A NEW WAY

image

THE NEO CHRISTIAN
The Logos
According to Webster’s dictionary, “In Greek philosophy, (the Logos is) reason… the controlling principle of the universe, as being manifested by speech.” (Webster Unabridged).
According to S.E. Frost Jr., Philo, a Greek philosopher who lived about the time of Christ, said, “There was a God who was so pure and so far above everything in this world that He could not possibly come into contact with it… there were many powers which radiated from God as light might radiate from a lamp. One of these powers, which he called the “Logos”, was the creator of the world. This Logos, he taught, worked with matter and out of it created everything in the universe.” (Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers).

Logos To Son
The Greek term Logos means word. In the New Testament it says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God.
The Absolute God is inconceivable, unknowable. But there is a Divine Being, who is called the Word, who is with God. This Being is knowable and is intermediate between God and humanity. In the early Christian Church this Being became identified with Christ.
Thus the Greeks and the early Christians both proposed that there is a Being of some sort who was with God. This idea grew into various forms. In the Christian Church, the Absolute became known as the Father and Logos became known as the Son.

A New Church
In the Old Church the Father God became “Jehovah”, a kind of “man in the sky” god. A New Church would identify the Father as the Absolute and the Son as the Divine Being. But these are not two gods. The Absolute comes first and is properly called God. The Divine Being descends from that and is a fragment of that. There are those who believe that Jesus is the Divine Being (the Logos, the Celestial Christ itself), but the Divine Being existed before Jesus was born and still exists now as the Celestial Christ.

AN EASTERN IDEA

In Hinduism there is a similar concept, in which there is an Absolute, called Brahman, and a creator god, called Brahma. But in that system Brahma is a demigod, a replaceable being who rose to that position after millennium of effort.
Ramakrishna, however, presents a concept more similar to the idea of Celestial Christ, of a Divine Being who arises out of the Absolute. To him the Being is the Form of the Absolute, but it is a passing form, which dissolves into the Absolute at the end of the universe.
His idea is a little different from the Neo-Christian idea presented here, where the Divine Being is accorded even more respect. The Divine Being is Eternal. Jesus said, “There is no way to the Father but by me.” It was the Celestial Christ speaking through him, saying the only way we can truly approach the Absolute is by the grace of the Divine Being, the Celestial Christ.

Quotes; Ramakrishna

The idea of a Divine Being and an Absolute was spoken of by the Indian philosopher Ramakrishna (mid 19th century). He uses the terms Personal God and Impersonal God(Brahman).

“The Infinite transforms itself into the finite and appears before the worshiper as God with form. God reveals himself … as an embodied Person.” (Thus spake Sri Ramakrishna)
“Many are the names of God and infinite forms through which he may be approached.”
Ramakrishna’s Vision of Christ
“Rays of light corning from the (painting of) Mother and Child entered his heart and began to change radically the ideas stored there … His devotion to the gods and goddesses were chased into hiding and new thoughts were displacing them.” from Visions of Sri Ramakrishna

“God with form and God without form are not two different beings.” Teachings of Sri RK p.8
“God is formless and God is with form too, and He is that which transcends both form and formlessness. He alone can say what He is.” Teachings of Sri RK p.5
Ramakrishna’s books were published in India without publisher’s name, date, and sometimes page numbers. The books are available at the Vedanta monasteries in So. Calif.

DIVINE BEING- THE CELESTIAL CHRIST

Celestial Christ is another name for the Divine Being.
The Divine Being is a fragment of the Absolute God. The Divine Being is between humanity and the Absolute.
The Absolute God is unknowable and unattainable.
The Absolute is not a being.
The Celestial Christ is the Eternal Form of the Absolute.
The Absolute cannot properly be called formless or void, it is called inconceivable.
The Divine Being is the Source and Creator of all universes.
The Divine Being is the source of all human souls. No person can surpass the Divine Being.
Anyone who thinks they have surpassed the Divine Being is in illusion by Intermediate Beings.
The Divine Being is twelve-dimensional and cannot be conceived of by the three-dimensional mind.
The universe with its Forms can enter a resting state, but it will always return, and we will return with it.
The true meaning of Christianity is acceptance of the Divine Being, the Celestial Christ.
All gods by any name are all parts of the Divine Being.
The Christian “Father” and “Son” may also be taken as symbols for the Absolute and the Divine Being.
“There is no way to the Father but by me” means there is no way to the Absolute except by the Celestial Christ.
Any description of the Divine Being is inadequate and sectarian.

THE ANSWER
What is God like? This is one of the greatest dilemmas for the spiritual student. Which description is correct? Is God a personal being that cares about us, as Christianity says, or is God an impersonal, formless void, as some mysticism says? Well, why not literally accept both? This is not meant to be vaguely open minded. It is possible to have a deep realization that there is a divine being, rising up out of an inconceivable absolute background. This solution answers the question in a very specific way.
Some philosophies have hinted at this system, but they usually do not have enough regard for the Divine Being, who has sometimes been presented as an inferior demiurge or demigod. But there is a perfect Divine Being that is the face and form of the Absolute.
The Logos
According to Webster’s dictionary, “In Greek philosophy, (the Logos is) reason… the controlling principle of the universe, as being manifested by speech.” (Webster Unabridged).
According to S.E. Frost Jr., Philo, a Greek philosopher who lived about the time of Christ, said, “There was a God who was so pure and so far above everything in this world that He could not possibly come into contact with it… there were many powers which radiated from God as light might radiate from a lamp. One of these powers, which he called the “Logos”, was the creator of the world. This Logos, he taught, worked with matter and out of it created everything in the universe.” (Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers).

Christina Andrea Nelson

 

Advertisements

SEEKING FOUNDERS- NEW SCHOOL OF FORM

 SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY
The following is a brief introduction to the School. I am in ill health and am not strong enough to form the New School myself.
The New School of Form teaches resurrection, in a new and scientific way. It teaches Eternal Form, which is opposed to the formlessness taught by Eastern schools. The founder must be strong enough to stand up against the influx of eastern thought, and fearless against the Old Church. The New School of Form is Western philosophy, Neoplatonism, is Neochristian (but not fundamentalism). It does not teach reincarnation.
INTRODUCTION to the School of Form
The ideas in this book are from my own visions; except when stated otherwise.
This book presents a coherent system, not just a jumble of ideas. It is an advancement on all other similar systems. The truth can be known; philosophy evolves, and eventually truth becomes clear.
A GRAND VISION: A Coherent System
The universe itself, with everything in it, all souls, all forms, descended from a higher state of being. All matter is made of pure original energy. The universe is a system. It will eventually come to an end, but it will re-appear in a much more evolved condition.
There are many parts and levels to the universe, planes, dimensions and realms; each term has a very specific meaning.
THE MESSAGE: What is the message or conclusion of the philosophy offered here? It is that the world is good and we are an intrinsic part of it. It is not a false or illusory world. It has an order and we need to learn to live harmoniously in it. We do not have “escape” from it. We only need to evolve. The universe will return to the divine center with us on board.
SPIRITUAL LIFE- If we are part of a material world, then what is spiritual life? Spiritual life means remembering that the world came from a higher place, and must return, and that we are spirit.
Liberation- all living beings in this world are part of one organism, and all people must be liberated together. There is no individual liberation, although individuals can achieve very advanced consciousness.
This book seeks a new direction for Western philosophy which incorporates ideas from mythology, metaphysics, Christianity, and Eastern philosophy, yet remains essentially Western, positive toward the world and life.

These letters are from a friendly debate between

wheels within wheels

wheels within wheels

These letters are from a friendly debate between me and my ex-husband, Christopher. I posted letters 2-3 earlier I think. He’s into Eastern philosophy and I’m into Western philosophy. Good to keep an open mind, yes?

#4Hi – OK you asked what do I believe.  Well, 1), I believe that consciousness pervades the known universe below the atomic level and this can be seen easily by observing the quantum effect on cell activity, and 2),  I believe the ancient Hindu rishis discovered “wise choices unknowingly made” seemed to increase when they increased the frequency of their sun and fire rituals.  This led to the belief that a consciousness existed just beyond our awareness (like Freud’s unconscious) and that this consciousness is benevolent and will make wise choices for us (help us) – if given our respectful attention (worship).  The first belief (1) became an “apparent truth” in my mind as a result of my first dozen or so LSD trips.  This apparent truth was the result of turning inward and then coming to a place where I realized that I had created the entire universe and therefore knew it’s workings.  Since this seemed to be both true and obviously false – I sought an explanation.  I found the intellectual explanation in both quantum physics and the Vedas.  Both explained how God could exist and remain Eternally Supreme (omni-intelligent, omni-powerful, omni-knowing, omni-aware, etc.).  This intellectual explanation became a belief only after I met Shree Maa and became aware of Her consciousness entering my consciousness when I was alert and near Her, and also during meditation at home.  After a time I began to realize the existence of “wise choices unknowingly made” in my life.  They seemed to increase in my life as I increased meditation, japa, and puja.   Now I believe strongly in the wisdom and benefits of the Sanatana Dharma as explained in the Vedas.  Mostly because of experiences with Shree Maa. Shiva, and the Gayatri mantra.  If you are interested in more about what I believe – there are places on the internet that offer more explanation.  I would recommend starting with Stuart Hameroff’s website (quantumconsciousness.org).  That pretty well sums up “what I believe” – for what it’s worth.  (Remember Buffalo Springfield?) – peace, love, and all good.  .  .Chris  (P.S. Regarding form: Brahma (formless God) eternally creates and dissolves an infinite number of forms – from atoms to universes and everything in between.  Of course, no one knows why, but I suspect it may be for the same reason that the dog licks his balls – because he can.  (Chuckle.)

 #5 (TO CHRISTOPHER) WOW that’s such a great answer, thank you so much. I  assumed you were a thinker, but I wasn’t sure what you were thinking. And you don’t need to apologize for belated emails. I understand that you must be very busy with such a large family. Other than “quantum effect on cell activity”  its pretty clear what you mean (I find that puzzling). I have no problem with a greater consciousness beyond our little consciousness. As far as practicing, I have no formal practice now… I gave it all up, for a specific reason. I came to believe in the world, well, in Pure Form, in particular. As far as Brahma, I also perceive that, I call it the Absolute.  But my issue here, is that I call the Absolute Inconceivable, and cannot be described.  Thus to call it “space, void, formless,  emptiness” is a description and is particularly Hindu. In more advanced forms of Buddhism it is pointed out that the mind must be made empty. The emptiness is not a description of God, the emptiness must be in the mind, in order to meditate. 

I have come to believe in Pure Form, like in Plato. I guess that makes me a NeoPlatonist. Unfortunately in Eastern religion Form is considered tempory, illusion, anybody who believes in eternal form must be unsophisticated, still in Maya.  Well, never the twain shall meet. 

#6 From Christopher- Yes, I am always open to philosophical debate.  Hinduism has been described as a collection of about 3000 religions.  That is because Hindu inclusiveness always embraces opposing philosophical views as another valid perspective.  That makes debate in the western sense very difficult.  Like you, Hindus also believe that the Absolute is inconceivable.  (The translation of OM from Sanskrit is “infinite beyond conception.”)  Still, Hindus ascribe to God the same qualities as do Christians and Muslims:  all-knowing, all-powerful, all-aware, present in all things, etc., etc..   So, some questions:  1) Can a formless entity have those qualities?  (Is air, which has qualities, formless?),  2) Must Eternal Form be Pure?  If Pure, what prevents mixing at the boundaries of the form?,  3)  Is a form eternal if it dissolves and recreates itself as another form, or is the old form “dead’ and the new form “born”?,  4)  As I understand Plato, Eternal Form is like an intangible template which produces tangible form.  But if the template is intangible, isn’t it formless?  (Tangible stuff has boundaries.).  Just some thoughts.  In Hinduism. Maya is the realm of form.  It is true that Hindus consider form to be temporary.  At the same time, Hindus consider Maya to be the eternal & endless creative process of the formless Divine – hence, form itself is eternal even though individual forms come and go.  (Specifically, maya is caused by the “great measurement of consciousness” – which is Shakti.)  Well, anyways, now I must go.  The dogs are insisting on their morning walk.  Peace. ~ love, Chris

 

 

 

ETERNAL FORM

MOON LADY

MOON LADY

NEW SCHOOL OF FORM
Here are some of the main ideas I want to promote through the New School of Form. The leading idea is that Form is eternal through evolution, that is, the world is eternal. The School of Form is the defender of the aspect of Form and the evolving world. The School is New Age, Western, Theosophical, neo-Christian. It is not fundamentalist and it contests philosophies which are hostile to the self or the world. It is universal in it’s message.
The New School would like to present new or alternative ideas on such standard subjects such as “What is God”, and life after death. Many modern people may not have a very wide range of ideas to choose from. The Old Church presents us with the idea of God as a male being somewhere beyond the world. And imported from the East are confusing and little understood ideas of God as “clear light”, Void, or nothingness. Fortunately there are some alternate ideas offered by new churches and modern philosophies.
A basic principle of the New School is that all philosophy is theory. Yes! Think about it. Philosophy is an evolving science. That is one of the “Three Pragmatic Principles”. All philosophy is theory. All persons who have ever lived are human (no one is God). And, there is no such thing as enlightenment (in the sense of a perfect person). Sometimes I may sound like an agnostic and at other times I may sound wildly mythological. Perhaps I’ll leave it to the reader to decide when I’m completely serious and when I’m not.
The purpose of this Introduction is to make some comparisons and contrasts with other philosophies, and to get the reader to think about the varieties of ideas that are available, and to give an idea where the School of Form takes a stand.