Essential Teaching of Quakerism:
Quaker doctrine is minimal, while dogma is nil. We believe there is a "divine inner light" in every person (accessible through silent meditation and the contemplation of higher ideas), which illumines those who give priority to it; informing their thinking and their speech, as well as motivating their actions in the world, in such a way as to inculcate, within the collective mind, a greater awareness of the sanctity of virtues; compassion, tolerance, peace, charity, equality, patience, trust, hope, love, and so on.
This is the central tenet of the faith, and really the only doctrine, while other teachings are secondary and less than essential.
Secondary Teachings of Quakerism:
Pacifism, especially in the form of conscientious objection and nonviolent resistance, is encouraged, though every individual must decide for themselves if and when force becomes necessary or permissible.
Simplicity, or plainness, of lifestyle is likewise encouraged; materialism/consumerism is discouraged.
Truth and honesty are highly esteemed, and partly for this reason the taking of oaths is also discouraged, as it implies two standards of truthfulness; we believe that to swear or promise would be to suggest that one is less accountable to truth at other times (i.e. when one does not swear or promise), which we do not believe; moreover, that, because God is within, one is always in the presence of God (not merely when one places a hand on the Bible, for instance), so that a person who will lie without swearing is not likely to be prevented from lying by swearing.
Quakers may share various religious affiliations, though they have traditionally been Christians. In any case, the promptings of the inner light are accorded precedence over scriptures, and revelation is ongoing in the heart of every individual.
A Statement of Personal Beliefs:
I have found much to admire among the Buddhists, Hindus, Sufis, South American Shamans, and others, but Christ, along with the saints, mystics, ministers, and martyrs of Christianity, tend to be my primary religious influences.
Christ is, for me, the supreme manifestation and representation of God, though I recognize that God is ultimately formless and beyond conception.
This is in conformity with the Hindu practice of having a "chosen ideal"; an archetype or deity who carries the God projection, and therefor acts as a point of focus for religious activity. At the same time, I respect the rights of others to their own "divine projections", without considering that Christ is necessarily any more or less suitable for "the role" in an objective sense; only that he is more suitable for myself. Hence, if I call him "The Greatest" it is similar to when a child gives his father a "World's Greatest Dad" t-shirt, and should not be taken as a cause for strife; Christ is my spiritual father, Christians are my spiritual brothers and sisters, while deities of other faiths are spiritual aunts and uncles, and followers of other faiths are spiritual cousins.
Asking God for mercy and forgiveness is like asking the sun for light and heat; these belong to the incorruptible nature of divinity itself; and, though clouds of ignorance may cast shadows of guilt over the souls of men, the sun does not go black, nor does the Lord condemn. Nevertheless, there is some sense in asking God for mercy as a formality, and for convenience; as Paul says "I speak as a man", and as Christ asks to be baptized by John, because it is seemly, though he had no need to be baptized.
Moreover, the question of whether or not Jesus existed as an "actual" historical reality (in the same sense in which Gandhi existed, or in which you or I exist) or if he is "merely" mythical, is an irrelevant distinction. Christ is real without question, or we would not be speaking of him, nor having our hearts and minds inspired by the contemplation of him. The very idea of Christ has inspired more people to live virtuous lives than the actual physical presence of any other known being. If he does not belong to the material realm of fact, as our culture has defined it, yet he belongs undoubtedly to the archetypal realm of truth.
I believe that the ability to percieve how an idea or an archetype may be equally, or even more real, than a historical figure is a form of spiritual seeing, and only a person who can read "the spirit" as well as "the letter" of the law is prepared to receive this teaching.
"Who has ears to hear, let them hear."
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Some Quotes From Oscar Wilde's 'De Profundis'
"The supreme vice is shallowness."
"I am one of those who are made for exceptions, not laws... And if life be, as it surely is, a problem to me, I am no less a problem to life. People must adopt some attitude towards me, and so pass judgment, both on themselves and me."
"If I can produce only one beautiful work of art I shall be able to rob malice of its venom, and cowardice of its sneer, and to pluck out the tongue of scorn by the roots... The only people I would care to be with now are artists and people who have suffered: those who know what beauty is, and those who know what sorrow is: nobody else interests me."
"The gods had given me almost everything. But I let myself be lured into long spells of senseless and sensual ease. I amused myself with being... a dandy, a man of fashion. I surrounded myself with the smaller natures and meaner minds. I became a spendthrift of my own genius... I grew careless of the lives of others.. I forgot that every little action of the common day makes or unmakes character, and that therefore what one has done in the secret chamber one has some day to cry aloud on the housetop. I ceased to be lord over myself... I ended in horrible disgrace. There is only one thing for me now, absolute humility."
"Now I find hidden somewhere away in my nature something that tells me that nothing in the whole world is meaningless, and suffering least of all. That something hidden away in my nature, like a treasure in a field, is Humility. It is the last thing left in me, and the best: the ultimate discovery at which I have arrived, the starting-point for a fresh development. It has come right out of myself... It could not have come before, nor later. Had anyone told me of it, I would have rejected it. Had it been brought to me, I would have refused it... Of all things it is the strangest. One cannot acquire it, except by surrendering everything that one has. It is only when one has lost all things, that one knows that one possesses it."
"Every thing to be true must become a religion... I have got to make everything that has happened to me good for me. The plank bed, the loathsome food, the hard ropes shredded into oakum till one's finger-tips grow dull with pain, the menial offices with which each day begins and finishes, the harsh orders... the silence, the solitude, the shame -- each and all of these things I have to transform into a spiritual experience... I was so typical a child of my age, that in my perversity, and for that perversity's sake, I turned the good things of my life to evil, and the evil things of my life to good."
"To regret one's own experiences is to arrest one's own development... It is no less than a denial of the soul. For just as the body absorbs things of all kinds, things common and unclean no less than those that the priest or a vision has cleansed, and converts them into swiftness and strength, into the play of beautiful muscles and the moulding of fair flesh, into the curves and colours of the hair, the lips, the eye; so the soul in its turn has its nutritive functions also, and can transform into noble moods of thought and passions of high import what in itself is base, cruel and degrading; nay, more, may find in these its most august modes of assertion, and can often reveal itself most perfectly through what was intended to desecrate or destroy."
"Prosperity, pleasure and success, may be rough of grain and common in fibre, but sorrow is the most sensitive of all created things. There is nothing that stirs in the whole world of thought to which sorrow does not vibrate in terrible and exquisite pulsation... It is a wound that bleeds when any hand but that of love touches it, and even then must bleed again, though not in pain. Where there is suffering there is holy ground. Some day people will realize what that means... [People] sometimes talk of suffering as a mystery. It is really a revelation... I now see that sorrow, being the supreme emotion of which man is capable, is at once the type and test of all great art... Behind joy and laughter there may be a temperament, coarse, hard and callous. But behind sorrow there is always sorrow. Pain, unlike pleasure, wears no mask... There are times when sorrow seems to me to be the only truth. Other things may be illusions of the eye or the appetite, made to blind the one and cloy the other, but out of sorrow have the worlds been built, and at the birth of a child or a star there is pain. More than this, there is about sorrow an intense, an extraordinary reality... For the secret of life is suffering. It is what is hidden behind everything... Now it seems to me that love of some kind is the only possible explanation of the extraordinary amount of suffering that there is in the world. I cannot conceive of any other explanation. I am convinced that there is no other, and that if the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection."
"I must accept the fact that one is punished for the good as well as for the evil that one does. I have no doubt that it is quite right one should be."
"Society takes upon itself the right to inflict appalling punishment on the individual, but it also has the supreme vice of shallowness, and fails to realise what it has done. when the man's punishment is over, it leaves him to himself' that is to say, it abandons him at the very moment when its duty towards him begins. It is really ashamed of its own actions, and shuns those whom it has punished, as people shun a creditor whose debt they cannot pay... I claim on my side that if I realise what I have suffered, society should realise what it has inflicted on me; and that there should be no bitterness or hate on either side."
"The poor are wise, more charitable, more kind, more sensitive than we are. In their eyes prison is a tragedy in a man's life, a misfortune, a casualty, something that calls for sympathy in others. They speak of one who is in prison as of one who is 'in trouble' simply. It is the phrase they always use, and the expression has the perfect wisdom of love in it."
"When wisdom has been profitless to me, philosophy barren, and the proverbs and phrases of those who have sought to give me consolation as dust and ashes in my mouth, the memory of [a] little, lovely, silent act of love has unsealed for me the wells of pity: made the desert blossom like a rose, and brought me out of the bitterness of lonely exile into harmony with the wounded, broken, and great heart of the world."
"I am one of those who are made for exceptions, not laws... And if life be, as it surely is, a problem to me, I am no less a problem to life. People must adopt some attitude towards me, and so pass judgment, both on themselves and me."
"If I can produce only one beautiful work of art I shall be able to rob malice of its venom, and cowardice of its sneer, and to pluck out the tongue of scorn by the roots... The only people I would care to be with now are artists and people who have suffered: those who know what beauty is, and those who know what sorrow is: nobody else interests me."
"The gods had given me almost everything. But I let myself be lured into long spells of senseless and sensual ease. I amused myself with being... a dandy, a man of fashion. I surrounded myself with the smaller natures and meaner minds. I became a spendthrift of my own genius... I grew careless of the lives of others.. I forgot that every little action of the common day makes or unmakes character, and that therefore what one has done in the secret chamber one has some day to cry aloud on the housetop. I ceased to be lord over myself... I ended in horrible disgrace. There is only one thing for me now, absolute humility."
"Now I find hidden somewhere away in my nature something that tells me that nothing in the whole world is meaningless, and suffering least of all. That something hidden away in my nature, like a treasure in a field, is Humility. It is the last thing left in me, and the best: the ultimate discovery at which I have arrived, the starting-point for a fresh development. It has come right out of myself... It could not have come before, nor later. Had anyone told me of it, I would have rejected it. Had it been brought to me, I would have refused it... Of all things it is the strangest. One cannot acquire it, except by surrendering everything that one has. It is only when one has lost all things, that one knows that one possesses it."
"Every thing to be true must become a religion... I have got to make everything that has happened to me good for me. The plank bed, the loathsome food, the hard ropes shredded into oakum till one's finger-tips grow dull with pain, the menial offices with which each day begins and finishes, the harsh orders... the silence, the solitude, the shame -- each and all of these things I have to transform into a spiritual experience... I was so typical a child of my age, that in my perversity, and for that perversity's sake, I turned the good things of my life to evil, and the evil things of my life to good."
"To regret one's own experiences is to arrest one's own development... It is no less than a denial of the soul. For just as the body absorbs things of all kinds, things common and unclean no less than those that the priest or a vision has cleansed, and converts them into swiftness and strength, into the play of beautiful muscles and the moulding of fair flesh, into the curves and colours of the hair, the lips, the eye; so the soul in its turn has its nutritive functions also, and can transform into noble moods of thought and passions of high import what in itself is base, cruel and degrading; nay, more, may find in these its most august modes of assertion, and can often reveal itself most perfectly through what was intended to desecrate or destroy."
"Prosperity, pleasure and success, may be rough of grain and common in fibre, but sorrow is the most sensitive of all created things. There is nothing that stirs in the whole world of thought to which sorrow does not vibrate in terrible and exquisite pulsation... It is a wound that bleeds when any hand but that of love touches it, and even then must bleed again, though not in pain. Where there is suffering there is holy ground. Some day people will realize what that means... [People] sometimes talk of suffering as a mystery. It is really a revelation... I now see that sorrow, being the supreme emotion of which man is capable, is at once the type and test of all great art... Behind joy and laughter there may be a temperament, coarse, hard and callous. But behind sorrow there is always sorrow. Pain, unlike pleasure, wears no mask... There are times when sorrow seems to me to be the only truth. Other things may be illusions of the eye or the appetite, made to blind the one and cloy the other, but out of sorrow have the worlds been built, and at the birth of a child or a star there is pain. More than this, there is about sorrow an intense, an extraordinary reality... For the secret of life is suffering. It is what is hidden behind everything... Now it seems to me that love of some kind is the only possible explanation of the extraordinary amount of suffering that there is in the world. I cannot conceive of any other explanation. I am convinced that there is no other, and that if the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection."
"I must accept the fact that one is punished for the good as well as for the evil that one does. I have no doubt that it is quite right one should be."
"Society takes upon itself the right to inflict appalling punishment on the individual, but it also has the supreme vice of shallowness, and fails to realise what it has done. when the man's punishment is over, it leaves him to himself' that is to say, it abandons him at the very moment when its duty towards him begins. It is really ashamed of its own actions, and shuns those whom it has punished, as people shun a creditor whose debt they cannot pay... I claim on my side that if I realise what I have suffered, society should realise what it has inflicted on me; and that there should be no bitterness or hate on either side."
"The poor are wise, more charitable, more kind, more sensitive than we are. In their eyes prison is a tragedy in a man's life, a misfortune, a casualty, something that calls for sympathy in others. They speak of one who is in prison as of one who is 'in trouble' simply. It is the phrase they always use, and the expression has the perfect wisdom of love in it."
"When wisdom has been profitless to me, philosophy barren, and the proverbs and phrases of those who have sought to give me consolation as dust and ashes in my mouth, the memory of [a] little, lovely, silent act of love has unsealed for me the wells of pity: made the desert blossom like a rose, and brought me out of the bitterness of lonely exile into harmony with the wounded, broken, and great heart of the world."
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Smitten
so now i am smitten
love-swollen
clinically insane
dropped into a second world created by you
stunned and sunburnt
sacred
disoriented
meditating on your presence in my life
tasting your name
your grace
all that happens to me
no sun and no moon
only the sudden radiance of you to discover
and this
love-swollen
clinically insane
dropped into a second world created by you
stunned and sunburnt
sacred
disoriented
meditating on your presence in my life
tasting your name
your grace
all that happens to me
no sun and no moon
only the sudden radiance of you to discover
and this
Monday, November 7, 2011
God and Mammon
What is man's will apart from God, and what is this that we call "free will"? Simply put: It is the condition of being divided against oneself; into a lower and higher nature; the lower being an egocentric contraction into self, and the higher being a transpersonal expansion into God. Moreover, it is the ability, arising from this condition of dividedness, to follow (or to allow one's whole self to be led by) either of these two parts. In all situations, whatever thought we entertain or action we perform, we are electing to align our whole self with one of these two sides; the good or the evil. In every moment, there is a choice, and in every choice there is both victory and surrender; one side advances, the other retreats.
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
This is the scriptural verse which most perfectly illustrates the principle. It appears twice, once in Matthew and again in Luke, where it is identical. It is the only saying of Christ's, that I know of, which is not worded differently by the different evangelists. Without being able to say exactly why or how this is so, I nevertheless believe that this lack of variation is not entirely coincidental. The importance of the verse, which is itself a categorical declaration, seems to be underscored by the insistence of one evangelist not to paraphrase the other. Indeed, those who heard this saying from the mouth of Christ may have heard and remembered it identically because Christ himself may have been careful to stress it, and not to vary his wording of it during his various discourses.
We must not shrink from stark distinctions between "God and mammon", good and evil, the spirit and the flesh, the divine life and the life of the world. While we might like to seamlessly weave together these two wills, to find a balance, or a compromise between them, so as not to push ourselves into some extreme, rigid asceticism, we must remember that it is only as a concession to our present weakness that we allow such an indulgent attitude. We must not compromise the ideal, or corrupt the truth, in order to make it fit our compromised and corrupted lives; it is better to be hypocrites and to accuse ourselves, than to distort the wisdom of God; but, of course, it is best not to shrink at all from that high calling.
While moderation deserves praise, we should remember that the moderation of saints is something very different from the moderation of worldly men. For a saint, moderation means eating only a dozen (or less) mouthfuls of healthy food, once or twice a day, rather than fasting for days on end, or eating only bread and water. If he partakes of alcohol, it is to drink one sip of wine during the Eucharist, or perhaps a glass or two at a wedding celebration, such as the wedding in Galilee. For him, this would be moderation as opposed to the strict refusal to drink any alcohol, ever. But to a man caught in the snares of the world, the saint's moderation appears altogether extreme. The worldly man believes he is being moderate when he intoxicates himself only a little, or on the weekend, and when he eats large, unhealthy meals, provided they are not "overly" toxic, or "very" expensive. The terms are relative, as we can see.
What is essential to the Christian approach towards moderation is that we are always making efforts to bring our will closer to God's. We may be excused from doing what is best, provided only that we endeavor to do what is better. In this sense, there is some moral relativity. Christ was more lenient with respect to the confessions of thieves and murderers, than he was to the pride of the Pharisees, who, though outwardly good, had become complacent. We must not compare ourselves to our neighbors, for there are always some who are better and some who are worse; but we must endeavor to be better than ourselves; to be more righteous tomorrow than we are today. This is all that Christ asks of us. For some, it means following in his very footsteps; renouncing the world, spending forty days fasting and praying in the desert, and/or laying down one's life -- even for the lives of one's enemies. For others, it just means drinking a little less, giving a little less time to superficial chatter, or not cutting somebody off in traffic.
We must understand that, in all cases, there is a division between the higher and lower will. What is higher to one man may be lower to another, but, nevertheless, each man has his own higher and lower will, and his own choices to make between them.
Now, some people teach that free will is a gift from God. My own understanding is that the gifts of God are such as to draw us into alignment with His will; that is, with our own highest will. To my mind, God is purely good; He is not the creator of evil, and He would not plant this division in our hearts. If Christ brings "a sword of division", it only so that we may finish the business, by cleaving away the lower will altogether. It is as Shakespeare's Hamlet has said it, when Gertrude cried out that he had "cleft her will in twain": "Then throw away the worser part of it, and live the purer with the other half." Gertrude accuses Hamlet of creating this division, when all he has really done is alert her to it; he has demanded self-honesty from her, while she has insisted upon remaining in denial. So it is with Christ. He does not make us enemies of ourselves, but he shows us wherein we are already divided against ourselves.
While we insist on healing this division through some form of compromise, Christ makes it clear to us that this is a false hope, and a denial of the true nature of the rift. We are like wounded soldiers, with gangrene eating away at one of our arms, who refuse to recognize the seriousness of our condition. We beg and plead with the surgeon; we want to keep both our arms. But a true physician will tell us strait that if we do not amputate the infected limb then the infection will inevitably spread to our whole body. Christ, who is, for all Christians, the greatest physician in the world, tends not to our bodies, but to our souls; which is to say, he tends not to where the symptoms manifest, but to where the disease has its root. His advice to us is the same, but on a much higher level: to bear up, to grit our teeth, and to amputate that sickly part of ourselves which we have already lost, though we continue to cling to it at our own expense; to amputate the lower will. Healing will come, and wholeness with it, only when we have been purified of the lower will; when we have consented to be small and clean, rather than large and contaminated; to serve in heaven, rather than reign in our own personal hell.
I ask again, what then is free will? If it is merely the freedom to make poor choices, as well as wise ones, -- to make choices influenced by ignorance, foolishness, weakness, and depravity, as well as choices influenced by knowledge, understanding, strength, and righteousness; -- well, then, it is more of a disability than an ability. Ought we to be so proud of this "free will"? It is like that same soldier being proud that he has two arms, and not one, despite the fact that his second arm is the enemy of his whole life! Is this what we call freedom?
Many people mistakenly believe there is something shameful in following another; in being a servant and having a master. The shame, however, is in that pride which honors its own foolishness rather than the wisdom of another. Though we may be intoxicated with a distorted vision of equality, the fact is that we are all inferior to the likes of Jesus Christ. We cannot fail to see this, provided only that we take an honest, humble, and objective look at the matter. We are equal, in that we are loved by God no less than Christ was, and that we, like him, may each become saviors of worlds. But we are not the saviors of this world. At best, we are the saved. At worst, we are the lost sheep, who insist on going their own way, proudly ignorant of the dangers, only to be swallowed up by wolves.
Just as the blind cannot lead the blind, no man can shepherd himself. Those who are wise will light their own way only until they have found another whose light burns brighter than their own. They will know it when they have found it, and will not be blinded by their own light. As an expression of true leadership, they will allow themselves to be led by the absolute greatest of leaders. But a man who insists on leading himself is a man who is content to be led by one in need of a leader.
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
This is the scriptural verse which most perfectly illustrates the principle. It appears twice, once in Matthew and again in Luke, where it is identical. It is the only saying of Christ's, that I know of, which is not worded differently by the different evangelists. Without being able to say exactly why or how this is so, I nevertheless believe that this lack of variation is not entirely coincidental. The importance of the verse, which is itself a categorical declaration, seems to be underscored by the insistence of one evangelist not to paraphrase the other. Indeed, those who heard this saying from the mouth of Christ may have heard and remembered it identically because Christ himself may have been careful to stress it, and not to vary his wording of it during his various discourses.
We must not shrink from stark distinctions between "God and mammon", good and evil, the spirit and the flesh, the divine life and the life of the world. While we might like to seamlessly weave together these two wills, to find a balance, or a compromise between them, so as not to push ourselves into some extreme, rigid asceticism, we must remember that it is only as a concession to our present weakness that we allow such an indulgent attitude. We must not compromise the ideal, or corrupt the truth, in order to make it fit our compromised and corrupted lives; it is better to be hypocrites and to accuse ourselves, than to distort the wisdom of God; but, of course, it is best not to shrink at all from that high calling.
While moderation deserves praise, we should remember that the moderation of saints is something very different from the moderation of worldly men. For a saint, moderation means eating only a dozen (or less) mouthfuls of healthy food, once or twice a day, rather than fasting for days on end, or eating only bread and water. If he partakes of alcohol, it is to drink one sip of wine during the Eucharist, or perhaps a glass or two at a wedding celebration, such as the wedding in Galilee. For him, this would be moderation as opposed to the strict refusal to drink any alcohol, ever. But to a man caught in the snares of the world, the saint's moderation appears altogether extreme. The worldly man believes he is being moderate when he intoxicates himself only a little, or on the weekend, and when he eats large, unhealthy meals, provided they are not "overly" toxic, or "very" expensive. The terms are relative, as we can see.
What is essential to the Christian approach towards moderation is that we are always making efforts to bring our will closer to God's. We may be excused from doing what is best, provided only that we endeavor to do what is better. In this sense, there is some moral relativity. Christ was more lenient with respect to the confessions of thieves and murderers, than he was to the pride of the Pharisees, who, though outwardly good, had become complacent. We must not compare ourselves to our neighbors, for there are always some who are better and some who are worse; but we must endeavor to be better than ourselves; to be more righteous tomorrow than we are today. This is all that Christ asks of us. For some, it means following in his very footsteps; renouncing the world, spending forty days fasting and praying in the desert, and/or laying down one's life -- even for the lives of one's enemies. For others, it just means drinking a little less, giving a little less time to superficial chatter, or not cutting somebody off in traffic.
We must understand that, in all cases, there is a division between the higher and lower will. What is higher to one man may be lower to another, but, nevertheless, each man has his own higher and lower will, and his own choices to make between them.
Now, some people teach that free will is a gift from God. My own understanding is that the gifts of God are such as to draw us into alignment with His will; that is, with our own highest will. To my mind, God is purely good; He is not the creator of evil, and He would not plant this division in our hearts. If Christ brings "a sword of division", it only so that we may finish the business, by cleaving away the lower will altogether. It is as Shakespeare's Hamlet has said it, when Gertrude cried out that he had "cleft her will in twain": "Then throw away the worser part of it, and live the purer with the other half." Gertrude accuses Hamlet of creating this division, when all he has really done is alert her to it; he has demanded self-honesty from her, while she has insisted upon remaining in denial. So it is with Christ. He does not make us enemies of ourselves, but he shows us wherein we are already divided against ourselves.
While we insist on healing this division through some form of compromise, Christ makes it clear to us that this is a false hope, and a denial of the true nature of the rift. We are like wounded soldiers, with gangrene eating away at one of our arms, who refuse to recognize the seriousness of our condition. We beg and plead with the surgeon; we want to keep both our arms. But a true physician will tell us strait that if we do not amputate the infected limb then the infection will inevitably spread to our whole body. Christ, who is, for all Christians, the greatest physician in the world, tends not to our bodies, but to our souls; which is to say, he tends not to where the symptoms manifest, but to where the disease has its root. His advice to us is the same, but on a much higher level: to bear up, to grit our teeth, and to amputate that sickly part of ourselves which we have already lost, though we continue to cling to it at our own expense; to amputate the lower will. Healing will come, and wholeness with it, only when we have been purified of the lower will; when we have consented to be small and clean, rather than large and contaminated; to serve in heaven, rather than reign in our own personal hell.
I ask again, what then is free will? If it is merely the freedom to make poor choices, as well as wise ones, -- to make choices influenced by ignorance, foolishness, weakness, and depravity, as well as choices influenced by knowledge, understanding, strength, and righteousness; -- well, then, it is more of a disability than an ability. Ought we to be so proud of this "free will"? It is like that same soldier being proud that he has two arms, and not one, despite the fact that his second arm is the enemy of his whole life! Is this what we call freedom?
Many people mistakenly believe there is something shameful in following another; in being a servant and having a master. The shame, however, is in that pride which honors its own foolishness rather than the wisdom of another. Though we may be intoxicated with a distorted vision of equality, the fact is that we are all inferior to the likes of Jesus Christ. We cannot fail to see this, provided only that we take an honest, humble, and objective look at the matter. We are equal, in that we are loved by God no less than Christ was, and that we, like him, may each become saviors of worlds. But we are not the saviors of this world. At best, we are the saved. At worst, we are the lost sheep, who insist on going their own way, proudly ignorant of the dangers, only to be swallowed up by wolves.
Just as the blind cannot lead the blind, no man can shepherd himself. Those who are wise will light their own way only until they have found another whose light burns brighter than their own. They will know it when they have found it, and will not be blinded by their own light. As an expression of true leadership, they will allow themselves to be led by the absolute greatest of leaders. But a man who insists on leading himself is a man who is content to be led by one in need of a leader.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Vindication For Astrology
This information is all from Sydney Omarr's "My World Of Astrology".
First, and not at all insignificantly, Omarr names "five of the greatest scientists in all history" who were themselves astrologers: Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton -- the last of whom has been widely recognized, on account of his many contributions to both science and mathematics, as perhaps the preeminent example of unsurpassed scientific genius. To this day, he is the hero of scientists everywhere who, yet, still cringe to admit his long association with astrology, alchemy, and religion.
Next, Omarr passionately recommends the work of Evangeline Adams, a brilliant astrologer who published in the 1920's and '30's, and won a landmark court case in defense of astrology in 1914, when she was arrested and charged with fortunetelling. She could easily have settled out of court, but insisted on trying the case and, at even more risk to herself, further insisted on having her skills tested before the judge. She came equipped with a wealth of quotations from sources both modern and ancient, and impressed the hearers with her extensive learning and command of history. She was provided with a chart belonging to "Mr. X" and proceeded to interpret it to the glowing satisfaction of the judge. As it turned out, the chart belonged to his own son. Ms. Adams is responsible for making astrology legal in the state of New York.
Then we have John O'Neill's historic letter to Mr. Omarr in 1951. O'Neill was an accomplished astronomer, as well science editor of the New York Herald Tribune, and winner of the Pulitzer Prize and of the prestigious Clement Cleveland Medal. His letter is reproduced in Chapter 5 of Omarr's book, and significant portions of it may be found here: http://www.astrology-and-science.com/h-evol2.htm O'Neill expressed his own approval of astrology along with his regret and disappointment at the systematic stigmatization of astrology within the scientific community, and the failure of most scientists to accord it a fair hearing in conformity with the scientific method. He writes:
"For years I condemned it as unscientific and totally irrational. This was the usual formula for astronomers. Just as they have done for a long time, I condemned without making an adequate investigation of what I was condemning. Such a procedure is the utter negation of the scientific attitude, but I was quite blind to the fact at the time and mistakenly assumed I was rendering a useful service to science."
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence in favor of astrology is the work of John Henry Nelson of RCA (the Radio Corporation of America), who used astrology to predict weather patterns. Specifically, in the process of five years of experimentation, Mr. Nelson found that magnetic storms occur during significant conjunctions, squares, and oppositions, while trines and sextiles coincided with fair radio weather. Through the application of his findings, Mr. Nelson was able to save his company thousands of dollars in broadcasting costs.
Omarr mentions, -- but does not go into any depth, -- the work of Paul Flambert, who, he says, conducted statistical research into the scientific basis of astrology, yielding significant results. I have not yet looked further into the work of Paul Flambert.
Perhaps most compelling, and certainly most eminent, is Carl Gustav Jung's book, "The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche", wherein Jung presented the results of his own statistical research into which astrological configurations appear most frequently between the charts of married couples. Jung, who had utilized horoscopes extensively in his psychological practice for years prior to conducting this study, compared the data of 966 charts (483 couples). Jung concluded that the three best (or most common) interaspects for marriage are: Sun Conjunct Moon, Moon Conjunct Moon, and Moon Conjunct Ascendant -- the former two being stronger than the latter one. Jung's intention, or hope, was to corroborate the findings of astrological tradition, which he succeeded in doing. Most noteworthy would be Ptolemy's assertion that the absolute strongest correlation in marriage is when the man's Moon Conjuncts the woman's Sun. Also in conformity with tradition, Jung found that Mars and Venus are especially strongly placed, in synastry, when either conjunct or opposed, though these aspects tended to correspond to love affairs and physical attractions, and not usually to marriage. Other statistically significant interaspects, according to Jung, are Conjunctions between the wife's Ascendant and the man's Venus, and Conjunctions between the wife's Moon and the man's Ascendant. Jung writes:
"Had one wanted to falsify the statistical findings so as to bring them into line with tradition, one could not have done it more successfully."
And Omarr reiterates: "Jung's findings bore out classical astrological claims in relation to marriage."
First, and not at all insignificantly, Omarr names "five of the greatest scientists in all history" who were themselves astrologers: Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton -- the last of whom has been widely recognized, on account of his many contributions to both science and mathematics, as perhaps the preeminent example of unsurpassed scientific genius. To this day, he is the hero of scientists everywhere who, yet, still cringe to admit his long association with astrology, alchemy, and religion.
Next, Omarr passionately recommends the work of Evangeline Adams, a brilliant astrologer who published in the 1920's and '30's, and won a landmark court case in defense of astrology in 1914, when she was arrested and charged with fortunetelling. She could easily have settled out of court, but insisted on trying the case and, at even more risk to herself, further insisted on having her skills tested before the judge. She came equipped with a wealth of quotations from sources both modern and ancient, and impressed the hearers with her extensive learning and command of history. She was provided with a chart belonging to "Mr. X" and proceeded to interpret it to the glowing satisfaction of the judge. As it turned out, the chart belonged to his own son. Ms. Adams is responsible for making astrology legal in the state of New York.
Then we have John O'Neill's historic letter to Mr. Omarr in 1951. O'Neill was an accomplished astronomer, as well science editor of the New York Herald Tribune, and winner of the Pulitzer Prize and of the prestigious Clement Cleveland Medal. His letter is reproduced in Chapter 5 of Omarr's book, and significant portions of it may be found here: http://www.astrology-and-science.com/h-evol2.htm O'Neill expressed his own approval of astrology along with his regret and disappointment at the systematic stigmatization of astrology within the scientific community, and the failure of most scientists to accord it a fair hearing in conformity with the scientific method. He writes:
"For years I condemned it as unscientific and totally irrational. This was the usual formula for astronomers. Just as they have done for a long time, I condemned without making an adequate investigation of what I was condemning. Such a procedure is the utter negation of the scientific attitude, but I was quite blind to the fact at the time and mistakenly assumed I was rendering a useful service to science."
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence in favor of astrology is the work of John Henry Nelson of RCA (the Radio Corporation of America), who used astrology to predict weather patterns. Specifically, in the process of five years of experimentation, Mr. Nelson found that magnetic storms occur during significant conjunctions, squares, and oppositions, while trines and sextiles coincided with fair radio weather. Through the application of his findings, Mr. Nelson was able to save his company thousands of dollars in broadcasting costs.
Omarr mentions, -- but does not go into any depth, -- the work of Paul Flambert, who, he says, conducted statistical research into the scientific basis of astrology, yielding significant results. I have not yet looked further into the work of Paul Flambert.
Perhaps most compelling, and certainly most eminent, is Carl Gustav Jung's book, "The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche", wherein Jung presented the results of his own statistical research into which astrological configurations appear most frequently between the charts of married couples. Jung, who had utilized horoscopes extensively in his psychological practice for years prior to conducting this study, compared the data of 966 charts (483 couples). Jung concluded that the three best (or most common) interaspects for marriage are: Sun Conjunct Moon, Moon Conjunct Moon, and Moon Conjunct Ascendant -- the former two being stronger than the latter one. Jung's intention, or hope, was to corroborate the findings of astrological tradition, which he succeeded in doing. Most noteworthy would be Ptolemy's assertion that the absolute strongest correlation in marriage is when the man's Moon Conjuncts the woman's Sun. Also in conformity with tradition, Jung found that Mars and Venus are especially strongly placed, in synastry, when either conjunct or opposed, though these aspects tended to correspond to love affairs and physical attractions, and not usually to marriage. Other statistically significant interaspects, according to Jung, are Conjunctions between the wife's Ascendant and the man's Venus, and Conjunctions between the wife's Moon and the man's Ascendant. Jung writes:
"Had one wanted to falsify the statistical findings so as to bring them into line with tradition, one could not have done it more successfully."
And Omarr reiterates: "Jung's findings bore out classical astrological claims in relation to marriage."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)