The Book of the Lion and the Lamb - a Biblical exposition manuscript

(Katina Press) #41

GEN: 1: 26-28 The Glory and the Misery of Man

ESSENTIAL TRUTH : We are Spirits dwelling oin bodies. Fundamentally, Man is an invisible spirit. He possesses the faculties of the Spirit, incl., Creativity, Communication, and Moral Consciousness. The Image of Man = Spirit of God, and the Likeness of Man = Functioning of the Spirit. (Gen. 1: 26-28) - The difference between what man COULD be versus what man IS. Following the Kantian model of inquiry, this section of Genesis addresses four main questions: What can I KNOW?; What can I DO?; What may I HOPE?; What IS Man? The last question reminds me of a fragment of Edwin Markam’s poem, “The Man with the Hoe”:

Is this the thing the Lord God made, and gave

To have dominion over sea and land?

To trace the stars and search the heavens for power

And feel the passion of eternity?

Perhaps, G. K. Chesterton says it best (whom I consider a 19th century C. S. Lewis) when he aptly observed, “What ever else is true of man, it is certainly true that man is not what he was meant to be.” (Gen. 1: 27) - What is this image of God in man? Body? Soul? No. This he shares with the animal kingdom. To be created “in His own image” connotes that there is a source of glory and dignity in mankind. This was NEVER said of any other creature! What are the functions of the soul? Rationality - Feeling - Thinking - Choice? No. Animals also function this this way. What is it that man has which gives him distinction from the animals? To explore this question further, I looked to the NT and found the answer in John 4 in Christ’s interaction with the woman at the well and revealed to her that “God is Spirit and must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth.” God is a Spirit without a Body - until Christ. From here, I started to focus on the faculties of the Spirit which animals DO NOT possess and, therefore makes Man “Special” among all creation. I was able to isolate 3 main faculties of the Spirit of God which man inherited in both image and likeness: (i) Creativity = imagination, abstract thinking, seeing with the “eye” of the mind, fashioning and making things , composing a symphony. (ii) Communication = speaking, conveying ideas, discussion of matters. God’s “speak” conveyed power in creation in the same way that words affect us and change us . Words can wreck lives, injure, restore, heal, etc.

(iii) Moral Consciousness = To declare things “Good” or “Evil”. A consciousness of moral values. Whether the post-modernists admit tot it or not, we all feel the gnawing of a moral consciousness. What did God want man to DO with Spiritual faculties? (Gen. 1: 28) - Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth. Also, subdue it and have dominion over God’s creation. Man has never forgotten this commandment and has been failing in trying to accomplish this all throughout history. Instead, man has filled the earth to the point of overpopulation. In the mid - 20th century, Stanford Univ. Professors predicted that there would be no 21st century. Gebser’s Stages of the evolution of human consciousness have only illustrated stagnant patterns of man’s consciousness oscillating between prolonged adolescence into a premature senility. In spite of this, God made man after His “likeness” (functioning). Man has made a perversion of exercising his ability to be God-like. The Key for reversing this lies in man’s conscious willingness to undergo the repudiation of self-confidence resting on the work of another who dwells within. Even Jesus declared that without God, “The Son can do nothing of himself”.

(Katina Press) #42


You are aware that when I asked if you were a “weirdo”, that I meant it as a compliment. :smile:

(Katina Press) #43

GEN. 1: 27-31 Sex and Food

ESSENTIAL TRUTH : ***The Law of Sex is manifest in 3 different ways. On the physical level, it manifests by the familiar act that is the subject of so much discussion everywhere today. On the soulish (or psychological) level, it is manifest as an urge to communicate with or to share the thoughts of another, thus it is largely expressed in terms of friendship, or close companionship; the need for acceptance by other individuals.

(Like here at COSMOS - this is just one Big 'Ol psycho-sexual Brothel, if you ask me! Sex that is both Satisfying and Safe. I am a “pure” harlot when it comes to this particular manifestation of sex, as it is my most preferred type of intimacy.)

A 3rd manifestation of the strange power of sex is the power or function of worship. Worship, too, is sex; but sex manifested at the level of the spirit. It is a strange and mysterious hunger to interchange with the Divine Being, to become part with Him, to share His nature and experience the ecstasy and joy of the union.*** Putting together this exhaustive exposition of the Scriptures was a very sexually active endeavor! My Spirit was often overwhelmed, yet, I couldn’t get enough.

(Katina Press) #44


Previously, Genesis illustrated that man did not arise from the animal creation. (Gen. 1: 27) - We are created in His Spiritual image and likeness and, unlike the animal kingdom, this specialized status in creation imbibes us with shared characteristics of the Divine Triune Godhead, as it is expressed via our Creativity, Communication, and Moral Consciousness . This gives us a type of DERIVED AUTHORITY over creation. Yet with a VERY CRUCIAL CONDITION - Man has Dominion ONLY to the extent that he is subject to God.

Man has lost his “Godlikeness” and it makes him the MOST DANGEROUS ANIMAL ON THE PLANET. (Gen. 1: 27) - Sex starts in humankind. At the first mention of man, God also signifies sex. God created humankind with both a male AND female nature. The woman DID NOT appear as a separate entity of man. Adam was, for a while, incorporating the psychological characteristics of “man” AND “woman”. Adam was (for a while) a male/female being - NOT physically but psychologically. Hence, every man has within him, a female shadow AND vice versa. Eve was not created until Gen. 2: 18, Yet, there was already an “inner marriage” within the human soul. Science shows us that the male possesses female recessive traits and the female has male recessive traits.

Sex is also expressed in a triune manifestation, as it occurs on all 3 levels. The Physical = Intercourse; Mental = Relating/Friendship; Spiritual = Worship. Worship is sexual interchange with God in its equivalent desire to exalt Him.

The Second Adam, Jesus, was also psychologically male/female and He combined perfectly with His sexual nature. Jesus expressed a most balanced sternness and strength with tenderness and gentleness . All races started with Adam. Thus, Christ also shares cultural distinctions of all nations within His own race. SEE Gal. 3 - “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave/free, male/female”. All Christians are descendants of Abraham (in Christ).

(Katina Press) #45


_(Gen. 1: 29) - Adam’s food was the seed plant (bread bearing) and fruit trees (wine), whilst animals were given plants. This food issue for animals, however, complicates the fossil record in which scientists portray animals to be carnivores. Yet, BEFORE “The Fall”, animals had plants as a food source. In the original food chain before “The Fall”, animals were strictly herbivores and there was no competitive striving for “survival of the fittest”. (SEE Isaiah - “animals shall eat straw with the ox”). AFTER “The Fall” of Adam, the food chain was also cursed and “survival of the fittest” became necessary for posterity of individual species (Ex. squirrels start hiding their nuts). Yet, animal’s instinct is smarter than fallen man’s instinct. Just watch “Nat Geo” on any given evening. If you abandon a human child in the wild, natural world, he/she will develop to be more “bestial” than the animal nature. Man is fallen because “man shall not live by bread alone", as Christ Our Lord verily stated. Hence, even food and nourishment must be provided and consumed on all 3 levels. “Seek ye FIRST the Kingdom of God and all His Righteousness, THEN…” - eat, drink, be fruitful and multiply. Spiritual food is a priori to man’s survival BEFORE physical and mental nourishment can be of any benefit.*_

(Mary Thaler) #46

Thanks Katina! Though I hope I haven’t lost my shine after that long gap of not posting – I was away last weekend, and it’s taken me some time to catch up.

I would say that most of my friends aren’t Christian in any way – Quebec in particular is a very secular society. I treasure them all, and I learn from them – some of them might be surprised to hear that I’ve learned how to be Christian from them! But from time to time I run into what I think of as a language gap, where the most natural way to explain myself would involve talking God. I figure they have to accept that, and almost always they do.

(Katina Press) #47

So true! Ironically, Christ has used the secular community as the primary training ground for developing genuine Christ-like love ans Spirit within my own experience. The only instance in which this gets esp. challenging for me is when I am engaging with close family members. Esp. my “Elders”. (Actually, I don’t really have any family). Those in my neck of the wood - have some kind of strange aversion towards “perpetual enthusiasm” for the Word and Spirit. It baffles me!

I admit that it is my fault for neglecting regular church attendance for the past two years. Church folks make me feel icky, Mary. Instead, I strive to BE a church. My body is the building, my mind is the Word and my heart, I suppose is the worship and fellowship.

Yet, I do miss you when you are away. What is it like to be the child of a Shepherd? I’ve always wanted to be the child of a Pastor or the wife of one. I suppose that its not too late for the latter. Its not that I have any particular attraction to “Men of the Cloth” - I just would love to be in the constant company of someone whose heart and mind is devoted to Christ. I even considered joining a Coven once. Like , as a housemother in an orphanage. I had trouble finding a legit opportunity and gave up on the dream. Do you think it is too late?

(Katina Press) #48

*GOD’S PROVISION- (Genesis 1: 29 - 31)

ESSENTIAL TRUTH : Every human being has a tripartite struggle going on within his body, soul and spirit of a sexual nature. This is also true of our nutritional need for bread. Yet, our survival is limited if we seek only after the bread which feeds the body and neglect the priority of God’s spiritual nourishment, found in the Bread of Life via Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. .

(Gen. 1: 26 - 28) - Thus far, the preceding verses revealed what distinguishes man from all other creation (in particular, the Animal Kingdom), as well as, what is Man (“That Thou art Mindful of Us”) and what is Man’s purpose (Gen. 1: 26c) . Man is not blind to his own purpose. Nor is man a mere “part” of the Animal Kingdom, but rather, a starting point, directly created by God. Man has a distinct triune nature which differs from animal creation. Man’s relation to animal creation is limited to soul and body. In Spirit, however, man was created in God’s Image. That image and function of God’s triune Spirit is expressed via man in his creativity, communication and moral consciousness.

(Gen. 1: 26d) - Man’s dominion over God’s creation is purely conditional to the fact that it is “ DERIVED DOMINION ”. (Gen. 1: 27) - addresses human sexuality as being pervasive throughout our entire triune nature and being. Sex is also expressed in a tripartite fashion, as follows: Physical Sex = The act of intercourse; Psychological (Soulistic) Sex = The desire to relate to and communicate with others (be accepted by others) via friendship, discourse, etc.; Spiritual Sex = The desire to worship and/or share in and express the Divine nature of the Godhead.

*God’s Sexual Provision - Man’s source of sexual provision is found in the First Adam. (Gal. 3) - A Christian’s nature (before The Fall) is (was) a perfectly mirrored balance of both male and female natures . The New Humanity’s source of God’s sexual provision is revealed upon being born again of the Holy Spirit, into the salvation of Christ and under His Eternal Lordship (To the Glory of God the Father, Amen!), which can be found in the Second Adam .

*God’s Nutritional Provision - Adam’s original food source (before The Fall) was derived from seed-bearing plants (Gen. 1: 29-30). Even the animals’ food source was limited to green plant vegetation, as the first animals of creation were herbivores (providing scriptural evidence refuting Darwinian “Survival of the Fittest”). God planned and balanced a perfect quantity and quality in providing for man’s bodily and energy needs in His acts of creation. Hence, there was no need for a competitive, self-preserving nature in Adam to “hunt and gather” for food to meet his basic survival needs. God ALREADY provided EVERYTHING that both Man AND the animals need(ed) for food and nutritional sustenance!

(Gen. 1: 29) - “See I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food”. The oceans and land were plush with green plant vegetation to feed the beasts and animals, as the seed-bearing plants were cultivated and in full bloom for Man to have bread from the grains of the Earth. Yet, “ man cannot live on bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God ”. In pre-Fallen Creation, Adam was free of the anxiety which accompanies our post-Fallen, survival-based queries such as, “What shall we eat?, What shall we drink?, What shall we wear? God’s desire to provide remains the same after The Fall (as He even sacrificed His own animal creation to make clothing for our covering as we exited the “Garden”. Christ echoes His Father’s desire to provide for mankind when He lovingly exhorts us in Matthew to “Be not anxious for what you will eat or drink” and reassures that “ all these things will be yours as well” AFTER seeking ye, first the Kingdom and all His Righteousness”. Per heeding these instructions, we need not even search, nor be anxious for our bodily need for food and drink.

(Mary Thaler) #49

Haha, what I remember most about growing up in a church family was the total lack of boundaries between social and professional life. For a pastor, your parishioners are also your friends – it’s part of your job to take them out to coffee and hear about their struggles, whether it’s alcohol, a broken marriage, ailing parents, wayward children. The hours are the farthest thing from nine to five, a sudden funeral can ruin your vacation plans, and people who don’t like your sermons will say vicious things to you. So… worth it I guess, but like many things, messy and hard!

You say it isn’t too late to be a “pastor’s wife” but what I’m hearing from your writing is that you may have a call for your own ministry. If you could only find a church community that fit well, there is a desperate need for lay leadership, for preaching and Christian education. I don’t know whether you’d find out that you enjoyed it – but I can certainly tell you’d be capable of it!

(Mary Thaler) #50

"the actual verbs used are interesting in their own right. They are to “subdue (KBSh, kabash) it” and “rule (RDH, radah) over it”

Thank you for bringing your linguistic expertise in! I was curious about how much interpretation the translators had allowed themselves.

Every now and then, reading a sacred text we come across these phrases that seem very problematic, and I think “subdue and rule” is one of them. I would not consider this a healthy attitude vis-à-vis creation. Societies that see themselves as part of creation, fitting in to the realities of nature, are I think better equipped to live on this Earth without damaging it and ourselves.

(Mary Thaler) #51

And I took it as one :slight_smile:

(Ed Mahood) #52

Umberto Eco said that “translation is the art of failure”. That might be a bit pointed, but he does have a point. When it comes to religious texts – especially those considered “scripture” by their followers – it is not too much to say that every translation is an interpretation.

Given the timing and circumstances of their appearance, and the structure of the original language itself (semantic roots, relative tenses of verbs, and more), I think this is especially true of the Tanakh (the Jewish scriptures, which is not exactly the same as what many Christians consider to be the “Old Testament”). The original language is vastly different than, say, Western languages in general (even their Old versions), and it is certainly very different from modern languages, including Modern Hebrew.

Even reading multiple translations (and there are no fewer than 100 Modern English translations, and that doesn’t include partial translations for specific purposes) can mitigate the issue somewhat, but one must always keep in mind that these various translations are often theologically (if not specifically christologically) motivated; that is, translations often reflect particular doctrinal biases. If you speak/read a foreign language, reading multiple translations in those different languages can also be helpful. (Just like the KJV is not the same as the NASB; the German Luther translation differs from, say, the German Jerusalem translation). For this reason, I, personally, don’t think it’s possible to get a truly deep understanding of the text without some (at least rudimentary, but the more the better) understanding of its original mode of expression. (The references verbs KBSh and RDH are very relevant cases in point.)

But what really gives me pause to reflect is that we all think we know what t-h-e original text is. As we saw in our CCafé sessions on the work of the Meru Foundation, the Torah (at least, but more likely more of the original Tanakh texts) were written as a single string of 304,805 letters: no spaces between words, no punctuation, no vowels (Hebrew letters are all consonants); and that string had to be parsed. We were only talking, for the most part about the first segment of 28 letters (which are generally considered to be the first verse of Genesis), and there are over 900 Rabbinic readings of that string alone. But what our discussion further revealed, there may a number of deeply profound and significant things happening in the text that would be worthwhile to include in one’s ruminations on “what it all means”.

And I couldn’t agree more, but at the same time we have to wonder why these words are used and not others. There is a branch of Kabbalistic thinking that approaches the matter at the letter level, postulating that each letter is imbued with deeper meaning than just its name (e.g., the Hebrew Dalet (analogous to our “D”) means “door”) or its number value (which for Dalet is 4, and which forms the basis for the hermeneutic known as Gematria). According to this approach, KBSh means something like “reception/acquisition of (the notion of) container reveals the Spirit of G-d” … perhaps “subdue” with the idea of truly getting a handle on a notion or idea; and RDH would mean something like “the Cosmic container (all that is) given physical existence brings forth life” … perhaps “dominion” in the sense of mastery via deep knowing. Just something to think about.

In the end, I think there’s simply a whole lot more in the text than we suspect.

(Katina Press) #53

I agree. Yet, when it comes to scripture exposition, the Devil is, indeed, ALWAYS lurking among the details as a source of omission. The problematic aspect of the translation “subdue and rule” loses its sting when we include the crucial, yet often omitted, condition that it is "DERIVED DOMINION". That is, Man’s dominion was intended to be exercised ONLY as “subject” to divine dominion. We conveniently forget this.

Also, Man’s divine purpose to be a "steward over creation subject to the divine will and dominion of the Triune Godhead" (which may not be “translated” this way, but it was certainly “revealed” to be interpreted this way in my handling of these particular verses) is a command given BEFORE the FALL when it was actually possible for man to fulfill this command in the “uncorrupted” image and likeness of the Godhead (absent of a “runaway” will).

Man (Pre-Fallen) was told to subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. Man was given the task of filling up the earth; and second, to rule it, to govern it, by exercising dominion over everything within the earth; to subdue its forces, to master them and bring them all under his control and direction. The whole course of history is simply the record of man’s attempt to fulfill these divine injunctions. As a race we have never forgotten these commands and have been engaged in doing them ever since (in absentia of God’s will).

And look at the results? The interesting thing is that the fulfilling of these divine commands, given man at the earliest dawn of history, have produced results which are utterly disastrous. What has gone wrong with this image of God in man? Man retains the image of God, but now the creature who is called “God’s glory” has become God’s shame. Men behave as children, without reason, irrationally.

Why is this? For an answer let us examine the second word that is used in Gen. 1: 26 - “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” God made man in his image but also after his likeness. Well, you ask, what is the difference between image and likeness? Aren’t these the same thing? No, they are closely related, but they are not the same thing.

The image, as we have already seen, is the existence of man as a spirit. It is the equipment that God has given us, the capacity to be godlike. The likeness is the “proper” functioning of that equipment. It raises the question of whether man is actually godlike or merely has the capacity to be so. As he was made in the beginning, man was both in the image and after the likeness of God. Thus when Adam was formed by the Creator he stood before God as a spirit dwelling in a body, exercising the functions of a soul. He had the ability to be creative, to communicate, and to make moral choices. But he not only had the ability to do so, he was actually doing it. He was exercising the function of godlikeness.

You may have a watch which has the ability to keep time, but the question is: Does it actually do it? In many cases, the answer is “No, it doesn’t.” It has lost its proper functioning. So man retains the capacity to be godlike but has totally lost the ability to actually manifest godlikeness. But man was not only made to be godlike, he was Godlike, in the beginning.

(Katina Press) #54

The Answer:

The secret, as we learn from the rest of Scripture, lay in an inner dependence that continually repudiated self confidence. This is the hard lesson for us to learn. How confident we are in ourselves. How sure we are that if we set our mind on something we can do it. If we are motivated enough to obtain a thing, all we have to do is to mobilize our resources, set our jaws, clench our fists and move to it and we will get it done. That is the false self-confidence that has been the ruin of the human race.

But the principle of godlikeness is the repudiation of that self-confidence and a resting on the working of Another who dwells within. That is what Adam knew. That is the way he functioned, and thus fulfilled his manhood and manifested the likeness of God.

If you want to see this in history, read the record of the Gospels concerning the Lord Jesus. See him stilling the storm on the Sea of Galilee with but a word, “Peace, be still,” (Mark 4:39). See him walking on the water in the middle of the storm, to the concern and fright of the disciples. Watch him changing the water, instantly, into wine. How does he do these things? Is it because he is the Son of God? Is it because he is the Creator that he can do this? No, he himself denied that. He said it was not because he was God the Son that he did these things. He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself,” (John 5:19 KJV). “The words that I speak unto you,” he said repeatedly, “are not my words. The works that I do are not my works.” “**The Father who dwells in me, he does the work**s,” (John 14:10 RSV). All is done out of a reliance upon the work of the Father indwelling him. He knew the secret of manhood, the lost secret of humanity.

What this world has forgotten and is vainly groping and seeking after, what every course in psychology is hoping to find, what every self-improvement program is attempting to realize but never can, this lost secret of how man was intended to operate, He knew. The likeness of God is lost. That is why man can create, but everything he creates has a twist toward evil. That is why he can communicate, but not only does he communicate truth and beauty, but also lust and hate and filth and bigotry and death. That is why, though he still knows moral values, he denies them and rationalizes them to exalt evil, just as the last verse of Romans 1 describes; men who not only do evil things but delight in watching others do the same things, (Romans 1:32).

There is the likeness of God, being restored in man. The image of God has never been lost, for man still retains the capacity to be godlike but he has no longer the ability – until Jesus Christ is restored to the human heart. When he enters there begins a process which, little by little, step by step, day by day, through trial and heartache, sorrow, disappointment, and judgment, through glory, and blessing, and thrilling experiences of grace, is changing us so as to reproduce in us the likeness of God once again. Thus we not only have the capacity to be Godlike, we are actually becoming Godlike. Is that not glorious? That is what God is after. Being renewed in knowledge is the restoration of the likeness of God.

(SEE ALSO Aurobindo’s “Ascent of the Supermind” - whereby his spiritual philosophy PERFECTLY and PRECISELY CAPTURES the very ESSENCE of the Triune Christian Godhead 's ideology, purpose and vision for mankind. I certainly hope that both of you, Mary and Ed, will be present to participate in the 10.25.18 ZoomCast discussion on Auro’s Book II - Chapter 26 at either 12:00 p. m. and/or 8:00 p. m. EDT!!!)

(Katina Press) #55

An Excerpt form Aurobindo’s “Ascent of the Supermind”:

In Book II, Chapter 26 of Sri Aurobindo’s “Life Divine” text, he addresses the different scenarios that could lead to varying speeds of accomplishing the transformation of consciousness from the mental through the overmental to an eventual supramental basis of action, with all of the impact such a transformation would have on mind, life and body and life in the material world. He points out that it would be a long, slow and difficult process if there were no direct descent, or intervention, of the supramental force into material nature; and if all we had, then, was a pressure from above working to evolve the supramental action out of its involvement in the Inconscient here. Such a process would be limited by having to work through the mind, life and body and their restrictions, habits, impediments and differing principles of action. The end result would also be limited by virtue of the fact that mind, life and body have these differing principles of action and cannot be expected to totally transform themselves if they remain the basis and foundation of the evolved consciousness.

The faster and more effective solution would be for the supramental consciousness to actually descend and work directly in this world, putting in place a foundation and action of its own native and characteristic line of action and results.

BINGO!!! EUREKA in the Bathtub!!!

*Direct Quote from Sri Aurobindo:

For a real transformation there must be a direct and unveiled intervention from above; there would be necessary too a total submission and surrender of the lower consciousness, a cessation of its insistence, a will in it for its separate law of action to be completely annulled by transformation and lose all rights over our being. If these two conditions can be achieved even now by a conscious call and will in the spirit and a participation of our whole manifested and inner being in its change and elevation, the evolution, the transformation can take place by a comparatively swift conscious change; the supramental Consciousness-Force from above and the evolving Consciousness-Force from behind the veil acting on the awakened awareness and will of the mental human a being would accomplish by their united power the momentous transition. There would be no further need of a slow evolution counting many millenia for each step, the halting and difficult evolution operated by Nature in the past in the unconscious creatures of the Ignorance.” (1)

It is for this very reason stated above, that Christ Jesus was born into the world (John 18: 37)!!!

NOTE BENE: (1) THIS STATEMENT IS THE PERFECT SUMMARY of the TRIUNE GODHEAD’S OBJECTIVE IN SENDING CHRIST TO BE BORN INTO THE WORLD!!! If Christians could grasp this very description of the purpose, nature and crucial need in establishing their Faith and Identity in Christ as Lord and Savior, THEN THIS is EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS TO BE “BORN AGAIN”. Not instantaneous but immediate and manifest via stages, degrees, etc. throughout one’s life UNTIL ONE DAY, as Apostle John revealed in I JOHN 3: 2 - “we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” - As though looking into a mirror and seeing Christ’s image looking back at you. Yet, YOU still remaining YOU - with Christ’s divinely imputed nature, light, truth and righteousness!!!

Aurobindo sounds like a born-again Christian, to me. A rare one who really “gets it”!

(Katina Press) #56

Another relevant quote from Sri Aurobindo ("Life Divine", Book II, Chapter 26), which supports my original premise regarding the necessary condition of “DERIVED DOMINION” as it applies to God’s commandment to Adam to “subdue and rule” over creation. (Gen. 1: 26-28):

"The rule of conscious obedience to the higher truth of the spirit, the surrender of the whole being to the light and power that come from the Supernature, is a second condition which has to be accomplished slowly and with difficulty by the being itself before the supramental transformation can become at all possible.”

(Katina Press) #57

One more reference to my Main Man, “Aurobindo”:

This, also, echoes my interpretative observations regarding the applied concept of “DERIVED DOMINION” as a crucial condition of Adam’s divinely appointed directive to “subdue and rule” all of creation (Gen. 1: 26-28)

“Our notion of free will is apt to be tainted with the excessive individualism of the human ego and to assume the figure of an independent will acting on its own isolated account, in a complete liberty without any determination other than its own choice and single unrelated movement. This idea ignores the fact that our natural being is a part of cosmic Nature and our spiritual being exists only by the supreme Transcendence.” (Sri Aurobindo, “Life Divine” - Book II, Chapter 26)

(MY) NOTE BENE: This popular notion of “free will”, that one is able to act as an independent actor without reference to any other person, power, or consideration is an extreme manifestation of the egoism that characterises the development of the individual as he forms a personality and mental character. It must be noted, however, that the exercising of Adam’s “free will” to “subdue and rule” over creation was never intended to, (and can never be), entirely independent of any relation to the rest of the universe and the transcendent consciousness beyond the manifested universe. No matter how highly developed, humans remain a product of the universal creation and lives and dies in dependence on that creation. Free will that does not take this relationship into account winds up exercising this pseudo-freedom as a contradictory rebound. It is this attempt to impose “free will” that in fact leads to destruction of the very conditions of maintaining and developing life when taken to its extreme in terms of impact on the environment.

It is only by recognition that the sense of an independent free will is properly related to a growth and widening of the power and awareness between individual and transcendent, that we can put the concept of free will in its proper perspective, and the individual be seen as a nexus or locus of the action of the cosmic force. Free will in its true sense is an increasing freedom from the limitations imposed by physical Nature, due to the…

Help me out here, Brother Aurobindo…

submission to a greater conscious Power or an acquiescent unity of the individual being with its intention and movement in his own and in the world’s existence.” (Aurobindo)

Whoo! We are havin’ Cosmic Church up in here, tonite!

Can I get a WITNESS, up in heah, Somebody? (Or, at least a handkerchief to wipe the sweat from my brow)???

(Marco V Morelli) #58

A dear friend of mine shared the video below with me today. Over the years, she has been going to visit Father Thomas Keating in Snowmass, CO (where his Trappist monastery is) and reports that he is now in his last days. She was watching some of his YouTube videos and came across a clip from a talk Keating did with Ken Wilber back in 2003 or '04, where I was in the audience and got to ask him a question. I can’t believe how young I was!

Keating’s answer to my question, and Wilber’s as well, may be of interest in the context of relating the Christian experience of faith to the transformations of consciousness described by Aurobindo.

A brief recent bio of Fr. Keating:

I also mentioned this video in our most recent Life Divine session, and @johnnydavis54 was interested in seeing it.

(Katina Press) #59

Whoa, Marco! You look like a younger version of Ryan Gosling!

(Katina Press) #60

Thanks so much, Marco for introducing me to, yet, another Spiritual Father to guide me along my path. Right now, I am soaking in his commentaries / interviews about Christ and Christianity. I love him!

What a wonderful :gift: !!!