I think it was Schilling who said there is more wisdom is children books than in adult Scriptures

Many criticisms of Christians are framed as putting too much responsibility upon individuals for their choices. Your description does not account for the thought in the City of God or the Imitation of Christ. — Valentinus

Do you think the City of God or the Imitation of Christ are more important than other philosophies and mythologies?

I can understand how some factions of Christianity are criticized for putting too much responsibility upon individuals but doesn't that tend to be more so for Protestants than Catholics? I am not sure what is wrong with putting responsibility on individuals because that is saying we have a degree of power over our fate. It is compatible with Hinduism and Confusious.

I would tell the story with the intention of convincing people another reality is possible. I think if we are moral or not is a matter of culture and that education and media are forces of shaping culture. I would like the book to be inspirational, not sour and dour, amoral or nihilistic.

Bill Gates of Microsoft fame seems pretty intent on doing good, and philanthropy is very old with citizens paying for great public works wanting to be well thought of since ancient times. But that, at least to some extent, depends on culture.

Disney is no longer the creator's manifestation but itself is a commercial hijack. Walt Disney died in 1966. Hum, I can see if I were to write the book, I would have to deal with the difficult challenge of continuing the enterprises these people begin and preserving the integrity of the creator.

:lol: God creates the Garden of Eden for humans, and then throws them out into a wilderness that is not so pleasant. How can this maintain the integrity of God in His creation? How could they remain gentle when their reality is brutal?

Aside from issues about religion, in other threads there is quite a lot of thinking that we are coming to the end of a cycle, if not the end of civilisation. However, I do think that the fundamentalist Christians are too literalistic in their interpretation of the Bible. I am genuinely sympathetic to most belief systems, including atheism, because it is a tenable form of thinking. But, you are right to say that we are like crew on a ship of fools and I realise that you are just someone finding your way as well, so I am not annoyed with you, and I am interested in Simone Weil's ideas. — Jack Cummins

It is possible that you like many others have never experienced esoteric or perennial Christianity but just turned off to literal man made secularized Christianity or what Kierkegaard called Christendom. We can compare secular apprecitions of Buddhism to Christianity but they may appear as a contradiction. For example Simone Weil wrote that; “The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.” The four noble truths speak of eliminating suffering. Can they be reconciled?

The Truth of Suffering. ...
The Truth of the Causes of Suffering. ...
The Truth of the End of Suffering. ...
The Truth of the Path Leading to the End of Suffering.

Is this a contradiction but only appears so because of our limited binary perspectives?

Actually, I am extremely interested in esoteric Christianity. I do believe that there is so much inner truth conveyed in ideas such as the transfiguration of Jesus. Probably, the truth of this as well as the mystery of resurrection transcend the whole body and mind problem within philosophy. I am inclined to think that the Eastern perspective of thinking probably has more to offer in understanding the resurrection rather the viewpoint of Western philosophy, as conceived within the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm.

I brought up the matter of taking responsibility as an objection to your statement: "That is, unlike Christians believing we must be saved by a supernatural power, our development is a matter of our own effort."

However one considers debates over being saved by works or faith, the command to love your neighbor as yourself requires that one become such a lover. While there are sharp disagreements amongst Christians, they all accept that the one who obeys the command will have to struggle and suffer for having done so.

Running through the many ways this effort is expressed is that one is revealed and witnessed as a result. There is no place to hide if one bears witness to themselves. The City of God compares the City of Men on the basis of this visibility. By their fruits you shall know them. The Imitation of Christ is a very personal devotion I cannot characterize. But it asks for a lot. Written as a Catholic reflection, it can be heard echoed in Kierkegaard's Works of Love.

↪Nikolas
Actually, I am extremely interested in esoteric Christianity. I do believe that there is so much inner truth conveyed in ideas such as the transfiguration of Jesus. Probably, the truth of this as well as the mystery of resurrection transcend the whole body and mind problem within philosophy. I am inclined to think that the Eastern perspective of thinking probably has more to offer in understanding the resurrection rather the viewpoint of Western philosophy, as conceived within the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. — Jack Cummins

As I understand it the universe is sustained by both mechanical laws and consciousness. Each of the seven layers of reality within creation is a distinct blend of the qualities of consciousness and the amounts of universal laws sustaining its level. What we call a miracle is just the manifestation of the laws normal for a higher reality taking place either accidentally or intentionally into the lower.

The great chain of being is a good description of the structure of our universe. It is sustained by the dual processes of involution or the process of creation, and evolution or the return to the source. Science is wary of involution because the quality of the source described by Plotinus as the ONE, denies Man as the source of consciousness. but instead could be considered a demiurge or qualities of consciousness within the universe.

I can see how MAN devolved to become Man on earth but can Man consciously evolve and return to its source? If it can, it must be the purpose of esoteric Christianity rather than secularized Christendom

Maurice Nicoll's two books: The new Man and The Mark have helped me grasp the inner meanings and purpose of parables. Here is an except on conscious human potential and the reason for esoteric Christianity in the world.

The Gospels speak mainly of a possible inner evolution called "re-birth". This is their central idea. ... The Gospels are from beginning to end all about this possible self-evolution. They are psychological documents. They are about the psychology of this possible inner development --that is, about what a man must think, feel, and do in order to reach a new level of understanding. ... Everyone has an outer side that has been developed by his contact with life and an inner side which remains vague, uncertain, undeveloped. ... For that reason the teaching of inner evolution must be so formed that it does not fall solely on the outer side of man. It must fall there first, but be capable of penetrating more deeply and awakening the man himself --the inner, unorganized man. A man evolves internally through his deeper reflection, not through his outer life-controlled side. He evolves through the spirit of his understanding and by inner consent to what he sees as truth. The psychological meanings of the relatively fragmentary teaching recorded in the Gospels refers to this deeper, inner side of everyone.

- Maurice Nicoll; The New Man

Esoteric Christianity had to grow under threat of persecution from hierarchies. The hierarchy were for the status quo. Augustine had said Aristotle was right in saying humans first have a vegetable soul, then develops an animal soul, and only become human 40 to 80 days after conception. I am not saying I know for sure when a human becomes human, but it shouldn't be based on the authority and status of some ancient Greek thinker. The Roman Catechism of Trent even stated this doctrine of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Augustine and it was accepted until the past century. The Church trusted Aristotle without looking for science to prove it. They even condemned Galileo over scruples over the Bible. It was really the secular rationalists who did most for science over the past few centuries. Esoteric Christianity could dialogue and grow alongside rationalism, but there is nothing to say to a dogmatic Christian who accepts things on authority.

The quotation from Maurice Nicholi makes a lot of sense to me. I can definitely cope with the move esoteric interpretations of the gospels. I have read some books on this esoteric approach, including one on Celtic Christianity. I would like to read Plotinus too. I have read some of the writings by Rudolf Steiner and Emmanuel Swedenborg , which may be slightly outside of this tradition, but they are also specific esoteric interpretations. I definitely see evolution, as opposed to devolution as being an inner process. That is probably why I read Jung, because he looks at Christianity, including the apocalyptic writings on a symbolic rather literal level. On the subject of the beast, we could say this is probably represented as the collective shadow.

It does seem that esoteric Christianity was pushed underground, and you are correct in saying that Aquinas and Augustine's interpretation of the Greek writings was central to the way in which mainstream Christians developed.

Most Christians today, as far as I am aware, seem to come from the exoteric angle. I know that many mainstream Christians are opposed to that particular churchI believe that there is one more esoteric in London, St James, in Piccadilly. I have never been, but I might go there, if lockdown restrictions ever end. I do go to an esoteric bookshop in London. They have such an interesting collection and I would imagine there is a section on esoteric Christianity. I definitely plan to explore further.

↪Nikolas
The quotation from Maurice Nicholi makes a lot of sense to me. I can definitely cope with the move esoteric interpretations of the gospels. I have read some books on this esoteric approach, including one on Celtic Christianity. I would like to read Plotinus too. I have read some of the writings by Rudolf Steiner and Emmanuel Swedenborg , which may be slightly outside of this tradition, but they are also specific esoteric interpretations. I definitely see evolution, as opposed to devolution as being an inner process. That is probably why I read Jung, because he looks at Christianity, including the apocalyptic writings on a symbolic rather literal level. On the subject of the beast, we could say this is probably represented as the collective shadow. — Jack Cummins

Can the Beast described by Plato and the Great Beast described by Simone Weil also refer to the ID described by Yung? If so we can't deny it but must see it for what it is.

Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato. Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society:

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

Despite my initial dismay when you quoted the Biblical idea of the beast of Revelation, I have come to the conclusion that the idea of the beast is a powerful truth. We probably all have a beast within ourselves and an inner antichrist.

Let me just clarify my previous post by saying that the Roman church considered abortion before 80 days to be simply akin to second degree murder because of Rome's idolatrous acceptance of Aristotle. With the morning after pill controversy Rome changed her mind and teachings. It's a hard issue for everyone for sure but it should be decided by science, not by what some Greek dude thought in ancient bygone days. It's a great example to give to traditional Catholics because now they are so pro-life in every respect and what I brought up in my last post is an embarrassment to them

Yes, one of the big issues for Catholics is abortion and it probably puts women in a lot of conflict. I can remember being at church and hearing the pro-life campaigners. I am not sure what all the other religions think about abortion. I think that the Catholic church is also opposed by contraception but I don't think that many adhere to that. But the idea of sex in the Catholic church is very controversial indeed. One of my memories is being at my local youth club when we was growing up and a song which was often played was, 'Tainted Love'.

I know the song. The Catholic Church fought with the progress of modern society for years. It was trying to hold on to the old culture that has existed for centuries in the past. It fought heliocentrism, relativity, evolution, changes in music art and architecture, and democracy. The Church was always the last to approve of something modern. In 1899 Pope Leo xiii sent an encyclical to America condemning (can you believe it) "Americanism" . This "heresy" had dared to say that morality and virtue is found more often in social actions or war than in silent undisturbed prayer. The Catholic culture put nuns and monks who don't go to war or participate much in society on a pedestal. This Pope made it Church teaching that virtue is gained more often in silent solitude than in any more social activity. Of all the weird things to make into a church teaching! How could this pope even know he was right? He couldn't. All he went on was his desire to stay in power and control the future of societies and their evolutions

Let me just clarify my previous post by saying that the Roman church considered abortion before 80 days to be simply akin to second degree murder because of Rome's idolatrous acceptance of Aristotle. With the morning after pill controversy Rome changed her mind and teachings. It's a hard issue for everyone for sure but it should be decided by science, not by what some Greek dude thought in ancient bygone days. It's a great example to give to traditional Catholics because now they are so pro-life in every respect and what I brought up in my last post is an embarrassment to them — Gregory

Simone Weil is known as the Patron Saint of Outsiders for all who feel like outsiders. Many feel that there is great value in the Catholic Church but has become corrupted. Science cannot replace it since it has no conception of value. It can define and measure things but doesn't know its value. Awakening people to value should be the purpose of the great teachings initiating with a conscious source. But when they have become secularized and corrupted the concept of value is decided by those in charge or "might makes right."

What is objective value? What is the value of life and which lives have value? Does a fetus have value? Science doesn't know and secularized religion supports "might makes right." Unfortunately it can only be the results of efforts to Know Thyself and remember what has been forgotten in society as a whole to keep the influence of objective value alive in the world.

I didn't know that Simone Weil was the patron saint of outsiders. That makes me more interested in her because I have always felt like an outsider. One of my favourite books is 'The Outsider" by Colin Wilson. I don't know if you have read it. It looks at a lot of creative people, including many existentialist philosophers. I don't think it mentions her. My copy is in my mother 's house, so I will check whether or not Simone Weil gets a mention in the book when I am able to visit my mother. I find Colin Wilson to be a very interesting writer for the whole way in which he focuses upon the search for peak experiences.

↪Nikolas
I didn't know that Simone Weil was the patron saint of outsiders. That makes me more interested in her because I have always felt like an outsider. One of my favourite books is 'The Outsider" by Colin Wilson. I don't know if you have read it. It looks at a lot of creative people, including many existentialist philosophers. I don't think it mentions her. My copy is in my mother 's house, so I will check whether or not Simone Weil gets a mention in the book when I am able to visit my mother. I find Colin Wilson to be a very interesting writer for the whole way in which he focuses upon the search for peak experiences. — Jack Cummins

Simone was not well known before her death. I think there were only seven people at her funeral. Now she is loved around by those who admire her intellect and emotional purity in dedication to truth. Once an outsider begins to read her they begin to feel something attractive and special rather then philosophical and religious BS. It is refreshing. This essay is bit long but it is obvious why the author as an outsider much like you and me was drawn to her. If nothing else, her descriptions of conscious attention made me aware of what I lose along with the world, of my potential for growing attention span. She had suffered the need to impartially look rather than judge. I as a man, was incapable of such freedom. It was embarassing. If her only contribution is awakening humanity to the value of conscious attention, it will be a necessary contribution.

https://begininwondersite.wordpress.com/2017/09/20/simone-weil-saint-of-outsiders/

All my life I have felt like an outsider, never quite fitting in wherever I was. Being an outsider can make one both extremely lonely but also allows one to identify with those on the fringes, those who are forgotten or overlooked. During my college years, while working in a bookstore, I began to read the existentialists. My favorite was Albert Camus, not only because of his writing but because he looked like a movie star in the same cool, rebel style of James Dean or Marlon Brando. It was through Camus that I discovered the French philosopher and mystic Simone Weil. Not only did she have a huge influence on him (Camus described her as “the only great spirit of our time) but he meditated in her room before he went to Stockholm to accept his Nobel Prize. She also impacted feminist and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Both attended the École Normale Supérieure where they studied philosophy and logic. Weil finished first in her final exams, while de Beuavoir came in second. Simone de Beauvoir spoke often of her admiration for Weil’s intelligence and courage to live out truly what she believed....................

Science alone does not give value but science cannot be done "in a box". Common sense plays a role and what common sense is cannot be decided by scientific measurements. But my point was that Aristotle was accepted as an authority on science within the Church for some 15 hundred years and this was unfounded and stood in the way of progress

The discussion of attention span, as referred to in the article link, is interesting. Generally, I think that many people I come across have an extremely short attention span. I find that in conversations and people often focus on the external environment constantly. I have even had people criticise me for the extent that I can get so immersed in a task, especially reading, that I can switch off the outer world, almost. However, I do believe that focused attention is important, so it is good to hear of a writer who is concerned with it. I do believe that it is important to be able to focus fully on another, as well as within, as inner space. I do believe that inner space is the domain of conscious evolution.

Directed attention which is our ability to concentrate on one desire with one part of ourselves is a secular skill. Consider all these people enchanted with political cults like Marxism for example. The need is to focus on one thing that furthers the agenda. To be part of the cancel culture is being emotionally ruled by directed attention.

Conscious attention is our potential. It is a conscious or religious skill. It is possible that a person can receive the external world with the whole of themselves. They can experience the external world simultaneously with their mind, their heart, and their body. They can think, feel, and physically respond to the same impulse making it possible to "understand" the experience" rather than judge it. Normally our attention is just a response of one of these three parts. A person responding to the question of the meaning of life responds either primarily with thought and analysis, what it means emotionally, or just physically solves the problem with mechanical skills.

The ability for directed attention is a necessary beginning. However it has become distorted and used for the purpose of indoctrination by society itself corrupting our ability to awaken to understanding and develop conscious attention.

It seems easy but if Thoreau is right, it is for more difficult than normally believed.

The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred millions to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive. I have never yet met a man who was quite awake. How could I have looked him in the face?
- Thoreau, Walden

I brought up the matter of taking responsibility as an objection to your statement: "That is, unlike Christians believing we must be saved by a supernatural power, our development is a matter of our own effort."

However one considers debates over being saved by works or faith, the command to love your neighbor as yourself requires that one become such a lover. While there are sharp disagreements amongst Christians, they all accept that the one who obeys the command will have to struggle and suffer for having done so.

Running through the many ways this effort is expressed is that one is revealed and witnessed as a result. There is no place to hide if one bears witness to themselves. The City of God compares the City of Men on the basis of this visibility. By their fruits you shall know them. The Imitation of Christ is a very personal devotion I cannot characterize. But it asks for a lot. Written as a Catholic reflection, it can be heard echoed in Kierkegaard's Works of Love. — Valentinus

The love thy neighbor as thy self doesn't seem to work so well when the other is different. We have not been too nice to those people who have a different faith or look different and do not know God and morals. :lol: The only people I know who were in favor of separating children from their families at the border were Christians. :rage: I am sorry but I can not tolerate people who think they are God's favorites and what they want is what God conveniently wants too. I am not sure if there have been any atrocities that were not justified by religious people?

City of God? Where is that? Jerusalem, Rome, someone's imagination? Like really who has been to the City of God and how do we know about it? How is it different from the good life people get to enter if their hearts weigh right when they are judged by Isis of Oris?

The only people I know who were in favor of separating children from their families at the border were Christians. — Athena

That's true. But there are questions that come out of this. Why is it that Christianity - and let's face it, so many religions worldwide - so effortlessly undertake evil actions?

Is it just a matter of believe oneself to be God's favourite? Might it not also be what happens when you think you have access to special knowledge that comes from an uncountable, extramundane source that is the origin of all morality.

That's true. But there are questions that come out of this. Why is it that Christianity - and let's face it, so many religions worldwide - so effortlessly undertake evil actions?

Is it just a matter of believe oneself to be God's favourite? Might it not also be what happens when you think you have access to special knowledge that comes from an uncountable, extramundane source that is the origin of all morality. — Tom Storm

Suppose the transcendent unity of religions is a reality as described in the following book. They all disagree at the exoteric level but can unite at the transcendent level. Then the real question is why humanity as a whole lacks the conscious ability to understand and instead become enchanted with the shadows on the wall?

https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1993/01/01/on-the-transcendent-unity-of-religions/

the shadows on the wall? — Nikolas

Forget Plato's Cave. If you want to chasing after shadows, try spirituality.

There have been a zillion attempts to distill the elements of the true spirituality underpinning all religion from Theosophical syncretism to Jung.

What is fascinating always is the underpinning of status seeking and elitism inherent in the proposition. Only special people have capacity to see the truth. Or in words like this:

humanity as a whole lacks the conscious ability to understand and instead become enchanted with the shadows on the wall? — Nikolas

There have been a zillion attempts to distill the elements of the true spirituality underpinning all religion from Theosophical syncretism to Jung.

What is fascinating always is the underpinning of status seeking and elitism inherent in the proposition. Only special people have capacity to see the truth. Or in words like this: — Tom Storm

You refer to the attractions of the exoteric level of reality and the rewards of cave life and I refer to the small minority attracted to what is necessary for freedom from cave life or the transcendent level of reality. We speak of different things.

City of God? Where is that? Jerusalem, Rome, someone's imagination? Like really who has been to the City of God and how do we know about it? How is it different from the good life people get to enter if their hearts weigh right when they are judged by Isis of Oris? — Athena

Are you asking those questions for purely rhetorical purposes or are you genuinely curious?

So far in this discussion, I have not opposed your thesis but only remarked upon where your observations did not satisfy my understanding of matters. That does not mean I am representing Torquemada or apologizing for the sins of an institution. You said something was easy-peasy for Christians. It isn't for all of them.

We speak of different things. — Nikolas

I think we speak of the same things differently.

We speak of different things.
— Nikolas
I think we speak of the same things differently. — Tom Storm

Maybe so. Do you believe that all the ancient traditions initiating with a conscious source exist at the exoteric level and devolve into opposing opinions. They only come together at the transcendent level after consciously passing through the esoteric level?