Episode:Jesus the Tutor—Journey to Rome (Part 4)

From Symmetry of Soul
Jump to: navigation, search

August 22, 2017 (Paper 130:4.1-9)

A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective.  Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality.  All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition.

Listen to the broadcast

Keywords: Urantia, Jesus, Philosophy, Nature of Reality, Truth



Summary by Kermit

Commentary on Review

We engaged in some reflection and clarification concerning the inner life, noting that the genuine inner life does not consist in the cultivation and contemplation of feelings about the outer life. The revelators use of the term heart to designate the domain of the inner life; this presents to us a challenge to distinguish between the common use of the term heart to represent feelings and something more. As we see frequently, words used in the revelation have meanings beyond those in common everyday use, another great example is personality. And while there is nothing bad about feelings per se, recall it is your thoughts not your feelings that lead you Godward.


130:4. Discourse on Reality

This lengthy discourse of Jesus was directed to Ganid following a long visit by one of the university professors expounding on the teachings of Plato. Jesus did gave qualified approval to Plato’s doctrine of matter being shadowy representations of more substantial spiritual realities but saw fit to give Ganid a more complete foundation for his philosophic thinking.

This discourse is a dense distillation of the fundamental elements of reality and their relations including the Infinite, the Absolute, triunity, personality, the Supreme, life animation, and more. In Jesus’ instruction about the threefold nature of reality, he was careful to avoid reinforcing the matter-spirit dualism. Jesus tailored his teaching to enable Ganid to differentiate between existential Father-like Deity and experiential Mother-like Deity. He used the example of binocular perception to illustrate the necessity for utilizing both material and spiritual perception and discrimination to achieve an objective appreciation of reality. In unpacking this discourse we discover that the authors are using precise terminology introduced and explained elsewhere in the first three parts of the revelation. And in their use of this language they are challenging us to a greater extent than Jesus was challenging Ganid. For example, the statement that “...the highest level to which a finite creature can progress is the recognition of the Universal Father and the knowing of the Supreme”, challenges even longtime readers to reflect on the limitations of finite creatures in their relations with infinite beings, such that it is in fact the Supreme Father we engage on Paradise.

It is in this talk we hear that the meaning of life is its adaptability and the value of life is its progressability. Life animation itself is precisely attributed to Mother Deity in liaison with the spirit spark of God rather than the existential Universal Father.

Cessation of existence is portrayed as beginning with the misadaptation of self-conscious life, extending to divergence of personality will from the trend of the universes, and ending with loss of the indwelling spirit. Jesus points out that it is the existence of intelligent and progressing life itself that stands as incontrovertible proof of the existence of a purposeful universe expressing the will of a divine Creator. All of which puts a challenge to each individual creature to align that creature will with the trend of the universe and its expression of the Creator’s will. “It is my will that God’s will be done.”

The wide ranging discourse touches on man’s kinship with animals, yet if you read between the lines you might discern that it is the reflective thinking enabled by our encircuitment in the Holy Spirit that distinguishes man from animal.


Notes by Brad

  • It often is the case, when trying to understand any concept or word in the 5th ER, it's an exercise in negation for awhile: over and over you say "well, that word doesn't mean THAT." You have to let go of the old wineskins.
  • The inner life
    • is not the outer life
    • is not your feelings about the outer life
    • is not your feelings about any such inner life.
    • is not your imagination or dreams about the outer life (the domain of figment)
    • probably isn't known to you much at all, then.
    • is not "mystical musings."
    • is not listening to Mozart, even though Mozart could help register some recognition... just don't get short-circuited by your feelings about Mozart.
  • So what is this domain above all of my feelings? Can I turn off my feelings so they don't distract or short circuit me from finding that domain?


  • In [130:4.1] note the "heart to heart" talk. This is about kindred minds, and not about feelings. Not about our mal-appropriated "tug on the heartstrings" casual phrase.
  • Jesus' discourse here isn't about a cage match between matter and spirit. It's about the differential between existential and experiential.
    • Dual spiritism (good and evil both as realities) is the most influential confusion.
  • Jesus immediately lays the foundation for a threefold recognition of reality.
  • Even in Havona (the eternal universe) things change. What doesn't change? What's the backdrop even to Havona? The Absolutes.
  • Jesus' parables are analogies, not allegories. Take them at face value, start with facts.
  • Dichotomies only appear in our minds. They are not in reality.