-
Posts
-
I noticed that section one of paper 100 is about religious growth and section two is about spiritual growth. What’s the difference?
Bradly: In your post you refer to some statements by Rodan on the religion of Jesus. I noticed something new in this one.
160:5.7 (1781.3) The religion of Jesus transcends all our former concepts of the idea of worship in that he not only portrays his Father as the ideal of infinite reality but positively declares that this divine source of values and the eternal center of the universe is truly and personally attainable by every mortal creature who chooses to enter the kingdom of heaven on earth, thereby acknowledging the acceptance of sonship with God and brotherhood with man.
According to Rodan, Jesus taught that the Father is more than the ideal of infinite reality and the divine source of values; he is also “the eternal center of the universe.” This appears to refer to the Isle of Paradise, the dwelling place of the Father. Is this idea of Paradise at the center of the universe something which Jesus actually taught? He speaks numerous times of his Paradise Father. But if “religion is primarily a pursuit of values…” (103:1.4), what does this cosmological idea have to do with religion? Why does Rodan include this idea as an integral aspect of the religion of Jesus? Is this just his own interpretation, something he added to what Jesus taught? Or is there a divine value in this cosmological idea which makes it an essential part of the religion of Jesus?
Or is there a divine value in this cosmological idea which makes it an essential part of the religion of Jesus?
The book suggests there is a divine value to cosmological ideas, since they lead to God-consciousness, the recognition of a First Cause, illuminate spiritual teachings, and contribute to spiritual insight.
“…even cosmology leads to the pursuit of divine reality values—to God-consciousness.” 56.10.5
“Cosmic consciousness implies the recognition of a First Cause…” 0:2.2“While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:” Five points are given, but #5 seems most relevant.
“5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.” 101:4.5
“As the cosmic consciousness of mortal man expands, he perceives the interrelatedness of all that he finds in his material science, intellectual philosophy, and spiritual insight.” 104.3.2
I would like to add to my last post the idea that our acceptance of any knowledge that approaches the truth, including cosmic knowledge, has the effect of making us more real in a spiritual sense because truth itself is a divine reality.
Why would the book reveal supernaphim, Paradise, the Master Spirits, etc when these enlarged concepts appear to have little practical or immediate value to our daily spiritual lives? Most of us cannot discern even the lower forms of midwayers or seraphim at this stage of our existence. But by accepting the truth of all of this by faith, we are allowed to jump the que so to speak, hence attaining spiritual insight by aligning and harmonizing ourselves with an enhanced view of reality, views that would be internally supported by the TA and the Spirit of Truth.
The book suggests there is a divine value to cosmological ideas, since they lead to God-consciousness, the recognition of a First Cause, illuminate spiritual teachings, and contribute to spiritual insight.
I tend to agree with this. But is this cosmological idea that the Father dwells at the eternal center of universe necessarily an essential part of the religion of Jesus? In the religion practiced by Jesus, must the First Cause of the universe be conceived of as located at the center of universe? Stated still another way, does the First Cause have to be conceived of as the First Source and Center of the universe? Is the First Source and Center in any way essential to the full realization of the religion of Jesus? Or is this cosmological idea helpful but not really necessary to Jesus’ religious life?
Without doing a little research, I think first century Jews believed that God was not only the First Source and Center, but the only Source and Center. The Lord God is One. He resides in the heaven of heavens. Since they had an earth-centric cosmology at the time, I doubt Jesus would have, or even should have, been able to convince folks that the universes spin around a central paradise where God resides. But I don’t know if that’s what you’re asking. The religion of Jesus, or the gospel, is sonship, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, right? I’m not sure how cosmology makes a real difference when it comes to religious living and spiritual insight. Jesus’ religion is about the relationship between Father and son, Creator and creature. The center of that relationship is in the soul, not in space somewhere, right?
Since they had an earth-centric cosmology at the time, I doubt Jesus would have, or even should have, been able to convince folks that the universes spin around a central paradise where God resides.
I wasn’t thinking of Jewish cosmology, such as it was, but of why Rodan included “the eternal center of the universe” in his characterization of the religion of Jesus. (Rodan mentions nothing about the universe revolving about this center.) What I’m wondering is if Rodan included this cosmological idea on his own initiative or if he obtained it from what Jesus taught. The spiritual essence of the gospel is the relationship between the Father and his sons. But doesn’t this also include the relationship between the Creator of the universe and the creatures he endows with personality who dwell therein?
It is well-nigh impossible for human logic and finite reason to harmonize the concept of divine immanence, God within and a part of every individual, with the idea of God’s transcendence, the divine domination of the universe of universes. These two essential concepts of Deity must be unified in the faith-grasp of the concept of the transcendence of a personal God and in the realization of the indwelling presence of a fragment of that God in order to justify intelligent worship and validate the hope of personality survival. (5:5.6)
The immanence and transcendence of God are two essential concepts of Deity which are required “to justify intelligent worship and validate the hope of personality survival.” The idea that God is transcendentally present at “the eternal center of the universe” and the idea of his divine immanence are both necessary elements in the religion of Jesus. For this reason I think that Rodan is faithfully reflecting the actual teachings of Jesus. The Father is really present at the center of the universe as the First Source and Center, even as he is really present in the soul as the divine Adjuster.
The idea that God is transcendentally present at “the eternal center of the universe” and the idea of his divine immanence are both necessary elements in the religion of Jesus.
I’m not reading the quote that way. I think it’s saying that the two ideas must be realized in the concept of a personal God, or the personality of God. God is a person in the central universe and also a person in your head (as well as every other head). Rodan was taught by Abner, and he was not convinced that God is a person, which is why Nathaniel and Thomas spent so much time with him. In the end he did accept the fact that the God present in the eternal center of the universe is a personality and thereby capable of communing with individual personalities. So, what unifies the two concepts of God is the fact of his personality. And that, I think, is the crux of the Jesus message.
(1783.3) 161:1.1 There was one matter on which Rodan and the two apostles did not see alike, and that was the personality of God. Rodan readily accepted all that was presented to him regarding the attributes of God, but he contended that the Father in heaven is not, cannot be, a person as man conceives personality. While the apostles found themselves in difficulty trying to prove that God is a person, Rodan found it still more difficult to prove he is not a person.
(1784.8) 161:1.11 When Rodan heard these arguments, he said: “I am convinced. I will confess God as a person if you will permit me to qualify my confession of such a belief by attaching to the meaning of personality a group of extended values, such as superhuman, transcendent, supreme, infinite, eternal, final, and universal. I am now convinced that, while God must be infinitely more than a personality, he cannot be anything less. I am satisfied to end the argument and to accept Jesus as the personal revelation of the Father and the satisfaction of all unsatisfied factors in logic, reason, and philosophy.”
God is a person in the central universe and also a person in your head
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that God is “a person in your head.” We are repeatedly told that the Adjuster is prepersonal in nature. While it may not be entirely clear what “prepersonal” signifies, we know it is something other than the reality of personality. The Adjuster has eternal identity but does not have personality. We have personality but do not have eternal identity until fusion occurs. The immanence of God within the soul is a prepersonal reality, while the personality of the Father is a transcendent presence who dwells at the center of the universe on Paradise. More explicitly, the personality of the Father only dwells on Paradise. He sends his spirit to indwell us. If he sent his personality to indwell us, this would be pantheism, which is an incorrect concept of the relation between God and man.
I agree that ‘prepersonal’ is a difficult concept….but it obviously does not mean impersonal but rather a very personal relationship:
107:0.1 (1176.1) ALTHOUGH the Universal Father is personally resident on Paradise, at the very center of the universes, he is also actually present on the worlds of space in the minds of his countless children of time, for he indwells them as the Mystery Monitors. The eternal Father is at one and the same time farthest removed from, and most intimately associated with, his planetary mortal sons.
110:0.2 (1203.2) As far as I am conversant with the affairs of a universe, I regard the love and devotion of a Thought Adjuster as the most truly divine affection in all creation. The love of the Sons in their ministry to the races is superb, but the devotion of an Adjuster to the individual is touchingly sublime, divinely Fatherlike. The Paradise Father has apparently reserved this form of personal contact with his individual creatures as an exclusive Creator prerogative. And there is nothing in all the universe of universes exactly comparable to the marvelous ministry of these impersonal entities that so fascinatingly indwell the children of the evolutionary planets.
2:0.1 (33.1) INASMUCH as man’s highest possible concept of God is embraced within the human idea and ideal of a primal and infinite personality, it is permissible, and may prove helpful, to study certain characteristics of the divine nature which constitute the character of Deity. The nature of God can best be understood by the revelation of the Father which Michael of Nebadon unfolded in his manifold teachings and in his superb mortal life in the flesh. The divine nature can also be better understood by man if he regards himself as a child of God and looks up to the Paradise Creator as a true spiritual Father.
2:0.2 (33.2) The nature of God can be studied in a revelation of supreme ideas, the divine character can be envisaged as a portrayal of supernal ideals, but the most enlightening and spiritually edifying of all revelations of the divine nature is to be found in the comprehension of the religious life of Jesus of Nazareth, both before and after his attainment of full consciousness of divinity. If the incarnated life of Michael is taken as the background of the revelation of God to man, we may attempt to put in human word symbols certain ideas and ideals concerning the divine nature which may possibly contribute to a further illumination and unification of the human concept of the nature and the character of the personality of the Universal Father.
God resides at the center of ALL and EACH at the same time. And this personal relationship is key to the Gospel and profoundly important in any concept of God….God must be personalized as well as eternal, primal, absolute, etc., etc., etc…..not just all powerful but all caring….not just all knowing but all understanding….the God of ALL and the God of EACH is hardly the same God as the God OVER ALL. A clear distinction I think…one which took Rodan some time to discern…but as he said, God must be more but cannot be less than personal.
Great discussion…thanks to ALL and EACH!!
I noticed that section one of paper 100 is about religious growth and section two is about spiritual growth. What’s the difference?
I hope you have some thoughts on this interesting question. Is personal religion and religious growth the device or skeleton or vehicle while spiritual growth is the fruit? One is the attachment to the vine (the branch) and the other the subsequent result of that attachment (the fruit)?
Hmmmm……..
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that God is “a person in your head.” We are repeatedly told that the Adjuster is prepersonal in nature. While it may not be entirely clear what “prepersonal” signifies, we know it is something other than the reality of personality.
Hmmm . . . what do you think of these quotes?
103:1.6 . . . The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman.
32:3.4 . . . In the central universe the Father is personally present as such but absent in the minds of the children of that perfect creation; in the universes of space the Father is absent in person, being represented by his Sovereign Sons, while he is intimately present in the minds of his mortal children, being spiritually represented by the prepersonal presence of the Mystery Monitors that reside in the minds of these will creatures.
32:4.5 In the mortal will creatures the Father is actually present in the indwelling Adjuster, a fragment of his prepersonal spirit; and the Father is also the source of the personality of such a mortal will creature
109:4.2 Animals do, in a crude way, communicate with each other, but there is little or no personality in such primitive contact. Adjusters are not personality; they are prepersonal beings. But they do hail from the source of personality, and their presence does augment the qualitative manifestations of human personality; especially is this true if the Adjuster has had previous experience.
107:7.3 They have affection for mortals, they function in universe crises, they are always waiting to act decisively in accordance with human choice, and all these are highly volitional reactions. In all situations not concerned with the domain of the human will, they unquestionably exhibit conduct which betokens the exercise of powers in every sense the equivalent of will, maximated decision.
(333.7) 30:1.99 God, as a superperson, eventuates; God, as a person, creates; God, as a preperson, fragments; and such an Adjuster fragment of himself evolves the spirit soul upon the material and mortal mind in accordance with the freewill choosing of the personality which has been bestowed upon such a mortal creature by the parental act of God as a Father
The immanence of God within the soul is a prepersonal reality, while the personality of the Father is a transcendent presence who dwells at the center of the universe on Paradise. More explicitly, the personality of the Father only dwells on Paradise. He sends his spirit to indwell us. If he sent his personality to indwell us, this would be pantheism, which is an incorrect concept of the relation between God and man.
The Adjusters are fragments of the prepersonal reality of the First Source and Center (30:1.100) God doesn’t send his actual personality to indwell us, he sends a fragment of personality from the reservoir which gave rise to his own. And when this fragment enters our heads it behaves as the Father’s personality since it’s of the same origin. Because the volition of this fragment is prepersonal, it is preferentially responsive to the actual will of an existent personality, which would be mine. To me, a presence in my mind who also has a mind and a will, is a person. Just because this person relies on my will for expression does not diminish its reality. God is a personal presence who lives in my head, and Jesus said that I ” . . . . should increasingly grow in the ability to feel the presence of God.” (155:6.12)
One is the attachment to the vine (the branch) and the other the subsequent result of that attachment (the fruit)?
That’s kinda what I’m thinking. I think religious growth precedes spiritual growth. Religion is derived from the two higher adjutants, hence is material in origin. Spiritual growth is something that happens in the soul, albeit it has repercussions on the material level.
I think that religious living enlarges and reinforces the gateway to the soul. The first paragraph in the section about spiritual growth says it is dependent upon a living spiritual connection with spiritual forces. Wouldn’t that be the vine? And isn’t the vine a metaphor for prayer? I think religious growth develops, enlarges and reinforces the gateway, then prayer maintains the connection to the soul where spiritual growth occurs. It’s the up-escalator where the problems of the material world contribute to spiritual growth; and, it’s the down-escalator where soul powers are mobilized for religious living. I don’t know . . . sometimes I just blabber. This is an idea under-construction, so pardon our appearance.
Is the First Source and Center in any way essential to the full realization of the religion of Jesus?
I believe it is George. And the answer may be tucked away in an odd place, specifically 19:1 where the implication is made that the UB starts from the Universal Father on Paradise because starting from the top down, from divine destinies to human origins, is the path that leads to spiritual wisdom.
Jesus often mentions that our Father is the Creator of all things and, as such, must be the First Cause, or Source, although he never uses this specific wording (as far as we are told). And while he often mentions our Paradise Father, he also refers to Paradise as a place and a destiny, and by what he says, I think the listener could only conclude that Paradise is both the dwelling place of our Father as well as our ultimate goal. I see few references to suggest that Jesus specifically said that Paradise is at the center of all things except in two of the prayers that he taught (145:5.12 and 145:5.74). However, the implication is strong in much of his teaching.
“Very plainly Jesus explained that the kingdom of heaven was an evolutionary experience, beginning here on earth and progressing up through successive life stations to Paradise.” 142:7.3
“Our creative Parent, who is in the center of the universe…” 144:5.12
And finally, if we accept the UB as an extension of Jesus’ teaching, there seems to be a considerable amount of effort on the part of the revelators to impress upon us the centrality of Paradise and the First Source. So I lean toward the belief that the concept is essential.
I agree that ‘prepersonal’ is a difficult concept….but it obviously does not mean impersonal but rather a very personal relationship:
110:0.2 (1203.2) As far as I am conversant with the affairs of a universe, I regard the love and devotion of a Thought Adjuster as the most truly divine affection in all creation. The love of the Sons in their ministry to the races is superb, but the devotion of an Adjuster to the individual is touchingly sublime, divinely Fatherlike. The Paradise Father has apparently reserved this form of personal contact with his individual creatures as an exclusive Creator prerogative. And there is nothing in all the universe of universes exactly comparable to the marvelous ministry of these impersonal entities that so fascinatingly indwell the children of the evolutionary planets.Clearly I do not understand the nature of “pre-personal”…..as so well illustrated in this contradiction I posted earlier. What’s described sounds SO personal…so much to learn. Nonetheless, the TA God Fragments are within each mind and are affectionate in their devotion…how is this impersonal?
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.