Hierophant Knowledge :: Notes :: The Esoterics, Pychologies, Politics & Philosophies of Spiritual Knowledge :: Various Sources

Shaman XlX (Artwork) 

Hierophant Knowledge :: Notes :: The Esoterics, Psychologies, Politics & Philosophies of Spiritual Knowledge :: Various Sources

NON DUALITY. Science and Non Duality

Nonduality is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of non-separation and fundamental intrinsic oneness.

For thousand of years, through deep inner inquiry, philosophers and sages have came to the realization that there is only one substance and we are therefore all part of it. This substance can be called Awareness, Consciousness, Spirit, Advaita, Brahman, Tao, Nirvana or even God. It is constant, ever present, unchangeable and is the essence of all existence.

In the last century Western scientists are arriving at the same conclusion: The universe does indeed comprise of a single substance, presumably created during the Big Bang, and all sense of being - consciousness - subsequently arises from it. This realization has ontological implications for humanity: fundamentally we are individual expressions of a single entity, inextricably connected to one another, we are all drops of the same ocean.

Science and Nonduality is a journey, an exploration of the nature of awareness, the essence of life from which all arises and subsides.

There are many shades of meaning to the word nonduality. As an introduction, we might say that nonduality is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of non-separation and fundamental oneness.

Our starting point is the statement “we are all one,” and this is meant not in some abstract sense but at the deepest level of existence. Duality, or separation between the observer and the observed, is an illusion that the Eastern mystics have long recognized and Western science has more recently come to understand through quantum mechanics.

Dualities are usually seen in terms of opposites: Mind/Matter, Self/Other, Conscious/Unconscious, Illusion/Reality, Quantum/Classical, Wave/Particle, Spiritual/Material, Beginning/End, Male/Female, Living/Dead and Good/Evil. Nonduality is the understanding that identification with common dualisms avoids recognition of a deeper reality.

There are two aspects to this question, and at first glance they appear to be mutually exclusive, although they may be considered two representations of a single underlying reality.

The first aspect is our understanding of external reality, and for this we turn to science. The word science comes from the Latin scientia, which means knowledge. The beauty and usefulness of science is that it seeks to measure and describe reality without personal, religious, or cultural bias. For something to be considered scientifically proven, it has to pass exhaustive scrutiny, and even then is always subject to future revision. Inevitably human biases creep in, but the pursuit of science itself is intrinsically an evolving quest for truth. But then quantum mechanics turned much of this lauded objectivity on its head, as the role of the observer became inseparable from the observed quantum effect. It is as if consciousness itself plays a role in creating reality.  Indeed, the two may be the same thing. As quantum pioneer Niels Bohr once put it: “A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself!”

The second aspect is our inner, personal experience of consciousness, our “awareness of awareness.” We have our senses to perceive the world, but “behind” all perception, memory, identification and thought is simply pure awareness itself.  Eastern mystics have described this undifferentiated consciousness for thousands of years as being the ultimate state of bliss, or nirvana. Seekers have attempted to experience it for themselves through countless rituals and practices, although the state itself can be quite simply described. As Indian advaita teacher Nisargadatta Maharaj said: “The trinity: mind, self and spirit, when looked into, becomes unity.”

The central challenge to understanding nonduality may be that it exists beyond language, because once it has been named, by definition -- and paradoxically -- a duality has been created. Even the statement “all things are one” creates a distinction between “one” and “not-one”! Hardly any wonder that nonduality has been misunderstood, particularly in the West.

Thank you to Science and Non Duality for this excerpt

http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/nonduality.shtml

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/non-duality-science-and-non-duality.html

The Samurai Code

I have no parents. I make the Earth and sky my parents.

I have no home. In the depths of my being I make my home.

I have no Divine power. I make integrity my power.

I have no means. Humility is my means.

I have no magic power. Internal energy is my magic.

I have neither life nor death. I make the eternal my life and death.

I have no body. I make courage my body.

I have no eyes. In the flashing of light are my eyes.

I have no ears. Sensitivity is how I hear.

I have no limbs. Instantaneous movement, my limbs.

I have no law. I make my own protection my own law.

I have no strategy. Freedom to kill. Freedom to be merciful.

I have no purpose. I seize each moment.

I have no miracle. Only just law.

I have no principle. Adaptability within the Universe my principle.

I have no tactics. I make my existence. I make my void the source of tactics.

I have no talent. Total decisiveness is my talent.

I have no enemy. Irresponsibility is my enemy.

I have no armour. I make benevolence and uprightedness my armour.

I have no castle. The incorruptable spirit is a fortress to me.

I have no sword. I take as thought the promptings of the nameless realm around me and that is sword.

The Samurai Code in a Poem.

Unknown source

The Way of the Warrior. Eric Montaigue

A warrior is not just a person who has learned some moves, is able to kick at 90 miles per hour or who has won the world championships at kick-boxing. A warrior must earn his/her title. The martial artist is a person who knows things that go far deeper than just self defence, he/she is someone who walks into a room full of people and an immediate calm falls upon that room, he/she is a person who can touch a person's head or arm or hand and cause an inner stillness and peace to fall upon that person. You know a warrior not from the way he/she looks, his/her big biceps, or his/her rolled up sleeves revealing a row of tattoos, or his/her shaven head or the fact that he/she wears his/her full gi (karate uniform) to parties!

We know the warrior by his/her presence and the healing he/she automatically gives to everyone he/she meets. His/her energy, his/her 'Qi' is touching you, you don't feel anything physical, but rather the internal effect of this touching, and peace is with you.

The warrior looks upon the earth in a different way than those who are not warriors, everything, from the smallest insect to the largest mammal, and the most insignificant rock or tree is important and has life, the grass he/she walks upon, he/she thanks for softening the rough path he/she walks upon, the trees, he/she thanks for giving him/her shade and oxygen. Everything has importance because it was put there by mother earth for some reason.

Sure, he/she has to live in modern times, he/she must drive a motor car and go to the supermarket and mow his/her lawns, but always, he/she never loses sight of what he/she is, and more importantly, where he/she is. He/she knows that what he is, is not only what he/she has made himself/herself to be, but also what is handed down to him/her and what is an accumulation right inside the very cells that he/she is made of, from his/her ancestors.

Everything that they were, is now him/her, every bit of information that his/her fathers and mothers gathered, is now inside of him/her, this is how we live on in our children, we literally, and I mean literally, pass on our knowledge, along with eons of knowledge accumulated since the beginning of time, to our children.

Everything that we at the conception of our children is passed onto them. We think that we have certain talents, but the warrior knows that all that he/she is, has come from the beginning of time, he/she knows that he/she is made up of the same stuff that a rock is made of, or a tree, or a blade of grass, the difference is only physical.

He/she knows that that he/she owns nothing, and that all animals are free, his/her animals chose him/her to be with, he/she does not go the pet shop to choose a new dog, he/she knows that the dog has chosen him/her to come to that pet shop to choose it.

The warrior communicates wtih the earth, he/she talks to the dogs, to the cats and owls, to the snakes, not so much verbally, but simply by being. This is the one thing that everything on earth has in common, being.

He/she knows that there are forces at work on this earth, forces that he/she must learn to go with and to live with, otherwise he/she will surely perish. The energy within the warrior has the power to join with these forces, and then he/she has the power to change. But this comes not without payment, for he/she also knows that we cannot receive without first having paid for it. The whole of the universe is based upon this giving and taking, it is called yin and yang.

For every up there must be a down, for every happiness, there must be a sadness, for every full tummy, there must be an empty one. The warrior knows that he/she must lose in order to gain, and so he/she sacrifices. He/she sacrifices his/her food, he sacrifices his/her sexual longings, his/her everyday comforts, in order that he/she has the power to change and to help others to change.

Not in going out specifically to help others, but to have the internal power always there to automatically help others to be peaceful, and in doing so, they too will be able to see where they are,a dn who they are. We are not only someone's son or daughter, we are the sons and daughters of an infinite amount of people, those who have passed onto us their cells inside of which is hidden the very substance of creation and everything that has happened. Not 'since time began', because there is no beginning or ending.

Being a martial artist is only one hundredth of what a warrior is, it is only a part of the whole, it is what gives us the confidence to become a healer, the internal energy to make changes.

A warrior knows that we do not have teachers, but guides, the people we meet who are able to give us something internal, that something extra to cause us to become our own great teachers. Just by simply being, a guide helps us to realise that it is we, ourselves, who teach us, because the warrior also knows that locked away inside of everything, is that primordial cell that contains all information.

He/she learns to read this information which comes in the form of 'flashes' at first, and this is too much for his/her feeble human brain to handle, he/she shuts off as soon as the flash arrives. But soon he/she learns to read these flashes, and they become longer in duration than just a moment. This is when the warrior knows that he/she is reading time.

He/she learns to communicate other than speaking, he/she knows that his/her physical needs are being looked after, and needs not worry where the next mortgage payment will come from.

The warrior finds his/her place on the earth and stays there, where the power is. It is not a physical searching, but rather the warrior is 'taken' to where he/she must be, and there he/she stays, and the whole world will pass by, he/she needs not to travel, because the universe is there within him/her, and those who will in turn need to seek him/her out, will do so when their time is right, in just the same way that he/she did when he/she had to travel the world searching for his/her own guides. They then will have to learn to teach themselves from within, and also then go and find their own place, and he/she may never see them again, but this does not worry the warrior, he/she is in contact.

The warrior is not the master, he/she is not the sifu nor the sensei, these are just physical words that we put upon ourselves to make us seem important, or better than those who we guide. The warrior is a friend to his/her students, and so cannot be our master. He/she does not wish to gather students as they will search him/her out, and those who need to have a master or sensei will not stay, they will keep searching until they realise that what they search is within them, and who they search, can only be their guide.

Eric Montaigue

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/nature-of-love-amera-ziganii-rao.html

Alchemy Pt ll (Artwork) 

Official Definitions of Spirituality, Esoteric Thought and Philosophy. Mysticism

ALCHEMY

Alchemy refers to a quest for a fabled elixir or kimia (Old Persian for "elixir", later arabicized as alchemy) capable of turning copper and other base metals to gold and also a quest for something to prevent human beings' bodies from becoming old. Alchemy is both a philosophy and an ancient practice that seeks to prepare the "elixir of longevity" or philosophers' stone, accomplish the transmutation into gold, and attain ultimate wisdom. It supposedly involves the manufacture of several substances with unusual properties, as well as improvement of the alchemist. Some alchemical sources treat the various substances, equipment and processes in an allegorical sense, as metaphors for a spiritual discipline. Practical alchemy, on the other hand, can be viewed as a protoscience, the precursor to modern inorganic chemistry, having provided many procedures, equipment and names of substances that are still in use.

Alchemy has been practiced primarily in medieval Iran as well as Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Japan, Korea, the classical Greco-Roman world, the medieval Islamic world, and then medieval Europe up to the modern era, in a complex network of schools and philosophical systems spanning at least 2,500 years.

MYSTICISM

Mysticism  Self-nullification (making oneself bittel, known as abnegation of the ego) and focus upon and absorption within Ein Sof Ohr: God's Infinite Light (Hassidic schools of Judaism)* Complete non-identification with the world (Kaivalya in some schools of Hinduism, including Sankhya and Yoga; Jhana in Buddhism)* Liberation from the cycles of Karma (Moksha in Jainism, Sikhism and Hinduism, Nirvana in Buddhism)* Deep intrinsic connection to ultimate reality (Satori in Mahayana Buddhism, Te in Taoism)* Union with God (Henosis in Neoplatonism and Brahma-Prapti or Brahma-Nirvana in Hinduism, fana in Sufism, mukti in Sikhism)* Theosis or Divinization, union with God and a participation of the Divine Nature (Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy)* Innate Knowledge (Sahaja and Svabhava in Hinduism; Irfan and Sufism in Islam)* Experience of one's true blissful nature (Samadhi Svarupa-Avirbhava in Hinduism and Buddhism)* Seeing the Light, or "that of God," in everyone (Hinduism, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Sikhism)* The Love of God, as in the Hinduism, Baha'i Faith, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and many other spiritual traditions* Mahamudra and Dzogchen—meditation, the process of union with the nondual nature, in Tibetan Buddhism* Ability to see and recognize the pattern that nothing is ultimately dependent nor independent, but that everything is only compositionary and inter-reactional including the conception of the existence or non-existence of the identity of self. Identities and labels are only practical conceptions. Theravada Buddhism.

ESOTERICISM

Esotericism or Esoterism is a term that may be understood by two primary methods: formal definition and scholastic clarification.

In terms of formal definition, "Esoterism" signifies the holding of esoteric opinions or beliefs, that is, ideas preserved or understood by a small group or those specially initiated, or of rare or unusual interest. The term derives from the Greek ' (esôterikos), a compound of ' (esô): "within", thus "pertaining to the more inward", mystic. Its antonym is "exoteric".

From a scholastic perspective, the term designates a series of historically related religious currents including Astrology, Alchemy, Christian mysticism of Meister Eckhart, Johannes Tauler, and Henry Suso, the Christian Theosophy of Jacob Böhme and his followers, Illuminism, Mesmerism, Magic, Rosicrucianism, Swedenborgianism, Spiritualism, the theosophical currents associated with Helena Blavatsky and her followers, and Rudolf Steiner. There are competing views regarding the common traits uniting these currents, not all of which involve "inwardness", mystery, occultism or secrecy as a crucial trait.

GNOSTICISM

Gnosticism was a group of ancient religions that combined different elements from Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), Neoplatonism, and eventually Buddhism and early Christianity. It taught that some esoteric knowledge (or Gnosis) was necessary for salvation from the material world, which was created by some intermediary figure (or demiurge) instead of God. In some systems, the demiurge was considered evil, in others merely imperfect. Different gnostic schools sometimes identified the demiurge as Adam, Ahriman, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, or Yahweh. Many schools inverted traditional interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, leading Jewish-Israeli scholar Gershom Scholem to call Gnosticism "the Greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism." However, some scholars have argued that the Jewish mysticism Kabbalah is Gnostic.

PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".

SEXUALITY

History of Human Sexuality

The social construction of sexual behavior—its taboos, regulation and social and political impact—has had a profound effect on the various cultures of the world since prehistoric times.

Sources

Sexual speech—and by extension, writing—has been subject to varying standards of decorum since the beginning of history. For most of historic time writing has not been used by more than a small part of the total population of any society. Only in the 19th century and later are there societies where over half the population are basically literate. The resulting self-censorship and euphemistic forms translate today into a dearth of explicit and accurate evidence on which to base a history. There are a number of primary sources that can be collected across a wide variety of times and cultures, including the following:

Records of legislation indicating either encouragement or prohibition

Religious and philosophical texts recommending, condemning or debating the topic

Literary sources, perhaps unpublished during their authors' lifetimes, including diaries and personal correspondence

Medical textbooks treating various forms as a pathological condition

Linguistic developments, particularly in slang.

More recently, studies of sexuality.

THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS

The Gnostic Gospels are a collection of about fifty-two texts based upon the ancient wisdom teachings of several prophets and spiritual leaders including Jesus, written from the 2nd - 4th century AD. These gospels are not part of the standard Biblical canon of any major Christian denomination, and as such are part of what is called the New Testament apocrypha. Recent novels and films that refer to the gospels have recently increased public interest.

History

The word gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "knowledge", which is often used in Greek philosophy in a manner more consistent with the English "enlightenment". Some scholars continue to maintain traditional dating for the emergence of Gnostic philosophy and religious movements. It is now generally believed that the evidence suggests that Gnosticism was a Jewish movement which subsequently reacted to Christianity or that Gnosticism emerged directly in reaction to Christianity. The name "Christian gnostics" came to represent a segment of the Early Christian community that believed that salvation lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the revelation. According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual questions are to be found within not without. Furthermore, the gnostic path does not require the intermediation of a church for salvation. Some scholars, such as Edward Conze and Elaine Pagels, have suggested that gnosticism blends teachings like those attributed to Jesus Christ with teachings found in Eastern traditions.

Wikipedia

Alchemy ll (Artwork) 

NIHILISM

Nihilism, from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively-meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological, metaphysical or ontological forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible or that contrary to our belief, some aspect of reality does not exist as such.

The term nihilism is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realizing there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws. Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction, among others, have been identified by commentators as "nihilistic" at various times in various contexts.

Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been ascribed to time periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch, and some Christian theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity and many aspects of modernity represent a rejection of theism, and that such a rejection entails some form of nihilism.

19th-century

Though the term nihilism was first popularized by the novelist Ivan Turgenev (1818–1883) in his novel "Fathers and Sons, it was first introduced into philosophical discourse by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743–1819). Jacobi used the term to characterize fationalism and in particular Immanuel Kant's "critical" philosophy in order to carry out a reductio ad absurdum according to which all rationalism (philosophy as criticism) reduces to nihilism, and thus it should be avoided and replaced with a return to some type of faith and revelation.

Bret W. Davis writes, for example, "The first philosophical development of the idea of nihilism is generally ascribed to Friedrich Jacobi, who in a famous letter criticized Fichte's idealism as falling into nihilism. 

According to Jacobi, Fichte’s absolutization of the ego (the 'absolute I' that posits the 'not-I') is an inflation of subjectivity that denies the absolute transcendence of God." A related concept is fideism.

With the popularizing of the word nihilism by Turgenev, a new Russian political movement called the Nihilism movement adopted the term. They supposedly called themselves nihilists because nothing "that then existed found favor in their eyes."

Kierkegaard

Philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) posited an early form of nihilism which he referred to as levelling. Levelling was the process of suppressing individuality to a point where the individual's uniqueness becomes non-existent and nothing meaningful in his existence can be affirmed:

Levelling at its maximum is like the stillness of death, where one can hear one's own heartbeat, a stillness like death, into which nothing can penetrate, in which everything sinks, powerless. One person can head a rebellion, but one person cannot head this levelling process, for that would make him a leader and he would avoid being levelled. Each individual can in his little circle participate in this levelling, but it is an abstract process, and levelling is abstraction conquering individuality.

—Søren Kierkegaard, The Present Age, translated by Alexander Dru with Foreword by Walter Kaufmann, p. 51-53

Kierkegaard, an advocate of a philosophy of life, generally argued against levelling and its nihilist consequence, although he believed it would be "genuinely educative to live in the age of levelling [because] people will be forced to face the judgement of [levelling] alone." George Cotkin asserts Kierkegaard was against "the standardization and levelling of belief, both spiritual and political, in the nineteenth century [and he] opposed tendencies in mass culture to reduce the individual to a cipher of conformity and deference to the dominant opinion."

In his day, tabloids (like the Danish Corsaren) and corrupt Christianity were instruments of levelling and contributed to the "reflective apathetic age" of 19th century Europe. Kierkegaard argues that individuals who are able to overcome the levelling process are stronger for it and is a step in the right direction towards "becoming a true self." As we must overcome levelling, Hubert Dreyfus and Jane Rubin argue that Kierkegaard's interest, "in an increasingly nihilistic age, is in how we can recover the sense that our lives are meaningful".

It should be noted, however, that Kierkegaard's meaning of nihilism differs from the modern definition in the sense that, for Kierkegaard, levelling led to a life lacking meaning, purpose or value, whereas the modern definition posits that there was never any meaning, purpose or value to begin with.

Nietzsche

Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

Nihilism is often associated with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who provided a detailed diagnosis of nihilism as a widespread phenomenon of western culture. Though the notion appears frequently throughout Nietzsche's work, he uses the term in a variety of ways, with different meanings and connotations, both positive and negative. Karen Carr describes Nietzsche's characterization of nihilism "as a condition of tension, as a disproportion between what we want to value (or need) and how the world appears to operate." When we find out that the world does not possess the objective value or meaning that we want it to have or have long since believed it to have, we find ourselves in a crisis. Nietzsche asserts that with the decline of Christianity and the rise of physiological decadence, nihilism is in fact characteristic of the modern age, though he implies that the rise of nihilism is still incomplete and that it has yet to be overcome. Though the problem of nihilism becomes especially explicit in Nietzsche's notebooks (published posthumously), it is mentioned repeatedly in his published works and is closely connected to many of the problems mentioned there.

Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. This observation stems in part from Nietzsche's perspecivism, or his notion that "knowledge" is always by someone of some thing: it is always bound by perspective, and it is never mere fact. Rather, there are interpretations through which we understand the world and give it meaning. Interpreting is something we can not go without; in fact, it is something we need. One way of interpreting the world is through morality, as one of the fundamental ways in which people make sense of the world, especially in regard to their own thoughts and actions. Nietzsche distinguishes a morality that is strong or healthy, meaning that the person in question is aware that he constructs it himself, from weak morality, where the interpretation is projected on to something external. Regardless of its strength, morality presents us with meaning, whether this is created or 'implanted,' which helps us get through life. This is exactly why Nietzsche states that nihilism as "absolute valuelessness" or "nothing has meaning" is dangerous, or even "the danger of dangers": it is through valuation that people survive and endure the danger, pain and hardships they face in life. The complete destruction of all meaning and all values would be tantamount to suicide or mass-murder.

Nietzsche discusses Christianity, one of the major topics in his work, at length in the context of the problem of nihilism in his notebooks, in a chapter entitled 'European Nihilism'. Here he states that the Christian moral doctrine provides people with intrinsic value, belief in God (which justifies the evil in the world) and a basis for objective knowledge. In this sense, in constructing a world where objective knowledge is possible, Christianity is an antidote against a primal form of nihilism, against the despair of meaninglessness. However, it is exactly the element of truthfulness in Christian doctrine that is its undoing: in its drive towards truth, Christianity eventually finds itself to be a construct, which leads to its own dissolution. It is therefore that Nietzsche states that we have outgrown Christianity "not because we lived too far from it, rather because we lived too close." As such, the self-dissolution of Christianity constitutes yet another form of nihilism. Because Christianity was an interpretation that posited itself as the interpretation, Nietzsche states that this dissolution leads beyond skepticism to a distrust of all meaning.

Stanley Rosen identifies Nietzsche's concept of nihilism with this situation of meaninglessness, where "everything is permitted." According to him, the loss of higher metaphysical values which existed in contrast with the base reality of the world or merely human ideas give rise to the idea that all human ideas are therefore valueless. Rejection of idealism thus results in nihilism, because only similarly transcendent ideals would live up to the previous standards that the nihilist still implicitly holds. The inability for Christianity to serve as a source of valuating the world is reflected in Nietzsche's famous aphorism of the madman in the Gay Science. The death of God, in particular the statement that "we killed him", is similar to the self-dissolution of Christian doctrine: due to the advances of the sciences, which for Nietzsche show that man is the product of evolution, that earth has no special place among the stars and that history is not progressive,  the Christian notion of God can no longer serve as a basis for a morality.

One such reaction to the loss of meaning is what Nietzsche calls 'passive nihilism', which he recognises in the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer's doctrine, which Nietzsche also refers to as Western Buddhism, advocates a separating oneself of will and desires in order to reduce suffering. Nietzsche characterises this ascetic attitude as a "will to nothingness," whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This mowing away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears to be inconsistent:

A nihilist is a man (woman) who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos — at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.

—Friedrich Nietzsche, KSA 12:9, taken from The Will to Power, section 585, translated by Walter Kaufmann

Nietzsche's relation to the problem of nihilism is a complex one. He approaches the problem of nihilism as a deeply personal one, stating that this problem of the modern world is a problem that has "become conscious" in him. Furthermore, he emphasises both the danger of nihilism and the possibilities it offers, as seen in his statement that "I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!" According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation upon which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure.

He states that there is at least the possibility of another type of nihilist in the wake of Christianity's self-dissolution, one that does not stop after the destruction of all value and meaning and succumbs to the following nothingness. This alternate, 'active' nihilism on the other hand destroys to level the field for constructing something new. This form of nihilism is characterized by Nietzsche as "a sign of strength," a wilful destruction of the old values to wipe the slate clean and lay down one's own beliefs and interpretations, contrary to the passive nihilism that resigns itself with the decomposition of the old values. This wilful destruction of values and the overcoming of the condition of nihilism by the constructing of new meaning, this active nihilism could be related to what Nietzsche elsewhere calls a 'free spirit' or the Ubermensch from Thus Spoke Zarathustra and the Antichrist, the model of the strong individual who posits his own values and lives his life as if it were a work of art.

Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche

Many postmodern thinkers who investigated the problem of nihilism as put forward by Nietzsche, were influenced by Martin Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche. It is only recently that Heidegger’s influence on nihilism research by Nietzsche has faded. As early as the 1930s, Heidegger was giving lectures on Nietzsche’s thought. Given the importance of Nietzsche’s contribution to the topic of nihilism, Heidegger's influential interpretation of Nietzsche is important for the historical development of the term nihilism.

Heidegger's method of researching and teaching Nietzsche is explicitly his own. He does not specifically try to present Nietzsche as Nietzsche. Rather he tries to incorporate Nietzsche's thoughts into his own philosophical system of  Being, Time and Dasein. In his Nihilism as Determined by the History of Being (1944–46) Heidegger tries to understand Nietzsche’s nihilism as trying to achieve a victory through the devaluation of the, until then, highest values. The principle of this devaluation is, according to Heidegger, the Will to Power. The Will to Power is also the principle of every earlier valuation of values. How does this devaluation occur and why is this nihilistic? One of Heidegger’s main critiques on philosophy is that philosophy, and more specifically metaphysics, has forgotten to discriminate between investigating the notion of a Being (Seiende) and Being (Sein). According to Heidegger, the history of Western thought, can be seen as the history of metaphysics. And because metaphysics has forgotten to ask about the notion of Being (what Heidegger calls Seinsvergessenheit), it is a history about the destruction of Being. That is why Heidegger calls metaphysics nihilistic. This makes Nietzsche’s metaphysics not a victory over nihilism, but a perfection of it.

Heidegger, in his interpretation of Nietzsche, has been inspired by Ernst Junger. Many references to Jünger can be found in Heidegger’s lectures on Nietzsche. For example, in a letter to the rector of Freiburg University of November 4, 1945, Heidegger, inspired by Jünger, tries to explain the notion of “God is dead " as the “reality of the Will to Power.” Heidegger also praises Jünger for defending Nietzsche against a too biological or anthropological reading during the Third Reich.

A number of important postmodernist thinkers were influenced by Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche. Gianni Vattimo points at a back and forth movement in European thought, between Nietzsche and Heidegger. During the 1960s, a Nietzschean 'renaissance' began, culminating in the work of Mazzino Montinari and Giorgio Colli. They began work on a new and complete edition of Nietzsche's collected works, making Nietzsche more accessible for scholarly research. Vattimo explains that with this new edition of Colli and Montinari, a critical reception of Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche began to take shape. Like other contemporary French and Italian philosophers, Vattimo does not want, or only partially wants, to rely on Heidegger for understanding Nietzsche. On the other hand, Vattimo judges Heidegger's intentions authentic enough to keep pursuing them. Philosophers who Vattimo exemplifies as a part of this back and forth movement are French philosophers Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida. Italian philosophers of this same movement are Cacciari, Severino and himself. Habermas, Lvotard and Rorty are also philosophers who are influenced by Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche.

Postmodernism

Postmodern and poststructuralist thought question the very grounds on which Western cultures have based their 'truths': absolute knowledge and meaning, a 'decentralization' of authorship, the accumulation of positive knowledge, historical progress, and certain ideals and practices of humanism and the Enlightenment. Jacques Derrida, whose deconstruction is perhaps most commonly labeled nihilistic, did not himself make the nihilistic move that others have claimed. Derridean deconstructionists argue that this approach rather frees texts, individuals or organizations from a restrictive truth, and that deconstruction opens up the possibility of other ways of being. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, for example, uses deconstruction to create an ethics of opening up Western scholarship to the voice of the subaltern and to philosophies outside of the canon of western texts. Derrida himself built a philosophy based upon a 'responsibility to the other'. Deconstruction can thus be seen not as a denial of truth, but as a denial of our ability to know truth (it makes an epistemological  claim compared to nihilism's ontological claim).

Lyotard argues that, rather than relying on an objective truth or method to prove their claims, philosophers legitimize their truths by reference to a story about the world which is inseparable from the age and system the stories belong to, referred to by Lyotard as meta-narratives. He then goes on to define the postmodern condition as one characterized by a rejection both of these meta-narratives and of the process  of legitimation by meta-narratives. "In lieu of meta-narratives we have created new language-games in order to legitimize our claims which rely on changing relationships and mutable truths, none of which is privileged over the other to speak to ultimate truth." This concept of the instability of truth and meaning leads in the direction of nihilism, though Lyotard stops short of embracing the latter.

Postmodern theorist Jean Baudrillard wrote briefly of nihilism from the postmodern viewpoint in Simulacra and Simulation. He stuck mainly to topics of interpretations of the real world over the simulations of which the real world is composed. The uses of meaning was an important subject in Baudrillard's discussion of nihilism:

The apocalypse is finished, today it is the precession of the neutral, of forms of the neutral and of indifference…all that remains, is the fascination for desertlike and indifferent forms, for the very operation of the system that annihilates us. Now, fascination (in contrast to seduction, which was attached to appearances, and to dialectical reason, which was attached to meaning) is a nihilistic passion par excellence, it is the passion proper to the mode of disappearance. We are fascinated by all forms of disappearance, of our disappearance. Melancholic and fascinated, such is our general situation in an era of involuntary transparency.

—Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation, "On Nihilism", trans. 1995

Forms of Nihilism

Nihilism has many definitions and is thus used to describe arguably independent philosophical positions.

Moral nihilism

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.

Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, bad independently from our moral beliefs, only that because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy, what is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false.

Existential Nihilism

Existential nihilism is the belief that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. The meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism.

Epistemological Nihilism

Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied.

Metaphysical Nihilism

Metaphysical nihilism is the philosophical  theory that there might be no objects at all, i.e. that there is a possible world in which there are no objects at all; or at least that there might be no concrete objects at all, so even if every possible world contains some objects, there is at least one that contains only abstract objects.

An extreme form of metaphysical nihilism is commonly defined as the belief that existence itself does not exist. One way of interpreting such a statement would be: It is impossible to distinguish 'existence' from 'non-existence' as there are no objective qualities, and thus a reality, that one state could possess in order to discern between the two. If one cannot discern existence from its negation, then the concept of existence has no meaning; or in other words, does not 'exist' in any meaningful way. 'Meaning' in this sense is used to argue that as existence has no higher state of reality, which is arguably its necessary and defining quality, existence itself means nothing. It could be argued that this belief, once combined with epistemological nihilism, leaves one with an all-encompassing nihilism in which nothing can be said to be real or true as such values do not exist. A similar position can be found in solipsism; however, in this viewpoint the solipsist affirms whereas the nihilist would deny the self. Both these positions are forms of anti-realism.

Mereological Nihilism

Mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism) is the position that objects with proper parts do not exist (not only objects in space, but also objects existing in time do not have any temporal parts), and only basic building blocks without parts exist, and thus the world we see and experience full of objects with parts is a product of human misperception (i.e., if we could see clearly, we would not perceive compositive objects).

Political Nihilism

Political nihilism, a branch of nihilism, follows the characteristic nihilist's rejection of non-rationalized or non-proven assertions. In this case the necessity of the most fundamental social and political structures, such as government, family, law and law enforcement. The Nihilist movement in 19th century Russia espoused a similar doctrine. Political nihilism is rather different from other forms of nihilism, and is actually more like a form of Utiliatrianism.

Wikipedia 

Shaman lll (Artwork) 

Courage; The Joy of Living Dangerously. OSHO

New Insights for Living by Osho.

What is Courage.

In the beginning there is not much difference between the coward and the courageous person. The only difference is that the coward listens to his fears and follows them, and the courageous person puts them aside and goes ahead. The courageous person goes into the unknown in spite of all the fears.

Courage does not mean fearlessness. Fearlessness happens if you go on being courageous and more courageous. That is the ultimate experience of courage - fearlessness. That is the fragrance when the courage has become absolute.

But in the beginning there is not much difference between the coward and the courageous person. The only difference is that the coward listens to his fears and follows them, and the courageous person puts them aside and goes ahead. The courageous person goes into the unknown in spite of all the fears. He knows the fears, the fears are there.

When you go into the uncharted sea, like Columbus did, there is fear, immense fear, because one never knows what is going to happen. You are leaving the shore of safety. You were perfectly okay, in a way; only one thing was missing - adventure.

Going into the unknown gives you a thrill. The heart starts pulsating again; again you are alive, fully alive. Every fibre of your being is alive because you have accepted the challenge of the unknown.

To accept the challenge of the unknown, in spite of all fears, is courage. The fears are there, but if you go on accepting the challenge again and again, slowly slowly those fears disappear. The experience of the joy that the unknown brings, the great ecstasy that starts happening with the unknown, makes you strong enough, gives you a certain integrity, makes your intelligence sharp. For the first time you start feeling that life is not just a boredom but an adventure. Then slowly slowly, fear disappears; then you are always seeking and searching for some adventure.

But basically courage is risking the known for the unknown, the familiar for the unfamiliar, the comfortable for the uncomfortable, arduous pilgrimage to some unknown destination. One never knows whether one will be able to make it or not. It is gambling, but only the gamblers know what life is.

The Tao of Courage.

Life does not listen to your logic; it goes on its own way, undisturbed. You have to listen to life; life will not listen to your logic, it does not bother about your logic.

When you move into life, what do you see? A great storm comes and big trees fall. They should survive, according to Charles Darwin because they are the fittest, strongest, most powerful. Look at an ancient tree, three hundred feet high, three thousand years old. The very presence of the tree creates strength, gives a feeling of strength and power.

Millions of roots have spread inside the earth, gone deep and the tree is standing with power. Of course the tree fights - it doesn't want to yield, to surrender - but after the storm, it has fallen, it is dead, it is no longer alive, an all that strength has gone. The storm was too much - the storm is always too much,, because the storm comes from the whole, and a tree is just an individual.

Then there are small plants and ordinary grass - when the storm comes the grass yields, and the storm cannot do any harm to it. At the moment it can give it a good cleansing, that's all. All the dirt that has gathered on it is washed away. The storm gives it a good bath, and when the storm has gone, the small plants and the grasses are again dancing high. The grass has almost no roots, it can be pulled out by a small child, but the storm was defeated. What happened?

The grass followed the way of Tao, the way of Lao Tzu and the big tree followed Charles Darwin.

The big tree was very logical. it tried to resist, it tried to show its strength. If you try to show your strength, you will be defeated. All Hitlers, all Napoleans, all Alexanders are big trees, strong trees. They will all be defeated. Lao Tzus are just like small plants, nobody can defeat them because they are always ready to yield. How can you defeat a person who yields, who says, "I am already defeated", who says, "Sir, you enjoy your victory, there is no need to create any trouble. I'm defeated."

Even an Alexander will feel futile before a Lao Tzu, he cannot do anything. It happened, it happened exactly like that.

A Sannyasin, a mystic, by the name of Dandamis, existed in the days of Alexander, in the days when Alexander was in India. Friends had told Alexander when he was leaving for India that when he came back he should bring a Sannyasin, because that rare flower flowered only in India. They said, "We would like to see the phenomenon of Sannyas, what it is, what exactly a Sannyasin is."

He was so engaged in war and struggle and fight that he almost forgot about it, but when he was going back, just on the boundary of India, he suddenly remembered. He was leaving the last village, so he asked his soldiers to go into the village an inquire if there was a Sannyasin around there somewhere.

By accident Dandamis was there in the village, by the riverside, and the people said, "You have come at the right time. There are many Sannyasins, but a REAL Sannyasin is always rare and he is here now. You can have darshan, you can go and visit him."

Alexander laughed. He said "I'm not here to have darshan, my soldiers will go and fetch him. I will take him back to the capital of my country."

The villagers said, "It won't be so easy...."

Alexander could not believe it - what difficulty could there be? He had conquered emperors , great kings, so with a beggar, a Sannyasin, what difficulty could there be? His solders went to see this Dandamis, who was standing naked on the bank of the river.

They said, "Alexander the Great invites you to accompany him to his country. All comforts, whatsoever you need, will be provided. You will be a royal guest."

The naked fakir laughed and said, "You go and tell your master that a man who calls himself great cannot be great. and nobody can take me anywhere - a Sannyasin moves like a cloud, in total freedom. I am not enslaved to anybody."

They said, "You must have heard about Alexander, he is a dangerous man. If you say no to him, he won't listen, he will simply cut your head off!"

Alexander had to go, because the soldiers said, "He is a rare man, luminous, there is something of the unknown around him. He is naked, but you don't feel in his presence that he is naked - later on you remember. He is so powerful that in his presence you simply forget the whole world. He is magnetic, and a great silence surrounds him and the whole area feels as if it is delighting in the man. He is worth seeing, but there seems to be trouble ahead for him, the poor man, because he says that nobody can take him anywhere, that he is nobody's slave."

Alexander went to see him with a naked sword in his hand. Dandamis laughed and said, "Put down your sword, it is useless here. Put it back in the sheath; it is useless here because you can cut only my body and that I left long ago. Your sword cannot cut ME, so put it back, don't be childish."

And it is said that this was the first time Alexander followed somebody else's order - just because of the very presence of the man. He couldn't remember who he was. He put his sword back in the sheath and said, "I have never come across such a beautiful man." And when he was back in his camp, he said, "It is difficult to kill a man who is ready to die, it is meaningless to kill him. You can kill a person who fights, then there is some meaning in killing; but you can't kill a man who is ready and who is saying, "This is my head, you can cut it off.""

And Dandamis actually said, "This is my head, you can cut it off. When the head falls, you will see it falling on the sand and I will also see it falling on the sand, because I am not in my body. I am a witness."

Alexander had to report to his friends, "There were Sannyasins that I could have brought but they were not Sannyasins. Then I came across a man who was really something rare - and you have heard rightly, this flower IS rare, but nobody can force him because he is not afraid of death. When a person is not afraid of death, how can you force him to do anything?"

It is your fear that makes you a slave - it is your fear. When you are fearless, you are no longer a slave; in fact, it is your fear that forces you to make others slaves before they can try to make a slave out of you.

A man who is fearless is neither afraid of anybody nor makes anybody afraid of him. Fear totally disappears.
The Way of the Heart.

The word COURAGE is very interesting. It comes from a Latin root COR, which means "Heart". So to be courageous means to live with the heart. And weaklings, only weaklings, live with the head; afraid, they create a security of logic around themselves.

Fearful, they close every window and door - with theology, concepts, words, theories - and inside those closed doors and windows, they hide.

They way of the heart is the way of courage. it is to live in insecurity. It is to live in love and trust. It is to move in the unknown. it is leaving the past and allowing the future to be. Courage is to move on dangerous paths. Life is dangerous, and only cowards can avoid the danger - but then, they are already dead.

A person who is alive, really alive, vitally alive, will always move into the unknown. There is danger there, but his will take the risk. The heart is always ready to take the risk, the heart is a gambler. The head is a businessman. The head always calculates - it is cunning. The heart is non calculating.

This English word COURAGE is beautiful, very interesting. To live through the heart is to discover meaning. A poet lives through the heart and, by and by, in the heart, he starts listening to the sounds of the unknown. The head cannot listen. It is very far away from the unknown. The head is filled with the known.

What is your mind? It is all that you have known. it is the past, the dead, that which has gone. Mind is nothing but the accumulated past, the memory. Heart is the future; heart is always the hope, heart is always somewhere in the future. Head thinks about the past; heart dreams about the future.

The future is yet to come. The future is yet to be. the future has yet a possiblity - it will come, it is already coming. Every moment the future is becoming present, and the present is becoming the past. The past has no possibility, it has been used.

You have already moved away from it - it is exhausted, it is a dead thing, it is like a grave. The future is like a seed, it is coming, ever coming, always reaching meeting with the present. You are always moving. The present is nothing but a movement into the future. It is the step that you have already taken; it is going into the future.

Everybody in the world wants to be true because just to be true brings so much joy and such an abundance of blissfulness - why should one be false? You have to have the courage for a little deeper insight. Why are you afraid? What can the world do to you? People can laugh at you, it will do them good - laughter is always a medicine, healthful. People can think you are mad....just because they think you are mad, you don't become mad.

And if you are authentic about your job, your tears, your dance,, sooner or later there will be people who will start understanding you, who may start joining your caravan. I myself had started alone on the path, and then people went on coming and it became a worldwide caravan! And I have not invited anybody. I have simply done whatever I felt was coming from my heart.

My responsibility is towards my heart, not towards anyone else in the world. So is your responsibility only towards your own being. Don't go against it, because going against it is committing suicide, is destroying yourself. And what is the gain?

Even if people give you respect, and people think that you are a very sober, respectable, honourable man, these things are not going to nourish your being. They are not going to give you any more insight into life and its tremendous beauty.

How many millions of people have lived before you on this earth? You don't even know their names, whether they ever lived or not does not make any difference. There have been saints and there have been sinners, and there have been very respectable people, and there have been all kinds of eccentrics, crazy, but they have all disappeared. not even a trace has remained on the earth.

Your sole concern should be to take care of and protect those qualities that you can take with you when death destroys your body, your mind, because these qualities will be your sole companions. They are the only real values, and the people who attain them - only they live. Others only pretend to live.

The KGB knocks on Yussel Finkelstein's door one dark night. Yussel opens the door. The KGB man barks out, "Does Yussel Finkelstein live here?"
"No," replies Yussel, standing there in his frayed pyjamas.
"No? So what is your name then?"
"Yussel Finkelstein."
the KGB man knocks him to the ground and says, "Did you just say that you did not live here?"
Yussel replies, "You call this living?"

What Jesus did was in his own heart's whispering, and what Christians go on doing is not their own heart's whispering. They are imitators - and the moment you imitate, you insult your humanity, you insult your God.

Never be an imitator, be always original. Don't become a carbon copy. But that's what is happening all over the world - carbon copies and carbon copies.

Life is really a dance if you are an original - and you are meant to be an original. Just look how different Krishna is from Buddha. If Krishna had followed Buddha, we would have missed one of the most beautiful men of this earth. Or if Buddha had followed Krishna, he would have been just a poor specimen. Just think of Buddha playing the flute! He would have disturbed many peoples’ sleep, he was not a flute player.

Just think of Buddha dancing; it looks so ridiculous, just absurd.

And the same is the case with Krishna. Sitting underneath a tree with no flute, with no crown of peacock feathers, with no beautiful clothes - just sitting there like a beggar under a tree with closed eyes, nobody dancing around him, nothing of the dance, nothing of the song - and Krishna would look so poor, so impoverished.

A Buddha is a Buddha, a Krishna is a Krishna and you are you.

And you are not in any way less than anybody else. Respect yourself, respect your own inner voice and follow it.

Respect yourself, respect your own inner voice and follow it.

And remember, I am not guaranteeing you that it will always lead you to the right. Many times it will take you to the wrong, because to come to the right door, one has to knock first on many wrong doors. That’s how it is. If you suddenly stumble upon the right door, you will not be able to recognise that it is right. So remember, in the ultimate reckoning no effort is ever wasted; all efforts contribute to the ultimate climax of your growth.

So don’t be hesitant, don’t be worried too much about going wrong. That is one of the problems; people have been taught never to do anything wrong, and when they become so hesitant, so fearful, so frightened of doing wrong, that they become stuck. They cannot move, something wrong may happen. So they become like rocks, they lose all movement.

Commit as many mistakes as possible, remembering only one thing. Don’t commit the same mistake again. And you will be growing. It is part of your freedom to go astray, it is part of your dignity to go even against God. And it is sometimes beautiful to go even against God. This is how you will start having a spine; otherwise there are millions of people; spineless.

Forget all about what you have been told, “This is right and this is wrong.” Life is not so fixed. The thing that is right today may be wrong tomorrow, the thing that is wrong this moment may be right the next moment. Life cannot be pigeonholed; you cannot label it so easily, “this is right and this is wrong.” Life is not a chemist’s shop where every bottle is labelled and you know what is what. Life is a mystery: one moment something fits and then it is right; another moment, so much water has gone down the Ganges that it is no longer fits and it is wrong.

What is my definition of right? That which is harmonious with existence is right, and that which is disharmonious with existence is wrong. You will have to be very alert each moment, because it has to be decided each moment afresh. You cannot depend on ready-made answers for what is right and what is wrong. Only stupid people depend on ready-made answers for what is right and what is wrong. Only stupid people depend on ready-made answers because then they need not be intelligent, there is no need. You already know what is right and what is wrong, you can memorize the list; the list is not very big.

The Ten Commandments – so simple! – you know what is right and what is wrong. But life goes on changing continuously. If Moses comes back, I don’t think he will give you the same ten commandments – he cannot. After three thousand years, how can he give you the same commandments? He will have to invent something new.

But my own understanding is this: whenever commandments are given, they create difficulties for people because by the time they are given they are already out of date. Life moves so fast; it is a dynamism, it is not static. It is not a stagnant pool, it is a Ganges, it goes on flowing. It is never the same for two consecutive moments. So one thing may be right this moment and may not be right the next.

Then what to do? The only possible thing is to make people so aware that they themselves can decide how to respond to a changing life.

A Zen story:
There were two temples, rivals. Both the masters – they must have been so-called masters, must have really been priests – were so much against each other that they told their followers never to look at the other temple.

Each of the priests had a boy to serve him, to go and fetch things for him, to go on errands. The priest of the first temple told his boy servant, “Never talk to the other boy. Those people are dangerous.”
But boys are boys. One day they met on the road and the boy from the first temple asked the other, "Where are you going?"

The other said, "Wherever the wind takes me." He must have been listening to great Zen things in the temple, he said, "Wherever the wind takes me." A great statement, pure Tao.

But the first boy was very much embarrassed, offended and he could not find how to answer him. Frustrated, angry and also feeling guilty....."My master said not to talk with these people. These people really ARE dangerous. Now what kind of answer is this? He has humiliated me."

He went to his master and told him what had happened: "I am sorry that I talked to him. You were right, those people are strange. What kind of answer is this? I asked him, "Where are you going?" - a simple, formal question - and I knew he was going to the market, just as I was going to the market. But he said, "wherever the wind takes me."

The master said, "I warned you, but you didn't listen. Now look, tomorrow you stand at the same place again. When he comes, ask him, "Where are you going?" and he will say, "Wherever the wind takes me." then you also be a little more philosophical. Say "If you don't have any legs then" - because the soul is bodiless and the wind cannot take the soul anywhere - "What about that?"

They wanted to be absolutely ready: the whole night he repeated it again and again and again. And next morning very early he went there, stood on the right spot, and at the exact time the other boy came. He was very happy, now he was going to show him what real philosophy is. So he asked, "Where are you going?" And he was waiting.....

But the boy said, "I am going to fetch vegetables from the market."

Now, what to do with the philosophy he had learned?

Life is like that. You cannot prepare for it, you cannot be ready for it. That's its beauty, that's its wonder, that it always takes you unawares, it always comes as a surprise. If you have eyes, you will see that each moment is a surprise and no ready-made answer is ever applicable.

The Way of Intelligence.

Intelligence is aliveness, it is spontaneity. It is openness, it is vulnerability. It is impartiality, it is the courage to function without conclusions. And why do i say it is a courage? It is a courage, because when you function out of a conclusion, the conclusion protects you. The conclusion gives you security, safety. You know it well, you know how to come to it, you are very efficient with it. To function without a conclusion is to function in innocence. There is no security; you may go wrong, you may go astray.

One who is ready to go on the exploration called truth has to be ready also to commit many errors, mistakes - has to be able to risk. One may go astray, but that is how one arrives. Going many many times astray, one learns how not to go astray.

Committing many mistakes, one learns what is a mistake and how not commit it. Knowing what is error, one comes closer and closer to what is truth. it is an individual exploration; you cannot depend on others' conclusions.

You were born as a no mind.

Let this sink into your heart as deeply as possible because through that, a door opens. If you were born as a no mind, then the mind is just a social product.

It is nothing natural, it is cultivated. It has been put together on top of you.

Deep down you are still free, you can get out of it. One can never get out of nature, but one can get out of the artificial any moment one decides to.

Existence precedes thinking. So existence is not a state of mind, it is a state beyond. To BE, not to think, is the way to know the fundamental. Science means thinking, philosophy means thinking, theology means thinking.

Religiousness does not mean thinking. The religious approach is a non-thinking approach. It is more intimate, it brings you closer to reality. It drops all that hinders, it unblocks you; you start flowing into life.

You don't think that you are separate, looking. You don't think that you are a watcher, aloof, distant. You meet, mingle and merge into reality.

And there is a different kind of knowing. It cannot be called "knowledge". It is more like love, less like knowledge. It is so intimate that the word KNOWLEDGE is not sufficient to express it. The word LOVE is more adequate, more expressive.

In the history of human consciousness, the first thing that evolved was magic. Magic was a combination of science and religion. Magic had something of the mind and the no mind. Then out of magic grew philosophy. Then out of philosophy grew science. Magic was both no-mind and mind. Philosophy was only mind. And then mind plus experimentation became science. Religiousness is a state of no mind.

Religiousness and science at the two approaches to reality. Science approaches through the secondary; religiousness goes direct. Science is an indirect approach; religiousness is an immediate approach. Science goes round and round; religiousness simply penetrates to the heart of reality.

A few more things....Thinking can think only about the known - it can chew the already chewed. Thinking can never be original. How can you think about the unknown? Whatsoever you CAN manage to think will belong to the known. You can think only because you know.

At the most, thinking can create new combinations. You can think about a horse that flies in the sky, who is made of gold, but nothing is new. You know birds who fly in the sky, you know gold, you know horses; you combine the three together.

At the most, thinking can imagine new combinations, but it cannot know the unknown. The unknown remains beyond it.

So thinking goes in a circle, goes on knowing the known again and again and again. it goes on chewing the chewed.

Thinking is never original.

To come upon reality originally, radically, to come upon reality without any mediator - to come upon reality as if you are the first person to exist - that is liberating.

That very newness of it liberates.

Truth is an Experience, not a Belief.

Truth never comes by studying about it; truth has to be encountered, truth has to be faced. The person who studies about love is like the person who studies about the Himalayas by looking at the map of the mountains. The map is not the mountain! And if you start believing in the map, you will go on missing the mountain.

If you become too much obsessed with the map, the mountain may be there just in front of you, but still you will not be able to see it.

And that's how it is. The mountain is in front of you, but your eyes are full of maps - maps of the mountain, maps about the same mountain, made by different explorers.

Somebody has climbed the mountain from the north side, somebody from the east. They have made different maps; Koran, Bible, Gita - different maps of the same truth.

But you are too full of the maps, too burdened by their weight; you cannot move even an inch. you cannot see the mountain just standing in front of you, its virgin snow peaks shining like gold in the morning sun. You don't have the eyes to see it.

The prejudiced eye is blind, the heart full of conclusions is dead. Too many a priori assumptions and your intelligence starts losing its sharpness, its beauty, its intensity. it becomes dull.

Dull intelligence is what is called intellect. Your so-called intelligensia are not really intelligent, they are just intellectual.

Intellect is a corpse. You can decorate it - you can decorate it with great pearls, diamonds, emeralds, but still a corpse is a corpse.

To be alive is a totally different matter.

Science means being Definite.

Being absolutely definite, about facts. And if you are very definite about facts, then you cannot feel the mysterious - the more definite you are, the more mystery evaporates.

Mystery needs a certain vagueness; mystery needs something undefined, un-demarcated.
Science is factual; mystery is not factual, it is existential.

A fact is only a part of existence. A very small part and science deals with parts because it is easier to deal with parts. They are smaller, you can analyze them, you are not overwhelmed by them, you can possess them in your hands.

You can dissect them, you can label them, you can be absolutely certain about their qualities, quantities, possibilities - but in that very process mystery is being killed.

Science is the murder of mystery.

If you want to experience the mysterious, you will have to enter through another door, from a totally different dimension. The dimension of the mind is the dimension of science, and the dimension of meditation is the dimension of the miraculous, the mysterious.

Meditation makes everything undefined.

Meditation takes you into the unknown, the uncharted. Meditation takes you slowly, slowly into a kind of dissolution where the observer and the observed become one.

Now, that is not possible in science. The observer has to be the observer, and the observed has to be the observed, and a clear-cut distinction has to be maintained continuously.

Not even for a single moment should you forget yourself; not even for a single moment should you become interested, dissolved, overwhelmed, passionate, loving toward the object of your inquiry.

You have to be detached, you have to be very cold - cold, absolutely indifferent. And indifference kills mystery.

If you really want the experience of the mysterious, then you will have to open a new door in your being. I am not saying stop being a scientist; I am simply saying that science can remain a peripheral activity to you.

When in the lab be a scientist, but when you come out of the lab forget all about science. Then listen to the birds - and not in a scientific way!

Look at the flowers - and not in a scientific way, because when you look at a rose in a scientific way, it is a totally different kind of thing that you are looking at. It is not the same rose that a poet experiences.

The experience does not depend on the object. The experience depends on the experiencer, on the quality of experiencing.

OSHO

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/practical-wisdom-courage-osho.html

Shaman V (Artwork) 

LOVE AND THE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME; THE MYSTERY OF LOVING AN ABUSER

If you’re in a controlling and abusive relationship, you may recognize several of the characteristics described in this article by Consulting Clinical Psychologist Dr Joseph M. Carver, PhD. Part 1 describes the formation of bonds between victim and abuser, while Part 2 continues with observations about cognitive dissonance and offers suggestions for friends and family of victims.

People are often amazed at their own psychological conditions and reactions. Those with depression are stunned when they remember they’ve thought of killing themselves. Patients recovering from severe psychiatric disturbances are often shocked as they remember their symptoms and behavior during the episode. A patient with Bipolar Disorder recently told me “I can’t believe I thought I could change the weather through mental telepathy!” A common reaction is “I can’t believe I did that!”

In clinical practice, some of the most surprised and shocked individuals are those who have been involved in controlling and abusive relationships. When the relationship ends, they offer comments such as “I know what he’s done to me, but I still love him”, “I don’t know why, but I want him back”, or “I know it sounds crazy, but I miss her”. Recently I’ve heard “This doesn’t make sense. He’s got a new girlfriend and he’s abusing her too…but I’m jealous!” Friends and relatives are even more amazed and shocked when they hear these comments or witness their loved one returning to an abusive relationship. While the situation doesn’t make sense from a social standpoint, does it make sense from a psychological viewpoint? The answer is — Yes!

On August 23rd, 1973 two machine-gun carrying criminals entered a bank in Stockholm, Sweden. Blasting their guns, one prison escapee named Jan-Erik Olsson announced to the terrified bank employees “The party has just begun!” The two bank robbers held four hostages, three women and one man, for the next 131 hours. The hostages were strapped with dynamite and held in a bank vault until finally rescued on August 28th.

After their rescue, the hostages exhibited a shocking attitude considering they were threatened, abused, and feared for their lives for over five days. In their media interviews, it was clear that they supported their captors and actually feared law enforcement personnel who came to their rescue. The hostages had begun to feel the captors were actually protecting them from the police. One woman later became engaged to one of the criminals and another developed a legal defense fund to aid in their criminal defense fees. Clearly, the hostages had “bonded” emotionally with their captors.

While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as “Stockholm Syndrome” due to the publicity, the emotional “bonding” with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:

• Abused Children

• Battered/Abused Women
• Prisoners of War
• Cult Members
• Incest Victims
• Criminal Hostage Situations
• Concentration Camp Prisoners
• Controlling/Intimidating Relationships

In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The “Stockholm Syndrome” reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing “Stockholm Syndrome” will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.

Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.

It’s important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it’s easier to understand why victims support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.

Every syndrome has symptoms or behaviors, and Stockholm Syndrome is no exception. While a clear-cut list has not been established due to varying opinions by researchers and experts, several of these features will be present:

• Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
• Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release
• Support of the abuser’s reasons and behaviors
• Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
• Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
• Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment

Stockholm Syndrome doesn’t occur in every hostage or abusive situation. In another bank robbery involving hostages, after terrorizing patrons and employees for many hours, a police sharpshooter shot and wounded the terrorizing bank robber. After he hit the floor, two women picked him up and physically held him up to the window for another shot. As you can see, the length of time one is exposed to abuse/control and other factors are certainly involved.

It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:

• The presence of a perceived threat to one’s physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.

• The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
• Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
• The perceived inability to escape the situation

By considering each situation we can understand how Stockholm Syndrome develops in romantic relationships as well as criminal/hostage situations. Looking at each situation:

Perceived Threat to One’s Physical/Psychological Survival.

The perception of threat can be formed by direct, indirect, or witnessed methods. Criminal or antisocial partners can directly threaten your life or the life of friends and family. Their history of violence leads us to believe that the captor/controller will carry out the threat in a direct manner if we fail to comply with their demands. The abuser assures us that only our cooperation keeps our loved ones safe.

Indirectly, the abuser/controller offers subtle threats that you will never leave them or have another partner, reminding you that people in the past have paid dearly for not following their wishes. Hints are often offered such as “I know people who can make others disappear”. Indirect threats also come from the stories told by the abuser or controller — how they obtained revenge on those who have crossed them in the past. These stories of revenge are told to remind the victim that revenge is possible if they leave.

Witnessing violence or aggression is also a perceived threat. Witnessing a violent temper directed at a television set, others on the highway, or a third party clearly sends us the message that we could be the next target for violence. Witnessing the thoughts and attitudes of the abuser/controller is threatening and intimidating, knowing that we will be the target of those thoughts in the future.

The “Small Kindness” Perception

In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope — a small sign that the situation may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to the abuser’s benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the captor. In criminal/war hostage situations, letting the victim live is often enough. Small behaviors, such as allowing a bathroom visit or providing food/water, are enough to strengthen the Stockholm Syndrome in criminal hostage events.

In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not “all bad” and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn’t happen, that “small kindness” is interpreted as a positive sign.

Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a “soft side”. During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past — how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a “victim”. Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with “I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he’s troubled. He had a rough childhood!”

Losers and abusers may admit they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it’s almost always after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating too much junk food — now known as the “Twinkie Defense”. While it may be true that the abuser/controller had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While “sad stories” are always included in their apologies — after the abusive/controlling event — their behavior never changes! Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the “sad stories”, they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I’m beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!"

Isolation from Perspectives Other than those of the Captor

In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always “walking on eggshells” — fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst. For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser’s perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser’s potential reaction. We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller.

Taking the abuser’s perspective as a survival technique can become so intense that the victim actually develops anger toward those trying to help them. The abuser is already angry and resentful toward anyone who would provide the victim support, typically using multiple methods and manipulations to isolate the victim from others. Any contact the victim has with supportive people in the community is met with accusations, threats, and/or violent outbursts. Victims then turn on their family — fearing family contact will cause additional violence and abuse in the home.

At this point, victims curse their parents and friends, tell them not to call and to stop interfering, and break off communication with others. Agreeing with the abuser/controller, supportive others are now viewed as “causing trouble” and must be avoided. Many victims threaten their family and friends with restraining orders if they continue to “interfere” or try to help the victim in their situation. On the surface it would appear that they have sided with the abuser/controller. In truth, they are trying to minimize contact with situations that might make them a target of additional verbal abuse or intimidation. If a casual phone call from Mom prompts a two-hour temper outburst with threats and accusations — the victim quickly realizes it’s safer if Mom stops calling. If simply telling Mom to stop calling doesn’t work, for his or her own safety the victim may accuse Mom of attempting to ruin the relationship and demand that she stop calling.

In severe cases of Stockholm Syndrome in relationships, the victim may have difficulty leaving the abuser and may actually feel the abusive situation is their fault. In law enforcement situations, the victim may actually feel the arrest of their partner for physical abuse or battering is their fault. Some women will allow their children to be removed by child protective agencies rather than give up the relationship with their abuser. As they take the perspective of the abuser, the children are at fault — they complained about the situation, they brought the attention of authorities to the home, and they put the adult relationship at risk. Sadly, the children have now become a danger to the victim’s safety. For those with Stockholm Syndrome, allowing the children to be removed from the home decreases their victim stress while providing an emotionally
and physically safer environment for the children.

Perceived Inability to Escape

As a hostage in a bank robbery, threatened by criminals with guns, it’s easy to understand the perceived inability to escape. In romantic relationships, the belief that one can’t escape is also very common. Many abusive/controlling relationships feel like till-death-do-us-part relationships — locked together by mutual financial issues/assets, mutual intimate knowledge, or legal situations. Here are some common situations:

• Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. Controllers who sense their partner may be leaving will often purchase a new automobile, later claiming they can’t pay alimony or child support due to their large car payments.

• The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant problems. A Controller who has an income that is “under the table” or maintained through legally questionable situations runs the risk of those sources of income being investigated or made public by the divorce/separation. The Controller then becomes more agitated about the possible public exposure of their business arrangements than the loss of the relationship.

• The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public exposure of the victim’s personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful life due to nonstop harassment. In severe cases, the Controller may threaten an action that will undercut the victim’s support such as “I’ll see that you lose your job” or “I’ll have your automobile burned”.

• Controllers often keep the victim locked into the relationship with severe guilt — threatening suicide if the victim leaves. The victim hears “I’ll kill myself in front of the children”, “I’ll set myself on fire in the front yard”, or “Our children won’t have a father/mother if you leave me!”

• In relationships with an abuser or controller, the victim has also experienced a loss of self-esteem, self-confidence, and psychological energy. The victim may feel “burned out” and too depressed to leave. Additionally, abusers and controllers often create a type of dependency by controlling the finances, placing automobiles/homes in their name, and eliminating any assets or resources the victim may use to leave. In clinical practice I’ve heard “I’d leave but I can’t even get money out of the savings account! I don’t know the PIN number.”

• In teens and young adults, victims may be attracted to a controlling individual when they feel inexperienced, insecure, and overwhelmed by a change in their life situation. When parents are going through a divorce, a teen may attach to a controlling individual, feeling the controller may stabilize their life. Freshmen in college may be attracted to controlling individuals who promise to help them survive living away from home on a college campus.

In unhealthy relationships and definitely in Stockholm Syndrome there is a daily preoccupation with “trouble”. Trouble is any individual, group, situation, comment, casual glance, or cold meal that may produce a temper tantrum or verbal abuse from the controller or abuser. To survive, “trouble” is to be avoided at all costs. The victim must control situations that produce trouble. That may include avoiding family, friends, co-workers, and anyone who may create “trouble” in the abusive relationship. The victim does not hate family and friends; they are only avoiding “trouble”! The victim also cleans the house, calms the children, scans the mail, avoids certain topics, and anticipates every issue of the controller or abuse in an effort to avoid “trouble”. In this situation, children who are noisy become “trouble”. Loved ones and friends are sources of “trouble” for the victim who is attempting to avoid verbal or physical aggression.

Stockholm Syndrome in relationships is not uncommon. Law enforcement professionals are painfully aware of the situation — making a domestic dispute one of the high-risk calls during work hours. Called by neighbors during a spousal abuse incident, the abuser is passive upon arrival of the police, only to find the abused spouse upset and threatening the officers if their abusive partner is arrested for domestic violence. In truth, the victim knows the abuser/controller will retaliate against him/her if 1) they encourage an arrest, 2) they offer statements about the abuse/fight that are deemed disloyal by the abuser, 3) they don’t bail them out of jail as quickly as possible, and 4) they don’t personally apologize for the situation — as though it was their fault.

Stockholm Syndrome produces an unhealthy bond with the controller and abuser. It is the reason many victims continue to support an abuser after the relationship is over. It’s also the reason they continue to see “the good side” of an abusive individual and appear sympathetic to someone who has mentally and sometimes physically abused them.

Is There Something Else Involved?

In a short response — Yes! Throughout history, people have found themselves supporting and participating in life situations that range from abusive to bizarre. In talking to these active and willing participants in bad and bizarre situations, it is clear they have developed feelings and attitudes that support their participation. One way these feelings and thoughts are developed is known as “cognitive dissonance”. As you can tell, psychologists have large words and phrases for just about everything.

“Cognitive Dissonance” explains how and why people change their ideas and opinions to support situations that do not appear to be healthy, positive, or normal. In the theory, an individual seeks to reduce information or opinions that make him or her uncomfortable. When we have two sets of cognitions (knowledge, opinion, feelings, input from others, etc.) that are the opposite, the situation becomes emotionally uncomfortable. Even though we might find ourselves in a foolish or difficult situation — few want to admit that fact. Instead, we attempt to reduce the dissonance — the fact that our cognitions don’t match, agree, or make sense when combined. “Cognitive Dissonance” can be reduced by adding new cognitions — adding new thoughts and attitudes. Some examples:

• Heavy smokers know smoking causes lung cancer and multiple health risks. To continue smoking, the smoker changes his cognitions (thoughts/feelings) such as 1) “I’m smoking less than ten years ago”, 2) “I’m smoking low-tar cigarettes”, 3) “Those statistics are made up by the cancer industry conspiracy”, or 4) “Something’s got to get you anyway!” These new cognitions/attitudes allow them to keep smoking and actually begin blaming restaurants for being unfair.

• You purchase a $40,000.00 Sport Utility Vehicle that gets 8 miles a gallon. You justify the expense and related issues with 1) “It’s great on trips” (you take one trip per year), 2) “I can use it to haul stuff” (one coffee table in 12 months), and 3) “You can carry a lot of people in it” (95% of your trips are driver-only).

• Your husband/boyfriend becomes abusive and assaultive. You can’t leave due to the finances, children, or other factors. Through cognitive dissonance, you begin telling yourself “He only hits me open-handed” and “He’s had a lot of stress at work.”

Leon Festinger first coined the term “Cognitive Dissonance”. He had observed a cult (1956) in which members gave up their homes, incomes, and jobs to work for the cult. This cult believed in messages from outer space that predicted the day the world would end by a flood. As cult members and firm believers, they believed they would be saved by flying saucers at the appointed time. As they gathered and waited to be taken by flying saucers at the specified time, the end-of-the-world came and went. No flood and no flying saucer! Rather than believing they were foolish after all that personal and emotional investment — they decided their beliefs had actually saved the world from the flood and they became firmer in their beliefs after the failure of the prophecy. The moral: the more you invest (income, job, home, time, effort, etc.) the stronger your need to justify your position. If we invest $5.00 in a raffle ticket, we justify losing with “I’ll get them next time”. If you invest everything you have, it requires an almost unreasoning belief and unusual attitude to support and justify that investment.

Studies tell us we are more loyal and committed to something that is difficult, uncomfortable, and even humiliating. The initiation rituals of college fraternities, Marine boot camp, and graduate school all produce loyal and committed individuals. Almost any ordeal creates a bonding experience. Every couple, no matter how mismatched, falls in love in the movies after going through a terrorist takeover, being stalked by a killer, being stranded on an island, or being involved in an alien abduction. Investment and an ordeal are ingredients for a strong bonding — even if the bonding is unhealthy. No one bonds or falls in love by being a member of the Automobile Club or a music CD club. Struggling to survive on a deserted island — you bet!

Abusive relationships produce a great amount on unhealthy investment in both parties. In many cases we tend to remain and support the abusive relationship due to our investment in the relationship. Try telling a new Marine that since he or she has survived boot camp, they should now enroll in the National Guard! Several types of investments keep us in the bad relationship:

Emotional Investment.

We’ve invested so many emotions, cried so much, and worried so much that we feel we must see the relationship through to the finish.

Social Investment

We’ve got our pride! To avoid social embarrassment and uncomfortable social situations, we remain in the relationship.

Family Investments

If children are present in the relationship, decisions regarding the relationship are clouded by the status and needs of the children.

Financial Investment

In many cases, the controlling and abusive partner has created a complex financial situation. Many victims remain in a bad relationship, waiting for a better financial situation to develop that would make their departure and detachment easier.

Lifestyle Investment

Many controlling/abusive partners use money or a lifestyle as an investment. Victims in this situation may not want to lose their current lifestyle.

Intimacy Investment

We often invest emotional and sexual intimacy. Some victims have experienced a destruction of their emotional and/or sexual self-esteem in the unhealthy relationship. The abusing partner may threaten to spread rumors or tell intimate details or secrets. A type of blackmail using intimacy is often found in these situations.

In many cases, it’s not simply our feelings for an individual that keep us in an unhealthy relationship — it’s often the amount of investment. Relationships are complex and we often only see the tip of the iceberg in public. For this reason, the most common phrase offered by the victim in defense of their unhealthy relationship is “You just don’t understand!”

The combination of “Stockholm Syndrome” and “cognitive dissonance” produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival. The victim feels they would mentally collapse if the relationship ended. In long-term relationships, the victims have invested everything and placed “all their eggs in one basket”. The relationship now decides their level of self-esteem, self-worth, and emotional health.

For reasons described above, the victim feels family and friends are a threat to the relationship and eventually to their personal health and existence. The more family/friends protest the controlling and abusive nature of the relationship, the more the victim develops cognitive dissonance and becomes defensive. At this point, family and friends become victims of the abusive and controlling individual.

Importantly, both Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance develop on an involuntary basis. The victim does not purposely invent this attitude. Both develop as an attempt to exist and survive in a threatening and controlling environment and relationship. Despite what we might think, our loved one is not in the unhealthy relationship to irritate us, embarrass us, or drive us to drink. What might have begun as a normal relationship has turned into a controlling and abusive situation. They are trying to survive. Their personality is developing the feelings and thoughts needed to survive the situation and lower their emotional and physical risks. All of us have developed attitudes and feelings that help us accept and survive situations. We have these attitudes/feelings about our jobs, our community, and other aspects of our life. As we have found throughout history, the more dysfunctional the situation, the more dysfunctional our adaptation and thoughts to survive. The victim is engaged in an attempt to survive and make a relationship work. Once they decide it doesn’t work and can’t be fixed, they will need our support as we patiently await their decision to return to a healthy and positive lifestyle.

When a family is confronted with a loved one involved with a Loser or controlling/abusive individual, the situation becomes emotionally painful and socially difficult for the family. While each situation is different, some general guidelines to consider are:

• Your loved one, the "victim" of the Loser/Abuser, has probably been given a choice — the relationship or the family. This choice is made more difficult by the control and intimidation often present in abusive/controlling relationships. Knowing that choosing the family will result in severe personal and social consequences, the family always comes in second. Keep in mind that the victim knows in their heart the family will always love them and accept their return — whenever the return happens.

• Remember, the more you pressure the "victim" of the Loser/Abuser, the more you prove their point. Your loved one is being told the family is trying to ruin their wonderful relationship. Pressure in the form of contacts, comments, and communications will be used as evidence against you. An invitation to a Tupperware party is met with “You see! They just want to get you by yourself so they can tell you bad things about me!” Increasing your contacts is viewed as “putting pressure” on their relationship — not being lovingly concerned.

• Your contacts with your loved one, no matter how routine and loving, may be met with anger and resentment. This is because each contact may prompt the Loser/Abuser to attack them verbally or emotionally. Imagine getting a four-hour lecture every time your Aunt Gladys calls. In a short time, you become angry each time she calls, knowing what the contact will produce in your home. The longer Aunt Gladys talks — the longer your lecture becomes! Thus, when Aunt Gladys calls, you want to get her off the phone as quickly as possible.

• The 1980’s song, ”Hold on Loosely”, may be the key to a good family and friend approach. Holding on too tightly produces more pressure. When the victim is out of the home, it’s often best to establish predictable, scheduled contacts. Calling every Wednesday evening, just for a status report or to go over current events, is less threatening than random calls during the week. Random calls are always viewed as “checking up on us” calls. While you may encounter an answering machine, leave a polite and loving message. Importantly, don’t discuss the relationship (the controller may be listening!) unless the victim brings it up. The goal of these scheduled calls is to maintain contact, remind your loved one that you are always there to help, and to quietly remind the controller that family and loved ones are nearby and haven’t disappeared.

• Try to maintain traditional and special contacts with your loved one — holidays, special occasions, etc. Keep your contacts short and brief, with no comments that can be used as evidence. Contacts made at “traditional” times — holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, etc. — are not as threatening to a controller/abuser. Contacts that provide information, but not questions, are also not as threatening. An example might be a simple card reading “Just a note to let you know that your brother landed a new job this week. You might see him on a Wal-Mart commercial any day now. Love, Mom and Dad”. This approach allows the victim to recognize that the family is there — waiting in the wings if needed. It also lessens the lectures/tantrums provided by the Loser as the contacts are on a traditional and expected basis. It’s also hard to be angry about brother’s new job without looking ridiculous. Also, don’t invent holidays or send a reminder that it’s Sigmund Freud’s birthday. That’s suspicious…even in my family.

• Remember that there are many channels of communication. It’s important that we keep a channel open if at all possible. Communication channels might include phone calls, letters, cards, and e-mail. Scheduled monthly shopping trips or outings are helpful if possible. The goal is to maintain contact while your loved one is involved in the controlling/abusive relationship. Remember, the goal is contact, not pressure.

• Don’t feel the victim’s behavior is against the family or friends. It may be a form of survival or a way of lowering stress. Victims may be very resistive, angry, and even hostile due to the complexity of their relationship with the controller/abuser. They may even curse, threaten, and accuse loved ones and friends. This hostile defensiveness is actually self-protection in the relationship — an attempt to avoid “trouble”.

• The victim needs to know and feel they are not rejected because of their behavior. Keep in mind, they are painfully aware of their situation. They know they are being treated badly and/or controlled by their partner. Frequent reminders of this will only make them want less contact. We naturally avoid people who remind us of things or situations that are emotionally painful.

• Victims may slightly open the door and provide information about their relationship or hint they may be considering leaving. When the door opens, don’t jump through with the Marines behind you! Listen and simply offer support such as "You know your family is behind any decision you need to make and at any time you make it." They may be exploring what support is available but may not be ready to call in the troops just yet. Many victims use an “exit plan” that may take months or even years to complete. They may be gathering information at this point, not yet ready for an exit.

• We can get messages to people in two ways — the pipeline and the grapevine. The pipeline is face-to-face, telling the person directly. This seldom happens in Loser situations as controllers and abusers monitor and control contacts with others. However, the grapevine is still open. When we use the grapevine, we send a message to our loved one through another person. Victims of controlling and abusive individuals are often allowed to maintain a relationship with a few people, perhaps a sibling or best friend. We can send our loved one a message through that contact person, a message that voices our understanding and support. We don’t send insults ("Bill is such a jerk!) or put-downs ("If he doesn’t get out of this relationship he’ll end up crazy!) — we send messages of love and support. We send "I hope she/he (victim) knows the family is concerned and that we love and support them." Comments sent on the grapevine are phrased with the understanding that our loved one will hear them in that manner. Don’t talk with a grapevine contact to express anger and threaten to hire a hit man, and then try to send a message of loving support. Be careful what and how the message is provided. The grapevine contact can often get messages to the victim when we can’t. It’s another way of letting them know we’re supporting them, just waiting to help if and when needed.

• Each situation is different. The family may need to seek counseling support in the community. A family consultation with a mental health professional or attorney may be helpful if the situation becomes legally complex or there is a significant danger of harm.

• As relatives or friends of a victim involved with a controller or abuser, our normal reaction is to consider dramatic action. We become angry, resentful, and aggressive at times. Our mind fills with a variety of plans that often range from rescue and kidnapping to ambushing the controller/abuser with a ball bat. A rule of thumb is that any aggression toward the controller/abuser will result in additional difficulties for your loved one. Try to remain calm and await an opportunity to show your love and support when your loved one needs it.

• In some cases, as in teenagers and young adults, the family may still provide some financial, insurance, or other support. When we receive angry responses to our phone calls, our anger and resentment tells us to cut off their support. I’ve heard “If she’s going to date that jerk, it’s not going to be in a car I’m paying for!” and “If he’s choosing that woman over his family, he can drop out of college and flip hamburgers!” Withdrawing financial support only makes your loved one more dependent upon the controller/abuser. Remember, if we’re aggressive by threatening, withdrawing support, or pressuring — we become the threatening force, not the controller/abuser. It actually moves the victim into the support of the controller. Sadly, the more of an “ordeal” they experience, the more bonding takes place, as noted with both Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance.

• As you might imagine, the combination of Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance may also be active when our loved one is involved in cults, unusual religions, and other groups. In some situations, the abuser and controller is actually a group or organization. Victims are punished if they are viewed as disloyal to the group. While this article deals with individual relationships, the family guidelines may also be helpful in controlling-group situations.

• You may be the victim of a controlling and abusive partner, seeking an understanding of your feelings and attitudes. You may have a son, daughter, or friend currently involved with a controlling and abusive partner, looking for ways to understand and help.

• If a loved one is involved with a Loser, a controlling and abusing partner, the long-term outcome is difficult to determine due to the many factors involved. If their relationship is in the “dating” phase, they may end the relationship on their own. If the relationship has continued for over a year, they may require support and an exit plan before ending the relationship. Marriage and children further complicate their ability to leave the situation. When the victim decides to end the unhappy relationship, it’s important that they view loved ones as supportive, loving, and understanding — not as a source of pressure, guilt, or aggression.

• This article is an attempt to understand the complex feelings and attitudes that are as puzzling to the victim as they are to family and friends. Separately, I’ve outlined recommendations for detaching from a Loser or controlling/abusive individual, but clearly, there are more victims in this situation. It is hoped this article is helpful to family and friends who worry, cry, and have difficulty understanding the situation of their loved one. It has been said that knowledge is power. Hopefully this knowledge will prove helpful and powerful to victims and their loved ones.

• Please consider this article as a general guideline. Some recommendations may be appropriate and helpful while some may not apply to a specific situation. In many cases, we may need additional professional help of a mental health or legal nature.

THE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Friedrich Nietzsche

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/bloodshed-of-ascension-human-rights.html

Shaman XV (Artwork) 

Love. Christopher Howard

Love is a beautiful red rose given for no apparent reason. Christopher Howard

"Love is a beautiful red rose given for no apparent reason"   When I think of love my initial thoughts go to intimate experiences and bonds that are created with other people, and then I pull my thoughts back to myself.  

Love is a process word that's frozen in time, and people often say things like I have no love in my life.  The question is: who are you not loving and beyond that, how specifically are you not loving them.

People say things like "They don't love me."  And the question is: what is it that you aren't loving within yourself that causes you to say that.   Love is a state of mind and emotion that is felt the moment we are lov-ing.    

Throughout my life I have looked to get other people to "bestow the gift of love upon me."  I've looked for years upon years to prove that I was good enough for someone to love me.  Do you know someone who can relate to this in any way shape or form?  Do you know someone who can relate to this - maybe even personally?  

But the world MUST reject that type of approach because it is incongruent, and that incongruency is reflected back at you or I in the mirror of others actions or behaviors and the relationships we attract or repel.  

So what are you going to do today to embrace this knowledge and realization.  What are you going to do today to transform this insight and understanding into the magnetic state of love? How will you begin loving yourself, so that you can feel that which you really want above all else?  

Will you forgive and give pardon to those who you resent, so that your own mind might be freed from the emotional shackles that bind you to the past and prevent you from using your time freely to construct a powerful future?   Will you slow down and take time for yourself in meditation or reflection?  Or even make that the most important part of your life?  

Will you work out consistently and take care of your body / temple?   Will you stop living to work and instead begin working to live?   Today is the first day of the rest of your life.   How will you choose to live it?   Will your life to be filled with love?  Will it to be emotionally textured and rich? 

It's your choice and your choice alone.  

Will you accept this rose?

Christopher Howard

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/love-christopher-howard.html

Alchemy of Religion. Kavita Ramdas

And I smile and I nod, realizing I'm watching women and girls using their own religious traditions and practices, turning them into instruments of opposition and opportunity...Women are investing in tradition to create change, like alchemists turning dischord into harmony.

Kavita Ramdas

Global Fund for Women 

http://youtu.be/n9Z_pccScW0

Thank you to Women Against Religious Misogyny.

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/alchemy-of-religion-kavita-ramdas.html  

Shaman Xlll. High Priestess. The Power of Earth (Artwork) 

The Meaning of Life ll. Gary Zukav and The Seat of The Soul. 

The Meaning of Life ll.

Gary Zukav and The Seat of The Soul. A Second Excerpt.

Intention ll

You are the product of the karma of your soul. The dispositions, aptitudes and attitudes that you were born with serve the learning of your soul. As your soul learns the lessons that it must learn to balance its energy, those characteristics become unnecessary and are replaced by others. This is how you grow. 

As you come to realise, for example, that anger leads nowhere, your anger begins to disappear and you move into a more integrated and mature orientation towards your experiences. What once angered you now brings forth different responses.

Until you become aware of the effects of your anger, you continue to be an angry person. If you do not reach this awareness by the time you return home, your soul will continue this lesson through the experiences of another lifetime. It will incarnate another personality with aspects that are similar to your own. What is not learned in each lifetime is carried over into other lifetimes, along with new lessons that arise for the soul to learn, new karmic obligations that result from the responses of its personality to the situations that it encounters. The lessons that the soul has learned also are brought forward into other lifetimes, and this is how the soul evolves. Personalities mature in time and the soul evolves in eternity.

Your dispositions, aptitudes, and attitudes reflect your intentions. If you are angry, fearful, resentful, or vengeful, your intention is to keep people at a distance. The human emotional spectrum can be broken down into two basic elements; love and fear. Anger, resentment and vengeance are expressions of fear, as are guilt, regret, embarrassment, shame and sorrow. These are lower-frequency currents of energy. They produce feelings of depletion, weakness, inability to cope and exhaustion. The highest frequency current, the highest energy current is love. It produces buoyancy, radiance, lightness and joy.

Your intentions create the reality that you experience. Until you become aware of this, it happens unconsciously. Therefore, be mindful of what you project. That is the first step towards authentic power.

You may seek companionship and warmth, for example, but if your unconscious intention is to keep people at a distance, the experiences of separation and pain will surface again and again until you come to understand that you, yourself are creating them. Eventually you will choose to create harmony and love. You will choose to draw to you the highest-frequency currents that each situation has to offer. Eventually, you will come to understand that love heals everything and love is all there is.

This journey may take many lifetimes, but you will complete it. It is impossible not to complete it. it is not a question of if but of when. Every situation that you create serves this purpose. Every experience that you encounter serves this purpose.

The healing journey of the human soul through its incarnations into the physical arena is a process of cycles of creation:

Karma -> personality -> intentions + Energy -> experiences ->reactions ->Karma ->etc.

The karma of the soul determines the characteristics of the personality. It determines the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual circumstances into which the personality is born. It determines the ways that the personality is prone to understand its experiences. It determines the intentions with which the personality will shape its reality. These intentions create the reality that provides the soul, at each moment, with the experiences that are necessary for the balancing of its energy and the personality with the clearest choice between learning through wisdom or learning through doubt and fear. Through these intentions the personality shapes the Light that is flowing through it into the reality that is optimal for its growth, for the evolution of its soul.

The reactions of the personality to the experiences that it has created creates more karma. Reactions express intentions. They determine the experiences that will be created next and the reactions of the personality to those experiences create more karma and so forth, until the soul releases that personality and body.

When the soul returns to its home, what has been accumulated in that lifetime is assessed with the loving assistance of its Teachers and guides. The new lessons that have emerged to be learned, the new karmic obligations that must be paid, are seen. The experiences of the incarnation just completed are reviewed in the fullness of understanding. Its mysteries are mysteries no more. Their causes, their reasons and their contributions to the evolution of the soul, and to the evolution of the souls with whom the soul shared its life, are revealed. What has been balanced, what has been learned, brings the soul ever closer to its healing, to its integration and wholeness.

If the soul sees that it is necessary, it will choose, also with the help of its Teachers and guides, another incarnation. It will draw to itself the guides and Teachers that are appropriate to what it seeks to accomplish. It will consult with other souls whose evolution, like its own, will be mutually served by interactions within the physical arena. Then it will undertake again the massive, voluntary reduction of its energy, the infusion of its energy into matter, the calibration of its energy to an appropriate scale and range of frequencies, that is an incarnation into the learning environment of the Earth school, and the process begins again.

The world as we know it has been built with the consciousness of the personality. Everything within our world reflects personality energy. We believe that what we can see and smell and touch and feel and taste is all there is to the world. We believe that we are not responsible for the consequences of our actions. We act as though we are not affected when we take and take and take. We strive for external power and in that striving create a destructive competition.

The introduction of consciousness into the cyclic process of creation through which the soul evolves permits the creation of a world that is built upon the consciousness of the soul, a world that reflects the values and perceptions and experiences of the soul. It allows you to bring the energy of your soul consciously into the physical environment. It allows the consciousness of the sacred to fuse with physical matter.

The world in which we live has been created unconsciously by unconscious intentions. Every intention sets energy into motion whether you are conscious of it or not. You create in each moment. Each word that you speak carries consciousness - more than that, carries intelligence - and therefore, is an intention that shapes Light.

When you speak of a 'marriage', for example, you invoke a particular consciousness, a particular energy. When two people marry, they become 'husband' and 'wife'. 'Husband' means the master of the house, the head of a household, a manager. 'Wife' means a woman who is joined to a man in marriage, a hostess of a household.

Sometimes it means a woman of humble rank. The relationship between a husband and a wife is not equal. When two people 'marry' and think and speak of themselves as 'husband' and 'wife', they enter into these consciousnesses and intelligences.

In other words, the archetypical structure of 'marriage' can be thought of as a planet. When two souls marry, they fall into the orbit or gravitational field of this planet and therefore, despite their own individual intentions, they take on the characteristics of this planet called 'marriage'. They become part of the evolution of the structure itself through their own participation in a marriage.

An archetype is a collective human idea. The archetype of marriage was designed to assist physical survival. When two people marry, they participate in an energy dynamic in which they merge their lives in order to help each other survive physically. The archetype of marriage is no longer functional. It is being replaced with a new archetype that is designed to assist spiritual growth. This is the archetype of spiritual or sacred partnership.

The underlying premise of a spiritual partnership is a sacred commitment between the partners to assist each other's spiritual growth. Spiritual partners recognise their equality. Spiritual partners are able to distinguish personality from soul and therefore, they are able to discuss the dynamics between them, their interactions, on a less emotionally-bound ground than husbands and wives. That ground does not exist within the consciousness of marriage. It exists only within the consciousness of spiritual partnership because spiritual partners are able to see clearly that is indeed a deeper reason why they are together, and think that reason has a great deal to do with the evolution of their souls.

Because spiritual or sacred partners can see from this perspective, they engage in a very different dynamic than do husbands and wives. The conscious evolution of the soul is not part of the structural dynamic of marriage. It does not exist within that evolution because when the evolutionary archetype of marriage was created for our species, the dynamic of conscious spiritual growth was far too mature a concept to be included. What makes a spiritual or sacred partnership is that the souls within the partnership understand that they are together in a committed relationship, but the commitment is not to physical security. It is rather to be with each other's physical lives as they reflect spiritual consciousness.

The bond between spiritual partners exists as real as it does in marriage, but for significantly different reasons. Spiritual partners are not together in order to quell each other's financial fears or because they can produce a house in the suburbs and that entire conceptual framework. The understanding or consciousness that spiritual partners bring to their commitment is different, and therefore, their commitment is dynamically different. The commitment of spiritual partners is to each other’s spiritual growth, recognising that that is what each of them is doing on Earth and that everything serves that.

Spiritual partners bond with an understanding that they are together because it is appropriate for their souls to grow together. They recognise that their growth may take them to the end of their days in this incarnation and beyond, or it may take them to six months. They cannot say that they will be together forever. The duration of their partnership is determined by how long it is appropriate for their evolution to be together. All of the vows that a human being can take cannot prevent the spiritual path from exploding through and breaking those vows if the spirit must move on. It is appropriate for spiritual partners to remain together only as long as they grow together.

Spiritual partnership is a much freer and more spiritually accurate dynamic than marriage because spiritual partners come together from a position of spirit and consciousness. How spiritual partners merge and move their concept of partnership is a matter of free will. So long as they recognise that they bring the consequences of their choices into their partnership, and know the full extent of their choices, that is what influences the manner and direction that the partnership goes.

Spiritual partners commit to a growing dynamic. Their commitment is truly a promise towards their own growth, to their own spiritual survival and enhancement and not to their physical.

The archetype of spiritual partnership is new to the human experience. Because there is not yet a social convention for spiritual partnership, spiritual partners may decide that the convention of marriage, reinterpreted to meet their needs, is the most appropriate physical expression of their bond.

These souls infuse the archetype of marriage with the energy of the archetype of spiritual partnership, as do marriage partners who have discovered in their togetherness that their bond is actually one of commitment to mutual spiritual growth, rather than to physical survival or security or comfort.

Just as external power is no longer appropriate to our evolution, the archetype of marriage is no longer appropriate. This does not mean that the institution of marriage will disappear overnight. Marriages will continue to exist, but marriages that succeed, will only succeed with the consciousness of spiritual partnership. The partners in these marriages contribute through their participation in them to the archetype of spiritual partnership.

When you bring the consciousness of your soul to your intention-setting process, when you choose to align yourself with your soul instead of with your personality, you create a reality that reflects your soul rather than your personality. When you look upon the experiences of your life as karmic necessities, when you react to your experiences as the products of an impersonal energy dynamic rather than the products of particular interactions, you bring the wisdom of your soul into your reality. When you choose to respond to life's difficulties with compassion and love instead of fear and doubt, you create a 'heaven on earth' - you bring the aspects of a more balanced and harmonious level of reality into physical being.

The introduction of consciousness into the cyclical processes of creation at the point of intention, and at the point of reaction, allows choice. It permits the selection of alternatives. It brings consciousness to the process of evolution. Your intention and attention shape your experiences. What you intend, through the density of matter, through the densest level of Light, becomes your reality. Where your attention goes, you go.

If you attend to the negative aspects of life, if you choose to focus your attention on the weaknesses of others, on their faults and shortcomings, you draw to yourself the lower-frequency energy currents of disdain, anger and hatred. You put distance between yourself and others. You create obstacles to your loving. Your energy and influence move slowly through the realm of the personality, the arena of time and space and matter. If you direct your energy into criticism of others with the intention to disempower them, you create negative karma.

If you choose to focus your attention on the strengths of others, on the virtue of others, on that part of others that strives for the highest, you run through your system the higher - frequency currents of appreciation, acceptance and love. Your energy and influence radiate instantaneously from soul to soul. You become an ineffective instrument of constructive change. If your attention is to align your personality with your soul, and if you focus your attention upon those perceptions that bring to you in each situation, the highest-frequency currents of energy, you move towards authentic empowerment.

As you come to recognise the power of your consciousness that what is behind your eyes, so to speak, holds more power than what appears in front of them, your inner and outer perceptions change. You cannot become compassionate with yourself without becoming compassionate with others, or with others without becoming compassionate with yourself. When you are compassionate with yourself and others, your world becomes compassionate. You draw to yourself other souls of like frequency and with them you create, through your intentions and your actions and your interactions, a compassionate world.

As you come to seek and see the virtues and strengths and nobilities of others, you begin to seek and see them in yourself also. As you draw to yourself the highest frequency currents of each situation, you radiate that frequency of consciousness and change the situation. You become more and more and more consciously, a being of Light.

To become aware of the relationship between your consciousness and physical reality is to become aware of the law of karma, to see it in action. What you intend is what you become. If you intend to take as much from life and others as you can, if your thoughts are of taking instead of giving, you create a reality that reflects your intentions. You draw to yourself souls of like frequency and together you create a taking reality. Your experiences then reflect your own orientation and validate it. You see the people around you as personalities who give. You do not trust them and they do not trust you.

The creative dynamic of intention, the relationship between intention and experience, underlies quantum physics, our species most profound attempt to comprehend physical phenomena from the perspective of the five sensory personality. Quantum Physics was born of an intense and cumulative effort to understand the nature of physical Light.

It is possible to build a device that reveals the wave-like nature of light, that causes lights to produce phenomena that can only be produced by waves. It is also possible to make a device that detects particles of light, as though there were tiny pellets and to measure the force of the impact of each particle.

Yet, it is not possible for light to be described as a wave phenomenon and a particle phenomenon at the same time. In other words, it is not possible to describe the nature of light - literally the shape of physical light - apart from the experimental apparatus that is used to determine it and this depends upon the intention of the experiment.

The scientific accomplishments of our species reflect our awareness as a species of nonphysical dynamics as they unfold with the arena of matter and time, within the realm of the five-sensory personality. The dependency of the form of physical l light upon the intention of the experimenter reflects in a limited but accurate manner the dependency of the form of nonphysical. Light upon the intentions of the soul that shapes it, just as the nature of physical light itself reflects in a limited but essentially accurate way the nature of the Light of the Universe.

The creation of physical experience through intention, the infusion of Light into form, energy into matter, soul into body are all the same. The distance between you and your understanding of the creation of matter from energy is equal to the distance that exists between the awareness of your personality and the energy of your soul. The dynamic of soul and personality is the same dynamic as energy converted into matter. The system is identical. Your body is your conscious matter. The system is identical. Your body is your conscious matter. Your personality is the energy of your soul converted into matter. If it is aware, it begins to become whole.

The dynamic of soul-to-personality, energy-to-matter, lies at the heart of our creation mythology, the story of Paradise. Are you not metaphorically within a Garden of Eden, so to speak, your own creative reality, within which you choose each day how you will create your reality with the male-female principle inside of you, the Adam and Eve principle, with the Tree representing your personal energy system, your own cord of knowledge? How will you use your power? Will you create Paradise or be Cast Out, as it were?

The challenge to each human is creation.

Will you create with reverence or with neglect?

Choice

The centre of the evolutionary process is choice. It is the engine of our evolution. Each choice that you make is a choice of intention. You may choose to remain silent in a particular situation, for example and that action may serve the intention of penalizing, sharing compassion, extracting vengeance, showing patience or loving. 

You may choose to speak forcefully, and that action may serve any of the same intentions. What you choose, with each action and each thought, is an intention, a quality of consciousness that you bring to your action or your thought.

The splintered personality has several, or many, aspects. One aspect may be loving and patient, another may be vindictive, another charitable and another selfish. Each of these aspects has its own values and goals. if you are not conscious of all of the different parts of yourself, the part of yourself that is the strongest will win out over the other parts. Its intention will be the one that the personality uses to create its reality.

The charitable part of you, for example, may want to see the burglar that was caught in your house given another chance, but if the vindictive part of you is stronger, you will, perhaps with mixed feelings, press for his or her arrest.

You cannot choose your intentions consciously until you become conscious of each of the different aspects of yourself. If you are not conscious of each part of yourself, you will have the experience of wanting to say, or to intend one thing and finding yourself saying or intending something else. You will want your life to move in one direction and find that it is moving in another. You will desire to release a painful pattern from your experience, and see it reappear yet again.

It is not easy for a splintered personality to become whole because only some parts of a splintered personality seek wholeness. The other parts, because they are not as responsible, or caring, or compassionate as the parts that seek wholeness, pull the other way. They seek to create what satisfies them, what they have become accustomed to. These parts of the personality are often strong and well established. The splintered personality must always choose between opposing parts of itself. This is the backbone situation of our evolution. This is the foundational situation - the power of choice.

The choice of intention is also the choice of karmic path. If you speak or act from anger, for example, you create the karma of anger. If you speak or act with compassion, you create the karma of compassion, and a different path opens before you. This happens whether you are aware of the different parts of yourself or not, whether you are aware of the choices that you make at each moment, or not. Unconscious evolution through the density of physical matter, through the experiences that are created unconsciously by unconscious intentions, has been the way of our species to now. This is the unconscious road to authentic empowerment.

Conscious evolution through responsible choice is the accelerated way of evolution of the multi-sensory personality and the five-sensory personality that is becoming multi-sensory. Responsible choice is the conscious road to authentic empowerment.

What is responsible choice?

As you follow your feelings, you become aware of the different parts of yourself, and the different things that they want. You cannot have all of them at once because many of them conflict. The part of you that wants more money and a bigger house conflicts with the part of you that suffers with the poor and hungry. The part of you that reaches out with compassion towards the beauty in others conflicts with the part of you that wants to use others for your own benefit or gratification. When you satisfy one part of yourself, the needs of another go unsatisfied. The fulfilment of one part of you creates anguish in another, or others, and you are torn.

Just as the experimenter in quantum physics cannot produce the experience of waves from physical light and the experience of particles from physical light at the same time, adn must choose which experience he or she will create, so you, also, as you shape nonphysical Light must choose which experience you will create.

As you become conscious of the different parts of your personality, you become able to experience consciously the forces within you that compete for expression, that lay claim to the single intention that will be yours at each moment, that will shape your reality. When you enter these dynamics consciously, you create for yourself the ability to choose consciously among the forces within you, to choose where and how you will focus your energy.

The choice not to choose is the choice to remain unconscious and therefore to wield power irresponsibly. Awareness of the splintered personality and of its need for integration brings with it the need for conscious choice. Each decision requires that you choose which parts of yourself you want to cultivate, and which parts you want to release.

A responsible choice is a choice that takes into account the consequences of each of your choices. In order to make a responsible choice you must ask yourself, for each choice that you are considering, "What will this produce? Do I really want to create that? Am I ready to accept all of the consequences of this choice?" Project yourself into the probable future that will unfold with each choice that you are considering. Do this not with the energy of intention, but simply to test the water, to get the feel for what you are considering creating. See how you feel. Ask yourself, "Is this what I really want?" and then decide. When you take the consequences of your choice into your decision, and when you choose to remain conscious, that is a responsible choice.

Only through responsible choice can you choose consciously to cultivate and nourish the needs of your soul, and to challenge and release the wants of your personality. this is the choice of clarity and wisdom, the choice of conscious transformation. It is the choice of the higher frequency energy currents of love, forgiveness and compassion. It is the choice to follow the voice of your higher self, your soul. it is the decision to open yourself to the guidance and assistance of your guides and Teachers. It is the path that leads consciously to authentic power.

How does this happen?

You may be aware that deceiving another person is not in alignment with your soul, but decide to do that anyway in order to gain a profit, or save a relationship that you are not ready to lose. You may know that the path of compassion is to share your thoughts and actions, and yet decide not to share them because you think that would cost you money or security. When you choose the energy of your soul - when you choose to create with the intentions of love, forgiveness, humbleness and clarity - you gain power. When you choose to create with the energy of your personality, with anger, jealousy or fear - when you choose to learn through fear and doubt - you lose power. You gain or lose power, therefore, according to the choices that you make.

The personality is interested in itself. It likes thrills, so to speak. It is not necessarily responsible nor caring nor loving. The soul is the energy of Universal love, wisdom and compassion. it creates with these energies. The personality understands power as external; it perceives in terms of competition, threats and gains and losses that are measured against those of others. When you align yourself with your personality, you give power to the realm of the five senses, to external circumstances and objects. You dis-empower yourself. As you grow aware of your spiritual self and origin, your immortal-ness, and you choose and live according to that first, and the physical second, you close the gap that exists between the personality and the soul. You begin to experience authentic power.

When you interact in terms of the perceptions of your personality, in terms of your five senses, there is an illusion that you do not see. A disagreement between two friends, for example, is not so much a disagreement as aspects of each surfacing in order to be healed. if they were not souls in agreement, they would not be together at all. If a father longs to be at the birth of his son, for example, but circumstances take him elsewhere, the perception that he is elsewhere is an illusion. He is with his son. As the personality becomes whole and empowered, it becomes content to let the illusion play.

This is the creation of the dynamic of the soul, whereby, no matter what situation it is in, it creates the best of all worlds from the power that it draws to the situation. From the perception of the personality, it is not possible to see clearly those human beings who, from the outside, appear to be making foolish decisions, or to be unaware of their environment, when in truth they are simply drinking from the finest nectar of their environment and are totally content to let the illusion play.

The splintered personality is not content. The contentment that it feels in one moment is replaced by anger or fear or envy in the next moment as conflicting aspects of itself struggle with each other. Your responses to the struggles between the conflicting aspects of yourself determine the way that you will evolve, consciously or unconsciously, through the experience of negative karma or positive, through fear and doubt or through wisdom. Your struggles themselves do not create karma or determine the way that you will evolve, only your responses to them.

If your struggle with the conflicting parts of yourself is conscious, you are able to choose consciously the response that will create the karma that you desire. You will be able to bring to bear upon your decision an awareness of what lies behind each choice and the consequences of each choice and choose accordingly. When you enter into your decision-making dynamic consciously, you insert your will consciously into the creative cycle through which soul evolves, and you enter consciously into your own evolution.

This requires effort, but is it really more difficult than living through the consequences that follow a decision to act in anger or selfishness or fear, when you know that with each decision to act without compassion you yourself will experience the discord or fear or anguish that you create in another? Is it not worth the effort to project yourself ahead into the probably consequences of each of your actions, at each point of choice and see how you will feel in each instance, how comfortable you will be with each of the consequences, if doing that will alow you to harvest love, compassion and authentic power?

The effort that you apply to each decision to align yourself with your soul is rewarded many times. the part of yourself that reaches towards Light may not be the strongest part of you are the moment that you choose to journey towards authentic power consciously, at the moment that you choose the vertical path, but it is the part that the Universe backs.

When it becomes necessary, for example, for the physical, emotional body of a person to heal, a dramatic shift in nutrition is often required wherein a person must release every one of his or her eating habits and take on the habits of eating certain foods that are much higher in vibration. Ninety percent of the person's personality may not want to do that, but the ten percent that is choosing that path for the sake of health and wholeness has more power ultimately than the ninety percent that is fighting to remain where it is and have its own way, because the Universe backs that ten percent and not the ninety percent.

Think in terms of what it means to make decisions and try to cause the rest of you to fall into alignment with them, of responsible choice and as you move into the healing of who you are and the conscious journey towards what it is you want, recognise that the Universe backs the part of you that is of clearest intention.

You are constantly receiving guidance and assistance from your guides and Teachers and from the Universe itself. When you choose consciously to move towards the energy of your soul, you invite that guidance. When you ask the Universe to bless you in your effort to align yourself with your soul, you open a passageway between yourself and your guides and Teachers. You assist their efforts to assist you. You invoke the power of the nonphysical world. That is what a blessing is; the opening of a passageway between you and nonphysical guidance.

A personality that is conscious of its splintered-ness, and struggles consciously to become whole, does not need to create negative karma in order to evolve, in order to learn to create responsibility, in order to acquire authentic power. When you struggle consciously with a choice between the wants of your personality and the needs of your soul, you enter a dynamic through which you are enabled to evolve without creating negative karma. That is the dynamic of temptation.

What is temptation?

Temptation is the Universe's compassionate way of allowing you to run through what would be a harmful negative karmic dynamic if you were to allow it to become physically manifest. it is the energy through which your soul is given the gracious opportunity to have a dry run at a life lesson, at a situation that, if you can see clearly, can be removed and healed within the confines of your private world of energy and not spill into a larger energy field of other souls. Temptation is a dress rehearsal for a karmic experience of negativity.

The entire dynamic of temptation is the compassionate way of allowing you to see your potential pitfalls and cleanse yourself before you can affect the lives of others. it is a form of decoy in which the negativity is compassionately drawn from you, if you can see that before you create karma.

Temptation is the Universe's compassionate way of allowing you to run through what would be a harmful negative karmic dynamic if you were to allow it to become physically manifest. it is the energy through which your soul is given the gracious opportunity to have a dry run at a life lesson, at a situation that, if you can see clearly, can be removed and healed within the confines of your private world of energy and not spill into a larger energy field of other souls. Temptation is a dress rehearsal for a karmic experience of negativity.

The entire dynamic of temptation is the compassionate way of allowing you to see your potential pitfalls and cleanse yourself before you can affect the lives of others. It is a form of decoy in which the negativity is compassionately drawn from you, if you can see that before you create karma.

As you respond to the decoy, you cleanse yourself by becoming aware and not having to actually live through the experience. You cleanse yourself without creating karma and interaction with other souls. How exquisite is temptation. It is the magnet which draws your awareness to that which would create negative karma if it were allowed to remain unconscious.

In other words, temptation is a thought form that is designed to draw possible negativity from the human energy system without harming others. The soul understands that. Left to its own device it would operate completely within the human energy system, without spilling over and contaminating the collective conscious.

Temptations are not traps. Each temptation is an opportunity through which the soul is able to learn without creating karma, to evolve directly through conscious choice. The dynamic of temptation is the energy of what might be thought of as the challenging dynamic of the human experience, as the Luciferic principle. It serves the purpose of assisting the evolution of power.

Lucifer means 'Light bringer'. Temptation, the Luciferic principle, is that dynamic through which each soul is graciously offered the opportunity to challenge those parts of itself that resist Light. The Luciferic energy is represented in the Garden of Eden story by a snake, by the idea of a presence other than human that could tempt, but, literally, could not have dominion over the human being. The Luciferic energy tempts you, tempts the level of human being that is mortal, that is five-sensory, but the snake cannot destroy the soul. it can merely threaten that part of you that becomes too linked to the physical. The snake is of the Earth. When you are too close to the Earth, and make Earth your god and master, then so, too, you shall be bitten.

The Light-bringing energy, the Luciferic energy, that tempted the person Jesus of Nazareth, who became the Christ, and that tempted the person Siddharta Gautama who became the Buddha, is the same energy that tempts you. It tempts the accountant to steal, the student to cheat, the spouse to adultery, the human being to external power. It opposes the Light of your immortal soul to the physical light of your personality. It sets before you the vertical path and the horizontal path. What is the nature of transformation? It is the compassionate way of temptation.

Temptation is the gracious way of introducing each soul to his or her power. When you are seduced or threatened by external circumstances, you lose power. They gain power over you. With each choice that you make to align yourself with the energy of your soul, you empower yourself. This is how authentic power is acquired. It is built up step by step, choice by choice. It cannot be meditated or prayed into being. It must be earned.

When you choose to release anger for example, you create an energy template around which your experiences will form. This energy pattern will draw to the surface the anger within you in order that you can release it. When you choose to challenge and to release a negative aspect of yourself, that aspect comes to the foreground. Everything starts to serve that purpose. Your dreams show you the archetypal dynamics of your anger. You find yourself continually in situations that generate anger within you. Your life appears to be distorted around anger, because that is the aspect of yourself that you have chosen to challenge, and the Universe has responded to your choice With compassion.

When you consciously invoke growing, consciously invoke wisdom, you consciously invoke the parts of yourself that are not whole to come into the foreground of your life. With each recurrence of anger or jealousy or fear, you are given the choice to challenge it, or to give into it. Each time you challenge it, it loses power and you gain power. Each time you are tempted to become angry, or jealous or fearful and you challenge that feeling, you empower yourself. There would be no accumulation of strength inside if the choices that you make did not require discipline and intention.

If you decide that you cannot beat a temptation, what you are really doing is giving yourself permission to be irresponsible. The desires and impulses that you feel that you cannot resist, that you lack the power to overcome, are your addictions. Addictions are the wants of the parts of your personality that are very strong and resistant to the energy of your soul. They are those aspects of your personality, of your soul incarnate, that are most in need of healing. They are your greatest inadequacies.

Your addiction may be to food or drugs or anger or sex. You may have more than one addiction. In each instance, you cannot release the addiction until you understand the dynamic that underlies it. Beneath every addiction is the perception of power as external, as the ability to control and use the environment or others. Beneath every addiction is an issue of power.

The journey to the soul begins with understanding that we are drawn automatically as a species to come to terms with power. Each human being is experiencing the causes and effects of his or her choices, his or her desires to fill in the empty, powerless places within him or her. this dynamic can be described in terms of an insecure humanity, but that is just the obvious. The mechanism at work is the journey towards genuine, authentic empowerment.

This is why each human being struggles so deeply with power; the lack of it, the acquisition of it, what it is really, how one should have it. Underlying every crisis, emotional, spiritual, physical and psychological, is the issue of power. Depending upon the lens that you wear to interpret your crisis, you will either step closer to your soul or closer to the Earth.

The journey to wholeness requires that you look honestly, openly and with courage into yourself, into the dynamics that lie behind what you feel, what you perceive, what you value and how you act. It is a journey through your defences and beyond, so that you can experience consciously the nature of your personality, face what it has produced in your life and choose to change that.

GARY ZUKAV. THE SEAT OF THE SOUL.

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/meaning-of-life-ll-gary-zukav-and-seat.html  

Shaman ll (Artwork) 

Unconditional Love. Christopher Howard

There is nothing else that can expand the human soul, actualize the human potential for growth, or bring a person into the full possession of life more than a love which is unconditional.

John Dowell, S.J.

I would like to think that my love for myself is unconditional, although it definitely has not been that way throughout my life. When I have done things I haven't been proud of I have beaten myself up, shamed my self and held love back from myself.

When I have underperformed or not lived up to my own expectations I have withheld love from myself and deemed myself to be "not good enough."

In relationships I would tell myself I couldn't have the person I REALLY wanted and I would feel like I would always have to settle for second best.

If I've gone out on a date and I played small or gotten self conscious or I feel like I've blown it....I've beaten myself up and told myself once again I wasn't good enough.

When I was acting and I'd play small and get self-conscious - I would feel crappy about myself and I would believe I didn't have what it takes.

In business I would not believe I could do it on my own, I would beat myself up for my mistakes and I would let others beat me up too. Especially authority figures who were my reflection of "not being good enough."

Like the worst boss imaginable I would push myself until I couldn't push anymore and then I would collapse.

When I think of unconditional love, I usually think of it in relation to OTHER people.

But it is impossible to TRULY - TRULY love others unconditionally without first loving yourself unconditionally.

People crave unconditional love more than anything in the world, but they look for it from people outside themselves and the reality is that unconditional love does not come from the outside, it comes from within.

Love is an infinite resource and it is ever expanding. The more you give away the more you have to give.

Love is self-initiated it is not something that we wait for or wait to happen TO us. It's something we give - something we do. Love is the process of loving.

When we give unconditional love to the one person we have the power to love the most - ourselves - we then have unlimited potential to expand, achieve, create and unlimited potential for real fulfillment and happiness.

Giving unconditional love to yourself means being your own BEST FRIEND.

Treating yourself the same as you would want to treat your own child.

It means being your own BEST COACH.

If you have a dog from the time it's a puppy and you kick that dog and throw rocks at it, and beat it and yell at it, it will grow up to bite people and act irratically.

Yet this is how we treat ourselves and we somehow think that that will get better performance out of ourselves - or help us in some way. That's utterly ridiculous.

Make the commitment today to actualize your full potential - to be all that you can be.

Make the commitment today to be your own best friend, your own best coach - and to above all - love yourself unconditionally.

Loving MYSELF unconditionally means:

When I do things that I'm not proud of - to acknowledge it and give myself permission to make mistakes while looking to correct the behavior. To always remember I am not my behaviors - so respect myself as a person yet change the behaviors when necessary.

When I don't meet expectations I have for myself - to positively coach myself and look for what occurred, what do I want to occur the next time, what resources I might need to get the desired result and how I can best support myself to get the desired result.

In the world of romance and dating to focus on who I am and being whole in and of myself rather than to look outside myself for validation.

In the world of performance to be fully present and committed to the task at hand - to lose myself in the activity and if I don't do that every moment to positively coach myself to that place.

In the world of business - to give myself permission to make mistakes.

To realize that I have the right to make my own judgements about how I've done and not look for the judgements of others to determine how I feel.

To make my own evaluations and treat myself with utmost respect.

Where and how do you choose to love yourself unconditionally? If you did that starting today how would that change your business and your life for the better?

How much more of your potential could you unleash? How much more of what you are truly capable of could you create?

Begin today. It's the first day of the rest of your life!!

With Love and Respect,

Chris Howard

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/unconditional-love-christopher-howard.html

The Ultimate Wisdom of Renunciation (Notes on Enlightenment). Siddharta. Hermann Hesse 

Siddharta by Hermann Hesse

(Notes on Enlightenment and Acceptance of Pain. Enlightenment being the Acceptance that Divinity is the Whole)

Notes on the introduction to Hermann Hesse's Siddharta by Paulo Coelho

"Siddhartha" by Hermann Hesse, is perhaps the most important and compelling moral allegory our troubled century has produced. Integrating Eastern and Western spiritual traditions with psychoanalysis and philosophy, this strangely simple tale, written with a deep and moving empathy for humanity, has touched the lives of millions since its original publication in 1922. Set in India, "Siddhartha" is the story of a young Brahmin's search for ultimate reality after meeting with the Buddha. His quest takes him from a life of decadence to asceticism, from the illusory joys of sensual love with a beautiful courtesan, and of wealth and fame, to the painful struggles with his son and the ultimate wisdom of renunciation.

The Last Chapter of Siddharta by Hermann Hesse.
Courtesy of Online-literature.com

Together with other monks, Govinda used to spend the time of rest

between pilgrimages in the pleasure-grove, which the courtesan Kamala

had given to the followers of Gotama for a gift. He heard talk of an

old ferryman, who lived one day's journey away by the river, and
who was regarded as a wise man by many. When Govinda went back on his
way, he chose the path to the ferry, eager to see the ferryman.

Because, though he had lived his entire life by the rules, though he was
also looked upon with veneration by the younger monks on account of his
age and his modesty, the restlessness and the searching still had not
perished from his heart.

He came to the river and asked the old man to ferry him over, and when

they got off the boat on the other side, he said to the old man:

"You're very good to us monks and pilgrims, you have already ferried
many of us across the river. Aren't you too, ferryman, a searcher for
the right path?"

Quoth Siddhartha, smiling from his old eyes: "Do you call yourself a

searcher, oh venerable one, though you are already of an old in years
and are wearing the robe of Gotama's monks?"

"It's true, I'm old," spoke Govinda, "but I haven't stopped searching.

Never I'll stop searching, this seems to be my destiny. You too, so it
seems to me, have been searching. Would you like to tell me something,
oh honourable one?"

Quoth Siddhartha: "What should I possibly have to tell you, oh

venerable one? Perhaps that you're searching far too much? That in all
that searching, you don't find the time for finding?"

"How come?" asked Govinda.

"When someone is searching," said Siddhartha, "then it might easily

happen that the only thing his eyes still see is that what he searches
for, that he is unable to find anything, to let anything enter his mind,
because he always thinks of nothing but the object of his search,
because he has a goal, because he is obsessed by the goal. Searching
means: having a goal. But finding means: being free, being open, having
no goal. You, oh venerable one, are perhaps indeed a searcher, because,
striving for your goal, there are many things you don't see, which are
directly in front of your eyes."

"I don't quite understand yet," asked Govinda, "what do you mean by

this?"

Quoth Siddhartha: "A long time ago, oh venerable one, many years ago,

you've once before been at this river and have found a sleeping man by
the river, and have sat down with him to guard his sleep. But, oh
Govinda, you did not recognise the sleeping man."

Astonished, as if he had been the object of a magic spell, the monk

looked into the ferryman's eyes.

"Are you Siddhartha?" he asked with a timid voice. "I wouldn't have

recognised you this time as well! From my heart, I'm greeting you,
Siddhartha; from my heart, I'm happy to see you once again! You've
changed a lot, my friend.--And so you've now become a ferryman?"

In a friendly manner, Siddhartha laughed. "A ferryman, yes. Many

people, Govinda, have to change a lot, have to wear many a robe, I am
one of those, my dear. Be welcome,

Govinda, and spend the night in my

hut."

Govinda stayed the night in the hut and slept on the bed which used to

be Vasudeva's bed. Many questions he posed to the friend of his youth,
many things Siddhartha had to tell him from his life.

When in the next morning the time had come to start the day's journey,

Govinda said, not without hesitation, these words: "Before I'll
continue on my path, Siddhartha, permit me to ask one more question.
Do you have a teaching? Do you have a faith, or a knowledge, you
follow, which helps you to live and to do right?"

Quoth Siddhartha: "You know, my dear, that I already as a young man, in

those days when we lived with the penitents in the forest, started to
distrust teachers and teachings and to turn my back to them. I have
stuck with this. Nevertheless, I have had many teachers since then. A
beautiful courtesan has been my teacher for a long time, and a rich
merchant was my teacher, and some gamblers with dice. Once, even a
follower of Buddha, travelling on foot, has been my teacher; he sat with
me when I hat fallen asleep in the forest, on the pilgrimage. I've also
learned from him, I'm also grateful to him, very grateful. But most of
all, I have learned here from this river and from my predecessor, the
ferryman Vasudeva. He was a very simple person, Vasudeva, he was no
thinker, but he knew what is necessary just as well as Gotama, he was a
perfect man, a saint."

Govinda said: "Still, oh Siddhartha, you love a bit to mock people, as

it seems to me. I believe in you and know that you haven't followed a
teacher. But haven't you found something by yourself, though you've
found no teachings, you still found certain thoughts, certain insights,
which are your own and which help you to live? If you would like to
tell me some of these, you would delight my heart."

Quoth Siddhartha: "I've had thoughts, yes, and insight, again and

again. Sometimes, for an hour or for an entire day, I have felt
knowledge in me, as one would feel life in one's heart. There have
been many thoughts, but it would be hard for me to convey them to you.
Look, my dear Govinda, this is one of my thoughts, which I have found:
wisdom cannot be passed on. Wisdom which a wise man tries to pass on
to someone always sounds like foolishness."

"Are you kidding?" asked Govinda.

"I'm not kidding. I'm telling you what I've found. Knowledge can be

conveyed, but not wisdom. It can be found, it can be lived, it is
possible to be carried by it, miracles can be performed with it, but it
cannot be expressed in words and taught. This was what I, even as a
young man, sometimes suspected, what has driven me away from the
teachers. I have found a thought, Govinda, which you'll again regard as
a joke or foolishness, but which is my best thought. It says: The
opposite of every truth is just as true! That's like this: any truth
can only be expressed and put into words when it is one-sided.
Everything is one-sided which can be thought with thoughts and said with
words, it's all one-sided, all just one half, all lacks completeness,
roundness, oneness. When the exalted Gotama spoke in his teachings of
the world, he had to divide it into Sansara and Nirvana, into deception
and truth, into suffering and salvation. It cannot be done differently,
there is no other way for him who wants to teach. But the world itself,
what exists around us and inside of us, is never one-sided. A person or
an act is never entirely Sansara or entirely Nirvana, a person is never
entirely holy or entirely sinful. It does really seem like this,
because we are subject to deception, as if time was something real.
Time is not real, Govinda, I have experienced this often and often
again. And if time is not real, then the gap which seems to be between
the world and the eternity, between suffering and blissfulness, between
evil and good, is also a deception."

"How come?" asked Govinda timidly.

"Listen well, my dear, listen well! The sinner, which I am and which

you are, is a sinner, but in times to come he will be Brahma again, he
will reach the Nirvana, will be Buddha--and now see: these "times to
come" are a deception, are only a parable! The sinner is not on his
way to become a Buddha, he is not in the process of developing, though
our capacity for thinking does not know how else to picture these
things. No, within the sinner is now and today already the future
Buddha, his future is already all there, you have to worship in him, in
you, in everyone the Buddha which is coming into being, the possible,
the hidden Buddha. The world, my friend Govinda, is not imperfect, or
on a slow path towards perfection: no, it is perfect in every moment,
all sin already carries the divine forgiveness in itself, all small
children already have the old person in themselves, all infants already
have death, all dying people the eternal life. It is nor possible for
any person to see how far another one has already progressed on his
path; in the robber and dice-gambler, the Buddha is waiting; in the
Brahman, the robber is waiting. In deep meditation, there is the
possibility to put time out of existence, to see all life which was,
is, and will be as if it was simultaneous, and there everything is
good, everything is perfect, everything is Brahman. Therefore, I see
whatever exists as good, death is to me like life, sin like holiness,
wisdom like foolishness, everything has to be as it is, everything only
requires my consent, only my willingness, my loving agreement, to be
good for me, to do nothing but work for my benefit, to be unable to ever
harm me. I have experienced on my body and on my soul that I needed sin
very much, I needed lust, the desire for possessions, vanity, and needed
the most shameful despair, in order to learn how to give up all
resistance, in order to learn how to love the world, in order to stop
comparing it to some world I wished, I imagined, some kind of perfection
I had made up, but to leave it as it is and to love it and to enjoy
being a part of it.--These, oh Govinda, are some of the thoughts which
have come into my mind."

Siddhartha bent down, picked up a stone from the ground, and weighed it

in his hand.

"This," he said playing with it, "is a stone, and will, after a

certain time, perhaps turn into soil, and will turn from soil into a
plant or animal or human being. In the past, I would have said: This
stone is just a stone, it is worthless, it belongs to the world of the
Maja; but because it might be able to become also a human being and a
spirit in the cycle of transformations, therefore I also grant it
importance. Thus, I would perhaps have thought in the past. But today
I think: this stone is a stone, it is also animal, it is also god, it is
also Buddha, I do not venerate and love it because it could turn into
this or that, but rather because it is already and always everything--
and it is this very fact, that it is a stone, that it appears to me now
and today as a stone, this is why I love it and see worth and purpose in
each of its veins and cavities, in the yellow, in the gray, in the
hardness, in the sound it makes when I knock at it, in the dryness or
wetness of its surface. There are stones which feel like oil or soap,
and others like leaves, others like sand, and every one is special and
prays the Om in its own way, each one is Brahman, but simultaneously and
just as much it is a stone, is oily or juicy, and this is this very fact
which I like and regard as wonderful and worthy of worship.--But let me
speak no more of this. The words are not good for the secret meaning,
everything always becomes a bit different, as soon as it is put into
words, gets distorted a bit, a bit silly--yes, and this is also very
good, and I like it a lot, I also very much agree with this, that this
what is one man's treasure and wisdom always sounds like foolishness to
another person."

Govinda listened silently.

"Why have you told me this about the stone?" he asked hesitantly after

a pause.

"I did it without any specific intention. Or perhaps what I meant was,

that love this very stone, and the river, and all these things we are
looking at and from which we can learn. I can love a stone, Govinda,
and also a tree or a piece of bark. This are things, and things can be
loved. But I cannot love words. Therefore, teachings are no good for
me, they have no hardness, no softness, no colours, no edges, no smell,
no taste, they have nothing but words. Perhaps it are these which keep
you from finding peace, perhaps it are the many words. Because
salvation and virtue as well, Sansara and Nirvana as well, are mere
words, Govinda. There is no thing which would be Nirvana; there is just
the word Nirvana."

Quoth Govinda: "Not just a word, my friend, is Nirvana. It is a

thought."

Siddhartha continued: "A thought, it might be so. I must confess to

you, my dear: I don't differentiate much between thoughts and words.
To be honest, I also have no high opinion of thoughts. I have a better
opinion of things. Here on this ferry-boat, for instance, a man has
been my predecessor and teacher, a holy man, who has for many years
simply believed in the river, nothing else. He had noticed that the
river's spoke to him, he learned from it, it educated and taught him,
the river seemed to be a god to him, for many years he did not know that
every wind, every cloud, every bird, every beetle was just as divine and
knows just as much and can teach just as much as the worshipped river.
But when this holy man went into the forests, he knew everything, knew
more than you and me, without teachers, without books, only because he
had believed in the river."

Govinda said: "But is that what you call `things', actually something

real, something which has existence? Isn't it just a deception of the
Maja, just an image and illusion? Your stone, your tree, your river--
are they actually a reality?"

"This too," spoke Siddhartha, "I do not care very much about. Let the

things be illusions or not, after all I would then also be an illusion,
and thus they are always like me. This is what makes them so dear and
worthy of veneration for me: they are like me. Therefore, I can love
them. And this is now a teaching you will laugh about: love, oh
Govinda, seems to me to be the most important thing of all. To
thoroughly understand the world, to explain it, to despise it, may be
the thing great thinkers do. But I'm only interested in being able to
love the world, not to despise it, not to hate it and me, to be able to
look upon it and me and all beings with love and admiration and great
respect."

"This I understand," spoke Govinda. "But this very thing was discovered

by the exalted one to be a deception. He commands benevolence,
clemency, sympathy, tolerance, but not love; he forbade us to tie our
heart in love to earthly things."

"I know it," said Siddhartha; his smile shone golden. "I know it,

Govinda. And behold, with this we are right in the middle of the
thicket of opinions, in the dispute about words. For I cannot deny, my
words of love are in a contradiction, a seeming contradiction with
Gotama's words. For this very reason, I distrust in words so much, for
I know, this contradiction is a deception. I know that I am in
agreement with Gotama. How should he not know love, he, who has
discovered all elements of human existence in their transitoriness, in
their meaninglessness, and yet loved people thus much, to use a long,
laborious life only to help them, to teach them! Even with him, even
with your great teacher, I prefer the thing over the words, place more
importance on his acts and life than on his speeches, more on the
gestures of his hand than his opinions. Not in his speech, not in his
thoughts, I see his greatness, only in his actions, in his life."

For a long time, the two old men said nothing. Then spoke Govinda,

while bowing for a farewell: "I thank you, Siddhartha, for telling me
some of your thoughts. They are partially strange thoughts, not all
have been instantly understandable to me. This being as it may, I thank
you, and I wish you to have calm days."

(But secretly he thought to himself: This Siddhartha is a bizarre

person, he expresses bizarre thoughts, his teachings sound foolish.
So differently sound the exalted one's pure teachings, clearer, purer,
more comprehensible, nothing strange, foolish, or silly is contained in
them. But different from his thoughts seemed to me Siddhartha's hands
and feet, his eyes, his forehead, his breath, his smile, his greeting,
his walk. Never again, after our exalted Gotama has become one with the
Nirvana, never since then have I met a person of whom I felt: this is a
holy man! Only him, this Siddhartha, I have found to be like this. May
his teachings be strange, may his words sound foolish; out of his gaze
and his hand, his skin and his hair, out of every part of him shines a
purity, shines a calmness, shines a cheerfulness and mildness and
holiness, which I have seen in no other person since the final death of
our exalted teacher.)

As Govinda thought like this, and there was a conflict in his heart, he

once again bowed to Siddhartha, drawn by love. Deeply he bowed to him
who was calmly sitting.

"Siddhartha," he spoke, "we have become old men. It is unlikely for

one of us to see the other again in this incarnation. I see, beloved,
that you have found peace. I confess that I haven't found it. Tell me,
oh honourable one, one more word, give my something on my way which I
can grasp, which I can understand! Give me something to be with me on
my path. It it often hard, my path, often dark, Siddhartha."

Siddhartha said nothing and looked at him with the ever unchanged,

quiet smile. Govinda stared at his face, with fear, with yearning,
suffering, and the eternal search was visible in his look, eternal
not-finding.

Siddhartha saw it and smiled.

"Bent down to me!" he whispered quietly in Govinda's ear. "Bend down to

me! Like this, even closer! Very close! Kiss my forehead, Govinda!"

But while Govinda with astonishment, and yet drawn by great love and

expectation, obeyed his words, bent down closely to him and touched his
forehead with his lips, something miraculous happened to him. While his
thoughts were still dwelling on Siddhartha's wondrous words, while he
was still struggling in vain and with reluctance to think away time, to
imagine Nirvana and Sansara as one, while even a certain contempt for
the words of his friend was fighting in him against an immense love and
veneration, this happened to him:

He no longer saw the face of his friend Siddhartha, instead he saw

other faces, many, a long sequence, a flowing river of faces, of
hundreds, of thousands, which all came and disappeared, and yet all
seemed to be there simultaneously, which all constantly changed and
renewed themselves, and which were still all Siddhartha. He saw the
face of a fish, a carp, with an infinitely painfully opened mouth, the
face of a dying fish, with fading eyes--he saw the face of a new-born
child, red and full of wrinkles, distorted from crying--he saw the face
of a murderer, he saw him plunging a knife into the body of another
person--he saw, in the same second, this criminal in bondage, kneeling
and his head being chopped off by the executioner with one blow of his
sword--he saw the bodies of men and women, naked in positions and cramps
of frenzied love--he saw corpses stretched out, motionless, cold, void--
he saw the heads of animals, of boars, of crocodiles, of elephants, of
bulls, of birds--he saw gods, saw Krishna, saw Agni--he saw all of these
figures and faces in a thousand relationships with one another, each one
helping the other, loving it, hating it, destroying it, giving re-birth
to it, each one was a will to die, a passionately painful confession of
transitoriness, and yet none of then died, each one only transformed,
was always re-born, received evermore a new face, without any time
having passed between the one and the other face--and all of these
figures and faces rested, flowed, generated themselves, floated along
and merged with each other, and they were all constantly covered by
something thin, without individuality of its own, but yet existing, like
a thin glass or ice, like a transparent skin, a shell or mold or mask of
water, and this mask was smiling, and this mask was Siddhartha's smiling
face, which he, Govinda, in this very same moment touched with his lips.

And, Govinda saw it like this, this smile of the mask, this smile of
oneness above the flowing forms, this smile of simultaneousness above
the thousand births and deaths, this smile of Siddhartha was precisely
the same, was precisely of the same kind as the quiet, delicate,
impenetrable, perhaps benevolent, perhaps mocking, wise, thousand-fold
smile of Gotama, the Buddha, as he had seen it himself with great
respect a hundred times. Like this, Govinda knew, the perfected ones
are smiling.

Not knowing any more whether time existed, whether the vision had lasted

a second or a hundred years, not knowing any more whether there existed
a Siddhartha, a Gotama, a me and a you, feeling in his innermost self
as if he had been wounded by a divine arrow, the injury of which tasted
sweet, being enchanted and dissolved in his innermost self, Govinda
still stood for a little while bent over Siddhartha's quiet face, which
he had just kissed, which had just been the scene of all manifestations,
all transformations, all existence. The face was unchanged, after under
its surface the depth of the thousandfoldness had closed up again, he
smiled silently, smiled quietly and softly, perhaps very benevolently,
perhaps very mockingly, precisely as he used to smile, the exalted one.

Deeply, Govinda bowed; tears, he knew nothing of, ran down his old face;

like a fire burnt the feeling of the most intimate love, the humblest
veneration in his heart. Deeply, he bowed, touching the ground, before
him who was sitting motionlessly, whose smile reminded him of everything
he had ever loved in his life, what had ever been valuable and holy to
him in his life.

HERMANN HESSE

The rest of the book can be found at literature online.

http://www.online-literature.com/hesse/siddhartha/12/

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/ultimate-wisdom-of-renunciation-amera.html

Shaman Hierophant (Artwork) 

We Are The Chosen Ones. Cosmic Cog

We are the chosen ones~
because we threw up our hands~
and shouted
“Pick Me!”
when the Universe needed volunteers
to come to the planet during this time~

Now is the time to recognize

that fire within
that drew us all here,

During this~

“The Great Shift in Ages”…

If you are on this earth at this time,

It should be remembered,
You were chosen to be here…

There are many who will choose not to shift their vibration

or adjust their consciousness to the elevated frequencies~
(the law of free will allows for All
to find the course that is most natural to them)

These are the beings so caught up in the realm of materiality
that they have forgotten
the light within,
and are insistent upon upholding
the “laws of the land”
which were never real to begin with…

Most of those beings intent to

hold onto the “old ways”
will be taking a roundabout path "home"
as it is known,
and continuing to learn~
~~but most likely leaving the earth
within the coming years…

Yet there are others:

the trailblazers,
The lighthouses~
The ones who were screaming
“Pick Me….
~I know the difficult journey that lays ahead,
But I am up to the challenge,
I will not let the Universe,
Myself, or Humanity
down”

if you resonate with these words,

then it is to you
that these words are directed…

It is those that have chosen not to leave,

and to carry themselves all the way through the Shift,
~In Deed~
the great pillars of light on this planet…

We have carried ourselves

through the darkest of the dark,
in order to have the knowledge,
the wisdom,
to assist to carry mankind (womankind)
through this great leap in consciousness~~

Only those

with the strongest of spirit,
could carry this light
consciously~~
(each, according to what we could handle)
and bring the kind of love to this planet,
through this time of utter darkness,
and shift this world
in the way it is being done…

Our method does not matter,

For we each have gifts and ways we are called to contribute,
it only matters that you carry your light as far,
and as long as you can…

There is no judgment…

What we perceive as judgment
is merely that those who have cleared their density enough
are capable of carrying the brightest light,
the one that is indestructible by man,
or any earthly force….

If you are one of those with a strong light,

(the kind that cannot be broken)
Now is the time to claim it, and walk it~~
When you turn on your own light,
Many others in your “neighborhood” will as well,
This is how this shift is constructed…

There is a golden path

A soul construct,
Soul blueprints you made for yourself
before you even took on a physical body…

Go within,

And Re-Member,

For no one has the “master key”

to your soul blueprint,
but you….

Do not let others tell you who you are…

Find that place of inner knowing within yourself,
That no one on this earth can penetrate…

By doing so, you will become a pillar of light,

And bloom where you are…

By doing so, we are like cell/radio towers

Transmitting frequencies through
The Grid of Living Light,
And have access to the information necessary
To greatly advance the consciousness of humanity,
And raise as many beings possible to the vibration necessary to handle the shift…

We must let go of our attachments to earthly possessions…

We must understand

That humanity is one living organism on this planet,
And what we do to our brother (sister),
We do to ourselves…

We must let go of the ideas handed down to us

through the generations
and remember our true heritage
as the Family of Light
that We Are…

There is a phrase running through my mind tonight,

and it is this:

“The righteous shall inherit the earth”

This is one thing I know

And no one ever can,
or ever will convince me otherwise…

Stay strong, stay connected,

~Earth Family~
We are coming to the end of a long and winding road,
But everything we do,
is written and registered on the walls of eternity,
and each of us deserves and earned the right to be here…
We are each needed
as cogs in the
Great Wheel of Time…

Remember that~

When things appear to be hard…
All is temporary,
And “this too, shall pass”

We are standing on the edge of two worlds…

Do not be afraid to make the leap~

There is a particular “place”
In time and space,
Where we are all holding hands and laughing~
This is not too far off in our “future”

I will see you All there…

Cosmic Cog

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/we-are-chosen-ones-cosmic-cog.html

The Courage to Love. Christopher Howard

"When love beckons you, follow him, though his ways are hard and steep." - Kahlil Gibran

I have throughout my... view more life held back in ways of the heart. I had built walls around my heart that prevented anyone from coming in because I didn't want to be hurt. I conditioned myself to even becoming convinced that I didn't care about affairs of the heart, and to avoid dealing with the repressed feelings of fear and loneliness I threw my self into achievement. I threw myself into earning black belts in martial arts and writing best-selling books, and building companies and making millions. The relationships I had along the way were very one-sided. I lived my life for me, and not for others on the outside but deep down at a place that I didn't even know I existed I lived my life attempting to prove that I was good enough to be loved and to win the approval of others through my achievement. This drove me without any conscious awareness. I was cold and calloused to love on the outside but craved it more than anything else on the inside.

Many people go through their lives in this way. The core wound shared by multitudes is the core wound of not feeling "good enough to be loved."

Different people compensate in different ways. And the ways that we compensate externally are often to develop strong suits or strengths in life. Mine was to achieve. Some people develop a strength of being "intelligent," or "being a hard worker who brings value to the table therefore love is 'deserved," others look to control their environments or their relationships in order to "guarantee that they are in charge and cannot be hurt," still others look to dominant the opposite sex to be in control..... anything to avoid being hurt.

The challenge with all of these paths is that they are driven by fear or even terror and they distract and prevent us from ever dealing with the real issue, and because love is not found in achievement, or control or domination or admiration underneath everything we are still just terrified and lonely. No matter how much we achieve or how many material goods we accumulate or how much prestige or power we have, or sexual conquests are under our belt deep down we never feel whole, deeply fulfilled, happy, good enough or loved. Just look at Elvis Presley, or Marilyn Monroe, or Howard Hughes or Tiger Woods to name a few.

This lack of what we really yearn for, whether we acknowledge it or not, more than anything in the world causes not only underlying heartache but erratic behavior and oftentimes destruction through drugs or alcohol or promiscuity and the undesired results, or emotional outbursts and destroyed relationships. So beyond the lack of fulfillment the tangible results that we produce can be devastating. And the most destructive part is we convince ourselves that the ways we live our lives are actually fulfilling. Carl Jung said that we must by necessity project that which is unresolved at the unconscious level out onto the external world so that we might gain resolution of it.

The problem is that for most people instead of looking at what is happening in the world as being a result of their internal projections, they try to change and manipulate the external world to solve the problems they experience and therefore never resolve the issues that are occurring as a result of their very very deeply repressed unresolved negative emotions.

The journey is an internal journey, this is why our external relationships are always a reflection of our internal relationship with ourselves.

The journey of healing involves recognizing the real cause of our problems, our heartaches, our terror, our sadness, our loneliness and the underlying lack of fulfillment in life. Then having the willingness to go to the place that we've feared the most - moving out of our head and into our heart. Being present, allowing ourselves to love, allowing ourselves to risk being hurt. And realizing when we do get hurt that that too is a part of the process of loving.

Love is not all joy and roses. Love sometimes comes wrapped in harsh wrappings. An argument can give us the chance to learn to love unconditionally. A challenge in a relationship can cause frustration or sadness and also the opportunity to learn to heal. Sometimes a partner or loved one can be far away which can cause us to feel loneliness and experience an even greater opportunity to recognize the value that person holds in our heart upon their return and all of this is part of love. Love can sting, love can hurt....but when we allow ourselves to go to that place and risk all of these feelings, and learn to even ride through these feelings we learn how to really live. How to really be whole. How to really know what fulfillment is.

By not allowing ourselves to feel hurt we also rob ourselves of ever feeling REALLY fulfilled, happy and loved.

It is only through finding the courage to face our deepest fears that we find the ultimate reward in life. The reward of no longer having anything to prove. The reward of being present. The reward of being whole. The reward of knowing God. The reward of true happiness and fulfillment. The ability to stop running. Stop sprinting through life. Stop drowning out your sadness in alcohol or drugs or overeating or meaningless and empty promiscuous relationships. The reward of finding this kind of courage is to finally claim your life as your own.

So in finding the courage to love - first yourself - and then others - you are set free.

After spending 27 years imprisoned on Robbin Island Nelson Mandela said that whether you are a prisoner or a free man it's all just a state of mind. So it all begins inside.

It's time to find the courage to be free!

With Love and Respect,

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD

The Heart of The Mind. Christopher Howard

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." Antoine de Saint-Exupery... view more

Several months back, the mother of my daughter Eva approached me and said, "Chris I had a dream last night and in it I received a message that I knew I was supposed to tell you." "What was it?" I asked her. "I was supposed to tell you that you are supposed to get out of your head and get into your heart," she replied.

Interestingly enough that message had been bombarding me left right and center and from multiple sources. Interestingly enough, what she was telling me was not news to me, but rather, exactly what I already knew was where it was time for me to go.

Yes I knew that I had to get out of my head and into my heart, which also scared me to the marrow because it seemed like such a weak place to be setting an intention to head. I had PRIDED myself thoughout my life on who I had become. And now I was saying I actually WANTED to become the polar opposite of who I was...I wanted to become.... a touchy-feely person. To me that was the epitome of sloth and laziness - lack of productivity and lack of effectiveness; in short all of the things I despised most. I prided myself in my ability to achieve and create and get things done.

I had spent my entire life in my head - having built fortified brick walls around my heart. Quite simply I made a decision when I was very young that I wasn't going to feel, so that I wouldn't ever get hurt. And I then compensated by achieving in the material world. Doing, doing doing but never being.

This had not just a ripple effect but a tidal wave effect throughout my life that I never associated to the original decision. I stayed dissociated and unconnected in my relationships, which made intimacy impossible and destroyed most of them. If sex in relationships was good it was by occasional sheer luck, because I wasn't present there either.

I lived in my head over-analyzing situations and bouncing around in the world of self-talk creating stress for my self; I was really dissociated from life itself. I was never present, always someplace else in my mind. Either rehashing the past or worrying about the future. I had trouble trusting my own intuition because instead of processing negative emotions and allowing myself to FEEL them, I had repressed them so much that they totally mucked up my own internal guidance system.

And I had a deep seated sense of loneliness and sadness that was ALWAYS present underneath everything else, no matter how much I succeeded in the material world or how many "breakthroughs" I had from a personal and proffessional development standpoint. That sadness and that loneliness would resurface from time to time and I would wonder why I was feeling that way.

Because I was repressing the sadness and the loneliness, and more than anything sheer terror that I would be left or unloved or that I wasn't good enough to be loved, it would express itself outwardly in controlling behavior of both my environments as well as the people I loved. If I didn't have things my way I wouldn't outwardly express it as sadness or loneliness but rather angry outbursts.

I had become so dissociated and the emotions were so repressed that had you asked me if I had negative emotions I would have said "No. That's a terrible problem for the people that are dealing with them." I would then look to distract myself from the constant deeply rooted "unease" that I felt underneath it all. I would distract myself by succeeding massively in life and the material world, by being admired, by giving back, I'd distract myself with women, with traveling, with martial arts and succeeding there, with going out and abusing my body and partying, by indulging in too much food or feel-good foods.

So it was time to get out of my head and into my heart. 36 years after I made the decision to put brick walls around my heart. Yeah I'd say that's enough time.

So I made some huge decisions to do some things differently. The whirlwind of changes that occurred after that are stories for another time and another place. But what I can say is this, as a result of the changes I made, including actually picking up and moving to Bali on the other side of the globe, I found myself on a journey that would bring things together for me from a personal standpoint unlike anything I had ever experienced in my life. I can say that the life I am living now is truly a blessing. I used to feel blessed because I was living the life of my dreams. And that I have always done. But now my dreams have expanded to actually include ME. And that is magical. It's magical to actually feel, to actually be present. To actually be able to slow down and enjoy. To have the ability to connect with another human being or other people. To be able to get out of my head and into my heart.

It's still a journey. It's not like there isn't still much discovery to do. But it's the journey that's the magical part. The strange part about it all is that it is in recognizing the fear, and the hurt and the loneliness and the sadness where TRUE STRENGTH lies. And even though I'm embracing my fears at the same time I can say that I actually feel more FEAR-LESS than ever.

Being in a heart space makes it far easier to make decisions. Nothing to think about, just listen. Being in a heart space makes it far easier to create, no worrying or stress - for me at least. Being in a heart space makes it far easier to detach from any particular outcome in business and negotiations, because whatever the path it will be O.K.

Both ways the pendulum has swung have been necessary for me in my life, and I wouldn't trade them for anything. As the pendulum settles back in the middle I feel blessed to have experienced both parts of the journey as well as all those that await me.

Think about this........How do YOU relate to my experiences or the things I have shared?

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD

Feeling Good. Christopher Howard

"Birds flying high you know how I feel. Sun in the sky you know how I feel. Breeze just drifting on by, you know how I feel. It's a new dawn. It's a new day. It's a new life for me. For me." - Feeling Good

I feel best when I'm free. Free from attachments, freel from struggle, free from strife.

When I'm free I can appreciate all the things around me that I would usually just take for granted.

Most of us are simply running so fast through life that we don't ever take the time to "stop and smell the roses," as they say.

I feel incredible when I am able to set aside my fears of initmacy and slow down and connect with a partner, a child or a group of friends.

Intimacy, connection, slowing down, appreciation, feeling great.

The above-mentioned 5 states lead to: trust in relationships, deep bonds in relationships, rapport mastery, an attitude of gratitude. In other words they lead to happiness and peace of mind - for me.

I also feel great when I'm appreciating even my negative states of mind and emotion, and contextualizing them by realizing that they too are a part of life.

Where and when do you feel great?

Love Deeply and Shine Brightly,

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/courage-to-love-christopher-howard.html

La Fem Afrique. Women of Africa. Nnamdi Chukwuka & Nnedi Obasi

La Fem Afrique. Women of Africa.

The Old English wifman meant "female human" (werman meant "male human". Man or mann had a gender neutral meaning of "human", corresponding to Modern English "one" or "someone". However in around 1000 AD "man" started to be used more to refer to "male human"..., and in the late 1200s began to inevitably displace and eradicate the original word "werman"). The medial labial consonants coalesced to create the modern form "woman"; the initial element, which meant "female," underwent semantic narrowing to the sense of a married woman ("wife").

Nnamdi Chukwuka

AFRICA IS A CONTINENT.

Africa is a continent and not a country. She is big and beautiful. Natural and attractive. Warm for tanning and cool for toning. Colourful culture, vast tradition Attraction for tourists, scares terrorists. Hospitality well known. Hostility never known. Africa is a continent and not a country She is wide, naturally beautiful. A continent not defiled A virgin, a lovely sight She spreads the gospel, destroys the gossip. Full of grace for her land is green. Fifty-four children, friendly and lovely. Their friendship is never a fiend. She loves and does not loathe. Africa is a continent and not a countr. She is a real mother and does not murder. A continental hero, never a horror. One of the largest full of pride. A tutor, never torture. An inspiration, never conspires. A boaster of humility, a historical legacy. Once punished for her beauty. Wealth was stolen, pushed into slavery. A hardworking model. Soft hearted and forgave without apology. Intelligent, outspoken, highly talented. Her children scattered abroad. To make the world a better place.

Nnedi Obasi

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/la-fem-afrique-women-of-africa-nnamdi.html

For Good Men and Women To Do Nothing. Amera Ziganii Rao

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (women) to do nothing.

Edmund Burke.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
... view more No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
Hamlet. Shakespeare

I wrote the story myself. It's about a girl who lost her reputation and never missed it.

Mae West

This era right now is the turning point of the grand span of history.

Ryuho Okawa

A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out. Christopher Howard

"A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out."

Our true friends are revealed in times of misfortune. It's in these moments that we gain insight in terms of who people really are.

I don't know if you can relate to this, but in my own life I have found myself on several occassions wondering if I even had any real friends.

I've had many many many acquaintances, but what about real friends....

On many occasions my preconceived expectations of how other people would show up were much higher than what those individuals ended up demonstrating.

In times such as these I would feel betrayed, angry, sad, hurt and then this whole bundle of emotions would must often get projected out as anger or even rage.

In these cases what I would ultimately need to do would be to release my expectations, stop controlling or 'trying' to control others behaviors, stop trying to control the situation and accept what WAS.... That is to say that what is necessary to release from struggle and stress is to accept what IS.

While attempts to control other people or situations are often futile and can cause both you and me to be stressed to the max, when people don't show up in times of need or worse yet, they throw us under the bus it tells us who we can really count on vs. not.

The most important thing in times like these is this.... if you ever feel like you're getting thrown under the bus or trampled on: don't join the gang that's doing the trampling!

I know that when it seems like everyone's coming down on me, I have the capacity to start beating myself up with them. However this is the worse thing you or I could do.

It's your obligation to be your own best friend. ESPECIALLY when the chips are down and every body else seems to have bailed on you. Or when the whole world seems to be against you.

It's then that it's most vital for you to be there for yourself. To be your own best coach. To give yourself pep talks, take care of yourself, pamper yourself. Ask yourself positive questions that reframe the challenging situations you might find yourself in. Try asking yourself: How am I throwing myself under the bus that causes me to think they are throwing me under the bus? What part of the problems I'm facing can I be grateful about? Where is the gift in the challenge? What is actually exciting about the challenge? What is actually joyful about the challenge?

It's this type of conversation a real friend would have with you in a time of need. So make the commitment that above all, no matter what else happens, you will be that real friend for yourself. It's the most powerful commitment you can make.

It's a commitment to your own SUCCESS!

Love Deeply and Shine Brightly. Chris Howard

Shaman Vll (Artwork) 

Who Are You? What Were You Meant To Do? Christopher Howard

"Once a person says, ''This is who I really am, what I am all about, what I was really meant to do,'' it is easier to decide how to spend one's time."

I have found over the years in working... view more with hundreds of thousands of people around the world that one of people's biggest challenges is the unwillingness to take a stand for what they believe in and for what they want their lives to be about.

This may very well flow from the, almost universal, core wound of not feeling good enough, and the lack of belief in themselves.

I remember going to singing lessons as a kid and standing next to the piano as my vocal coach played the keys that I was to follow. I distinctly remember her asking me at one point during the lesson why I was coming to voice lessons. And I also remembering muttering something like "Well singing professionally would be neat, if I could do it, but I'm not good enough." And I remember her replying something to the extent of "Well you can still do it for fun can't you. And you can get better."

Whether my memory is accurate or not on everything that was said, I am clear about one thing: I walked away from the incident with thoughts that plagued me because "no talent had been spotted within me."

I felt hurt and dejected. Small and insignificant.

I felt like this at other times throughout my life as well.
Haven't you?

Haven't you? Have you felt self-conscious, or small or weak, or not good enough? Have you ever felt these ways in areas of your life that you dreamt about or wished could become your reality? The more powerful day dream reality you had about life, but you're thoughts and beliefs held you back?

Then I have had those times where I have felt present and strong. Those times where self-consciousness seemed to wash away in a cascade of presence and a connection to what was happening in the moment.

When I was working in the hotel resort industry I felt strong. I knew who I was and I knew I was doing what I was meant to be doing.

I felt that way when I got into personal development. 

I drew a line in the sand and said that there was no way I was turning back.

When I decided to diversify and focus on entrepreneurial endeavors I KNEW I was on the path of my divine destiny.

I rediscovered my true power when I stopped trying to live up to someone else's definition of who I should be and shared openly with the world who I really was. Take me or leave me, this is who I am. I am not a brand, I am a human being.

Where in your own life do you need to take a stand, to let the world see who you really are? To drop the pretenses. To stop pleasing others and instead please yourself. To find the courage to embrace what you REALLY want - not second best - no compromise.... where is it most important for you to full-heartedly commit.

Before the commitment is made focus is scattered, who you are is scattered. Results are sporadic and erratic...all over the place. But once you've declared who you are and what you want your actions will flow naturally from that place to support the powerful path toward the future of your dreams.

Love Deeply and Shine Brightly.

Chris Howard

In dwelling, be close to the land. In meditation, go deep in the heart.

Lao Tzu

I ached abruptly, intolerably, with a longing to go home; not to that hotel, in one of the alleys of Paris, where the concierge barred the way with my unpaid bill; but home, home across the ocean, to things and people I knew and understood; to those things, those places, those people which I would always helplessly, and in whatever bitterness of spirit, love above all else.

James Baldwin, Giovanni’s Room

The happiness of a man (woman) in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his (her) passions.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

People think I'm disciplined. It is not discipline. It is devotion. There is a great difference.

Luciano Pavarotti

http://ameraziganiirao.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/for-good-men-and-women-to-do-nothing.html

Freethinkers (Artwork) 

Friedrich Nietzsche 

On Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche's most accessible and influential philosophical work, misquoted, misrepresented, brilliantly original and enormously influential, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is translated from the German by R.J. Hollingdale in Penguin Classics.

Nietzsche was one of the most revolutionary and subversive thinkers in Western philosophy, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra remains his most famous and influential work. It describes how the ancient Persian prophet Zarathustra descends from his solitude in the mountains to tell the world that God is dead and that the Superman, the human embodiment of divinity, is his successor. Nietzsche's utterance 'God is dead', his insistence that the meaning of life is to be found in purely human terms, and his doctrine of the Superman and the will to power were all later seized upon and unrecognisably twisted by, among others, Nazi intellectuals. With blazing intensity and poetic brilliance, Nietzsche argues that the meaning of existence is not to be found in religious pieties or meek submission to authority, but in an all-powerful life force: passionate, chaotic and free.

Frederich Nietzsche (1844-1900) became the chair of classical philology at Basel University at the age of 24 until his bad health forced him to retire in 1879. He divorced himself from society until his final collapse in 1899 when he became insane. A powerfully original thinker, Nietzsche's influence on subsequent writers, such as George Bernard Shaw, D.H. Lawrence, Thomas Mann and Jean-Paul Sartre, was considerable.

If you enjoyed Thus Spoke Zarathustra you might like Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, also available in Penguin Classics.

'Enigmatic, vatic, emphatic, passionate, often breathtakingly insightful, his works together make a unique statement in the literature of European ideas'

A. C. Grayling

Amazon Review

The most famous Nietzsche book which formed part of his 'campaign against morality' […] the German philosopher explores the ethical consequences of the 'death of God'. Some say the book was a catalyst in Hitler's thinking and the rise of the far-right, others that Zarathustra was the most important text on human potential ever written. Hear it for yourself. The Naxos audiobook also includes helpful introductions to every chapter. --Bukowski on Bukowski zine --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

On Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (German: Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen, also translated as Thus Spake Zarathustra) is a philosophical novel by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, composed in four parts between 1883 and 1885 and published between 1883 and 1891. Much of the work deals with ideas such as the "eternal recurrence of the same", the parable on the "death of God", and the "prophecy" of the Übermensch, which were first introduced in The Gay Science.

Origins

Thus Spoke Zarathustra was conceived while Nietzsche was writing The Gay Science; he made a small note, reading "6,000 feet beyond man and time," as evidence of this. More specifically, this note related to the concept of the eternal recurrence, which is, by Nietzsche's admission, the central idea of Zarathustra; this idea occurred to him by a "pyramidal block of stone" on the shores of Lake Silvaplana in the Upper Engadine, a high alpine region whose valley floor is at 6,000 ft. Nietzsche planned to write the book in three parts over several years. He wrote that the ideas for Zarathustra first came to him while walking on two roads surrounding Rapallo, according to Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche in the introduction of Thomas Common's early translation of the book.

Although Part Three was originally planned to be the end of the book, and ends with a strong climax, Nietzsche subsequently decided to write an additional three parts; ultimately, however, he composed only the fourth part, which is viewed to constitute an intermezzo.

Nietzsche commented in Ecce Homo that for the completion of each part: "Ten days sufficed; in no case, neither for the first nor for the third and last, did I require more" (trans. Kaufmann). The first three parts were first published separately, and were subsequently published in a single volume in 1887. The fourth part remained private after Nietzsche wrote it in 1885; a scant forty copies were all that were printed, apart from seven others that were distributed to Nietzsche's close friends. In March 1892, the four parts were finally reprinted as a single volume. Since then, the version most commonly produced has included all four parts.

The original text contains a great deal of word-play. An example of this is the use of words beginning über ("over" or "above") and unter ("down" or "below"), often paired to emphasise the contrast, which is not always possible to bring out in translation, except by coinages. An example is Untergang, literally "down-going" but used in German to mean "setting" (as of the sun), which Nietzsche pairs with its opposite Übergang (going over or across). Another example is Übermensch (overman or superman), discussed later in this article.

Synopsis

The book chronicles the fictitious travels and speeches of Zarathustra. Zarathustra's namesake was the Persian founder of Zoroastrianism, usually known in English as Zoroaster (Avestan: Zaraϑuštra). Nietzsche is clearly portraying a "new" or "different" Zarathustra, one who turns traditional morality on its head. He goes on to characterize "what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth, the mouth of the first immoralist:"

"For what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things: the transposition of morality into the metaphysical realm, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. [...] Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. [...] His doctrine, and his alone, posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality [...]—Am I understood?—The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth."

— Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Destiny", §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann

Zarathustra has a simple characterisation and plot, narrated sporadically throughout the text. It possesses a unique experimental style, one that is, for instance, evident in newly invented "dithyrambs" narrated or sung by Zarathustra. Likewise, the separate Dithyrambs of Dionysus was written in autumn 1888, and printed with the full volume in 1892, as the corollaries of Zarathustra's "abundance".

Some speculate that Nietzsche intended to write about final acts of creation and destruction brought about by Zarathustra. However, the book lacks a finale to match that description; its actual ending focuses more on Zarathustra recognizing that his legacy is beginning to perpetuate, and consequently choosing to leave the higher men to their own devices in carrying his legacy forth.

Zarathustra also contains the famous dictum "God is dead", which had appeared earlier in The Gay Science. In his autobiographical work Ecce Homo, Nietzsche states that the book's underlying concept is discussed within "the penultimate section of the fourth book" of 'The Gay Science' (Ecce Homo, Kaufmann). It is the eternal recurrence of the same events.

This concept first occurred to Nietzsche while he was walking in Switzerland through the woods along the lake of Silvaplana (close to Surlej); he was inspired by the sight of a gigantic, towering, pyramidal rock. Before Zarathustra, Nietzsche had mentioned the concept in the fourth book of The Gay Science (e.g., sect. 341); this was the first public proclamation of the notion by him. Apart from its salient presence in Zarathustra, it is also echoed throughout Nietzsche's work. At any rate, it is by Zarathustra's transfiguration that he embraces eternity, that he at last ascertains "the supreme will to power". This inspiration finds its expression with Zarathustra's roundelay, featured twice in the book, once near the story's close:

"O man, take care!
What does the deep midnight declare?
"I was asleep—
From a deep dream I woke and swear:—
The world is deep,
Deeper than day had been aware.
Deep is its woe—
Joy—deeper yet than agony:
Woe implores: Go!
But all joy wants eternity—
Wants deep, wants deep eternity.""

Another singular feature of Zarathustra, first presented in the prologue, is the designation of human beings as a transition between apes and the "Übermensch" (in English, either the "overman" or "superman"; or, superhuman or overhuman. English translators Thomas Common and R. J. Hollingdale use superman, while Kaufmann uses overman, and Parkes uses overhuman. Martin has opted to leave the nearly universally understood term as Übermensch in his new translation). The Übermensch is one of the many interconnecting, interdependent themes of the story, and is represented through several different metaphors. Examples include: the lightning that is portended by the silence and raindrops of a travelling storm cloud; or the sun's rise and culmination at its midday zenith; or a man traversing a rope stationed above an abyss, moving away from his uncultivated animality and towards the Übermensch.

The symbol of the Übermensch also alludes to Nietzsche's notions of "self-mastery", "self-cultivation", "self-direction", and "self-overcoming". Expounding these concepts, Zarathustra declares:

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

"All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.

"Whoever is the wisest among you is also a mere conflict and cross between plant and ghost. But do I bid you become ghosts or plants?

"Behold, I teach you the overman! The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go!"

— Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, §3, trans. Walter Kaufmann

The book embodies a number of innovative poetical and rhetorical methods of expression. It serves as a parallel and supplement to the various philosophical ideas present in Nietzsche's body of work. He has, however, said that "among my writings my Zarathustra stands to my mind by itself" (Ecce Homo, Preface, sec. 4, Kaufmann). Emphasizing its centrality and its status as his magnum opus, Nietzsche stated that:

"With [Thus Spoke Zarathustra] I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made to it so far. This book, with a voice bridging centuries, is not only the highest book there is, the book that is truly characterized by the air of the heights—the whole fact of man lies beneath it at a tremendous distance—it is also the deepest, born out of the innermost wealth of truth, an inexhaustible well to which no pail descends without coming up again filled with gold and goodness."

— Ecce Homo, Preface, §4, trans. Walter Kaufmann

Since many of the book's ideas are also present in his other works, Zarathustra is seen to have served as a precursor to his later philosophical thought. With the book, Nietzsche embraced a distinct aesthetic assiduity. He later reformulated many of his ideas, in Beyond Good and Evil and various other writings that he composed thereafter. He continued to emphasize his philosophical concerns; generally, his intention was to show an alternative to repressive moral codes and to avert "nihilism" in all of its varied forms.

Other aspects of Thus Spoke Zarathustra relate to Nietzsche's proposed "Transvaluation of All Values". This incomplete project began with The Antichrist.

Themes

While Nietzsche injects myriad ideas into the book, a few recurring themes stand out. The overman (Übermensch), a self-mastered individual who has achieved his full power, is an almost omnipresent idea in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Man as a race is merely a bridge between animals and the overman. Nietzsche also makes a point that the overman is not an end result for a person, but more the journey toward self-mastery.

The eternal recurrence, found elsewhere in Nietzsche's writing, is also mentioned. "Eternal recurrence" is the possibility that all events in one's life will happen again and again, infinitely. The embrace of all of life's horrors and pleasures alike shows a deference and acceptance of fate, or Amor Fati. The love and acceptance of one's path in life is a defining characteristic of the overman. Faced with the knowledge that he would repeat every action that he has taken, an overman would be elated as he has no regrets and loves life. Opting to change any decision or event in one's life would indicate the presence of resentment or fear; contradistinctly the overman is characterized by courage and a Dionysian spirit.

The will to power is the fundamental component of human nature. Everything we do is an expression of the will to power. The will to power is a psychological analysis of all human action and is accentuated by self-overcoming and self-enhancement. Contrasted with living for procreation, pleasure, or happiness, the will to power is the summary of all man's struggle against his surrounding environment as well as his reason for living in it.

The book in several passages expresses loathing for sentiments of human pity, compassion, indulgence and mercy towards a victim, which are regarded as the greatest sin and most insidious danger. Part of Nietzsche's reactionary thought is also that the creature he most sincerely loathes is the spirit of revolution, and his hatred for the anarchist and rebel.

Many criticisms of Christianity can be found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in particular Christian values of good and evil and its belief in an afterlife. The basis for his critique of Christianity lies in the perceived squandering of our earthly lives in pursuit of a perfect afterlife, of which there is no evidence. This empiricist view (denial of afterlife) is not fully examined in a rational argument in the text, but taken as a simple fact in Nietzsche's aphoristic writing style. Judeo-Christian values are more thoroughly examined in On the Genealogy of Morals as a product of what he calls "slave morality."

Style

Noteworthy for its format, the book comprises a philosophical work of fiction whose style often lightheartedly imitates that of the New Testament and of the Platonic dialogues, at times resembling pre-Socratic works in tone and in its use of natural phenomena as rhetorical and explanatory devices. It also features frequent references to the Western literary and philosophical traditions, implicitly offering an interpretation of these traditions and of their problems. Nietzsche achieves all of this through the character of Zarathustra (referring to the traditional prophet of Zoroastrianism), who makes speeches on philosophic topics as he moves along a loose plotline marking his development and the reception of his ideas. This characteristic (following the genre of the bildungsroman) can be seen as an inline commentary on Zarathustra's (and Nietzsche's) philosophy. All this, along with the book's ambiguity and paradoxical nature, has helped its eventual enthusiastic reception by the reading public, but has frustrated academic attempts at analysis (as Nietzsche may have intended). Thus Spoke Zarathustra remained unpopular as a topic for scholars (especially those in the Anglo-American analytic tradition) until the second half of the twentieth century brought widespread interest in Nietzsche and his unconventional style that does not distinguish between philosophy and literature. It offers formulations of eternal recurrence, and Nietzsche for the first time speaks of the Übermensch: themes that would dominate his books from this point onwards.

Harold Bloom has criticized Thus Spoke Zarathustra's style, calling the book "a gorgeous disaster" and "unreadable".

Other commentators have suggested that Nietzsche's style is intentionally ironic for much of the book. This irony relates to an internal conflict of Nietzsche's: he hated religious leaders but perceived himself as at least somewhat akin to one.

Translations

English translations of Zarathustra differ according to the sentiments of each translator. The Thomas Common translation favors a classic English approach, in the style of Shakespeare or the King James Version of the Bible. Common's poetic interpretation of the text, which renders the title Thus Spake Zarathustra, received wide acclaim for its lambent portrayal. Common reasoned that because the original German was written in a pseudo-Luther-Biblical style, a pseudo-King-James-Biblical style would be fitting in the English translation.

The Common translation, which improved on Alexander Tille's earlier attempt, remained widely accepted until the more critical translations, titled Thus Spoke Zarathustra, separately by R.J. Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann, which are considered to convey more accurately the German text than the Common version. Kaufmann's introduction to his own translation included a blistering critique of Common's version; he notes that in one instance, Common has taken the German "most evil" and rendered it "baddest", a particularly unfortunate error not merely for his having coined the term "baddest", but also because Nietzsche dedicated a third of The Genealogy of Morals to the difference between "bad" and "evil". This and other errors led Kaufmann to wonder whether Common "had little German and less English".[13] The translations of Kaufmann and Hollingdale render the text in a far more familiar, less archaic, style of language, than that of Common.

Clancy Martin's 2005 translation opens with criticism and praise for these three seminal translators, Common, Hollingdale, and Kaufmann. He notes that the German text available to Common was considerably flawed, and that the German text from which Hollingdale and Kaufmann worked was itself untrue to Nietzsche's own work in some ways. Martin criticizes Kaufmann for changing punctuation, altering literal and philosophical meanings, and dampening some of Nietzsche's more controversial metaphors.[14] Kaufmann's version, which has become the most widely available, features a translator's note suggesting that Nietzsche's text would have benefited from an editor; Martin suggests that Kaufmann "took it upon himself to become his [Nietzsche's] editor".

Graham Parkes describes his own 2005 translation as trying "above all to convey the musicality of the text."

Quotes From Text

Prologue

I tell you: one must still have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star.

Du grosses Gestirn! Was wäre dein Glück, wenn du nicht Die hättest, welchen du leuchtest!

You great star, what would your happiness be had you not those for whom you shine?

Prologue 1.

The fall of our footsteps ringeth too hollow through their streets. And just as at night, when they are in bed and hear a man abroad long before sunrise, so they ask themselves concerning us: Where goeth the thief? Go not to men, but stay in the forest! Go rather to the animals! Why not be like me- a bear amongst bears, a bird amongst birds?" "And what doeth the saint in the forest?" asked Zarathustra. The saint answered: "I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God. With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God."

Prologue, part 2

When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead!"

Prologue, part 2

Ich lehre euch den Übermenschen. Der Mensch ist Etwas, das überwunden werden soll. Was habt ihr gethan, ihn zu überwinden?

I teach you the superman. Man is something to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?

Zarathustra's Prologue, part 3

Ihr habt den Weg vom Wurme zum Menschen gemacht, und Vieles ist in euch noch Wurm. Einst wart ihr Affen, und auch jetzt ist der Mensch mehr Affe, als irgend ein Affe.

You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

Prologue 3.

Wahrlich, ein schmutziger Strom ist der Mensch. Man muß schon ein Meer sein, um einen schmutzigen Strom aufnehmen zu können, ohne unrein zu werden.
Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea to be able to receive a polluted stream without becoming unclean.

Prologue, part 3

What is the greatest thing you can experience? It is the hour of your greatest contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becomes loathsome to you, and so also your reason and virtue. The hour when you say: 'What good is my happiness? It is poverty and filth and miserable self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!' The hour when you say: 'What good is my reason? Does it long for knowledge as the lion for his prey? It is poverty and filth and miserable self-complacency!' The hour when you say: 'What good is my virtue? It has not yet driven me mad! How weary I am of my good and my evil! It is all poverty and filth and miserable self-complacency!' The hour when you say: 'What good is my justice? I do not see that I am filled with fire and burning coals. But the just are filled with fire and burning coals!' The hour when you say: 'What good is my pity? Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loves man? But my pity is no crucifixion!"

Prologue, part 3

Was gross ist am Menschen, das ist, dass er eine Brücke ist und kein Zweck ist.
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal.

Prologue, part 4

I love him whose soul is lavish, who wanteth no thanks and doth not give back: for he always bestoweth, and desireth not to keep for himself.

Prologue, part 5

Ich sage euch: man muß noch Chaos in sich haben, um einen tanzenden Stern gebären zu können.

I tell you: one must still have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star.

Prologue 5.

Kein Hirt und Eine Heerde! Jeder will das Gleiche, Jeder ist gleich: wer anders fühlt, geht freiwillig in's Irrenhaus.

No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same, everyone is the same: whoever feels different goes wilingly into the madhouse.

Prologue 5.

"We have invented happiness" -say the last men and blink

Prologue, Part 5 page 13

A light has dawned for me: I need companions, living ones, not dead companions and corpses which I carry with me wherever I wish. But I need living companions who follow me because they want to follow themselves— and who want to go where I want to go.

A light has dawned for me: Zarathustra shall not speak to the people but to companions! Zarathustra shall not be herdsman and dog to the herd! To lure many away from the herd— that is why I have come. The people and the herd shall be angry with me: the herdsmen shall call Zarathustra a robber. I will not be herdsmen or gravedigger. I will not speak again to the people: I have spoken to a dead man for the last time.

I will make company with creators, with harvesters, with rejoicers: I will show them the rainbow and the stairway to the Superman.

Prologue, part 9

Part I

Brave, unconcerned, mocking, violent — thus wisdom wants us: she is a woman, and loves only a warrior.

I would only believe in a God that knows how to dance.

Welches ist der große Drache, den der Geist nicht mehr Herr und Gott heißen mag? "Du-sollst" heißt der große Drache. Aber der Geist des Löwen sagt "ich will". "Du-sollst" liegt ihm am Wege, goldfunkelnd, ein Schuppentier, und auf jeder Schuppe glänzt golden "Du sollst!" Tausendjährige Werte glänzen an diesen Schuppen, und also spricht der mächtigste aller Drachen: "aller Wert der Dinge - der glänzt an mir." "Aller Wert ward schon geschaffen, und aller geschaffene Wert - das bin ich. Wahrlich, es soll kein 'Ich will' mehr geben!" Also spricht der Drache.

Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." "Thou shalt" lies in his way, sparkling like gold, an animal covered with scales; and on every scale shines a golden "thou shalt." Values, thousands of years old, shine on these scales; and thus speaks the mightiest of all the dragons: "All value of all things shines on me. All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more 'I will.'" Thus speaks the dragon.

Part I, Chapter 1, "Von den drei Verwandlungen"/"On the Three Metamorphoses".

Keine geringe Kunst ist schlafen: es thut schon Noth, den ganzen Tag darauf hin zu wachen.

It is no small art to sleep: for that purpose you must keep awake all day.

Part I, Chapter 2, "Von den Lehrstühlen der Tugend"/"On the Teachers of Virtue".

"Leib bin ich und Seele"–so redet das Kind. Und warum sollte man nicht wie die Kinder reden?

"Body am I, and soul"–so says the child. And why should one not speak like children?

Part I, Chapter 4, "Von den Verächtern des Leibes"/"On the despisers of the Body".

Es ist mehr Vernunft in deinem Leibe, als in deiner besten Weisheit.

There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.

Part I, Chapter 4, "Von den Verächtern des Leibes"/"On the despisers of the Body".

Und nichts Böses wächst mehr fürderhin aus dir, es sei denn das Böse, das aus dem Kampfe deiner Tugenden wächst. Mein Bruder, wenn du Glück hast, so hast du Eine Tugend und nicht mehr: so gehst du leichter über die Brücke.

And nothing evil grows in you any longer, unless it is the evil that grows out of the conflict of your virtues. My brother, if you are fortunate, then you will have only one virtue and no more: thus you will go more easily over the bridge.

Part I, Chapter 5, "Von den Freuden- und Leidenschaften"/"On Enjoying and Suffering the Passions".

Von allem Geschriebenen liebe ich nur Das, was Einer mit seinem Blute schreibt.
Of all that is written, I love only what a man has written with his own blood.

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

Es ist immer etwas Wahnsinn in der Liebe. Es ist aber immer auch etwas Vernunft im Wahnsinn.

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

Muthig, unbekümmert, spöttisch, gewaltthätig - so will uns die Weisheit: sie ist ein Weib und liebt immer nur einen Kriegsmann.

Brave, unconcerned, mocking, violent–thus wisdom wants us: she is a woman, and loves only a warrior.

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

Es ist wahr: wir lieben das Leben, nicht, weil wir an's Leben, sondern weil wir an's Lieben gewöhnt sind.

It is true: we love life not because we are used to living, but because we are used to loving.

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

Ich würde nur an einen Gott glauben, der zu tanzen verstünde.

I would only believe in a God that knows how to dance.

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tötet man

Not by wrath does one kill, but by laughter

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

Ihr seht nach oben, wenn ihr nach Erhebung verlangt. Und ich sehe hinab, weil ich erhoben bin.

You look up when you wish to be exalted. And I look down because I am exalted.

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

Im Gebirge ist der nächste Weg von Gipfel zu Gipfel: aber dazu musst du lange Beine haben. Sprüche sollen Gipfel sein: und Die, zu denen gesprochen wird, Grosse und Hochwüchsige.

In the mountains, the shortest way is from peak to peak: but for that, you need long legs. Aphorisms should be peaks: and those to whom they are spoken, big and tall.

Part I, Chapter 7, "Vom Lesen und Schreiben"/"On Reading and Writing".

»Je mehr er hinauf in die Höhe und Helle will, um so stärker streben seine Wurzeln erdwärts, abwärts, in's Dunkle, Tiefe, — in's Böse.«

The more one seeks to rise into height and light, the more vigorously do ones roots struggle earthward, downward, into the dark, the deep — into evil.

Part I, Chapter 8, "Vom Baum am Berge"/"On the Tree on the Mountain".

Ihre (Predigern des Todes) Weisheit lautet: "ein Thor, der leben bleibt, aber so sehr sind wir Thoren! Und das eben ist das Thörichtste am Leben!" —

Their (the preachers of death) wisdom speaks thus: "Only a fool remains alive, but such fools are we! And that is surely the most foolish thing about life!"

Part I, Chapter 9, "Von den Predigern des Todes"/"On the Preachers of Death".

Ich weiss um den Hass und Neid eures Herzens. Ihr seid nicht gross genug, um Hass und Neid nicht zu kennen. So seid denn gross genug, euch ihrer nicht zu schämen!

I know of the hatred and envy of your hearts. You are not great enough not to know hatred and envy. Then be great enough not to be ashamed of them!

Part I, Chapter 10, "Vom Krieg und Kriegsvolke"/"On War and Warriors".

Aber der Staat lügt in allen Zungen des Guten und Bösen; und was er auch redet, er lügt—und was er auch hat, gestohlen hat er's.

The state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.

False is everything in it; with stolen teeth it biteth, the biting one. False are even its bowels.

Confusion of language of good and evil; this sign I give unto you as the sign of the state. Verily, the will to death, indicateth this sign! Verily, it beckoneth unto the preachers of death! (Thomas Common translation)

Variant translation: Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen. (As quoted in Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History (2010) by Andrew Napolitano)

Part I, Chapter 11, "Vom neuen Götzen"/"The New Idol"

Seht sie klettern, diese geschwinden Affen! Sie klettern über einander hinweg und zerren sich also in den Schlamm und die Tiefe. Hin zum Throne wollen sie Alle: ihr Wahnsinn ist es, — als ob das Glück auf dem Throne sässe! Oft sitzt der Schlamm auf dem Thron — und oft auch der Thron auf dem Schlamme. Wahnsinnige sind sie mir Alle und kletternde Affen und Überheisse. Übel riecht mir ihr Götze, das kalte Unthier: übel riechen sie mir alle zusammen, diese Götzendiener.

Watch them clamber, these swift monkeys! They clamber over one another and thus drag one another into the mud and the depth. They all want to get to the throne: that is their madness — as if happiness sat on the throne. Often, mud sits on the throne — and often the throne also on mud. Mad they all appear to me, clambering monkeys and overardent. Foul smells their idol, the cold monster: foul, they smell to me altogether, these idolators.

Part I, Chapter 11, "Vom neuen Götzen"/"On the New Idol".

Free from what? As if that mattered to Zarathustra! But your eyes should tell me brightly: free for what?

Part I, Ch. 17: On the Way of the Creator

Zweierlei will der echte Mann: Gefahr und Spiel. Deshalb will er das Weib als das gefährlichste Spielzeug.

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous toy.

Part I, Chapter 18, "Old and Young Women".

Man is for woman a means; the end is always the child.

Part I, Chapter 18, Of Little Women Old and Young

Vornehmer ist's, sich Unrecht zu geben als Recht zu behalten, sonderlich wenn man Recht hat. Nur muss man reich genug dazu sein.
Nobler is it to own oneself in the wrong than to establish one's right, especially if one be in the right. Only, one must be rich enough to do so.

Part I, Chapter 19, "The Bite of the Adder".

Then will he who goes under bless himself for being one who goes over and beyond; and the sun of his knowledge will stand at high noon for him.
"Dead are all gods: now we want the overman to live" — on that great noon, let this be our last will.

Part I, Ch. 22, On the Gift-Giving Virtue, 3.

Verily, I advise you: depart from me, and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he hath deceived you. The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends. One requiteth a teacher badly if one remain merely a student. And why will ye not pluck at my wreath? Ye venerate me; but what if your veneration should some day collapse? Take heed lest a statue crush you! Ye say, ye believe in Zarathustra? But of what account is Zarathustra! Ye are my believers: but of what account are all believers! Ye had not yet sought yourselves: then did ye find me. So do all believers; therefore all belief is of so little account. Now do I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when ye have all denied me, will I return unto you.

Part I, Ch. 22: The Bestowing Virtue

Ch. 11 : The New Idol

Ch. 11 : The New Idol, as translated by Thomas Common (1909)

Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.

A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.

A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."

It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.

Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.

This sign I give unto you: every people speaketh its language of good and evil: this its neighbour understandeth not. Its language hath it devised for itself in laws and customs.

But the state lieth in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it saith it lieth; and whatever it hath it hath stolen.

False is everything in it; with stolen teeth it biteth, the biting one. False are even its bowels.

Confusion of language of good and evil; this sign I give unto you as the sign of the state. Verily, the will to death, indicateth this sign! Verily, it beckoneth unto the preachers of death!

Many too many are born: for the superfluous ones was the state devised!

See just how it enticeth them to it, the many-too-many! How it swalloweth and cheweth and recheweth them!

"On earth there is nothing greater than I: it is I who am the regulating finger of God."

— thus roareth the monster. And not only the long-eared and short-sighted fall upon their knees!

Ah! even in your ears, ye great souls, it whispereth its gloomy lies! Ah! it findeth out the rich hearts which willingly lavish themselves!

Heroes and honourable ones, it would fain set up around it, the new idol! Gladly it basketh in the sunshine of good consciences, — the cold monster!

Everything will it give you, if ye worship it, the new idol: thus it purchaseth the lustre of your virtue, and the glance of your proud eyes.

It seeketh to allure by means of you, the many-too-many! Yea, a hellish artifice hath here been devised, a death-horse jingling with the trappings of divine honours!

Yea, a dying for many hath here been devised, which glorifieth itself as life: verily, a hearty service unto all preachers of death!

The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all — is called "life."

Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft — and everything becometh sickness and trouble unto them!

Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves.

Just see these superfluous ones! Wealth they acquire and become poorer thereby.
Power they seek for, and above all, the lever of power, much money — these impotent ones!

See them clamber, these nimble apes! They clamber over one another, and thus scuffle into the mud and the abyss.

Towards the throne they all strive: it is their madness — as if happiness sat on the throne! Ofttimes sitteth filth on the throne. — and ofttimes also the throne on filth.

Madmen they all seem to me, and clambering apes, and too eager. Badly smelleth their idol to me, the cold monster: badly they all smell to me, these idolaters.

Open still remaineth the earth for great souls. Empty are still many sites for lone ones and twain ones, around which floateth the odour of tranquil seas.

Open still remaineth a free life for great souls. Verily, he who possesseth little is so much the less possessed: blessed be moderate poverty!

There, where the state ceaseth — there only commenceth the man who is not superfluous: there commenceth the song of the necessary ones, the single and irreplaceable melody.

There, where the state ceaseth — pray look thither, my brethren! Do ye not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Superman? — Thus spake Zarathustra.

Part ll

Spirit is the life that itself strikes into life: through its own torment it increases its own knowledge -- did you know that before?

Part II, Chapter 8, "Of the Famous Philosophers".

Wenn die Macht gnädig wird und herabkommt ins Sichtbare: Schönheit heiße ich solches Herabkommen. Und von niemandem will ich so als von dir gerade Schönheit, du Gewaltiger: deine Güte sei deine letzte Selbst-Überwältigung. Alles Böse traue ich dir zu: darum will ich von dir das Gute. Wahrlich, ich lachte oft der Schwächlinge, welche sich gut glauben, weil sie lahme Tatzen haben!

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

Part II, Chapter 13, "The Sublime Ones".

Also aber rathe ich euch, meine Freunde: misstraut Allen, in welchen der Trieb, zu strafen, mächtig ist! Das ist Volk schlechter Art und Abkunft; aus ihren Gesichtern blickt der Henker und der Spürhund. Misstraut allen Denen, die viel von ihrer Gerechtigkeit reden! Wahrlich, ihren Seelen fehlt es nicht nur an Honig. Und wenn sie sich selber 'die Guten und Gerechten' nennen, so vergesst nicht, dass ihnen zum Pharisäer Nichts fehlt als — Macht!

But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful! They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound. Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking. And when they call themselves 'the good and just,' forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but — power! (Thomas Common translation)

Variant translation: But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had — power.

Part II, Ch.29, The Tarantulas (Similar statements are attributed to Goethe, and to Dostoevsky).

Und wer von uns Dichtern hätte nicht seinen Wein verfälscht? Manch giftiger Mischmasch geschah in unsern Kellern, manches Unbeschreibliche ward da getan.

And who among us poets has not adulterated his wine? Many a poisonous hodgepodge has been contrived in our cellars; much that is indescribable was accomplished there.

Part II, Chapter 39, On Poets.

Ach, es gibt so viel Dinge zwischen Himmel und Erde, von denen sich nur die Dichter etwas haben träumen lassen. Und zumal ü b e r dem Himmel: denn alle Götter sind Dichter-Gleichnis, Dichter-Erschleichnis! Wahrlich, immer zieht es uns hinan - nämlich zum Reich der Wolken: auf diese setzen wir unsre bunten Bälge und heißen sie dann Götter und Übermenschen: - Sind sie doch gerade leicht genug für diese Stühle! - alle diese Götter und Übermenschen. Ach, wie bin ich all des Unzulänglichen müde, das durchaus Ereignis sein soll! Ach, wie bin ich der Dichter müde!

Alas, there are so many things between heaven and earth of which only the poets have dreamed. And especially above the heavens: for all gods are poets' parables, poets' prevarications. Verily, it always lifts us higher — specifically, to the realm of the clouds: upon these we place our motley bastards and call them gods and overmen. For they are just light enough for these chairs — all these gods and overmen. Ah, how weary I am of all the imperfection which must at all costs become event! Ah, how weary I am of poets!

Part II, Chapter 39, On Poets.

Höheres als alle Versöhnung muss der Wille wollen, welcher der Wille zur Macht ist.

Higher than all reconciliation must the Will will, which the will to power is.

Part II, Chapter 42: Redemption

Und wer unter Menschen nicht verschmachten will, muß lernen, aus allen Gläsern zu trinken; und wer unter Menschen rein bleiben will, muß verstehn, sich auch mit schmutzigem Wasser zu waschen. Und also sprach ich oft mir zum Troste: "Wohlan! Wohlauf! Altes Herz! Ein Unglück mißriet dir: genieße dies als dein - Glück!"

And whoever does not want to die of thirst among men must learn to drink out of all cups; and whoever would stay clean among men must know how to wash even with dirty water. And thus I often comforted myself, "Well then, old heart! One misfortune failed you; enjoy this as your good fortune."

Part II, Chapter 43, On Human Prudence

Die stillsten Worte sind es, welche den Sturm bringen. Gedanken, die mit Taubenfüßen kommen, lenken die Welt.

It is the stillest words that bring on the storm. Thoughts that come on doves' feet guide the world.

Part II, Chapter 44, The Stillest Hour

Part III

Woher kommen die höchsten Berge? so fragte ich einst. Da lernte ich, daß sie aus dem Meere kommen. Dies Zeugnis ist in ihr Gestein geschrieben und in die Wände ihrer Gipfel. Aus dem Tiefsten muß das Höchste zu seiner Höhe kommen.

Whence come the highest mountains? I once asked. Then I learned that they came out of the sea. The evidence is written in their rocks and in the walls of their peaks. It is out of the deepest depth that the highest must come to its height.

Part III, Chapter 45, The Wanderer

Whence come the highest mountains? I once asked. Then I learned that they came out of the sea. The evidence is written in their rocks and in the walls of their peaks. It is out of the deepest depth that the highest must come to its height.

Part III, Chapter 46, On the Vision and the Riddle

O meine Brüder, ich weihe und weise euch zu einem neuen Adel: ihr sollt mir Zeuger und Züchter werden und Säemänner der Zukunft, - wahrlich, nicht zu einem Adel, den ihr kaufen könntet gleich den Krämern und mit Krämer-Golde: denn wenig Wert hat alles, was seinen Preis hat. Nicht, woher ihr kommt, mache euch fürderhin eure Ehre, sondern wohin ihr geht! Euer Wille und euer Fuß, der über euch selber hinaus will, — das mache eure neue Ehre!

O my brothers, I dedicate and direct you to a new nobility: you shall become procreators and cultivators and sowers of the future — verily, not to a nobility that you might buy like shopkeepers and with shopkeepers' gold: for whatever has its price has little value. Not whence you came shall henceforth constitute your honor, but whither you are going! Your will and your foot which has a will to go over and beyond yourselves — that shall constitute your new honor.

Part III, Chapter 56, On Old and New Tablets (12).

O meine Brüder, nicht zurück soll euer Adel schauen, sondern h i n a u s ! Vertriebene sollt ihr sein aus allen Vater- und Urväterländern! Eurer Kinder Land sollt ihr lieben: diese Liebe sei euer neuer Adel, — das unentdeckte, im fernsten Meere! Nach ihm heiße ich eure Segel suchen und suchen! An euren Kindern sollt ihr gut machen, daß ihr eurer Väter Kinder seid: alles Vergangene sollt ihr so erlösen! Diese neue Tafel stelle ich über euch!

O my brothers, your nobility should not look backward but ahead! Exiles shall you be from all father- and forefather-lands! Your children's land shall you love: this love shall be your new nobility — the undiscovered land in the most distant sea. For that I bid your sails search and search. In your children you shall make up for being the children of your fathers: thus shall you redeem all that is past. This new tablet I place over you.

Part III, Chapter 56, On Old and New Tablets (12).

Was fällt, das soll man auch noch stoßen!

What falleth, that shall one also push!

Part III, Ch. 56, On Old and New Tablets (20).

Unsorted

"Nothing is true, all is permitted": so said I to myself. Into the coldest water did I plunge with head and heart. Ah, how oft did I stand there naked on that account, like a red crab!

Ah, where have gone all my goodness and all my shame and all my belief in the good! Ah, where is the lying innocence which I once possessed, the innocence of the good and of their noble lies!

Too oft, verily, did I follow close to the heels of truth: then did it kick me on the face.

Sometimes I meant to lie, and behold! then only did I hit— the truth.

Zarathustra's "Shadow" in Chapter 69 "The Shadow"

But one thing is the thought, another thing is the deed, and another thing is the idea of the deed. The wheel of causality doth not roll between them.

By our best enemies we do not want to be spared, nor by those either whom we love from the very heart.

Many die too late, and some die too early. Yet strange soundeth the precept: "Die at the right time!"

Life is a well of delight; but where the rabble also drink, there all fountains are poisoned.

Ihr sagt, die gute Sache sei es, die sogar den Krieg heilige? Ich sage euch: der gute Krieg ist es, der jede Sache heiligt

You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I tell you: it is the good war that hallows every cause.

Quotes about Thus Spoke Zarathustra

It is entirely in the spirit of collectivism when Nietzsche makes his Zarathustra say:
“A thousand goals have existed hitherto, for a thousand people existed. But the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking, the one goal is still lacking. Humanity has no goal yet.

“But tell me, I pray, my brethren: if the goal be lacking to humanity, is not humanity itself lacking?”

Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944), Ch. 10. Why the Worst Get the on Top, Note

Wikipedia

VOLTAIRE 

Dictionnaire philosophique

The Dictionnaire philosophique (Philosophical Dictionary) is an encyclopedic dictionary published by Voltaire in 1764. The alphabetically arranged articles often criticize the Roman Catholic Church and other institutions. The first edition, released in June 1764, went by the name of Dictionnaire philosophique portatif. It was 344 pages and consisted of 73 articles. Later versions were expanded into two volumes consisting of 120 articles. The first editions were published anonymously in Geneva by Gabriel Grasset. Due to the volatile content of the Dictionnaire, Voltaire chose Grasset over his usual publisher to ensure his own anonymity. There have been many editions and reprints of the Dictionnaire during Voltaire's life, but only four of them contained additions and modifications. Furthermore, another work published in 1770, Questions sur l'Encyclopédie, which contained reshaped and modified articles from the Encyclopédie always in alphabetical order, led many following editors to join this and the Dictionnaire (plus other minor works) in a unique opus. The Dictionnaire was a lifelong project for Voltaire. It represents the culmination of his views on Christianity, God, morality and other subjects.

History and Origins

The Enlightenment saw the creation of a new way of structuring information in books. The first work to employ this method was the Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (1697) by Pierre Bayle, in which the information is ordered alphabetically. Other important works using a similar structure followed, such as the Encyclopédie by Diderot and Jean d'Alembert. Having witnessed first-hand the popularity and many advantages of this form, Voltaire used this information while preparing the Philosophical Dictionary in 1752, although it wasn't completed until 1764.

Having had the opportunity to write his Dictionary at a later point in time, Voltaire saw that there were certain problems with previous dictionaries, chiefly that they were all lengthy, and thus very expensive and unaccessible for much of the population. Voltaire sought to create a text which would fit in one's pocket and be affordable because "revolutionary material must be small enough for people to carry with them". What he created is a text which educated and amused at the same time.[8]

Voltaire's motivations for writing the Philosophical Dictionary can be seen as serendipitous. The idea was spawned at a dinner party in the court of Prince Frederick II of Prussia in 1752, during which he and other guests each agreed to write an article and share them the next morning. Voltaire consequently was the only guest to take the game seriously and the idea cascaded to form the Philosophical Dictionary.

Structure

The Philosophical Dictionary is structured in the tradition of Bayle, Diderot and d'Alembert — that is to say, alphabetically ordered. Although this order helps readers more easily find articles, this was not meant to be a dictionary or encyclopaedia in the same totalizing way of d'Alembert's project. Voltaire's writing is neither objective nor varied in opinion; the same arguments are made throughout the Philosophical Dictionary emphasizing the point of his discontent.

Themes

Many of the themes addressed by Voltaire in this book are addressed or touched upon in his work L'Infame. In this and other works, Voltaire is very concerned about the injustices of the Catholic Church, which he sees as intolerant and fanatical. At the same time, his work espouses deism, tolerance and freedom of the press.

Influences

Because this work was written late in the author's life, coupled with the fact that it is compiled of articles written over an extended period of time, the work had many influences, which noticeably change, depending on the theme which the article addresses.

The first major influence on the Philosophical Dictionary is Voltaire's visit to England, which gave him the opportunity to compare the problems in France with a place that had free press and to become better acquainted with important and influential thinkers such as Locke and Newton. Newtonian theory is influential in many of the articles that deal with tolerance stating that if we "do not know the essence of things we will not persecute others", for those things.

The Calas affair was an event that shaped Voltaire during the creation of the Philosophical Dictionary. Jean Calas was a Calvinist who was wrongfully convicted of killing his son. This occurred because there had been a rumour that the murder was fueled by Calas' son conversion to Catholicism. David de Beaudrige, who was in charge of the case, upon hearing this rumour, had the Calas family arrested without inquiry. Voltaire used this theme in the Philosophical Dictionary to fight against the Catholic Church.

Reception

The reception of the Philosophical Dictionary at the time was mixed. On one hand, the book saw a very strong reception on the part of the general public. The first edition was quickly sold out; many more editions were needed to keep up with the demand. Enlightened rulers such as Frederick II of Prussia and Catherine II of Russia both have been recorded as supporters of the book.

On the other hand, the Philosophical Dictionary was despised by religious authorities, who had a very important influence over what works were to be censored. The Philosophical Dictionary was censored in many countries, including Switzerland (Geneva) and France. In these countries, all available copies of the book were collected and burned in the town square. Voltaire, who remained an anonymous author, was repeatedly asked if he minded that the Portatif was being burned, but he calmly replied that he had no reason to be upset.

Wikipedia

Study Guide for Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary: (Selections)

The most commonly taught book by Voltaire is his amusing satire on philosophical optimism, Candide. It was even made into a delightful musical by Leonard Bernstein. However, it does not represent Voltaire at his most influential. Philosophical optimism is pretty much dead and has to be explained to students today so that they can grasp the point of his satire. Voltaire's thought ranged much more widely than this, however. In a very long life of tireless intellectual campaigning he was the most widely-read of the Enlightenment spokesmen known as philosophes.

These writers prized clarity and wit, and Voltaire's writing abounds in both. However, these qualities are somewhat dimmed for many contemporary readers who don't have the background to appreciate his jokes or grasp his points without assistance. These notes try to provide some assistance in this regard, and draw the reader's attention to the most important issues.

It has been said that "Voltaire criticized the Bible, but now everyone reads the Bible and no one reads Voltaire." Besides being wildly overstated, this jibe misses the point: we no longer read most of Voltaire's writings because the ideas he fearlessly promoted have mostly become commonplaces which we take for granted. The agenda of the Enlightenment is a familiar one to anyone studying classic American values: freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and opposition to the cruel caprices of unenlightened monarchs, to militarism and to slavery.

It is crucial to understand that at his time, organized religion in France (and elsewhere) ranged itself on the opposite side of every one of these issues, censoring the press and speech, opposing religious toleration, supporting the doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule and often endorsing slavery as well. Voltaire railed against the Catholic Church not because he was a wicked man who wanted freedom to sin, but because he viewed it as a fountainhead and bulwark of evil. He felt that no change of the kind he wanted was possible without undermining the power of the Church; that is why he devoted so much of his attention to ridiculing and discrediting it.

Unlike his arch-rival philosophe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he was not a democrat. ( A comparison of the two.) Despite the stereotype of the Enlightenment as a movement of facile optimism, Voltaire was deeply pessimistic about the human nature. He never dreamed of creating a perfect world (despite the utopia depicted in Candide). He only argued that the world could be less bad than it is if we replaced ignorance and superstition with knowledge and rational thought.

His influence (along with Rousseau) on the French Revolution is well-known, but Voltaire would have been appalled by the irrational, violent excesses done in the name of enlightenment. Critics ever since have been arguing that the 18th-century crusade against faith has fatally wounded the Western World, promoting all sorts of social ills. Whether one sees the world as better or worse after Voltaire, there is no question that the issues which obsessed him are still important today. There are few of the questions treated below which are not still being hotly debated in contemporary America, and few of his arguments have lost their point in the ensuing centuries.

As you read this book, ask yourself to what extent are his views the very foundation stones of our culture and to what extent do they challenge it? Voltaire's great ambition was to make his contemporaries think, and it is a tribute to his wit and his intellect that his writings can still accomplish that goal.

The following notes refer to the Penguin edition of the Philosophical Dictionary, but there is a different, older translation available on the Web.

Abbé

Why does Voltaire think it is ironic that priests are called "father?" What does he think is the main fault of modern priests as opposed to ancient ones? What does the threat in the last line of this article mean?

Ame: Soul

In this article Voltaire ironically examines the concept of the soul, which had been finely subdivided as he describes by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose definitions were adapted by the thirteenth century Italian theologian Thomas Aquinas, and which became the basis of Roman Catholic teaching on the subject (see p. 24). Much of this article is spent mocking these teachings. Focus instead on Voltaire's attitude toward knowledge. Some of his comments in this article are aimed at particular points in their philosophy and are of mainly historical interest. Focus on the points addressed in the following questions. Voltaire does not believe it is possible to observe what is usually called the "soul." Notice how he ridicules the idea that there is a spiritual entity separate from the body by discussing the nature of flowers and dogs. Voltaire, like most modern scientists, sees humans as being part of a natural continuum with animals and plants. In the last sentence on p. 21, Voltaire introduces the rest of his discussion by suggesting that religious teachers (by "supernatural help") are the sole source of the notion of the soul: reason alone does not suggest it. On p. 22, he uses the newly-announced theory of gravitation (developed by Newton and much admired by Voltaire) to argue that the fact that human beings are alive does not imply the existence of a soul separate from the body. Rocks do not have heaviness in them as something distinguishable from the rest of their nature: rocks are heavy. Similarly, living beings live not because they have souls which animate them; they are simply physical beings one of whose characteristics is life. What do you think of this argument? Voltaire repeatedly argues that the soul cannot be known without "revelation" or "faith;" is he therefore arguing in favor of the concept of an inspired Bible? How can you tell? On p. 23 he rejects the Greek concept of the animal soul. On p. 24, how can you tell that the sentence which begins "Saint Thomas wrote two thousand pages" is sarcastic? "Schoolmen" are the traditional theologians known as " scholastics." What examples does he use to ridicule the concept of the existence of a soul existing after death? What does he say was the attitude toward the ancient Jewish people about the soul and immortality? "Decalogue" means the Ten Commandments. What kind of portrait does he give of Jewish law in his paraphrase of laws from Deuteronomy on p. 25? Why does he single out the passage on false prophets? What relationship does the last full paragraph on p. 25 have to the question of whether the Jews believed in immortality? Throughout his discussion of Deuteronomy Voltaire follows the common interpretation of his time that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, though he elsewhere rejects this notion. He states on p. 26 that "several illustrious commentators" argue that when Jacob, mourning Joseph, said he would descend in infernum (orig. sheol) it is thereby proven that the ancient Jews believed in an afterlife; but he does not bother to answer this argument. Why is it an embarrassing argument even for those who use it? Since the Sadducees were the most conservative, traditional branch of Judaism, it is particularly significant that they did not accept the concept of immortality. According to Voltaire Josephus says that the Pharisees believed in "metempsychosis" (reincarnation), while the Sadducees rejected life after death altogether. The Essenes were the least orthodox of all, yet their beliefs best match those of later Jews and Christians. On p. 27, "He who alone was to teach all men" is of course Christ. Why does Voltaire say that we've only been certain of the existence of the soul for 1,700 years? Note how Voltaire slips in a sarcastic comment on the Bible's inconsistency in stating in one place that Moses saw God face to face and in another that he saw him only from the rear. What, for Voltaire, is the purpose of the mind, or "understanding?" On p. 28 he rejects the accusation that he supports belief in a material soul by repeating that knowledge of any kind of soul is impossible. How does he use the arguments of religious people in favor of divine revelation against them? How does he contrast the attitude of Philosophy (Enlightenment philosophy, of course) with that of religious thinkers in the last sentence of this essay?
Amour: Love

For Voltaire love equals sex. What quality of sexuality does he say is unique to human beings, denied to the lower animals? What do you think of his argument? What is the point of the quotation from the Earl of Rochester (a notorious skeptic) on p. 30? How does he argue on p. 31 that syphilis is not the result of God's displeasure with human immorality, as many priests had argued? Can you apply this argument to the AIDS epidemic? Phryne, Lais, Flora and Messalina were all women notorious for their sexual excesses. "The pox" is syphilis.

Amour-propre: Self-love

What Christian traditions might Voltaire have had in mind in telling the story of the Indian fakir on p. 35? What is his position on self-love and self-sacrifice?

Athée, athéisme: Atheist, atheism

You can skim most of this article up to p. 55. Voltaire begins his discussion of atheism with a long list of distinguished people from the past who have been unjustly accused of atheism. On p. 50, why does Voltaire call the Romans wiser than the Greeks? Note how he calls modern Europeans "the barbarian peoples which succeeded the Roman empire." Voltaire cites Vannini as a predecessor of the Enlightenment figures like himself who argued in favor of deism but who were attacked for atheism. How does he argue on pp. 54 and 55 that a whole society can exist composed of atheists? "Gentiles" are non-Jews--in this case ancient Greeks and Romans, many of whom he argues were in essence atheists. This was a strong argument since the French of his time particularly admired Classical thought. Which, on p. 56, does he argue is more dangerous: atheism or fanaticism? Do you agree or disagree with him? Why? What is the point of his reference to the " massacres of Saint Bartholomew?" Despite his arguments than one can have a just society composed of atheists, why does he argue on p. 57 that belief in God is desirable in a monarchy? What is the sole reason he puts forward that learned men should not be atheists? Can you see any problems with this argument? The final sentence in the last full paragraph on p. 57 is a subtle rejection of Christian belief in creation ex nihilo (from nothing), considered disproved by 18th-century science, and leading perhaps to belief in an orderly Deistic universe but not to a conventionally God-dominated one. Something is said to have had a final cause if it has been called into being for some purpose. What is Voltaire's opinion of final causes? In section II, what does Voltaire say are the main causes of atheism? What are your own reactions to his argument here? Atheism is common in France and most of Western Europe, rare in the U.S. Why do you suppose so few Americans are atheists?

Beau, Beauté: Beautiful, beauty

What is the main point of this article? Do you agree with it?

Bien (tout est) All is good

Voltaire's most famous work, Candide, satirizes the arguments of Leibnitz [here spelled Leibniz] and Pope that "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds." On the bottom of p. 68, what basic element of Christianity does he say Leibnitz has fatally weakened by adopting his thesis? He summarizes Lactantius' devastating statement of the classic "problem of evil" on p. 69, delighting in drawing his arguments from an unimpeachably Catholic source.

To help you work through the "Problem of Evil" which he is here exploring, I've created a Web site that considers various options. Visit it now by clicking here. This should make clearer the philosophical context in which Voltaire is making his argument. See whether you can come up with additional arguments or replies to these arguments, and post them online.

What is his basic point here? What is the point of his argument about a Lucullus (a famously wealthy Roman)who can easily believe that all is for the best? He goes on to recount mockingly the attempts of various faiths to deal with the problem of evil, none of which works for Christians or Jews. What is the point of his fanciful tale of a supposed Syrian creation story? He says that "all is good" simply means "everything is as it has to be." How does the central paragraph on p. 72 seek to refute the argument that the orderliness of the universe is evidence of a divine, benevolent will? Note his sarcasm at the end. How does he argue against Pope's statement that particular evils form the common good? On p. 73, how does he react to those who find this theory consoling? What kind of a God does he say the theory implies? What is his final statement as to the problem of evil? What are your personal reactions to these arguments?

Bornes de l'esprit humain: Limits of the human mind

As elsewhere in Voltaire, "doctor" means "theologian." In what way is the subject of this article related to the last paragraph of the previous one? What is his attitude toward those who claim to have absolute knowledge? Why is he so opposed to such attitudes?

Catéchisme chinois: Chinese catechism

Like most of Voltaire's writings on Asian religions, this bears slight relation to real Asian thought. It is instead a vehicle for the expression of some of his more daring criticisms of Christian theology. By using the dialogue format, he can offer two disputants, one more skeptical than the other. What is his attitude toward the concept of Heaven on p. 79? Does he reject the concept that Earth is unique in the universe? In ridiculing the myth of Fo he is of course mocking the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ. With what objection does Koo meet the traditional argument that the marvel of the eye implies a creator? What attitude toward belief in God does his story of the crickets imply? Why does he quote Confucius on p. 81? What is he trying to imply about the ethics of Christianity? (Confucius lived several centuries before Christ.) Notice that Koo argues that humanity is more diligent in suppressing evil than is God. Wht do you think of this argument? What attitude toward immortality does Ku-Su express at the end of the Second Conversation? The Third Conversation offers familiar arguments against the existence of the soul (see Ame, Soul above). with some original twists. One of the most important passages occurs on p. 83, where Koo says "What impression do you want to give me of the architect of so many millions of worlds were he obliged to carry out so many repairs to keep his creation going?" What is the point of this question? Notice that on p. 85 he argues that at least half of the Ten Commandments (the laws of the Sinoos) are necessarily universal, thus implying that morality need not be based on any particular religious revelation. What arguments does he bring against the idea of divine judgment after death on p. 86? Koo seems to give in to faith grudgingly on p. 86: why does he do so? What are his arguments against prayer and sacrifice in the Fourth Conversation? What does Koo claim are the real motives of the bonzes (priests) in preaching as they do? What does Ku-Su argue on p. 88 is natural law? Why does Voltaire like King Daon? In the Fifth Conversation, what sorts of virtues are admired in a king? The king being ridiculed on p. 90 in Koo's statement about those with 300 wives, etc. is Solomon. What relationship does the last paragraph on p. 90 have to the article Abbé, which you read earlier? Why does Ku-Su argue that friendship should not be made a religious teaching? Why does he claim that Confucius recommends to his followers to love their enemies? (In fact he does not.) On p. 92, the "impertinent peoples" referred to are of course the Europeans (see footnote). Voltaire's criticisms of "taverns" reflect the low state of commercial hospitality in his day. Commodious hotels and restaurants were founded only after the French Revolution, when the wealthy could no longer automatically stay as guests in aristocratic mansions. Voltaire himself was a perennial house guest for many years. What criticisms does he make of the Christian concept of humility on p. 94? What do you think of these criticisms? What are the basic religious beliefs that Koo endorses at the end of the essay?

Certain, certitude: Certain, certainty

What is Voltaire's basic attitude toward human certainty? What does he argue are the only kinds of "immutable and eternal" certainty? What Christian belief is he satirizing in his example about the Marshal of Saxe on p. 107? Why do you think this question of certainty and uncertainty is so important to Voltaire? How is it reflected in other articles in the Dictionary?

Chaîne des événements: Chain of events

Voltaire takes it as given that all events have causes, that the world operates like an "immense machine" (p. 110), but argues that not all actions have results. It may seem strange that someone so passionately attached to freedom should argue for determinism (the belief that everything happens by necessity). Why do you think this argument attracted Voltaire?

Credo

Voltaire begins this declaration of his personal theology with a joke in which Mlle Duclos is so ignorant of her religion that she has the Credo confused with the Pater Noster (the Lord's Prayer). The point of the paragraph at the bottom of p. 159 and the top of p. 160 is that the Christian Credo probably evolved some time after Jesus, and does not reflect the beliefs of his early followers. The paragraph about the belief that Christ descended into Hell is based on a now-obscure doctrine called in English " the Harrowing of Hell," which at one time was very prominent and is often depicted in Medieval art and literature. The so-called "Credo of Saint-Pierre" is, of course, Voltaire's own composition. What does its strong insistence on monotheism imply about Christianity? What is the point of the long third paragraph of the "Credo," and of the two paragraphs that follow? What is the evil that he most strenuously attacks? How does he say priests should be treated?

Égalité: Equality

What, according to Voltaire, is humanity's greatest divine gift? And what is the result of not using this gift properly? He is echoing Rousseau's famous statement that "Man is born free and is everywhere in chains," and to some degree replying to the latter philosopher's theories of human equality in The Social Contract. What does he argue is the cause of inequality on p. 182? What common human characteristics lead to inequality (p. 183)? Note his sly dig at the rivalries of theologians in the middle of the page. What does he say is the implied meaning of laws which forbid people to leave a country (as he was forbidden to leave Prussia by his former friend and supporter Frederick the Great)? To what basic principle does he reduce human equality? When Voltaire says that anyone who feels unjustly treated in a particular state should leave, he is not speaking lightly. He lived in exile from France for much of his life. Note that his attitudes are far removed from the extreme egalitarianism during the French Revolution.

Enthousiasme: Enthusiasm

Why does Voltaire label enthusiasm a disease? (Note that the 18th-century French use of this term is not identical with contemporary English usage.) His story about the young man so carried away by a tragedy that he decides to write one himself is a self-mocking comment: he wrote many tragedies. Ovid's The Art of Love and The Loves are cynical observations on love affairs, whereas Sappho's poetry is filled with passion. She was said in ancient times to have committed suicide for love. How does he contrast reason with religion? What sort of people are said to unite reason with enthusiasm?

États, gouvernements: quel est le meilleur? States, governments: which is the best?

Voltaire begins this article by mocking those who claim to be able to reform government based on an imperfect understanding of the world. The article really begins on p. 192 when he raises the question of what sort of government a "wise man, free, of modest wealth, and without prejudices" would prefer to live in. Typically, he sets this dangerous debate (remember that Voltaire lived in an absolute monarchy endorsed by the Church) by placing it in the mouths of two Indians. He begins by satirizing the republic of ancient Israel (on the top of p. 193). What does he say is the reason there are so few republics (states in which the citizens govern themselves)? The republic discussed by the councilor which lasted more than 500 years is the ancient Roman republic. What moral advantage is it argued a republic has over a monarchy? Voltaire amusedly alludes to Montesquieu's theory that different laws are caused by different climactic conditions, but excludes religion from this variability. What does it mean to say that the best government is that "in which only the laws are obeyed?" (Hint: there is a common phrase in American constitutional law that states "We are a government of laws, not of men," which means the same thing.) What does this last sentence of the article mean? Why do you think self-government has been so rare in human history?

Fanatisme: Fanaticism

What do Voltaire's examples of detestable fanaticism have in common? What is the remedy he suggests on p. 203? What does he dislike about the stories from the Old Testament to which he alludes? What does he say is the basic problem with people who appeal to a higher divine law when they behave violently? By the way, he is quite wrong in his description of Confucianism as being free from fanaticism; Buddhism comes closer. Although Confucianism is based on rational principles, Confucianists could be quite fanatical in their opposition to Buddhism.

Foi: Faith

The story with which this article begins is loosely based on historical fact and allows Voltaire to remind his readers of some of the more unsavory aspects of the history of the papacy. What is his definition of faith? What criticisms does he make of it? Can you provide a different definition of faith which is not open to these criticisms? Why does he say faith brings no merit? He is parodying in the statement of the bonze toward the bottom of p. 209 the Christian doctrine that one can receive the grace to believe what one does not readily accept through prayer.

Guerre: War

In one of his most bitterly sarcastic passages, Voltaire "praises" war as a divine gift which unites all the worst evils, causing those who create it to be adored as gods on earth. The whole article drips with irony. When he comments on p. 232 that people today do not fight wars for such stupid causes as the ancient Romans, he is being ironic. What does he say on p. 232 is a common cause for princes going to war (hint: see Shakespeare's Henry V)? What does he say should happen before a king should be allowed to become the ruler over a people? What relationship does he say the Church has to war (p. 233)? What distinction does he make between natural and artificial religion? When he contrasts "love" with war, he of course means sex. Does he believe war can be abolished?

Liberté de pensée: Freedom of thought

Voltaire places the debate over freedom of thought in the mouths of representatives of England (which he admired) and Portugal (which he detested). Medroso (the name means "fearful") is a religious fanatic, ignorant of the most famous names from antiquity. What does he say at the top of p. 280 is the main danger of freedom of thought? The "holy office" referred to here is the Inquisition run by the Dominican Order which imprisoned, tortured, and executed those who failed to conform to Catholic orthodoxy. Banned from France, it still flourished in Spain and Portugal in Voltaire's time. Why does he argue Christians should support freedom of thought? Hidden in the paragraph beginning "When some business matter . . ." is his answer to Pascal's famous wager which argued that it makes sense to believe in God since if there is one, one will avoid going to Hell for disbelieving, and if there is none, one will have nevertheless led a good life. What is Voltaire's objection to this logic? What is your own reaction to this argument? What are the respective virtues of the English and the Portuguese, stated on p. 281?

Note: Readers attracted by the nearby article on Free Will should be cautious in connecting it with this article. Voltaire argues against the Catholic doctrine of free will and in favor of a form of determinism. The reader should not assume that because Voltaire advocates freedom he accepts the philosophical concept called "free will."

Préjugés: Prejudices

Under this heading Voltaire groups a wide variety of ideas--all of them various sorts of irrational opinions. What are good prejudices, according to him? (Compare with "natural law.") What common European attitudes is he satirizing in the paragraph that begins at the bottom of p. 343? "Prejudices of the Senses" are simply sensory illusions, and "physical prejudices" are irrational beliefs handed on by tradition. He debunks a pious story about how Clovis converted to Christianity by pointing out that it is not natural to pray to a God in whom one does not yet believe. Note that most of his examples of religion avoid Christianity but can easily be paralleled with it. What does he say should be the final result of overcoming religious prejudices?

Secte: Sect

Why does Voltaire argue that the very existence of disputing sects within a religion disproves its truth? How does he contrast science with religion? Scientists also disagree among themselves; does this make them the same as religious people? Explain. What distinctions does he make between religious beliefs that everyone shares and those which are unique (and therefore false)? Pascal was not the only one to argue that there is special merit in believing difficult-to-believe Christian dogmas.

Théiste: Theist

Voltaire consistently uses the term "theist" where we would use " Deist:" a believer in a minimal religion which reveres a creator but omits most of the elements of traditional religion: prayers of petition, miracles, divine revelation, incarnation, salvation, damnation, etc. What are the main characteristics of the theist, according to Voltaire?

Tolérance: Toleration

What does Voltaire say is the first law of nature? Voltaire is intent on showing that the Romans were unusually tolerant of foreign religions because the usual stereotype of their culture is that it was intolerant in its attitude toward Christianity. According to him, why did the Romans finally become hostile to Christianity? What does he say was the attitude of various groups within original Christianity? On p. 389 he engages in one of his periodic assaults on Jewish belief, but with the aim of maintaining that they were at least more open-minded than Christians. What seem at first to be antisemetic passages in his work are often simply ruses to attack Christianity. He depicts the religious conversion of leaders in Europe as having produced a series of catastrophes. In section II, what does he say is the attitude of Christianity toward other religions? The second paragraph, assuming a detailed familiarity with the Bible, is designed to demonstrate that Christians did not at first distinguish themselves from Jews, and that their subsequent intolerance was an unfortunate late development. On p. 391 he refers to the numerous sects into which Christianity has always been divided to refute the claims of the Catholic Church to universal authority. What does he say is the remedy for religious dissension? How does the argument on p. 292 relate to the article entitled "Secte: Sect?" What religious sect does he most admire and compare to the beliefs of the earliest Christians? What arguments does he give to show that Jesus was not a Christian? What is the point of the parable of the reed at the end of the article? Americans, like Voltaire, value toleration, particularly in religious matters, very highly; but they also tend to value faith, which he rejects. How do you reconcile these two values? Is it possible to believe profoundly in a religious faith without being tempted to coerce others into accepting it? Explain.

Tyrannie: Tyranny

Voltaire is of course being sarcastic when he says "there are no such tyrants in Europe." What does he say is the advantage of living under one tyrant rather than under many?

Study Guide for Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary: (Selections).

Notes by Paul Brians, Department of English, Washington State University, Pullman 99164-5020.

Featured on wenovel.com

A PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY

The Dictionnaire Philosophique is Voltaire’s principal essay in philosophy, though not a sustained work. The miscellaneous articles he contributed to Diderot’s Encyclopédie which compose this Dictionary embody a mass of scholarly research, criticism, and speculation, lit up with pungent sallies at the formal and tyrannous ecclesiasticism of the period and the bases of belief on which it stood.

These short studies reflect every phase of Voltaire’s sparkling genius. Though some of the views enunciated in them are now universally held, and others have become obsolete through extended knowledge, they were startlingly new when Voltaire, at peril of freedom and reputation, spread them before the people of all civilized nations, who read them still with their first charm of style and substance.

chapter A.

The letter A has been accounted sacred in almost every nation, because it was the first letter. The Egyptians added this to their numberless superstitions; hence it was that the Greeks of Alexandria called it hier’alpha; and, as omega was the last of the letters, these words alpha and omega signified the beginning and the end of all things. This was the origin of the cabalistic art, and of more than one mysterious folly.

The letters served as ciphers, and to express musical notes. Judge what an infinity of useful knowledge must thus have been produced. A, b, c, d, e, f, g, were the seven heavens; the harmony of the celestial spheres was composed of the seven first letters; and an acrostic accounted for everything among the ever venerable Ancients.

A, B, C, OR ALPHABET.

Why has not the alphabet a name in any European language? Alphabet signifies nothing more than A, B, and A, B, signifies nothing, or but indicates two sounds, which two sounds have no relation to each other. Beta is not formed from alpha; one is first, the other is second, and no one knows why.

How can it have happened that terms are still wanting to express the portal of all the sciences? The knowledge of numbers, the art of numeration, is not called the one-two; yet the first rudiment of the art of expressing our thoughts has not in all Europe obtained a proper designation.

The alphabet is the first part of grammar; perhaps those who are acquainted with Arabic, of which I have not the slightest notion, can inform me whether that language, which is said to contain no fewer than eighty words to express a horse, has one which signifies the alphabet.

I protest that I know no more of Chinese than of Arabic, but I have read, in a small Chinese vocabulary, that this nation has always had two words to express the catalogue or list of the characters of its language: one is ko-tou, the other hai-pien; we have neither ko-tou nor hai-pien in our Occidental tongues. The Greeks, who were no more adroit than ourselves, also said alphabet. Seneca, the philosopher, used the Greek phrase to designate an old man who, like me, asks questions on grammar, calling him Skedon analphabetos. Now the Greeks had this same alphabet from the Ph?nicians — from that people called the letter nation by the Hebrews themselves, when the latter, at so late a period, went to settle in their neighborhood.

It may well be supposed that the Ph?nicians, by communicating their characters to the Greeks, rendered them a great service in delivering them from the embarrassment occasioned by the Egyptian mode of writing taught them by Cecrops. The Ph?nicians, in the capacity of merchants, sought to make everything easy of comprehension; while the Egyptians, in their capacity of interpreters of the gods, strove to make everything difficult.

I can imagine I hear a Ph?nician merchant landed in Achaia saying to a Greek correspondent: “Our characters are not only easy to write, and communicate the thoughts as well as the sound of the voice; they also express our respective debts. My aleph, which you choose to pronounce alpha, stands for an ounce of silver, beta for two ounces, tau for a hundred, sigma for two hundred. I owe you two hundred ounces; I pay you a tau, and still owe you another tau; thus we shall soon make our reckoning.”

It was most probably by mutual traffic which administered to their wants, that society was first established among men; and it is necessary that those between whom commerce is carried on should understand one another.

The Egyptians did not apply themselves to commerce until a very late period; they had a horror of the sea; it was their Typhon. The Tyrians, on the contrary, were navigators from time immemorial; they brought together those nations which Nature had separated, and repaired those calamities into which the revolutions of the world frequently plunged a large portion of mankind. The Greeks, in their turn, carried to other nations their commerce and their convenient alphabet, which latter was altered a little, as the Greeks had altered that of the Tyrians. When their merchants, who were afterwards made demi-gods, went to Colchis to establish a trade in sheepskins — whence we have the fable of the golden fleece — they communicated their letters to the people of the country, who still retain them with some alteration. They have not adopted the alphabet of the Turks, to whom they are at present subject, but whose yoke, thanks to the Empress of Russia, I hope they will throw off.

It is very likely (I do not say it is certain — God forbid!) that neither Tyre nor Egypt, nor any other country situated near the Mediterranean Sea, communicated its alphabet to the nations of Eastern Asia. If, for example, the Tyrians, or the Chald?ans, who dwelt near the Euphrates, had communicated their method to the Chinese, some traces of it would have remained; we should have had the signs of the twenty-two, twenty-three, or twenty-four letters, whereas they have a sign for each word in their language; and the number of their words, we are told, is eighty thousand. This method has nothing in common with that of Tyre; it is seventy-nine thousand nine hundred and seventy-six times more learned and more embarrassing than our own. Besides this prodigious difference, they write from the top to the bottom of the page; while the Tyrians and the Chald?ans wrote from right to left, and the Greeks, like ourselves, wrote from left to right.

Examine the Tartar, the Hindoo, the Siamese, the Japanese characters; you will not find the least resemblance to the Greek or the Ph?nician alphabet.

Yet all these nations, and not these alone, but even the Hottentots and Kaffirs, pronounce the vowels and consonants as we do, because the larynx in them is essentially the same as in us — just as the throat of the rudest boor is made like that of the finest opera-singer, the difference, which makes of one a rough, discordant, insupportable bass, and of the other a voice sweeter than the nightingale’s, being imperceptible to the most acute anatomist; or, as the brain of a fool is for all the world like the brain of a great genius.

When we said that the Tyrian merchants taught the Greeks their A, B, C, we did not pretend that they also taught them to speak. It is probable that the Athenians already expressed themselves in a better manner than the people of Lower Syria; their throats were more flexible, and their words were a more happy assemblage of vowels, consonants, and diphthongs. The language of the Ph?nician people was rude and gross, consisting of such words as Shasiroth, Ashtaroth, Shabaoth, Chotiket, Thopheth, etc. — enough to terrify a songstress from the opera of Naples. Suppose that the Romans of the present day had retained the ancient Etrurian alphabet, and some Dutch traders brought them that which they now use; the Romans would do very well to receive their characters, but it is not at all likely that they would speak the Batavian language. Just so would the people of Athens deal with the sailors of Capthor, who had come from Tyre or Baireuth; they would adopt their alphabet as being better than that of Misraim or Egypt, but would reject their speech.

Philosophically speaking, and setting aside all inferences to be drawn from the Holy Scriptures, which certainly are not here the subject of discussion, is not the primitive language a truly laughable chimera?

What would be thought of a man who should seek to discover what had been the primitive cry of all animals; and how it happens that, after a series of ages, sheep bleat, cats mew, doves coo, linnets whistle? They understand one another perfectly in their respective idioms, and much better than we do. Every species has its language; that of the Esquimaux was never that of Peru; there has no more been a primitive language or a primitive alphabet than there have been primitive oaks or primitive grass.

Several rabbis assert that the Samaritan was the original tongue; other persons say that it was that of Lower Brittany. We may surely, without offending either the people of Brittany or those of Samaria, admit no original tongue.

May we not, also, without offending any one, suppose that the alphabet originated in cries and exclamations? Infants of themselves articulate one sound when an object catches their attention, another when they laugh, and a third when they are whipped, which they ought not to be.

As for the two little boys whom the Egyptian king Psammeticus — which, by the by, is not an Egyptian word — brought up, in order to know what was the primitive language, it seems hardly possible that they should both have cried bee bee when they wanted their breakfast.

From exclamations formed by vowels as natural to children as croaking is to frogs, the transition to a complete alphabet is not so great as it may be thought. A mother must always have said to her child the equivalent of come, go, take, leave, hush! etc. These words represent nothing; they describe nothing; but a gesture makes them intelligible.

From these shapeless rudiments we have, it is true, an immense distance to travel before we arrive at syntax. It is almost terrifying to contemplate that from the simple word come, we have arrived at such sentences as the following: Mother, I should have come with pleasure, and should have obeyed your commands, which are ever dear to me, if I had not, when running towards you, fallen backwards, which caused a thorn to run into my left leg.

It appears to my astonished imagination that it must have required ages to adjust this sentence, and ages more to put it into language. Here we might tell, or endeavor to tell, the reader how such words are expressed and pronounced in every language of the earth, as father, mother, land, water, day, night, eating, drinking, etc., but we must, as much as possible, avoid appearing ridiculous.

The alphabetical characters, denoting at once the names of things, their number, and the dates of events, the ideas of men, soon became mysteries even to those who had invented the signs. The Chald?ans, the Syrians, and the Egyptians attributed something divine to the combination of the letters and the manner of pronouncing them. They believed that names had a force — a virtue — independently of the things which they represented; they went so far as to pretend that the word which signified power was powerful in itself; that which expressed an angel was angelic, and that which gave the idea of God was divine. The science of numbers naturally became a part of necromancy, and no magical operation could be performed without the letters of the alphabet.

Thus the clue to all knowledge led to every error. The magi of every country used it to conduct themselves into the labyrinth which they had constructed, and which the rest of mankind were not permitted to enter. The manner of pronouncing vowels and consonants became the most profound of mysteries, and often the most terrible. There was, among the Syrians and Egyptians, a manner of pronouncing Jehovah which would cause a man to fall dead.

St. Clement of Alexandria relates that Moses killed a king of Egypt on the spot by sounding this name in his ear, after which he brought him to life again by pronouncing the same word. St. Clement is very exact; he cites the author, the learned Artapanus. Who can impeach the testimony of Artapanus?

Nothing tended more to retard the progress of the human mind that this profound science of error which sprung up among the Asiatics with the origin of truth. The universe was brutalized by the very art that should have enlightened it. Of this we have great examples in Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.

Origen, in particular, expressly says: “If, when invoking God, or swearing by him, you call him the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob you will, by these words, do things the nature and force of which are such that the evil spirits submit to those who pronounce them; but if you call him by another name as God of the roaring sea, etc., no effort will be produced. The name of Israel rendered in Greek will work nothing; but pronounce it in Hebrew with the other words required, and you will effect the conjuration.”

The same Origen had these remarkable words: “There are names which are powerful from their own nature. Such are those used by the sages of Egypt, the magi of Persia, and the Brahmins of India. What is called magic is not a vain and chimerical art, as the Stoics and Epicureans pretend. The names Sabaoth and Adonai were not made for creates beings, but belong to a mysterious theology which has reference to the creator; hence the virtue of these names when they are arranged and pronounced according to rule,” etc.

It was by pronouncing letters according to the magical method, that the moon was made to descend to the earth. Virgil must be pardoned for having faith in this nonsense, and speaking of it seriously in his eighth eclogue:

Carmina de c?lo possunt deducere lunam.

Pale Ph?be, drawn by verse, from heaven descends.

— Dryden’s Virgil.

In short, the alphabet was the origin of all man’s knowledge, and of all his errors.

ABBé.

The word abbé, let it be remembered, signifies father. If you become one you render a service to the state; you doubtless perform the best work that a man can perform; you give birth to a thinking being: in this action there is something divine. But if you are only Monsieur l’Abbé because you have had your head shaved, wear a small collar, and a short cloak, and are waiting for a fat benefice, you do not deserve the name of abbé.

The ancient monks gave this name to the superior whom they elected; the abbé was their spiritual father. What different things do the same words signify at different times! The spiritual abbé was once a poor man at the head of others equally poor: but the poor spiritual fathers have since had incomes of two hundred or four hundred thousand livres, and there are poor spiritual fathers in Germany who have regiments of guards.

A poor man, making a vow of poverty, and in consequence becoming a sovereign? Truly, this is intolerable. The laws exclaim against such an abuse; religion is indignant at it, and the really poor, who want food and clothing, appeal to heaven against Monsieur l’Abbé.

But I hear the abbés of Italy, Germany, Flanders, and Burgundy ask: “Why are not we to accumulate wealth and honors? Why are we not to become princes? The bishops are, who were originally poor, like us; they have enriched and elevated themselves; one of them has become superior even to kings; let us imitate them as far as we are able.”

Gentlemen, you are right. Invade the land; it belongs to him whose strength or skill obtains possession of it. You have made ample use of the times of ignorance, superstition, and infatuation, to strip us of our inheritances, and trample us under your feet, that you might fatten on the substance of the unfortunate. Tremble, for fear that the day of reason will arrive!

ABBEY— ABBOT.

§ I.

An abbey is a religious community, governed by an abbot or an abbess.

The word abbot — abbas in Latin and Greek, abba in Chaldee and Syriac — came from the Hebrew ab, meaning father. The Jewish doctors took this title through pride; therefore Jesus said to his disciples: “Call no one your father upon the earth, for one is your Father who is in heaven.”

Although St. Jerome was much enraged against the monks of his time, who, in spite of our Lord’s command, gave or received the title of abbot, the Sixth Council of Paris decided that if abbots are spiritual fathers and beget spiritual sons for the Lord, it is with reason that they are called abbots.

According to this decree, if any one deserved this appellation it belonged most assuredly to St. Benedict, who, in the year 528, founded on Mount Cassino, in the kingdom of Naples, that society so eminent for wisdom and discretion, and so grave in its speech and in its style. These are the terms used by Pope St. Gregory, who does not fail to mention the singular privilege which it pleased God to grant to this holy founder — that all Benedictines who die on Mount Cassino are saved. It is not, then, surprising that these monks reckon sixteen thousand canonized saints of their order. The Benedictine sisters even assert that they are warned of their approaching dissolution by some nocturnal noise, which they call the knocks of St. Benedict.

It may well be supposed that this holy abbot did not forget himself when begging the salvation of his disciples. Accordingly, on the 21st of March, 543, the eve of Passion Sunday, which was the day of his death, two monks — one of them in the monastery, the other at a distance from it — had the same vision. They saw a long road covered with carpets, and lighted by an infinite number of torches, extending eastward from the monastery to heaven. A venerable personage appeared, and asked them for whom this road was made. They said they did not know. “It is that,” rejoined he, “by which Benedict, the well-beloved of God, has ascended into heaven.”

An order in which salvation was so well secured soon extended itself into other states, whose sovereigns allowed themselves to be persuaded that, to be sure of a place in Paradise, it was only necessary to make themselves a friend in it, and that by donations to the churches they might atone for the most crying injustices and the most enormous crimes.

Confining ourselves to France, we read in the “Exploits of King Dagobert” (Gestes du Roi Dagobert), the founder of the abbey of St. Denis, near Paris, that this prince, after death, was condemned by the judgment of God, and that a hermit named John, who dwelt on the coast of Italy, saw his soul chained in a boat and beaten by devils, who were taking him towards Sicily to throw him into the fiery mouth of Etna; but all at once St. Denis appeared on a luminous globe, preceded by thunder and lightning, and, having put the evil spirits to flight, and rescued the poor soul from the clutches of the most cruel, bore it to heaven in triumph.

Charles Martel, on the contrary, was damned — body and soul — for having rewarded his captains by giving them abbeys. These, though laymen, bore the title of abbot, as married women have since borne that of abbess, and had convents of females. A holy bishop of Lyons, named Eucher, being at prayer, had the following vision: He thought he was led by an angel into hell, where he saw Charles Martel, who, the angel informed him, had been condemned to ever-lasting flames by the saints whose churches he had despoiled. St. Eucher wrote an account of this revelation to Boniface, bishop of Mayence, and to Fulrad, grand chaplain to Pepin-le-bref, praying them to open the tomb of Charles Martel and see if his body were there. The tomb was opened. The interior of it bore marks of fire, but nothing was found in it except a great serpent, which issued forth with a cloud of offensive smoke.

Boniface was so kind as to write to Pepin-le-bref and to Carloman all these particulars relative to the damnation of their father; and when, in 858, Louis of Germany seized some ecclesiastical property, the bishops of the assembly of Créci reminded him, in a letter, of all the particulars of this terrible story, adding that they had them from aged men, on whose word they could rely, and who had been eye-witnesses of the whole.

St. Bernard, first abbot of Clairvaux, in 1115 had likewise had it revealed to him that all who received the monastic habit from his hand should be saved. Nevertheless, Pope Urban II., having, in a bull dated 1092, given to the abbey of Mount Cassino the title of chief of all monasteries, because from that spot the venerable religion of the monastic order had flowed from the bosom of Benedict as from a celestial spring, the Emperor Lothario continued this prerogative by a charter of the year 1137, which gave to the monastery of Mount Cassino the pre-eminence in power and glory over all the monasteries which were or might be founded throughout the world, and called upon all the abbots and monks in Christendom to honor and reverence it.

Paschal II., in a bull of the year 1113, addressed to the abbot of Mount Cassino, expresses himself thus: “We decree that you, as likewise all your successors, shall, as being superior to all abbots, be allowed to sit in every assembly of bishops or princes; and that in all judgments you shall give your opinion before any other of your order.” The abbot of Cluni having also dared to call himself the abbot of abbots, the pope’s chancellor decided, in a council held at Rome in 1112, that this distinction belonged to the abbot of Mount Cassino. He of Cluni contented himself with the title of cardinal abbot, which he afterwards obtained from Calixtus II., and which the abbot of The Trinity of Vend?me and some others have since assumed.

Pope John XX., in 1326 granted to the abbot of Mount Cassino the title of bishop, and he continued to discharge the episcopal functions until 1367; but Urban V., having then thought proper to deprive him of that dignity, he now simply entitles himself Patriarch of the Holy Religion, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Mount Cassino, Chancellor and Grand Chaplain of the Holy Roman Empire, Abbot of Abbots, Chief of the Benedictine Hierarchy, Chancellor Collateral of the Kingdom of Sicily, Count and Governor of the Campagna and of the maritime province, Prince of Peace.

He lives, with a part of his officers, at San-Germano, a little town at the foot of Mount Cassino, in a spacious house, where all passengers, from the pope down to the meanest beggar, are received, lodged, fed, and treated according to their rank. The abbot each day visits all his guests, who sometimes amount to three hundred. In 1538, St. Ignatius shared his hospitality, but he was lodged in a house on Mount Cassino, six hundred paces west of the abbey. There he composed his celebrated Institute — whence a Dominican, in a work entitled, “The Turtle-Dove of the Soul,” says: “Ignatius dwelt for twelve months on this mountain of contemplation, and, like another Moses, framed those second tables of religious laws which are inferior in nothing to the first.”

Truly, this founder of the Jesuits was not received by the Benedictines with that complaisance which St. Benedict, on his arrival at Mount Cassino, had found in St. Martin the hermit, who gave up to him the place in his possession, and retired to Mount Marsica, near Carniola. On the contrary, the Benedictine Ambrose Cajeta, in a voluminous work written for the purpose, has endeavored to trace the origin of the Jesuits to the order of St. Benedict.

The laxity of manners which has always prevailed in the world, even among the clergy, induced St. Basil, so early as the fourth century, to adopt the idea of assembling in one community the solitaries who had fled into deserts to follow the law; but, as will be elsewhere seen, even the regulars have not always been regular.

As for the secular clergy, let us see what St. Cyprian says of them, even from the third century: “Many bishops, instead of exhorting and setting an example to others, neglected the affairs of God, busied themselves with temporal concerns, quitted their pulpits, abandoned their flocks, and travelled in other provinces, in order to attend fairs and enrich themselves by traffic; they succored not their brethren who were dying of hunger; they sought only to amass heaps of money, to gain possession of lands by unjust artifices, and to make immense profits by usury.”

Charlemagne, in a digest of what he intended to propose to the parliament of 811, thus expresses himself: “We wish to know the duties of ecclesiastics, in order that we may not ask of them what they are not permitted to give, and that they may not demand of us what we ought not to grant. We beg of them to explain to us clearly what they call quitting the world, and by what those who quit it may be distinguished from those who remain in it; if it is only by their not bearing arms, and not being married in public; if that man has quitted the world who continues to add to his possessions by means of every sort, preaching Paradise and threatening with damnation; employing the name of God or of some saint to persuade the simple to strip themselves of their property, thus entailing want upon their lawful heirs, who therefore think themselves justified in committing theft and pillage; if to quit the world is to carry the passion of covetousness to such a length as to bribe false witnesses in order to obtain what belongs to another, and to seek out judges who are cruel, interested, and without the fear of God.”

To conclude: We may judge of the morals of the regular clergy from a harangue delivered in 1493, in which the Abbé Tritême said to his brethren: “You abbés, who are ignorant and hostile to the knowledge of salvation; who pass your days in shameless pleasures, in drinking and gaming; who fix your affections on the things of this life; what answer will you make to God and to your founder, St. Benedict?”

The same abbé nevertheless asserted that one-third of all the property of Christians belonged of right to the order of St. Benedict, and that if they had it not, it was because they had been robbed of it. “They are so poor at present,” added he, “that their revenues do not amount to more than a hundred millions of louis d’ors.” Tritême does not tell us to whom the other two-thirds belong, but as in his time there were only fifteen thousand abbeys of Benedictines, besides the small convents of the same order, while in the seventeenth century their number had increased to thirty-seven thousand, it is clear, by the rule of proportion, that this holy order ought now to possess five-sixths of the property in Christendom, but for the fatal progress of heresy during the latter ages.

In addition to all other misfortunes, since the Concordat was signed, in 1515, between Leo X. and Francis I., the king of France nominating to nearly all the abbeys in his kingdom, most of them have been given to seculars with shaven crowns. It was in consequence of this custom being but little known in England that Dr. Gregory said pleasantly to the Abbé Gallois, whom he took for a Benedictine: “The good father imagines that we have returned to those fabulous times when a monk was permitted to say what he pleased.”
§ II.

Those who fly from the world are wise; those who devote themselves to God are to be respected. Perhaps time has corrupted so holy an institution.

To the Jewish therapeuts succeeded the Egyptian monks — idiotoi, monoi — idiot then signifying only solitary. They soon formed themselves into bodies and became the opposite of solitaries. Each society of monks elected its superior; for, in the early ages of the church, everything was done by the plurality of voices. Men sought to regain the primitive liberty of human nature by escaping through piety from the tumult and slavery inseparably attendant on great empires. Every society of monks chose its father — its abba — its abbot, although it is said in the gospel, “call no man your father.”

Neither abbots nor monks were priests in the early ages; they went in troops to hear mass at the nearest village; their numbers, in time, became considerable. It is said that there were upwards of fifty thousand monks in Egypt.

St. Basil, who was first a monk and afterwards Bishop of C?sarea and Cappadocia, composed a code for all the monks of the fourth century. This rule of St. Basil’s was received in the East and in the West; no monks were known but those of St. Basil; they were rich, took part in all public affairs, and contributed to the revolutions of empires.

No order but this was known until, in the sixth century, St. Benedict established a new power on Mount Cassino. St. Gregory the Great assures us, in his Dialogues, that God granted him a special privilege, by which all the Benedictines who should die on Mount Cassino were to be saved. Consequently, Pope Urban II., in a bull of the year 1092, declared the abbot of Mount Cassino chief of all the abbeys in the world. Paschal II. gave him the title of Abbot of Abbots, Patriarch of the Holy Religion, Chancellor Collateral of the Kingdom of Sicily, Count and Governor of the Campagna, Prince of Peace, etc. All these titles would avail but little were they not supported by immense riches.

Not long ago I received a letter from one of my German correspondents, which began with these words: “The abbots, princes of Kempten, Elvengen, Eudestet, Musbach, Berghsgaden, Vissemburg, Prum, Stablo, and Corvey, and the other abbots who are not princes, enjoy together a revenue of about nine hundred thousand florins, or two millions and fifty thousand French livres of the present currency. Whence I conclude that Jesus Christ’s circumstances were not quite so easy as theirs.” I replied: “Sir, you must confess that the French are more pious than the Germans, in the proportion of 4 16–41 to unity; for our consistorial benefices alone, that is, those which pay annats to the Pope, produce a revenue of nine millions; and two millions fifty thousand livres are to nine millions as 1 is to 4 16–41. Whence I conclude that your abbots are not sufficiently rich, and that they ought to have ten times more. I have the honor to be,” etc. He answered me by the following short letter: “Dear Sir, I do not understand you. You doubtless feel, with me, that nine millions of your money are rather too much for those who have made a vow of poverty; yet you wish that they had ninety. I beg you will explain this enigma.” I had the honor of immediately replying: “Dear Sir, there was once a young man to whom it was proposed to marry a woman of sixty, who would leave him all her property. He answered that she was not old enough.” The German understood my enigma.

The reader must be informed that, in 1575, it was proposed in a council of Henry III., King of France, to erect all the abbeys of monks into secular commendams, and to give them to the officers of his court and his army; but this monarch, happening afterwards to be excommunicated and assassinated, the project was of course not carried into effect.

In 1750 Count d’Argenson, the minister of war, wished to raise pensions from the benefices for chevaliers of the military order of St. Louis. Nothing could be more simple, more just, more useful; but his efforts were fruitless. Yet the Princess of Conti had had an abbey under Louis XIV., and even before his reign seculars possessed benefices. The Duke de Sulli had an abbey, although he was a Huguenot.

The father of Hugh Capet was rich only by his abbeys, and was called Hugh the Abbot. Abbeys were given to queens, to furnish them with pin-money. Ogine, mother of Louis d’Outremer, left her son because he had taken from her the abbey of St. Mary of Laon, and given it to his wife, Gerberge.

Thus we have examples of everything. Each one strives to make customs, innovations, laws — whether old or new, abrogated, revived, or mitigated — charters, whether real or supposed — the past, the present and the future, alike subservient to the grand end of obtaining the good things of this world; yet it is always for the greater glory of God.

ABRAHAM

We must say nothing of what is divine in Abraham, since the Scriptures have said all. We must not even touch, except with a respectful hand, that which belongs to the profane — that which appertains to geography, the order of time, manners, and customs; for these, being connected with sacred history, are so many streams which preserve something of the divinity of their source.

Abraham, though born near the Euphrates, makes a great epoch with the Western nations, yet makes none with the Orientals, who, nevertheless, respect him as much as we do. The Mahometans have no certain chronology before their hegira. The science of time, totally lost in those countries which were the scene of great events, has reappeared in the regions of the West, where those events were unknown. We dispute about everything that was done on the banks of the Euphrates, the Jordan, and the Nile, while they who are masters of the Nile, the Jordan and the Euphrates enjoy without disputing. Although our great epoch is that of Abraham, we differ sixty years with respect to the time of his birth. The account, according to the registers, is as follows:

“And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation.”

It is sufficiently evident from the text that Terah, having had Abraham at the age of seventy, died at that of two hundred and five; and Abraham, having quitted Chald?a immediately after the death of his father, was just one hundred and thirty-five years old when he left his country. This is nearly the opinion of St. Stephen, in his discourse to the Jews.

But the Book of Genesis also says: “And Abraham was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.”

This is the principal cause (for there are several others) of the dispute on the subject of Abraham’s age. How could he be at once a hundred and thirty-five years, and only seventy-five? St. Jerome and St. Augustine say that this difficulty is inexplicable. Father Calmet, who confesses that these two saints could not solve the problem, thinks he does it by saying that Abraham was the youngest of Terah’s sons, although the Book of Genesis names him the first, and consequently as the eldest. According to Genesis, Abraham was born in his father’s seventieth year; while, according to Calmet, he was born when his father was a hundred and thirty. Such a reconciliation has only been a new cause of controversy. Considering the uncertainty in which we are left by both text and commentary, the best we can do is to adore without disputing.

There is no epoch in those ancient times which has not produced a multitude of different opinions. According to Moréri there were in his day seventy systems of chronology founded on the history dictated by God himself. There have since appeared five new methods of reconciling the various texts of Scripture. Thus there are as many disputes about Abraham as the number of his years (according to the text) when he left Haran. And of these seventy-five systems there is not one which tells us precisely what this town or village of Haran was, or where it was situated. What thread shall guide us in this labyrinth of conjectures and contradictions from the very first verse to the very last? Resignation. The Holy Spirit did not intend to teach us chronology, metaphysics or logic; but only to inspire us with the fear of God. Since we can comprehend nothing, all that we can do is to submit.

It is equally difficult to explain satisfactorily how it was that Sarah, the wife of Abraham, was also his sister. Abraham says positively to Abimelech, king of Gerar, who had taken Sarah to himself on account of her great beauty, at the age of ninety, when she was pregnant of Isaac: “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.” The Old Testament does not inform us how Sarah was her husband’s sister. Calmet, whose judgment and sagacity are known to every one, says that she might be his niece. With the Chald?ans it was probably no more an incest than with their neighbors, the Persians. Manners change with times and with places. It may be supposed that Abraham, the son of Terah, an idolater, was still an idolater when he married Sarah, whether Sarah was his sister or his niece.

There are several Fathers of the Church who do not think Abraham quite so excusable for having said to Sarah, in Egypt: “It shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife, and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake.” She was then only sixty-five. Since she had, twenty-five years afterwards the king of Gerar for a lover, it is not surprising that, when twenty-five years younger, she had kindled some passion in Pharaoh of Egypt. Indeed, she was taken away by him in the same manner as she was afterwards taken by Abimelech, the king of Gerar, in the desert.

Abraham received presents, at the court of Pharaoh, of many “sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and camels.” These presents, which were considerable, prove that the Pharaohs had already become great kings; the country of Egypt must therefore have been very populous. But to make the country inhabitable, and to build towns, it must have cost immense labor. It was necessary to construct canals for the purpose of draining the waters of the Nile, which overflowed Egypt during four or five months of each year, and stagnated on the soil. It was also necessary to raise the town at least twenty feet above these canals. Works so considerable seem to have required thousands of ages.

There were only about four hundred years between the Deluge and the period at which we fix Abraham’s journey into Egypt. The Egyptians must have been very ingenious and indefatigably laborious, since, in so short a time, they invented all the arts and sciences, set bounds to the Nile, and changed the whole face of the country. Probably they had already built some of the great Pyramids, for we see that the art of embalming the dead was in a short time afterwards brought to perfection, and the Pyramids were only the tombs in which the bodies of their princes were deposited with the most august ceremonies.

This opinion of the great antiquity of the Pyramids receives additional countenance from the fact that three hundred years earlier, or but one hundred years after the Hebrew epoch of the Deluge of Noah, the Asiatics had built, in the plain of Sennaar, a tower which was to reach to heaven. St. Jerome, in his commentary on Isaiah, says that this tower was already four thousand paces high when God came down to stop the progress of the work.

Let us suppose each pace to be two feet and a half. Four thousand paces, then, are ten thousand feet; consequently the tower of Babel was twenty times as high as the Pyramids of Egypt, which are only about five hundred feet. But what a prodigious quantity of instruments must have been requisite to raise such an edifice! All the arts must have concurred in forwarding the work. Whence commentators conclude that men of those times were incomparably larger, stronger, and more industrious than those of modern nations.

So much may be remarked with respect to Abraham, as relating to the arts and sciences. With regard to his person, it is most likely that he was a man of considerable importance. The Chald?ans and the Persians each claim him as their own. The ancient religion of the magi has, from time immemorial, been called Kish Ibrahim, Milat Ibrahim, and it is agreed that the word Ibrahim is precisely the same as Abraham, nothing being more common among the Asiatics, who rarely wrote the vowels, than to change the i into a, or the a into i in pronunciation.

It has even been asserted that Abraham was the Brahma of the Indians, and that their notions were adopted by the people of the countries near the Euphrates, who traded with India from time immemorial.

The Arabs regarded him as the founder of Mecca. Mahomet, in his Koran, always viewed in him the most respectable of his predecessors. In his third sura, or chapter, he speaks of him thus: “Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian; he was an orthodox Mussulman; he was not of the number of those who imagine that God has colleagues.”

The temerity of the human understanding has even gone so far as to imagine that the Jews did not call themselves the descendants of Abraham until a very late period, when they had at last established themselves in Palestine. They were strangers, hated and despised by their neighbors. They wished, say some, to relieve themselves by passing for descendants of that Abraham who was so much reverenced in a great part of Asia. The faith which we owe to the sacred books of the Jews removes all these difficulties.

Other critics, no less hardy, start other objections relative to Abraham’s direct communication with the Almighty, his battles and his victories. The Lord appeared to him after he went out of Egypt, and said, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward, and eastward, and westward. For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.”

The Lord, by a second oath, afterwards promised him all “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” The critics ask, how could God promise the Jews this immense country which they have never possessed? And how could God give to them forever that small part of Palestine out of which they have so long been driven? Again, the Lord added to these promises, that Abraham’s posterity should be as numerous as the dust of the earth —“so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.”

Our critics insist there are not now on the face of the earth four hundred thousand Jews, though they have always regarded marriage as a sacred duty and made population their greatest object. To these difficulties it is replied that the church, substituted for the synagogue, is the true race of Abraham, which is therefore very numerous.

It must be admitted that they do not possess Palestine; but they may one day possess it, as they have already conquered it once, in the first crusade, in the time of Urban II. In a word, when we view the Old Testament with the eyes of faith, as a type of the New, all either is or will be accomplished, and our weak reason must bow in silence.

Fresh difficulties are raised respecting Abraham’s victory near Sodom. It is said to be inconceivable that a stranger who drove his flocks to graze in the neighborhood of Sodom should, with three hundred and eighteen keepers of sheep and oxen, beat a king of Persia, a king of Pontus, the king of Babylon, and the king of nations, and pursue them to Damascus, which is more than a hundred miles from Sodom. Yet such a victory is not impossible, for we see other similar instances in those heroic times when the arm of God was not shortened. Think of Gideon, who, with three hundred men, armed with three hundred pitchers and three hundred lamps, defeated a whole army! Think of Samson, who slew a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass!

Even profane history furnishes like examples. Three hundred Spartans stopped, for a moment, the whole army of Xerxes, at the pass of Thermopyl?. It is true that, with the exception of one man who fled, they were all slain, together with their king, Leonidas, whom Xerxes had the baseness to gibbet, instead of raising to his memory the monument which it deserved. It is moreover true that these three hundred Laced?monians, who guarded a steep passage which would scarcely admit two men abreast, were supported by an army of ten thousand Greeks, distributed in advantageous posts among the rocks of Pelion and Ossa, four thousand of whom, be it observed, were stationed behind this very passage of Thermopyl?.

These four thousand perished after a long combat. Having been placed in a situation more exposed than that of the three hundred Spartans, they may be said to have acquired more glory in defending it against the Persian army, which cut them all in pieces. Indeed, on the monument afterwards erected on the field of battle, mention was made of these four thousand victims, whereas none are spoken of now but the three hundred.

A still more memorable, though much less celebrated, action was that of fifty Swiss, who, in 1315, routed at Morgarten the whole army of the Archduke Leopold, of Austria, consisting of twenty thousand men. They destroyed the cavalry by throwing down stones from a high rock; and gave time to fourteen hundred Helvetians to come up and finish the defeat of the army. This achievement at Morgarten is more brilliant than that of Thermopyl?, inasmuch as it is a finer thing to conquer than to be conquered. The Greeks amounted to ten thousand, well armed; and it was impossible that, in a mountainous country, they could have to encounter more than a hundred thousand Persians at once; it is more than probable that there were not thirty thousand Persians engaged. But here fourteen hundred Swiss defeat an army of twenty thousand men. The diminished proportions of the less to the greater number also increases the proportion of glory. But how far has Abraham led us? These digressions amuse him who makes and sometimes him who reads them. Besides, every one is delighted to see a great army beaten by a little one.
§ II.

Abraham is one of those names which were famous in Asia Minor and Arabia, as Thaut was among the Egyptians, the first Zoroaster in Persia, Hercules in Greece, Orpheus in Thrace, Odin among the northern nations, and so many others, known more by their fame than by any authentic history. I speak here of profane history only; as for that of the Jews, our masters and our enemies, whom we at once detest and believe, their history having evidently been written by the Holy Ghost, we feel toward it as we ought to feel. We have to do here only with the Arabs. They boast of having descended from Abraham through Ishmael, believing that this patriarch built Mecca and died there. The fact is, that the race of Ishmael has been infinitely more favored by God than has that of Jacob. Both races, it is true, have produced robbers; but the Arabian robbers have been prodigiously superior to the Jewish ones; the descendants of Jacob conquered only a very small country, which they have lost, whereas the descendants of Ishmael conquered parts of Asia, of Europe, and of Africa, established an empire more extensive than that of the Romans, and drove the Jews from their caverns, which they called The Land of Promise.

Judging of things only by the examples to be found in our modern histories, it would be difficult to believe that Abraham had been the father of two nations so widely different. We are told that he was born in Chald?a, and that he was the son of a poor potter, who earned his bread by making little earthen idols. It is hardly likely that this son of a potter should have passed through impracticable deserts and founded the city of Mecca, at the distance of four hundred leagues, under a tropical sun. If he was a conqueror, he doubtless cast his eyes on the fine country of Assyria. If he was no more than a poor man, he did not found kingdoms abroad.

The Book of Genesis relates that he was seventy-five years old when he went out of the land of Haran after the death of his father, Terah the potter; but the same book also tells us that Terah, having begotten Abraham at the age of seventy years, lived to that of two hundred and five; and, afterward, that Abraham went out of Haran, which seems to signify that it was after the death of his father.

Either the author did not know how to dispose his narration, or it is clear from the Book of Genesis itself that Abraham was one hundred and thirty-five years old when he quitted Mesopotamia. He went from a country which is called idolatrous to another idolatrous country named Sichem, in Palestine. Why did he quit the fruitful banks of the Euphrates for a spot so remote, so barren, and so stony as Sichem? It was not a place of trade, and was distant a hundred leagues from Chald?a, and deserts lay between. But God chose that Abraham should go this journey; he chose to show him the land which his descendants were to occupy several ages after him. It is with difficulty that the human understanding comprehends the reasons for such a journey.

Scarcely had he arrived in the little mountainous country of Sichem, when famine compelled him to quit it. He went into Egypt with his wife Sarah, to seek a subsistence. The distance from Sichem to Memphis is two hundred leagues. Is it natural that a man should go so far to ask for corn in a country the language of which he did not understand? Truly these were strange journeys, undertaken at the age of nearly a hundred and forty years!

He brought with him to Memphis his wife, Sarah, who was extremely young, and almost an infant when compared with himself; for she was only sixty-five. As she was very handsome, he resolved to turn her beauty to account. “Say, I pray thee, that thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake.” He should rather have said to her, “Say, I pray thee, that thou art my daughter.” The king fell in love with the young Sarah, and gave the pretended brother abundance of sheep, oxen, he-asses, she-asses, camels, men-servants and maid-servants; which proves that Egypt was then a powerful and well-regulated, and consequently an ancient kingdom, and that those were magnificently rewarded who came and offered their sisters to the kings of Memphis. The youthful Sarah was ninety years old when God promised her that, in the course of a year, she should have a child by Abraham, who was then a hundred and sixty.

Abraham, who was fond of travelling, went into the horrible desert of Kadesh with his pregnant wife, ever young and ever pretty. A king of this desert was, of course, captivated by Sarah, as the king of Egypt had been. The father of the faithful told the same lie as in Egypt, making his wife pass for his sister; which brought him more sheep, oxen, men-servants, and maid-servants. It might be said that this Abraham became rich principally by means of his wife. Commentators have written a prodigious number of volumes to justify Abraham’s conduct, and to explain away the errors in chronology. To these commentaries we must refer the reader; they are all composed by men of nice and acute perceptions, excellent metaphysicians, and by no means pedants.

For the rest, this name of Bram, or Abram, was famous in Jud?a and in Persia. Several of the learned even assert that he was the same legislator whom the Greeks called Zoroaster. Others say that he was the Brahma of the Indians, which is not demonstrated. But it appears very reasonable to many that this Abraham was a Chald?an or a Persian, from whom the Jews afterwards boasted of having descended, as the Franks did of their descent from Hector, and the Britons from Tubal. It cannot be denied that the Jewish nation were a very modern horde; that they did not establish themselves on the borders of Ph?nicia until a very late period; that they were surrounded by ancient states, whose language they adopted, receiving from them even the name of Israel, which is Chald?an, from the testimony of the Jew Flavius Josephus himself. We know that they took the names of the angels from the Babylonians, and that they called God by the names of Eloi or Eloa, Adona?, Jehovah or Hiao, after the Ph?nicians. It is probable that they knew the name of Abraham or Ibrahim only through the Babylonians; for the ancient religion of all the countries from the Euphrates to the Oxus was called Kish Ibrahim or Milat Ibrahim. This is confirmed by all the researches made on the spot by the learned Hyde.

The Jews, then, treat their history and ancient fables as their clothesmen treat their old coats — they turn them and sell them for new at as high a price as possible. It is a singular instance of human stupidity that we have so long considered the Jews as a nation which taught all others, while their historian Josephus himself confesses the contrary.

It is difficult to penetrate the shades of antiquity; but it is evident that all the kingdoms of Asia were in a very flourishing state before the wandering horde of Arabs, called Jews, had a small spot of earth which they called their own — when they had neither a town, nor laws, nor even a fixed religion. When, therefore, we see an ancient rite or an ancient opinion established in Egypt or Asia, and also among the Jews, it is very natural to suppose that this small, newly formed, ignorant, stupid people copied, as well as they were able, the ancient, flourishing, and industrious nation.

It is on this principle that we must judge of Jud?a, Biscay, Cornwall, etc. Most certainly triumphant Rome did not in anything imitate Biscay or Cornwall; and he must be either very ignorant or a great knave who would say that the Jews taught anything to the Greeks.
§ III.

It must not be thought that Abraham was known only to the Jews; on the contrary, he was renowned throughout Asia. This name, which signifies father of a people in more Oriental languages than one, was given to some inhabitant of Chald?a from whom several nations have boasted of descending. The pains which the Arabs and the Jews took to establish their descent from this patriarch render it impossible for even the greatest Pyrrhoneans to doubt of there having been an Abraham.

The Hebrew Scriptures make him the son of Terah, while the Arabs say that Terah was his grandfather and Azar his father, in which they have been followed by several Christians. The interpreters are of forty-two different opinions with respect to the year in which Abraham was brought into the world, and I shall not hazard a forty-third. It also appears, by the dates, that Abraham lived sixty years longer than the text allows him; but mistakes in chronology do not destroy the truth of a fact. Supposing even that the book which speaks of Abraham had not been so sacred as was the law, it is not therefore less certain that Abraham existed. The Jews distinguished books written by inspired men from books composed by particular inspiration. How, indeed, can it be believed that God dictated false dates?

Philo, the Jew of Suidas, relates that Terah, the father or grandfather of Abraham, who dwelt at Ur in Chald?a, was a poor man who gained a livelihood by making little idols, and that he was himself an idolater. If so, that ancient religion of the Sabeans, who had no idols, but worshipped the heavens, had not, then, perhaps, been established in Chald?a; or, if it prevailed in one part of the country, it is very probable that idolatry was predominant in the rest. It seems that in those times each little horde had its religion, as each family had its own peculiar customs; all were tolerated, and all were peaceably confounded. Laban, the father-in-law of Jacob, had idols. Each clan was perfectly willing that the neighboring clan should have its gods, and contented itself with believing that its own were the mightiest.

The Scripture says that the God of the Jews, who intended to give them the land of Canaan, commanded Abraham to leave the fertile country of Chald?a and go towards Palestine, promising him that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. It is for theologians to explain, by allegory and mystical sense, how all the nations of the earth were to be blessed in a seed from which they did not descend, since this much-to-be-venerated mystical sense cannot be made the object of a research purely critical. A short time after these promises Abraham’s family was afflicted by famine, and went into Egypt for corn. It is singular that the Hebrews never went into Egypt, except when pressed by hunger; for Jacob afterwards sent his children on the same errand.

Abraham, who was then very old, went this journey with his wife Sarah, aged sixty-five: she was very handsome, and Abraham feared that the Egyptians, smitten by her charms, would kill him in order to enjoy her transcendent beauties: he proposed to her that she should pass for his sister, etc. Human nature must at that time have possessed a vigor which time and luxury have since very much weakened. This was the opinion of all the ancients; it has been asserted that Helen was seventy when she was carried off by Paris. That which Abraham had foreseen came to pass; the Egyptian youth found his wife charming, notwithstanding her sixty-five years; the king himself fell in love with her, and placed her in his seraglio, though, probably, he had younger women there; but the Lord plagued the king and his seraglio with very great sores. The text does not tell us how the king came to know that this dangerous beauty was Abraham’s wife; but it seems that he did come to know it, and restored her.

Sarah’s beauty must have been unalterable; for twenty-five years afterwards, when she was ninety years old, pregnant, and travelling with her husband through the dominions of a king of Ph?nicia named Abimelech, Abraham, who had not yet corrected himself, made her a second time pass for his sister. The Ph?nician king was as sensible to her attractions as the king of Egypt had been; but God appeared to this Abimelech in a dream, and threatened him with death if he touched his new mistress. It must be confessed that Sarah’s conduct was as extraordinary as the lasting nature of her charms.

The singularity of these adventures was probably the reason why the Jews had not the same sort of faith in their histories as they had in their Leviticus. There was not a single iota of their law in which they did not believe; but the historical part of their Scriptures did not demand the same respect. Their conduct in regard to their ancient books may be compared to that of the English, who received the laws of St. Edward without absolutely believing that St. Edward cured the scrofula; or to that of the Romans, who, while they obeyed their primitive laws, were not obliged to believe in the miracles of the sieve filled with water, the ship drawn to the shore by a vestal’s girdle, the stone cut with a razor, and so forth. Therefore the historian Josephus, though strongly attached to his form of worship, leaves his readers at liberty to believe just so much as they choose of the ancient prodigies which he relates. For the same reason the Sadducees were permitted not to believe in the angels, although the angels are so often spoken of in the Old Testament; but these same Sadducees were not permitted to neglect the prescribed feasts, fasts, and ceremonies. This part of Abraham’s history (the journeys into Egypt and Ph?nicia) proves that great kingdoms were already established, while the Jewish nation existed in a single family; that there already were laws, since without them a great kingdom cannot exist; and consequently that the law of Moses, which was posterior, was not the first law. It is not necessary for a law to be divine, that it should be the most ancient of all. God is undoubtedly the master of time. It would, it is true, seem more conformable to the faint light of reason that God, having to give a law, should have given it at the first to all mankind; but if it be proved that He proceeds in a different way, it is not for us to question Him.

The remainder of Abraham’s history is subject to great difficulties. God, who frequently appeared to and made several treaties with him, one day sent three angels to him in the valley of Mamre. The patriarch gave them bread, veal, butter, and milk to eat. The three spirits dined, and after dinner they sent for Sarah, who had baked the bread. One of the angels, whom the text calls the Lord, the Eternal, promised Sarah that, in the course of a year, she should have a son. Sarah, who was then ninety-four, while her husband was nearly a hundred, laughed at the promise — a proof that Sarah confessed her decrepitude — a proof that, according to the Scripture itself, human nature was not then very different from what it is now. Nevertheless, the following year, as we have already seen, this aged woman, after becoming pregnant, captivated King Abimelech. Certes, to consider these stories as natural, we must either have a species of understanding quite different from that which we have at present, or regard every trait in the life of Abraham as a miracle, or believe that it is only an allegory; but whichever way we turn, we cannot escape embarrassment. For instance, what are we to make of God’s promise to Abraham that he would give to him and his posterity all the land of Canaan, which no Chald?an ever possessed? This is one of the difficulties which it is impossible to solve.

It seems astonishing that God, after causing Isaac to be born of a centenary father and a woman of ninety-five, should afterwards have ordered that father to murder the son whom he had given him contrary to every expectation. This strange order from God seems to show that, at the time when this history was written, the sacrifice of human victims was customary amongst the Jews, as it afterwards became in other nations, as witness the vow of Jephthah. But it may be said that the obedience of Abraham, who was ready to sacrifice his son to the God who had given him, is an allegory of the resignation which man owes to the orders of the Supreme Being.

There is one remark which it is particularly important to make on the history of this patriarch regarded as the father of the Jews and the Arabs. His principal children were Isaac, born of his wife by a miraculous favor of Providence, and Ishmael, born of his servant. It was in Isaac that the race of the patriarch was blessed; yet Isaac was father only of an unfortunate and contemptible people, who were for a long period slaves, and have for a still longer period been dispersed. Ishmael, on the contrary, was the father of the Arabs, who, in course of time, established the empire of the caliphs, one of the most powerful and most extensive in the world.

The Mussulmans have a great reverence for Abraham, whom they call Ibrahim. Those who believe him to have been buried at Hebron, make a pilgrimage thither, while those who think that his tomb is at Mecca, go and pay their homage to him there.

Some of the ancient Persians believed that Abraham was the same as Zoroaster. It has been with him as with most of the founders of the Eastern nations, to whom various names and various adventures have been attributed; but it appears by the Scripture text that he was one of those wandering Arabs who had no fixed habitation. We see him born at Ur in Chald?a, going first to Haran, then into Palestine, then into Egypt, then into Ph?nicia, and lastly forced to buy a grave at Hebron.

One of the most remarkable circumstances of his life was, that at the age of ninety, before he had begotten Isaac, he caused himself, his son Ishmael, and all his servants to be circumcised. It seems that he had adopted this idea from the Egyptians. It is difficult to determine the origin of such an operation; but it is most likely that it was performed in order to prevent the abuses of puberty. But why should a man undergo this operation at the age of a hundred?

On the other hand it is asserted that only the priests were anciently distinguished in Egypt by this custom. It was a usage of great antiquity in Africa and part of Asia for the most holy personages to present their virile member to be kissed by the women whom they met. The organs of generation were looked upon as something noble and sacred — as a symbol of divine power: it was customary to swear by them; and, when taking an oath to another person, to lay the hand on his testicles. It was perhaps from this ancient custom that they afterwards received their name, which signifies witnesses, because they were thus made a testimony and a pledge. When Abraham sent his servant to ask Rebecca for his son Isaac, the servant placed his hand on Abraham’s genitals, which has been translated by the word thigh.

By this we see how much the manners of remote antiquity differed from ours. In the eyes of a philosopher it is no more astonishing that men should formerly have sworn by that part than by the head; nor is it astonishing that those who wished to distinguish themselves from other men should have testified by this venerated portion of the human person.

The Book of Genesis tells us that circumcision was a covenant between God and Abraham; and expressly adds, that whosoever shall not be circumcised in his house, shall be put to death. Yet we are not told that Isaac was circumcised; nor is circumcision again spoken of until the time of Moses.

We shall conclude this article with one more observation, which is, that Abraham, after having by Sarah and Hagar two sons, who became each the father of a great nation, had six sons by Keturah, who settled in Arabia; but their posterity were not famous.

Voltaire

COSMOLOGY AND THEOLOGY

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

First published Mon Oct 24, 2011

As long as humans have been trying to make sense of the universe, they have been proposing cosmological theories. Furthermore, the notion of a deity often plays a central role in these cosmological theories. According to most monotheistic religions, God is the sole creator and sustainer of the universe.

But the last one hundred years have seen a different sort of cosmology: a scientific cosmology. Without running afoul of the demarcation problem, the notable characteristics of scientific cosmology are that it uses the tools of mathematical physics (it is formalizable) and that it makes precise and testable predictions. What has this new scientific cosmology to do with traditional (often theistic) cosmologies? Has the new cosmology replaced the older cosmologies? Does the new cosmology inform or interpret the older cosmologies?

Our subsequent discussion will be restricted almost completely to the case of western monotheism—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—and even more specifically to variants of Christianity. Even so, we note a wide range of diversity among Christian beliefs and Christian attitudes towards science in general, and towards scientific cosmology in particular. At one extreme, we find ultra-traditional versions of Christianity that emphasize literal interpretation of Scripture, and that often interpret theological doctrines in terms of ancient Greek philosophical categories (e.g., God as eternal, unchangeable, etc.). Even within this more traditional camp, we find differences in terms of amount of literalism, and amount of flexibility with regard to traditional theological doctrines. (e.g., there are ongoing debates among traditional theologians about the relation of God to time.) At another extreme, we find more recent incarnations of Christianity that draw heavily on ideas from German idealism and/or process philosophy. There are also subtle, but not negligible, differences in attitude among Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian theists. Thus, we should not think of theism as one fixed set of doctrines that is simply consistent or inconsistent with scientific cosmology.

Furthermore, even though most theological interactions with cosmology have taken place within the Christian tradition, it has rarely—if ever—been the case that the defining feature of Christianity (viz. the unique role of Christ) has played any explicit role in these interactions.

1. Overview: Cosmology, theology and religion
2. Creation and the big bang
2.1 Whose theism is the big bang supposed to confirm?
2.2 Should the theist look for confirmation from scientific cosmology?
2.3 Which cosmological models support a doctrine of creation ex nihilo?
2.4 Can we trust General Relativity?
2.5 Does the big bang provide evidence for atheism?
3. Steady-state theories
4. Quantum and string cosmologies
5. Other non-standard cosmologies
5.1 Cyclic cosmologies
5.2 The multiverse
6. Infinity and the universe
7. Physical eschatology
8. Conclusions: Cosmology and God

Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries

1. Overview: Cosmology, theology and religion

Christianity and other monotheistic religions (Islam and Judaism) assume a transcendent and sovereign God who created the universe and continually maintains its existence. The world only exists because of an ultimate and supernatural cause which is, as Newton said, “not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in Mechanicks and Geometry” (Cohen 1978, 282). Whether in a general philosophical sense or in a scientific sense, cosmology has always been part of theism, but it is only relatively recently that cosmology based on physics and astronomy has entered the discussion concerning the existence and role of God. A limited application of physics to the study of the universe can be found in the second half of the nineteenth century when the cosmological consequences of the law of entropy increase were eagerly discussed in relation to the Christian doctrines of a world with a beginning and end in time. However, physical cosmology is essentially a twentieth century science which emerged as a result of the discovery about 1930 that the universe is in a state of expansion that possibly started a finite time ago. Cosmology as a subdiscipline of physics differs in some respects from mathematical, philosophical and classical observational cosmology, but of course the different approaches are in constant interaction. In a modern sense, physical cosmology became established after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 which quickly turned the hot big bang model into the standard model of the universe. Jim Peebles' Physical Cosmology of 1971, possibly the first book with this title, may be taken as the beginning of modern physical cosmology.

Although physical cosmology based on general relativity theory and elementary particle physics is thus a modern science, many of the theologically relevant questions related to current cosmology are old. Has the universe come into existence a finite time ago? Will it come to an end? Why are the cosmic evolution and the laws of nature of just such a kind that they permit intelligent life to exist? These and other questions of obvious relevance to theism are currently being discussed in the light of the most recent cosmological theories and observations, but the questions themselves (and, indeed, many of the answers) were familiar to medieval philosophers and theologians. This is also the case with the question that is sometimes considered the ultimate one: Why is there a cosmos? There is no reason to expect that today's advanced physical cosmology, or the even more advanced of tomorrow, will provide final answers that satisfy theists and atheists alike.

2. Creation and the big bang

Einstein's general theory of relativity shows that the structure of spacetime is itself a dynamical variable, subject to causal influence by the material constituents of the universe. Indeed, Einstein immediately saw the potential to apply general relativity to large-scale cosmological questions. The first cosmological model of Einstein (1917) described a static universe, i.e. one whose spatial geometry is constant over time. Such a model was not consistent with the original field equations; thus Einstein modified the equations by the addition of a cosmological constant Λ. Although Einstein later regretted the introduction of the cosmological constant, in recent years there have emerged independent reasons for introducing it into the equations.

Be that as it may, Einstein's static universe was empirically inadequate: it cannot account for the redshift data gathered by Edwin Hubble and others in the 1920s. The redshift data indicates that distant stars are moving away from us, and moving faster in direct proportion to their distance. Thus, the data indicate an expanding universe.

In the 1920s and 1930s, a number of cosmological models of general relativity were proposed that predict the expansion of the universe. The most accurate account of the data is given by the family of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) models. The key characteristic of these models is that space is homogeneous, and hence isotropic (i.e. looks the same in all directions). From the homogeneity assumption, it follows that the entire 4-dimensional spacetime divides neatly into a stack of 3-dimensional “spaces” each of which has constant curvature. The three possibilities for this curvature correspond to the three classical geometries: Euclidean (flat), spherical (positive), or hyperbolic (negative). In a given FRW spacetime, the geometry of space at one time is related to the geometry at any other time by means of a scale factor S(t). Indeed, pick a reference time T, such as 2011, pick two reference galaxies, and let d(T) be the distance between these galaxies at time T. Then the distance between the two galaxies at any other time t is given by d(t)=S(t)d(T), where we set S(T)=1. This number S(t) is called the scale factor, and its behavior encodes the dynamics of a FRW universe.

In those FRW spacetimes that can reasonably be thought to model our cosmos (e.g., those with massive objects), the time parameter t has an absolute lower bound t0. In particular, as t decreases towards t0, the scale parameter S(t) goes to zero. What happens when t reaches t0? In short, these models cannot say what happens, because there are no points of spacetime with time coordinate t0. That is, t0 is an ideal point that is never reached: the universe exists at all times after t0, but not before or at time t0. A spacetime model with this feature is called singular, and the ideal point that is never reached is called a singularity. In other words, the big bang is a singularity in a FRW spacetime.

The FRW spacetimes are extremely accurate descriptions of the large scale structure of our universe. Since these models describe a universe with a finite lifetime, it is reasonable to conclude that the universe has not always existed.

But many physicists and philosophers hesitate to draw this conclusion. In fact, the standard view in the 1950s and early 1960s was that the singularities of the FRW models were consequences of false idealizing assumptions, namely assumptions of perfect isotropy and homogeneity. But this escape route from singularities was definitely closed when Robert Geroch, Stephen Hawking, and Roger Penrose proved the “singularity theorems,” according to which almost all spacetimes are singular, and in particular, almost all cosmological models describe a finitely old universe.

A number of theists take the past-singular nature of cosmological models as confirmation of the claim that God created the universe ex nihilo. The list of advocates of this “big bang theology” includes Pope Pius XII, Francis Collins (director, US National Institutes of Health), and apologists William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross. And indeed, big bang cosmology does provide prima facie support for theism. After all, big bang cosmology says that the universe has a finite age, and (traditional) theism says that God created the universe out of nothing. Does big bang cosmology not confirm traditional theism? We give several reasons to be cautious about such claims.

Advocates of big bang theology are most interested in the claim that the universe is finitely old. Thus, the chain of inferential support should run as follows:

Big Bang Model → supports → Universe Finitely Old → supports → Theism
Before discussing the first supposed inferential relation, we note that not all theists are committed to the claim that the universe is finitely old. For example, Aquinas claims (in several places, including the Summa Theologica) that Reason cannot demonstrate the finitude of the universe. But Aquinas also thinks that Reason can demonstrate the existence of God; therefore Aquinas does not think that the very concept of God as creator implies that the universe is finitely old. (Contrary to some contemporary theologians, though, Aquinas claims that a Christian theist should believe that the universe is finitely old. For Aquinas, the finite age of the universe is a revealed doctrine, like the divinity of Christ.) Contemporary theologians Arthur Peacocke and Ian Barbour also claim that the doctrine of the “creation” of the universe is best interpreted as one of the universe's timeless dependence on God, and that such dependence does not demand a temporal creation event. This is also the view of William Stoeger (2010), a Jesuit priest and cosmologist, who argues that scientific cosmology can purify theology but never be in conflict with what theology legitimately asserts. For the remainder of this chapter, we will not discuss further the question of whether theism requires, or strongly supports, the claim that the universe is finitely old. (Arguments for this claim are assessed in (Copan & Craig 2004).) For now we focus on versions of theism that are committed—in a perhaps naive way—to creation ex nihilo. Even on this understanding of theism, there are still reasons to exercise caution in seeing the big bang as confirming the prediction that God created the universe.

2.1 Whose theism is the big bang supposed to confirm?

The big-bang theologian argues that the claim
“The universe is 13 billion years old”
provides evidential support for theism. But there are many theists for whom the discovery that the universe is 13 billion years old would actually serve as a disconfirmation of their theistic belief. For example, Bishop Ussher of Ireland (1581–1656) claimed to derive from the Bible that the universe was created in 4004 B.C.; and even in the twenty-first century, some Christian thinkers claim Biblical warrant for an age of the universe much less than 13 billion years (see Kelly 2000 and Byl 2001). For these thinkers, then, the big bang would disconfirm theism—or at least their version of theism, which is committed to the literal accuracy of the Biblical account of creation. More strongly, it seems that Christian theism is committed to a belief in a finitely old universe primarily on the basis of its commitment to the accuracy of Biblical accounts of creation. Thus, if a theist comes to believe the big-bang account of the universe's origin, and hence to doubt the literal Biblical account, then she will lose one reason—and possibly her only reason—for believing that the universe is finitely old.

Of course, there are also theists who interpret Genesis metaphorically as implying that the universe was created, but not indicating a specific age for the universe. For these theists, finding that the universe is finitely old might confirm rather than undermine their belief.

2.2 Should the theist look for confirmation from scientific cosmology?

According to traditional Christian theism, creation ex nihilo is miraculous—something which the laws of nature cannot explain. But then why should a theist expect to be able to derive creation ex nihilo from the laws of nature? Compare with other supposed miracles, e.g., within Christianity the claim that Jesus changed water into wine. Do Christian theists claim that chemistry should predict that water can transform into wine? Of course not: God is supposed to be able to transcend the laws of nature, and the laws of nature are defeasible when it comes to describing what actually did happen (since God could have intervened). But then couldn't the best (most explanatory, most elegant) cosmological theory posit an infinite past, whereas in reality God created it some finite time in the past?

The puzzle we have just encountered trades on the special status of cosmology as a historical, yet law-based science, with only one actual model. While theists would certainly not expect the laws of chemistry to predict that water can transform into wine, they do believe that an accurate historical account would include reference to those miracles that did occur. So, is cosmology more like history, or more like chemistry? If God did create the universe, should a cosmological theory report (or predict or entail) such a fact? Or should cosmology only be required to provide laws for universes, laws which might in fact have been broken in our universe?

2.3 Which cosmological models support a doctrine of creation ex nihilo?

Suppose that the theist takes a harder line and says that theism requires (or favors) cosmological models with a finitely old universe. In this case, the time parameter in our cosmological models should never take values lower than some fixed number, which we can conveniently set to zero.

But the interval (0,t) is topologically isomorphic to (−∞,t), suggesting that duration of time (finite versus infinite) might lack intrinsic physical or theological significance. Such a point was made already by E.A. Milne in 1935, and then independently by Charles Misner in 1969. In particular, Misner replaces the time parameter t with the negative of its logarithm (i.e., −log t) in order to assuage worries that a bounded time parameter makes no sense. According to Misner (1969, 1331), even in models that begin with singularities, “the Universe is meaningfully infinitely old because infinitely many things have happened since the beginning.” Interestingly, Misner's move can hardly be motivated by a desire to obviate the need for a creator: Misner is a self-described Catholic Christian.

The possibility that the finite/infinite time distinction is conventional was noted by the catholic philosopher of science Ernan McMullin, who concludes that the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo must not be given a metric interpretation (McMullin 1981). Rather, claims McMullin, the ex nihilo doctrine should be interpreted order-theoretically: the time series has a first point. But this order-theoretic criterion will not help theism, at least not in regard to current cosmological models. On the one hand, FRW cosmological models fail the order-theoretic criterion: they have no first moment of time. On the other hand, an ideal first moment of time could be adjoined to any spacetime, even those that have a metrically infinite past (see Earman 1995). Thus, a simple order-theoretic criterion is a bad guide to whether cosmological models are consistent with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

A more adequate criterion of when a cosmological model is consonant with creation ex nihilo would require a detailed analysis of singular spacetimes (for extensive discussion of the latter topic, see Earman 1995). The best current account of when a spacetime is truly singular (as opposed to merely being described with inadequate coordinates) is when it contains inextendible geodesics of finite length. Intuitively, a geodesic is the path that would be followed by a clock in freefall. If a clock were travelling on a past-inextendible geodesic, then at some finite time in the past, the clock did not exist; more strongly, spacetime itself did not exist. Thus, the big-bang theologian would do best to claim that creation ex nihilo is confirmed precisely by those cosmological spacetimes that have inextendible geodesics. (Indeed, this criterion does hold for FRW models.) The main problem with such a proposal is that it ties a robust, intuitive theological doctrine down to an extremely precise technical feature of Lorentzian manifolds (as described by differential geometry). The risk then is that by doing so, one would add extraneous content to the theological doctrine: a future model might fail the technical criterion while still being consistent with the theological doctrine. Furthermore, many Christian theists claim that core theological doctrines are perspicuous—in particularly, not understood exclusively by an elite class of priests or scholars. But the notion of a Lorentzian manifold having incomplete geodesics can hardly be said to be accessible to the average layperson.

2.4 Can we trust General Relativity?

Finally, big-bang theology overreaches if it says that general relativity and the singularity theorems have settled once and for all that the universe had a beginning in time. In fact, relativistic cosmology predicts its own invalidity for times close to a dynamic singularity, such as the big bang. (For a dissenting opinion, see Misner 1969.) The reason that relativistic cosmology predicts its own own invalidity is that in the neighborhood of singularities, gravitational effects are intense, and quantum effects can be expected to play a predominant role. But general relativity does not incorporate quantum effects, and indeed it is untested in such regimes of intense gravitational force. Thus, there is little reason to believe that the singularity theorems make a valid prediction about the structure of a future successor theory of general relativity that includes quantum effects. We discuss this issue further in Section 4.

2.5 Does the big bang provide evidence for atheism?

Most philosophers and physicists have thought that big bang cosmology is either neutral towards, or supportive of, traditional theism. Thus, atheists have usually taken a defensive stance, trying to defeat the arguments of the big-bang theologians. But a vocal minority—we might call them “big-bang atheologians”—have made the stronger claim that big bang cosmology disconfirms theism. The most visible proponents of this big-bang atheology are the philosophers Adolf Grünbaum and Quentin Smith. In the case of Smith, quantum cosmologies are taken to provide even stronger evidence against theism.

In putting forward their arguments, big-bang atheologians make a number of points that seem to have been overlooked by their theistic counterparts. One such point is that FRW cosmological models have no first state. Thus, a theist who invokes the big bang cannot say that there is a state of the universe, say Α, such that God created the universe in state Α. He or she will have to invoke a more sophisticated notion of God creating initial temporal intervals, or something like that. Are these more sophisticated developments still consonant with traditional theology?

Big-bang atheologians also argue that it makes no sense to accept both that there were no times before the big bang (since time itself comes into existence with the universe) and that the universe was caused. Of course, many theists claim that God causes the universe timelessly, and they would attempt to defend the coherence of such a notion in the face of these criticisms.

The case of quantum cosmology provides further complications for theology. Without going into excessive detail of specific proposals, a common theme of many quantum cosmologies is that they postulate a probability distribution over universes themselves. In other words, quantum cosmologies provide a measure of likelihood that certain sorts of universes exist. Some older quantum cosmologies (e.g., Hawking's early proposals) still predict that the universe is finitely old. And yet, one might consider their further explanatory power—over and above classical general relativity—as undermining theistic explanations of the universe. In particular, quantum cosmology predicts with a high probability that a universe like ours would exist. Seen from this perspective, one might take quantum cosmologies to offer a competing, non-theistic explanation for the origin of the universe.

Theists have argued, in response, that quantum cosmologies do not provide unconditional probabilities for the existence of the universe. For example, Craig (1997), Deltete & Guy (1997), and Oppy (1997) argue that quantum cosmologies provide only conditional probabilities for the existence of some universe configurations given other universe configurations. Smith (1998) responds by defending the claim that the probabilities in quantum cosmology are unconditional. But neither side of this debate has attended to the special complications involved in interpreting quantum, rather than classical, probabilities. For example, Smith treats the universal wavefunction Ψ(hi j, f) as providing a probability distribution over universe configurations (hi j, f). But we know, from elementary quantum mechanics, that it is literally inconsistent (i.e., leads to contradictions) to treat a wavefunction as giving probabilities in an absolute sense. (This contradiction is derived by the famous Kochen-Specker theorem.) We conclude that in order for the metaphysical significance of quantum cosmologies to be assessed, a more nuanced consideration of the interpretation of quantum mechanics will be required.

3. Steady-state theories

Aristotle's cosmology belonged to the class of steady-state theories in so far that his universe was changeless and eternal. When Einstein in 1917 proposed the first relativistic model of the universe, he unwittingly pictured a universe which had qualitative features in common with Aristotle's: it was finite in space, but infinite in time. The discovery of the expansion of the universe excluded the steady state from relativistic cosmology, but not from other forms of cosmology. Robert Millikan, Nobel laureate and famous physicist, was among those who in the 1930s favored an eternally recurrent universe with a continual creation of matter and energy to counter the increase of entropy. He thought that such an eternal and evolving universe revealed the creator's continual activity and explicitly presented his cosmological view as support for the doctrines of Christianity in general and for the immanence of God in particular.

Contrary to the earlier ideas of a steady-state universe, the theory that Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold introduced in 1948 accepted that the universe is expanding. Conceptually the theory was founded on the “perfect cosmological principle,” that is, the postulate that the universe in its large-scale features is not only spatially but also temporally homogeneous. Although this classical steady-state theory was abandoned in the 1960s because of its inability to account for new discoveries (such as the cosmic microwave background and the redshifts of quasars), it remains an instructive case in the cosmology-theology discussion. Moreover, the theory is not quite dead yet, as some of its characteristic features survive in the quasi-steady-state cosmology (QSSC) still defended by Jayant Narlikar and a few other cosmologists. This model does not satisfy the perfect cosmological principle, but it assumes an indefinite cosmic time scale during which matter is continually created. In this respect it is an alternative to the big-bang theory and its supposed association with divine creation. In 1994, at a time when he was developing the QSSC model, Hoyle referred to big-bang cosmology as “a form of religious fundamentalism” (Hoyle 1994, 413). According to the classical steady-state theory, the universe has expanded for an infinity of time and will continue to do so for ever; yet the average density of matter remains constant because matter, or rather matter-energy, is continually being created out of nothing. (In later versions of the theory, matter creation was not ex nihilo.) Both features—the infinite time scale and the continuous creation of matter—were controversial and caused concern of a philosophical and also a theological nature.

It was widely assumed in the 1950s that the steady-state universe was contrary to theism or at least made God superfluous as a creator of the cosmos. After all, how can God have created a universe which has existed in an infinity of time? According to the astronomer, science popularizer and non-believer Carl Sagan, “this is one conceivable finding of science that could disprove a Creator—because an infinitely old universe would never have been created” (1997, 265). However, although the argument may seem to pose a real problem for theism, the theologians were well prepared—it had been discussed since the thirteenth century when Thomas Aquinas suggested that God could indeed have created an infinitely old universe. Moreover, theological responses to an infinitely old universe were far from new, for they had already been developed in relation to eternally cyclic models, either in the more speculative versions of the nineteenth century or the relativistic models that were proposed in the 1930s onwards.

According to the Thomistic doctrine of creatio continuans, God causes things to exist in the sense that their existence depends wholly on his power. If they were left to themselves they would turn into, or return into, nothingness. From this point of view creation is basically a metaphysical rather than a physical and temporal concept, and an eternal yet created universe is perfectly possible. Interestingly, the leading steady-state physicist William McCrea was also a devout Christian who argued that cosmology, in whatever form, must necessarily include the postulation of a divine creator. As theologians in the 1950s, both Protestants and Catholics, were quick to point out, Hoyle's eternal universe was not particularly heretical, for it was still in need of a creator. Not only did they mobilize the old concept of continual divine creation, emphasizing that cosmic creation is primarily about the ontological dependence of the world on God, they also stressed that faith in God has little to do with physical cosmology in whatever of its versions. Erich Mascall, a priest and philosopher of religion, saw no reason why the steady-state model should cause worry among the faithful. As he said in 1956, “The whole question whether the world had a beginning or not is, in the last resort, profoundly unimportant for theology” (Mascall 1956, 155).

Views similar to Mascall's have been held by many later theologians and Christian philosophers, but not by all. There is disagreement about how solidly based in the Bible the concept of atemporal continual creation is, and also about the significance of an absolute beginning of the world (for opposite views, see Copan and Craig 2004 and May 1994). The view that cosmology is essentially irrelevant to Christian belief has not gone uncontested. As Ernan McMullin has pointed out, Christian doctrines are more than metaphysics and codes for moral conduct; they are also cosmic claims that say something about the universe and what it contains of things. For this reason theologians need to pay attention to cosmology in particular and to science in general.

Some Christian scientists and philosophers have seen the continual creation of matter, as posited by the steady-state theory, as a manifestation of perpetual divine creation. Thus, the Catholic philosopher Philip Quinn (1993) has adopted the old notion of creatio continuans to the case of steady-state cosmology. The argument is essentially that since ex nihilo creation of matter violates energy conservation, there must be an external creative cause that accounts for the violation, and this cause he identifies with perpetual divine creation. This kind of reasoning has been severely criticized by Adolf Grünbaum, who flatly dismisses the claim that underlies the idea of perpetual divine creation, namely that nothingness is the natural state of the universe. This claim has also been argued in detail by Richard Swinburne (1996), who finds it extraordinary that there exists anything at all and from the fact that something exists infers the existence of God. But according to Grünbaum there is no room for divine creation in either big-bang or steady-state cosmology. “Steady-state cosmology,” he concludes, “is indeed logically incompatible with [the] claim that divine creative intervention is causally necessary for the nonconservative popping into existence of new matter in the steady-state universe” (Grünbaum 1996, 529).

Whereas steady-state cosmology is at least problematical from the point of view of traditional theology, it goes well together with the ideas of process theology or philosophy, where God is seen as interacting creatively and incessantly with natural processes. In a general sense, Whitehead's philosophy is more in harmony with the steady state than the big bang universe. The prominent British astronomer Bernard Lovell (1959), a devoted Christian inspired by process thinking, was in sympathy with the steady-state theory and saw no reason why it should be a threat to belief in a divine being. To him, the creation of matter was a sure sign of God's activity.

4. Quantum and string cosmologies
As we mentioned previously, there are reasons to suspect the invalidity of classical general relativity in regions near a singularity—most importantly, for times very close to the big bang. In particular, when lengths are very small, and curvature and temperatures are very high, then—if the gravitational force behaves like all other known forces of nature—quantum effects will take over, and we should accordingly expect different outcomes. This observation is itself sufficient to utterly destroy the aspirations of big-bang theology—unless there are good reasons to think that the finite-age prediction of relativistic cosmology will be preserved in a quantum gravity or in string theory. In this section, we briefly review the known data about singularities in theories that attempt to unify gravity and quantum mechanics. Our review supports two conclusions: (1) We do not know yet if the best model will predict a finitely old universe, but (2) there are good reasons to think that the big bang is not necessarily an absolute beginning.

There have been a number of proposed theories of quantum cosmology. Perhaps best known of these is the proposal of Stephen Hawking, which results in a universe with no boundary—motivating the famous question, “what place, then, for a creator?” The bearing of Hawking's cosmology on theism has already been discussed extensively by Craig & Smith (1995), Deltete & Guy (1997), Craig (1997), and Smith (1998). But it would be ill advised to take Hawking's theory as giving the final version of quantum cosmology. As noted by Drees (1990), Hawking's approach is just one among several competing attempts to incorporate quantum effects into relativistic cosmology, and we are not compelled to accept its idiosyncratic metaphysical picture. More to the point, Hawking's cosmological model is ad hoc in the sense that it does not flow from a more comprehensive unification of general relativity quantum theory. In this section we turn to two cosmological theories that do result from systematic and comprehensive unifications of general relativity and quantum theory: loop quantum cosmology and string cosmology.

Loop quantum cosmology (LQC) is an approach to cosmology within the framework of the loop quantum gravity (LQG) program (Rovelli 2004), which itself starts with the idea that unifying quantum theory and general relativity will require “quantizing” the gravitational field—and hence the structures of spacetime itself. Roughly speaking, to quantize a theory means that the quantities (e.g., position, momentum, scalar curvature, etc.) are replaced by “matrices,” or more generally with “operators on a Hilbert space.” This replacement can have profound physical consequences, most particularly the spectrum of a quantity (i.e., the numerical values it can possess) can become discretized where it was previously continuous, or bounded where it was previously unbounded, and quantities can be forced to obey a Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

For our purposes, the important question is what happens to those quantities (e.g., spatial curvature) that grow unboundedly large in classical FRW spacetimes as the time parameter t approaches the initial boundary time t0? To answer this question requires going through intricate technicalities involving domains of definition of operators, etc.. To summarize, however, the most prominent proposal (championed primarily by Martin Bojowald and collaborators; see Bojowald 2009) results in a scale parameter S(t) that is bounded away from zero, entailing that curvature is bounded from above. More is true: the dynamical equations of LQC extend through the big bang, i.e., the universe existed before the big bang.

It would be premature to take loop quantum cosmology as having decisively overturned the big-bang, finite-age cosmological model. Nonetheless, there is a non-negligible probability that it will do so in the near future; and hence there is a non-negligible probability that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe, and a fortiori, not the creation event (even if there was one).

However, loop quantum gravity is not the most popular—in terms of sheer number of researchers—approach to unifying quantum theory and gravity. The title of most popular belongs to string theory, and so string theory's perspective on the big bang event is of crucial interest for those wishing to assess the bearing of physical cosmology on traditional theological doctrines.

All indications from string cosmology point to the fact that the universe existed before the big bang. In particular, string theory claims that if we apply fundamental symmetry transformations to cosmological models of the recent universe, then we get a copy of the universe (with important quantities inverted) that might be called the “pre-big-bang universe.” In this scenario, the absolute big bang disappears and is replaced by a saddle point in the dynamical evolution of spacetime curvature: before this point, curvature is increasing, and after this point, it is decreasing.

According to Gasperini (2008), string cosmology's prediction of a pre-big-bang universe results from a principled application of symmetry principles. Furthermore, string theory has a built in mechanism (namely a minimum string length) that seems to rule out singularities of infinite curvature or spatial length shrinking to zero. As was the case in LQC, the values of physical quantities in string theory are constrained by quantum mechanical laws; and so some quantities that grew beyond bounds in classical theory are well-behaved in quantized versions of that theory.

We currently lack the empirical data that would distinguish between competing models of quantum cosmology. But these models make different empirical predictions from each other, and they also make different predictions from classical relativistic cosmology. Hence, it is an empirical, rather than a metaphysical, question whether the big bang was the beginning of the universe.

However, just as the big-bang is not unambiguously friendly to theism, so quantum cosmology is not unambiguously hostile to theism. Indeed, Chris Isham (1993, 405) has suggested that quantum cosmology's description of a boundary-free universe accords quite well with theism's insistence that God sustains the universe at all times. (See also the discussion in Drees 1988, 1990, 1991.) Clearly, theism has shown some flexibility in integrating its doctrines with prevailing scientific worldviews—as evidenced, e.g., in the integration of Aristotelian cosmology, and in the exploitation of big-bang cosmology. Should we expect the situation to be any different with quantum cosmology?

5. Other non-standard cosmologies

Apart from the quantum-based cosmologies mentioned above, there are several other theories of the universe that differ from the generally accepted big bang theory and are, in this sense, “non-standard.” A few of these models have been discussed within a religious context. We shall limit ourselves to two groups of theories, cyclic cosmologies and multiverse theories.

5.1 Cyclic cosmologies

Origen, a third-century Christian philosopher, speculated that God, before he created our universe, had busied himself with the creation of an endless series of earlier worlds. His idea of an eternal cyclic universe was however condemned by the church and has since then generally been regarded as associated with atheism and materialism. Indeed, from about 1850 to 1920 the classical cyclic or recurrent universe was popular among many atheistic thinkers who found it to be incompatible with Christian doctrines. Nonetheless, some theists have endorsed such a universe, e.g., Joseph Smith's claim that “as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come” (Mormon Book of Moses 1:38).

Although Einstein's cosmological field equations do not justify a series of pulsating universes, many cosmologists have suggested ways in which a collapsing universe can reappear from a nonsingular state and thus give birth to a new universe, perhaps ad infinitum. It should be pointed out that Lemaître, the cosmologist-priest, did not suggest such a “Phoenix universe,” in spite of numerous claims to the opposite. In some cases atheism has been part of the motivation for proposing singularity-free models with an unlimited past and future. For example, the British physicist William Bonnor considered the new big bang theory “the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men” (Bonnor 1964, 117). His own favored candidate, a universe oscillating smoothly and eternally between two states of finitely high density, avoided a divine miracle and theistic exploitation of cosmology, in which respect it was similar to the steady-state theory. Steven Weinberg noticed the similarity: “Some cosmologists are philosophically attracted to the oscillating model, especially because, like the steady-state model, it nicely avoids the problem of Genesis” (Weinberg 1977, 154).

Classical-relativistic cyclic models presupposed a closed universe disagreeing with current observations, for which reason they are no longer considered viable alternatives. But the twenty-first century has witnessed several new proposals, of which we shall mention only two: the “conformal cyclic cosmology” developed by Roger Penrose, and the “new cyclic cosmology” developed by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok.

In his theory of conformal cyclic cosmology, Penrose claims that as the big bang is approached, massive objects play a negligible role, so that the physics is governed by degrees of freedom that are invariant under rescaling of lengths and times. Such degrees of freedom are called “conformal invariants.” Thus, Penrose claims, we make a mistake to model the early universe by a Lorentzian manifold with a metric (as is done in classical general relativity). Rather, spacetime should be described by a conformal manifold, which is essentially a conformal equivalence class of general relativistic spacetimes. The “cyclic” part of Penrose's cosmology comes from noticing that the future of one ever-expanding universe can be smoothly bridged to the past of another big-bang universe by means of such a conformal manifold. In this case, the big bang is not a true beginning, but only a sort of phase change from one “epoch” to another (Penrose 2010).

The new cyclic cosmology of Steinhardt and Turok develops ideas from string theory to describe a universe without inflation going through an endless sequence of cycles—in which case, the big bang is not the beginning of time (Steinhardt and Turok 2007). In this respect the model is similar to the steady-state model, and Steinhardt and Turok has indeed described it as a “remarkable reincarnation” of Hoyle's old theory. Although the new cyclic model has attracted a fair amount of attention, it is not widely accepted. Nor is this the case with the pre-big-bang bouncing cosmology argued by Gabriele Veneziano and Maurizio Gasperini on the basis of string theory. According to the pre-big-bang model the universe is not only eternal into the future, it is also eternal into the past, the two cosmic phases (contracting and expanding) being separated by a non-singular big bang.

Eternal bouncing models qualitatively similar to the pre-big-bang scenario have been proposed earlier, either on the basis of the relativistic field equations or on the idea of a plasma universe. According to the Swedish physicist Hannes Alfvén, a Nobel laureate of 1970 who developed the latter idea, the plasma universe was an alternative to the theistic big bang theory. Since none of the models considered in this section operate with an absolute beginning, they may seem to be problematic from a theistic point of view. However, the theist can always appeal to perpetual divine creation, just as in the case of the steady-state universe.

5.2 The multiverse

The modern idea of the multiverse is theologically more controversial. In its so-called landscape version, which since 2002 has been promoted and developed by Leonard Susskind and many other physicists, it is based on the apparent non-uniqueness of the equations of string theory. The solutions of the equations describe, in a sense, possible worlds with different physical parameters, interactions, types of particles, and even dimensionality; the multitude of solutions are then identified with really existing worlds which generally are causally separate from ours. As a mechanism for generating the huge number of universes, multiverse physicists make use of the eternal inflation scenario. Moreover, the multiverse is closely associated with anthropic reasoning: we find ourselves in our universe, with its particular physical laws and content of particles, not because other universes are impossible or improbable, but because our kind of life cannot exist in other universes. The theory of the multiverse has seductively great explanatory power (while it has almost no predictive power), which is a major reason why many physicists and cosmologists find it attractive. On the other hand, other physicists dismiss it as pseudoscience because it is practically untestable.

It is common among supporters of the multiverse to conceive it as an alternative to a divinely created world and ideas of natural theology. Because it represents our universe as a chance universe, special only by the fact that we live in it, the multiverse has been likened to another and more famous anti-design theory, neo-Darwinianism. Weinberg puts it as follows: “Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaption of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator” (Weinberg 2007, 39). At least to some theists, the multiverse stands in sharp contrast to Christian belief. As Richard Swinburne sees it, “To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality” (Swinburne 1996, 68).

On the other hand, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the multiverse and belief in a divine creator. Several philosophers have argued that if theism is true, we should expect the actual world to be a multiverse: being a perfect being, God would create a multiverse rather than just a single universe (Kraay 2010). It is possible to answer affirmatively to the question, “does God love the multiverse?”, such as the physicist Don Page did at a symposium in 2008 (see Page 2008). Even if there are 10500 universes (but not, perhaps, if there are an infinite number of them), they could have been providentially created by the almighty God with a purpose we cannot fathom. Why not? It has even been suggested (by Paul Davies) that multiverse explanations are reminiscent of divine explanations and unintentionally reintroduce a transcendent creator.

Mormon theology differs in several respects drastically from the theology of traditional Christianity. Not only is God personal and held to have been created by a prior god (who was again created by a prior god, etc.), according to the central doctrine of “eternal progression” human beings will ultimately become like God himself. There is an infinite number of beings and it takes an eternity for them to become gods. Standard big bang cosmology, based as it is on a universe of finite age, is incompatible with Mormonism, where existence has neither beginning nor end. Whereas traditional theologians have no problem with a universe created ex nihilo, and many subscribe to this doctrine, Mormons flatly reject it. In order to overcome the conflict with physical cosmology, some Mormon thinkers have turned to the multiverse. Realizing that the attempt to harmonize the Mormon dogma of eternal progression with modern cosmology is problematic, Kirk Hagen says: “For Mormonism, a compelling reason to consider a multiverse cosmology is to attempt a reconciliation of modern cosmological ideas and the central tenet of Mormon doctrine” (Hagen 2006, 28).

The anthropic principle, an integral part of multiverse cosmology, has similarly been discussed in theological contexts and, again similarly, without any consensus emerging from the many discussions. In its most common version, called the weak anthropic principle, it states that what we observe is selected by our existence in a universe with just such properties that allow us to exist. Swinburne and some other theists in favor of design arguments find the anthropic principle to be, at best, unnecessary and obfuscating. To them, the values of the cosmic parameters and constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned because they are fine-tuned, the designer being God. The atheist Richard Dawkins goes further, arguing that the anthropic principle is an alternative to the design hypothesis and provides strong evidence for a world without God. However, theists do not generally see anthropically based arguments as a problem for a divinely created world. William Lane Craig and John Polkinghorne are among those who hold that the anthropic principle is compatible with divine design and can even be seen as indirect support for theism. According to the South-African cosmologist (and Quaker) George Ellis, anthropic fine-tuning is the result of a purposeful design of the universe. He has suggested a “Christian anthropic principle” as the basis for an ultimate understanding of the universe that combines scientific and religious perspectives (Ellis 1993).

In relation to the design argument, as reinvigorated by the discussions of the anthropic principle, some physicists and philosophers have returned to an old objection to it, namely that it is not an argument for the Christian God; it is at best an argument for a cosmic architect in a deistic sense, or for that matter several such architects. On the other hand, theists have replied that even if this objection be true it does not constitute a proof that the God of theism does not exist. Although design arguments frequently occur in connection with the anthropic principle, it needs to be said that they were not part of the original anthropic program initiated by Brandon Carter in 1974.

6. Infinity and the universe

Cosmological theory has gone through many phases and proposals over the past 100 years. Some have included universes with infinite pasts and these were mentioned previously. However, for the past forty years there has been a strong consensus on the modern big bang theory which has a finite past. But even if the universe is temporally finite in the past, it may well be spatially and materially infinite. If space is infinite and the cosmological principle is assumed to be valid, the universe will contain an infinite number of galaxies, stars, atoms and everything else. Such actual infinities not only cause philosophical and logical problems, they may also cause problems of a theological nature. In his thought experiment known as “Hilbert's hotel” the famous mathematician David Hilbert demonstrated that (countable) actual infinities are so bizarre that they cannot have anything to do with the real world we live in. Hilbert himself was uninterested in religion, but later philosophers and theologians have occasionally used his peculiar hotel apologetically, as an argument for the existence of God and also for the finitude of the universe.

The theological problems related to an infinitely large universe are not specifically related to modern physical cosmology but have been discussed since the early days of Christianity. On the other hand, they may be seen as even more relevant today, when the favored cosmological model has zero curvature, meaning that space is flat. Although a flat cosmic space does not necessarily imply an infinite universe, many cosmologists assume that the universe is indeed spatially infinite.

The theological implications of an infinite universe were discussed by the church fathers and, in greater detail, by Johannes Philoponus in the sixth century. Many of the arguments were of the same kind as those used in the attempts to prove the impossibility of a temporal infinity. At the time of the scientific revolution it was commonly assumed that physical space cannot be truly infinite, only indefinitely large. Infinity was seen as a divine attribute not to be found elsewhere; to claim that nature is infinite would be to endow it with divinity, a heretical view characteristic of pantheism. While the generally accepted view among theists was, and to some extent still is, that an infinite universe is philosophically absurd and theologically heretical, there was no consensus on the issue. In fact, several Christian thinkers, from Descartes in the seventeenth century through Kant in the eighteenth to Edward Milne in the twentieth, have argued that an infinite universe is in better agreement with God's will and omnipotence than a finite one. According to Milne, “It requires a more powerful God to create an infinite universe than a finite universe; it requires a greater God to leave room for an infinity of opportunities for the play of evolution than to wind up a mechanism, once and for all” (Milne 1948, 233). The correlation between finitism and theism, and infinitism and atheism, should be seen as historically contingent rather than justified by either scientific or theological reasons.

During the early period of modern cosmology, relativistic models with zero or negative curvature were sometimes associated with materialism and atheism because they implied a universe of infinite size. Conversely, Einstein's closed and finite universe was welcomed by theists. According to Ernest W. Barnes, the mathematically trained bishop of Birmingham, infinite space was “a scandal to human thought,” as he said in 1931 (Barnes 1931, 598). His argument was epistemic as well as theological: only if God's universe is finite can we hope to understand the full range of his activity. Lemaître thought likewise that the universe had to be finite in order to be comprehensible. In agreement with his later warning against the “nightmare of infinite space” (Kragh 2004, 139), both of his two innovative cosmological models, the expanding model of 1927 and the big-bang model of 1931, were spatially closed. The steady-state model of the 1950s was not only unpopular among Christians because of its lack of a cosmic creation, but also because it implied a homogeneous universe of infinite extent. According to Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and historian of science, the infinite universe is a scientific cover-up for atheism. Mormons do not agree, though, for they need a universe which is infinite in both time and space.

The present consensus model of a geometrically flat accelerating universe is usually taken to imply an infinite cosmos. The general attitude of cosmologists is to ignore the troublesome philosophical problems and speak of the infinite universe as just an indefinitely large one. They rarely reflect on the weird epistemic consequences of an actual infinity and even more rarely on the theological consequences. Ellis is an exception to the rule. He and his collaborators have argued forcefully against an infinite universe, suggesting that the flat space of the consensus model is probably an abstraction that does not hold physically (Ellis, Kirchner and Stoeger 2004). If the universe is really infinite and uniform it can be (and has been) argued that there will be an infinity of identical copies of all human beings and indeed of everything. Such a consequence, as discussed by Ellis, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth and others, clearly is theologically disturbing.

Even more disturbing, says Ellis, is it that God may then not be able to keep track of and give attention to the infinite number of beings in the universe. Moreover, if there is a multitude of cosmic regions, each of which is inhabited with intelligent beings, one may need to contemplate a multitude of Christ-figures, incarnations and crucifixions. Ellis was not only willing to consider such a scenario, he also thought that it strengthened the case for a finite universe, for then “we would have to countenance only a finite number of civilizations needing redemption. Surely an infinite number of Christ-figures must be too much, no matter how one envisages God” (Ellis 1993, 394).

7. Physical eschatology

The cosmological field equations are time-symmetric and the fundamental laws of physics are assumedly valid at any time. Thus, modern cosmology is not only about the past of the universe, it also offers scenarios about its far future, including speculations about the fate of intelligent life. Given that the apocalyptic passages in the Bible speak of an end of the world and a possible new creation (e.g., 2 Peter 3:10–13), the cosmic future may seem to offer another point of contact between cosmology and theistic religion. But can there be a secular or scientific eschatology?

Scientifically based speculations about the state of the cosmos in the far future and the possibility of endless life were first discussed in the late nineteenth century in connection with the controversy over the heat death predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. Some of the German scientists involved in the controversy argued that life might persist even in the very high-entropic environment of the far future, and they explicitly referred to the eschatological aspects of cosmology. Characteristically, while the heat death scenario was welcomed by Christian authors, it was vehemently opposed by materialists and atheists who argued for an eternal universe with eternal life. As Eddington, a Quaker and an advocate of the inevitable heat death, later asked: “Since when has the teaching that ‘ heaven and earth shall pass away’ become ecclesiastically un-orthodox?” (Eddington 1935, 59).

Since the 1970s “physical eschatology” has emerged as a new subfield of astrophysics and cosmology, pioneered by Freeman Dyson, Jamal Islam and others (see the survey in Kragh 2011, 325–353). The field deals primarily with the state of the universe in the remote future as based on extrapolations of cosmological models and the assumption that the presently known laws of physics will remain indefinitely valid. The favored scenario is the open ever-expanding universe where extrapolations typically result in an ultimate future (at about 10100 years from now!) in which the universe consists of nothing but an exceedingly thin electron-positron plasma immersed in a cold radiation of neutrinos and photons. Other studies presume a closed universe collapsing in a big crunch and others again investigate the nearer future of humankind, say a few million years from now. While many of these studies are not concerned with the final state of life, some are, and it is this latter group that constitutes physical eschatology proper. According to John Barrow and Frank Tipler, the research field is, “the study of the survival and the behavior of life in the far future” (Barrow & Tipler 1986, 658).

Physical eschatologists usually ignore the religious associations of their studies or deny that they exist. Tipler is a controversial exception, however. Not only does he argue that some kind of life can continue forever in a closed universe, he also claims that it is the very collapse of the universe that permits eternal life. When the final eternity has been reached at what he calls the “omega point,” life becomes omniscient and the temporal becomes atemporal. According to Tipler, the final singularity is God and “theology is nothing but physical cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal” (Tipler 1995, 17). In his book The Physics of Christianity (Tipler 2007), he continues his idiosyncratic exploration of modern cosmotheology according to which theology is merely a branch of physics. Tipler's views are undoubtedly extreme, but (and perhaps for this reason) they have caused much discussion among theologians.

The term physical eschatology indicates a connection to biblical eschatology, but it is far from clear that the two are related in any meaningful sense. The message of the Bible is not so much the end of the physical universe as it is about the imminent return of Christ, the transformation of humans from flesh to spirit, and the final kingdom of God. It is about the ultimate destiny and goal of humans, not of self-reproducing robots. As Jefferson Davis (1999) notes, the ultimate hope which is crucial in theology cannot be supplied by the laws of physics. The scenario of a closed universe, such as argued by Tipler, may appear to be more compatible with the biblical view than the case of the ever-expanding universe, but even in the former case it is hard to establish a meaningful connection. While the end of the world does not conflict with the Bible, the claims of immortality of intelligent life forms (not necessarily humans) do. The Bible says that God alone is immortal and that all his created beings are doomed to extinction unless God decides otherwise.

Several theologians have expressed concern about the cosmologists' scenarios of the end of the universe and stressed that there is a world of difference between these scenarios and proper eschatology. According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the Christian affirmation of an imminent end of the world is scarcely reconcilable with the cosmological extrapolations of the state of the universe zillions of years ahead. Karl Peters probably speak for the majority of theologians when he writes: “If the expanding universe is indeed open, expanding forever, then how can one speak of God recreating the universe? If the universe is closed, then it is likely to end in a ‘big crunch’ of mammoth black-hole proportions. Again, it is difficult to see how a new creation can take place” (Schwarz 2000, 180). According to Peters, the physical end of the universe would in effect imply the non-existence of God as understood in the Christian tradition. Whereas Pannenberg, Peters, Arthur Peacocke and others tend to think that physical and Christian eschatology are either contradictory or incommensurable, Craig has taken a more reconcilable view. According to him, the cosmologists' versions of secular eschatology furnish grounds for taking seriously the hypothesis of a transcendent creative and omnipotent agent. This agent may not be the classical God, but more likely God in a panentheistic version.

Finally, Robert Russell (2008) argues that the potential conflict might be resolved by appealing to God's omnipotence and freedom to perform miracles: the future of the universe would have been what science predicts had God not decided to act at Easter and bring about, and will continue to bring about, the new creation. This view is allegedly not in conflict with science, but only with the philosophical assumption that the events predicted by science must happen, and this assumption Russell sees no reason to accept.

8. Conclusions: Cosmology and God

The question, “why does the universe exist?” admits of answers from traditional religions as well as from contemporary cosmological theories. However, according to Bede Rundle (2004), neither of these answers are needed, for philosophical analysis is sufficient to prove the existence of a physical universe. While some claim that the scientific answer has superseded all theological answers, others claim that the scientific answer reinforces the claim that God created the universe. Indeed, the story of the interaction between scientific cosmology and theology is by no means a simple tale of a better theory replacing an inferior; nor a simple tale of the convergence of diverse sources of knowledge. A naive or ideological reading of twentieth century cosmology might count big bang cosmology as providing new support for theism, and alternatives such as steady-state cosmology as atheistic backlashes. (And of course, the work of apologists such as W.L. Craig lends credence to this sort of picture.) But such a view misses many nuances, both in the historical record, as well as in the logical structure of these issues. From a historical point of view, there has been little correlation between religious views of scientific cosmologists and their proposed cosmological models. From a epistemological point of view, there are numerous obstacles to claiming that the big bang confirms the hypothesis that God exists. And from a metaphysical point of view, God's hand is not manifest even in big bang models: these models have no first state for God to create, and these models have no time for God to exist in before the big bang.

By pointing out some of the subtleties in the relationship between scientific cosmology and theology, we do not intend to claim that the two are nonoverlapping magisteria (to borrow a phrase from Stephen Jay Gould). To the contrary, contemporary cosmology is fascinating precisely because it has such intricate logical relations with traditional metaphysical and theological issues.

Halvorson, Hans and Kragh, Helge, "Cosmology and Theology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

RUMI 

Rumi Quotes

The minute I heard my first love story,
I started looking for you, not knowing
how blind that was.

Lovers don't finally meet somewhere,
they're in each other all along.

From Essential Rumi
by Coleman Barks

Love is from the infinite, and will remain until eternity.
The seeker of love escapes the chains of birth and death.

Tomorrow, when resurrection comes,
The heart that is not in love will fail the test.

From Thief of Sleep
by Shahram Shiva

When I am with you, we stay up all night,
When you're not here, I can't get to sleep.
Praise God for these two insomnias!
And the difference between them.

From Essential Rumi
by Coleman Barks

Suddenly the drunken sweetheart appeared out of my door.
She drank a cup of ruby wine and sat by my side.
Seeing and holding the lockets of her hair
My face became all eyes, and my eyes all hands.

From Thief of Sleep
by Shahram Shiva

I have phrases and whole pages memorized,
but nothing can be told of love.
You must wait until you and I
are living together.
In the conversation we'll have
then...be patient...then.

From Essential Rumi
by Coleman Barks

When the sweet glance of my true love caught my eyes,
Like alchemy, it transformed my copper-like soul.
I searched for Him with a thousand hands,
He stretched out His arms and clutched my feet.

From Thief of Sleep
by Shahram Shiva

With the Beloved's water of life, no illness remains
In the Beloved's rose garden of union, no thorn remains.
They say there is a window from one heart to another
How can there be a window where no wall remains?

From Thief of Sleep
by Shahram Shiva

A Smile and A Gentleness

There is a smile and a gentleness
inside. When I learned the name
and address of that, I went to where
you sell perfume. I begged you not
to trouble me so with longing. Come
out and play! Flirt more naturally.

Teach me how to kiss. On the ground
a spread blanket, flame that's caught
and burning well, cumin seeds browning,
I am inside all of this with my soul.

From Essential Rumi
by Coleman Barks

Let the lover be disgraceful, crazy,
absentminded. Someone sober
will worry about things going badly.
Let the lover be.

From Essential Rumi
by Coleman Barks

When your chest is free of your limiting ego,
Then you will see the ageless Beloved.
You can not see yourself without a mirror;
Look at the Beloved, He is the brightest mirror.

From Thief of Sleep
by Shahram Shiva

The Freshness

When it's cold and raining,
you are more beautiful.

And the snow brings me
even closer to your lips.

The inner secret, that which was never born,
you are that freshness, and I am with you now.

I can't explain the goings,
or the comings. You enter suddenly,
and I am nowhere again.
Inside the majesty.

From Soul of Rumi
by Coleman Barks

When you find yourself with the Beloved, embracing for one breath,
In that moment you will find your true destiny.
Alas, don't spoil this precious moment
Moments like this are very, very rare.

From Thief of Sleep
by Shahram Shiva

Your love lifts my soul from the body to the sky
And you lift me up out of the two worlds.
I want your sun to reach my raindrops,
So your heat can raise my soul upward like a cloud.

From Thief of Sleep
by Shahram Shiva

Some Kiss We Want

There is some kiss we want with
our whole lives, the touch of
spirit on the body. Seawater
begs the pearl to break its shell.

And the lily, how passionately
it needs some wild darling! At
night, I open the window and ask
the moon to come and press its
face against mine. Breathe into
me. Close the language- door and
open the love window. The moon
won't use the door, only the window.

From Soul of Rumi
by Coleman Barks

I am filled with you. Skin, blood, bone, brain and soul. There's no room for lack of trust, or trust. Nothing in this existence but that existence.

Rumi

Rumi

....he was "not a prophet — but surely, he has brought a scripture".....

....The nation of Love has a different religion of all religions — For lovers, God alone is their religion....

Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī (Persian: جلالالدین محمد بلخى‎), also known as Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī (جلالالدین محمد رومی), and more popularly in the English-speaking world simply as Rumi (30 September 1207 – 17 December 1273), was a 13th-century Persian poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic.

Iranians, Turks, Afghans, Tajiks, and other Central Asian Muslims as well as the Muslims of South Asia have greatly appreciated his spiritual legacy in the past seven centuries.

Rumi's importance is considered to transcend national and ethnic borders. His poems have been widely translated into many of the world's languages and transposed into various formats. In 2007, he was described as the "most popular poet in America."

Rumi's works are written in Persian and his Mathnawi remains one of the purest literary glories of Persia, and one of the crowning glories of the Persian language. His original works are widely read today in their original language across the Persian-speaking world (Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and parts of Persian speaking Central Asia).

Translations of his works are very popular in other countries. His poetry has influenced Persian literature as well as Urdu, Punjabi, Turkish and some other Iranian, Turkic and Indic languages written in Perso-Arabic script e.g. Pashto, Ottoman Turkish, Chagatai and Sindhi.

Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī (Persian: جلالالدین محمد بلخى‎ Persian pronunciation: [dʒælɒːlæddiːn mohæmmæde bælxiː]) is also known as Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī (جلالالدین محمد رومی Persian pronunciation: [dʒælɒːlæddiːn mohæmmæde ɾuːmiː]). He is widely known by the sobriquet Mawlānā/Molānā (Persian: مولانا‎ Persian pronunciation: [moulɒːnɒː]) in Iran and Afghanistan, and popularly known as Mevlâna in Turkey.

According to the authoritative Rumi biographer Franklin Lewis of the University of Chicago, "[t]he Anatolian peninsula which had belonged to the Byzantine, or eastern Roman empire, had only relatively recently been conquered by Muslims and even when it came to be controlled by Turkish Muslim rulers, it was still known to Arabs, Persians and Turks as the geographical area of Rum.

As such, there are a number of historical personages born in or associated with Anatolia known as Rumi, a word borrowed from Arabic literally meaning “Roman,” in which context Roman refers to subjects of the Byzantine Empire or simply to people living in or things associated with Anatolia. In Muslim countries, therefore, Jalal al-Din is not generally known as "Rumi"." The terms مولوی Mawlavi (Persian) and Mevlevi (Turkish) which mean "having to do with the master" are more often used for him.

Life

Rumi was born to native Persian speaking parents, probably in the village of Wakhsh, a small town located at the river Wakhsh in Persia (in what is now Tajikistan). Wakhsh belonged to the larger province of Balkh (parts of now modern Afghanistan and Tajikistan), and in the year Rumi was born, his father was an appointed scholar there.

Greater Balkh was at that time a major center of a Persian culture and Khorasani Sufism had developed there for several centuries. Indeed, the most important influences upon Rumi, besides his father, are said to be the Persian poets Attar and Sanai.

Rumi in one poem express his appreciation: "Attar was the spirit, Sanai his eyes twain, And in time thereafter, Came we in their train" and mentions in another poem: "Attar has traversed the seven cities of Love, We are still at the turn of one street". His father was also connected to the spiritual lineage of Najm al-Din Kubra.

He lived most of his life under the Persianate Seljuq Sultanate of Rum, where he produced his works and died in 1273 AD. He was buried in Konya and his shrine became a place of pilgrimage. Following his death, his followers and his son Sultan Walad founded the Mevlevi Order, also known as the Order of the Whirling Dervishes, famous for its Sufi dance known as the Sama ceremony.

He was laid to rest beside his father, and over his remains a splendid shrine was erected. A hagiographical account of him is described in Shams ud-Din Ahmad Aflāki's Manāqib ul-Ārifīn (written between 1318 and 1353). This hagiographical account of his biography needs to be treated with care as it contains both legends and facts about Rumi. For example, Professor Franklin Lewis, Chicago University, in the most complete biography on Rumi has a separate section for the hagiographical biography on Rumi and actual biography about him.

Rumi's father was Bahā ud-Dīn Walad, a theologian, jurist and a mystic from Wakhsh, who was also known by the followers of Rumi as Sultan al-Ulama or "Sultan of the Scholars". The popular hagiographer assertions that have claimed the family's descent from the Caliph Abu Bakr does not hold on closer examination and is rejected by modern scholars. The claim of maternal descent from the Khwarazmshah for Rumi or his father is also seen as a non-historical hagiographical tradition designed to connect the family with royalty, but this claim is rejected for chronological and historical reasons. The most complete genealogy offered for the family stretches back to six or seven generations to famous Hanafi Jurists.

We do not learn the name of Baha al-Din's mother in the sources, but only that he referred to her as "Māmi" (Colloquial Persian for Māma) and that she was a simple woman and that she lives in 13th century. The mother of Rumi was Mu'mina Khātūn. The profession of the family for several generations was that of Islamic preachers of the liberal Hanafi rite and this family tradition was continued by Rumi (see his Fihi Ma Fih and Seven Sermons) and Sultan Walad (see Ma'rif Waladi for examples of his everyday sermons and lectures).

When the Mongols invaded Central Asia sometime between 1215 and 1220, Baha ud-Din Walad, with his whole family and a group of disciples, set out westwards. According to hagiographical account which is not agreed upon by all Rumi scholars, Rumi encountered one of the most famous mystic Persian poets, Attar, in the Iranian city of Nishapur, located in the province of Khorāsān. Attar immediately recognized Rumi's spiritual eminence. He saw the father walking ahead of the son and said, "Here comes a sea followed by an ocean." He gave the boy his Asrārnāma, a book about the entanglement of the soul in the material world. This meeting had a deep impact on the eighteen-year-old Rumi and later on became the inspiration for his works.

From Nishapur, Walad and his entourage set out for Baghdad, meeting many of the scholars and Sufis of the city. From Baghdad they went to Hejaz and performed the pilgrimage at Mecca. The migrating caravan then passed through Damascus, Malatya, Erzincan, Sivas, Kayseri and Nigde. They finally settled in Karaman for seven years; Rumi's mother and brother both died there. In 1225, Rumi married Gowhar Khatun in Karaman. They had two sons: Sultan Walad and Ala-eddin Chalabi. When his wife died, Rumi married again and had a son, Amir Alim Chalabi, and a daughter, Malakeh Khatun.

On 1 May 1228, most likely as a result of the insistent invitation of 'Alā' ud-Dīn Key-Qobād, ruler of Anatolia, Baha' ud-Din came and finally settled in Konya in Anatolia within the westernmost territories of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm.

Baha' ud-Din became the head of a madrassa (religious school) and when he died, Rumi, aged twenty-five, inherited his position as the Islamic molvi. One of Baha' ud-Din's students, Sayyed Burhan ud-Din Muhaqqiq Termazi, continued to train Rumi in the Shariah as well as the Tariqa, especially that of Rumi's father. For nine years, Rumi practiced Sufism as a disciple of Burhan ud-Din until the latter died in 1240 or 1241. Rumi's public life then began: he became an Islamic Jurist, issuing fatwas and giving sermons in the mosques of Konya. He also served as a Molvi (Islamic teacher) and taught his adherents in the madrassa.

During this period, Rumi also traveled to Damascus and is said to have spent four years there.

It was his meeting with the dervish Shams-e Tabrizi on 15 November 1244 that completely changed his life. From an accomplished teacher and jurist, Rumi was transformed into an ascetic.

Shams had traveled throughout the Middle East searching and praying for someone who could "endure my company". A voice said to him, "What will you give in return?" Shams replied, "My head!" The voice then said, "The one you seek is Jalal ud-Din of Konya." On the night of 5 December 1248, as Rumi and Shams were talking, Shams was called to the back door. He went out, never to be seen again. It is rumored that Shams was murdered with the connivance of Rumi's son, 'Ala' ud-Din; if so, Shams indeed gave his head for the privilege of mystical friendship.

Rumi's love for, and his bereavement at the death of, Shams found their expression in an outpouring lyric poems, Divan-e Shams-e Tabrizi. He himself went out searching for Shams and journeyed again to Damascus. There, he realized:

Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!

Mewlana had been spontaneously composing ghazals (Persian poems), and these had been collected in the Divan-i Kabir or Diwan Shams Tabrizi. Rumi found another companion in Salaḥ ud-Din-e Zarkub, a goldsmith. After Salah ud-Din's death, Rumi's scribe and favorite student, Hussam-e Chalabi, assumed the role of Rumi's companion. One day, the two of them were wandering through the Meram vineyards outside Konya when Hussam described to Rumi an idea he had had: "If you were to write a book like the Ilāhīnāma of Sanai or the Mantiq ut-Tayr of 'Attar, it would become the companion of many troubadours. They would fill their hearts from your work and compose music to accompany it." Rumi smiled and took out a piece of paper on which were written the opening eighteen lines of his Masnavi, beginning with:
Listen to the reed and the tale it tells,
How it sings of separation...

Hussam implored Rumi to write more. Rumi spent the next twelve years of his life in Anatolia dictating the six volumes of this masterwork, the Masnavi, to Hussam.

In December 1273, Rumi fell ill; he predicted his own death and composed the well-known ghazal, which begins with the verse:
How doest thou know what sort of king I have within me as companion?

Do not cast thy glance upon my golden face, for I have iron legs.

Rumi died on 17 December 1273 in Konya; his body was interred beside that of his father, and a splendid shrine, the Yeşil Türbe (Green Tomb, قبه الخضراء; today the Mevlâna Museum), was erected over his place of burial. His epitaph reads:

When we are dead, seek not our tomb in the earth, but find it in the hearts of men (women).

The 13th century Mevlâna Mausoleum, with its mosque, dance hall, dervish living quarters, school and tombs of some leaders of the Mevlevi Order, continues to this day to draw pilgrims from all parts of the Muslim and non-Muslim world. Jalal al-Din who is also known as Rumi, was a philosopher and mystic of Islam. His doctrine advocates unlimited tolerance, positive reasoning, goodness, charity and awareness through love. To him and to his disciples all religions are more or less truth. Looking with the same eye on Muslim, Jew and Christian alike, his peaceful and tolerant teaching has appealed to people of all sects and creeds.

Teachings

The general theme of Rumi's thought, like that of other mystic and Sufi poets of Persian literature, is essentially that of the concept of tawhid — union with his beloved (the primal root) from which/whom he has been cut off and become aloof — and his longing and desire to restore it.

The Masnavi weaves fables, scenes from everyday life, Qur'anic revelations and exegesis, and metaphysics into a vast and intricate tapestry. In the East, it is said of him that he was "not a prophet — but surely, he has brought a scripture".

Rumi believed passionately in the use of music, poetry and dance as a path for reaching God. For Rumi, music helped devotees to focus their whole being on the divine and to do this so intensely that the soul was both destroyed and resurrected. It was from these ideas that the practice of whirling Dervishes developed into a ritual form. His teachings became the base for the order of the Mevlevi which his son Sultan Walad organized.

Rumi encouraged Sama, listening to music and turning or doing the sacred dance. In the Mevlevi tradition, samāʿ represents a mystical journey of spiritual ascent through mind and love to the Perfect One. In this journey, the seeker symbolically turns towards the truth, grows through love, abandons the ego, finds the truth and arrives at the Perfect. The seeker then returns from this spiritual journey, with greater maturity, to love and to be of service to the whole of creation without discrimination with regard to beliefs, races, classes and nations.

In other verses in the Masnavi, Rumi describes in detail the universal message of love:

The lover’s cause is separate from all other causes

Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries.

Major Works

Rumi's poetry is often divided into various categories: the quatrains (rubayāt) and odes (ghazal) of the Divan, the six books of the Masnavi. The prose works are divided into The Discourses, The Letters, and the Seven Sermons.

Poetic works

Rumi's major work is the Maṭnawīye Ma'nawī (Spiritual Couplets; مثنوی معنوی), a six-volume poem regarded by some Sufis[40] as the Persian-language Qur'an. It is considered by many to be one of the greatest works of mystical poetry. It contains approximately 27000 lines of Persian poetry.

Rumi's other major work is the Dīwān-e Kabīr (Great Work) or Dīwān-e Shams-e Tabrīzī (The Works of Shams of Tabriz; دیوان شمس تبریزی), named in honor of Rumi's master Shams. Besides approximately 35000 Persian couplets and 2000 Persian quatrains, the Divan contains 90 Ghazals and 19 quatrains in Arabic, a couple of dozen or so couplets in Turkish (mainly macaronic poems of mixed Persian and Turkish) and 14 couplets in Greek (all of them in three macaronic poems of Greek-Persian).

Prose works

Fihi Ma Fihi (In It What's in It, Persian: فیه ما فیه) provides a record of seventy-one talks and lectures given by Rumi on various occasions to his disciples. It was compiled from the notes of his various disciples, so Rumi did not author the work directly. An English translation from the Persian was first published by A.J. Arberry as Discourses of Rumi(New York: Samuel Weiser, 1972), and a translation of the second book by Wheeler Thackston, Sign of the Unseen(Putney, VT: Threshold Books, 1994). The style of the Fihi ma fihi are colloqual and are meant for middle-class men and women, and lack the sophisticated wordplay.

Majāles-e Sab'a (Seven Sessions, Persian: مجالس سبعه) contains seven Persian sermons (as the name implies) or lectures given in seven different assemblies. The sermons themselves give a commentary on the deeper meaning of Qur'an and Hadeeth. The sermons also include quotations from poems of Sana'i, 'Attar, and other poets, including Rumi himself. As Aflakī relates, after Shams-e Tabrīzī, Rumi gave sermons at the request of notables, especially Salāh al-Dīn Zarkūb. The style of Persian is rather simple, but quotation of Arabic and knowledge of history and the Hadith show Rumi's knowledge in the Islamic sciences. His style is the typical of the genre of lectures given by Sufis and spiritual teachers.

Makatib (The Letters, Persian: مکاتیب) is the book containing Rumi's letters in Persian to his disciples, family members, and men of state and of influence. The letters testify that Rumi kept very busy helping family members and administering a community of disciples that had grown up around them. Unlike the Persian style of the previous two mentioned work (which are lectures and sermons), the letters is consciously sophisticated and epistolar, which is in conformity with the expectations of correspondence directed to nobles, statement and kings.

Philosophical outlook

Rumi was an evolutionary thinker in the sense that he believed that the spirit after devolution from the divine Ego undergoes an evolutionary process by which it comes nearer and nearer to the same divine Ego. All matter in the universe obeys this law and this movement is due to an inbuilt urge (which Rumi calls "love") to evolve and seek enjoinment with the divinity from which it has emerged. Evolution into a human being from an animal is only one stage in this process.

The doctrine of the Fall of Adam is reinterpreted as the devolution of the Ego from the universal ground of divinity and is a universal, cosmic phenomenon. The French philosopher Henri Bergson's idea of life being creative and evolutionary is similar, though unlike Bergson, Rumi believes that there is a specific goal to the process: the attainment of God. For Rumi, God is the ground as well as the goal of all existence.

However Rumi need not be considered a biological evolutionary creationist. In view of the fact that Rumi lived hundreds of years before Darwin, and was least interested in scientific theories, it is probable to conclude that he does not deal with biological evolution at all. Rather he is concerned with the spiritual evolution of a human being: Man not conscious of God is akin to an animal and true consciousness makes him divine. Nicholson has seen this as a Neo-Platonic doctrine: the universal soul working through the various spheres of being, a doctrine introduced into Islam by Muslim philosophers like Al Farabi and being related at the same time to Ibn Sina's idea of love as the magnetically working power by which life is driven into an upward trend.

I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as plant and rose to animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soar
With angels bless'd; but even from angelhood
I must pass on: all except God doth perish.
When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,
I shall become what no mind e'er conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existence
Proclaims in organ tones,
To Him we shall return.

از جمادی مُردم و نامی شدم — وز نما مُردم به حیوان سرزدم
مُردم از حیوانی و آدم شدم — پس چه ترسم؟ کی ز مردن کم شدم؟
حملهٔ دیگر بمیرم از بشر — تا برآرم از ملائک بال و پر
وز ملک هم بایدم جستن ز جو — کل شیء هالک الا وجهه
بار دیگر از ملک پران شوم — آنچه اندر وهم ناید آن شوم
پس عدم گردم عدم چو ارغنون — گویدم کانا الیه راجعون

Universality

It is often said that the teachings of Rumi are ecumenical in nature. For Rumi, religion was mostly a personal experience and not limited to logical arguments or perceptions of the senses. Creative love, or the urge to rejoin the spirit to divinity, was the goal towards which every thing moves. The dignity of life, in particular human life (which is conscious of its divine origin and goal), was important.

ملت عشق از همه دینها جداست — عاشقان را ملت و مذهب خداست

The nation of Love has a different religion of all religions — For lovers, God alone is their religion.

Wikipedia

MIRCEA ELIADE 

Mircea Eliade

.....hierophanies.......

....."The most representative mystical experience of the archaic societies, that of shamanism, betrays the Nostalgia for Paradise, the desire to recover the state of freedom and beatitude before 'the Fall'." This concern—which, by itself, is the concern of almost all religious behavior, according to Eliade—manifests itself in specific ways in shamanism........

......Third, the shamanistic phenomenon of repeated death and resurrection also represents a transfiguration in other ways. The shaman dies not once but many times: having died during initiation and risen again with new powers, the shaman can send his (her) spirit out of his (her) body on errands; thus, his (her) whole career consists of repeated deaths and resurrections. The shaman's new ability to die and return to life shows that he (she) is no longer bound by the laws of profane time, particularly the law of death: "the ability to 'die' and come to life again [...] denotes that [the shaman] has surpassed the human condition".......

.......By profession, Eliade was a historian of religion. However, his scholarly works draw heavily on philosophical and psychological terminology. In addition, they contain a number of philosophical arguments about religion. In particular, Eliade often implies the existence of a universal psychological or spiritual "essence" behind all religious phenomena. Because of these arguments, some have accused Eliade of over-generalization and "essentialism", or even of promoting a theological agenda under the guise of historical scholarship. However, others argue that Eliade is better understood as a scholar who is willing to openly discuss sacred experience and its consequences........

.......In viewing himself as the proper maker of history, nonreligious man resists all notions of an externally (for instance, divinely) imposed order or model he must obey: modern man "makes himself, and he only makes himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. [...] He will not truly be free until he has killed the last god".......

......Eliade sees the widespread myth of the Golden Age, "which, according to a number of traditions, lies at the beginning and the end of History", as the "precedent" for Karl Marx's vision of a classless society. Finally, he sees Marx's belief in the final triumph of the good (the proletariat) over the evil (the bourgeoisie) as "a truly messianic Judaeo-Christian ideology". Despite Marx's hostility toward religion, Eliade implies, his ideology works within a conceptual framework inherited from religious mythology.

Likewise, Eliade notes that Nazism involved a pseudo-pagan mysticism based on ancient Germanic religion. He suggests that the differences between the Nazis' pseudo-Germanic mythology and Marx's pseudo-Judaeo-Christian mythology explain their differing success:

In comparison with the vigorous optimism of the communist myth, the mythology propagated by the national socialists seems particularly inept; and this is not only because of the limitations of the racial myth (how could one imagine that the rest of Europe would voluntarily accept submission to the master-race?), but above all because of the fundamental pessimism of the Germanic mythology. [...] For the eschaton prophesied and expected by the ancient Germans was the ragnarok--that is, a catastrophic end of the world........

......Călinescu notes that Eliade's fiction works tend to depict a male figure "possessing all practicable women in [a given] family". He also considered that, as a rule, Eliade depicts woman as "a basic means for a sexual experience and repudiated with harsh egotism."

For Călinescu, such a perspective on life culminated in "banality", leaving authors gripped by the "cult of the self" and "a contempt for literature"........

Mircea Eliade

Mircea Eliade (Romanian: [ˈmirt͡ʃe̯a eliˈade]; March 13 [O.S. February 28] 1907 – April 22, 1986) was a Romanian historian of religion, fiction writer, philosopher, and professor at the University of Chicago.

He was a leading interpreter of religious experience, who established paradigms in religious studies that persist to this day. His theory that hierophanies form the basis of religion, splitting the human experience of reality into sacred and profane space and time, has proved influential.

One of his most influential contributions to religious studies was his theory of Eternal Return, which holds that myths and rituals do not simply commemorate hierophanies, but, at least to the minds of the religious, actually participate in them.

His literary works belong to the fantastic and autobiographical genres. The best known are the novels Maitreyi ("La Nuit Bengali" or "Bengal Nights"), Noaptea de Sânziene ("The Forbidden Forest"), Isabel și apele diavolului ("Isabel and the Devil's Waters") and Romanul Adolescentului Miop ("Novel of the Nearsighted Adolescent"), the novellas Domnișoara Christina ("Miss Christina") and Tinerețe fără tinerețe ("Youth Without Youth"), and the short stories Secretul doctorului Honigberger ("The Secret of Dr. Honigberger") and La Țigănci ("With the Gypsy Girls").

Early in his life, Eliade was a noted journalist and essayist, a disciple of Romanian far right philosopher and journalist Nae Ionescu and a member of the literary society Criterion. He also served as cultural attaché to the United Kingdom and Portugal.

Several times during the late 1930s, Eliade publicly expressed his support for the ultra-nationalist and anti-communist Iron Guard and which were the frequent topic of criticism after World War II.

Noted for his vast erudition, Eliade had fluent command of five languages (Romanian, French, German, Italian, and English) and a reading knowledge of three others (Hebrew, Persian, and Sanskrit). He was elected a posthumous member of the Romanian Academy.

Work

The general nature of religion

In his work on the history of religion, Eliade is most highly regarded for his writings on Alchemy, Shamanism, Yoga and what he called the eternal return—the implicit belief, supposedly present in religious thought in general, that religious behavior is not only an imitation of, but also a participation in, sacred events, and thus restores the mythical time of origins. Eliade's thinking was in part influenced by Rudolf Otto, Gerardus van der Leeuw, Nae Ionescu and the writings of the Traditionalist School (René Guénon and Julius Evola). For instance, Eliade's The Sacred and the Profane partially builds on Otto's The Idea of the Holy to show how religion emerges from the experience of the sacred, and myths of time and nature.

Eliade is noted for his attempt to find broad, cross-cultural parallels and unities in religion, particularly in myths. Wendy Doniger, Eliade's colleague from 1978 until his death, notes that "Eliade argued boldly for universals where he might more safely have argued for widely prevalent patterns". His Treatise on the History of Religions was praised by French philologist Georges Dumézil for its coherence and ability to synthesize diverse and distinct mythologies.

Robert Ellwood describes Eliade's approach to religion as follows. Eliade approaches religion by imagining an ideally "religious" person, whom he calls homo religiosus in his writings. Eliade's theories basically describe how this homo religiosus would view the world. This does not mean that all religious practitioners actually think and act like homo religiosus. Instead, it means that religious behavior "says through its own language" that the world is as homo religiosus would see it, whether or not the real-life participants in religious behavior are aware of it. However, Ellwood notes that Eliade "tends to slide over that last qualification", implying that traditional societies actually thought like homo religiosus.

Sacred and profane

Moses taking off his shoes in front of the burning bush (illustration from a 16th-century edition of the Speculum Humanae Salvationis).

Eliade argues that religious thought in general rests on a sharp distinction between the Sacred and the profane; whether it takes the form of God, gods, or mythical Ancestors, the Sacred contains all "reality", or value, and other things acquire "reality" only to the extent that they participate in the sacred.

Eliade's understanding of religion centers on his concept of hierophany (manifestation of the Sacred)—a concept that includes, but is not limited to, the older and more restrictive concept of theophany (manifestation of a god). From the perspective of religious thought, Eliade argues, hierophanies give structure and orientation to the world, establishing a sacred order. The "profane" space of nonreligious experience can only be divided up geometrically: it has no "qualitative differentiation and, hence, no orientation [is] given by virtue of its inherent structure".

Thus, profane space gives man no pattern for his behavior. In contrast to profane space, the site of a hierophany has a sacred structure to which religious man conforms himself. A hierophany amounts to a "revelation of an absolute reality, opposed to the non-reality of the vast surrounding expanse". As an example of "sacred space" demanding a certain response from man, Eliade gives the story of Moses halting before Yahweh's manifestation as a burning bush (Exodus 3:5) and taking off his shoes.

Origin myths and sacred time

Eliade notes that, in traditional societies, myth represents the absolute truth about primordial time. According to the myths, this was the time when the Sacred first appeared, establishing the world's structure—myths claim to describe the primordial events that made society and the natural world be that which they are. Eliade argues that all myths are, in that sense, origin myths: "myth, then, is always an account of a creation".

Many traditional societies believe that the power of a thing lies in its origin. If origin is equivalent to power, then "it is the first manifestation of a thing that is significant and valid" (a thing's reality and value therefore lies only in its first appearance).

According to Eliade's theory, only the Sacred has value, only a thing's first appearance has value and, therefore, only the Sacred's first appearance has value. Myth describes the Sacred's first appearance; therefore, the mythical age is sacred time, the only time of value: "primitive man was interested only in the beginnings [...] to him it mattered little what had happened to himself, or to others like him, in more or less distant times". Eliade postulated this as the reason for the "nostalgia for origins" that appears in many religions, the desire to return to a primordial Paradise.

Eternal return and "Terror of history"

Eliade argues that traditional man (woman) attributes no value to the linear march of historical events: only the events of the mythical age have value. To give his own life value, traditional man performs myths and rituals. Because the Sacred's essence lies only in the mythical age, only in the Sacred's first appearance, any later appearance is actually the first appearance; by recounting or re-enacting mythical events, myths and rituals "re-actualize" those events. Eliade often uses the term "archetypes" to refer to the mythical models established by the Sacred, although Eliade's use of the term should be distinguished from the use of the term in Jungian psychology.

Thus, argues Eliade, religious behavior does not only commemorate, but also participates in, sacred events:

In imitating the exemplary acts of a god or of a mythical hero, or simply by recounting their adventures, the man of an archaic society detaches himself from profane time and magically re-enters the Great Time, the sacred time.

Eliade called this concept the "eternal return" (distinguished from the philosophical concept of "eternal return"). Wendy Doniger noted that Eliade's theory of the eternal return "has become a truism in the study of religions".

Eliade attributes the well-known "cyclic" vision of time in ancient thought to belief in the eternal return. For instance, the New Year ceremonies among the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians, and other Near Eastern peoples re-enacted their cosmogonic myths. Therefore, by the logic of the eternal return, each New Year ceremony was the beginning of the world for these peoples. According to Eliade, these peoples felt a need to return to the Beginning at regular intervals, turning time into a circle.

Eliade argues that yearning to remain in the mythical age causes a "terror of history": traditional man desires to escape the linear succession of events (which, Eliade indicated, he viewed as empty of any inherent value or sacrality). Eliade suggests that the abandonment of mythical thought and the full acceptance of linear, historical time, with its "terror", is one of the reasons for modern man's anxieties. Traditional societies escape this anxiety to an extent, as they refuse to completely acknowledge historical time.

Coincidentia oppositorum

Eliade claims that many myths, rituals, and mystical experiences involve a "coincidence of opposites", or coincidentia oppositorum. In fact, he calls the coincidentia oppositorum "the mythical pattern".

Many myths, Eliade notes, "present us with a twofold revelation":

they express on the one hand the diametrical opposition of two divine figures sprung from one and the same principle and destined, in many versions, to be reconciled at some illud tempus of eschatology, and on the other, the coincidentia oppositorum in the very nature of the divinity, which shows itself, by turns or even simultaneously, benevolent and terrible, creative and destructive, solar and serpentine, and so on (in other words, actual and potential).

Eliade argues that "Yahweh is both kind and wrathful; the God of the Christian mystics and theologians is terrible and gentle at once". He also thought that the Indian and Chinese mystic tried to attain "a state of perfect indifference and neutrality" that resulted in a coincidence of opposites in which "pleasure and pain, desire and repulsion, cold and heat [...] are expunged from his awareness".

According to Eliade, the coincidentia oppositorum’s appeal lies in "man's deep dissatisfaction with his actual situation, with what is called the human condition". In many mythologies, the end of the mythical age involves a "fall", a fundamental "ontological change in the structure of the World". Because the coincidentia oppositorum is a contradiction, it represents a denial of the world's current logical structure, a reversal of the "fall".

Also, traditional man's dissatisfaction with the post-mythical age expresses itself as a feeling of being "torn and separate". In many mythologies, the lost mythical age was a Paradise, "a paradoxical state in which the contraries exist side by side without conflict, and the multiplications form aspects of a mysterious Unity".

The coincidentia oppositorum expresses a wish to recover the lost unity of the mythical Paradise, for it presents a reconciliation of opposites and the unification of diversity:

On the level of pre-systematic thought, the mystery of totality embodies man's endeavor to reach a perspective in which the contraries are abolished, the Spirit of Evil reveals itself as a stimulant of Good, and Demons appear as the night aspect of the Gods.

Exceptions to the general nature

Eliade acknowledges that not all religious behavior has all the attributes described in his theory of sacred time and the eternal return. The Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions embrace linear, historical time as sacred or capable of sanctification, while some Eastern traditions largely reject the notion of sacred time, seeking escape from the cycles of time.

Because they contain rituals, Judaism and Christianity necessarily—Eliade argues—retain a sense of cyclic time:
by the very fact that it is a religion, Christianity had to keep at least one mythical aspect—liturgical Time, that is, the periodic rediscovery of the illud tempus of the beginnings [and] an imitation of the Christ as exemplary pattern.

However, Judaism and Christianity do not see time as a circle endlessly turning on itself; nor do they see such a cycle as desirable, as a way to participate in the Sacred. Instead, these religions embrace the concept of linear history progressing toward the Messianic Age or the Last Judgment, thus initiating the idea of "progress" (humans are to work for a Paradise in the future).

However, Eliade's understanding of Judaeo-Christian eschatology can also be understood as cyclical in that the "end of time" is a return to God: "The final catastrophe will put an end to history, hence will restore man to eternity and beatitude".

The pre-Islamic Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, which made a notable "contribution to the religious formation of the West", also has a linear sense of time. According to Eliade, the Hebrews had a linear sense of time before being influenced by Zoroastrianism.

In fact, Eliade identifies the Hebrews, not the Zoroastrians, as the first culture to truly "valorize" historical time, the first to see all major historical events as episodes in a continuous divine revelation. However, Eliade argues, Judaism elaborated its mythology of linear time by adding elements borrowed from Zoroastrianism—including ethical dualism, a savior figure, the future resurrection of the body, and the idea of cosmic progress toward "the final triumph of Good".

The Dharmic religions of the East generally retain a cyclic view of time—for instance, the Hindu doctrine of kalpas. According to Eliade, most religions that accept the cyclic view of time also embrace it: they see it as a way to return to the sacred time. However, in Buddhism, Jainism, and some forms of Hinduism, the Sacred lies outside the flux of the material world (called maya, or "illusion"), and one can only reach it by escaping from the cycles of time. Because the Sacred lies outside cyclic time, which conditions humans, people can only reach the Sacred by escaping the human condition. According to Eliade, Yoga techniques aim at escaping the limitations of the body, allowing the soul (atman) to rise above maya and reach the Sacred (nirvana, moksha). Imagery of "freedom", and of death to one's old body and rebirth with a new body, occur frequently in Yogic texts, representing escape from the bondage of the temporal human condition. Eliade discusses these themes in detail in Yoga: Immortality and Freedom.

Symbolism of the Center

A recurrent theme in Eliade's myth analysis is the axis mundi, the Center of the World. According to Eliade, the Cosmic Center is a necessary corollary to the division of reality into the Sacred and the profane. The Sacred contains all value, and the world gains purpose and meaning only through hierophanies:

(HIEROPHANIES? AZR The term "hierophany" appears frequently in the works of the religious historian Mircea Eliade as an alternative to the more restrictive term "theophany" (an appearance of a god).

Eliade argues that religion is based on a sharp distinction between the sacred (God, gods, mythical ancestors, etc.) and the profane.

According to Eliade, for traditional man, myths describe "breakthroughs of the sacred (or the 'supernatural') into the World" – that is, hierophanies.

In the hierophanies recorded in myth, the sacred appears in the form of ideal models (the actions and commandments of gods, heroes, etc.). By manifesting itself as ideal models, the sacred gives the world value, direction, and purpose: "The manifestation of the sacred ontologically founds the world". According to this view, all things need to imitate or conform to the sacred models established by hierophanies in order to have true reality: to traditional man, things "acquire their reality, their identity, only to the extent of their participation in a transcendent reality".)

In the homogeneous and infinite expanse, in which no point of reference is possible and hence no orientation is established, the hierophany reveals an absolute fixed point, a center.

Because profane space gives man no orientation for his life, the Sacred must manifest itself in a hierophany, thereby establishing a sacred site around which man can orient himself. The site of a hierophany establishes a "fixed point, a center". This Center abolishes the "homogeneity and relativity of profane space", for it becomes "the central axis for all future orientation".

A manifestation of the Sacred in profane space is, by definition, an example of something breaking through from one plane of existence to another. Therefore, the initial hierophany that establishes the Center must be a point at which there is contact between different planes—this, Eliade argues, explains the frequent mythical imagery of a Cosmic Tree or Pillar joining Heaven, Earth, and the underworld.

Eliade noted that, when traditional societies found a new territory, they often perform consecrating rituals that reenact the hierophany that established the Center and founded the world. In addition, the designs of traditional buildings, especially temples, usually imitate the mythical image of the axis mundi joining the different cosmic levels. For instance, the Babylonian ziggurats were built to resemble cosmic mountains passing through the heavenly spheres, and the rock of the Temple in Jerusalem was supposed to reach deep into the tehom, or primordial waters.

According to the logic of the eternal return, the site of each such symbolic Center will actually be the Center of the World:
It may be said, in general, that the majority of the sacred and ritual trees that we meet with in the history of religions are only replicas, imperfect copies of this exemplary archetype, the Cosmic Tree. Thus, all these sacred trees are thought of as situated at the Centre of the World, and all the ritual trees or posts [...] are, as it were, magically projected into the Centre of the World.

According to Eliade's interpretation, religious man apparently feels the need to live not only near, but at, the mythical Center as much as possible, given that the Center is the point of communication with the Sacred.

Thus, Eliade argues, many traditional societies share common outlines in their mythical geographies. In the middle of the known world is the sacred Center, "a place that is sacred above all"; this Center anchors the established order. Around the sacred Center lies the known world, the realm of established order; and beyond the known world is a chaotic and dangerous realm, "peopled by ghosts, demons, [and] 'foreigners' (who are [identified with] demons and the souls of the dead)". According to Eliade, traditional societies place their known world at the Center because (from their perspective) their known world is the realm that obeys a recognizable order, and it therefore must be the realm in which the Sacred manifests itself; the regions beyond the known world, which seem strange and foreign, must lie far from the Center, outside the order established by the Sacred.

The High God

According to some "evolutionistic" theories of religion, especially that of Edward Burnett Tylor, cultures naturally progress from animism and polytheism to monotheism. According to this view, more advanced cultures should be more monotheistic, and more primitive cultures should be more polytheistic. However, many of the most "primitive", pre-agricultural societies believe in a supreme sky-god. Thus, according to Eliade, post-19th-century scholars have rejected Tylor's theory of evolution from animism. Based on the discovery of supreme sky-gods among "primitives", Eliade suspects that the earliest humans worshiped a heavenly Supreme Being.

In Patterns in Comparative Religion, he writes, "The most popular prayer in the world is addressed to 'Our Father who art in heaven.' It is possible that man's earliest prayers were addressed to the same heavenly father."

However, Eliade disagrees with Wilhelm Schmidt, who thought the earliest form of religion was a strict monotheism. Eliade dismisses this theory of "primordial monotheism" (Urmonotheismus) as "rigid" and unworkable. "At most," he writes, "this schema [Schmidt's theory] renders an account of human [religious] evolution since the Paleolithic era". If an Urmonotheismus did exist, Eliade adds, it probably differed in many ways from the conceptions of God in many modern monotheistic faiths: for instance, the primordial High God could manifest himself as an animal without losing his status as a celestial Supreme Being.

According to Eliade, heavenly Supreme Beings are actually less common in more advanced cultures. Eliade speculates that the discovery of agriculture brought a host of fertility gods and goddesses into the forefront, causing the celestial Supreme Being to fade away and eventually vanish from many ancient religions. Even in primitive hunter-gatherer societies, the High God is a vague, distant figure, dwelling high above the world. Often he has no cult and receives prayer only as a last resort, when all else has failed. Eliade calls the distant High God a deus otiosus ("idle god").

In belief systems that involve a deus otiosus, the distant High God is believed to have been closer to humans during the mythical age. After finishing his works of creation, the High God "forsook the earth and withdrew into the highest heaven". This is an example of the Sacred's distance from "profane" life, life lived after the mythical age: by escaping from the profane condition through religious behavior, figures such as the shaman return to the conditions of the mythical age, which include nearness to the High God ("by his flight or ascension, the shaman [...] meets the God of Heaven face to face and speaks directly to him, as man sometimes did in illo tempore"). The shamanistic behaviors surrounding the High God are a particularly clear example of the eternal return.

Shamanism

Overview

Eliade's scholarly work includes a study of shamanism, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, a survey of shamanistic practices in different areas. His Myths, Dreams and Mysteries also addresses shamanism in some detail.

In Shamanism, Eliade argues for a restrictive use of the word shaman: it should not apply to just any magician or medicine man, as that would make the term redundant; at the same time, he argues against restricting the term to the practitioners of the sacred of Siberia and Central Asia (it is from one of the titles for this function, namely, šamán, considered by Eliade to be of Tungusic origin, that the term itself was introduced into Western languages).

Eliade defines a shaman as follows:

he (she) is believed to cure, like all doctors, and to perform miracles of the fakir type, like all magicians [...] But beyond this, he (she) is a psychopomp, and he may also be a priest, mystic, and poet.

If we define shamanism this way, Eliade claims, we find that the term covers a collection of phenomena that share a common and unique "structure" and "history". (When thus defined, shamanism tends to occur in its purest forms in hunting and pastoral societies like those of Siberia and Central Asia, which revere a celestial High God "on the way to becoming a deus otiosus". Eliade takes the shamanism of those regions as his most representative example.)

In his examinations of shamanism, Eliade emphasizes the shaman's attribute of regaining man's condition before the "Fall" out of sacred time: "The most representative mystical experience of the archaic societies, that of shamanism, betrays the Nostalgia for Paradise, the desire to recover the state of freedom and beatitude before 'the Fall'." This concern—which, by itself, is the concern of almost all religious behavior, according to Eliade—manifests itself in specific ways in shamanism.

Death, resurrection and secondary functions

According to Eliade, one of the most common shamanistic themes is the shaman's supposed death and resurrection. This occurs in particular during his initiation. Often, the procedure is supposed to be performed by spirits who dismember the shaman and strip the flesh from his bones, then put him back together and revive him. In more than one way, this death and resurrection represents the shaman's elevation above human nature.

First, the shaman dies so that he can rise above human nature on a quite literal level. After he has been dismembered by the initiatory spirits, they often replace his old organs with new, magical ones (the shaman dies to his profane self so that he can rise again as a new, sanctified, being).

Second, by being reduced to his bones, the shaman experiences rebirth on a more symbolic level: in many hunting and herding societies, the bone represents the source of life, so reduction to a skeleton "is equivalent to re-entering the womb of this primordial life, that is, to a complete renewal, a mystical rebirth". Eliade considers this return to the source of life essentially equivalent to the eternal return.

Third, the shamanistic phenomenon of repeated death and resurrection also represents a transfiguration in other ways. The shaman dies not once but many times: having died during initiation and risen again with new powers, the shaman can send his (her) spirit out of his (her) body on errands; thus, his (her) whole career consists of repeated deaths and resurrections. The shaman's new ability to die and return to life shows that he (she) is no longer bound by the laws of profane time, particularly the law of death: "the ability to 'die' and come to life again [...] denotes that [the shaman] has surpassed the human condition".

Having risen above the human condition, the shaman is not bound by the flow of history. Therefore, he enjoys the conditions of the mythical age. In many myths, humans can speak with animals; and, after their initiations, many shamans claim to be able to communicate with animals. According to Eliade, this is one manifestation of the shaman's return to "the illud tempus described to us by the paradisiac myths".

The shaman can descend to the underworld or ascend to heaven, often by climbing the World Tree, the cosmic pillar, the sacred ladder, or some other form of the axis mundi. Often, the shaman will ascend to heaven to speak with the High God. Because the gods (particularly the High God, according to Eliade's deus otiosus concept) were closer to humans during the mythical age, the shaman's easy communication with the High God represents an abolition of history and a return to the mythical age.

Because of his (her) ability to communicate with the gods and descend to the land of the dead, the shaman frequently functions as a psychopomp and a medicine man (woman).

Eliade's philosophy

Early contributions

In addition to his political essays, the young Mircea Eliade authored others, philosophical in content. Connected with the ideology of Trăirism, they were often prophetic in tone, and saw Eliade being hailed as a herald by various representatives of his generation.

When Eliade was 21 years old and publishing his Itinerar spiritual, literary critic Şerban Cioculescu described him as "the column leader of the spiritually mystical and Orthodox youth." Cioculescu discussed his "impressive erudition", but argued that it was "occasionally plethoric, poetically inebriating itself through abuse".

Cioculescu's colleague Perpessicius saw the young author and his generation as marked by "the specter of war", a notion he connected to various essays of the 1920s and 30s in which Eliade threatened the world with the verdict that a new conflict was looming (while asking that young people be allowed to manifest their will and fully experience freedom before perishing).

One of Eliade's noted contributions in this respect was the 1932 Soliloquii ("Soliloquies"), which explored existential philosophy. George Călinescu who saw in it "an echo of Nae Ionescu's lectures", traced a parallel with the essays of another of Ionescu's disciples, Emil Cioran, while noting that Cioran's were "of a more exulted tone and written in the aphoristic form of Kierkegaard".

Călinescu recorded Eliade's rejection of objectivity, citing the author's stated indifference towards any "naïveté" or "contradictions" that the reader could possibly reproach him, as well as his dismissive thoughts of "theoretical data" and mainstream philosophy in general (Eliade saw the latter as "inert, infertile and pathogenic"). Eliade thus argued, "a sincere brain is unassailable, for it denies itself to any relationship with outside truths."

The young writer was however careful to clarify that the existence he took into consideration was not the life of "instincts and personal idiosyncrasies", which he believed determined the lives of many humans, but that of a distinct set comprising "personalities". He described "personalities" as characterized by both "purpose" and "a much more complicated and dangerous alchemy". This differentiation, George Călinescu believed, echoed Ionescu's metaphor of man, seen as "the only animal who can fail at living", and the duck, who "shall remain a duck no matter what it does". According to Eliade, the purpose of personalities is infinity: "consciously and gloriously bringing [existence] to waste, into as many skies as possible, continuously fulfilling and polishing oneself, seeking ascent and not circumference."

In Eliade's view, two roads await man in this process. One is glory, determined by either work or procreation, and the other the asceticism of religion or magic—both, Călinescu believed, where aimed at reaching the absolute, even in those cases where Eliade described the latter as an "abyssal experience" into which man may take the plunge. The critic pointed out that the addition of "a magical solution" to the options taken into consideration seemed to be Eliade's own original contributions to his mentor's philosophy, and proposed that it may have owed inspiration to Julius Evola and his disciples. He also recorded that Eliade applied this concept to human creation, and specifically to artistic creation, citing him describing the latter as "a magical joy, the victorious break of the iron circle" (a reflection of imitatio dei, having salvation for its ultimate goal).

Philosopher of religion

Anti-reductionism and the "transconscious"

By profession, Eliade was a historian of religion. However, his scholarly works draw heavily on philosophical and psychological terminology. In addition, they contain a number of philosophical arguments about religion. In particular, Eliade often implies the existence of a universal psychological or spiritual "essence" behind all religious phenomena. Because of these arguments, some have accused Eliade of over-generalization and "essentialism", or even of promoting a theological agenda under the guise of historical scholarship. However, others argue that Eliade is better understood as a scholar who is willing to openly discuss sacred experience and its consequences.

In studying religion, Eliade rejects certain "reductionist" approaches. Eliade thinks a religious phenomenon cannot be reduced to a product of culture and history. He insists that, although religion involves "the social man, the economic man, and so forth", nonetheless "all these conditioning factors together do not, of themselves, add up to the life of the spirit".

Using this anti-reductionist position, Eliade argues against those who accuse him of overgeneralizing, of looking for universals at the expense of particulars. Eliade admits that every religious phenomenon is shaped by the particular culture and history that produced it:

When the Son of God incarnated and became the Christ, he had to speak Aramaic; he could only conduct himself as a Hebrew of his times [...] His religious message, however universal it might be, was conditioned by the past and present history of the Hebrew people. If the Son of God had been born in India, his spoken language would have had to conform itself to the structure of the Indian languages.

However, Eliade argues against those he calls "historicist or existentialist philosophers" who do not recognize "man in general" behind particular men produced by particular situations (Eliade cites Immanuel Kant as the likely forerunner of this kind of "historicism"). He adds that human consciousness transcends (is not reducible to) its historical and cultural conditioning, and even suggests the possibility of a "transconscious". By this, Eliade does not necessarily mean anything supernatural or mystical: within the "transconscious", he places religious motifs, symbols, images, and nostalgias that are supposedly universal and whose causes therefore cannot be reduced to historical and cultural conditioning.

Platonism and "primitive ontology"

According to Eliade, traditional man feels that things "acquire their reality, their identity, only to the extent of their participation in a transcendent reality". To traditional man, the profane world is "meaningless", and a thing rises out of the profane world only by conforming to an ideal, mythical model.

Eliade describes this view of reality as a fundamental part of "primitive ontology" (the study of "existence" or "reality"). Here he sees a similarity with the philosophy of Plato, who believed that physical phenomena are pale and transient imitations of eternal models or "Forms" (see Theory of forms). He argued:

Plato could be regarded as the outstanding philosopher of 'primitive mentality,' that is, as the thinker who succeeded in giving philosophic currency and validity to the modes of life and behavior of archaic humanity.

Eliade thinks the Platonic Theory of forms is "primitive ontology" persisting in Greek philosophy. He claims that Platonism is the "most fully elaborated" version of this primitive ontology.

In The Structure of Religious Knowing: Encountering the Sacred in Eliade and Lonergan, John Daniel Dadosky argues that, by making this statement, Eliade was acknowledging "indebtedness to Greek philosophy in general, and to Plato's theory of forms specifically, for his own theory of archetypes and repetition". However, Dadosky also states that "one should be cautious when trying to assess Eliade's indebtedness to Plato". Dadosky quotes Robert Segal, a professor of religion, who draws a distinction between Platonism and Eliade's "primitive ontology": for Eliade, the ideal models are patterns that a person or object may or may not imitate; for Plato, there is a Form for everything, and everything imitates a Form by the very fact that it exists.

Existentialism and secularism

Behind the diverse cultural forms of different religions, Eliade proposes a universal: traditional man, he claims, "always believes that there is an absolute reality, the sacred, which transcends this world but manifests itself in this world, thereby sanctifying it and making it real". Furthermore, traditional man's behavior gains purpose and meaning through the Sacred: "By imitating divine behavior, man puts and keeps himself close to the gods—that is, in the real and the significant."

According to Eliade, "modern nonreligious man assumes a new existential situation". For traditional man, historical events gain significance by imitating sacred, transcendent events. In contrast, nonreligious man lacks sacred models for how history or human behavior should be, so he must decide on his own how history should proceed—he "regards himself solely as the subject and agent of history, and refuses all appeal to transcendence".

From the standpoint of religious thought, the world has an objective purpose established by mythical events, to which man should conform himself: "Myth teaches [religious man] the primordial 'stories' that have constituted him existentially."

From the standpoint of secular thought, any purpose must be invented and imposed on the world by man. Because of this new "existential situation", Eliade argues, the Sacred becomes the primary obstacle to nonreligious man's "freedom".

In viewing himself as the proper maker of history, nonreligious man resists all notions of an externally (for instance, divinely) imposed order or model he must obey: modern man "makes himself, and he only makes himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. [...] He will not truly be free until he has killed the last god".

Religious survivals in the secular world

Eliade says that secular man cannot escape his bondage to religious thought. By its very nature, secularism depends on religion for its sense of identity: by resisting sacred models, by insisting that man make history on his own, secular man identifies himself only through opposition to religious thought: "He [secular man] recognizes himself in proportion as he 'frees' and 'purifies' himself from the 'superstitions' of his ancestors."

Furthermore, modern man "still retains a large stock of camouflaged myths and degenerated rituals". For example, modern social events still have similarities to traditional initiation rituals, and modern novels feature mythical motifs and themes. Finally, secular man still participates in something like the eternal return: by reading modern literature, "modern man succeeds in obtaining an 'escape from time' comparable to the 'emergence from time' effected by myths".

Eliade sees traces of religious thought even in secular academia. He thinks modern scientists are motivated by the religious desire to return to the sacred time of origins:

One could say that the anxious search for the origins of Life and Mind; the fascination in the 'mysteries of Nature'; the urge to penetrate and decipher the inner structure of Matter—all these longings and drives denote a sort of nostalgia for the primordial, for the original universal matrix. Matter, Substance, represents the absolute origin, the beginning of all things.

Eliade believes the rise of materialism in the 19th century forced the religious nostalgia for "origins" to express itself in science. He mentions his own field of History of Religions as one of the fields that was obsessed with origins during the 19th century:

The new discipline of History of Religions developed rapidly in this cultural context. And, of course, it followed a like pattern: the positivistic approach to the facts and the search for origins, for the very beginning of religion.

All Western historiography was during that time obsessed with the quest of origins. [...] This search for the origins of human institutions and cultural creations prolongs and completes the naturalist's quest for the origin of species, the biologist's dream of grasping the origin of life, the geologist's and the astronomer's endeavor to understand the origin of the Earth and the Universe. From a psychological point of view, one can decipher here the same nostalgia for the 'primordial' and the 'original'.

In some of his writings, Eliade describes modern political ideologies as secularized mythology. According to Eliade, Marxism "takes up and carries on one of the great eschatological myths of the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean world, namely: the redemptive part to be played by the Just (the 'elect', the 'anointed', the 'innocent', the 'missioners', in our own days the proletariat), whose sufferings are invoked to change the ontological status of the world."

Eliade sees the widespread myth of the Golden Age, "which, according to a number of traditions, lies at the beginning and the end of History", as the "precedent" for Karl Marx's vision of a classless society. Finally, he sees Marx's belief in the final triumph of the good (the proletariat) over the evil (the bourgeoisie) as "a truly messianic Judaeo-Christian ideology". Despite Marx's hostility toward religion, Eliade implies, his ideology works within a conceptual framework inherited from religious mythology.

Likewise, Eliade notes that Nazism involved a pseudo-pagan mysticism based on ancient Germanic religion. He suggests that the differences between the Nazis' pseudo-Germanic mythology and Marx's pseudo-Judaeo-Christian mythology explain their differing success:

In comparison with the vigorous optimism of the communist myth, the mythology propagated by the national socialists seems particularly inept; and this is not only because of the limitations of the racial myth (how could one imagine that the rest of Europe would voluntarily accept submission to the master-race?), but above all because of the fundamental pessimism of the Germanic mythology. [...] For the eschaton prophesied and expected by the ancient Germans was the ragnarok--that is, a catastrophic end of the world.

Modern man and the "Terror of history"

According to Eliade, modern man displays "traces" of "mythological behavior" because he intensely needs sacred time and the eternal return. Despite modern man's claims to be nonreligious, he ultimately cannot find value in the linear progression of historical events; even modern man feels the "Terror of history": "Here too [...] there is always the struggle against Time, the hope to be freed from the weight of 'dead Time,' of the Time that crushes and kills."

According to Eliade, this "terror of history" becomes especially acute when violent and threatening historical events confront modern man—the mere fact that a terrible event has happened, that it is part of history, is of little comfort to those who suffer from it. Eliade asks rhetorically how modern man can "tolerate the catastrophes and horrors of history—from collective deportations and massacres to atomic bombings—if beyond them he can glimpse no sign, no transhistorical meaning".

Eliade indicates that, if repetitions of mythical events provided sacred value and meaning for history in the eyes of ancient man, modern man has denied the Sacred and must therefore invent value and purpose on his own. Without the Sacred to confer an absolute, objective value upon historical events, modern man is left with "a relativistic or nihilistic view of history" and a resulting "spiritual aridity". In chapter 4 ("The Terror of History") of The Myth of the Eternal Return and chapter 9 ("Religious Symbolism and the Modern Man's Anxiety") of Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries, Eliade argues at length that the rejection of religious thought is a primary cause of modern man's anxieties.

Inter-cultural dialogue and a "new humanism"

Eliade argues that modern man may escape the "Terror of history" by learning from traditional cultures. For example, Eliade thinks Hinduism has advice for modern Westerners. According to many branches of Hinduism, the world of historical time is illusory, and the only absolute reality is the immortal soul or atman within man. According to Eliade, Hindus thus escape the terror of history by refusing to see historical time as the true reality.

Eliade notes that a Western or Continental philosopher might feel suspicious toward this Hindu view of history:

One can easily guess what a European historical and existentialist philosopher might reply [...] You ask me, he would say, to 'die to History'; but man is not, and he cannot be anything else but History, for his very essence is temporality. You are asking me, then, to give up my authentic existence and to take refuge in an abstraction, in pure Being, in the atman: I am to sacrifice my dignity as a creator of History in order to live an a-historic, inauthentic existence, empty of all human content. Well, I prefer to put up with my anxiety: at least, it cannot deprive me of a certain heroic grandeur, that of becoming conscious of, and accepting, the human condition.

However, Eliade argues that the Hindu approach to history does not necessarily lead to a rejection of history. On the contrary, in Hinduism historical human existence is not the "absurdity" that many Continental philosophers see it as. According to Hinduism, history is a divine creation, and one may live contentedly within it as long as one maintains a certain degree of detachment from it: "One is devoured by Time, by History, not because one lives in them, but because one thinks them real and, in consequence, one forgets or undervalues eternity."

Furthermore, Eliade argues that Westerners can learn from non-Western cultures to see something besides absurdity in suffering and death. Traditional cultures see suffering and death as a rite of passage. In fact, their initiation rituals often involve a symbolic death and resurrection, or symbolic ordeals followed by relief. Thus, Eliade argues, modern man can learn to see his historical ordeals, even death, as necessary initiations into the next stage of one's existence.

Eliade even suggests that traditional thought offers relief from the vague anxiety caused by "our obscure presentiment of the end of the world, or more exactly of the end of our world, our own civilization". Many traditional cultures have myths about the end of their world or civilization; however, these myths do not succeed "in paralysing either Life or Culture". These traditional cultures emphasize cyclic time and, therefore, the inevitable rise of a new world or civilization on the ruins of the old. Thus, they feel comforted even in contemplating the end times.

Eliade argues that a Western spiritual rebirth can happen within the framework of Western spiritual traditions. However, he says, to start this rebirth, Westerners may need to be stimulated by ideas from non-Western cultures. In his Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries, Eliade claims that a "genuine encounter" between cultures "might well constitute the point of departure for a new humanism, upon a world scale".

Christianity and the "salvation" of History

Mircea Eliade sees the Abrahamic religions as a turning point between the ancient, cyclic view of time and the modern, linear view of time, noting that, in their case, sacred events are not limited to a far-off primordial age, but continue throughout history: "time is no longer [only] the circular Time of the Eternal Return; it has become linear and irreversible Time". He thus sees in Christianity the ultimate example of a religion embracing linear, historical time. When God is born as a man, into the stream of history, "all history becomes a theophany". According to Eliade, "Christianity strives to save history". In Christianity, the Sacred enters a human being (Christ) to save humans, but it also enters history to "save" history and turn otherwise ordinary, historical events into something "capable of transmitting a trans-historical message".

From Eliade's perspective, Christianity's "trans-historical message" may be the most important help that modern man could have in confronting the terror of history. In his book Mito ("Myth"), Italian researcher Furio Jesi argues that Eliade denies man the position of a true protagonist in history: for Eliade, true human experience lies not in intellectually "making history", but in man's experiences of joy and grief. Thus, from Eliade's perspective, the Christ story becomes the perfect myth for modern man. In Christianity, God willingly entered historical time by being born as Christ, and accepted the suffering that followed. By identifying with Christ, modern man can learn to confront painful historical events.

Ultimately, according to Jesi, Eliade sees Christianity as the only religion that can save man from the "Terror of history". In Eliade's view, traditional man sees time as an endless repetition of mythical archetypes. In contrast, modern man has abandoned mythical archetypes and entered linear, historical time—in this context, unlike many other religions, Christianity attributes value to historical time. Thus, Eliade concludes, "Christianity incontestably proves to be the religion of 'fallen man'", of modern man who has lost "the paradise of archetypes and repetition".

"Modern gnosticism", Romanticism and Eliade's nostalgia

In analyzing the similarities between the "mythologists" Eliade, Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, Robert Ellwood concluded that the three modern mythologists, all of whom believed that myths reveal "timeless truth", fulfilled the role "gnostics" had in antiquity. The diverse religious movements covered by the term "gnosticism" share the basic doctrines that the surrounding world is fundamentally evil or inhospitable, that we are trapped in the world through no fault of our own, and that we can be saved from the world only through secret knowledge (gnosis). Ellwood claimed that the three mythologists were "modern gnostics through and through", remarking:

Whether in Augustan Rome or modern Europe, democracy all too easily gave way to totalitarianism, technology was as readily used for battle as for comfort, and immense wealth lay alongside abysmal poverty. [...] Gnostics past and present sought answers not in the course of outward human events, but in knowledge of the world's beginning, of what lies above and beyond the world, and of the secret places of the human soul. To all this the mythologists spoke, and they acquired large and loyal followings.

According to Ellwood, the mythologists believed in gnosticism's basic doctrines (even if in a secularized form). Ellwood also believes that Romanticism, which stimulated the modern study of mythology, strongly influenced the mythologists. Because Romantics stress that emotion and imagination have the same dignity as reason, Ellwood argues, they tend to think political truth "is known less by rational considerations than by its capacity to fire the passions" and, therefore, that political truth is "very apt to be found [...] in the distant past".

As modern gnostics, Ellwood argues, the three mythologists felt alienated from the surrounding modern world. As scholars, they knew of primordial societies that had operated differently than the modern world. And as people influenced by Romanticism, they saw myths as a saving gnosis that offered "avenues of eternal return to simpler primordial ages when the values that rule the world were forged".

In addition, Ellwood identifies Eliade's personal sense of nostalgia as a source for his interest in, or even his theories about, traditional societies. He cites Eliade himself claiming to desire an "eternal return" like that by which traditional man returns to the mythical paradise: "My essential preoccupation is precisely the means of escaping History, of saving myself through symbol, myth, rite, archetypes".

In Ellwood's view, Eliade's nostalgia was only enhanced by his exile from Romania: "In later years Eliade felt about his own Romanian past as did primal folk about mythic time. He was drawn back to it, yet he knew he could not live there, and that all was not well with it." He suggests that this nostalgia, along with Eliade's sense that "exile is among the profoundest metaphors for all human life", influenced Eliade's theories. Ellwood sees evidence of this in Eliade's concept of the "Terror of history" from which modern man is no longer shielded. In this concept, Ellwood sees an "element of nostalgia" for earlier times "when the sacred was strong and the terror of history had barely raised its head".

Criticism of Eliade's scholarship

Overgeneralization

Eliade cites a wide variety of myths and rituals to support his theories. However, he has been accused of making over-generalizations: many scholars think he lacks sufficient evidence to put forth his ideas as universal, or even general, principles of religious thought. According to one scholar, "Eliade may have been the most popular and influential contemporary historian of religion", but "many, if not most, specialists in anthropology, sociology, and even history of religions have either ignored or quickly dismissed" Eliade's works.

The classicist G. S. Kirk criticizes Eliade's insistence that Australian Aborigines and ancient Mesopotamians had concepts of "being", "non-being", "real", and "becoming", although they lacked words for them. Kirk also believes that Eliade overextends his theories: for example, Eliade claims that the modern myth of the "noble savage" results from the religious tendency to idealize the primordial, mythical age.

According to Kirk, "such extravagances, together with a marked repetitiousness, have made Eliade unpopular with many anthropologists and sociologists". In Kirk's view, Eliade derived his theory of eternal return from the functions of Australian Aboriginal mythology and then proceeded to apply the theory to other mythologies to which it did not apply. For example, Kirk argues that the eternal return does not accurately describe the functions of Native American or Greek mythology. Kirk concludes, "Eliade's idea is a valuable perception about certain myths, not a guide to the proper understanding of all of them".

Even Wendy Doniger, Eliade's successor at the University of Chicago, claims (in an introduction to Eliade's own Shamanism) that the eternal return does not apply to all myths and rituals, although it may apply to many of them. However, although Doniger agrees that Eliade made over-generalizations, she notes that his willingness to "argue boldly for universals" allowed him to see patterns "that spanned the entire globe and the whole of human history". Whether they were true or not, she argues, Eliade's theories are still useful "as starting points for the comparative study of religion". She also argues that Eliade's theories have been able to accommodate "new data to which Eliade did not have access".

Lack of empirical support

Several researchers have criticized Eliade's work as having no empirical support. Thus, he is said to have "failed to provide an adequate methodology for the history of religions and to establish this discipline as an empirical science", though the same critics admit that "the history of religions should not aim at being an empirical science anyway". Specifically, his claim that the sacred is a structure of human consciousness is distrusted as not being empirically provable: "no one has yet turned up the basic category sacred". Also, there has been mention of his tendency to ignore the social aspects of religion. Anthropologist Alice Kehoe is highly critical of Eliade's work on Shamanism, namely because he was not an anthropologist but a historian. She contends that Eliade never did any field work or contacted any indigenous groups that practiced Shamanism, and that his work was synthesized from various sources without being supported by direct field research.

In contrast, Professor Kees W. Bolle of the University of California, Los Angeles argues that "Professor Eliade's approach, in all his works, is empirical": Bolle sets Eliade apart for what he sees as Eliade's particularly close "attention to the various particular motifs" of different myths. French researcher Daniel Dubuisson places doubt on Eliade's scholarship and its scientific character, citing the Romanian academic's alleged refusal to accept the treatment of religions in their historical and cultural context, and proposing that Eliade's notion of hierophany refers to the actual existence of a supernatural level.

Ronald Inden, a historian of India and University of Chicago professor, criticized Mircea Eliade, alongside other intellectual figures (Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell among them), for encouraging a "romantic view" of Hinduism. He argued that their approach to the subject relied mainly on an Orientalist approach, and made Hinduism seem like "a private realm of the imagination and the religious which modern, Western man lacks but needs."

Literary works

Generic traits

Many of Mircea Eliade's literary works, in particular his earliest ones, are noted for their eroticism and their focus on subjective experience. Modernist in style, they have drawn comparisons to the contemporary writings of Mihail Sebastian, I. Valerian, and Ion Biberi. Alongside Honoré de Balzac and Giovanni Papini, his literary passions included Aldous Huxley and Miguel de Unamuno, as well as André Gide. Eliade also read with interest the prose of Romain Rolland, Henrik Ibsen, and the Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire and Denis Diderot. As a youth, he read the works of Romanian authors such as Liviu Rebreanu and Panait Istrati; initially, he was also interested in Ionel Teodoreanu's prose works, but later rejected them and criticized their author.

Investigating the works' main characteristics, George Călinescu stressed that Eliade owed much of his style to the direct influence of French author André Gide, concluding that, alongside Camil Petrescu and a few others, Eliade was among Gide's leading disciples in Romanian literature. He commented that, like Gide, Eliade believed that the artist "does not take a stand, but experiences good and evil while setting himself free from both, maintaining an intact curiosity." A specific aspect of this focus on experience is sexual experimentation—Călinescu notes that Eliade's fiction works tend to depict a male figure "possessing all practicable women in [a given] family". He also considered that, as a rule, Eliade depicts woman as "a basic means for a sexual experience and repudiated with harsh egotism."

For Călinescu, such a perspective on life culminated in "banality", leaving authors gripped by the "cult of the self" and "a contempt for literature". Polemically, Călinescu proposed that Mircea Eliade's supposed focus on "aggressive youth" and served to instill his interwar Romanian writers with the idea that they had a common destiny as a generation apart. He also commented that, when set in Romania, Mircea Eliade's stories lacked the "perception of immediate reality", and, analyzing the non-traditional names the writer tended to ascribe to his Romanian characters, that they did not depict "specificity". Additionally, in Călinescu's view, Eliade's stories were often "sensationalist compositions of the illustrated magazine kind." Mircea Eliade's assessment of his own pre-1940 literary contributions oscillated between expressions of pride and the bitter verdict that they were written for "an audience of little ladies and high school students".

A secondary but unifying feature present in most of Eliade's stories is their setting, a magical and part-fictional Bucharest. In part, they also serve to illustrate or allude to Eliade's own research in the field of religion, as well as to the concepts he introduced. Thus, commentators such as Matei Călinescu and Carmen Mușat have also argued that a main characteristic of Eliade's fantasy prose is a substitution between the supernatural and the mundane: in this interpretation, Eliade turns the daily world into an incomprehensible place, while the intrusive supernatural aspect promises to offer the sense of life. The notion was in turn linked to Eliade's own thoughts on transcendence, and in particular his idea that, once "camouflaged" in life or history, miracles become "unrecognizable".

Oriental themed novels

One of Eliade's earliest fiction writings, the controversial first-person narrative Isabel şi apele diavolului, focused on the figure of a young and brilliant academic, whose self-declared fear is that of "being common". The hero's experience is recorded in "notebooks", which are compiled to form the actual narrative, and which serve to record his unusual, mostly sexual, experiences in British India—the narrator describes himself as dominated by "a devilish indifference" towards "all things having to do with art or metaphysics", focusing instead on eroticism. The guest of a pastor, the scholar ponders sexual adventures with his host's wife, servant girl, and finally with his daughter Isabel. Persuading the pastor's adolescent son to run away from home, becoming the sexual initiator of a twelve-year-old girl and the lover of a much older woman, the character also attempts to seduce Isabel. Although she falls in love, the young woman does not give in to his pressures, but eventually allows herself to be abused and impregnated by another character, letting the object of her affection know that she had thought of him all along.

One of Eliade's best-known works, the novel Maitreyi, dwells on Eliade's own experience, comprising camouflaged details of his relationships with Surendranath Dasgupta and Dasgupta's daughter Maitreyi Devi. The main character, Allan, is an Englishman who visits the Indian engineer Narendra Sen and courts his daughter, herself known as Maitreyi. The narrative is again built on "notebooks" to which Allan adds his comments. This technique Călinescu describes as "boring", and its result "cynical".

Allan himself stands alongside Eliade's male characters, whose focus is on action, sensation and experience—his chaste contacts with Maitreyi are encouraged by Sen, who hopes for a marriage which is nonetheless abhorred by his would-be European son-in-law. Instead, Allan is fascinated to discover Maitreyi's Oriental version of Platonic love, marked by spiritual attachment more than by physical contact. However, their affair soon after turns physical, and she decides to attach herself to Allan as one would to a husband, in what is an informal and intimate wedding ceremony (which sees her vowing her love and invoking an earth goddess as the seal of union). Upon discovering this, Narendra Sen becomes enraged, rejecting their guest and keeping Maitreyi in confinement. As a result, his daughter decides to have intercourse with a lowly stranger, becoming pregnant in the hope that her parents would consequently allow her to marry her lover. However, the story also casts doubt on her earlier actions, reflecting rumors that Maitreyi was not a virgin at the time she and Allan first met, which also seems to expose her father as a hypocrite.

George Călinescu objected to the narrative, arguing that both the physical affair and the father's rage seemed artificial, while commenting that Eliade placing doubt on his Indian characters' honesty had turned the plot into a piece of "ethnological humor". Noting that the work developed on a classical theme of miscegenation, which recalled the prose of François-René de Chateaubriand and Pierre Loti, the critic proposed that its main merit was in introducing the exotic novel to local literature.

Mircea Eliade's other early works include Șantier ("Building Site"), a part-novel, part-diary account of his Indian sojourn. George Călinescu objected to its "monotony", and, noting that it featured a set of "intelligent observations", criticized the "banality of its ideological conversations." Șantier was also noted for its portrayal of drug addiction and intoxication with opium, both of which could have referred to Eliade's actual travel experience.

Portraits of a generation

In his earliest novel, titled Novel of the Nearsighted Adolescent and written in the first person, Eliade depicts his experience through high school. It is proof of the influence exercised on him by the literature of Giovanni Papini, and in particular by Papini's story Un uomo finito. Each of its chapters reads like an independent novella, and, in all, the work experiments with the limits traced between novel and diary. Literary critic Eugen Simion called it "the most valuable" among Eliade's earliest literary attempts, but noted that, being "ambitious", the book had failed to achieve "an aesthetically satisfactory format". According to Simion, the innovative intent of the Novel... was provided by its technique, by its goal of providing authenticity in depicting experiences, and by its insight into adolescent psychology. The novel notably shows its narrator practicing self-flagellation.

Eliade's 1934 novel Întoarcerea din rai ("Return from Paradise") centers on Pavel Anicet, a young man who seeks knowledge through what Călinescu defined as "sexual excess". His search leaves him with a reduced sensitivity: right after being confronted with his father's death, Anicet breaks out in tears only after sitting through an entire dinner. The other characters, standing for Eliade's generation, all seek knowledge through violence or retreat from the world—nonetheless, unlike Anicet, they ultimately fail at imposing rigors upon themselves. Pavel himself eventually abandons his belief in sex as a means for enlightenment, and commits suicide in hopes of reaching the level of primordial unity. The solution, George Călinescu noted, mirrored the strange murder in Gide's Lafcadio's Adventures. Eliade himself indicated that the book dealt with the "loss of the beatitude, illusions, and optimism that had dominated the first twenty years of 'Greater Romania'." Robert Ellwood connected the work to Eliade's recurring sense of loss in respect to the "atmosphere of euphoria and faith" of his adolescence. Călinescu criticizes Întoarcerea din rai, describing its dialog sequences as "awkward", its narrative as "void", and its artistic interest as "non-existent", proposing that the reader could however find it relevant as the "document of a mentality".

The lengthy novel Huliganii ("The Hooligans") is intended as the fresco of a family, and, through it, that of an entire generation. The book's main protagonist, Petru Anicet, is a composer who places value in experiments; other characters include Dragu, who considers "a hooligan's experience" as "the only fertile debut into life", and the totalitarian Alexandru Pleşa, who is on the search for "the heroic life" by enlisting youth in "perfect regiments, equally intoxicated by a collective myth." Călinescu thought that the young male characters all owed inspiration to Fyodor Dostoevsky's Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov (see Crime and Punishment). Anicet, who partly shares Pleșa's vision for a collective experiment, is also prone to sexual adventures, and seduces the women of the Lecca family (who have hired him as a piano teacher). Romanian-born novelist Norman Manea called Anicet's experiment: "the paraded defiance of bourgeois conventions, in which venereal disease and lubricity dwell together." In one episode of the book, Anicet convinces Anișoara Lecca to gratuitously steal from her parents—an outrage which leads her mother to moral decay and, eventually, to suicide. George Călinescu criticized the book for inconsistencies and "excesses in Dostoyevskianism", but noted that the Lecca family portrayal was "suggestive", and that the dramatic scenes were written with "a remarkable poetic calm."

The novel Nuntă în cer depicts the correspondence between two male friends, an artist and a common man, who complain to each other about their failures in love: the former complains about a lover who wanted his children when he did not, while the other recalls being abandoned by a woman who, despite his intentions, did not want to become pregnant by him. Eliade lets the reader understand that they are in fact talking about the same woman.

Fantastic and fantasy literature

Mircea Eliade's earliest works, most of which were published at later stages, belong to the fantasy genre. One of the first such literary exercises to be printed, the 1921 Cum am găsit piatra filosofală, showed its adolescent author's interest in themes that he was to explore throughout his career, in particular esotericism and alchemy. Written in the first person, it depicts an experiment which, for a moment, seems to be the discovery of the philosophers' stone. These early writings also include two sketches for novels: Minunata călătorie a celor cinci cărăbuși in țara furnicilor roșii ("The Wonderful Journey of the Five Beetles into the Land of the Red Ants") and Memoriile unui soldat de plumb ("The Memoirs of a Lead Soldier"). In the former, a company of beetle spies is sent among the red ants—their travel offers a setting for satirical commentary. Eliade himself explained that Memoriile unui soldat de plumb was an ambitious project, designed as a fresco to include the birth of the Universe, abiogenesis, human evolution, and the entire world history.

Eliade's fantasy novel Domnișoara Christina, was, on its own, the topic of a scandal. The novel deals with the fate of an eccentric family, the Moscus, who are haunted by the ghost of a murdered young woman, known as Christina. The apparition shares characteristics with vampires and with strigoi: she is believed to be drinking the blood of cattle and that of a young family member. The young man Egor becomes the object of Christina's desire, and is shown to have intercourse with her. Noting that the plot and setting reminded one of horror fiction works by the German author Hanns Heinz Ewers, and defending Domnişoara Christina in front of harsher criticism, Călinescu nonetheless argued that the "international environment" in which it took place was "upsetting".  He also depicted the plot as focused on "major impurity", summarizing the story's references to necrophilia, menstrual fetish and ephebophilia.

Eliade's short story Șarpele ("The Snake") was described by George Călinescu as "hermetic". While on a trip to the forest, several persons witness a feat of magic performed by the male character Andronic, who summons a snake from the bottom of a river and places it on an island. At the end of the story, Andronic and the female character Dorina are found on the island, naked and locked in a sensual embrace. Călinescu saw the piece as an allusion to Gnosticism, to the Kabbalah, and to Babylonian mythology, while linking the snake to the Greek mythological figure and major serpent symbol Ophion. He was however dissatisfied with this introduction of iconic images, describing it as "languishing".

The short story Un om mare ("A Big Man"), which Eliade authored during his stay in Portugal, shows a common person, the engineer Cucoanes, who grows steadily and uncontrollably, reaching immense proportions and ultimately disappearing into the wilderness of the Bucegi Mountains. Eliade himself referenced the story and Aldous Huxley's experiments in the same section of his private notes, a matter which allowed Matei Călinescu to propose that Un om mare was a direct product of its author's experience with drugs. The same commentator, who deemed Un om mare "perhaps Eliade's most memorable short story", connected it with the uriași characters present in Romanian folklore.

Other writings

Eliade's reinterpreted the Greek mythological figure Iphigeneia in his eponymous 1941 play. Here, the maiden falls in love with Achilles, and accepts to be sacrificed on the pyre as a means to ensure both her lover's happiness (as predicted by an oracle) and her father Agamemnon's victory in the Trojan War. Discussing the association Iphigenia's character makes between love and death, Romanian theater critic Radu Albala noted that it was a possible echo of Meşterul Manole legend, in which a builder of the Curtea de Argeș Monastery has to sacrifice his wife in exchange for permission to complete work. In contrast with early renditions of the myth by authors such as Euripides and Jean Racine, Eliade's version ends with the sacrifice being carried out in full.

In addition to his fiction, the exiled Eliade authored several volumes of memoirs and diaries and travel writings. They were published sporadically, and covered various stages of his life. One of the earliest such pieces was India, grouping accounts of the travels he made through the Indian subcontinent. Writing for the Spanish journal La Vanguardia, commentator Sergio Vila-Sanjuán described the first volume of Eliade's Autobiography (covering the years 1907 to 1937) as "a great book", while noting that the other main volume was "more conventional and insincere." In Vila-Sanjuán's view, the texts reveal Mircea Eliade himself as "a Dostoyevskyian character", as well as "an accomplished person, a Goethian figure".

A work that drew particular interest was his Jurnal portughez ("Portuguese Diary"), completed during his stay in Lisbon and published only after its author's death. A portion of it dealing with his stay in Romania is believed to have been lost. The travels to Spain, partly recorded in Jurnal portughez, also led to a separate volume, Jurnal cordobez ("Cordoban Diary"), which Eliade compiled from various independent notebooks. Jurnal portughez shows Eliade coping with clinical depression and political crisis, and has been described by Andrei Oișteanu as "an overwhelming [read], through the immense suffering it exhales." Literary historian Paul Cernat argued that part of the volume is "a masterpiece of its time", while concluding that some 700 pages were passable for the "among others" section of Eliade's bibliography. Noting that the book featured parts where Eliade spoke of himself in eulogistic terms, notably comparing himself favorably to Goethe and Romania's national poet Mihai Eminescu, Cernat accused the writer of "egolatry", and deduced that Eliade was "ready to step over dead bodies for the sake of his spiritual 'mission' ". The same passages led philosopher and journalist Cătălin Avramescu to argue that Eliade's behavior was evidence of "megalomania".

Eliade also wrote various essays of literary criticism. In his youth, alongside his study on Julius Evola, he published essays which introduced the Romanian public to representatives of modern Spanish literature and philosophy, among them Adolfo Bonilla San Martín, Miguel de Unamuno, José Ortega y Gasset, Eugeni d'Ors, Vicente Blasco Ibáñez and Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo. He also wrote an essay on the works of James Joyce, connecting it with his own theories on the eternal return ("[Joyce's literature is] saturated with nostalgia for the myth of the eternal repetition"), and deeming Joyce himself an anti-historicist "archaic" figure among the modernists. In the 1930s, Eliade edited the collected works of Romanian historian Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu.

Wikipedia

Mircea Eliade

Quotes

The crude product of nature, the object fashioned by the industry of man, acquire their reality, their identity, only to the extent of their participation in a transcendent reality.

The Experience of Sacred Space makes possible the "founding of the world": where the sacred Manifests itself in space, the real unveils itself, the world comes into existence.

Each one of these divine figures, each of these myths or symbols, is connected to a danger that was confronted and overcome...

The crude product of nature, the object fashioned by the industry of man, acquire their reality, their identity, only to the extent of their participation in a transcendent reality.

The Myth of the Eternal Return (1954) [also published as Cosmos and History (1959)]

The Experience of Sacred Space makes possible the "founding of the world": where the sacred Manifests itself in space, the real unveils itself, the world comes into existence.

The Sacred and the Profane : The Nature of Religion: The Significance of Religious Myth, Symbolism, and Ritual within Life and Culture (1961), translated from the French by William R. Trask, [first published in German as Das Heilige und das Profane (1957)]

Man becomes aware of the sacred because it manifests itself, shows itself, as something wholly different from the profane. To designate the act of manifestation of the sacred, we have proposed the term hierophany. It is a fitting term, because it does not imply anything further; it expresses no more than is implicit in its etymological content, i.e., that something sacred shows itself to us. It could be said that the history of religions — from the most primitive to the most highly developed — is constituted by a great number of hierophanies, by manifestations of sacred realities. From the most elementary hierophany — e.g. manifestation of the sacred in some ordinary object, a stone or a tree — to the supreme hierophany (which, for a Christian, is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ) there is no solution of continuity. In each case we are confronted by the same mysterious act — the manifestation of something of a wholly different order, a reality that does not belong to our world, in objects that are an integral part of our natural "profane" world.

The Sacred and the Profane : The Nature of Religion: The Significance of Religious Myth, Symbolism, and Ritual within Life and Culture (1961), translated from the French by William R. Trask, [first published in German as Das Heilige und das Profane (1957)]

For those who have a religious experience all nature is capable of revealing itself as cosmic sacrality.

These thirty years, and more, that I've spent among exotic, barbaric, indomitable gods and goddesses, nourished on myths, obsessed by symbols, nursed and bewitched by so many images which have come down to me from those submerged worlds, today seem to me to be the stages of a long initiation. Each one of these divine figures, each of these myths or symbols, is connected to a danger that was confronted and overcome. How many times I was almost lost, gone astray in this labyrinth where I risked being killed... These were not only bits of knowledge acquired slowly and leisurely in books, but so many encounters, confrontations, and temptations. I realize perfectly well now all the dangers I skirted during this long quest, and, in the first place, the risk of forgetting that I had a goal... that I wanted to reach a "center".

Journal entry (10 November 1959) published in No Souvenirs (1977) , 74-5. Journal II, 1957-1969 (1989)

For those to whom a stone reveals itself as sacred, its immediate reality is transmuted into supernatural reality. In other words, for those who have a religious experience all nature is capable of revealing itself as cosmic sacrality.

The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion: The Significance of Religious Myth, Symbolism, and Ritual within Life and Culture (1961)

To try to grasp the essence of such phenomenon by means of physiology, psychology, sociology, economics, linguistics, art or any other study is false; it misses the one unique and irreducible element in it — the element of the sacred.

A religious phenomenon will only be recognized as such if it is grasped at its own level, that is to say, if it is studied as something religious. To try to grasp the essence of such phenomenon by means of physiology, psychology, sociology, economics, linguistics, art or any other study is false; it misses the one unique and irreducible element in it — the element of the sacred.

Patterns in Comparative Religion (1963), as translated by Rosemary Sheed, p. xiii

The history of religions reaches down and makes contact with that which is essentially human: the relation of man to the sacred.

Psychoanalysis justifies its importance by asserting that it forces you to look to and accept reality. But what sort of reality? A reality conditioned by the materialistic and scientific ideology of psychoanalysis, that is, a historical product...

Journal entry (7 October 1965) as published in No Souvenirs (1977) later retitled Journal II, 1957-1969 (1989), p. 269

The History of Religions is destined to play an important role in contemporary cultural life. This is not only because an understanding of exotic and archaic religions will significantly assist in a cultural dialogue with the representatives of such religions. It is more especially because ... the history of religions will inevitably attain to a deeper knowledge of man. It is on the basis of such knowledge that a new humanism, on a world-wide scale, could develop.

The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion (1969), p. 3

It is not without fear and trembling that a historian of religion approaches the problem of myth. This is not only because of that preliminary embarrassing question: what is intended by myth? It is also because the answers given depend for the most part on the documents selected.

The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion (1969), p. 72

The history of religions reaches down and makes contact with that which is essentially human: the relation of man to the sacred. The history of religions can play an extremely important role in the crisis we are living through. The crises of modern man are to a large extent religious ones, insofar as they are an awakening of his awareness to an absence of meaning.

Ordeal by Labyrinth, Conversations with Claude-Henri Rocquet (1982), p. 148

The interpretations of Freud are more and more successful because they are among the myths accessible to modern man...

The interpretations of Freud are more and more successful because they are among the myths accessible to modern man. The myth of the murdered father, among others, reconstituted and interpreted in Totem and Taboo. It would be impossible to ferret out a single example of slaying the father in primitive religions or mythologies. This myth was created by Freud. And what is more interesting: the intellectual élite accept it (is it because they understand it? Or because it is "true" for modern man?)

No Souvenirs (1977) later retitled Journal II, 1957-1969 (1989), p.117

TRINITY. Trinitarian doctrine touches on virtually every aspect of Christian faith, theology, and piety, including Christology and pneumatology, theological epistemology (faith, revelation, theological methodology), spirituality and mystical theology, and ecelesial life (sacraments, community, ethics). This article summarizes the main lines of trinitarian doctrine without presenting detailed explanations of important ideas, persons, or terms. The doctrine of the Trinity is the summary of Christian faith in God, who out of love creates humanity for union with God, who through Jesus Christ redeems the world, and in the power of the Holy Spirit transforms and divinizes (2 Cor. 3:18). The heart of trinitarian theology is the conviction that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is involved faithfully and unalterably in covenanted relationship with the world. Christianity is not unique in believing God is "someone" rather than something," but it is unique in its belief that Christ is the personal Word of God, and that through Christ's death and resurrection into new life, "God was in Christ reconciling all things to God" (2 Cor. 5:19). Christ is not looked upon as an intermediary between God and world but as an essential agent of salvation. The Spirit poured out at Pentecost, by whom we live in Christ and are returned to God (Father), is also not a "lesser God" but one and the same God who creates and redeems us. The doctrine of the Trinity is the product of reflection on the events of redemptive history, especially the Incarnation and the sending of the Spirit.

"Trinity" article in The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987) Vol 15, p. 53

It is above all the valorizing of the present that requires emphasizing.

Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity, even though it was customary in past dogmatic tracts on the Trinity to cite texts like Genesis 1:26, "Let us make humanity in our image, after our likeness" (see also Gn. 3:22, 11:7; Is. 6:23) as proof of plurality in God. Although the Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word (davar), Spirit (ruah), Wisdom (hokhmah), and Presence (shekhinah), it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later trinitarian doctrine. Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father is source of all that is (Pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ; "Father" is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God. Early liturgical and creedal formulas speak of God as "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"; praise is to be rendered to God through Christ (see opening greetings in Paul and deutero-Paul).

"Trinity" article in The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987) Vol 15, Subsection : "Development of Trinitarian Doctrine"

It is above all the valorizing of the present that requires emphasizing. The simple fact of existing, of living in time, can comprise a religious dimension. This dimension is not always obvious, since sacrality is in a sense camouflaged in the immediate, in the "natural" and the everyday. The joy of life discovered by the Greeks is not a profane type of enjoyment: it reveals the bliss of existing, of sharing — even fugitively — in the spontaneity of life and the majesty of the world. Like so many others before and after them, the Greeks learned that the surest way to escape from time is to exploit the wealth, at first sight impossible to suspect, of the lived instant.

As quoted in Myth and Religion in Mircea Eliade (2002) by Douglas Allen, p. 90

To believe that I could, at twenty-three, sacrifice history and culture for "the Absolute" was further proof that I had not understood India. My vocation was culture, not sainthood.

As quoted in Myth and Religion in Mircea Eliade (2002) by Douglas Allen, p. 216

When the sacred manifests itself in any hierophany, there is not only a break in the homogeneity of space; there is also a revelation of an absolute reality, opposed to the nonreality of the vast surrounding expanse. The manifestation of the sacred ontologically founds the world. In the homogenous and infinite expanse, in which no point of reference is possible and hence no orientation can be established, the hierophany reveals an absolute fixed point, a center.

As quoted in The Structure of Religious Knowing : Encountering the Sacred in Eliade and Lonergan (2004) by John Daniel Dadosky, p. 89

It would be frightening to think that in all the cosmos, which is so harmonious, so complete and equal to itself, that only human life is happening randomly, that only one's destiny lacks meaning.

Attributed in The Little Book of Romanian Wisdom (2011) edited by Diana Doroftei and Matthew Cross

The way towards 'wisdom' or towards 'freedom' is the way towards your inner being. This is the simplest definition of metaphysics.

Attributed in The Little Book of Romanian Wisdom (2011) edited by Diana Doroftei and Matthew Cross

Wikipedia


TO BE CONTINUED

And God Created Woman. A Self Portrait. Amera Ziganii Rao Photography 

AMERA ZIGANII RAO: A PROFILE  

AMERA ZIGANII RAO: A PROFILE  

Writer and Intellectual. Social, Cultural and Spiritual Commentator. Personal Development Coach and Communicator. Philosopher and Metaphysical Clair Cognisant (Prophetess, Hierophant and Esoteric Mystic). Theologian, Theosophist and Historian. Photographer, Graphic Artist. Designer, and Actor/Dramatist/Filmmaker. Feminist and Human Rights Advocate, and a Healer of Emotional Sicknesses and Self Discoveries on earth. 

AMERA ZIGANII RAO :: AN ATLANTEAN ELDER ON EARTH

AMERA ZIGANII RAO :: SACRED WHORE HIGH SERPENT PRIESTHOOD FEMALE HIEROPHANT AVATAR VALKYRIE WIZARD MONARCH™ & SACRED DISIR

AMERA ZIGANII RAO ALCHEMY & LIBERATION & HUMANITY™

Amera Ziganii Rao :: Supernatural Cosmic Intelligence + Supernatural Intelligence. Training to be a world class educator in Consciousness + The Politics of Rape/The True Love Journey + Human Rights + Purpose + The Lost Knowledge + Inner and Outer Power. 

NATURAL BORN MYSTIC™ :: THE RETURN TO ATLANTIS :: THE RETURN TO LEMURIA

NATURAL BORN MYSTIC™ :: THE TRUE LOVE JOURNEY :: THE POLITICS OF RAPE :: AMERA ZIGANII RAO

I have fought a great, great battle. Atlantis is no longer raped by a Lemurian earth. The rest we shall see. Leadership training indeed. Warrior, lover, Valkyrie, Healer, Prophet and Atlantean Queen. That is me. Warrior, lover, poet in training, and broken Agamemnon, woman beating warlord of filth and slavery, will he be. Atlantis is firmly back on earth. Now, true love may just finally be. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2014

NATURAL BORN MYSTIC™ :: THE LOVE HOLOCAUST :: THE LIFE HOLOCAUST :: THE DIVINITY HOLOCAUST

The Macho Intellectual Consciousness Passion and Compassion of the Visceral Soul.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011

Amera Ziganii Rao :: Writer. Philosopher. Performer. Psychologist. Humanist. Esoteric. Sexualist. Hedonist. Artist. Teacher. Coach. Social Reformer. Feminist. Hierophant. Sacred Disir. Former Slave. Seer. Sage. :: My Business Is Transformation Of The Soul. My Business Is Power. My Business Is Freedom. My Business Is Love. My Business Is To Fight Fascism And Human Cruelty And Emotional Sickness In All Its Relationship Forms On Earth. My Business Is Applied Spirit. Real Sex. Real Love. Real Life. Real GOD. The Return.

FEMINIST AND HUMAN RIGHTS, METAPHYSICAL PHILOSOPHER. WRITER. MENTALIST AND ARTIST

NATURAL BORN MYSTIC™ & AMERA ZIGANII RAO ALCHEMY & LIBERATION & HUMANITY™

The new educational website (Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™ as a writing and speaking business of empowerment) will be announced. Meanwhile, enjoy the free writing and consciousness work on this website. It was written with blood, sweat and tears. The story of both my man and myself as we have struggled to re-define all that is relationship and marriage, the mutual journey of escape and evolution out of The Patriarchal Tribe. 

The self discovery that took us from female slavery and male confusion and fascism into a society that was left behind a long time ago, when The New World Order took over and put men in charge, when they didn't even want it, by all that I have seen. Other than in sex as is the primal partnership. Our exploration is here. The world of Bluebeard Male Supremacy™ through to the Sacred Whore and High Female Esoteric Serpent Priesthood Society™, again, with men as the beloveds. Equality, Liberty, FRATERNITY. The New New World. Again. 

Please feel free to read the material on this blog. My writings, plus work from other consciousness teachers too. My Manifesto for Human Rights (Especially Female) in Relationship and Family. 

These writings will be produced in book form. Poetry Polemics for a better world of love, independence, sex and individuation. And true companionship and family. Power to the people, indeed. Together. 

Thank you. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2014

The Two Messages :: 

The Female Divine Highest Love Intelligence Energy. God The Mother, The Universe. Plus, the SACRED WHORE HIGH PRIESTESS HIEROPHANT AVATAR VALKYRIE WIZARD MONARCHs™ as the only true High Priests, with a GNOSTIC spirituality for all. 

There is no love on earth. We are all here to fight for it, or be hate. We are here to be profound, or to be shallow. To be adventurers of the soul, or turgid and needing security, to be humane or greedy, to BE love, or BE hate. Earth is hell. Hell, created by hate, for hate, of hate. Free will is to choose which way to go. Love, or hate. That is Existentialism. That is evolution. That is the advancement of the soul. Hate to love. And nothing less. The conquering of evil by good. The light must push out the dark. The light must win. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2014

My Business Is Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™ 

Feminism is not feminism. Feminism is anti slavery. They call us control freaks and that has to be watched. However, in the context of the truth, it is a ridiculous statement. It is the oppressor, calling the courageous campaigner for freedom and equality, the terrorist. 

Feminism is not 'man hating'. Feminism is not feminism. Feminism is the movement against slavery. Humanitarianism is the same. Slavery must not exist in any form on earth. Slavery is everywhere. 

From unpaid work in marriage to unpaid work in the family, to minimum wage in the market to a hundred other arenas, slavery is the way of earth. 

Feminism and humanitarianism are the movements against it. Slavery is fascism. Fascism is everywhere. We just don't know it. They made sure that we don't know it. Now we do. And we will forever. 

Society calls it bullying. Society calls it unfortunate, while propping it up in every single second, across the world. Fascism must die. Fascism will die. Fascism is to die. 

That is World Ascension. The end of fascism. 

My Business Is Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™ 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2014

Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™ 

The point of this planet is to find out what we are not, so we can find out what we are. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2012

Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™ 

The journey to the breaking of one's lower self into one's great self. The actual journey. That is my business. Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™. Turning oneself into gold and honey and authentic power. The pain of transformation, the shock and the trauma and terror and resistance of it. The path to heaven on earth. That is my business. THAT part of it. The crucifixion and disability of Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™. The pain of it. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2012

Natural Born Mystic™ 

The compassion to go with the passion. The discipline of mind, to know your darkness and the education of a post patriarchal man. Love. And changing the very matter of your spiritual DNA. Ascension. I can feel it coming. The build up is your job. The rest I can help with. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

Avatar (James Cameron) 

My daughter will teach you our ways. Learn well, Jake Sully. Then we will see if your insanity can be cured. 

Mo'at 

Natural Born Mystic™ 

Misogyny is sadism against women. An unconscious hijacking and a conscious will to maintain it. 

Tyranny and sadism. Misogynists. Slaves of Sauron (Tolkein's Lord of the Rings). Wifebeaters. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

Natural Born Mystic™ 

An Hierophant is an interpreter of sacred mysteries and arcane principles. 'Jake Sully' (Avatar) is her Sacred Warrior Protector™ 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

Natural Born Mystic™ 

A Natural Born Mystic™ is primarily a Sacred Whore Healer as a Cinderella Warrior™. As a woman. A High Priestess Wizard™ is a Sacred Whore Healer and Enlightener. That has specific duties and challenges to do with men and their immense madness (Mo'at - Avatar) and their profanity (killing God The Mother, The Triple Goddess) and monetising the slavery of emotional care. A Sacred Whore Healer has to do this against all the odds. She does it because she and they, the Sacred Whore Healers and High Priestess Wizards™ are the strongest. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2012

Natural Born Mystic™ 

'Respect' as fear. 

'The Accomplished Female' = the only thing that the male patriarch can deliver as 'love'. Men do not tolerate women earning money. They want slavery to instil FEAR. Fear as 'respect'. Fear is not 'respect'.  

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2014

Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™ 

The secret enemies of psychological warfare. From within and without. Bringing the darkness of evil into the light. Immense self belief, intelligence and courage, plus wizardry. In other words, 'naming it and shaming it and letting it go' and re-programming the mind from any belief to another. To evolve. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2012

Consciousness. The politics of the 21st century. The Lost Knowledge. Forget trying to change the world. Change yourself. It changes your own world that changes THE world. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011 

Sexuality, non religious 'Wizard' and 'Witch' spirituality (the Gnostic intelligence of esoteric and consciousness exploration, ie wisdom and love) and human rights are the least fashionable things and the most uncomfortable things on the planet. And the things human beings have been damning and condemning for 8000 years. And the things that most people are absolutely fascinated by. What a shame. How bourgeois. How ordinary. How ego. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011

The Sacred Whore High Priestess Society™

The Super Sacred Brother Lover™

The Return To The Source. Ascension.

The Sacred Whore High Priestess Society™. When we were giants. All of us. When you did more than rape me.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

Neo Feminist™, Post Tribe Social Reformer™ and Sacred Sexualist™. Human Rights Healer. Metaphysical Philosopher, Writer, Spiritual Intelligence Teacher, Hierophant (Interpreter of The Universe) and Mentalist Self Actualiser.

I can help you grow power, from nothing.

Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

The Sacred Whore High Priestess Hierophant™ and Sacred Pimp Warrior Protector, Brother Lover™ Society. The kings and queens of old. Angels and Sorcerers together in each of themselves and in the other. The Wizard life. Forever. Living and loving from The Source. Sourcery, Carlos Castaneda first said. I'll say it again. Sourcerers together. Living a life worth living. At last.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

Witches are healers. Witches are the Love Healers and SOURCErers of The Lost World, when we were the giant warriors. We were good and so were were you. 'The World of Men'. The Tribe of Misogyny and Bourgeois™.

Gives us all a bad name. And poisons all hearts.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

Feminist Lolita Intellectuals™. You lucky man. A place at the table, a place at the Executive Table. That's all. The rest is easy.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

Spiritual power = emotional power = emotional intelligence = mental intelligence = re-programming of the whole self = spiritual intelligence = The Lost Knowledge™ = power = The New World. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

The Company

Writer, Speaker and Enlightener, Amera Ziganii Rao, is now putting together a comprehensive and unique programme of Alchemy & Liberation & Humanity™. A programme of learning that is specifically about one particular kind of woman. And one particular kind of man. The Sacred Whore High Priestess™ and the Sacred Whore High Priest™, and the true society that they come from and the one they, in particular, she can and has to return to and that anyone can join her and him in. This is about Paradise on Earth.

This is about The Sacred Whore High Priestess™ and the Sacred Whore High Priest™, and the Alchemy and Liberation and Humanity that is for all as a result of their healing and in particular, hers. This is about the kind of woman who is at the bottom of the pile in a Patriarchal Toilet Tribe from Hell Society™, the norm, the conventional world and the world of the Tribe. This is about the kind of man who is next in line from the bottom. The sensitive man and the female chattel. The High Priestess and High Priest of a profane society, that has long forgotten who they are.

This is about being at the bottom of the pile, for the forgotten and strangled shamans, and for her, the story of escape. Abused by her family, her friends, her men, her whole society, by the very nature of who she is and who they are and what has happened on this Earth. It is about women of love, of Spirit and of sex. It is about men of love, of Spirit and of sex. It is about the Cinderellas of this world. It is about the The Sacred Whore High Priestess™. Who she is and how, loving her is the secret to Paradise on Earth and how we have been living a lie for 8000+ years. A lie of male (non High Priest) religion with a male ‘God’ and with Patriarchs and Patriarchal types and Matriarchs and Matriarchal types ruling over us and making our lives hell, all in the name of family, the tribe and the way things are and should remain. Hate, fascism and profanity. A sick society that vilifies, more than anyone else, the The Sacred Whore High Priestess™, just because it was told to. A sick society that calls her Eve. A sick society that has forgotten who we all are, let alone the The Sacred Whore High Priestess™ and the Sacred Whore High Priest™. This is about us remembering and knowing who WE are.

This is a programme of healing for the The Sacred Whore High Priestess™, and the Sacred Whore High Priest™, to take them and particularly, her, from monstrous levels of low self esteem and lack of self knowledge, back to herself and it is a programme for all those who truly want to love her, and indeed, him. This is a programme for the greatest carers on Earth, who are vilified, destroyed, ridiculed, ignored, abused, used, misused and hated for being everything that those who would steal from us are not. This is a programme to turn Cinderellas into The Sacred Whore High Priestesses and for anyone who wants to love her or live by the values of the The Sacred Whore High Priestess Society™. And this is a programme to turn sensitive men into Sacred Whore High Priests™ and for anyone who wants to love him and live by the values of the The Sacred Whore High Priestess™ and High Priest Society. Love, humanity, Spirit and sex. This is a programme to reverse 8000+ years of witch burning, women hating and healer ridicule. This is about the The Sacred Whore High Priestess™ and all those who would love her and live by her values.

This is about the chance for Paradise on Earth. This is a programme for the most beautiful, kind hearted, wounded women and men on this planet. A programme of how to implement a system of how to beat life, how to survive life and how to resurrect from the grief that is a true life. Alchemy and Liberation and Humanity of the lower mind into the higher mind, the soul and the inner heart and therefore one's true, confident, ‘happy’, successful, creative, sexual, sensual, individual, intelligent, emotionally healed, capable of loving and being loved self. How to turn grief into creation and survive and thrive, despite all the shit, all the pain and all the hurt. How to live in a world of madness, hollowness and cruelty and how to be a winner. How to stand up for oneself and to take back the power that has been stolen from anyone with heart, Spirit and sex. The art and science of Alchemy.

This is a programme, based on my scholarly and non scholarly work over 15 years (so far), if not for my whole life, and my extensive and intense, visceral experiences of self transformation from resignation, cynicism and despair to a state of relative bliss, and above all, the right to be. The programme and the courses and my speaking and indeed my forthcoming book, will cover the method of change. The psychological, sociological, spiritual, cultural, political, emotional and physical and even anthropological methods of change. Why we are here. Who the Sacred Whore High Priestess™ is and why she is here. And who the Sacred Whore High Priest™ is. Why we are here. Who we are and what we are and why we are. The beauty and glory of the truth. The meaning of life, no less. This will be on offer in the future.

My first book of consciousness, my first book of the spiritual politics of humanity, of authentic power and of self love and strength. A comprehensive series of online courses, live events and audio and visual material. Books, live events, CDs and DVDs. And one on one personal empowerment consultations. The Amera Ziganii Rao Method of Change™. The right to be and the way to have the right to be. And indeed, how to maintain the will to live without love. How to BE unconditional, self sufficient, self caring, self love. The right to be and the will to be and the unparalleled success that comes with that. The Lost Knowledge™. HOW to live. And how to heal others, the profane and the sick and the soulless. The others. My Business and that of any Sacred Whore High Priestess™ and Sacred Whore High Priest™, is Human Rights, The Right to a Sexual Society, Self Actualisation and Freedom.

My Business is To Overthrow Fascism, in the Home and in the Country. My business is also mastering destiny. Overthrowing the ultimate 'fascism'. Our journey on Earth and The Return To The Source. Our healing, our ascension and our redemption. Fate. The daily crucifixions of a true life, the challenges and the fury of being healers and people of love on a planet like Earth.

Submitting to the journey to liberate and evolve oneself, through following one's heart, however much heartbreak and devastation it leads to on the long long long journey to freedom and then the longer journey to happiness. 'Long Road to Freedom', as Nelson Mandela says. My business is always taking risks, never giving up and making the endless sacrifices it takes to become whole. Enlightenment, Nirvana and then Parinirvana and beyond. My business is pain. My business is bliss.

My business is seeing the truly glory of Spirit on Earth. The Sacred Whore High Priestess Society™ and all that it is. Spirit, humanity, sex and love again at last. And the end of our legacy as either servants or witches or unpaid carers or indeed, ignored mistresses, other women, other men even, and the weirdos that are at the bottom of society. This is our world and it is time to take it back and I can show you how. And that makes my life, truly, worth living.

I want you to feel the way I do. Alive, with the right to be and the belligerence to exist in this profane and male ‘God’ led world of male supremacy, female supremacy, domestic, casual fascism, tribe rules from hell, with beautiful and kind, love intelligence laden, female and male Cinderella warriors at the bottom, caring for everyone else and getting nothing but hatred, ridicule and isolation for it. The meek are already inheriting the Earth and I can show you how.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2012

I enter the magical hours of pure feeling, pure thought, pure imagination and I think and I write and I 'mysticise' the Universe. I escape at will, the truth of my humanless, Samurai solitude, and I pursue the truth of love in myself and in everyone else. I am philosopher. I am shaman. I am alone. I frontier the Soul to be spirit on Earth.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011

To trust your soul is to have courage. The courage to ‘get out of the way’. It takes a commitment to courage, a changing of the very matter of one’s access to courage, one’s relationship with courage and becoming the total renegade of an individual you have to, to become soul. It is that rare. ‘Getting out of the way’ takes a commitment to love and loving and being of love, no matter what. And frankly, that means redefining what love is, EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. Finding out what love really is and getting rid of the bullshit we think it is. Love. Soul. Power. It takes courage to be soul. Courage, courage and courage. The rest is easy. Soul is soul. Finally it is an absolute relief to get out of the way. The life of soul may be hair raising, treacherous and mind numbingly arduous. But it is a life of no regrets. Courage. The key to soul. Just give it a go. Wear that hat, say what’s on your mind, dream your dreams again, dream your dreams at all and just smile through the hate. Including one’s doubt. Courage. ‘Kill’ when you have to, especially yourself, and smile the rest of the time and cry when you need to. Always cry. Earth is a battlefield and crying is the way to win. Soul is a way of life. The natural way. Courage is ‘all’ it takes. We learnt the rules, only so we could break them. The rest is the art of life. Creation. Creating oneself again and again and again. Soul. The only way of life worth anything. Otherwise, we are just waiting to die. We don’t need to. We can live. It’s called soul. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013 

Self esteem. True, authentic, self knowing, self esteem. The one that includes the sex, the primal, the primitive, the animal, the real. The one that includes humanity and a state of unconditional love. Non needing, non greedy, non controlling, non afraid, non negative and non inhumane and non angry. Self esteem. What ego really is, in its true essence. The physical vehicle of self esteem. The physical vehicle of action, reaction, mastery, ‘misstery’, love and war, tenderness and sexuality. Humanity and human. The beautiful, crafted, styled, educated, aware, sincere, active, visceral, sexual, super sexual, heart led, sensitive, humane, courageous and ethical, hopeful ego. The instinct. The intuition. The magic. The primal. The whole. The whole Soul. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2013

I can feel your sexuality. I love it. My beautiful, filthy, dominating, obsessed, possessed, hedonistic, nihilistic, Sacred beast of a man. Because those of us who are the most sexual, what do we think, in the truth context of the The Sacred Whore High Priestess™, and The Sacred Whore High Priestess (Priest) Society™, that means? We are the most spiritual. The most sexual are in fact the most spiritual. Spirituality being the communing between Mortal and The High Priestess (Priest) to reach ecstasy. Orgasm. Bliss. The most active, dirty minded, passionate, non reproductive, hedonistic, glorious, worthwhile, point of life, meditation or prayer or communing on Earth. THE way to reach God, The Mother, The Universe™. THE way to happiness. Humanity. Joy. Hope. Love. Sex. Sex. Our sex. Sex.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011

Love takes courage. Love takes being ready. Love takes love. 

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011

Amera Ziganii Rao is a former hard news journalist who is now turning professional with her art forms and indeed, her healing forms, after a long journey of inner searching, self teaching and exploring many layers and areas of both craft and wisdom. She is now working on her first book of philosophy and esoteric thought, and social, cultural and spiritual commentary. She is also showing her first photography collections. And last but most definitely not least, she is building a business to share her Sacred Whore High Priestess Society consciousness and empowering explorations to reach as many people as possible across the world. She is in her forties and currently lives in London.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011

In the meantime, please enjoy this website. I have included many of the subjects I am covering, areas of experience and insight that I will be exploring to the fullest in my book, the courses and all the other work that is to come as a dramatist, novelist and essayist. I also of course, include many of the wise people on this planet, who have come long before me; authors, screen dramatists, playwrights, film makers, artists, and other enlighteners and grand carriers of the wisdom I have found the most helpful on my journey, to find peace and become enlightened. The seemingly impossible journey, in the face of oneself and one’s circumstances. People who have contributed massively to my healing on this mad journey called life, in this insane existence called The Universe. People who have helped to make me as good a carrier of wisdom as I in turn, can be. Thank you.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2011

Copyright and intellectual property rights are serious issues. And legally protected. Please do not reproduce my work anywhere without due credit and obviously, never for financial gain. 'Big Sister' is watching you! Other than that, please continue to enjoy my original work and the work of (credited) others, for free, while I work on using my material in further professional formats. Thank you for your interest and support.

Amera Ziganii Rao © 2012

Thank you to outside sources for original photography. Darkroomed by Amera Ziganii Rao