16 Divine Forms 2 - The Divine in Nature

 

16 Divine Forms 2 - The Divine in Nature

From Shakespeare's Hamlet:

”Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature:
for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.”

Last week's presentation, Divine Forms 1, contemplated the relationship of articulate manifestations to the mind of God. We concluded that every artistic expression is a refinement of the Christ Consciousness into a form (emphasis on "form") which humans can appreciate. Today we will go deeper into the appearance of divine forms as they dominate our landscape not only in natural forms, but also in man-made forms: in social structures, in art, in religion, even (or especially) in science. We will further discover that many of the expressions of divine forms have been translated (or transposed) into religious doctrine and mythology--expressions whose idiom changes from one geographic location to another, but whose essence remains the same.

We will also offer various descriptions of HOW divine forms manifest in the physical. A basic premise, common to all these various descriptions, is that there is a progression, or a continuum, of forms as they morph from the spiritual dimension into the physical dimension, and then disappear again out the back door. The idea of PROGRESSION will play a big part in this presentation.

When I started this lecture on divine imitation of nature, I had forgotten that there is a whole division of philosophical conceptualization devoted to the idea of imitating nature: it is called “mimesis”. Here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article on the subject:

Mimesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

“Mimesis (/maɪˈmiːsəs/; Ancient Greek: μίμησις (mīmēsis), from μιμεῖσθαι (mīmeisthai), "to imitate," from μῖμος (mimos), "imitator, actor") is a critical and philosophical term that carries a wide range of meanings, which include imitation, representation, mimicry, imitatio, receptivity, nonsensuous similarity, the act of resembling, the act of expression, and the presentation of the self.

In ancient Greece, mimesis was an idea that governed the creation of works of art, in particular, with correspondence to the physical world understood as a model for beauty, truth, and the good. Plato contrasted mimesis, or imitation, with diegesis, or narrative. After Plato, the meaning of mimesis eventually shifted toward a specifically literary function in ancient Greek society, and its use has changed and been reinterpreted many times since then.

In art history, "mimesis", "realism" and "naturalism" are used, often interchangeably, as terms for the accurate, even "illusionistic", representation of the visual appearance of things.

The Frankfurt school critical theorist T. W. Adorno made use of mimesis as a central philosophical term, interpreting it as a way in which works of art embodied a form of reason that was non-repressive and non-violent.

Classical definitions
Plato
Both Plato and Aristotle saw in mimesis the representation of nature. Plato wrote about mimesis in both Ion and The Republic (Books II, III, and X). In Ion, he states that poetry is the art of divine madness, or inspiration. Because the poet is subject to this divine madness, instead of possessing "art" or "knowledge" (techne) of the subject, the poet does not speak truth (as characterized by Plato's account of the Forms). As Plato has it, only truth is the concern of the philosopher. As culture in those days did not consist in the solitary reading of books, but in the listening to performances, the recitals of orators (and poets), or the acting out by classical actors of tragedy, Plato maintained in his critique that theatre was not sufficient in conveying the truth. He was concerned that actors or orators were thus able to persuade an audience by rhetoric rather than by telling the truth.

In Book II of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates' dialogue with his pupils. Socrates warns we should not seriously regard poetry as being capable of attaining the truth and that we who listen to poetry should be on our guard against its seductions, since the poet has no place in our idea of God.

In developing this in Book X, Plato told of Socrates' metaphor of the three beds: one bed exists as an idea made by God (the Platonic ideal); one is made by the carpenter, in imitation of God's idea; one is made by the artist in imitation of the carpenter's.
 
So the artist's bed is twice removed from the truth. The copiers only touch on a small part of things as they really are, where a bed may appear differently from various points of view, looked at obliquely or directly, or differently again in a mirror. So painters or poets, though they may paint or describe a carpenter or any other maker of things, know nothing of the carpenter's (the craftsman's) art, and though the better painters or poets they are, the more faithfully their works of art will resemble the reality of the carpenter making a bed, nonetheless the imitators will still not attain the truth (of God's creation).

The poets, beginning with Homer, far from improving and educating humanity, do not possess the knowledge of craftsmen and are mere imitators who copy again and again images of virtue and rhapsodize about them, but never reach the truth in the way the superior philosophers do.”

[Sidebar: This is important. Of course, we take exception with Plato’s conclusion that only philosophy can convey truth—indeed, our major premise is that art, imbued with spiritual resonance, BECOMES philosophy. Nevertheless, we must accept, as absolute, the idea that the imitation of God is Truth, but imitation of man must somehow be compromised, watered down truth, which is therefore false. It is like the Xerox copy idea: that each successive copy has a lower and lower resolution, so the copy is less and less faithful to the original. On the other hand, if we look to our source, and see the face of the infinite Creator in even the lowest level on the infinite continuum, we may see beyond the limits of corporeal knowability, and experience the Divine even in the false representation of WORDS. We must alway remember that the created thing must mirror its creator, and that the outer form must conform, essentially, to the inner form.

Back to Wikipedia:]

Aristotle
“Similar to Plato's writings about mimesis, Aristotle also defined mimesis as the perfection and imitation of nature. Art is not only imitation but also the use of mathematical ideas and symmetry in the search for the perfect, the timeless, and contrasting being with becoming. Nature is full of change, decay, and cycles, but art can also search for what is everlasting and the first causes of natural phenomena.” 

[Sidebar: This is also important, because, as we will see, below, there are mathematical sequences behind natural forms which provide those forms with an abstract intelligibility.

Back to Wikipedia:]

“Aristotle wrote about the idea of four causes in nature. 

The first formal cause is like a blueprint, or an immortal idea.

The second cause is the material, or what a thing is made out of. 

The third cause is the process and the agent, in which the artist or creator makes the thing. 

The fourth cause is the good, or the purpose and end of a thing, known as telos.

Aristotle's Poetics is often referred to as the counterpart to this Platonic conception of poetry. Poetics is his treatise on the subject of mimesis. Aristotle was not against literature as such; he stated that human beings are mimetic beings, feeling an urge to create texts (art) that reflect and represent reality.

Aristotle considered it important that there be a certain distance between the work of art on the one hand and life on the other; we draw knowledge and consolation from tragedies only because they do not happen to us. Without this distance, tragedy could not give rise to catharsis. However, it is equally important that the text causes the audience to identify with the characters and the events in the text, and unless this identification occurs, it does not touch us as an audience. Aristotle holds that it is through "simulated representation", mimesis, that we respond to the acting on the stage which is conveying to us what the characters feel, so that we may empathise with them in this way through the mimetic form of dramatic roleplay. It is the task of the dramatist to produce the tragic enactment in order to accomplish this empathy by means of what is taking place on stage.

In short, catharsis can only be achieved if we see something that is both recognisable and distant. Aristotle argued that literature is more interesting as a means of learning than history, because history deals with specific facts that have happened, and which are contingent, whereas literature, although sometimes based on history, deals with events that could have taken place or ought to have taken place."

[Sidebar: The ideas that, “we draw knowledge and consolation from tragedies only because they do not happen to us”, and that, “catharsis can only be achieved if we see something that is both recognizable and distant”, summarize the idea of “artifice”. We experience ARTIFICIAL LIFE differently from REAL LIFE. It is the tension between the real and the unreal in art that gives us the objectivity to draw philosophical conclusions from it, conclusions of higher mind; i.e. people can learn a great deal from observing somebody else’s tragedy, because the objective perspective is grounded in the abstract, whereas there is a completely different set of lessons to be learned from our own tragedies—that is to say, that the abstract reality of ideas worked out in imitation of nature apply to higher life more than the subjective difficulties of carnal life.

The following is a well-known image: two speakers facing each other, or is it vase? You can see one or the other, but not both at the same time.

                                

Again: it is the tension between of the real and the unreal in art that gives us the objectivity to draw philosophical conclusions from it, conclusions of higher mind. To be sure, some people claim to be able to see both the faces and the vase at the same time, a feat which I know is possible in an altered higher vibrational mind state; in point of fact the role of ART may be said to be precisely that: to generate altered mind states, a consciousness shift proceeding from the rational to the spiritual, exactly like prayer or meditation. But the means of alteration must include something familiar in opposition to something unfamiliar, something real in opposition to something unreal.

I read an article in Psychology Today, many years ago, about an experiment they did with babies. Very young infants, lying on their backs, had mobiles hung over their cribs for them to look at. Psychologists discovered that the babies would not look at things that were familiar, because they were bored with them; but they also would not look at anything that was too weird, because it freaked them out. The only way to hold the baby's attention was to show him something familiar with something slightly skewed about it. Variety-within-Unity seems to be the absolute definition of the psychic parameters which create consciousness.

Back to Wikipedia:

Contrast to diegesis
“It was also Plato and Aristotle who contrasted mimesis with diegesis (Greek διήγησις). Mimesis shows, rather than tells, by means of directly represented action that is enacted. Diegesis, however, is the telling of the story by a narrator; the author narrates action indirectly and describes what is in the characters' minds and emotions. The narrator may speak as a particular character or may be the "invisible narrator" or even the "all-knowing narrator" who speaks from above in the form of commenting on the action or the characters.”

Once again we encounter a duality: "showing" versus "telling". Does "showing" (through symbolic representation) come closer to the truth than telling (through verbal referents), or is the the telling a foray into the abstract world of ideas? De Charms would say no to the latter, because words are incapable of conveying the essence. 

We now turn to a theosophical work by Andreas Freher, NOTES AND MATERIALS OF THE DIVINE LAW. This excerpt revisits the subject of  "the knowing, which sense is not penetrable by human reason but only by the divine Spirit in man". It also discusses the conversion of Human Will into Divine Will in progressive stages--Natural Forms into Divine Forms.

"There is a mystical and magical sense of the Revelations of St John, as well as a literal and ecclesiastical sense. It is called mystical as it relates to the hidden mystery of God in the soul, and it is called magical as it relates to the knowing, which sense is not penetrable by human reason but only by the divine Spirit in man. This divine Spirit is universal and subsists in every man, but is, in many, not only obstructed but even perfectly hidden.

The cause of obstruction and hiding is the aversion of the will of man from the will of God; and the removal thereof is THEREFORE the conversion of that will into His. The conversion of the will of man into the will of God is not instantaneous but by a gradual process. This process is made through all the forms of nature and through all the divine spirits or divine forms.  

In every human soul or quarternary esta, centre is to be found as standing in the midst betwixt the two principles of darkness and light; and from thence begins the manifestation of the Spirit in light. . . .

The soul's perfection is in the full manifestation of the divine Spirit in every form and property thereof, through real formation and generation of Christ Within. . . .

The regenerated spirit draws after it the soul, and that also draws the body, without which it cannot be perfected-- and so the soul is clothed with the heavenly body of the inward Christ."
 

You could not find a more perfect analog to the idea that  "the soul is clothed with the heavenly body of the inward Christ", than the idea that an artwork is the product of invisible impulses from the Father, that generate artificial expressions, matter-form composites; as C.S. Lewis says,

"The Infinite, rejecting a myriad possibilities, throws out of Himself the positive elected invention."

The following excerpt traces the development of natural forms from spiritual essence:

THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURE HER DIVINE REVELATIONS, AND A VOICE TO MANKIND.
By ANDREW JACKSON DAVIS
 
“Then form is the only external mode by which all essences exist, and is the state which they assume in reference to all the material things. A plant puts forth its delicate tendrils, its finely interwoven fibers and substances, only by virtue of the essence which DEVELOPS itself from the inner to the outer world in that form.  And the rose with all its beauty delicacy and fragrance is a perfect representative of the inner essence. All such forms developed, however complicated and varied in appearance, that they may manifest only the essential qualities of their own creation. The outer soul, in every instance, is a perfect type image and correspondent of the inner from which it proceeded.

The most delicate animal's form is also a representation of its inner living essence, and actuating principle; and the MOST gigantic beast form, is only a higher degree of development, and a higher representative of corresponding qualities which are its soul and creator.

Yet, the whole animal, vegetable, and mineral worlds, are as one form to the body of Man, for they only POSSESS, collectively, what is the human organization individually Composed of. Thus it is that the human form is the perfection of all forms. And as this is established, it is made clear equally that its soul, or essence, is a corresponding structure of which the outside is the manifest mode of Being and the exact representative.

And it is necessary that it should be well understood, and borne in mind, that form is not the creator of life or of Its attributes; but that the form, in every department of Nature, is outside the mode of every living soul's existence. But in neither of the lower kingdoms, have the organized forms an inner principle of life, individually but collectively, as they have constituting one perfect plane of form and creation. The human form has an individually organized principle, because every human organization is a congregation of all subordinate forms and substances in matter and is indestructible. . . .

Beings of one type progress from the lowest form through the successive modifications to the highest of all.

[Sidebar: As mentioned earlier, observing the progression of divine forms through their various incarnations reveals a SEQUENTIALLY graduated continuum of manifestations from lower physical reality to higher spiritual reality. Furthermore, we must remember that the outer form must conform to the inner form, a conformity discernible on every one of the infinite number of levels.

As we examine divine form in mundane manifestation, we must turn to the phenomenon of so-called “sacred sites”, but, first, here is a Wikipedia review the term "sacred": 

Sacred
“Sacred means revered due to sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with divinity) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers).

From an anthropological or atheistic perspective, the religious view of the sacred is an emic perspective on a culture's collection of thoughts and practices that function as a basis for the community's social structure.

The word "sacred" descends from the Latin sacrum, which referred to the gods or anything in their power, and to sacerdos and sanctum, set apart. It was generally conceived spatially, as referring to the area around a temple."

Now on to Sacred Natural Sites:

 
Sacred Natural Sites — an Overview
“Sacred natural sites are natural features in or areas of land or water having special spiritual significance to peoples and communities.

The interest in sacred natural sites from the perspective of nature conservation lies in the components of biological diversity that they harbour, such as the species of animals and plants, the habitats and ecosystems, as well the ecological dynamics and functions that support life within and outside the places. Linked to such biological diversity is the array of distinct human cultures that care for them and hold them sacred.

Sacred natural sites consist of all types of natural features including mountains, hills, forests, groves, rivers, lakes, lagoons, caves, islands and springs. They can vary in size from the very small: an individual tree, small spring, or a single rock formation, to whole landscapes and mountain ranges. They consist of geological formations, distinct landforms, specific ecosystems and natural habitats. They are predominantly terrestrial but are also found in inshore marine areas, islands and archipelagos. They may also be the location of temples, shrines, mosques and churches, and they can incorporate other features such as pilgrimage trails. In some sites nature is itself sacred, while in others sanctity is conferred by connections with spiritual heroes, religious structures or sacred histories.

Sacred natural sites and religion
Sacred natural sites are just one of many domains where religions or belief systems interact with nature. Most if not all religions have mythology, cosmology, theology or ethics related to earth, nature and land. Contemporarily, such connections are growingly being revived or re-articulated through ethical positions expressed for example in statements that many of the mainstream faiths have produced, setting out their relationship to the natural world and their responsibility towards the planet. . . .

The vast majority of sacred natural sites were arguably founded by indigenous or folk religions and spiritualities, but many were subsequently adopted or co-opted by mainstream religions. There is consequently a considerable 'layering' and mixing of religious and other spiritual or belief systems. . . .

Sacred natural sites are thus connected to a wide range of socio-cultural systems and institutions, some more complex than others, and to different dynamics of change and cultural interaction.”

Thus, the question to ask is this: 

"Does the confluence and intensification of spiritual energies, that occur at so-called sacred sites, whether they be natural or man-made, enhance the human mind’s sensitivity to spiritual influence, or not?”. 

We would like to think, yes. When we see reminders of mythological entities appearing in the face of a mountain cliff, or in the complexities of religious architecture, do we enter the mind state of that myth and raise our consciousness above the mundane, or are we merely entertained by the mimetic play of images in literal consciousness?

The preceding quotes about sacred sites don't emphasize the fact that sacred sites tend to be places where something is happening, places where there extraneous energies are modulated and synthesized. By "places where something is happening" I mean places like a windy mountaintop, a high butte, a confluence of three rivers, a waterfall, etc.

There's a place in Idaho called Buffalo Eddy; it is a place, on the Snake River, where rocks stick way out into the stream, creating a bend in the river. The river courses violently around this promontory, generating whirlpools and a lot of complex crosstalk of the waves. Many people have drowned there. This site was chosen by the Nez Perce as a holy place where they had various tribal rituals; on the broad, flat, so-called “wedding rock”, newly-weds worked out their problems in front of the whole tribe, before they got married. The famous petroglyphs decorate one great big rock wall above the eddy.

I had a very interesting experience there. I was sitting out in the river on  this great rock, banging on a big deer-hide bass drum. There was a strange resonance to the sound, and the vibrations got extremely trippy, such that I started feeling  a little bit high. Suddenly this huge moose came charging over the mountainous horizon; from a distance, I watched it make its way all the way down the hill, all the way  across the snake River, and out onto the other side.

Also, Buffalo Eddy is a place where I had this wonderful vision of a blue heron, swooping down over the river, and lightly brushing the surface of the river with its wing. I know this is a technique that birds use to tempt fish up to the top, but, aside from its pragmatic connotation, it was a highly mystical event, a mythic vision in every sense of the word.

So a sacred site is a place where various natural energies come together and generate a kind of magnetic pole of the psyche. It remains to be seen if we, here, create the same complex vibratory crosstalk in our little religious rituals at Basin Bible church.

We will now get into the subject of the actual mathematical underpinnings of spiritual experience--mathematical patterns which are at the structural center of articulate natural forms.

Sacred geometry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Sacred geometry is the geometry used in the design and construction of religious structures such as churches, temples, mosques, religious monuments, altars, tabernacles; as well as for sacred spaces such as temenoi, sacred groves, village greens and holy wells, and the creation of religious art. In sacred geometry, symbolic and sacred meanings are ascribed to certain geometric shapes and certain geometric proportions, according to Paul Calter and others:

As worldview and cosmology
The belief that God created the universe according to a geometric plan has ancient origins. Plutarch attributed the belief to Plato, writing that "Plato said God geometrizes continually" (Convivialium disputationum, liber 8,2). In modern times the mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss adapted this quote, saying "God arithmetizes".
 
Natural forms
According to Stephen Skinner, the study of sacred geometry has its roots in the study of nature, and the mathematical principles at work therein. Many forms observed in nature can be related to geometry, for example, the chambered nautilus grows at a constant rate and so its shell forms a logarithmic spiral to accommodate that growth without changing shape. Also, honeybees construct hexagonal cells to hold their honey. These and other correspondences are sometimes interpreted in terms of sacred geometry and considered to be further proof of the natural significance of geometric forms.

Art and architecture
Geometric ratios, and geometric figures were often employed in the design of Egyptian, ancient Indian, Greek and Roman architecture. Medieval European cathedrals also incorporated symbolic geometry. Indian and Himalayan spiritual communities often constructed temples and fortifications on design plans of mandala and yantra.

Many of the sacred geometry principles of the human body and of ancient architecture have been compiled into the Vitruvian Man drawing by Leonardo da Vinci, itself based on the much older writings of the Roman architect Vitruvius.

In Hinduism
The Agamas are a collection of Sanskrit,Tamil and Grantha  scriptures chiefly constituting the methods of temple construction and creation of idols, worship means of deities, philosophical doctrines, meditative practices, attainment of sixfold desires and four kinds of yoga.

Music
Pythagoras is often credited for discovering that an oscillating string stopped halfway along its length produces an octave relative to the string's fundamental, while a ratio of 2:3 produces a perfect fifth and 3:4 produces a perfect fourth. However the Chinese culture already featured the same mathematical positions on the Guqin and the tone holes in flutes, so Pythagoras was not the first. Pythagoreans believed that these harmonic ratios gave music powers of healing which could "harmonize" an out-of-balance body."
 
Sacred architecture
Sacred architecture (also known as religious architecture) is a religious architectural practice concerned with the design and construction of places of worship and/or sacred or intentional space, such as churches, mosques, stupas, synagogues, and temples. Many cultures devoted considerable resources to their sacred architecture and places of worship. Religious and sacred spaces are amongst the most impressive and permanent monolithic buildings created by humanity. Conversely, sacred architecture as a locale for meta-intimacy may also be non-monolithic, ephemeral and intensely private, personal and non-public.

Sacred, religious and holy structures often evolved over centuries and were the largest buildings in the world, prior to the modern skyscraper. While the various styles employed in sacred architecture sometimes reflected trends in other structures, these styles also remained unique from the contemporary architecture used in other structures. With the rise of Abrahamic monotheisms (particularly Christianity and Islam), religious buildings increasingly became centres of worship, prayer and meditation.
The Western scholarly discipline of the history of architecture itself closely follows the history of religious architecture from ancient times until the Baroque period, at least. Sacred geometry, iconography and the use of sophisticated semiotics such as signs, symbols and religious motifs are endemic to sacred architecture.

Spiritual aspects of religious architecture
Sacred and/or religious architecture is sometimes called sacred space.

Architect Norman L. Koonce has suggested that the goal of sacred architecture is to make "transparent the boundary between matter and mind, flesh and the spirit." In discussing sacred architecture, Protestant minister Robert Schuller suggested that "to be psychologically healthy, human beings need to experience their natural setting—the setting we were designed for, which is the garden." 

Meanwhile, Richard Kieckhefer suggests that entering into a religious building is a metaphor for entering into spiritual relationship. Kieckhefer suggests that sacred space can be analyzed by three factors affecting spiritual process: 

longitudinal space emphasizes the procession and return of sacramental acts, 

auditorium space is suggestive of proclamation and response, 

and new forms of communal space designed for gathering and return depend to a great degree on minimized scale to enhance intimacy and participation in worship.

Ancient architecture
Sacred architecture spans a number of ancient architectural styles including Neolithic architecture, ancient Egyptian architecture and Sumerian architecture. Ancient religious buildings, particularly temples, were often viewed as the dwelling place, the temenos, of the gods and were used as the site of various kinds of sacrifice. Ancient tombs and burial structures are also examples of architectural structures reflecting religious beliefs of their various societies."

Another interesting sacred site I have visited is not natural but man-made: Lincoln's Tomb. I've been there twice, and I remember the exact same feeling both times: there is a very powerful low vibration coming off that place, and as you go down into this kind of tunnel, a sense of solemnity washes over you. It is really a holy place. It is as if the Angels were watching over him, and conveying the seriousness of this mind to those who have come to pay him homage.

 
To recapitulate the main points of this presentation, let us be reminded the following:

1. If we look to our source, and see the face of the infinite Creator in even the lowest level on the infinite continuum, we may see beyond the limits of corporeal knowability, and experience the Divine even in the false representation of WORDS. We must alway remember that the created thing must mirror its creator, and that the outer form must conform, essentially, to the inner form.

2. In sacred geometry, symbolic and sacred meanings are ascribed to certain geometric shapes and certain geometric proportions. This MUST be, because the sacred proportions give form to an underlying impulse of the Divine.

3. Sacred sites tend to be places where something is happening, places where extraneous energies are modulated and synthesized. These energies are often created by the activity of external natural forces, like the rush of water or wind, but they may also be generated by human acts: acts of praise, adoration, and fidelity.

How might we endeavor to create such a vortex of energy that this place may achieve sanctity? What do we know of such things?

Next week I will read the following:

I have long maintained that the truth of music was not the representation of things, but the miraculous manifestation of the divine in the physical. People are always trying to get me to explain to them what makes good music and what makes bad music. Over the years, I have invented a few convincing lines about the quality, time periods, unity-in-variety, etc.; or I have suggested different ways of gauging how honestly (accurately?) nature is reflected in the art, all based on somewhat rational principles. But preparing this sermon has awakened in me the realization that my response to music is not really rational at all; that the reflection of the inner divine impulse in an outer form is something that can only be sensed intuitively. We experience the timeless intuitive response, and then reflect on the experience at a later time.

As Kierkegaard says: 

"We experience forwards, we understand backwards.

From this, in conjunction with the foregoing,  we must conclude that:

1. all experience of divine forms must take place intuitively, in that space of human consciousness that is beyond time, and that 

2. we appreciate, achieve what we call "understanding" from backwards reflection. It is this backward reflection that gives form to the formless experience.

Now in the final analysis, the answer to the good-vs-bad question, is this: 

Since all creations come from the Father, and are imbued with Divine Radiance, all creations MUST be, on some level, Divine. It is the quality of our own personal REFLECTION that makes an artwork good or bad, a place sacred or profane. 

My teacher Herbert Brun always said: 

"Listen to everything a person says as if he were a human being."

Now I think I know what he meant. 

Let us pray: Thank you Jesus for the miracle of creation, the miracle of articulation, and that space in human consciousness that is beyond time. Amen.

15 Divine Forms 1

15 Divine Forms

Living in Alaska, driving every day through the most magnificent alpine vistas in the world, I, as an artist, and as an aesthetician, must necessarily ask several questions:

1.   what does all this beauty mean?
2.   is this natural beauty more beautiful than man-made environments—like streetlights, parking lots, Walmarts, and condominiums?
3.   should an artist seriously attempt to re-create the wonders of nature as an end in itself, or is human expression biased in favor of a different perspective on reality entirely?
4.   is the imitation of natural forms the key to the most profound human expressions, or is there more to it?
5.   how does natural beauty refer to spiritual truth?

This presentation will explore the subject of form in nature and in spirit; it will also attempt to answer a few of these questions. The most important questions are:

1. must spirit express itself in some form or other, i.e., can the restrictions of material reality contain the essence of spirit? in other words, does EXPRESSION of spirit have to be contained by a coherent form, or may spiritual truth be imparted to us instantaneously, like angel thought? and
2. does spiritual truth manifested through material forms alter the forms, or do the forms alter the truth?

These are age-old questions pondered by all the great philosophers, perhaps beginning (in recorded history) with Aristotle.

From Wikipedia we read:

Aristotelian forms

“Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter (hyle) and form (morphe). For Aristotle, matter is the undifferentiated primal element: it is rather that from which things develop than a thing in itself. The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, the acquiring of particular forms of which the knowable universe consists (cf. Formal cause). The perfection of the form of a thing is its entelechy in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function (De anima, ii. 2). Thus the entelechy of the body is the soul. The origin of the differentiation process is to be sought in a prime mover, i.e. pure form entirely separate from all matter, eternal, unchangeable, operating not by its own activity but by the impulse which its own absolute existence excites in matter.”

There are several nuggets here right off the bat: the idea that matter is somehow a primal element whose ideal realization (its entelechy) is the soul. This concept pretty much lays the groundwork for everything else that is to come in this lecture: natural forms come into existence through the impulse of the prime mover acting upon matter. I love the sentence:

“pure form entirely separate from all matter, eternal, unchangeable, operating not by its own activity but by the impulse which its own absolute existence excites in matter.”

The idea of an "absolute existence" exciting activity in matter, is such vivid and resonant language, it makes us feel the impulse of the Father radiating through the very muscles of our bodies.

Commenting on this principle, Boethius, in his The Consolation of Philosophy (520-562 A.D), has improved the language of Aristotle by labeling this undifferentiated primal element, “the unchanging mind of God”:

“The engendering of all things, the whole advance of all changing natures, and every motion and progress in the world, draw their causes, their order, and their forms from the allotment of the unchanging mind of God, which lays manifold restrictions on all action from the calm fortress of its own directness. Such restrictions are called Providence when they can be seen to lie in the very simplicity of divine understanding; but they were called Fate in old times when they were viewed with reference to the objects which they moved or arranged. It will easily be understood that these two are very different if the mind examines the force of each.

For Providence is the very divine reason which arranges all things, and rests with the supreme disposer of all; while Fate is that ordering which is a part of all changeable things, and by means of which Providence binds all things together in their own order. Providence embraces all things equally, however different they may be, even however infinite: when they are assigned to their own places, forms, and times, Fate sets them in an orderly motion; so that this development of the temporal order, unified in the intelligence of the mind of God, is Providence."


It’s interesting that the description of the dualistic nature of human reality has so many variously articulated opposites; we have “body and soul” “finite and infinite”, Aristotole gives us “matter and form”, Boethius gives us “fate and providence”, and, further down we will hear Martin Luther say, "essence implies a condition, while its expression implies action". How many ways are there to express this dualism, which seems to be deeply embedded in the PROCESS of human consciousness? Notice how our consciousness oscillates between two opposite states, just like the wave/particle behavior of photons described by the new particle physics. Notice, also, that the unchanging mind of God imposes “manifold restrictions on all action”. Here is made the first mention of form as a finite component present in an infinite process of becoming. I have read, many times, the following quote from C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra:

"To those high creatures whose activity builds what we call nature, nothing is "natural." From their stations the essential arbitrariness (so to call it) of every actual creation is ceaselessly visible; for them there are no basic assumptions: all springs with the willful beauty of a jest or a tune from that miraculous moment of self-limitation wherein the Infinite, rejecting a myriad possibilities, throws out of Himself the positive elected invention."

So, no matter how much we focus on NATURAL FORMS, we always we come back to the idea of the infinite, incarnate in a finite material package. It must be that the INTERPLAY of divine forms and natural forms creates human expression. Indeed, it may well turn out that: CONSCIOUSNESS itself is a bi-product of the COMBINATION of corporeal and incorporeal elements. Perhaps this synthesis is not Pure Consciousness, but is responsible, merely, for EGO CONSCIOUSNESS. Then again, how we separate the Infinite Father, the Prime Mover, the God with No Name, from the Father of Creation, He who not only IS but DOES?

In spite of the vast cavalcade of dualistic pairs, be they what they may, there are, nevertheless, plenty of three-part descriptions of this continuum. In I.C. Sharma's book, Cayce, Karma, and Reincarnation, we read:

"The second category of creation, the human institution, stands midway between the macrocosmic and microcosmic categories. It has been called Adhyatman, or the category of soul, a combination of the infinite, incorporeal element of pure spirit, and the corporeal element of physical energy."

As we have noted several times, the scholastics of the 1200s attempted to incorporate Greek philosophical principles into their church doctrine. On the subject “matter” the following summarizes the thoughts of Thomas Aquinas in his The Power of God:

“According to Thomas the soul is not matter, not even incorporeal or spiritual matter. If it were, it would not be able to understand universals, which are immaterial. A receiver receives things according to the receiver's own nature, so for soul (receiver) to understand (receive) universals, it must have the same nature as universals. Yet, any substance that understands universals may not be a matter-form composite. So, humans have rational souls, which are abstract forms independent of the body. But a human being is one existing, single material substance that comes from body and soul: that is what Thomas means when he writes that "something one in nature can be formed from an intellectual substance and a body", and "a thing one in nature does not result from two permanent entities unless one has the character of substantial form and the other of matter.

The soul is a "substantial form"; it is a part of a substance, but it is not a substance by itself.”

(This is what Aristotle said.)

“Nevertheless, the soul exists separately from the body, and continues, after death, in many of the capacities we think of as human. The theory of substantial forms asserts that forms (or ideas) organize matter and make it intelligible. Substantial form is what makes a thing a member of the species to which it belongs, and substantial form is also the structure or configuration that provides the object with the abilities that make the object what it is. For humans, those abilities are those of the rational animal.”

Note the word “intelligible” in the preceding paragraph. We cannot fail to see the connection between “intelligible” and “intelligence”. Many times we have used the term “divine intelligence” to refer to the abstract understanding of higher dimensions. Intelligence resides in the domain of higher mind, and yet we humans are able to experience the truths conveyed by divine intelligence into the physical. This is one more example of how the Christ Consciousness bridges the gap between Man and God; furthermore it is the SENSE of a priori knowledge that seems to us to be “intelligent”. By SENSING a priori  knowledge, I mean this:

A priori knowledge is kind of like an atomic level of truth--it cannot be stripped down into any smaller or simpler components. 2 + 2 = 4 because, on a lofty level of higher mind, Somebody said so. To SENSE 2 + 2 = 4, our logic systems must shut down, and we simply know.


Back to Wikipedia:

Thoughts on afterlife and resurrection
“A grasp of Aquinas's psychology is essential for understanding his beliefs around the afterlife and resurrection. Thomas, following Church doctrine, accepts that the soul continues to exist after the death of the body. Because he accepts that the soul is the form of the body, then he also must believe that the human being, like all material things, is form-matter composite."

Form-matter composite is a key concept. If a human being is matter/form composite, what, then, must be the creations of man, but reflections or representations of his own matter/form composite nature? The laws of Nature decree that: that which is created from Consciousness must echo the form of the Creator. God created us in His likeness; we create our expressions in our own likeness, which is, in turn, God's Likeness. We live in a house of mirrors, our images reflected into Infinity.

Back to Wikipedia:

“Substantial form (the human soul) configures prime matter (the physical body) and is the form by which a material composite belongs to that species it does; in the case of human beings, that species is rational animal. So, a human being is a matter-form composite that is organized to be a rational animal. Matter cannot exist without being configured by form, but form can exist without matter—which allows for the separation of soul from body."

[Sidebar: I wish to emphasize the thought:

"form can exist without matter"

This sentence suggests, once again, that there is such a thing as Divine Form, whose identity is UNDEFINED by human thought, but resonant in the human higher mind. Perhaps the whole idea of Divine Form is an oxymoron; or perhaps Divine Form is just one more discrete level on the Infinite Continuum of the Divine Cosmography culminating in the Infinitely Formless Father.

Back to Wikipedia:]

"Aquinas says that the soul shares in the material and spiritual worlds, and so has some features of matter and other, immaterial, features (such as access to universals). The human soul is different from other material and spiritual things; it is created by God, but also only comes into existence in the material body.

Human beings are material, but the human person can survive the death of the body through continued existence of the soul, which persists. The human soul straddles the spiritual and material worlds, and is both a configured subsistent form as well as a configurer of matter into that of a living, bodily human. Because it is spiritual, the human soul does not depend on matter and may exist separately. Because the human being is a soul-matter composite, the body has a part in what it is to be human. Perfected human nature consists in the human dual nature, embodied and intellecting."

Of particular interest is the sentence already commented on above:

“Matter cannot exist without being configured by form, but form can exist without matter—which allows for the separation of soul from body.”

An interesting question, (not unlike the question of whether a tree, falling in the forest with on one to hear, makes a sound) is whether music can exist without the physical vibration of sound waves, or without physical ears to hear it. Certainly, in a case like that of the deaf Beethoven, music can exist on an abstract level, and the inner ear of the musician is just as acute as the physical ear, if not moreso. However, is the music, we hear inside, a truly abstract intelligence, or is it just muscle memory reliving experiences well-learned before we became deaf. Could Helen Keller be taught to hear music with her inner ear if her physical ears had never been trained? She reports that she can hear music by touching the speaker, and she can even distinguish between the flutes and the violas! Is the abstract sense of music available to those with no prior experience of sound, or is the natural form necessary to impart music’s higher truths?

The William Blake poem The Divine Image ends thus:

“For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And love, the human form divine, and
Peace the human dress.
Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.”

Blake has no doubt that Divine Forms express themselves in altruistic MOODS like, "Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace". Furthermore, he has no doubt that summoning these moods, by the ego, may give comfort.

From Wikipedia:

Summary
“In The Divine Image, the figures of Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love are presented by Blake as the four virtues which are objects of prayer in moments of distress, God being praised for his lovely caring and blessing to comfort man. The four virtues are depicted by the author as essential not only in God, but also in man; as Mercy is found in the human heart and Pity in the human face. Similarly, abstract qualities like Peace and Love exist in the human form, becoming the divine form and body of man and resembling God's substantial virtues. Consequently, Blake not only introduces a similarity between the divine image of a benevolent God and the human form but also the concept of the creation of man after God's divine constituency.”

I wish to emphasize the sentence:

“Similarly, abstract qualities like Peace and Love exist in the human form, becoming the divine form and body of man and resembling God's substantial virtues.”

Thus, we, once again, encounter the idea that the human form may become divine in its RESEMBLANCE to God’s substantial virtues. We are wending toward the point that a resemblance to God and an imitation of Nature may wind up being the same thing.

The question of artistic "imitation of nature" has occupied artists for centuries, and there is, by now, pretty general agreement that the closer an artwork comes to an imitation of nature, the more successful the artwork. As Shakepeare's Hamlet says to the players:


"Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature: for any thing so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own
image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."

The imitation of natural forms is indeed the key to the most profound HUMAN expressions, but, at a certain point there is a quantum leap revealing that there is more to it--that is to say, natural forms may sometimes transcend the limits of the physical in terms of symmetry, and organicism, becoming super-intelligent expressions. The structure and dimensions, of these divine forms, exist beyond the knowable limits of natural forms. Nevertheless, imitation of nature is a very true way of IMITATING OURSELVES; and since self-expression is what art is all about, that is a pretty important point.

All this is coming to the conclusion that we, and all our works, are expressions of God--that is to say, we are God's artworks. Hence, the artworks filter down from God to us in stages, each nested one inside another, like those Russian Matryoshka Dolls; but no matter at what level of manifestation it appears, it essentially, and eternally, comes from God. The clarity in the beauty of nature is that it is matter formed by the impulse of the Father without recourse to human consciousness. Art allows the eyes of God to peek around the corner of matter into the innermost depths of human beings.


From The Doctrine of the Lord--New Church Views of the Lord, Mar 29, 2014, by Richard De Charms, we read:

“Existence does not exist of or by itself. Note: the Divine is Infinite and Eternal in itself from which all things are.
Existence is not in the Divine, but from the Divine. Existence is the external manifestation of the essence or esse, which is substance and form.

While Divine Essence is only One and the only substance, and is of only one form from which all essences, substances and forms are derived (created). 


Divine Essence is Divine Love and Divine Wisdom and is indivisible.

Celestial and spiritual love is the very being (esse) of the man who is being regenerated, but the Rational and the Sensitive, when it is imbued with that love, is his existing.
What exists in this world (universe) is natural and of natural substances and is in all and every form. Yet, man is more than just of or from natural substances. He also has affections and thoughts, which are not of or from natural substances, but are of spiritual substances.

A man’s affections and thoughts direct (rule) his natural body. Explanation: man has an external and an internal or a natural and a spiritual body and mind. In this world, in his natural body, is his external mind, and when he comes into the spiritual world he is in his spiritual body and mind. However, his mind, both the external and internal, is of spiritual substances. This is because the mind leads and directs (rules) his natural body, while he is in this world.

The ground of unitarian error in conceiving of God lies in an undue exercise of a particular property of the human mind called abstraction. The human mind can abstract color cloth from the countenance from the bony and fleshy visage, intelligence from the eye, affection from the thought, and the whole mind of man from ITS spiritual or materials embodiment; but in fact these things do not and cannot exist abstractly.

The human mind has the power of abstracting, in thought, the attributes and qualities of things from the things in which they inhere, in nature or in fact. THUS no such abstraction exists in the human mind. In fact, length or breadth or depth nowhere exists abstractly, from the matter in which it inheres universally. So there is no such thing as an abstract principle. Such a notion is a mere thought or notion of the mind in its apprehension of the attributes and qualities of the natural things.

The human mind can give a perfect existence to its own abstractions and its imaginative faculty esta. Hence, the mind can conceive of essence abstractly from form or cause from effect or end from cause or mind from body. And it can conceive of an abstract divine mind, can conceive of a divine essence abstractly from a divine form, though in the nature of things no such abstraction can or ever did exist."

[Sidebar: this is a very interesting phrase:

"In the nature of things no such abstraction can or ever did exist."

Emphasize "NATURE OF THINGS". The sentence suggests that Divine Forms and Natural Forms are, in some sense, incompatible. Perhaps this is a reference to the idea of the two faces or a vase:

                                 

This image is famous for declaring that you can see the faces, and you can sees the vase, but you can't see both at the same time. It must be the same for Divine forms in opposition to Natural forms.  To be sure, the Natural forms often break a trail up to the experience of Divine form. Perhaps De Charms is saying that we cannot experience form outside the physical dimension, not because we are unable to sense the Infinite, but merely as an article of proper epistemology. This idea, that there is no such thing as a REAL abstraction, is linked to the question of whether spiritual truth manifested through material forms alter the forms, or do the forms alter the truth? Truth on which level of the continuum, which forms?

In one of my favorite movies, Hero, Dustin Hoffman explains about truth to his young son:

"You remember when I said how I was gonna explain about life, buddy? Well the thing about life is, it gets weird. People are always talking ya about truth. Everybody always knows what the truth is, like it was toilet paper or somethin', and they got a supply in the closet. But what you learn, as you get older, is there ain't no truth. All there is is bullshit, pardon my vulgarity here. Layers of it. One layer of bullshit on top of another. And what you do in life like when you get older is, you pick the layer of bullshit that you prefer and that's your bullshit, so to speak."

Ah! Vanity thy name is Bullshit!
We will get deeper into this next week.

Back to De Charms:]

"The word is the agent of God Which is with God,
in the beginning of every work created, and Which thinks it not robbery to be equal with God. God is the divine essence, the word is the divine form. Anything hence is made not by the divine essence abstractly, but by the divine essence in the divine form, that is: by the divine form from the divine essence, or by the word from God.

Now Jesus Christ is the word of God, that is the Son of God, the form of God, the wisdom of God, the power of God, the express image of His substance by Whom as the apostle Paul EXPRESSLY says further, “I made the worlds.” THEREFORE the divine essence nowhere exists out of the divine form. Consequently the divine essence or God exists in Jesus Christ and nowhere out of him. And the unitarian conception that God the father exists, as a Simple principle of unity out of Jesus Christ, is a mere exercise of the human mind's power of abstracting, in thought, an essence from a form Which exists nowhere so abstracted in nature or in fact.”

The following is from An Open Life - Joseph Campbell in Conversation With Michael Toms:

TOMS: Human beings throughout history have been searching for their source. How do you see today’s search?
CAMPBELL: I think our search is somewhat encumbered by our concept of God. God as a final term is a personality in our tradition, so that breaking past that "personality" into the transpersonal, whether within one’s self or in conceiving of the form beyond forms – although one can’t even say form – is blocked by our orthodox training. This is so drummed into us, that the word "God" refers to a personality. Now, there have been very important mystics who have broken past that. For instance, there is Meister Eckhart, whose line I like to quote:
"The ultimate leave-taking is the leaving of God for God."

TOMS: Many people seem to be coming to the search for God.
CAMPBELL: Well, that’s the great thing about it. As soon as you smash the local provincial god-form, God comes back. And that’s what Nietzsche meant when he wrote that God is dead. Nietzsche was himself not an atheist in the crude sense; he was a man of enormous religious spirit and power. What he meant was that the God who’s fixed and defined in terms appropriate for 2,000 years ago is no longer so today. And of course the words of Meister Eckhart give an earlier variation of Nietzsche’s remark. So the concept of God beyond God is in our tradition.

There is no absolute truth — each truth has its particular mission at a certain time. Truth evolves, as does everything else in the world. It is the form of the divine Spirit, but the divine Spirit has many forms. If we thoroughly imbue ourselves with this characteristic of truth, we shall acquire a quite different relation to it. We shall say: Indeed we live in the truth, but it can take many forms."

The following is from Martin Luther's Postil: Volume I :

"Christ was in the form of God; that is, both the essence and the bearing of Deity were his. The phrase "form of God" does not receive the same interpretation from all. Some understand Paul to refer to the divine essence and nature in Christ; meaning that Christ, though true God, humbled himself. While Christ is indeed true God, Paul is not speaking here of his divine essence, which is concealed. The word he uses --"morphe," or "forma' --he employs again where he tells of Christ taking upon himself the form of a servant.

Philippians 2:5

"Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant."

"Form of a servant" certainly cannot signify "essence of a real servant"-possessing by nature the qualities of a servant. For Christ is not our servant by nature; he has become our servant from good will and favor toward us. For the same reason "divine form" cannot properly mean "divine essence"; for divine essence is not visible, while the divine form was truly seen. 
 

"Form of God," then, means the assumption of a divine attitude and bearing, or the manifestation of divinity in port and presence; and this not privately, but before others, who witness such form and bearing. To speak in the clearest possible manner: Divine bearing and attitude are in evidence when one manifests in word and deed that which pertains peculiarly to God and suggests divinity. Accordingly, "the form of a servant" implies the assumption of the attitude and bearing of a servant in relation to others. It might be better to render "Morphe tu dulu," by "the bearing of a servant," that means, manners of such character that whoever sees the person must take him for a servant. This should make it clear that the passage in question does not refer to the manifestation of divinity or servility as such, but to the characteristics and the expression of the same. For, as previously stated, the essence is concealed, but its manifestation is public. The essence implies a condition, while its expression implies action."

We've established today, the idea that the Divine manifests through nature, and the forms created in nature are somehow sacred, and appear as fundamental components of human made art. Humans bring to the table their carnal knowledge, their human frailties, their physical limitations--and these are the limitations which enable the divine form to manifest in the heart of man. Without that sympathy, without that connection, the divine thoughts would never penetrate our thick skulls, so weighted down with mundanities.

Earlier we asked the question, "What does this beauty mean?" Some weeks ago we spoke about angelic language, and how angels think instantaneously, outside any time, thereby raising the essence of whatever truth or message it is that they are vibrating with, to a level of abstract spirituality. Thus, if art is expressed in angelic language, then possibly the beauty expressed in it is the instantaneous thought of Angels. There is always one point in a work of art that is the pinnacle, the peak, or the climax; it may be at the beginning, but more usually a toward the end, but all artworks include this ONE moment when we experience what we call the aesthetic response. We have repeatedly mentioned the idea of a graduated Continuum of consciousness states.

"Perhaps Divine Form is just one more discrete level on the Infinite Continuum of the Divine Cosmography culminating in the Infinitely Formless Father. . . .The imitation of natural forms is indeed the key to the most profound HUMAN expressions, but, at a certain point there is a quantum leap revealing that there is more to it--that is to say, natural forms may sometimes transcend the limits of the physical in terms of symmetry, and organicism, becoming super-intelligent expressions. The structure and dimensions, of these divine forms, exist beyond the knowable limits of natural forms."

We have suggested it may be that the moment in which we experience the so-called "aesthetic response" is the exact moment when the transmission of angel thought, projected onto the proscenium of our mundane conceptual world, accelerates human truth out of physical reality into the dimension of the Divine.

How do we appreciate these forms in nature? How do we really perceive them, and then work them into our art? More importantly, how do we, as an audience, perceive the artistically conveyed natural truth? I suppose we will have to deal with that next week.



Let us pray: Jesus thank you for creating the necessary intelligence conduit between God and us. Because the visions that you have planted in our heads are indeed glorious, let us reaffirm that the heavenly light of hereafter is available to us right now. Amen.

14 Compassion and Forgiveness

14 Compassion and Forgiveness

Call to Worship:

John 11: 32-36
32 When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”
33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.
“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.
35 Jesus wept.
36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

For most of my life I have been tormented by my inability to forgive people who have injured me. I am always convicted by the directive to forgive 7 times 7, but also by the seemingly opposite directive not to throw my pearls before swine. A great man once taught me that the meaning of forgiveness is: "to give as before", a very difficult task given that the offender might offend again, regardless of our forgiving feelings. It always seemed to me that to “give as before” meant opening myself up to the possibility of repeated offenses—“if you deceive me once shame on you, but if you deceive me twice shame on me.” And yet Jesus tells us to forgive and forgive and forgive. How do I do that? WHY should I do that?

Well, for one thing, possibly the most important thing, I know that holding on to resentments puts a spiritual weight on myself, the bearing of which constitutes an impediment to my own personal spiritual growth.

In fact, in I.C. Sharma's book, Cayce, Karma, and Reincarnation, we find this knotty little sentence:

"But if we resist wishing ill to our ill-wisher, the negative effect of the mental karma reverts to the originator."

Every negative thought I carry around with me, about somebody else, is a negative burden on myself. I know I need to relieve myself of these burdens of resentment, grudges and wariness, by rising above the situation, by freeing myself of the bad attitude, and trying to see the offending person in the same light in which I saw them BEFORE the offense; but no matter how I swear to myself, in prayer, to greet my enemies with a smile of forgiveness, I continually fail, at the crisis, to live up to the standard of my self-made vows. I have tried many techniques and have failed to change myself. I always swear that my next encounter with the offender will be different, but, on confronting the offender, I keep lapsing into cold, negative, rejecting behavior. The good news is that, recently I have stumbled upon a new technique for changing the way I see the offending person, and this may be the way for me to conquer my cold-hearted ways—I am trying to learn to see my enemy through the eyes of COMPASSION.

The dictionary defines "compassion" as:

"a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering."

The emphasis of this definition on the object of compassion as "one who suffers", shines a new light on the whole subject of forgiveness. Usually, when we cannot forgive, it is because we suffer from offense. Little do we realize that it is the offender who suffers most from his offense, it is he who is unfortunate, and it is he, therefore, who is an appropriate object of compassion. Notice that both "pity" and "forgiveness" reside under this single umbrella.

Compassion is not only a humble mental attitude, putting others' feelings ahead of our own, it is a superior mental perspective as well—it allows us to rise above all petty mundane considerations and view the BIG PICTURE. Compassion relieves us of the fear of mundane consequences by raising us ABOVE the material dimension to a higher mental state. And, of course, don't forget that our most radical exemplar of this higher mind state was Jesus.

One of the qualities of Jesus’ personality I have always so vastly admired was how FEARLESS He was. Jesus was never intimidated by the social forces bent on discrediting Him and destroying Him—and, to the end, He worshipped the divinity of His accusers and forgave them even as they crucified Him. What a guy! I want to be like that.

But I am NOT like that--I still suffer from a raucous cavalcade of petty fears, and endure endless inner dialogues with a cosmic cop, who enables my tendency to express every subtle glint of personal originality with feelings of guilt. My repressive Nazarene upbringing installed in my psycography an area of content that automatically generated feelings of guilt and fear; many things were included in this frontier, but mostly these guilt feelings registered whenever I took the tiniest toe-step outside the limits of the prescribed norm. To my mother, like the most traditional Hassid, every single everyday act was imbued with religious significance, and was therefore the proper domain for her ceaseless accusations and come-uppance. Hell was my homeland and to Hell I would return. Later we will discuss compassion and other human feelings as they are felt in the bowels--it was definitely in the deepest pit of my gut that I felt guilty, rejected and alone. Thus, slave as I am to emotional turmoil, I have seen the the only way for me to get free from my own mental shackles is to rise above them and witness the infinite beauty in every human being in the world, even the ones who have screwed me.

The rest of this sermon will be concerned with digging deeper into the PROCESS of forgiveness through compassion. We begin with a sermon from 1914, given by C.H. Spurgeon, which gives several examples of the compassion of Jesus:

"He was moved with compassion."—Matthew 9:36.

“This is said of Christ Jesus several times in the New Testament. The original word is a very remarkable one. It is not found in classic Greek. It is not found in the Septuagint. The fact is, it was a word coined by the evangelists themselves. They did not find one in the whole Greek language that suited their purpose, and therefore they had to make one. It is expressive of the deepest emotion; a striving of the bowels—a yearning of the innermost nature with pity. As the dictionaries tell us— Ex intimis visceribus misericordia commoveor. (from the depth of pity). I suppose that when our Saviour looked upon certain sights, those who watched him closely perceived that his internal agitation was very great, his emotions were very deep, and then his face betrayed it, his eyes gushed like founts with tears, and you saw that his big heart was ready to burst with pity for the sorrow upon which his eyes were gazing. He was moved with compassion. His whole nature was agitated with commiseration for the sufferers before him."


[Sidebar: This point about deep emotions being felt in the bowels is one that must be emphasized. The experience of feeling in the bowels, that is to say in the body, the feeling of shared experience of another in our physical being (we call this "empathy") is the carnal expression of compassion. Compassion, then, has two components:

1. a spiritual component which is above the sinner, the offender, and
2. a vital component which is the connecting link between the object of compassion and the one who feels compassion.

The flesh, being weak as it is, has exposed us all to unspiritual temptations, but this is also grounds for rejoicing because we may, like Jesus, transcend the limited boundary of our carnal identity, and vibrate sympathetically with our suffering companions, and pity them in our very physical being, thus allowing us to rise above, and enter the spiritual dimension of our relationship.

Back to Spurgeon:]

"This word is not used many times even by the evangelists, yet if you would sum up the whole character of Christ in reference to ourselves, it might be gathered into this one sentence,

"He was moved with compassion." . . .

Was he not moved with compassion when he entered into a covenant with his father on our behalf, even on the behalf of all his chosen—a covenant in which he was to be the sufferer, and they the gainers—in which he was to bear the shame that he might bring them into his own glory? Yes, verily, he was even then moved with compassion, for his delights even then were with the sons of men. Nor did his compassion peer forth in the prospect of an emergency presently to diminish and disappear as the rebellion took a more active form, and the ruin assumed more palpable proportions. 

It was no transient feeling. He continued still to pity men. He saw the fall of man; he marked the subtle serpent's mortal sting; he watched the trail as the slime of the serpent passed over the fair glades of Eden; he observed man in his evil progress, adding sin to sin through generation after generation, fouling every page of history until God's patience had been tried to the uttermost; and then, according as it was written in the volume of the Book that he must appear, Jesus Christ came himself into this stricken world. 

Came how? O, be astonished, ye angels, that ye were witnesses of it, and ye men that ye beheld it. The Infinite came down to earth in the form of an infant; he who spans the heavens and holds the ocean in the hollow of his hand, condescended to hang upon a woman's breast—the King eternal became a little child. Let Bethlehem tell that he had compassion. There was no way of saving us but by stooping to us. To bring earth up to heaven, he must bring heaven down to earth. Therefore, in the incarnation, he must bring heaven down to earth. Therefore, in the incarnation, he had compassion, for he took upon himself our infirmities, and was made like unto ourselves. Matchless pity, indeed, was this!

. . . His tender heart pities all the griefs of his dear people. There is not a pang they have but the head feels it, feels it for all the members. Still doth he look upon their imperfections and their infirmities, yet not with anger, not with loss of patience, but with gentleness and sympathy, "He is moved with compassion."

I am especially interested in the sentence, “To bring earth up to heaven, he must bring heaven down to earth.” Surely the act of rising above the sins of our oppressors, and the sins of our own intolerance involves bringing Heaven down to Earth, and viewing the offense from the Heavenly perspective which negates all significance of the sin and rather glories in the divinity of us all, a divinity either realized or merely potential.

From The Compassion of Christ by Wayne Jackson, we read:

“The saying is proverbial: “People do not care how much you know, until they know how much you care.” There is a measure of truth in that.

Consider the case of Jesus Christ. He was the most forceful, demanding teacher who has ever lived. He was the one who taught that even one’s closest family members must give way to loyalty to him, and that the true disciple must be willing to “bear his cross” for the Master (Matthew 10:34-39). In view of the rigorous nature of the Savior’s requirements, how does one account for his amazing popularity?

For one thing, the evidence supporting his claims was staggering. No honest person could deny it. Beyond that, a strong case can be made that Jesus’ compassion for the lost, as a reflection of his incredible love, made him a most attractive character. 

Our Sympathetic High Priest
There are several words in the Greek New Testament that reveal insights into the marvelous compassion of the Lord with reference to sinful, suffering humanity. Let us think about this for a moment.
The book of Hebrews (4:15) has this exciting passage:

“For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one who has been tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

Of special interest is the term “touched.” It translates the Greek sympatheo, from sun (with), and patheo (to feel). Hence, the meaning is to feel with. Our English “sympathy” is derived from this word.

Michaelis notes that the term “does not signify a sympathetic understanding that is ready to condone, but a fellow feeling that derives from full acquaintance with the seriousness of the situation as a result of successfully withstanding the temptation” (Bromiley, 802-803). . .

A truly stunning case of the Master’s tender concern is observed in a circumstance recorded in Mark 3:

Jesus entered a Hebrew synagogue on the Sabbath day. There he encountered a man with a withered hand. The Jews suspiciously watched the Lord, to see whether or not he would heal the man, and thus, in their judgment, violate the sabbath by doing a good “work.” If he did, they would then “file charges.” It has always intrigued me that they anticipated the possibility of a miracle, yet had no interest in the Teacher’s message!
But Christ “knew their thoughts” (Luke 6:8), and understood the effect that sin had wrought in them, and it angered him (Mark 3:5). The Greek term for anger (orge) denotes a deliberate disposition, not an impulsive flash of wrath.

The most unusual thing about this episode, however, is the fact that Jesus was “grieved” over these hard-hearted men; hence, he healed the man’s withered hand in an attempt to soften them!

The original term that is rendered “grieved” (sunlupeo) is found only here in the entire New Testament. The noun lupeo (used 16 times in the New Testament) means sorrow or pain (either of body or mind). But the addition of the prefix sun, makes the term unique in the New Testament. 

Herodotus, the Greek historian, used the word to describe the emotions of certain citizens who offered their condolences to a man whose brother had just died (6.39).
In this passage, Mark seems to be suggesting the sympathetic nature of Jesus’ grief, as he contemplates the fact that these men were their own worst enemies (Vine, 362). What an index into the loving heart of the Son of God!

Perhaps the most dramatic biblical term denoting the idea of compassion is the word splanchnon. Literally, it signifies the intestines. When Judas committed suicide by hanging himself, his body eventually fell to the earth and “his intestines gushed out” (Act 1:18).

But both the Hebrews and the Greeks came to use the term in a figurative sense, for deep feelings of tenderness and compassion — much as when we use the term “heart,” as in, “I love her with all my heart.” There are several instances of where this word is employed to describe Christ’s feelings for the unfortunate.

Christ: “moved with compassion”
Jesus had this emotion for a poor man who was afflicted with the dreaded disease, leprosy (Mark 1:41). The gentleman met Christ, kneeled before him, and begged: “If you will, you can make me clean.” What confidence he had.

The Lord, “moved with compassion,” responded, “I will.” With but a touch of the Savior’s hand the man was instantly cleansed. Someone has aptly commented that it was only on account of the Lord’s compassion that he had a “hand” with which to touch the gentleman!

The purpose of the miracle, of course, was to establish the Messiah’s credibility as a teacher “come from God” (cf. John 3:2). Nevertheless, we must not overlook the fact that Jesus had sincere feelings for this man’s horrible plight.

The Lord is not going to miraculously deliver us from the physical effects of a sin-cursed world. It is noteworthy, though, that as we suffer, we may be assured of his genuine sympathy. 

Christ’s compassion for the people
The term splachnon is used to depict the concerned disposition that Jesus had for the confused Jews as they sought to find direction for their lives.

When the Savior heard the news of the murder of his friend, John the Baptizer, he took his disciples apart into a remote area near Bethsaida. But the multitudes followed after him. Mark says that Jesus “had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd” (6:34), and so, he “welcomed them” (Luke 9:11).

Think about it. The Lord set aside his own grief for his murdered cousin, a righteous man of God, to minister to these people who so desperately needed direction in their lives. What a man!"

The foregoing piece emphasizes the healing miracles of Jesus' compassion. But what about forgiveness? How does the healing reflect on the idea of forgiveness? Perhaps the key is in the phrase: "Forgiveness of sins".

The issue of the Divine right to forgive sins figures in the scripture:

Mark 2:5-7
"5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves,
7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Obviously, Jesus' claim to be the Son of God includes a claim on the Divine right to forgive sins. Can we, too, claim the same right to forgive the sins of our enemies, and greet them "as before"? Ought we to do this because we know it is the right thing to do, or must we do it because we know about the deal the Father makes with sinners:

Mark 11:25
25 "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. "

1 John 1:9
9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."
Remember that Jesus' forgiveness is not some some half-hearted vestige, but a real commission of the offense to the so-called "sea of forgetfulness":

Micah 7:19
"He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea."

Hebrews 10:17
17 "Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."

How is it possible to completely forget the sins of our enemies? Certainly one way is to realize that every sin we hold against another is a sin we hold against ourselves:

Romans 3:23-26
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

The act of "forgiving sins" is not unlike the act of "being born again". The newness of attitude that the forgetfulness of sins affords us, is the the newness of life offered to us by the mediation of Jesus Christ between God and Man. To forgive "as before", is the same as being born again, is the same as forsaking the "Old Man" for the "New Man". To live each moment of life in the present, devoid of past and future, is to live in the eternal Now of Infinity.

2 Corinthians 5:17

"17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

The new Man in Christ learns new strategies for dealing with the sins of others, including this no-nonsense instruction sheet:


Matthew 18:15-18

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This socio-political catechism leaves no room for harboring passive aggressive resentment--it is all about getting things out in the open and defeating the evils of hidden hatreds.

The following article mentions the social context in which the compassion of Jesus was demonstrated:

Jesus and His Tender Compassion, Weldon E. Warnock,
Guardian of Truth XXXVIII No.23, December 1, 1994:

"One of the greatest qualities in the life of Jesus was his willingness to enter into the human situation and to be deeply moved by tender compassion that compelled him to help and to heal. Jesus was never detached from, nor indifferent to human sorrow and suffering. People were never a nuisance to Jesus but an opportunity to serve.

According to Webster, compassion is "to suffer with another; hence, sympathy; sorrow for the distressed or unfortunate with the desire to help" (Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition). Webster then gives a poignant statement from South, "There never was a heart truly great and generous, that was not also tender and compassionate."

William Barclay wrote, 

"If there was one thing the ancient world needed it was compassion, pity and mercy." There was no concern for the sick and feeble, no provision for the aged and no feeling for the mentally and emotion-ally disturbed. Christ, however, in his appearance brought love, affection and care to a world of apathy and complacency."

Here are a few more scriptures concerning the compassion of Jesus. We will see that the compassionate acts of Jesus were not only confined to miracle healings, but also to taking care of His followers' physical need for food, and giving spiritual instruction:

Matthew 15:32

"And Jesus called His disciples to Him, and said, "I feel compassion for the people, because they have remained with Me now three days and have nothing to eat; and I do not want to send them away hungry, for they might faint on the way."

Mark 6:34

"When Jesus went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things."

John 11:34-38

"and said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to Him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus wept. So the Jews were saying, "See how He loved him!". But some of them said, "Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?" So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it."

This scripture asks the big question: if Jesus knew He was going to raise Lazarus from the dead, why did He weep? We have previously agreed that it was because of His deep sympathetic resonance with the PEOPLE in His flock. So deep was His love for them, that their pain became His pain even though He, more than anyone, was able to RISE ABOVE IT. So must we rise above the transgressions of our enemies, and glory in the Oneness of ALL including that scumbag on the corner who stole my wallet.

This article by Rudolf Steiner places the idea of "compassion" into the context of generally accepted parameters of spiritual development and evolution, and indicates the price we must pay for holding on to bad feelings. Furthermore, it emphasizes the point, we have been making, that forgiveness of other peoples' sin requires not knowledge of the sinner, but "self-knowledge"--that to forgive another we must first forgive ourselves. Finally, it describes the dangerous thought forms that can invade the higher planes if we bring our petty emotional attitudes before the Heavenly authority:

Secrets of the Threshold – Lecture VIII – Munich, 31 August 1913

"The egoism we develop in the physical world, without being willing to acquire self-knowledge, shows up when it is carried into spiritual worlds. Nothing is so disturbing, nothing can be so bitter and disheartening as to experience the result of our failure to develop love and compassion in the physical world. Ascending into the spiritual world, we are filled with anguish by the selfishness and lack of love we have achieved in the physical-sense world. When we cross the threshold, everything is revealed, not only the obvious but also the hidden egoism that rages in the depths of men’s souls. Someone who with outward egoism frankly insists that he wants this or that for himself is perhaps much less egoistic than those who indulge in the dream that they are selfless, or those who assume a certain egoistic self-effacement out of theosophical abstractions in their upper consciousness. This is especially the case when the latter declaim their selflessness in all sorts of repetitions of the words “love” and “tolerance.” What a person carries up into higher worlds in the form of an unloving lack of compassion is transformed into hideous, often terrifying figures he meets on entering the spiritual worlds, figures that are extremely disturbing for the soul."

This next Steiner quote affirms significance of the term I have spoken of before: "humble pride". As I said above:

"Compassion is not only a humble mental attitude, putting others' feelings ahead of our own, it is a superior mental perspective as well—it allows us to rise above all petty mundane considerations and view the BIG PICTURE."

Rudolf Steiner  – From the Contents of Esoteric Classes – Berlin, 15th May 1908

"Some say that sympathy (compassion, pity) can also come from egoism. That may be the case. Many kinds of sympathy only arise because one doesn’t want to see other people suffer. That’s even a good thing. It’s better for a man to help someone out of egotistical sympathy than not to help him at all. But we must learn to develop a sympathy that stands above egoism, that helps fellowmen because it’s one’s duty to help them."

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate the main theme of this presentation: that compassion and forgiveness are linked, co-active—that one leads to the other. Compassion, the experience of sympathy and a desire to ease the suffering of others, inevitably enables the subject to view the suffering one from a higher mental perspective, and share his pain on one level, while rising above his pain on another level; remember that Jesus wept not because He thought death was a terrible thing, but because His friends did. Viewing reality from a higher mental perspective creates three changes in attitude toward those who trespass against us:

1. that we all are one, and share each others’ pains and joys through inherent sympathy,
2. that the one who offends us only truly hurts himself, and is therefore not deserving of more rejection from us, but is rather worthy of forgiveness, just as we forgive ourselves, and
3. that we are forgiven in direct proportion to our ability to forgive others.

When we fear entering into relationships flawed by past offenses, we must remember that the petty grudges of the present give rise to eternal punishments in the hereafter.

Let us pray: Jesus thank You for Your healing presence in our lives, lives so infected by mundane smallness we too easily forget the largeness of Your love, the depth of Your compassion. Let us day by day become more perfect imitators of Your infinitely patient and tolerant Self. Amen.