The trinity - how do you interpeted it

[Nungali]

16 hours ago, Apotheose said:

Yes, I’m familiar with Sophia. It’s not that strong of an overall attribute of Christianity but Its symbolism as the Feminine is indubitable. But in my previous comment I just wanted to point out that the Feminine is generally overlooked.

 

I genuinely found your experience with the Divine Feminine very interesting; I’m sure it was something incredible to experience. My time to entangle that much with the Feminine has not come yet, but I’ve had akin experiences. I remember once having inspirations of what maternal Love was like. The Feminine Love is different from everything; it is sheer abrogation and admiration. Contemplating the symbol of the pelican feeding its offsprings with her own flesh is something that sometimes moves me to tears. The Feminine is truly fascinating; it is a misfortune that contemporary societies do not comprehend it that much. Man is given the gift of awareness and still does not stop and have a look at the deepness of a woman’s eyes, it’s a shame. There’s so much inside those eyes. And it’s also a shame that the ‘purely-religious’ path seems to not be something that can provide that level of awareness and appreciation for their followers.

 

What is  also a great shame is the way just about any related 'feminine' energy has been / is trashed in the modern world  , eg.   nature , the 'Soul'   ( I used to have a list , sorta glad its gone from my head now )

 

 

'Jewel' of the 18th  / 5th degree -   'Rosicrucian' .

 

 

And, regarding your experience, and also Lustration, I’d like to hear your opinion about something. Considering that ancient Lustration rites involved sacrifices, I’d like to know what do you think of sacrifices in general (thanksgiving, offerings, lustration etc.) from an esoteric standpoint. Do they have indeed a practical meaning in mysticism or are they just that meaningful within the ‘intellect’s bounds?

 

I am not sure what is meaningful  or even existent  outside of  the 'intellects bounds ' .   

 

I would say there  should not be any sacrifice associated with lustration .  As far as the old notion of sacrifice goes ( eg. as in the OT )  IMO that should not  be anywhere .  A major reformation on that seemed to have happened around  the early Bronze Age  with both  Zoroaster and  Miwoche  ( ' The Central Asian Buddha - a long time before 'THE' Buddha  )  making reforms and banning animal sacrifices and substituting with 'offerings'   ( Zoroaster's reformation spread west from Central Asia to Iran area  and Miwoche's  east into Tibetan area ) .

 

[ I also see a difference in a 'sharing ritual'  * and do not see that as a 'sacrifice' . 

* eg what a hunter might do as a ritual act of  thanks  or ceremony  or the difference between ;  if you are going to slaughter a steer for the village's food , one may as well do it with 'religious appreciation'  ceremony , which may look just like a blood sacrifice . I see that as very different , for example,  to doing a ritual to get something or want something and then sacrificing an animal's life force and blood to that end . ]

 

However I see 'thanks giving'  and offerings as not just acceptable but one of the main central  worthwhile practices  that these teachings taught  ( that is,  ' some ' of the core principles in both Zoroaster's  and Miwoche's  system seem to have come from the same roots ) .  It should be connected with a sincere feeling of gratitude and be a natural expression of that .  In a way , it 'comes from earth '  and is offered 'up'  (one reason why incense is popular for this , it 'naturally rises'  and perfumes the air ( 'air' being related to spirit as well  - see 'pnumea'  Gk. ) . This is one of those practices I have observed to be helpful and healthy for the psyche .

 

I see lustration as different .  An offering is offered 'up' as  thanks  and appreciation and gratitude   and the other side of the 'cycle' is lustration, a blessing or 'grace descending from above ' . Hence the symbol of water pouring 'down' .

 

Regarding the ‘principles’ you mentioned being personified, I often conclude that it might have occured due to Man wanting to outsource his responsibility as a Creator to external Beings/Gods. That much likely did not follow a chronological line - as most primitive religions of early Homo sapiens believed in the separation between Man and that which they comprehended as God -, but perhaps at a given moment Man got aware of his/her divine abilities and resigned them. Maybe it’s because it’s too much of a responsibility? Interesting to meditate about!

 

Probably  .  I think its also part of human nature to make things like us in order to relate to or understand them . I even do it with inanimate objects      (  Aboriginal friends found that hilarious , they might do that with 'inanimate'  natural objects  but  where totally amused when I had a little conversation with a chainsaw that would not work for them  .....   but after 'our' little talk , it worked first go I pulled the starter   .... and they where WTF !     )

 

 

 

The fact is - as you stated - human faculties were personified as Gods, and that might be one of the causes of Man unconsciously being a slave of the ups and downs of Duality. What had been truly a mental dynamic later became Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, Christ and Satan and much others. And hence Man resigned his/her responsibility to having both of them inside their minds.

 

Well , I am still a bit in 'both Camps' here ; we could even term those polarities of 'deity'  ;  Superconscious  and Id  - and poor old us is in the middle stuck with Ego    

( - there is another 'trinity'   ) . 

 

However, for me, that does not rule out the other possibility that there are 'realities beyond my mind ' . And further, in some way I dont comprehend , both positions seem  possible at once , or an 'interaction' . For me ( and the path  I follow ) the 'Hierarchy of Beings '  concept seems to offer a solution

 

The analogy with forces in the psyche seems affirmed by the Avestan term 'Mainyu' . It is clearly stated that in the old texts it 'used to mean mind ' , then they go on about this and that and what it could mean  in relation to later redactions ... IMO thats trying to hammer it into a different hole  .... it already fit well , as a model, into the human psyche .  Thats why I think a lot of this interesting teaching was lost  in later times , in a simpler deified redaction. Early human life , and even philosophy,  was often a lot more developed and advanced than we give credit to .

 

 

The time devil tempted Jesus is, in my view, not a story, but a ‘lesson’ about the principles you referred to.

 

" ...  The world progresses by virtue of the appearance of Christs (geniuses).

 Christs (geniuses) are men with super-consciousness of the highest order.

 Super-consciousnes of the highest order is obtainable by known methods.

Therefore, by employing the quintessence of known methods we cause the world to progress..... Super-consciousness is a natural phenomenon; its conditions are therefore to be sought rather in the acts than the words of those who attain it.

The essential acts are retirement and concentration . "

 

Edited January 25 by Nungali

[Apotheose]

21 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

If youd like to, id love to hear more about this. I lack the knowledge of these various spiritual traditions, but much of what you say here ressonates with me

 

I’m glad it resonated with you, my friend.

Well, in my perspective, Jesus being tempted by the devil right after being baptized may signify the process of purification. When the Light ‘comes to stay’ in one’s consciousness, a process of internal purification begins, because now the individual takes part in the Ultimate Journey to become more and more pure in God’s Essence. To be honest, this process of purification is inevitable, because the Light automatically impels the gradual change of one’s desires, thoughts, acts etc. That’s why one needs to search for a secure path of enlightenment that provides a gradual methodology of progressing in the Light. Because it is normal that after the so called “awakening”, some probations and trials occur in one’s mind, because they mean that the ‘veils of ignorance’ are being taken off of one’s ‘eyes’. That’s basically the same meaning of my intro post - that you seem to have liked - since the process of ‘becoming a child again’ is the process of ‘forgetting’ the nonsenses we learned; and that process can be - at a few particular times - painful and challenging, since one is resigning some deep mental beliefs who became a part of the personality. So, Jesus became Christ in the baptism and now some of his natural human feelings are being purged, and his character is being cleansed by the Father. And the fact that in Matthew 4:1 it is said that Jesus follows the [Holy] Spirit to the desert to be tempted implies that it was something guided by The Father and a necessary step in his Path.

 

I mentioned that this was not a story but a ‘lesson’ because I personally see this part of the Holy Bible as being a metaphor, not something that literally happened. Fasting for 40 days could be interpreted as one of those trials I mentioned. And, most important, the devil tempting Jesus can be interpreted as Doubt. It is a clever metaphor. Jesus Christ doubting himself and The Father is clearly a natural and normal symptom of the process of purification. Feeling Doubt is an emotional hint that The Father wants the Son to get rid of Doubt, because there’s no doubt in the Logos, in the Word, in the Truth. So, basically, the devil can be interpreted as Jesus overcoming doubt/fear/other human emotions. And not just Jesus, but every human being have heaven and hell inside their minds. They are, in my view, states of consciousness; heaven being e.g. the trust in God’s will, and hell/devil being any kind of fear based emotion etc.

[Apotheose]

On 25/01/2024 at 6:24 PM, Nungali said:

 

I was not aware of that reformation from Zoroaster and Miwoche. Very interesting.

 

I think we are on the same page regarding sacrifices. For me, offerings and thanksgiving rituals that include beautiful flowers, food that smells good, and fragrant aroma like incense (I knew you would mention the incense ) are a good way of expressing gratitude to the Creator. Personally, I’m more familiar with thanking through prayer, but I would definitely feel great to participate in these beautiful rituals.

 

On the other hand, those sacrifices which were done in the Old Testament, for example, are something of which I’ve never managed to truly understand the logic behind. Like those described in Leviticus 9. Some cultured people explain that humanity, in that era, thought that “giving back” the spirit of an animal to the Creator would be a form of expressing gratitude. Others explain that blood - per se - attracted the Divine Providence. For me neither of them make any sense whatsoever. I guess it’s because we are in different times, with different minds, with different interpretations of the Divine? I honestly have no clue... If you happen to know if there are more explanations regarding the logic behind those sacrifices, I’d love to know.

 

I remember once reading a christian text that presented the idea that sacrifices were common in the past because people were more brutal. And after Christ they replaced sacrifices with Love.

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

@Apoostrophe are you familiar with (the reconstructed) proto-indo-european creation myth?

 

from wiki:

 

Cosmic sacrifice

The first man Manu and his giant twin Yemo are crossing the cosmos, accompanied by a primordial cow. To create the world, Manu sacrifices his brother and, with the help of heavenly deities (the Sky-Father, the Storm-Godand the Divine Twins),[4][13] forges both the natural elements and human beings from his twin's remains.[14][5]

Manu thus becomes the first priest after initiating sacrifice as the primordial condition for the world order. His deceased brother Yemo turns into the first king as social classes emerge from his anatomy (priesthood from his head, the warrior class from his breast and arms, and the commoners from his sexual organs and legs).[14]

 

and then i add the old norse creation myth, just because i am a little etnocentric and i find it beautifull:

 

(English bottom right)

Edited January 26 by NaturaNaturans

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Apotheose said:

I was not aware of that reformation from Zoroaster and Miwoche. Very interesting.

 

I have longer posts about it on the forum elsewhere .  One of my aims was to track the 'good teachings' in religious practice , the practical ones that give personal and social benefit  and separate them from the complex , scriptural , redactive , political and complex elements that seem to surround and in some cases suffocate them .  ( Making offerings of appreciation was one example of that. )  Tracking 'western religions' backwards we get to Zoroastrianism and eastern religions we get Miwoche influencing Bon in Tibet  and spreading out through  empires in that area ,  and the 'Vedantic tribes moving into India, one of the major streams that make up 'Hinduism'   - all originated from Central Asia .... which hides some interesting secrets  in the past , including a lost civilisation on par with the worlds first founding four - that the west didnt know about until the 1960s !

 

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/central-asias-lost-civilization

 

I think we are on the same page regarding sacrifices. For me, offerings and thanksgiving rituals that include beautiful flowers, food that smells good, and fragrant aroma like incense (I knew you would mention the incense ) are a good way of expressing gratitude to the Creator. Personally, I’m more familiar with thanking through prayer, but I would definitely feel great to participate in these beautiful rituals.

 

'Thankful prayer is much the same , and  easier to do spontaneously or in any moment .  My indigenous teacher taught me to " Always say bugglebbear ."  -  means basically 'thank you'  , every time you feel connected,  looked after , in wonder, learnt something, had a good ( or for the more advanced   ... any  )  experience in nature , or even just for being alive .

 

On the other hand, those sacrifices which were done in the Old Testament, for example, are something of which I’ve never managed to truly understand the logic behind. Like those described in Leviticus 9. Some cultured people explain that humanity, in that era, thought that “giving back” the spirit of an animal to the Creator would be a form of expressing gratitude. Others explain that blood - per se - attracted the Divine Providence. For me neither of them make any sense whatsoever. I guess it’s because we are in different times, with different minds, with different interpretations of the Divine? I honestly have no clue... If you happen to know if there are more explanations regarding the logic behind those sacrifices, I’d love to know.

 

From my perspective,  ( historical, anthropological,  hermetic and magical )  if we cut the 'cultural excuses'  out  and I look at it from just the ritual ;  shudder .

 

First you kill the animal and fling its blood about in the 'temple of the Lord '  ( !  )  make sure some goes on the sacred posts . Apparently 'The Lord' likes this . He also likes some fat from around the organs , especially the kidneys , burnt on the altar , he likes the 'incense' apparently .  Then you might do a botched copied Egyptian ritual like offering a forequarters of  a calf in 'wave offering ' - dont cross the line ... you will get fried !  Just kneel there and wave the bloody meat back and forward .   Dont  get the ritual wrong or do anything wrong  ... or even grumble  ! 

 

" How long will this wicked community grumble against me? I have heard the complaints of these grumbling Israelites.

... In this wilderness your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me."  (Num. 14 ; 27 , 29 ) 

 

( They just wanted to know why , if their Lord was going to make them die , why could not they  stay  in Egypt and die there, eating lamb and drinking beer , instead of leaving Egypt, never finding the promised land and dying in the wilderness .  I guess that made the Lord extra angry? )

 

5 hours ago, Apotheose said:

 

 

 

if I was asked  what to attribute this 'God' to , it seems more like some local tribal fierce  war like  deity under influence of a very negative aspect of Saturn /Mars .

 

Thats what the history of the western concept of God was based on and evolved out of .

 

 

I remember once reading a christian text that presented the idea that sacrifices were common in the past because people were more brutal. And after Christ they replaced sacrifices with Love.

 

Possibly but that  then negates the God of  ' the  more brutal past'  as it suggests the people made up the rituals and then,  back ascribed them to God . Or we assume that in the past God was more brutal and 'changed his mind'  ? 

 

IMO Christ probably looked around and said ;  " JESUS!    (  )   Things are brutal and fucked up around here . I am gonna start preaching something to address this mess ... somehow  .  " 

 

   I am not sure if that worked ?

 

[manitou]

On 1/22/2024 at 7:46 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

Is it heretical for me to interpet the Son, not only as Christ, but as humanity?

 

 

I've never really seen the utility of clumping the whole god thing into a group of three.  And I don't really see the utility of separating god into religions.  As I see it, it's all the same thing.  The thing that is phenomenal to me is that, regardless of where in the world we're born, we all have a voice inside us that pushes us to understand something greater than ourselves.  I don't think it matters whether you're standing in front of a statue of Buddha or Jesus - it's all the same thing.  There is something inside us that wishes for betterment, and that voice will be with us throughout our lives.

I've come to understand that everything, everything is god. Or Dao.  Spirituality is present everywhere, and is represented always by truth, love, cleanliness, clarity.  WE....us....we are a very important part of that One Spirit.  We are the thinking part.  The voice inside us prods us to understand, to perceive, to express.  It seems to me that this is the tip of the spear, at this time in this dimension, and we are the thinking and talking Creator.

  It lives within us, within our DNA; the brains for the whole enchilada.  'It' doesn't live up in the sky anywhere, no place outside of ourselves.  God is the brilliance within our DNA that forever reaches toward the light, then reverts back to itself.  We must revert to the core.

   There is no authority on this.  We're all a tiny piece of it.  We, communally, are the Creator.  And there is no place for Good or Bad. 

Is-ness is the result.  So in relation to the above question about whether it's heretical to interpret humanity as Christ, I personally think it's not heretical at all....I think it's the way it is.  We Are God.

[Apotheose]

On 26/01/2024 at 8:46 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

are you familiar with (the reconstructed) proto-indo-european creation myth?

..

Edited February 8 by Apotheose

[Mark Foote]

On 1/23/2024 at 7:13 AM, Eduardo said:

 

The trinity as a Christian concept has its origin in Tertullian, previously concepts such as the Son, Divine Wisdom (Sophia), were understood very closely to the emanations of the Gnostics.
Tertullian is the first to use the Latin word "trinitas." Regarding the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, he tells us:
The unity in the trinity arranges the three, addressing the father and the son and the spirit, but the three have no difference in state or degree, neither in substance nor in form, nor in power nor in kind, since they are of one same substance, and of one degree and one power.
 

Tertullian originated new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. He is perhaps most famous for being the first writer in Latin known to use the term trinity (Latin: trinitas). However, some of his teachings, such as the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, were later rejected by the Church. He later apostasized and joined the Montanist sect.

(Wikipedia, "Tertullian").

 

Montanism held views about the basic tenets of Christian theology similar to those of the wider Christian Church, but it was labelled a heresy for its belief in new prophetic figures. The prophetic movement called for a reliance on the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit and a more conservative personal ethic.

 

(Wikipedia, "Montanism")

 

 

[SirPalomides]

To say Tertullian “apostasized” to Montanism is probably anachronistic. Orthodoxy was still coalescing and ecclesial lines stayed blurry even after Constantine. 
 

It does seem Tertullian is the only Latin father to have really influenced later Greek theology (Augustine, by comparison, was pretty much unknown in the East).

[Taomeow]

Edited February 1 by Taomeow

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

On 29.1.2024 at 11:21 PM, Apotheose said:

Not so familiar, thanks for sharing.

 

I find it interesting that very distinct traditions share common myths and beliefs. Like the Great Flood, the sacrifices etc. Very intriguing.

One of the things I find intriguing about myths and religions, are how unbelivably old they are, and have been passed down for thouasands of thouasands of years. Homer recorded his epics in what, 900 bc? Yet versions of Oedipus can be found as far as way as the americas… i love old stuff  

[idiot_stimpy]

The father the unknowable source.

 

The Son the intelligence of the source that shines forth.

 

The Holy Spirit the perceivable display from the Son. 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

I have not read the avestas, but how interresting is this, when you compare it to the first paragraph of John:

 

51 (108). Then he shall speak unto Spenta Ârmaiti 1, saying: ‘O Spenta Ârmaiti, this man do I deliver unto thee; this man deliver thou back unto me, against the mighty day of resurrection; deliver him back as one who knows the Gâthas, who

p. 199

knows the Yasna, and the revealed law 1, a wise and clever man, who is the Word incarnate.

 

@Nungali Might be able to provide some context?

[Nungali]

Not really, not with John 1 : 1 - 5  , if that is what you meant  as the first paragraph  ?

 

I relate the quote above more to  John's general message  relating to a savior to come , and the Jewish concept of messiah , seem to correlate to Zoroastrian Saoshyant  concept  .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant