In his articles Genesis Chapter 3: The Allegory of the Serpent Ego and Transforming the Serpent Ego Joshua writes again about the meaning of the serpent. He had already done so quite a few times before and also I myself addressed the subject more than once, both in articles and in comments. That shows how important this subject is. Putting all the presented interpretations together, they show the serpent as both negative and positive, as moving downwards, overpowering man on the lowest part, and then rising again as the Kundalini serpent. The serpent proved to be the force that guides us through the involution – evolution cycle, the Life force.
It has also been interpreted as the ego, and of course that is also correct. Also the ego has the reputation of being something negative, something to be crucified in the negative meaning of the word. Of course that is not what is meant at all. Just like the serpent the ego is neutral in itself and its meaning changes according to its position on the cycle. As you can see in the name of Adam already, 1-4-40. Forty is the character ‘mem’, which as a word means ‘mayim’, water. Water symbolizes ego and emotions. As soon as man has been created he/she is already connected to an ego, which in that stage still is empty and neutral. Once emotions with all their consequences come into play and the point arrives that they have to be ‘crucified’, then that only means that everything has got totally out of balance and has to be brought back into balance again. This whole process has been described in the first part of my own article The Tree of Judgement? .
I would like to show why I believe that the serpent is still innocent in the very beginning, and also why a negative interpretation could be made, in the following quote:
“And the Lord God said unto the woman, what is this you have done? And the woman said, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”
I looked up the Hebrew text of this quote and found that the verb beguile was indeed a correct translation of the Hebrew verb ‘hisji’, which means to beguile, to deceive. However, when you leave out all the dots etc. that have been added to the Hebrew text of the bible centuries after it was written – which you could see as an interpretation of the text – you can also read it as ’hisi’, which simply means to advise. So I see also the possibility of a positive translation and interpretation of a text that seemingly always has been interpreted in a negative way. Just like I also found a positive interpretation of the so-called punishments for Adam and Eve, as I described in the closing part of my article Hidden Symbols and Patterns Inside the Bible: Part 2 .
God is Love, so I do not believe in God meting out punishments to anyone, also not to Adam and Eve for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I believe that eating from this tree was the result of a conscious choice in order to reach enlightenment, to gain conscious awareness, after a long process. Eve recognized the possibility of reaching enlightenment by eating from its fruit. This long process proved to be the descent, not the fall, into a world of duality and matter.
Therefore I also do not believe that God wanted to bar Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life. Again I believe that the concerning bible text means something different.
First of all there was no need to bar Adam and Eve from returning to the Tree of Life. We are not talking about geography here but about the frequencies of consciousness. Their departure from the Garden of Eden was a process of ever diminishing consciousness. It was this loss of high consciousness that drove them out and downwards, assisted of course by the serpent/ego that dragged them down and was dragged down with them to realms of ever lower frequencies. They would never be able to return to the Tree of Life until their level of consciousness had risen again to the necessary frequency and there was no need whatever to keep them from returning there prematurely. So what happened really? Let us have a look at the text:
“So he [God] drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the Tree of Life.”
When I look at this text I see that after Adam and Eve have left the Garden of Eden God places ‘the Cherubim’ – which is the real text – and the flame of a rotating sword to keep/protect the way to the Tree of Life. The verb that is used here is ‘’lishmor’, which can be translated as to protect. In the bible God is sometimes called the ‘Shomer Yisrael’, the Protector of Israel. It is something positive instead of negative. A ‘shomer’ is a shepherd who protects the flock. The translation of the KJV is quite correct in this case, contrary to many other translations. I interpret this to mean that the way to the Tree of Life is being kept intact, ready for the time that Man is ready to return to it.
These Cherubim and the flaming, rotating sword were placed to the East of Eden. As Joshua writes: “East is significant because it is the direction in which the sun rises. The sun is the emblem of the true self, which appears in the soul. Adam and Eve, the mind, must get back into paradise and gain access to the True of Life again by traveling east, which is simply an allegorical interpretation stating that the true self must be born in order to reach paradise.” A sword I have long since interpreted as a symbol of discernment. So the flame of a rotating sword, looking in all directions – no tunnel vision! – might mean the long process that is needed to gain conscious awareness in order to return to the Tree of Life. So the flame of the rotating sword might be a symbol for this journey eastwards. Once this journey has been completed, there are the Cherubim. ‘The’ meaning: no fixed number but all those who have completed the course. This little word ‘the’ has not been translated in the KJV because I imagine that the translators just could not place it. They could not understand what it might refer to. However, in my interpretation it makes perfect sense to me.
How do I come to this conclusion?
Because of the spelling which is used for this word Cherubim or Cherubs in other translations – and the way we pronounce these words – I used to connect this word to the word ‘cherev’, 8-200-2, sword, that appears in the same sentence. But when I checked the Hebrew text in the bible Cherubim proved to be written as Kerubim, 20-200-2. That is the way we should write and pronounce the word also but for one reason or another I have not seen it like that in any translation. Even though this word does not contain the exact same characters as the word ‘cherev’, there is a similarity to it, so there could still be a connection to this aspect of discernment as that is certainly a necessity on the way back to the Tree of Life.
There is another word, ‘karov’, that sounds a lot like ‘kerub’ or ‘keruv’. ‘Karov’ means near, close by. Also in this case a connection seems very likely. The Cherubim are considered to be the angels who are closest to God. There are two Cherubim on the lid of the Ark that was later placed in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, according to the bible. Important offerings were called ‘korban’, which you can read as ‘karov-50’, close to higher consciousness.
So I believe that it is this process of the flame of the rotating sword of discernment, the process of the search for higher consciousness, which transforms man into Man, again, into beings for whom the way to the Tree of Life now is open. The Cherubim already stand on the doorstep so to speak. Mind that it does not mention any number. If I am right it means all those who have reached the necessary level of enlightenment. All those who finally remembered that God is Love and that they are Love themselves. All those who have become One again in a Unity in Diversity.
Anny,
Good explanation. It supports Josh’s theme that the ego represented by the serpent is transformed by acquiring higher consciousness. So I guess the Cherubim are “guardians” of the Tree of Life” not allowing the ego to enter until it is sufficiently transformed. This ties in with Josh’s version of the Bronze Serpent being lifted up in the wilderness to signify that healing comes from transforming the ego.
Proverbs hints at “wisdom” (chokmah) being a tree of life. Jewish custom is that wisdom can be found from the Torah. According to Moses’ instruction, statues of Cherubim are placed over the Arc of the Covenant, I guess signifying they are guarding it, or that the covenant is the path back to the Tree of Life.
Christian theology claims that all wisdom is embodied in Christ and imparted to man by the Holy Spirit during man’s struggle to overcome evil. In Revelations the struggle resolves with the saints entering New Jerusalem ( a type of Eden) where the Tree of Life heals the nations, the aspects of the untransformed serpent ego having been conquered.
There are also Seraphym kind of angels, but I’m not sure what they mean.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your comment and your extra explanations. There are so many sides to everything.
As I wrote, I believe that the Cherubim are not there to keep Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, because they would not have been able to return at that stage anyway.
As I think in frequencies here, they could no more have returned to Eden as we can take a train to Heaven.
I believe the Cherubim are there to keep the way to the Tree of Life in good order. I think that in this symbolic picture the Cherubim are both the angels who remain in this high state of the frequency closest to God and Man who embarked on this cycle through duality and matter and returns to high state of awareness and the world of Love and Oneness again. The first keep the way back open for the second.
The word ‘malach’, which means angel is also the Hebrew word for a human messenger in the bible and has this double meaning.
Serafim are fiery angels (do not ask me what that means exactly). The verb ‘saraf’ means to burn. And I have seen pictures of angels in the form of flames.
“Seraph” (singular) and “seraphim” (plural) means “fiery serpent/s” or “wreathed serpent/s”. In Hindu tradition, Shiva (the destroyer of ignorance”) is frequently shown with a serpent (Vasuki) wrapped around his neck 3 times; sometimes there are 3 serpents, sometimes 5. The 3 represent time–past, present, future. Shiva is outside of time, the constant change of life is his dance which simultaneously creates and destroys. Serpents are often used as symbols of eternity/immortality, because they regularly shed their skins.
As fiery serpents they represent the flame of consciousness that destroys ignorance as the sun destroys fog. We are admonished to be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves”. When we take the yoke (yoga: union) of Christ Consciousness, as Jesus directed us to do, we achieve Advaita (not-twoness), Vedanta (the result/purpose/end of wisdom).
Brahmi,
Thanks so much for your enlightening comment! This proves that we can learn so much from each other, coming from different religions. I should have known as I have seen pictures of Shiva with a serpent, or more serpents, around his neck many times but because I did not know the significance of this, I did not remember.
Your explanation is very clear and gives a lot of insight.
What do you think, could the ‘flame of the rotating sword’ be another symbol for the fiery serpent? I did not write it this way but I could see that also as the flame of consciousness.
Yes, I would say so. Fire relates to a state of purity or a process of purification: “he is like a refiner’s fire.” And, in Revelation, we see that death and hell are to be cast into the lake of fire.
The swastika is sometimes represented as whirling and fiery. It is an auspicious symbol, which had it’s reputation ruined by association with the Nazis.
The fiery sword could be represented by a vortex with flashes of energy rotating, whirling from top to bottom outside and then returning from bottom to top inside and vice versa
The cherubims in Ezekiel are four in number ( two from the ark and two from the temple built by Solomon). This is one step one our oneness with our true origin. The cherubims in the ark were made by bitten gold ordered by God to Moses but the cherubims in Solomon’s temple were as a result of a man having a heart after God in this case David. The cherubims were of olive wood covered by gold. Man covered by divinity. These is our ascension as we start knowing our true origin being spirit. Each cherubim had four faces and as we continue to ascend above the firmament total transformation takes place within us as we raise from cherubims to seraphims the firely one. God is love or the consuming fire which wants to change any low substance to be like it fire or seraphims.
Seraphims and cherubims are not angels as we were taught but that is what man is. For Ezekiel 28 talks of the man in the garden who was created blameless till inquiry was found in him. Man was lowered to the state he finds himself now. The same chapter says that that man was an anointed cherub. All bible is figuratively speaking about man either in his lowered state, his ascension and his ascended state. Or mortal to immortal to eternal
Joseph,
Thank you too for your additional information. Again there is a lot in it that I did not know yet. I did read the prophecies of Ezekiel a long time ago but the significance of Ez. 28:14 that says that Man was an anointed cherub did not dawn on me at that time. But it does confirm that Cherubim are human, which kind of was a shock to me when I reached that conclusion. It does make sense that Seraphim are the closest ones to God as they are the fiery ones and as such the closest to the highest frequency of God.
Whether Cherubim and Seraphim are angels as well may be a matter of debate. Considering the fact that ‘malachim’ in the Bible have sometimes been interpreted as messengers from heaven and at other times as human messengers they might be both. The word angel, comiming from the Greek word ‘angelos’, means messenger after all. So maybe the same applies to other entities who are considered to be angels as well.
Wow, this is a lot to take in. I have to start looking stuff up to really appreciate the full meaning of everyone’s comments. I figured out that the “not-twoness” that Bhrami mentions comes from the Hindu concept that Atman (sort of like the individual human soul or center of consciousness, or the true self) is unified with the Brahman (the highest reality, highest consciousness). In Hindu, through higher knowledge (self awareness, exercises in discipline and focus, reflection, other recommended practices) they become one, instead of two. So “not-two-ness”. Union with Christ Consciousness brings about not-two-ness.
There seem to be a lot of interpretations of Ezekiel 28. As I remember, the fall of the King of Tyre is seen as a type of fall of Satan by traditional Christians. Joseph’s comments suggest that it is the fall of man because of pride (self -glorification) causing him to abuse his high estate (as cherub). Satan, man, and cherub are interconnected in the fall.
In Revelations, seraphim are depicted above the throne of God, crying Holy, Holy, Holy. The cherubim are around the throne of God.
I agree with you about the first paragraph, Robert. I interpret it in the same way. I got to know Advaita as opposed to Dvaity, non-duality and duality.
“Joseph’s comments suggest that it is the fall of man because of pride (self -glorification) causing him to abuse his high estate (as cherub). Satan, man, and cherub are interconnected in the fall.”
I think that is an interesting concept, this intertwining. It connects Satan and ‘nachash’ and it also connects the Cherubim both with descent and ascension, with departure and return. And in the connection between man and cherub, man and angel (which in the meaning of messenger can be both human and spirit) it all points to the cycle of descent into duality and matter and return to unification and oneness.
You know of course that I interpret this descent not as a fall but as a conscious decision to enter into this long process with enlightenment as its goal.
Where exactly is this text in Revelations? It does not sound familiar to me. It is an interesting image though.
Dvaity should be Dvaita of course.
Anny,
Revelation 4:8-11 describes the Four Living Creatures around the throne crying “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty who was, and is, and is to come”. They keep repeating this day and night. In Isaiah 6:1-8 a number of creatures that have the same description are above the throne and identified as seraphim, and they called to one another saying “Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory”. The sound shook the doorposts and caused Isaiah to respond “Woe is me, I am ruined, I am a man of unclean lips… and my eyes have seen… the LORD”. The one seraph flew to him, bringing a coal from the altar and touched it to his mouth saying “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”
So the seraphim can fly. The cherubim have wings but are not seen flying , but they can move in all directions N, S, E, and W in Ezekiel’s vision in combination with the wheels.
In the Psalms the LORD sits enthroned between the cherubim. “Hear us, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock; you who sit enthroned between the cherubim”
(Psalms 80:1). “The LORD reigns, let the nations tremble; he sits enthroned between the cherubim, let the earth shake (Psalms 99:1).”
So the differences between seraphim and cherubim are not always that clear. But the seraph had contact and communication with man in Isaiah’s vision.
Thanks, Robert. I sort of thought you had to mean that text, because according to my concordance (is that the right word?) that is the only place in Revelations where the term ‘Holy, holy, holy’ is used, only there they speak of four beasts! And I found it difficult to tie that in with Cherubim and Seraphim.
You describe them as the Four Living Creatures and my Hebrew translation says ‘hechaiyot’, which is more or less the same. But the term Cherubim and Seraphim is not mentioned so I am very glad that you show the link to this text in Isaiah. which makes this text more understandable.
When I look at both texts then it is my conclusion that in Isaiah only the Seraphim are mentioned. And with their name, so that is clear.
In Revelations only the Cherubim are mentioned but under the name of Living Creatures, which probably is the Greek term as well, as the Hebrew translation confirms that.
That the KJV (and also the Dutch translation that I know) uses the word beasts (dieren in Dutch) probably arises from the way they are described: like a lion, a calf, with a face like a man, and like a flying eagle. The name Cherubim is not mentioned anywhere here but their other description as having six wings, each of them, however, is similar but not exactly the same; they differ from the Seraphim in that their eyes are full of eyes but the wings of the Seraphim have three different functions, one of them their capacity to fly.
The task of both is the same: singing Holy, holy, holy, … which is where they seem to blend almost.
As the Seraphim are described as being above the throne of the Lord – and looked like fiery flames like their name describes – and the Cherubim are sitting around the throne, the Seraphim might have the highest frequency of all the beings that are described as angels.
Of course all these descriptions have to be symbolical as nothing of this can possibly be described in our words. And man might fit within descriptions of this kind although currently at a much lower frequency but not fundamentally different.
Regarding the sentence at the end of the fourth paragraph from below: “they differ from the Seraphim in that their eyes are full of eyes but the wings of the Seraphim have three different functions, one of them their capacity to fly.”, I of course mean .. that their WINGS are full of eyes …” Again and again I see what I am supposed to see instead of what I have really written, when I check a text before sending it off.
This reminds me of the ‘sleeping profet”’
A Commentary on the Revelation
a commentary based on a study of twenty -four psychic discourses by Edgar Cayce
Anny,
What interests me in the images around these seraph and cherub creatures is the awesome power and untouchable holiness which is combined with bestowal of redemption of man.
I agree although I might use another term instead of redemption. I believe in an unbelievable journey of gaining conscious awareness and raising in vibratory frequency in this cycle of involution and evolution. I do ackowledge the constant divine presence and assistance during that journey.
Anny,
Yes, I was searching for a better, more inclusive word but ended up settling for “redemption” which is in keeping with the vision in Isaiah where there is an atonement made by coals from the altar. This is what I am more used to.
You might consider the type of angelic guidance that you are talking about as accomplishing the same thing, but your experience might be without a direct frame of reference to atonement for personal and national sin in the traditional Jewish and Christian theologies, where we are considered accountable only to an external supreme authority for our transgressions. As King David expressed in Psalm 51.4 “Against you, and you alone, have I sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. You will be proved right in what you say, and your judgment against me is just.”
From what you say, your frame of reference is that in reincarnating, where you have chosen a course of perfecting yourself, correcting your karma, guiding your progression through the next cycle. You might have had guidance at that point between cycles, but it was done by your agreement and permission. So your accountability is not so much to an external authority that rules over you, as to your personal desires determined in counsel with divine helpers. The divine help continues throughout your present life cycle on earth. In that sense, the guidance is is corrective or redemptive (for lack of a better word), a nudge in the direction that was agreed upon.
I think there is also a progression in assuming more and more responsibility for one’s spiritual growth even in traditional Christianity, and having more and more sharing of divine decision making. A clue to this is Jesus said his disciples would judge angels and the 12 tribes, but for the time being there was a designed hierarchy of functional authority The major difference here from your frame of reference is that here is no awareness of an agreement before incarnation. In the conventional frame of reference we are born into this world not naturally knowing our spiritual origins.
But Christ as the perfected man, also born into the conventional frame of reference, shows more and more indications of understanding his designed destiny.
We might say in theory that in the long run, both frames of reference might converge in progressing in Christ Consciousness. The different individual experiences we have along the way can cause us to define the same awesome truth with different words, images, and theologies. So in this theory, fumbling over semantics is what can cause us to temporarily disagree in how we define the path to truth, even though it is to the same truth.
Traditional Christianity views the “Lamb” as a symbol of substitutionary atonement, a sacrifice made by an external hero figure. Josh describes the Lamb in a post “The Book of Life, the Strong Angel, and the Slain Lamb” as symbolizing an internal process of purification. This gives a different twist to Revelations in which the saints overcome evil “by the blood of the lamb”, which is an internal transformation during the struggle to progress, rather than a literal apocalypse. I agree with that and appreciate its value, except that my journey so far has taught me that literal fulfillment of prophecy is destined to occur. That upsets a lot of friends and irritates them to no end. But that is not a detail to stumble over and miss the shared acknowledgement and appreciation for internal transformation.
To restate, in the long run, the same goal is accomplished, but you and I perceive the process of progressing through different frames of reference.
There is a lot of turmoil involved in this atonement process and the OT describes several passages where Israel is in fear and dread of approaching God, and yet depend on God to conquer their enemies.
But in the accounts of King David, the theme begins to be developed of a consistently positive, emotionally sustainable relationship with God, through thick and thin. The difference is that David loved God and had the heart of a shepherd. and his awareness of God was that of a divine shepherd. You have written a post about the Shepherd aspect in your post “The Significance of the Biblical Shepherd”, You might say he was an example of man operating at a higher frequency. Christ as a descendant of David is an example of man operating at the highest of frequencies. Christ Consciousness comes with awareness of love as the highest order, bestowed to man through divine guidance (shepherding) and issuing out of man who, through faith and practice, has become actively infused (united, no two-ness) with divinity (highest reality). This is the aspect of God’s holiness which is unselfish and unconditional love.
The traditional Christian theology teaches that “mercy triumphs over judgement” (James 2:3) and that “the law came through Moses, but grace and truth through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Your description of the characteristics of the good shepherd in your post is that he leaves none of his sheep left behind.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for another very interesting explanation. Like Josh said to me regarding my comment to his latest article, it is almost an article in itself!
First of all I want to make clear however that my remark to your comment was in no way meant as an attempt to sell you a better word than redemption. Redemption is fine within your frame of reference but not in mine, so I was tentatively looking for an expression that would fit my point of view. I think it is more interesting when we both follow up according to our own line of thinking than when we try to ascertain who is right when our opinions differ.
I like the way how you try to enter in my way of thinking and I certainly agree that somewhere along the journey we will meet up again.
Regarding this quote: “To restate, in the long run, the same goal is accomplished, but you and I perceive the process of progressing through different frames of reference.” I totally agree with you there. And I do not believe that your friends are half as upset and irritated by you than you seem to feel. They just disagree with you on some points but also with me and each other, I guess. Let us not forget that this is a game we play and that none of us is in possession of the Absolute Truth as we cannot possibly grasp that.
So we should all learn to be good children who learn how to play together without hurting each other. And who will smilingly shake their heads later on when they review this film of their spiritual childhood and see what they were quarrelling about. Then there will be only Love and Unity in diversity. So why wouldn’t we start already now?
I like this exchange of views with you.
Beautiful discussion. How mysterious is the ego. Very interesting points anny, and all of you. So many differing views. No one human being has the intellectual monopoly on its truth. That’s what makes it so fascinating as a subject. I love it. And one of my favorite appreciations comes from William Blake. Take a look at a non-biblical but creative perspective on the ego. In his mythological writings “Urizen” which represents reason and law in his prophetic books is also identified with ego and the superego (Gnostic Demiurge). And Blake brings us to the optimal conclusion in the end that Urizen, after falling into the state of Satan and error, never actually perishes but is rather regenerated with “Los” imagination and “Luvah” passion and experience. It is the serpent-orc, which is the creative essence of Urizen, that helps bring him to restoration. Hope it’s more enlightening than confusing. -Blessings to all.
Hello Vern,
Thank you for your comment. I am glad that you like the article and the comments. So do I and it is all relatively new territory for me too, so I am feeling my way into it. I appreciate it enormously when others join me in that search and it is okay to come to different conclusions. That is only enriching and gives us material to build upon.
You mentioned William Blake before in some of your comments and I think you know already that I learned something about him a long time ago but that I never read anything from him.
It sounds interesting what you share here in your comment. When you mention the ego and the superego and equate them with the Demiurge, then that is something that might appeal to me. This journey of Urizen as you mention it, sounds much like the involution – evolution cycle Man goes through with the help of the ‘nachash / mashiach’, the serpent / Messiah. In the end returning to the state of Absolute Love and Unity in diversity with regained Conscious Awareness.
That it turn made me think of this symbol of the serpent that bites in its own tail, in the form of a circle. I suddenly see that as a symbol of this whole cycle although I have no idea if that is the meaning which is officially given to it.
Thanks for giving this as again new material to think about.
Thanks anny. It’s great to know that we can learn from each other in so many diverse ways. Your views are always interesting and encouraging to me. Keep up the good work anny. God bless.
Blakes prophetic myth of Urizen IS biblical but only symbolically. Not literally.
Vern,
Thank you brother Vern, for your contribution about Blake’s mythological worlds where established rule of law and creative change to it leads to progressive truth. I am thinking in reality this only happens when the change is aligned with less selfishness or some kind of moral good. The American revolution was a change for the better (except some Americans in our age are now having second thoughts about the “right to bear arms”) In Nazi Germany the creative change in the rule of law led to the promotion of the concept of a master race, a change for the worse. So I am not too sure that creativity is reliable without something else added to it. I wonder what the answer to that is.
Thanks Robert. The creative transformative influence and values that William Blake envisioned in his prophetic books were much more dynamic and spiritual than what you have summed up in your brief comparison. His vision embraced the need and will for a conscious realization of man’s creative faculty working collectively and harmoniously together as a global principle for human restoration, or what could be called, in his way, the creative path toward salvation. And since my little overview seems to demand so much more attention for you I’ll do my best to expand and align it with Blake’s ideas about good and evil; for that is what much of the issue themes in SOS have relevantly consisted of during the past 3-4 months. (I will borrow here from the editors of Eighteenth Century Poetry and Prose in the essay entry on William Blake. But do not have the book present with me right now, so it is not in direct quotation. But please do the parallel inspection yourself attesting my credibility.)
There is, according to Blake, two main powers in man. The first is a limiting analytical power that circumscribes the soul of man, which he obviously refers to as reason. But there is a greater power which Blake variously refers to as energy and imagination which is synthetic and illuminates the soul. The former leads to divisive destruction. And the latter to salvation.
And one of the strongest questions that this mythology of Blake poses is: Why is man so much under the domination of reason, the destructive force? Blake’s answer to this question recalls the doctrines of the Gnostics and the cabbalistic writings of the Jews, particularly the Lurianic tradition. God being all perfect and containing everything within himself could not create any thing outside of himself with out a partial withdrawal or retraction of himself. Therefore, the creature must be less perfect than the creator. His creation being in a sense a fall from perfection. Urizen (reason) fell from the Godhead. And in order to prevent his fall from becoming infinite it was necessary to create this limiting world of time and space and enclose the spirit in the five senses. But reason is just as necessary to God’s initial process of creation as it is with each and everyone’s personal process of creation.
This should answer your bottom line. I’d have to say the right kind of reasoning would naturally go hand in hand with our creative faculties. BUT, according to Blake man must be on his guard against the domination of reason, the limiting analytical power and the conventionalizing morality dictated by a limited view of life. Man must not be deceived by the testimony of the senses. By keeping in touch with spirit he must learn to see not WITH but THROUGH the eye. This is where it is important to see that Blake’s revolt against reason does not discard reason altogether. As he says, “without contrasts there is no progression.” Reason – energy, love – hate, all play out the contrasting/restoration principle throughout eternity. Unity in multiplicity vice versa. Trusting in and being free to exercize our spiritual energy – the God in man – will bring about the reunion of what reason has divided. And man will live as one, united in brotherhood.
Like I said previously Robert, reason is not destroyed but is regenerated with Los “imagination” and Luvah “passion.” This should have sufficed. Creative energy’s useful acccompanying reason leads to our wholeness individually, and hopefully someday, will collectively for mankind at large. The pith of Blake’s brotherhood vision.However, your innocent query was worth getting the sentiment off of my chest. And by the way, I haven’t used the word “Brother” by my name for well over a year now. I think you know that. I’ll be glad to answer any more of your questions. — Blessings, and good night. – Vern
Vern,
That was an excellent explanation for the unknown answer I was looking for. I could not possibly have gathered that kind of philosophical explanation from the internet. I learned a lot from it too. When I tried on my own to get it from the internet, I got buried in poetry, history, and other works of Blake without finding the information you summarized. I knew there was something missing so I asked if there was something else added to what I knew so far that would help me make sense of Blake’s approach. I had to know when to trust energy and imagination to make improvements and when to be wary of energy and imagination in the wrong hands of a soul so advanced in corruption and self deceit that everything would go south. I used an extreme example of Hitler as such a soul. Hitler believed he was doing right. He expressed that the final solution for Jews was humane, taking care of what he defined as a global problem for mankind, and doing it quietly, out of sight, with less embarrassment for all concerned. He prided himself in such a solution and convinced a lot Germans of it’s humane qualities. So the question is did he tap into his creative version of God in man. I doubt if he had much respect for Lurianic traditions of Kabbalah, or of the neo-Platonist’s ideals for a just society. Whatever his God in man model was, it is a lot different than Blakes and the rest of us. This was his Mein Kampf, his passionate struggle to redeem the world according to him. So I would conclude that the person who searches for God in man is not likely to find the God we are used to unless he has some respect for some of the golden universal principles that we agree with, and allows his creativity to find better solutions by staying more or less within those principles.
So my question is, what are those principles? Where do they come from? Are we as human beings out of our creativity in searching for what we believe is God within, always going to be able to find and use them?
My best guess is that we are not saved by rules. The NT is clear about that also. But I don’t think we are saved by creativity either. If we are fallen, missing a few pieces that would make us perfect like God, then are creativity alone is also subject to imperfection. Niche for instance was brilliant and creative. He did not directly support Hitler’s Arian race ideas. But he advocated for a Master Race of Ubermench, which propelled acceptance of Hilter’s ideas.
I generally wholeheartedly agree with you and Blake. But it is my nature to become aware of potential pitfalls. I believe Blake advocated or depended on some formulation of right and wrong, based on his exposure and experience. We would also like to think that someone with a good heart would use creativity for good. The question is, where does a good heart come from?
I do not have a perfect memory. I didn’t mean to embarrass you by using a term for yourself you do not use anymore. My apologies. I thought is might be a way of being friendly. But now I can see how it might have irritated you.
Thanks Robert. Your positive thoughts and explanations have always been encouraging to me. But remember, history is falsified. The Hitler regime along with the German slant on World War II simply isn’t what we read. Hitler was nothing but a psychopathological pawn. The Europian and American elite forces were behind World War II. If ever you get the chance watch Francis O’Conner’s “JFK to 9/11 Everything is a rich man’s trick.” There’s so much truth in it. It’s well worth the 3 1/2 hours. No embarrasment. I can be impulsive at times. Thanks.
Vern,
I watched the first 30 minutes this morning and plan to do the rest this evening. It comes across as very convincing and captivating. If it is true, then it underscores the passages in Revelations describing the fall of Babylon as an economic capital that corrupted the world.
The British author of the film, Francis Richard Conally (you got close enough) was a school teacher who turned writer and film-maker. It takes a lot of talent to present such a riveting documentary. Not much else of a public bio can be found about him, for such a talented person. Nothing on Wikipedia. I could not find much in the way of reviews that were critical of the documentary. Just one opinion that it was made to further cover up a proposed better secret reason behind JFK’s shooting. No one can deny that many capitalists in the US and Europe have benefited from some disastrous wars. This film claims, as you mentioned, that they actually conspired to bring them about in a way they would profit and counter a threat of socialism getting in their way. The evidence that weapons, steal, and oil manufacturers in the US and countries aligned with it, sold to both sides of major wars, seems convincing and astonishing. I am glad the film did not target Zionists. It briefly mentioned the Rothschilds, but the succession of so-called robber barons mentioned in the film were all over the board ethnically.
This is a very interesting film. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Of course I naturally retain a certain measure of healthy skepticism toward conspiracy theories, but this film is very thought provoking.
When you get further into the documentary you’ll see how and why the Nazi’s were not really directly responsible for the starvation slaughter of those slave workers (Jews). Those who bought their captivity to help finance Germany’s war machine didn’t want to afford to feed and shelter them. Their mission (to eat off gold plates) was over. They didn’t need them any more. Of course, millions believe the media. Our media has always bowed to the elite and always will. Do you realize many grade school teachers are still enforced, to this very day, to teach that Columbus discovered America, and he alone?
Vern,
I did see that aspect of the concentration camps described in the documentary. And then the rest of the documentary, even if you are inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories, still leaves a lasting impression that the world is not made up and run the way we have been made to believe by the media and textbooks. There is a lot more human ugliness behind the scenes that has been covered up. It is probably still happening. How deep is the crack in the liberty bell? Is the crack in the bell or the bell in the crack? I still believe there is a bell somewhere and that it has enabled some progress which we enjoy.
I remember how troubled I was by conservative religious friends backing candidates who I believed were corrupt and unqualified in the last few elections. And even now.
But I won’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The scriptures that point to Jesus and Christ Consciousness play out in a background of political and religious corruption. The message is still a light in a darkened world. We need to fall in line with the light and not the world. That takes some creativity.
Absolutely. We can be in this world and yet not of this world. That’s our choice. That synthetic energy, if we let it and know when and how to use it will save us. That’s the core of our Christ consciousness. What the Hermeticists used to call the grain of light. It grows. I’ve learned, in my own christian walk that I never really have to tell any one they’re wrong. The little light suffices to unite and synthesize the differences. Some of the most important things on our salvation are not summed up in high philosophies but in nursery rhymes and songs. This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.
Vern,
Here is a note of hope in the struggle between the dollar and the spirit. This Reuters article describes human rights organizations petitioning international development banks to be more cautious and consider human rights and environmental risks when funding projects that are supposed to benefit underdeveloped countries. It mentions stopping abuses in which human rights and environmentalist group have been targeted and leaders murdered. It’s hard to tell whether the comment by the World Bank about protecting people and the environment is a lot of doublespeak.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-rights-banks-idUSKCN0ZU26Y?il=0
Robert, I don’t really know exactly where those priciples come from and what constitutes their essences. Perhaps they are divinely ordained within the mind of God before our births, awaiting for fulfillment. And I guess I can only conclude that a good heart comes from following the graces of the Lord the best way we know how.
Robert and Vern,
An interesting discussion you two are having. I would never be able to remember all these details.
As to your question: “Where does a good heart come from?” , Robert, I believe that it all goes back to the fact that the basic energy of everything is love. God = All that is = Love.
Of course that Love gets rather distorted in the lower frequencies of our world, in order to be able to get all the experiences we are looking for, but in our core we still have that divine spark that contains all potentialities of God within us. That will never die, even though in some it is seemingly dead.
I see that divine spark as our core identity. We have worn the blindfold of forgetfulness for so long thowever hat most of us forgot it is even there. It has been asleep for a long time but once it starts to wake up I believe that a good heart is one of the first signs of that happening.
Anny,
Agreed. Love is the goal above all else. As individuals many of us are drawn to it by means of individual pathways that can appear to conflict with each other, but I would think the end of all paths will merge and conflicts dissolve when we have fully comprehended the goal.
I don’t know if what I say is true for every individual, but I would like to think it is so. It is certainly true for individuals who agree with me that love is the goal above all else. What about the others who don’t agree, or who do not comprehend this as some of us do? Maybe they haven’t woken up yet. Maybe they are busy making their ways through lower frequencies before this can happen. Or maybe not everyone is going to respond in their lifetime. Maybe they will in future life cycles if they exist.
I think my exposure to Christianity, despite the imperfections of various denominations, has done a lot to make me aware of love as the ultimate goal. If I had no exposure to Christianity, or any other religious or humanistic system, and just sat down one day and started to meditate, would this automatically place me on the path? I don’t know the answer to this. If it were true, then there you have it, the divine spark that pops up out of the blue in each of us, without any outside help or external moral guidance. My personal experience has not given me any evidence to be sure of that. To me, it seems that other forces beyond me need to be in play. I have more confidence in that. And that seems to be reinforced in my daily experiences.
Robert,
Thanks again for another interesting comment.
You write: “If I had no exposure to Christianity, or any other religious or humanistic system, and just sat down one day and started to meditate, would this automatically place me on the path? I don’t know the answer to this. If it were true, then there you have it, the divine spark that pops up out of the blue in each of us, without any outside help or external moral guidance. My personal experience has not given me any evidence to be sure of that. To me, it seems that other forces beyond me need to be in play. I have more confidence in that. And that seems to be reinforced in my daily experiences.”
With this we are back to the seeming difference between us: Do we need a force outside us or not? You emphasize the importance of the outer and I of the inner but we both agree that we need both.
However, when we are talking about inside and outside or above and below, we are talking about duality again which belongs to the world of illusion after all. In Reality there is no inside or outside nor above or below as All is One.
All these terms we use are just terms to play with, to get things clear that we occupy ourselves with in this particular life time. Which of course also is not real within the context of the Oneness of All in which neither time nor place or matter even exists, nor inside or outside.
So all we are doing is playing with the contexts and terms that appeal most to us at any given ‘time’ and that is fully okay. There is no need whatever to come to the same conclusions as each of us is playing his own game. No one needs to be judged or saved and everyone experiences the results of his or her own actions but only within the framework of this world of illusion. Your experience is your experience and totally valid in your case but it does not necessarily apply to anyone else. We each create our own world with its own frames of reference.
All is Energy in whatever form or frequency and is eternal. All is in a continuous dance of form, pattern and frequency. Energy can never be destroyed. All it does is change form and frequency constantly, up and down the frequency range but no energy is ever lost.
Anny,
It is interesting that when we compare notes and identify differences, and after those differences are done bumping against each other, what is left is an agreement that love is the top priority and goal. It is kind of a confirmation and a sign.
You are so right! Once we know that Love is the absolute priority and we are able to look at our own views more objectively as well, we will be able to discuss anything at all in peace and harmony.
There won’t be this need to be right as everything in this world of illusion will be a step on the ladder at most but never the Absolute Truth yet. And while we are climbing our own ladders it might even be helpful when the other one shouts to us what he or she sees from a position on another part of the mountain and that is not within our field of vision. And vice versa. Instead of thinking: “I do not see it so it cannot be there.”
Anny,
Yes, some of the seeming difference is an illusion caused by things such as semantics. Something in our individual life experiences opens a door for us to glimpse beyond the immediate material world and acknowledge there is something more. We try to get a handle on what that is, using the mental and emotional capacities we have at the time. Some of us explore theologies others present to us and we try to arrive at something acceptable to us. When they don’t seem acceptable anymore, we look for some modification or something entirely different that promises to be more acceptable. Not everyone searches that intensely. They catch a glimpse and sign on to available traditions. We have different capacities for abstract thinking. Some are more comfortable with rituals. We develop familiarity and confidence in our individual preferences as we go along. We flock in communities with likewise concepts.
Robert,
Here I agree with your way of describing it also.
Every person is different and we need different things at different times. That is why everyone should be allowed to follow his or her own path, as long as no others get hurt by it of course.
If only all of us, no matter what we believe, can stop judging others who believe differently, and concentrate on our own beliefs with Love, then I hope that it will be possible to all meet up in the end at the same destination. Once we do not have to be afraid anymore of getting hurt by others, we will be able to stop hurting others ourselves and our whole view of everything will change.
This is not only about you and me but about the whole of humanity of course.
I love it how we are ironing out our differences.
Anny,
I am thinking that many sources and people still occasionally use the term Cherubs and Cherubims, instead of the technically more correct Cherubim.
Anny,
About the Cherubims, we have that in common too.
About my above comment, I attached that one to the wrong comment, I see. That’s a new one, even for me!
“About the Cherubims, we have that in common too.”.
I am sure we have but what exactly are you referring to here? -:)
Anny
Robert,
Although the danger exists that I make things even more confusing as they already are, I now see that my previous comment (of 1.52am) ended up above instead of below the one before that (of 1.47am) and I probably did post it on the right comment after all. Computers! I’ll never understand them.
And my renewed attempt at a smiley failed also. I give up! I hope you can make head or tail of it all (if that is the right expression, which it very well might not be, while I am at it. Well, one consolation. You probably also would not manage it in Dutch.
And this is my final comment for the day. At least to you.
Anny,
You used the term (or quoted a translation that used the term) Cherubims in paragraph 9 of your article. You are alway very careful about Hebrew words, probably more than the rest of us.
Yes Robert, where I used the word Cherubims it was a quote of a Bible text, which I actually copied from Joshua’s article. In such cases I leave the spelling like it is. When I quote from an article or a comment I would use the correct word.
Yes. I think that the terms Cherubs and Seraphs should be okay though as the singular forms then have become English words.
What I really used to wonder about was the use of the word Cherubim as a singular form time and again. Even after I had pointed it out to people who then agreed with me.
Once I had seen these words Cherubims and Seraphims however, also in texts you pointed out to me, then I understood how such a mistake could happen.
And I can also understand why it happens again after having been told that it is not correct. I myself also forget explanations about things that are not familiar to me, precisely because they are not familiar to me and therefore the explanation does not register.
The term Cherubims was very strange to me because I do know Hebrew but not the KJV bible. But it has probably become familiar to people who have a good knowledge of the KJV bible but do not know Hebrew. And in that case it is not so easy to retain that Cherubim is a plural form when you have always considered it to be a singular one.
Anny, another great article! Good to have you write one again.
I enjoy your explanation of the serpent as the involution and evolutionary force when it comes to the development of consciousness. I do believe eating the fruit symbolizes conscious choice, although I do not think man at any time chose to come here. I believe it is an automatic process.
Your explanation of why the translators could not place “the” in the text correctly also makes perfect sense. The discernment that you speak of: could we also say this is the development of intuition, the true source of higher consciousness? This discernment or intuition only comes through experience in suffering over a long period of time. But once it is developed it is undeniably the gift that leads to life, because it is rooted in love, and comes from within. Of course intuition must be combined with the intellect. When that happens, the mind begins to heal.
You are correct. This is why the flaming sword was placed at the entrance to Eden.
Hi Josh,
Good to see you are back again and thanks for your comment.
Regarding to “I do believe eating the fruit symbolizes conscious choice, although I do not think man at any time chose to come here. I believe it is an automatic process.”, I think you know already that we have different opinions here. Within the framework of Love I somehow cannot believe in an automatic process. But obviously that is different for you.
I do believe that it is a conscious choice but coming from a position of Oneness there was of course no awareness yet of the details of the process, just a readiness to embrace everything that was necessary to reach enlightenment in the end. But that is just my interpretation and no more an absolute truth than your view.
As for your question: “The discernment that you speak of: could we also say this is the development of intuition, the true source of higher consciousness?”, I think we can. One leads to the other in an interconnected growth process, I believe. It is like the chicken and the egg. Impossible to say which one came first.
“This discernment or intuition only comes through experience in suffering over a long period of time. But once it is developed it is undeniably the gift that leads to life, because it is rooted in love, and comes from within.”. This is certainly true as well. It has been symbolized by ‘eating and digesting the ‘tamar’, ‘400-mar’ the bitterness of the cross, which turns out to be a sweet date after all is said and done. It is rooted in love and results in Love. And then the way to Eden is open again.
I got the shimmering of an idea when I placed a tentative comment on the blog some years ago – which was hardly noticed by anyone – but I only saw what it really meant (to me) after I read your previous article. And all the different comments have added so much more meaning to it.
I love it when we address something totally new (to me at least).
Great response Anny. You’re comment about process not being automatic could be true. Perhaps it is from a place of ONENESS but there was no conscious choice of it yet because of the lack of experience. I like that, if that is what you mean. Possibly you are correct. It is a debate that I have often had with myself. It would be nice if someone could comment further with a good expanded explanation.
Josh
Yes, that is more or less what I mean. It is difficult to put these things into words because here it is about things that happen in a state of Oneness. But I think we are getting somewhere with this!
Absolutely. We can be in this world and yet not of this world. That’s our choice. That synthetic energy, if we let it and know when and how to use it will save us. That’s the core of our Christ consciousness. What the Hermeticists used to call the grain of light. It grows. I’ve learned, in my own christian walk that I never really have to tell any one they’re wrong. The little light suffices to unite and synthesize the differences. Some of the most important things on our salvation are not summed up in high philosophies but in nursery rhymes and songs. This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine.
I like the way you put it, Vern. You have obviously read a lot to have all this knowledge at your fingertips. I read about these things too long ago but I never remember them.
Telling somebody they are wrong is no use at all. Besides being arrogant because it implies that we ourselves are right. Shining our light is indeed a good way to address something like that. Sharing our own vulnerability and questions in the related matter often is another because then it is safe for the other person to take a look at himself too, without fear of losing face or being judged. And without the need to have any discussion about it.
Thanks anny. My reading memory, as well as others like me, seems to be able to store within a ready recoverable field for those who need it. And it’s usually artistic stuff, combined with a certain amount of prose. But what I can’t, or won’t be able to use for others, it seems, I forget. I have forgotten an awful lot of stuff I’ve read through the years.
I’ve also come to realize that trying to challenge someone else’s doctrine or dogma is simply an attempt to defend what I know, instead of really helping them. I learned there’s a way of giving in, to a degree, and showing them rather that there’s a higher way, which isn’t a way of getting in their way of seeing the truth. It all becomes a personal way of relating for everyone. Some metaphysicians believe that the intellect is really the child of the ego. But that is a relative and conditional statement of course. But when we are truly 100% concerned about helping someone with our knowledge, instead of uplifting or aggrandizing ourselves that inward energy has a way of taking over and synthesizing for the good. It’s the way of love. It’s a way of overcoming and transcending our lower selves in order to reach the higher for the good of both.
Vern,
I liked your comment:
“I’ve also come to realize that trying to challenge someone else’s doctrine or dogma is simply an attempt to defend what I know, instead of really helping them. I learned there’s a way of giving in, to a degree, and showing them rather that there’s a higher way, which isn’t a way of getting in their way of seeing the truth.”
That takes a lot of self control not to defend one’s own way of thinking, and then a lot of understanding to enter into someone else’s way of thinking without judgement, and then a lot of creativity to help that other person progress in their path to realize something you deem important, but not in the way you first came to realize it. That requires a substantial level of detachment and care for the other person. I can see that doing that on a regular basis can promote one’s own higher consciousness. One of the pitfalls ( I notice I always seem to be looking for these) would be to become manipulative. I think political propaganda is an extreme case of that. The motive there is that I have the truth and I am going to trick you into following my truth by using your familiar frames of reference. This is what the serpent did to Eve. But if we instead tap into the special (holy or noble human) inner light or special spark of creativity, then we become more like participants in the change instead of the lords of change. I suppose artists experience this when they apply their techniques with some intuitive wisp in mind, and, walla, something brilliant happens that they did not fully conceive of at first.
Robert, I like your comment.
I believe it is very important though to monitor our own thoughts, feelings and motives when addressing subjects like this.
When I say I want to share what I learn, then that means that I do not need anyone to believe exactly what I believe but that I leave it up to them whether they can do anything with it or not.
I did not always think about it like this but I myself am very allergic to people wanting to make me see things their way, so I decided not to do that to other people either anymore.
Just sharing covers everything. I do not think it is possible to manipulate people that way. And where is no fear of manipulation, or force, it is possible to show interest in other people’s views and consider their merits for us. And to remain friends whether we can adopt their point of view or not.
Grant everyone the right to walk his own path. Love, respect and no judgement. Openmindedness. Those have all become very important to me.
I don’t think it’s as difficult as what it may seem to you in merging with spiritual understanding with other people, especially when you first allow them the ground, and as much as they need to present their point or their world view. I’m dealing mainly with spiritual things here, not political. There’s an inbuilt safety involved when using synthesis of thought. You avoid the need of having to prove your point. There’s nothing really much different to prove. Don’t ask me how because it’s slightly different for everyone.
Let me put it this way. I’ve heard the saying that when you are on a journey and you have to stop to give someone else direction or guidance never hesitate to help them. You will discover that they are going your way anyway, or at least part of the way. And you will never fail to find your true destination as long as you help them find theirs. Certain individuals are destined to meet up with each other for a purpose. That’s how life works. Inner energy has a lot to do with our inner compass. Remember the song “keep your head up high and don’t be afraid of the dark,,, and you’ll never walk along.” That is real. But we have to trust it.
Personally I believe in sharing what I am learning, while I am learning it, with people who are interested in it, while also learning from what they are sharing with me. It puts us on an equal level without anyone pretending to know the absolute truth. That is love also, I believe. I also agree with the way you put it.
I do not see the intellect/mind as a child of the ego. All depends on how it is used. When the intellect is in charge, then I also see that as a child, or a servant, of the ego. If the intellect however serves the heart, then a lot of personal growth will follow. Then there will be a raising of conscious awareness.
As I wrote in the beginning of the article, I also do not believe that the ego is something negative either. It just should not be in the driver’s seat.
That was great Josh!
Just wanted to add that maya = “water” and mayim = “waters”plural.
adam = adm- aleph=1 ,dalet=4 , mem=40 reduces to 9 the number of perfection.
The word for truth in Hebrew – “Amet” amt (where we get “amount” in English) also = 9.
Truth is when things “add up” Maat is the word for truth in the Souf (Kemetian, Egyptian)
language and is where we get “math” and “Matthew” one who is true…
I just thought you might think that was interesting if you did not know it already.
Thanks for all your hard work!
James
Thanks James, just remember Anny posted this one. Thanks for the comment and additional info
All,
The interpretation of scripture as literal/historical versus allegorical/metaphorical has been a subject of intelligent debate on SOS. A lot of valuable understanding of the allegorical/ metaphorical comes about from the process of “suspending” the assumption that a passage is strictly literal/historical, allowing one to focus on the value of the allegorical/metaphorical. This has sometimes been done using the argument that a literal interpretation seems ridiculous to common sense or to our natural expectations, and therefore must have been intended to be allegorical. For instance, “a talking snake” or “6 literal 24-hour periods of creation”. The accumulation of these incidences throughout the early part of the scriptures has then been applied as an argument that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were likewise strictly allegorical/metaphorical, as well as the scriptures about the End Times.
I can see how eliminating all legitimacy for the literal/historical is valuable in opening up the doors to focus on the allegorical/metaphorical. It is also valuable in isolating from the side effects that have developed from overly dogmatic, restrictive religious environments that squash individual creativity, punish non-conformance, and have other side effects on society that actually work against the spirit of the scriptures.
There are a lot of reasons that build momentum for a complete rejection of all understanding based on literal/historical. And that momentum is part of the momentum usually expressed in articles on SOS. In my journey, I think I have taken most of that into account, but believe I have still found evidence, despite all that, for the legitimacy of many literal/historical passages and their implications. So when I discuss my reasons for this, I am uncomfortable when people comment that I am trying to impose my values on them. My reaction is that perhaps I have used language or arguments that, so to speak, smell like the establishment that they have found good reason to reject, and that I need to rephrase my ideas so that association does not take place; or maybe I should just drop it altogether because it rubs against a wound.
I would like the idea of being able somehow to express that my experience has taught me to “suspend” rather than “reject” the literal/historical, without being thought of as imposing myself on others.
Robert,
Thanks for this comment in which you address this subject so honestly. You know that I agree with you at least partly on the literal/historical issue.
You write that you are uncomfortable when people comment that you are trying to impose your values on them. I can understand that. But so are those other people when they get the impression that you do that.
When we are emotional about a subject – and this is a subject that many people are emotional about somehow – we tend to use rather strong language and we also tend to misunderstand what the other one actually means to say. I have sometimes seen occasions where you felt offended by something and where I did not see any reason for that at all but I have also felt offended myself sometimes where you or other persons had no intention of offending me at all. And where that is true for you and me, it will probably be true for others as well.
So maybe we should all take a good look at our own feelings and reactions on the one hand and be more careful in how we phrase things on the other. This is a part of our learning process after all.
And maybe we should all be less dogmatic about what is or is not, or can or cannot be true. Let us just concentrate on our own search and leave open the possibility that things might turn out to be different after all. That it is not even possible to comprehend the whole Truth right now, while we are still living in this world of illusion.
And Robert, while I have felt uncomfortable about some of the things you wrote in the past – rightly or wrongly – I do not anymore now because now you write what you believe in less absolute terms and in a respectful and loving manner. And when you do that and as long as you respect the right of others to believe differently, you are entitled to write about whatever you believe, just as much as anybody else.
Everyone has the right to share his or her truth as his or her truth. In that way no one should have a reason to feel uncomfortable about it. And when they do nevertheless, then that should be a cause for some self-reflection. I know because I have been there more than I would like to remember.
Anny,
Thanks. 🙂
Vern McVety Jr. July 17, 2016 at 8:27 pm
I don’t think it’s as difficult as what it may seem to you in merging with spiritual understanding with other people, especially when you first allow them the ground, and as much as they need to present their point or their world view. I’m dealing mainly with spiritual things here, not political. There’s an inbuilt safety involved when using synthesis of thought. You avoid the need of having to prove your point. There’s nothing really much different to prove. Don’t ask me how because it’s slightly different for everyone.
Let me put it this way. I’ve heard the saying that when you are on a journey and you have to stop to give someone else direction or guidance never hesitate to help them. You will discover that they are going your way anyway, or at least part of the way. And you will never fail to find your true destination as long as you help them find theirs. Certain individuals are destined to meet up with each other for a purpose. That’s how life works. Inner energy has a lot to do with our inner compass. Remember the song “keep your head up high and don’t be afraid of the dark,,, and you’ll never walk along.” That is real. But we have to trust it.
REPLY
Lyrics
you walk through a storm
Hold your head up high
And don’t be afraid of the dark
At the end of a storm
There’s a golden sky
And the sweet silver song of a lark
Walk on through the wind
Walk on through the rain
Though your dreams be tossed and blown
Walk on, walk on
With hope in your heart
And you’ll never walk alone
You’ll never walk alone
Walk on, walk on
With hope in your heart
And you’ll never walk alone
You’ll never walk alone
Vern,
That is a beautiful lyric. Thanks!
Robert, I forgot to address that most recent comment TO YOU. Sorry.
Vern,
Don’t worry. I saw it. I know that lyrics and poetry are important to you as a source of inspiration. This song has always been a source of inspiration for me. It’s been around awhile. A classic. My favorite rendition is by Barbra Streisand. Some people who embrace in what others consider as fringe spiritual ideals can sometimes feel isolated from people with like ideals. Some don’t feel they fit in attending weekly church services and other social activities sponsored by churches. As Josh noted, churches are changing. I don’t know if that includes becoming more accepting of diversity in spiritual ideals. There are also more experimental churches that specialize in so-called fringe beliefs and in welcoming spiritual diversity. I know one that is Christian-based and emphasizes meditation. Meanwhile, internet participation, such as in blogs like SOS, is a place to learn about embracing new approaches to spiritual growth, and is a place to share lives in some ways and explore spiritual themes together.
My wife and I collectively fit into the Messianic Jewish Congregation nearby and have ties that go way back. When I began to explore esoteric Christianity it caused some distress in mixing with some people there, but that subsided as I learned who I could freely confide in, and who would negatively react, and I eventually learned to navigate without rocking the boat. The biggest thing I have learned there from that initial rough experience, and that also corresponds to Anny’s theme, is that love of others is the highest priority.
I get most of my inspiration from a combination of spiritual activities that are old and new school. What you identify as creativity of the human soul, I identify as that part of the Holy Spirit working in through me. There may be some minor differences, but I think they at least coincide a lot. My meditation experiences are a fresh way to connect with the Holy Spirit. They help unleash something from the inside. The Holy Spirit keeps me from falling apart when I think I am weak. I can always use more encouragement. So I more than welcome the boost from the lyrics, “When You Walk Through A Storm”. It is a reminder also that the Holy Spirit works through human creativity and sharing support with others.
Very encouraging counterpart, Robert. And thanks too anny. Robert I’m glad you identify the Holy Spirit with creativity. I think i have too much emphasized creative energy as the artistic impulse with the artistic muse. It’s more than our contrivance of artifice. Creative energy is also our wisdom in teaching and relating to one and another. In a way “Holy” which means “wholeness” or becoming whole is synonymous with creative inspiration because (like Blakes myth about Urisen) our reasoning faculty is spiritually incomplete without [in] spiring that spark, or grain of energy. I love the Valentinian Gnosis, it is so awakening and meaningful. So what’s really the differense between Holy Spirit and creative inspiration?
Hi Robert and Vern,
Again you come with an interesting topic and question: What is the difference between Holy Spirt and creative inspiration?
Well, inspiration comes from the Latin verb inspirare, which literally means ‘to breathe into’. Just like enthusiasm comes from the Greek ‘en theos’, meaning ‘in God’. I believe these two words are interconnected. Inspiration leads to enthusiasm, so what is being breathed into someone leads to a divinelike state and as such to creativity of the right kind. So I would say that the Holy Spirit is the Force that breaths the inspiration into people who are open to receive it and become enthusiatically creative after that.
I would not say that there is a difference but rather that there is a close connection between the Holy Spirit and creativity.
Absolutely beautiful, anny. Thank you so much.
Anny and Vern
I think Anny’s phrase “creativity of the right kind” is an excellent means of clarification. An artist who is inspired to draw impressive cartoons to unjustifiably demean someone else for political reasons might be using creativity of the wrong kind.
Consider the Germanic legend of Faust, about a talented but frustrated doctor of theology who sells his soul to the devil in order to find more satisfaction in life. In the older version of this legend, Faust is irrevocably damned because he prefers human to divine knowledge; “he laid the Holy Scriptures behind the door and under the bench, refused to be called doctor of Theology, but preferred to be styled doctor of Medicine”. He becomes so corrupted that he believes he cannot be forgiven, so the devil carries him off to hell.
In Goethe’s version, Faust, through the intervention of the devil, is successful in wooing the girl of his dreams but in so doing causes her to falter morally and commit murder for which she is condemned to death by law and by her own conscience. Faust pays the painful price of watching the object of his passions and desires suffer while he furtively tries to stop it. The audience shares some contempt for the fallen Faust but also compassion for him because of his unbearable grief. At the end of this part of the play voices from heaven announce that she will be saved. In the next part of the play Faust is transported to a different and pleasant environment where he also has the hope and potential of redemption. The play ends with Faust entering heaven and the angels of mercy declaring “He who strives on and lives to strive, can earn redemption still”
So in effect, Faust’s faltering and pain are used to develop his spirit.
Robert I am not familiar with the story of Faust, or the works of Von Goethe. I’ve only read into little references, passages and overviews about it a few times. However, the additional insight by you and anny I find interesting. I don’t mean to be a party pooper but I’d rather keep silent after I feel I’ve said enough.
Anny and Vern,
I am not sure why I got sidetracked into bringing up Faust. As I remember I was was trying to think of someone who was brilliant and creative but went the wrong way. The name Faust popped into my head. I saw the play 40 years ago and had very little idea of what it meant at the time. But I thought Vern might be familiar with it because of his interest in classical literature. So I looked it up. In thinking about it now, Faust follows the a cycle similar to involution and evolution. He is overpowered by the negative aspect of the serpent as a prelude to redemption (or evolution to developing the positive aspects).
I have been reading “Inner Christianity” by Richard Smoley. We have been agreeing that love is the ultimate goal and makes everything good. Richard Smoley describes the difference between “mysticism” and “esoteric belief”. The mystic often values a more immediate solution to our fallen nature with one very simple concept. So I am thinking that realizing love is the highest priority is kind of like this one simple concept. He goes on to say that the esoterics believe that love is primary, and that love is the gateway to special knowledge, and that love need to be balanced with knowledge.
Robert and Vern, thanks for your comments.
I like your explanation about Faust, Robert. Off topic or not. It reminds me of school again where we had to read parts of Faust and where I did not have the faintest idea what it was all about. It was such a struggle to learn everything that was needed for the examinations that the things that were not required for them but were of real value completely passed over my head.
Deeper meanings behind a literal one were an unknown concept to me, both in literature in the modern languages and in the classical ones, not to mention the Bible. I missed so much at that time by only concentrating on being able to read a book instead of understanding it. I only became aware of that long after I left school. I did vaguely remember that there were two versions of Faust.
You are right that there is creativity of the wrong kind as well. That will be inspiration by the serpent on its downward track, I guess.
I never really thought about there being a difference between mysticism and esoteric belief. I am sure you are right though.
A belief is something you choose, or are raised in, I believe and mysticism more or less happens to you by having experiences of some kind. Which can be very confusing and frightening when it happens to someone who has no spiritual or religious background at all. I heard that recently from someone to whom that happened. Before she realized what had actually happened she thought she had gone insane because she kept having mystic experiences!
I myself only had one or two experiences which maybe might have been called mystic but because of my religions background I only enjoyed them. There is a link to an esoteric approach though because my experiences might have me prepared for that.
I do agree with Richard Smoley that love is primary. No one told me but I have known that forever. The need to balance that love with knowledge was less obvious to me but I think I have been doing that nevertheless. Love should not wear a blindfold.
Anny,
I am reading Richard Smoley because he is very articulate and knowledgeable of Christian esoteric beliefs. He was editor of a major esoteric magazine called Gnosis for a long time. I think he not only reports and sums up the ideology, but probably has been a part of influencing it and defining it. So if you don’t know much about it, or have read or experienced a few things, or been exploring some very specialized part of it, then you can understand how everything ties in (according to his grasp of it) by reading his book. But I find myself having many tentative reservations about agreeing with many assertions in his book, even though I have found it valuable.
I found one paragraph that really inspired me, My interpretation of it is that it discusses distress and blockages when facing situations that seem insurmountable or that in your guts you would want to avoid or put off; those reactions of dread and panic and impending failure are based on perceptions of the situation that are illusionary in some respect. He encourages one to relax and be open to various forms of guidance and understanding of our inherent stability as a spiritual entity, in order to negotiate those situations without backing down. I kind of knew that somewhat from experience, but seeing that in writing encouraged me to remember that and try to put that into operation. I did not learn to do that in church. There are scriptures that come close to encouraging one to do that, but they are interpreted in church as complying to a code of behavior, rather than understanding what is going on inside you as you work though it and gain confidence in staying open. I am guessing that such an understanding was intended to be part of the Christian experience, but does not come through very well from the Gospels and letters in scripture, or what does come through is quenched by overemphasis on doctrine and conformance.
But as I sift through the rest of the book I find myself feeling disappointed of his treatment of scriptural literalness and historicity. He tries not to dispute it, agreeing that it has some relevance, but I think his personal bias against it shows through. He came from a religious background which he rejected. I came from an agnostic background which I rejected to embrace Christianity. I am aware of shortcomings (from my perspective of feeling disappointed by some aspects) of traditional Christianity, but I have not denounced it. He does mention that the literalness debate has been going on now for hundreds of years without a clear resolution that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. And I agree with him that we all need to get past this obstacle by letting it go if we can. I noticed he also does not challenge the need for salvation (or to believe in salvation). He simply does not discuss it much, and focuses more on enlightenment and transformation beyond that.
In his writing, he represents Gnostic ideology applied to Christianity. The Gnostics emphasize special knowledge. So it is logical for him to challenge his readers to go beyond what he calls mysticism and embrace the importance of special knowledge. Thus he states that love must be balanced with (special) knowledge.
I’m Ok with this. My take on this is that we acquire different versions of special knowledge that matches our personalities and experiences. We find more disagreements and discrepancies with the letter of this special knowledge than we do with the spirit of it. I think we find it even harder to disagree on love. It is somewhat intangible and very powerful. how are we going to argue about it?
Richard Smoley does not think much of converting people. I think you would agree with him. I understand his and your point of view. There are good reasons for not pushing someone into accepting what you believe. Still, my conversion from agnostic Jew to a beleiving Christian would not have occurred without some people’s evangelical intervention as part of the process. Without that, I might never have developed an interest in anything other than a naturalistic conception of the universe. Some exposure I had to the bible as a Jew had some meaning to me, but the Judaism I was exposed did not go much beyond an ethnic commonality. When I go back now and try to understand Judaism, I still encounter the same emptiness. The only way Jewish traditions have any intensity for me is when I embrace them as a Jewish Christian, as a practicing Messianic Jew in a community of such.
The disciples were sent out by Jesus from house to house and the apostles from nation to nation. This may have an esoteric meaning, but it would have not have any meaning at all if Christianity had not first spread house to house and nation to nation.
I recently had a very short one week contract job in Massachusetts, where after searching for lodging I ended up staying at a bed and breakfast run by a Jewish couple in there home. The woman’s sister in Florida was a Messianic Jew and had inspired her interest. She was considering visiting a local church. In evening discussions we seemed to accidently discover
we had a common interest. I got to explain how I became a Christian, which she was very open to listening to. She had had another Messianic Jewish believer who had lodged with them a few years back who went into a lot of detail about his faith. Her husband was very much what I was like when I was an agnostic Jew and when he joined the discussion he challenged a lot of what I talked about. His biggest compliant was anti-Semitism he had experienced from church groups and other Christians. I was not aware of any kind of pervasive anti-Semitism in churches throughout my experiences. So it surprised me, but his complaints were believable. Churches these days are divided in their official policies towards the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Some support boycotting Israel in order to pressure Israel into slowing down its expansion into the West Bank. That is not theoretically anti-Semitism. Even some Israeli and American Jewish groups want the expansion to stop. But some anti-Semitic feelings in some churches may be coming out of the woodwork and riding along with the boycott movement. I don’t think that is what he was complaining about. Anyway, it turned him off to be open to Christianity. He stated that Christians throughout history have been anti-Semitic and since Jesus was the founder, he could not respect Jesus.
This is all very interesting because a few days before driving up to Massachusetts, I had a vivid dream about talking to two Jews about my faith, and one was open and the other closed. I usually do not remember dreams. But I remembered this one.
So I cannot fully agree that efforts to convert others is bad. Some of it is, some of it is not.
Anny,
I think we can agree that there are beneficial reasons for someone to encourage another person with similar backgrounds to explore and see if they will accept their belief system if they are open to it and the spirit seems to be working in that area. We do not have to assume that it is the only valid belief system. But it may be the one that the other person is ready to accept.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your extensive comment! I think we discussed this book of Richard Smoley’s once before. Are you not making his take on things a bit too much of a problem here? What he writes are his views, to which he is entitled, but there is no need whatever to agree with him. It is a given that a lot of people have views on anything whatever that do not coincide with yours. Or mine for that matter. But that does not make your or my view any less valid. There is no Absolute Truth yet while we are still living in this world of illusion. All these different truths are tools of learning in order to find our own.
It is good therefore that although you disagree with him on some – or maybe even many – points, you are still able to see what is valuable to you in his book. Is not that what it is all about? We share our truths with each other and use what we can from what we hear or read and leave the rest.
As you also acknowledge and describe in your comment, our own background has a lot of influence on how we experience thoughts and opinions of others. Your experience of Judaism in your youth has definitely put its stamp on your feelings about it. As have the experiences of many Jews about Christianity. In Israel we ran up to both so to speak. It was a great way of teaching us not to judge. That also is one of the things I have to keep reminding myself of. And one of the things Jesus taught.
As far as trying to convert people, that of course was absolutely forbidden in Nes Ammim. And I took that attitude with me when I returned to Holland and extended that also to all other religions as in our contacts with Judaism and Islam we had learned to think in less absolute terms and I did not believe in any religion as the one and only true religion anymore. I started to search for truth within religion and spirituality.
You write: “The disciples were sent out by Jesus from house to house and the apostles from nation to nation. This may have an esoteric meaning, but it would have not have any meaning at all if Christianity had not first spread house to house and nation to nation.”
It is true that Jesus sent the disciples but I do not think that they were sent with the idea to spread Christianity. There was no Christianity to spread. They were sent to tell people the message that Jesus had taught them but that had nothing to do with converting them to another religion. It had everything to do with how to live their life. Love being the most important thing.
My conclusion: Sharing our truth is fine, but only with people who are interested in hearing it when they are ready to hear it, and without any compulsion to accept it. And worrying about other people’s truth does not serve any purpose at all as none of us are in possession of the absolute truth yet and we should never pretend, even only to ourselves, that we do.
Again: Love is the All-important thing. Love God above all else and your neighbour (all seven billion of them) as yourself.
Anny,
In many religions disciples are sent out not only to share their illumination with others but also to learn many lessons from the people they inter-react with along the way. So, yes, it was always about sharing how to live your life and enhancing each other’s spiritual focus.
In the Gospels (Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19) Jesus tells his disciples to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel, making disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
Thanks for the additional information, Robert.
It’s been some days since I followed this discussion, which is expanding to read, as always, with lots of places I’d like to comment, but will try to touch on them in this one place.
The comment about the seraphim being “above the throne” brought to mind the “serpent-fire” of kundalini energy, which rises from the 1st chakra and becomes a rush of expanding light as it moves upward and pours out of the 7th chakra, which is located at the crown of the skull. The medical name for that spot is the “fontanel–the little fountain”, which seems a strange choice unless in other times its importance was recognized.
The 1st and 7th, 2nd and 6th, 3rd and 5th chakras have a particular connection: the upper ones are the “transcendent” or “perfected” forms of the lower three and the 4th chakra (the heart) is where the transformation occurs. That is no accident, as the heart is the first organ to form (it’s beating 16 days after conception) and it “oversees” the development of the child in the womb. The neural tube that becomes the heart is linked to the brain, specifically at the point where the pre-frontal lobes are located and which develop (or not) after birth depending on the nurturing provided to the infant. I won’t go further at this time, but I recommend “The Biology of Transcendence” by Joseph Chilton Pearce, who had much to say in his books as to what force opposes that process of transcending which we are physically designed to accomplish. OK, I’ll tell: it is culture, the process of acculturation that “make(s) of no effect the Word of God” by creating a “cosmic egg” which insulates our awareness. As he said, when a crack appears in the cosmic egg, such as the Crucifixion/Resurrection, culture simply absorbs it, and makes it harmless.
Pearce frequently quoted from Blake and also from Darwin, especially from “The Descent of Man”, in which he (Darwin) attributes the awakening of charity/altruism as the quality which set us on the path that leads to ultimate experience of union with God/Source.
And, in re: the crucifixion and whether we are intended to carry our own personal cross: at the time Jesus told his disciples to “take up your cross and follow me”, nothing has indicated that he had foretold his physical death in such fashion. He had implied the cross we’re intended to carry when he was asked which is the greatest commandment. He said, “love the lord your god with all your heart, all your soul, all you mind and all your strength” (setting the vertical aspect–the connection between heaven and earth, god and man). And then he continued, “and the second is like unto it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself (joining the horizontal aspect). And, then…he said, “on these two hang (depend, are crucified) All the Law and the Prophets.”
I really appreciate this site and the time people take to participate.
Thanks for your comment with so much information again. It keeps building up.
“The comment about the seraphim being “above the throne” brought to mind the “serpent-fire” of kundalini energy, which rises from the 1st chakra and becomes a rush of expanding light as it moves upward and pours out of the 7th chakra, which is located at the crown of the skull. The medical name for that spot is the “fontanel–the little fountain”, which seems a strange choice unless in other times its importance was recognized. ”
Of course. This is also a meaning of the seraphim. There are always several levels of meaning and interpretation.
And re crucifixion, this is indeed yet another way it can be interpreted. I believe it is not either or but each in addition to the other interpretations.
It is great to see so many sides to all this! Thanks to all who have contributed.
Brahmi,
These are interesting concepts described by Pierce, that the heart has neural connections with the brain which is part of our thinking process and that neural communication might be holographic through energy fields, instead of just through the physical network that connect neurons. This may someday be used to explain ESP and paranormal experiences. I was not familiar before you mentioned it, that acculturation would tend to create this cosmic egg of isolation from our higher nature and when we try to crack out of it through revelation, then acculturation tends to counter it by channeling it or absorbing it into something more comfortable with culture and not effective for personal illumination.
Robert:
The heart, usually described as “a muscle”, is largely composed of neural cells. The mind, by which we are taught to live, is the last to know. An experiment involving pictures both disturbing and neutral was set up: the subject, connected to instruments measuring pulse, blood pressure, etc. pushed a button and 10 seconds later, a picture appeared. The picture was randomly selected, not even those running the test knew what would appear next. In every case in which the next picture shown was “disturbing”, the heart rate changed, the blood pressure went up, and so onl BEFORE the picture appeared. It did not happen when the upcoming picture was neutral or pleasant.
First World cultures are overwhelmingly left-brain oriented. We have been taught to consider consider cultures with low technological base as much in need of our “improvements”, which for the most part do block access to and understanding of the Transcendent. The Aborigines of Australia (an endangered species) live in such inter-connectedness with each other that they know where any relative is in a given moment. And more.
Another author (besides Pearce) who presents ideas counter to our cultural bent is American surgeon Leonard Shlain. The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image is a work of critical theory by published by Viking Press in 1998. Shlain argues that learning written language, especially alphabetic language, alters human brain function in a way that emphasizes linear thinking over holistic thinking. (The cultural decline this engendered fits nicely with Pearce’s view of what’s gone wrong.)
Let me interject that I don’t think “wrong” is prevailing over “right”: I see so much expansion of awareness in so many unexpected places. The Teacher speaks in a multitude of tongues.
In Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light (1991) he notes that every leap in science has been preceded by an artistic upheaval (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was preceded by Picasso and others whose work “showed” a world lived at the speed of light, in which past, present and future merged). That’s not the only example.
At any rate, not all “spiritual” writing is done in the context of religious basis, as far as I’m concerned. Also, what these two authors had to say meshes perfectly with the understandings being opened on this blog, which I’m so happy to have found.
Brhami,
Awesome fascinating. Thanks.
Leo,
In my mailbox I received a communication that you had given a comment to this article but on the blog I cannot find it so I copied it underneath:
Comment:
“The fiery sword could be represented by a vortex with flashes of energy rotating, whirling from top to bottom outside and then returning from bottom to top inside and vice versa”
Yes, I can imagine that this might be so, which would be a totally different aspect again. In that case it would refer to the vibrational state of the Cherubim themselves. Would not it?
Thanks for commenting.
Anny
I agree you can see Heaven while your here. Jesus describes how to do that by reading the bible, praying, following and living the commandments of both the old and new testament, not living in sin, and fasting. Not by folling kundalini or any other religions ways. See Jesus was not religious like the pharisees and seduces. He wanted to show people a spiritual kingdom of Elohim. The God of the gods! I believe all the pagan gods were the fallen angels clai ming to be God and using the power they received from him. Just like Satan the angels who fell wanted to be God’s so when he cast them out they told humans they were gods! We’re hear all about them through different cultures and there offspring the Nephilim were the titans. People all around the world have stories, legends and myths of the gods and Giants.