Tuesday, 20 February 2018

Belief in God is a Moral Matter

The world has gone mad over the last four or five decades but, because it has happened bit by bit, relatively few have noticed. You might say there was always been an element of madness about humanity but at least the West, under the influence of Christianity,  attempted to move in the right direction most of the time. Now, however, many people believe things unquestioningly that not a few generations ago only a small minority of people were promoting, and they weren't visionaries but, for the most part, troublemakers and egotists, heirs to Rousseau and Marx and other rebels against truth.  But we have gradually abandoned common sense and our natural instincts, and allowed ourselves to be dragooned into a world of lies and deceit. This is what happens when God is chased from the world.

Please continue reading on Albion Awakening.

Sunday, 18 February 2018

God and Nothing

This is an extract from a book due to come out later this year but it includes bits left out of the book mainly because they over-complicated the principal point of the relevant chapter. Which I hope they don't do here.

God nowadays is often described as transcending any idea of sexual distinction. Either above masculine and feminine or else including both within himself. And if we are positing an abstract Supreme Principle, unmanifest spirit in its pure 'isness', that would no doubt be correct. But if we are talking about the Creator, the one who created the universe, who created our souls and made us individual beings, the one who Jesus Christ called Father and with whom we can have a relationship, then we might have to reconsider that idea. Naturally the fact he is Father does not mean he doesn't contain all qualities within himself but still as the Creator he is Father, and Creation results from the projection of an unexpressed feminine side of the divine being. So God is not biologically male but, as a Person, he is masculine and all souls are feminine to him which is demonstrated by the fact that souls can only become spiritually alive through receiving spiritual impregnation from him, otherwise known as grace.

Is reality ultimately personal or impersonal? If the latter, as with the god of the philosophers, it is difficult to see how the former could ever have arisen or how love, beauty and goodness could have the meaning they do. Ultimately they would be swallowed up, being just pointers to absolute oneness. And if they don’t have any ultimate meaning then they don’t have true meaning at all. However if reality is personal, as the Judeo-Christian revelation maintains, then life is actually alive and love is real and goodness is truth. I would say that the personal is not a lower, more relative, manifestation of the impersonal absolute but the very heart and point of existence. So the personal is not a limited or bound aspect of the impersonal but the impersonal is a non-manifested aspect of the personal, and it is the personal that is true ultimate reality. The foundation of the universe is not pure being but I AM.

And here perhaps we have the clue to the whole mystery.  God in the absolute sense prior to creation is I AM, therefore transcending duality. But when he manifests himself in creation as the Creator that becomes the masculine polarity and creation is feminine to him. Thus from pure Subject comes Subject and Object, and I believe this gives us an insight into the heart of the origin of the masculine/feminine polarity and a pointer as to what it really means.

For here as Subject and Object we have the two cosmic principles in their most undifferentiated forms. Now, in the context of creation all human beings contain both principles within them so this is not a description of men and women. Reality is much subtler than that. Nevertheless it does point to an archetypal truth about the two sexes and is a guide as to the fundamental dynamics of the relationship between them.

And so from the standpoint of Creator and creation we see that God is masculine before he is feminine even though divine reality includes and contains both. Numerically this can be represented as 2 (female) coming from 1 (male) and then from these arise ‘the ten thousand things’ as creation is called in Taoism. But I should briefly mention a metaphysical speculation that the Mother is not just universal Nature, the ground of matter, space and time in which all things are born, the mirror which enables God to see himself. She is also the emptiness beyond being from whence God himself arises, the 0 before 1. Where this theory falls down is that God does not arise from anywhere. He eternally is. For there is no 0 before 1 except from the point of view of creation, of form, time and space. But the Absolute is not 0. What is more there is no beyond being. There is a state beyond becoming but that is a different matter (no pun intended). Something (God) does not come from nothing (emptiness or zero) even though we may have to resort to an apophatic type language to describe God’s essence, the what of his being. But the one eternally is, existing at the deepest level of being. This theory also conflicts with the idea of the fundamental Personhood of God, his who, which is base level reality. For the Mother is the Mother of the Son not the Father, and the darkness of her womb is that of the prima materia before it is touched by the spirit of God and bursts into the light of Creation. 

0 can only refer to the 'time' before the creation of matter; in Christian terms the 'nothing' from which God created (which was actually out of himself I would say). It does not refer to God himself who is now and always the One. In spiritual terms there is no such thing as zero.

Thursday, 15 February 2018

The Divine Androgyne

I received the following interesting question in a comment on the Same Sex Marriage post. (See here.) It strikes me as worth exploring in rather more detail than a comment at the end of a thread allows so I include my response with the question that prompted it here.

Q. Rabbinical literature contains a belief that Adam was first an androgyne made in God's image. Only later when God realised that Adam was lonely, did he split Adam in two; the 'rib' was in fact the female half of the androgyne Adam.

The phrase used to describe woman’s creation from man’s rib – mi-tzalotav – actually means an entire side of his body because the word “tsela`” in it is used in the book of Exodus to refer to one side of the holy Tabernacle.

Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 5:2 reads,

"a male and a female He hath prepared them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man [or Adam - the word for the forename, and human being are the same] in the day of their being prepared."

If the first human was originally androgyne, and made in God's image, then God contains both male and female. That which was created first, is surely a higher expression of creation, nearer to God the creator, and something human beings are attempting to regain. Part of that might be the loss of separate maleness and femaleness in the post-mortal state - a return to the divine androgyne spiritually.

Young's Literal Translation of Matthew 22:30 says,

"for in the rising again they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven."

There seems to be no need for sex in heaven.

Might it not be that homosexuals contain both male and female qualities within the one body, and that they may be spiritually advanced? This is not to say that therefore gay marriage is correct. It may be possible that gay people are ignoring their advanced spiritual natures when they turn to other gay people for sexual expression, and that their true role is to use their combined male/female soul (or even spirit) to teach others the way back to God.

In native American culture, there is the concept of the two-spirits people. These are individuals who we would recognise as gay. The two spirits refers to the belief that these people have a male and a female spirit within, and they often have a special spiritual role within the tribe, that we would call priest.

Perhaps the native American people are recognising what rabbinical literature recognises, and that I have outlined?

A. I have heard this theory before and can see the attraction of it.  There’s a similar story in Plato, though it’s not meant to be taken literally there. However it has several problems for me. If homosexuality reflected some state of divine perfection, as in the archetypal androgynous being, we would expect the majority of gay people to be strongly spiritual, and, though certainly some homosexuals are drawn to spirituality, that isn't the case for most.  We would also expect the divine ideal as manifested in Jesus to be like that, and there is no indication that he was. He may have had certain traditionally feminine characteristics, gentleness, compassion and such like, but these were spiritually expressed not physically or emotionally, and they were within the overall context of strong masculinity.  It's the same with all highly advanced spiritual people, saints and mystics.  They are not androgynous, which if this theory were correct they would be. They are definitely male or female.

To me homosexuality is best explained by the theory of reincarnation, though there may be psychological reasons in many cases as well. But I believe all souls are male or female, created in pairs, and if a feminine soul is born in a male body for whatever reason, karma, lessons to be learned etc, homosexuality may be the result. But this does not make them prototypes of androgyny nor does it legitimise the physical expression of homosexuality. The lesson might be to turn away from sexuality not embrace or explore it, just the opposite to what is happening nowadays. You suggest that yourself.

I see the divine androgyne theory as relating to uncreated spirit but not to the world of creation. It is a symbol expressing an inner spiritual truth in an outer materialised form. God created the two sexes so that love, one being fulfilled by the other, could be known and expressed. He contains everything within himself, of course, though as Creator He is masculine with the whole of creation as His Bride. That may even be a reason for him creating. Outwardly projecting a feminine, receptive side in order to get a wife!

So the two sexes can complete each other in love. That could not possibly be the case with two androgynous beings who would not need this completion and so could not know this love. It’s clear that marriage and sex only make sense in the context of two sexes. A true androgyne, by definition, would have no need of either. They would be meaningless, and so the love and creativity they provide could not be experienced.

So basically androgyny relates to inner consciousness not the expression of a being in form. Spirit not soul. It’s a confusion of levels to think it applies to created beings in their outer expression. We are spirit, soul and body. Spirit, which is our being, may well be androgynous. Soul and body which is our individuality and its outer expression have sexual qualities being either male or female, not both except when things have gone amiss which in a fallen world is always possible.

I believe that some people are born homosexual to push them into spirituality. That is why you find quite a few homosexuals at early and intermediate stages of developing spiritual awareness, but not so many at the latter stages in which all aspects of one's inner being have been brought into balance.

And from personal experience I can confirm that the beings I spoke to were all male except on one memorable occasion when the person who spoke was definitely female, even though this was through a male medium. These beings were fully developed spiritually but they were still men and women or the spiritual equivalents thereof.

So I have to say that I believe homosexuality to be the result of living in a fallen world and not an indicator of future evolutionary attainment. That is why it plays out primarily on a sexual level. If it indicated an advanced spiritual state, homosexuals would be completely self-sufficient sexually and not require any outer completion. But that is clearly not the case.

If you are born homosexual by all means seek a companion but know that love should be pure which means, hard as it may sound, its physical expression should be limited to male and female and the creation of a family. It should, at least, have this potential to be in line with spiritual truth and God’s will for humanity.

To sum up, my feeling is that you should not project spiritual realities pertaining to the uncreated world onto the material plane of creation, which is one of the interaction between polarities. And even on the inner spiritual planes the same rules apply as long as you are talking about conditions in which any kind of expressed duality exists. 

A final point. You say human beings are attempting to regain the androgynous state, but surely the reason for creation was to introduce multiplicity into oneness so that love and beauty and goodness could all be positively expressed? To go back to a pre-creation state of oneness on all levels (though there could be no levels in such a state, of course) takes away the whole point and purpose of creation. We have to see the androgyne as a symbol of undifferentiated spiritual being and not an actually real thing once creation has occurred. Nor is it a suitable symbol for the end point. For the end is like the beginning in some respects, in that oneness is realized, but not like it in others in that differentiation is preserved. That’s why creation and evolution make things better than they were in the uncreated or pre-creation state. We are not aiming to go back to what we were but to advance to something new and higher. There is a purpose to creation, and that is to bring difference into undifferentiated being. Yes, we return to  inner oneness but a oneness which is expressed in multiple ways, through countless individual beings who manifest either masculinity or femininity (as even the Sun and the Moon do) which, in a universe based on polarity, they must. The androgynous state only exists in terms of unmanifested being, but in that state no actual qualities are expressed at all.