the Moon has to do with reflected knowledge, the Sun has to do with the "union of intelligence and spontaneous wisdom." I found that this chapter had a lot of information that spoke to me quite directly, perhaps more than any other card with the exception of the Hermit.For example, it goes into what I refer to in my book as "the helpful nonlocal operators standing by, ready to assist you." How does that work? UF explains in the following extended passage. Please read it carefully, because I would say that if there is a reigning dogma or catechism among Raccoons, this is one of its most important precipitates. But unlike conventional dogma, this can only be experienced subjectively, or not at all, so bring an ombrella:
"You venerate (i.e., love and respect) a non-incarnated being -- a departed person, a saint, a hierarchical being -- in a disinterested manner. Your veneration -- which includes love, respect, gratitude, the desire to conform, etc. -- cannot fail to create an invisible link of sympathy with its object. It may be in a subtle and dramatic way, or rather in a slow, gradual and almost imperceptible way -- this does not matter -- the day will come when you will experience the presence."
This is nothing like a "phantom," "ghost," or some other apparition, but rather, it is "a breath of radiant serenity, of which you know with certain knowledge that the source from which it emanates is not at all in you. It influences and fills you but does not take its origin in you; it comes from outside you. Just as in drawing near to a fireplace, that the warmth that you feel does not arise from you, but rather from the fireplace, so also do you feel that the breath of serenity in question is due to an objective presence."
Once this nonlocal relationship is established, "it is up to you to remain silently concentrated so that the relationship established is subsequently developed, i.e., that it gains in intensity and clarity -- that it becomes a meeting in full consciousness."
This is covered on pp. 228-229 of my book. The discussion may seem brief, but that was the point of the whole chapter, in that there was no point in "saturating" mysteries that can only be experienced and understood on a first hand basis.
I can't reproduce all of the symbols here, but the circle with the downward arrow inside obviously represents Christ, or more generally, the "Christ-principle," or "divine descent," whereas the circle with the upward arrow would represent authentic saints and spiritual masters, who, although few and far between, now number in the hundreds, if not thousands -- at least those who were kind enough to throw us a bone and leave behind some writings, so that we may know about them (or, more to the point, know them).
Of these, only a handful are truly first string, while many are second or third string. Nevertheless, like any third string professional athlete, they can still kick your ass. In this regard, variety is important, being that it takes all kinds to make a world, and relationships are tricky things. For example, the MSM is in love with Michelle Obama, but for me, being around her would be a verrrry looooong day, let alone life.
Let's see if there's anything else useful on pp. 228-229.... Yes, I think it pretty much sums up the situation with the minimum amount of fluff. The rest is up to you. Think of the "charge" that flows between you and your loved one. It has to be like that, only transposed to a different key of love (just as parental love is different than marital love).
For those of you who unproblematically grew up in the Christian tradition, then Christ is your master, and that's that. Even so, Catholicism and Orthodoxy obviously provide numerous other nonlocal operators with whom one may fall in love. For example, I don't want to be presumptuous, but I'll bet that Just Thomism is "in love" with Aquinas, which is precisely why they have such a vibrant and fruitful relationship.
In such a case, it is again so much more than the mere transmission of exterior knowledge, for it is simultaneously the transmission of the "container" or "matrix" of the knowledge, without which the knowledge will fall on barren soil. For example, no matter how long our scientistic jester reads my blog, none of my writing will "take root" in him, because he manifestly does not love me. Rather, he is here to resist me, so he obviously has a compelling relationship with me, but it is a perverse one -- similar, say, to a man who only wants to be around women who will reject him.
For the neurotic person, such a bond can be every bit as strong as a healthy one; in fact, in a sense, even stronger, since healthy love eventually transcends its immediate object and leads all the way back up to its divine source, whereas the unhealthy kind is solely focused on its local object, which leads to all sorts of other secondary and tertiary pathologies. (It is the same with art, by the way -- the real thing automatically transcends itself and provokes a love of the beautiful per se.)
That last paragraph on p. 228 of my book is pretty accurate. Again, I cannot reproduce all of the symbols, but these nonlocal relationships do indeed transmit a powerful (≈) that can shatter (•), give (?!) or (-?!), and bring (¶) forward from the background. What more could a fellow ask of a celestial relationship?
When I judge the merits of a spiritual teacher, I am solely guided by an intuitive sense of their ability to facilitate these critical transformations. This is why there is such an infinite difference between, say, Frithjof Schuon and Deepak Chopra. If they were here, I could ask them both to go into separate rooms and write for me an essay on, I don't know, the goal of the spiritual journey. They could even convey the identical "information," but the words of the former would be infused with light, while the words of the latter would be infused with mud (to put it mildly).
I thought Merrell-Wolff expressed it well in his classic Pathways Through to Space, which is a real-time journal of the spiritual transformation that took place once he formed an intense relationship with a nonlocal master, in his case, Shankara. He wrote of the "induction" that occurs, "a condition such that the latent and indigenous Inner Light of the individual is aroused sympathetically into pulsation and thus, ultimately, 'catches on,' as it were, for Itself."
Such an experience is obviously a pearl of great price, so we should "seize every opportunity available to come within the sphere of Those who can serve as Centers of induction," for each of them is like a mini-sun that provides light, warmth, and a center of gravity.
In book one of Gnosis, Boris Mouravieff also has a helpful discussion of this in chapter XVI, with his explanation of the 'A' and 'B' influences. One of our tasks is to form a relationship with a person who gives off the 'B' influences.
Sorry to end so suddenly, but that's it for today.
36 comments:
The Merrell-Wolf book is another one of those with some interesting comments on Amazon, especially the negative ones:
"I have not read this book but many years ago after reading the 1983 Pathways Through To Space I arranged to meet the writer as part of my spiritual search. I had been a student of Krishnamurti's writings (and live talks) for some years and was very interested in learning from F. M-Wolff after reading his book. I contacted him and visited him and his wife at their desert home for several days and they were kind enough to allow me to stay there share their meals (in exchange for yard work). Two things stand out for me in that experience. One was his questioning of my preference for a vegetarian diet (my futile gesture to at least minimize the suffering of animals) and the long-anticipated sit-down talk about his philosophy and understanding. The talk consisted of one question "How long have you been on the path?". I, coming from the teachings of Krishnamurti in which following a path was not quite the right thing to do, I was at first puzzled and not sure if he meant "his path" or something more general, so I responded with "What path?" thinking he would clarify. Instead it was the end of the conversation. I was blown off, dismissed as inadequate material to spend any more time on. Looking back at it I am still amazed at the lack of insight and understanding and patience shown that interaction. Perhaps I expected too much of one presumably "enlightened" but truth is I did expect more than that. Writing down ideas is one thing but the actuality another."
Looks like I have yet another to add to my ever-growing shopping list.
No question that, for me, this blog has been a source of B influences. I noticed that right away, and it has continued, right up to today. Gotta love that!
Again, for me, it is very tedious to debate such subjects as though they are A influences. I have never seen it lead anywhere, uh, higher. To not notice the distinction between A and B has got to be Big E-r-r-o-r.
One thing for sure: this series on MOTT -- and its cross-referencing with OCUG -- shows me I have a lot of homework to do. If this were a Pirate Movie, I'd say we've all been handed the map to the long-lost buried treasure!
Haha, interesting. Speaking of the title, our priest's wife, Frederica, was talking with Bp. Kallistos Ware seeing if she could nail down what the nous 'is'. She had been reading some work of the desert Fathers regarding noetic insight, and she found at least 6 different 'definitions' of the nous. She asked him the question, "Would you say it is a receptive facility?" "Yes."
Speaking of the God vibration, it is like radio waves, which are 'soundless music'. They're everywhere provided they are being transmitted, but you can't hear them without the right equipment. The only way to change the music from light into sound is turn on the equipment and start turnin' knobs.
They say old St. John Chrysostom had the relationship which you describe with St. Paul of Tarsus. It is funny to hear some modern historians try to wrestle with it in their head; Maybe he just had a particular way of thinking about Paul? A slight delusion about what Paul thought about things? Perhaps he was personally motivated to interpret Paul's writings in such or such a way? Never does the notion of being in contact with the real Paul cross some folks' minds.
So while the God waves are all-about, I'd wager they're pretty intense and often hard to hear at all. But if we search on a lower band we might find someone whose groove we can dig until we can bear the ineffable. Local patronage, icons, appearances of saints after death, and so forth, are all parts of this network of 'God Vibrations', perhaps.
Julie: I see that Pathways Through to Space is available in a stand-alone edition, and it is the better of the two books.
You can also view some sample pages in that one.
River:
One of the reasons Denys is revered despite having been a "pseudo," is that it seems he resonated so perfectly with Paul, that he became his "contemporary" despite having appeared some four centuries later.
Thanks, Bob - duly noted.
Off topic, but VDH has a good post about why, if you live in the granola state, you should seriously consider emigrating...
Akhenaton the Pharoah was big on the sun as a good way to connect with O.
I have to say I agree. The quality of sunlight on the skin has a spiritual element; aside from the infrared radiation tingling the neuro-receptors, there is a direct emanation of some kind tingling the spiritual receptors up in the head somewhere.
Or so it seems to me.
Akhenaton was an A player, I believe. His writings (and especially his hymn to the Aten), have a salutory quality.
He had it all going on, and all this back in 1500 BC or so. Not bad, Mr. Ak. I salute you, wherever you may be hanging out these days. Perhaps Petey knows?
Nights must have been uncomfortable for the man.
>>Your veneration -- which includes love, respect, gratitude, the desire to conform, etc. -- cannot fail to create an invisible link of sympathy with its object<<
I think much of the artistic process works similarly, on a vertically lower level, of course.
The style of "Method Acting" that has had such a large influence on late 20th c. actors depends to a great degree on the accessing of personal memories and emotions in order to flesh out a character. I'm sure some of this plays a part in all acting, but I find it a bit limiting. I suspect the great actors use what I think of as the "archetypal method" - they imagine a character, say, a homeless guy or a Civil War soldier, whatever, until they achieve a sympathetic vibe with that character's archetype. Then a kind of possession takes place, a linkage with the archetype, and the necessary emotional pitch, the body language, even the fluidity of the thought processes is received in toto by the actor. In this sense, the Method Acting accessing of personal experience and emotion is not necessary.
Same with writers and composers. A middle class kid living in Minnesota, a kid with an artistic talent for imaginatively accessing archetypes, doesn't literally have to be an Okie Dust Bowl refugee in order to actually, genuinely become an Americana man-of-the-roads composer of songs. Genuine artists can cross cultural, geographic, and time-line borders through the accessing of living archetypes - all experiences are there.
Nah, I think Akhenaton had sunshine even in the night. Art flowered during his reign like neither before nor later, a likely sign that he was on touching some live wire or other. Not that I think we have any need to learn from him today, but he may have been a necessary person in his time.
That's just what I think though, I have no revelation on this.
Memo to the deleted: no off-topic comments by trolls.
"Instead it was the end of the conversation. I was blown off, dismissed as inadequate material to spend any more time on. Looking back at it I am still amazed at the lack of insight and understanding and patience shown that interaction."
Julie, this just is too funny. This bozo has had 20 years to think about the encounter & still has no clue to look at himself for which of the two of them had a "lack of insight and understanding", thereby proving F. M-Wolff was correct to blow him off back then & dismiss him as inadequate material to spend any more time on.
Points: M-Wolff
it is "a breath of radiant serenity, of which you know with certain knowledge that the source from which it emanates is not at all in you. It influences and fills you but does not take its origin in you; it comes from outside you.
A happy thought, if we truly gno what's likely to be inside of us.
Self-made people should demand a refund.
I noticed that Ray referred to himself as being a mere "difficult student" (re: his continued presence in OC)
. . . thus demonstrating the very same lack of honesty and sincerity as was pointed out by Bob yesterday. Ray is of course not a mere "difficult student"; he's simply and only a perverse contrarian, a poltergeist, something that likes to rattle the furniture just to confound and annoy. In fact, I shall henceforth refer to Ray as "the Poltergeist".
Anyway, this serves to underscore the real basis of honesty and sincerity - these qualities are impossible to achieve sans self-awareness.
Will said: "...this serves to underscore the real basis of honesty and sincerity..."
Exactly. And thanks for the underscore.
"the "induction" that occurs, "a condition such that the latent and indigenous Inner Light of the individual is aroused sympathetically into pulsation and thus, ultimately, 'catches on,' as it were, for Itself."
Bingo! That's it - exactly what happened the first time I read OC.
I mean, what protocoongirlinwaiting would not be aroused by phrases like "transmit a powerful (≈) that can shatter (•), give (?!) or (-?!), and bring (¶) forward from the background."
Sigh....
I Really mean it
" (It is the same with art, by the way -- the real thing automatically transcends itself and provokes a love of the beautiful per se.)"
And doesn't this link back with the paragraph quoted by UF, particularly "...cannot fail to create an invisible link of sympathy with its object..."? and with "...Once this nonlocal relationship is established, "it is up to you to remain silently concentrated so that the relationship established is subsequently developed, i.e., that it gains in intensity and clarity -- that it becomes a meeting in full consciousness...""
I don't mean to "reductionize" this in any way, but for myself, I just need to come at things from the bottom up, before I can deal with them from the top down, so let me try to lay out an objective framework from which the subjective may in fact be experienced.
On a smaller scale than you describe, when a boy idolizes a Lou Gehrig, isn't he doing something like this himself? The more he focuses on the image in the bubblegum card, he absorbs the stance, the glint in the eye, the posture, the sense of the player he idolizes ... as he carries that image around in his head and when he walks up to the plate, he is in a sense channeling those qualities into himself (part of the problem why modern idiots being foul mouthed, brawling and shooting themselves in the leg in nightclub is far more than a conceal/carry discipline issue).
When we view something like Michelangelo’s David, or George Washington, there is something conveyed in the art of that sculpture through the images stance, their gaze, their posture, their expression, the tilt of the head, etc... we gno those features, through that part of us which craves and resonates with Art, we deeply in our own foundational understanding, archetypal I suppose, we GNO what state of mind, body and soul, makes those features, expressions & postures possible, we gno what state of mind and character that are the source of that visible expression, and it resonates within us, the more seriously and reverently we focus upon it the more it takes root within us. The more we focus on them, contemplate them, imaginatively aspire to them, the more we internally form the internal scaffolding for our own thoughts, mental posture and actions can form into that internal image and spill out into our changing physical reality.
This is also part of what was mentioned yesterday, in the admonition to Do the actions and habitual responses that are done by those who are virtuous, and those actions & responses will develop from dutiful behavior into the natural expression of real virtues from within you.
Now from that position, I can perhaps take off into the subjective sense that as I've approached the meaning of my focus, and combined with not just form and posture, but a contemplation of deeply religious truths, a realization of it being alive and true and existing in fact, rather than just in my imagination... that becomes a very tantalizing thought... through the spiritual scaffolding we've created... if you build it, it will come.
That should be doubly disturbing for those with just about any modern art or heavy metal demonic album poster, on their wall.
Anybody want to buy some vintage Black Sabbath posters? They glow under a black light.
;)
ximeze,
Pulsating sympathetic arousal...
How did I miss that on my first reading?
:o)
Hmm... I'm focusing... tell me more....
;-)
I hope it's not really bad luck to step on crickets... they're all over the place....
Crickets? Talk about cognitive dissonance - one moment it's "Pulsating sympathetic arousal," then suddenly it's squished, formerly chirpy insects. Though I think it's only unlucky if you happen to break a mirror while stepping on one...
Ximeze, I think I get what you mean; many of UF's chapters have that effect as well. Also, the random selection that came up from the M-Wolf book Bob recommended earlier. Some things really help to let the hOh!ly light in :)
One more title like this one and we're going to have to stage an intervention or an execution. Your call.
I am compelled not to comment...
I wonder if the decline of Christianity in the Protestant northern Europe has to do with their mistaking saints for idols. It seemed the common impression there that veneration of saints was worship, and so Catholics were considered polytheists.
The price of this "purity of worship" may be a distance between the far-off world of God and the everyday world of men, which most could not cross. Religion became a way of life but with little hope on this side of death.
Since religion was reduced to a lifestyle of caring and sharing, the socialists took it over without a clash of swords, or even ideas.
We had no monasteries to defend us, and nobody thought to call upon the saints. Like a slowly falling night, the Light left the land, except for a few scattered campfires.
I am among the few blessed to have known a living saint. And since knowing dead saints is taboo, we were at a severe disadvantage. For even today, the dead outnumber the living, and particularly so in the ranks of the true saints, which seem to be dispensed throughout history, not necessarily as a fixed proportion of the population.
Van - With you most of the way there. And even the "existing in fact, rather than just in my imagination" works, if you think of it in a semi-Platonic sense, the way mathematics "exists".
But that existence is quite different from the kind of existence we have. When people carry over notions from our experience in time to such a 'realm', that's a kind of category error. Consciousness requires time. Such archetypes can 'converse', but they're getting their 'time' from us.
Will - When I look at ideas, I test them, I look for the possible problems, I try to see what doesn't fit together. And that's what I ask about. If that's being a poltergeist, oh well.
Not that I haven't learned a few things here. I'd already concluded the fundies didn't have much to offer, so why not look at something that purported to be more sophisticated?
The bit about being able to die to the day about a month ago was interesting. I'm always thinking (I used to annoy teachers in class because I'd be reading something as they talked - but I could always answer questions about what they'd been saying if they tried to trip me up) and occasionally over the past couple of years that'd keep me up instead of falling asleep as soon as I laid down, as was my previous wont. (Getting older probably doesn't help, of course.)
But, trying to consciously 'let go' - though I don't quite conceptualize it as 'death' - seems to have helped the couple of times it's come up in the last month.
Ray, I don't have much time at the moment, but I'm not thinking in any sense of Platonic forms (something to do with mapped pointers would be closer), and I completely reject the idea that mathematics 'exists' outside of us, but that it is a result of our way of grasping existence, and is derived completely from experience.
"When people carry over notions from our experience in time to such a 'realm', that's a kind of category error"
Not sure where you seem to have gotten the idea that I thought consciousness didn't require time, or where I'd said anything about time... except that I don't have any left now.
"...These two children thus represent intelligence endowed with childlike confidence with regard to the spontaneous wisdom of the heart, and spontaneous childlike wisdom which uses the language of the heart and which tends to draw the attention of the head... to what it has to say. The image is therefore of two children united by bonds of a reciprocal confidence without reserve--where the one indicates and the other understands--placed under the sun. ...this relationship presupposes such purity of intention as is found only with a child, and it postulates such reciprocal confidence, without a shadow of doubt or suspicion, which belongs naturally to children. [It] excludes tendencies to domination and authority..." -MOTT
Except ye become as a child ye shall not enter in, has been such an intellectual stumbling block for those with an abundance of self-regard and seriousness. I do love UF's exposition on this aspect of the Sun. The entire meditation leaves one a bit speechless in circumspect contemplation of the beauty of it.
It is rather fun to substitute the word, "raccoon," everywhere the word, "child," appears.
One more title like this one and we're going to have to stage an intervention or an execution.
After "Good Vibrations" howling through my brain-pan all evening and this morning, I say we burn him at the stake.
:o)
Ray,
I am not 100% sure what you and Van are talking about, but I love your idea about giving time to archetypes that reside in timelessness, whether they originated there or have moved there later. I think this is one of the things only humans can do and a bit of a sacred duty, which I should probably do more. (Depending on the archetypes, of course.) A very nice angle. Thanks!
Magnus - I 'get' a lot more than most people here believe. To disagree is not always to misunderstand. :->
(How does something 'move' into timelessness 'later'? Timelessness means it has "always" "been" "there".)
Van - You didn't talk about time here, I was relating it to other things Bob's said. (And I'm not a Platonist exactly, either.)
Ray,
moving into timelessness is obviously how it seems from the perspective of time. Saints do this more or less by definition. Does that mean they have always been there? Yes, according to the doctrine of predestination. But most people misunderstand predestination and I have found that talking about it causes more harm than help, so I strongly recommend we just accept the fact that seen from here, it seems that they become more and more timeless and then there is no more time, just eternity.
Time for timelessness is one of those really hard things to choose, day after day, year after year. That's one of the things that really impress me, when people are able to just go on with it, in rain or shine.
To Gagdad Bob,
A seed of potential had to be planted with in you for a fully developed relationship like this one to occur (it was and is and always will be ther). Therefore the source from which "the breath of radiant serenity" orginated from is in fact in you too!
Post a Comment