The Sacrificed Son Is Matter

The son, making an absolute sacrifice of himself. If we say all is one consciousness manifested into a myriad of forms, what can we look at as exemplifying the sacrifice of the son? Matter. Look at the way we USE objects. None of us think about or care about matter. It's just something that we use. Do you worry about the feelings of a pencil if you break it? No. Yet if all is one consciousness, what difference is there between you and an object? Objects are the manifestations of the self-sacrifice of the one consciousness. 'He' sacrifices himself, his self-will. And what results from this, is matter, which can be used by conscious individuals. And with the sacrifice, the descent into matter, ascension into greater levels of consciousness continues unceasingly. Thus is the universe.

a reply to: TheJourney

You may share the same consciousness as a rock, but I don't.

To each their own.

Happiness to you on your journey.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: TheJourney

You may share the same consciousness as a rock, but I don't.

To each their own.

Happiness to you on your journey.

Well, I doubt I share consciousness with a rock and you don't...either all is one consciousness, or it isn't...whether I believe that and you don't, doesn't change the actuality...someone who believes all is one consciousness doesn't 'share consciousness with a rock,' while people who don't think that don't.

I think this is a very deep post.

I think you are right that consciousness (probably including "pain" and "pleasure", but perhaps much more) is an intrinsic element of the universe, imbued in all matter, but also separate from matter and physical substance.

What I don't get is this reference to -- "the son" -- that doesn't seem to follow. Are you speaking metaphorically? Or are you implying some sort of parental relationship, such as that in traditional Christianity?

And I am not sure how you use the word "sacrificed" here -- because you could substitute a lot of other adjectives, somewhat arbitrarily -- unless you are specifically trying to say that whatever originated matter did so by giving up something, perhaps in surrender, maybe a renouncement. Are you sure that the adverb is not actually "begotten?" such as in "the begotten son is matter?"

These are all just questions -- no need to answer. Perhaps it might be better to work through all that on my own

a reply to: TheJourney

From my perspective, the Corpus Hermeticum has one of the best descriptions of the Son of God as the Cosmos:

Hermes: As many men say many things, and these diverse, about the All and Good, I have not learned the truth. Make it, then, clear to me, O Master mine! For I can trust the explanation of these things, which comes from Thee alone.

2. Mind: Hear [then], My son, how standeth God and All.

God; Aeon; Cosmos; Time; Becoming.

God maketh Aeon; Aeon, Cosmos; Cosmos, Time; and Time, Becoming .

The Good - the Beautiful, Wisdom, Blessedness - is essence, as it were, of God; of Aeon, Sameness; of Cosmos, Order; of Time, Change; and of Becoming, Life and Death.

The energies of God are Mind and Soul; of Aeon, lastingness and deathlessness; of Cosmos, restoration and the opposite thereof; of Time, increase and decrease; and of Becoming, quality.

Aeon is, then, in God; Cosmos, in Aeon; in Cosmos; Time; in Time, Becoming.

Aeon stands firm round God; Cosmos is moved in Aeon; Time hath its limits in the Cosmos; Becoming doth become in Time.

3. The source, therfore, of all is God; their essence, Aeon; their matter, Cosmos.

God's power is Aeon; Aeon's work is Cosmos - which never hath become, yet ever doth become by Aeon.

Therefore will Cosmos never be destroyed, for Aeon's indestructible; nor doth a whit of things in Cosmos perish, for Cosmos is enwrapped by Aeon round on every side.

Hermes: But God's Wisdom - what is that?

Mind: The Good and Beautiful, and Blessedness, and Virtue's all, and Aeon.

This shows how Paul knew this:

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

All Things, including rulers, powers and authorities like Yahweh (EGO) and Satan (Conscience).

I love reading philosophy cause u can see how the human mind works outside of the compartment of societies boundaries, a simple thing is always complex in a human mind cause if it isnt simple there is no meaning. If there is no meaning then there is no purpose. Please continue. Enjoy life

originally posted by: Axial Leader
I think this is a very deep post.

I think you are right that consciousness (probably including "pain" and "pleasure", but perhaps much more) is an intrinsic element of the universe, imbued in all matter, but also separate from matter and physical substance.

What I don't get is this reference to -- "the son" -- that doesn't seem to follow. Are you speaking metaphorically? Or are you implying some sort of parental relationship, such as that in traditional Christianity?

And I am not sure how you use the word "sacrificed" here -- because you could substitute a lot of other adjectives, somewhat arbitrarily -- unless you are specifically trying to say that whatever originated matter did so by giving up something, perhaps in surrender, maybe a renouncement. Are you sure that the adverb is not actually "begotten?" such as in "the begotten son is matter?"

These are all just questions -- no need to answer. Perhaps it might be better to work through all that on my own

Thank you. And the reference to the sacrificed son is indeed a reference to the story of the New Testament. While I feel other spiritual texts are more to the point, like say eastern texts, I feel that there is a lot of wisdom in the New Testament as well. In my opinion, it's mostly metaphors. So, the idea of the son of god being sacrificed, to me is a metaphor. This is one interpretation of that metaphor. I couldn't possibly be 'religious' in the typical sense of following a system of dogma at this point. And I feel that spiritual people who can't follow dogma, abandon these things. Thus the faulty interpretations which have been at work over the past 2,000 years continue to reign supreme. In my mind there's no doubt that there is spiritual wisdom to be found in the New Testament, among many other sources, of course. The mind that reads a scripture is more important than the scripture, imo.

I firmly believe the sacrificed son could be consciousness. This just came to me as I was reading the comments. The son of God (God the creator) and the son being the reference to consciousness, in the flower of life, the first circle is consciousness.

ALOT of mainstream conspiracies revolve around advanced old civilizations and how they contained so MUCH more knowledge than what we know now.

It would make perfect sense that we somehow sacrificed our consciousness, in order to evolve and grow, so that we may one day be born again with the consciousness we previously had. Forgotten knowledge about the universe we live in.

Just think about it.. This could actually fit.

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
I firmly believe the sacrificed son could be consciousness. This just came to me as I was reading the comments. The son of God (God the creator) and the son being the reference to consciousness, in the flower of life, the first circle is consciousness.

ALOT of mainstream conspiracies revolve around advanced old civilizations and how they contained so MUCH more knowledge than what we know now.

It would make perfect sense that we somehow sacrificed our consciousness, in order to evolve and grow, so that we may one day be born again with the consciousness we previously had. Forgotten knowledge about the universe we live in.

Just think about it.. This could actually fit.

Well, the son as consciousness would be something along the lines of how I would usually interpret it. This particular interpretation is in light of the idea that everything is mind/consciousness. If everything is consciousness, then how do we interpret matter, which has no will whatsoever? It is consciousness which has sacrificed its will, which is the metaphor of the sacrificed son.

What you are saying, about losing certain capacities with consciousness for a purpose of ultimately furthering our evolution, I particularly think of as the prodigal son.

a reply to: TheJourney

I whole heartedly agree with that. Matter is a mind blowing subject once you think about it on any daily scale. The thousands of objects you interact with on a daily basis. It all has to be made up of particles, actual manifestation. If we can manifest useless plastic, why can't we manifest things more useful. Such as figuring out why I cannot manipulate matter with my mind!

originally posted by: TheJourney
The son, making an absolute sacrifice of himself. If we say all is one consciousness manifested into a myriad of forms, what can we look at as exemplifying the sacrifice of the son? Matter. Look at the way we USE objects. None of us think about or care about matter. It's just something that we use. Do you worry about the feelings of a pencil if you break it? No. Yet if all is one consciousness, what difference is there between you and an object? Objects are the manifestations of the self-sacrifice of the one consciousness. 'He' sacrifices himself, his self-will. And what results from this, is matter, which can be used by conscious individuals. And with the sacrifice, the descent into matter, ascension into greater levels of consciousness continues unceasingly. Thus is the universe.

Of course it's much easier to empathize with a living, breathing construct of matter than it is to empathize with a pencil. Even more so with an animal than with a plant. This has a lot to do with the human mind's tendency to personify things they can relate to. A human can relate more to an animal than a plant, or a pencil, as it engages in similar activities and also relies on the same basic principles of survival.

Could we force ourselves to empathize with the pencil? YES. However, I think most people would say NO. Particles with different purposes are given different priority. When particles have come together to form a human, they are seen in their form as more worthy of respect than if those same particles came together to form pencils. A pencil can be recreated with little to no effort. A human cannot be recreated with the same amount of effort. With this in mind, and looking at the situation of the broken pencil on a grand scale, it's no surprise that the pencil is given no consideration.

So to play the devil's advocate... if the particles wanted to be respected they should have formed themselves into something more worthy than a pencil

However I do see the situation you described as being more a matter of effect. What caused the pencil to be broken? The pencil has no feelings, but the action which caused the pencil to break was a negative effect charged by a negative emotion. And that is what you may be tuning into, rather than into the assumed emotions of a pencil.

Outside of that conclusion, I'm not entirely sure what kind of discussion you were intending to inspire. Humans have yet to fully understand consciousness, so it's hard to state that consciousness produces matter. You could argue the opposite, that matter came first. Or that consciousness doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this type of conjecture will only lead us into an infinite loop.

a reply to: OhOkYeah
Once you say it like that.. Using negative emotions has such a powerful effect on everything around us. It disturbs matter on every scale.

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
a reply to: OhOkYeah
Once you say it like that.. Using negative emotions has such a powerful effect on everything around us. It disturbs matter on every scale.

Sure does. But rather than empathizing with a broken pencil because it is made of matter like our bodies, it's more about the perceived negative emotion that caused the pencil to be broken. Or from a more neutral stand point, neglect to keep the pencil from breaking.

Of course, as I said in my edit above, this type of conjecture will only lead to an infinite loop. Until we can step out of our own minds to examine consciousness itself, and determine if it even exists outside of biological functions, it will be forever misunderstood.

originally posted by: OhOkYeah

originally posted by: TheJourney
The son, making an absolute sacrifice of himself. If we say all is one consciousness manifested into a myriad of forms, what can we look at as exemplifying the sacrifice of the son? Matter. Look at the way we USE objects. None of us think about or care about matter. It's just something that we use. Do you worry about the feelings of a pencil if you break it? No. Yet if all is one consciousness, what difference is there between you and an object? Objects are the manifestations of the self-sacrifice of the one consciousness. 'He' sacrifices himself, his self-will. And what results from this, is matter, which can be used by conscious individuals. And with the sacrifice, the descent into matter, ascension into greater levels of consciousness continues unceasingly. Thus is the universe.

Of course it's much easier to empathize with a living, breathing construct of matter than it is to empathize with a pencil. Even more so with an animal than with a plant. This has a lot to do with the human mind's tendency to personify things they can relate to. A human can relate more to an animal than a plant, or a pencil, as it engages in similar activities and also relies on the same basic principles of survival.

Could we force ourselves to empathize with the pencil? YES. However, I think most people would say NO. Particles with different purposes are given different priority. When particles have come together to form a human, they are seen in their form as more worthy of respect than if those same particles came together to form pencils. A pencil can be recreated with little to no effort. A human cannot be recreated with the same amount of effort. With this in mind, and looking at the situation of the broken pencil on a grand scale, it's no surprise that the pencil is given no consideration.

So to play the devil's advocate... if the particles wanted to be respected they should have formed themselves into something more worthy than a pencil

However I do see the situation you described as being more a matter of effect. What caused the pencil to be broken? The pencil has no feelings, but the action which caused the pencil to break was a negative effect charged by a negative emotion. And that is what you may be tuning into, rather than into the assumed emotions of a pencil.

Outside of that conclusion, I'm not entirely sure what kind of discussion you were intending to inspire. Humans have yet to fully understand consciousness, so it's hard to state that consciousness produces matter. You could argue the opposite, that matter came first. Or that consciousness doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this type of conjecture will only lead us into an infinite loop.

My intention was to offer an interpretation of the sacrificed son in light of the idea that the universe is a single unified consciousness...not to empathize with pencils...

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: OhOkYeah

originally posted by: TheJourney
The son, making an absolute sacrifice of himself. If we say all is one consciousness manifested into a myriad of forms, what can we look at as exemplifying the sacrifice of the son? Matter. Look at the way we USE objects. None of us think about or care about matter. It's just something that we use. Do you worry about the feelings of a pencil if you break it? No. Yet if all is one consciousness, what difference is there between you and an object? Objects are the manifestations of the self-sacrifice of the one consciousness. 'He' sacrifices himself, his self-will. And what results from this, is matter, which can be used by conscious individuals. And with the sacrifice, the descent into matter, ascension into greater levels of consciousness continues unceasingly. Thus is the universe.

Of course it's much easier to empathize with a living, breathing construct of matter than it is to empathize with a pencil. Even more so with an animal than with a plant. This has a lot to do with the human mind's tendency to personify things they can relate to. A human can relate more to an animal than a plant, or a pencil, as it engages in similar activities and also relies on the same basic principles of survival.

Could we force ourselves to empathize with the pencil? YES. However, I think most people would say NO. Particles with different purposes are given different priority. When particles have come together to form a human, they are seen in their form as more worthy of respect than if those same particles came together to form pencils. A pencil can be recreated with little to no effort. A human cannot be recreated with the same amount of effort. With this in mind, and looking at the situation of the broken pencil on a grand scale, it's no surprise that the pencil is given no consideration.

So to play the devil's advocate... if the particles wanted to be respected they should have formed themselves into something more worthy than a pencil

However I do see the situation you described as being more a matter of effect. What caused the pencil to be broken? The pencil has no feelings, but the action which caused the pencil to break was a negative effect charged by a negative emotion. And that is what you may be tuning into, rather than into the assumed emotions of a pencil.

Outside of that conclusion, I'm not entirely sure what kind of discussion you were intending to inspire. Humans have yet to fully understand consciousness, so it's hard to state that consciousness produces matter. You could argue the opposite, that matter came first. Or that consciousness doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this type of conjecture will only lead us into an infinite loop.

My intention was to offer an interpretation of the sacrificed son in light of the idea that the universe is a single unified consciousness...not to empathize with pencils...

In what context do you refer to this "sacrificed son"? I don't keep up with all the new age terms.

Regardless, it seems you are insinuating that pencil and man are the same because they are both products of this "single unified consciousness" and I was just attempting to expand upon that in hopes that you would clarify your intentions in respect to how I interpreted it.

The problem is that it's not a simple task to understand what consciousness is at all, let alone the idea that everyone is a part of the same consciousness (would make it impossible to understand, as you can't step out of it to analyze it if it is everything).

a reply to: TheJourney

The pencil is irrelevant. It could be any object comprised of matter. There is no sympathy for any object. You are essentially the pencil. You and me conveying these ideas back and forth is the same exact thing. We are all one. experiencing ourselves on a grand scale.

originally posted by: OhOkYeah

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: OhOkYeah

originally posted by: TheJourney
The son, making an absolute sacrifice of himself. If we say all is one consciousness manifested into a myriad of forms, what can we look at as exemplifying the sacrifice of the son? Matter. Look at the way we USE objects. None of us think about or care about matter. It's just something that we use. Do you worry about the feelings of a pencil if you break it? No. Yet if all is one consciousness, what difference is there between you and an object? Objects are the manifestations of the self-sacrifice of the one consciousness. 'He' sacrifices himself, his self-will. And what results from this, is matter, which can be used by conscious individuals. And with the sacrifice, the descent into matter, ascension into greater levels of consciousness continues unceasingly. Thus is the universe.

Of course it's much easier to empathize with a living, breathing construct of matter than it is to empathize with a pencil. Even more so with an animal than with a plant. This has a lot to do with the human mind's tendency to personify things they can relate to. A human can relate more to an animal than a plant, or a pencil, as it engages in similar activities and also relies on the same basic principles of survival.

Could we force ourselves to empathize with the pencil? YES. However, I think most people would say NO. Particles with different purposes are given different priority. When particles have come together to form a human, they are seen in their form as more worthy of respect than if those same particles came together to form pencils. A pencil can be recreated with little to no effort. A human cannot be recreated with the same amount of effort. With this in mind, and looking at the situation of the broken pencil on a grand scale, it's no surprise that the pencil is given no consideration.

So to play the devil's advocate... if the particles wanted to be respected they should have formed themselves into something more worthy than a pencil

However I do see the situation you described as being more a matter of effect. What caused the pencil to be broken? The pencil has no feelings, but the action which caused the pencil to break was a negative effect charged by a negative emotion. And that is what you may be tuning into, rather than into the assumed emotions of a pencil.

Outside of that conclusion, I'm not entirely sure what kind of discussion you were intending to inspire. Humans have yet to fully understand consciousness, so it's hard to state that consciousness produces matter. You could argue the opposite, that matter came first. Or that consciousness doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this type of conjecture will only lead us into an infinite loop.

My intention was to offer an interpretation of the sacrificed son in light of the idea that the universe is a single unified consciousness...not to empathize with pencils...

In what context do you refer to this "sacrificed son"? I don't keep up with all the new age terms.

Regardless, it seems you are insinuating that pencil and man are the same because they are both products of this "single unified consciousness" and I was just attempting to expand upon that in hopes that you would clarify your intentions in respect to how I interpreted it.

The problem is that it's not a simple task to understand what consciousness is at all, let alone the idea that everyone is a part of the same consciousness (would make it impossible to understand, as you can't step out of it to analyze it if it is everything).

The sacrificed son isn't a new age term, it's referencing the metaphor of the New Testament.

Honestly, I just found this to be an interesting interpretation in light of the idea I referenced. It's a very common idea in mystical traditions. Obviously you don't subscribe to those ideas at all, so it is, indeed, pretty pointless from your perspective.

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
a reply to: TheJourney

The pencil is irrelevant. It could be any object comprised of matter. There is no sympathy for any object. You are essentially the pencil. You and me conveying these ideas back and forth is the same exact thing. We are all one. experiencing ourselves on a grand scale.

Yea, the pencil was just an arbitrary example. The general premise of the thread was based on this idea of the universe as one consciousness, and explaining the gradient of consciousness that exists down to inorganic matter which appears to have none. Then I sort of sneakily tucked in the idea that the universe is evolutionary by nature, defined by expansion of consciousness, at the end.