I've been reading The King in His Beauty by Thomas R. Schreiner, and it is scattershot, but it keeps pulling me back in. Here is a quote from the chapter on Psalms that I found very interesting:
* * * * * * *
As Gerald Wilson points out, even in the shape of the Psalter there is a movement from lament to praise, so that laments are more common in the first part of the Psalter, and praise concludes it. “Praise,” Wilson says, “constitutes another reality in which the presence of God has become so real that anger has no point, pain has no hold, and death lacks all power to sting.”
Schreiner, Thomas R. (2013-07-15). King in His Beauty, The: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (p. 250). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
* * * * * * *
I think that language is unusual. "Praise constitutes another reality." Then this: "...in which the presence of God has become so real that *anger has no point*..."
That's what I was getting at with resentment. I was saying it this way: "What is the goal of our resentment? To what end?" Concluding that the only end is the ludicrous end of burning down the world, which is hell itself.
Where anger has no point. That's a state of being. A level of being to be reached.
______________________________________________
In other words:
"...in which the presence of God has become so real..." (First Conscious Shock)
"...that anger has no point..." (Second Conscious Shock)
Which would make 'praise' (which he calls another reality) akin to the third and fourth state of consciousness. It's interesting anyway that 'praise' goes from being an activity to being a destination. A place.
-------------------------------------------------
! ! ! ! ! ! !
It is striking how that phrase - "where anger has no point" - captures the second conscious shock in a deep and newly-articulated way.
7.29.2013
Where anger has no point (second conscious shock)
4.10.2013
Develop essence
Review the subject of essence and the developing of essence in the Work books.
Ways to develop essence:
Reading works that develop essence: the Bible; Homer. The Bible is the main thing. Both these though give deep undercurrents of language. To develop essence you have to do things that act like planting seeds, or planting a crop.
Self-Remembering. Just doing it. Doing it for duration, depth, and frequency. Doing it like planting a crop.
External-Considering. This is another way of saying don't internally-consider, and further, don't be in a state of identification.
The Work says somewhere that External-Considering develops the emotional center.
So the Two Conscious Shocks develop essence.
Physically, learning a musical instrument develops essence. Also, a sport. A craft as well. Thing that teach moving center at a deeper level.
As I write this I'm currently drawing a blank on what the Work says about what replaces Personality. If personality dissolves. I know false personality is supposed to dissolve, but is all our shell of personality false personality? What does the Work say about real personality is what I'm getting at. If, that is, essence doesn't have it's own face to the world once developed. ('Work personality' is a phrase I vaguely remember. But that sounds a bit androidish?) I'll have to review.
+ + + + + + +
I think what is wrong in that diagram I sent, and made long ago, is what happens to Personality:
It does in a sense dissolve, though. But it becomes refined rather than disappear. It becomes less heavy. It becomes educated in a real way and acts as a discerning mediator between influences and essence, a defense while at the same time not a heavy, stupid, violent or just dense and unconscious shell.
What really happens to Personality is the development in unity from Many 'I's and Imaginary 'I' to Observing I, Deputy Steward, Steward to Master, or Real I.
It is interesting to make a list of what features are associated with each level. I did it once, and probably have lost it. I mean features associated with Deputy Steward and ones associated with Steward. For instance, Conscience appears in a real way at one of the levels, Deputy Steward?
+ + + + + + +
[Look at the diagram in the Fourth Way on page 162 where the darkened square is Observing I, the first circle is Deputy Steward, the second circle is Steward, and the third is Master, or Real I...]
So to structure thoughts on the subject, how does each level of *I* effect Essence?
Many 'I's does not have a good effect on essence. Many 'I's is really the state of being in Imaginary 'I' where you have no control over Personality, it controls you. It is not refined or awake or in any position to discern anything. It's also inconstant. It's as likely to say, "Hey, this meth looks like a good idea!" as to say, "We're going to church, but first we're going to get a buzz cut, OK? Because that's the way the Bible says it!" Or, "Maybe I should just lie down on my bed and listen to some Pink Floyd who are gods."
Then how does Observing I effect essence? Well, already the very fact you have attained to the level of Observing I means you have developed Magnetic Center, so that implies some real education with real, higher influences - B Influences - and activities that have developed all centers in you in a balanced way. So this effects Essence just by the fact that you know higher B Influences and have developed higher divisions of centers. A big part of this is you started to seek influences and truth for yourself rather than merely acquiring it from the world and those around you. This is a big difference between a hard shell personality and a refined personality. You have a real degree of control over Personality rather than it - or 'it' - having control over you.
I think the Deputy Steward level is marked by a more active approach (rather than mere observation) towards things like features of False Personality. There's more of a sense of authority in the term 'Steward' if only lower level Deputy Steward. And it is Deputy Steward because it is control over the I's that immediately surround Observing I. Not all I's. So Deputry Steward level develops Essence by doing the hard work of controlling and eliminating the features of False Personality.
Steward then is a big level because it is a level of control over All I's. (Between Deputy Steward and Steward we can see where many higher features reside or get born, or come alive, or become unburied, like Conscience, things connected to Higher Centers as well. The Steward level would appear to be a level of total light on all the I's of the inner being. There are no more unknowns lurking in darkness and corners of inner being. We, by degree, have been able to awaken to the most uncomfortable realities of ourselves, our history, our fallen nature, our disordered being. How does this effect Essence? Light is able to pass through Personality now, conscious influence (that sounds new agey, but I mean C Influence). Obviously the Steward level is a level of at least the third level of consciousness or self-consciousness, and probably also objective consciousness.
The Master (or Real I) level seems to be defined most immediately by its being in a different scale of Time. How that effects Essence might have to do with how Heaven itself effects Essence. The Holy Spirit, etc. I've run out of steam, but this is not a bad run down...
Ways to develop essence:
Reading works that develop essence: the Bible; Homer. The Bible is the main thing. Both these though give deep undercurrents of language. To develop essence you have to do things that act like planting seeds, or planting a crop.
Self-Remembering. Just doing it. Doing it for duration, depth, and frequency. Doing it like planting a crop.
External-Considering. This is another way of saying don't internally-consider, and further, don't be in a state of identification.
The Work says somewhere that External-Considering develops the emotional center.
So the Two Conscious Shocks develop essence.
Physically, learning a musical instrument develops essence. Also, a sport. A craft as well. Thing that teach moving center at a deeper level.
As I write this I'm currently drawing a blank on what the Work says about what replaces Personality. If personality dissolves. I know false personality is supposed to dissolve, but is all our shell of personality false personality? What does the Work say about real personality is what I'm getting at. If, that is, essence doesn't have it's own face to the world once developed. ('Work personality' is a phrase I vaguely remember. But that sounds a bit androidish?) I'll have to review.
+ + + + + + +
I think what is wrong in that diagram I sent, and made long ago, is what happens to Personality:
It does in a sense dissolve, though. But it becomes refined rather than disappear. It becomes less heavy. It becomes educated in a real way and acts as a discerning mediator between influences and essence, a defense while at the same time not a heavy, stupid, violent or just dense and unconscious shell.
What really happens to Personality is the development in unity from Many 'I's and Imaginary 'I' to Observing I, Deputy Steward, Steward to Master, or Real I.
It is interesting to make a list of what features are associated with each level. I did it once, and probably have lost it. I mean features associated with Deputy Steward and ones associated with Steward. For instance, Conscience appears in a real way at one of the levels, Deputy Steward?
+ + + + + + +
[Look at the diagram in the Fourth Way on page 162 where the darkened square is Observing I, the first circle is Deputy Steward, the second circle is Steward, and the third is Master, or Real I...]
So to structure thoughts on the subject, how does each level of *I* effect Essence?
Many 'I's does not have a good effect on essence. Many 'I's is really the state of being in Imaginary 'I' where you have no control over Personality, it controls you. It is not refined or awake or in any position to discern anything. It's also inconstant. It's as likely to say, "Hey, this meth looks like a good idea!" as to say, "We're going to church, but first we're going to get a buzz cut, OK? Because that's the way the Bible says it!" Or, "Maybe I should just lie down on my bed and listen to some Pink Floyd who are gods."
Then how does Observing I effect essence? Well, already the very fact you have attained to the level of Observing I means you have developed Magnetic Center, so that implies some real education with real, higher influences - B Influences - and activities that have developed all centers in you in a balanced way. So this effects Essence just by the fact that you know higher B Influences and have developed higher divisions of centers. A big part of this is you started to seek influences and truth for yourself rather than merely acquiring it from the world and those around you. This is a big difference between a hard shell personality and a refined personality. You have a real degree of control over Personality rather than it - or 'it' - having control over you.
I think the Deputy Steward level is marked by a more active approach (rather than mere observation) towards things like features of False Personality. There's more of a sense of authority in the term 'Steward' if only lower level Deputy Steward. And it is Deputy Steward because it is control over the I's that immediately surround Observing I. Not all I's. So Deputry Steward level develops Essence by doing the hard work of controlling and eliminating the features of False Personality.
Steward then is a big level because it is a level of control over All I's. (Between Deputy Steward and Steward we can see where many higher features reside or get born, or come alive, or become unburied, like Conscience, things connected to Higher Centers as well. The Steward level would appear to be a level of total light on all the I's of the inner being. There are no more unknowns lurking in darkness and corners of inner being. We, by degree, have been able to awaken to the most uncomfortable realities of ourselves, our history, our fallen nature, our disordered being. How does this effect Essence? Light is able to pass through Personality now, conscious influence (that sounds new agey, but I mean C Influence). Obviously the Steward level is a level of at least the third level of consciousness or self-consciousness, and probably also objective consciousness.
The Master (or Real I) level seems to be defined most immediately by its being in a different scale of Time. How that effects Essence might have to do with how Heaven itself effects Essence. The Holy Spirit, etc. I've run out of steam, but this is not a bad run down...
3.24.2012
Some recent insights on the Work, two, in fact
There have been some very foundational insights regarding the Work in recent threads. Two of them are:
1. That the context of the Work within Christianity is in 'progressive sanctification.' I wrote a three part post on this subject on my Plain Path Puritan blog the other day. Anyway, so this is why the Work doesn't mention issues of salvation. It assumes salvation. I.e. it assumes one is born again, converted, justified, has faith in the Savior, Jesus Christ, etc. Even though the main teachers of the Work may have been, or may not have been, naive regarding this fact (I refer to both G. and O.); it goes to show, anyway, if in fact they were unaware of this context, that the Work really was above them and didn't come from them, just as Ouspensky often stated.
2. Along the same lines is this insight: I think it was providential that I saw that edition of the Oxford Companion to English Literature in a new used bookstore I stopped to look at. It was only $2.99 too which made it enticing to buy. That it had entries on G. and O. was strange too. But that it brought to my attention that Gurdjieff considered his knowledge to be more *method* than *doctrine* is a big thing to know when you are trying to see the Work vis-a-vis Christianity. I was recently reading Nicoll, and I think he may have been guilty of introducing more of a sort of doctrine into the teaching (such as making entry into the conscious circle of humanity the goal, unless he flat out meant that as a metaphor for the Kingdom of God which I don't think he did). But the pure springs of the Work teaching, Ouspensky's books, really keep any attempt at doctrine out of it and focus on method. I never thought of the distinction before, and I think it is a big distinction and very clarifying for what the Work actually is, especially when you combine the insight with the first one above.
1. That the context of the Work within Christianity is in 'progressive sanctification.' I wrote a three part post on this subject on my Plain Path Puritan blog the other day. Anyway, so this is why the Work doesn't mention issues of salvation. It assumes salvation. I.e. it assumes one is born again, converted, justified, has faith in the Savior, Jesus Christ, etc. Even though the main teachers of the Work may have been, or may not have been, naive regarding this fact (I refer to both G. and O.); it goes to show, anyway, if in fact they were unaware of this context, that the Work really was above them and didn't come from them, just as Ouspensky often stated.
2. Along the same lines is this insight: I think it was providential that I saw that edition of the Oxford Companion to English Literature in a new used bookstore I stopped to look at. It was only $2.99 too which made it enticing to buy. That it had entries on G. and O. was strange too. But that it brought to my attention that Gurdjieff considered his knowledge to be more *method* than *doctrine* is a big thing to know when you are trying to see the Work vis-a-vis Christianity. I was recently reading Nicoll, and I think he may have been guilty of introducing more of a sort of doctrine into the teaching (such as making entry into the conscious circle of humanity the goal, unless he flat out meant that as a metaphor for the Kingdom of God which I don't think he did). But the pure springs of the Work teaching, Ouspensky's books, really keep any attempt at doctrine out of it and focus on method. I never thought of the distinction before, and I think it is a big distinction and very clarifying for what the Work actually is, especially when you combine the insight with the first one above.
12.17.2011
A way to classify theology
I'm now fully embarked on Historical Theology by Gregg R. Allison. I find it to be a very good book because it doesn't have a trace of "I'm a hot shot scholar and this is my big work" but is just a solid rendition of historical theology, and it feels complete. It has 33 chapters, so I'm just going from chapter to chapter straight through. I've already learned a lot in the first two chapters which encourages me to read it all.
But in the first chapter he has a useful chart, which I can't replicate here obviously, showing the relationship of all the types of theology. There are five: historical theology, exegetical theology, biblical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology.
Exegetical and biblical theology really are the foundational work that becomes systematic theology, so I can include them in 'systematic theology.'
So if you want to get a complete understanding of theology you learn systematic theology. Then you learn historical theology (which is not foundational to systematic theology, the Bible is foundational to systematic theology, but it is how each doctrine developed in time and thus gives a grounding of sorts to systematic theology).
Then, the mysterious practical theology. Practical theology is just what it sounds like. Practical doing. Spiritual formation. This is where the ideas, practices, and goals of the Work reside. It is also where other schools, mystical schools, Eastern Orthodox ways, etc. reside. Spiritual warfare resides in practical theology. Etc.
So see it like this:
Historical Theology > Systematic Theology > Practical Theology
This helps to see in perspective where the Work resides vis-a-vis Christianity in general.
But in the first chapter he has a useful chart, which I can't replicate here obviously, showing the relationship of all the types of theology. There are five: historical theology, exegetical theology, biblical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology.
Exegetical and biblical theology really are the foundational work that becomes systematic theology, so I can include them in 'systematic theology.'
So if you want to get a complete understanding of theology you learn systematic theology. Then you learn historical theology (which is not foundational to systematic theology, the Bible is foundational to systematic theology, but it is how each doctrine developed in time and thus gives a grounding of sorts to systematic theology).
Then, the mysterious practical theology. Practical theology is just what it sounds like. Practical doing. Spiritual formation. This is where the ideas, practices, and goals of the Work reside. It is also where other schools, mystical schools, Eastern Orthodox ways, etc. reside. Spiritual warfare resides in practical theology. Etc.
So see it like this:
Historical Theology > Systematic Theology > Practical Theology
This helps to see in perspective where the Work resides vis-a-vis Christianity in general.
12.16.2011
C Influence
I've been reading the Wisdom of Solomon (part of the Apocrypha originally included between the Old and New Testaments in the King James Version), and it is really a 19 chapter long almost hymn to Wisdom personified as a woman (as is the case in the Book of Proverbs as well) and goes through the early history of the Israelites from the perspective of Wisdom.
Christians traditionally (and with some biblical warrant) have decided to just see this personification of Wisdom as being Jesus.
But it got me thinking about the old problem of correlating the Work teaching with the biblical.
So I listed all the sources of higher influence, and here is what I came up with:
Jesus
The Holy Spirit
Wisdom
Angels
C Influence
[and I'll add]
Olympian gods and goddesses
the Muses
Inspiration
So then I was trying to separate each one regarding different types of higher influence, but here is the main point of what I'm saying here: I concluded that the Work language was intentional (and brilliant) in labeling higher influence as C Influence. (The 'C' part isn't really supposed to stand for 'conscious', yet C Influence is conscious influence, and there is only one source for what is conscious and that is God Himself.) Because it all comes from the same source ultimately, God, and that simplifies and takes unnecessary imagination or empty romantic (or whatever) speculation out of it.
But anyway, just seeing higher influence as C Influence makes it so you don't have to worry about trying to differentiate the source, as long as the source is ultimately God. And Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, Wisdom is Jesus personified as a woman (strange, but there it is), angels are messengers of God. (And Olympian gods and goddesses and the Muses are really just poetic depictions of the above. As for the word Inspiration, it really means what comes from the Holy Spirit as well.)
C Influence is conscious influence - pure - not constrained in its action by time or place.
Of course B Influences *contain* some C Influence, but it is mixed with A Influence, and some B Influences have more of C Influence in them than others.
To receive C Influence pure you have to be in at least the third state of consciousness, or self-consciousness, or self-remembering.
I brought up prayer awhile back in this context. Think how much more effective prayer will be when done in the third state of consciousness. Also, think of how Jesus said fasting effects the power of prayer, and 'fasting' is a metaphor for non-identifying.
I also think healing can happen more effectively if you are in the third state of consciousness and able to be reached by the forces that can heal. But I wouldn't want to tempt God on that speculation, just have it as something to think about.
Christians traditionally (and with some biblical warrant) have decided to just see this personification of Wisdom as being Jesus.
But it got me thinking about the old problem of correlating the Work teaching with the biblical.
So I listed all the sources of higher influence, and here is what I came up with:
Jesus
The Holy Spirit
Wisdom
Angels
C Influence
[and I'll add]
Olympian gods and goddesses
the Muses
Inspiration
So then I was trying to separate each one regarding different types of higher influence, but here is the main point of what I'm saying here: I concluded that the Work language was intentional (and brilliant) in labeling higher influence as C Influence. (The 'C' part isn't really supposed to stand for 'conscious', yet C Influence is conscious influence, and there is only one source for what is conscious and that is God Himself.) Because it all comes from the same source ultimately, God, and that simplifies and takes unnecessary imagination or empty romantic (or whatever) speculation out of it.
But anyway, just seeing higher influence as C Influence makes it so you don't have to worry about trying to differentiate the source, as long as the source is ultimately God. And Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, Wisdom is Jesus personified as a woman (strange, but there it is), angels are messengers of God. (And Olympian gods and goddesses and the Muses are really just poetic depictions of the above. As for the word Inspiration, it really means what comes from the Holy Spirit as well.)
C Influence is conscious influence - pure - not constrained in its action by time or place.
Of course B Influences *contain* some C Influence, but it is mixed with A Influence, and some B Influences have more of C Influence in them than others.
To receive C Influence pure you have to be in at least the third state of consciousness, or self-consciousness, or self-remembering.
I brought up prayer awhile back in this context. Think how much more effective prayer will be when done in the third state of consciousness. Also, think of how Jesus said fasting effects the power of prayer, and 'fasting' is a metaphor for non-identifying.
I also think healing can happen more effectively if you are in the third state of consciousness and able to be reached by the forces that can heal. But I wouldn't want to tempt God on that speculation, just have it as something to think about.
12.15.2011
Spiritual formation
I was doing searches on Practical Theology and came upon the term 'spiritual formation' being used a lot. Basically by this term the mainstream church is wrestling with the fact that is lacks a practical element in what it is doing. The Work would be an example of a system of spiritual formation (but only if connected to the commands and teachings of Christ).
Here is an article that gives a good sense of why the mainstream church is skeptical of 'spiritual formation' and also why it needs it:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=81
* * * * * * *
This really is where we see the intersection of the Work and Christianity. There is nothing new under the sun, so it follows that there would be some connection. The key to seeing it is in how the mainstream church has perverted, so to speak, the discipline of Practical Theology. They have really buried it, first, but then redefined it to mean 'pastor studies' and what not. Yet it is what it sounds like it is: taking systematic theology to the practical, doing level.
Now it's being called spiritual formation. To get a good sense of what is going on with it just google the two words spiritual formation and follow the links.
Here is an article that gives a good sense of why the mainstream church is skeptical of 'spiritual formation' and also why it needs it:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=81
* * * * * * *
This really is where we see the intersection of the Work and Christianity. There is nothing new under the sun, so it follows that there would be some connection. The key to seeing it is in how the mainstream church has perverted, so to speak, the discipline of Practical Theology. They have really buried it, first, but then redefined it to mean 'pastor studies' and what not. Yet it is what it sounds like it is: taking systematic theology to the practical, doing level.
Now it's being called spiritual formation. To get a good sense of what is going on with it just google the two words spiritual formation and follow the links.
Spiritual formation
I was doing searches on Practical Theology and came upon the term 'spiritual formation' being used a lot. Basically by this term the mainstream church is wrestling with the fact that is lacks a practical element in what it is doing. The Work would be an example of a system of spiritual formation (but only if connected to the commands and teachings of Christ).
Here is an article that gives a good sense of why the mainstream church is skeptical of 'spiritual formation' and also why it needs it:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=81
Here is an article that gives a good sense of why the mainstream church is skeptical of 'spiritual formation' and also why it needs it:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=81
Found a connection between C. S. Lewis and Ouspensky
This is from the book Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis by Michael Ward:
"He [Lewis] was a keen amateur astronomer who had a telescope on the balcony of his bedroom and enjoyed visiting the Oxford observatory. He knew about such things as Venus' Albedo and was conversant with the broad outlines of the work of such figures in in astronomy and physics as Schiaparelli, Ball, Jeans, Eddington, Schrodinger (his Magdalen colleague, and Hoyle, as well as that of more speculative writers such as Dunne, Abbott, Hinton, and Ouspenski."
In a footnote I was led to a book called We Remember C. S. Lewis (ed. Graham):
http://www.amazon.com/We-Remember-C-S-Lewis-Memoirs/dp/0805422994/ref=lh_ni_t
and was surprised to find that J. I. Packer apparently knew him and wrote an essay for the book. There is also another reference to Ouspenski vis-a-vis C. S. Lewis on page 112. Nothing more than a bare reference though.
"He [Lewis] was a keen amateur astronomer who had a telescope on the balcony of his bedroom and enjoyed visiting the Oxford observatory. He knew about such things as Venus' Albedo and was conversant with the broad outlines of the work of such figures in in astronomy and physics as Schiaparelli, Ball, Jeans, Eddington, Schrodinger (his Magdalen colleague, and Hoyle, as well as that of more speculative writers such as Dunne, Abbott, Hinton, and Ouspenski."
In a footnote I was led to a book called We Remember C. S. Lewis (ed. Graham):
http://www.amazon.com/We-Remember-C-S-Lewis-Memoirs/dp/0805422994/ref=lh_ni_t
and was surprised to find that J. I. Packer apparently knew him and wrote an essay for the book. There is also another reference to Ouspenski vis-a-vis C. S. Lewis on page 112. Nothing more than a bare reference though.
12.06.2011
Law and Gospel
The Law. (The power of sin in fallen man.)
You have to see the Law as a manifestation of all the sin and events and forces of sin in the world. What you move in and come up against. Also all that is the spirit of Satan in fallen human nature; the accusing, shaming, moralizing, projection of guilt, policing of environments to maintain the fear of man, respecting of persons and all the rest of it, it is the Law manifesting through people collectively, becoming a real, tangible, monstrous thing. Sexual energy, to all degrees of drunkenness and violence, is its currency and blood. This is the Law as it effects and works through fallen human beings. This is the Law as the power of sin. (Rom. 1:25-32*)
The Gospel (To be separated unto.)
The Gospel is the Law defeated. The curse overthrown. Death and darkness and the drunkenness of violence and concupiscence made ineffective; a mad show that no longer engulfs. Attacks, yes, but no longer engulfs. To be separated unto the Gospel is to be made free of the Law and the power of sin.
+ + + + + + +
Rom. 2:1-2** thus refers to fallen man described above. Fallen man who collectively acts out the monstrous presence of the Law defiled and turned upside-down as it is in the heart of fallen and corrupt man. Beating out the power of sin, and engulfing the world in the wild and banal-lascivious and bloody hold of the Kingdom of Satan. Ultimately sacrificing human suffering and death to that Kingdom.
+ + + + + + +
* Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
** Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
You have to see the Law as a manifestation of all the sin and events and forces of sin in the world. What you move in and come up against. Also all that is the spirit of Satan in fallen human nature; the accusing, shaming, moralizing, projection of guilt, policing of environments to maintain the fear of man, respecting of persons and all the rest of it, it is the Law manifesting through people collectively, becoming a real, tangible, monstrous thing. Sexual energy, to all degrees of drunkenness and violence, is its currency and blood. This is the Law as it effects and works through fallen human beings. This is the Law as the power of sin. (Rom. 1:25-32*)
The Gospel (To be separated unto.)
The Gospel is the Law defeated. The curse overthrown. Death and darkness and the drunkenness of violence and concupiscence made ineffective; a mad show that no longer engulfs. Attacks, yes, but no longer engulfs. To be separated unto the Gospel is to be made free of the Law and the power of sin.
+ + + + + + +
Rom. 2:1-2** thus refers to fallen man described above. Fallen man who collectively acts out the monstrous presence of the Law defiled and turned upside-down as it is in the heart of fallen and corrupt man. Beating out the power of sin, and engulfing the world in the wild and banal-lascivious and bloody hold of the Kingdom of Satan. Ultimately sacrificing human suffering and death to that Kingdom.
+ + + + + + +
* Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
** Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
11.06.2011
Imitating Christ with Work practices
An interesting thought for a person who knows the Work and is a Christian...: seeing Work practices in the context of the imitation of Christ.
One advantage is it can give a complete picture, pull everything into a contained whole.
Another thing is it could give courage to face the world as something different from the world, rather than hang back and be fearful of seeming different and thus staying conformed, ultimately, to what the world demands.
Once a person gets past the common stumbling block of thinking they *are* Jesus, or the other of engaging in worldly moralism instead of self-interested, conscious, self-aware glorifying of God.
[Interesting, I spent about 10 minutes searching the internet for an antonym of moralism, or moralize, and couldn't find anything, so I struggled to finish the above sentence. At first instead of 'glorifying of God' I had 'presence', but changed it to glorifying of God. So in a sense, I suppose, the opposite of moralism is glorifying God.]
Perhaps in another real way repentance can be an antonym of moralism.
One advantage is it can give a complete picture, pull everything into a contained whole.
Another thing is it could give courage to face the world as something different from the world, rather than hang back and be fearful of seeming different and thus staying conformed, ultimately, to what the world demands.
Once a person gets past the common stumbling block of thinking they *are* Jesus, or the other of engaging in worldly moralism instead of self-interested, conscious, self-aware glorifying of God.
[Interesting, I spent about 10 minutes searching the internet for an antonym of moralism, or moralize, and couldn't find anything, so I struggled to finish the above sentence. At first instead of 'glorifying of God' I had 'presence', but changed it to glorifying of God. So in a sense, I suppose, the opposite of moralism is glorifying God.]
Perhaps in another real way repentance can be an antonym of moralism.
10.28.2011
Higher church, grail, Kingdom of God - examples
Some ways you are effecting the Kingdom of God, or furthering it, when you just think you're merely in the third state of consciousness is you are effecting all your time body and anybody who is connected to it, and by extension anybody connected to those other people. That's effecting people in other parts of time. That is one way. You can be in the third state lying down in a sewer pipe like a hunted dictator and effect the Kingdom of God. Don't confuse the metaphor of the knight and horse and battle with reality. The metaphor is real, but you may just be walking down the street. Mundane events. An incident where somebody tries to get you to internally-consider. An event that happens to make you be in a strong state of identification with it. Some event tries to get you to blow up. Lose your aim. Mundane events, but your world.
Move up a level (after success in overcoming those events of friction) and things may get more strange. Possibly more dangerous. Possibly more protection for you though at that point. One needs control, though, the farther one goes.
Other examples of how being in the third state, directed by God's will, able to be directed by God's will (Real Will)... A child who dies in an accident at a point in time and space doesn't die because you are there at that moment and it changes the event. I'm not saying you do some heroic act, I'm saying maybe you just have to be THERE. Just changing an event by your very presence. I've experienced this and told you guys about it. A toddler running from its mother between parked cars into a parking lot. Prior to that event, I was just there, very much in the third state, had been for days, the mother and father were strangely walking around outside, not knowing why, kind of out of place, I intentionally delayed my departure, didn't know it at the time, there is always a seeming reason, but you are acting from God's will, Real Will, in that state. Then, I move, I get in my car, I have a clear view of the scene, the child burst away from the mother, the mother freaks and runs, terror on her face, and there I am waving at her, totally stopped, and an event that occurred in time was changed. What did I do? Nothing. Except be in the third state, and be a strange presence in that scene. Probably another car hits the child, but I delayed the action by saying to my nephew, "No, you play with your friend." The older sister of the toddler. Something an adult usually doesn't do. I'm unusual. I'm self-remembering. I don't feel a need to go anywhere. I'll sit there and watch some kids play. An unusual detail is the older sister got mad at me for no reason and threw one of her toys at me. She was mad because her little sibling wasn't going to get hit by a car that morning? Maybe. She knew at some level I was a strange presence in the scene. Wasn't suppose to be there.
This is when I was really doing marathon self-remembering exercises. But see how mundane it is? God can use you if you are able to act from Real Will, which is God's will. Some law prevents it unless you are in the third state or higher. Like somebody said, not even God can beat a full house with three-of-a-kind. He obviously can do miracles and anything He wants, but in the general course of events, in this maze of laws at this level, the law of will is different from the law of accident or mere cause and effect.
Another example of how you can effect events when just in the third state is - and this is speculation based on the Bible - you can effect the movements and activity of the spiritual world where you are. The Bible says the prayer of a person of great faith is more effectual. Most likely the mere presence of a person in the third state or higher effects the war in the spiritual world. Maybe the evil forces clear out. Maybe they focus on you and not on some unknowing vulnerable victim. Maybe *one person* can effect negative spiritual bondage of an entire geographical area.
Eventually, in deep, marathon states of self-remembering, you start to see the moving visible world of things and events from the higher perspective. You read the language of it. In real time.
Another thing: you're in waking sleep, standing on a street corner, certain cars and people pass by you. On that same street corner at the same time, but you are in the third state, different cars and different people pass by you. The Work metaphor of birds on different telephone wires. Each wire is a different line of time though occupying the same place and time. - C.
Move up a level (after success in overcoming those events of friction) and things may get more strange. Possibly more dangerous. Possibly more protection for you though at that point. One needs control, though, the farther one goes.
Other examples of how being in the third state, directed by God's will, able to be directed by God's will (Real Will)... A child who dies in an accident at a point in time and space doesn't die because you are there at that moment and it changes the event. I'm not saying you do some heroic act, I'm saying maybe you just have to be THERE. Just changing an event by your very presence. I've experienced this and told you guys about it. A toddler running from its mother between parked cars into a parking lot. Prior to that event, I was just there, very much in the third state, had been for days, the mother and father were strangely walking around outside, not knowing why, kind of out of place, I intentionally delayed my departure, didn't know it at the time, there is always a seeming reason, but you are acting from God's will, Real Will, in that state. Then, I move, I get in my car, I have a clear view of the scene, the child burst away from the mother, the mother freaks and runs, terror on her face, and there I am waving at her, totally stopped, and an event that occurred in time was changed. What did I do? Nothing. Except be in the third state, and be a strange presence in that scene. Probably another car hits the child, but I delayed the action by saying to my nephew, "No, you play with your friend." The older sister of the toddler. Something an adult usually doesn't do. I'm unusual. I'm self-remembering. I don't feel a need to go anywhere. I'll sit there and watch some kids play. An unusual detail is the older sister got mad at me for no reason and threw one of her toys at me. She was mad because her little sibling wasn't going to get hit by a car that morning? Maybe. She knew at some level I was a strange presence in the scene. Wasn't suppose to be there.
This is when I was really doing marathon self-remembering exercises. But see how mundane it is? God can use you if you are able to act from Real Will, which is God's will. Some law prevents it unless you are in the third state or higher. Like somebody said, not even God can beat a full house with three-of-a-kind. He obviously can do miracles and anything He wants, but in the general course of events, in this maze of laws at this level, the law of will is different from the law of accident or mere cause and effect.
Another example of how you can effect events when just in the third state is - and this is speculation based on the Bible - you can effect the movements and activity of the spiritual world where you are. The Bible says the prayer of a person of great faith is more effectual. Most likely the mere presence of a person in the third state or higher effects the war in the spiritual world. Maybe the evil forces clear out. Maybe they focus on you and not on some unknowing vulnerable victim. Maybe *one person* can effect negative spiritual bondage of an entire geographical area.
Eventually, in deep, marathon states of self-remembering, you start to see the moving visible world of things and events from the higher perspective. You read the language of it. In real time.
Another thing: you're in waking sleep, standing on a street corner, certain cars and people pass by you. On that same street corner at the same time, but you are in the third state, different cars and different people pass by you. The Work metaphor of birds on different telephone wires. Each wire is a different line of time though occupying the same place and time. - C.
Higher church, grail, Kingdom of God
And remember that there are no churches the grail knights attend in those stories. An isolated chapel, a hermitage, usually to encounter someone who can give them information they need. But no churches. Grail Knights are not churchians. Remember also that they operate in a sort of in-between world. There's a little bit of the Valhalla thing where they can fight and be wounded, yet be cured of their wounds. Knights die and reappear later. Maybe just a forgetful author, or maybe an intentional detail.
What ties it to Jesus and His army and the Kingdom of God is you are a soldier in that army and you are on the battlefield when you enter that self-remembering realm. That third state of consciousness and higher emotion realm. As Man #4 and eventually #5.
Without the armor of God though you are vulnerable.
Once there though you are able to be used, to be helpful, to be effective for the goal of the Kingdom of God when you are on that spiritual battlefield. And you can't know what is happening in the way flesh and flesh senses know what is going on around them. You can just be a knight *staying on your horse*, dealing with whatever friction comes your way, overcoming, moving on. The effect you have on the battlefield will be more than you can discern. The effect on others, etc.
In the higher world you manifest as something else. Your will you as that higher manifestation will have is God's will. You can see now how God's will *is* your will. The more that higher body develops the more Real Will becomes conscious. So think of yourself moving and acting down here while your higher body is moving acting up there. You want your higher body to be under the influence of God's will. Real will. It will be, if you are truly in the third state down here, and staying on your horse (emotion, higher emotion). - C.
ps- As I was writing this post I was thinking of Don Quixote as well as Grail Romance. There is school connection there. Don Quixote depicts the type of the person who is pathetic in the face of the world once they move on. Cervantes took a different approach, and perhaps it depicts different things than Grail Romance is intended to depict, but seen in this light you can see it as a school document. The connection Cervantes has with Shakespeare in the minds of literary critics going back is significant. Just a little aside. It may be good to have Don Quixote in you to draw on when you go through the process of true separation from the world which all the above assumes.
pps- There is also the confusion among the most biblical of theologians as to how to differentiate the visible church and the Kingdom of God. It's a matter of scale and development.
From: c. t.
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: a prayer book and rambling notes and qoutes
Yes, and also the real metaphor of the Grail knight depicts the Man #4 (and #5) experience. That is both solitary (the trackless forest) and community (when levels are transcended and the community of the Grail Castle is reached). The Round Table still depicts the worldly level. They have to ride off on adventure, stay on their horse (higher emotion), meet friction (fights, not get thrown) overcome and transcend levels of reality. - C.
From: S
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: a prayer book and rambling notes and qoutes
Man number 4 means conscious development, so I imagine the church of man number four would in some way mean a connection (even like what we have here) between others who are on that path. Not necessarily "Groups" in the Gurdjieff Foundation kind of a way but the genuine meaning stated in Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are assembled in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Its interesting that its such a small number. It suggests gathering for genuine reasons, to talk or share ideas, rather than for a sense of community in the hundreds and all that goes with that.
This is church for man number #4
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:58:50 +0100
Subject: Re: a prayer book and rambling notes and qoutes
From: quickeningspirit
To:
CC:
I can easily agree with the religions of Man 123 idea. It's the interactions and energies at work between these that I was mostly looking at.
Also, I'm equally uneasy in an Anglican service as Catholic - I'm not sure I've ever experienced Orthodox, but that doesn't matter. There is even something (well numerous things) I find very attractive in each of these.
You make the subject interesting, if it's a question, what does the Man #4 Branch look like? This might be a mystery. It can't have the same solid footprint for the same reason that G spoke of the Work as belonging to the Slyman.
On 27 October 2011 22:38, c. t. wrote:
Preliminary reply (on a tiny keyboard)... Might not we be well-served to think of the issues involving church and church branches under the rubric of Man #123 and Man #4? I've written this before, but it's a big subject, central really to everything we discuss and do in our everyday lives. It is so obvious that Eastern Orthodox is the Man #1 branch. Roman Catholicism is the Man #2. And Protestantism is the Man #3 branch.
We then have to acknowledge that Protestantism has a controlling presence among the three. Resented by the other two. That is because intellectual center has to control, to a basic degree, emotional and instinctive/moving/sex center. And IC's standard has to be sola Scriptura.
So being truly balanced we'll seem more Protestant. So from there we move into what the Man #4 'branch' looks like.
This is why we have interest in the two other branches. The music, the practices.
Obviously the Work is the language of the #4 level. What do you think on this thus far? - C.
On Thu Oct 27th, 2011 2:06 PM PDT quickeningspirit wrote:
>I have a book titled A Method of Prayer by Eugraph Kovalevsky. It's a Praxis
>book, same publishers as Mouravieff. It's essentially part of the
>French/Russian Orthodox tradition. Anyway, an aside.
>
>It covers.
>the Jesus prayer - which was my original interest in buying it
>the Lord's prayer
>commentaries by the 'fathers'
>
>In the section on the Lord's prayer the author explains that the Lord's
>Prayer is THE Christian Creed. It belongs to the Faithful. While the Creed
>eg Nicene (*I believe in one God ...*) was intended for catechumen (novice
>Christians/beginners) - and not until they were 'illuminated' were they
>initiated into the Lord's Prayer. In Church service, catechumen and
>'outsiders' departed after the Creed, and the doors closed. A practise
>symbolically maintained by Roman Catholics and something the author appears
>to hold in such regard that he'd like the practise reinstated. (It's already
>sounding weird.)
>
>It's an interesting book but flicking through it, I'm continually reminded
>of the issues that led to the Reformation. This is one thing that I don't
>understand, speaking more broadly, the Orthodox tradition stakes its
>legitimacy on grounds of an unbroken tradition whilst claiming Western
>civilization is disconnected. There is this claim that the western Christian
>aims at moral perfection whereas the true and obviously Orthodox
>understanding is for a life of theosis. What is this tradition that is so
>important to the orthodox? If I accept it then it is the chain of conscious
>beings, and C influence. What I don't accept is that it exists in a Church,
>though perhaps G thought Mt Athos had it? Praxis website/Robin Amis promote
>and sell this general view:
>
>http://www.praxisresearch.net/cart_product.cfm/prod_id/36625/bk/1/tid/264
>http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf
>
>"We now live in an age where Western civilization
>lives and acts contrary to its Christian heritage, yet it
>still believes that it knows about Christ and His Church.
>The West fails to appreciate that over one thousand years
>separate it from this tradition. As a result, the West’s
>perception and understanding of Christ and His Church
>has become clouded."
>
>"Theosis is personal communion with God “face to
>face.” To the Western mind, this idea may seem incomprehensible,
>even sacrilegious, but it derives unquestionably
>from Christ’s teachings. Jesus Christ was the
>fulfillment of the messianic dream of the Jewish race;
>His mission to connect us with the Kingdom of God
>– a Kingdom not of this world."
>
>If you look into it you'll see that Orthodox types don't really understand
>the protestant position. They are confused by the multiplex of denominations
>and the lack of any tradition. I think they feel cornered. They don't
>generally disagree with the Protestant critique of Roman Catholicism but
>they consider dependence on the Word a flaw (they attack Sola Scripture)
>that has led to endless personal interpretations which result in Jehovah's
>Witnesses, Methodists, Baptists, Wesley and, Calvinists, etc. This diverse
>range of interpretations within the protestant world is perceived within the
>Orthodox as a sign of grand vanity. They are appalled by Calvin's
>Institutes.
>
>What I see and the description on the treatment of catechumen above points
>up how the Word was controlled through an elite administered liturgical
>practise. And, although that book is so evidently christian and concerned
>with God and Jesus Christ, and the mysteries therein, I still get this
>background taste that this could be any of a dozen mystical eastern
>teachings on holiness.
>
>I suppose it's just a very different thing to something like Berkhof. I read
>one orthodox critique challenging Sola Scriptue by drawing attention to the
>body of theology that protestants rely on ... how hazy! Tho I can see a lot
>of value and use in this prayer book, and in the Orthodox church too, but
>I'm not convinced they have what they claim to possess. They certainly don't
>know anything about what they critique and they don't understand how the
>Holy Spirit works either.
What ties it to Jesus and His army and the Kingdom of God is you are a soldier in that army and you are on the battlefield when you enter that self-remembering realm. That third state of consciousness and higher emotion realm. As Man #4 and eventually #5.
Without the armor of God though you are vulnerable.
Once there though you are able to be used, to be helpful, to be effective for the goal of the Kingdom of God when you are on that spiritual battlefield. And you can't know what is happening in the way flesh and flesh senses know what is going on around them. You can just be a knight *staying on your horse*, dealing with whatever friction comes your way, overcoming, moving on. The effect you have on the battlefield will be more than you can discern. The effect on others, etc.
In the higher world you manifest as something else. Your will you as that higher manifestation will have is God's will. You can see now how God's will *is* your will. The more that higher body develops the more Real Will becomes conscious. So think of yourself moving and acting down here while your higher body is moving acting up there. You want your higher body to be under the influence of God's will. Real will. It will be, if you are truly in the third state down here, and staying on your horse (emotion, higher emotion). - C.
ps- As I was writing this post I was thinking of Don Quixote as well as Grail Romance. There is school connection there. Don Quixote depicts the type of the person who is pathetic in the face of the world once they move on. Cervantes took a different approach, and perhaps it depicts different things than Grail Romance is intended to depict, but seen in this light you can see it as a school document. The connection Cervantes has with Shakespeare in the minds of literary critics going back is significant. Just a little aside. It may be good to have Don Quixote in you to draw on when you go through the process of true separation from the world which all the above assumes.
pps- There is also the confusion among the most biblical of theologians as to how to differentiate the visible church and the Kingdom of God. It's a matter of scale and development.
From: c. t.
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: a prayer book and rambling notes and qoutes
Yes, and also the real metaphor of the Grail knight depicts the Man #4 (and #5) experience. That is both solitary (the trackless forest) and community (when levels are transcended and the community of the Grail Castle is reached). The Round Table still depicts the worldly level. They have to ride off on adventure, stay on their horse (higher emotion), meet friction (fights, not get thrown) overcome and transcend levels of reality. - C.
From: S
To:
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: a prayer book and rambling notes and qoutes
Man number 4 means conscious development, so I imagine the church of man number four would in some way mean a connection (even like what we have here) between others who are on that path. Not necessarily "Groups" in the Gurdjieff Foundation kind of a way but the genuine meaning stated in Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are assembled in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Its interesting that its such a small number. It suggests gathering for genuine reasons, to talk or share ideas, rather than for a sense of community in the hundreds and all that goes with that.
This is church for man number #4
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:58:50 +0100
Subject: Re: a prayer book and rambling notes and qoutes
From: quickeningspirit
To:
CC:
I can easily agree with the religions of Man 123 idea. It's the interactions and energies at work between these that I was mostly looking at.
Also, I'm equally uneasy in an Anglican service as Catholic - I'm not sure I've ever experienced Orthodox, but that doesn't matter. There is even something (well numerous things) I find very attractive in each of these.
You make the subject interesting, if it's a question, what does the Man #4 Branch look like? This might be a mystery. It can't have the same solid footprint for the same reason that G spoke of the Work as belonging to the Slyman.
On 27 October 2011 22:38, c. t. wrote:
Preliminary reply (on a tiny keyboard)... Might not we be well-served to think of the issues involving church and church branches under the rubric of Man #123 and Man #4? I've written this before, but it's a big subject, central really to everything we discuss and do in our everyday lives. It is so obvious that Eastern Orthodox is the Man #1 branch. Roman Catholicism is the Man #2. And Protestantism is the Man #3 branch.
We then have to acknowledge that Protestantism has a controlling presence among the three. Resented by the other two. That is because intellectual center has to control, to a basic degree, emotional and instinctive/moving/sex center. And IC's standard has to be sola Scriptura.
So being truly balanced we'll seem more Protestant. So from there we move into what the Man #4 'branch' looks like.
This is why we have interest in the two other branches. The music, the practices.
Obviously the Work is the language of the #4 level. What do you think on this thus far? - C.
On Thu Oct 27th, 2011 2:06 PM PDT quickeningspirit wrote:
>I have a book titled A Method of Prayer by Eugraph Kovalevsky. It's a Praxis
>book, same publishers as Mouravieff. It's essentially part of the
>French/Russian Orthodox tradition. Anyway, an aside.
>
>It covers.
>the Jesus prayer - which was my original interest in buying it
>the Lord's prayer
>commentaries by the 'fathers'
>
>In the section on the Lord's prayer the author explains that the Lord's
>Prayer is THE Christian Creed. It belongs to the Faithful. While the Creed
>eg Nicene (*I believe in one God ...*) was intended for catechumen (novice
>Christians/beginners) - and not until they were 'illuminated' were they
>initiated into the Lord's Prayer. In Church service, catechumen and
>'outsiders' departed after the Creed, and the doors closed. A practise
>symbolically maintained by Roman Catholics and something the author appears
>to hold in such regard that he'd like the practise reinstated. (It's already
>sounding weird.)
>
>It's an interesting book but flicking through it, I'm continually reminded
>of the issues that led to the Reformation. This is one thing that I don't
>understand, speaking more broadly, the Orthodox tradition stakes its
>legitimacy on grounds of an unbroken tradition whilst claiming Western
>civilization is disconnected. There is this claim that the western Christian
>aims at moral perfection whereas the true and obviously Orthodox
>understanding is for a life of theosis. What is this tradition that is so
>important to the orthodox? If I accept it then it is the chain of conscious
>beings, and C influence. What I don't accept is that it exists in a Church,
>though perhaps G thought Mt Athos had it? Praxis website/Robin Amis promote
>and sell this general view:
>
>http://www.praxisresearch.net/cart_product.cfm/prod_id/36625/bk/1/tid/264
>http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis-english.pdf
>
>"We now live in an age where Western civilization
>lives and acts contrary to its Christian heritage, yet it
>still believes that it knows about Christ and His Church.
>The West fails to appreciate that over one thousand years
>separate it from this tradition. As a result, the West’s
>perception and understanding of Christ and His Church
>has become clouded."
>
>"Theosis is personal communion with God “face to
>face.” To the Western mind, this idea may seem incomprehensible,
>even sacrilegious, but it derives unquestionably
>from Christ’s teachings. Jesus Christ was the
>fulfillment of the messianic dream of the Jewish race;
>His mission to connect us with the Kingdom of God
>– a Kingdom not of this world."
>
>If you look into it you'll see that Orthodox types don't really understand
>the protestant position. They are confused by the multiplex of denominations
>and the lack of any tradition. I think they feel cornered. They don't
>generally disagree with the Protestant critique of Roman Catholicism but
>they consider dependence on the Word a flaw (they attack Sola Scripture)
>that has led to endless personal interpretations which result in Jehovah's
>Witnesses, Methodists, Baptists, Wesley and, Calvinists, etc. This diverse
>range of interpretations within the protestant world is perceived within the
>Orthodox as a sign of grand vanity. They are appalled by Calvin's
>Institutes.
>
>What I see and the description on the treatment of catechumen above points
>up how the Word was controlled through an elite administered liturgical
>practise. And, although that book is so evidently christian and concerned
>with God and Jesus Christ, and the mysteries therein, I still get this
>background taste that this could be any of a dozen mystical eastern
>teachings on holiness.
>
>I suppose it's just a very different thing to something like Berkhof. I read
>one orthodox critique challenging Sola Scriptue by drawing attention to the
>body of theology that protestants rely on ... how hazy! Tho I can see a lot
>of value and use in this prayer book, and in the Orthodox church too, but
>I'm not convinced they have what they claim to possess. They certainly don't
>know anything about what they critique and they don't understand how the
>Holy Spirit works either.
9.21.2011
Objective understanding
It's a big deal getting understanding of biblical doctrine. Seeing it, accepting it, valuing it. It builds your spiritual body. The same with getting parts in relation to the whole understanding of the word of God. It's unusual. As I'm here reading endless chapters of the Old Testament I sometimes think how unusual it is compared to what is happening everywhere else all around me. Not that I'm special, just how different it is.
You have to engage this living language of the Old and New Testaments until it fuses into something higher, until you see it as truly universal, until its seeming provincial, localized aspects fall away. Then it becomes true objective understanding. There's nothing under the sun (or beyond the sun) within time, or in eternity, that can't be understood by it (other than God, completely).
In the above I am assuming Man #4 type efforts and development into Man #5.
You have to engage this living language of the Old and New Testaments until it fuses into something higher, until you see it as truly universal, until its seeming provincial, localized aspects fall away. Then it becomes true objective understanding. There's nothing under the sun (or beyond the sun) within time, or in eternity, that can't be understood by it (other than God, completely).
In the above I am assuming Man #4 type efforts and development into Man #5.
John Calvin on Eschatological Pilgrims
John Calvin on Eschatological Pilgrims
Let us always look at our Lord Jesus Christ. And for as much as we know that God's Son is come down hither, and will hereafter receive us into his glory, yea, and that God hath made him head of the angels as well as of us: let us assume ourselves that although we be here in this world, yet notwithstanding, we be but as pilgrims and cease not for all that to be citizens of heaven whereunto we be led by hope. And for the same cause he saith in another place that we be set already in the heavenly places. And how? By hope.
—John Calvin, "Sermon 16 on Titus 3:4-7" in Sermons on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (facsimile of the 1579 edition reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust, 1983) 1235.
http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxV18N3A6.htm
Let us always look at our Lord Jesus Christ. And for as much as we know that God's Son is come down hither, and will hereafter receive us into his glory, yea, and that God hath made him head of the angels as well as of us: let us assume ourselves that although we be here in this world, yet notwithstanding, we be but as pilgrims and cease not for all that to be citizens of heaven whereunto we be led by hope. And for the same cause he saith in another place that we be set already in the heavenly places. And how? By hope.
—John Calvin, "Sermon 16 on Titus 3:4-7" in Sermons on the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (facsimile of the 1579 edition reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust, 1983) 1235.
http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxV18N3A6.htm
The influence of objective-consciousness
We need influences to get self-consciousness and objective-consciousness. The influences that develop us up to the Work are B Influence. Objective-consciousness needs its own influence. C Influence is needed (which practically means being in the third state of consciousness at least, which means doing the Work). Objective-consciousness also needs material influence, or knowledge. Something higher than mere literature the way C influence is higher than B influence. That material is the living word of God.
You can't have objective-consciousness without knowing the plan of God, or plan of redemption.
This objective-consciousness via the word of God is obviously more than just knowing true doctrine and the Bible really well, because it is *on top of* having self-consciousness, which most theologians, for instance, don't have. We're faced with our ignorance and weakness - and sin - when doing the Work, and just being awake to ourselves that knowing the Work requires.
The Book of Revelation is a test for objective-consciousness. Interestingly a person like Calvin with all his understanding said he didn't understand the Book of Revelation and left it alone. This shows the boundary between Man #1,2,3 and Man #5.
You can't have objective-consciousness without knowing the plan of God, or plan of redemption.
This objective-consciousness via the word of God is obviously more than just knowing true doctrine and the Bible really well, because it is *on top of* having self-consciousness, which most theologians, for instance, don't have. We're faced with our ignorance and weakness - and sin - when doing the Work, and just being awake to ourselves that knowing the Work requires.
The Book of Revelation is a test for objective-consciousness. Interestingly a person like Calvin with all his understanding said he didn't understand the Book of Revelation and left it alone. This shows the boundary between Man #1,2,3 and Man #5.
9.14.2011
Further birth
I am beginning to tangibly feel - physically feel - being in covenant with God. What it is. I'm feeling it from the words in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. The feeling is directional internally. By that I mean it is also an emotional sense of being on-the-mark in following God or being off-the-mark in rebelling and falling away to idols. And it's not a law thing, or a following rules thing. It's a physical/emotional feeling like a new body coming to fruition inside me. It involves the two conscious shocks as well. You can begin to see how this phenomenon, this reality, this growth, solves problems of God's will vs. individuality. You can see how a new world opens up when you are 'in' this. This is also obviously the Work teaching of developing higher bodies and developing Real Will and so on. It's elusive (at least for now, at the beginning of it), yet it is real and something you can 'feel.'
8.06.2011
Objective consciousness
Getting understanding of the plan of God in all its elements in revelation and history and human nature is the material of objective consciousness. Notice it includes everything under its umbrella, even pagan religion, i.e. understanding of pagan religion, and everything else.
The language of cosmoses, that elusive language that must be pondered and found, is the language of objective consciousness. Revelation can be seen in this language.
C Influence and contacting it by being in the third and forth states of consciousness is the source. Conscious influence, only one source of that: the triune God.
+ + + + + + +
That last email was meant to give the elements of the higher realm Work operates in. It was inspired by picking up and looking through Kline's Kingdom Prologue. Kline wrote in the language of cosmoses, thought in it, and applied it to very orthodox Biblical doctrine. Anyway, when you think of the mundane and how to gather all you've learned to transcend to the higher realm, think of the three things mentioned in the last email.
The language of cosmoses, that elusive language that must be pondered and found, is the language of objective consciousness. Revelation can be seen in this language.
C Influence and contacting it by being in the third and forth states of consciousness is the source. Conscious influence, only one source of that: the triune God.
+ + + + + + +
That last email was meant to give the elements of the higher realm Work operates in. It was inspired by picking up and looking through Kline's Kingdom Prologue. Kline wrote in the language of cosmoses, thought in it, and applied it to very orthodox Biblical doctrine. Anyway, when you think of the mundane and how to gather all you've learned to transcend to the higher realm, think of the three things mentioned in the last email.
7.06.2011
OK, something substantive...
Two practical efforts: 1. Read the word of God. It is living language. It changes you. Separates your spirit from your soul (Heb. 4:12) and enables the light to enter and the Spirit to speak to your spirit. Etc., etc.
2. Enter into a Work effort until you provoke your limit then keep your Aim in view through the dust and confusion and the whole maelstrom of being at your limit, and act from the Work rather than from life and in *all that* you make real progress. You want to be there, in that maelstrom which is being at your limit, and you want to struggle to extend your limit, and you keep your eye on your Aim through all the confusion and dust and explosions and so on. It all has its natural beginning, middle, and end, so just persevere in it until a conclusion of that particular effort. That changes you over time.
There must be a third...?
3. Prayer.
2. Enter into a Work effort until you provoke your limit then keep your Aim in view through the dust and confusion and the whole maelstrom of being at your limit, and act from the Work rather than from life and in *all that* you make real progress. You want to be there, in that maelstrom which is being at your limit, and you want to struggle to extend your limit, and you keep your eye on your Aim through all the confusion and dust and explosions and so on. It all has its natural beginning, middle, and end, so just persevere in it until a conclusion of that particular effort. That changes you over time.
There must be a third...?
3. Prayer.
7.01.2011
An observation with symmetry
It's interesting, observing the average church Christian makes me value Work (Fourth Way) ideas, practices, and goals; and on the other hand observing the average Fourth Way/Gurdjieff type makes me value the word of God, regeneration, and biblical doctrine.
Having said that it's better to be shallow and saved than to be unsaved, but I just don't think the Holy Spirit leaves individuals he has regenerated in a state of valuing shallowness and wanting to stay there. In fact I know He doesn't.
Having said that it's better to be shallow and saved than to be unsaved, but I just don't think the Holy Spirit leaves individuals he has regenerated in a state of valuing shallowness and wanting to stay there. In fact I know He doesn't.
5.01.2011
Death
Reading Human Nature in its Fourfold State gives clear and deep insight into Work teaching.
On death, it is clear the unregenerate are in death - and hell - now. Not in the sense that this world is hell. In the sense that in the fullness of their living time, in that living interval, they are in death and hell, just as the born again - regenerated by the Word and Spirit - are no longer there. The born again have left that realm - which to the living is a spiritual realm - and the world senses this and shows hatred for them.
When the unregenerate die they experience death and hell, yet in all their living time they still maintain the pride of life and rebellion against God. Then when their consciousness is in the flesh again - recurrence - they go back to their old vomit. They do this until the harvest when they will no longer be able to do it. The theatre and time cycle within which recurrence happens comes to an end, eventually. The second coming, the end of time, the harvest when the wheat will be separated from the chaff.
Unless they experience effectual calling and regeneration, in which case they leave the bondage of death and hell in the spiritual realm, the world hates them, they separate from the world, belong to God, and go to be with God when they physically die, which has already happened in the spiritual realm.
Context brings Biblical statements into practical light. To walk in the Spirit can be seen clearly when you picture yourself in the spiritual realm now, in that interval between death and birth, but which exists now in the living time recurrence sense.
We can also see how when we sleep, or fall, and we don't walk in the Spirit in that dark realm, how we make ourselves vulnerable to all the forces of hell. O [I say, like a 19th century poet], to be an awake, pure spiritual warrior in that realm now, continually until death and resurrection into God's Kingdom, glorified.
We know how to do it now; and we certainly have influences to further teach us.
On death, it is clear the unregenerate are in death - and hell - now. Not in the sense that this world is hell. In the sense that in the fullness of their living time, in that living interval, they are in death and hell, just as the born again - regenerated by the Word and Spirit - are no longer there. The born again have left that realm - which to the living is a spiritual realm - and the world senses this and shows hatred for them.
When the unregenerate die they experience death and hell, yet in all their living time they still maintain the pride of life and rebellion against God. Then when their consciousness is in the flesh again - recurrence - they go back to their old vomit. They do this until the harvest when they will no longer be able to do it. The theatre and time cycle within which recurrence happens comes to an end, eventually. The second coming, the end of time, the harvest when the wheat will be separated from the chaff.
Unless they experience effectual calling and regeneration, in which case they leave the bondage of death and hell in the spiritual realm, the world hates them, they separate from the world, belong to God, and go to be with God when they physically die, which has already happened in the spiritual realm.
Context brings Biblical statements into practical light. To walk in the Spirit can be seen clearly when you picture yourself in the spiritual realm now, in that interval between death and birth, but which exists now in the living time recurrence sense.
We can also see how when we sleep, or fall, and we don't walk in the Spirit in that dark realm, how we make ourselves vulnerable to all the forces of hell. O [I say, like a 19th century poet], to be an awake, pure spiritual warrior in that realm now, continually until death and resurrection into God's Kingdom, glorified.
We know how to do it now; and we certainly have influences to further teach us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
