(Essay) A Phenomenology of Mechanism: The Esoteric Spaces of Evolution

[AshvinP]

PS. With reference to the lecture on the Mystery of Golgotha - doesn’t Steiner suggest that the meaning of Christ’s words on the cross was not “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”?

There are many, many layers of meaningful depth in scripture, especially the NT. They are not mutually exclusive to each other, but concentric to one another, just as our own current thinking consciousness is concentric to the higher Centers of consciousness. In general, once we become livingly aware of our soul-spiritual nature, we will at times feel like it is forsaking our physical nature. Which is not necessarily a bad thing overall, but a stark reality we must confront nonetheless.

Unless you are saying Steiner disagrees with the translation entirely? I hadn't heard that before.

Yes, I understand he disagrees. In this case the meanings do seem mutually exclusive, it’s in the lecture:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/MG1442_index.html

…words which are rendered as follows in the Hebrew language: “Eli, Eli, lama sabathani.” The pupil of the Mysteries woke up with the words: “My God, My God, how thou hast raised me!”

In the very last lines, it’s reinstated that a slight modification in the Hebrew language (language I don’t have any clue on) made for the switch from 'raised' to 'forsaken', the two expressions being apparently very close to each other in Hebrew:

To all who know something of the Mystery-truths, these words must have revealed that a Mystery had been enacted. A small correction in the Hebrew text therefore gave rise to the words contained in the Gospel: “Eli, Eli, lama sabathani!” “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!”

How did you interpret that? I have now googled it and this review has come up, a coverage of all the places where Steiner mentions these Hebrew words. It seems it really was his opinion:

https://anthroposophy.eu/Eli_Eli_Lama_S ... ani_-_EELS

Do you think it is unreliable?

This is accurate, from what I understand. Steiner is not saying the Gospels got it wrong, but that they are presenting the older Mystery teaching from new angles which had now evolved. The angles which allow for more precise understanding, via Ego-consciousness, of what is taking place between the gradient of Earthly to Cosmic consciousness. Consider this lecture:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA123/En ... 12p02.html

Let us now picture the writer of the Matthew Gospel turning his gaze to the dying Jesus on the Cross. His gaze had always been directed to the aspect most important to him, to what he had taken as his starting-point. At the Crucifixion the spiritual forsakes the physical body and therewith also the divine forces that had been taken over into it. The writer of the Matthew Gospel directs his gaze to the separation of the inner nature of Christ Jesus from this divine element in His physical constitution. The words that always rang out in the ancient Mysteries when the spiritual nature of a man emerged from the physical body in order to have vision in the spiritual world, were these: ‘My God, my God, how thou hast glorified me!’ — The writer of the Matthew Gospel, with his attention fixed on the physical body, changes these words to: ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!’ Thou has gone from me, hast abandoned me (XXVII, 46). — The chief attention of the writer of the Matthew Gospel has been fixed upon this aspect.

The writer of the Mark Gospel describes the coming of the outer forces and powers of the Sun Aura, ho the Sun Aura, the body of the Sun Being, unites with the etheric body. The etheric body was in the same situation as our etheric body is during sleep. As in our own case the outer forces pass out with us when we sleep, so did they at the physical death of Jesus. Hence the same words are found in the Gospel of Mark (XV, 34).

The writer of the Luke Gospel also directs his attention at the death of Christ Jesus to what was his concern at the beginning: the astral body and the Ego-bearing principle. Hence the words he uses are different. His chief attention is directed to the astral body in which at this moment compassion and mercy and love reach their greatest intensity. Hence the words: ‘Father forgive them; for they know not what they do’ (XXIII, 34). These words of love that could issue only from the astral body to which the writer of the Luke Gospel has been pointing from the beginning. And it is upon these qualities of humility and resignation to God's will which have here reached their greatest intensity and issue from the astral body, that Luke directs his gaze at the end. Hence the words in the Gospel: ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’ (XXIII, 46).

The John Gospel describes what must be fulfilled by man in Earth-existence: the ordering of existence according to the Sun Word. Hence his gaze is directed mainly to the ordering of life as proclaimed fro the Cross of Golgotha. He describes how in this hour Christ institutes a brotherhood of a higher kind than that based on blood-kinship. Brotherhood in its earlier forms arose from ties of blood. Mary was the mother of the child through blood-relationship. But soul united with soul in love — that is what was instituted through Christ Jesus. To the disciple whom He loved He gives, not the one who was the mother by blood, but He gives him the one who is his true mother in the spirit. And so the words resound from the Cross with their new meaning: ‘Behold thy son!’ — ‘`Behold thy mother!’ (XIX, 26, 27). The principle inherent in the life-ether by which the ordering of life is determined and community of a new kind established — that is what streamed into the Earth through Christ's Deed.

There is one supreme reality, the reality of Christ Himself behind everything the Evangelists describe. But each of them writes from the viewpoint he adopted at the beginning. Each had necessarily to direct his seership to what his particular preparation enabled him to understand; and the rest passed him by.

[AshvinP]

How did you interpret that? I have now googled it and this review has come up, a coverage of all the places where Steiner mentions these Hebrew words. It seems it really was his opinion:

https://anthroposophy.eu/Eli_Eli_Lama_S ... ani_-_EELS

Do you think it is unreliable?

I just visited this link. It is an interesting discussion.

I wouldn't rely on any of Blavatsky's characterizations. Steiner discusses at some length how she, along with the entire Theosophical movement, had been drawn away from the Christ impulse in later years, which was the chief reason for him departing and starting Anthroposophy and SS. To accuse the Gospels writers and/or Church fathers of "falsification" is in keeping with that, and it doesn't hold together with everything else we know about the disciples, the early Church, and their mission.

Steiner never mentions falsification, but says the following:

There is a later translation which is wrong, taking up the lines from the psalm.114 But the proper translation of the words is the one you have now heard. Those are the words that express the Mystery of Golgotha: 'My God, my God, how greatly you have glorified me, made me spiritual.'

These words reveal to us how the spirit wrests itself free of the body. The Mystery of the Son reveals to us how at that time, the inner visionary eye of the world's redeemer looked ahead to the end of the earth's perfecting and put the great goal of humanity in words, speaking of overcoming all differences and the founding of utter human love.

But then if we compare that to the lecture on Matthew's gospel, it seems that he feels it is "wrong" in so far as it is only one perspective on the saying which Matthew and Mark chose to emphasize, given their focus on the physical-etheric natures. That makes sense to me. From that perspective, there is indeed a forsaking which initially occurs while we remain with discontinuity of consciousness. On the other hand, it is precisely the Christ impulse instituted on the Cross which allows for that discontinuity to spiral together through higher consciousness and therefore spiritualize the physical-etheric over time. So, overall, I think they are both valid layers of meaning, yet from the more holistic spiritual perspective, we must say the esoteric understanding of "how hast thou glorified me" is a fuller expression of its significance. That seems to be more in keeping with what Christ Jesus would have experienced given his perfected nature.

As mentioned before, simply from my own initial experience, the 'forsaking' of the physical by the higher nature is a reality for me with my current polarized consciousness. It begins to feel like a millstone or albatross around the neck, at times. A densified slag that I am carrying around and which, despite my meager attempts to spiritualize it, is always lagging behind and refusing to cooperate fully. Of course the cause for this situation should always be located in my own actions, in this lifetime or past ones. Whatever physical constraints we have on our spiritual activity cannot be logically or ethically attributed to God/Reality as such, although the temptation to do so is very strong and is the underlying reason for the atheism, mysticism, cynicism, nihilism which pervades the modern world. We ourselves have chained our being to the dense physical over and over again out of lower sensuous and intellectual egoism, so we must always keep this in mind on our spiritual path.

[Federica]

How did you interpret that? I have now googled it and this review has come up, a coverage of all the places where Steiner mentions these Hebrew words. It seems it really was his opinion:

https://anthroposophy.eu/Eli_Eli_Lama_S ... ani_-_EELS

Do you think it is unreliable?

I just visited this link. It is an interesting discussion.

I wouldn't rely on any of Blavatsky's characterizations. Steiner discusses at some length how she, along with the entire Theosophical movement, had been drawn away from the Christ impulse in later years, which was the chief reason for him departing and starting Anthroposophy and SS. To accuse the Gospels writers and/or Church fathers of "falsification" is in keeping with that, and it doesn't hold together with everything else we know about the disciples, the early Church, and their mission.

Steiner never mentions falsification, but says the following:

There is a later translation which is wrong, taking up the lines from the psalm.114 But the proper translation of the words is the one you have now heard. Those are the words that express the Mystery of Golgotha: 'My God, my God, how greatly you have glorified me, made me spiritual.'

These words reveal to us how the spirit wrests itself free of the body. The Mystery of the Son reveals to us how at that time, the inner visionary eye of the world's redeemer looked ahead to the end of the earth's perfecting and put the great goal of humanity in words, speaking of overcoming all differences and the founding of utter human love.

But then if we compare that to the lecture on Matthew's gospel, it seems that he feels it is "wrong" in so far as it is only one perspective on the saying which Matthew and Mark chose to emphasize, given their focus on the physical-etheric natures. That makes sense to me. From that perspective, there is indeed a forsaking which initially occurs while we remain with discontinuity of consciousness. On the other hand, it is precisely the Christ impulse instituted on the Cross which allows for that discontinuity to spiral together through higher consciousness and therefore spiritualize the physical-etheric over time. So, overall, I think they are both valid layers of meaning, yet from the more holistic spiritual perspective, we must say the esoteric understanding of "how hast thou glorified me" is a fuller expression of its significance. That seems to be more in keeping with what Christ Jesus would have experienced given his perfected nature.

As mentioned before, simply from my own initial experience, the 'forsaking' of the physical by the higher nature is a reality for me with my current polarized consciousness. It begins to feel like a millstone or albatross around the neck, at times. A densified slag that I am carrying around and which, despite my meager attempts to spiritualize it, is always lagging behind and refusing to cooperate fully. Of course the cause for this situation should always be located in my own actions, in this lifetime or past ones. Whatever physical constraints we have on our spiritual activity cannot be logically or ethically attributed to God/Reality as such, although the temptation to do so is very strong and is the underlying reason for the atheism, mysticism, cynicism, nihilism which pervades the modern world. We ourselves have chained our being to the dense physical over and over again out of lower sensuous and intellectual egoism, so we must always keep this in mind on our spiritual path.

Thanks for this clear compendium, Ashvin. It seems like there is no laying outside an impeccable order, once you are finished sliding all the pieces into place. But what a severe look at self in your mention of the forsaking of the physical. What a specific vocabulary. Not judging, of course not, only sympathizing. I am reminded of what’s called a glory in French (gloire). It’s when in a half-cloudy sky, the sun punctures the clouds as colanders, casting down a halo of discrete beams of light. As if the sharpness of glory can disband some of the denseness of forsaking.

[AshvinP]

How did you interpret that? I have now googled it and this review has come up, a coverage of all the places where Steiner mentions these Hebrew words. It seems it really was his opinion:

https://anthroposophy.eu/Eli_Eli_Lama_S ... ani_-_EELS

Do you think it is unreliable?

I just visited this link. It is an interesting discussion.

I wouldn't rely on any of Blavatsky's characterizations. Steiner discusses at some length how she, along with the entire Theosophical movement, had been drawn away from the Christ impulse in later years, which was the chief reason for him departing and starting Anthroposophy and SS. To accuse the Gospels writers and/or Church fathers of "falsification" is in keeping with that, and it doesn't hold together with everything else we know about the disciples, the early Church, and their mission.

Steiner never mentions falsification, but says the following:

There is a later translation which is wrong, taking up the lines from the psalm.114 But the proper translation of the words is the one you have now heard. Those are the words that express the Mystery of Golgotha: 'My God, my God, how greatly you have glorified me, made me spiritual.'

These words reveal to us how the spirit wrests itself free of the body. The Mystery of the Son reveals to us how at that time, the inner visionary eye of the world's redeemer looked ahead to the end of the earth's perfecting and put the great goal of humanity in words, speaking of overcoming all differences and the founding of utter human love.

But then if we compare that to the lecture on Matthew's gospel, it seems that he feels it is "wrong" in so far as it is only one perspective on the saying which Matthew and Mark chose to emphasize, given their focus on the physical-etheric natures. That makes sense to me. From that perspective, there is indeed a forsaking which initially occurs while we remain with discontinuity of consciousness. On the other hand, it is precisely the Christ impulse instituted on the Cross which allows for that discontinuity to spiral together through higher consciousness and therefore spiritualize the physical-etheric over time. So, overall, I think they are both valid layers of meaning, yet from the more holistic spiritual perspective, we must say the esoteric understanding of "how hast thou glorified me" is a fuller expression of its significance. That seems to be more in keeping with what Christ Jesus would have experienced given his perfected nature.

As mentioned before, simply from my own initial experience, the 'forsaking' of the physical by the higher nature is a reality for me with my current polarized consciousness. It begins to feel like a millstone or albatross around the neck, at times. A densified slag that I am carrying around and which, despite my meager attempts to spiritualize it, is always lagging behind and refusing to cooperate fully. Of course the cause for this situation should always be located in my own actions, in this lifetime or past ones. Whatever physical constraints we have on our spiritual activity cannot be logically or ethically attributed to God/Reality as such, although the temptation to do so is very strong and is the underlying reason for the atheism, mysticism, cynicism, nihilism which pervades the modern world. We ourselves have chained our being to the dense physical over and over again out of lower sensuous and intellectual egoism, so we must always keep this in mind on our spiritual path.

Thanks for this clear compendium, Ashvin. It seems like there is no laying outside an impeccable order, once you are finished sliding all the pieces into place. But what a severe look at self in your mention of the forsaking of the physical. What a specific vocabulary. Not judging, of course not, only sympathizing. I am reminded of what’s called a glory in French (gloire). It’s when in a half-cloudy sky, the sun punctures the clouds as colanders, casting down a halo of discrete beams of light. As if the sharpness of glory can disband some of the denseness of forsaking.

It can be severe, for sure, but more than anything else, it's promising. It means this higher consciousness thing is for real, more real than we could possibly suspect beforehand. It's not that the spiritual is making the physical nature worse (actually it's the opposite), but revealing the vulnerabilities which were always there and in ways which provide the deepest inspiration and motivation for inner-outer transformation. Knowledge of the problem is always the first necessary step for fixing the problem.

The Glory is a great symbol!


"And now this spell was snapt: once more
I viewed the ocean green,
And looked far forth, yet little saw
Of what had else been seen—

Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread.

But soon there breathed a wind on me,
Nor sound nor motion made:
Its path was not upon the sea,
In ripple or in shade.

It raised my hair, it fanned my cheek
Like a meadow-gale of spring—
It mingled strangely with my fears,
Yet it felt like a welcoming.
...
"Farewell, farewell! but this I tell
To thee, thou Wedding-Guest!
He prayeth well, who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast.

He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.

The Mariner, whose eye is bright,
Whose beard with age is hoar,
Is gone: and now the Wedding-Guest
Turned from the bridegroom's door.

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man,
He rose the morrow morn."

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

[Lou Gold]

I am reminded of what’s called a glory in French (gloire). It’s when in a half-cloudy sky, the sun punctures the clouds as colanders, casting down a halo of discrete beams of light. As if the sharpness of glory can disband some of the denseness of forsaking.

Please excuse a side comment but I get triggered visually by a name -- it is indeed a "glory in French (gloire)" when the rays come flooding in.



PS: Ashvin, your response to Federica and posting of the Coleridge poem overlapped (synchronously?) with the posting of my image. Glory be!

[Federica]

I am reminded of what’s called a glory in French (gloire). It’s when in a half-cloudy sky, the sun punctures the clouds as colanders, casting down a halo of discrete beams of light. As if the sharpness of glory can disband some of the denseness of forsaking.

Please excuse a side comment but I get triggered visually by a name -- it is indeed a "glory in French (gloire)" when the rays come flooding in.



PS: Ashvin, your response to Federica and posting of the Coleridge poem overlapped (synchronously?) with the posting of my image. Glory be!

Can the word 'glory' in English refer to this light phenomenon as well? If yes, I didn't know that.
Your picture is stunning, however in French this would not be a 'gloire', which has to come from above, and down.

[Lou Gold]

I am reminded of what’s called a glory in French (gloire). It’s when in a half-cloudy sky, the sun punctures the clouds as colanders, casting down a halo of discrete beams of light. As if the sharpness of glory can disband some of the denseness of forsaking.

Please excuse a side comment but I get triggered visually by a name -- it is indeed a "glory in French (gloire)" when the rays come flooding in.



PS: Ashvin, your response to Federica and posting of the Coleridge poem overlapped (synchronously?) with the posting of my image. Glory be!

Can the word 'glory' in English refer to this light phenomenon as well? If yes, I didn't know that.
Your picture is stunning, however in French this would not be a 'gloire', which has to come from above, and down.

Marvelous, Federica. You honed in on my multi-directional bias. I don't think the English "glory" is exclusively from above, although it's probably a common usage, such as in "the glory of God." But there's also a general usage such as in something brightly reflecting the light, for example a category of flowers that open at dawn and are called "Morning Glories."

[Federica]

It can be severe, for sure, but more than anything else, it's promising. It means this higher consciousness thing is for real, more real than we could possibly suspect beforehand. It's not that the spiritual is making the physical nature worse (actually it's the opposite), but revealing the vulnerabilities which were always there and in ways which provide the deepest inspiration and motivation for inner-outer transformation. Knowledge of the problem is always the first necessary step for fixing the problem.

The Glory is a great symbol!


"And now this spell was snapt: once more
I viewed the ocean green,
And looked far forth, yet little saw
Of what had else been seen—

Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread.

But soon there breathed a wind on me,
Nor sound nor motion made:
Its path was not upon the sea,
In ripple or in shade.

It raised my hair, it fanned my cheek
Like a meadow-gale of spring—
It mingled strangely with my fears,
Yet it felt like a welcoming.
...
"Farewell, farewell! but this I tell
To thee, thou Wedding-Guest!
He prayeth well, who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast.

He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.

The Mariner, whose eye is bright,
Whose beard with age is hoar,
Is gone: and now the Wedding-Guest
Turned from the bridegroom's door.

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man,
He rose the morrow morn."

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

"Knowledge of the problem is always the first necessary step for fixing the problem." Yes, one wants to know. Then the question is if one still wants to know once the difficulties start materializing. Let's see. In my case, I'm only just getting started and it's already being somewhat difficult : ) Hopefully the ancient mariner can inspire some courage : )
As I have just learnt, there is an albatross in the other part of the poem, flying, guiding the ship, then getting killed. With the poet, the albatros is to be loved well too “for the dear God who loveth us, He made and loveth all.”

[AshvinP]

It can be severe, for sure, but more than anything else, it's promising. It means this higher consciousness thing is for real, more real than we could possibly suspect beforehand. It's not that the spiritual is making the physical nature worse (actually it's the opposite), but revealing the vulnerabilities which were always there and in ways which provide the deepest inspiration and motivation for inner-outer transformation. Knowledge of the problem is always the first necessary step for fixing the problem.

The Glory is a great symbol!


"And now this spell was snapt: once more
I viewed the ocean green,
And looked far forth, yet little saw
Of what had else been seen—

Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread.

But soon there breathed a wind on me,
Nor sound nor motion made:
Its path was not upon the sea,
In ripple or in shade.

It raised my hair, it fanned my cheek
Like a meadow-gale of spring—
It mingled strangely with my fears,
Yet it felt like a welcoming.
...
"Farewell, farewell! but this I tell
To thee, thou Wedding-Guest!
He prayeth well, who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast.

He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.

The Mariner, whose eye is bright,
Whose beard with age is hoar,
Is gone: and now the Wedding-Guest
Turned from the bridegroom's door.

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man,
He rose the morrow morn."

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

"Knowledge of the problem is always the first necessary step for fixing the problem." Yes, one wants to know. Then the question is if one still wants to know once the difficulties start materializing. Let's see. In my case, I'm only just getting started and it's already being somewhat difficult : ) Hopefully the ancient mariner can inspire some courage : )
As I have just learnt, there is an albatross in the other part of the poem, flying, guiding the ship, then getting killed. With the poet, the albatros is to be loved well too “for the dear God who loveth us, He made and loveth all.”

There is no doubt about that. If we analogize the albatross to the physical nature in this case, it is surely to be loved and redeemed.

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?"

To Love in the higher sense is to want what's best for it, to make it a fit dwelling place for the Spirit who will glorify it. Indeed the temptation is to shun greater knowledge once the difficulties materialize (the spiritualizing reveals difficulties), or to pursue the greater knowledge for material pursuits (black magic). Then we we are simply condemning the dense physicalized body and its environment to remain where it is and degenerate further. But the power of knowing that one is an eternal soul and spirit, sheathed in a physical body, cannot be underestimated in its ability to inspire and motivate. Knowing means, experiencing thinking consciousness independent of the physical body, maintaining one's discerning judgment while also expanding into the Cosmic depths.


viewtopic.php?t=399

Coleridge speaks above of what Saint Paul also spoke, "I have been crucified with Christ". How can such a miracle occur in my life? By first re-cognizing that I am the crucifier of Christ. I forsook the innocent light of Wisdom for the sinful veil of darkness and betrayed His trust for thirty pieces of silver. I cried out for his torture and crucifixion with the angry multitudes in Jerusalem. The culmination of man's spiritual involution on Earth was rejected by me almost as soon as His love was freed, and my evolution over the last two millennia has been a gradual inner reckoning for this deed. I am Raskolnikov living with the wages of my Crime - the deed always lurking right beneath the surface of my mentation; living with agonizing anticipation of my perpetual punishment by way of spiritual alienation.

That is a dreary fact of my Earthly existence, to say the least, when it is rightly understood. Such things place a heavy burden on my soul, as they rightly should. Yet once I come to truly know the nature of my Crime - to know it's essence and import - I am set free to voluntarily, even eagerly, begin serving out my sentence and setting myself aright. Truly, then, will my Victim's yoke become easy and His burden become light. The storm clouds will begin to break, the Sun will start to burst through, and the darkest grays give way to a sky filled with color and motion, as a rising tide wells up within me and lifts all boats in my ocean. To finally embrace the inner light of Christ, who still offers me His grace free, is to be crucified with Him and reborn so that, "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me".

[Federica]

It can be severe, for sure, but more than anything else, it's promising. It means this higher consciousness thing is for real, more real than we could possibly suspect beforehand. It's not that the spiritual is making the physical nature worse (actually it's the opposite), but revealing the vulnerabilities which were always there and in ways which provide the deepest inspiration and motivation for inner-outer transformation. Knowledge of the problem is always the first necessary step for fixing the problem.

The Glory is a great symbol!


"And now this spell was snapt: once more
I viewed the ocean green,
And looked far forth, yet little saw
Of what had else been seen—

Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread.

But soon there breathed a wind on me,
Nor sound nor motion made:
Its path was not upon the sea,
In ripple or in shade.

It raised my hair, it fanned my cheek
Like a meadow-gale of spring—
It mingled strangely with my fears,
Yet it felt like a welcoming.
...
"Farewell, farewell! but this I tell
To thee, thou Wedding-Guest!
He prayeth well, who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast.

He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.

The Mariner, whose eye is bright,
Whose beard with age is hoar,
Is gone: and now the Wedding-Guest
Turned from the bridegroom's door.

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man,
He rose the morrow morn."

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

"Knowledge of the problem is always the first necessary step for fixing the problem." Yes, one wants to know. Then the question is if one still wants to know once the difficulties start materializing. Let's see. In my case, I'm only just getting started and it's already being somewhat difficult : ) Hopefully the ancient mariner can inspire some courage : )
As I have just learnt, there is an albatross in the other part of the poem, flying, guiding the ship, then getting killed. With the poet, the albatros is to be loved well too “for the dear God who loveth us, He made and loveth all.”

There is no doubt about that. If we analogize the albatross to the physical nature in this case, it is surely to be loved and redeemed.

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?"

To Love in the higher sense is to want what's best for it, to make it a fit dwelling place for the Spirit who will glorify it. Indeed the temptation is to shun greater knowledge once the difficulties materialize (the spiritualizing reveals difficulties), or to pursue the greater knowledge for material pursuits (black magic). Then we we are simply condemning the dense physicalized body and its environment to remain where it is and degenerate further.


viewtopic.php?t=399

Coleridge speaks above of what Saint Paul also spoke, "I have been crucified with Christ". How can such a miracle occur in my life? By first re-cognizing that I am the crucifier of Christ. I forsook the innocent light of Wisdom for the sinful veil of darkness and betrayed His trust for thirty pieces of silver. I cried out for his torture and crucifixion with the angry multitudes in Jerusalem. The culmination of man's spiritual involution on Earth was rejected by me almost as soon as His love was freed, and my evolution over the last two millennia has been a gradual inner reckoning for this deed. I am Raskolnikov living with the wages of my Crime - the deed always lurking right beneath the surface of my mentation; living with agonizing anticipation of my perpetual punishment by way of spiritual alienation.

That is a dreary fact of my Earthly existence, to say the least, when it is rightly understood. Such things place a heavy burden on my soul, as they rightly should. Yet once I come to truly know the nature of my Crime - to know it's essence and import - I am set free to voluntarily, even eagerly, begin serving out my sentence and setting myself aright. Truly, then, will my Victim's yoke become easy and His burden become light. The storm clouds will begin to break, the Sun will start to burst through, and the darkest grays give way to a sky filled with color and motion, as a rising tide wells up within me and lifts all boats in my ocean. To finally embrace the inner light of Christ, who still offers me His grace free, is to be crucified with Him and reborn so that, "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me".

Yes, I understand. I was thinking of the analogy in terms of 'the albatross around the neck'. It reappears in the poem, although, curiously, in its missing part.

PS: I still have to go to the infernal loops! I will wait with this one until I'm out of the infernal loops : ) Well, at first look I can see the albatross is actually there. ...the glory is also there!!