I wouldn't say metaphysics dismisses the body but, rather like religion, the senses of the body must be 'crucified' or put to death in order to see clearly with the inner eye.
'If thine eye be single thy body will be filled with light.' Therefore, if one shuts off the ego/physical narrative, the chrism will rise in the spine to ignite the pineal, a very real physiological path to achieve Christ consciousness.
There is a warning in the Bible about heeding the men of letters over and above ones own physical senses too fwiw.
Walking through Venice the other month I stopped in front of a printers with a plaque in the window. It read, 'Who works with his hands is an operator. Who works with his hands and his brain is an artisan. Who works with his hands, his brain and his heart is an artist.'
People like Mouravieff saw the 'resurrection of the flesh' as a type of film whereby one would live a life, die and be reborn in a 'continuation' of the same film (of consciousness expansion). So it was never the same body per se, but this is where the 'saved seed' or Jesus comes in. One must 'save seeds' by meditating (practicing the 'single eye') because consciousness and its level is never forgotten throughout lifetimes. The character or personal narrative is forgotten with death of the animal body, but the level of consciousness is not.
Again, it is a quite literal, physiological process- one can't do it through intellect, the intellect puts the Spirit out like a light.
The ears are a part of the vagus nerve system, it looks fractal, like a 'tree'. But it isn't the actual ears as you rightly say, but a sense that develops in meditation and transcends the physical.
It is my understanding that any devil, satan, prostitute, animal etc., refers to Man indulging excessively in his lower nature, or the intellectual left-hand, mechanical part of the brain. The part that feeds the machine.
Civilisation can't go beyond a certain point without people prepared to sacrifice the ego for their higher nature. We're right on the cusp now it seems.
To my mind our culture is based on the apparent wisdom of the church fathers- meaning doctors and the church. (Just finished a post on it.)
The ego will bring us all down like a tonne of bricks if it can't be overcome. I know this from personal experience. T'is a most uncool, most educative experience.
"How can the Christian, which seems above all concerned with morality, even to the detriment of all other questions, affirm that sexual difference is important and intrinsic, that marriage is fundamental, when it is believed that neither will be part of the ultimate picture of reality, when the New Jerusalem is envisaged as a genderless and marriageless abode of neutered spirits?"
Jerusalem means peace. Sexual difference is a meme, the trans agenda. It is a matter of uniting opposites. We have a 'left brain' and a 'right brain.' The point is to marry the two. It is the alchemical marriage, it is the 12 disciples asking JC how they will recognise him when he returns, his answer being 'When you see the man carrying the pitcher of water (Ganymede), go in to the upper room and meet me there.'
That means when Aquarius is visible in the sky, meditate. It is related to 'Heaven' or Ouranos. (Next post). Christ will return. Jesus is the saved seed- it must be meditated up the spinal column. At Golgotha (the place of the skull, ie. the medulla oblongata at the base of our skulls) the seed crosses over and lights the Eye of God (pineal). That is how one achieves Christ consciousness.
The Bible is a book of astrology and physiology. The point is to Realise, and it all comes clear. There is no place for ego. So any form of 'I identify as...' will be ones undoing.
"The central theme of the Christic work: Jesus opened the possibility for every man to say, with Himself, I AM."
He also said, 'Anything I can do, you can also do,' and 'The kingdom of God is within you.' He's saying that man can be as God (Christ consciousness), if he mediates and crucifies his five physical senses.
In research yesterday I was looking up the Federation State Medical Board again- they're so satanic it's almost cute. They have a sister board called IAMRA.
When I saw the initials I laughed out loud, they spell out I AM RA.
Ra of course is the Egyptian sun god, and JC is modelled on him to some extent. The doctors and the church are one and the same now. The point is to let go of the Men of Letters in the church and focus on ones own salvation, or saving (of the seed, aka Jesus) and Realise we're all part of the same Corpus Christi.
there is a lot here to take in, and a lot of terminology I am not too familiar with, so I can't say much one way or the other. will have to read it a couple more times and see if I understand. I will check your pieces also.
I tend to talk about the clay body and the light body. The clay body is the decaying sheath produced by the Fall, but the light body is also continually in here as true body, sensing and absorbing all that we do in our lives. And when we die, the clay body falls off, leaving the light body exposed to the spiritual elements.
I think that this also explains why bad people can do what they do. They have made their clay dense; it inhibits light sensation. When their clay bodies fall off, they will be in for a very rude awakening. And conversely, theosis is the project of enabling maximal light sensation now, making the clay as translucent as possible.
thank you for your comment Sethu. it has made me organize my thoughts a bit more, especially as you brought the concept of clay (which is very much implicit in Genesis).
I agree there is the light and the clay (the Spirit and the Earth). but the way I understand Genesis is that the living soul is produced from the interplay of both. so I don't think that Jesus preaches a 'clayless' resurrection. I think we will keep our 'clay body', and while it is transformed, I don't think it ceases to be what it is - I'm rather more inclined to see it becoming a better version, but not something different. I take this from the descriptions of John's Gospel of Lazarus after being resurrected, but especially of Jesus. perhaps a good analogy would be that of unfired versus fired clay. this life is the process of shaping, death and resurrection the process of firing.
Hm, I see what you mean. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. I'm envisioning a body that is characterized by properties such as luminosity, sensitivity, immortality. So, a body like this one, but superior in every respect, without the sheath that produces dullness and decay: a light body, or a fired clay body. The clay from before the Fall.
Maybe I just call it a light body because it would be completely translucent to light, thus rendering the fired clay almost an afterthought, sort of like how we don't typically think about our heads if they don't hurt. It seems to me that in this dimension, we sense clay as clay primarily by its resistance to light.
Also, the post-Resurrection scenes—Magdalene mistaking Jesus for the gardener, and the disciples on the road to Emmaus not recognizing Him for hours, to say nothing of Him apparently passing through walls and showing up in multiple places at the same time—suggest to me that we're talking about a body that is practically extra-dimensional, like a sphere to a circle.
I don't think it's semantics alone, but I also don't think we are that far apart, just emphasizing different things. I agree the Resurrection body will be 'subtler', 'lighter' and so forth. but the problem I see is that a lot of theology about this makes it sound not just like that, but that it won't be a body at all, that in the end the highest is some kind of formlessness. and I think that was always wrong, but now it's furthermore dangerous.
I go back an forth on this question as to whether the general trend today is too much embodiment or too little.
A lot could be said about this but suffice it to remark that it has begun to seem to me that the dichotomy is spurious, and that bona fide embodiment really entails a state of the body in which it has submitted to, and as a result, become transluminated by the spirit. Christ walked on this Earth and took on bodily Incarnation and hence it is sacrilegious to spurn the body like the Gnostics and some fanatical Neo-Platonists. The matter of our bodies doesn't even really belong to us but on loan from the Creator and we as stewards. So the life of Jesus shows, QED, that the body is to be cherished.
But at the same time, he repeatedly indicates that Satan is "the Prince of this World," and that we should strive to be "in the world but not of it."
For this reason, I have come to see the relation of body and spirit as complementary and analogical but not disjunctive, as I mentioned in another thread. Incidentally, a Neo-Platonic philosopher Eric Perl elucidates a comparable issue very well, imho:
“Intellect and sense, therefore, as modes of cognition, are not apprehensions of different “worlds” or sets of objects, but are more and less unified apprehensions of Being, the only object of all cognition. The sensible cosmos as a whole is the sensuous apprehension of Being, Being as apprehended, most multiply, by sense, and the intelligible cosmos is the same content as apprehended, most unitarily, by intellectual intuition. The sensible and the intelligible are not two worlds, but rather the same reality, the manifestation of the One, apprehended in differing degrees of unity. The ascent to intellection is thus not a passage from one set of objects to another, but a gathering of the content of consciousness into greater unity.”
as does Saint Maximos:
"For the whole spiritual world seems mystically imprinted on the whole sensible world in symbolic forms, for those who are capable of seeing this, and conversely the whole sensible world is spiritually explained in the mind in the principles which it contains. In the spiritual world it is in principles; in the sensible world it is in figures. And their function was like a wheel within a wheel, as says the marvelous seer of extraordinary things, Ezekiel, in speaking, I think, of the two worlds."
thank you Max. now I'm thinking I should have included more things in my text! :D which is always a sign of a good comment.
I agree that it is a give-and-take - as above so below. but it seems to me still that most metaphysicians say that matter is infused with spirit, but will not say that spirit needs matter. whereas I believe it. and this ties to very specific, down to earth questions: like the complementarity of male and female, which you will agree is completely under attack. and I don't think this attack is random, nor that the aforementioned view was an accident - and it has real life consequences. you may recall that some Fathers debated whether women had souls. I always try to bring it down to earth, because I don't want just a mental exercise. I want something to live by.
of what the tendency of our time is I have no doubt however: it seems pretty clear to me that the system wants disembodiment, and whenever it promotes the body it is in order to defile it, disfigure it and denature it (hence, the same goal). it doesn't promote healthy bodies or healthy sexuality, but the opposite: it promotes disfigurement and pornography (which, furthermore, are highly influenced by the disembodied world of the internet). the same with the Earth as a whole. it doesn't promote any kind of vital or reverent relation with nature: its 'environmentalism' is not just more destructive in material terms, but especially in spiritual terms, with regards to our connection with the Earth.
as to the other question, I think it is a misreading of the Gospels. 'this world' is one thing, the Earth is another. the same as when Paul says 'the natural man', what he actually means is the 'wordly man'. 'The world' all the Fathers identified with 'the passions'. But the passions, crucially, are not really a bodily question but a soul question. we can easily understand this by comparing human sexuality with animal sexuality. both in its positive as well as negative aspects, sexuality for humans is much more than a bodily experience.
and if we read it in this way we can maybe have a different take of what St. Paul means when he says: we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of the air. these same powers that are now fully in charge of the whole political-social-economic-technical system and promote what I believe to be a pure hatred of all flesh.
I wouldn't say metaphysics dismisses the body but, rather like religion, the senses of the body must be 'crucified' or put to death in order to see clearly with the inner eye.
'If thine eye be single thy body will be filled with light.' Therefore, if one shuts off the ego/physical narrative, the chrism will rise in the spine to ignite the pineal, a very real physiological path to achieve Christ consciousness.
There is a warning in the Bible about heeding the men of letters over and above ones own physical senses too fwiw.
Walking through Venice the other month I stopped in front of a printers with a plaque in the window. It read, 'Who works with his hands is an operator. Who works with his hands and his brain is an artisan. Who works with his hands, his brain and his heart is an artist.'
People like Mouravieff saw the 'resurrection of the flesh' as a type of film whereby one would live a life, die and be reborn in a 'continuation' of the same film (of consciousness expansion). So it was never the same body per se, but this is where the 'saved seed' or Jesus comes in. One must 'save seeds' by meditating (practicing the 'single eye') because consciousness and its level is never forgotten throughout lifetimes. The character or personal narrative is forgotten with death of the animal body, but the level of consciousness is not.
Again, it is a quite literal, physiological process- one can't do it through intellect, the intellect puts the Spirit out like a light.
The ears are a part of the vagus nerve system, it looks fractal, like a 'tree'. But it isn't the actual ears as you rightly say, but a sense that develops in meditation and transcends the physical.
It is my understanding that any devil, satan, prostitute, animal etc., refers to Man indulging excessively in his lower nature, or the intellectual left-hand, mechanical part of the brain. The part that feeds the machine.
Civilisation can't go beyond a certain point without people prepared to sacrifice the ego for their higher nature. We're right on the cusp now it seems.
To my mind our culture is based on the apparent wisdom of the church fathers- meaning doctors and the church. (Just finished a post on it.)
The ego will bring us all down like a tonne of bricks if it can't be overcome. I know this from personal experience. T'is a most uncool, most educative experience.
"How can the Christian, which seems above all concerned with morality, even to the detriment of all other questions, affirm that sexual difference is important and intrinsic, that marriage is fundamental, when it is believed that neither will be part of the ultimate picture of reality, when the New Jerusalem is envisaged as a genderless and marriageless abode of neutered spirits?"
Jerusalem means peace. Sexual difference is a meme, the trans agenda. It is a matter of uniting opposites. We have a 'left brain' and a 'right brain.' The point is to marry the two. It is the alchemical marriage, it is the 12 disciples asking JC how they will recognise him when he returns, his answer being 'When you see the man carrying the pitcher of water (Ganymede), go in to the upper room and meet me there.'
That means when Aquarius is visible in the sky, meditate. It is related to 'Heaven' or Ouranos. (Next post). Christ will return. Jesus is the saved seed- it must be meditated up the spinal column. At Golgotha (the place of the skull, ie. the medulla oblongata at the base of our skulls) the seed crosses over and lights the Eye of God (pineal). That is how one achieves Christ consciousness.
The Bible is a book of astrology and physiology. The point is to Realise, and it all comes clear. There is no place for ego. So any form of 'I identify as...' will be ones undoing.
"The central theme of the Christic work: Jesus opened the possibility for every man to say, with Himself, I AM."
He also said, 'Anything I can do, you can also do,' and 'The kingdom of God is within you.' He's saying that man can be as God (Christ consciousness), if he mediates and crucifies his five physical senses.
In research yesterday I was looking up the Federation State Medical Board again- they're so satanic it's almost cute. They have a sister board called IAMRA.
When I saw the initials I laughed out loud, they spell out I AM RA.
Ra of course is the Egyptian sun god, and JC is modelled on him to some extent. The doctors and the church are one and the same now. The point is to let go of the Men of Letters in the church and focus on ones own salvation, or saving (of the seed, aka Jesus) and Realise we're all part of the same Corpus Christi.
Neat post.
thank you for your comment.
there is a lot here to take in, and a lot of terminology I am not too familiar with, so I can't say much one way or the other. will have to read it a couple more times and see if I understand. I will check your pieces also.
Thank you for taking the time to explain concepts that are not always easy to grasp.
I try :) thank you Amy.
so beautiful to see someone finding the thread between the biblical and the goddess religions
thank you Daniela :)
I tend to talk about the clay body and the light body. The clay body is the decaying sheath produced by the Fall, but the light body is also continually in here as true body, sensing and absorbing all that we do in our lives. And when we die, the clay body falls off, leaving the light body exposed to the spiritual elements.
I think that this also explains why bad people can do what they do. They have made their clay dense; it inhibits light sensation. When their clay bodies fall off, they will be in for a very rude awakening. And conversely, theosis is the project of enabling maximal light sensation now, making the clay as translucent as possible.
thank you for your comment Sethu. it has made me organize my thoughts a bit more, especially as you brought the concept of clay (which is very much implicit in Genesis).
I agree there is the light and the clay (the Spirit and the Earth). but the way I understand Genesis is that the living soul is produced from the interplay of both. so I don't think that Jesus preaches a 'clayless' resurrection. I think we will keep our 'clay body', and while it is transformed, I don't think it ceases to be what it is - I'm rather more inclined to see it becoming a better version, but not something different. I take this from the descriptions of John's Gospel of Lazarus after being resurrected, but especially of Jesus. perhaps a good analogy would be that of unfired versus fired clay. this life is the process of shaping, death and resurrection the process of firing.
Hm, I see what you mean. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. I'm envisioning a body that is characterized by properties such as luminosity, sensitivity, immortality. So, a body like this one, but superior in every respect, without the sheath that produces dullness and decay: a light body, or a fired clay body. The clay from before the Fall.
Maybe I just call it a light body because it would be completely translucent to light, thus rendering the fired clay almost an afterthought, sort of like how we don't typically think about our heads if they don't hurt. It seems to me that in this dimension, we sense clay as clay primarily by its resistance to light.
Also, the post-Resurrection scenes—Magdalene mistaking Jesus for the gardener, and the disciples on the road to Emmaus not recognizing Him for hours, to say nothing of Him apparently passing through walls and showing up in multiple places at the same time—suggest to me that we're talking about a body that is practically extra-dimensional, like a sphere to a circle.
I don't think it's semantics alone, but I also don't think we are that far apart, just emphasizing different things. I agree the Resurrection body will be 'subtler', 'lighter' and so forth. but the problem I see is that a lot of theology about this makes it sound not just like that, but that it won't be a body at all, that in the end the highest is some kind of formlessness. and I think that was always wrong, but now it's furthermore dangerous.
I go back an forth on this question as to whether the general trend today is too much embodiment or too little.
A lot could be said about this but suffice it to remark that it has begun to seem to me that the dichotomy is spurious, and that bona fide embodiment really entails a state of the body in which it has submitted to, and as a result, become transluminated by the spirit. Christ walked on this Earth and took on bodily Incarnation and hence it is sacrilegious to spurn the body like the Gnostics and some fanatical Neo-Platonists. The matter of our bodies doesn't even really belong to us but on loan from the Creator and we as stewards. So the life of Jesus shows, QED, that the body is to be cherished.
But at the same time, he repeatedly indicates that Satan is "the Prince of this World," and that we should strive to be "in the world but not of it."
For this reason, I have come to see the relation of body and spirit as complementary and analogical but not disjunctive, as I mentioned in another thread. Incidentally, a Neo-Platonic philosopher Eric Perl elucidates a comparable issue very well, imho:
“Intellect and sense, therefore, as modes of cognition, are not apprehensions of different “worlds” or sets of objects, but are more and less unified apprehensions of Being, the only object of all cognition. The sensible cosmos as a whole is the sensuous apprehension of Being, Being as apprehended, most multiply, by sense, and the intelligible cosmos is the same content as apprehended, most unitarily, by intellectual intuition. The sensible and the intelligible are not two worlds, but rather the same reality, the manifestation of the One, apprehended in differing degrees of unity. The ascent to intellection is thus not a passage from one set of objects to another, but a gathering of the content of consciousness into greater unity.”
as does Saint Maximos:
"For the whole spiritual world seems mystically imprinted on the whole sensible world in symbolic forms, for those who are capable of seeing this, and conversely the whole sensible world is spiritually explained in the mind in the principles which it contains. In the spiritual world it is in principles; in the sensible world it is in figures. And their function was like a wheel within a wheel, as says the marvelous seer of extraordinary things, Ezekiel, in speaking, I think, of the two worlds."
thank you Max. now I'm thinking I should have included more things in my text! :D which is always a sign of a good comment.
I agree that it is a give-and-take - as above so below. but it seems to me still that most metaphysicians say that matter is infused with spirit, but will not say that spirit needs matter. whereas I believe it. and this ties to very specific, down to earth questions: like the complementarity of male and female, which you will agree is completely under attack. and I don't think this attack is random, nor that the aforementioned view was an accident - and it has real life consequences. you may recall that some Fathers debated whether women had souls. I always try to bring it down to earth, because I don't want just a mental exercise. I want something to live by.
of what the tendency of our time is I have no doubt however: it seems pretty clear to me that the system wants disembodiment, and whenever it promotes the body it is in order to defile it, disfigure it and denature it (hence, the same goal). it doesn't promote healthy bodies or healthy sexuality, but the opposite: it promotes disfigurement and pornography (which, furthermore, are highly influenced by the disembodied world of the internet). the same with the Earth as a whole. it doesn't promote any kind of vital or reverent relation with nature: its 'environmentalism' is not just more destructive in material terms, but especially in spiritual terms, with regards to our connection with the Earth.
as to the other question, I think it is a misreading of the Gospels. 'this world' is one thing, the Earth is another. the same as when Paul says 'the natural man', what he actually means is the 'wordly man'. 'The world' all the Fathers identified with 'the passions'. But the passions, crucially, are not really a bodily question but a soul question. we can easily understand this by comparing human sexuality with animal sexuality. both in its positive as well as negative aspects, sexuality for humans is much more than a bodily experience.
and if we read it in this way we can maybe have a different take of what St. Paul means when he says: we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of the air. these same powers that are now fully in charge of the whole political-social-economic-technical system and promote what I believe to be a pure hatred of all flesh.