I can’t revere God otherwise than wholly, because otherwise, I would revere an illusion.
Here’s Rumi, “Say I Am You”:
09/3/10
09/2/10
The World Is Too Much With Us
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.–Great God! I’d rather be
A pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathèd horn.-William Wordsworth
We are too much in the world, and so, the world is too much with us. Alas, there’s no glory, peace or reconciliation in this union, because it is not an union, but an imposition of our human desires into the world. We crowned technique and tamed the world to make it human, to make it safer to our desires. We transformed the world, and now the world is so human, that there’s no place for reverence to be there between man and nature. The world is too much with us because we made it to assimilate us.
But when we stand there, in the night, with the innocent eyes of a pagan, the world seems to be so far from us, a world in the stars, a world in the untamed wind and lighting, so beautiful, powerful and savage that it does transform us and embrace us, in a way that no humanism and safety desire could ever force the entire world to be inside our narrow humanity.
That is wonder, and without wonder the world is all already known.
08/31/10
Sermon at Benares
On seeing their old teacher approach, the five bhikkus agreed among themselves not to salute him, nor to address him as a master, but by his name only. “For,” so they said, “he has broken his vow and has abandoned holiness. He is no bhikkhu, but Gotama, and Gotama has become a man who lives in abundance and indulges in the pleasures of worldliness.” But when the Blessed One approached in a dignified manner, they involuntarily rose from their seats and greeted him in spite of their resolution. Still they called him by his name and addressed him as “friend Gotama.”
When they had thus received the Blessed One, he said: “Do not call the Tathagata by his name nor address him as ‘friend,’ for he is the Buddha, the Holy One. The Buddha looks with a kind heart equally on all living beings, and they therefore call him ‘Father.’ To disrespect a father is wrong; to despise him, is wicked. The Tathagata, the Buddha continued, does not seek salvation in austerities, but neither does he for that reason indulge in worldly pleasures, nor live in abundance. The Tathagata has found the middle path.
“There are two extremes, O bhikkhus, which the man who has given up the world ought not to follow-the habitual practice, on the one hand, of self-indulgence which is unworthy, vain and fit only for the worldly-minded and the habitual practice, on the other hand, of self-mortification, which is painful, useless and unprofitable.
“Neither abstinence from fish and flesh, nor going naked, nor shaving the head, nor wearing matted hair, nor dressing in a rough garment, nor covering oneself with dirt, nor sacrificing to Agni, will cleanse a man who is not free from delusions. Reading the Vedas, making offerings to priests, or sacrifices to the gods, self-mortification by heat or cold and many such penances performed for the sake of immortality, these do not cleanse the man who is not free from delusions. Anger, drunkenness, obstinacy, bigotry, deception, envy, self-praise, disparaging others, superciliousness and evil intentions constitute uncleanness; not verily the eating of flesh.
“A middle path, O bhikkhus avoiding the two extremes, has been discovered by the Tathagata-a path which opens the eyes, and bestows understanding, which leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana! What is that middle path, O bhikkhus, avoiding these two extremes, discovered by the Tathagata-that path which opens the eyes, and bestows understanding, which leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana? Let me teach you, O bhikkhus, the middle path, which keeps aloof from both extremes. By suffering, the emaciated devotee produces confusion and sickly thoughts in his mind. Mortification is not conducive even to worldly knowledge; how much less to a triumph over the senses!
“He who fills his lamp with water will not dispel the darkness, and he who tries to light a fire with rotten wood will fail. And how can any one be free from self by leading a wretched life, if he does not succeed in quenching the fires of lust, if he still hankers after either worldly or heavenly pleasures? But he in whom self has become extinct is free from lust; he will desire neither worldly nor heavenly pleasures, and the satisfaction of his natural wants will not defile him. However, let him be moderate, let him eat and drink according to the need of the body.
“Sensuality is enervating; the self-indulgent man is a slave to his passions, and pleasure-seeking is degrading and vulgar. But to satisfy the necessities of life is not evil. To keep the body in good health is a duty, for otherwise we shall not be able to trim the lamp of wisdom, and keep our minds strong and clear. Water surrounds the lotus flower, but does not wet its petals. This is the middle path, O bhikkhus, that keeps aloof from both extremes.” And the Blessed One spoke kindly to his disciples, pitying them for their errors, and pointing out the uselessness of their endeavors, and the ice of ill-will that chilled their hearts melted away under the gentle warmth of the Master’s persuasion.
Now the Blessed One set the wheel of the most excellent law rolling, and he began to preach to the five bhikkhus, opening to them the gate of immortality, and showing them the bliss of Nirvana.
The Buddha said: “The spokes of the wheel are the rules of pure conduct: justice is the uniformity of their length; wisdom is the tire; modesty and thoughtfulness are the hub in which the immovable axle of truth is fixed. He who recognizes the existence of suffering, its cause, its remedy, and its cessation has fathomed the four noble truths. He will walk in the right path.
“Right views will be the torch to light his way. Right aspirations will be his guide. Right speech will be his dwelling-place on the road. His gait will be straight, for it is right behavior. His refreshments will be the right way of earning his livelihood. Right efforts will be his steps: right thoughts his breath; and right contemplation will give him the peace that follows in his footprints.
“Now, this, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning suffering: Birth is attended with pain, decay is painful, disease is painful, death is painful. Union with the unpleasant is painful, painful is separation from the pleasant; and any craving that is unsatisfied, that too is painful. In brief, bodily conditions which spring from attachment are painful. This, then, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning suffering.
“Now this, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the origin of suffering: Verily, it is that craving which causes the renewal of existence, accompanied by sensual delight, seeking satisfaction now here, now there, the craving for the gratification of the passions, the craving for a future life, and the craving for happiness in this life. This, then, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the origin of suffering.
“Now this, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the destruction of suffering: Verily, it is the destruction, in which no passion remains, of this very thirst; it is the laying aside of, the being free from, the dwelling no longer upon this thirst. This, then, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the destruction of suffering.
“Now, this, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the way which leads to the destruction of sorrow. Verily, it is this noble eightfold path; that is to say: Right views; right aspirations; right speech; right behavior; right livelihood; right effort; right thoughts; and right contemplation. This, then, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth concerning the destruction of sorrow.
“By the practice of loving-kindness I have attained liberation of heart, and thus I am assured that I shall never return in renewed births. I have even now attained Nirvana.”
When the Blessed One had thus set the royal chariot wheel of truth rolling onward, a rapture thrilled through all the universes. The devas left their heavenly abodes to listen to the sweetness of the truth; the saints that had parted from life crowded around the great teacher to receive the glad tidings; even the animals of the earth felt the bliss that rested upon the words of the Tathagata: and all the creatures of the host of sentient beings, gods, men, and beasts, hearing the message of deliverance, received and understood it in their own language.
And when the doctrine was propounded, the venerable Kondanna, the oldest one among the five bhikkhus, discerned the truth with his mental eye, and he said: “Truly, O Buddha, our Lord, thou hast found the truth!” Then the other bhikkhus too, joined him and exclaimed: “Truly, thou art the Buddha, thou hast found the truth.”
And the devas and saints and all the good spirits of the departed generations that had listened to the sermon of the Tathagata, joyfully received the doctrine and shouted: “Truly, the Blessed One has founded the kingdom of righteousness. The Blessed One has moved the earth; he has set the wheel of Truth rolling, which by no one in the universe, be he god or man, can ever be turned back. The kingdom of Truth will be preached upon earth; it will spread; and righteousness, good-will, and peace will reign among mankind.”
Contingency and election
All waters are brooded over by Nârâyana, but every kind of water is not fit for drink. Similarly, though it is true that the Almighty dwells in every place, yet every place is not fit to be visited by man. As one kind of water may be used for washing our feet, another may serve the purpose of ablution, and others may be drunk, and others again may not be touched at all; so there are different kinds of places. We may approach some, we can enter into the inside of others, others we must avoid, even at a distance.
Ramakrishna
The only way to understand what’s evil, and how evil is not a dual reality outside the Absolute, is through the understanding of contingency, simple events, that lies in the manifested realm of existence. This manifested realm must contain the elements that permit movement which are ultimately represented in the Ying-Yang symbol, a fluctuating duality between light and shadows, where possibilities are open to be in endless combinations, and none of these combinations is outside of the One.
The fall from grace is an event which is proper from the manifested realm, but this fall comes from the confusion itself of the uses we give to the things in this world rather than the things by themselves. Whereas food is there to nourish us, we have separated this purpose to only focus in the instant gratification of gluttony, as we do with sex, with sleep, with art, etc.
Therefore, the right uses of the things in this world, can lead us to a holier life. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” Corinthians 6:12. In the contingency of this world, and in our independence, we feel free to take any pleasure with no consequence to our good, nonetheless, we must be wise to choose what things are really helpful, in order to reach God through His will, in the use we give to the things in this world, to finally transcend the duality of this manifested realm, to be not brought under the power of any thing.
To use the right waters in the right places is the ultimate act of human in accordance to the design itself of reality. That’s the end of sin and the beginning of grace.
08/3/10
Review: “Pure: Modernity, Philosophy, and the One” by Mark Anderson
“Modernity is hubris; decadence is its Nemesis.”
-Mark Anderson
With his book “Pure: Modernity, Philosophy, and the One” philosophy professor Mark Anderson gives a concise and powerful diagnosis of the problem of modernity and points towards a possible remedy within the framework of Platonic philosophy. In just over 100 pages he moves from identifying the symptoms of modernity in current American culture to offering insightful guidance for those who wish to purify themselves of the degenerate elements that have surrounded them since birth. By referencing only sparingly the eastern traditions that occupy the attention of many traditionalists, Prof Anderson explores the decline from tradition to modernity in a purely western context.
For the purposes of his book Plato represents tradition and Nietzsche represents the modern. The choice of Nietzsche as a representative of decadent modernity is a significant, perhaps even defining feature of the book. The style of writing is clearly modeled more on Nietzsche than Plato, including aphorisms and word play that mimic the German philosopher (a good example of this is the quote given at the beginning of this review). One of the book’s chapters is entitled “Nietzschean Reflections Contra Nietzsche,” and that description could very well characterize the entire book. This focus is a result of Nietzsche at once being an extreme example of the disease of modernity and being painfully almost right on so many important questions. Because of the latter quality Nietzsche often ensnares moderns who are beginning to awaken to the horrors of the current situation, leading them away from truly revolutionary thought with an intoxicating prose style (one which, with all due respect, Prof Anderson does not match) and impassioned, biting insights. Given the amount of work that Prof Anderson has done on Nietzsche, one wonders if he initially followed this same path himself.
The author identifies as the root of Nietzsche’s error, and the root of modernity, the problem of misology. He carefully emphasizes the fact that although misology is closely linked with modernity, misology, and indeed modernity itself, were present in antiquity. Plato recognized this problem, and declared it to be the greatest evil. Misology is defined as the hatred of logos, or the belief that rational thought and discussion are incapable of arriving at objective truth, and this is Nietzsche’s nihilism. Misology is such a grave problem because it prevents all honest discussion of truth. Objective truth is indeed a redundant phrase, for once there are multiple truths there is no truth at all. This is the cause of modernity’s dishonesty when it comes to truth, as it at once wishes to discredit the idea of objective truth as primitive and naive, but at the same time to make statements that should be taken as true. Only by declaring openly, joyously, and without embarrassment “this is true, and this is why it is true” can a philosophy have any validity. Plato’s philosophy produces true health and freedom, and never for an instant doubts itself or the possibility of objective truth. Prof Anderson points out that its freedom is not concerned with the freedom to do good but with doing good freely. By describing Platonism in this way Prof Anderson turns the accusations that Nietzsche brought against Socrates and Plato back against the accuser.
Recognizing the falsity of modern assumptions and accepting the truth of Platonism through logical, discursive considerations is only the beginning of what a philosopher hopes to accomplish. The true goal of philosophy is purification of the soul, and the structure of the book mirrors this progression, ending in a lengthy chapter providing a sketch of the Platonic practice of katharsis (purification). Metaphysical knowledge can be accessed only by the soul and the purpose of purification is to render the soul clean and healthy in order to perform this function. Only a healthy eye can properly access empirical knowledge and only a healthy soul can reach divinity. For an eye to function properly it needs to be physically healthy, and for a soul to function properly it needs to be morally and intellectually healthy. The result of these considerations is that a bad man cannot know metaphysical truth, although he can know truths about the physical world (or as the author says, “even a criminal can operate a microscope”). This shows the vast gulf that separates the modern, scientific quest for knowledge and the search of the philosopher. The main difficulty in explaining the problem of modernity to moderns is that they do not understand this difference, that when the ancient philosophers talk about “knowledge” they do not mean the accumulation of facts or even the physical laws abstracted from these facts that so fascinate today’s scientists. Purification is a complete ordering of every facet of one’s life and a continuing project over many years that leads to the ultimate goal, union with God, in only a very few, select cases.
Although Prof Anderson emphasizes throughout the book the importance of metaphysics, the work is not a detailed exposition of Platonic metaphysics. It is unlikely to convince or inform those unfamiliar with the details of Platonic philosophy. It is recommended that such individuals consult the works of Plato and Plotinus. But it is not the goal of the book to give such an exposition. Rather it seeks to give a picture of what it looks like to live and think as a Platonist, especially one living in modern times. The author speaks tenderly and from experience about the intoxicating power of Platonism and its possibilities for health and wellbeing. He does not shy away from asking the difficult question “can we really overcome our own modernity?” He never doubts truth or the ability of Platonism to reach the truth, but questions whether we moderns can actually remove the ingrained traces of modernity that haunt our souls, especially considering the centuries that have intervened since the disappearance of Tradition in the West. But in keeping with the Platonic spirit, the author never becomes gloomy or pessimistic, and reminds us that even if the fullness of metaphysical realization is beyond our grasp, the mere foretaste of such rewards that we gain through reading the great philosophers far exceeds anything that modernity has to offer.
“By God, we mean gods.
By gods, we mean the Olympians.
By the Olympians, we mean nature.
By nature, we mean the inscrutable forces of nature.
By the inscrutable forces of nature, we mean the metaphysical
reality that manifests itself in and through them; their source; the
One.
By the One, we mean God…”-Mark Anderson
07/26/10
Virtue and Faith
What is more important, virtuous behavior or faith in God?
This question can be asked when one comes across religious individuals who act in an un-virtuous manner. The question is answered by realizing that true faith in God is incompatible with un-virtuous behavior. Virtuous behavior is certainly possible for those who lack faith in God, but where there is true faith un-virtuous behavior is not. This conclusion follows from a particular definition of “true faith.” By true faith we mean belief concerning God that accords with God’s true nature. Virtuous behavior is behavior that is in line with what God’s will deems to be the best course of action. If one believes in God but has false beliefs about Him, then any un-virtuous behavior can be explained by this false belief. This often manifests itself in a misunderstanding of a virtue. For example, even if one believes in God and believes justice to be a virtue which God approves of, one can easily misjudge what the just action is in a given situation. Even if a particular action is unjust one can justify that unjust action with religious belief. Although in the agent’s mind he is acting justly, he thinks this only because his belief is flawed, i.e., he believes things about God that are untrue. Hence un-virtuous actions can be coincident with false belief, but not with true belief, or truth faith. For many, faith in God means merely to believe that God exists, but this is not enough. This definition is too broad and includes an indefinite number of false beliefs about the nature of God. This should mollify any arguments against religion based upon anecdotal examples of the behavior of religious individuals. One final point is that having belief about God that is absolutely correct is nearly impossible for mortals. By our nature we are prone to ignorance and mistaken belief. Achieving this perfect belief would be almost a merging with God, a complete understanding of His will.
07/17/10
Introducing Father Thomas Keating
This time we introduce you Father Thomas Keating, a catholic Trappist monk who has dedicated his life to the study of contemplation not only in Christianity, but also in the world’s most important religious traditions.
In this video, Father Thomas Keating discusses the experience of oneness and perpetuity of God through the dynamism of His temporal manifestations. Although the perspective of spiritual evolution in this video is not shared by the orthodox traditionalist school, the approach Father Thomas Keating takes about to the non-dual nature of divinity is undoubtedly insightful, affable and very inspiring.
07/9/10
Christian Mythology
The Christian perspective, more than any other places its emphasis on historical events. We must firstly point out that the actuality of these events is not in question, given that they constitute a revelation and are therefore ontologically evident. What is more significant, however, is the fact that these events are only evident insofar as they are a reflection of metaphysical principles within a temporal framework. Metaphysically, the Father is Beyond-Being and Being, the Godhead and the Essence of the world, the Spirit, personified in Mary, is the perfectly pure and receptive substance, which reflects the light of the father, the Son is that reflection who is therefore both the image of God in the world, and the prefiguration of the entire cosmos itself. The Son is always present in God as the Logos and in man as the Intellect, and indeed He is present everywhere insofar as a thing is seen in light of its Divine Cause.
The question then, is not whether Christianity presents legitimate historical facts, but whether or not it presents a legitimate metaphysical perspective, which it undoubtedly does, despite the lack of metaphysical insight in the western Church in recent times. For the true Christian, there can be no reason to question the historical validity of Christian mythology for this kind of academic investigation yields only theoretical knowledge, whereas faith yields spiritual insight. These two modes of knowledge are situated on different planes, and therefore the former can never approach the latter in terms of its value for the man in question. “Ye shall know them by their fruits” Matthew 7:16
07/6/10
Reason and Transcendence
Traditionalists frequently criticize the current state of Western intellectual life and culture, arguing that our civilization lacks a genuine spiritual dimension. This fact is painfully obvious to many, including more moderate conservatives. But we can occasionally run into some difficulty when explaining that we believe this decline to have begun during the Renaissance. For many conservatives eras such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are the high points of Western civilization when great scientific discoveries and artistic achievements were made. In order to explain our position it is important to emphasize that for us the main goal of intellectual activity (reason) is closeness with the divine, or transcendence. We value many intellectual pursuits, but for us a modern mathematician is not as important as an ancient Pythagorean mathematician. They might both be equally capable of solving a particular mathematical problem, but the modern sees nothing beyond the numbers and the their relations with each other, while the Pythagorean sees the numbers and their relations as a symbolic language for theology.
A good analogy for this idea can be found in the realm of morality and personal behavior. A religious man and an atheist can share a moral belief, for example, that adultery is wrong, and they can both succeed in avoiding adultery because of this belief. But the moral belief and the associated behavior has an extra dimension for the man who acts in this way because God commands it, a dimension 
that is absent from the man who acts in this way merely because he does not wish to cause any distress to his fellow human beings, or whatever his mundane reason might be.
For the religious man, avoiding adultery is a spiritual exercise, a manifestation of God’s will in his own psyche and activity. Something on a higher metaphysical plain is gaining mastery over something on a lower plain (the human individual). In the case of the moral atheist there is no interaction between metaphysical levels, no transcendence. Rather there are two things on the same level interacting with each other, the desire for adultery and the desire for not causing distress. Both desires are concerned solely with mundane actions. The actions of the atheist are purely horizontal, while the actions of the religious man have a vertical dimension. The latter’s action exist on several different levels, and that which is viewed on this physical level is but a small part of the entire action. They are unified across the different vertically ordered hierarchical levels, and the part of the action on the lower level serves as a symbol for the corresponding parts on higher levels. Thus it turns out that the two actions, that of the religious man and that of the atheist, share a goal, avoiding adultery, but that the action of the religious man has the added goal of following God’s will. In the same way intellectual activity can have two goals, effecting a mundane change and making a connection with a higher level of reality.
It was during the Renaissance and especially the Enlightenment that Western intellectual life began focusing too much on the former goal and neglecting the latter, and in more recent times the latter has been vigorously attacked and deliberately removed. For this reason many see the decline of the West beginning at a much later period, when vociferous and explicit deniers or God became popular, but it is important to keep in mind the true root of the problem, for that is the only way to find an effective remedy.
06/29/10
Knowledge
Knowledge does not come to us in details,
but in flashes of light from heaven.
-Henry David Thoreau.*
Knowledge is generally defined, at last nowadays, as facts integrated by the mental faculty. True knowledge is in fact a total integration of Truth into the whole being, so it is not only the mental faculty but every other human faculty that must participate in the act of knowing. It is for this reason that we say ‘to know is to be’, for in the final analysis what we know is what we are.
Now most men would claim that they do not in fact know all that they are, for example that they do not have perfect knowledge of the physical body. What they mean by this is actually that this knowledge is not grasped by the mental faculty, precisely because it exists on a more contingent plane than reason. If then, extent of the mental faculty is what most men call knowledge, how much greater must be the Knowledge of the Absolute Reality, given that it is all encompassing. This is why we say that God alone possesses pure Knowledge. The knowledge of man is limited and fragile, but the Knowledge of God is unlimited precisely because He is unlimited.
The knowledge of man, insofar as he is limited to reason, is a distant reflection of divine Knowledge. Reason is capable of grasping facts only because it is illuminated by pure Intelligence. Reason is like the moon, the intellect like the sun. Now when a man has harmony within himself, reason is like a pure mirror, light can illuminate and cause it to reflect. On the other hand, when a man is 
spiritually unstable, the rational faculty is like a crude mirror which distorts those things which it reflects. In this case the rational faculty may still be able to grasp facts, but it will distort them and twist them towards false ends. This is the case with the rationalists of our day. Both of the previous scenarios assume that man does not have direct access to the divine Intellect itself, which is not necessarily the case. When it occurs that a man actively realizes his non-separation from God, his knowledge is no longer his own, but that of God. In this case rational intelligence can contribute nothing to what that man knows, but then serves the function of formulating that knowledge to display it to the world. For man, the realization that he is not other than God shatters the illusion of the ego, which at this point is seen never to have existed, this is why it is said that “an undelivered man is actually a delivered man who does not know it”.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*The Thoreau Reader. Annotated works of Henry David Thoreau. Life Without Principle: http://thoreau.eserver.org/life2.html