The Qualities of a Divinely Inclined Person.....

[Tomas]

sittin' here on Death Row doin' time ain't all that bad,

even the stench from the Jacobs Fertiliser Factory brings a smile.

Death warmed over.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In Silence, by Thomas Merton

Be still
Listen to the stones of the wall.
Be silent, they try
To speak your

Name.
Listen
To the living walls.
Who are you?
Who
are you? Whose
silence are you?

Who (be quiet)
Are you (as these stones
Are quiet). Do not
Think of what you are
Still less of
What you may one day be.
Rather
Be what you are (but who?) be
The unthinkable one
You do not know.

O be still, while
You are still alive,
And all things live around you
Speaking (I do not hear)
To your own being,
Speaking by the Unknown
That is in you and in themselves.

'I will try, like them
To be my own silence:
And this is difficult. The whole
World is secretly on fire. The stones
Burn, even the stones
They burn me. How can a man be still or
Listen to all things burning? How can he dare
To sit with them when
All their silence
Is on fire?'

[Sphere70]

Yes, one thing that is Absolutely certain - the leaders of GF has an artistic sensibility equal to Mengele - but certainly the same scientific spirit. Keep it pumpin'!

[Pam Seeback]

Alex, what I experienced on my journey of soul/self is that 'built' into this experience of rowing in the gap between subject and object, is also the soul's longing to be free of this rowing.

What happened to me, is that at some point, I wearied of the rowing, and was guided to discover the nature of the longing 'itself.' To devote my entire living to that one question - what is this intense fire that cannot get thoughts of the invisible beloved out of her mind, as if 'he/it' is distant and far away?

How can there be a distance to row to the beloved, when he must be here, right now - where else can he be?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Indeed, where else can he be? Where else?!

This 'soul's longing to be free of the rowing' is a very interesting question. Surely we recognize that with this desire/longing we are linked to a core message within religious and scriptural writing, to traditions of transcendence. At the same time we also know that no one ever escapes their 'immanence' until they pass out of the body. In the tension between the desire/longing for freedom and liberation and the fact that our life is occuring within this 'mortal frame', occurs our awareness of the strangeness (my term) of life and existence. One must note that some people turn this 'desire for transcendence' into a neurotic avoidance of 'life' (death's headlights makes them nauseous and they 'hightail it', is how I put it somewhere else), and in this neurotic process become 'unreal' to themselves, and they make a religion out of shearing off from self. I suggest this is not a sane route, and I have endlessly suggested that it must lead to fracturing of the individual. If 'the only way out is through', what does this in fact MEAN? Additionally, there is the vastly important issue of relationship: that is, what are we related to and how do we serve that relatedness? We exist and have out being in a biological realm along with billions of others. Are we here to transcend that relationship? If we are 'really and truly spiritual', how do we define our relatedness? For me---I hope this is obvious---the Questions are more important than forcing an answer. How one conducts oneself in relation to the Questions says a great deal about the path one is on.

[Pam Seeback]

This 'soul's longing to be free of the rowing' is a very interesting question. Surely we recognize that with this desire/longing we are linked to a core message within religious and scriptural writing, to traditions of transcendence. At the same time we also know that no one ever escapes their 'immanence' until they pass out of the body.

We don't KNOW this, but wisdom does suggest that it is true that we don't fully transcend until there is no awareness of the body. Until then, if we "get to this point", perhaps, we are 99.9% transcended. :-)

In the tension between the desire/longing for freedom and liberation and the fact that our life is occuring within this 'mortal frame', occurs our awareness of the strangeness (my term) of life and existence. One must note that some people turn this 'desire for transcendence' into a neurotic avoidance of 'life' (death's headlights makes them nauseous and they 'hightail it', is how I put it somewhere else), and in this neurotic process become 'unreal' to themselves, and they make a religion out of shearing off from self.

In order for transcendence to be a reality, and not simply a desire, does not the self have to be sheared off? Jesus' words "I come to not to bring peace, but to bring a sword," I believe, is a reference to the necessity of the "shearing off" of soul from spirit. This cutting off of soul from spirit, however, can only happen "in its own good time", no man can "make it happen" for another. Scriptures has a "recipe" for this graduated soul-spirit severance: precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little...

I suggest this is not a sane route, and I have endlessly suggested that it must lead to fracturing of the individual. If 'the only way out is through', what does this in fact MEAN?

It means that while you are exiting your belief in the reality of a subject and an object, that you continue your path of believing that they actually exist. You have the wisdom, but your expansion of this wisdom, is partial, so "going in and out" is also a part of the pattern of transcendence. As I said above, you cannot hurry or force the process. "God" is in control, not you. Is this not the meaning of the scripture "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb.11:1)." If one KNOWS where one is going, where is the need for faith?

There are many times that I believed I "was fracturing", even thought of calling a "shrink", but each time, I would remember the true meaning of faith. Another scripture: 'I [thought] will never leave or forsake you." This is the coming of The Comforter, which ironically, comes in the form of reasoning, of analysis - spiritual reasoning, spiritual analysis. This is what scriptures are for, are they not, for the purification of the mind? And although feeling is not mentioned much on this forum, this pure reasoning that is experienced while the self is being burned up is not divorced from feelings. I experienced many "dark moments" during my reasoning of self/no self, but along with the dark moments came sweet, feelings of forgiveness, compassion and love. Not the earthly kind of attachment feelings, human emotions, but the spiritual kind of detachment, feeling that are free of possessive human emotions. The soul is never abandoned as the sword falls, this truth I can promise you, is so.

Additionally, there is the vastly important issue of relationship: that is, what are we related to and how do we serve that relatedness? We exist and have out being in a biological realm along with billions of others. Are we here to transcend that relationship? If we are 'really and truly spiritual', how do we define our relatedness? For me---I hope this is obvious---the Questions are more important than forcing an answer. How one conducts oneself in relation to the Questions says a great deal about the path one is on.

Only you can answer that question about whether or not you desire to transcend your subjective-objective, physical, human-being world.

[David Quinn]

And so poetry becomes a truncheon
To beat the philistines,
The heathens and Hitlerites.
We are more cultured, more complete,
More human, they say,
As they smirk their minds
Into harmless ways.

If only Jesus quoted poetry,
And forgot about the truth.
They would have all listened
And not bludgeoned him
To death.

With their
Mundane smiles,
And their
Poetic ways.

-

[Sphere70]

Is that your poem?

Well in my view Jesus words were of a high poetic quality, at least from the Gospel of Thomas which is the only work I've read containing his words.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It seems to me that 'scripture', the term, is just to vague. Also, there is absolutely no clear guidance offered in 'Christian scripture' as to the correct way of living, or even a clear sense of what the goal of human life is. There is really no way (that I am aware) to make sense of that statement "I come to not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" that fits cogently into a life-practice. However is one to interpret that? (And the whole issue of interpretation, who interprets, what meanings are being conveyed, is not at all simple). In fact, the more closely one examines the Gospels, the more the ground falls away from under them, the less substantial they become. Each Gospel is a different document, and John is a radically different document. Now, the question What are we speaking of when we speak of 'transcendence' is a very, very good one. Transcend what? There is nothing simple here, there is nothing obvious, and anyone who says there is 'Is selling something' to quote the Princess Bride (!)

'Shearing off soul from spirit'? David? Is that even intelligible to you? Diebert? But this should not be taken to mean that I do not understand what it may mean or what it can mean. I can indeed envision a scenario, that is to say a metaphysical scenario, in which a being (more or less) grows tired of everything about life in a body, and is willing to 'shear off', which according to Paramahansa Yogananda in his interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita (actually, the interpretation of his yoga-school: Giri), is precisely what an incarnatre soul has to do: precisely reverse the 'mechanism' by which one became incarnate and 'entangled' in physical existence, in this particular sphere or location. So, instead of seeking fulfilment in exteriorization, one begins to seek the fulfilment 'interiorly'. Still, there are pretty large problems with this idea or proposition. Not the least of which is that it is a radical path and it is DEFINITELY not one that almost all incarnate persons have any attraction for (if that is the word). So, trying to construct a 'philosophy' that is advertised in an internet forum, in which congregants come and 'share their agreements' about such a radically strange plan or path, does seem a little odd. David, I think, does sort of refer to something somewhat like this, but no one else does to the best of my knowledge. Cory? Ryan? Diebert? Jupi?

This cutting off of soul from spirit, however, can only happen "in its own good time", no man can "make it happen" for another. Scriptures has a "recipe" for this graduated soul-spirit severance: precept by precept, line by line, here a little, there a little...

From one perspective, let us try to imagine a earth-world in which the goal of it is to 'cut off soul from spirit', to transcend to some other plane of existence (?), I mean some other locale(?) A glance at it indicates how utterly absurd it would become. It is exactly the opposite of a praxis for living well within this physical framework. The 'world' becomes an irrelevance, a hinderance. This 'transcendance' is anything but simple. It is hardly even explainable.

Now, just what do you mean when you say 'Scripture has a recipe'? If Christianity has a recipe I sure would like to see it. What I see instead are dozens if not hundreds of different 'divinations' about what is even being talked about. And anyway, if one is going to propose transcendence, like to some other plane of existence (non-body or different body) one is going to have to produce the transcendent realm. The fact that one cannot, and that everything is intuited, is deeply problematic. It goes without saying that many, many people fall into these conceptual paths and get terribly lost in them. And what results? They miss the opportunity to live in their immanence. They don't take it seriously. They don't really develop themselves. I am sure that (even) David makes no propositions or suggestions of 'some other realm' into which we will translate. He is an immanentist in this sense.

It means that while you are exiting your belief in the reality of a subject and an object, that you continue your path of believing that they actually exist.

This is the sort of phrase that when I hear it I go What!? See, it is constructed like a phrase dealing with 'real things' and it assumes, a priori style, that its presuppositions are grasped. But they are NOT grasped. I suggest that no one really grasps them, even if one some level they 'understand' what it means. But, what it seems to mean, and the way it must be taken, is that This entire reality is a mirage and is not really happening. Realize that and...

Then what happens?

There are many times that I believed I "was fracturing", even thought of calling a "shrink", but each time, I would remember the true meaning of faith. Another scripture: 'I [thought] will never leave or forsake you." This is the coming of The Comforter, which ironically, comes in the form of reasoning, of analysis - spiritual reasoning, spiritual analysis. This is what scriptures are for, are they not, for the purification of the mind?

Trust me, I understand you in my own way. I think there are levels of spiritual experience (I don't know how else to refer to it) that is like an assault on the person. It has the power to overpower, and to fracture, to create a fragmented entity. If the person manages to stay intact, he strengthens his core self. He regroups himself and he 'individuates'. But when you examine those people who are on this path of so-called 'transcendence', planning, practicing as it were for some exit from this realm: more often than not one finds neurosis.

Only you can answer that question about whether or not you desire to transcend your subjective-objective, physical, human-being world.

I certainly see how such a statement follows from your (apparent) presuppositions. I am not at all certain that it can or should be described in this way, and anyway the whole meaning of 'The only way out is through' would in a sense be negated by the proposition. Still, everyone follows an inner order, and inner commands. I certainly can't make any ultimate judgments about this, or anything.

[Bob Michael]

If only Jesus quoted poetry,
And forgot about the truth.
They would have all listened
And not bludgeoned him
To death.

With their
Mundane smiles,
And their
Poetic ways.

You fail to realize, David, that most of Christ's listeners lacked 'ears to hear' anything of edifying value.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The problem with David's poem is that he has NO COMPREHENSION of the Gospels. In his 'poem' he implies that they killed him because he was preaching a David-like message (and if anyone actually grasps David's message please send me the Reader's Digest version. I've been reading him for years now and I honestly don't get it).

Because he is completely ignorant of the content of the Gospels, he projects into them (what I am calling 'divination') and interprets them in his own image. But it is absolutely UNCLEAR why 'they' put him to death. But trust me on this one: it is very, very unlikely they did so because he was preaching some path of 'transcendence'. Examined carefully, the Gospels themselves (Mark especially) reveal certain clues that Jesus may have had a link to and a sympathy for the Zealots: those who wanted to drive the Romans out of Judea and restore the sovereignty of Israel and the purity of its rites. This would be a far more consistent program for a Jew, and even one with an Isaian program. The way the Gospels portray it, Jesus had a premonition that the God of Israel would turn against 'the Jews', would cause the Temple to be destroyed, would set the Jews into Exile, and mystically turn over the Covenant to the Gentile nations. This is in fact what Christianity means. That is the story-line.

Anyway, David is completely ignorant of any part of this and so his 'poem' is just bufoonery.

Naturally, David, you completely miss the point of the poems I submitted. It is a point that you are predisposed NEVER to get! And the reason for that is because it has to do with people being honest about their relationship to themselves, the lives they live, their immanence, their feelings as persons, in short to their bodies. You give yourself the right to commit (as a classical philistine!) any level of violence againt yourself or 'them', but the real problem is that you cannot hear.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The problem with your analysis, Bob, is that it is superficial and incomplete. It is possible, and I think necessary, to become a better reader. These Gospels are novels. They are mental environments created by a narrator: the first level of narrator is 'the author' but there is an even more inside level: the narrator, and the revealer, is 'God'. The way the narratives are constructed, the reader is guided to certain conclusions and accepts them as if he made these conclusions on his own. As if he had 'eyes to see and ears to hear'. (But we, as readers, must see farther. And what this means too is that we must see into our own shennanigans! And you in particular, Oh favored of God!)

You fail to realize, David, that most of Christ's listeners lacked 'ears to hear' anything of edifying value.

No, David really does get this. Except that what it really means (let he who has ears hear) is that those who hear David lack 'ears to hear'! And so, mercifully or mercillesly, depending on what side you stand on, David drones on and on and on...

But I of course know that you do not really care one iota for the Text itself and, like a good Christian, have expropriated your tendentious meaning that you can weild in any way you wish. Rather like David in this sense?

Preach it, brother! PREACH IT!

;-)

Who has written this document? And what, exactly, is the reader to be convinced of? And what does a reader do when he 'sees'? Which, in truth, is not really seeing at all but psuedo-seeing...

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

• ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
  you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
  For this people’s heart has become calloused;
  they hardly hear with their ears,
  and they have closed their eyes.
  Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
  hear with their ears,
  understand with their hearts
  and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

[Bob Michael]

David seems to me to be complacent and self-satisfied and lacking in desire or motivation to be one with the Infinite. And I suspect he lacks the organismal sensitivity that's necessary to be impelled towards this ultimate goal. So while enlightenment or a shift in consciousness can in fact take place in a person, there's still no guarantee that such a person will fully overcome the conditioned self and its ways of error, weakness, and cowardice. Nor will they be of any real value to others in their journey of self-overcoming.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Those are BIG words, Bob. Can you back it up? All's I can say is you best watch out for the Power Bomb...

[Bob Michael]

Those are BIG words, Bob. Can you back it up? All's I can say is you best watch out for the Power Bomb...

David tells on himself to the truly wise.

The problem with your analysis, Bob, is that it is superficial and incomplete. It is possible, and I think necessary, to become a better reader.

There's no fear here whatsoever that this is case, Alexis. Contrarywise, I feel I'm the only man alive who thoroughly understands Christ. Which is the result of having walked many miles in his footsteps. Enough miles to see where and why he fell short of the full glory of his heavenly Father.

And Christianity and the Gospels are not only dead, but they both suffer from grave limitations. Hence neither will play a hand in bringing the Light of Love, Truth, and Understanding into our dark and decaying world.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If David tells on himself, may I know what I do? Don't be fearful to tell me the truth. I can take it.

[Dennis Mahar]

"Longing" goes with 'lostness'.

If you have more than one neuron and thereby gained access to ultimate reality you would cognite that 'lostness' is impossible thereby removing 'longing' as a possibility.

If you have one or less neurons you are sadly rooted in delusion.

The delusion is you are an I.

Having an I means you identify yourself in a situation (perils of pauline) you have to travail through and need the assistance of a Superpower (God).

Guess what.
The joke is on you.
You made some meaning.

The poems aren't even fit for toilet paper.

[Bob Michael]

If David tells on himself, may I know what I do? Don't be fearful to tell me the truth. I can take it.

"Wherefore, my beloved brethern, let every man be SWIFT TO LISTEN, SLOW TO SPEAK,.........." (James 1:19)

A mindless man needs no words.

A mindless man's words will be few but true - and his actions will be right-actions.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well thank you Bob! Not many recognize what an excellent listener I am, and how much, how VERY VERY MUCH I hold back from outrightly stating. I have in my files 3,526 unposted posts! Just imagine!

Actually, it's a wee bit of an irony: a mindless man will have no words since word-making requires a human mind.

I like James quite a bit.

• Santiago in Spanish: Jacob! I actually see myself like this!
  
  Jacobo, Jacob, Yago, Jaime, Santiago y Diego son variantes en español del nombre propio Ya'akov (en hebreo יַעֲקֹב), que significa "sostenido por el talón" y fue el nombre del patriarca que después se llamó Israel. El nombre de este patriarca fue traído al castellano como Jacob.

Did you know Luther detested James and wanted to rip his book out of the NT? "Too damned Jewish!" is likely what he thought. He called it an "epistle of straw."

• Thus in his Preface to the New Testament, which he placed in his 1522 German translation, Luther stated, “You are in a position now rightly to discriminate between all the books, and decide which are the best. The true kernel and marrow of all the books, those which should rightly be ranked first, are the gospel of John and St. Paul’s epistles, especially that to the Romans, together with St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther advised every Christian to read these books first and most often, since in them one will discover accounts of “how faith in Christ conquers sin, death, and hell; and gives life, righteousness, and salvation.” He believed that in these books one finds “the true essence of the gospel.” He concludes that these are “the books which show Christ to you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any other teaching.” Then he adds, at the very end of the Preface, “In comparison with these, the epistle of St. James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.” ---Daniel W. Petty: MARTIN LUTHER’S VIEW OF THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.

[Bob Michael]

I was referring to a 'still-minded' man, Alexis. Which are rare breeds in these last days especially.

Mind running fast - insanity.

Mind running slow - Saint.

Mind stopped - God.

I picked this thought up years ago and no longer know it's source.

[Dennis Mahar]

I have in my files 3,526 unposted posts! Just imagine

Delete them.
It's called gushing.

Actually, it's a wee bit of an irony: a mindless man will have no words since word-making requires a human mind.

Ironical yes.
Contradictory yes.

Indicates attachment to an incoherent meaning structure.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

A New Gnosticism will have no fear at all of strict scientific reasoning, and a decided sobriety in general, but will not feint when confronted with the mystical text, the ancient religious text, any and all views of any other outmoded episteme.

I'm not sure that awareness of the bewitching, subtly Holy, power of words shows fear, but rather is a call for caution. Wizardry, like science, is strict and solemn. It is almost tangential to the point that this strictness, when properly directed, is the most effective way of controlling nature. Even if something happened to work better, it is human to be drawn to the rituals. These rituals always contain the verbal pomp of spellcasting. Religion is the perfect example of this spellcraft without the luck of science: spellcasters hiding behind doors (sometimes in ivory towers, but just as often in caves), trying to control nature with a language game that, it just so happens, doesn't work at all! To many, there's very little difference between a science textbook, the Bible, and a grimoire.

I'd say it'd be foolishness to think that science is the best possible way to control nature, but I still think it's the best we can do. A few crossed wires, and a savant can instantly tell you the value of each and every one of the first 10,000 prime numbers. Could a whole different species do better?

In a New Gnosticism, which must resist the fatal attractions of post-modernism, all potions can be ingested while a core Knowledge holds the 'soul' and the personality and ego intact. Many things approach the Soul and (why is this?) seek to break it asunder, divide and conquer it, fraction it, but there is some gnowledge that aids us in holding ourselves together in the face of the onsloughts. He he he who holds himself together, and yet 'flies' in and out of Meaning(s), wins.

This is the clearest exposition of what New Gnosticism actually is I've heard from you so far. You seem to describe what it isn't more often than what it is. Maybe you've got a description of it hiding in your thousands of unposted posts? Sure, I can make an educated guess based off of the name, but I'd also end up being wrong.

Could you clarify what you mean by revelation? How do you recognize one?

[Dennis Mahar]

New Gnosticism can only show up as 'a road map'.

Just one more road map to cling to for the time being 'til a new road map shows up.

It can only 'mean' anything if you give it significance.

The only significance you can give it is if you were deluded that you were lost or courted deludedly the possibility of 'lostness'.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[posting error]

[David Quinn]

Naturally, David, you completely miss the point of the poems I submitted.

To fuzz everything up to the point of infinite vagueness, so that Days Of Our Lives can be watched in peace.

And the reason for that is because it has to do with people being honest about their relationship to themselves, the lives they live, their immanence, their feelings as persons, in short to their bodies. You give yourself the right to commit (as a classical philistine!) any level of violence againt yourself or 'them', but the real problem is that you cannot hear.

And then there is the violence committed against one's true nature, an infinitely greater crime.

-