About the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind

[mkrnhr]

Hello abeofarrell,

I don't have the pretention to answer definitively your questions (whoever does that is into the faith business, not the quest of truth), but maybe a little thought:

There is a historical confusion between "Jesus", and "Christ". Jesus was a person, so the question "Who is Jesus" is relevant. However, Christ is not a person, it is a state of being. So the question may not be 'Who is Christ" but 'What it to be a Christ". To put it simply, Jesus may have been a Christ, but some others may be christs as well.

One aspect among others may be that the followship is not based upon worshiping an external deity. It is based upon the esoteric aspect of christianity, that is to seek the devine manifestation within the self and others, and to connect to the creative divine through an internal work, that is based on Being instead of only Doing, and in that aspect is may be seen as a process of transforming the self (or some part of it) into a Christ-like being. I hope it is not too metaphorical.

 

[abeofarrell]

Mhrnhr,

thank you for your answer, that is a very helpful answer and has given me much to think about. I will continue to do more reading and thinking on this. From Today I also plan to start learning pipe breathing. I already do tai chi, which involves deep breathing, and buddhist meditation which has helped clean out some of the emotional garbage, but I will give EE a try to.

Recently I have started reducing glutens and have stopped dairy almost completely. I do not think I can totally remove gluten intake from my diet at this point, but will reduce it as much as possible. As I have stated else where I have kidney disease which means minimal protein (only up to 52g per day), minimal salt, and limited intake of fruit and veg due to potassium intake restriction. If I strictly follow the gluten diet I will be left with almost no food! I will try to substitute more fatty meat so my protein level is the same but I can get energy from the animal fats.

The adventure begins!

Thankfully,

Abe

 

[ROEL]

How is Gurdjieff's instruction to be reconciled with the founding of the Fellowship as a religion?
I swore off all religions after becoming involved with things Gurdjieffian. Now I am asked to reconsider this position?

PSTOTT, maybe this helps also:

"If instead of religion in general we take Christianity, then again there exists a Christianity number one, that is to say, paganism in the guise of Christianity. Christianity number two is an emotional religion, sometimes very pure but without force, sometimes full of bloodshed and horror leading to the Inquisition, to religious wars. Christianity number three, instances of which are afforded by various forms of Protestantism, is based upon dialectic, argument, theories, and so forth. Then there is Christianity number four, of which men number one, number two, and number three have no conception whatever.
"In actual fact Christianity number one, number two, and number three is simply external imitation. Only man number four strives to be a Christian and only man number five can actually be a Christian. For to be a Christian means to have the being of a Christian, that is, to live in accordance with Christ's precepts.
"Man number one, number two, and number three cannot live in accordance with Christ's precepts because with them everything 'happens.' Today it is one thing and tomorrow it is quite another thing. Today they are ready to give away their last shirt and tomorrow to tear a man to pieces because he refuses to give up his shirt to them. They are swayed by every chance event. They are not masters of themselves and therefore they cannot decide to be Christians and really be Christians."
G.I.Gurdjieff/ In search for the Miraculous / Chapter 4

Also, we have Gurdjieff's Aphorism #16:
"We can only strive to be able to be Christians."

 

[cliftonedward]

I do understand the aspect of a legal identity to represent the beliefs in the form of a church. In this realm, you just gotta do that. So, I am good with that and I wish it great success. I take these transcripts very seriously. I am a long way from Christlike. But, I learn and grow everyday towards these principles. As always, thank you Laura, and forum. :)

 

[ROEL]

In the Declaration of Principles, under 4.1., we read: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

This is unclear to me, and I refer to the second sentence. Maybe somebody can explain.

Also, should the initial "As" of the second sentence be suppressed?

Thanks.

 

[SeekinTruth]

In the Declaration of Principles, under 4.1., we read: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

This is unclear to me, and I refer to the second sentence. Maybe somebody can explain.

Also, should the initial "As" of the second sentence be suppressed?

Thanks.

I think it means that we share quite a large amount of genetic information with the higher level hominids (and even other 2nd Density life forms), which are expressions of the variations of Archetypes. So we have a basis or substrate for the STS ("evil") archetypes to be expressed / manifested through the genetic / biological substrate of 2nd density we share -- and 2D also may be noted to be the density of biological survival, in a sense only concerned with STS physical survival, and not incorporating the choice between STS and STO as the fundamental function as it seems to be in 3rd density. Only in advancing through 3rd density, do we even become aware enough that further development/evolution is dependent on polarizing to STS or STO, and physical survival only serves that purpose to get us that polarization. Then it becomes a conscious choice, not solely concerned with physical survival. OSIT.

I don't understand what you mean by "As being suppressed."

 

[EmeraldHope]

In the Declaration of Principles, under 4.1., we read: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

This is unclear to me, and I refer to the second sentence. Maybe somebody can explain.

Also, should the initial "As" of the second sentence be suppressed?

Thanks.

2nd density is a reflection of all of the names of god at 6d in physical form. It express through humans as DNA. Also, our limbic system and the oldest system of our vagus reflect this as well. So as the Cs say, we lead the smorgasboard parade of all the genetic material avaliable.


So as you can see, 2nd density is within us genetically. It is the choice of 3d to choose the expression.


I do not know what you mean by suppressed either. It is saying saying that the genitic forms originate in 2nd and are therefore expressed in us in 3d via the instinctive emotional substrate. Since "evil " is one of the names of god reflected in 2nd as non being, that same root of evil is present in man.

 

[TheSpoon]

In the Declaration of Principles, under 4.1., we read: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

Also, should the initial "As" of the second sentence be suppressed?

I do not know what you mean by suppressed either.

I took that to mean "removed" (ie grammatical error) because I don't think you need both "As" and "therefore" in the same sentence. Also there's something about the double plural that jars. I think I'd either say "holds the root" or "hold the roots". Compare "My hands hold the root of the plant" or "my hand holds the root" to "my hands holds the roots" :/

I'd write: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms; therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the root of human evil."

or

"The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, our instinctive-emotional substrate hold the roots of human evil."

On the question of what that actually means, however, I think others are far better qualified to explain.

EDIT: Thought about the plural issue some more

 

[EmeraldHope]

In the Declaration of Principles, under 4.1., we read: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

Also, should the initial "As" of the second sentence be suppressed?

I do not know what you mean by suppressed either.

I took that to mean "removed" (ie grammatical error) because I don't think you need both "As" and "therefore" in the same sentence.

I'd write it like: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms; therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

or

"The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

On the question of what that actually means, however, I think others are far better qualified to explain.

It is a causative sentence, "as" preceding the first cause and "therefore" being the connector. AFAIK.

 

[TheSpoon]

It is a causative sentence, "as" preceding the first cause and "therefore" being the connector. AFAIK.

Oh for sure, I'm just suggesting what I think reads better. Looking at it in a simpler example:

As flowers are thirsty in the summer, I water them regularly.
Flowers are thirsty in the summer; therefore I water them regularly.
As flowers are thirsty in the summer, therefore I water them regularly.

This is one of those times I'd really prefer to use a PM

 

[EmeraldHope]

It is a causative sentence, "as" preceding the first cause and "therefore" being the connector. AFAIK.

Oh for sure, I'm just suggesting what I think reads better. Looking at it in a simpler example:

As flowers are thirsty in the summer, I water them regularly.
Flowers are thirsty in the summer; therefore I water them regularly.
As flowers are thirsty in the summer, therefore I water them regularly.

This is one of those times I'd really prefer to use a PM

I do not disagree with you. I think the issue is this:

This page explains a type of error writers often make when using words like however, furthermore, therefore, thus, consequently, and moreover, The problem occurs when writers use these words to conjoin sentences. Readers find the error to be distracting because it disrupts their expectation about where sentences should end.​

http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=62019

 

[TheSpoon]

I do not disagree with you.

Hmm, I find it interesting that I assumed you were disagreeing. I'll reflect on that.

I think the issue is this: http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=62019

Yup, reckon that's what's going on. Thanks for the link Daenerys. I'm sure I've used ", however, " very recently. I'll watch out for it.

Spoon

 

[EmeraldHope]

I do not disagree with you.

Hmm, I find it interesting that I assumed you were disagreeing. I'll reflect on that.

I think the issue is this: http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=62019

Yup, reckon that's what's going on. Thanks for the link Daenerys. I'm sure I've used ", however, " very recently. I'll watch out for it.

Spoon

I can see where that would be confusing. :) I cannot technically say that the sentence as it is, is wrong, so I was defending it in a statement of what it was, as it is not necessarily a grammatical error as you put it. At least I don't think it is. I'm not 100% sure though.

At the same time, I thought the same thing that you gave in your examples as well, but then thought that there must have been a reason that it was worded that way, and that the people who wrote it are far smarter than I am. :) Of course, that doesn't mean they cannot make mistakes.

Now I am thinking that this is all just noise and I should have stayed out of this. :/

 

[ocean59]

In the Declaration of Principles, under 4.1., we read: "The higher-level Second Density hominid species contribute substantially to humanity’s biological substrate. As Second Density expresses the variations of Archetypes in genetic forms, therefore our instinctive-emotional substrate holds the roots of human evil."

This is unclear to me, and I refer to the second sentence. Maybe somebody can explain.

Also, should the initial "As" of the second sentence be suppressed?

Thanks.

As for grammar, I agree that it is technically incorrect. While removing the word "as" would fix this, I would be more in favor of leaving it in and instead removing the word 'therefore' as it is already implied.

Also, I agree that 'roots' would better read 'root.' Particularly since there does seem to be only one real root in human evil, that being psychopathy/ponerization. The other 'roots' are simply branches of the main.

Now I am thinking that this is all just noise and I should have stayed out of this. :/

Fwiw, I don't think it's noise. It is important to examine the structure of the principles, both grammatically and in meaning for clearer understanding when possible, osit.

 

[wizard_9898]

I do understand the aspect of a legal identity to represent the beliefs in the form of a church. In this realm, you just gotta do that. So, I am good with that and I wish it great success. I take these transcripts very seriously. I am a long way from Christlike. But, I learn and grow everyday towards these principles. As always, thank you Laura, and forum. :)

Sometimes I wish this forum had a "LIKE" button. This would have been one that I would have clicked. I understand where you're coming from, C and I agree 100%.

Wizard