# The Cross as Mathematical Solution

When all of Jesus’ statements are applied mathematically, and when one considers the full import of His presenting the cross (+), the positive sign, as His symbol and all-embracing answer it would appear that His mathematical concepts moved beyond those of His day, and that He attempted to describe the reality of the operation of the energy that mathematics attempts to describe…this study poses His words against the concepts of Nicomachus of Gerasa…both He and Nicomachus use “father and son,” and “teacher and pupil,” to symbolize “greater and the lesser,” or the concept of opposites, unequal; but in Jesus’ concept these opposites meet and are reconciled in the unity of one, or sameness.

Here Preston Harold describes the similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Nicomachus, striking as they are. But whereas Nicomachus writes that “when a point is added to a point, it makes no increase, for when a non-dimensional thing is added to another non-dimensional thing, it will thereby not have dimension…,” Jesus took another point of view.

This is to say, when the cross (+) as symbol and all-embracing answer is applied to the problem of “sum of nothing added to nothing,” it would say that Jesus did not overlook the word added – the symbol (+) introduces the problem of organization, or, as Eddington put it, of “and.” The cross as answer indicates that there cannot be a “non-dimensional thing,” –or, one might say, until a point has dimension or until it is defined, a point is not a point: the cross has dimension and it also defines a point, or gives a point dimension. The cross (+) as answer and symbol calls forth the concept of negative (-) and positive (+) numbers.

Harold now goes onto describe how one becomes itself the unit of measure when seen in contrast with zero. It shifts in its capacity from a mere digit to an active function, from a noun to a verb.

In the view of this study, Jesus realized that the correspondence between one and the whole, zero, and between one and each other ensuing digit, differing only by one, makes of one, measure itself. This is to say, one is not merely a unique digit: it is, rather, a principle, or action involving opposites, “minus-one” and “plus-one,” upon which the whole operates. Thus, Jesus saw that in the definition of one as an operative principle, the definition of the underlying principle upon which one and all operate could be grasped. And as Jesus examined His own mind the “sum of nothing added to nothing,” which must perforce involve the division of “nothing,” or the whole or zero, the positive (+), the cross, arose as the only possible answer to the problem of “naught divided by naught.” This, because the problem itself is posed in terms  that may be seen only as a negative divided by a negative which produces a positive answer. Or, one might say, that if through use of zero-0-an infinite increase in number may be drawn, then unlike the number one, when zero multiplies itself it produces more than itself: it must forever reproduce itself plus.

Until next time, peace.

# No Better Symbol

We now pick up where we left off with Preston Harold and Valentin Tomberg having a meeting of the minds on the point where the vertical and horizontal planes meet: the cross. Harold continues his exposition…

Jesus could leave no better symbol than the cross to convey His realization of the opposing lines of motion, and of the two energies man is provided with that give rise to a discrete series of possible energies, just as the atom has. He said the Father knows what man has need of – surely the Father knows the perfection of His own matter, knows that man has need of his evil as well as his good if he would have matter of his own, dominion over it.

Harold goes on to show why mankind must employ these opposing forces and experience the inner conflict that besets him by quoting the psalm of David that Jesus invoked while teaching in the temple:

…(Jesus) asked, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is David’s son? David himself said, inspired by the holy Spirit,

The Lord said to my Lord,

‘Sit at my right hand,

till I make your enemies a

David here calls him Lord. Then how can he be his son?”

To understand the poetry one must understand the symbolic words. Jesus defined a man’s enemies to be of his own household – thus the opposing forces are original endowment. Jesus says that earth is the footstool of God – footstool must be defined as matter. Therefore, the prophecy lies at the root of matter and man’s relationship to it: to the motions he is making within himself in sequence to the motions God made within Himself to bring forth One in material being.

The prophecy appears to say that alone in all creation God, ALL, has become His own residue: THE Lord which is One-whole, itself finished of inner conflict and therefore unequal to further divisive action on or within itself. Whereas the other, my Lord, is One equal to self-division or self-divisive action, and for this reason they are not now precisely the same. But in a corresponding position, they maintain a balance in one sphere until a new arrangement in the other sphere is completed – until the expressive force, my Lord, expends its own destructive potential and comes to express itself as identity in matter of its own…

Life to be, must express itself in matter. Therefore, a concept of crucial importance is presented in David’s poetry: man’s prime unconscious motivation is to grasp matter of his own. But Jesus taught that it is not the “stuff” itself man must seek – rather, it is understanding of it. The truth of its being is the truth of man’s being, for he is made of it. When he has dominion over it he will have dominion over himself – when my Lord becomes as The Lord, presently active in perfect matter of His own, life begins to be everlasting, expressed as matter under the dominion of full consciousness, the kingdom is come, one’s will is done in earth.

It is only through the cross that Jesus gains dominion over His own matter, arising on the other side of death in His resurrection body; a body of perfect matter under the dominion of His full consciousness. Until next time, peace.

# Paying the Piper

In answer to the previous post’s question, Preston Harold once again quotes Sir Arthur Eddington at length…

Attempts to account for this phenomenon follow two main devices which we may describe as the ‘Collection-box” theory and the “sweepstake” theory, respectively. Making no effort to translate them into scientific language, they amount to this: in the first the atom holds a collection-box into which each arriving group of waves pays a very small contribution; when the amount in the box reaches a whole quantum, it enters the atom. In the second [theory] the atom uses the small fraction of a quantum offered to it to buy a ticket in a sweepstake in which the prizes are whole quanta; some of the atoms will win whole quanta which they can absorb, and it is these winning atoms in our retina which tell us of the existence of Sirius…

A phenomenon which seems directly opposed to any kind of collection-box explanation is the photoelectric effect. When light shines on metallic films…free electrons are discharged from the film. They fly away at high speed, and it is possible to measure experimentally their speed or energy. Undoubtedly it is the incident light which provides the energy of these explosions, but the phenomenon is goverened by a remarkable rule. Firstly, the speed of the electrons is not increased by using more powerful light. Concentration of the light produces more explosions but not more powerful explosions. Secondly, the speed is increased by using bluer light, i.e. light of shorter period….

Every electron flying out of the metal has picked up just one quantum from the incident light. Since the h-rule associates the greater energy with the shorter vibration period, bluer light gives the more intense energy. Experiments show that (after deducing a constant “threshold” energy used up in extricating the electron from the film) each electron comes out with a kinetic energy equal to the quantum of incident light.

The film can be prepared in the dark; but on exposure to feeble light electrons immediately begin to fly out before any of the collection-boxes could have been filled by fair means. Nor can we appeal to any trigger action of the light releasing an electron already loaded up with energy for its journey; it is the nature of the light which settles the amount of the load. The light calls the tune, therefore the light must pay the piper.

An ancient could convey all of this only by making a symbol of himself to show it. Jesus “radiated” His realization to speed the expansion of consciousness in a brief, intense effort – as symbol of light, “bluer, of shorter period.” As light’s symbol, having settled the amount of the load on the elect-ones, He, Himself, paid the piper. But there is more to the story of h and to the parallel that Jesus’ drama presents.

We will continue to explore this continuing saga in our next installment. Until then, peace.

# Time Maps: Part II

Preston Harold now describes his time diagrams from the standpoint of Jesus’ words. He gives us a brief introduction:

The diagrams are not to be taken as more than a token – a token idea is all that can be given. Therefore, if an ancient’s pure thought grasped the truth of time in all it’s complexity, his revelation of it must bespeak such as is beyond man’s comprehension in its entirety; and since time is so involved with space and with a body traveling through space, the ancient’s statement could not at first glance appear to be related directly to the mystery of time.

Once again, Harold reminds us that the ancients didn’t have modern scientific concepts on to which to build their revelations. Poetry was their means of transmission. Now, onto the main event…

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God…With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.” –Mark 10:25

Look now at Figure 2. It shows, poetically speaking, that “I, myself” am being drawn through the “eye of a needle” – and when the drawings are understood, it would appear that it is more difficult for “me” to enter “Absolute Elsewhere” which the “eye of the needle” involves (see Figure 4) than it is for a camel to go through a tiny hole.

Consider that if a man possesses the kingdom of God within him, he is rich – and as Jesus depicts true wealth, He, Himself, is rich indeed. Thus, His words must pertain to “how I locate events in my frame” as He presents in words a form that looks like a “circle,” the eye of a needle, which it is possible for “a rich man” to be drawn through, if God draws him, and by a force which is “heaven knows what” – time.

Please also note in Harold’s diagrams that the symbol in the middle of the circle for the “Here-Now” experience is a cross.

Harold continues…

“Absolute Elsewhere” provides “room” for the concept of the unconscious, for an eternal abode of the Father who alone knows the secret of time, and who in relation to the possibility of man’s seeing Him must be absolutely elsewhere – thus, all one can see of Him is to be seen in God-consciousness in man’s here-now being.

One here is reminded of last verse of the Prologue to the Gospel of John – “No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart who has made Him known.” John 1:18

Jesus’ strange word-picture suggests a large mass being drawn through a tiny opening – by means of this contradiction, He indicates poetically that the actual mass of matter is no more than a speck in comparison to what it appears to be. Scientists now confirm this.

And who knew that Jesus taught at light speed?!

Eddington says, “As the speed of matter approaches the speed of light its mass increases to infinity, and therefore it is impossible to make matter travel faster than light.” Jesus made Himself a symbol of light, He poetically “sets the pace” at which a material body may travel: He was called “teacher” and “Lord” – thus, when He says that the scholar is not above his teacher nor the servant above his lord, enough that they fare alike, He restricts the pace to His own, light’s speed.

Move over Millenium Falcon, Jesus is in the passing lane! We’ll finish up our “time maps” installments in the next post. Until then, peace.

Let’s jump train!  But in order to make sure we have a safe landing, let’s be reminded that “Harold believed that the laws and findings of the sciences are simply developments in the expression of truth that has been intuitively grasped and poetically stated in the great religions.  He believed that as Jesus studied the Scriptures he saw in them the same thing that he, Harold, saw in them and also in the records of Jesus’ drama: these writings embody a symbolical representation of the underlying laws functioning throughout nature.” (Winifred Babcock)

With this firmly under our belts we let Harold begin:

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin postulates that consciousness is the force that raised up life from matter, and that consciousness is life’s goal.  The Adam-Eve drama depicts life’s seeking an enlarged consciousness… The legend presents them first in what might be called “plant life” or “garden-being” – other legends and symbols dealing with “Cosmic Man” also indicate that he, or life, must be seen first as plant…  To examine man in his original form, one must examine animal life in its first form, in the form of a one-cell creature.  Thus, in his beginning, man must be seen as a one-cell creature, and one fold of the Eden legend tells of the Adam-cell – which is to say, Adam may be seen as a symbol of the simplest form of life, amoeba, for he follows amoeba’s path.

It is at this point, approaching the human being beginning as amoeba, that we turn aside to briefly examine one of the 20th century’s greatest inner archeologists, Rudolf Steiner.  The founder of the Waldorf Schools and Biodynamic agriculture among other movements, all of these outer initiatives were based on Steiner’s extensive inner digging.  He called his approach to spiritual investigation Anthroposophy, and defined it as “a path of knowledge to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the universe.”  He also called Anthroposophy “spiritual science,” and unlike the Biblical writers who sought to put volumes of information in as short a communication as possible (The shape of the legend follows the shape of the brain) and who therefore used legends, Steiner left us with volumes of books and lecture cycles filled with his spiritual scientific research findings.  In his “Cosmic Memory” and “Mystery Knowledge and Mystery Centers” he gives us page upon page of information on how man began as a single celled creature.   Cultural historian William Irwin Thompson has studied Steiner extensively and in his masterful “Coming Into Being” not only describes Steiner’s findings for us, but also clues us in to how the Biblical authors may have come across their “Divine Revelations:”

In his book Cosmic Memory, Rudolf Steiner claims to be able to take us to the edges of history in an archeological excavation that he calls “reading” the akashic record – the etheric image in the structure of space-time that holds the record of the past… the template for registering this crystalline structure is Steiner’s own imagination, and what Steiner “sees” is a negotiable instrument that brings forth a relationship between himself and the akashic record of the collective unconscious… For example, when Steiner talks about the ancient body of man swimming in the sea, we should not picture some comic book Aquaman swimming around in a submarine Atlantis, but the evolution of the cell.  Take this description from “Cosmic Memory:”

Thereby the likeness of man is in a position to attract certain substances from the environment and to combine them with itself, secreting them again later by means of the repelling forces.  These substances, of course, can only be taken from the animal realm described above, and from the realm of man.  This constitutes a beginning of nutrition.  Thus these first likenesses of man were eaters of animals and men.”

When Steiner uses the word “man” here, one should think of the German word Mensch or, even more generally, of “creature.”  Steiner is describing the cell, the chemotaxis of the amoeba.  We were the cell.  The origin of life is the origin of us.  Steiner’s vision is one in which humans are deeply embedded in the whole of natural history, of the planet and the solar system.  And he’s right… Steiner is an amazing visionary, but if one becomes a fundamentalist follower of his, an Anthroposophist constantly intoning “Der Doktor hat gesagt,” then one destroys the spirit with the letter of literalism.

Fundamentalists everywhere!  In that last quoted paragraph, we can simply substitute “Steiner” with “the Bible” and, well, there you have it.  Thus Harold’s warning from our previous post about poetic license.

We will continue to explore Harold’s “Adam as amoeba” idea in our next post on Chapter 4.  Until then, peace…

# The Gospels as History

There is quite a bit of modern scholarship that argues for the non-historicity of the 4 Gospels of the New Testament.  Much of it is quite excellent, as the standards and methods of inquiry and criticism have improved, not to mention the continued methods and findings of archaeology.  To cover all the ins and outs of the subject is a task that is too vast for this blog, but if you are interested, here is a Wikipedia link for you to peruse at your leisure.

It is obvious to me that the Gospels are written not so much as scene by scene biography, but in a mythological style that attempts to get the point across about the nature of Jesus in the archetypal language that is appropriate for a “divine hero.”  Something akin to our friend Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey:

The main question for our purpose, though, is did Jesus actually exist?  Even if the Gospels are seen to be historically inaccurate “propaganda” written to underscore Jesus’ divine mission and elevate his simple human status, it can still be argued that they are at least stories based on the life of an individual who actually lived at a historical time in a historical place.  But the actual historicity of Jesus is now a hotly debated topic in scholastic and religious circles.  At the forefront of this movement is Acharya S. (aka D.M. Murdock), who has written many well documented works.  Although I enjoy her works and find them impecable and fascinating, my problem with her conclusions and others like her is the presupposition that:

1. Because many of the religious and mystical themes that were used to describe Jesus were also used to describe god-men of other cultures…

2. Because many parallel claims are made for these other savior figures that are made for Jesus…

3. Because many of these gods and saviors predated Jesus…

4. Because these myths and stories are used to describe inner, spiritual initiatory processes and not outward history…

…then these evidences are major proofs that Jesus never existed.  Talk about jumping to conclusions!  Since when did applying these religious and theological principles to a historic personality become a complete impossibility?  One may argue that it wouldn’t be likely that literature of this type would refer to a real, living human being, but it certainly COULD.  Whatever the truth, though, the story of Jesus has obviously made a major historical impact.

Taking the opposite approach from Acharya S., the great European sage Rudolf Steiner believed Christianity was a mystical fact, that Jesus lived and was killed for bringing the teachings of the mystery centers into the open, violating the oath taken not to divulge any of the secrets expounded within. The deed at Golgotha was enacted on the plane of history, saving the earth and mankind from the decent into pure materialism.

Albert Einstein was taken by the force of Jesus’ personality as presented in the Gospels, and accepted the historical reality of Jesus.

But what does Preston Harold think?  On the page immediately preceding Chapter 1, he lays it out.  I will quote in full…

No concept of Jesus can be definitive if it is contrived by arbitrary dealing with the Gospels, choosing to affirm certain reports that support one’s own theory while dismissing others as falsifications, elaborations, interpolations, or errors deriving from the disciple’s loss of memory.  Casting doubt upon the veracity of reliability of the Gospels renders one report and one Gospel as suspect as another, because it is possible to make a case for accepting or rejecting any part of any Gospel.  Thus, a theory resting upon an unreliability of the Gospels perforce becomes as suspect and questionable as the author holds the Gospels to be.

Whatever may be said about the rest of the Bible, if a concept of Jesus is to have a firm base it must rest upon the conviction that the four Gospels are honest reports, albeit each offers a subjective view.  Therefore, in THE SHINING STRANGER, concomitant with the attempt to draw a true picture of Jesus, the integrity of the four Gospels is dealt with – for example, how each could be so contradictory and different from the others, yet true, and how the memory of each disciple could have been adequate to the task of recording Jesus’ actual words.  Here, it may be pointed out that no one can say when the disciples recorded their reports – information as to the earliest copies in circulation is all that is available.  No doubt some errors in copying and omissions occurred, but such as these do not obliterate or seriously distort the full body of the record of Jesus as given in the four versions, in which the testimony of his mother is incorporated.

It is unlikely that the disciples deliberately falsified or contrived the story of Jesus’ life or His words.  If this were the case, the reports would be less contradictory, certain unfavorable passages would have been omitted, and certain gaps would have been filled.  It is doubtful, also, that the early Christians would have suffered martyrdom to found a religion based upon their own inventions.  For these and other reasons given in the text of this book, the author accepts the four Gospels as basically honest reports, and regards every word in every Gospel as given data with which one must deal in formulating as true and complete a picture of Jesus as it is possible to obtain.

Harold will take the Gospels at face value, realizing their subjectivity and imperfections, but understanding that they were written in good faith in witness to a real individual.  For us to take the journey through his book in good faith, we will accept that these are his conditions.  We may be surprised where this leads us!  Now, onto Chapter 1.  Peace…