Baseless Speculation Time

[sdi]

1. Spirit is unity: it is a limitless mind, endlessly contemplating itself (for there is nothing else to contemplate).

2. So potent is spirit that the very ideas it contemplates are alive, and we call these souls.

3. Souls are unique expressions of life: the greatest are prime and express a single, pure nature; the rest are composite, expressing a harmony of primal natures.

4. The more composite a soul is, the weaker it is, and souls that are too weak to exist of themselves animate bodies, which act as a sort of support or crutch, allowing the soul to function even while weak.

5. Spirit is unlimited, but souls are limited by their natures; consequently, the spiritual world (which souls inhabit) is unlimited by such constraints as space and time, while the world of soul (which bodies inhabit) is limited by these.

6. A soul cannot change its composite nature (it is "baked in" to its very existence); however, by focusing on some aspects of it at the expense of others, a soul inhabiting a body may concentrate its power and gain enough strength to no longer require a body, at the cost of losing some measure of its expressive potential. (That is, it must act within the constraints of this purer nature, or else return to needing a body.)

7. Therefore, one might assume that if a soul's goal is to live in the material world, and to live well in it, then it should deliberately pursue the strategy of balancing its various natures. However, if a soul's goal is to leave the material world and live in the spiritual, then it should deliberately pursue a strategy of focusing on some natures at the expense of others.

(I am not certain of these points—indeed, on the basis that "all models are wrong, but some are useful," I am certain that there is at least something incorrect about each one—but I have a vague feeling that there's something to it. Certainly, I am pursuing the latter goal; this life is very weird; and my angel tells me that it only gets weirder from here...)

Comments

[temporaryreality]

Not that it’s any measure of “correctness” or “validity” this tracks well with JMG’s lineages’ teachings insofar as I comprehend the few I’m aware of (mostly Fortune’s CosDoc, John Gilbert’s Octagon Society, and JMG’s Occult Philosophy Workbook). I suppose one thing that differentiates this from those (to me) is the singular word “body.”

But in all, it sounds like a pretty good “working guesstimate” pithily stated and worth chewing on.

:)

[sdi]

Thank you! I can't hold much in my head at once, so I try to squish things down to bare essentials so it fits. :)

Could you elaborate on "body" vs. "bodies?" If I understand right, both Fortune and Gilbert were Christians, while I'm emphatically not; and so I'm happy to admit reincarnation while perhaps they were hesitant to since that's not a doctrine of the Church. (I know they were heterodox, but I don't know how much, since the little I've read of each hasn't really been my cup of tea.) Is that what you're getting at?

[temporaryreality]

I was approaching it more from the sense of the bodies we develop on our “descent” then re-“ascent” through the planes. So, physical, etheric, and astral, then once we’re beyond the physical, the mental, causal, and spiritual bodies. I don’t recall if there’s then a progression to a ”divine body” but I kind of think not. ?

So, relative to point 6, the various opinions of those I cited suggest that beings with mental bodies (or higher) can choose to temporarily pick up (for lack of accurate wording) a physical body if desired.

[sdi]

Aha! I got you.

I would (personally) agree with your sources that a soul that isn't in need of a body can choose to "redescend" the planes if they wish. A soul might choose to do this if, for example, they wish to explore other natures that they possess in the abstract but are not currently exhibiting. (From their own perspective, of course, since technically souls are eternal, but they experience eternity one-thing-at-a-time.) To do so, of course, would mean that they are "starting over again" in the karmic sense, depending on how deep down they wish to go (that is, how many of their latent natures they wish to attempt to reinvigorate). This could involve anything from quick exploration of the astral to many eons working their way back up from the physical from near-scratch.

I think where the model I'm working from, above, disagrees with the sources you cited (at least, the second- or third- hand version of it that I've heard, since I haven't read them in any detail) is that I wouldn't say we're developing a "mental body"—I'd say we already have it and always have, since it's eternal and unchanging. I'd say we're simply temporarily unable to access those "mental body experiences" because we're too weak, having too many of our own natures competing for attention. Who's to say we didn't spend ages in the spiritual world already, and we're presently clawing out way back up because we decided we wanted to do it differently? Would that feel any different, from our present perspective, from doing it for the first time?

(But again, I must stress these are all just models and I'm in baseless speculation mode. I really don't know anything that I'm presently pontificating about. But it's fun to think about!)

[temporaryreality]

"I'm in baseless speculation mode. I really don't know anything that I'm presently pontificating about. But it's fun to think about!"

And that describes me exactly, too! :D

I don't have the foggiest idea of what's possible or likely - or even, really, where I am in the scheme of things, going "up" or "down" or spending eons doing the same thing over and over. I do admit, though, that the thought of coming back and doing it all again sounds so... dreary? disheartening? like, what kind of fool thing was my higher self thinking if that's what's going on?

How do we teach these things to children?

[emmanuelg]

As good a framework for meditation as any, and better than some!
Dion Fortune said of her Cosmic Doctrine that it was meant "to train the mind, not to inform it." Training minds is a large part of what we hope to do with our children--
I have been thinking about a game to play with my grandchildren, should I ever have any;
"Blanket Puppets"
Spread out an old blanket on a card table. Have string, plastic google eyes, play-doh available. The grandchild puts his/her hand under the blanket and gathers it around the wrist. loosely tie the bunch of blanket with the string so they can pull their hand out and put it in again. This is a blanket puppet.
The child gives the blanket puppet eyes and a mouth. ideally several children make blanket puppets out of the very wrinkled blanket, decorate them, then put their hands back in and play with the puppets.
As they play, they will notice they can move their puppet around, but only so far. Any movement pulls on the blanket and affects the other puppets. The puppets gain personality as they play, and have adventures. Finally at the end of the game, the strings are released and the puppets become a flat blanket again.
What is the likely reaction? Some children may cry, others may not think about it. Others may want to play another round of blanket puppets, but they find that the new puppets are not exactly the same as the old ones.
As they grow, you can use the blanket puppet game to teach them to meditate on life, souls, Spirit, death, what is gained and what is lost--
Hope that helps--
Out of time for now--
Cheers,
Emmanuel G

Re: How do we teach these things to children?

[sdi]

I remember you mentioning that game at some point in the past, and I thought it was cute!

The philosophers tried to teach children mathematics in order to help free their minds from sensory experience.

Others try to tell stories to their children, to analogize; I've seen a Zen book, The Story of Mu, which I think tries to communicate the same idea as your puppet game.

I suppose different methods work for different people, same as we have many worldviews and religions and so on.

Re: How do we teach these things to children?

[emmanuelg]

Hmmm, could be that one of the reasons for telling stories to children is to give them resources for thinking about things that they will need later in life. I am thinking about any number of stories-- The Emperor's New Clothes; The crowd is not always right, see what you see. The Little Red Hen--We don't deserve to share in things in which we did not help.
--And other cultures' childrens' stories can be informative about how they see the world and what they think is important.

Re: How do we teach these things to children?

[sdi]

That was certainly JMG's take, and I've found a lot of valuable insight by meditating on parables and myths, myself.