God Beyond Religion: Looking at the Arcane Formulas; Egohood

Egohood

Everywhere you turn these days you can find people who suggest that in solving our most perplexing and disabling problems that the answer is to let go of ego and become one with all. Further that we should deny ourselves and work toward the good of a whole and become one with it. Many spiritual paths suggest that the ego is essentially bad, that is our enemy and needs to be brought under control by denying it.

However, in reading the “Arcane Formulas” by William Walker Atkinson one finds a different view of the ego. The Arcane Formulas is a small written work by Atkinson that gives practical steps and exercises to enable one to do mental alchemy and spiritual feats. First among the steps is the developing of what he calls egohood. For Atkinson, egohood is a goal to be reached and not everyone reaches it. One is not born with egohood. Rather it develops or is developed by awakening. For many esoteric teachings initiates are awakened to an egoless state, but for Atkinson, initiates are awakened to egohood.

With Atkinson, egohood is synonymous with the awareness of the I-AM within the individual. This is differentiated from the me or self. Here is an excerpt from the Arcane Formulas that explains that concept. “Just as one is bound by the illusion of the corporeal nature of the “I,” so is it further bound—and even more closely bound—by the illusion of the personal nature of the Ego. The Ego is not only more, and greater, than the physical body it uses—but it is also more, and greater, than that part of the mind, consisting of a series of inherited or acquired impressions which constitutes the “Me.” There is a great difference between the “Me and the I.” The “Me” is the individual as he thinks he is—a bundle of prejudices, tastes, ties, etc. The “I” is the Individual as he is in reality—free from mental ties of all Lesson IV. Establishing the Ego III. 21 kinds. The “Me” is the character being played by the Ego—the “John Smith” part of him. The “I” is the real player of the part. It is often very difficult for one to disentangle and free himself from the overwhelming force of Personality, so completely is the average person self-hypnotized and race-hypnotized with the “John Smith” idea. The Arcane Teachers have several Formulas for unloosening the bonds of Personality. Let us consider them” ~ The Arcane Formulas, William Walker Atkinson, Timeless Wisdom Collection, 2016, page 14

In this quote, found in the third chapter of this booklet entitled Egohood III, Atkinson points out the difference between the I (I-AM) and the me. He sees the me as a part in a play that the I-AM is acting in. The I-AM or egohood is directly tied to the Will. And as one moves on in the Arcane Formulas it is evident that the Will is the I-AM within the cosmic I-AM, or the cosmic will. This is the source of being able to manipulate and manifest from the infinite potentiality.

Atkinson claims, and I am not certain that I agree or that it resonates with me, but nevertheless, the claim is that no all people have the potential to develop egohood, the I-AM, the will within the cosmic will. That does not resonate with me like the concept of egohood and the I-AM does. I think it is because I see each of us as individual conscious agents on a journey of incarnations that has us at different stages in the growth spiral, and while I have no problem with accepting that some people within a specific incarnation may not be able to achieve egohood, I think that eventually they will. I see our spiritual journey as an upward spiral that may from time to time take downward movement but is ultimately on an upward trajectory. Do not despair about being locked into a cycle of karma. While there is not time to discuss this in this particular article, I believe that we are each in control and there can be rest from the cycle when necessary, and a return when rest has refreshed our spirit.

God Beyond Religion: The Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace

 Eph 4:2-3  “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,  (3)  making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

There is a difference between the spirit of unity and the unity of the spirit. What could Paul have meant by verse three? I hate to use too much of the passage because evangelical and orthodox Christianity has added so much connotative dogma that at times I wonder if it is even possible to extract mystical and metaphysical revelation from within the pages of the New Testament.

For me the idea that stands out in this passage from the letter to the Ephesians is that Paul is insisting that there is but one spirit. In my journey toward eclectic and syncretistic spirituality I have above all else come to the realization that there is but one creative source. For me it is consciousness, and I believe that spirit is a descriptive term to describe the indescribable. I see the concept of the logos and spirit as essentially the same, and I see the Christ or the anointing as a metaphor for the way that humanity is imbued with spirit via universal consciousness. Our consciousness is the way in which we participate in the divine nature, universal consciousness.

We do not have to see the spirit in the same way to experience the unity of the spirit. We simply need to accept the fact that we are spiritual beings which as a description of conscious agents. There is no need for a spirit of unity because the fact is that we are all unified in universal consciousness.  A spirit of unity is simply people striving to achieve what is already a reality. When we are motivated by a spirit of unity, we are actually admitting that we are different, and we are other. That simply is not the reality. That is an illusion.

The fact that we are individual conscious agents is not an illusion. That is not what is meant by the above paragraph. I am not suggesting that we should try to eliminate our ego and by ego I mean as William Walker Atkinson meant it in his “Arcane Formulas,” and “Arcane Teaching.” Those are two works that are in the public domain and can be found in PDF form downloadable on the internet. They also can be purchased in paperback and kindle forms from Amazon.

What Atkinson described as egohood is the total awareness of the individual I-AM in each of us. That is our connection to the unified field of universal consciousness, and in my view, a description of the unified field of quantum theory, the field of morphic resonance as defined by Rupert Sheldrake, and any other known or unknown field underlying reality. This egohood or I-AM-ness is a very important part of or individual experience in material reality. It does not negate the connection and oneness that exists through the universal consciousness. It actually adds to the sum of the whole.

Therefore, the bond of peace exists in the fact that there is unity in the spirit. Of course, no one can be sure exactly what Paul meant in the above passage, but it resonates with me that the actual mystical message was that there is simply unity in the spirit. If we would be at peace with that then we could peacefully coexist with each other without judgment. This could end all proselytization. It is actually proselytization that causes all the division and strife. The only unity we need is the unified field of consciousness and our common corporeal reality. There is a big difference between proselytization and simply offering ideas in the marketplace of thought. In the marketplace of thought one can simply explore ideas they run across and then when appropriate, incorporate them when they resonate.

.

 

God Beyond Religion: Exposing a Weak Assertion of Orthodoxy

American, evangelical, fundamentalism has a great deal in common with protestants, and with orthodoxy both western and eastern orthodoxy. The flaw comes in an assumption. The assumption is that those who were closest to the first century have the most accurate knowledge of what the mission and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth was all about. Just a casual viewing of the history of the first four centuries, should cause even the intellectually limited to question orthodoxy’s assumptions and attestations.

I remember being a rebel at the onset of social media back in the “good ole days” of Yahoo Groups, anyone remember those? At that time, I was already challenging much of accepted dogma within evangelical and fundamentalist circles. Whenever I would go against the accepted dogmatic doctrine, there would always be those who would say, the early church and church fathers were much closer to the time of Jesus and therefore had the skinny on what He taught and meant. That is really an insufficient line of reasoning, and it should be painfully obvious.

When one looks at the overall history of the church beginning with the early heresy hunters, and then realize that they were sanctioned by the empire with the Christianizing event of Constantine’s mother and his subsequent acquiescence to his mothers wishes. The doctrine passed down by orthodoxy is very limited compared to the vast variety of Christianity’s that flourished during those years. Further, the history was written by the victors crowned by the empire and certainly was biased and skewed toward the findings of the councils that took place four hundred years after the Christ event.

One of the stories concerning the destruction of the Library of Alexandria accuses Theophilus who was the Patriarch of Alexandria, 385-415 CE (coincidentally corresponding with the time of the authority given the heresy hunters by the empire and church councils to enforce orthodoxy) seems very plausible considering what was done to the Gnostics by a group of the same mind set. The church has a sordid history of punishing, killing, sanctioning, and eliminating the writings of alleged heretics their revered recollection of Jesus teachings and the first century church are highly suspect which makes the assertion that due to their place in history are the most credible witnesses to what should or should not be orthodoxy and conversely, what should or should not be heresy.

I point this out because in my view one can get a very different view of what the Christian scripture means depending how one looks at it. For example, the doctrine of the Logos can be understood in a very different way simply by reading what John’s gospel actually says. The most important thing is that according to John 1:10-14 the Logos was actively in the world, was received by some before the Logos became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is also taught by Jesus that the same Logos that was flesh in him was also flesh in the rest of humanity. The Logos is simply creative consciousness, and it has always been in humanity though latent and unrecognized by most. While this flies in the face of the orthodox position it is far more in line with what was written in John’s gospel.

Another example is the Apostle Paul. It is obvious when one reads the bible without the lens of orthodoxy that we were given Paul was very likely a walking dichotomy. He was Paul the mystic who was carried with visions into the third heaven and given messages that he was not authorized to repeat, and he was likewise a trained Jewish rabbi that was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were a sect of first century Jews that had a very literal understanding of scripture and created much of the oral tradition that explained what the practical aspects of following the Torah was. This is a consideration that is most valuable when examining all of the writing Paul did. It appears that Paul’s stance on law and grace was very inconsistent and quite contradictory. Also, orthodoxy leaned in favor of interpreting scripture literally as opposed to a more esoteric understanding of it.

The bottom line is this. Both Jesus and Paul gave mystical revelation about source, the creative conscious source that is lost to those who have been influenced by the dogma of orthodoxy. It was carried forward even with the reformation. The reformation was far more about practices than it was about doctrine and revelation. This to me is sad because it may be that the toxic aspects of orthodoxy have so poisoned the well, that future generations will miss some of the important mystical revelation that explains that we humans have a divine nature that is the direct influence with being infused with the Logos. The more I progress in my awareness and thinking the more obvious it becomes that it is difficult to salvage the real message of first century Christianity which is Christ in you… that is “the Christ” in each of us.

God Beyond Religion: Is Prayer Effective?

I continually am asked the question, well if you no longer believe in the evangelical and orthodox dogma and doctrine, what about prayer? This is a great question and here is my best attempt at an answer. If the creative source is a field of divine creative consciousness; if we are conscious agents and points of consciousness within the collective consciousness, then I recommend the following points: 1) Engage in focused intention. 2) Move on to focused attention. 3) Thent move to focused action. 4) Finally release it to the collective conscious field.

Focused Intention:

Intention is to aim at or plan something. This makes it the first step in effective prayer. One should focus on what they desire to be accomplished by the unified field of divine consciousness.

Focused Attention:

The way to focus intention is to focus attention to the intention. It could be by writing it down on a piece of paper to make it a tangible expression of the Logos/Word within you. Another form of expression would be to speak it out loud. While I am sure that one could actually just think it, my sense is writing or speaking it aloud would be more effective for most and writing it down is what resonates the most with me. However, it may be more emergent, and it is not practical to write it. Speaking it or thinking it would be the next alternative with speaking it out loud being my preference.

Focused Action:

Focused action can be material or mental depending on how you can act. For example, if the focused intention is getting a job then applying and preparing would be an important part of focused action. If it is something out of your material control such as healing or a positive outcome, then focusing positive thoughts toward it is all the action that is necessary.

Release It:

Finally, and this may be the most difficult thing to do with respect to self-discipline. Release it to the collective consciousness as though it is accomplished and do not pick it up again.

It is my belief that when one has had answered prayer, even within the framework of organized religion these steps were done whether consciously or subconsciously.

God Beyond Religion: Panpsychism, Religion and Science

There is a full circle from ancient mystery religions to cognitive and quantum science. The connection is panpsychism. At the basis of Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness is the basic element of the universe. Here is a definition from the Britannica Online Encyclopedia. “panpsychism, (from Greek pan, “all”; psychē, “soul”), a philosophical theory asserting that a plurality of separate and distinct psychic beings or minds constitute reality. Panpsychism is distinguished from hylozoism (all matter is living) and pantheism (everything is God).

For Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the 17th-century German philosopher and a typical panpsychist, the world is composed of atoms of energy that are psychic. These monads have different levels of consciousness: in inorganic reality they are sleeping, in animals they are dreaming, in human beings they are waking; God is the fully conscious monad.

In 19th-century Germany, Arthur Schopenhauer asserted that the inner nature of all things is will—a panpsychistic thesis. And Gustav Theodor Fechner, the founder of experimental psychology and an ardent defender of panpsychism, contended that even trees are sentient and conscious.” In the United States, Josiah Royce, an absolute idealist, not only followed Fechner in affirming that heavenly bodies have souls but also adopted a unique theory that each species of animal is a single conscious individual—incorporating into itself the individual souls of each of its members

While panpsychism is not a religion, it is adopted by various religions including pantheism and panentheism. There is also a close relationship between panpsychism and animism. Animism is a religion that believes that the cosmos is a living entity. It is common among indigenous beliefs such as the Native America shamanic religions. It sees conscious entities beyond human beings and animals. The mountains, the forest, the sun and moon all are conscious entities. The bottom line is that these beliefs hold consciousness as a top down causation rather than as some material panpsychists see the consciousness at the molecular level and believe that it evolves into greater and greater awareness in a bottom up fashion.

Since I was born into western civilization and thereby into western thought that has been my focus in study. I certainly believe in the recycling of souls or conscious agents, and since I believe that each conscious agent is a mini creative conscious in the likeness of the source, then I believe that free will demands that we are instrumental in choosing our life path in incarnations. I realize that this is not popular with those who have experienced a lot of trauma, and I do not want to victim blame, but at the end of the matter, in my view, this is the least undesirable of all the other possibilities. While someone in the midst of a traumatic life path may find little solace in the reality that he or she is eternal, and that nothing lasts forever except our conscious soul, it remains for me the most logical fact.

That aside, in selecting to be born into western culture, western religion, and western philosophy I can best explain what my thinking is in terms of the development of western philosophy. So, I mention panpsychism, religion, and science in the title. I also see what I would call a preponderance of evidence that consciousness is indeed at the basis of the nature of reality. It does begin with Hermes for me. I assume and I think that the evidence points to the fact that it is at least 5,000 years old and began with the mystery religions of Egypt. It was taken to Greece by Pythagoras and adopted into Greek Philosophy and Metaphysics. This was the forerunner of mathematics and modern physics. The ancients adopted the idea of the ether/aether. Looking back it was essentially a field in which all things existed. The catalyst for matter and the material, corporeal world was the Logos, in other words consciousness. Over time, this gave way to a more materialistic view of the nature of reality, however, with recent developments in cognitive science, physics, and biology we have returned back to a field similar in nature to the ether/aether.

Interestingly enough, in the twentieth century we had individuals that were stating that the universe is consciousness. For example, Aldous Huxley doing controlled experiments with hallucinogens, developed the term the mind at large. Carl Jung, a psychiatrist, developed the term collective unconsciousness. Rupert sheldrake developed the theory of fields of morphic resonance. So there is a circular phenomenon at play but it is a spiral. With an increase in technology and scientific method, what the ancients knew intuitively is being substantiated by scientific method.

I am quite sure that all of the various world belief systems have explored and developed this over arching idea. They have just used different language to express it. At this time, I do not have the study and expertise to validate it but it resonates strongly with my sense of understanding. What I am seeing is more along the lines of the nature of reality and not ethical. However, I certainly believe that ethics can fit well into this cycle that appears to be an upward spiral.

 

God Beyond Religion: The Logos, the Hermetica, and the Nag Hammadi Library

The Hermetica, or the Corpus Hermeticus is allegedly from Egypt and the Egyptian Thoht who was later named Hermes Trismegistus by the Greeks. It was reportedly brought to Greece by Pythagoras who had traveled to Egypt and Sumer and gained the esoteric and metaphysical knowledge of ancient Egypt. The Hermetica was the source of understanding that the Logos was the creative source of the universe. At the source of creation was consciousness. The Logos and consciousness are synonymous.

There are those who claim that the Hermetica is relatively recent and not ancient. They believe that it was formulated in the fifteenth century CE. This was due in large part to the French philosopher Isaac Casaubon. He was a philosophical advisor to King James. King James was bothered by the metaphysics that was sanctioned under Queen Elizabeth I who had supported and promoted Hermetic Teaching in her reign. He was all too happy to have Casaubon discredit it claiming that it was written by the Neo-Platonists. However, as Tim Freke and Peter Gandy point out in their book, once the Rosetta Stone was discovered and the code for hieroglyphics was broken it was discovered that it was ancient indeed, found in hieroglyphics found on a pyramid in Saqqara Egypt that was dated back to 3,000 BCE.

That alone should be sufficient to prove Casaubon wrong, but with the discovery of the Nag Hamadi Library in 1945 it was discovered that Gnostic Coptic Christians had copies of at least parts of the Hermetica. Thus, it is evident that the early Christians from the third and fourth centuries CE were familiar with these texts and used them as part of their sacred writings. It is obvious from this that they were well known in the first century CE.

Here is an excerpt from the translation of the “Discourse of the Eighth and Ninth.” It was translated by James Brashler, Peter A. Dirkse, and Douglas M. Parrott. The first passage that I will quote is from the Archive Notes: ”The Nag Hammadi collection includes a previously unknown and crucially important Hermetic document, The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth. Probably dating to the third century or earlier, this text appears to be an initiation rite into visionary journey. This document provides singular evidence of the liturgical and experiential elements within Hermetic tradition. It gives witness to the existence of a ritual genera of Hermetic writings previously unknown and now lost. The ritual vowel phrases shown in the text are meditational vocalizations (perhaps similar to a mantra) based on the sacred name: IAO (They should be read with intonation.)”

Notice that the quote states that this is an unknown and crucially important Hermetic document.

I also want to quote from the actual body of the Discourse of the Eighth and Ninth: "I understand Mind, Hermes, who cannot be interpreted, because he keeps within himself. And I rejoice, my father, because I see you smiling. And the universe rejoices. Therefore, there is no creature that will lack your life. For you are the lord of the citizens in every place. Your providence protects. I call you 'father', 'aeon of the aeons', 'great divine spirit'. And by a spirit he gives rain upon everyone. What do you say to me, my father, Hermes?"… "Trismegistus, let not my soul be deprived of the great divine vision. For everything is possible for you as master of the universe."

This shows that at least a group of Coptic Gnostic Christians were invested deeply in the work of Hermes Trismegistus. Since in the book by Freke and Gandy, “The Hermetica, the lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs” You find this quote from the initiation of Hermes it sees that it is likely authentic that it was well received in the first century CE. “Suddenly everything changed before me. Reality was opened out in a moment. I saw the boundless view. All became dissolved in Light — united within one joyous Love. Yet the Light cast a shadow, grim and terrible, which, passing downwards, became like restless water, chaotically tossing forth spume like smoke. And I heard an unspeakable lament — an inarticulate cry of separation. The Light then uttered a Word, which calmed the chaotic waters.

My Guide asked: 'Do you understand the secrets of this vision? I am that Light — the Mind of God, which exists before the chaotic dark waters of potentiality. My calming Word is the Son of God — the idea of beautiful order; the harmony of all things with all things. Primal Mind is parent of the Word, just as, in your own experience, your human mind gives birth to speech. They cannot be divided, one from the other, for life is the union of Mind and Word. Now, fix your attention upon the Light, and become One with it.'

When he had said this, he looked into me, I to I, until, trembling, I saw in thought limitless power within the Light, to form an infinite yet ordered world — and I was amazed. I saw in the darkness of the deep, chaotic water without form permeated with a subtle intelligent breath of divine power. Atum's Word fell on the fertile waters making them pregnant with all forms.

Ordered by the harmony of the Word, the four elements came into being, combining to create the brood of living creatures The fiery element was articulated as the constellations of the stars, and the gods of the seven heavenly bodies, revolving forever in celestial circles. The Word then leapt up from the elements of nature and reunited with Mind the Maker, leaving mere matter devoid of intelligence. My Guide said: 'You have perceived the boundless primal idea, which is before the beginning. By Atum's will, the elements of nature were born as reflections of this primal thought in the waters of potentiality. These are the primary things; the prior things; the first principles of all in the universe. Atum's Word is the creative idea — the supreme limitless power which nurtures and provides for all the things that through it are created. (Pages 11-15)

I posited this much of the text because I wanted to show the creation story from the point of view of Hermes and the Hermetica. When one considers that the claim is that this goes back to 3,000 years BCE it should give us pause as we contemplate what science is now discovering about consciousness being the creative source of the material world.