Logos and the lattice of God

There is a word in this material that does two jobs, and the two jobs are not compatible. It names the intelligent principle the cosmology comes out of, and also the second distortion of the Law of One, a created being that can get things wrong. Both uses are the corpus’s own, and it never says whether they are the same.

If you have read the descent essay you have met the word once already, in its easier sense. This one is underneath that, and it is about the vocabulary: why a distinction turns out to decide what the corpus is saying.

The first use: the intelligent principle

At 13.7 the material is asked what became of awareness once awareness had become aware. The answer gives a name and then declines to make it a being. The name is Logos, or Love, offered as a vibratory sound complex standing in for something the questioner’s language cannot hold. The Creator, the answer goes on, is intelligent infinity. The compressed form is at 4.20.

All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

Nobody is in the word. Nothing to address, nothing to petition. The care is in a hedge a reader wanting a God will skip past: at 28.1 the material says the one undifferentiated intelligent infinity can only be activated or potentiated by free will, and cannot be specified by any physics. That is a refusal to describe, not a claim that description is beneath it.

The second use: a distortion with a name

Here is the fact the essay is built on, and it is checkable on the page. Asked whether the distortions have a sequence, the material ranks its own three primary principles.

Only up to a very short point. After this point, the many-ness of distortions are equal one to another. The first distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the second distortion known to you as Logos, the Creative Principle or Love. This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these three distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions, each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being more important than another.

Read it for the one word that does the work. Distortion. The material does not name a principle and then borrow the vocabulary of error. It places the Logos second, under a heading meaning a limitation on expression. Take healing, which the corpus also calls a distortion and which is not a falsehood but a limit.

One of the primal distortions of the Law of One is that of healing. Healing occurs when a mind/body/spirit complex realizes, deep within itself, the Law of One; that is, that there is no disharmony, no imperfection; that all is complete and whole and perfect.

A complex realises there is no disharmony, and that realisation is the distortion: something complete arriving in a vehicle that can only hold it partly. So “distortion” does not mean wrong. It means present-but-limited, and that is what lets the material call love a distortion and mean it seriously. Which gives the second-use Logos its shape: real, doing the work, and not the whole of what it works from. A focus is a selection from the ground, and a selection can be genuine and still miss.

What a focus is, and the one error

Asked to define love as the second distortion, the material answers against the background of the whole and gives the mechanism.

The term Love then may be seen as the focus, the choice of attack, the type of energy of an extremely, shall we say, high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in just such and such a way.

A focus and a choice of attack, turning potential into intelligent energy in such and such a way, and that hedge is the material’s own, kept here. The rest of that answer names the error it guards against. No record of it exists, so we state it in our own words. The focus, the material says, can be taken for a thing rather than an act, and then the strength of that focus can be set in the place of the oneness that every Love issues out of. We hold that line in our own sessions, and the corpus did not have to be argued into it.

The lattice

The focuses are not unique, and not external to one another. Each portion creates a universe.

Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called natural laws of any particular universe.

Ours is one such act. At 29.1 the material is asked whether our sun is a sub-Logos and answers in four words; at 29.2 it says our sub-Logos was given the galaxy’s basic conditions by the Logos that created it. At 41.4 it calls the relationship hierarchical, the sub-Logos free to co-create the nuances of the densities within parameters the Logos set. And at 54.5 it corrects a questioner who had put the sub-sub-Logos in dimensionalities, saying it resides in co-Creators, or mind/body/spirit complexes.

So the structure is focuses inside focuses, each a set of parameters handed down and a freedom exercised inside them. We call that a lattice, and the word is ours: the corpus’s single use of it is at 29.23, about the inter-atomic distances that make a crystal.

Figure 01

One word, two referents, and the error between them

A parameter set is not an error. A parameter a focus then distorts inside its own jurisdiction is, and that last step is our reading rather than the material’s sentence.

Not the Trinity

The comparison is unavoidable and it is a trap, because the word is genuinely the same word. Greek logos is the Word. The second person of the Trinity is that Word, of one essence with the Father and incarnate in a human being, and John’s Gospel opens with it. The material’s term for the intelligent energy that creates is the Logos. Three traditions, one Greek word, inherited rather than invented, which is the only reason the question can be asked at all.

Give the claim its full strength: one essence, unbegotten and unbegottenly begets, in which the Son is coequal and fully divine. The Word is God, not a creature, not an emanation, not a function of something else.

Now the conflict. The Trinity’s Word is God. The material’s Logos is a distortion, which by its own definition is a limitation on expression, and therefore a focus within the ground rather than the ground. A focus is a selection. The Word is not a selection, and consubstantiality is precisely a claim that it cannot miss, while a focus can. That is the trap in one sentence: the word agrees and the referent does not, and the word agreeing is what makes the error easy to commit.

This is our judgment and we name it as ours. We take the material’s side. The claim that the absolute becomes a particular person is not something this corpus can admit and not something it needs, because a focus is a function and a function is not a person. What Christianity specialises in, and what the material leaves undeveloped, is the personal and the incarnate: that the ground of being takes a life, a face, a history. We do not think that is a small thing. It is a specialisation, and a different question.

Not Brahman

Advaita is the closer comparison and the harder one to refuse, because in the first sense our word is very nearly its word. Both begin at awareness before it has content; both treat a body and a personality as something the absolute is not limited by; both offer a method of subtraction rather than a cosmology. If you were raised in a house where that was the air, you will feel the agreement before you have read a line of argument.

Here is the conflict. Not two. Advaita’s One has no second, and plurality is a category error to be sublated rather than a reality to be explained. The material’s entire account is about a second: many Logoi, many universes, each a creation that stays real, its inhabitants not illusions. And a Creator with free will who chose is a will, where Advaita locates the appearance of agency in the one as the very thing maya accounts for.

Our judgment again. We take the material’s side, and the limit we name for Advaita is one its own practitioners would accept. It specialises in the sublation of plurality and the identity of the knower with the known, which is formidable. What it leaves undeveloped, and in its strictest form refuses, is the knower as a knower that knows, which is to say a second, and an agent. The material’s cosmology is built on exactly that. A library that could not say so would be flattering a tradition in order to be polite about the corpus it studies.

What this reading owes you

A reader is owed the bill.

First, all of this depends on reading logos as a term of art. Read it as a common noun, the ordering principle or the rational structure of the world, and there is no conflict at all: every tradition agrees the world has an order. It dissolves not because it is wrong but because this corpus is using the word technically.

Second, the material hands you a vocabulary, not a metaphysics, and says so. The phrase at 15.21 is known to you as Logos: the corpus marking the word as the questioners’, and in the same breath offering the Creative Principle or Love instead, which are translations too. A good deal of what reads here as a metaphysical claim is a decision made in 1981 about which Greek word to use, and this library will not let it carry more than it was asked to.

Third, the sub-Logoi are the material’s account of itself, given from inside the contact. Forty years of study will not have established that our sun is one.

And then what a reader does with the two senses. The second is operative, because you live inside a particular creation under particular laws, shaped by parameters a particular focus chose. The first is what stops that fact from becoming the whole of God. Keep them apart and nothing about the practice changes. Confuse them and you get one of two failures, and we have watched both. A local focus becomes an object of worship, which is the error 27.12 names. Or the particular is dissolved into a oneness that was never there, and a person’s actual life stops counting.