Creating the New Earth Together

Posts tagged ‘Cosmic Consciousness’

Planetary Archetypes . . . . . . . . . . Man in a Cosmic Context

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I’ll meet you there. When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about….  Rumi

Thank you, Rumi, for your rumination. The world is indeed too full to talk about, so I will simply write about it.  In this series, I’ve been considering the history of archetypes and its parallel evolution with that of human consciousness. The source of my research is Richard Tarnas’ epic book COSMOS AND PSYCHE, which I am finding incredibly fascinating and enlightening a read and study.  

In the previous post I shared Tarnas’ research into the history and evolution of the concept of archetypes and how human consciousness has evolved with it, as though the archetypes and human psyche are intimately blended and impacted by one another. (It may well be that the human psyche itself is the originator of the concept of archetypes.)  In this post, I will share the planetary aspects of the author’s perspective gained in his exhaustive and detailed research.

Listen to the Message of the Planets Aligned

It is not by happenstance that this material has come into my hands just prior to the time of the current planetary alignment, which will end on February 20th, two days before this post will be published. My consciousness is attuned to the energetic messages being transmitted to Earth at this pivotal and chaotic time when the most powerful person in man’s world is about to be chosen by the citizens of the United States of America—who are divided amongst themselves with fear and hatred governing hearts and minds. There is an encoded message for us in the music streaming from these aligned spheres, and one message I am hearing is

“Nothing is wrong. Everything matters. Let not your hearts be troubled. Let love fill them and radiate without concern for results.” 

As I write, I am aware that some of my readers may not have space in their minds and hearts to think and care much about these cosmic events. There is so much to keep up and deal with in our lives these days. And with one’s “nose up against the grindstone,” so-to-speak, one is understandably oblivious to the larger drama of life taking place in the cosmic context.  I say this not in judgment or criticism but with compassion for the busy human state. For reasons that are emerging even as I write, these larger events taking place in our cosmic habitat have projected themselves into my consciousness for consideration at this time.  So I will indulge them and give them due consideration—and I do welcome and appreciate comments and feedback from my readership, which fluctuates up and down with the subject matter.  Currently it’s up, so I’ll keep moving with this consideration—the next one already presenting itself in the back of my mind and having something to do with myths and memories of Paradise.  Hmm, sounds inviting.

Asking your forbearance, I burden you once again with an excerpt from COSMOS AND PSYCHE for your consideration and, hopefully, your edification and intellectual pleasure.  My mind loves to be engaged by truth—not that what follows is true at all levels, as there is always a higher truth.  This author writes from a higher level of consciousness than simply scientific and mental. It’s his spiritual perspectives, which he shares amidst all the astronomical and astrological data, that draws me to his writings—and to sharing them here. (Emphasis mine) 

PLANETARY ARCHETYPES

The astrological thesis as developed within the Platonic-Jungian lineage holds that these complex, multidimensional archetypes governing the forms of human experience are intelligibly connected with the planets and their movements in the heavens. This association is observable in a constant coincidence between specific planetary alignments and specific archetypally patterned phenomena in human affairs. . . . It does not appear to be accurate to say that astrologers have in essence arbitrarily used the mythological stories of the ancients about the gods Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Mercury, and the rest to project symbolic meaning onto the planets, which are in actuality merely neutral material bodies without intrinsic significance [I cannot agree with Tarnas here, as all material forms, especially the planets, have spiritual, or vibrational, significance.] Rather, a considerable body of evidence suggests that the movements of the planets named Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, and Mercury tend to coincide with patterns of human experience that closely resemble the character of those planets’ mythical counterparts. That is, the astrologer’s insight, perhaps intuitive and divinatory in its ancient origins, appears to be fundamentally an empirical one. This empiricism is given context and meaning by a mythic, archetypal perspective, a perspective that the planetary correlations seem to support and illustrate with remarkable consistency. The nature of these correlations presents to the astrological researcher what appears to be an orchestrated synthesis combining the precision of mathematical astronomy with the psychological complexity of the archetypal imagination, a synthesis whose sources seemingly exist a priori within the fabric of the universe.

Here is where the distinction between the ancient philosophical (Platonic) and the modern psychological (earlier Jungian) conceptions of archetypes becomes especially relevant.  Whereas the original Jungian archetypes were primarily considered to be the basic formal principles of the human psyche, the original Platonic archetypes were regarded as the essential principles of reality itself, rooted in the very nature of the cosmos.  What separated these two views was the long development of Western thought that gradually differentiated a meaning-giving human subject from a neutral objective world, thereby locating the source of any universal principles of meaning exclusively within the human psyche. Integrating these two views (much as Jung began to do in his final years under the influence of synchronicities), contemporary astrology suggests that archetypes possess a reality that is both objective and subjective, one that informs both outer cosmos and inner human psyche, “as above, so below.” 

In effect, planetary archetypes are considered to be both “Jungian” (psychological) and “Platonic” (metaphysical) in nature: universal essences or forms at once intrinsic to and independent of the human mind, that not only endure as timeless universals but are also co-creatively enacted and recursively affected through human participation. And they are regarded as functioning in something like a Pythagorean-Platonic cosmic setting, i.e., in a cosmos pervasively integrated through the workings of a universal intelligence and creative principle. What distinguishes the contemporary astrological view is the additional factor of human co-creative participation in the concrete expressions of this creative principle, with the human being recognized as itself a potentially autonomous embodiment of the cosmos and its creative power and intelligence. 

In Jungian terms, the astrological evidence suggests that the collective unconscious is ultimately embedded in the macrocosm itself, with the planetary motions a synchronistic reflection of the unfolding archetypal dynamics of human experience. In Platonic terms, astrology affirms the existence of an anima mundi informing the cosmos, a world soul in which the human psyche participates as a microcosm of the whole. Finally, the Platonic, Jungian, and astrological understandings of archetypes are all complexly linked, both historically and conceptually, to the archetypal structures, narratives, and figures of ancient myth. Thus [Joseph] Campbell’s famous dictum: 

It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. 

. . . .  For conceptual clarity, then, when we consider the meaning and character of each planetary archetype in the following chapters, it will be useful to understand these principles in three different senses: in the Homeric sense as a primordial deity and mythic figure; in the Platonic sense as a cosmic and metaphysical principle; and in the Jungian sense as a psychological principle (with its Kantian and Freudian background)—-with all of these associated with a specific planet.

For example, the archetype of Venus can be approached on the Homeric level as the Greek mythic figure of Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty and love, the Mesopotamian Ishtar, the Roman Venus. On the Platonic level Venus can be understood in terms of the metaphysical principle of Eros and the Beautiful. And on the Jungian level Venus can be viewed as the psychological tendency to perceive, desire, create, or in some other way experience beauty and love, to attract and be attracted, to seek harmony and aesthetic or sensuous pleasure, to engage in artistic activity and in romantic and social relations. These different levels or senses are distinguished here only to suggest the inherent complexity of arche­types, which must be formulated not as literal concretely definable entities but rather as dynamic potentialities and essences of meaning that cannot be localized or restricted to a specific dimension.

Finally, alongside this essential multidimensionality of archetypes is their equally essential multivalence. The Saturn archetype can express itself as judgment but also as old age, as tradition but also as oppression, as time but also as mortality, as depression but also as discipline, as gravity in the sense of heaviness and weight but also as gravity in the sense of seriousness and dignity. Thus Jung:

The ground principles, the archai, of the unconscious are indescribable because of their wealth of reference, although in themselves recognizable. The discriminating intellect naturally keeps on trying to establish their singleness of meaning and thus misses the essential point; for what we can above all establish as the one thing consistent with their nature is their manifold meaning, their almost limitless wealth of reference, which makes any unilateral formulation impossible.

This discussion is directly relevant to the outcome of our earlier consideration of free will and determinism in astrology. If I may summarize that thesis in a single statement: It seems to be specifically the multivalent potentiality that is intrinsic to the planetary archetypes—their dynamic indeterminacy—that opens up ontological space for the human being’s full co-creative participation in the unfolding of individual life, history, and the cosmic process. It is just this combi­nation of archetypal multivalence and an autonomous participatory self that engenders the possibility of a genuinely open universe. The resulting cosmological metastructure is still Pythagorean-Platonic in essential ways, but the relationship of the human self and the cosmic principles has undergone a metamorphosis that fully reflects and integrates the enormous modern and postmodern developments.

Our philosophical understanding of archetypes, our scientific understanding of the cosmos, and our psychological understanding of the self have all undergone a profound evolution in the course of history, and they have done so in complexly interconnected ways at each stage in this development. Our experience of all these has evolved, century by century, and thus our theories have as well.

Theories abound in the mind-made world, but they only tend to confuse rather than clarify understanding. The questions I ask are: “Who is it that is trying to understand? And what self?”  It seems that the self who is looking IS the self who are trying to “psychologically” understand.  However, as we know, a state cannot observe itself.  I am reminded of words attributed to Saint Francis:  “What you are looking for is who is looking.”

There is one final excerpt I wish to share from Richard Tarnas’ book in which he speaks to where we are now in the 21st century relative to a century-long planetary configuration.  I think you will enjoy his take on the archetypal profile presently at play in the human psyche shaping human behavior and global events.

In the next series I will do my best to offer clarification and enlightenment from a higher perspective. Until then, I greet you in Rumi’s field “beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing.” 

Be love. Be loved.

Anthony

Email: tpal70@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

Astrology, Free Will and Determinism

“In my Father’s house are many mansions.”

I rarely ever read my horoscope in the daily newspaper. Born on the cusp of Taurus and Gemini, I’m usually undecided about which sign is more influential in my life. Most likely Gemini, as I tend to avoid making decisions and simply do what’s obviously needed in the moment.

In considering the astrological influences of zodiac signs and planetary alignments in our lives, the question naturally comes up as to how much control we have individually and collectively over our lives and the unfolding of global events. A friend recently responded to my previous post addressing this very question.  

When I consult someone regarding their astro-chart (which I do occasionally) I always preface what I say with advice that there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ astrological influence, although, through personal interpretation/judgement, such opinions are often made. I say things like, “You are the master of your own ship”. The focus on mastery/maturity allows for proper conscious behavior as these cosmic influences ebb and flow around our little ‘ship’ of being. Cymatics is an interesting subject in this respect which confirms that there are larger patterns within which we live and have our being. We don’t control the larger pattern of life, our sun/solar system/universe…we can only align with this reality, or continue to try resisting it, to our eventual demise! One wants to ‘go with the flow’ here…or expect a capsized/cataclysmic experience. — Donald White

Don echoes the words of the poem Invictus: 

“It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul.” 

Richard Tarnas bumps up against the issue of free will and determinism in his research into the history of planetary alignments and their impact on the human psyche, which he published in 2007 in his epic book COSMOS AND PSYCHE, Intimations of a New World View. I think he addresses the issue quite thoroughly: (Emphasis mine) 

Free Will and Determinism

Because the question of free will and determinism has long been the most exis­tentially and spiritually critical issue in all discussions of astrology, I will offer a few preliminary remarks here.

There is no question that a substantial part of the Western astrological tradi­tion supported a relatively deterministic interpretation of cosmic influence (a tendency even more marked in Indian astrology). For numerous schools and theo­rists of ancient and medieval astrology, the horoscope revealed a person’s destined fate, and the celestial powers governed human lives with a more or less rigid sovereignty. The widespread reemergence of Western astrology in the course of the twentieth century, however, arising in a new context and at a different stage in the West’s cultural and psychological evolution, brought with it a deeply trans­formed vision of both the human self and the nature of astrological prediction. The most characteristic attitude among contemporary astrologers holds astro­logical knowledge to be ultimately emancipatory rather than constricting, bring­ing a potential increase of personal freedom and fulfillment through an enlarged understanding of the self and its cosmic context.

In this view, knowing the basic archetypal dynamics and patterns of meaning in one’s birth chart allows one to bring greater awareness to the task of fulfilling one’s authentic nature and intrinsic potential, as in Jung’s concept of individua­tion. The more accurately one understands the archetypal forces that inform and affect one’s life, the more flexibly and intelligently responsive one can be in deal­ing with them. To the extent that one is unconscious of these potent and some­times highly problematic forces, one is more or less a pawn of the archetypes, acting according to unconscious motivations with little possibility of being a co­creative participant in the unfolding and refining of those potentials. Archetypal awareness brings greater self-awareness and thus greater personal autonomy. Again, this is the basic rationale for depth psychology, from Freud and Jung on­ward: to release oneself from the bondage of blind action and unconsciously mo­tivated experience, to recognize and explore the deeper forces in the human psyche and thereby modulate and transform them. On the individual level, as­trology is valued for its capacity to articulate which archetypes are especially im­portant for each person, how they interact with each other, and when they are most likely to be activated in the course of each life.

But in addition to the psychological evolution of the modern self with its in­creased sense of dynamic autonomy and self-reflective interiority, perhaps the most significant factor in the emerging emancipatory understanding of astrology is a deepening grasp of the nature of the archetypal principles themselves, the subject to which we now turn.

So, let’s have a brief look into the nature of archetypal principles—and the first thing to do is define what archetypes are. For that, we have Richard Tarnas to fill us in on the history of archetypes, at one point considered by the Greeks to be gods who populated an enchanted Universe. In other words immortals embodied by material forms, such as planets and constellations. In the more contemporary mind, the archetype is the prototype that informs things and events, the immanent “form” that makes things what they are and shapes their behavior.  Tarnas explains the concept within its historical context giving us a view into the evolution of the word “God.” (Emphasis mine)

Archetypal Principles

The concept of planetary archetypes, in many respects the pivotal concept of the emerging astrological paradigm, is complex and must be approached from several directions. Before describing the nature of the association between planets and archetypes, however, we must first address the general concept of archetypes and the remarkable evolution of the archetypal perspective in the history of Western thought.

The earliest form of the archetypal perspective, and in certain respects its deepest ground, is the primordial experience of the great gods and goddesses of the ancient mythic imagination. In this once universal mode of consciousness, memorably embodied at the dawn of Western culture in the Homeric epics and later in classical Greek drama, reality is understood to be pervaded and struc­tured by powerful numinous forces and presences that are rendered to the hu­man imagination as the divinized figures and narratives of ancient myth, often closely associated with the celestial bodies.

Yet our modern word god, or deity or divinity, does not accurately convey the lived meaning of these primordial powers for the archaic sensibility, a meaning that was sustained and developed in the Platonic understanding of the divine. This point was clearly articulated by W. K. C. Guthrie, drawing on a valuable distinction originally made by the German scholar Wilamowitz-Moellendorff.

Theos, the Greek word which we have in mind when we speak of Plato’s god, has primarily a predicative force. That is to say, the Greeks did not, as Christians or Jews do, first assert the existence of God and then pro­ceed to enumerate his attributes, saying “God is good,” “God is love”and so forth. Rather they were so impressed or awed by the things in life or nature remarkable either for joy or fear that they said “this is a god” or “that is a god.” The Christian says “God is love,” the Greek “Love is theos,” or “a god.” As another writer [G. M. A. Grube] has explained it:

“By saying that love, or victory, is god, or, to be more accurate, a god, was meant first and foremost that it is more than human, not subject to death, everlasting …. Any power, any force we see at work in the world, which is not born with us and will continue after we are gone could thus be called a god, and most of them were.”

In this state of mind, and with this sensitiveness to the superhuman character of many things which happen to us, and which give us, it may be, sudden stabs of joy or pain which we do not understand, a Greek poet could write lines like: “Recognition between friends is theos,” It is a state of mind which obviously has no small bearing on the much­ discussed question of monotheism or polytheism in Plato, if indeed it does not rob the question of meaning altogether.

In one perspective, “monotheism” and “polytheism” can be understood as one and the same reality. “Out of one many,” as we are reminded of this oneness on our currency by the words “E Pluribus Unum.” The Master Jesus stated this truth in his final words to his disciples before his departure: “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” Today we call these “mansions” levels of Consciousness.  Consciousness is, in reality, all there is. One Consciousness with many levels, or differentiations. Out of the One God spring many “gods,” or points of Light, focal points that differentiate the One Light of Love, of Truth and of Life.  And so, we have one Sun in our solar system that focuses the Light of the Galactic Center, which focuses the Light of the One Consciousness for creation in this corner of the Universe.  Is this differentiation perhaps the foundation upon which the concept of archetypes is based? 

This, in my view, is all indicative of the process underway of remembering the “Truth” that makes us free of our current limitations in consciousness and awareness.  We are remembering that we ourselves are focal points of the One Light of Love, of Truth and of Life. We are awakening to the larger cosmic context of our journey through time and space as angels, if you will, or gods, in our Father’s House of many mansions.

I will continue with this discussion in my next post. Until then, 

Be love. Be loved.

Anthony

tpal70@gmail.com

 

 

“The Secret of Light” page 5: Cosmic Consciousness

This excerpt from Walter Russell’s 1948 book The Secret of Light is from chapter four. It’s brief and speaks plainly for itself. The second part of this post is an excerpt from THE DIVINE ILIAD by Walter Russell which also speaks profoundly for itself. Enjoy the wisdom of this clarion voice from out of the past.

Walter Russell

Beyond the genius is the mystic.

The mystic is one who has attained cosmic conscious­ness by a complete severance of the seats of conscious­ness and sensation. He is then almost totally unaware of his body and is totally aware of the Light of God center­ing him. Omniscience comes to him in that timeless blinding flash of light which is characteristic of a com­plete severance. This experience was described in the illumination of St. Paul. Every timeless flash of intense inspiration which comes to any man is a partial illumination, for inspiration is the manner in which new knowledge comes to man from the cosmos.

Of all mystics, Jesus was the outstanding example of all time. He was the only One in all history to have known complete cosmic-conscious unity with God.

The Bible refers to cosmic-conscious experience as “the illumination” or “being in the Light” or “in the Spirit.”

In all history less than forty cases of partial cosmic consciousness are known, and probably not more than three of these anywhere nearly approached the complete state of illumination experienced by the Nazarene.

Cosmic consciousness is the ultimate goal of all mankind. All will know it before the long journey of man is finished, but there are many in this new age just dawning who are ready for it in part, if not fully.

Many desire it fully, but it is best that it come bit by bit for the complete severance is very dangerous. The ecstasy of this supreme experience is so great that one does not wish to come back. The power of severance of
soul from body is within easy accomplishment, but to step back into the body is very difficult.

The way to gradually attain cosmic consciousness is to intensify one’s conscious awareness by much alone­ness and companionship with God while manifesting Him in every moment and in every task of life.

Moment-by-moment companionship with God brings with it so great a realization of Oneness with Him that the transformation into that full realization of unity is apt to take place at any time.

The deterrent to cosmic consciousness is the feeling that God is far away instead of being within, and that we can reach that far away God only through sources out­side of ourselves.

From The Divine Iliad

“Man alone of all My creating things hath begun to hear My whisperings. Since his beginning My still small Voice hath whispered within him that I am he and he Me; but even now barbaric man on thy small new world heareth dully, and maketh idols which he trea­sures before Me, for he is still new. He is still but in the ferment of his early brewing.

“For I say, that all things which floweth from Life of Me have Life of Me flowing through them, e’en to the least of these; but, I say, that e’en though My Light of immortal Life floweth through those mortal symbols of My thinking, It toucheth them not in Its pass­ing .

“When they shall know the Light of Me in them, then they shall be Me and I them. ” 

 I have no words or thoughts to add. See you next weekend with the sixth post in this series. Until then,

Be love. Be loved.

Anthony

Read my HealthLight Newsletter online at LitingTones.com.

“The Secret of Light” page 4

What exactly is consciousness?  Well, breaking the word down into its two derivative parts, we have “con” which is Latin for “with” and “scio” which also comes from Latin and translates “to know.” So we have “to know with.” Consciousness, then, is the capacity with which we know the world and reality — to know as in to experience. Walter Russell equates consciousness with God in the following excerpt from “The Secret of Light.” I resonate with his distinction between “knowing” and “thinking,” which he equates with “sensation.” To know God is not the same as to believe in God. Believing is thinking. Knowing is experiencing. I like and appreciate his explanation of imagination and inspiration as well. This is a very important read – and a short one for a change! Enjoy.

SENSATION AND CONSCIOUSNESS

God is consciousness. Consciousness is static. Con­sciousness is the KNOWING of mind. Knowing is stat­ic.

Consciousness is the spiritual awareness of Being, of all-knowing, all-power and all-presence. Thinking is electric.

God’s thinking is expressed by two-way moving wave extensions from consciousness, like a lever swinging upon a fixed fulcrum, or like waves extending from the calm sea. Thought expression is dynamic. Thinking belongs to the electrically sensed an conditioned
vibrating universe of motion. Thinking is the motionless principle in light which creates the illusion of motion.

The Self of man belongs to the static, invisible, con­scious, unconditioned universe of KNOWING. We express knowing in the dynamic, visible, electrically conditioned universe of sensation.

Sensation is the electrical awareness of motion simu­lating the spiritual QUALITIES of the One Idea by creating imaged QUANTITIES of separate forms which seem to have substance.

Consciousness is real. Sensation simulates reality through motion of interchanging lights, but the mirage of a city is not the city it reflects.

Confusion and misunderstanding as to whether we are thinking consciously from knowledge or sensing electri­cally from memory records stored in our brains have led us to the necessity of distinguishing between the two by the common usage of such terms as “the human mind” and “mortal mind.” We know full well, while using them, that there is but the One Mind of the One Living God of Love.

The universal Mind centers every particle and mass in this universe: animal, vegetable or mineral, electron, atom or sun.

Man is the only unit in Creation who has conscious awareness of the Spirit within him and electrical aware­ness of dually conditioned light acting upon his senses. All other units of Creation have electrical awareness only.

Man alone can be freed from body to think with God, to talk with God and be inspired by His centering Light. All other units of Creation are limited in their actions to automatic reflexes from sensed memories built up through ages of sensing and recording such sensing as instinct.

Likewise the same confusion leads us to the adoption of such terms as “subconscious mind,” and “superconscious mind.”

There is but One Mind functioning universally within all creating things, and that One Mind is not stratified nor divided into the more or less. There are no differing conditions of the One Mind, nor are there different kinds of minds.

IMAGINATION

God is the imaginer of His One Idea. All imagining is God’s imagining.  All creating forms in this thought universe of God’s
imagining are built in the image of His imagining, creat­ing “in His image.”

All forms in this creating universe of imagined forms are but electric recordings of God’s imaginings. They have no existence. Records of Idea are not the idea they record.

They have no substance. They are but black and white lights of sun-centered wave fields of space assembled in vibrating systems to simulate substance in an objective universe which is not, but seems to be.

God’s imagining never began and will never end.

It was not “created” at some remote past time by some vast cosmic event, as commonly believed. Nor is it con­demned to a “heat-death” by expansion into nothing­ness.

This is a creating universe, not a created one.

God did not begin to imagine at some fixed time, for time does not exist. This light-wave universe which records God’s knowing by His thinking and imagining is as eternal as God’s thinking is eternal.

INSPIRATION

Inspiration is the language of Light which man uses to talk with God.

Inspiration is that deep awareness of the conscious­ness of Being which differentiates the genius or mystic from the being of average intelligence.

Inspiration in man is accompanied by an intense men­tal ecstasy which is characteristic of all who become
intensely conscious of their closeness to God.

Inspired geniuses forget their bodies while deeply conscious of their existence as wholly Mind. Their bodies, thus forgotten, act almost automatically in obedi­ence to instinct .and cell memory reflexes.

Inspired geniuses translate God’s knowing into words of man for the soul of man. They uplift all mankind by reinspiring all who listen to their ecstatic words and rhythms.

He who attunes his heart to the messages of genius purifies himself. No impurity can there be in his heart for verily he then is in communion with the Holy One.

I do not experience inspiration as being “accompanied by an intense mental ecstasy,” but rather by a upward surge of spirit that lifts one to blend and merge with the All, with God. The very word “inspire” suggests an infusion of spirit into the mind which brings with it the gift of revelation.  I am still struggling with the concept that there is only one Mind, and that Divine, with no substantial reality to the “human mind.”  I was taught, as perhaps you were, that human consciousness is separate from Divine Consciousness, the former having “fell” from its union with the latter.  The “restoration” sought after, then, has been the ascension of human consciousness to the level of union with Divine Consciousness.  Obviously, Russell is coming from an entirely different level of comprehension of Reality.  Definitely food for thought and meditation.

Until next week when we shall explore further “The Secret of Light” as Walter Russell understands it, I bid you good day!

Anthony

Read my HealthLight Newsletter online at LiftingTones.com.

Apocalypse of Light 2013, Part 5: Questions Answered, page 5, Cosmic Consciousness

Deepak Chopra

Deepak Chopra

 

Deepak Chopra defines cosmic consciousness very succinctly: 

In cosmic consciousness the psyche or individual consciousness expands to a cosmic or universal level. The small personality with its identification with the body, the mind and relationships makes a radical shift so that the self now identifies with the non-local, timeless existence of the cosmos. So it is called cosmic consciousness. —Deepak Chopra

Walter Russell expands on the topic — and more — in the “QUESTIONS ANSWERED” part of his book THE MESSAGES OF THE DIVINE ILIAD.

Walter Russell

Walter Russell

 

Q. Did Jesus know all things? I mean by that, did He have omniscience?

A. Yes, He did have omniscience. He was undoubtedly the only man who had known complete Cosmic Consciousness. 

Q. Can a cosmic conscious man see Jesus as a person?

A. No one has ever seen the Person of Jesus-or Beethoven-or you. The body alone can be seen and the Person alone can be known.

Q. Are Jesus and God the same?

A. Yes, they are One-and so are you One with God when you know that you are.

Q. What is the Soul?

A. Soul is the desire force in Mind, the will to extend desire from the Light to manifest the Light
in form.

Q. How does desire manifest itself?

A. Without desire, the seed would not germinate into form. The Soul centers the seed in the pattern of desire to express form. The seed records the pattern of the body as it changes throughout eternity. The
record changes according to the desire of the Soul-will to become a different body. 

Q. Could you give an example?

A. Yes. The pattern of a tree in Maine where the winds blow hard is recorded in the seed of that tree. The same ruggedness of pattern will be recorded in the seed and repeated as the same kind of tree when the seed again unfolds. 

Q. Your statement that trees have Souls as well as human beings is rather extraordinary. Would you explain it further?

A. The Soul is universal in all things. It does not belong to man alone. God is Light. The Soul is DESIRE in the Light. It might also be termed the WILL.

Q. How does animal life differ from vegetable and mineral life?

A. What you call animal life is not rooted to earth. It has entirely different bodies which must interchange in order to continue. The vegetable kingdom is rooted to earth. The mineral kingdom is the earth itself.

All of these function alike. They all begin and end in the same way. 

Q. What are their relations to each other? Which comes first?

A. The mineral kingdom comes first-the planet is all mineral until sufficiently cooled by the coming of water. Interchange between water and minerals begets the vegetable kingdom.

Interchange between the vegetable and mineral kingdoms begets the animal kingdom. Each of these three depends upon each other or survival. Each is an extension of the other. 

I marvel at the depth and height of Russell’s understanding. A man who truly tapped the secrets of the universe and articulated the simple truth of it all.

I will end this series at this point to explore some of the profound perspectives and transcendent vision of Hugh Malafry as shared in his landmark and timely novel The Light at Lindisfarne. So, until next post,

Be Love. Be loved.

Tony's picture 2 from PeggyAnthony

Read my Health Light Newsletter online at LiftingTones.com. 

 

Tag Cloud