In Tradition of the Gnostic Apostle, gnosis was described as experiencing the Divine, awakening to the Christ within. This article is about connecting with the Divine through the higher mind symbolized by the Only-Begotten Son. Gnostic Christian myth and scripture say we know God through the Son. Through the Son, God’s love moves from imminent potentiality to never-ending actuality. Love is God’s Word pouring out Life and Light on all things. (John 1:1-18)
As we transition to solid food, as the apostle Paul might say (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12), there is something important to keep in mind. The terminology and mythos we have from gnostic traditions are markers and pointers to higher consciousness, but in and of themselves are only human symbols. The danger we have in our introduction to Gnosticism is in latching on to the myths and symbols as gnosis. This is a common mistake. This is literalism in a clever disguise.
Our discussion continues largely within the context of the second-century gnostic tradition of the Alexandrian theologian Valentinus and Paul, of whom it was written was Valentinus’ original source through Paul’s disciple Theudas. If this is so, then it is an intriguing possibility that we are getting a glimpse of Paul’s esoteric teachings he reserved for the spiritually mature. Tradition has it that Paul received his knowledge of the mysteries through mystical encounters with the ascended Christ Jesus. We have additional support for this from scripture.
It is important to understand how gnostic Christians viewed scripture available to them. They accepted scripture as the authoritative Word of God. They interpreted it allegorically and metaphorically and wrote their own literature the same way, which can be seen in their leather-bound writings, found buried near Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. Properly understood these writings, canonical and apocryphal, contain wisdom and revelation of the Divine mysteries. Gnostic Christians maintained that the true meaning of scripture cannot be fully understood unless a person knows the esoteric teachings.
Even individual words properly understood have a dramatic effect on the true meaning of scripture. One example that ties in with our topic is Paul’s use of the word metanoia in his letters. In our Bible it is mistranslated from Greek into English as “repentance,” an obvious orthodox attempt to hide Paul’s original intent. Traditionally it is defined as turning away from sin in sorrow. It is often used within the context that if we repent we will avoid eternal punishment. Even the harsh critic of gnostic Christianity Tertullian wrote that this was a gross mistranslation.
Keeping things honest, when we break down the Greek word into its two parts, it takes on a mystical interpretation. The prefix meta means ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’; noia means ‘mind’. Metanoia, then, can be understood as the higher mind of the Spirit transcending the lower mind of the flesh. Flesh cannot inherit the kingdom. (1 Corinthians 15:50) We know Paul had what we call transcendental experiences as he himself reports (2 Corinthians 12:2-4). Six of Paul’s transcendental experiences are reported in Acts, including his vision of Christ Jesus on the road to Damascus. Something profound happens in the mind and forever changes us at the point of conversion. This is what Paul is conveying.
The Ineffable God and Divine Essence
We may experience Christ as Paul did, but can we know God directly through transcendental experience? Valentinian Christians said the answer is ‘no’. They taught that God is beyond description, invisible and silent, so He is called the Ineffable. God is outside all things, yet contains all things. The Ineffable God can only be known and described by His Divine essence and energies. As such, scripture says that God is Love (energy) and God is Spirit (essence).
Unlike the traditional characterization of God, gnostics understand Him as androgynous. I’m using the masculine form herein because this is how we have it in the Bible. His Divine essence has both masculine and feminine aspects. The masculine aspect provides form, while the feminine aspect provides substance. God doesn’t need anything, yet He gave all things form and substance as His own reflection. We cannot see God as He is, but we do see His reflection. “For now we see only as a reflection in a mirror.” (1 Corinthians 13:12, NIV)
God unfolds His essence and energy in a series of emanations and spheres-of-being called ‘Aeons.’ Aeons are male-female pairs. This pairing is referred to as a ‘dyad’. If you’re familiar with Kabbalah, you’ll recognize parallels with Ein Sof and the Sefirot. The first dyad is ‘Depth’ in its masculine aspect and ‘Thought’ in its feminine aspect. They are called ‘Father-Mother’. From the Father’s Depth, life receives form. From the Mother’s Thought, form receives substance.
From Thought, which is the Mother’s womb, the Only-begotten Son emanates. The Son’s masculine aspect is ‘Mind’ and the feminine aspect is ‘Truth.’ This is the second dyad. Only through the Only-Begotten Son (Mind and Truth) may we know the Father, as only he comprehends Him. There are many Aeons beneath the Son in further emanations, but they do not comprehend the Father apart from the Son. Since the Son emanates from the Mother’s Thought he is also Knowledge (Gnosis). Here, we begin to catch a glimpse of the Gospel of John.
Resting in the Only-Begotten Mind
The Gospel of John was highly revered by the Valentinians, so it follows they used it in refining their theology. Valentinus’ followers Heracleon and Ptolemy wrote commentaries on John’s Gospel, which have survived. The Gospel contains a highly developed spiritual theology written to be understood metaphorically, not literally. The author takes poetic license, and when Jesus speaks it is as the Only-Begotten Son speaking the Father’s Word. In this sense he is also the Word, or in the original Greek language, the Logos. Because of its mystical quality, John’s Gospel was controversial and nearly did not make it into the Bible. By Divine providence it is the gnostic Gospel that was not burned or buried in the Egyptian desert.
According to John’s Gospel, Jesus showed us the Way to the Father. Jesus said “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) Again as the Son, Jesus said “If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him!” (John 14:7) Jesus as the Only-Begotten Son, then, is understood esoterically as the Mind, Truth and Word of God. We may know God, or rather, partake of His Divine essence, through the Son Jesus Christ.
Unlike John’s spiritual Gospel, the three synoptic Gospels repeat Jesus’ sayings literally as closely as they can from handed-down oral traditions. In them, Jesus plainly refers to esoteric knowledge, as is recorded in the Gospel attributed to Matthew. Jesus said, “Father you have hidden these things from the wise and revealed them to little children…All things have been handed over to me by my Father…and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him. Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:25-29, ESV)
In this passage of scripture, as God’s Son, Jesus is astonishingly offering ‘rest’ just as the Israelites were offered God’s rest upon their exodus from Egypt, just as God rested on the seventh day, just as the Sabbath is a day of rest. The ‘wise’ are the religious who follow the letter of the Law, foolishly observing the literal Sabbath as a way to earn God’s favor. Paradoxically, there is no rest for them. The ‘little children’ are those who are spiritual by nature. These are called the ‘elect’ in Paul’s letters. For them, there is rest. Longing to know God is our ‘labor’, and the ‘heavy burden’ is our difficulty integrating our spiritual life with everyday life. God’s rest as transcending worldly confinement is connecting with the Mind of God in the Only-Begotten Son.
Modern Light on This Psychic Connection
Gnostics in ancient times intuitively understood the ontological connection between myth, the mind and the Divine. Two great minds in modern times demonstrated this idea on more rationalistic and scientific terms. They show how myth and symbols connect the unconscious mind with higher consciousness, which is Christ consciousness. Myth speaks to us more profoundly than mere words.
As a reflection of our mind’s internal architecture, we may even say as a reflection of God, the mythology and symbols humans create originate in the psyche as ‘archetypes’. Examples of psychic archetypes manifesting in myth and storytelling include: our insecurity and the need for rescue in the form of hero figures like Moses; the desire for sustenance and nurturing in the form of a mother goddess like Isis; the fear of annihilation in the form of a natural disaster like Noah’s flood; the trickster who tries to confound and undermine us like the ubiquitous figure Satan, just to name a few. We see these archetypes repeated in characters and played out in plot lines in classical literature, art, movies and children’s stories. We seem to express and relate to the same things without giving it any thought. It just happens.
The concept of psychic archetypes as in the above examples was described famously by the father of depth psychology Carl Jung (1875-1961). Jung thought of the soul as the primordial mind from which archetypes surface in the psyche. Jung first became aware of psychic archetypes in his patients as their issues seemed to stem from similar causes. He concluded that we are all alike psychically, in that all humans manifest the same archetypical psychological tendencies.
Interestingly, Jung’s private journal contained accounts of his own transcendental experiences. He had many works in his library by the gnostic theosophist G.R.S. Mead (1863-1933), who apparently had an influence on him. Jung’s heirs did not allow the journal to be published until 2009, perhaps for obvious reasons, when it was released under the title The Red Book. In a videotaped interview late in his life, Jung was asked if he believed there was a God. He replied that he did not believe. He knew.
Complementing Jung from a sociological perspective was the monumental work of Joseph Campbell. Campbell became widely known and his work popularized by the PBS series, The Power of Myth, hosted by Bill Moyers in 1988. Campbell showed that myth in all cultures addressed the same existential questions in different ways people of a particular culture could relate.
All myths have a common thread. He also observed that myth has the transformative power to transcend the mundane, to elevate the mind to higher consciousness. He illustrated through the example of the Shaman how mystical experience can be achieved when myth is internalized and acted out transcendentally through ritual. If the mind is a portal, myth is our guide.
One Mind by Intelligent Design
Integrating the intuition of the ancients with Jung’s depth psychology and Campbell’s mythological sociology tells us something profound. There can be only one conclusion. We are united by an undeniably universal psychic connection. Our separation is a tragic illusion. We are all souls from the same primordial Mind with the same concerns, the same longings, and the same aspirations. We were designed this way. It is in our DNA. We are pre-programmed to connect psychically with the Divine and with each other, if we will only allow it. God created us in a way so that together we may create something new through the Only-Begotten Mind. It is an ongoing and simultaneous process of mutual love.
If these articles have stirred your interest in learning more about Christianity’s esoteric origins and gnosticism in general, here are some resources to help you study.
The Gnostic Society Library’s free materials, lectures and excellent section on Valentinus: www.gnosis.org
A free online library of orthodox, apocryphal and gnostic primary sources: www.earlychristianwritings.com
A readable translation with excellent commentary before each Gnostic Gospel: The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, by Marvin Meyer and James Robinson.
The Joseph Campbell Foundation: www.jfc.org
Elaine Pagels: The Gnostic Paul; The Gnostic Gospels; Beyond Belief and other related works.
Bart D. Ehrman: Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, and other related works.
Carl G. Jung: Memories, Dreams, Reflections; The Undiscovered Self and other related works.
Welcome and enjoy the journey of a lifetime!
Really enjoyed this article, Tommy.
Excellent article. Keep up the good work, I look forward to more in the future.
What do we really mean by a psychic connection? Is it anything more real than metaphoric symbolism, by which we attempt to share our individual subjective experiences.
It appears that many humans enjoy the personal experience of imagining a divine energy. In their individual imaginations they seem to put this energy to various uses. AA calls on it to return my mind to a saner relationship with alcohol. Others use it to make the best decision in the face of an ambiguous set of choices. Others use the energy to make ethical choices. Others believe it may assist in the creation of abundance and prosperity. And some see it as their duty to fight a war in defence, or even offence, of their God.
However, all these acts of the imagination can be adequately and fully construed as acts of the isolated individual imagination; albeit shared with others via non-specific symbolism.
So, I have an imaginary thought, which I symbolise as God. The thought makes me feel better. I share my symbol with you, perhaps via a myth or a painting or perhaps even by the way I live my life (most folks would rather see a sermon than have to listen to one!) And this sharing seems to create feelings of resonance between us, which some may call communion.
But do these symbols and metaphors have any basis in an objective reality. Do archetypes travel through the ether in any way akin to other electro-magnetic (energy) waves?
A lot of people seem to think that thought energy waves do exist. But how much analytical thought have they given it? What is the empirical evidence for their assertions?
I suspect a lot of people are convinced about a divine energy, simply on the basis of how good the thought of it makes them feel. And there is no harm in, say, meditating simply because it makes you feel better. At least it is not fattening! But is there any real objective evidence for any other predictable, reliable, cause and effect outcomes?
The lack of evidence certainly does not hinder many professions from asserting some extremely fanciful cause and effect relationsips, such as meditation cures cancer, dream your way to riches and the more traditional ideas like God is watching and He can punish you any time He chooses, but if you are in the right tribe, He will be back soon with a spaceship to rescue you and blow the rest to bits. What a happy thought to kick the day off with.
Why do so many people feel the need believe in these speculations, on the basis of so little evidence? Why after 500 years of scientific enhancement of the human condition have so many chunks of the population become so anti-science? Why are scientific skeptics seen as such a force for evil. Why is empiricism and logic as a mode of thought in decline, especially in the so-called first world which has benefitted so much from scientific advancement.
In China and India, we have growing prosperity based on the disciplined acquisition of scientific skills and thinking. China now has a space program and of course rapidly growing middle class. In the West, we have Oprah and “The Secret”.
Why is it so? And what does it portend for our grandchildren?
If wishes were horses, all paupers would ride.
I would love to hear your responses.
Dignity
Brian,
I think there are documented examples in peer-reviewed scientific literature of clairvoyance and similar kinds of phenomena, even mind reading and knowing whether someone is watching you from behind, or sensing something critical is going to happen before it happens. These have been tested in controlled double blind studies at reputable universities. There is no dispute that they truly exist, even though there are examples of people imagining they exist without proof.
I think part of the training in developing psychic skills in adults involves first deconditioning learned subconscious skepticism. If you tell people they have these skills and ask them to experiment by assuring them they have them, and do not judge them when they start out experimenting, they are very likely to develop them. They may feel like they are just responding to imagination at first, and may make a lot mistakes at first, until they start making some positive hits, and learn to distinguish imagination from true psychic abilities. It is a skill that has to be freed from the limitations and inhibitions of the analytical mind when it is over-dominant.
As far as I know, there is no proven explanation for psychic abilities as yet, just hints. For instance, magnetic fields seem to enhance them. So the speculation that electromagnetic radiation or modulation of existing fields is involved is not far fetched. What we now know about quantum entanglement of particles or waves that are physically separate from each other is also suggestive.
Is this helpful
Brian,
I understand your doubts about meditation actually healing. Scientific evidence shows that it helps symptoms, boosts the immune system, and contributes to happiness and acceptance. But most scientific studies have not yet shown that it cures cancer or other diseases, and individual claims of miracle healings are usually disputed by the medical community. The studies usually compare a control group with a group who are instructed in a standardized 7-week course in MBSR (mindfullness-based stress reduction). There is not a lot of deep, long-term experience in meditation among the experimental group.
In contrast, scientific study of individuals who are long time meditation experts definitely show cures. For instance, you can read about this Buddhist Lama who was cured of late stage gangrene and the scientific explanation of how meditation cured him, and further explanations as of 2010 of how meditation affects the nervous system and body physiology. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/25/can-meditation-cure-disease.html.
Alcohol and drug addiction are also reduced by meditation, partly by improving a sense of well-being, partly by providing an instant alternative to giving into a craving, and partly by actually reducing the physiological craving.
Thanks for your quesitons Brian. I hope I understand what you’re asking and can explain it better.
You wrote: What do we really mean by a psychic connection?
There is something in common we all draw from — call it wisdom or whatever you want. Think of wisdom as water in a well. We choose to drink from it or not drink. We each have our own bucket, but the water we draw is the same. When we drink the water, we are sharing wisdom from the same well. We drink as little or as much as we want. Maybe we share our water with someone who doesn’t have a bucket. Lots of ways to connect.
You wrote: However, all these acts of the imagination can be adequately and fully construed as acts of the isolated individual imagination; albeit shared with others via non-specific symbolism.
Yes. We each have our own imagination and experience things differently. Maybe the water you took from the well tastes like lemonade and the water I took from the well tastes like iced tea. Same water. Different flavor. Both taste good.
You wrote: But do these symbols and metaphors have any basis in an objective reality?
No. All are subjective as I think you are suggesting. They relate to each individual in different ways. However we may percieve them, they point to higher consciousness and that is the aim.
You wrote: A lot of people seem to think that thought energy waves do exist. But how much analytical thought have they given it? What is the empirical evidence for their assertions?
I don’t know much on the subject. I’m not writing about transmitting thought waves from person to person. I’m writing about a spiritual connection that is more internal than external.
I don’t get the same sense that people are becoming anti-science. But science has its limitations and one of them is understanding things beyond our senses. I thought you’d find these quotes interesting from some great scientists I admire.
“When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” Carl Sagan from his The Demon-Haunted World.
“To sense that behind everything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense…I am a devoutly religious man,” from Einstein’s What I Believe.
“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.” And “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being,” Sir Isaac Newton.
Take care
Tommy,
I appreciate your statement “The danger we have in our introduction to Gnosticism is in latching on to the myths and symbols as gnosis. This is a common mistake. This is literalism in a clever disguise.” This allows us to view the vehicle for promoting gnosis less seriously. These different approaches to gnosis are almost like games we entertain in order to get into the frame of mind when gnosis can occur, or some way of explaining what happened when gnosis does occur, even though it is more or less unexplainable.
On another note, the phenomena we call serendipity is a psychic phenomenon, not imagined, that can occur with or without assistance from myths or religious models. But some people who are conditioned to be skeptical are more likely to discount it as mere coincidence, block it from awareness, or aggressively deny it. Relying so heavily on “rational skepticism” and equating it with science can lead to false conclusions. An observation requires an observer, and not taking into account the subjective, unconscious bias of the observer is a big mistake. Serendipity can hit a skeptic over the head ten times and they wouldn’t know it. Myths and religious models can open us up into noticing real events we didn’t or wouldn’t notice before. There is also a downside in that if we are not careful, they can also trick us into imagining things that are not real.
Great, great points, Robert. I would like to make clear that even though I’ve been using early Christian Gnosticsim, it’s only one model. Gnosis is gnosis whether Christian, Hermetic, Jewish, Moslem, Eastern traditions and so on. All are streams of living waters. All experiences are subjective and suited to the individual. Thanks
Thanks Tommy and Robert.
It seems that you are describing a principle as opposed to a detailed manifestation of that principle? This is because the actual manifestation is beyond our sensory perception. And the only place we can perceive any possible manifestation of this principle of divine energy is in ourselves, via our non-sensory based imagination. Certainly there is little evidence for a God with whiskers who answers our prayers by altering the basic Laws of Nature. But what about a principle of dine energy operating within our creative imagination, turning ideas in reality?
It seems that the best way to share with others our personal experience of this manifested-within principle of a divine energy is via an artfully vague set of symbols and metaphors. But for this communication to work, we need to remember that we are talking in symbols not the real thing to which the symbols refer; or in Korzybski’s phrase, “our maps (symbols and metaphors) are not the actual territory that we are describing.”
One might say that when I meditate, “I feel a warm healing glow in the solar-plexus.” While the solar-plexus has some empirical meaning, the warm healing glow is clearly a non-empirical metaphor. We could explore the metaphor with various technological instruments to see if we can find some data in support of the hypothesis that healing is taking place; or indeed that anything much is changing at all.
However, this sort of scientific investigation is potentially costly and often results in a rejection of the healing hypothesis in favour no detectable effect. So, you have spent your research dollars only to reject your major hypothesis. Where is the fun in that?
In science, there is also a cost/quality curve. The more verifiable facts you can muster, the more reliable the validity of any conclusions drawn from those facts. So, one Tibettan Monk apparently recovering from gangrene is not a whole lot of data with which make some important assertions: Did he actually have gangrene in the first place; were there any other possible causes; and who is telling the story and why?
And yes, all this skepticism is potentially very tiresome, but is there any alternative if we are to enjoy predictability in our treatments? To say that something is spiritual and therefore does not require rigorous validation seems to me to be fraught with danger. Take supplements for instance, are we saying that herbs can’t kill you; just because they are natural or better still organicly grown. If you were lost in the bush would you just eat any berry you found growing nearby? Why place more faith in an unverified herbal remedy?
And I would still submit that when we do apply a skeptical rigorous examination to these so-called spiritual processes, there is lot less that can be said about them; the excessive claims of many spiritual/alternative medical treatments simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
However, I do agree with you both that we should remain open minded in our skepticism. When skepticism turns into a prejudiced denial, we may easily miss out some genuine truths. But let’s face it there is a lot more gullibility than skepticicsm in the world today.
Otherwise, how could a book entitled, “You Will See It When You Believe It”, have become a best seller? Why not a book on scientific rigor or the calculus (the mathematics of change); why don’t they become best sellers?
I suspect because these subjects make your brain hurt. And humans tend to only want to believe in what feels good.
Brian,
Good discussion and thoughtful points. I think we’re agreeing on some things. I certainly agree there are counterfeit spiritualists out there and false claims by faith healers, which I have personally witnessed. If we’re arguing for the need for science to validate larger spiritual matters, I have a different opinion. We’re probably more of the same mind than it might appear or else we wouldn’t be interacting on a blog dedicated to this subject matter. I imagine we’ll agree on some of these points and disagree on others. I don’t find science and spirituality to be incompatible. This is going to turn into a blog post, so I apologize to all in advance for its length.
I’m a skeptic and scientifically-minded person as well. Perhaps more so than most. As such, I know that proof is often subjective and science is always conducted with the caveat ‘tentatively so’. With each new scientific discovery or advancement in the world of physics some paradigm we thought was set in stone has to be changed. As long as humans are involved, can anything really be objective? My very skeptical, I don’t mean cynical, position is ‘no’.
If science tells us anything it is that there are no absolutes. It, too, requires imagination, subjective reasoning and, yes, even faith. For example, most of the astrophysics community subscribes to the “big bang” theory as the starting point for the creation of the universe. Even they admit there is no empirical evidence to prove it. It’s a generally accepted hypothesis based upon the limits of what can be known with the investigative tools and understanding of physics currently at our disposal. It’s a belief only. It’s a religion in every sense of the word, which is how Albert Einstein described it. We may as well believe in God and that this supreme power created the universe from nothing. In a court of law neither position has an advantage.
In Lucerne Switzerland a great deal of money is being spent on research to find the “god particle.” I’m puzzled that science which can supply no proof of ‘god’ and is skeptical about its existence would use the word ‘god’ to describe its work. Interesting. Whatever, a great deal of money is being spent on the unsupported theory there is such a particle. Are scientists doing this to feel good? I, along with many others, think they’re foolishly wasting time and resources that could be spent doing something more beneficial. To what end would proving such a thing improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of this planet?
I suppose if we asked, most of these scientists would say it does make them feel good about their careers, whether or not it is their primary motivation. The skeptic and critical-thinking social scientist in me says feeling good about themselves, whether or not they consciously understand it as such, is their primary motivation. After all, they are only human. Motivation by definition always has some intangible reward attached to it, which cannot be described by a mathematical formula, empirical evidence or the laws of physics. I submit such a reward reasonably can be described simply as feeling good about themselves.
Doing science just to satisfy our curiosity seems to me to be a misuse of science, which leaves us empty whatever the outcome may be. We may say, okay, we proved this or that. Then what? Science is a double edged sword. Much good comes from it, but it also has been quite successful finding ways to blow ourselves up, oppress populations, pollute our planet and make us more dependent upon technology.
There are studies conducted on par with the same scientific rigor of any physical science investigation showing that prayer improves a person’s chances to get well. It’s a psychic phenomenon; a connection between imagining in our mind we will be healed, the brain’s chemical and electrical response and the body’s endocrine and immune system reactions. It seems there is a spiritual, psychic and physiological connection in these cases. Science begins in the imagination, and as such is a psychic phenomenon. Some say if it can be imagined it can be done. I agree. I’m waiting on teleportation so Scotty can beam me some place with sun and a nice beach.
Many independently share the same imaginings. This is a psychic archetype phenomenon. Not merely a principle. The ability to imagine a universe which began as a tiny particle is a psychic phenomenon – something happens within the space between our ears, which cannot be explained by empirical evidence. Two scientists unknown to each other in childhood but growing up with the same passion for an area of investigation is a psychic phenomenon. A culture in Central America and a culture in North Africa building similar structures and sharing similar mythologies in their longing to please an imaginary god is a psychic phenomenon. These aren’t principles. These are manifestations.
Whatever the case, empirical evidence of things of the mind and Spirit isn’t all that important, unless a person requires it to support their own subjective paradigm in the attempt to answer their existential questions to satisfy whatever their psychological needs are. Does science make us more secure? If a person answers ‘yes’ they are being very naïve, perhaps even gullible, and living in a world of fancy. Perhaps that isn’t so bad. I’m not going to judge that person.
Is a person who relies on science to make themselves feel secure or good any better off than the person who believes in something spiritual or unseen? I don’t think so. If a person believes in something unseen or spiritual and that makes them feel something positive, then they have found the peace that passes understanding and no judgment can be made against them. The “wise” are confounded by this.
If we wait on science to make us feel good, content, secure, at peace, whatever, we sadly will leave this earth very disappointed and unhappy — emotions we cannot quantify, but we know it when we feel it. If we do not feel, we are not human. If it sounds as if I’m against science I’ve given the wrong impression. I’m very much for it, but I’m very much opposed to the self-righteous arrogance of it as it relates to dismissing matters of faith as fairy tales. Oddly, it seems science spends a great deal of time trying to prove God doesn’t exist. Why is this? It’s picking a fight with its own shadow. My wish for everyone is to find their own peace however they may find it. God bless.
Thanks Tommy.
Yes, a lot of what you say does resonate with my understanding of how it all may work.
Is God a very useful existential experience within our individual consciousness? Definitely. And given the chemical clockwork within our immune system, it seems logical that meditation and/or prayer, as a calming form of reflective contemplation, would be far more likely to help than hinder any return to normality.
But does this activity harness some sort of energy from outside the individual or is the efficacy limited to an intra-psychic event? Is prayer in any sense a message carried to an external, interventionist God who responds by sending some sort of ethereal cavalry to help out. Or is this form of rescue from the woes that beset us best left to our creative imagination; more akin to the existential experience described in the previous paragraph?
Why can we not get by with the Grace of the creativity of our Consciousness? Is the human mind not a powerful enough instrument? For me God as a metaphor actually refers to my creative imagination. God can do no more for me, than He can do through me. And the idea of an external God sending in the cavalry only serves to make me lazy in my role as a co-creator of an evolving Universe. Our minds sit at the top of an evolutionary process; and we should use this amazing tool to the fullest, and be willing to give up our childish superstitious habits, which we developed out of necessity during an earlier stage of evolution.
Did we require an external mind to design us? Or did we evolve via some sort of a self-organising process? If the evolution of a self replicating, energy organising “life form” took place elsewhere in the Universe, would it reliably lead to a human form (because there is only one designer God?) Or would a different mutation earlier in the evolutionary journey have resulted in perhaps a non-vertebrate higher form of “life”. My point being that we do not prima-facie require a designer God to explain our evolution, although earlier event-outcomes probably enhanced the likelihood that we would end up with a backbone and four limbs attached to a trunk, just like many of our higher species cousins. But it does not require an inventor sitting down, with a specific design plan to create a human being. Within the Laws of Nature, lots of situations evolve without a design intention; like water following an intitial set of contours and in the process creating a much more significant river.
So, perhaps we have discovered a helpful existential activity (a personal set of spiritual beliefs) which are actually fictional rather than real, but none-the-less personally effective? Why not? I think it is a rather exciting idea; a bit like going to the theatre. We know the play is not real but watching the drama can be absolutely pregnant with personal meaning and relevance.
But what of the collective, tribal implications of a religion, such as the Jewish traditions which have survived an extremely testing period of over 3,000 years? Yes, I can see the social utility for the tribe of a deeply held set of beliefs which helps us all to rub along together. But my question is are these tribal institutions still functional? Or are they just too inflexible? Modern day terrorism may be an indication that the whole idea of separate religions has passed its use-by date. Tribal religions worked when the tribes all had their own continent or at least could be separated by a river or a mountain, but today we are all must live within bomb throwing distance of each other. Does this not make separate tribal Gods all a bit chaotic?
And yes you can say that these tensions are more political than religious, but isn’t the whole idea of a supervisory God, who is essentially there to punish the malevolent and reward the pure in heart, far more political than spiritual? I suspect that sort of God was invented by Emporor Constantine, in 300BC, to keep us all in line, when he could no longer afford to pay an army to do it.
And neither is there much evidence of the Churches ameliorating modern day political problems. Although Desmond Tutu could claim a better record than, say,the Vatican during WW2. But did Tutu weave his healing inspirations because of his church or in spite of it? Time may tell as we move into a post-Mandella era and politics start to again show its darker side. Will the Church produce new leaders, male or female, of this calibre? Or will new leaders, drawing upon non-religious, more humanistic ideas, evolve the church into a more functional institution? Can we look forward to the day when Muslim and a Christian leaders jointly announce that they now share a common, more inclusive faith? I hope so.
In summary, I think the existence or otherwise of God is all a bit of a red herring. First of all we need to get a lot more definition into what all these intangible terms actually mean. Really, what am I meant to infer when someone tells me they are a “Christian”? That term could now have a squillion different shades of meaning. And there are lots of other equally non-specific terms within the overall ideology of a force that we cannot detect, but that we may none-the-less believe is there.
I agree with you and others on this site that a personal existential experience of whatever meaning we attach to these terms, is probably quite beneficial to our well being and happiness.
But when we start to use these terms as if they describe unambiguous cause and effect relationships, we are usually headed for snake oil territory. We all agree that you cannot have science when you can’t detect what you are talking about. And yes, much of our evolution as conscious beings is founded on our ability to imagine what might still be hidden.
But there must be a limit, at which point belief in an unfounded speculation becomes a form of unrealistic insanity.
However, Tommy, our discussion feels like it may be evolving into an interesting form of dialectic; between the believer and the skeptic. According to Hegel it may be possible for our separate ideologies to evolve into a third idea capable of encompassing both our positions.
Irrespective of where it ends, our journey of the mind, for me and I hope for you, is a very pleasant one.
A good post, no doubt.
Mine is a question that has been boggling me for a while. What or why does it matter to pursue or not pursue higher consciousness/christ nature while at the end of the day we all die?That is, regardless whether u labored for higher consciousness or didn’t even bother.
Peter,
It only matters if it matters to you. I can only speak from my experience. You become aware there is life after death. It gives you peace in all circumstances. You have more self-control. It gives you more confidence. You feel loved and you want to share it. I’m a better husband, son, brother and friend. You don’t have to labor for it. Just surrender to it. It’s difficult to explain. It doesn’t mean all will become perfect or there will be no stress in your life, or that you’ll stop being who you are. Either way, just follow your heart.
Thank you Tommy and Robert for your replies. According to your replies, the importance of surrendering to higher consciousness is the benefits we derive from the experience(s) it brings. Like more love,joy,peace…
Ok.
I mean to subscribe to the fact that we are all energy.Just like a candle which can transform from a solid energy state to a liquid and then a gaseous state. In its gaseous state for in stance, can’t we still say the candle is still “alive”?
So is it possible death is a transformative process and that after we die and become ashes we are still “alive” as energy in another state.
Which brings the issue of pursuing higher consciousness as simply an attempt to offer us hope-which it does offer- through experiences/energy frequencies we refer to as peace/love/joy… as we await the transformative process/death to another energy state.Scholars,what could be erroneous with this line of reasoning?
I think you’re right on, Peter. Since we’ve wondered into science, which I love, one law of physics I think relates to this is that energy and matter cannot be made or destroyed. It can only be converted into one form or the other. When a candle burns down, the wax was converted to light and heat energy. Light energyI was involved in nuclear energy for more than 20 years, so energy conversion is right up my ally. Psychic or spiritual energy is a little different as the third pole. When we have a thought, is that energy or matter? It is neither. It is psychic energy, which preceded us in life and will follow us after death.
Peter,
My understanding is that Buddha’s motivation in developing his teachings was to relieve suffering for the lower castes for which the Hindu system at the time provided little hope beyond acceptance of fate. His teachings are sometimes classified as psychology instead of religion. There are substantial benefits to personal well-being and human interaction. His teachings stressed meditation and mindfulness among other practices and virtues. These practices have trickled down to Western civilization in various forms. They are especially valuable in our stress-laden society, not just to find peace and good health, but to enhance problem solving, creativity, and inter-personnel harmony. These improvements have been scientifically measured and documented to some extent using tools of Western medicine, psychology, and neuroscience. There is a lot more to be researched. As Brian pointed out it is expensive to do so. So far there is ample funding at many university hospitals when linked to mitigating symptoms of diseases and psychological problems. Some of corporate America is interested in refining methods to help efficiency and harmony in the workplace.
What really nailed it was brain scan technology. We may not know if a meditator is in a higher plane of consciousness yet, but we can see the parts of his brain that light up when he thinks he is. It is just a matter of time before technological advances will allow us to better observe and validate subjective experiences.
For myself, mindfulness and meditation gave me accelerated access to my suppressed intuitive abilities that would otherwise be overshadowed by an acculturated excess of analytical thinking. I also gained the ability to observe my behavior and my environment from a detached perspective without judgement, and this made it easier to determine if my behavior was being driven by ego or ulterior motives. I began to be able to observe instead of react, which lowered my stress and anger. I also began to open up and become more fascinated by positive direct experiences in life, and feel connected to my environment and others. This is in effect a step into higher consciousness. I would never want to go back to what I was like before.
Thanks a lot Tommy for your reply.
So you say a thought is neither energy nor matter. Then you proceed to say it is psychic energy. I don’t know why this feels contradicting to me. If you may, I won’t mind some clarification.
I think psychic energy is not as easily defined and measured as physical matter and energy. Love is a form of psychic energy, but there are no units of measurements for love. Yet we can sense the effects of it. We might speak of love as having a high vibration, but we are speaking metaphorically, and we cannot usually define those kind of vibrations or equate them with other kinds. I use the word “usually” because the people who read auras claim that they can detect and quantitate psychic energy, or at least tell when there is an imbalance. But still they cannot equate it with physical matter and energy.
Also, there are rules of thumb for psychic energy. Those who are generous will be rewarded with generosity. Those who are merciful will find mercy. Those who are forgiving will find forgiveness. Those who seek (with a good and open heart) will find. If you think positively, positive things will happen to you. Acting for the benefit of all instead of being self-driven, raises psychic energy. It’s very qualitative, rather than quantitative. However, if you get a group of people together they may be able to raise their psychic energies easier and higher than if separated. The more the merrier is a kind of quantitative phenomenon. Its detectable. It’s just not measureable like phenomena on the material level. .
Another feature of psychic energy is that a person can use psychic abilities to determine or affect an event, and it might not matter how far away the event is. In contrast, the influence of matter and physical energy diminish with distance.
It might be easier to consider psychic energy as a characteristic of a higher plane of consciousness. Physical matter and energy are characteristic of the lower material plane of consciousness.
I think Peter and Tommy were trying to relate psychic energy to proof of an afterlife. In my opinion it might be next to impossible to prove the existence of an afterlife using skills from the lower material plane. This is something each individual can pursue using skills on the higher plane of consciousness. If you are not sure, then seek; keep your heart and mind open and pay attention to what evidence comes your way.
The fundamentalist Christian is not used to individual quests in the plane of higher consciousness. They settle for dogma, which is a lower plane of consciousness. The Christ within is able to guide you deeper.
Very interesting analysis, Robert.
You seem to be saying that there is enough going on empirically to maintain our interest, but perhaps we need to be careful not to over-generalise or be quite so free-wheeling with our metaphors.
So, love is empirical as a feeling which we can experience, first hand, as significantly different from other feelings. And the feeling can be described metaphorically as energising. But it is a big leap to say that love is an energy equivalent to various partts of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as visible light or radio waves. Perhaps, we would confuse ourselves less if we called it a pseudo-energy or a quasi-energy; it has some qualities equivalence with the more common forms of energy, but also other less compatable features.
In trying to firm up our concepts, I think there are three important areas of focus.
First is what happens in our heads which tells us we are experiencing love. It seems to me that we each maintain a large map of our various beliefs and interpretations of our experience. And a part of the spiritual discipline relates to how we maintain these maps. So if I do not believe in love, I will likely construe the experience as something else; eg he is only trying to con me. Open mindedness is perhaps a process of suspending judgement; eg he may be conning me or maybe this is what they mean when they talk about love. And there are lots of other details within our maps, like love equals sex or I could never love evil. It is a huge map and part of the spiritual discipline is to not only refer to our map, but also to maintain it. Is that what you mean by higher consciousness? Is it process of thinking about how we think (although think may be the wrong word; try comprehend or relate to or even judge.)
Elsewhere on this site, someone is talking about future tense language. One possible form of higher consciousness is to realise that we have a choice of how we observe an external incident. Imagine yourself walking down a road, seeing what you are seeing as you look ahead of yourself. Now move up into a tree and observe yourself walking down that road. And of course there are lots of other points of observation that we can take up within our imagination. What are the various strengths and weaknesses of each position; eg living in the moment versus highly analytical self analysis (Hint try to stay in the here and now when your spouse is talking to you.)
The second area of focus is how we conceptualise and share the experience, such as our language. Obviously language does a half reasonable job in sharing our feelings of love, especially if you are Shakespeare. But are there other forms of pseudo-energetic transfer?
Non-verbal body language is probably a likely candidate. I suspect a lot of so-called clairvoyance is more likely to be based on the effective reading of the subject’s body language. Bandler and Grinder wrote some good stuff on this topic.
But then what about intra-psychic energy over distance? Who knows, but we do need to remember Okkam’s Razor and that unusual claims require unusual evidence. And are we likely to need thought waves if we already have language and the ability to harness the electromagnetic spectrum via satellites?
Finally, the third area relates to the manner in which we receive information from outside ourselves. If thought waves do exist, how do we learn learn to perceive them?
Obviously our internal maps confound how we interpret any external stimuli. Try Googling the gorrilla playing basketball to see how we see what we want to see and filter out huge chunks of stimuli.
So, when I get a vague hunch or indeed a voice from God, how do I really know if it originates from outside or inside my head?
Each of these three areas, our psychic map, our communication and our perception currently provide huge confounds to any exploration of possible thought-energy waves. All we can do is to admit that we are still speculating and keep investigating each of these three areas of our ignorance.
And if you are short of money, maybe don’t waste it on a psychic medium. It is too early to know.
Brian,
In response to your: “So, when I get a vague hunch or indeed a voice from God, how do I really know if it originates from outside or inside my head?”
My response is to suggest that you are using an antiquated model for God. Try the model that you have a divine guiding spirit within you. It’s not a matter of telling the difference between your voice and God’s. It is a matter of doing things like mediation so you can tune in to your divine spirit.
I agree with you Robert and that was actually what I was trying to say.
When you meditate there is an observable process. You know what is happening within the framework of your own thinking. That part is empirical. And if your thoughts are helpful or inspirational, you may well describe the process as divine.
But what you describe as the antiquated model of God includes a non-empirical part; the energy going out to God and returning as an external divine intervention. And that was what I was questioning.
In your model of meditation, the alchemy is self contained within your mind. This is observable by you, at least; and perhaps others by way of brainscans, etc. However, the religious model requires activity external to the mind of the observer. And this external process is yet to be observed objectively by anyone or any instrument. It seems to require pure faith. Although the religious model seems to take, as evidence of a mediating God, the internal inspiration you are describing, even though there is no reason to link the two ideas into any sort of a cause and effect relationship. I guess this is what the leap of faith is all about. It is certainly not a logical conclusion drawn from the (un)available evidence.
For me, the question also remains as to how mystical Jung was being with his models of the collective unconscious and the archetypes. Jung certainly stressed his empiricism and his scholarship. Dreams seem to me to pass muster as an observable phenomenon. So do the archetypal myths, in the form of recorded stories or even rock art, etc. Personally, I don’t think Jungian psychology really requires any transpersonal communication beyond language, art, music, the recorded fairy tales, dreams as an internal psychic event, etc; but nothing any more etherial than that.
The notion of synchronicity is equally intriguing. I heard an interesting talk on our local radio science show recently. He made the point that luck only makes sense as a past event but not as a future prediction. We can’t predict when we are going to be lucky; we can only observe when we have been so. And I think synchronicity is a similar phenomenon.
So, I may say that I am lucky to have been born in Australia ( a land of great opportunity) but that luck or synchronicity is no basis for predicting good luck in my future. My past is real and it has given me an advantage (a form of grace) but any desired future outcome must be based on rational predictable cause and effect strategies; and most likely personal effort.
The alternative of manipulating barefaced luck via prayer or simply calling oneself a Christian (therefore on the right side of God) in no way alters the randomness of an unmanaged inherently random future. But even with an inherant absence of a force for good luck or other supernatural forces, there will be a future outcome and then I may indeed find that I have been lucky. But that was just the way things turned out. There is no logic in claiming that one random outcome is more likely than another. Genuine cause and effect creates a bias in the outcome, with blind luck the outcome will be random over time, (as is the common case with unanswered prayer).
To attribute unanswered prayer to insufficient faith is a bit of a cop out. I can detect my past good fortune but in trying to reliably predict the the future, random means random, unless a genuine bias appears in the pattern of outcomes. The odd lucky outcome does not indicate any non-random bias. Someone always wins a raffle; you just don’t know who it is going to be. Or it’s like saying sometimes I am very punctual.
And I think that is an important part of synchronicity; an awareness that this moment is pregnant with potential and it is time to get to work to take full advantage of this moment; not call on a Deity to make it different. Rather call on my creative imagination to see it differently. That is what synchronicity says to me.
The paradox often lies in the fact that the past event, like a divorce or losing my job, did not feel all that lucky at the time. But it is only when we look back on things from a broader perspective that we can see the pattern of our good fortune. And we come to see that apparent misfortune was paradoxically the foundation for future good fortune.
If meditation or dream analysis or an appreciation of the sychronicity within a situation helps me to detect that an alternative potential good may reside within an apparently ugly situation then that seems to be a thoroughly worthwhile exercise.
But such processes will always rely on personal effort as opposed to passively praying to a Deity to alter the prevailing conditions. Find the potential in a situation and go for it, heart and soul.
Brian,
There are a lot of extrasensory phenomenon that are generally known to exist that you are in effect, denying by being extra cynical. So I am wondering if there are negative events in your life involving ESP or religion. Most participant in this site have some negative experiences with religion, but they all are not trying very hard to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have you experienced “mindfulness”? Have you ever had a clairvoyant type perception?
Hi Robert.
Here is a cut and paste from the first website I found when I googled “mindfulness”.
How does it differ from what I have said above? Note the focus on the ordinary and general lack of reference to the supernatural. And yes I have used CBT and found it very helpful indeed.
PS: No clairvoyant experiences, whatever they are? However I once backed the winner of the Melbourne Cup horse race. Sadly, over the years I have also backed many many other losers. Does that count? But then again, I don’t know any psychics with a better record as a tipster.
Direct quote from http://www.mindful-well-being.com/
There is nothing too complex about mindfulness – it is simply bringing our awareness to our own experience – and truly being – in each present moment. Mindfulness can be considered as an innate human capacity, available to all of us.
Mindfulness is simply being with ourselves, and noticing what is, in our every day experience.
Becoming more mindful in everyday living can allow us to see the extraordinary in the ordinary, to reconnect with our bodies and our sensory experiences, and to become more responsive, rather than reactive, to the challenges of everyday living.
Brian,
Am I wrong in thinking your answer to my question about you “directly” experiencing deep mindfulness or clairvoyance is “no”? To my knowledge, CBT is a very broad field and does not necessarily include meditating, mindfulness, and learning to be detached from your ego in order to observe yourself without judgment. People who truly experience mindfulness do it as a lifestyle, with lot of training, discipline, and practice.
I agree with you about being skeptical of street-corner psychics. Have you actually gone to one, paid your money, and gotten a reading that was ridiculous? Or are you just naturally skeptical and aligning yourself intellectually to skeptic culture.
“Being there” is not the same as “knowledge about being there”. I can describe weightlessness, but it is not the same thing as living on an orbiting space station and experiencing weightlessness.
Having a hunch about which horse is going to win at a racetrack is not the same skill practiced and experienced by true clairvoyants or any other people deeply skilled in ESP. The most famous ones miss it big time on occasion. It is not a perfect science and various forms of human frailties can distort it. But a study performed on successful CEOs in a controlled experiment showed they had a much better ability to guess the right answer than the normal population.
Maybe my message is not to be so quick to judge the recipe without tasting the cake.
About an hour after that Malaysian plane disappeared, I got an e-mail with a radar picture which claimed to prove that the plane had been kidnapped by aliens.
Over my lifetime, there have been a number of high profile unsolved crimes. To spice up their coverage, the local papers always gather up a number of psychics who are certain that they know what happened. Over my lifetime, and according to historical records, not one crime has ever been solved that way; although many have tried.
The way Benny Hinn purports to heal people by miraculous supernatural forces, every morning on TV, our hospitals should by now be well and truly empty.
What is the common theme? No tangible positive results.
Same with your controlled experiments. Some are not actually all that well controlled. Some do indeed produce a slight positive effect; always much less than one standard deviation away from the randomised outcome. Meta-analyses of a cluster of such studies always show an indeterminate pattern of some slightly for and some against; remebering that there are no degrees of random, but there are are degrees of convincing positive evidence (that’s a bit tough, I know, but that is the way the null hypothesis works.) There is yet to be an outcome that cannot be explained by non-supernatural mechanisms. Your CEO’s may simply have worked harder at school and just know more than others; that’s why they are CEO’s. Who knows?
Plus, there is yet to be a convincing mediating mechanism to explain any possible effect. If it happens, we certainly cannot explain why.
At best, we simply don’t know. Maybe, the enthusiasm of yourself and others will one day make some intellectual progess; good luck and maintain your faith. But please don’t blame skeptical questions for your lack of progress. Your growing ability to answer those questions is actually the best measure of your progress.
Yes, I sometimes follow my hunches; but only when I can think of a rational reason for doing so. Like I said, to do otherwise is to set yourself up to be a mug punter.
It’s fine to guess what the future may be; just don’t forget that you are in fact guessing. And so is that Guru, mystic, financial advisor, TV Psychic, or whatever who is pretending to be able to alter the underlying randomness of a future outcome; and of course, often charging you for the experience of his so-called ancient, deep, traditonal wisdom, based on years of disciplined training, and so the patter goes. (Note the lack of specifics in all those commonly used labels.)
But if you feel that’s what you were put on the planet to discover, then I sincerely wish you well in your endeavours. Just be conservative in the face of all the stuff we really do not yet know. Like you say, your intention is certainly not to con anybody.
Good luck with it. (May the force be with you .)
Brian,
This article seems to validate ESP http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-twenty-two-may/the-reality-of-esp-a-physicists-proof/, but there are many experiments that conclude that there is no evidence and some that conclude that there is evidence. This is an ongoing field of exploration. Lots of street psychics who are bogus create more skepticism. Famous psychics who predict the end of the world that never comes to pass. I hope they do find the wreckage of the Malaysian flight.
I apologize for not being able to explain what I am trying to say better. When I used ‘energy’ by itself I was thinking of the kind of energy we can measure; light, heat, radiation, etc. Whatever happens in the mind I referred to as ‘psychic’ as described by Carl Jung among others. Something is happening whenever I have a thought. I think of it as some form of immeasurable energy. It’s how I conceptualize it but maybe there is a better way to put it. I don’t know if this helps.
I think new age concepts of psychic energy (subtle energy that operates on higher planes of consciousness) are being confused with Carl Jung’s concept of psychic energy (human motivation and driving forces associated with archetypes).
Our thoughts are both a form of subtle energy and influenced by motivations and drives associated with Jung’s archtypes.
Belief in an afterlife is obtained through knowledge which may be accepted without further scrutiny or confirmed or rejected by personal choice or personal revelation.
One theory of afterlife is that we have a subtle part of us that survives after destruction of the physical body and lower personality. One version of this theory states that the subtle part may reincarnate into another physical body or go on to a greater destiny.
There are other variations and other theories. Most of them conclude that we have a destiny to fulfill in this present life that is connected to the afterlife. Most also conclude that a spiritual path to higher consciousness prepares us for the next step for our destiny in this life and in the next.
Robert,
Love this post, sure gets one thinking…
I have had an insight/light, considering all that you mention in your post, that we are in fact right now in this lifetime being prepared for our future adventure…
A Boy Scout/Girl Scout kinda thing…Be prepared!
Oh, go ahead and eat the whole box of GS cookies & milk!
Love, Sparks
Sparks
Because physics tells us that energy and mass are so much interlinked(remember Einstein’s equation).And the fact that we don’t see an atom(unless with the aid of special microscopes) doesn’t necessarily mean it is not there.So why can the same not be applicable to a thought (as energy interlinked with mass) only that our eyes are incapicitated to see this.
My reasoning may be wrong but then again that is why I am on SoS- for help in understanding.Anyone?
Hi Peter,
I understand you questions/ponderings very well and I can agree with your knowing about it.
May I ask if you have ever had a confirmation of this?
Thought is an extremely powerful energy, it is a sense a silent prayer.
If I ever have a thought that is not authentically me, I negate it immediately…Poof! it disintegrates. Humans that are not “awake”, do not realize the impact of their thoughts and what they are creating with them. There have been a few times I have heard others thoughts and they were by no means of a kind nature. If it was in group of people, the puzzle was to figure out who’s thought it was, if I were able to do that, I would try to move towards it in a physic sense, bless it and negate it. Then I would know because the energy would hit me, or the person manifesting ugly thoughts would get a nasty look on the face. Try this, keep your intuition tuned in and you’ll start to pick up first the overall energy of the group. Your eyes are somewhat incapacitated, but if you practice you will see all the subtle energy in various degrees, both positive and negative.
Have you ever seen a neutrino?
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/neutrino/
Very, very tiny and numerous, thousands, especially after a solar flare. they are all over and pass right thru us.
Most folks cannot see, but it is indeed possible.
You would need to be in a certain meditative type state of being and your eyes need a proper light condition, (try right before dusk), miniscule, light, bright and at times you will see the negatively charged ones as well, and they are black.
Not all energy is invisible, it takes practice, give it a try, its really cool to watch them.
Hope my reply is of some help to you…
Sparks
Would you happen to be familiar with David Fideler, or his book Jesus Christ, Sun of God? Also, are you familiar with Richard Smoley, or Jay Kinney and the Lumen Foundation, or Halexandria.org?
Vernon,
I haven’t read any of the authors mentioned above? I don’t think I have even heard of them. Do their writings contain esoteric teachings?
Yes, most specifically “Jesus Christ, Sun of God.” Fideler uses a kind of Faithosophy for his readers. And I’m sure you’re familiar with John 16,13. It’s so important to emphasize the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our search. The Spirit of Truth works personally for each and every one of us. Keep up the good work.
Hi Vernon,
Quite sometime ago I did happen upon Halexandria.org and found it to be quite esoteric. In fact at the time slightly over my head, as I was just beginning my new journey, but I do recall being impressed with some of their material presented.
Will have to journey over there again, as what I didn’t quite grasp then may have some meaning for me now.
As far as the other authors and seekers you mention, I have not heard of them or happened upon their works.
There is just so much out there, one can only absorb so much!
Usually, for myself, my needed teachings are most definitely lead by guidance, which I take seriously as they seem to work with me in a classroom type setting.
This seems to work out best fro me as many re-incarnations need to be dusted out first, giving me the chance to de-program and filter the new knowledge.
They lead, I follow…why do it the hard way, when we have help to guide us.
At times I would go into a stasis like mode while new and beautiful bridges were being built!
A wonderful journey, I must say, I would never go back!
Beauty and purity of love draws me in and that’s it, I’m hooked & of course, I have a connoisseur’s taste for the bait.
Thanks for the contribution’s, will check them out…
Blessings,
Sparks
THANKS for the reply. Indeed, we all have to take our knowledge one day at a time. That’s what helps the heart anchor to rest whatever the mind isn’t yet ready to handle, so we will be able to absorb and deal with later. Interesting thoughts.
Hi Tommy,
We don’t know each other personally, but we surely have a physic connection concerning our respect and admirations for the Gnostic’s and their teaching’s.
I have read much of the same books you have mentioned and continue to research anything I can find on them.
Most of all I appreciate you bringing your expertise/research concerning the Gnostic’s on board here at SOS, as I believe the hidden and sadly destroyed works of the Gnostics held much knowledge and truth for mankind.
Spiritually, we would be much further evolved, a few reasons lead me to assert this fact, as the Gnostics were not concerned at all about profiting from their teachings/truths, nor were they bothered at all with standing ground in their truth, they were unmovable.
Although they indeed had some very influential backers, they were not willing to get into the money-changing. This speaks volumes of their integrity and their depth of understanding into the Master’s teachings.
But, despite all the undertakings to demolish them completely, they have survived miracously
through the ages.
This is not happenstance, it was always meant to revealed, as they were protected.
They have just very recently uncovered more scrolls, a very rare find, which will ultimately be studied and go public.
Am sure you will be delighted when that does happen!
Also, and please correct me if I am off the mark in observations, but in and around Jesus’s lifetime there were known to be 3 tribes occupying the Holy Land: the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essences.
Researching the “Essences” is like finding a needle in the haystack, but every now and then I come across something “ringing bells” which leads me to believe they were somehow connected to the Gnostics, in fact they may very well have lived and were united with this community.
It is known/speculated that approximately half of the Christ’s disciples went by way of the Gnostic/knowing/esoteric teachings and the other’s with the orthodox
Christianity/political/controlling version, so there was most definitely a division of the Spiritual sense.
Hopefully more will be forthcoming in the near future and we will have a bit more understanding
or surfacing of new, although ancient Gnostic knowledge.
Anyways Tommy, keep up the great articles/essays on the Gnostic’s, I really love your writings and look forward to seeing more.
Thanks for your dedication,
Love, Sparks
Hi Sparks
Thanks for your reply. It was certainly helpful.
I quite relate to what you say and I will certainly try to keep my intuition tuned in.
Much love.
Blessings.
This article’s mind blowing! Infinite love to spirit of the scripture website; its my spiritual pump where I recharge. I enjoyed the father and mother part of the reading. Its very interesting that the God in us is Androgynous. This fact has been over looked perpetually! Its the androgynous principle that has his/her hand print on all things on a universal level. Without Male(Father) and Female(Mother) there is no universe- absolutely nothing. Thinking on this heavenly thought charges me up. I can’t even put in words…. The God in us is the substance that’s shaped! In the darkness is the God Potential in us brought to Life. The Light(Life) was needed to bring order out of choas i.e without form, void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The universal message is to unite the androgynous principle within birthing the Christ(Christ Consciousness) aka the new creation to be as the Sun is to the world- a shining light. Amen!!!
When the androgynous principle unifies a new creation is born. I had that feeling when my baby boy was born. I felt a since of a new beginning. A “Genesis” chapter in my life :-). Things were dark and scary, but the light brought things in order in my life. We have to treat our new born minds, as a baby, we gotta change it, bath it, feed it, rocked it. Amen!!! #overflowwithjoy
Thank God for the Gnosis; I have a deeper relationship with the God within. It also enhanced my understanding of my Creator. Salvation is unifying the androgynous principle becoming Christ like ie Image of God. We must be the change in the world and keep pressing into the kingdom. We gotta exercise or be doers of the word, unto godliness. We are almighty ones Psalms 82:6. Amen!!!!