The Transcendent Unity of Religions

The point I'm trying to make is that believing ourselves ONE with the absolute for us is imagination normal for the exoteric level of reality. That is why the emphasis is on becoming able to "know thyself." The quality of attention required for this effort does not allow for imagination. Consequently the conscius purity of what allows us our connection with higher consciousness is not tainted.

If I am aware of this point I feel morally obligated to introduce it in the context of transcendence. There are teachings out there that sell many books and people think them just wonderful but IMO can be dangerous for those that become obsessed with them.
Nick_A


The response from me would be that such 'transcendence' is self-authenticating (pardon my poor grammer). You bring a very good point and one that has been around, I imagine, since history began. What you point to is the difference between a sage and a schizophrenic. The sage would recognize the qualitative difference of experience whereas the mad man wouldn't.


"The quality of attention required for this effort does not allow for imagination"

Absolutely. What my experience has been is that the the propensity for fantasy is the first to go. Actually it just seems as if it has a bad smell or taste about it -generally distasteful. I would make the distinction between creativity and fantasy as they have different sources. To avoid confusion I would use the term fantasy instead of imagination as the last term can be applied to both creativity and fantasy.


"There are teachings out there that sell many books and people think them just wonderful but IMO can be dangerous for those that become obsessed with them."

Yes, but this is true with anything. Name me one book that has killed more people than the Christian Bible (although it seems the Qu'ran is trying to play catch up). What I would say is than a sane person and a person who is ready for such teachings has an innate ability to discern wheat from chaff. Now I don't ask that anyone believe a single word I say, but I do believe that you and others can see what little I have to offer and make a judgement as to my veracity.

Oh, and Bob, the phrase I like better is that 'if you can't dazzle them with brillence, baffle them with bullshit'.

Peace,
s

You want to play games, well I'm out here waiting to play. See this is how I do not understand you "imagination?" Do you understand the word "imagination" because if you are not then I assume you are using "perception?" Conscious, and consciousness are not the same word again. Personally I could really care less if you try transcendence, what is the worst it can do to you, but drive you mad! No, I do not point out the difference between a sage, and a schizophrenic, and whatever you just wrote makes no-sense. What do I care if you use perception, or imagination, that was a give-me. With that paragraph on fantasy, and creativity , you confuse me. Personally on the innate ability to discern wheat from chaff, I am not racist as you just proved to be. You still did not prove to me what Nihilism is, and is not? You want a game then you win, because it is not about winning or losing it is about who is right, and who is wrong!

"Oh, and Bob, the phrase I like better is that 'if you can't dazzle them with brillence, baffle them with bullshit'."
Now what was that again, because you just proved to the viewers, you don't understand what you are writing, and just wrote! LOL

I don't have time to waste on you people any longer. Look up morals that is a clue to Nihilism, o.k.. Have fun in life.

Bob, I truely am sorry, that in a spirit of comeraderie, I acknowledged your presence. It is a mistake I won't repeat. The sad thing is that your pain is almost palpable and you have my deepest sympathy for what must be a miserable existance. I have no idea what race you are, nor do I care, but I urge you to leave the dismal prison you have locked yourself in and embrace the human race. I do sincerely wish you well even though what kindness is offered surely will be wasted. This is the last word, for whatever replies you post will go unread by me. God be with you.

Steve

What you point to is the difference between a sage and a schizophrenic. The sage would recognize the qualitative difference of experience whereas the mad man wouldn't.

I believe that affirming human meaning and purpose is an attribute of a quality of consciousness we do not have but is our potential. We are normal people for want of a better description, living in Plato's Cave. One doesn't have to be schizophrenic to live in fantasy, it is normal for Plato's cave.

Anyone concerned with transcendence needs to transcend meaningless but normal inhibitions that keep one as a slave to societal pressures. After becoming more free in relation to society the question arises as to what are we living for? This often leads to the need for the experience of meaning and purpose beyond societal life only possible from the creation of our individuality or becoming what we are.

Both the linear transcendence from habit that relates to ourselves in the world and in society, and the vertical quality of the moment that is a measure of the quality of our "being" that connects the transcendent to the exoteric requires being free from the slavery to imagination.

Real transcendence is not only freedom from meaningless fears and inhibitions in every day life but also acquiring consciousness and will that allows one to stay present to life and resist falling asleep again in Plato's cave where no transcendence is possible.

Yes, but this is true with anything. Name me one book that has killed more people than the Christian Bible (although it seems the Qu'ran is trying to play catch up). What I would say is than a sane person and a person who is ready for such teachings has an innate ability to discern wheat from chaff. Now I don't ask that anyone believe a single word I say, but I do believe that you and others can see what little I have to offer and make a judgment as to my veracity.

The Bible exists on the transcendent, esoteric, and exoteric levels of Man's being. It has a different meaning depending upon a person's vertical quality of "being." The Bible hasn't killed anyone. It only has been interpreted by secular agendas at the exoteric level that lead to abuse.

There are a great many that mistakenly believe they can separate the wheat from the chaffe since it is obvious at the beginning. Unfortunately our tendency is to avoid what we have to face so create imaginary interpretations This is what leads to many New Age Experts IMO.

"Humility is attentive patience." Simone Weil

It requires attentive patience for the impartial experience of oneself to serve as the realistic foundation for transcendence. It is very disconcerting and it is far easier not to do so and create our own imaginary reality. A person has to decide if transcendence is really wanted. Often all that one is searching for is consolation and self justification for a better self esteem. If this is really what is wanted it is better to avoid efforts towards impartial self knowledge which only arouse unwanted doubts.

"I believe that affirming human meaning and purpose is an attribute of a quality of consciousness we do not have but is our potential."


Here is EXACTLY our only difference. If you can be open to this then a veil can be lifted. It is simple but radical from your perspective.

Our potential is already here but unrealized. There is absolutely nothing to gain. What is sought is closer than close, which from the 'normal persons' way of experience, is the largest problem. The question is not "How do we gain enlightenment?" but "How are we unenlightening ourselves moment to moment?"
The Kingdom is already here and always has been here. We just cloud our vision with associative thought that has created an identity seperate from the unity of the moving Now. When Jesus said you must be born again he was speaking very literally. He didn't mean the ego had to die, how can you kill a ghost anyway? But he pointed to the very fact that to believe our identity is one with a transient, limited and mortal mind is ..............well, the tragedy of man.

Re-read your favorite passages from this new perspective. Feel it in your heart, not your mind. If you truely believed that your current sense of self was all your life had to offer you wouldn't be here in the first place. This is the intuition that has driven every thing, the reason for all your reading and deep thought on spiritual matters. You may not admit it, that ego is a tough MF, but what you truely are is incredible, peaceful, intelligent, loving and effortless -and my friend.

Blessings and great peace,
s

Steve

Needless to say we begin with completely different perspectives as to what man on earth is. I'll have to reply tomorrow since I'm beat.

The students are probably celebrating freedom from finals. Perhaps when they return they will be struck with this question if we are the plurality called the wretched man at the exoteric level of human "being" or if we are some sort of spiritual being for some reason caught up in imagined earthly trivialities.

We can still be friends even though I don't believe we need blessings and great peace as much as we need the shock of awakening.

Simone Weil may be rough for you to take. She wrote

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

Cleaning our inner house so as to become inwardly free requires brutal experiential honesty. No cutsey pooh or pleasing thoughts of being Mr. wonderful. All this imagination must be sacrificed for the sake of inner freedom from this useless suffering.

It just takes a while to acquire the courage and ability to become open to this brutal experiential honesty since we've been denying it for so long.

Hi Steve

Our potential is already here but unrealized. There is absolutely nothing to gain. What is sought is closer than close, which from the 'normal persons' way of experience, is the largest problem. The question is not "How do we gain enlightenment?" but "How are we unenlightening ourselves moment to moment?"

If we are a plurality, there is no way we can be enlightened. How does the part of your collective aware of enlightenment convince your stomach of the value of enlightenment? A lot of New Age philososophy suggests to deny the existence of your stomach as unreal. Tell that to your stomach.

The human condition itself denies enlightenment. The majority of your plurality doesn't want it and struggles against it to preserve the status quo. That is why the question for me isn't really enlightenment but the nature of the human condition that denies it.

What are we? The essence of self knowledge is the impartial conscious experience of this question. We are not open. How can we begin to "know thyself?" It is far more satisfying to just imagine ourselves. It seems unrealistic to me to consider any value of enlightenment without being able to use it.

"I can therefore I am." Simone Weil

When we "can" reflect enlightenment, it will mean something.

The Kingdom is already here and always has been here. We just cloud our vision with associative thought that has created an identity separate from the unity of the moving Now. When Jesus said you must be born again he was speaking very literally. He didn't mean the ego had to die, how can you kill a ghost anyway? But he pointed to the very fact that to believe our identity is one with a transient, limited and mortal mind is ..............well, the tragedy of man.

But we are dust to dust. This isn't believing in a ghost but rather the life process.

John 12

23Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.

Christian re-birth is about the willingness to die to our imagination for the sake of experiential reality and the growth of our essence. This is the opposite of glorifying the imagination that we are something we are not.

Hi Nick,

I am surprized by your muted response. I expected a lot more scripture and quotes from dead philosophers.

The thing that intrigues me is that I am not in disagreement at all on most everything you have posted, yet you say there is this big gap. Maybe it is this 'plurality' thing. I am not convinced that you are convinced of this phenomena. You have said "I am beat" not "we are beat" and "I'll" instead of "we'll". You had asked me which of the 'we's' get enlightened? My answer would be that if 'you' woke up in a House of Mirrors, the one who found his way out would be the same one to awaken.

Now speaking of awakening:

"We can still be friends even though I don't believe we need blessings and great peace as much as we need the shock of awakening."

Who says awakening is a shock? It can be, for sure. But you can't have a 'great awakening' unless you are very deeply asleep, and I think you are more drowsy than asleep. As to my closing, well ok, I am not being glib, but if you can't intuit my sincerity I can understand that. It's probably more comfortable to recieve such a thing from a preacher with an 8th grade world view but a Ph.d from a Bible School (who probably diddles the kiddies on Wednesday nights) than a disembodied presence on your computer screen.

There is a lot of myth about spiritual experience and awakening. There are some rare few that managed to ride that wave fully, but they are the exception. Spiritual experience is just that, an experience that takes out the ego so the world as is it is can be seen -and taken fully it can be shattering -but for most of us the ego returns all too quick. The value of spiritual experience is how much ego strenght is lost when the experience passes. The danger is that, like a narcotic, the experience is greatly disired. Now here is the catch-22, (and believe me it's an ass kicker), it is the egoic mind which disires the experience that only occurs only when the egoic mind is absent. The very thing that seeks it is the very thing that prevents it from occuring. If you can grok this then you might understand a bit of the perspective I am trying to relate.

Now you have put words in my mouth and made assumptions which just aren't true. I don't ask for any change in anything you believe or hold dear (even this plurality). All I ever say is just what you have said, "know thyself" -or maybe it's "know thyselves" - but in any case, you have a decent -make that good -roadmap but seem more intent on tweaking and refining the map than actually getting into the car and driving. Understand that it is possible to get to the destination, but only if you leave the house! Yes, it seems difficult (especially in the beginning) but the process is simple. Just look at your self (selves). Not with any special thing at all. Just look -actualize 'know thyself' by looking. How else can you know? Don't try to change a thing, don't intellectualize, don't even make it a hard effort -just look. You don't have to suffer any great hardship, gaze at a wall for years, be worthy or pious, repent or wear sackcloth and ash, just follow through on what you have been saying.

See Ya,
s

Despite the forum being rather vacant these days aside from you three, I have decided that i will at least provide peace to who wishes to stay and discuss.

Seeing as Bob chooses to ignore all my warnings, it's about time anyway.

His ban will be lifted when i feel it appropriate, though that won't be for at least 2 weeks.

Enjoy.

Yes, the plurality of our being, though seemingly a small thing is actually the central issue.

I should clarify one thing is that my interest isn't really in mysticism but actually what it is to be a man: "To Be" I posted my interest in the God/Man thread. These students seem to have an interest in what it means to be human so I thought as we go along, depending upon interest, I could add some ideas they would not read from other sources since they do not flatter our ego but rather help to reveal the human condition as compared to the conscious potential for human "being." Interest may be waning so who knows where this will lead. But the bottom line is that I know that without enough of the younger generation becoming realistically aware of the human condition, we may well meet with catastrophes of our own making from the loss of this awareness.

We will always disagree as to sleep. You believe us just drowsy and I believe we are asleep with just occasional periods of the beginning of awareness. We disagree as to the role and effect of imagination on the void we can create that invites the help for awakening by helping to cleanse our being.

I agree that it is the ego or governing part of our personality that is initially attracted to transcendence. But letting it go rather then just allow it to take a more agreeable form is far more difficult than you may believe. The role of a real teacher is compensate for this tendency in the student and keep him on course. it takes a while to come to see how we fool ourselves.

"Do You wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself"
-ABBA EVAGRIUS, FOURTH CENTURY

This is the realistic key to transcendence and connects the physical with the spiritual. It might not be your way but it is mine and the way of a great many past and present I have the highest regard for in the efforts they made for the objective quality of their being and for humanity as a whole.

So lets speak a bit of the central issue, this phenomena you call 'plurality'.
Correct me if I misstate, but you propose that your true nature (and thus mankinds) is not one but many -or at least two?

Should this be the case, then I again point out that you referenced yourself in the singular. You used 'I' instead of 'we'. Now there is a word, I forget, for those who profess a belief then acts opposite to that belief? Maybe it will come to me.
Nevertheless..........

What I wish to point out before going into this phenomena is that, while I will challange your premise, the very fact that you are aware of this incongruity and are willing to try and deal with it is a very good sign. I commend you for this because -to me -it IS a sign that you are merely drowsy and not asleep. Don't take this compliment lightly, most people ARE asleep and are unaware (ignorant) of this logical inconsistancy.

So lets take a couple of commonly used statements:

"I thought to myself"
"I am going to give myself a good talking to"
"I agrued with myself"

You could probably add a dozen more. These are very common uses of language but a present a logical (dare I say it) paradox at face value. Now it could be said that these statements are just a quirk of language when self referencing. I don't think you or I can buy that in such a shallow form. IMO language does play a part but at a much deeper level. Language is symbolic but it is not the thing-in-itself. The thought or word "Fire" dosen't burn, but the experience of fire is heat and burning. Likewise the thought "I" is only a symbolic reference to the consciousness that percieves the thought.

Now here is the 'central issue' (IMO) at its core. If you confuse (associate) the symbolic "I" for the thing-in-itself then you have created a plurality because you have identified with both an object in conciosuness and conciousness itself.

An aside: The latter is unavoidable. We discussed this and agreed previously that consciousness is existant even without an object. Now I'm sure you have met an individual who has said "I really don't know what I think until I've said it."
For this person (asleep to the point of coma) there is no problem. LOL

So if we take my opinion that the 'plurality' is created when both the "I" as a thought/symbol (secondary) and the referent "I" (conciousness which is primary and unavoidable) are both percieved as 'self', then where does this lead? Right back to "Know Thyself".

Comments on the above: As always you can take or leave my opinions. I only ask for consideration. Thought/symbol is the 'associate thought' which you argue is the problem (and I obviously agree). When we examine the 'associative' part of 'associative thought' then the problem is further defined when such thought is self-referencing.

Last, to go into a bit of your post: I didn't say "us", I said 'you' concerning drowsiness. I am well aware of when I am asleep, drowsy or awake. You also refer to 'mysticism'. My dictionary gives several different meanings. The one which I think you refer to is "a belief without sound basis"...and I have stated many times that I have no beliefs to hold dear. The definition I like is "direct communion with ultimate reality". There are many others. I wish I could say that my yoke is easy, but the truth is that it both is and it isn't.

I leave you with this from 2 Corinthians 4:18

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Toodles,
s

Hi Steve

I commend you for this because -to me -it IS a sign that you are merely drowsy and not asleep. Don't take this compliment lightly, most people ARE asleep and are unaware (ignorant) of this logical inconsistancy.

Just out of curiosity you seem to be presenting yourself as one with an important quality of knowledge. Are you representing a school or a particular line of thought that can judge these things?

Should this be the case, then I again point out that you referenced yourself in the singular. You used 'I' instead of 'we'. Now there is a word, I forget, for those who profess a belief then acts opposite to that belief? Maybe it will come to me.
Nevertheless..........

There is no hypocrisy. I am a collective. One I of that collective was just expressing its exhaustion. We are always referring to ourselves as I. But the real question is which small I is active at the time. When I argue with myself it is just an obvious conflict between several small I's.

Part of the effort of self knowledge is becoming aware of how plurality manifests or how one small I becomes dominant only to have another become dominant soon after. This is how our personality functions. It is the process of continual conditioned reactions of small I's each assuming themselves representing inner unity.

This is why becoming aware of the human condition is the beginning. The small amount of I's we have capable of conscious self awareness cannot contend with the dominance of established I's of our personality so we live in the sleep of our personality.

I've come to realize that humanity needs more with the need and courage to admit and deal with the plurality of our human condition for our own sake as well as the sake of humanity and what ttranscendence is really about.

So if we take my opinion that the 'plurality' is created when both the "I" as a thought/symbol (secondary) and the referent "I" (consciousness which is primary and unavoidable) are both perceived as 'self', then where does this lead? Right back to "Know Thyself".

We have a myriad of small I's serving the purpose of reacting either intellectually, emotionally, or sensory. We have a small amount of I's capable of consciousness that can observe our reactions. From my point of view the task is how to increase their strength and allow them to increase their unifying influence within my common presence.

Hi Nick,

First an apology. I have had tried to irritate you in the few last posts. This is really not my nature but your prejudice did deserve a bit of a slap. I am sorry.
Also this will be my last post for awhile. Nothing to do with you, but due to my lack of depth I pay a bit of a cost with these things. I will still monitor and be accessible, but I need to go back home for awhile.

So onwards!

"Just out of curiosity you seem to be presenting yourself as one with an important quality of knowledge. Are you representing a school or a particular line of thought that can judge these things?"

Quite the contrary. I can't see myself and have no idea how I present to others, so I'll have to take your word on this. Actually Bob was pretty close when he called me an utter fool. I can't speak to their quality, but upon reflection I guess I only "know" 3 things - the first two are accessible to even a fool, and the last one was given to me. I have countless opinions which are absolutely worthless and, for the umpteenith time, have no beliefs I hold dear. Having no beliefs to hold dear, I have no school or particular line of thought to represent.

"There is no hypocrisy."

I didn't call you a hypocrite. The word I was struggling for was 'evangelical'.

"Part of the effort of self knowledge is becoming aware of how plurality manifests or how one small I becomes dominant only to have another become dominant soon after. This is how our personality functions. It is the process of continual conditioned reactions of small I's each assuming themselves "\
representing inner unity."

I don't disagree if we are talking about the personality. Maybe it's the case of apples and oranges. I was talking about YOU, not your personality. If this is our confusion, well my bad,.. I agree that the PERSONALITY is multifaceted. But here is my question: Is that which percieves the many "I"s one or many? Your answer this this I truely do want to know.


"When I argue with myself it is just an obvious conflict between several small I's."

For heavens sake! I just hope they don't have guns!!!

I won't copy the last couple of paragraphs, but what I take it is that: We should admit to our multi-persoanality disorder, teach the good "I"s to be stronger so they can hook up and merge into a common unity for the good of all the little "I"s?

Interesting, but that which percieves either the little "I"s or the unified "I"s, is that one or many?

Oh, the 3 things I know?

1. "I AM"
2. Time is a psychological construct, experience exists only in the eternal Now.
3. The two above are not two.

Om Shanti,
Let there be peace, glorious peace, peace to all beings,
Peace beyond understanding,
Peace within and Peace without,
May all be Peacefull

peace,
s

Hi Steve

I don't know what prejudice you refer to unless you mean the assertion that we live in a dream as suggested by all the ancient traditions and for the sake of this thread: at the exoteric level of reality.

The word evangelical has always had a slavery connotation for me. It is like trying to create slaves to a cause. Yet awakening is freedom from psychological slavery.

Essence is just the sum of qualities talents and tendencies we are born with while personality is patterns of reactive behavior acquired in life. You can have a fifty year old personality surrounding a 5 year old essence that never grew beyond this age from being stifled by a dominant personality. I've read that a person would be surprised how much their lives are governed by people whose essence has died. Is it being evangelical to encourage self knowledge? Perhaps if more were aware there would be less dead essences walking around.

For heavens sake! I just hope they don't have guns!!!

Sometimes they have the equivelent. Take a person that is a drug addict. Addicted I's are poisoning a person's entire being with a similar effect of a gun.

I's capable of consciousness don't have to be taught. They just have to be allowed to develop from the nourishment of conscious experience. To build a bicep you must use the muscle. It is the same with conscious attention. It can only be developed through practice.

Om Shanti,
Let there be peace, glorious peace, peace to all beings,
Peace beyond understanding,
Peace within and Peace without,
May all be Peacefull

If that were to happen there could be no life in the jungle or the other domains of organic life on earth and the living machine of organic life couldn't serve its purpose. So for me the question is how to respect the necessary lack of peace or as Buddha said: life is suffering.

Hello Nick and Steve,

This seems like an appropriate conversation in light of resent events.

If that were to happen there could be no life in the jungle or the other domains of organic life on earth and the living machine of organic life couldn't serve its purpose. So for me the question is how to respect the necessary lack of peace or as Buddha said: life is suffering.

I have a simple view. Find my own truth and respect the views of others.

The lack of peace in our world is a process of discovery. The idea is to find peace with the process and the self within.

John

Hi John

You seem to be relating the concept in the tune: "Row row row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream." I just don't see how it relates to transcendence which requires adopting the mindset of the salmon and swim upstream towards the source rather than just drifiting down stream.

The problem for Man is how to do it. Desire is not enough since we are in opposition to ourselves..

Hi Nick,

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion based on my reply.

It is an art to listen to the words another is using and comprehending their views. I suspect that in this case, you are not understanding what I was said.

Peace begins with the self. Once we become a peaceful person, we have done our part for the world at large.

John

John

Maybe I'm reading you wrong but I don't know how else to take what you wrote:

I have a simple view. Find my own truth and respect the views of others.

The lack of peace in our world is a process of discovery. The idea is to find peace with the process and the self within.

If I were walking down the street at night and see a woman being raped in an alley I couldn't be so peaceful about it. I would have to use force to protect the woman. It wouldn't be so peaceful and I wouldn't be respecting the views of the rapist

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw

Sometimes for the sake of progressing towards freedom both in our inner world and in the external world we need to appear unreasonable so not all that peaceful.

The point is that this question of peace being considered from the exoteric level of reality is not so clear cut.

Yes you are reading me wrong. A peaceful person does not refuse to help someone in need. They also try their best to avoid arguements.

Sorry if I have somehow offended you.

John

John wrote:Yes you are reading me wrong. A peaceful person does not refuse to help someone in need. They also try their best to avoid arguements.

Sorry if I have somehow offended you.

John

What is there to be offended about? All I said is that I don't see how what you wrote has anything to do with transcenence. It just seems like someone just going with the flow which by definition excludes transcendence and just leads to the normal mechanical cycles of life as described in Ecclesistes 3:

A Time for Everything

1 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Astute observations Cena. Years ago I learned that the first awareness that become lost in religion is the conscious awareness of scale and relativity. This is why the one world government idea in the Bible means the end. It is the triumph of secularism or Plato's Beast. It has no sense of scale and relativity. Everything exists at the same level. The idea of objective quality for example is meaningless since for the Beast, quality is only a man made conception in relation to one level of existence.

It has become obvious to me that this sense of scale is lost both through secularism including secularized religion and New age fantasy. We are fortunate to still have influences like schuon that keep this essential idea alive within culture for those still sensitive who can profit inwardly from this awareness.