↪Nikolas
I am not sure that your three degrees of Christianity are definitive. I don't feel that I fit into them, and probably would consider myself as post Christian. I think that this has some connection with your idea of pre Christian, more than non Christian because it is more a case of feeling unable to follow the original pathway. However, that is not rejection but more of a feeling of wishing to embrace the truth underlying all religions rather than one. I think that this is probably more in line with the theosophical tradition. — Jack Cummins

I don't think Christianity is a matter of tradition but of desire. Can we follow in the precepts of Christ? Do you believe that at one time you were able to follow in the precepts of Christ but have abandoned the effort in favor of embracing the truth underlying all religions?

Man made sects of Christendom would deny the truth embracing embracing all religions or its transcendent unity but Perennial Christianity is a part of this transcendent unity. I don't understand what you mean by the original pathway. Perhaps you are attracted to the the original pathway which at one time you mistakenly associated it with Christendom. Sensing the truth in Christianity rather than the interpretations of Christendom seems like spiritual growth to me.

That is why Simone Weil became the Patron Saint of Outsiders. Many have felt the same thing and have the desire to return to the source of human meaning which the depths of the heart craves

Italians are racist. They live in a country called Italy and celebrate their distinctive nature. No diversity and proud of their culture. How racist can they get? America must send Joe Biden and BLM to Italy to straighten them out and teach them the error of their ways and what to be attracted to. They will get Italy to change its name into something approved by the cancel culture

I hear you but I don't think you can get agreement on this so readily. We don't have a mechanism to discern who is a true Christian and who is not. Generally, if someone calls themselves a Christian, we have to take them at their word unless we have sufficient evidence to the contrary (whatever that might be). — Tom Storm

There are three degrees of Christians: Non-Christians, pre-Christians and Christians. A Christian is one who follows in the precepts of Christ. Non Christians have no interest. Pre-Christians may want to be Christians but are unable. They are like students.

I am a pre-Christian so wouldn't call myself a Christian. Not many can follow in the precepts of Christ which is why there are so few Christians.

↪Nikolas
It is interesting that one of your ancestors was an archbishop who was friendly with Madame Blavatsky. I have read some of her writings and also, another writer called Alice Bailey. I did attend a few lectures at The Theosophy Society centre near Baker Street in London.

I am interested to know how you think the discussion between you relative and Blavatsky may have been focused in relation to Christianity. I have often wondered whether the basic understanding of reality of early Christianity may have been more in line with Eastern metaphysics. This does appear to be particularly true of the ideas in the Gnostic gospels, which were excluded. However, I have wondered many times if part of the way ideas about Christianity don't work for many is because they are being viewed through a Western picture of metaphysics. — Jack Cummins

I would have liked being a fly on the wall during some or their talks but I urge you not to bring Gnosticism into it. Gnosticism speaks of the duality between spirit and flesh with flesh being evil. Christianity is ONE and three. Outside time and space God is ONE but intentionally divides into the trinity at the beginning of creation. "Let there be light" refers to this division and God is simultaneously ONE and three. Dualism os opposed to the structure of creation..

The Russian Orthodox tradition is far deeper than what is practiced in the West. Consider this discussion between Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh and Jacob Needleman from his Book "Lost Christianity"

Metropolitan Anthony," I began, "five years ago when I visited you I attended services which you yourself conducted and I remarked to you how struck I was by the absence of emotion in your voice. Today, in the same way where it was not you but the choir, I was struck by the same thing, the almost complete lack of emotion in the voices of the singers."

Yes he said, "this is quite true, it has taken years for that, but they are finally beginning to understand...."

"What do you mean?" I asked. I knew what he meant but I wanted to hear him speak about this - this most unexpected aspect of the Christianity I never knew, and perhaps very few modern people ever knew. I put the question further: "The average person hearing this service - and of course the average Westerner having to stand up for several hours it took - might not be able to distinguish it from the mechanical routine that has become so predominant in the performance of the Christian liturgy in the West. He might come wanting to be lifted, inspired,moved to joy or sadness - and this the churches in the West are trying to produce because many leaders of the Church are turning away from the mechanical, the routine.."

He gently waved aside what I was saying and I stopped in mid sentence. "There was a pause, then he said: "No. Emotion must be destroyed."

He stopped, reflected, and started again, speaking in his husky Russian accent: "We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Again he paused, looking at me, weighing the effect his words were having. I said nothing. but inside I was alive with expectancy. I waited.

Very tentatively, I nodded my head.

He continued: "You ask about the liturgy in the West and in the East. it is precisely the same issue. the sermons, the Holy Days - you don't why one comes after the other. or why this one now and the other one later. Even if you read everything about it you still wouldn't know, believe me.

"And yet . . . there is a profound logic in them, in the sequence of the Holy Days. And this sequence leads people somewhere - without their knowing it intellectually. Actually, it is impossible for anyone to understand the sequence of rituals and Holy Days intellectually. it is not meant for that. It is meant for something else, something higher.

For this you have to be in a state of prayer, otherwise it passes you by-"

"What is prayer?" I asked.

He did not seem to mind my interrupting with this question. Quite the contrary. "In a state of prayer one is vulnerable." He emphasized the last word and then waited until he was sure I had not taken it in an ordinary way.

"In prayer one is vulnerable, not enthusiastic. and then these rituals have such force. they hit you like a locomotive. You must be not enthusiastic, nor rejecting - but only open. This is the whole idea of asceticism: to become open."

The intense attention being spoken of is rejected in favor of excess emotion. Emotional energy replaces spiritual energy. As you can see the logic and practice of Christianity is hard to discuss.

↪Tom Storm Tom I wonder if a thread about, why there is so much opposition to Christianity, would succeed? If I did such a thread I would want Christians involved, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable trying to disprove their superstitious notions. However, the ones you speak of are quite intolerable! — Athena

First we would have to agree on what Christianity is as opposed to the well known Christendom functioning in society. Kierkegaard was aware of a difference but obviously is in in a minority.

People who perhaps never once enter a church, never think about God, never mention his name except in oaths! People upon whom it has never dawned that they might have any obligation to God, people who either regard it as a maximum to be guiltless of transgressing criminal law, or do not count even this quite necessary! Yet all these people, even those who assert that no God exists, are all of them Christians, call themselves Christians, are recognized as Christians by the State, are buried as Christians by the Church, are certified as Christians for eternity.

(quoted in Protestant Thought in the 19th Century by Claude Welch p.294)

Christendom has done away with Christianity, without being quite aware of it. The consequence is that, if anything is to be done, one must try again to introduce Christianity into Christendom.

ibid p.295

One of my ancestors was an archbishop in the Armenian church and was friendly with Helena Blavatskia the founder of Theosophy. When they discussed Christianity it would be different from what you hear today

So the mystery of the origin of life is very real.
Even if you could find an alternate mechanism for accurate chemical reproduction - what could give it its sense of direction before life had an in interest in preserving itself. Whatever factor could apply to chemicals alone, to start giving an evolutionary direction in favour of life? — Gary Enfield

Does the macrocosmos produce the microcosmos through involution or does the microcosmos produce the macrocosmos through evolution? Does a drop of water produce the sea or does the sea produce a drop of water?

It seems far more logical for the macrocosmos to produce the microcosmsos through involution but it requires a process initiated by a conscious source rejected by much of science in favor of accepting an absurdity as the only alternative.

My question is if anyone can explain why they would believe this, and how it’s okay for morality to be subjective. — Franz Liszt

Morality is the normal devolution of the atrophied human attribute of conscience so it must be subjective. Morality is conditioned values while conscience is a priori knowledge we are born with that can be remembered.

1954
“We will be destroyed unless we create a cosmic conscience. And we have to begin to do that on an individual level, with the youth that are the politicians of tomorrow…. But no one, and certainly no state, can take over the responsibility that the individual has to his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 141. Conversation in Summer of 1954)

But the sad reality is that it does appear that humanity as a whole does not want to remember and prefers the slavery of indoctrinated man made interpretations called morality to replace the perennial attribute of conscience.

We can agree that a text book on physics can enable a person to learn about an aspect of physics. Yet the idea that art of a particular quality serves the same purpose for our emotions that the text on physics does for our intellect. Art of this quality enables emotional understanding the intellect is incapable of while a text on physics enables intellectual understanding the emotions are incapable of.

↪Nagel
I do agree that suffering is part of life and it doesn't necessarily call for medication or therapy, but I do think it is variable. One factor is that some have family or close friends to turn to and others don't. It would be ideal if we all had people to turn to when we going through really unpleasant experiences, and could be equally supportive in listening to others. Perhaps this ideal is not stressed enough in Western culture.

I think that you make a very good point in saying about the way in which will is important and in most of the literature on depression which I have read this does not seem to be really explored. I do believe that it is possible for a person's sense of will to be broken. I am sure that will plays a major factor in biochemistry, with potential implications for depression and physical illness. It may be that is the whole will which may have to be repaired or healed within therapy. — Jack Cummins

I've been a working musician and done my share of piano bars while enjoying some of the humor that goes with the right people. I've avoided drugs but known others who have become alcoholics and had to take friends to AA meetings. I found it helped in ways therapy was incapable of duplicating.

Then one day when reading on Simone Weil I began to see why AA works. It helps a person to hit bottom rather than avoiding it. Since our suffering rules our lives it doesn't want to die and lose control. When we hit bottom we no longer defend our suffering and ask for help from the deepest part of our essence. I understood the importance of hitting bottom to attain freedom from needless defensive suffering which is often dominant in our lives

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die."
-- Gravity and Grace

The idea that philosophy or metaphysics OUGHT to have utilitarian outcomes, is the basis of the criticism of the way modernity 'instrumentalises' reason. That reason should always be employed for some pragmatic outcome is surely a prejudice of industrial society. Traditional metaphysics has a much broader or higher outcome in mind. — Wayfarer

But suppose humanity is not human but just potentially human. Humanity needs an attitude by some to lead the way.

Simone Weil and Thomas Merton were born in France 6 years apart - 1909 and 1915 respectively. Weil died shortly after Merton entered the Abbey of Gethsemani. It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

What does it mean to become human and how can non-conformism and mysticism annoying the status quo help in becoming human? What is step one?

↪TheMadFool It's what you called "superficial" as I wrote agreeing with you, Fool, in contrast to beauty that is "deep". And "eye candy" isn't derogatory, just deflationary, connoting a fleeting, if not trivial, or ornamental / cosmetic, quality. — 180 Proof

You are describing personally perceived subjective qualities of beauty but Plato indicates a person is more awake when they see beauty as a "Form"

Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical world is not really the 'real' world; instead, ultimate reality exists beyond our physical world. ... The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms.

I can have my own subjective interpretations of beauty, some may be deep and others superficial, but does beauty exist as an unchanging ideal "that transcends time and space?" Plato asserts this awareness of beauty as a form with awakening.

↪TheMadFool
Paraphrasing Iris Murdoch, [superficial beauty aka "eye candy"] facilitates ego-fantasy (or Id-fixation) and [deep beauty aka "sublime"] ego-suspension (i.e. "unselfing", which is her word).
— 180 Proof
Check out the link. — 180 Proof

Plato provides an interesting perspective in Book V by associating the difference between recognizing beautiful things as opposed to the reality of beauty as a form with awakening. Awakening requires setting the attraction to fragments or tearing down beauty in favor of what the form of beauty conceals


Socrates talking to Glaucon:

"In fact, there are very few people who would be able to reach the beautiful itself and see it by itself. Isn't that so?"

"Certainly."

"What about someone who believes in beautiful things, but doesn't believe in the beautiful itself and isn't able to follow anyone who could lead him to the knowledge of it? Don't you think he is living in a dream rather than an awakened state? Isn't this dreaming: whether asleep or awake, to think that a likeness is not a likeness but rather the thing itself that it is like?"

"I certainly think that someone who does that is dreaming."

"But someone who, to take the opposite case, believes in the beautiful itself, can see both it and the things that participate in it and doesn't believe that the participants are it or that it itself is the participants--is he living in a dream or is he awake?

"He's very much awake."

There's no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact, it's all dark.
↪Nikolas Neither. — 180 Proof

Now that would be good discussion: What is Light?

What provides the light above Plato's divided line. We know the Sun provides the light below the line but the greater reality is above the line not illuminated by the sun.

Of course these ideas are initially hard to contemplate but isn't the purpose of philosophy to open the mind?

↪Nikolas Yep, it's you. Interesting to hear how you describe the reasons to get banned. My memory (as faulty as it is) recall is that you were banned because you simply ignored valid and irrefutable reasons to counter your theories or the theories you presented. You were invincible in arguments because you simply dismissed or did not counter arguments, which were, like I said, valid and irrefutable. Oh, and you never actually made a point, even when you were squeezed: you kept on talking about some great hifolutin' secretive truths that only you, Plato, and Simone Weir understood, but when you were put to the task to describe what the secret knowledge was, you never revealed it. — god must be atheist

There is no hidden knowledge. It is all well known and published material. It just wasn't understood. It requires thinking out of the box to know the difference between knowledge and opinion described by Plato. But people who deny knowledge and prefer arguing opinions rather than contemplating what is required to acquire knowledge find the idea too insulting.

They're faces of the same coin: one / many – yin / yang. — 180 Proof

Of course they are related but which path does beauty attract you more?

↪Nikolas
Nikolas, I remember you from that other philosophy site, I forgot its name, because my mind is quickly turning to mush. The memory part. There are tons of people here from that other site, including, but not limited to JohnDoe7 (written backwards). There may be more, I only remember the memorable ones, like yourself -- your devotion to holding Simone Weil as the person being the smartest next to god is unmistakably you. Plus your name was nick something or other. No disrespect, only faulty and leaky memory here. — god must be atheist

I've been banned on several sites not for any rule breaking but defending the ancient philosophical ideas such as those included in Plato's cave analogy. In modern terms, these ideas must be canceled. I refer to Simone a lot since she is called Plato's spiritual child and by introducing her I may let some young female students know that Women's philosophy is more than arguing over gender rights and abortions and have included a depth any man could admire.

Maybe I can introduce some of these discussions like like conceptions of beauty without getting culturally cancelled. It is worth shot.

You might try Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. books, "Gods in Everyman" and "Goddesses in Everywoman". The Greek gods and goddesses are archetypes of our different human types. Bolen's books tell us more about ourselves than we thought we could know because we can see ourselves in the gods and goddesses.

In my youth, I was Persephone, the maiden stage of a female's life. When we marry some follow the path of Hera (wife) and some the path of Demeter (mother). Demeter and Hestia became very important to me. When my children were grown and out of the home, I shifted to Athena and have been a teacher and defender of democracy ever since.

What is really surprising is Bolen's explanations include the different stages of our lives and the positive and negative sides of each archetype. Here we can see how our childhoods influenced the other stages of our life and the lives of people who know. — Athena

I am an Aries male. That is the essence type I am a part of. However it doesn't make me a God and Simone Weil explains why

"We can only know one thing about God - that he is what we are not. Our wretchedness alone is an image of this. The more we contemplate it, the more we contemplate him."

To know thyself is not to imagine oneself.

↪Nikolas That is sad. I am an old hippie and as I watch the rioters and all that anger, I want to hand out flowers and sing songs that lift our spirits. "All we need is love, love. Love is all we need is need." :flower: — Athena

Yes this is the human condition. Some people are destroying and killing while others throw flowers. Then after a while the destroyers start preaching love and the flower throwers start to destroy. As written in Ecclesiastes 3:

A Time for Everything
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

Existence including animal life, moves in cycles. Is it the same for conscious life? That we don't know

I am referring to idolatry. The term seems kind of off, so instead of forcing on it a new meaning, I will just coin a new term: idolness. I am referring to idolness. It is the most genius, most powerful weapon humanity had thus created: the power to powerlessness, to the consent to weakness. Humanity's hedonistic values had been given the Excalibur to vanquish the demon king! Tied beautifully in a knot by none other than her holiness Aphrodite, through her beauty and love, weakness had then been ignored. It had been treated as a sort of inescapable human condition, an inevitable and impossible challenge, the tall, three-meter thick iron wall that is the originator of tragedy. The appreciation of art, the passionate cheerfulness, and the intoxicating will to support, can be traced back to the veneration of these two values. I call those who possess these two values as "idols", our contemporary idols. The affirmers of these values, they are to be called "fans" or more generally, "consumers". The idol-fan dynamics as itself should be no harm to us, my friends, but we should tread carefully, for this is a tightrope that one trip can very easily lead to our fall to decadence. I have tripped, and I assume that you have as well, but together we shall climb back up and restart our adventure towards the higher type of idolization. — Nagel

Hi Nagel

You seem to be describing the effects of imagination which is often worshipped in ignorance. Simone Weil describes what I mean in these three quotes.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life.

Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.

This results in idolatry

Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53)..

In modern times in which the loss of conscious attention and dominance of imagintion is obvious, what can be done for people to realize what is being lost? Can a certain quality of art help humanity to "remember?"

I had to look up the meaning of bigotry.
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
— Oxford — Athena

I had to look up the meaning of bigotry.
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
— Oxford

A good description of Antifa and BLM not to mention an expression of emotional faith in ones imaginary self importance.

Yes. It is sad but this is what literally happens in most of the issues which come from governance. Somehow I have blind faith on people. No in governors. Governors are just there to plump theirs pockets with a lot of money and disappoint the people.
But I guess we did not lose everything. It is all about of no depending from government (It is impossible I understand). Because we can use internet and knowledge to improve the circumstances. For example, I have a lot of hope on the people who participate in this forum or other related forums. This what makes the difference. Debating without consideration or prejudices in others. — javi2541997

Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. If this is true the knowledge of the internet and philosophy debates are meaningless since they are only concerned with what we know; rather than what we ARE. The great ideas of the past associated with religion and philosophy help us to remember. In these times it means to "awaken" But before beginning seriously to awaken, person must have experienced that they are not awake. How can I believe in humanity, as a creature of reaction, being different from what it is, when what we ARE is proven every day? It is like asking a leopard to change its spots.

Yet if we want to change what we ARE for the good of humanity and ourselves, we first have to learn what we ARE or the qualities of our being. This requires efforts to "Know Thyself" or having the experience of ourselves rather than imagining ourselves.

Imagine some kid in college who has felt the problem and asks his prof returning from a BLM meeting: "How can I know myself"? What kind or response will he get? That is why nothing changes and everything repeats. We don't know what we ARE.

Not necessarily. I guess not all faiths drive you to slavery or being slave of your circumstances. When you have some beliefs and then, you believe in something particular (religion, atheism, politics, etc...) doesn’t make you slave because it is not painful to you. You just believe and do the best to pursuit happiness or whatever situation that is worthy is society. It is all about how we evaluate it.
But I guess the blind faith is not a negative aspect. Sometimes it can lead you to change something.
In our progress as a human we need: faith, beliefs and believe in.

For example: I have the faith we can distribute natural resources differently. We have beliefs on it. Then, we believe in the change and take some actions. — javi2541997

You seem to be describing mechanical faith which is instilled in someone by adapting to society or indoctrination. Expand your example to the question of government. We can have mechanical faith that it will change things for the better. But somehow it never does.

Efforts to know thyself reveal that since we are as we are, everything is as it is. A person can have blind faith in government but can learn that government just reflects the hypocrisy of the human condition as it is so everything repeats regardless of our blind faith. If self knowledge reveals the futility of blind faith in government, then the purpose and necessity of the essence religion becomes clear; it provides an inner vertical path to conscious faith and freedom for those open to it which reconciles our higher and lower natures.

When I tell friends that I am spending time reading and writing on a philosophy forum, some of the responses suggest that such an interest is ridiculous. I have even had people suggest to me that philosophy is a complete waste of time and that practical matters, such as cleaning, are far more important, but I haven't given up the philosophical quest. — Jack Cummins

You can be part of a very important minority who will help to keep the great ideas alive in the world. It beats complaining about Trump IMO

Who were the fools who spread the story that brute force cannot kill ideas? Nothing is easier. And once they are dead they are no more than corpses.
Simone Weil

Simone Weil wrote:

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

That is why St. John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have received a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right at all to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which St. John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of such a purification.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 418

The lower or animal parts of the collective human essence wasn't made for God. Yet people try to teach Christianity from the perspective of our lower parts. If true, Atheism can serve as a purification when the supernatural part has not been awakened.

Can Christianity ever be taught by a person whose supernatural part has yet to awaken? Can a believer be misled by associating it with the lower parts of the soul where it doesn't belong. Atheism can purify what is wrong but who can support those whose supernatural part has begun to awaken and experiences the futility of dualism

This is true but what of it? All religions commit atrocities and justify it with appeals to truth or faith. There is no necessary correlation between religious belief and moral behaviour. The history of our world is one of religions energetically basing their actions on choreographed bigotry and human rights violations. Hardly surprising when the only shaky evidence for God is in ancient books and outrageous claims. — Tom Storm

What we do is an expression of what we are both individually and collectively. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. What we are is witnessed in all institutions including politics and religion at the exoteric level. Hypocrisy is the norm for the human condition at the exoteric level.

Humanity is capable of both the greatest compassion and the most horrible atrocities and rationalizes it with dualistic BS. Subjective morality is just the devolution of our capacity for objective conscience. So why be surprised when hypocrisy is the norm?

Plato explained the fallen human condition with the Chariot allegory. The poor driver has to deal with the dark horse representing our lower parts which pulls the driver and the white horse down to the earth. If true the question becomes how enable the driver to cure a psychologically sick horse so the chariot can function as it should. I would say he needs help.

The only faith I know of is a blind belief. Without it there is doubt. I don't see the logic in doubting what we believe as equalling freedom? I have no idea what a mechanical faith would be? Believing something without questioning it? I don't think I have done that since I was 8 years old. However, I am pretty sure gravity pulls things to earth and I stopped jumping off of the top of the swing, and buildings, with the hope of flying. :lol: — Athena

Mechanical faith is what you were taught to believe. Emotional faith is belief based on fear which is why it is considered the blind faith of slavery

Conscious faith is our potential It connects above and below. A person realizes they are more than just a mechanical being and strives to retain their connection with higher consciousness. The Gospel of Thomas writes of the potential for conscious faith:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Normally a person only witnesses themselves for brief moments. But when a person can consciously witness themselves and sustain it they become known and helped from above. Emotional faith is a horizontal reaction while conscious faith is a vertical conscious action connecting levels of reality.

Bottom line, faith has wonderful psychological effects, but it can also be the worse source of evil we have. — Athena

Which quality of faith do you refer to? For example Gurdjieff taught that:

Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness.

As important as it is, how many have ever contemplated the difference?

hat's an interesting question. Like a many others I was very attracted to Zen, but after a long while, I realised that Zen is a highly-structured and culturally-specific discipline and that it's very easy to fool yourself that you understand it when you don't. I stuck with sitting practice for many years but it's fallen away since the end of 2019. Can't find the motivation for it, but of those traditions, feel the greatest affinity for Sōtō Zen, specifically the recent teacher Nishijima-roshi.

I don't believe all of the sages of the East, or West, for that matter, have clay feet. The first one I noticed was Ramana Maharishi. But then, probably like you, I used to visit the Adyar Bookshop when it still existed, so I read a lot of those kinds of teachers. Krishnamurti, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche (boy his downfall was an eye-opener).

I've also started to realise that we inherit cultural archetypes. So my current interest is the Western philosophical tradition. Seriously thinking about enrolling in my alma mater to do an MA - in The Argument from Reason. Although I know I'm probably tilting at windmills. :-( — Wayfarer

It is true that lacking consciousness we cannot prove that conscious humanity exists. But we can verify the human condition as it exists in us by making efforts to Know Thyself rather than judge ourselves. I've experienced the struggle between my higher and lower natures St.Paul describes in Romans 7. Is its reconciliation possible through the help of the Spirit? This is something a person must experience rather than debate.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

I couldn't say for certain. I think people are similar so their ideas are often similar. But people are also tribal, so approaches develop and split off and often expand in deliberate contrast. — Tom Storm

True, but all this happens at the exoteric level. But what if it is possible to consciously develop from being fixated on fragments to experiencing the wholeness of human being in relation to its origin or what Plotinus called the ONE? Then all the paths can lead to the "way" or what the depth of the human essence needs to experience. How to graduate from a path into the way?

Society rebels against this idea and prefers fighting over and or abandoning paths as with atheism. But what of those who seek the esoteric evolutionary teachings of their paths in their need to experience the "way?" How do they proceed and stand up to the power of imagination which rejects their potential to experience the way?

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?

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.

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/

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

↪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....................

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.

↪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...

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All." — Gospel of Thomas

I think this will be more clear when we read (3)

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

The Socratic axiom states "Know Thyself". The human organism doesn't have inner unity but is many separate parts. When a person making efforts to know thyself experiences he is many and actually lives in opposition to himself, he becomes troubled. In the process of being troubled he makes the necessary efforts towards inner unity and these efforts produce a quality of consciousness which makes it become possible to become "master of himself." This quality of consciousness attracts an even higher quality of consciousness which strives to support it

A person cannot become master of himself while serving his source rather than his ego without the help of the Holy Spirit. If he insists on trying his ego he will attract a quality of help not intended.

↪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

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?

I suppose that by starting this thread I was likely to get a certain amount of 'preaching'. Some of the responses have been good, but I am a bit disappointed that there has been less constructive dialogue. Apart from brief discussion about Buddhism, there has been little discussion about other religions. I am personally extremely interested in other views, ranging from Hinduism to Jainism. It could be that people on the forum do see religion mainly about the big divide between believing in God or not, in the conventional way. Or, it could be that people who fall outside of this, just avoid the religious threads. I was not looking for some kind of watered down discussion but some more diverse and independent thinking. — Jack Cummins

What if we are all crewmen on the Ship of Fools from many paths who have taken over the ship? They argue over who knows the way home. They are all equal in ignorance at the exoteric level. Does anyone from any authentic path initiated by a conscious source know the way home? Who on the ship recognizes the North Star so knows the way home. Are their such people and will they be killed for questioning the mutineers?

Plato's Ship of Fools
In the Republic, book vi, Plato describes the following scene:

"Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering --every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?" [Translated by Benjamin Jowett]