Monday, December 31, 2012

Let Us Reason Together in Numbers For the Logos

Numbers According to Iamblichus

Plato said that no one could be a philosopher who had not studied mathematics.
Undoubtedly, this is partially a reference to the Pythagoreans. Having been a mathematical dunce until college (although not innumerate entirely), this is part of my penance, to work through Iamblichus’ treatise.

Luckily, this work supplies a beginner’s manual to understanding the significance of number, which plays a role in traditional astrology. Still, there is a lot to wade through here. For instance, John Michael Greer (Archdruid of North America) has pointed out that the Christian cross has the proportions of the square root of 2 and the square root of 5. The cross is an ancient symbol, one which Plato was familiar with when he wrote “the world soul is crucified”. However, it is not necessary (obviously) to be a Christian to discern the Logos inherent in the numbers. In our day, it may help if one is not exoterically Christian to see the significance of the numbers in constituting a pattern of the Logos.
Iamblichus touches on a great deal of this, in how the numbers intertwine, which require a beginner level in numeracy, but patience in working through the various relationships, and a meditative or mystical approach to thinking about them.

1. Any number can be created by adding Ones (even as fractions) or dividing by Ones, or multiplying by Ones. The One is therefore the Source and Sustainer of all things. If x = 2y, then x squared is four times y squared, which proportion in operation is preserved if one take 1/x and 1/y. There is no change in the nature or operations of the One. It is called the Provider because it has the power of staying the same, regardless of its extensions, and preserving both itself and those extensions. The ancients called it Prometheus or the Artificer of Life.

2. It is called the Hearth, because it is in the middle of things, that which is equal between opposing elements, and it keeps its equilibrium. In the middle of the four elements lies a Monadic fiery cube. It is called Proteus, because it assumes any form, but retains the properties of everything, as the Monad is the factor of each number.

3. It is called Chaos (mixture, obscurity, blending, Darkness), being Hesiod’s First Generator, but also called Chariot, Sun, Friend, Life, Happiness, Being, Order, and Concord. The numerical value of the Greek word Monad adds up to 361, the degrees of the circle, plus One. It is disposed to share itself with all things. It is not yet manifesting anything actual, but carries within it the principles conceptual togetherness of all things. It causes things to combine and co-here, and unifies that which is opposite. It is called Androgyne and Intellect, as well, and shares power with the Sun. It is the beginning, middle, and end of all size, quality and quanitity.

4. It produces itself out of itself, as well as producing all things, and is therefore “as if it were God or the principle of all things”. It maintains everything and forbids anything to change – it resembles Providence, alone of all numbers. It is particularly suited to resemble and reflect God, and it is closest to Him.

5. It is in fact the Form of Forms. As we will see, the Dyad is opposed to Form in a certain sense, and only from the One can the power come to maintain the Dyad. Because of this intellective and creative power, it is both Creator and Supreme Intellect.

What else is Iamblichus describing here, but a doctrine of the Logos? This Logos would be taken up and shaped by Christianity, and I would argue that the intention was to preserve “every jot and tittle” of the full-blooded pagan dogma of the Logos, rather than to change it in any respect, except to allow it to be “more itself”.

And it is clear that he thinks that multiplication by One preserves the same number is a truth with an esoteric meaning. Or, division. Mathematics are not, therefore, just mathematics, even the simple operations we don’t even think about. Yet Iamblichus will get into more complicated arrangements as he progresses.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Word Remains Within

American Christians generally use “logos” (if they use it) in the sense that Aristotle wants to use it:
For Aristotle, logos is something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil. (PA Rahe)
That is, when modern Christians use the word Logos, they predominantly conceive of “that which makes for argument, or logic”. This definition is by and large the regnant one, even among the classical Christian movement. Practically speaking, the Logos is thought of in terms of that which “makes sense” out of our logic, and connects us, through dialectic, to the mind of God.

Although I would not want to argue that this is not a dimension of Logos, I do say that it is an impoverished one. Philo, for instance, terms it the logos endiathetos (the word remaining within), while the Stoics (who influenced not to much St. John as Justin the Martyr) believed that the Logos was the generative principle of the universe. Philo, also, assigned to the Logos a kind of demi-urgic status. Surely St. Paul must have had something like this in mind when he described Christ as being the vessel and sum of the worlds, which He would recapitulate and return to the Father at the end of time.

The point here is that Logos is not merely an Aristotelian or Enlightenment concept of active, dialectical Reason, a spark of divinity that ensures our divine image and reflects some logical function of Christ’s ontological status. This would be to mechanize the Logos, or at least, trend in this direction. It would be to make the Logos merely a pattern filtered through right Reason (which, of course, it partly is).
Justin Martyr wrote the following:
I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos.
The Orthodox want to argue that this “angel of the Lord” is actually the divine energies which one experiences in illumination (after purification). It is not a created being or merely external theophany (as Augustine is alleged to have thought) which is brought into and out of existence in order to create a saga of revelation, but rather, participation in the divine energies (the divine essence being reserved for God, forever, alone). “Being in the Spirit” allows one to experience this divine energy.

If we take our hint from the Orthodox, we might try thinking of the Logos as all higher states of being whatsoever (the lower ones being created by natural deprivation or distortion of the collateral states associated with Logos). The Logos is “Light” or “Life” – the “Kingdom of God”. Understood this way, Jesus was Himself the embodiment in full of the reign of God: He did not exhaust, but rather, fully expressed, the Logos.

The Logos is therefore a spiritual state of Being, a higher kingdom of existence, a noetic faculty of soul, the seeds of Creation, the divine image within, Right Reason, the Nous itself and all higher worlds (excluding God’s essence), the Logos Spermatikos and First Born before all Worlds, the Alpha and Omega and the end of time, and the way, truth, and life, which is the light of men.

It is clear that the emphasis in the West has been, for centuries now, upon the dialectical apparatus of the logical mind, and while divine certainty has been ascribed strongly to this (how else could David Hume die in such peace of mind?), it has tended to both arrogate and impoverish the depths and even the width of the human spirit and soul. Christianity itself has been implicitly guilty in this, because Western Christianity tends to think of God, when it does so at all, as a logically accessible entity that operates according to the strictures of common, rational thought; in practice, it is often reducible to the “structures” of thought.

With this is mind, next week we will begin our trip through Iamblichus’ arithmetic theology, showing how a “mysticism” of the numbers is possible that is revelatory of fundamental patterns in both lower and higher reality.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Hebdomads, Pentagrams & the Eternal Word

For handy reference, here is a simplistic table that is good to start with.
This is Iamblichus on the Hepdomad (7):
The reason for the seventh number being an object of reverence is as follows: the providence of the Creator God wrought all things by basing on the first-born One the source and root of the creation of the universe, which comes to be an impression and representation of the highest good, and he located the perfection and fulfillment of completion in the Decad itself, and the Creator God necessarily considered that the Hebdomad was an instrument and His most authoritative limb and has gained the power of creativity. For by nature, and not by our own devices, the Hebdomad is a mean between the monad and the decad, and the means between extremes are in a sense more authoritative that the extremes themselves, because the terms on either side incline towards the means…7 is the arithmetic mean between the tetrad and the decad (ie, in a sense between two decads, one potential, the other actual, since is half of the sum of both).
This excerpt should give a feel for what the Greek Platonists were doing – they believed that the symmetry and harmony of number was directly revelatory, through Reason (intellectual intuition, which we would term the noetic faculty), of the Logos.
In this case, Iamblichus’ short essays are worth reading – pick one of them & read the entire argument, mathematics & all, to get the feel for how they thought. Next week, I will present a summary of each of the numbers, although the above list will give you an idea of what it will look like.
For instance, the number Five represents Life: specifically vegetative Life (Six represents animal Life, and Seven, the living Soul of man). It also incarnates and mediates Justice – the proper balance. One immediately thinks of the “star” of Justice, the shire-reeve’s badge, five-pointed pentagram.
Here is Mouravieff in Gnosis III-
Below is the extract from Boris Mouravieff’s Gnosis III, pg 98,99 —As we have already indicated, the first of the three symbols that can be obtained from the Circle and the polygons is the Pentagram, or five-branched triple star. The study of this symbol-in-movement requires precise indication of the order in which  the student’s attention and his pen-point should pass from one to the other of the branch-points of the three stars through the intersections of  the lines that form them. This is how our numbered Pentagram is drawn (fig. 8): The Pentagram numbered in this way was revealed by the author during the lectures he gave at the Faculty of Letters in the University of Geneva. It was also published in the Summary of these lectures. We have already said that this symbol, taken as a whole, reflects the real positions of the elements and forces that form the Third Cosmic Octave. The student should apply the meanings of the Major Numbers to the corresponding figures and study them from this point of view. Here, he will come across the first difficulty: that of interpreting the terms characterizing each of the Major Numbers. In order  to interpret them, he must specially train himself to think ‘in harmony’ and not ‘in melody’, if we may put it this way. In other words, instead of a chain of reasoning he should form a bundle of ideas, of which each section should present a harmonious  chord. Then, and only then – keeping the meaning of the whole continually present in his mind – the succession of the figures as it is shown will enable him to make his thought and attention progress according to a precise order and so reach the desired goal. Except in a few rare cases, as long as the student’s mind has not attained the degree of training needed to enable him to pursue his research in an independent manner, this will require outside help. This is one reason why esoteric  teaching has always included an oral Tradition that vivifies the Letter of the written Doctrine.
The Numbers, properly contemplated, or truly contemplated at all, will lead us to God.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Christian Astrology & the Logos

Christianity inherited the Romano-Greco world. Try as they will, evangelicals cannot get back to the "simple Gospel" because there will be nothing there except the Postmodern World, which is located in the realm of the Dyad that self-consciously refuses union with the Monad (to produce the Triad). The only way for Christians to "go  forward" in any meaningful sense is to re-connect with Pagan roots, because "Paganism" was the last traditional culture that we had which can give the raw material with which to build a culture. To object that this is anti-Christ amounts to making "Christ" so small one cannot see him, & to ignore the possibility of baptizing culture, which is the whole basis of salvation in the individual sense, as well. Modern Christians cannot see that they have inherited the failed world of John Locke and his "blank slate", and that this world vampiricly subsisted by devouring the remnants of the "world that was". Hence, their dilemma - watch them twist in the wind. The Logos Tomeus (the Dividing Sword) of God are His divine patterns, which originate in eternity and are mediated through the Logos to material reality. These are based on numbers, which operate in a hyper-reality that they derisively term "mystical". In order to "save Western civilization", we must aim at something bigger - a recovery of what "Logos" means. Christ is not just a really cool dude who will live in your heart. He is the Lion of Revelation.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Ultimate End of all Reformation

John Stuart Mill was a Reformer. He was continually (as we all have been since the Reformation) "reforming the Reformation" (Milton). Now, I am not a Catholic, at least not formally (although I frequently feel far more fellowship towards them these dark days than anyone else), but I have to chuckle at these autobiographical thoughts of JS Mill. For one thing did the man not ask himself why he became so depressed? It occurred when it dawned on him that, if all Reformation (secular or otherwise) was replete and complete, what would this do to him? And of course, he knew, it would render him unhappy. Because the Leftist isn't happy unless he is "changing the world" (preferably someone else). He recovered from his state by reading a passage from literature, and then the poetry of Wordsworth (whom it is worthwhile noting was the most "conservative of the Romantics" as well as the most like an English country parson). Anyone who has felt depression of an intense sort should feel some sympathy (which I do) with Mill; he is a human being, who struggled to live his life the best he knew how. And he certainly was a fine thinker and writer, in the abstract (his ideas On Liberty were derivative from von Humboldt, who in my opinion, was more subtle). Yet he recovered from depression, only to re-immerse himself in his Reforms. This may be therapeutic, but (as Keats would say) the "eagle of Truth is greater than the lyre of Apollo" (or the world-shaking "reformers" who wish to make a better mousetrap out of the world). Did the man never question himself? When he "got better"? Did he never consider that when Liberalism finally reigned supreme in every nook and cranny of the globe, and all men busied themselves with consumption in the pursuit of happiness (Bentham's body is still preserved, stuffed, in the British Museum, for all to see, like a religious artifact from ancient Egypt), that there would still be the eternal question of Man:
Not only who, but What, am I? 

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Honor Your Dead, Your Fathers

Romanides argues that the Franks decimated Roman urbanization & established feudalism in an effort to maintain a precarious grip on overextended power from their home bases:
“In the time of Pippin of Herestal (697-715) and Charles Martel (715-741), many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, “shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans.” In order to defend itself against foreign interference and protect itself from the fate of conquered Romans elsewhere, the papacy promulgated electoral laws in 769, according to which candidates for the papal dignity had to be cardinal deacons or presbyters of the city of Rome, and Romans by birth. Only Roman nationals were allowed to participate in the elections. Thirteen Frankish bishops were in attendance when these decisions were made.[ 5 ]
Meanwhile, Roman revolutionary activity in Gaul had not yet been fully suppressed. Pippin III had died the year before and Charlemagne and his brother Carloman had taken over the rule of Austrasia and Neustria. Within the surprisingly short period of only twenty-two years, from 732 to 754, the Franks had defeated the Roman-Arab alliance, swamped all the provinces of Gaul, and had swept into Northern Italy. This was made possible by the new feudal order which was first established in Austrasia and Neustria. The Roman administrative units of the civitates were abolished and replaced by the military comitates. The former free Romans were transferred en masse from the cities and were established on the slave labor camps called villae and mansi, alongside the serfs. They were called villeins (villains), a term which, for understandable reasons, came to mean enemies of law and order.
The Visigoths in Spain were overthrown by the Romans, who opened their city gates to the Berbers and Arabs. The Franks reacted with determination to avoid the occurrence of the same in Francia (Land of the Franks) by abolishing Roman urban society.
By the middle of the eighth century, the Frankish armies of occupation were overextended far beyond Austrasia and Neustria, where the main body of their nation was established. They could not yet afford to take over the church administration of Papal Romania as they had done elsewhere. It was expedient to play the part of liberators for the time being. Therefore, they appointed the Roman pope as a vassal of Francia. The measure of freedom left to the Romans in Papal Romania depended on their right to have their own Roman pope, bishops, and clergy. To lose this right would have been tantamount to the same loss of freedom suffered by their compatriots in Northern Italy and Francia. Therefore, they had to be very careful not to incite the Franks.
The Romans had made alliances with the Arabs (and Jews) and succeeded in overthrowing Visigothic Spain. Romanides is clear what his argument is:
The church in Francia remained in the grip of a tyrannical Teutonic minority.
Strangely enough, Romanides admits that the Donation of Constantine was a deliberate forgery by the West Romans (done in Francia) which was a cloak-and-dagger effort to convince the Franks that there was imperial and religious sanction to Rome’s complete independence (from Charlemagne’s meddlings). This forgery (in Romanides’ work) is really not condemned, but rather exonerated. There is no doubt that Romanides is right that there was a struggle for power between the remnants of Romanity and the “free Franks”, or that the medieval Church was founded upon the French feudal structure which eventually triumphed in the Lombard struggle over the papacy. He even goes so far as to credit the French Revolution with restoring the balance against the invading, subjugating Franks, who had believed that God had given them the imperium by divine right of trial in battle (and here, Dugin’s emphasis on Chaos as salvific finds a benefactor and friend in Romanides).
There is no mention of Frankish loyalty to Rome during the invasion of the Huns under Attila.  It is hard to see how Romanides can credibly call a province like Gaul legitimately “Roman”, given that Caesar had conquered the tribes there, & yet when similar foederati tribes had remained loyal to the Romans during the ensuing incursions, but had predominantly paid the price in blood and treasure by defeating Rome’s enemies on the battlefield, Romanides regards them as aliens. The fact that the Frankish tribes from the Harz regions finally made a political reality out of what had become a social reality (the death of Roman political structure in the West) seems more or less appropriate. Romanides here sees primarily an ethnic struggle, where it would (even in his own account) seem to have been one more of faction – Rome certainly wanted to remain within the sphere of Byzantium, bad enough to lie about it; but it also tried to reclaim its frontiers.
John Ruskin’s account of these doings seems far more sane and noble. Although admitting that the French people of 1789 were such that “no people had ever been so loyal in vain”, he nonetheless wrote a paean to the Frankish people and their Christianity in What Our Fathers Told Us: Bible of Amiens.
I return gladly to the dawn of chivalry, when, every hour and year, men were becoming more gentle and more wise; while, even through their worst cruelty and error (eg., the incident of the Vase of Soissons & Clovis), native qualities of noblest cast may be seen asserting themselves for primal motive, and submitting themselves for future training. Constantine’s victory only gave form and dying color to the falling walls of Rome, but the Frank and Gothic races, thus conquering and thus ruled, founded the arts and established the laws which gave to all Europe her virtue joy and virtue. And it is lovely to see how, even thus early, the Feudal chivalry depended for its life on the nobility of its women. There was no vision seen, or alledged, at Tolbiac. The King prayed simply to the God of Clothilde.
Ruskin has some other interesting passages on the college of Augurs begun by Numa, and the vestal virgins, and the supreme pontiff (who makes sacrifical offerings on behalf of the whole human race). Ruskin sees through the “stench of the barbarian tribes” into the soul of what gave the Gothic birth, as distinct either from Classical youth or Arabic cradle.
We are not to see in Frankish monarchies a dull literalism – surprisingly, the Franks did not always adhere to strict “monarchical” lines of succession. Adalberon (the same archbishop who exonerated Adalbero of Laon from charges of adultery with Emma of Italy, brought by fellow nobility), was a chancellor who decisively acted against the ruling dynasty in favor of Hugh Capet.
Crown the Duke. He is most illustrious by his exploits, his nobility, his forces. The throne is not acquired by hereditary right; no one should be raised to it unless distinguished not only for nobility of birth, but for the goodness of his soul.
Adalberon would later plot against Capet. Even the sins of medieval times tended to exonerate and recognize God. And here, I will end with the best defense possible against the modern accusation of “using God’s name” to do “Satan’s work” (leaving aside the rhetorical ellisions and fallacies which render this idea feasible to our minds); Edmund Burke:
The age of chivalry is gone. — That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more, shall we behold a generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, achieved defensive nations, the nurse of the manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage while it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness. . . . 
This is what occured under Charlemagne, and more, if we can accept Ruskin’s account, which is by no means unsympathetic to ancient Rome. Why did Byzantium pursue a policy of attempting to subordinate the Western half of the imperium, when it was clear that the quarrel would end badly?

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Horror of the Dead

How does one fight the "horror!" that Kurtz found in the "heart of darkness"? Very simply, by the mysterious, far more profound, joy and wonder that is religious, and which goes underneath the horror to pervade it and devour it from the inside out. In Christianity, this is symbolized by such pictures as the above.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Liturgy & Logos

A popular refrain I hear from fellow Protestants is that “meaningless rituals”, gestures, “smells and bells”, or vain repetitions (a Scriptural phrase) won’t help find favor with God. While I am certain that ritual can (and does) degenerate into “those of darkness” who are fascinated with the dead (Rene Guenon) and their debased conclaves or practices, the pre-existent Logos of the universe that created the world through its pattern entails that relationships between and among “things” exist, even at the lowest level. Anyway, if vain repetitions include all things which repeat themselves, then why do we always prefer beautiful pictures or soothing colors for certain environments, as opposed to the opposite? As Millinerd pointed out, what happens when you “lose the Faith” in a church that used to be a drive-through? Will you be reminded by the stained glass on the wall? The spires? The ringing old church bell? Or the grease stains under the carpet? “Cultural Christianity” is the nave or ante-chamber of the Church – the paintings on the walls of these early Churches were the Greek Philosophers like Heraclitus. It is Justin the Martyr, not Hippolytus, who should guide our thinking here.
The absolute consensus among anyone interested in Tradition is that some patterns are more significant (or more elevated) than others. Some Ideas are more fruitful than others. Some people are better than others, at least in the sense (and no one can disagree with this) that they are truer to their real Self. But what happens when you forget there is a higher Self that is more real? You turn to Revolution. And you hate your patrimony. The worldview of those who reject liturgy per se actually leads to real “vain repetitions”: One damn thing after the other.
The Logos exists, both “in here” and “out there”. It was pursued in olden days all over the face of the earth. Here is Strabo (St. Clement mentions the Hyloboi also):
As for the Garmanes, he [Megasthenes, Indica fragment 41 Schwanbeck] says that the most honourable of them are named Hylobii and that they live in forests, subsisting on leaves and wild fruits, clothed with the bark of trees, and abstaining from wine and the delights of love; and that they communicate with the kings, who through messengers inquire about the causes of things and through the Hylobii worship and supplicate the Divinity.
Here is an example of how various rites and rituals from within a single Tradition coalesce. If one takes the Four Corners of the Earth from the Taoist exercises (Dragon for the east, Tiger for the south, Eagle for the West, and Bear for the North), and matches them to the eight directional exercises, we see that the archery exercise matches the Bear’s stolid pose, the light-scanning exercise goes with the eastern Dragon, the waist spin goes with the southern Tiger, and the adoring wave goes towards the western Eagle.
We can cross-match this against Druidry, and assign the place of yellow or light with the East and the dragon, the place of fire-orange-pink-gold with the Spirit in the south, the place of the limpid and pure water elements that are blue in the West, and the green quarter with the North, from which came life out of the ice.
Further matching this with the Christian tradition, we associate the East with the Father or primal Ur-Spring/archetype, the South with the descending fire of the Holy Spirit’s charisma, the West with water and the elements used in service of the Son/Logos, and the North with the symbol of the green Earth, or the “Amen”, the union of the three higher elements. Is this purely arbitrary? We think not. Even if it was thrown in dispute, it would only be to find a more faithful representation, much as one artist is “greater” than another.
The watches of the day, as well as the organs of the body, could also be related within this scheme. Indeed, when people reject “old Custom”, do they even know anything about what is being thrown out? Who knows, in the Christian West, or even better practices, the Emberdays? While better arrangements than this one occuring to me certainly should exist (I hope someone out there has studied this far more deeply), this configuration suggested itself naturally to my mind while I practiced the exercises, without any mental work. In other words, they arrange themselves this way – symbols teach us themselves, while we do the “work”, because they exist already, independently, and at a higher plain. This pre-existence implies that liturgy, far from being vain repetition, made up or arbitrary, is either given for use, existent as help, or revealed, with even a little attention or effort. I agree with Cologero that “mulligan stew” has no charm, so this exercise is not intended to convince everyone (as Simone Weil rightly warned against) that all religions/Traditions are just various and equal routes to the same path. We already can see vividly where that Idea leads. It is as fruitless as the idea that anyone outside your constellation of thoughts is doomed to Hell inevitably. A Tradition is not arbitrary when you are “called” to it; hence, Christianity has some impact on virtually everyone in the modern West, even if they prefer this not to be the case.
The purer and nobler the supplicant, the better the liturgy. This is what gave the Church its liturgy for thousands of years, and is not “pagan” – it is there, because the Logos is there. The strategy of the Catholic Church (and also the Orthodox, to some degree) was to baptize the natural cultures and human climates they came across, purify it, exalt it, and let Nature be subsumed (and preserved) within Super-Nature. They did not posit an endlessly devouring circle of hermeneutic suspicion, where “Idolatry” became the greatest sin. Actually, the greatest sin is to worship nothing at all, because that would imply that one’s natural state was the highest possible sphere of actualized Existence, and this would imply that the fallen self (or at least the non-perfected self) was the goal of all Creation. Isn’t this exactly what “salvation by faith” among the modern Protestants has come to mean?
I have sketched a very simple symbolic pattern which demonstrates that Taoism, Druidry, and Christianity have a deep resonance at the level of abstract symbolic in the physical world and its connection to the Logos or Pattern. Christianity itself cannot really extricate itself from its decline without re-emphasizing the teachings surrounding the Logos – only this will give a legitimate “common basis” for discussion, practice, and commonality, while also rightly showing Christians how to transcend even that in the fullness of the teachings of the Logos mystery (the preparations, Incarnation, and Second Coming, then Recapitulation).
Vain repetitions? Nothing is more vain than individuals who expect to ignore the Logos, over and over again, and still find cheap grace with a God that they imagine in a vacuum. When the Logos repeats a pattern, it is not vain – nor is it vain when man can see this pattern, and align himself with it, including in the arena of gesture and invocation. All depends upon the discernment of the Spirits.
What the Christian Church needs is not just Reformation and Revival, but Renaissance as well, patterned only upon the Logos, and not upon Luther, Charles Finney, or even Leonardo, who are by definition incomplete at best.
Whatever one can say about the Middle Ages (which we may be living in fairly soon as a purgatory for our arrogance), it was certainly more cheerful even in its high dudgeons, to illustrate which, we close with a story:
The emperor knowing that the bishop, being occupied in a great variety of secular business, was now and then guilty of a barbarism, both in speaking and in reading Latin, with the help of his chaplain effaced the syllable fa from the words famulis and famulabus, which form part of a collect in the service for the defunct, in the missal; and then called on the bishop to say a mass for the souls of his father and mother. Meinwerc, therefore, being unexpectedly called on to perform the service, and hastening to do it, read on as he found written, mulis and mulabus, but, perceiving the mistake, he repeated the words correctly. After mass, the emperor said, in a sarcastic manner, to the bishop, ‘I asked you to say mass for my father and mother, not for my male and female mules.’ But he replied, ‘By the mother of our Lord, you have been at your old tricks, and have made a fool of me again; and now, in no common way, but in the service of our God. This he who is my Judge has declared that he will avenge; for that which is done to him he will not pass by unpunished.’ Thereupon, he immediately convened the canons in the chapter-house of the cathedral, ordered the emperor’s chaplain, who had been a party to the trick, to be most severely flogged; and then, having dressed him in new clothes, sent him back to the emperor to tell him what had happened.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Political Self-Flagellation

"Nobody believed four years ago that you could have black folks and lesbians and gays and Latinos and young folk, standing together to move the country forward," said Jones, a former special adviser to Obama.

This race was about believing and proving. 

Now that this has been established, we will have to maintain the benchmark. There are more important milestones ahead - the "best is yet to come". We have to "move forward".  

Monday, November 5, 2012

Thoughts on Kirk

Read Redeeming the Time at my father's house lately - an interesting thought that occured to me while going over Kirk was that he is something of a man of "Tradition", yet never makes it more than implicit. That is, Kirk (with Burke) thinks that man is not made for absolute liberty. Being magnanimous at heart, Kirk is not willing to say this openly. That is, neither he nor Burke are willing to proscribe man & give definite limits or bounds to what man can or cannot do - for one thing, this is against their ideology - they both believe that man can, under circumstances that are favorable, attain to certain concrete liberties. So, the "conservative" position based on historical "custom" is left in somewhat of a quandary. Having arisen in the prosperous, Christianized countries of the West, & being committed by definition to preserving that benefice and patrimony in the favorable conditions the long process of Christianity created, and being gentlemen, it behooved neither of them to make explicit the idea that is latent within their thought - that Man, at some point, might have to suffer hard constraint of political liberty for the common good. Charles Maurras is more explicit - if (in a crisis) you can command, you are obligated to do so. Also:
All liberty is not suitable in every State; each State depends on its historic antecedents and it geographic position like each man on his ancestors and his country. Salutary and tutelary dependencies, since they gave life, sustain it, and conserve it, and whoever rejects it, dies. Liberty varies with time and place, but this is no State which can last without a sovereign authority.
This is more clear. But I think it could be made more clear even yet. Man is like an electric filament, stretched out between the gap in a divine current. Our politics and history and art, far from being subjective creations, are actually transcendent and divine, and carry this weight and karma. To pull too much power into the filament, or to burn for too long, is to invite destruction, to guarantee it. In fact, some men are incapable of serving as filaments at all. However, by careful re-compositioning over centuries, by learning the current through generations and modifying one's nature and becoming stronger, some filaments can burn almost indefinitely, like a candle that is at the end of the wick, but is only burning the wax, rather than itself.

The flame is liberty and knowledge of God. Very few are capable of having "absolute" anything, let alone absolute God (liberty & God are the same condition). Thus, from a conservative point of view, the idea that man has an abstract, absolute liberty by his nature that is not "latent" but "actualized" by political decree despite the existence of his passions, is sheer madness.

Those who hold this position are therefore, literally, insane. 

Kirk & Burke are too charitable to point this out; in my day and time, I think we have an obligation to do so. Obama and Romney are both equally deluded and mad. The King is not only naked, but mad. True conservatives will look for the man who can burn in the flame of God without being consumed, and will bow the knee to him as their sovereign.

Clearly, circa 1900, it was not obvious that most Americans were incapable of self-government, living as they did in a society still utilizing old instruments of production and adhering to older models of thought and worship. A great many people had what we would call "moral fiber". This is no longer true, and the stakes have risen. Few, if any, Americans are qualified to vote on anything other than the placement of their local street signs.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

The Soul of Jupiter

At Gornahoor:

Phillip Sherrad was apparently critical of Guenon, at points. Tomberg emphasizes that there is a "Self Beyond the Self", which Christians call God, as well. However I am not so certain, speaking even as a Christian, that these types of debates are more a matter of method & emphasis, rather than absolute substance. Guenon (it is true) speaks much of Principles rather than Persons, but surely he is meaning something very similar? Why would Christians quibble over a word? Is it because they can see only Either/Or, and if they do not disputato, then they perceive they will be forced into a multi-lateral world of comparative religion?
During the reviews and summaries of Clement's Journal, I tried to show how Saint Peter comes across within the text - he is perfectly willing to debate anyone in good faith he judges to be an honest inquirer, & he even tours the marbles of Phidias in Asia Minor with Clement and others, to see what he can learn from Greek art. All of his religious opinions are the result of a process of careful philosophical reasoning which, if they are somewhat Hebraic, are at least Greek in rule and form. Furthermore, odd Christian practices are found to have a factual and spiritual basis in esoteric postulates and experience. The Jewish element provides the abstract postulates and the initial atmosphere of spirituality, yet the new religion is oriented towards Truth in whatever garb, because it is subordinated to the childlike personality of the bishop.

As Cologero is fond of saying, only those who have experienced these things (especially those who have had both) are fit to sit in judgement on these things.

The Early Church certainly was eager to embrace Greek learning. Lactantius, Clement, Origen, Justin the Martyr, and many others like Chalcidius went so far as to claim Socrates as one of the Church's own, because he loved the truth. "The words are no obstacle," says Lactantius, "because the sentiments agree with the Truth." The old icon painters sometimes placed, in the narthex of their churches, the wise Greeks, because they were a sort of "ante-chamber" to the great mysteries of the Truth (see Bachovo Monastery). Their argument was merely that the Greeks (and others) did not know "the whole Logos", and sometimes turned back from a full apprehension of the Truth, because they were not completely free of the infatuations of their own culture - merely consider (for instance) the Greek fad of demokratia, and one can see how this might have objectively been the case.

In Lao Tzu's Te Ching, there is an elaborate argument for the principle of Unity, the Dyad, & the resultant Triad, an argument that finds an echo in the work of Kukai: whether one calls the ultimate subtleties of Spirit which are irreversible and irrepeatable (and as Tomberg argues, therefore, outside the scope or judgement of Science, which confines itself to the realm of fungible Space and the division & re-combining of solids), the "Principle" or the "Person" is both lawful and according to nature (like a principle) & also contains what is human (although it is super-human).

This reminds me of an amusing story about Thomas Merton's work with Buddhist monks to establish "common ground" - at one point in the meeting, it was discovered that what the Buddhists called contemplation, the Christians translated as meditation, and vice versa. Both sides were "at odds" from the very start, because they were already talking past each other. Might not a good deal of the confusion between traditionalists of various stripes be of this variety?

Dmitri Orlov in his latest post demonstrates how even political discourse (and presumably higher forms like religion or even culture itself) can become a means of obfuscation and misunderstanding. In fact, since things are known by virtue of the one doing the knowing, we should expect many misunderstandings in our stunted environment.

This is a longish, roundabout way of arguing that the science of Traditionalism (and God forbid it become a science like the others, but rather a real knowing) is likely just beginning a long re-ascent to implementation.
Just as Pico de Mirandola did a great service in dividing Magick into Theurgy and Goetia, thus opening the path for Bruno & others to re-ignite alchemy or for Druidry to revive (without the demonic elements against which Christianity had fought so fervently), scholars and students and practitioners today have a great opportunity to "divide anew", not in a way that "murders to dissect", but with the sword of the Spirit that leads to life, reuniting what belongs together.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Sunday, October 14, 2012

The Future of America

It's interesting that in this novel, people try to "buy" their way, or compete their, way, into a "way out".

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Amerika: Corporation, not a Country

"Now, a question arises with regard to the USA: is it more of a country (like, say, France) or is it more of a corporation (like, say AIG or GM or GS)? Looking at its politics, it is apparent that it is more of a country club than a country. Corporations are clearly the ones in charge, through electoral campaign donations, lobbyists, and the revolving door between corporate and government positions. The periodic electoral monkey-business and fake media frenzy are just there as an ad campaign to keep the brand fresh. It does seem more and more like a corporate entity, with a small and shrinking number of shareholders, whose latest scheme (now that the whole thing is spiraling the drain) is to have the government print lots of money just so that they can pocket huge sums of it...."
Dmitri Orlov

The Death of Neo-Liberalism, Dmitri Orlov

"The failure of weak, neoliberal political régimes around the world will expose the men who have really been pulling the strings. Most countries remain nation-states in name only; their sovereignty has been eroded to the point where they are now mere servants to transnational business and finance. Vestigial nation-states continue to serve one function: controlling their borders. They are, in fact, prisons—keeping some people in, others out. But for transnational business and finance they are now porous entities, allowing them to practice labor arbitrage (finding cheapest labor), and jurisdictional arbitrage (finding least regulation). The US government is now little more than a proxy, with its presidential candidates (1, 2) vetted, appointed and financed by the global investment firm Goldman Sachs. A recent vote in the UN General Assembly accusing Bashar Assad of Syria produced a list of the remaining nation-states. These are the only countries whose governments still possess sufficient independence of will to oppose the US-led drive for régime change in Syria. They are: Syria (naturally), Russia, China, Iran, Belorussia, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Bolivia. It remains to be seen how helpful their independence will prove when it comes to them feeding their own people...."
Dmitri Orlov

Saturday, October 6, 2012

More on the Quarterstaff

“Hammar moved to stand beside Galad, still groaning on the ground and trying to push himself up. The warder raised his voice to shout, “Who was the greatest blademaster of all time?’

From the throats of dozens of students came a massed bellow. “Jearom, Gaidin!”

“Yes!” Hammar shouted, turning to make sure all heard. “During his lifetime, Jearom fought over ten thousand times, in battle and single combat. He was defeated once. By a farmer with a quarterstaff! Remember that. Remember what you just saw.”

Robert Jordan, The Dragon Reborn

Saturday Musings : East vs. West

Rosenstock  Huessy speaks of the hilarious and creative geniuses of the West, opposing them to (say) Dostoevsky (or a host of other Russian writers one could name).

No one in an Eastern Orthodox Church would have dared to do, for example, this:

altering a mass for the dead in order to make the Bishop commit a liturgical error, just to laugh at them.
Guest post at Gornahoor.

Is Western Culture a "wasteland"? How might the Christian regain their soul, so as to attain to their spirit? 

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Aristotle on Modern Day America

"… Over two millennia before them, Aristotle stated that tyrants seek to expand their power by tampering with their populations in three ways: making or keeping them ignorant; dividing them and encouraging conflict between them; and impoverishing them. Some studies claim that the current immigration policy is achieving these three objectives in the United States...."

The Magician-State already lists you as an undesirable at least potentially, here:

What we are seeing is the Perfect Storm...politically, anyway....

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Partitioning Amerika

This is most American's attitude towards Reality:
"America is a great nation because it is just a matter of time before we become so again...."


The reality of our "diversity" can be grasped here.
Obviously, after reading this (and other liberal columns) one sees that it will be the despair of liberals that destroy us - they've had it their way for SO LONG they are unused to watching their nation be destroyed (in their view). They are like little kids who were fine as long as they were winning - now that it is clear that their policies have fundamentally divided the nation, they shrink from the consequences. On the other end are "conservatives" who are not even remotely so, and who eagerly anticipate a partition that will end America's greatness. Some are just bitter, although understandably so. Others are "neo-cons" - a misnomer if ever there was one. The liberals have presided over the greatest colonization in man's history - the Third World is now our back yard. At least they won't have to go overseas on missionary trips anymore to find a favela.

Dmitri Orlov thinks we're headed that way as well.

It's sad.

Everyone will get what they want - the death of America. And the shock will reverberate the globe.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Logos Tomeus

Ananda Coomaraswamy mentions the Logos Tomeus (Separating Word) of Plato in his letters. I am not sure why the writer of Hebrews would have had to read Plato - in that culture, Plato was part of the air that was being breathed by the soul.

Justin the Martyr:
"I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos..."

Monday, September 24, 2012

There will not be a Third Creation

Consider the diversity of the Middle Ages: on the one hand, there is the razing of cities, the fall of empires, the struggle between races, the confusion of peoples, violence and lamentations; there is corruption, barbarianism; institutions fall and institutions rise, Men disperse and make nations, whole peoples are led to unknown destinations, and yet still, enough light remains to know that everything is out of place and there is no place for anything: Europe is chaos itself.

“But amidst this chaos, something stands; it is the Immaculate Spouse of Our Lord; and one great success never before seen by mankind prevails: it is a second creation worked by the Church. During the Middle Ages, only one thing seems astounding to me and that is this second creation, and only one thing seems adorable to me and that is the Church. In order to work this great prodigy God chose these obscure times, eternally infamous both for the explosion of all brutal forces and the manifestation of human impotence.

Nothing exalts the Divine Majesty and Grandeur more than to have worked in this world while no one acted where men, peoples and races struggled in confusion. On two solemn occasions, God willed to show that corruption is sterile and that only virginity is fertile. God Our Lord willed to be born of Mary and He desired to espouse Himself to the Holy Church, thus was the Church the mother of nations just as Mary was His mother.

“Then that Immaculate Virgin, His Church, sharing the solicitude of her Divine Spouse to do good, lifted the spirits of the fallen and moderated the impetus of the violent. Giving to some a taste of the bread of the strong and to others the bread of the meek. Those fierce children of the North, who had humiliated and mocked Roman majesty, fell conquered by love at the feet of this defenseless Virgin, and for many centuries the whole world watched in astonishment and wonder as the Church renewed the prodigy of Daniel who suffered no harm in the lions’ den.
“After having lovingly soothed those great wraths and after having calmed those furious tempests with her gaze alone, the Church raised a monument from a ruin, an institution from a custom, a principle from an event, a law from an experience; to say it in a word, order from chaos, harmony from confusion.

Undoubtedly, all the instruments used for Her creation, like chaos itself, were taken from that chaos; Hers was only the enlivening and creating force. There was an embryonic form in that chaos, bereft of everything, from which would be born and live the Church who possessed the being and the life. She brought everything into being and everything came alive when the world lent an attentive ear to Her loving words and fixed its gaze on Her resplendent beauty.
Painting by Jean Fouquet of medieval men building a Cathedral.

“No, men had not seen anything like it because they had not seen the first creation, neither will they see it again, for there will not be three creations. One might say that God, regretting that He had not made man a witness of the first, allowed His Church a second creation just so man could behold it. ” — Donoso Cortes

See also this outline of the Bible as it revolves around Christ. 

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Ananda Coomaraswamy

I have, at the recommendation of Cologero at Gornahoor (to another reader/questioner) picked up AKC's collection of letters. The old excitement returns; the passion comes back. What is this glorious, transcendent world which is both made of adamantine, but grows, like the mountain in Daniel's dream, until its foundation and capstone is a tower dominating the world of the Cross?

Initial impressions:
AKC is on the side of the rigid traditionalists. This is to say, he is against nonsense. It is not a question of saying that "all religions are equals", but of recognizing that Christ's words are not primarily about moralistic "service" (which reduces God to "Patripassianism") or a Pharisee-like recognition of "Jesus Uber-All" or "Jesus Alone" (which essentially encourages the masses to reify their own understanding of what Christianity is with God, and ends up decaying into "all religions are roads to God, anyway", through Jesus), but rather about Truth in its exclusivity against error. Wasn't it Jesus who said not only "he who is not against us is with us", as well as the opposite? The difficulty is in recognizing Jesus, and we know from the Bible how difficult this is. AKC is far from being a relativist, quite the opposite; it is only the man who has traveled the straight and narrow path (wherever it may find him) who can look back and claim that God might have brought him by a different road, anyhow.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Techniques of Prayer

Guest Post at Gornahoor


With the initial disclaimer that (in the Christian religion) one must beware of “over-systematizing” the grace of God into specific techniques, the following is shared for the possible benefit of readers who are interested in esoteric Christianity.

Boris Mouravieff claims that there is a collection of “scripts” called the Golden Book in Orthodoxy, which is the oral tradition (or parallel to it, or a key, or fragments of it), which contain detailed teachings and instructions in the “secrets” of Christianity. I have been unable to locate references to it on the Internet, other than in Gnosis. This was the “teaching of Christ to the inner disciples”.

As I was reading Unseen Warfare by Scupoli, a Venetian priest who had his book adopted into Orthodoxy and added to by Theophan the recluse, I came across some advice to follow during prayer. Keep in mind that no prayer life will likely be effective without other ascetic practices (eg., one can’t neglect fasting and expect prayer to come swiftly and easily). That said, and other advice followed (such as maintaining “a spirit of prayer” at all times), Theophan/Scupoli advise the following:

1.Pray in short prayers; these are lightning bolts which move swiftly to heaven, before the mental apparatus can intervene and subordinate the prayer to its own machinations.

2.Learn them by heart. This, contrary to popular belief, does the exact opposite of what opponents claim it does – it protects it from the vain repetitions of the discursive intellect, which stem from the gray matter, and not the body or the heart centers.

3. Focus attention on both the left nipple (the heart) and the throat chakra. This may seem odd, but perhaps some insight from Western alchemy can help here (and others may have more to add from the East):

According to Sri Aurobindo, the throat center is associated with the externalization of mental forces, and the link between the higher and lower mental spheres. Like in some color scales of kabbalah, grey is associated with this center. In Serpent of Fire: A Modern View of Kundalini, Darrel Irving points out that the Vissudha chakra is presided over by the dual deities of Shakini and Shiva. Each is five faced, representing the five Elements, and three eyes, showing physical and psychic perception, or knowledge. Shakini is seen as Light itself, and Shiva, like the Hermetic ideal, is androgynous, half white and half gold. The center is associated with the purification of intelligence, the psychic substratum or ether (akasha), and hearing. The color given is smoky-purple. As with Sri Aurobindo’s color, purple is also sometimes given as associated with the throat center in modern kabbalistic works. Along with the remaining upper two psychic centers, these three constitute the only centers whereby direct psychic perception is possible. In the West, the Throat center is less well defined, although it shares in all of the above named characteristics. In Kabbalah of the Golden Dawn, Pat Zalewski states that the throat center is associated with the thyroid gland and controls respiration. As with yoga, each of the preceding centers is associated with an Elements, starting with Earth, Water, Fire, and Air. While not stated, it might be presumed that the Throat center is then the first center to be associated with Spirit, or Quintessence, as in yoga.

Since Christianity focuses upon “the Son” at the heart of the worlds, it is appropriate that the tradition of prayer associated with it would focus upon the two “linking chakras” between the lower and higher worlds. This is something Tomberg points out in Meditations.

Julian Lee, who is a “heretic” outside the Church, nonetheless has some very interesting considerations about prayer, Churches, and how Christianity is bhakti-yoga exotericized into a religion for the Western peoples.

Why did my ancestors build their churches this way? Because men and women who think about God a lot get instincts about God’s nature. Thus my grandfathers and grandmothers of Europe designed their Sacred Places (churches) to evoke the thought of infinite space. They may not have done it consciously always, but they did it because they received instinctive knowledge of God through thinking of God. The White Europeans thought about the Transcendental Principle a great deal. They even had a special day reserved — every 7th day — for the thought of God alone. (What an amazing and cosmic-minded people our grandfathers and grandmothers were!) It was natural then that their churches evolved to evoke Akasa, one of the Creator-God’s first evolutes. Just as it was natural for them to build tall steeples representing the rectitude and straightness of the spine when aspiring for God, and the sublimated sexual energy made sacred by placing it in sacred limits (procreation and family), with the rest sublimated in aspiration for God.

And yet, the neo-pagan crowd in America (many of whom attend services each Sunday and talk a lot of God-talk) are trying to get away from the heritage of church bells, spires, folded or uplifted hands, and any kind of “weird” traditions in Christianity as fast as they can, desperately hoping to modernize and become up-to-date enough to slickly survive the end times. Even if Christianity survives what is coming, what will it look like?

I hope that some reading this can determine to hold onto the riches that God has already dumped in our laps, even at this late hour.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

The Mystery of the Faith

Guest post

I will make this note - if Christianity does not assist in preventing the rise of the Sudra class to global dominance (ie., the dominance of the outcasts and the degenerates, whether "elite" or not), and the mitigation of bourgeois values with transcendental power at the same time, then they deserve what is coming. One way to do this is to "re-mystify" the Faith. See the following....(they could do this instead of engaging in so much "positive thinking")....

"We have reached the end of our research into the document found in the Ante Nicene Father collection, known as the Clement Journal. It is impossible to sum up so many posts in detail, but one thing is clear – the early Christian religion, as given by Peter to Clement in a traditional kind of initiation, resembles more a “mystery” faith or an esoteric philosophy than it does a Sunday School lesson. The ending of the Journal, which includes several letters of Clement and James the Just concerning the episcopacy of Peter being passed to Clement, is even more explicit.

Peter gives the reasoning for having secret doctrine openly & clearly:

Knowing, my brother, your eager desire after that which is for the advantage of us all, I beg and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Goyim the scrolls of my preachings which I sent to you, nor to any one of our own tribe before trial; but if any one has been proved and found worthy, then to commit them to him, after the manner in which Moshe delivered His scrolls to the Seventy who succeeded to his throne…

All it takes for Peter to argue this is common sense, although even the Scripture teaches that not one “jot” or “tittle” should pass from Torah, either, reinforcing natural law:

give the scrolls of my preachings to our brethren,with the like mystery of initiation, that they may indoctrinate those who wish to take part in teaching; for if it be not so done, our word of truth will be rent into many opinions…

James the Just approves this, and gives orders to make it so:

And these are not all to be committed to him at once; that, if he be found injudicious in the first, the others may not be entrusted to him. Wherefore let him be proved not less than six years. And then according to the initiation of Moshe, he that is to deliver the scrolls should bring him to a river or a fountain, which is living water, where the new birth of the zaddikim takes place…

Furthermore, an oath was to be taken in the name of the elements to keep the scrolls sacred, even from one’s own posterity and friends (if found unworthy, after a 6 year trial, to have them), and they were to be returned to the bishop at their death. They were to be returned also in case of finding “another way”, on pain of the universe being hostile, the ether angry, and Elohim displeased enough to send one to “endless punishment”. This was so that those who truly seek Truth might not have to be seduced or turned aside by false teachers (who are warned against in the Bible constantly). Even in the apostle’s lifetimes they existed; how much more, after death?

To me, therefore, keeping this covenant, there shall be a part with the devoted ones; but to me doing anything contrary to what I have covenanted, may the universe be hostile to me, and the all-pervading ether, and the Elohim who is over all, to whom none is superior, than whom none is greater…

Clement writes back that the Messiah was sent to the darkest part of the world, called “the West”. This is an interesting way of looking at things…the West is the place of Water and Chaos, but also, the “first comings” of “new birth” and Baptism, as well. Thus, the best and the worst, if looked at from point of view of Advent. In Old Europe, the ether had begun to be cleaned and cleared so that elemental powers now served holy means. This was the inner secret of Old Europe’s existence.

As in the fashion of other mysteries, Peter annoints Clement on his deathbed (although Clement declines it, which makes Peter more determined; Peter cites Clement as “the best man he knows”):

I lay hands upon this Clement as your Mebakker (bishop); and to him I entrust my throne of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from the beginning to the end, and thus has heard all my discourses who, in a word, having had a share in all my trials, has been found steadfast in the faith; whom I have found,above all others, obedient, philanthropic, pure, learned, chaste, good,upright, large-hearted, and striving generously to bear the ingratitude of some of the talmidim. Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall decree in the earth, it shall be decreed in the skies. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the kahal. Therefore hear him, as knowing that he who grieves the Nagid of the truth sins against Moshiach and offends YHWH the Father of all. Wherefore he shall not live; and therefore it becomes him who presides to hold the place of a physician, and not to cherish the rage of an irrational beast

Peter urged Clement (by Clement’s relation) that it was sin not for him to accept, and that although it is dangerous (for the Evil One has sworn a war to be waged on the bride of Jesus), he ought to serve “this good King”. “Monarchy” is a phrase even James the Just uses to describe the Torah and God’s reign, and there is room for more thought here. Ought not the earth to be governed by a King, as heaven is? And who better to stand in the “way” of the Evil One, till the time when the Adversary shall, in the name of destroying all idols, destroy that King and himself take the name, not of the servant-King, but of God Himself (see Thessalonians)?

But you shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed…

Somewhat contrary to Cromwell’s sarcophagic inscription, Bishops and Kings are the path of the secret Christian mystery. The bishop is to present the local assembly as a miniature Bride. If he fails through negligence, he will suffer “loss”. An interesting insight is given on adultery – it is the second worst sin, the foremost being those who (though chaste) are still mislead into Heresy.

Wherefore love all your brethren with sober and compassionate eyes, performing to orphans the part of parents, to widows that of husbands, affording them sustenance with all kindliness, arranging marriages for those who are in their prime,and for those who are without a profession, the means of necessary support through employment; giving work to the capable, and alms to the incapable…

The bishop’s helpers are to ascertain who is “about to sin” and this will allow the Bishop to check them, for the Assembly, without his words, will soon fall prey to the anxieties of this world and become as “tinder” for the fire of passions. Only the bishop is strong enough to stand firm, or to stand at all, alone, and that is because he is not alone. The Church is likened to a ship trying to reach harbor (pirates are hypocrites, whirlpools are sins, wild places are unbelievers, etc.)

But prayers become audible by good deeds….

So much for Luther. As this Orthodox post points out, St. Paul doesn’t contradict James, he goes further than James does, in speaking of faith and works. Love is greater (and more necessary) than either faith OR works (although they, too, are necessary).

Concluding thoughts: Luther did have a valid spiritual experience of some sort. However, the experience itself and its subsequent interpretation are not the same thing. Luther represented a tremendous will to exteriorize the Christian message – of course, this is salutary in some respects, but it is mingled with such a high degree of error, lies, and illusions (such as Sola Scriptura as commonly understood) that it renders the teaching dangerous (because one must bear in mind to whom one teaches, as well as the source of the teaching, and not just the external trappings, whether in robes or between the covers of a Bible). Luther brought immense comfort to many people, however, at a terrible price. In this sense, he is like General Pyrhhus. On the contrary, the early Fathers did not think like Reformers – they were preserving what they could of the ancient world that was handed to them, with the exception of demonic taints (at least in their perception). They “spoiled the Egyptians”, as Augustine recommended. They were adding to the classical balance of Good to achieve what was Full, or Perfect. In addition, they followed the same type of practices (probations, trials, apprenticeship, oral/secret Tradition, etc.) followed by Druids, mystery schools, etc. Their concern was not to rationalize every Tom, Dick and Harry into heaven through a work ethic, but to actually bring down divine energies through an earthly hierarchy that depended upon “the One” (locally, this was the Bishop). So, Christianity was Divine Distributism and Local Anarchy (in one sense), but also Monarchy and Imperium in another. Modern Christianity may well turn out to have the worst of both sides, because even Protestant and Anglo societies covertly appeal to authority and Tradition, in this case, their own, as draped in delusion. One day, this will be used against them. This may very well occur in conjunction with the rise of the Sudra class to global dominance, if such goes unchecked.

The Christian faith will have a tremendous karmic burden to prevent or mitigate this."

This entry was posted in Christianity, Tradition and tagged , , , by Logres.Bookmark the permalink.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Merlin's Dawn

"Who would walk the stony roads of Merlin’s time,
And keep the watch along the borderline?
And who would hear the legends passed in song and rhyme
Upon the shepherd pipes of Merlin’s time?"

Time to study...

Monday, September 10, 2012

Faith & Works Reconciled - Bad News

Actually, St. Paul goes even farther than St. James does -

Without Love, you can have Faith AND Works, and still not get into the Kingdom of God.


The Coming "Good Society" of Obama in Amerika

"Civil society, as a phrase, has been receiving attention lately as well: Yuval Levin, in the recent issue of National Review, for example, has an article[ii] outlining the Obama administration’s contribution to the hollowing out thereof. The president’s vision, as Levin describes it, is of a society where the longest-term exclusive relationship that exists is that between the individual and the government...."

"I am not the stuff of which reformers are made; rather than indulge in that variety of meddlesomeness I would sweep a crossing. Nine-tenths of the reformers of humanity have been mischief-makers or humbugs. I have no desire to be added to the list. A man who reforms himself has contributed his full share towards the reformation of his neighbour...."

So, "Progress" = The Destruction of Civil Society, the Past, and our Souls. When that word is used, this is what it means. It COULD mean an improvement on all these, but then, it would have to be creative and build, rather than merely being dialectical and destructive.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Moralism Always Without Heart

By Fr. John Romanides

"The biblical tradition as preserved by the Fathers cannot be identified with or reduced to a system of moral precepts or Christian ethics. It is rather a therapeutical asceticism which is not daunted by any degree of malady of the heart or noetic faculty short of its complete hardening. To take the shape of this asceticism without its heart and core and to apply it to a system of moral precepts for personal and social ethics is to produce a society of puritanical hypocrites who believe they have a special claim on God's love because of their morality, or predestination, or both. The commandments of Christ cannot be fulfilled by any simple decision to do so or by any confidence in having been elected. A person with broken legs cannot run in the race no matter how much he wants to. One can do so only when one's legs have healed and have been restored to a competitive degree of power. In the same way, one cannot fulfill the commandments unless he undergoes the cleansing and illumination of his noetic faculty and reaches the threshold of glorification...."

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Slaves Who Consider Themselves Cursed

"But our commonalities are not looking so good at this time. I think of Nietzsche's comments about how there is nothing more powerful than when a slave class has learned to consider its existence an injustice and sets about taking revenge, not only on its own behalf but on behalf of past generations. ...

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The Inner Meaning of Revolution

"Carvalho's study of the revolutionary mind has been well regarded in Brazil by people such as Roberto de Oliveira Campos,[11] Paulo Francis,[12] and Bruno Tolentino.[13]

He sees a characteristic of the revolutionary mind in the inversion of the perception of time. He says normal individuals, based on common sense, view the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it). However, the leftist revolutionary sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation, to accommodate it.[14]

Carvalho also points out that because the revolutionary believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same leftist revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.[14]"

Wiki, Carvalho