot currently call to mind an equivalent statement. Perhaps someone can remind me?
Again, though on a vastly over-simplistic, one-dimensional scale ... I like to think of our underlying difference, or distinction, in relationship to God - as one of `quantity,' not quality.Thomas said:
"Ye are gods" (says the Christ, reminding us that even this, is Scriptural Tradition, and ancient teaching). He does not say, "Ye are God," let alone, "Ye are the Absolute." Rather, "Ye are gods, and Children of the MOST HIGH." Whom, or WHAT, is the "Most High?"
THIS, I leave open to each person to come to understand, on his or her own terms, within the heart - though not without a mutual understanding within the mind. How presumptuous we would be - to dictate to another, just what is meant by "Most High God."
Perhaps it means `Absolute,' yet even if simply means, "that immediate, Greatest, most direct expression of `the Absolute,' transcendent of all else SAVE for the Absolute Itself" ... who thinks himself qualified to speak on such things?
Philosophy is one thing, doctrine is well and good ... yet you will quickly find me 100% more inclined to discuss these matters with astronomers, if one INSISTS that Christian dogmas on the matter solve the mystery unequivocally, once and for all!
200 billion stars (most, if not ALL, with planets, as we are discovering) ... at least as many Galaxies (most with, similarly, many billions of stars). Every star a bright sun, our own little star a mid-sequence sun, maybe a bit "below average" as these matters are reckoned by modern science.
And you want me to ... wait a sec? What was it again? Something about `God?' Say again? Lord God, Creator of Heaven and Earth ... beginning "where" exactly? And covering, was it, which great expanse?
Infinity did you say?
Our understanding even of our own, Solar Logos (as per the esoteric tradition in which I place my faith) ... cannot be any greater than an ant's ultimate comprehension of - a Human being, or the collective Human family.
An atom is a God-in-the-becoming, whose intermediate stages, I believe, will bring it through experience in every observable kingdom of nature upon our planet (or some planet) ... yet which will also catapult it, once transcendent of all Human experience, into the vastest, deepest reaches of Inner Space.
And so, right here, right now, Supreme Cosmic Logoi, live, and breathe, and have Their Being ... and ALL that we know of as Cosmos, might perhaps be likened to the tiny, white corner of cuticle - on our tiniest, pinky finger.
One God, one body, one Life, one Soul, one Spirit ... and many, apparent, "parts."
That is what I believe. I look in a mirror, and almost all that I see, is a "lie." Yet this is no "evil," there is no scapegoat, for - in and of itself - what I see is not wrong ... it is the Mighty God, manifest, but there begins ... the "lie."
"The mind is the great slayer of the Real."
For certain! The Mystery of Identity, being revealed to an Initiate of the 5th Degree, remains unsolvable to us, until such attainment. Whatever Unity, even mystical, genuine Oneness (`non-duality') we might experience, even as high Initiates, cannot compensate for the Revelation of this, one of the GREATEST Mysteries of Being (of which any human is capable, while yet living in the world of men).Thomas said:
One cannot, logically and practically speaking, know how to dis-identify oneself from one's upadhi, basis, means or vehicle of expression (beyond a certain level) ... without learning/remembering how it was that "One" got oneself Identified with `it' (the world, Samsara, manifest existence, on one or another turn of the Spiral of Being) - to begin with!
Not a simple mindgame, I believe this has to do with why we're here to begin with (Plan, Purpose, not accident, misfortune) ... and the reason we continue to learn and progress spiritually, seems more likely because a Loving, Intelligent Deity would have us come to the awareness of the `Divinity within' (above mentioned) - rather than a punishment because we haven't been clever enough to have figured out the Chinese puzzle.
Earth as a schoolroom makes infinitely more sense to me than the unfortunate muck-up of the Perfect Lord God Almighty, Creator of Worlds, Galaxies - and in fact, Cosmos Itself ... even if, we poor, sinful, erring humans are the real miscreants responsible for tossing a wrench in the Clockmaker's other-wise pristine, precision Creation.
But a snake??? A dragon? Some kind of devious, evil thing ... yet again, creeping in to lure us away from - God's otherwise Perfect, Infinitely-Magestic, wonderfully-Divine, all-cool, very Good, happy and cheery Plan for eternal bliss in His Presence? Err, on the Earth, that is ...
Is is not just that my credulity is strained. And it's not that I don't have my own understanding and interpretation of it all ... or at least, something that makes sense, for me. It's just that, I have yet to quite "get it," when the modern Adam & Eve story gets visited, again & again ... though, as we might note, there are several threads which are, at least, exploring this teaching, and each time it may be that a little more light is shed, or some earlier-overlooked, unconsidered point, may be highlighted.
Yes, this is exactly what I have said above. We should each, and all, be left free, utterly, to conceive of, or understand, the former ... in such a way as brings greatest comfort, hope, meaning and purpose, to our own individual lives and search for Truth.Thomas said:
Religion, I believe, treats of everything in the latter category. It cannot even speculate, rightly so, on the former ... because such is profitless. Why? Because once I have pronounced my own, personal, pet notions of the former - however warmly, zealously, encouragingly, and enthusiastically I do so - I have ascribed limits, boundaries and definition to that which is beyond ... all of these.
Tathagata, of course, just means gone-beyond, or thus-gone one. What more can we say, relatively speaking, even of those who have (if we believe in such) "entered the Way of Higher Evolution?"
NOTHING
For WHOM remains to speak of the experiences ... of one thus gone?
Does God speak to us?
Well I believe so. And that is how we "know things."
Love and Light,
~andrew
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
The nature of the Soul, or so I have come to believe, transcends Intellect utterly and entirely. While our rational, mortal, "strictly-human" (if you must) portion, Aristotle's rational soul, remains encased in the confines of the personality nature (from `persona,' meaning mask) ... our "true Self" can be understood as that which was Itself created in God's IMAGE (from the Latin for similarity, or likeness - not necessarily implying appearance at all!).
If our innermost nature is beyond Intellect by one remove, involving a mode of understanding wherein Knower and Known become One (one Esse, wherein distinctions define, but do not veil) ... we have even still left room in our theology for "a peace with passeth Understanding" - for while Knowing a thing by Union, or Unity therewith surely forms a far more intimate mode of knowledge than Intellectual analysis, comtemplation or ratiocination, surely we must admit that Identity AS a thing, without even the distinguishing factor of a veil, connotes a state of perfect balance, perfect rest, and ultimate resolution.
The irony, it turns out (or thus have I heard), is that amidst such Nirvanic Bliss (properly, Atmic Peace) ... Beings resident to such worlds (Devic-Angelic, or Human-Mastered) may exist in yet two (if not many more) very different conditions.
One, described sometimes as complete inactivity, arises from the as-yet-unMastered ability (or state of Being, achieved only at the 5th Initiation) - to detach oneself from extremely subtle degrees of distinction. In a world of Bliss (the Buddhic, that of Mystical Union, and Pure, True Reason and Understanding), distinction remains, yet the veil is so subtle that no impediment exists to innate, natural, Joyous (Blissful!!) Conscious experience.
Higher than `Heaven,' even here there is not Highest Heaven. An Adept, having learned the Mystery of Identity - relative to our Solar System and our series of Planetary Schools of Instruction/Evolution - is capable of something that many a Nirvanee is not. He can withdraw his projected awareness, even from this Buddhic realm (itself transcending Intellect), at WILL - Will being the word and ability in question - and focus it, even in the world of "Purest Spirit" and greatest tension (amazing, tremendous, majestic POWER), in order to Serve the Plan.
Whether a Master's service is for Earth's own Evolution, or takes him elsewhere in this (or another) Solar System, he will function - as a Nirmanakaya if he chooses - from the Atmic or Nirvanic plane ... in his lowest mode, upadhi, or vehicle of expression. And he may, willingly, forsake the ability to manifest any lower, as this opens up to him new avenues of Service - while yet also allowing him contact with our Hierarchy, with other Masters, and even with advanced disciples under certain unusual circumstances.
Where the Intellect, where the Sambhogakayic Bliss-Consciousness of Ananda ... for such a Nirmankaya?
He has given it up. And how did he do it? It took self-discipline, many long lifetimes of dedication to a spiritual Path, and ultimately, the unfoldment of all of the Virtues, and Qualities, latent or inherent in every Divine Soul, Whom and Which is a Son of God, manifest temporarily in the world of men, as a Son of man.
In the `New Age' terminology, it may suffice to say one has a lower and a Higher Self. One "self" is mortal, limited, finite and non-divine, in any true sense of the word. Yet, just as Krisna told Arjuna, so the Soul has created the personality ... speaking in terms of your, my, his, her outer, focused consciousness - by "manifesting a fragment of Itself, and remaining - Unmanifest, 99.9%, in its `own world'."
Such a world, esoterically, is Higher Mind, Buddhi (pure Joy, pure Love, pure and true Understanding - where Knowing and Known, or object of knowledge, are One) ... plus Highest Spirit, or Atma.
Our mortal minds look all around, even within, and without - remembering the Gospel lessons - yet so often we simply cannot find, or seem to find, these deeper, Spiritual realities ... if indeed, they exist.
But if they do, they are not concepts, they are not idle speculations, or fanciful ideas, created to give us either false hope, or short-term, fruitless encouragement.
We may only sift such notions around and around, almost as a sort of Moebius strip within our limited minds ... and never get - back of the Sanskrit, the Greek, the Hebrew, or the other, preferred, terminologies.
What of the ideas themselves, Plato's Forms, and Jung's Archetypal Ideas?
Are these then, the deepest world, the highest level, or Reality?
Is Master Aquinas correct, in suggesting that our `nature' STOPS with intellect ... and that to dream these things (Buddhi, Nirvana, the Peace which Passeth Understanding) is but to reach for the stars - something for the simple-mindedness of children, to be put away once we have reached adulthood, and better understood the futility?
I do agree, that while we speak of Intellect, and concrete, rational knowledge ... the words of St. Thomas will have bearing upon our consideration. Yet God, as manifest in His Creation (not quite yet in the Transcendent sense) must surely exist beyond the realm of Intellect, and must surely inhabit such a world as the Buddhic, if in deed there be one - and surely, if we follow, we can imagine, such a condition of awareness, and experience, wherein our understanding, though perfect and complete, yet preserves for us the distinction that we ourselves yet remain a different entity than the object, person, place or thing - which we have sought, and come, to understand.
Or do we insist, that only antipathy can govern our understanding, and no faculty of understanding indeed exists, beyond, or greater than, our limited, human Intellects - capable only of dissection, analysis, categorization, and systematic arrangement?
Ahhh, but what of "the Divine Understanding," which surely God possesses (or which even other, lesser, yet perhaps quasi-Divine orders of Beings possess)? A "little lower than the angels" were we created? Then THEY do not, by virtue of their proximity and relationship with God ... possess this greater capacity for understanding, wherein antipathies dissolve, and untameable tendencies can be forsaken - tendencies of attraction, and repulsion, which we experience as fear, or hatred, jealousy, or disgust?
What nonsense! If it is the Angels which inspire, then where do they draw their own Inspiration!?
If a human being has no greater faculty of awareness (even latently speaking) than the Intellect, then how - we must ask - do the angels manage to reach us at all ... for surely as their otherwise pure, noble, and Heavenly Inspiriation descends into our mortal, rational minds - would not our sinful, human nature, immediately negate the once-beneficial influences of our Inspirers?
Do the Angels hold in their custody some special manner of vessel, made of the pure substance of thought itself - into which they pour their Inspirational influence ... which they then seek to slip unawares into the unsuspecting mortal minds, of the otherwise dull, erring, sinful man?
Well strangely enough, even if I have carried on in jest, I have come full circle to the truth. In order to be inspired from "above," there must be something even in that part of our nature "below," which can yet correspond to the original source - of the Inspiration in question, as well as the Inspirer.
"Created in the IMAGE of the Divine," means to me, that we have every single ability, capacity, or potential that even God `Himself' has - and here I speak, yes, even with reference to `God Transcendent,' though not in the sense of the esoteric Absolute ... for were it not so, God could not speak to Humanity, nor the Angels to Humanity, for if God does speak to the Angels, it is only by virtue of a nature the one shared with the "other," while likewise, an Angel cannot speak to a man, save that there be a common language, shared amonst these two.
If an Angel, in its highest part of its Nature, has yet shared Aspects of Being with God (or God Transcendent), such that even some aspects of what we call angels are yet transcendent of anything that humans can experience ... then it should not surprise us that while even Humanity has an overlap in our greater aspects with God Himself, and a greater overlap with the Angels, so too, in lesser Kingdoms, we can observe this same, "staggered" pattern, manifesting to the animals, the plants, and the stones.
An animal cannot think as a person, yet animals have the seed of future mind, and can be incredible gifted in this direction ... while yet their emotional natures are considerably developed, and their "vegetative soul," as Aristotle would have it, is fully and completely perfected.
Vegetables, on the other hand, from the grains to the redwood forests, do not think in the least, yet it is a simple fact to some (and even a possibility to many others) that trees do feel. Their vital nature is well developed, and their "rootedness" in the observable physical world - to make a point via a double entendre - is unquestioned.
Do minerals have "a soul?" Science tells us yes. Minerals literally grow. The Kabbalah, and the Code of Manu, tell us why. God has ensouled them, and while they stretch to develop their vital nature ... even their slow evolution has its place on the downward-most arc of God Plan for Involution, and Evolution, for without the mineral kingdom, there would be no Firmament.
Is a man's rational soul his greatest spiritual capacity? No, I say. We are capable, through the spiritual path of development (every religion teaches a version) ... of progressing toward, and coming into, that awareness which is often characterized as "heart awareness," and sometimes summed up as loving one's (God and) felllow man.
It is extremely difficult to maintain antipathies toward one's fellow man, yet also manifest utter and complete Brotherly Love. One by one, our reservations gradually disappear - and while we may not always agree, or even act in the same manner as our neighbor - we do come (or can come) to embrace him Spiritually, even as Christ embraced all.
This, to me, is the Christian Way ... and I do not believe that there are ANY "upper reaches" in terms of what great Love we are capable of demonstrating, NOR even of what deeper, even perfect Understanding we may gradually come into, in an approach to the very Heart of God, or God's Being.
"Even a donkey can carry a library on its back." I love that saying.
St. Augustine described the nature of God as a circle whose centre was everywhere and its circumference nowhere.
If anyone want to sit and tell me that INTELLECT is our greatest capacity for understanding this great Wisdom ... OR that our emotional nature is meant to profit greatest by its contemplation - then umm, come to America, we'll go out to Wyoming, and I'll show you a lovely beachhouse for really, really cheap.
I can, of course, imagine a five-headed, purple hippopotamus with a unicorn's horn growing out of its back ... yet does anyone really wish to tell me that St. Augustine was just on some kind of mushroom trip when he said what he said?
Antipathies dissolve, resolution and harmony prevails, but yes, I would have to admit - we may need a new word for `understanding' ... and as a fan of Heinlein's, I suddenly remember how once I used to say "grok." To grok a thing, is perhaps, precisely what I mean - and it may not be the end of the journey, yet it's a step I think we all must take, and every one of us is working on it, each in his or her own way ... even if it's plain as day that there is One Way.
Namaskar,
~andrew
Good base ball player, but got to get tiring as hell...
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Lol, that about sums it up!