Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The Mystery of Christ in YouGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| The Mystery of Christ in You | Login/Join |
Hi Shasha, Thanks for reading chapter one. I can tell from your response that you gave it a great deal of thought and I appreciate that. Metaphors, of course, are just that. They are like a finger pointing to something, but the finger is not the something. Consequently, when I speak of the 'orchard within the apple' and you speak of a 'square and a cube' and how really different they are, we are both attempting to express something that we have come to 'know' in the experiential sense of that word, but can never fully 'know' in the mental/intellectual sense of the word. Yet, we cannot resist trying. Can We? For my part, I could no more not write what I am writing than take my next breath or praise the God whom I love and worship. It is a deeply personal expression of that love and worship and, yes, it is a limited understanding, yet an understanding that comes from deep within me. You wrote, On one level, if we think of our Self, or Atman, experiencing a oneness with Brahman, the ground and source of all being, I think you are quite right. However, a Hindu would make no distinction between atman and Brahman and, instead, would say that you are Brahman, therefore, you are God: you are the ultimate reality. In other words, what you and I would call our soul is identical with Brahman. Hence, a Hindu would not be very inclined to speak of a unity of all souls in Brahman, which is so basic to what we have both expressed. Nor would I be very inclined to say that I am God. You also mentioned that what I have referred to as a corporate consciousness seems to be very similar to unity consciousness and that in your mind Christ is beyond unity consciousness and, so, you wrote, This, of course, is absolutely correct. I agree with you 100%. However, the reason I am able to agree with you is because when I speak of a corporate consciousness what I am referring to is a dimension of the soul in you in which we are all one. In other words, this is a oneness that is in you. Unity consciousness, on the other hand, speaks to the underlying oneness and unity of all that is within as well as around you. Both are very real and meaningful. I simply wouldn't equate the two. I was very interested in what you said about the mind of Christ which Paul speaks of in Romans. Of course, since our subject is the mystery of Christ in you, how could we both not be. And it is obvious in what you wrote that this is a subject of great interest to you. As you said, if I can paraphrase your words, it is in Christ that we receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is such a very real experience and is so unequivocally life altering and life changing. However, I tend to speak more of the mind 'in' Christ compared to the mind 'of' Christ because it is more descriptive of a conscious unity which is taking place between my own mind and the Christ within me. From an experiential perspective, when my mind is truly in Christ I experience a clarity and depth of thought and awareness that goes way beyond the rational powers of the human intellect. As I wrote on p. 12, As you can well imagine, the perfect example of this for me would be the ontology that I presented beginning on the bottom of p.4. In Christ I intuited this model of the nature of consciousness and being in us all in the space of a very brief moment or two. Moreover, with this ontological model embedded in my mind, the Spirit took me on a journey through the scriptures which, in the most literal sense of the word, opened my eyes to my highest and true nature. I will never forget that experience and, in fact, chapter one is my attempt to put all that I learned in those few moments into words and images which, I hope, will be personally relevant and meaningful to others. Thanks again for your very thoughtful response. I think we have gotten to know a bit more about what makes us tick and what makes us tick, of course, is what makes us all brothers and sisters in Christ. God bless, Roger | ||||
|
Roger, I like where this is going, and can�t wait to read chapter 2. I won�t quibble about any semantic details in your first chapter, but enclose a longish quotation by Robert Jenson from �On Thinking The Human� in the chapter �Thinking Consciousness� that I think is relevant:
| ||||
|
Roger, your comments on the transmission of original sin and the begetting of souls would generally fall into the theory of traducianism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traducian for more info on this approach and the major alternative the creationist theory. Due to Thomas of Aquinas' strong opposition (he considered it to be heritical) it has been in general disfavor in the Roman Catholic church as well as Protestants that are Reformed. The Lutherans were in favor of it as well as some notable early church Fathers such as Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eastern Orthodox church. St. Augustine was also very favorable towards this theory. | ||||
|
The best song I have heard that refers to our communal identity in Christ is "Jerusalem" by Randall Goodgame. You can hear it at http://www.myspace.com/randallgoodgame. It sends chills down my spine almost every time I listen to it. But that is probably just because I am odd... | ||||
|
The link should be http://www.myspace.com/randallgoodgame (the trailing period goofs things up). | ||||
|
Considering your apple orchard metaphor, the following poem is very appropriate: The tree of life my soul hath seen Laden with fruit and always green The tree of life my soul hath seen Laden with fruit and always green The trees of nature fruitless be Compared with Christ the apple tree His beauty doth all things excel By faith I know but ne'er can tell His beauty doth all things excel By faith I know but ne'er can tell The glory which I now can see In Jesus Christ the apple tree. For happiness I long have sought And pleasure dearly I have bought For happiness I long have sought And pleasure dearly I have bought I missed of all but now I see 'Tis found in Christ the apple tree. I'm weary with my former toil Here I will sit and rest a while I'm weary with my former toil Here I will sit and rest a while Under the shadow I will be Of Jesus Christ the apple tree. This fruit does make my soul to thrive It keeps my dying faith alive This fruit does make my soul to thrive It keeps my dying faith alive Which makes my soul in haste to be With Jesus Christ the apple tree. | ||||
|
By the way, the title of that poem is "Jesus Christ the Apple Tree", author unknown: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1432958. | ||||
|
Khd: I just listened to �Jerusalem� and it had the same effect on me: it sent chills up my spine too. Thanks for the link. I downloaded the mp3 and will listen to it often. Also, thanks for the poem and the link to it. Wow! It certainly does hit the nail on the head. I really enjoyed the following quote and found it very meaningful: It is so true. When it comes to the soul-in-Christ perspective, the subject and center of that perspective is Christ, not the soul. Posting chapter one for discussion has been a great learning experience for me and through the exchanges that have taken place in the group I have learned a couple of lessons that have caused me to rethink the basic tone of it. For example, because the model and metaphor of the nature of the divine within us in relation to one's soul emerged in such isolation, with very little personal background in Christian theology and mystical theology, as well as with negligible contact with others who have followed the mystical path, I assumed a uniqueness to it that is simply not the case. Hence, the notion that what I presented was �utterly new and unique� is one that I now realize was mistaken. More importantly, at a purely subjective level, what I described as one's mind being in Christ and, therefore, transcending reason, left me with a sense that the awareness that emerged was an infallible awareness. Consequently, I actually believed that the ontological model and metaphor which I presented represented perfect knowledge because it came from God, from the Christ in me. Now there is a slippery road if ever there was one. I have to confess, though, that it 'feels' like that to me. I believe deeply in the corporate and multi-generational nature of the soul. However, I now realize that to present a model of the nature of consciousness and being in us, of all subjects, in such a light is closer to arrogance and egocentricity than I care to be. As you can well imagine, then, I will be re-writing chapter one with a different tone in mind. I will also be doing a lot more reading on this same subject from other sources. Thanks for your sharing. Much appreciated. God bless, Roger | ||||
|
Dear Roger, Your chapter does not come off as arrogant at all, but as something from someone who is truly excited about sharing a most precious gift of mystical insight. I appreciate where you're coming from as I, too, have struggled with wanting to share what feel like my glimpses into deep, mystical mysteries. Then there's the others who have 'seen' similar (the same?)things and what to do with how it all fits together? I encourage you to stay true to your experience. We cannot deny what we have seen with spiritual eyes...once you've seen it, there's no going back!... and I pray that the "eyes of your heart be flooded with light" for full attunement to our Heavenly Father. peace to you and your family, in Him, shasha | ||||
|
Shasha and W.C. Thanks very much for those kind words. They are much appreciated. W.C. I found your comment about experiencing the witness consciousness fascinating because that is precisely the framework in which I perceive how the corporate dimension of the soul functions within us. I know that when I describe the deepest nature of the soul in such terms, suggesting that there is a dimension of consciousness within us in which all of humanity is one, this may seem to fly in the face of the obvious individuality and uniqueness which we cherish so much in ourselves. However, what I am really suggesting is that the specifically human dimension of our being is constituted by a twofold nature: a corporate or universal nature which is inherently timeless and a physical/temporal nature which is inherently individual and functions in the realm of time and space. As I see it, at least, these two natures, or modes of consciousness, function as a unity, as one consciousness, that is. For example, imagine that while you are out for a walk one morning you look up and see a flock of birds flying high above you. Think for a moment about what you are seeing relative to how you perceive what you are seeing. In other words, turn your mind back in upon itself and examine the perception itself. Clearly, what you see is a flock of birds. You see many birds, of course, but you see them as a unity, as one flock. The focus and attention of your consciousness, of course, will likely alternate between seeing this or that particular bird for whatever reason and seeing the flock as a whole. However, given these two distinct aspects of your perception, an important question arises, What is there about the nature of mind and consciousness in you which causes you to see a plurality of individual and distinct things as a unity? Why do we see many fish as a school of fish, many sheep as a flock of sheep, or many bees as a swarm of bees? I think that Thomas Aquinas put it succinctly when he wrote that, In other words, I would say that it is the corporate, or collective, dimension of the human consciousness which is the causal factor in our perception of the many as a unity, or a plurality of one. I also think that Jung's concept of the collective unconscious has a lot to add to this subject that is very relevant, but getting into that would take us a little farther afield than we need to venture here. This brings us to what I meant when I suggested that our corporate nature is 'subconscious' in relation to our individual nature, or our conscious self. However, I don't think that it is as 'sub' conscious as one may be inclined to assume and this example of how we perceive things in the world around us is a prime example of that. In addition, however, there is also a language component to this since we not only see a flock of birds we have a word for the oneness and unity we see and it is the word 'flock'. Hence, there is something in you that, on the one hand, causes you to see the many birds as one, while, on the other hand, there is a dimension of consciousness in you, as in me, from whence the language that we use to describe our perception of oneness emerges. What does all of this have to do with your experience of a witnessing consciousness? Actually, it has everything to do with it. You see, I believe that at a subconscious level the corporate consciousness in us participates in our day to day experiences, such as our sensory experiences, as an ever-present witness. In other words, in the terminology that I used in chapter one, 'man in you' sees and hears all that the 'son of man' in you sees and hears. However, since our corporate nature is inherently timeless it cannot enter into time and do this or do that, so to speak, but, instead, simply witnesses to and experiences all that we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I think that the image of an audience watching a movie in a theater applies here. The audience sees, hears, and experiences the drama in front of it, but it cannot do anything to alter the drama; it is a witnessing, rather than a participatory, consciousness. Which suggests an audience within us, so to speak, in whom the many are one in consciousness and being. There is more that I would like to say on this subject, specifically about how the divine nature in us is a part of all of this, but this is a post, not a chapter in a book. Suffice it to say, that when we see a flock of birds, a school of fish, or a swarm of bees, I would say that it is the corporate nature of the witnessing consciousness in us which causes us to see the many as one. I hope that you will get my point. Thanks to both you and Shasha for your comments and kind words of support. God bless, Roger | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
Roger: Yes, I can see where your descriptions above are much like the witnessing state which I experienced on the verge of death. There is a timelessness, but also a creatureliness, as at no point did I feel like God, or a god in charge of my own existence. It seems that non-dualist traditions of the East confuse these two, perhaps because transcendental grace hasn't been as strongly experienced, and so the focus of attention is on relaxing into the witnessing state, which is actually much more complicated than simply allowing God to love us (there's also much more room for false self or "ego" distortions which captivate the fallen tendency to struggle over our own sovereign sense of power, even though death tells us otherwise). As such, Grace is easily missed. I practiced meditation with Buddhist and Hindu teachers years before becoming simple enough to be a "child" and let God love me. During that time I was certain Christians were just missing the boat regarding kundalini and the subconscious and having lacked a non-dual perception that would surely resolve all this business about the Holy Spirit. It turned out I was peddling my own illusion, but not one I could perceive - probably even from the Witness state - since nothing creaturely, in-and-of-itself, and inspite of the heart's natural grace, can reproduce transcendental grace, or perhaps even anticipate it as a knowable object, as it is wholly "Other" and pure holiness unlike any creature. But do keep on writing, as this "witness" state needs more attention in Christian circles, I think. Much of a healthy psychology depends upon this capacity. | ||
|
W.C., You wrote concerning the witnessing state that, I found this intriguing because from time to time I slip out of the Ego consciousness into what we are calling this witnessing consciousness and, interestingly enough, it is a distinctly non-dual awareness. For example, on one occasion I was sitting in a park close to where I live overlooking the Thames River (London, Ontario not London, England) watching some canoeists pass me by, some birds flying above me, and squirrels scurrying around me. It was summertime and the sky was a beautiful shade of blue. I was just sitting there ever so relaxed and taking the whole scene in when I simply slipped into this other consciousness. It was wholly expansive, compared to focused and attentive, and in it I saw and heard all that was going on around me. And I do mean all that was going on around me. I was taking in the entire scope of my vision without any sense of focus or any sense of subject/object awareness whatsoever. More importantly, while my senses were heightened rather than diminished, I was, at the same time, in all that I was seeing around me. Which may give you an idea of why I would refer to this as a non-dual awareness. These are wonderful and blissful experiences and, to tell you the truth, you are the first person that I have ever shared any of them with. I think that you will know precisely what I mean when I say that the word one is quite likely the most fitting word in the English language to describe the essence of these experiences. One decribes so well, at least to me, the heart and soul of these kinds of experiences. As the apostle Paul wrote, all things are one in Christ. I should also add, though, as you were saying, that I was also experiencing my own creatureliness in those moments. I was in no way seeing and hearing all that was before me from a divine perspective. The beauty of this realization, of course, is that it tells me that these experiences are part of the human potential in us all. In addition, the consciousness itself, as you said, is timeless in the sense that I could almost say, and I do mean almost, that I seemed to be observing time passing, rather than being in time and part of the stream of time. Thanks for your sharing and the opportunity to share with you. God bless, Roger | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
Yes, it is exquisite, yet different for me than when in prayer God infuses graced contemplation. Non-dual presence generates a deep sense of gratitude which is perhaps the best description of the creaturliness I feel. But nowhere in that gratitude arising from within the soul via non-dual consciousness is there the smitten feeling of worship or praising the holiness of Him; it's more like I'm grateful to be a creature among other splendid creatures and connected in such an essential way within a spontaneous feeling awareness. Whereas in prayer there is sometimes given His very own presence which elicits awe and reverence before the unspeakably "Other" who is also, impossible for any faculty of the mind to conceive, "Daddy." | ||
|
Beautifully put W.C.!!! And you are so right. �Graced contemplation� elicits the most wonderful sense of awe and reverence. You know something, of all of the words in the English language the word holiness is the most stirring and meaningful to me. It exerts a mantra-like effect on me and has a way of drawing me into His Presence. Quiet, solitude, and resting in the Presence who is pure holiness. This is the gift I most treasure. Time to go to bed and join my sweetie. It has been a long night. Thanks for sharing! God bless, Roger | ||||
|
Outstanding discussion and sharing. Looks like you got a lot more helpful feedback doing it this way, Roger. I am not so sure that non-dual experience you describe above can be accounted for in terms of the depth of our human spirit. It seems to be in the genre of what I call Self-God experiences in "God, Self and Ego." This is different from Ego-God or Ego/Self-God experiences, where a relational dimension is found. It's quite possible that God is both the source and cause of the kind of consciousness you described -- a "seeing" from Christ's perspective . . . him showing you the Father. Our natural human spirit can come to something similar, but it never seems to go much deeper than some kind of aesthetic contemplation. | ||||
|
Hi Phil, You are so right. I have had some great feedback by posting chapter one. Thanks for the idea. When I read your statement, �I am not so sure that non-dual experience you describe above can be accounted for in terms of the depth of our human spirit�, I thought to myself, 'Where would Phil ever get the idea from that I would think that such an experience could be accounted for in terms of the human spirit?' Then I read what I wrote and realized that that is pretty much what I said. Tsk, tsk!!! In other words, what I said isn't really what I meant. Does that make any sense? Thanks for pointing that out and you are quite right. On a more serious note, one of my regular customers at work dropped in tonight to tell me that his 13 yr old daughter Andrea, who I know very well, died the day before. She was born with a heart problem and had a heart attack. This is so sad! He and I went outside and had a good cry together. Please pray for him, his family, and, of course, for Andrea. This family has had some very tough times and are what you call the working poor. Thanks for your prayers. God bless, Roger | ||||
|
A very good review of Robert Jenson can be found at http://www.firstthings.com/fti.../articles/hart.html, as it prompted me to purchase his books in the first place. Robert Jenson is a high church Lutheran whose favorite theologians are Jonathan Edwards and Karl Barth. I like to think of him as the most orthodox process theologian I have ever encountered. Regardless of how you categorize him, he doesn't fit into any neat boxes, and always has an interesting and provoking perspective clarifies, even when you disagree of him. | ||||
|
I have wondered about the right hemisphere/left hemisphere or wholistic/individualistic aspects of consciousness. Daniell Dennett in particular takes the existence of the color phi optical illusion to argue that consciousness is essentially an illusion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Phi_phenomenon for a discussion and a link to a flash demo of the illusion. I suspect that the effect of this illusion requires left brain cognitive inferences presented to the mind's eye as actual occurrences for it to occur. A right brained "witnessing" consciousness, to the extent that "witnessing" consciousness is in fact mediated by the right hemisphere typically, which I consider likely but not certain, would possibly eliminate this illusion? I am particularly curious about this illusion, as I am unable to see the illusion at all. Part of my evidence for this is from the Bonneh's illusion at http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/bonneh.html , and see the article about this at http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1063853.htm . In the case of the Bonneh illusion, I can make the yellow dots disappear every couple of seconds if I try to, or keep them visible for the entire 30 seconds. I am completely unable to make the yellow dots disappaear for more than a fraction of a second, so whatever the source of my odd abilities, it is the opposite of what Buddhist monks can do. | ||||
|
Sorry, the link should be: http://www.firstthings.com/fti...0/articles/hart.html as the trailing comma goofs up the link. | ||||
|
| <w.c.> |
khd: Here's some other data which Daniel Dennet and his ilk will have to explain competently according to reductionistic theories before they can be confident in their assertions about the epiphenomenal nature of consciousness; however, as the alternative involves parapsychological measures, it is unlikely many of them will continually follow through and give that research its due attention: The first link is to the "Journal of Consciousness Studies," volumne 12, No. 6 (2005), in which Rupert Sheldrake's research on the remote staring effect is finally addressed by his critics (I purchased my copy through Amazon): http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs_12_6.html The next links are to ongoing research on the nature of intuition at the Heartmath Institute. http://www.heartmath.org/resea...ion/intuitionp1.html "Results: The study�s results are presented in two parts. The main findings in relation to the heart�s role in intuitive perception presented here are: (1) surprisingly, the heart appears to receive and respond to intuitive information; (2) a significantly greater heart rate deceleration occurred prior to future emotional stimuli compared to calm stimuli; (3) there were significant gender differences in the processing of prestimulus information. Part 2 will present results indicating where in the brain intuitive information is processed and data showing that prestimulus information from the heart is communicated to the brain. It also presents evidence that females are more attuned to intuitive information from the heart." "Conclusions: Overall, we have independently replicated and extended previous research documenting prestimulus responses. It appears that the heart is involved in the processing and decoding of intuitive information. Once the prestimulus information is received in the psychophysiologic systems, it appears to be processed in the same way as conventional sensory input. This study presents compelling evidence that the body�s perceptual apparatus is continuously scanning the future. To account for the results presented in Parts 1 and 2, Part 3 will develop a theory based on holographic principles explaining how intuitive perception accesses a field of energy into which information about future events is spectrally enfolded." http://www.heartmath.org/resea...ion/intuitionp2.html "Results: The main findings presented here are: (1) surprisingly, both the heart and brain appear to receive and respond to intuitive information; (2) even more surprisingly, there is compelling evidence that the heart appears to receive intuitive information before the brain; (3) there were significant differences in prestimulus ERPs for calm versus emotional stimuli; (4) the frontal cortex, temporal, occipital, and parietal areas appear to be involved in the processing of prestimulus information; (5) there were significant differences in prestimulus calm/emotional HBEPs, primarily in the coherent mode; (6) there were significant gender differences in the processing of prestimulus information. Especially noteworthy is the apparent interaction between the HBEPs and ERPs in the females, which suggests that the heart modulates the ERP and that females are more attuned to intuitive information from the heart." "Conclusions: Overall, our data suggest that the heart and brain, together, are involved in receiving, processing, and decoding intuitive information. On the basis of these results and those of other research, it would thus appear that intuitive perception is a system-wide process in which both the heart and brain (and possibly other bodily systems) play a critical role. To account for the study�s results, Part 3 will develop a theory based on holographic principles explaining how intuitive perception accesses a field of energy into which information about �future� events is spectrally enfolded." | ||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology The Mystery of Christ in You | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |