The Gifts of the Spirit

[Nick_A]

Well dear reader, this is an experience. It illustrates a very misleading and somewhat dangerous aspect of egotism.

First, it gives the impression that egotism can lead to altruism by sugar coating reality. It cannot happen.

The importance of the realization of “levels” is accurately described in the Bible in many passages including the faith of the centurion in Matthew 8 where he describes himself as both a man of authority (a culturally defined level over others) yet nothing in comparison to the higher level of Jesus’ “being”.

The ego struggles against such a concept since it denies its self importance. It enjoys being in authority but to see it as simultaneously nothing from a higher perspective or level evokes the growls you’ve just witnessed.

The important thing though IMO is to acknowledge it and not be surprised by it. It is the way and power of the “Great Beast.” The ego kicks hard and screams of elitism, arrogance, and the whole nine yards since acceptance of levels denies corrupt egotism. One cannot contemplate the existence of levels as depicted in Genesis for example egotistically since it requires the inclusion of more than the corrupt ego. This is the great value of true pondering. It is a form of intellect that in its pure form is free of the corrupt ego’s preconception. It is one of the limitations a person must surpass believing that the open experience of reality leads to greater benefit than self justification.

So now I’ve been asked not to appear on JT’s or Bob’s threads. The willingness to acknowledge the value of the faith of the Centurion based upon the inner recognition of levels that Jesus valued highly is a no no to them. JT attacks my “knowing” but what would Christianity be without this experience of “knowing” defined as faith depicted by the centurion? One strives to experientially know this It is acknowledging “levels” that gives it meaning. It is what connects heaven (higher) with (earth) lower. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” How much more cosmological can it get? This is basic yet Bob rejects it having become so secular over time.

Notice a subtle distinction between Bob and the Centurion

Bob wrote:

I believe that we often feel that faith is a question of wanting, but it is also a question of surrender, similar to the love of two people for each other. Surrendering to the will of God, to loving our neighbour, overwhelmed by the realisation that I am passionately loved, is the message that the Cross of Christ imparts. It is an emotional decision, not just a question of will. It is an important part of faith, even though some groups preach nothing else.

Concentrate on “I am passionately loved.”

Now consider the Centurion:

Matthew 8:

8The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

Does he approach Jesus as one who is passionately loved or as humble? The necessity of humility isn’t to belittle someone which is just an attack on their ego but to bypass the defense mechanisms of the corrupt ego. What justifies the ego more than asserting itself as passionately loved? What frees a person of its power of illusion than recognition of ones nothingness. The natural question then is what is this “I” being referred to? Such a question insults the corrupt ego like nothing else can. it threatens its dominance.

I know talking with them further on this is useless since all they will do is be nasty and assert the usual arrogance, elitism, dog kicking and lord knows what else. But I am just leaving this contrast out there so to speak for those willing to explore.

It is like the word pride. Pride of self, inner potential, is a necessity I believe for those seeking realistic inner development. Self pride which appears similar and even uses the same word is what denies it and keeps a person turning in circles. How many have looked inside enough to experience and respect the difference?

Bob asks what the criticism is of the lovey-dovey approach but the answer proves so repulsive to his ego that he cannot now be open to consider it without interpreting it into more sugar coated emptiness. This of course makes dialogue impossible. But for those that are amazed at the control blind PC thought has on so many, it cannot be surprising. It is satisfying as well as emotionally fulfilling to bask in the glories of shared imagination as to the glorification of mankind. Yet Christianity asserts its wretchedness. How many are brave enough to consider that when so many delights of imagination and communal approval await our indulgence. First things first. Kill of or eliminate however possible like sending to Siberia those that interfere with this glorious imagination. And when more pop up, get rid of them also. These removals for their own good will assure the continued basking in the glories of imagination. Why should their suffering be prolonged?

[Bob]

Hi Nick,

I have started off your thread for you, please feel welcome to use it.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 36#1741236

Shalom

[Bob]

Well dear reader, this is an experience. It illustrates a very misleading and somewhat dangerous aspect of egotism.
First, it gives the impression that egotism can lead to altruism by sugar coating reality. It cannot happen.

Well thank you Nick for leading this field experiment. We must first of all clear up some terminology:
Egotism:

1. The tendency to speak or write of oneself excessively and boastfully.
2. An inflated sense of one’s own importance; conceit.

Altruism
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness

The importance of the realization of “levels” is accurately described in the Bible in many passages including the faith of the centurion in Matthew 8 where he describes himself as both a man of authority (a culturally defined level over others) yet nothing in comparison to the higher level of Jesus’ “being”.

Excuse me Nick, but where did the question of “levels” actually come into this discussion? I can’t remember Bob mentioning that. Wasn’t he talking about the “normalcy” of Gifts of the Spirit? Oh, I see, you brought it into the discussion! It’s important? OK, fine go ahead …

The ego struggles against such a concept since it denies its self importance. It enjoys being in authority but to see it as simultaneously nothing from a higher perspective or level evokes the growls you’ve just witnessed.

I see. Did Bob disagree with what you wanted to say about this Centurion then? He didn’t? Oh I see, he didn’t actually write anything about the Centurion. OK, go on…

The important thing though IMO is to acknowledge it and not be surprised by it. It is the way and power of the “Great Beast.” The ego kicks hard and screams of elitism, arrogance, and the whole nine yards since acceptance of levels denies corrupt egotism. One cannot contemplate the existence of levels as depicted in Genesis for example egotistically since it requires the inclusion of more than the corrupt ego. This is the great value of true pondering. It is a form of intellect that in its pure form is free of the corrupt ego’s preconception. It is one of the limitations a person must surpass believing that the open experience of reality leads to greater benefit than self justification.

Ahem, Nick, please explain the “Great Beast” - later? OK, but don’t forget …

Genesis? Nick, could you explain “the existence of levels as depicted in Genesis” - later? OK, but don’t forget …

Nick, I’m sorry, but I don’t quite follow the “true pondering” and the “inclusion of more than the corrupt ego” - could you explain? - later? I hope I don’t forget by then…

So now I’ve been asked not to appear on JT’s or Bob’s threads. The willingness to acknowledge the value of the faith of the Centurion based upon the inner recognition of levels that Jesus valued highly is a no no to them. JT attacks my “knowing” but what would Christianity be without this experience of “knowing” defined as faith depicted by the centurion? One strives to experientially know this It is acknowledging “levels” that gives it meaning. It is what connects heaven (higher) with (earth) lower. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” How much more cosmological can it get? This is basic yet Bob rejects it having become so secular over time.

Nick, have you actually mentioned the “the value of the faith of the Centurion based upon the inner recognition of levels that Jesus valued highly” before? Not exactly? Sort of? Well, it might be that… Sorry? Oh, I’m interrupting. Sorry!

Notice a subtle distinction between Bob and the Centurion

A subtle distinction? So it’s not the tunic, and it’s not the Latin … don’t tell me… I’ll get it, just give me time …

Concentrate on “I am passionately loved.”

All right, I would have got it in the end …

Now consider the Centurion:

Matthew 8:
Quote:
8The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

Does he approach Jesus as one who is passionately loved or as humble?

Well he does call Jesus “Lord”, and is a member of an occupying force. I’d say that there is a certain amount of humility in his address…

The necessity of humility isn’t to belittle someone which is just an attack on their ego but to bypass the defense mechanisms of the corrupt ego. What justifies the ego more than asserting itself as passionately loved? What frees a person of its power of illusion than recognition of ones nothingness. The natural question then is what is this “I” being referred to? Such a question insults the corrupt ego like nothing else can. it threatens its dominance.

Oh, I see! Bob is clearly egotistical, because he interprets the crucifixion as a redeeming act by someone who loves him passionately! How stupid he is! Surely he knows that he isn’t even worth the dirt under the Centurions shoes! Bob, go away and shame on you! Fancy taking it personally!

I know talking with them further on this is useless since all they will do is be nasty and assert the usual arrogance, elitism, dog kicking and lord knows what else. But I am just leaving this contrast out there so to speak for those willing to explore.

“Dog kicking”? Did Bob say that? Did JT say that? No? Did you say that?
Nick, aren’t your expressions a little hard? I mean, do they see themselves as dogs that you could kick out at?

It is like the word pride. Pride of self, inner potential, is a necessity I believe for those seeking realistic inner development. Self pride which appears similar and even uses the same word is what denies it and keeps a person turning in circles. How many have looked inside enough to experience and respect the difference?

I’m a little confused here – pride is alright if you seek “realistic inner development” but it is different to the other pride? I see, you mean your pride is superior to their pride – them dirty dogs, kick 'em again Nick!

Bob asks what the criticism is of the lovey-dovey approach but the answer proves so repulsive to his ego that he cannot now be open to consider it without interpreting it into more sugar coated emptiness. This of course makes dialogue impossible. But for those that are amazed at the control blind PC thought has on so many, it cannot be surprising.

Excuse me again Nick, but what is “control blind PC thought”? - later? There’s going to be a lot to explain later, Nick!

It is satisfying as well as emotionally fulfilling to bask in the glories of shared imagination as to the glorification of mankind. Yet Christianity asserts its wretchedness. How many are brave enough to consider that when so many delights of imagination and communal approval await our indulgence. First things first. Kill of or eliminate however possible like sending to Siberia those that interfere with this glorious imagination. And when more pop up, get rid of them also. These removals for their own good will assure the continued basking in the glories of imagination. Why should their suffering be prolonged?

Nick, do you think that Bob and JT have that kind of influence? I mean, I thought it was you who had connections to Russia? They’re a bad bunch, I can see it now!

When I think about it, I always used to think that Bob was a straight kinda guy, doing his best to support his parish and working in an Elderly Care Home, and all the time he’s sending people to Siberia – that explains his son having a girlfriend from Russia. What a mean machine he is!

[tentative]

Nick_A,

I really don’t want to respond, but just one more time to see if you might not see.

Nick, it isn’t enough to keep talking about corrupt ego and Plato’s cave. There are many who understand the dilemma and the paradoxes involved. There is a point where our spirituality becomes faith and silence in the face of the ineffable. We DO understand the nature of duality - your corrupt ego. There is nothing profound about this. That which is duality is a construct of mind. Many of us know that as well. We do not dwell on whether we are dreaming butterflies or whether we are in Plato’s cave. At that point, we leave religion and philosophy and become silent. Much of what is discussed here are issues of 'how shall we live? Not why are we here? or our sad plight of being the ‘wretched man’. That is a given. We know that. Your insistence that somehow we are suffering the ‘great beast’ illusion is, quite frankly, a “so what?” issue. There are those who are merely capable of religion, and there are those who are capable of awareness of their spirituality as well.

You may well choose to dwell on the illusory nature of man’s efforts to find understanding, but for many of us, it is well understood, and having understood, we move on - illusion or not.

Your reasons for saying the same thing over and over might be interesting to yourself, but for most of us, once is enough.

JT

[Nick_A]

Dear Associate of Lord Bob

Excuse me Nick, but where did the question of “levels” actually come into this discussion? I can’t remember Bob mentioning that. Wasn’t he talking about the “normalcy” of Gifts of the Spirit? Oh, I see, you brought it into the discussion! It’s important? OK, fine go ahead …

Again, Lord Bob became indignant before a qualitative discussion could ensue so it was necessary for me to include it in order to make the distinction comprehensible for readers.

The gifts are normal but are they necessary for secular Christendom? Couldn’t a successful commune be maintained without any of them? If so, then why are they necessary for a Christian Esoteric Church.? These gifts are all facets of a level above secularism. Part of Christian self development comes through the personal expansion and sharing of these gifts with others in the mutual goal of a connection with the higher.

.Consider his question in the opening post: Lord Bob speaks of these spiritual gifts and of their value in relation to community. He speaks of the Deacon and his own experiences as receiving the “grace of God” from encouraging and teaching people.

Her then goes on to say that there have been those and I assume me as well as being critical in some way of these efforts. He then asks to be confronted on this matter.

As is well known, what is asked for is not necessarily what is wanted so Lord Bob gets angry and replies "find your own thread and stop hijacking mine! This seems to end the discussion. I felt it right to sum up what I got out of it for those that were reading in disbelief. In order to do this it was necessary to once again stress the importance of levels in Christianity to make understanding the necessity of the level of Son possible. Otherwise one falls into the New Age craze of communing directly with the Father, becoming One with the All, and all the rest of it. Again, I have no objection to people believing whatever they want but why call it Christianity? Call these beliefs by whatever name a sect has adopted.

I see. Did Bob disagree with what you wanted to say about this Centurion then? He didn’t? Oh I see, he didn’t actually write anything about the Centurion. OK, go on…

We never got to it. I used the Centurion in summing up the differences in perspective between feeling passionately loved and ones wretchedness.

Ahem, Nick, please explain the “Great Beast” - later? OK, but don’t forget …

The "Great Beast"is the mentality of society. A culture is a living organism that is born, lives, ages, and dies like a person does. It functions reactively and unconsciously as do all the Great beasts of nature so Plato coined it as the “Great Beast.” Consciousness is a threat to the mechanical nature of the “Great Beast” so it kicks against it.

Genesis? Nick, could you explain “the existence of levels as depicted in Genesis” - later? OK, but don’t forget

Read Genesis, 1-2 and the days of creation Explaining this is another matter entirely.

Nick, I’m sorry, but I don’t quite follow the “true pondering” and the “inclusion of more than the corrupt ego” - could you explain? - later? I hope I don’t forget by then…

“Pondering is answering questions from essence and answering them practically.”

Since we are caught up in the preconceptions of our corrupt ego, we cannot ponder and become content with imagination and the justification of the corrupt ego. This is why a person must learn how to get out of their own way in order to reap the benefits of pondering…

Nick, have you actually mentioned the “the value of the faith of the Centurion based upon the inner recognition of levels that Jesus valued highly” before? Not exactly? Sort of? Well, it might be that… Sorry? Oh, I’m interrupting. Sorry!

Yes, in a thread on faith. I believe on other threads as well but I forget which ones.

Well he does call Jesus “Lord”, and is a member of an occupying force. I’d say that there is a certain amount of humility in his address…

Quite true. The centurion is a force on one level but nothing at the next. this raises the natural question of Christianity

Matthew 16: 26

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Oh, I see! Bob is clearly egotistical, because he interprets the crucifixion as a redeeming act by someone who loves him passionately! How stupid he is! Surely he knows that he isn’t even worth the dirt under the Centurions shoes! Bob, go away and shame on you! Fancy taking it personally!

Being loved for what one is and their potential is not the same as loving the mask that denies it. The totality of this mask is the “wretched man governed by our corrupt egotism.” The seed of reality within it is what is loved.

“Dog kicking”? Did Bob say that? Did JT say that? No? Did you say that?
Nick, aren’t your expressions a little hard? I mean, do they see themselves as dogs that you could kick out at?

Oh Messenger, you know very well that dog kicking was an obvious figure of speech accentuating the nonsense of all these allegations.

I’m a little confused here – pride is alright if you seek “realistic inner development” but it is different to the other pride? I see, you mean your pride is superior to their pride – them dirty dogs, kick 'em again Nick!

No, I’m only referring to each individual. It is not a matter of ours and theirs. I have both forms of pride in myself. But it is necessary for me to distinguish them as would be anyone seeking to “Know Thyself.”

Excuse me again Nick, but what is “control blind PC thought”? - later? There’s going to be a lot to explain later, Nick!

Well as any man knows trying to juggle more than one woman at a time, there’s always a lot of explain to do.

The blind acceptance of PC thought is a very controlling influence on people. Why do you think Terri Schiavo died as she did? It was the politically correct thing to do. The autopsy report revealed as was suspected, that her frontal lobe was functioning and it is here where the higher conscious functions exist. Pain centers are all over the brain so it very possible that she suffered an agonizing death due to the blind acceptance of PC thought with a political origin replacing normal human compassion and acceptance of an alternative.

Nick, do you think that Bob and JT have that kind of influence? I mean, I thought it was you who had connections to Russia? They’re a bad bunch, I can see it now!

Here I am emphasizing the dangers of this mindset. This is how the Communists in Russia for example wanted to institute love and peace by getting rid of what they defined as opposing it.

When I think about it, I always used to think that Bob was a straight kinda guy, doing his best to support his parish and working in an Elderly Care Home, and all the time he’s sending people to Siberia – that explains his son having a girlfriend from Russia. What a mean machine he is!

I don’t know Lord Bob. he may be a great guy and all that. But one thing has nothing to do with another. The discussion was on Christianity, the unique nature of Jesus, and why the lovery-dovey approach is frowned on by facets of the Church and the attempts of some to avoid its complete secularization leaving its deeper internal, esoteric side available for those who feel it and need it in accordance with the great search of the heart for meaning beyond earthly considerations.

[Nick_A]

JT

Nope, still don’t see.

You criticize me as pretending to know something yet all you are writing is how much you know. You understand the dilemma and paradoxes involved. Somehow you understand the construct of duality but decide not to share and become silent. How, oh great seer did you come to know these things?

Then the kicker is this classic:

'how shall we live? Not why are we here?

It never dawns on you that they can be related and it is our ignorance of how they are related that contributes to the cycles repeating.

Of course for you the cave analogy and the Buddhist parable of the Burning House lead to a large “So What” since though you say “We know that” what value is this knowing? And you talk about my “knowing”??? You are a piece of work.

You may well choose to dwell on the illusory nature of man’s efforts to find understanding, but for many of us, it is well understood, and having understood, we move on - illusion or not.

So you “move on - illusion or not” Oh great seer, that knows about these things, if you are either in the cave or the burning house, where are you going?

[Bob]

Hi Nick,

The gifts are normal but are they necessary for secular Christendom? Couldn’t a successful commune be maintained without any of them? If so, then why are they necessary for a Christian Esoteric Church.? These gifts are all facets of a level above secularism. Part of Christian self development comes through the personal expansion and sharing of these gifts with others in the mutual goal of a connection with the higher.

Hey Nick, nice to have you return to the subject. Sad however, that you immediately attack me as being secular and say that you, in fact, are the spiritual authority. You know of course that discussion is hardly possible on these grounds, even though you have actually started talking about the original subject - but your parody of bowing down to me is thereby a contradiction. Still I will try, since you have addressed the issue.

Rather than describe the Gifts of the Spirit as a “level above” secularity, I would say that spirituality and secularity represent the two options that we have as human beings, even if they are unequal to my mind, but the one has certain consequences, the other has different ones. Secularity is concerned with this world, the physical reality, the tangible. This is understandable for about 75% of the worlds population, who are struggling to free themselves from the quagmire. Spirituality helps us become aware of aspects of life we hadn’t noticed or might have misinterpreted in the struggle. We begin to understand that the tangible and the two-dimensional is not all there is, but that we can gain a three-dimensional perspective on life and even begin to recognise that there is yet more, whether it would be right to call it four-dimensional, we don’t know.

Spirituality has always been described with words befitting a relationship or even a romance or a marriage. The metaphor of two like Spirits yearning for each other, seeking, searching and finally meeting and melting together is well testified in spiritual writing. Especially the idea that Mankind was born to straddle the physical and the spiritual, combining them in a unique way, different to animals and angels who each have their own realm, is something that is an ongoing theme in the OT. Therefore it is the call of Humankind, not just of an elite – but the congregation of those who have heard the message are called to work for those who haven’t.

… it was necessary to once again stress the importance of levels in Christianity to make understanding the necessity of the level of Son possible. Otherwise one falls into the New Age craze of communing directly with the Father, becoming One with the All, and all the rest of it. Again, I have no objection to people believing whatever they want but why call it Christianity? Call these beliefs by whatever name a sect has adopted.

Strange that we are told to pray “Our Father…” and that the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus opening just that Communion with God. That the Apostles see the Prophesy of Joel taking place etc. The Mystical tradition is hardly a “New Age craze” and your perpetually quoting out of your two favourite books doesn’t prove otherwise. The fact that Mysticism is becoming acceptable may coincide with an time of anti-authoritarianism, but this same time has enabled a return to the table of varying spiritual authorities – especially Jew, Moslem and Christian mystics.

Anthony de Mello, who you have quoted in the past, was even able to combine Christian and Eastern traditions in his “Sadhana” and provided a clearly Christian “Way to God” but using eastern methods. You seem to be against people finding ways to actualise the message of Christianity for the modern day and in the light of the problems of globalisation. Many people I have met here in Germany, who suggest that Christian faith will either be a “mystical faith” or fade, are people who have had a long career in pastoral vocations, are recognised counsellors and have the fate of the majority of lives on this planet in mind. You seem to have some kind of Neo-Darwinism in mind, where the elite rise to take the crown. I read in the Bible that those who take the crown are those who have served with their lives.

I used the Centurion in summing up the differences in perspective between feeling passionately loved and ones wretchedness.

Did the prodigal son not feel himself passionately loved? Was not the older son jealous of his brother, because he hadn’t seen this kind of display of love by his Father for him?

The "Great Beast"is the mentality of society. A culture is a living organism that is born, lives, ages, and dies like a person does. It functions reactively and unconsciously as do all the Great beasts of nature so Plato coined it as the “Great Beast.” Consciousness is a threat to the mechanical nature of the “Great Beast” so it kicks against it.

OK.

Since we are caught up in the preconceptions of our corrupt ego, we cannot ponder and become content with imagination and the justification of the corrupt ego. This is why a person must learn how to get out of their own way in order to reap the benefits of pondering…

So, understanding that the Spirit often contradicts me and takes me down paths I hadn’t foreseen, or being contradicted in a sermon, or reading all parts of the Bible – including those that do not appeal to me – does not constitute the ability to ponder? The learned ability to spend time on my own, meditating, praying, listening, breathing doesn’t constitute the ability to ponder? How can you make such a blanket statement? You simply do not know in what condition others are! You are assuming (in more than one sense)! Even if you were right about your diagnosis generally (I believe that much of what you call Egotism is the struggle to survive), you cannot assume that all others have the same diagnosis, excepting those, of course, who have written books you admire.

Being loved for what one is and their potential is not the same as loving the mask that denies it. The totality of this mask is the “wretched man governed by our corrupt egotism.” The seed of reality within it is what is loved.

You take a statement and use it to your own ends. You are interested in a totalitarian judgement, which is clearly in contradiction to Jesus, who advised that we shouldn’t judge. I’m sorry, but my work keeps me from answering further. I just get the impression that you should put a mirror up in front of your keyboard, so that you remember who you are when you judge others. In the end we are not on subject after all…

Shalom

[tentative]

Nick,

Well, you have part of it right. You still don’t see.

Somehow you understand the construct of duality but decide not to share and become silent. How, oh great seer did you come to know these things?

“…but decide not to share and become silent.” Yes. You imply that I say I know but won’t share. No such thing. What I know is that, of the ineffable, I may not know. I may be aware, but awareness is a long way from knowing and of those things which I may not know, I must remain silent. That of mind alone is a construct, is manifest duality. Of things manifest, I may know. That both awareness and duality exist as the totality of my experiencing is understood. I find nothing profound in this understanding.

It never dawns on you that they can be related and it is our ignorance of how they are related that contributes to the cycles repeating.

Of course for you the cave analogy and the Buddhist parable of the Burning House lead to a large “So What” since though you say “We know that” what value is this knowing? And you talk about my “knowing”??? You are a piece of work.

No Nick, your assumptions about what I see is part of your ‘expertness’. I understand how the ineffable and the manifest are related. That I may not speak of the ineffable doesn’t mean I don’t see the relationship. Rather, it is because I see the difference in what I may know and not know. You ask what is the value of this knowing? Quite simple really. Knowing what you may not know is the beginning of true ‘knowing’. Armed with the knowing of ‘not knowing’ one may construct whatever manifestation one likes. That we may see the interconnectedness of the ineffable and our manifest constructs is no big thing. Oh, and one doesn’t have to be a “great seer” to grasp this, but thanks for the compliment.

…if you are either in the cave or the burning house, where are you going?

No where. All that exists is already within us. There is no place to go, no gate to search for, no gurus to explain the mysteries of life.

There are a few members in this forum who will understand exactly what I have said here. You aren’t among them. Your collection of aphorisms, all your experts, are but distractions. Your willingness to throw the blanket of the “corrupt ego” over anything others might say is perhaps convenient for you, but means little to those who know that they do not know.

This entire post is dismissable as just another example of “corrupt ego” feeding the “great beast”. Of course, there is no way for me to “know”, even great seer that I am, but it appears that you are caught up in your own manifest constructions… Please excuse this last part. It must be my corrupt ego asserting itself again.

JT

[Nick_A]

Hi Bob

Hey Nick, nice to have you return to the subject. Sad however, that you immediately attack me as being secular and say that you, in fact, are the spiritual authority.

Where have I said that I am the spiritual authority? I have expressed what I believe to bethe essential distinction between esoteric and exoteric Christianity. This does not make me an authority.

Because of your past assertions that deny the reality of the Crucifixion and Resurrection and preferring to see their value as political and inspirational, it defines you as one with secular interests. This is not bad. There are a great many fine people that have done a lot of good in society through their secular interests. It is not, as I’ve tried to show, the essence of the teachings of Jesus which stresses re-birth. So again, I draw IMO necessary distinction between the two and it doesn’t take an authority to recognize it.

We begin to understand that the tangible and the two-dimensional is not all there is, but that we can gain a three-dimensional perspective on life and even begin to recognize that there is yet more, whether it would be right to call it four-dimensional, we don’t know.

Now is when it becomes dangerous and easy for a person to go wrong. This experience either begins to feed the essence of a person or is absorbed into feeding their own corrupt ego or what is taking the place of the life of their essence…

Therefore it is the call of Humankind, not just of an elite – but the congregation of those who have heard the message are called to work for those who haven’t.

If the call is largely rejected by humankind, it is not the elitism of the teaching that is responsible. Christian love is the helping of another in their awakening. In this way it is different from secular love which is the concern for the earthly welfare of another. They are not the same. confusing them doesn’t do any good for the teaching if one professes to value what Jesus described as the ability to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. How many have grown to truly understand what this means?

Strange that we are told to pray “Our Father…” and that the Synoptic Gospels have Jesus opening just that Communion with God.

True, but what can give us the ability to pray?

The Mystical tradition is hardly a “New Age craze” and your perpetually quoting out of your two favourite books doesn’t prove otherwise.

If I did quote from my real favorite book, you’d really have a fit.

There is a difference between a mystic and a mistake. As is normal in New Age circles, they do not distinguish quality in words. Everything is taken on the same level. We just discussed this for example in how the word love was used between Jesus and Peter. Jesus is speaking of one quality while Peter is understanding a lesser one.

You seem to be against people finding ways to actualise the message of Christianity for the modern day and in the light of the problems of globalisation.

Not at all. But it doesn’t require abandoning the message to do so. It is being done now.

You seem to have some kind of Neo-Darwinism in mind, where the elite rise to take the crown. I read in the Bible that those who take the crown are those who have served with their lives.

But how do you serve with your life? We’re back to the question of the relationship between faith and works which is really another topic. It requires learning how to suffer. Suffering is inevitable so is there a way to suffer that is beneficial for our being?

Matthew 19:

13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

There is a very deep esoteric or inner personal meaning here. To suffer means to allow in, to experience it. This is opposite of what we normally do which is to deny and push away to, as is said in New Age circles, “create our own reality.” This suffering reveals us and in turn allows us to be seen and helped from above.

It was felt that the presence of the children took away from the dignity of the moment. Yet Jesus is suggesting that there is something far more important than the emotional construct called “dignity of the moment” and the real value comes from experiencing this indignation for what it is and denies.

Did the prodigal son not feel himself passionately loved? Was not the older son jealous of his brother, because he hadn’t seen this kind of display of love by his Father for him?

Yes, but after his experience. It created a reality in him that could beloved.

So, understanding that the Spirit often contradicts me and takes me down paths I hadn’t foreseen, or being contradicted in a sermon, or reading all parts of the Bible – including those that do not appeal to me – does not constitute the ability to ponder? The learned ability to spend time on my own, meditating, praying, listening, breathing doesn’t constitute the ability to ponder? How can you make such a blanket statement? You simply do not know in what condition others are! You are assuming (in more than one sense)! Even if you were right about your diagnosis generally (I believe that much of what you call Egotism is the struggle to survive), you cannot assume that all others have the same diagnosis, excepting those, of course, who have written books you admire.

“Pondering is answering questions from essence and answering them practically.”

Normally our lives are lived through our personalities and their habitual reactions. this includes our thoughts and emotions. It is through the ancient teachings initiating with a conscious source that we can come to the experience of ourselves, our essence. If you are asking from this state, then you are pondering and it is rare. It is an ability that must be consciously developed or come from a great need for it to compensate for the effects of unconscious habitual learning… Some such as Meister Eckhart and Simone Weil are somehow born relatively free of the dominance of this conditioning which is why they are able to live the lives they do. Of course, only a relative few come along in a generation. Only you, not me, will know it when you are truly pondering.

You take a statement and use it to your own ends. You are interested in a totalitarian judgement, which is clearly in contradiction to Jesus, who advised that we shouldn’t judge.

I don’t know what you mean by totalitarian judgment? Jesus speaks of judging others and the foolishness of it if on the same level. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

Yet the necessity to judge the real from the unreal within in the esoteric sense is essential in Christianity.

Matthew 10:

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[e]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Jesus brings an alternative. One must judge its value for themselves. This is not lovey-dovey but a sincere observation. Does one love the secular at the expense of the sacred or the sacred at the expense of the secular conditioning? It is a judgment a person must make for themselves.

[Nick_A]

JT

“…but decide not to share and become silent.” Yes. You imply that I say I know but won’t share. No such thing. What I know is that, of the ineffable, I may not know. I may be aware, but awareness is a long way from knowing and of those things which I may not know, I must remain silent. That of mind alone is a construct, is manifest duality. Of things manifest, I may know. That both awareness and duality exist as the totality of my experiencing is understood. I find nothing profound in this understanding.

We agree on this. I don’t find what you describe as profound either.

Quite simple really. Knowing what you may not know is the beginning of true ‘knowing’. Armed with the knowing of ‘not knowing’ one may construct whatever manifestation one likes. That we may see the interconnectedness of the ineffable and our manifest constructs is no big thing.

Knowing that one does not know does not deny the human possibility for developing understanding. You prefer to “construct whatever manifestation one likes” or as is common to say in New Age circles: “Create your own reality.”

That we may see the interconnectedness of the ineffable and our manifest constructs is no big thing.

Agreed: It is no big thing; it is everything. It is what brings meaning to our “will.”

No where. All that exists is already within us. There is no place to go, no gate to search for, no gurus to explain the mysteries of life.

According to you Plato was wrong. The fact that you accept going no where is your choice. Everything may exist within you on a lesser scale but it is in chaos so you go no where. Enjoy.

There are a few members in this forum who will understand exactly what I have said here. You aren’t among them. Your collection of aphorisms, all your experts, are but distractions. Your willingness to throw the blanket of the “corrupt ego” over anything others might say is perhaps convenient for you, but means little to those who know that they do not know.

From what I’ve read, it is a good bet that the majority will think like you. There is a difference between knowing one doesn’t know and the desire to understand, to experience meaning beyond the secular. You are not one so prefer to create your own reality.

It has been said that the hardest joy to give up is the joy of ones own suffering. It seems to be true in your case.

[liquidangel]

@Nick_A

Do you regard anything unique in the idea of Christian love that would distinguish it from normal moral love as in lending a helping hand to one in need?

C’mon Nick, who would separate love from love? There is only one love and that is the love of God. Anything else is a construct. You are of course welcome to dissect the construct, but that will simply lead you to another construct where your mind is ever fixated on intellectual constructs with no basis in Reality. (Let me spell it out for you - Reality as I use it with a capital ‘R’ means in this context, the love of God.) Now if you could put down your concepts for a moment, perhaps we could begin to talk about these ‘gifts’. If you wish discourse at this ‘level’ (I’m worried here about using ‘level’ because you seem to demonstrate only a dictionary definition of the word, instead of a contextual definition as is used here - as essence, as the deepest sublime truth, that we can conceive of this means it exists within us - nothing to do with higher and lower) I believe we can come to an understanding of Bob’s intent of this thread.

Hi Bob,

Of course each man and woman as a particular role to play in the salvation of mankind. That each of our roles requires very specific talents and abilities makes a lot of sense to me, that each of our gifts are by divine design is not only a blessing for us but a gift to humanity both collectively and individually and a gift to Heaven. And I’m thinking that there are a myriad ways of expressing giving, whether those be the selfless givinng manifested from our love in harmony with Heaven or whether our giving be the simple gift on a very human level from one person to another that giving without gratitude is only half way there. Even the opportunity to give employing our personal gifts in the form of our talents and abilities require gratitude to fully comprehend the depth of the love of God.

A

[Nick_A]

LA

C’mon Nick, who would separate love from love? There is only one love and that is the love of God. Anything else is a construct.

While I agree that all love has divine love as its source but all manifestations of love are not love of God. Consider a dog’s love. It either loves or does not love life on its own level. It is a beautiful but horizontil manifestation of love attached to the earth.

Love of God for man is a vertical love. It is the opening and calling to be loved from above. This is why I distinguish between the secular and the sacred.

This is what I believe Prof, Needleman is referring to in his description of ontological love. It is the unification of the sacred vertical love or mystical connecting higher and lower with the horizontil animal or psychological love of one level. Though it is man’s purpose on earth for “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” we cannot do it since it requires a soul for any consistancy. Our corrupt ego denies the evolution of the human soul so everything remains as it is turning in circles. Christianity is the effort towards the development of the soul in man by first the attempts to “know thyself” and distinguish between the real and unreal within Conscious attention, the impartial look within as one opens themselves to the impartial experiences of life’s aggravations, provides the “light” to “see” rather than the need to habitually and unconsciously emote and the eventual courage to let go of the unreal and receive the help and reconciliation of the Spirit leading to re-birth or birth of the soul.

[liquidangel]

What?

I’m sorry Nick, you lost me with all this talk of a vertical/horizontal/ontological love…construct and while I believe that your expert understands what he is trying to convey, you only demonstrate a parot style regurgitation and while your intent may be sincere in trying to express your ‘eurika’ experience of what you haved gleamed from your various experts, your own words are empty.

Truly I don’t mean to offend, I just don’t know how else to express that you are trapped in your intellectual study Nick. I can only suggest that you put down the books, go outside and contemplate nature for a while. Look at the stars, observe the flowers, the trees, the rivers…then come back and tell me about the love of God. From your heart. (let me be clear, heart in this context is nothing to do with your emotional centre, nor is it the organ that pumps blood, but rather is your centre of being). Tell me in your own words about the love of God and then lets talk about gifts. Because sincerly Nick from my perspective, this thread is about the ‘gifts of the spirit’ and most certainly not about your (mankind’s) inability to perceive them. Can you see how you have tried to direct us towards your (narrow) point of view yet again, without actually attempting to address the topic of this thread? If you have nothing of value to add besides what you have said over and over and over a thousand times over in every other post of yours then hang back and let others have a chance to discuss these beautiful ideas…Every now and then, if you hang back, something important happens, something deep and profound has an opportunity to be presented…let it.

A

[tentative]

Nick,

Missed again.

According to you Plato was wrong. The fact that you accept going no where is your choice. Everything may exist within you on a lesser scale but it is in chaos so you go no where. Enjoy.

You have so missed the point and once again, used your “expertise” to judge what you seem to not understand. Plato wasn’t wrong. But can you not see that, having seen and understood the illusions of duality, the cave disappears? Your pronouncement that I somehow exist on a “lesser scale but it is in chaos…” My My, you know so much about me! My saying that there is no where to go doesn’t mean that I go to sleep. I’m simply saying that ALL of reality is with me. I don’t have to go ‘looking’ for it, it is my pervasive environment. In my interaction in all that I experience comes ever new understanding and ‘knowing’. Knowing in the sense of know how, know what, and know whence. In this place I experience with awe that which is godliness. If you can wrap yourself around the heart of what I’m saying, then you will discover that you aren’t in the cave, the cave is inside of you. All that is necessary is to let it go, let ALL of the manifest go and begin to see the totality of existence.

There is forest and there are trees. I too walked about bumping into trees until I finally realized I was in the forest. Let the intellect go. Keep the intelligence and the wisdom gained and get down out of the tree…

JT

[Nick_A]

LA

Truly I don’t mean to offend, I just don’t know how else to express that you are trapped in your intellectual study Nick. I can only suggest that you put down the books, go outside and contemplate nature for a while.

I don’t take offense since I know you are sincere. I am also awed by the beauty and depth of nature. I also know how it can be a trap for man’s being. I doubt if you’d find this appealing but for the benefit of some others that may be reading this thread, I’ll post a link to Simone Weil’s observations on “beauty.” It is not lovey-dovey so for anyone into the lovey-dovey approach, it is best avoided. For those interested, it may bring some new ideas for consideration.

staff.bcc.edu/philosophy/SIMONEWEIL.htm

There is this artist I have a special affection for. In one book about him I found this quote by the author in reference to his paintings:

“Maybe the most alluring image of love which Nature bears is the borderline between water and dry land, where water circumscribes the earth, and the earth circumscribes the line of water. The horizon, taking off from the shore and stretching far into the distance, connects Man with the awesome endlessness of the universe, and here, right here, one acutely feels the miracle of his fleeting life.”

This is “awe” in relation to something greater than nature and not the impression of being “One with nature.” It reveals an observation; the impression of ones fleeting life in the context of something much higher than oneself. Contemplating nature may be a far more profound experience then you are willing to consider.

Tell me in your own words about the love of God and then lets talk about gifts. Because sincerly Nick from my perspective, this thread is about the ‘gifts of the spirit’ and most certainly not about your (mankind’s) inability to perceive them.

The love of God I’ve experienced I can only describe as the emotional invitation to come “home” – For me it is the level of being of greater quality than my own and from which I believe collective man on earth had it origin. It is experienced through the energy of the Holy Spirit. Without it, lesser qualities of emotional energy and physical energy originating from the earth are substituted for the spirit leading one into fantasy.

The gifts of the spirit indicate that they could not have come from our own efforts. The gifts of knowledge and wisdom for example are of a different quality than what we normally term knowledge and wisdom. If you wish to ignore Man’s collective tendency to minimize these gifts onto the earthly level and for the purpose of earthly concerns, you are free to do so. But if you do, why would you consider them gifts from the Holy Spirit? What would be so special about them if Oprah could dream them up?

If you have nothing of value to add besides what you have said over and over and over a thousand times over in every other post of yours then hang back and let others have a chance to discuss these beautiful ideas…Every now and then, if you hang back, something important happens, something deep and profound has an opportunity to be presented…let it.

The thread was an invitation by Bob to confront him on the lovey-dovey issue. I’ve done that explaining that Christianity is not a secular religion while Christendom is. Christianity is for awakening while Christendom is for consolation. If you want to take it into different directions and discuss your conception of gifts from the Holy spirit, be my guest. I’d like to read some of this depth and profundity myself.

[liquidangel]

For goodness sake Nick. Contemplate nature as the creation of God!

Never mind, I cannot express anything to you while you wear those blinkers. I begged you not to bring in other experts and what did you do?

I GIVE UP!

Carry on.

A

[Nick_A]

JT

Duality isn’t an illusion. The illusion enters when it appears as disconnected from everything else.

The Microcosmos exists on the same principles as the macrocosmos but smaller in scale. A man is a Microcosmos.

All that is necessary is to let it go, let ALL of the manifest go and begin to see the totality of existence.

But it doesn’t want to be let go of.

In my interaction in all that I experience comes ever new understanding and ‘knowing’. Knowing in the sense of know how, know what, and know whence.

Does this include knowing your nothingness.?

In this place I experience with awe that which is godliness.

I cannot see how the experience of godliness and awe inspires one to throw tantrums.

Perhaps it is better to verify and admit our nature and begin at square one.

LA

Dum dum, dum…Another one bites the dust.

If you could walk in Simone Weil’s shoes for a month and get just a taste of her experiential understanding, you’d be a changed lady.

[liquidangel]

If you walked in Simone’s shoes you’d be a transvestite.

A

[tentative]

OK Mr Answer Man, you know it all. At this point, I genuinely hope you never see through your intellectualizing. The fall through all those levels would be devestating…

[Nick_A]

LA

No fair. You previously said she was a bore and I had to dig up more quotes. The transvestite remark now makes no sense.

T. S. Eliot wrote of Simone Weil:

A woman of genius, of a kind of genius akin to that of the saints

Malcolm Muggeridge wrote:

In my opinion, the most luminous intelligence of the twentieth century

Albert Camus wrote"

Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing.

For my part, I would be satisfied if one could say that in my place, with the humble means at my disposal, I served to make known and disseminate her work whose full impact we have yet to measure.

Her elder brother Andre Weil the famous mathematician wrote in 1932:

It will now be I think 23 years that you made your entry into the phenomenal world to create the greatest pain in the ass for rectors and school directors.

One thing Simone Weil was not is a bore.