I’ll just say, then, that I like your mirror analogy. One could also use the seed or spark analogy. The seed needs water and warmth. The spark needs… well, you get the idea.

As for the saints and their intercession, I like to think of stained glass. Each piece is unique and colors the light that passes through. But like your mirror analogy, without the Source, all is dark.

This seems a very different conceptualization of the godhead (in relation to individuality) than some other systems.

Thanks to you for some extremely thought-provoking and insightful commentary!

Speaking of Jung, My knowledge of things Jungian does not reach much past the idea of “shadow” which has a lot of potency for me. Lately I have been spending a great deal of thought on the idea, which in my ignorance I attribute to Jung, that life has two great tasks: separation, and re-integration. I expect you are much more familiar with what he actually meant than I am, but it seems to speak a great deal to the dilemma of how a good and powerful god could create creatures such as ourselves. Why allow sin? If we propose that God designs something for us beyond this life, and that His “creation” of humans is still ongoing, it may well be that this process of separation and reconciliation is an inescapable part of turning us into who we are. This certainly seems true in the growth processes we experience here. This goes well with one of the saints well thought of by most Anglicans, Dame Julian or Norwich, and “all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”

-Blessings

As a writer I recognize that I’m somewhat influenced by various sources. Whether or not a string, as you say, is being pulled or some other psychological (and/or spiritual) process is involved, I’m not sure. But I certainly don’t rule out what some like S. Grof call the “transpersonal” possibility. Some Jungians also talk about “syntonic countertransference,” which I think points in a similar direction.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mstaples/thoughts_on_transference.html

As for what constitutes a saint, I think the various religious organizations’ caution here in some ways can be a good thing. Otherwise those who mistake falsity for truth and don’t subject their internal experiences to a sincere and scrupulous analytical process might wrongly see themselves as “saints.” But perhaps the other extreme, as I think you suggest, is the over-politicization of saints and saint-making through religious organizations.

To return to an earlier idea, do you suppose there’s a difference between (a) the truest aspect of the self and (b) the personality? Until fairly recently my bias has been to prefer the contemplative to the active saint. The contemplative doesn’t get the kudos but, with regard to the hierarchy you’re alluding to, might be closer to God than the visibly active good person. But then again, maybe not.

Only God knows what each of us had gone through and overcome.

About the closest I get to actual invocations has been to ask of CS Lewis “OK, Mr. Lewis, what was it you tried to teach me about this?” And actually having something helpful he wrote come back to me. I assume that was my memory finally responding once the right mental string was pulled. But whether I was alone in pulling the right string is an unanswerable question.

I think I understand where you’re coming from when you say you’re more interested in truth than what we could call the history of– or, a history of ideas. Still, I believe the two may be related in some sense because we’re still working it out down here, and dialogue is surely part of that.

Very nice metaphor about heaven and the river of time. I think this applies to the Catholic idea of the intercession of saints, which I gather Anglicanism isn’t quite so enthusiastic about (?). To me this might be a bit of blind spot for some Christians. I understand why they don’t like it–”Christ is the only mediator between God and Man.” But I’m not sure it fits with the idea, which I believe in, of the mystical body of Christ.

Just some thoughts… thanks again for your interesting and helpful comments.

I think you are right on the money with your two questions. Along with your formulation, they can be put into the more evangelical christian qestions

“Who is God, and how can I be in right relationship with Him”

or at the other end, a more Taoist idea,

“How is the truth structured, and how can I organize my life to flow according to truth instead of striving according to illusion?”

These two fundamentals relate thought and action: what is ultimate truth, and how should I then live. One cannot escape the questions simply by rejecting my on offering. Those two questions remain.

You touched on the question of the survival of our individuality in the context of a reunion (or union) with God, with “that which is” or the “I AM.” I’m afraid I haven’t read Steiner (that provincial thing again) bu my own view is best couched in very christian terminological. First, I am reluctant to believe that God gives good in order to perfect it by obliteration. I take personality to be such a gift. Indeed, those we most often see as “good” tend to have pronounced individuality. The question is how is this compatible with the idea of total union with the Godhead?
I see this answered two ways, and as is fitting, it goes right to the heart of what I understand that “ultimate reality” to be. Orthodox, Nicaean christianity declares that the Holy Trinity is just such a union: absolutely One without division, and yet three absolutely distinct Persons, without confusion (save in my head). The closest approximation we have been given to experience would be in marriage; where the target, even if observed by our failure, is a complete unity that obliterates neither party, but ideally enhances both persons.
This is of course a sketch only, but my take on the question.

As to time, I think it likely that time, like space, like matter, is a created thing. I mean by this that if there is an “ultimate reality” whether personal as I believe, or impersonal, that reality does not inhabit time and space. If He did, that time/space would be part of a deeper reality, the tortoise on which the elephant stands. I am speaking of the true “ground of being” and ultimate reality. This entity would be in some sense that I don’t understand, outside. This of course may be simply another way to describe “transcendent,” but it does suggest that our ultimate reunion will be in an existence through which the river of time flows, although it is not itself in the river.

Reincarnation, as you might expect, I reject as wholly antithetical to a Christian view of completed history. Additionally, I hold (lightly) an extremely un-informed opinion that a desire for reincarnation is primarily a justice issue: how are the seemingly unsettled wrongs in this world to be brought to a just conclusion. Orthodox christianity has entirely different proposals on that score.

Thanks for the exchange! (and again, my apologies!)
RES

First, we have soteriology. What does it mean to be “saved” or “liberated.”

Second we have the type of relationship between the individual and the godhead, the most basic distinction probably being: I-Thou vs. I AM THOU.

To be honest I’m not 100% sure if the Steiner system advocates an eventual and complete abandonment in God (i.e. total loss of individuality). We might need a Steiner expert to come in here and help us out on this point. Steiner does talk about mankind evolving into some kind of spirit being. But whether this is ultimately just a ‘perfect servant of’ or ‘one with’ the divine, I’m not sure.

Now on reincarnation, I must admit that my own thinking has gone through several stages on this issue. These days I find there are several ways to look at it, and recent discoveries (constructions?) by Einstein about the relativity of space and time might complicate any one-way (i.e. past –> present –> future) theory about time and life.

As for the other ways I look at the belief in reincarnation, this gets into phenomenology (something we can’t immediately share) and also some speculation, so I tend not to discuss this issue too deeply.
—
Note: I just edited the entry on the basis of your comments. “Anthroposophy embraces Christianity…” changed to “Anthroposophy is said to embrace Christianity…”

Thank you.