You must know that this is in reality one and the same thing – to
know God and to be known by God, to see God and to be seen by
God. In knowing and seeing God we know and see that He makes us
know and see. And j ust as the luminous air is not different from the
fact of illuminating, for it illumines because it is luminous, so do we
know by being known, and because He makes us know. Therefore
Christ said, “Again you will see me” (John 1 6 : 22). That is to say, by
making you see, you know me; and then follows, ” Your heart will
rejoice,” that is in the vision and knowledge of me, and “no one shall
rob you of your joy ” (John 1 6 : 22).

…..
St. John says, ” See how great is the love that the Father has shown
us, that we are called and are the children of God ” ( 1 John 3 : 1 ) . He
says not only ” we are called” but “we are. ” So I say that just as a
man cannot be wise without wisdom, so he cannot be a son without
the filial nature of God’s Son, without having the same being as the
Son of God has – just as being wise cannot be without wisdom. And
so, if you are the Son of God, you can only be so by having the same
being of God that the Son has. But this is ” now hidden from us”; and
after that it is written, ” Beloved, we are the sons of God. ” And what
do we know? – That is what he adds, “and we shall be like him”
( 1 John 3 :2), that is, the same as he is: the same being, experiencing
and understanding-everything that he is, when we see him as God.
So I say God could not make me the son of God if I had not the
nature of God’s Son, any more than God could make me wise if I
had no wisdom. How are we God’s sons ?  We do not know yet: ” It
does not yet appear” to us; all we know is that he says we shall be
like Him. There are certain things that hide this knowledge in our
souls and conceal it from us.

…..
The soul has something in her, a spark of intellect, that never dies;
and in this spark, as at the apex of the mind we place the ‘image’ of
the soul. But there is also in our souls a knowing directed toward externals,
the sensible and rational perception which operates in images
and words to obscure this from us. How then are we God’s sons? By
sharing one nature with Him. But to have any realization of thus
being God’s Son, we need to distinguish between the outward and
the inward understanding. The inward understanding is that which
is based intellectually in the nature of our soul. Yet it is not the soul’s
essence but is, rather, rooted there and is something of the life of the
soul. In saying the understanding is the life of the soul we mean her
intellectual life, and that is the life in which man is born as God’s son
and to eternal life. This understanding is timeless, without place without
Here and Now. In this life all things are one and all things
are common: all things are all in all and all in one.

Meister Eckhart (Sermon 7)

 

 

 

 

 

maxresdefault

 

— Don’t rely on anything that comes to you and you don’t know its (spiritual) source.

— Repenting of (only) certain sins (but not all) can’t be relied upon.

— Entrusting (oneself to God: tawakkul) (only) in certain situations can’t be relied upon.

— Every state—whether it be one of “unveiling” or of knowledge—which gives you (the misimpression) of being safe from God’s cunning ruse (makr) can’t be relied upon.

— Every affection/love (mahabba) which doesn’t cause the lover to prefer the intention of the beloved over his own intention can’t be relied upon.

— Every affection/love (mahabba) in which the lover doesn’t take pleasure in being in conformity (muwâfaqa) with the beloved regarding what his carnal self naturally detests can’t be relied upon.

— Every (true) love (hubb) which doesn’t give rise to ihsân toward the beloved in the heart of the lover can’t be relied upon.

— Every love whose proximate cause/occasion (sabab) is known and is among those things which may come to an end can’t be relied upon.

— Every love (hubb) that doesn’t depend upon (God) Himself—which is what they call “being in love with love”–can’t be relied [7] upon.

— Every love that doesn’t annihilate yourself from (any selfish concern for) yourself and which doesn’t change with the changing of (God’s ongoing) theophany (taghayyur al-tajalli) can’t be relied upon.

— Every (state of) “presence-with-God” (hudûr) that doesn’t give rise to transforming love (hubb) from God and is not accompanied by reverent awe (hayba) in the heart of the person who is so “present” can’t be relied upon.

— Every “repentance” (tawba) which is not all-inclusive [i.e., including all of one’s faults] is really only the abandonment (of certain misdeeds), so it can’t be relied upon—and God doesn’t accept it as real repentance.

— Every act of spiritual scrupulousness (wara’) which is restricted to certain matters and not to others can’t be relied upon.

— Every act of (spiritual) intention (irâda) that has no real effect can’t be relied upon.

— Every (spiritual) “state” that causes you to notice the past and future can’t be relied upon.

Ibn Arabi

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/naturespath/2016/02/connecting-to-the-underworld/

The reason why peace of soul is the “most elementary trace”of this holy slumber, induced by prayer, is that “prayer places us in the presence of God, Who is pure Beatitude.” To pray is to give oneself to God; and since God is pure Beatitude, prayer itself is already something of this Beatitude, whether the person praying is conscious of it or not. The awareness of what prayer is, and of what God is, imparts to the very act of prayer the capacity to bestow peace on the soul. Once this peace is “tasted,”and the sense of the sacred is awoken, with the heart rendered receptive to the presence of God—then does metaphysical doctrine begin to take root in our being, conviction deepens into certitude, the “obscure merit of faith” begins to give way to the ineffable verities of gnosis.

FRITHJOF SCHUON AND PRAYER
Reza Shah-Kazia

“A consciousness glistens within each creature and each creature’s creation, even as it guided the hand of the One who spoke and the world came into being. Rabbi Oshaya, at the beginning of Genesis Rabba, reminds us that when even a king builds a castle, he uses a blueprint. So the Creator, too, returns again and again to that underlying pattern of being. Arrangements of motion that organize and animate all being. This is reality’s dream. Holy literature. Organizing motif beneath the apparent surface.
This consciousness is never still, not even for a moment. It will not be photographed or even named. In its wanting to become aware, it rearranges itself in one pattern after another. Feel it now in the blinking of your eyes. The moisture on your tongue. The gentle filling and emptying of your lungs. It rises unnamed through us, the incessant motion of the four creatures bearing the chariot in Ezekiel’s vision: human, lion, ox, and eagle, running and returning. Creation is in us. The plan the Creator used reappears everywhere from the most erudite contemporary cosmological theory to the opening sentences of Genesis, it is the same.”
– Lawrence Kushner (The River of Light)
phinneas water can

The multitude of the Buddhas and bodhisattivas indicates the

relativity of the human receptacle: in his manifest personality

the Buddha is distinct from principle Unity; there is nothing absolutely

unique in manifestation, so the indefinite differentiation of the type or model

of all Buddhahood is like an inverted reflection of the non-differentiation of the Absolute

–Titus Burckhardt (Sacred Art in East and West)

20150728_075036_Marquette Rd

image

Who am I?—and What is Personality?

(Extract from: the human and transpersonal dimensions of personality by Samuel Bendeck Sotillos, sacred web journal 35)

“The concept of personality is central in [contemporary] Western
psychology”.31 “In the West it was Freud who began the systematic study
of personality”.32 Nonetheless, after more than a hundred years since

the inception of contemporary psychology as a separate and distinct
scientific discipline, it is still wrestling with the essential question of
“what is personality?”

Consequently, it is widely recognized that:“There is no agreement among contemporary psychologists on a definition of the term personality.’”33

In addition: “Modern theorists of personality seem to differ radically from one another in their assessment of the
importance of the identity issue.”34 The issue is not that modern and
postmodern psychology is in its infancy and will one day develop into
a true psychology; the issue is much more precarious due to the fact
that contemporary psychology attempts to study what is beyond its
epistemological and ontological scope and trespasses upon the domain
of metaphysics.

Since contemporary psychology is unable to verify either the existence of the spiritual domain or the existence of the human psyche, it has been called (as from the passage by Carl Jung, quoted below) “a psychology without a soul”35—a powerful, and yet
paradoxically puzzling assessment given that soul is the raison d’etre
for psychology’s very existence:

It was universally believed in the
Middle Ages as well as in the Graeco-Roman world that the soul is a substance. Indeed, mankind as a whole has held this belief from its earliest beginnings, and it w as left for the second half of the
nineteenth century to develop a
“psychology with out a soul.”

Under the influence of scientific
materialism, everything that could not be seen with the eyes or touched with the hands was held in doubt; such things were even laughed at because  of their supposed affinity with metaphysics. Nothing was
considered “scientific” or admitted to be true unless it could be p erceived by
the senses or traced back to physical causes.36

Key representatives from within modern psychology have openly
disclosed the impasse of today’s therapeutic orientations:

“There is a tie that can unite all of us [the whole of contemporary psychology]: the
frank acknowledgement that we know very little”.37 And again: “[W]e
know so little of the earliest and deepest strata of the human mind.”38
Because it attempts to operate beyond its capacity, contemporary
psychology takes on an impossible task and is ill-equipped to comprehend
personality or anything else pertaining to the human psyche.

The chief characteristic of the last half of the nineteenth century was the
breaking up of personality into
fragments.These fragments were
symptoms  of the psychological, and spiritual disintegration occurring in the culture and in the individual. One can see this splitting up of the individual personality not only in the psychology and the science of the period but in
almost every aspect of late nineteenth century culture.39

When viewed through the lens of
modern and postmodern
psychology and its materialistic science in the absence of the Sacred,
human personality becomes disintegrated and essentially dehumanized:

“[Contemporary] psychology comes in with the bulk of its theories, its
prevailing views of human personality, its images of man, obviously in
league with the objectives of the nihilist Satanic spirit. Man is a computer,
an animal, or an infant. His destiny is completely determined by genes,
instincts, accidents, early conditionings and reinforcements, cultural
and social forces.”40


Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist, and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. Although ontology as a philosophical realm is academic in the sense that it is inseparable from each thinker’s epistemology, it has practical application in information science and information technology, where it informs ontologies with chosen taxonomies.

Epistemology (Listeni/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and λόγος, logos, meaning “study of”) is a term first used by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier to describe the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”. Put concisely, it is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. The term was probably first introduced in Ferrier’s Institutes of Metaphysic: The Theory of Knowing and Being (1854), p. 46.

References:
31.  Charles T.Tart,“Some Assumptions of Orthodox, Western Psychology,” in Transpersonal Psychologies, ed. CharlesT.Tart (New York, NY: H arper & Row, 1975). p. 84.

32. A.H.Almaas,“Being and Ego ,”in The Pearl Beyond Price: Integration o f Personality into Being:An Object Relations Approach (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2001), p. 22.

33. Anand C. Paranjpe, “A Personality Theory According to Vedanta,” in Anand C. Paranjpe, David Y.F. Ho and Robert W Rieber (eds,), Asian Contributions to P sychology (New York. NY: Praeger. 1988), p. 185.

34. Anand C. Paranjpe, “A Personality Theory According to Vedanta,” in Anand C. Paranjpe.
David Y.F. Ho and Robert W Rieber (eds.), Asian Contributions to Psychology (New York, NY: Praeger, 1988),p. 197.See also Anand C. Paranjpe, S e lf a n d Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought (New York. NY: Plenum Press. 1998).

35 Metropolitan of Nafpaktos H ierotheos,“Orthodoxy as aTherapeutic Method,” in The Illness
a n d Cure o f the Soul In the Orthodox Church, trans. Effie Mavromichali (Levadia-Hellas,
Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1995). p. 46.” (Psychology without a psyche.”
(George Feuerstein. “Pure Awarness.” in The Psychology of Yoga: Integrating eastern and Western Approaches for Understanding the Mind (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2013), p. 135): see also Hubert Gruender, Psychology w ith o u t a Soul:A Criticism (St. Louis, MO:
B. Herder, 1917).

36 C.G. Ju n g  T h e Basic Postulates of Analitical Psychology,” in Modern Man in Search o f a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933),
p. 173.

37 Frederick S. Peris, “Theory and Technique of Personality Integration,” American Journal
o f Psychotherapy, Vol. 2. No. 4 (October 1948), p. 586.

38 Erik H. Erikson.“The Life Cycle: Epigenesis of Identity.” in ldentity:Youth a n d Crisis (New
York. NY:W.W. Norton & Company, 1968), p. 104.

39. Rollo May, “Compartmentalization anil Inner Breakdown in the Nineteenth Century,” in The Discovery o f Being: Writings in Ex istential Psychology (New York, NY: W.W. Norton
& Company, 1983), p. 62.

40 Henry A. Murray, “Personality and Career of Satan,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 18. No. 4
(October 1962), p. 53.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers