8 Thomas Act 7 - Eye of the Mind
Philippians 2:1-51 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affections and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Today's sermon was inspired by a phrase which appears near the end of The Seventh Act of Thomas: "eyes of the mind". However, even though Thomas was the springboard for this discussion, "the mind's eye" is an expression which is much discussed elsewhere; hence the bulk of the material I will be presenting comes from a great many, various sources. It is a deep and complex subject, in which many potent doctrinal principles are involved. It is a subject capable of exciting intense interest, and revealing insight. So let's get into it: the eyes of the mind--what are they, and what do they do?
The Seventh Act of Thomas begins as follows:
Thomas is approached by a man, a sea captain, whose wife and daughter have been possessed, for three years, by two demons. The man comes to Thomas and tells his sad story, laden with descriptions of gross possession behavior--descriptions of which, by the way, we have read quite enough. The captain implores Thomas to help.
All appearances to the contrary, this sermon is not about demon possession; it is about healing and the eye of the mind, as the creator of our spiritual world--it is about the intellect as the gateway to spiritual reality. The pertinent passage from Thomas begins where Thomas is instructing the man in the way he may defeat the demon by calling on Jesus Christ for aid:
"And the apostle, hearing these things from the captain, was greatly grieved for him, and said unto him: Believest thou that Jesus will heal them?
And the captain said: Yea.
And the apostle said: Commit thyself then unto Jesus, and he will heal them and procure them succour.
And the captain said: Show me him, that I may entreat him and believe in him.
And the apostle said: He appeareth not unto these bodily eyes, but is found by the eyes of the mind."
We will come back to this basic idea: that JESUS is perceived by the eyes of the mind; furthermore, we will define spiritual reality as a world interpenetrated at every level by the Christ Consciousness, of which Jesus is the active identity, the incarnated focus of God Consciousness, the mediator between God and Man. Obviously, the expression "eyes of the mind" must appear many times in spiritual literature, as it is very apt and common metaphor. So let us create some context by looking at what a few philosophers have to say about it.
The first point I want to make is something of a semantic issue: I merely want to introduce the idea that, for Rudolf Steiner, the expression"eyes of the mind" is equivalent to the term "supersensible" perception--that is, the ability to see what is unseen. Here is a paragraph from an article, by Stuart Heywood, ABOUT Rudolf Steiner;
"In Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment,
Steiner insists that throughout history and in all cultures there have been those who, using various methods and techniques, have learned to activate organs of supersensible perception. Subsequently they have experienced direct contact, communication with a world heretofore invisible to them:
"Mystics, Gnostics, Theosophists - all speak of a world of soul and spirit which for them is just as real as the world which we see with our physical eyes and touch with our physical hands."
A big point that Steiner makes in Philosophy of Freedom, is:
that thinking can turn the mind into an organ of supersensible perception--and
that thought can acquire an actual conscious life of its own, giving birth to itself, enlivening our souls with spiritual energy.
Throughout this presentation, you will sense an undercurrent of an idea about the flow of energy from the "physical eyes" to the "eyes of the mind". We will see more and more how a VISION of spiritual realities BEGETS spiritual reality.
From Steiner's Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment, he writes:
"The unquestioned success of physical science has disenchanted the universe. The general population sees more mystery in their latest technological device rather than in the world around them. Unlike our ancestors, most of us do not see ourselves surrounded by a natural world numinous with invisible beings with whom we might commune. And physical science itself fosters this dismissive perspective with a fervor."
Again from Heywood:
"Natural science: self-defined boundary: The point however that Steiner was making here, is that if in natural science one continues to depend only upon sense perception, that is, a physical eye intellectual-analytical exclusive approach, or, mode of consciousness, then natural science has set itself a defined boundary beyond which it is unable to go.
"No mental representation can be made of what transcends the purely material and passes beyond the knowledge of the senses, until organs, of which the spiritual eyes--are developed; eyes which are able to see beyond the confines of the senses. For this reason we have no right to say, "Here are the limits of cognition"; but merely, "Here are the limits of sense-perception."
The "spiritual eyes" that Steiner refers to, here, "are developed; eyes" those of the mind's I-consciousness "which are able to see beyond the confines of the senses." Thus does spiritual science--philosophical spirituality enable one to transcend purely human physicality."
From PHILOSOPHISING THROUGH THE EYE OF THE MIND, by Dr Peter Critchley we read:
"When asked to explain the purpose of philosophy, Wittgenstein replied that the value of philosophy lies in showing the fly the way out of the bottle. The world. Instead, it keeps hitting the walls of its glass prison, not understanding the nature of the barriers to its freedom. The senses reveal so much but yet they reveal nothing at all; they tell part of the truth of the real world but not all of it. The senses do not reveal the way out of the bottle, the prison of the senses, they do not show the paths to truth and freedom.
Philosophy employs what Plato calls "the eyes of the mind" to go beyond the immediacy revealed by sense experience so as to access the true reality revealed by the intellect.
In this view of philosophy, there are levels of cognition which ascend from instincts and desires at the level of immediacy up to reason and intellect at the highest level. The path to truth, knowledge and freedom leads at the summit, the opening at the top of the bottle. This is the way of philosophy. The intellect shows the true reality. This is reality as seen through the eye of the mind."
Thus, the world of the mind, the world of the abstract, is perceived by philosophers as the TRUE reality. However, in The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis puts a different semantic spin on the term, by substituting the idea of "higher mind" for "reality", while equating the generic term "mind" with "illusion".
“Hell is a state of mind - ye never said a truer word. And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind - is, in the end, Hell. But Heaven is not a state of mind. Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains.”
This not an irreconcilable doctrinal contradiction--it is merely a semantic issue; we all know what he is talking about, and we know what WE are talking about. In this section, Lewis clearly means by "dungeon of his own mind", a state of mind attached to worldly modes of perception, while the other authors, I have quoted above, call upon the mind as a gateway to the spiritual dimension. This distinction emphasizes the point that one type of vision can evolve, and develop, and lead to a higher resolution of supersensible vision; that is to say, Lewis' low state of mind may refine itself into the true REALITY. Both are vision, and both are actually represented in the mind (by virtue of one definition or another). The distinction also points out that the visions that we see are never ESSENTIALLY symbolic or representational: what is perceived by the mind's eye may partake of a physical or geometric form, but it is ESSENTIALLY an abstract quality of mind which is only tenuously analogous to material reality.
From Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Article 3. Whether the essence of God can be seen with the bodily eye?
we read:
"Objection 1. It seems that the essence of God can be seen by the corporeal eye. For it is written (Job 19:26): "In my flesh I shall see . . . God," and (Job 42:5), "With the hearing of the ear I have heard Thee, but now my eye seeth Thee."
Objection 2. Further, Augustine says: "Those eyes" (namely the glorified) "will therefore have a greater power of sight, not so much to see more keenly, as some report of the sight of serpents or of eagles (for whatever acuteness of vision is possessed by these creatures, they can see only corporeal things) but to see even incorporeal things." Now whoever can see incorporeal things, can be raised up to see God. Therefore the glorified eye can see God.
Objection 3. Further, God can be seen by man through a vision of the imagination. For it is written: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne," etc. (Isaiah 6:1). But an imaginary vision originates from sense; for the imagination is moved by sense to act. Therefore God can be seen by a vision of sense."
[Sidebar: I believe this phrase: "an imaginary vision originates from sense" is putting the word "imaginary" on the same level as Lewis' "Hell state of mind". As we shall see, the term "imaginary" plays a crucial part in the overall doctrinal construct I am creating here. More on this below.
Back to Aquinas:]
"On the contrary, Augustine says: "No one has ever seen God either in this life, as He is, nor in the angelic life, as visible things are seen by corporeal vision."
[Sidebar: the distinction between corporeal vision and spiritual vision (in this case, vision of the "eyes of the mind") is the primary concern of this presentation. And, once again, we are promoting the idea that: one resolution of perception may be made to accelerate its vibrational frequency to a new quantum level, and a higher quality resolution.
Back to Aquinas:]
"I answer that, It is impossible for God to be seen by the sense of sight, or by any other sense, or faculty of the sensitive power. For every such kind of power is the act of a corporeal organ, as will be shown later. Now act is proportional to the nature which possesses it. Hence no power of that kind can go beyond corporeal things. For God is incorporeal, as was shown above. Hence He cannot be seen by the sense or the imagination, but only by the intellect."
[Sidebar: Here we have a happy resolution of our semantic difficulties: we know now that "mind" and "intellect" are somewhat interchangeable, and subtly contradictory. No problem.
Back to Aquinas: ]
"Reply to Objection 1. The words, "In my flesh I shall see God my Saviour," do not mean that God will be seen with the eye of the flesh, but that man existing in the flesh after the resurrection will see God. Likewise the words, "Now my eye seeth Thee," are to be understood of the mind's eye, as the Apostle says: "May He give unto you the spirit of wisdom . . . in the knowledge of Him, that the eyes of your heart" may be "enlightened" (Ephesians 1:17-18).
[Sidebar: Note the use of the terms "mind's eye", and "the eyes of your heart". Curiouser and curiouser.
Back to Aquinas:
"Reply to Objection 2. Augustine speaks as one inquiring, and conditionally. This appears from what he says previously: "Therefore they will have an altogether different power (viz. the glorified eyes), if they shall see that incorporeal nature;" and afterwards he explains this, saying: "It is very credible, that we shall so see the mundane bodies of the new heaven and the new earth, as to see most clearly God everywhere present, governing all corporeal things, not as we now see the invisible things of God as understood by what is made; but as when we see men among whom we live, living and exercising the functions of human life, we do not believe they live, but see it." Hence it is evident how the glorified eyes will see God, as now our eyes see the life of another. But life is not seen with the corporeal eye, as a thing in itself visible, but as the indirect object of the sense; which indeed is not known by sense, but at once, together with sense, by some other cognitive power. But that the divine presence is known by the intellect immediately on the sight of, and through, corporeal things, happens from two causes--viz. from the perspicuity of the intellect, and from the refulgence of the divine glory infused into the body after its renovation.
Reply to Objection 3. The essence of God is not seen in a vision of the imagination; but the imagination receives some form representing God according to some mode of similitude; as in the divine Scripture divine things are metaphorically described by means of sensible things."
Notice the use of the term "imagination". Aquinas distinguishes between the idea of "imaginary" as meaning "unreal" and as also meaning "metaphoric". In Steiner, the term "moral imagination" is a cornerstone of his doctrine. From Steiner's Philosphy of Freedom we read:
"Man produces concrete mental pictures from the sum of his ideas chiefly by means of the imagination. Therefore what the free spirit needs in order to realize his ideas, in order to be effective, is moral imagination. This is the source of the free spirit's action. Therefore it is only men with moral imagination who are, strictly speaking, morally productive. Those who merely preach morality, that is, people who merely spin out moral rules without being able to condense them into concrete mental pictures, are morally unproductive. They are like those critics who can explain very intelligibly what a work of art ought to be like, but who are themselves incapable of even the slightest productive effort.
Moral imagination, in order to realize its mental picture, must set to work in a definite sphere of percepts. Human action does not create percepts, but transforms already existing percepts and gives them a new form. In order to be able to transform a definite object of perception, or a sum of such objects, in accordance with a moral mental picture, one must have grasped the principle at work within the percept picture, that is, the way it has hitherto worked, to which one wants to give a new form or a new direction. Further, it is necessary to discover the procedure by which it is possible to change the given principle into a new one."
[Sidebar: Note the sentence:
"In order to be able to transform a definite object of perception, or a sum of such objects, in accordance with a moral mental picture, one must have grasped the principle at work within the percept picture."
"The principle at work within the percept picture" is what I was referring to when I stated, above:
"the visions that we see are never ESSENTIALLY symbolic or representational: what is perceived by the mind's eye may partake of a physical or geometric form, but it is ESSENTIALLY an abstract quality of mind, a principle which is only tenuously analogous to material reality."
This tenuous connection with material reality is accomplished through the heart, in the language of the heart, which, unfortunately may not be convincingly translated into verbal speech.
Back to Steiner:
"Under the guidance of the Spirits of Form (Exusiai) the Angels form pictures. Unless we reach the level of Imaginative Cognition we do not know that pictures are all the time being formed in our astral body."
Imaginative cognition refers to the Steiner concept of the "moral imagination". Here, he says we must "reach the level of Imaginative Cognition." This means that, in order to perceive angelic impressions, we must develop levels of sensitivity in ourselves capable of registering the subtle activity of the moral imagination on the soul. Remember that we perceive, and approach an understanding of, higher vibratory information through the sensitivity of the so-called imagination or intuition; this is a sense for which we have no verbal definitions beyond the mystery of faith surrounding the "cloud of unknowing". Now, the word "imagination" means literally "the act of creating an image". So, through the mechanics of "moral imagination" we are able to create images of moral entities. These images may be ineptly, or at least inadequately, described as "pictures". Would there were a better word.
Spiritual sensitivity is achieved by concentrated efforts of will which reveal to the subject his/her inner life. Steiner's term, "moral imagination", may be an unfortunate term for many, because the word "imaginary" carries with it the connotation of "unreal"; to achieve spiritual consciousness this connotation must be dispensed with. Spiritual realities are just as real as, in fact more real than, physical realities--they are just harder to perceive--at least at first. Consequently, if we are less spiritually attuned, the harder it will be to perceive spiritual realities, and the more spiritually attuned we are, the more spiritually attentive we are, the more easily will we be able to open that door between worlds."
Back to Thomas: When the man prays to Jesus, Thomas adds this:
"Children and brethren that have believed on the Lord, abide in this faith, preaching Jesus who was proclaimed unto you by me, to bring you hope in him; and forsake not (be not forsaken of) him, and he will not forsake you.
While ye sleep in this slumber that weigheth down the sleepers, he, sleeping not, keepeth watch over you; and when ye sail and are in peril and none can help, he walking upon the waters supporteth and aideth."
One of the concepts here is the idea of the "sleeping higher self". We have been warned many times, here at Basin Bible Church, that we mast pay attention, be aware. In this passage, we are told Jesus Christ will watch over our sleeping selves until faith in Him enlightens the eyes of the mind, and awakens the sleeping self.
In Steiner's Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment, we read:
"In addition to what we may call the ordinary, everyday self, everyone also bears a higher self, a higher human being, within. This higher human being remains hidden until awakened. It can be awakened only as each individual awakens it inwardly. Until then, those latent higher faculties within each of us, which lead to supersensory knowledge, remain hidden."
Carlos Casteneda, in The Power of Silence, comments on the change we experience in our our personal reality when supersensory perception is called into play:
"The mastery of awareness is the riddle of the mind; the perplexity sorcerers experience when they recognize the astounding mystery and scope of awareness and perception.
The art of stalking is the riddle of the heart; the puzzlement sorcerers feel upon becoming aware of two things: first that the world appears to us to be unalterably objective and factual, because of peculiarities of our awareness and perception; second, that if different peculiarities of perception come into play, the very things about the world, that seem so unalterably objective and factual, change."
This quote mentions, for the second time today, HEART as the organ of supersensory perception. Thus, the word "eyes" becomes a metaphor for a spiritual organ for which we have no clear objective image. Remember the sentence from the Summa Theologica:
Ephesians 1:17-18:
"May He give unto you the spirit of wisdom . . . in the knowledge of Him, that the eyes of your heart" may be "enlightened".
From this we infer that the heart is the true organ of spiritual vision; for what we see through physical eyes is a vague similitude of the higher spiritual vision. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:12:
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
For us devotees on the spiritual path, the dark glass of our material perception must give way to the clarity of intellectual perception; this must be accomplished by banishing the illusion and embracing the true. Only the heart can really tell which is which.
From William Blake's, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, we read:
“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.”
To be sure, cleansing the inner vision should be the spiritual devotee's primary occupation. Separating the images of physical reality, from the impressions of spiritual reality, is the discriminating task of the intellect, as the faculty of thought progresses in scope from an implicit, inner, abstract experience upward into a veritable sense organ, of higher sensitivity, capable of recognizing and interacting with subtle energies.
My personal quest to "rise above it" includes efforts to diffuse the negative charge of a host of unpleasant memories. As I have said, I definitely don't want my sins following me to the grave; and if I may, I would forbid them even from following me around the next corner. Fat chance.
Anyway, as the vision of the self, (as seen through the eye of the higher mind), becomes clearer and clearer, the disparate items in the catalogue of our Earthly and Heavenly ego structure become more and more apparent, and more and more distinct from each other. Thus, the eye of the mind SHOULD be able to perceive the Earthly self and the Spiritual self at the same time.
Rudolf Steiner has this to say about the fusion of Heaven and Earth:
"Every moral deed and every physical action in human life is connected in the human heart. Only when we truly learn to understand the configuration of the human heart will we find the true fusion of these two parallel and independent phenomena: moral events and physical events."
In this paragraph, Steiner brings back a concept we have brought out many times: the concept of the "moral imagination". Moral imagination encapsulates today's discussion in a single expression:
"moral", meaning spiritualized action originating in the mind of God, and
"imagination" meaning "to make an image of".
So how do we create these images in the imagination? How do we focus the "Eye of God"? Is it all angelic doing, or do we participate in the process? How do we focus our inner vision on an intangible, inarticulate reality, that is, (what's worse), hiding BEHIND material reality?
Below, Aldous Huxley details a very highly recommended technique for
receiving thought forms from our supersensible self. The technique consists
merely of quieting the mind--getting all the clutter and chaos of civilization
out--banishing all the false images, hopes, prejudices, hurts, and conflicts of
the world. This is very important indeed, because clearing out those
troublesome items, one at a time, will, step-by-step, rid us of the
psychological barriers which impede the flow of energy from our higher self
down to our lower self.
From Aldous Huxley's, The Gioconda Smile:
'There are quiet places also in the mind', he said meditatively. 'But we build bandstands and factories on them. Deliberately — to put a stop to the quietness. … All the thoughts, all the preoccupations in my head — round and round, continually What's it for? What's it all for? To put an end to the quiet, to break it up and disperse it, to pretend at any cost that it isn't there. Ah, but it is; it is there, in spite of everything, at the back of everything. Lying awake at night — not restlessly, but serenely, waiting for sleep — the quiet re-establishes itself, piece by piece; all the broken bits … we've been so busily dispersing all day long. It re-establishes itself, an inward quiet, like the outward quiet of grass and trees. It fills one, it grows — a crystal quiet, a growing, expanding crystal. It grows, it becomes more perfect; it is beautiful and terrifying … For one's alone in the crystal, and there's no support from the outside, there is nothing external and important, nothing external and trivial to pull oneself up by or stand on … There is nothing to laugh at or feel enthusiast about. But the quiet grows and grows. Beautifully and unbearably. And at last you are conscious of something approaching; it is almost a faint sound of footsteps. Something inexpressively lovely and wonderful advances through the crystal, nearer, nearer. And, oh, inexpressively terrifying. For if it were to touch you, if it were to seize you and engulf you, you'd die; all the regular, habitual daily part of you would die … one would have to begin living arduously in the quiet, arduously in some strange, unheard of manner."
This quotation is rich with beauteous nuggets; in particular I love the idea of the terrifying approach of unbearably quiet enlightenment. It reminds me of this section from the Screwtape Letters where the protagonist's death is described:
"One moment it seemed to be all our world; the scream of bombs, the fall of houses, the stink and taste of high explosive on the lips and in the lungs, the feet burning with weariness, the heart cold with horrors, the brain reeling, the legs aching; next moment all this was gone, gone like a bad dream, never again to be of any account.
Defeated, out-maneuvered fool! Did you mark how naturally—as if he'd been born for it—the earthborn vermin entered the new life? How all his doubts became, in the twinkling of an eye, ridiculous? I know what the creature was saying to itself! "Yes. Of course. It always was like this. All horrors have followed the same course, getting worse and worse and forcing you into a kind of bottle-neck till, at the very moment when you thought you must be crushed, behold! you were out of the narrows and all was suddenly well. The extraction hurt more and more and then the tooth was out. The dream became a nightmare and then you woke. You die and die and then you are beyond death. How could I ever have doubted it?"
Surely every spiritual advance is like a small death--a confrontation with the unknown, but yet deeply known; a passage to a brand new plane, strange and forbidding, yet mysteriously familiar. Is it too much to suggest that life--life here and beyond--is a series of compressions and rarefactions of energy of various quantum frequencies? I don't know if that concept is PERSONAL enough, but it's worth a moment of quiet contemplation.
Back to Thomas: the book never mentions the actual exorcism; in fact, the exorcism is so conspicuously absent, it feels like some text is missing; this is a constant problem with these ancient documents, many of which exist in nothing but forlorn tatters. There is no exorcism, but there is much talk of healing however:
"And he prayed with them and continued with them a long time in prayer and supplication, and committing them unto the Lord, he said: O Lord that rulest over every soul that is in the body; Lord, Father of the souls that have their hope in thee and expect thy mercies: that redeemest from error the men that are thine own and settest free from bondage and corruption thy subjects that come unto thy refuge."
At the end, Thomas announces that he is continuing his missionary journey, but that he is leaving a deacon behind. In so doing, he encourages his disciples to carry on in his absence because:
"for neither am I aught, nor he, but Jesus only; for I also am a man clothed with a body, a son of man like one of you;"
The expression "Son of Man" has always suggested a subtle mystery to me, mostly because of the unique position Christians give to Jesus as the one and only Son of God. There seems to be a confusion here, and I cannot decide whether it is a mere semantic fluke, or if there is a real distinction between a Son of God and a Son of Man. Clearly, Thomas identifies with the body with which he clothes himself, and refers to himself as "a son of man like one of you". Still there is the implication that he is somehow more; the "more" which is Thomas is linked to the "more" which is Jesus Christ.
From Wikipedia we read:
"Son of man" is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible, various apocalyptic works of the inter-testamental period, and the Greek New Testament. In the indefinite form ("son of man", "one like a son of man") used in the Hebrew Bible and inter-testamental literature it is a form of address, or contrasts human beings against God, or signifies an eschatological figure due to come at the end of history. The New Testament uses the earlier indefinite form while introducing a novel definite form, "the son of man."
The "one like the son of man" in the vision of Daniel 7 probably did not represent the Messiah, but later Jewish interpretations such as the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and the New Testament writers did consistently interpret it this way.
Son of man came to serve refers to a specific episode in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew 20:20–28 and the Gospel of Mark 10:35–45, Jesus explains that he "came as Son of man to give his life as ransom". The ransom paid by the Son of man is an element of a common doctrine of atonement in Christianity."
So what about "son of God"?
"The term "son of God" is sometimes used in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible to refer to those with special relationships with God. In the Old Testament, angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, and the kings of Israel are all called "sons of God." In the New Testament, Adam, and, most notably, Jesus Christ are called "son of God," while followers of Jesus are called, "sons of God.""
In C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters the demon declares:
"We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons"."
Perhaps the terms are mere representations of episodes, or phases, which occur, chronologically, in the soul's development, i.e.: when we are born of flesh, still under the sway of Adam's curse, (as Jesus certainly was when first incarnated), we are sons of man, but when we perceive our own divinity with the spiritual eye we become "sons of God"? Clearly the distinction has to do with the connection between mundane consciousness and spiritual consciousness. I think there is an implication, here, that attachment to earthly reality OCCLUDES spiritual vision.
Thomas comments on this:
"for neither have I riches as it is found with some, which also convict them that possess them, being wholly useless, and left behind upon the earth, whence also they came, and they bear away with them the transgressions and blemishes of sins which befall men by their means."
And scantly are rich men found in almsgiving: but the merciful and lowly in heart, these shall inherit the kingdom of God:"
Notice that this expression is almost identical to Matthew 5:5:
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."
However, once again, there is a mundane/spiritual paradox: one text says the meek shall inherit the kingdom of God, and one texts says the meek shall inherit the earth. Which is it? As I have indicated above, it might be both; and since spiritual reality exists outside time, we might be Sons of Man and Sons of God at the same time!
Further disparaging the transience of earthly life, (a Gnostic trademark), Thomas mentions that, in addition to riches, other forms of earthly attachment (beauty, youth, etc.) yield no spiritual fruit.
"for it is not beauty that endureth with men, for they that trust in it, when age cometh upon them, shall suddenly be put to shame: all things therefore have their time; in their season are they loved and hated. Let your hope then be in Jesus Christ the Son of God, which is always loved, and always desired: and be mindful of us, as we of you: for we too, if we fulfil not the burden of the commandments are not worthy to be preachers of this name, and hereafter shall we pay the price (punishment) of our own head."
Notice the WARNING: "hereafter shall we pay the price (punishment) of our own head". This message says that enlightenment brings with it an obligation to the entire corporate body of God, and woe to he who does not live up to that obligation. People, who feel no responsibility to the rest of humanity, are paving their own road to a personalized Hell.
On Steiner: Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment:
"Indeed, Steiner points out the dangers of not developing the power of supersensory cognition. He cautions that without the ability to perceive the rich hierarchy of entities by which we are surrounded, modern humans have become, like blind deer in a forest, vulnerable prey to a host of unperceived entities. Ignorance of these forces has become a cause of enormous personal grief, social unrest, and even disease. Without the evolutionary emergence of supersensual perception, the modern human is at the whim of these entities, for both good and bad, whereas with the ability to perceive these entities, much suffering could be avoided and crucial knowledge for devising solutions to problems of the world might be gained."
As I mentioned a few months ago:
"The answer to my prayers about my death anxiety, has been the instruction to: "Become more spiritual." Well, duh. This directive could mean so many things to so many different people--but, to me, becoming more spiritual means: to fix my conscious attention on higher-vibratory levels of life, more often. I do this all the time already--I do it with my will, and I do it with my imagination. (In this case I do not mean "imagination" in the sense of making something unreal, but in the sense of "MAKING AN IMAGE FROM NON-MATERIAL ENERGY".) As I say I can do this when I concentrate--but I simply MUST do it more often. "Pray unceasingly", Jesus says. Unceasingly create living thought forms of Heaven, expressing themselves in perceptible, tangible forms."
The character of these tangible forms, physical entities suffused with spiritual energy, we refer to as "mythological". Joseph Campbell comments on the role of mythology in acquiring or merely experiencing supersensory knowledge, and on the dangers of NOT acquiring supersensory knowledge:
"Wherever the hero may wander, whatever he may do, he is ever in the presence of his own essence — for he has the perfected eye to see. There is no separateness.
• In the absence of an effective general mythology, each of us has his private, unrecognized, rudimentary, yet secretly potent pantheon of dreams.
• It has always been the prime function of mythology and rite to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward, in counteraction to those that tend to tie it back. In fact, it may very well be that the very high incidence of neuroticism among ourselves follows the decline among us of such effective spiritual aid. We remain fixated to the unexorcised images of our infancy, and hence disinclined to the necessary passages of our adulthood."
So as we have seen from all the material above the eye of the mind sees spiritual reality. What relevance does it have to mundane life? Let us refer to our brief discussion of the concept "Son of Man". I suggested that a Son of Man might be an unrealized, or POTENTIAL, version of a Son of God. If this were so, the importance of the spiritual eye in disclosing the subject's spiritual identity TO HIMSELF cannot be overestimated. In working to "Rise above it" I have learned that focussing OUTWARD on the spiritual reality hiding behind the veil of Maya always turns my vision inward, such that the first and primary spiritual reality of which I become aware is MYSELF. Hence the issue may summarized as follows:
Attuning our supersensible sensitivities to the subtle energies of higher reality has the inevitable effect of revealing to us our own inner God-self.
And by this expression "inner God-self" we mean the Christ Consciousness, that spiritual identity made available to us exclusively by Jesus. Yes, as usual, at the end of our all our discussions, we must come around to mentioning the role of the great mediator in all this: Jesus Christ, the necessary link connecting the Spiritual world and the Mundane world. Without Him, all this talk of spiritual eyes, and higher selves, and all those heavenly things would be completely inaccessible to us, senseless gibberish. It is through his Shepherd-ship that we are able to attain higher consciousness; indeed, this consciousness is always in the background of all our daily doings, but we need that special act of grace for this enlightened truth to fully formalize itself in our mundane consciousness. Thank you Jesus.
Let us pray:
"Open my eyes, that I may seeAmen.
Glimpses of truth Thou hast for me;
Place in my hands the wonderful key
That shall unclasp and set me free.
Silently now I wait for Thee, Ready my God, Thy will to see, Open my eyes, illumine me, Spirit divine!"
