{The Trinity}[19th February 1989]

[Redbook6:97-98)][19890219:1218e]{The Trinity}[19th February 1989]

19890219.1218

[continued]

So far as the inner experiences, set down in these volumes over the last three years or so* (gracious, is it really as long as that?), are concerned, the question is the extent to which they are influenced by imaginative conceptions of the moment, as against the extent to which they are dynamically independent.** The classic example is that of Love as a ‘pure’ *** and as an ‘applied’ emotion.

I should say (for example) that my experiences of the Trinity* as they became more ‘applied’ owed a great deal to my own religious education, but that the distinction felt between the Spirit and the Christ-Archetype is a real one. I am not so sure about being able to distinguish* the Spirit from the Father-Creator any more:**** the concept of a separate and yet personal father-God [sic] does not seem to fit the implications of our own external experience, and is all too easily accounted for in psychological terms. More valuable, I think, is the distinction of viewpoint (rather than experience) between the Spirit of God (in a Man, for example, or indeed in principle in anything),# and God the Spirit: and this is perhaps the closest I can come to distinguishing the Spirit and the Father in the Trinity.

*[See eg [Redbook5:77][19880316:1300p]{God's Man [continued]}[16th March 1988];

[Redbook5:108-109][19880320:1650f]{The Experience of the Trinity}[20th March 1988];

et al]

**[See eg [Redbook3:196-202][19870416:1730]{Quality relationships (3): Dynamic Independence}[16th April 1987]ff;

[Redbook4:97][19871005:0940]{The Dynamic Independence of Angels}[5th October 1987]ff;

et al]

***[See eg [Redbook3:189-190][19870414:1003g](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE (2) [continued(7)])[14th April 1987]]

****{This is still the point of least clarity – but see later [].}

#(the less highly evolved the creation, the more heavily veiled is the Spirit)

{But see later []}

[PostedBlogger08092019]