Thomas, Saying number seven

Thomas, Saying number seven:

3:50 a.m.

Jesus said: Blessed is a lion that a man eats, because that lion will become human. Cursed is a man that a lion eats, because that lion will become human.

This one for the first time tempts me to look at the commentary for a clue as to meaning, but I resist, for the reason given before, that it would merely cripple access and encourage guessing, which is death to intuition.

[After receiving all this, and prior to beginning to type, I did look at the commentary for saying seven, and was glad I had refrained from reading it beforehand. Really, I think it misconceives the whole subject. At any rate we come to very different conclusions!]

But if there was ever a need for coffee, it’s here. Fortunately, it is on the way.

What will you do in the non-3D when there is no coffee?

I won’t be trying to contact someone in 3D, to learn something. Presumably. At any rate –

Remember to connect a given saying with one or more previous sayings.

Yes. And I don’t know if it is because I am browsing yesterday’s entry, or merely while I am doing so, it occurs to me that the saying is about process (Maybe.)

No, you are on the right track. Express your insight.

If the man eats the lion or the lion eats the man, either way the lion becomes human. But the consequences for the man are very different. I am supposing that the lion is meant to indicate our animal nature – and the man, the higher possibilities, but as I try to phrase that, it breaks down.

So let us look at it. You could guess that the lion is the 3D self, but in that case, is the man the non-3D self? How could that be? How could the non-3D self be absorbed by the 3D self? Does that make sense?

As so often, I can feel things clarifying even as I write out your response, or sometimes mine. But it isn’t quite there yet.

What would your life be if

Oh! Of course. Okay, I get it. it’s a matter of remembering (as you have told us) to keep in mind what Jesus was about. He was providing insight into the nature of life and the way things are. He was not giving abstract disquisitions; it was meant to be practical.

That’s correct. So it isn’t a matter of the non-3D being overcome by the 3D, but of the non-3D being effectively choked out of 3D life from the point of view of the 3D life you are leading.

Obvious once said.

So, from the point of view of a 3D consciousness attempting to come to greater clarity, greater self-possession, greater consciousness, it is all-important which way the lion becomes human. If a 3D-centered consciousness identifies with its animal nature, any advance in identification with larger aspects of itself may result only in grand

(Started to write grandification, which of course is not a word. Aggrandizement?)

Aggrandizement, yes, of the disconnected, animal, 3D-centered being.

Nietzsche in his madness, rather than, say, Jung in his wholeness.

That is a very good pair of comparisons, and of course not the first time we have paired them in your mind.

It is very interesting in this new context. I have looked at Nietzsche as an example of psychic inflation followed by inevitable collapse.

Let us provide suggestive additional examples. Hitler. The sorcerer’s apprentice. Many a televangelist.

I see. What they have in common is insufficiently prepared contact with larger powers, which swallowed them up.

We know it is difficult to do, yet it is important that you all concentrate on remembering wider lessons.

I couldn’t phrase it, but I know that you meant, don’t forget to integrate things we have learned at other time, in learning new things or new ways of seeing.

Specifically, you were instructed at some length to remember or realize for the first time that your lives are not only your own affair, but are the conduits for vast impersonal forces. Those forces will provide you with great power and authority if you are in proper relation to them – and they will take you over and destroy you as an individual if you are not.

Either way, the division between 3D and non-3D has been broken down, or at least greatly thinned, but one way is destructive to us.

This is why Jesus was so insistent on proper internal conduct. No, that isn’t a mis-phrasing; we wish to introduce a new way of comparison, similar to saying 3D and non-3D instead of, say, physical and spiritual. We are knitting together what is easily sundered.

Internal conduct, external conduct will in some ways, for some purposes, lead to greater clarity than trying to say “being v. doing,” for example.

Yes, I see it.

Well, Jesus was continually emphasizing how intent was critical. The same action, the same thought, even the same priorities, in a way, could be very different, and lead to very different results, depending upon context. Depending, in other words, upon how, more so than upon what.

We could pray correctly and have a positive result in terms of increasing our access for positive reasons, or could pray incorrectly and obtain a negative result.

You have the right idea, but have not yet expressed the right idea. Expand your exposition.

Hitler, say, may very well have had an altruistic intent, channeled through personal (inadequate) intentions. He wanted to right political and social wrongs; wanted to overcome forces that he thought were destructive to society; wanted to fight both communism and rule by money (which he identified with Judaism, having absorbed the anti-Semitism of his native Austria). These were altruistic goals in that they were transpersonal. They were personal in that he intended to rule, and in a sense was using the forces he knew how to raise [in others]. But, as Jung said, it was closer to say that Hitler was Germany than to say he ruled it. He did not have that separation. Like Nietzsche but in a different direction, he had evoked forces he did not know how to control, although he thought he did. Vast impersonal forces of hatred, rejection, revenge, self-aggrandizement, a will to power—all of it that we have become so familiar with – it took him over and left him mad. Mad and vastly influential, because his madness evoked and met response in a German people that had been traumatized by a combination of guilt, misfortune and injustice, all of these forces channeled by unscrupulous men for their own petty uses, which channeling was itself being used to express forces they had little idea of and no control over.

Only, don’t let yourself assume that Jesus was concerned with collective or political ends. These are and were abstractions. They affect lives, but they have no ability to assist anybody to come into proper relation with his own (or her own, of course; it is the same thing) truer relation to the world, that is, to reality.

Do not let the lion eat the man, regardless of your outrage or sympathy or concern. Learn to somewhat distrust even your altruism. Perhaps we should say, especially your altruism, for it is often a fleeing from the proper real and necessary, in order to march off to a pretended siege of Babylon, as Emerson put it.

But if the man eat the lion –

Then with luck you get a Carl Jung, able to help the world. But more commonly you get individuals unknown to the world, but holding it together as a side-effect of their own greater integration. While you are working on yourselves, it is as well to remember to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but to God the things that are God’s.

Thanks for this, as for all of it.

 

5 thoughts on “Thomas, Saying number seven

  1. I am still chewing the idea of nursing unacted desires (with chocolate). To have the gumption to turn the thoughts: It is possible, no doubt about it. But fulfilling a desire you get reward. Want chocolate- get chocolate – mission accomplished. Dropping the thought and thinking&doing something else feels almost like abandoning a goal, giving up. But nursing desire-thoughts is very obviously a mistake. It is just a bit hard to strangle those desire-infants in the cradle. Big self-responsibility instead of comfortably drifting with desires. And this is also the point about eating the lion instead of being eaten. It is an effort to eat that lion, but being eaten happens all by itself.

  2. Kristiina–I love your comment. Wishing never makes anything so.

    The image: “to strangle those desire-infants in the cradle,” rather than raise them–powerful. Must they die?

    “. . . but being eaten happens all by itself.” A disturbing and useful realization to me.

    I love the way you write.

  3. This one I got right away.

    It quickly reminded me (once again) of Miranon’s conversations with Monroe years ago. Miranon said he was from level 46 and Monroe wanted understand what that meant. So, Miranon talked about the nature of things (both physical and non-physical) but laid out a landscape of consciousness using the number 7 and its multiples (7, 14, 21, 28).

    1 to 7 represented plants. 8 to 14 represented animals. Humans represented 15 to 21. The afterlife began at number 22. So, in this scale, to move from animal to human is a progression (e.g., human to animal is a digression). Miranon mentioned this digression (human to animal) was not allowed, and that “the universe always moves forward” (e.g., progresses).

  4. It has always bothered me that Jung uses the word animal in the context of corrupt tendencies in humans. It taints the wholly innocent animal parts of creation. I (think) I know what he means. I’ve had dreams where humans grow animal-like traits like ape hair and such and turn dangerous/evil. But what the human becomes in that process is an orc, or some monster that is not exactly an animal. Fantasy literature ia full of those creatures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *