Wednesday, June 15, 2016
10:30 a.m. I feel like continuing. The thought of original sin crossed my mind. I’d like to see how you explain that, or explain why it doesn’t belong, if it doesn’t.
There is a recurrent theme in all theology, and it can be tricky, because the investigations are in two parts, often – perhaps even usually – intermingled.
Yes, I know. One is explanation of what the person experienced first-hand, and the other is logically derived rules or conclusion. I saw it clearly in St. John of the Cross. It was disorienting, actually: part of it, I’m going, “yes, I know that,” or “yes, I’ve experienced that” – and the rest of it, I’m going, “where did you get that?” It was a curious mixture of reportage and logical derivation.
All right. That is the way of it, yes. But the theme itself is, “how does the human relate to the divine?” For that is how it usually appears to people, you understand, as an us-and-it situation.
Worms on one side, gods on the other.
And that is a true description from a certain point of view. But as soon as you realize that to be human is to be divine as well, things get more complicated, and so does the theology. If it is no longer you on one end and the gods, or God, on the other, your task of leading an upright life is more difficult, because now you recognize yourself as mixed, therefore the encounter is as much within yourself as external.
There is no point — and not enough time! – to go through every variant of historical and current and forgotten human belief-systems throughout the ages. Your time is now (whenever you read this), and your task is to live now, by your best understandings. The Rosetta Stone is what I just pointed out: It is always about how humans relate to the divine. Answers will differ, as assumptions and logic differ, but the question will always be the same, obviously or not. Why is this? Why is it that all such questions boil down to this one?
It seems obvious, so I suppose you have something more subtle in mind. That’s the question because we’re the ones asking it.
Spell it out a little.
Well, it’s obvious enough. We are here in 3D but we connect to the non-3D, so we have a split perspective, at least to the degree that we here are open to the input and priorities of our non-3D side. We feel it inside ourselves. We know we are so much more than we appear to ourselves. We are born with a sense of purpose and no obvious way to pursue it.
It is, in short, a division within you. But [the word] “division” implies conflict, which is not necessarily true. Your complementary or overlapping or competing or conflicting natures get along, in practice. Like the rest of your lives, the balance fluctuates, but still the elements are there.
You know enough elementary psychology to know that unconscious elements become conscious just by becoming projected into the world, as if “objectively” there. You don’t always recognize why the “external” event seizes your interest, or don’t recognize it right away, but there it is.
So if you harbor conflicting elements that might be thought of as human and divine, you may not recognize them as innate. You may think of them as external elements conflicting, or one external and one internal. And this is how religious thought develops.
“God was created in the image of man.”
How else could it be? The human psyche represents itself by projecting itself into the external world. How else could God appear, but as the human mind and soul experienced him? But it took a long time for people to learn the difference between projection, myth, history, and falsehoods.
So how does that felt dual nature manifest? Do you spend some times recognizing yourselves as divine and other times thinking yourselves only “human,” as if human did not imply divine?
I’d say there are about a many answers to that question as there are people.
True enough, but certain responses can be aggregated, to provide a few types.
I don’t feel competent to provide a survey, however.
No need. The point should be clear. As with everything else in life, responses are going to resemble a bell curve, from total identification with the divine on one end, to total indifference to non-3D qualities on the other, with the overwhelming majority somewhere between.
You asked about sin. This is a long subject, but it will take us a long way toward a deeper understanding, too, so it will not be a waste of time. We can start fresh on that next time, not now.
All right. Thanks again.