Orphic Saying 85

Saturday, October 23, 2021

3:45 a.m. We were discussing Orphic Saying 85, Baptism. Shall we resume?

Are you up to it?

Well, I think so. I guess we’ll see. The things I didn’t understand in it – and there were more, the closer I looked – do not seem to be clarified by considering the preceding or following sayings. So –.

[LXXXV. BAPTISM. Except a man be born of water and of spirit, he cannot apprehend eternal life. Sobriety is clarity; sanctity is sight. John baptizes Jesus. Repent, abstain, resolve;—thus purify yourself in this laver of regeneration, and become a denizen of the kingdom of God.]

Perhaps re-read last Saturday’s thoughts on the subject and list your perplexities. And – slide-switches, remember.

Yes. Maximum focus, clarity, receptivity, presence. Well –.

• Born of water and the spirit
• Sobriety is clarity
• Sanctity is sight
• Repent, abstain, resolve
• The “laver of regeneration.” I know that “laver’ means “a large basin sued for ceremonial ablutions in ancient Jewish worship” – at least, that’s the on-line definition given. I would have thought it meant merely “bather.”

So, basically, everything in the paragraph. I skated by it earlier; I suppose that’s why you held it for later.

That’s one reason, yes. As we said, it deserved more than casual attention.

As so often, we find it works better to address your bullet points out of order. It helps you to not clutch, for one thing. So let’s begin where Alcott left off. Can you see – we think you can – that “laver of regeneration” is a reasonable description of the process and result of 3D life?

In the sense of life being a container, I suppose, an environment in which we “work out our salvation,” as people used to say.

Well – this brings us immediately to the concept of water as metaphor and as symbol and as reality.

• As metaphor. Water is seen as life and the matrix of life. Nothing lives without water. Indeed, one definition of the difference between animate and inanimate life as commonly experienced is whether it can or cannot exist independently of water. Rock can; you can not.
• As symbol. How many rites, religious and otherwise, employ water as a symbol of connection to spirit, and/or as remover of the obstacle to communication between this or that element.
• As reality. Water is not just a molecule. It is as close to universal as can be in 3D terms. It is not the “universal solvent” only because there cannot be a universal solvent. If there could be, it would be water, which uniquely has all the properties that would be required.

That isn’t clear to me. I mean, I get what you said, but it’s cryptic.

Deliberately. Let us stay with the question of the meaning of “laver of regeneration.” 3D life is a cauldron of fire, quite as much as it is a laver of regeneration. That is, fire purges, consumes, purifies in a way: Why choose water over fire as the metaphor?

Well, I don’t see how you could have a basin of fire. I mean, that’s a lehr, or an oast, maybe, but the implications are different.

It is inherent in the nature of annealing or baking or purging by fire that the process changes the item. If it is ore, you may result in purified ore with slag burned out of it. If it is clay, you will have hardened it, made permanent what was until then temporary. If glass, the annealing will protect it from shattering by too quick a transition from the molten to the solid condition. So fire could very well be used as metaphor for 3D life, and of course often is. Water, though, does not alter, but cleanses. That’s a big difference. (We suggest that it is always useful to think about these things, looking for holes in the argument, so to speak – but not until after you have taken our point.)

As I reread that, I get that you are drawing a distinction – are revealing one Alcott made, presumably, consciously or otherwise – that 3D life is both purification and regeneration. Fire and water, both, and he is talking at the moment about water.

Without speaking for him, we can say that that is a reasonable inference.

• “Sobriety is clarity.” Where does that some from, in context? You know it connects, and Alcott thinks the connection obvious, so what is it? “Sobriety is clarity; sanctity is sight.” Sobriety as opposed to what, and how does one get to it?

I thought he was listing them as a sort of similarity. He wasn’t, was he? He was contrasting them.

Yes. A fuller exposition might have been phrased more this way: Whereas sobriety is required for clarity, or in other words clarity is a reward for sobriety, sight is a result of sanctity; sanctity is a necessity for sight. Sobriety is not enough, it is only a first step. To see, you need to achieve sanctity. And the way to do that is – what follows: Repent, abstain, resolve.

Interesting. Yes, I see it now. It is such an obstacle, that this man of vison couldn’t write.

Perhaps his inarticulate vision may be seen as akin to Blake’s, a sort of coded message.

And this leads us to your first bullet-point: born of water and the spirt.

I see it. At least, I think I do. Water as in, 3D life and its prolonged isolation, allowing and enabling and in a way requiring us to deal with “our stuff.” The spirit, as in, the conscious participation of 3D and non-3D mind, freeing us from the illusion that the 3D is the be-all and end-all.

The illusion that, in fact, it is as real as it appears to be.

That’s very interesting. I see why we couldn’t do this as an afterthought.

Nor until your energy level had returned to a certain point. There is more than one meaning to the saying that “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” It doesn’t have to mean weak-willed or easily distracted or easily tempted. Sometimes it’s merely that it isn’t a good time.

I thought we’d do more than one saying today, but our hour is up. One more?

No. it would dilute the impact of our discussion. There’s always another time.

Okay. Our continued tanks for all this.