| rosicrucianU.com | ||
| Simplified Scientific Christianity |
Max Heindel made a bold statement when he said the Great Pyramid, Cheops, at Giza was 250,000 years old. That is more than 50 times older than archeologists currently believe. Archeologists use historical and chemical analysis; Max Heindel used the Memory of Nature. Whom do we believe? Though we, as aspiring Christian Mystics, trust Max Heindel, the world would consider his statements wild speculation, the stuff that dreams are made of. The one exception might be the researchers who study the orientation of ancient monuments relative to the pole shift, whose agreement would also be considered speculation.
Many volumes about the Great Pyramid and its construction have been written. Some have speculated that it was a tomb, others that it was an astronomical observatory. There is abundant evidence for the latter. At least one Christian Mystic has speculated that it was Solomon’s Temple. The Bible tells us the plan for the Temple came from heaven. In the Rosicrucian Christianity Lectures Max Heindel tabulates several earth-relevant astronomical measurements built into its dimensions—a plan from heaven. Many more have been found since then. Interestingly, the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant given in the Bible would have it fit perfectly into the so-called coffer in the King’s Chamber. If an Ark were built according to the specifications of the Bible, and it was placed into the coffer, scientists have estimated it would act as an electric capacitor generating from 500 to 700 volts. This would be enough to kill anyone who touched it (as warned of in the Bible). There would also be an energetic glow between the wing tips of the Cherubim, an etheric counterpart to the spiritual Shekinah Glory.
Max Heindel and Madam Blavatsky claim the Great Pyramid was a temple of initiation. The former claims it was built in Atlantean times, though he does not say whether early or late in the Atlantean Epoch. If true, the Great Pyramid would have served as a two-way temple of initiation. The Atlanteans had a type of inner clairvoyant vision but their eyes were not well opened to the external world. In those times the vanguard of humanity was initiated into the outer physical world. This is said to have been done by having them build the inner forces, which they could see clairvoyantly, into the physical edifice. For example, when the ventilation tubes were opened it was found that there is a constant temperature and air pressure in the King’s Chamber, no matter what the outer conditions. The temperature and pressure happen to be exactly what physiologists have found to be ideal for the human body.
Our current situation is opposite to that of those Atlanteans. We can perceive the outer world excellently, but most cannot see into the inner worlds. To advance, we need to reawaken inner world awareness. Until the time of Christ, the Great Pyramid was used for that purpose, because the intense etheric focus (the word pyramid literally means fire in the center) helped to take individuals out of their dense physical bodies and into their etheric bodies while in [a] trance. A brief description of the process from Madam Blavatsky is given in the Rosicrucian Christianity Lectures. Many people throughout history, including Napoleon Bonaparte, have had astounding inner experiences while spending significant spans of time in the King’s Chamber. Since the coming of Christ, entrancement and the pyramid are no longer needed for initiation. All that is necessary is soul power, self-control, and abundant, unimpeachable love.
While we are on the subject of pyramid speculation, it is a good time to carry it farther on the way to our theme. If the dating for the Great Pyramid given by Max Heindel is correct, the Great Pyramid could also be another biblical edifice. It could have been the Tower of Babel.
As we passed through the Lemurian Epoch, we were said to have been a unified humanity. Even early in the Atlantean Epoch we were more unified than discrete. We could see into the soul of another, much as our current animals do. Humanity had innocent kinship and comradery as can still be found in some primitive peoples. Egoism was still undeveloped, and our focus was more inward. We needed individuation to become free beings. We needed to creatively experience the external world, in we which were perceptibly separate, that we were plunging ourselves into so deeply since our fall. In the way that building the Great Pyramid was part of our initiation into the outer world, part of the work of our individuation was accomplished in building the Tower of Babel.
Individuation from a unified whole does not occur in one step, any more than a boulder is turned into dust by one blow from a sledge hammer. First, there are large pieces which become smaller and smaller until they turn into discrete atoms of dust. The large pieces in the individuation process were both biological and cultural. Some call the former, races, the likes of which are not to be found on earth any longer because the individuation process has gone so far, that such tight control by Divine Hierarchies is no longer necessary, and is even counter-effective. Even the cultural side of the process is being rapidly diluted. Originally, we were brought through races and cultures to receive specific types of experiences. Descending progressively deeper into matter meant that we could no longer experience something from all points of view simultaneously, as one can do in the desire world. We had to experience specific things, and we had to do so sequentially through rebirth. Some liken the parallel biological groupings and cultures to a spectrum through which we have progressed sequentially. This writer finds it more helpful to view them as tools to ultimate destiny as complete beings. We use a spade for one purpose, a hoe for another, and harvesting shears for another, when we raise crops. Together they are all necessary to make a garden, and each is uniquely necessary.
The spiritual hierarchies that guided us used strict biological and cultural control to ensure that we received exactly the experience we needed. In the past, intermarriage outside of the biological group was a capital crime; now, as we are voluntarily uniting as free individuals to create a unified humanity to work together, intermarriage is encouraged. The Hierarchies controlled every significant aspect of culture. In those times, diet, attire, the arts and, especially, language were part of a tightly-bound culture. Language was particularly important because it involved breath speaking. It was through the breath that the Spiritual Hierarchies controlled their charges. Even as late as classical Greece, a repulsive barbarian was someone who didn’t speak Greek, not someone who was biologically different.
Consequently, it is not difficult to see that the individuation was increasing, at the same time that we were being initiated into the chemical subdivision of the physical world, as we now know it, through the building of the Great Pyramid. In this, there would be the beginning of a confusion of languages because individuation was occurring at different rates in different cultures and sub-cultures over the extended period of construction. Thus, the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 is not merely a story about punishing humanity for arrogance in building a tower to reach to heaven. Egoism there was, but the initiation into the material world and differentiation into cultures was necessary, with or without arrogance.
Coming into matter was always part of the plan for us. Coming into matter as deeply and blindly as we have, and with such egoism and arrogance, was not. The potential for sin was always present in the divine plan, else there would not have been the option for freedom that we have. Taking that option did give us a wonderful freedom, but at a high price. Part of that price was the weight of unnecessary excess.
In addition to becoming valuable individuals, we have, in excess, also become personal beings—we take things personally. We even have personal, subjective meanings for words. What might be an objective word for one, could be a personally loaded word for another. In this we have what could be called trash-can words. They are words with all sorts of meanings, personal and impersonal, thrown into them, much as we throw all sorts of things into trash cans. In spiritual and theological matters, “soul” is such a word. To some, it means a divine individuality. In the Aristotelian sense, it means everything between the dense physical body and the threefold spirit. Christian mystics use soul as the essence of experience, the product of the spiritualization of various grades of matter by vigorous interaction with them — the food for the becoming spirit. These are just a few of the more objective meanings, to say nothing of the multitude of subjective or personal meanings. Sometimes we do not have a clear understanding of our beliefs, we have not thought them out to their conclusions. We accept sets of words without distinguishing their meanings, and expect that others will experience them in the same way that we do. Often it doesn’t work out that way, so it is imperative to us to clarify what we mean when we use words or sets of words, if we want to share the Christian Mysticism from which we derive so much benefit.
The purpose of this essay is to explore and clarify the spiritual realities to which some words point. The purpose is NOT, by any means, to define the words once and for all. At this time in our history to do that is not possible, and it would be foolish to try it, it would only add to the confusion. Specific words and phrases from our specialized vocabulary will be used, but it must be borne in mind, that in our times, those words might have other meanings for other people; we must be mindful of that, if we wish to share. Even Max Heindel used these words in different ways at various places in his writings, but he was always clear about his meaning. We are seeking meaning, not a dogmatic definition of terms. If one understands meaning clearly, one can choose or use words appropriately, to share the meaning according to circumstance.
The first set of words we will consider is “virgin birth.” Please remember we are seeking meaning, we are not trying to define doctrine.
Several pre-Christian societies professed saviors born from virgin birth. Their conceptions on virgin birth are not likely to be the same as ours because human consciousness was different then. They did not have science and the scientific method. Their cultural consciousness was founded in myth, astrology and other vehicles of understanding, in accordance with the lingering clairvoyance of those times. Even their conception of the known world was bounded by their common experience, not the entire earth and all of humanity. A savior was one who was to redeem their society from the decadence and moral lapse that had crept into their way of life over time — a renewer of the golden age of the past.
Christ, as understood in Christian Mysticism, came to redeem all of humanity of Earth, and to lead us to a new golden age in the future. Even Christ was born in accordance with that mytho-astrological model. In Christian Mysticism we are taught that Christ, the archangelic Sun spirit, is reborn in the Earth every Christmas Eve. In recent millennia, in the northern hemisphere, where most of the great religions have been born, the celestial virgin is on the eastern horizon at midnight on Christmas Eve. To an ancient astrologer this would mean a kind of virgin birth. In fact, all of the figures of the Gospel’s nativities can be seen in the constellations aloft in the heavens at that time: the wise men, the sheep, the cattle, and so on. Those who are striving to be Christs-in-the-making know and aspire to live according to the purity and service indicated by the sign Virgo, the virgin. They have those ideals ascending in their lives, for them to be born again in Christ through initiation.
Even a mild experience of the Christ in one’s life, has one born again. The term for that second or spiritual birth, with or without initiation, is palingenesis. Palingenesis is a form of virgin birth, but it is not what most people mean by the words “virgin birth,” and it is not what Christian mystics mean by those words.
Palingenesis is more about the birth part of virgin birth. Most doctrinal confusion and controversy is about the virgin part. Clarification of the virgin part can be arrived at by asking “virgin to what?”
For most conventional religious people, the answer to that question would be virgin to sexual intercourse. There is a word for that, too. It is parthenogenesis. Spontaneous parthenogenesis does occur in ticks, some birds, some reptiles such as Komodo Dragons, and a few other species. Scientists are usually too cautious to say that something is outright impossible, but they come as close as possible to saying that with regard to parthenogenesis in mammals. The possibility in humans is even less likely and, even if it was possible, some of the biological conditions for such an occurrence are not palatable to religious proponents of this view of virgin birth. If it was the case with the Virgin Mary and Jesus, Jesus would have to have been a woman. Moreover, it would have been more likely, but still nigh unto impossible, if Mary had some male biological characteristics. There is also a strong possibility that Jesus would have some biological distortions.
This subject is one of the most irreconcilable differences between materialistic science and materialistic religion. The former sees only materialistic laws of nature as far as we know them now, without the possibility of a spiritual meaning or the possibility of change in the laws of nature. The latter group takes scripture, which is often sacred myth containing spiritual truths that cannot be stated didactically, as literal, with a common sensical, materialistic belief about the nature of reality.
To try to understand the theological doctrine of the word virgin in “virgin birth,” let’s look to the Bible. When we do that, we immediately confront problems of authority, authenticity, and interpretation. There are many Gospels. Only four of them are canonical or sanctioned: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The earliest existing, large fragments of any of the Gospels are from 125 to 250 A.D., i.e., after the gospelers had passed on.
There is a hypothesis that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) came from one original document in Aramaic. Significant inconsistencies between the synoptic Gospels make this hypothesis seem unlikely. There is an Aramaic New Testament called the Peshitta, but research indicates that it is Aramaic translated from Greek and not an original Aramaic document. Thus, if the Peshitta was the source of the synoptic Gospels, it would add another level of translation, another chance for error to enter in.
Translation presents its own problems. It is psychologically improbable that translation can occur without interpretation. Interpretation introduces personal biases which are so subtle that most go unnoticed. As Max Heindel puts it, we are always looking through our own auras, which means we are always looking through our own biases—strong motivation for objective purity in truth seekers. Then, there is translation into English, a different kind of language than the earlier languages used in scriptures. One sardonic wag summarized this problem in the statement “If English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.”
Fifteen different translations into English, including from the Peshitta, were used in forming the statements in this essay, but with only minimal scholarship.
Christian Mystics have a different view of the Gospels then that of conventional Christianity. To mystics, the Gospels are not meant to be biography or history. There are biographical and historical elements in them, but the purpose of them is neither, per se. The Gospels are formulae for Christian Mystical initiations for four different types of people. There may be more. The individuals to whom the Gospels are attributed could have written in the style of biography or history if they had chosen, but they didn’t. For example, St Luke was a physician. Some of their contemporaries, such as Flavius Josephus, wrote as historians, and the difference in style is obvious. Initiatory formulae are as much myth as straight-forward physical description. Myth, to a mystic, is a form capable of conveying sacred, transcendental truths, not possible to be conveyed in ordinary language. They speak to the soul, so to speak.
Another important matter in this is the purity of the Gospels as they now exist. They have been altered with both good and bad intent. Not all of the contaminations of the original intent were the result of unconscious bias. There have been intentional interpolations and omissions for doctrinaire and other reasons. On the other hand, there have been beneficent emendations, e.g., several distinctly Rosicrucian and Masonic symbols can be found on the title page of the first edition of the King James version. The Temple Service of the Rosicrucian Fellowship tells us that the Recording Angels give us exactly what we need for our development — and that includes the Bible. With all of the above in mind, what are we to trust in the Bible? Perhaps only an inner reading of the Bible by one who has well set up the internal, intuitive tribunal of truth can answer that.
In the canonical Gospels there are only two direct references to “virgin birth.” They are Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35. Matthew 1:18 (KJV) tells us “Mary was betrothed to Joseph but before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost.” One version actually says she was a virgin and that she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Ghost, which is clearly as much doctrine as translation. There are several phrases in this that need to be clarified if we want to be clear about what we mean by virgin birth in Christian Mysticism relative to the Bible. One such phrase is “she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost,” or similarly, “she was a virgin and became pregnant through the power of the Holy Ghost.” As Christian Mystics, we know that this cannot be taken literally with regard to the physical world. We know the Holy Ghost as Jehovah. Jehovah is the Highest Initiate of the Highest Initiate class of the angelic life wave. As such, Jehovah does not have a dense physical body and has never had a such chemical body. Therefore, this phrase must mean something other than a literal, somatic, sexual union with Jehovah.
There are several possible symbolical or allegorical interpretations which are not mutually exclusive. One of these interpretations is simple, completely allegorical, and dear to Christian Mystics. In it, Joseph represents the head, Mary, the heart, and their union produces an experience of the Holy Ghost. The Christ child is planted in the heart and the unified being, the becoming Christ, rides off on the lower nature symbolized as an ass. It is dear to us who are trying to unfold and grow spiritually by living out the Christ ideal following the formula given in the Gospel. It is something to which we can relate without a lot of doctrine. Serendipitously, this allegory also agrees well with Luke 1:35. More on conception by the Holy Ghost will be offered farther on. For now, it is enough to state that, as lovely as this simple allegory is, it ignores the lineage of Jesus through Joseph given in both Matthew and Luke. This raises serious questions. If Jesus was conceived exclusively by the Holy Ghost and was of a virgin birth, why even mention Joseph at all?
Then there is the anomaly of two different lineages. The lineage of Joseph in Matthew is different from the lineage in Luke. It cannot be explained away as a,simple mistake. This difference has perplexed many, especially since the ancient Hebrews were so scrupulous about lineages. Some have gone so far as to say there were two different families of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. Elaborate occult explanations, which are not always consistent in content, have been offered along the lines of this thesis. They are fascinating, but Max Heindel states clearly and unambiguously that a thorough reading of the Memory of Nature indicates that there was one Jesus, so we are still left with the question, “Why two lineages?”
The answer to that question brings us back to the purpose of the Gospels. The Gospels are formulae for initiation for different types of people. The generations given in Genesis and the Gospels are quasi-historical at most. If the Temple was the Great Pyramid, as speculated earlier, and not the Temple in Jerusalem, which came much later, it would require many, many more generations to span the time from then until Joseph. There are not even enough generations in the given lineages of Joseph to cover the time from the Temple of David in Jerusalem to the birth of Joseph.
In Christian Mysticism the interpretation of the generations is that they represent changes in the evolution of consciousness. The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception and other writings of Max Heindel show this clearly. The initiations of the Mysteries are awakenings to definite states of consciousness implanted in our becoming being by divine, creative hierarchies at earlier stages in the evolutionary creation. Even before we are initiated, we experience the truth of this. What we conceive the mysteries to be now, is not what we conceived them to be when we entered the path. Thus, we may see the generations must be something other than biological generations, and that they more likely represent stages of inner development on the way to initiation, on the way to mystical birth of the Christ within.
After this very rough perusal of the Gospels with regard to virgin birth, we are left with two issues about virgin birth still to be resolved. One is the part of Joseph in virgin birth, and the other is the part of Jehovah, the Holy Ghost, in that same activity.
In trying to understand the part of Joseph, we come back to the same question, “Virgin to what?” In Matthew 1:18 we find the words “before they came together, she was found with the child of the Holy Ghost.” Superficial readers and translators take the words, “before they came together,” to mean before sexual coition, which would mean absolute sexual virginity. Other interpreters, with less need to defend a doctrine, interpret those words as “before they came to live together” — a great difference. Without trained clairvoyance it is not clear which alternative set of words is true, but at least one interpretation leaves an opening for something other than absolute sexual virginity. In any case, the question, “Why the lineage of Joseph?” seems to indicate the latter of these two translations.
Luke 1:34, at the annunciation, has Mary saying “How shall this be seeing that I know not a man?” — which would again imply absolute sexual virginity. Again, even without interpretation, which might introduce bias, there is a problem of translation. In this case, the problem of translation seems to rest on the infinitive “to know.” In contemporary English, knowledge involves conscious experience, especially sensory experience. Words in biblical language sometimes have different meanings then they do in common usage. “To know,” is one of those cases. It goes back to the Adam and Eve story in Genesis. Adam is told by Jehovah, “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.” This commandment was given before the creation of Eve, so this use of “knowledge” is about more than sexual coition. When Eve does arrive and Adam “knows” her and she conceives Cain. It is clear that the knowledge indicated is what is called “carnal knowledge.”
In the Rosicrucian philosophy we are taught that the Garden of Eden story is semi-symbolic and that it refers to a time in the Lemurian epoch. At that time, our consciousness was more inward than outward, as mentioned earlier, and we knew each other inwardly more than outwardly. Only in extreme sensory experience, such as touching lava, were we outwardly aware. Sexual coition was such an extreme experience, and in it we knew each other outwardly. However, there is much more to the story than carnal knowledge. It involved “knowledge of good and evil.” Sexual coition for procreation to share the experience of this world with our progeny, surely cannot be evil. If we so consider it, we come to absurd doctrines as the notion that we are all conceived in evil and are doomed to sin. There is an original sin that brought us knowledge of good and evil but it was not sexual coition, per se. It was sexual coition in disobedience, in ignorance of cosmic law, and in selfishly seeking immortality; selfish seeking of pleasure came later.
Carnal knowledge is sensory knowledge. The autonomic nervous system in both males and females play a necessary part in insemination. Both involve tactile sensation, so it fits both the ancient and modern definitions of knowledge. The sensation is pleasurable. However, pleasure is not the problem, it is the attitude about pleasure that is the problem. As we are now, it is a problem with all sensory experience, but not so much with the impersonal senses — sometimes called senses at a distance; i.e., seeing and especially hearing. The problematic attitude is selfish, self-indulgence.
There is a parallel problem with eating that may be helpful to understand this. Eating can be a pleasurable experience and it should be, because if we don’t enjoy our food, it will not nourish us as well as when we do. It is when we indulge in the pleasure of taste for its own sake, that we are misdoing. Some things are eaten exclusively for pleasure without regard to nutrition or natural appetite.
In sexual coition it is possible to be aware of sensory pleasure but not selfishly indulge in it. It is a high ideal, but one can be virgin to sexual self-indulgence. This is possible if the divine nature of the sacred, creative energy involved is kept in consciousness. This is possible, if one knows that one is unselfishly fulfilling the purpose of sex in sharing ongoing existence on earth, where we do our most important work at this time in evolution. At one time, this sacrament was celebrated in a spiritual rhapsody in temples, to provide vehicles for special incoming beings. This is the ideal of generative purity taught by the Rosicrucian Fellowship. The answer to the question, “Virgin to what?” is, to the Rosicrucian aspirant, “virgin to selfish, self-indulgence.”
If that is the answer, why is there mention of “the child of the Holy Ghost” and “the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee”? Again, one can appeal to the simple allegory mentioned earlier about Mary, Joseph and the ass, and the birth of spiritual Self, the microcosmic Holy Ghost or Spiritual Ego, but that is not enough to explain the words, “conceived by the Holy Ghost.” Max Heindel tells us the moment of conception is the moment when the sperm, which contains the seed atom of the incoming physical body, unites with the ovum, which contains the seed atom of the incoming vital body. This is an important moment, a significant starting point. Because of that importance, it is usually attended to and brought about by Angels, working through the ethers, who are in charge of generation. As this writer understands it, in special cases the conception is brought about by the highest of the Angels, Jehovah, the Holy Ghost. This is one meaning of “conceived by the Holy Ghost” in Christian Mysticism.
This brings us to another set of words that are surrounded by much misunderstanding and controversy, and which also have several meanings. This set of words is “immaculate conception.” To most conventional Christians it means the same thing as “conceived by the Holy Ghost” or “virgin birth.” Even Max Heindel sometimes uses them that way. As stated earlier, none of these terms is standardized, nor can they be at this time. In the history of mysticism, “immaculate conception” has a far greater meaning. Conception, in this case, is used more like it is used in the word, Cosmo-Conception. In this usage, a conception is an idea. Ideas transcend the concrete worlds. To be technical, ideas exist in the abstract subdivision of the world of thought. In this usage, the concrete worlds are considered incomplete and imperfect, (unlike the way abstract mathematics are perfect), so they are not immaculate.
Our spiritual Self, or spiritual Ego, is an immaculate conception of the Spiritual Hierarchies during involution. Early western mystics often studied mathematics, and used mathematical figures to represent transcendental spiritual things. The figure used to represent immaculate conception was an equilateral tetrahedron pointing downward. The upper triangle represented a threefold being and the lower point represented its manifest focus, an idea. This is a greater meaning of “immaculate conception” in inner consciousness. This usage is not fashionable in our times but, historically, it is important and it is still a source of insight for those contemplating mathematics spiritually, as recommended by Max Heindel to rise above or transcend petty emotions and desires. This use of “immaculate conception” is mentioned to avoid confusion in those who might encounter it in their studies.
There is one confusion of words in biblical translation and interpretation that, to this writer’s knowledge, only Max Heindel points out. This set of words is “the only begotten son.” Max Heindel states it as “the alone begotten son.” In the fourteen translations used for this essay, each of them says “only begotten.” This writer does not read ancient Greek, and the original Aramaic version (if there is one) is lost to all but those who can read in the Memory of Nature, so this is almost impossible to authenticate. However, there is internal biblical evidence to support Max Heindel and refute the others. There are four places in the Gospels where the words translated as “only begotten” appear. The first pair is in John 1. John 1:14 describes the “only begotten” as “full of grace and truth.” Both grace and truth are primary attributes of the Life Spirit, the home of Christ (not Jesus). The Life Spirit is also known as the Word in both conventional and mystic Christianity. The other verse, John 1:18 describes the “only begotten” as the one “which is in the bosom of Father, he hath declared him” in the way that the will of the Divine Spirit commanded the love-wisdom of the Life Spirit at the dawn of the creation. Christian Mysticism teaches us that the Life Spirit is an expression of the Divine Spirit, home of the Father which declared it as the “Word” or, in other words, “in the bosom of the Father.” The Greek word translated as “only begotten” is monogenous which means “one begotten.” These verses describe something purposefully declared within the Divine Spirit, the first principle represented by the Father, without external assistance; therefore, begotten alone. Moreover, John 1:11 tells us “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” Clearly, there are to be many “sons of God,” if there are not already, not just one only. This is just one of many instances of the clarity and consistency of the Rosicrucian philosophy, from which we derive edification and avoid many theological errors.
In the Rosicrucian philosophy we are taught to apply the principle of analogy, which is expressed in the Hermetic Axiom, “As above, so below…,” to everything in life. Max Heindel tells us that our ability to analogize truly is an indicator of our spiritual unfoldment. It even applies to the purpose of this essay, to clarify what we mean by our words. One universal principle of analogy is the triune principle of manifestation best known in the trinity. Its objectivity is easily understood in mathematics. In simple geometry the least number of straight lines capable of producing an object in a space of any number of dimensions is three. That object or figure is a triangle. This mathematical analogy demonstrates in a simple principle how the Universal Spirit manifests in our evolutionary creation. In cosmogony the Divine Spirit is manifest first, followed by the Life Spirit and then the Human Spirit. These macrocosmic states of spiritual being and Beings are represented, in epitome, by participants in the creation: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost. The character of the Father is invisible power, the character of the Son, also known as the word, is expression of the intent of the Father, and the Holy Ghost represents the individuated Being of the godhead, the specific being which activates things. The prayer for the Holy Ghost in the Lord’s Prayer is “hallowed be thy name.” This triune principle even applies to how we communicate, express and share the marvelous philosophy given to us. In verbal sharing, definitions, words and names correspond analogously to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, respectively. The deeper we pass into concrete manifestation, the more we are subject to the possibility of error. Names are specific and denotative but they are also likely to personal bias. Words are expressions of divine intent but, as we have seen, we have managed to contaminate them in the babel of our subjective personalization. We see this in how the words of Christ, the Word, have been quibbled into denominations and sects. It is only when we approach the ever invisible, but purely universal, intent of the Father, the Definer and Definition, that we near the truth whether it be found in simple facts or ideas. As truth seekers it is our duty to always try to find the invisible meaning of things as clearly as possible in order to have something true and valuable to share.
|
|
|
|
|
Contemporary Mystic Christianity |
|
|
|
This web page has been edited and/or excerpted from reference material, has been modified from it's original version, and is in conformance with the web host's Members Terms & Conditions. This website is offered to the public by students of The Rosicrucian Teachings, and has no official affiliation with any organization. | Mobile Version | |
|
