A Message To The "Christians"

Many of you who believe yourselves to be Christians,
have never heard preached the true word of Christ.

Would you care to know the Truth?

I confess a faith for Christ one hundred times greater than your own.
Even so, I cannot dare to call myself a Christian.

I cannot honestly believe that being a Franciscan,
and following the monastic rule of Saint Francis,
requires more of you than being a Christian,
and following the rule of Christ.

Can the student be greater than the teacher?

(But you call yourselves "Christians".)

I am sure that to be a Christian is to be an anarchist,
who believes no man should use force to govern another.

(But you call yourselves "Christians".)

That it is to preach the abolition of all courts of law,
and of any form of judgement whatsoever.

(But you call yourselves "Christians".)

To preach the renunciation of private property,
and the life of a wandering beggar.

(But you call yourselves "Christians".)

To preach the refusal to participate in war,
or in any form of violence whatsoever.

It is to be a martyr for peace,
devoted to the service of truth.

To believe otherwise is pure delusion.

But you call yourselves "Christians".

How can you go straight into being a Christian?
There ought to be a word for what you are.
We might call you "Christians-In-Training."

What does Nietzsche say?

'Before one can fly,
one must first learn to walk and run.
One cannot fly into flying.'

If you want to call yourselves Christians,
while owning property and supporting war,
please call yourselves hypocrites as well,
and make some little effort in His direction.

But, for Christ's sake,
don't disagree with everything the man stood for.

The Road Not Taken

"Father Maximos laughed as he recalled an incident with a fellow monk at Mount Athos. 'He was always very forgetful, he claimed, but fortunately for him the moment he began to pray, the devil would always remind him of all the things he forgot to do during the day.'" ~ from: The Mountain of Silence by Kyriacos Markides

"Modern people lack silence. They no longer lead their own lives; they are carried along by events. It is a race against the clock... If your life is chock-full already, there won't be room for anything else. Even God can't get anything else in. So it becomes essential to cut something out. I'm putting it as simply as I can." ~ Paul Tournier, psychoanalyst and Christian mystic


The common obsession with career advancement, place-seeking, and the accumulation and maintenance of material goods, consumes so much time and energy. Most people have little or nothing left for themselves, their families, or God. They complain of being overworked, yet are forever looking to increase their workload by getting a promotion and a raise. Success is not utilized as a means of providing more liberty and time for reflection. Rather, with every advance, they continue to make material investments and to live beyond their means, and in debt. The work they do, from a global and historical standpoint, is almost always detrimental to the true welfare of society.

When they get home (usually late), all they want is to pacify their minds, which have been occupied all day long with largely trivial, yet highly demanding, concerns. They stuff themselves with rich, stupefying foods and drinks, crack a beer or pour themselves a glass of wine, plop down in front of the "boob tube", and watch some mindless sitcom or feel-good romantic comedy, or they watch the "news" and hear about the latest child murder or political scandal, or they turn on some nerve-wracking criminal or medical drama with ominous music and a plot replete with child rape, incest, and bone-saws cutting ligaments, or, if they pick up a book, it is some shallow pulp fiction of espionage and intrigue which they have heard told a thousand times before.

They say two relatively careless words to their spouse or child; whom they barely know, yet think they know too well. Then it's off to bed, to get up and do it all over again. And while the promise of a coming vacation sustains them in their work, when they get it they are generally under so much pressure to fill the time with enjoyments, that it goes by in a kind of blur of sensory gratifications and idle chatter; not having learned anything, they have little to say, as does the company they keep. Vast sums are exhausted, and then it's back to work!

One day they fall ill and feel like their prayers have been answered. Bedridden, they are forced to take it easy, to get off the hamster wheel and relax. At this point, they may revue their lives, full of guilt and regret. Or maybe the habit of superficiality has become so ingrained that even this is impossible for them. Then they die, wondering what went wrong.

It is rare than anyone organizes their time and resources so as to be in a position to learn about the very systems of which they are a part; about the corruption which infests nearly every aspect of the culture which they have come to trust implicitly and to see as "the real world". Attention to social causes and spiritual well-being are, likewise, entirely or near-entirely absent. And the realization of the vanity and emptiness of this way of life is held continually at bay by keeping oneself perpetually engaged and distracted with the very things which only deepen that inner void and disconnectedness to the sacredness of being.

This is a call to relax and simplify our involvement with commerce, while simultaneously intensifying and enriching our awareness of matters of true importance. It is a call to the path "less traveled by", as Robert Frost put it. But not, as Frost understood it in another poem, to a path with "promises to keep" and "miles to go before I sleep". Rather, one is invited to reflect upon the foolishness of "promises" made which only scatter our energies and spread us thin; and to regard fidelity to oneself and one's deepest voice as the only promise worth keeping. It is a reminder that there is nowhere to go; not until one has stood still enough to honor the very place where one is in this present moment. It is a call to the inward path of self-exploration and self-discovery, for that is truly "the road not taken".

FRUITS: Some Green, Some Ripe

"The Formless Absolute is my Father,
and God With Form is my Mother." -Kabir
We are the jewel which completes the Trinity;
every one of us a facet.

All things perish.
How much quicker do your models break down?
No vision can encapsulate the mystery.
Sell your cleverness and purchase love-simplicity.

The Lady cradling, and gazing lovingly
upon the Christed Child.
His face is round like the Earth,
His Mother's is round like the Sun.
She beams Love and He receives.

Love is sweetness, joy, compassion, sympathy; all of these.

Do not scrutinize the sayings of the wise. A cup turned over cannot hold water; truth cannot perform its function in an atmosphere of doubt. The wise know their insights are precarious steps, which crumble beneath all but the lightest feet. It is with the quickness of faith that they carry their message, and do not fall.

She drinks wine. She said to me, "Everyone deserves one vice. Everyone is allowed one vice." Has the ignorance of virtue attained to such abyssmal heights? Her entire life is vice! Yet she believes the wine alone prevents it from being viceless. How can life be anything but vice, when one is not on the path of virtue; devoted to God and His most miserable creatures? How can we speak of virtue with our own lips? Saints do not open their mouths; God opens them. Yet we think we can count our vices, -- and on one finger!

Of the healthy and unemployed, it is justly expected that they commit themselves to the revelation of mysteries; -- be they worldly or more directly engaged with the life of the Spirit. If they did not seek and reveal these things, their liberty would surely be license, and a disgrace. Whereas, for those entangled in the world and its labors, such seeking and revealing becomes a badge of true merit, and neglecting these things, though unfortunate, would not be disgraceful.

The sayings are not arranged; which is to say, they are arranged purely by Providence. God Himself will direct the reader, providing what is needed, and not merely what is sought. Read in order or at random, they jump from topic to topic, so as to awaken a consciousness of the whole, without undue attention to its parts.

God ordains that some, by His grace, observe a perfect and minute order in their daily lives, while others He leads by seemingly chaotic channels, more intuitive than anything. Each one must discover Him anew.

The original sin is procreation. God loves His Children too much to see them in the world. And while His Love makes everything good, His Fullness makes great. Bodily incarnation conceals from us the fullness of His Presence. Though it may be possible to build a heaven on earth, we know -- by faith and for certain -- that His Heaven is ready-made in the sky. Non-action is sometimes the wisest of actions.

It is said that God chooses the weakest, and the lowest of the low, in order to exhibit the fullness of His power. But are they not the ones made weak with alienation; brought low by the misunderstanding scorn of their communities? Are they not simply the most maligned? Those who, before God illumined them, struggled to interpret their prophetic wisdom, and almost believed it when the people called them mad?

The source of wisdom is mysterious.
Even the wise are shocked by what they know.

Conspiracy Theory, The Pathology of Institutions, and The World Situation

"Every true secret must of itself exclude the profane. Whoever understands it is of himself, by rights, an initiate." ~ Novalis

A Democracy is a tyranny of the majority, in which 51% of the population can take control the other 49%. Americans do not live in a Democracy. We live (at least, in theory) in a Constitutional Republic, in which even 99% of the people do not have the right to take away the rights of the remaining 1%. However, since our nation's founding, and long before, there have been power struggles between those who want to ensure our rights and those who want to use and manipulate us as commodities; namely, the bankers and those in league with them. At present, we live within a system which is somewhere between a Constitutional Republic and a Plutocracy, leaning heavily toward the latter. This is a situation in which the richest 1% are, frequently, in a position to take away the rights of the remaining 99%.

In such a system, not being a victim means somehow being smart and/or skeptical enough to realize the profound effects that money (and those who care for little else) has on our institutional structures -- particularly media and government. It means waking up to the many ways in which you are being lied to. It means seeking out alternative, independent news sources, and ultimately acquiring a sweeping, historical vision of what's going on here. Having a vote means nothing if the information you are heeding is bull, so you have to be smart and self-motivated enough to find the truth. Not everyone can do that, -- let's face it, even some of the most savvy people are so overworked and distracted that they haven't the time or energy for this search (and, undoubtedly, it could be argued that this lack of time and energy is by design) -- but those of us who can search have a responsibility to the rest, to spread awareness and to find ways of subverting the flaws in this system.

The corruption actually extends to our medical institutions and practically all areas of the sciences. First, you need to understand that these systems are composed of individuals who need and want to keep their jobs, and many who want to make names for themselves. All of that creates bias, but it's how our world works. What happens is, a dispute arises between two or more factions, and people stake their careers on the particular theory or model that they support... A theory or model gains supremacy, not because it is more accurate, but, generally, because it has more influential supporters, and can make more money. Eventually, yes, the truth comes out, and the better system triumphs, but usually not before it is stigmatized and consigned to the scrap heap. When one theory gains dominance, the "anomalous" evidence in support of the contrary theory (or theories) is buried, and those in support of it are ostracized into obscurity. Some social theorists have called this process "knowledge filtration". Basically, they lose funding, lose their jobs, etc., if they don't tow the line.

Of course, most people tow the line because they implicitly trust the prevailing paradigm. If the dominant view, for example, is that drugs and surgery are the best treatments for Cancer, and that radical changes in diet are less effective, they will assume that this view is grounded in solid research. Books like "When Healing Becomes A Crime" and "Forbidden Archeology" can help shine light on the bigger picture, but they are not located on the beaten path, and most people will scoff at the premise without even hearing the arguments and evidence. In fact, most people are so entrenched in their cultural programing, that they have no idea how thoroughly they are being manipulated and victimized, and they will adamantly defend those structures which victimize them; stigmatizing anyone who attempts to pull back the curtain as a paranoid conspiracy theorist nut. So it goes.

Every time period has overthrown and disproven the prejudices of the centuries preceding it. Yet, every time period continues to cling tenaciously to the contemporary models as if they were the final word. What can we learn from this? Only that one should not dare to consider oneself a critical thinker unless one is equally as skeptical of the mainstream as of the alternatives. The methods and models of the future have always arisen, and will continue to arise, from the margins. History has shown that nearly every significant discovery was first disparaged and rejected by the established order of the day. Will we ever learn?

How is that, in the face of the sweeping historical perspective mankind has achieved, the vast majority of people still sacrifice their skepticism in the face of a university degree, and embrace cynicism as a response to anything not already approved by the established order? The fact of the matter is that at a university, one is far more likely to be indoctrinated than educated. True scholarship is an independent effort requiring a passionately inquisitive mind. Practically all that is necessary for a university degree is the ability to memorize and to regurgitate the views of the past and present day. In such an environment, progressive thinking is a hindrance, not a help. We must realize that the ability to unlearn is often a prerequisite for the ability to learn. We can learn nothing new when we are fixedly convinced of a falsehood.

History moves at a snail's pace. Innovations which require the abandonment of enormous institutions, and the restructuring of entire fields, like medicine, education, economy, etc., are not easily accepted. Just imagine it: Suppose a radical discovery is made in medicine which undermines the entire system. Do you think the medical schools will gut their curriculum overnight? That diplomas will be revoked from doctors everywhere? That billions, maybe trillions, of dollars worth of equipment will be destroyed? That organizations (and the thousands they employ) will gracefully bow out in light of the emerging evidence? Of course not! People will resist such sweeping changes; consciously or unconsciously, they will scramble to defend the structures in which they are ensnared.

And all of this is visible to a relatively miniscule percentage of the population. Though history illustrates these truths again and again, only a small number of people, far in advance of their times, have been in a position to grasp them. Like the legendary prophetess, Cassandra, they speak the truth and are not believed. The lyricist, Kurt Cobain, wrote: "A little tribe it's always been. And always will, until the end." Is this statement lacking in optimism, or does it just about sum up the historical predicament? Many believe we are coming into a time of greater awareness, when larger numbers of people will be receptive to these truths. I'm not so sure.

In Defense Of Everything Emo

Do we love our misery? Our defeats? Our angst? Do we revel in it? Of course we do. But, then, what choice have we got? The human creature is of such a frail constitution, that it must, and will undoubtedly, find something to love even in the most deplorable of states. We need to find things beautiful, and the more horrific they are, the more power we experience over them in beautifying them. Yet, ultimately, nobody wants to dwell on loss, and, however much sympathy may sweeten a bitter condition, we'd all prefer admiration to sympathy, and triumph to tragedy.

It irks me when anyone suggests that we love, and choose, our misery. If we choose it, it's only after the choice has been made for us, and because we need to retain some semblance, albeit illusion, of freedom; also, because it is easier to "go with the flow" than to wage an endless, fruitless struggle against it, even when that flow leads to the tears and consolations, rather than the laughter and applause, of the crowd.

We are who we are, and we have little choice but to find something beautiful in it. We form our arguments in accordance with our dispositions, and not the other way around. The free spirit will always advocate a positive outlook, not because the outlook uplifts him, or is more "true"; but because it is natural and congenial to him, and he may even be incapable of taking a darker view. The industrious man praises industry and prides himself on his fidelity to it, while deriding all others. The reflective man praises leisure. And so on. We play our parts.

If your part is a sad one, then, at least, do not be ashamed to lend style to your character. So long as we feel ourselves or our fates to be tragic, then let us revel in them nonetheless, as we would in victory; let us glory in our misery and find beauty in our disintegration. Who, happier and healthier than we are, would presume to begrudge us this carrion comfort?

The Dreamer (A Manifesto)

"Who looks outside, dreams;
who looks inside, awakens." ~ Jung

"Mark this well, you proud men of action!
You are, after all, nothing but the unconscious instruments
of the men of thought." ~ Heine

In this very brief essay I have attempted to defend a specific type of human being, alternately referable to as "the dreamer", "the visionary", "the philosopher", "the poet", and a multitude of other names directly or loosely associated with a common theme, typified by the internal compulsion to seek and explore the mysteries of man's inner psycho-spiritual realms. In the past, it has been wise to speak of these archetypes separately or, at least, with some eye toward discriminating between them, but, it is my conviction that, in the present age, these individual types are better served by an appreciation of their commonality in relation to another, drastically different type, which I will call, among other things, "the man of action", or "the man of the world".

Clearly, I am not the first to make this distinction, which many will recognize as belonging to the tradition of classical dialectic. My purpose in taking up this theme is not to "put new wine into old wineskins", but, just the opposite; to say again what has been said from the beginning, and must be repeated until all men are free. No doubt, it has been said before, and better, but I will believe my efforts here are not entirely without merit, provided only that they may contribute in some small part to maintaining an awareness of the profound importance of this dialectic in the minds of some modest number of my contemporaries. In a time when philosophy is almost universally devalued, even derided, it would appear that even a clumsy philosopher is better than none.

The first thing to consider is that a discussion of types ought not to be taken literally. Just as there is no such thing as a pure Leo, or a pure Capricorn, though astrologers may still speak of Leos and Capricorns, and may make more or less absolute statements concerning these signs, with the stipulation that they are always speaking in the abstract (i.e. speaking of signs, and not actual people). Jung's primary division of men into the two types, introvert/extrovert, is a parallel example of what I am attempting to do here. Yes, everyone is a combination of the two, but everyone is primarily one or the other, and some people are more polarized than others.

I am primarily concerned with the polarized ones, the marginalized ones, the unsung ones. Those who are not balanced, by any means, but who may be imbalanced in such a way as to off-set the imbalances of our culture. The Apostle Paul makes a simple yet powerful argument, using the metaphor of the body of Christ (in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 12). "To some it is given to minister, to others the gifts of interpretation... and so on. We needn't make demands upon the dreamer, that he must be some perfectly well-rounded renaissance man. For he is, ultimately, just one member of a larger social body. An ear, not meant to be an eye, or foot, or hand. Is it really incumbent upon him to develop in himself those qualities which already exist in overabundance in our culture?

Nietzsche writes:
"I speak for the exception, so long as he does not wish to become the rule."

It is not possible to give one's full, concentrated attention to philosophy while going through the menial motions. What most people call deep thoughts are generally just the surfaces of deep themes. And of course, it is possible to skate over these surfaces while performing an unrelated job. But one cannot pursue philosophy in earnest while mopping a floor any more than one can mop a floor while mowing the lawn; or play the piano while dancing the waltz. Sure, you could try it, and even fool yourself into thinking you are doing a decent job of it, but, in reality, both the thought and the floor would suffer, and the delusion works only for people who cannot tell the difference between real philosophy and simply kicking big ideas around. The notion that a person can sincerely and seriously philosophize while doing the dishes and other things is insulting to me, as a vocational philosopher. To me, it suggests that anyone who could suppose such a thing must hold a very flippant attitude toward philosophy.

Schopenhauer wrote a lovely essay about Noise, and the need of a philosopher for absolute silence and an undisturbed atmosphere. As he understood it, there is perhaps nothing which demands one's full attention so much as the work of thinking deeply. Because the business of thought is so removed from the world, the thinker must withdraw him/herself from the sense impressions and preoccupations of the world, in order to enter fully into the mind; which is, properly regarded, a world unto itself.

Moreover, it is my experience that, when you go deep enough into philosophical questions, you strike a veil of golden oil, which erupts and effectively inundates your life, making it almost impossible to concern yourself with anything else. This is because, when you are working at the deepest levels, the shifting of your perspective (even just to take a peek into another possible way of seeing things) must trigger a chain reaction with consequences extending into nearly every, if not every, area of life; you can hardly confront even the most mundane situation without having to check the continual flood of habitual views; each of which is now called into scrutiny by the deeper question which has been glimpsed, and which effectively undermines them all. The one who deeply understands and deeply experiences this truth has been marked; claimed, as it were, by Philosophy. Does this mean that, if you are not the type to commit yourself utterly to philosophy (to the more or less unflagging pursuit, interpretation, and reinterpretation of visions and ideas), then, you must be prepared to confess to a relative superficiality in your thinking? Yes it does.

"In the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, a genius is someone in whom intellect predominates over "will" much more than within the average person. In Schopenhauer's aesthetics, this predominance of the intellect over the will allows the genius to create artistic or academic works that are objects of pure, disinterested contemplation, the chief criterion of the aesthetic experience for Schopenhauer. Their remoteness from mundane concerns means that Schopenhauer's geniuses often display maladaptive traits in more mundane concerns; in Schopenhauer's words, they fall into the mire while gazing at the stars."
~ Wikipedia, "Genius"

The deepest questions are cultivated in the underworld, and the loftiest answers are harvested in the spheres; therefore, the one who’s job it is to tend and deliver them must necessarily be estranged from worldly matters to the extent that he is successful in his work. That this principle is so universally misunderstood may help to explain society’s hostility toward the visionary type. He is stigmatized and maligned for being different, while his differentness is precisely that which qualifies him to take a detached perspective on the affairs of men, of nations, and of ages. Expected to abide by a conventional standard, he is constantly inhibited from pursuing his true calling, and the only thing capable of securing him a tolerable position in the world. Nor is it generally understood that the seemingly immaterial contributions he makes are of a subtle enough substance to reach and nourish the very roots of mankind. In the final analysis, he is the exception which exists in order to support their rule; the more oppressed for all that he upholds.

The dreamer is a fixed and distinct type of human being. In the most extreme examples, he is a species unto himself. While our modern society may not recognize the dreamer as a definite type, incapable of altering its fundamental disposition, nature does. And while it is true that nature is no less unforgiving, and makes even fewer allowances for the weaknesses of this type, yet, this is precisely why society ought to extend itself in support of these fey and (at least, from a worldly perspective) insubstantial creatures. Instead, the dreamer is stigmatized perhaps worse than any other classification of persons. Time and again, he is admonished, disciplined, and enjoined to perform according to the standards of majority rule -- to which he is nothing if not an exception.

The constant effort to "reform" the dreamer and subject him to the responsibilities of worldly life is not unlike the effort to force homosexuals to adapt to straight lifestyles. Always, the majority believes it is in the right, and that it has the right to impose its will upon the minority, despite the overwhelming evidence of history; for the record shows that individual types have never been extinguished, and it has been societies and entire civilizations which have been forced to change themselves, becoming more tolerant and inclusive. Moreover, it is frequently, if not always, the character and contributions of the stigmatized minority which serve to correct some excess, or imbalance, in the larger community.

As Jiddu Krishnamurti tells us,
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

More and more I see that psychology cannot be separated from history (and I don't mean the history of the individual). More and more I am drawn to consider the larger picture. The diseases of individuals are the mere symptoms of cultural and historical disease. We need healers who are willing to think big, with the courage to diagnose and prescribe treatments for the whole "civilized" world. Our wounds are deeper than we know, but so is our power to heal; not just one person at a time, -- rather, all of us at once. And while it is popular in our day to place attention upon the individual, and to see it as a definite weakness, a cop-out, to blame the larger framework of society, it seems clear to me that, until the imbalances of the collective are addressed, the dreamer will continue to be disenfranchised and scapegoated for his inability to conform with that larger whole. G.B. Shaw was voicing no minor witticism when he remarked that, while "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Is it perhaps true, as Nietzsche suggests, that everything great and good we know and hold dear was once derided as an evil. The sensitivity of the dreamer is one such buried virtue, which has yet to make its full and unabashed appearance upon the stage of human history. It is this sensitivity, near universally scorned as mere weakness, which will, perhaps, in the "last judgment", spiritualize and gentle the conditions of all men, putting an effective end to superficiality, greed, and the senseless, ignorant acts of animal brutality, common to those who have all but lost the power to dream; and surely lost the power to dream deeply. For, if the competitive and acquisitive instincts of so many "men of the world" were not quite so insistent on their own gain, and if a greater appreciation for dreams infused our culture, there would be more than enough to care for all of us; without making unrealistic demands on any of the types. The imbalance arises when the dominant type uses its influence to exploit the gentler and/or less numerous types in order to seek ever greater power and advancement for itself.

Marcel Proust gives us some interesting words on neurotics, and by neurotics I feel safe in assuming he means dreamers, for a dreamer in our Western Civilization is nothing if not a neurotic. Proust writes: "What keeps most people from suffering very much is lack of imagination.... Everything great that we know has come to us from neurotics. It is they and only they who have founded religions and created great works of art. Never will the world be aware of how much it owes to them, nor, above all, what they have suffered in order to bestow their gifts upon it."

And William James perhaps puts the matter more brilliantly than anyone when he writes, "In the psychopathic temperament we have the emotionality which is the sine qua non of moral perception; we have the intensity and tendency to emphasis which are the essence of practical moral vigor; and we have the love of metaphysics and mysticism which carry one's interests beyond the surface of the sensible world. What, then, is more natural than that this temperament should introduce one to regions of religious truth, to corners of the universe, which your robust Philistine type of nervous system, forever offering its biceps to be felt, thumping its breast, and thanking Heaven that it hasn't a single morbid fibre in its composition, would be sure to hide forever from its self-satisfied possessors? If there were such a thing as inspiration from a higher realm, it might well be that the neurotic temperament would furnish the chief condition of the requisite receptivity."

Evolution, on some levels, may promote the strongest class of men, but not always the best. That which is most worthy of preservation is sometimes small, fragile, and not yet sturdy enough to defend and assert itself against a hostile environment. Those of us who are strong must be careful and not stride too far ahead, or stride over the heads, of this finer and more tender brood of souls. For we who are strong will die out, -- or, if we do not die out, what is best in us will still die, -- if we cannot be bothered to honor and preserve what is gentlest and most tender in ourselves and in our neighbors.

Hard doctrines of self-reliance do not impress me with their disdain of what is still tender and small. What is claimed here is not an entitlement to some position of privilege or authority, but, rather, the right to exist; to exist in harmony with one's own nature (which, in the case of sensitives, is anything but hard and self-reliant); and not to be stigmatized at every turn for being that which one cannot help but be; namely, oneself (or one's type).

What is lacking in the worldly man is precisely that empathy and objectivity which belongs to the dreamer, and which allows him to see through the eyes of other men; or gods, or stones, for that matter. But the worldly man interprets everything through a narrow screen, and therefore thinks that, if he can be comfortable taking up his worldly duties and pursuing his worldly aims, then, so can everyone else. Of course, he acknowledges and makes the "necessary" allowances for obvious physical handicaps, because he must, because he cannot ignore or deny them, but he never goes so far outside of his own subjectivity in order to sympathize, let alone empathize, with the condition of his fellows; in particular, the more eccentric and socially awkward or unacceptable types among them. To do so, he fears, would severely limit his effectiveness in the world. To some extent this is true; uncertainty stimulates and opens the mind, while ultimately paralyzing the will. But it is my basic assertion that this will, because it inhibits the operation of reflection -- and, ultimately, the operations of sympathy, empathy, and compassion, which flow therefrom, -- ought not to be so heavily guarded anyway.

There is a gap between these two types wider than that between any two generations which have ever cohabited on the planet. In some cases, where the two types are particularly pronounced, or "pure", -- in other words, when we have, for example, an especially obvious representative of the dreamer contrasted with an equally obvious representative of the worldly man, -- we find two people who are more dissimilar than any two generations, or any two cultures, that have ever existed on the earth, at whatever times. Depending upon the purity of the two types, the discrepancy between them can be severe well beyond our power to imagine it. Nonetheless, it is a reality, and a very formidable one for anyone born with a markedly dreamy or markedly worldly disposition, since, any attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all morality on the whole of society (and such attempts are frequent; anything imposed is "one-size-fits-all") is bound to leave one or the other, or both, of these extreme types in the cold. In our time, it is the dreamer for whom society has no ears. Jung's interpretation of Merlin, from the Grail legend, is particularly applicable here:

"In the twelfth century, when the legend arose, there were as yet no premises by which his intrinsic meaning could be understood. Hence he ended in exile, and hence 'le cri de Merlin' ['the cry of Merlin'] which still sounded from the forest after his death. This cry that no one could understand implies that he lives on in unredeemed form. His story is not yet finished, and he still walks abroad. It might be said that the secret of Merlin was carried on by alchemy, primarily in the figure of Mercurius. Then Merlin was taken up again in my psychology of the unconscious and remains uncomprehended to this day. That is because most people find it quite beyond them to live on close terms with the unconscious. Again and again I have had to learn how hard this is for people."

One hears the objection that there must not be a double standard; that the dreamer must not be held to different responsibilities, or, god forbid, to a different level of responsibility, than the man of the world (and vice-versa, though this is seldom heard). But, is it so unthinkable to these objectors that certain people are fundamentally, in accordance with their deepest natures, different, and that the standards and purposes to which we hold them ought to reflect their differences; their own individual gifts, and the unique destinies to which God has evidently entrusted them, -- rather than reflect society's, or someone else's, narrow expectations for them? And, for God's sake, do not throw "free will" at me. Even the trite objection, "they have free will", does not translate into "they should do as we will them to do".

Notes Of Spiritual Instruction

How easy it is, to read,
and reflect on the beauty of,
the holiest thoughts.
And, again, how easy it is
to forget them.


We must learn to realize the moment;
the gravity of a suggestion; the importance
of some seemingly random thought or word;
inspired by God and almost unsuspected.


You go a little deeper. There's just a cry, and a question. A reproach, and the call that keeps repeating; for silence. "My child, where have you been from yourself? Return, and hear news!" Gravity in your guts, like a fetus; impending responsibility; the weight of the newborn world; the soul, when you sanctify it, and you've got to follow thru. Where is attention? Wandering, exploring like a child, unaware that it is lost. By and by, remembering Christ, the center, and the magnificence of Being. And, with Christ, remembering the masses, in need of consolation; starving infants, and crowds too ignorant, frightened, paralyzed, preoccupied, amused, indoctrinated, to care.


Chissel and chip,
sand and polish, my heart, Lord;
and I will bear it in patience.


This world is not my home.
This self is not my Lord.


Oppose what is excessive,
and affirm what is deficient;
there are no higher absolutes;
every truth lives for a season.


If not for Christ, I might have been
a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or Sikh; but
my heart was stolen by the thorn-crowned
thief on the cross.


Christ is:
To love unreservedly; drunkenly;
sober to all things, save Love.


Christ is:
Love in action; vitalized;
made perfect, and made flesh.


Christ is: Salvation; The Creation, created; suffering, and surrendering in prayer; the eternal crucifiction unto life; joy in the accomplishment of immaculate intent; our solace, virtue.


Jesus, good genius, enlighten us! Devoted rebel, liberate us from the fallen world; -- not the natural world, but the world as governed by man; culture; tradition; heresay; speech.


Every individual inhabits a world of her own, with laws entirely unique to itself, only ostensibly resembling the laws of other worlds.


If you seek it, you have it.


If you are not open to receive the message,
the message is not for you.


Having embraced my brother,
I go to my God.


Charity is the highest sacrament,
and the only ritual worth keeping.


Your comfort? Or your Lord?


What is the essence of Paul's interpretation of the doctrine of Salvation By Faith according to The Law of Grace? It is this: Inwardly, I am allied to Christ in the purity of my ultimate intention, but outwardly, I obey the law of my fleshly members, against my higher will. Recognizing, by faith, this perfect "inward man", I am absolved of responsibility for my sins. Absolved of responsibility, I serve the Lord by choice, without obligation, and for the sake of the greater glory of God; not my own.


God is good! His righteousness upon us! All praises to the Lord God!, who heals the sick and lifts the sinner up from out the pit. He chaperones the upright, who are privy to His presence, and works wonders in the depths of earth and soul. Lord God, who is within us and without, hidden and revealed, present and, yet, still drawing near, be praised! Be honored according to Thy goodness, which is endless and eternal. Thou Love, be blessed.


We bless God, as God blesses us.
We bless God, and magnify His light.


If the world were not a masterpiece, the choice for God would have no meaning. Who would cling to a deplorable miscellany of superficial phenomena, when there is God? And, yet, however magnificent the world may be, it is as nothing before the Lord. What makes our choice for God momentus, is equally the wonders, or temptations, of the world, and our ignorance of the greater majesty of God, -- the awareness of which can only be received on faith and by grace; the latter meaning grace proper, which is the ascending impulse, and not the more general grace, which is the descending power, permission, or given Word, that animates the whole of Creation.


The error of atheism:
You cannot prove that something cannot be proven.


Shallow meditations on deep themes:
what generally passes for deep.


As actions may be a form of communication, so, words may also be a form of action; thus it is that the one whose actions do not confirm her words, or whose words do not confirm her actions, speaks from two sides of her mouth.


Only one of the disciples, when asked, "Who do you say I am?", replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God", and, yet, the other eleven were still counted disciples. Yes, even Judas. But, how can this be so? It is so, because the Lord is salvation, not for the few who know him by name and recognize His ascendancy, but, for all. As the sun shines on us all, and as gravity holds us all to the earth, just so, the Lord is Lord of us all. Only by love and self-renunciation, may we enter into communion with God.


The Lord made His will known for us in the person of Jesus Christ, and we crucified him! How, then, shall I say to my Lord, "Lord, make Thy will known to me,"; for, if He makes known His divine will, what shall I do? Follow Christ, and be crucified? Or crucify our Lord, consciously and deliberately, in full awareness of my transgression?


Lord, humble me; be my only strength!


Even the words of the saints
may distract you from the still voice
of your own inner truth.


Sing a new song. If God wanted you to say
only what has already been said, He would
have made everyone identical.


If we are not edified by the silence of God, we will not be edified by His Word, -- and if we are not edified by the Word of God, we will not be edified by His silence. In spite of this truth, the Incarnation of the Word has profound significance as a testament to the greater glory of God. As it is written, "John forbade him, saying, 'I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?' And Jesus answering said unto him, 'Suffer it to be so now: for it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.'" Without silence, the Word could not sound, and without the Word, silence would not be silence; for the Lord is neither silence nor sound, but both of these are equally expressions of His Will.


God the Father has driven all things together out of chaos; suns and worlds to encircle them, and saints to inhabit the worlds. The name of the Lord is Order, but chaos is of the devil. Everywhere, we see the tension of these opposites; how we are constantly tempted to abandon the straight and narrow path to God, the summit, and, instead, to wander by our own imperfect lights in wayward paths down below. So well-ordered are the lives of saints and monks, the devil can find no way in. The personal will has been drawn within the gates of the spiritual life, lain at the foot of God, and exchanged for holy obedience.


We desire nothing for ourselves, nor even for the sake of others, -- nor even that we may reflect the grace of Our Lord, if it be not according to His will.


The soul can cling to a pin, as easily as to a treasure; the rich man will cling to his castle, and the poor man to his pot. For this reason, the true saints have abandoned everything for the sake of God. True poverty, such as was practiced by the Desert Fathers and Mothers, is to abandon all things, even God, for the sake of God. It is the Lord's will, that we cling to nothing, not even to His Word, in order that we may partake of the true and perfect freedom which is His.


If someone slanders me,
I should call myself blessed;
and if I judge any person,
I should judge myself cursed.


Have I been free, even for a moment?
Or always the slave of some impulse,
appetite, energy, or irritation?
Lord, show me a free man!


Not the cross, but the flesh, is burdensome.


Truth is always and everywhere the same, but the paths by which men seek to justify the mitigating of truth are various, and unique to them. It is believed that the ideal, though irreproachable, is beyond approach, and that, in order for perfect truth to be brought down to earth, it must pass through successive stages of compromise on the way to manifestation. Limits must be imposed, for that is the nature of manifestation. With this last part I am in agreement. But the ideal is not the thing which must be subjected to limitations, so that we may give license to the flesh; rather, it is the flesh which must submit. The greatness of Jesus Christ abides in this: That he chose rather to submit his own will to limitations than the will of God. And to justify the Lord's command, -- that it is indeed workable and just, -- and not to seek arguments in support of the flesh.


Silence, and abstinence from evil, shall prepare the ground wherein the higher virtues may be cultivated. We must cease to do evil, in order that we may do good without ceasing. Not indulging in, and thereby accustoming ourselves to, dissipating luxuries. Not partaking of substances or activities whose twin purpose is to stupefy the conscience and muffle the symptoms of dis-ease. Not giving way to idleness, or to preoccupation with idle concerns. Not giving expression to anger, whose only true consolation lies in peace and freedom from discord. Not frequenting those places and people liable to tempt us beyond our strength. But, hearkening to those things whereby our souls may receive true healing and edification. Seeking our joy in those simple pleasures which readily present themselves; sunrises and sunsets, and not costly representations of these. Accustoming ourselves to the fruits of the earth; unadulterated, uncontaminated, and uncomplicated by the greed of corporate men. And to the clear words of wise teachers, undistorted by the justifications of the fallen. Keeping ourselves active, that we may establish and fortify habits of activity in the service of God and man. Speaking words of love, understanding, sympathy, encouragement, and reconciliation, whereby we and our brethren are edified and purged of sinful affections. Visiting holy places and holy people, whereby the loftiest and most charitable impulses within us may be awakened and roused to action. This is how goodness is achieved.


What we discover, as we progress in the spiritual life, is that certain sins, or unhealthy and unprofitable behaviors, are prohibited, not because they are inherently wrong (although this is surely the case), but, because when a person is fully committed in devotion to God and His Word, there is not time left for sin! Who, giving proper attention to the purification of her own soul, and surrendering her personal will to this end, has the time or liberty to judge the spiritual condition of another?


Spiritual truth is easy to grasp, but hard to hold. Not the intellect, but the will, is confounded by the precepts of the wise; for it is easy to apprehend the highest truths, but difficult to practice them.


How strange it is, to regard the gifts we have received by the grace of God, and not the cross to which we are called. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." Indeed, the man who is first shall be last, if he squanders the most precious gifts of the Lord; and the last shall be first, if he only makes good use of what little has been given him. Our gifts do not mark us out as spiritually progressed, so much as the use we make of them.


Responding at once and without delay to "the call of nature", as it has been delicately named, is just one way to train ourselves to respond to the promptings of the Word of God. We must be prepared to sacrifice our will, and to leave unfinished whatever work we have taken in hand, in order to take up the cross, and follow the Christ.


We punish ourselves for our lack of virtue because we expect ourselves to be virtuous without making any great effort to be so; we have not understood that great effort is necessary; also, time, patience, perseverance, and pain. Saints are not born saints.


Consider yourself a ghost, observing the activities of the living, without power to intercede or give censure. Imagine that the world and those who inhabit it have lost all relevance for you. Pass by without attachment.

Bear humbly the insults of others and regard this as their proper use; as the business of a wheel is to roll, or a chair is to be sat upon, so, the business of insults is to be endured.

Be angry with no one, but always reflect that sin is a sickness, and endeavor to feel compassion for all who suffer from it; the more offensive their sin, the more progressed their disease, and the more dire their condition.

The empty room is still, but the one who enters it then fills it with the agitation of a restless soul. Humble yourself to the stillness of the room before you enter therein.

Whosoever understands, has already forgiven,
but whosoever loves, has already understood;
love is the end and summary of all that is good.


We are forgiven when we confess,
not because we ever deserved to be judged,
but, because it is then that we affirm, or reaffirm,
our submission to the tutelage of God;
and the very first lesson He would have us learn,
is the lesson of forgiveness.


Mercy is God's justice;
for whosoever is unfit to receive
(and so reflect) God's love will,
secretly or openly, desire His judgement,
and weep to find himself forgiven.


Where God cannot lead you,
the devil can whip you.


Led by God, or forced by Satan,
we all make the same journey.


All strive.
But only those who strive
for what is holy, succeed.
Strive as to succeed.


Whatever is not a revelation of God's love,
is a distraction from it.


Peace is not the absence,
but the fruit, of struggle.


All year long we curse this tree,
only to bless it when the harvest comes.


As difficult as it is to be disciplined by another,
it is a thousand times harder to discipline oneself.


Who does not regret the lightest transgression,
cannot truly repent of even the heaviest sin.


We would never forget to put on our clothes, but somehow we forget to "put on" the armor of Christ, and we go into the world spiritually naked; subject to the chill of every temptation, and vulnerable to spiritual disease. We spend time every day trying to appear beautiful or handsome to others, but we don't prepare our souls to reflect the true comeliness of God. Who would deny that we are fallen?


Goodness is (also) a feeling.


"It is not I", said the saint,
"but only the company I've kept,
and the books I've read, which
have brought me any grace."


The zeal of the convert:
Only those who have been outside a nation,
may know what it is to enter into it;
only those who have been without a thing,
may make the decision to have it;
and only those who have not been told,
may learn, for themselves, to believe.

Humility is one with Grace. In humility, we move gently, deliberately, imposing ourselves as little as possible upon the sanctity of silence. In this way, our eyes are openned to the quiet meaningfulness of our surroundings. Every object, especially every religious object and every work of Nature, is imbued with a subtle, yet potent, spiritual force. Only in humbling ourselves, may we come to witness the exalted state of others, of Nature, and of God.

Free Will: In abandoning Christ, we also exile Him from our hearts, forcing Him to abandon us as we have abandoned Him. Like a simple reflection, the one coincides with the other to the degree that they are not really two, but one. As we embrace Christ, faithfully keeping His statutes, so do we let down our guard, allowing Christ to embrace us, as we have embraced Him. We are always loved by Christ, but it is only when we love that we may open to receive His love for us.

Metaxu

Mystic and philosopher, Simone Weil, spoke of the world as a "metaxu", comparing it to a wall which divides two prisoners (the soul and God), yet, which they may make use of in order to communicate with each other, albeit in a relatively primitive way, by a series of signals, or taps, as it were, upon the wall.

I'd like to borrow this great word, if I may, to suggest a slightly different image, of the crust temporarily overlaying a pond in wintertime. As the world is in a ferment between order and chaos, so, the ice is frozen and rigid, while undergoing the dynamic chemical reactions of melting. With the coming of spring, like a grace, this conflict intensifies, or "heats up", as the rays of God's love and wisdom enter the ice, and cause it to split into water, on the one hand, and steam, on the other; the water molecules dropping, like bodies, back into the ubiquitous pond, while the molecules of steam ascend, like liberated spirits, up into the sky.

Understood in this way, the metaxu, and the world, is not clearly distinct from the life and soul of man, nor is it something which divides man from God. Instead, the soul exists bound, as the freedom of water molecules is bound, within the icy corporeality of the world, in the body of a man. And by the light, heat, and grace of God, we are freed to ascend in a more airy and ethereal form, out of the prison of the metaxu.

Did I say prison? But the metaxu is also that ultimate ground of being out of which man is taken; man being the self-evident jewel and fruit of the world; just as man's soul is the luster and sweetness in the heart of man. The marriage between God and the soul takes place in the light of time; which is also the light of wisdom; or truth, as it is capable of being perceived by man. This consecration is the accomplishment and fruition of the nature of metaxu, as well as its own negation, and the sacrificial dissolving of its own substance into something distinct and, yet, akin to itself.

Ultimately, for souls trapped in the world and clouded by sin, there is no clear boundary between what we are, what the world is, and what God is, -- but we may approach an intuitive understanding of these truths by the convenience of analogy.

Lower Chakra Imbalance: The Key To "Success"?

This is a great book:

Eastern Body, Western Mind:
Psychology and The Chakra System
As A Path To The Self by Judith Anodea
http://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Body-Western-Mind-Psychology/dp/0890878153

"The chakras start with
survival (at the base of the spine),
followed by sexuality (lower back),
power (solar plexus), love (heart area),
communication (throat), intuition (brow),
and cognition (crown)."
~ editorial reviews


LOWER CHAKRA IMBALANCE -
THE KEY TO "SUCCESS"???

One interesting thing this book talks about is how easy it is for people with an emphasis on the lower chakras to achieve worldly success. According to the author's research, there are many, many people in this world who have a significant chakra imbalance which actually promotes a life of self-reliance, outward achievement, and financial success. This is actually a serious illness, but, since the society we live in is sick in the same way, these people actually excel in our present society despite their illness.

"It is no measure of health, to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

Nevertheless, the ultimate result of all this "success", is that these people, despite all the security and comfort they have accrued, the respect they have earned from their contemporaries, and the (often prodigious) fruits of their labors, -- despite all of this, -- these people end up feeling alienated from humanity, empty inside, and completely unfulfilled by their success. In the latter part of their life, they begin to see the value of developing the upper chakras, but, by then, it is often too late. A life of goal-oriented thought and action, which recognizes only appearances and results, has left them with no time to form meaningful relationships, to question and examine all the perspectives which they have swallowed whole out of the hands of whatever culture they were born into, or to dream all the wandering dreams they have repressed for the sake of taking a narrow path to arrive at a preconceived goal.

The flipside of this would be people who tend to be thinkers and dreamers, and who have over-developed the upper chakras. These people are stigmatized by this society, and frequently end up homeless, locked-up, self-annihilated, or dependent on others. In the past, and in less "modern" societies, they would tend to become the shamans, artists, story-tellers; the central movers and organizers of society.

Can we imagine a society in which both types are equally honored, while an ultimate balance of the chakras is sought by both?

What Is Hypocrisy?

There are two quotes from Abba Poemen (who may be one of the early Christian hermits, or merely an invented name under which many of their sayings were collected; "poemen" comes from a Greek word meaning "shepherd"), which I wish to call attention to here, concerning the matter of hypocrisy. The first shows deep sympathy for the hypocrite himself, while the second makes a very important distinction in defining hypocrisy. Both, I believe, may alter our view of what it means to be hypocritical.

"Someone who teaches without doing what one teaches resembles a spring, which cleanses and gives drink to everyone else, but is not able to purify itself."


Here we see that a hypocrite may yet be a formidable teacher, capable of inspiring the hearts and souls of others, though unable to inspire himself to true devotion. Looked upon in this way, we may conclude that it is better to be a hypocrite, and to speak the truth without practicing it, than to neither speak nor practice. Nevertheless, we may turn some people away from the truth if we cannot exhibit it by our actions, as well as our words. They will disbelieve the teaching, and not merely the teacher, when they see that it has not been fully embraced by the very one who presumes to teach it. Nevertheless, this may still be more commendable than the effect of a man who neither speaks nor enacts true wisdom. For even the words of such men are crooked, and the truth is already compromised by their speech, to say nothing of their actions.


"A hypocrite is one who teaches one's neighbor to do something without making any effort to do it oneself."


The key word here is "any". We tend to think of a hypocrite as one who does not live up to the bar he has set for himself and for others. But, in truth, a hypocrite is one who does not practice what he preaches, and to practice a teaching is not the same as to fulfill it. We practice in order that we may fulfill.

Moreover, it is supremely difficult to judge whether or not a man is practicing virtue, just as it is difficult to tell if a person who plays the trumpet terribly is in fact practicing or merely fooling around. If he is capable of a great deal more, then it is clear that he is just making noise. But if he is truly a beginner, then, for all we know, the noise we hear may be a sincere effort on his part, and a real improvement on his last "performance".

For this reason, and for other reasons as well, we ought to refrain, as much as possible, from judging, and leave the matter to God, who can see the things which we cannot, and who alone is fit to judge the spiritual state of another. For the Christian teaching assures us that the true virtue of a man is not evidenced in the virtue he possesses, but in the virtue he endeavors to possess. It is not the height to which you have ascended on the ladder of virtue, which indicates your true stature, but, rather, the effort you are making in order to ascend. And, as stated above, this is not something which human eyes can ascertain. The most we can do is to try our best, wherever we find ourselves. And remember that what Tolstoy called "the stationary righteousness of the Pharisees" is ultimately further from God than the confession of a repentant sinner.

Hidden In Plain Sight: Why The Surface Is The Deepest Thing

A young man who calls himself "spiritual, but not religious" says, "I do not believe in Christ, -- or, if you prefer, I do; -- since I believe in Love, and Christ is merely a personification of Love. But, rather than focus on the manifestation (in this case, Christ), which is only the projection of a self-fetishizing human consciousness, I penetrate into the deeper truth, which is pure and naked Love."

The words are commendable, for the most part, but we know that there is nothing "mere" about Christ, or about the form in which God's Love has made itself felt and known to men. A form which men can learn from, not because it is a familiar and convenient symbol, but, because it is exemplary. In the words of St. Athanasius, "God became man so that man may become God."

Love may be at the root of Christ, but Christ Himself is the flower. My friends, we should question this tendency to always devalue what is on the surface. The surface is not like a wrapping which must be torn off and tossed aside, if we are to enjoy "the present". The surface, if we are receptive to its secrets (hidden in plain sight), reveals all things. Beneath the surface, there are only analogues of the surface. Christ is Love, yes. But, if we do not see Love when we see Christ, we will not see it "on the other side" of Him either; if we do not see Love when we see Christ, we can see neither Love, nor Christ. If we are not receptive to the surface, no "deeper" discoveries will satisfy us.

This youth, who so hastily dismisses religion as a "mere" surface phenomenon, imagines that he is like a man unmasking someone in disguise, but, really, he is like a man who digs up a flower in order to exhibit the roots as "proof" of the unreality of the flower; or as something "more real" than the flower itself. What could be more foolish than this? And, yet, this is symptomatic of a form of arrogance which has all but taken possession of the modern world. People in our age actually believe they are arriving at a deeper reality when they dissect, reduce, and deconstruct the world as it appears, -- in short, when they dig up the flowers.

Love is perfected in Christ, as the seed is perfected in the fruit; and Christ is perfected in Love, as the fruit is perfected in the seed. Without Christ, Love is just a gift without a giver; without Love, Christ is just a giver without a gift.

Above, I wrote: "if we do not see Love when we see Christ, we will not see it "on the other side" of Him either". This is a strong clue to the esoteric meaning of faith in Christ. Those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, in an esoteric sense, believe that Matter is the manifestation of Spirit, and what is unseen is revealed by the seen. To truly see, -- to see things, -- and not through, into, under, over, around, or behind them -- is to experience the Divine. And because it is an experience of things as they are, -- not in their essence, but in themselves, -- it is not something which may be communicated to one whom God has not prepared to receive it. To attempt to describe this experience in words would only undermine it; since words can only point through, into, under, over, around, or behind things. Words can also point at things, but only by naming them; and to name an experience is not the same as to communicate it, -- except to one who has been initiated; who has had the experience and will know it by name. The only word capable of describing the experience of a flower is "flower". But if, when you look at a flower, you see only the connections it makes to other things, then you do not see the flower. Not really. To see the flower is to see only the flower.

The Japanese poet, Basho, once wrote: "If you want to know about the pine, go to the pine. If you want to know about the bamboo, go to the bamboo." How beautiful, how profound, and how true are these words! My friends, if we desire to know about the life of a monk, we should ask a monk; and not ask one who has chosen an entirely different path. What can the forest tell you about the sea? And when we go to the monk, the sea, or the pine, what do we look for? Only the monk, the sea, or the pine; the thing as it is. We do not uncover the roots of the pine (not unless we want to know about the roots, and not the pine). We experience the thing. We receive the impression of it by a kind of spiritual osmosis. That is all.

Consider how many billions of years have passed, in order that a flower may stand in the fullness of her bloom. Or how much space was needed -- a universe so immense, our heads ache to imagine it, -- so that her petals might spread themselves some few auspicious inches. Has all the time, all the space, and all the care of Creation labored together in order to produce this delicate miracle, just so that we might dissect, reduce, deconstruct, and, -- in a word, -- rape her? How presumptuous are we, when we rush to do all the things which God has (for good reason) left undone? And we have not yet succeeded in seeing what He has done. What is the only thing left to do? What is the one thing which has not been done? Only this: To see. To see what God has done. And, having seen, to know.

The Psalms say, "Be still, and know that I am God!" This stillness is precisely what is necessary for seeing. Indeed, the stillness is the seeing. When we wish to see what is directly before us, we do not need to look in this or that direction, but only lift our eyelids. In the same way, we have only to be still, in order to see and know that God is God. "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." ~ Luke 24:23

The Evolution Of An Archetype

The following thoughts were written in response to an article on Ancient Gnosticism. In particular, the role of a Gnostic Demiurge called "Lord Archon", said to be a false god, or impostor, believed to have impersonated God in the form of the Hebrew deity Jehovah. The article may be found here: http://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/telestics/GnosticLens.php

My response:

It sounds like the story of the Archon could easily have arisen as a reaction to the "false god" of the Hebrews. It would have been a way to characterize the Jehovah of the OT as evil (which he clearly was in many instances; regardless of whether or not he actually existed as something independent of the imaginations of men). The story/myth of the Archon would have arisen naturally. It could have been deliberately invented, or arisen directly from the unconscious. Archetypes like this can arise in the mind as a response, or an interpretation, which makes the former way of seeing more palatable, or more rational, and psychically "digestible". This is somewhat difficult to explain.

In the documentary "Matter of Heart", we hear an account of how C.G. Jung told a story about a woman on the moon. The listener thought, at first, that either this man, Jung, is crazy, or she, the listener, is too unintelligent to understand his meaning. She protested, "You mean, the woman imagined, or believed, herself on the moon." But he insisted, "No, she was on the moon." As it turned out, Jung was trying to indicate a subtle truth about the nature of consciousness. Namely, that the moon we see in the mind is, in a very immediate sense, much more real than the rock that orbits the Earth at a great distance. The mental image of the moon is the real moon. Certainly, for the woman who was "on the moon", it was a very real experience indeed. These archetypes are in the mind, and "in a mysterious way", as Jung says, they are in the world.

The esoteric scholar, Manly P. Hall, tells us that, in antiquity, everything was (and/or was understood to be) ensouled. Every object had a kind of consciousness, and every idea was merely the representation of an anthropomorphic entity. Wisdom was a woman, named Sophia. This is how the ancients understood the world. Hence, the notion that Jehovah is not God would automatically result in the arising of an archetype of the false god, or impostor god. Because negating Jehovah does not make "him" nonexistent to the ancient mind. It doesn't reduce him to a wrong idea, a fiction. Rather, he is still a being (as all ideas are beings), but now he is an impostor. And since Jehovah (or what we would now call "the idea of Jehovah", or "the belief in Jehovah") was so popular, so powerful, clearly exercising tremendous influence on the affairs of men, -- it makes perfect sense that the archetype of Jehovah, for unbelievers, would be transformed into a demiurge.

The idea of Loki, the idea of Maya (goddess of illusion, in Buddhism, who rules the material realm), and the idea of Archon probably all arose as a response to a god worshiped by other sects, in order to refute that god, and disempower their hold on consciousness. We should not underestimate the influence of a god, or an idea of god, even on the mind of one who consciously disbelieves in his/her existence. In order to sever that hold, it is necessary to supplant the notion of the god with another notion. Hence, Archon is not merely envisioned as a false god, but, in fact, as the false god whom the Jews knew as Jehovah. No doubt Maya and Loki resembled their counterparts as well.

Moreover, the archetype of Lord Archon may be said to be another, higher, incarnation of the archetype of Jehovah. According to Hall, not only is everything ensouled, but everything grows and evolves. The idea or ideology of capitalism, he says, is a spirit seeking wisdom. It is a god of wealth, and it will continue to incarnate until the possession of wealth poses no threat, and does no harm, to any sentient being. The impostor Archon, then, could be seen as a step up from the jealous, angry god, Jehovah. In a sense, it is as if the god, Jehovah, is realizing, through the medium of history, that he is false. Even as men are realizing it. The two are one.

I'm sorry if I can't make this more clear, but it's one of the subtlest things (if not the most subtle thing) there is, and not easily described or understood. The fact may actually be that what we are discussing is fairly simple, but is made extremely difficult and complicated on account of all our preconceived categories of thinking. We cannot merely communicate the truth; we have to somehow subvert the notions which are inhibiting its realization. What's more, we can only use the terms and categories with which we are already familiar -- or with which we mistakenly think we are familiar. There is much to untangle.

In the final analysis, it is my present belief that we cannot know the reality of these things. They are hidden in history. Not only that, but, even two thousand years ago, when these events were occurring, pains were taken to conceal the truth. Lastly, we have to suppose that every sect had its own version of "the truth", and probably its own exoteric cover story, as well. For one sect, Jesus was a mushroom. For another, he was a man of great wisdom. For yet another, he was the one true Son of God. And for still others, these terms might be used, but only symbolically. The difficulty for us is to conceive of the possibility that all of this is true. Just as the woman spoken of by Jung really was on the moon, Jesus really was a mushroom, to the ones who saw it that way. He was also the Son of God. He was also just a man, a mortal teacher, a guru. And, yes, he was also just another symbol for the Sun, and for spiritual awakening (or the inner sun). Whatever you think he is, he is.

To imagine that we can discover one explanation, one true idea of who or what Jesus is or was, is really just absurd. Even back then, the search was ambiguous, and perhaps no less ambiguous than it is to us now. Even then, he was many things to many people. Even then, there was no right answer. Only a choice. Who do you think he is? Who is he to you? Who do you want him to be? Because what you think is really what matters. It doesn't matter if "the second coming" never happens. If you believe in it, then it is always a reality; albeit a reality which (always) has yet to happen.

This ambiguity must be accepted and embraced. Ultimately, our own desperation in the face of the unknown must be embraced. We must be able to admit that we do not know, and that we probably never will know. And we must admit that any hypothesis we form will be just that -- a hypothesis. Again, probably not one which can ever be sufficiently confirmed. What matters is the effect our notion of who (and/or what) Jesus is (and/or was) has on our inner life. Does it make us better people? Does it lead us onward towards the actualization of a righteous life? Does it make us more compassionate, more intuitive, more rational? And so on. These are not questions we can put to history. In any case, they are not likely to be answered by history. We must put them to ourselves. We must hold these notions (of Jesus, or whoever) in our hearts and minds, and see how they feel, how they fit, how they hold up against scrutiny, against misfortune, and against the world.

At the end of the day, we must understand that even the most exalted image of Christ -- that is, even the most exalted image of Christ of which we are capable of imagining, or communing with -- is something to be transcended. If we go with Manly Hall, then it is not a something, but a someone, an entity, who desires even to transcend himself, and to be re-envisioned at every successive evolutionary stage of consciousness. In this sense, Christ does not want to be known, and will overturn and overrule all our attempts to describe him. Because what he wants is always to be rediscovered. Just as, what we want is always to rediscover him. These two processes are one. We are not so much evolving an idea of him -- neither is he evolving himself, -- but, rather, it is the relationship, as depicted in consciousness, between us and him, which is evolving, and continues to evolve. We might go so far (and certainly some have gone so far) as to say that there is no us, and no him. Only this numinous relationship of one ephemeral reflection to another.

Psychology And Shamanism

The history of psychology, and then psychiatry, is particularly interesting. Prior to the theories of Freud and Jung, mental patients were dismissed and not listened to at all. All sorts of means were used to "silence the voices", and perhaps the most common was the method of completely ignoring the symptoms. For instance, when a patient would begin relating their delusions, the doctor would attempt to change the subject with something perfectly banal, like, "What nice weather we're having,".

Then came the explorers of the unconscious. In the 60's, R.D. Laing took a revolutionary position when he advocated meeting the patient half-way; actually entertaining the delusions of the patients, and discovering an inner logic to them (however removed from the logic of normal consciousness), and leading them out of the darkness by validating the illness as a genuine shamanic journey of purgation and (as Jung would say) individuation.

Laing was especially controversial in that he related the illness, not merely to the individual, but to the family, and to the culture. These sensitive individuals were merely the litmus tests, so to speak, indicating a much larger problem in the culture. Rather than turn them into scapegoats, he attempted to learn from them about the defects of the family unit, and the society as a whole.

These advances were overshadowed in the following decades, when doctors began turning more and more to drugs, and explaining (or, rather, explaining away) the illness as a mere "chemical imbalance". This was a reassertion of the dominator mentality which underlies Western Civilization; a mentality which was threatened by the spirit of the 1960's, when the culture had it's first major encounter with the shamanic medicines of the natural world.

The feeling now was to again suppress the symptoms, -- which may be delusions or visions, depending on a number of variables, including the doctor's perspective. The "one size fits all" mentality of the western mind is here evidenced in full effect. In order to get on with "business as usual", anyone who challenged the popular conceptions of reality was to be dealt with as sick, and the "cure" was to be a flooding of untested chemicals into the brains of these patients, with the effect that they would be, once again, rendered impressionable to the popular mores of the day, or (if this could not be achieved), rendered almost entirely unconscious. This is what we call treatment today.

So, how do we distinguish between mental illness and visionary health? This is perhaps the hardest question for any of us to answer, being, as we are, securely embedded in a culture which is itself rooted in delusions of conquest, competition, acquisition, hierarchy, and slavish devotion to the Protestant work-ethic. The words of Jesus apply here, "Physician, heal thyself!" We must heal our own psychic fragmentation before we can attempt to see clearly into the mind of another. Ultimately, the question is too subtle for an answer. It is something we will always be wrestling with, as long as we continue to incarnate here.

Anyone who challenges the basic, fundamental assumptions upon which their own culture rests, will automatically be seen as a threat, and probably as mentally ill. The problem is compounded by the fact that, as I've already indicated, anyone who challenges these assumptions is stigmatized, and subject to all sorts of pressures, which can result in mental illness. Furthermore, to challenge one's culture is also to challenge oneself, for we have internalized the views and expectations of our culture on such a deep level, and the division goes, not between the visionary and his community, but right through the heart of the visionary himself.

This split is a form of mental illness, but it is also a process in the journey to a higher synthesis. Unfortunately, because the culture is so backwards, it is at a loss as to how to treat the patient. His confusion is only increased, and he remains lost in the underworld of his fragmentation, unable to complete the shamanic journey. Or, the journey is aborted, and he is sequestered in a state of false security, where the great problems of the human condition do not occur to him -- often, this is the best we can do.

The rare exception is the person who is given permission to explore his visions and his madness; the two appear to go hand-in-hand (every vision is also a message alerting us to a corresponding madness). As in shamanic cultures, the individual is supported by the culture even as he cuts himself off from it. Shamans tend to live at the outskirts of their villages, and although they are positively instrumental in the governing of their communities, always remain somehow above, beyond, and outside of the nucleus of their communities. This "otherness" is not something to be "cured", or done away with, but honored and deeply respected.