О статье М.Эпштейна «Парадоксы русской эсхатологии»
Иоанн,
Reply to article «Supreme Teacher or Antichrist?»:
This is indeed a question of great importance. The Antichrist strives to take the place of Christ, but also usurps the role of Christ's forerunner. Hence, Antichrist is classified as a false prophet.
Regarding Epstein's assumption that Andreev merely borrowed his description of the Antichrist from Solovyov and compartmentalized the character into two separate personalities. Regarding the apparent similarities between the descriptions of Solovyov and Andreev. All that I will need to go into at a later time. For now, I would like to address some of your points.
_____
Therefore, I would attach a provisional clause: It's impossible to combine both duties in one man — if it's only based on human effort alone without any support from Providential powers!
«frailty of all undertakings which had had no blessing from above» This was the very reason why Theosophy declined, it explains why Krishnamurti, their groomed candidate for the world teacher, had lost his contact with the Light hierarchies and went astray. No man can be good without the help of God. Insofar as a Man acts in accordance with God's will, he will be able to perform «mighty works» because power from above descended upon him. It's safe to say that if a Supreme Mentor was brought forth by the longing of the peoples of the world, as long as the power of God rests upon his shoulder, he will be absolutely incorruptible. It's only when God's Spirit leaves its vessel that a void is formed, and must be filled. (1 Samuel 16:14, Matthew 12:43-45)
«Anyone who has contact with the supernatural is essentially sovereign, for in the form of the infinitely small he is a presence in society which transcends the social order. But the place he occupies in the social hierarchy is completely immaterial.» (Simone Weil)
Furthermore, Jesus, despite having his brief moments of weakness in his last days, was otherwise entirely overshadowed by higher powers in the course of his ministry, having overcome worldly temptations when he was ripe of age.
This was not trance mediumship; he was not asleep, but fully conscious. Why do we assume that only the demonic forces have access to state like khokhha? Considering the fact that the demonic forces were bereft of creativity, having counterposed everything to God. Khokhha's merely a distorted, cheap imitation of a prophet's direct communication with God.
Like Leo Tolstoy, Krishnamurti assumed the role of a prophet-messiah, without acquiring spiritual vision: «he has neither the knowledge nor the power nor bliss of the higher planes.»
https://incarnateword.in/cwsa/35/j-krishnamurti
I found a curious, striking parallel in the descriptions of Krishnamurti and Hitler:
https://friedrichgrohe.com/the-most-beautiful-canyons-youll-ever-see/
David E. Moody, remembering an encounter with Krishnamurti, «I felt he was observing me as completely as I was observing him, and yet at the same time it was like looking through a clear window, with only open space on the other side.»
Fridolin von Spaun, remembering an encounter with Hitler, «He didn’t look at me suspiciously, but I felt that he was searching me somehow. The gaze, which at first rested completely on me, suddenly went straight through me into the unknown distance.»
How was it that two men of completely opposite characters were described similarly?
History knows such phenomena and such personalities that had been readied by powerful hierarchies – light-filled and dark alike. It's a fact that Providential powers makes use of everyone, regardless of their disposition. Both Dark and Light forces are powerless without humans as their instruments, they wrestle for control over their soul. For instance, President FDR received dictations for his Four Freedoms (a superhuman achievement, not of himself, despite all his brilliance), yet he was representative of capitalist ruling cliques and associated with Stalin.
_____
https://schauungen.de/wiki/Feldpostbriefe
The great defect of Democracy is that no matter how perfected/humanized the system becomes, it's composed of men susceptible to making mistakes. As a matter of fact all political systems are bound to fail, doomed to bankruptcy, if people don't change enough and are «unwilling to adapt our habits to these changes.» (Dag Hammarskjold) Another defect of Democracy is its indecisiveness, endless deliberations.
«The many heads hurt each other, and the many tails obey a single head which wants to devour everything.» (Voltaire)
This is also what President George Washington warned about in Farewell Address: endless disputes between two parties induces the people to seek refuge in the absolute power of an individual.
This is why Hitler rejected a proposal to bring together the best minds, and why he saw to it that no other country could produce a rival leader comparable to himself: «Too many cooks spoil the broth.» It appears dictators in those days wanted to put their own personal stamp on everything.
The united wills of good individual men and women is stronger than the will of an individual, provided they're being directed towards a worthy cause. Otherwise, even the level-headed individuals may succumb to mass-psychosis (transphysically: group thought-form/egregore).
_____
The Rose of the World itself will consist not only of the righteous, but also of people standing at varying levels of moral development. From the very onset, the tasks of the global church will have such tremendous outlines, they will be so encompassing and numerous that it would be unfeasible to limit the active membership of the Rose of the World only to morally impeccable and highly principled ones.
“Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies; but let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. For thus both we ourselves shall be among the governors, and power being entrusted to the best men, it is likely that the best counsels will prevail in the state.” (Persian general Megabyzus, in the Histories of Herodotus)
“In a word, it is the best and most natural arrangement that the wisest should govern the many, when it is assured that they will govern for its profit, and not for their own.” (Rousseau, Social Contract)
Rousseau had the right ideas, he had the opportunity to examine most systems of governance. We should take into account Sparta's unique model of governance, which consists of 2 ruling kings to keep each other in check, to fight abroad and rule at home, in addition to the Ephors and council of elders. For good generals/military leaders (i.e. De Gaulle, Zhukov, Lebed) are seldom effective civil administrators during peacetime and were overall unsuited as politicians. Platon and Plotinos had also lent themselves to experimenting with various systems of governance. Platon's student Aristotle recommended a combination of systems.
Admittedly, Spartan model carries the defects of a slave caste/helots which was unjust and directly inspiring Nazi Germany (Otto Strasser identified its essence).
Its methods, as well, must be rejected almost wholesale. But we must take hold of the lever it discovered and not let go. The point is, here is a model that incorporates several forms of governance, it's possible to achieve a harmony between democracy, dictatorship and even communism and the national interest, when we finally replace our politicians with ideal leaders.
In accordance with the Providential plan, this is the uniform picture formed from the prophets: (See section «Ecumenical Council» in my Antichrist Disclosure)
At first, there must be 1 leader to rally the others, with 2 leaders accompanying him/forming a triumvirate, then they should send forth messengers throughout the world to seek for the best minds of every nation, and convene a Council of the World.
_____
Lastly, it's worth taking into account the wondrous scenario bequeathed to Charles Leadbeater, which seems to describe a novel form of governance:
While his specific scenario could probably never be realized in a million years, since times have changed, it is not too late to incorporate some of what he saw. I believe knowledge of possible and alternate futures can be carried back into the present and even into the past (i.e. what Da Vinci saw), through «deep memory».
Here's a comparison. Leadbeater's description of people in an alternate future:
«People have by no means yet transcended national feelings. The countries no longer fight with one another, but each nation still thinks of itself with pride. The greatest advantage is that they are not now afraid of one another, and that there is no suspicion, and therefore far greater fraternity. But on the whole, people have not changed much; it is only that now the better side of them has more opportunity to display itself.»
Deep-rooted national antagonisms will also long continue to make their presence felt. It will take time to balance and harmonize the needs of different countries and different layers of society that will benefit from, say, the priority development of such and such a branch of industry in such and such a place or the sale of their products somewhere or other.
Reply to article «Supreme Teacher or Antichrist?»:
This is indeed a question of great importance. The Antichrist strives to take the place of Christ, but also usurps the role of Christ's forerunner. Hence, Antichrist is classified as a false prophet.
Regarding Epstein's assumption that Andreev merely borrowed his description of the Antichrist from Solovyov and compartmentalized the character into two separate personalities. Regarding the apparent similarities between the descriptions of Solovyov and Andreev. All that I will need to go into at a later time. For now, I would like to address some of your points.
Yes, Andreev often falls back to using archaic expressions, but we must bear in mind that to mystics, words meant things different from common usage. He may have had his personal reasons for selecting terms, like he did with «Мировой Сальватэрры» (world salvation) which he claimed had nothing to do with the imagery of the Crusades it evoked. Or he was unable to find something analogous to what he had in mind.
That's a dogmatic assumption! It's far too early to draw this conclusion from the premature attempts to produce men of willpower like Hitler and Stalin who as Pavel Florensky pointed out are merely surrogates for the real thing, for a future, creative leader guided by intuition: Но подлинного творчества в этих лицах все же нет, и, надо думать, они — лишь первые попытки человечества породить героя. Some people proclaim that totalitarianism was evil and must never be attempted again. They draw attention to how the Soviet Union turned out and fear its revival. To them, I would point out that these were early experiments. There's one thing I read from Teilhard de Chardin in The Future of Man that has remained with me for the past years:
Here's an useful comparison between Pavel Florensky and Teilhard de Chardin's ideas: https://web.archive.org/web/20070928090836/http://www.theandros.com/parallelvis.html
_____
Therefore, I would attach a provisional clause: It's impossible to combine both duties in one man — if it's only based on human effort alone without any support from Providential powers!
«frailty of all undertakings which had had no blessing from above» This was the very reason why Theosophy declined, it explains why Krishnamurti, their groomed candidate for the world teacher, had lost his contact with the Light hierarchies and went astray. No man can be good without the help of God. Insofar as a Man acts in accordance with God's will, he will be able to perform «mighty works» because power from above descended upon him. It's safe to say that if a Supreme Mentor was brought forth by the longing of the peoples of the world, as long as the power of God rests upon his shoulder, he will be absolutely incorruptible. It's only when God's Spirit leaves its vessel that a void is formed, and must be filled. (1 Samuel 16:14, Matthew 12:43-45)
«Anyone who has contact with the supernatural is essentially sovereign, for in the form of the infinitely small he is a presence in society which transcends the social order. But the place he occupies in the social hierarchy is completely immaterial.» (Simone Weil)
Furthermore, Jesus, despite having his brief moments of weakness in his last days, was otherwise entirely overshadowed by higher powers in the course of his ministry, having overcome worldly temptations when he was ripe of age.
This was not trance mediumship; he was not asleep, but fully conscious. Why do we assume that only the demonic forces have access to state like khokhha? Considering the fact that the demonic forces were bereft of creativity, having counterposed everything to God. Khokhha's merely a distorted, cheap imitation of a prophet's direct communication with God.
Like Leo Tolstoy, Krishnamurti assumed the role of a prophet-messiah, without acquiring spiritual vision: «he has neither the knowledge nor the power nor bliss of the higher planes.»
https://incarnateword.in/cwsa/35/j-krishnamurti
I found a curious, striking parallel in the descriptions of Krishnamurti and Hitler:
https://friedrichgrohe.com/the-most-beautiful-canyons-youll-ever-see/
David E. Moody, remembering an encounter with Krishnamurti, «I felt he was observing me as completely as I was observing him, and yet at the same time it was like looking through a clear window, with only open space on the other side.»
Fridolin von Spaun, remembering an encounter with Hitler, «He didn’t look at me suspiciously, but I felt that he was searching me somehow. The gaze, which at first rested completely on me, suddenly went straight through me into the unknown distance.»
How was it that two men of completely opposite characters were described similarly?
History knows such phenomena and such personalities that had been readied by powerful hierarchies – light-filled and dark alike. It's a fact that Providential powers makes use of everyone, regardless of their disposition. Both Dark and Light forces are powerless without humans as their instruments, they wrestle for control over their soul. For instance, President FDR received dictations for his Four Freedoms (a superhuman achievement, not of himself, despite all his brilliance), yet he was representative of capitalist ruling cliques and associated with Stalin.
_____
In theory this could work, but it's dangerous to put forward a proposal like this in an epoch where peoples (i.e. Zionists) already imagine themselves to be idealistic human beings, a time where demagogues dangle beautiful ideals before the masses.
https://schauungen.de/wiki/Feldpostbriefe
We must keep in mind that not everyone thinks democratically. There are many who respond more to the authority of a man, than an idea The main reasons why pacifist movements in the early 20th century failed was because they were unable to integrate the nationalistic elements, unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of their cause, which sabotaged reconciliation. That's why so many turned to Hitler, because he did not face opposition from the nationalistic camp.
The great defect of Democracy is that no matter how perfected/humanized the system becomes, it's composed of men susceptible to making mistakes. As a matter of fact all political systems are bound to fail, doomed to bankruptcy, if people don't change enough and are «unwilling to adapt our habits to these changes.» (Dag Hammarskjold) Another defect of Democracy is its indecisiveness, endless deliberations.
«The many heads hurt each other, and the many tails obey a single head which wants to devour everything.» (Voltaire)
This is also what President George Washington warned about in Farewell Address: endless disputes between two parties induces the people to seek refuge in the absolute power of an individual.
This is why Hitler rejected a proposal to bring together the best minds, and why he saw to it that no other country could produce a rival leader comparable to himself: «Too many cooks spoil the broth.» It appears dictators in those days wanted to put their own personal stamp on everything.
I agree with you on this! The direction society is heading towards is an epoch where group activity, group collaboration, displaces the 19th-20th century epoch of egoistic individualism. There will also be women increasingly coming into prominence, distinguishing themselves as world leaders, while men retire from politics, give up dreams of conquest, instead working on conquering themselves, problems of life, they will strive to enter a world of ideas.
The united wills of good individual men and women is stronger than the will of an individual, provided they're being directed towards a worthy cause. Otherwise, even the level-headed individuals may succumb to mass-psychosis (transphysically: group thought-form/egregore).
_____
Observe how Andreev wrote it would be «most natural» and «most desirable» for one individual to be entrusted with leadership of the nations and of peoples. Even in the form of the collective, it's simply impossible for all members to be ideal. Stalin once told Milovan Djilas «you have imagined the Red Army to be ideal. And it is not ideal, nor can it be, even if it did not contain a certain percentage of criminals.»
The Rose of the World itself will consist not only of the righteous, but also of people standing at varying levels of moral development. From the very onset, the tasks of the global church will have such tremendous outlines, they will be so encompassing and numerous that it would be unfeasible to limit the active membership of the Rose of the World only to morally impeccable and highly principled ones.
“Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies; but let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. For thus both we ourselves shall be among the governors, and power being entrusted to the best men, it is likely that the best counsels will prevail in the state.” (Persian general Megabyzus, in the Histories of Herodotus)
“In a word, it is the best and most natural arrangement that the wisest should govern the many, when it is assured that they will govern for its profit, and not for their own.” (Rousseau, Social Contract)
Rousseau had the right ideas, he had the opportunity to examine most systems of governance. We should take into account Sparta's unique model of governance, which consists of 2 ruling kings to keep each other in check, to fight abroad and rule at home, in addition to the Ephors and council of elders. For good generals/military leaders (i.e. De Gaulle, Zhukov, Lebed) are seldom effective civil administrators during peacetime and were overall unsuited as politicians. Platon and Plotinos had also lent themselves to experimenting with various systems of governance. Platon's student Aristotle recommended a combination of systems.
Admittedly, Spartan model carries the defects of a slave caste/helots which was unjust and directly inspiring Nazi Germany (Otto Strasser identified its essence).
Its methods, as well, must be rejected almost wholesale. But we must take hold of the lever it discovered and not let go. The point is, here is a model that incorporates several forms of governance, it's possible to achieve a harmony between democracy, dictatorship and even communism and the national interest, when we finally replace our politicians with ideal leaders.
In accordance with the Providential plan, this is the uniform picture formed from the prophets: (See section «Ecumenical Council» in my Antichrist Disclosure)
At first, there must be 1 leader to rally the others, with 2 leaders accompanying him/forming a triumvirate, then they should send forth messengers throughout the world to seek for the best minds of every nation, and convene a Council of the World.
_____
Lastly, it's worth taking into account the wondrous scenario bequeathed to Charles Leadbeater, which seems to describe a novel form of governance:
Here it's worth pointing out how the founders of various nations quarreled over differences of opinion on unimportant matters and were unable to come to an agreement on many things yet they somehow secured their country's independence. How were they able to overcome their differences? What stimulated them?
While his specific scenario could probably never be realized in a million years, since times have changed, it is not too late to incorporate some of what he saw. I believe knowledge of possible and alternate futures can be carried back into the present and even into the past (i.e. what Da Vinci saw), through «deep memory».
Here's a comparison. Leadbeater's description of people in an alternate future:
«People have by no means yet transcended national feelings. The countries no longer fight with one another, but each nation still thinks of itself with pride. The greatest advantage is that they are not now afraid of one another, and that there is no suspicion, and therefore far greater fraternity. But on the whole, people have not changed much; it is only that now the better side of them has more opportunity to display itself.»
Deep-rooted national antagonisms will also long continue to make their presence felt. It will take time to balance and harmonize the needs of different countries and different layers of society that will benefit from, say, the priority development of such and such a branch of industry in such and such a place or the sale of their products somewhere or other.
изгоняли, завоевывали и т.п.
