Equally so, we are unfulfilled by much of our daily occupation, which too may fail to make connection with a reality within ourselves.
This is very much subsequent to the times, in that some men suffer a sophisticated world which requires an abstract interaction, rather than a primary purpose as executed. Disorientation can result from too little primary involvement - which is that which is done for the immediate and resolute purpose, other than as an intermediary between. This will help in regaining the here and now in the present, rather than by forecasting. We become effectual to that purpose ourselves.
This has been described in order to establish one of the great differences in thinking as it is experienced today. In recent times in particular, the intellect has separated and shrunk back from the man's entirety, both within and by his relationship with the world at large. Our thoughts and our understanding of our thoughts is changing. We have by no means developed our thinking so it is responsive accurately in keen proximity to the truth and the reality to which it is bonded.
Now this is not to be dismissive of present-day thinking; on the contrary, it is to be appreciated and accounted for, especially when referring back to works written down in centuries long past. For example, at the time when the Gospel of St. John was made account of, the men who were to receive it could then acknowledge the reality as brought before them, without reasoning. The impressions would flow from their connecting with the text and its author and the truth for which it was apparent.
In this we can understand why it was that storytelling, fictional storytelling, was unknown of. Any account written, spoken or sung, was to be a true one in accordance with how it happened; and there would be a direct joy and experience derived from such. Should a man have given a story which was manufactured, then it should bring no reality and simply be of no consequential interest to the receiver.
And yes, while we are on the subject, the word 'guile' is indicative of magic. For here we come to two points of interest: one is that it has only been of recent times in our intellectual development, that Man has been enabled to create and deliver lies. Point number two is that in place of an actual lie was the fractional ability to delude oneself.
Men have always been thought-centered, and understandably so, also there were those who by acquired skills could manufacture illusion so as to be perceived as believable. Once again, this is not reliant upon words, but impressions as linked to the creator and their production. This is the magic, the wicked magic of guile, which to a people who had no ability to scrutinize with doubt, were little equipped to decide upon something they had no reason to suspect was other than what it was. The marvelous myths from the past were of true account; there was no wherewithal to conjure up 'unknowns'; men were never that creative, the legends that perpetuated did so because they were experienced as they happened.
Now it is very interesting to see the substitute vision - the television - which Man goes by today. Formerly he was enriched and connected to the multitude of picture visions which he could receive from others, and at times was not able to distinguish from that of his own experience either. But the consciousness contracted back further and progressively narrowed. His innocence was overswept by an intelligence which would ennoble itself by its very search to regain truth, for in this a man could win much for himself consciously. Added to this there were also demons who could deceive, and spirits-disincarnate who affected the naive men with their past happenings.
So we find that the man at the time of the Gospels being recorded, was comprehensive of the past. He was strong in his sympathies and understandings of the direct images perceived, and by this could best come to an intelligent grasp by what had occurred - even more so, possibly, than by what did occur in actuality.
We may clarify this by suggesting that Christ Himself was perceived directly by very few men at the time of His Incarnation. Many of the men who came into physical proximity actually drew greater experience into their consciousness after the event, by the review as given to them in the Gospels through the eyes of one who really did see better than them. We might add, this happened in subsequent lifetimes for a period also, that they could go to the experience via the Gospel recollection and find Christ as the Christ.
The men lived back to front, whereas today we project our consciousness forward. We are capable of executing action which may be one hundred times removed from the end purpose, we are used to disassociating ourselves from the very history of men, with a consciousness that really cannot comprehend the differences. To most, the events which have brought Man into today are discounted as 'silly'. It is not opinion, but that they are completely incapable nowadays of looking backwards. Men look forward and pre-empt their own futures.
Men speak to men best. They could share their picture insights amongst each other. Some were clearer and stronger amongst family, but generally speaking, in the past I could tell you of some account that I did firsthand witness and you could comprehend it whole. Our dear Christ became a man to speak to men. This was the only way in. Although we are by no means suggesting that was the total of His Plan by the Incarnation, it was necessary for Him to meet Man in this way.
The problem was that He could not or did not, by his choosing effect the same presentation as would be imparted from a man. When Pilate was dumbfounded as to what was truth, he had not the experience before him as would have ordinarily substantiated what Christ had forsworn. There is a mystery as to why Christ could not or did not, deliver immediate picture-images from His own accounts of Heaven and of Himself.
We may forgive the men for their blindnesses towards Him, and understand that doubly they were unused to claims which were unfulfilled. If a man made a claim and spoke of himself, he delivered the accompanying visions of just that, or conversely if he was competent in wicked vision he could borrow from where he chose and misrepresent himself deceptively. In either case there was the credential, the credibility of the issue of experience. But not so with our Christ - in the ordinary way - for those who were prepared and most vital to make account thereof, there was a gradient of impression which marked them evermore. There can be little comment about the qualifications of those few and in what way exactly they could interpret the Master; but out from them there could be the account which was to later ripple the impressions of the truth; which taken in hindsight could then be digested and thus honored.
As men of the future, today our comprehension is quick to jump into that advance, and more greatly so shall Christ be found there, where we look forward. This may explain the two approaches to Christ and why it shall be that many will not find Him today in the gracious Bible, but need project forward, impelled with modern thought, to find Him where He awaits. Those who still may receive the picture-images from the Gospels have done so in some connection in a life before this one, and they may be enriched to the realities and the mysteries accordingly.
We must seek to understand both the past and our future in this, and respect the very many differences of comprehension so given to each one, to know them well.
No comments:
Post a Comment