Mouravieff is interesting

"Space is amazing, isn't it?"

Remember the time when books were amazing?

Generally I don’t read much at home. After all, I have my computer at home, and it tends to take priority. My sims need to live too! Besides, there is the writing, and Google+. OK, I have Google+ on the smartphone too, but responding is easier with a physical keyboard. (Sorry, SwiftKey.)

So for me to actually read a book at home, the book had better be good. These days, most of what I read is non-fiction, or at least it is supposed to be. This is also the case with Boris Mouravieff’s Gnosis, part 1: The Exoteric Cycle. I have written about it once before, when I started reading it. I am still reading it, off and on.

Mouravieff keeps kind of close to the edge of craziness, in a manner of speaking. If you get him wrong, you are likely to go very wrong indeed. To me he makes sense, as long as I read him with good will. But I can see how someone unfamiliar with esoteric teachings, someone with a tendency to take things literally and assign the same meaning to words regardless of context, might tumble into the abyss; for the book is like a house built on the edge of a precipice, itself not falling in but posing a danger to the unwary. Or that is how I see it at this time.

Perhaps providentially, I read his explanation about the “ray of creation” not many days after I read Schuon discuss the Christian concept of the Trinity. Mouravieff adheres to Orthodox Christianity, but he interprets it esoterically, or more exactly as a vehicle of esoteric knowledge that has been hidden for most even among the religious, but hidden in plain sight. It is this esoteric science he tries to restore to view. I wonder how well he succeeds, given that his greatest fans seems to be a UFO cult, at least if one judges from publicity on Google.

To Mouravieff, God is the center of creation, as well as being beyond it. God beyond being comes up with the idea, then God as the Trinity manifests and begins to radiate the universe, more or less, according to Mouravieff. He also seems to think that eternity is limited and perpendicular to time.

But one of the most interesting concepts is that there is a law of nature – “the law of seven” – that is placed in creation to make sure time becomes circular, or as close to this as possible. (The cycles of time will eventually run out, says Mouravieff.) As this law operates on all levels below the Divine, it will cause any straight line of action to deviate eventually, and at some point go in the opposite direction of what it did originally. For instance, Christianity persecuting and killing pagans, when some time had passed after it used to be the other way around. After a while, the deviation will eventually bring you back on the original track for a while, but then you deviate again, running in circles. This is a result of the cyclical nature of time itself.

If you want to make progress, you have to add an impulse at the right time and angle to counteract the deviation and get back on the original track. This is not easy to arrange. Remember, you cannot see yourself deviate. To your own eyes, your road seems to go straight ahead. It is the circular nature of the universe itself that fools you.

So how do you get around this trap? How do you actually accomplish anything? I don’t know yet, because in the meantime Mouravieff has gone on to talk about the Cosmic Octave and the galaxies and star systems as the cosmic body of Christ, or was it the body of the cosmic Christ? And the sun as a representation of the Divine. I am sure at some point the answer is revealed, either in this book or the next. I think it may be time to order that one soon. After all, the first seems to be one of the books I may actually finish … some day.

4 thoughts on “Mouravieff is interesting

    • Llama, I think he has a point that you cannot simply remove the “bad” Yang and keep the “good” Yin. Even if you could, you would end up with a half human. Rather than destroy the Yang parts of us, we need to find their proper meaning and place and value. The original word for “sin” is said do be close to “mistake” – it implies an error of direction, a missing the target. It is not the energy put into the action that is the problem, it is the misdirection. To become completely passive keeps us from making big mistakes – but it also keeps us from doing anything good.
      To take an obvious example: When a man makes love to his wife, it is generally a good thing. But if he does the same to his daughter, it is a bad thing. It is not the Yang of the action that is the problem, but the direction. What is good in one situation is bad in another. This holds true for action, *but it holds true for passivity as well*.

  1. I am very happy that you are reading this and telling us about it instead of having to read it myself. The explanations you give are clear and followable, but I do not have the patience to read it. I downloaded it, as it is available . . . somewhere, I forget where . . . but just have too much going on right now to even have much of a wish to read it. I do have a wish to hear your take on it, but am just mentally too tired to approach it myself.

    • Kristi, I could not possibly do justice to the depth of Mouravieff’s book, not to mention the many diagrams he uses. So what I write is snapshots of how it relates to me, mostly. The things that particularly resonate with me. I agree this is not a book to read when you are stressed and out of time!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *