Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Is it possible to have a coherent view of the "self"?

Expand Messages
  • j15300
    One line of explanation is quoted below, for why people then didn t have much of a sense of sin. Given that explanation, how could one presently know more
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      One line of explanation is quoted below, for why people "then"
      didn't have "much" of a sense of sin. Given that explanation, how
      could one presently know more of one's surround and true condition
      than could the Athenians or Danes, self-justified explainers from
      cradle to grave, except by Socrates' method?

      "How should I live?" is answered by Socratically reflecting, if not
      thinking, on what is ethic.

      If one assumes Christianity's claim to absolute ethical standards,
      of a Lord that changes not, and of a Saviour that fulfilled the Law
      and the Prophets, then living as Christ lived--what would Jesus,
      Paul, or John do--is the answer.

      How does one move from Socrates to Paul, except by letting that Mind
      abide, which was also in Christ Jesus?

      "Our form is the ego: it is this mysterious incapacity to be other
      than oneself, and at the same time the incapacity to be entirely
      oneself and not 'other-than-Self.' But our Reality does not leave
      us the choice and obliges us to 'become what we are,' or to remain
      what we are not. The ego is, empirically, a dream in which we
      ourselves dream ourselves; the contents of this dream, drawn from
      our surroundings, are at bottom only pretexts, for the ego desires
      only its own life: whatever we may dream, our dream is always only
      a symbol for the ego which wishes to affirm itself, a mirror that we
      hold before the 'I' and which reverberates its life in multiple
      fashions. This dream has become our second nature; it is woven of
      images and of tendencies, static and dynamic elements in innumerable
      combinations: the images come from outside and are integrated into
      our substance; the tendencies are our responses to the world around
      us; as we exteriorise ourselves, we create a world in the image of
      our dream, and the dream thus objectivised flows back upon us, and
      so on and on, until we are enclosed in a tissue, sometimes
      inextricable, of dreams exteriorised or materialised and of
      materialisations interiorised. The ego is like a watermill whose
      wheel, under the drive of a current--the world and life--turns and
      repeats itself untiringly, in a series of images always different
      and always similar....The ego is ignorance of what is 'the other;'
      our whole existence is woven of ignorances; we are like the Self
      frozen, then hurled to earth and split into a thousand fragments; we
      observe the limits which surround us, and we conclude that we are
      fragments of consciousness and of being. Matter grips us like a
      kind of paralysis, it imposes on us the heaviness of a mineral, and
      exposes us to the miseries of impurity and of mortality; form shapes
      us according to such and such a model, it imposes on us such and
      such a mask and cuts us off from a whole to which we are none the
      less tied, though at death it lets us fall as a tree lets fall its
      fruit....Hell is the reply to the periphery which makes itself the
      Center, or to the multitude that usurps the glory of Unity; it is
      the reply of Reality to the ego wanting to be absolute, and
      condemned to be so without being able to be so....The Center is the
      Self 'freed,' or rather that which has never ceased to be free--
      eternally free." (pp. 101-102, "Gnosis: Divine Wisdom," Frithjof
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.