ContemplateThis

Secrets of Western Tantra from Christopher S. Hyatt - Preparing For Orgasm

2010-10-31T23:25:00.001+10:30

The material on this page is an excerpt from the book "Secrets of Western Tantra" by Christopher Hyatt, from Chapter 6 Preparing for Orgasm

Contents
Warm-up methods
• Method One
• Method Two
• Method Three
Exercises
• Section One
• Section Two
• Section Three
• Section Four

Notes

The methods presented here will cause tremendous changes in your sexual and spiritual life, as well as every other aspect of your existence. Therefore do not undertake these exercises until you are absolutely certain that you are both ready and willing to change. Remember: by its very nature, all genuine spiritual change brings unpredictable results.
Be sure you have become expert at the warm-up exercises before you attempt the more complicated ones.
Please read these instructions at least three times, separated by at least one day. Do not perform more than two sessions a week.

As these movements and techniques are very powerful -- please make haste slowly

One of the warm-up methods should be used prior to each exercise section. Alternate warm-up methods as you choose, but do not omit any steps.

Prior to starting the exercises, make sure your bladder and bowels are empty and that two hours have passed since your last meal.

Note: The purpose of these exercises is to remove chronic muscle tensions. You will experience "explosions" of energy and some clonisms (tremors or shudders) if you do the exercises properly. Be prepared for this and do not be frightened when it happens.

Warm-up
Method One
Step 1. Sit, lie down or stand up. Makes Faces - stretch all the muscles in the face. Open your mouth as wide as you can, move the jaw from side to side. At the same time open your eyes as wide as you can. Move your eyes up and down and from side to side. This will begin to release tension, thereby removing obsessive thoughts which lie hidden in these areas. Make many different faces. Use a mirror if you wish. Do this for 5 minutes.
Step 2. Hum and chatter -- Hum from the depths of your belly. Use Om or just Um. Do this for 1-2 minutes. Now stick your tongue out and chatter DADA, MAMA, BABA. Stick out your jaw as far as you can and continue humming and chattering. Do this for 3 minutes.
Step 3. Pull your shoulders up as if you were trying to reach your ears. Hold for several seconds feeling the strain then drop them as low as you can. Repeat this for 2 minutes.
Step 4. With your mouth open take in a deep breath inflating your chest and pulling your stomach in and up. Hold for a count of 5 and then just let the chest fall and the belly relax. Repeat this 10 times allowing a count of 7 to elapse before your next inhalation.
Step 5. Turn your head from side to side as slowly and far as you can. Repeat for 1 minute.
Step 6. Lying down on your back, hold your legs about 4 inches off the ground and stretch arms and legs outward. Hold this as long as you can then let them drop. Repeat 2 times.
Step 7. With your mouth slightly open breathe rapidly, sighing as you exhale. Continue for 2 minutes.

Method Two
Lie down on your back. Take 10-15 deep breaths starting deep in your belly and working upward. Try to become aware of all the muscles you use in breathing. When you have completed this, slowly get up. Stand with your feet slightly apart and count to three. When you reach three let the top part of your body collapse forward and downward at you waist, like a rag doll. Do not fall, just let is collapse; do not force it, let gravity pull it down. Repeat this 10 times. When you are finished take a few deep breaths and feel the effect this exercise had on you. See if you can sense your pelvic region. Now repeat the same experiment this time exhaling rapidly through your mouth as you fall and breathing in slowly as you rise. Repeat this 10 times.

Method Three
Stand up with your feet slightly apart and bend your knees slightly (not too much) and then let the top part of your body flop forward. Do not force it -- just let it drop. While you're in this position, use a five count breath (through your mouth). Five in, hold five, five out, hold five. Repeat this three times and slowly straighten yourself up. Repeat this 5 times.
Now stand erect for a few moments with your eyes tightly shut. Become aware of any tension in your face, neck or shoulders. Mobilize these tensions by opening your mouth as wide as you can and distorting your face. Now close your mouth and continue on with the distortions. When you've done this for at least 3 minutes, tilt your head back as far as you can, and begin turning it very slowly from side to side. Some people might get nauseous at this point, so be prepared. If you experience the urge to vomit go right ahead, since the gag reflex is marvelous for reducing body tension.

Exercises
Section One
Remove your clothes, or wear loose fitting clothing. Lie down on a very soft surface in a cool room. If your room is too warm turn up the air conditioning slightly, or turn on a fan. Coolness is very important.
Stretch thoroughly. Move you arms to your side and take a deep breath. Hold your breath, while doing a slow, controlled sit up. Let the breath go and flop. Repeat the breath, sit up and flop two or three times. Stretch again.
Get into the "breathing position". This means that you are to lie on your back with your knees bent and your feet solidly on the floor or bed about a foot from your rear end. Your knees should be about 18 inches apart. Your arms should be at your side.
Now begin breathing through your mouth. Make sure your mouth is held loosely open (about 1 inch). Inhale to a slow count of three, then exhale to a slow count of three.
We will call this "deep breathing". The inhalation should be full but not forced. Start inhaling from your lower belly. The belly should begin to expand first, followed by the chest. This is essential.
When the inhalation reaches its highest point, just let go saying "AH", allowing the chest and belly to collapse/contract on their own.
Make no voluntary movements as you breath. If you sense tension leave it alone. Allow what happens to just happen. Remember, allow a slow count of three while inhaling and begin exhaling by saying "AH". You should set a timer for 20 minutes. Then, just sense and feel your body for another 5 minutes. Verbalize only what you sense and feel. Make no interpretations at this time.
Now you will begin to combine deep breathing with other movements. As you do the following exercises you may at times notice that your breathing becomes erratic or even that you are unconsciously holding your breath. Do not allow this to continue. It is essential that you continue deep breathing throughout the exercise unless specifically instructed otherwise.
Again start deep breathing for at least five minutes. Continue deep breathing, but now open your eyes as wide as you can while inhaling and the exhale closing your eyes as tight as you can. Utilize just the section of your head from the eyes up. Do not move your jaw or change the position of your body. Do this for 5 minutes.
After you have done this, continue deep breathing but this time lift your head while inhaling and let it flop on the exhalation. (Be sure to have something soft to catch your head).
Some people get nauseous during this phase, so have an empty stomach or keep a pot handy. Set your timer for 3 minutes. After you feel comfortable you may increase the timer to 10 minutes.
When this phase is completed become completely aware of your sensations and feelings for five minutes or so. Be sure to verbalize what is going on. Again, no interpretations please.
Next, begin deep breathing again; on the inhalation push your lower jaw out as far as you can. On the exhalation, let it relax. Keep this up for 5 minutes. Allow any automatic grimaces to develop. Become aware of any heat that develops.
Relax for a moment or two. Begin deep breathing again. On the inhalation push your lower jaw out as far as possible, but this time growl like an animal on the exhalation. The growl should be as full and deep as possible. Begin to become aware of the origin of your growl. Do not do this exercise for more that one minute. When finished, relax for a moment or two.
If you are not already in bed, please lie down now. Lie supine (on your back). I want you to put the two exercises together along with a few other movements.
On the inhalation stick your jaw out as far as you can and at the same time raise your arms slowly behind your head. At the same time begin lifting your head toward your chest and growl, leaving your arms behind your head.
When you are almost finished growling and your chin almost touches your chest, clench your fists and fling you arms outward and sideways, hitting the bed. Be sure to let your head fall back on the bed.
Repeat this procedure six times.
It is very important to relax now. Give yourself a break. I would suggest at least ten minutes of just plain sensing and feeling.
You may now stop for this session or continue on with Section two. For beginners, I suggest that you stop.

Section Two
Begin by lying down and sensing and feeling your body. Do this for at least five minutes. Ten minutes is better.
Now begin deep breathing as described previously. Ten minutes of breathing will do.
Raise you hands straight up in the air over your chest. Inhale, then stretch the left arm and relax the right arm as you exhale. Then inhale, stretch the right arm and relax the left arm as you exhale. Continue alternating arms. Reach for the sky as you say "AH" with every attempt. Reach up as high as you can, as if your greatest desire was just out of reach. To help you get the feeling of this movement you might say the name of a person who you would like to make contact with. Sometimes "Maamee" or "Dadee" can create the desired feeling, or just yell "Give Me!". Learning how to yearn is very important both in releasing repressions and to help you learn devotional sexuality. It is also important in later Tantra work and Devotional Prayer.
Continue with this exercise until your arms begin to get tired. Now, just let go. Relax.
Next, repeat the above movement except this time reach up with both arms at the same time on the exhalation and relax both on the inhalation repeating either the name of a significant other or a Divine name (IAO pronounced EEE-AAH-OOOH, will serve well for most students).
Repeat this movement until your arms become very tired. Be sure to reach as high as you can.
Now treat yourself to some fun food such as ice cream, cake or pop corn. If you choose ice cream, be conscious of the Melting Sensation.

Section Three
I must again warn the reader at this point that these movements are designed to open up areas of consciousness filled with psycho-spiritual energies. Proceed slowly. Do not lust after results.
This is a good time to discuss journals. If you are serious about your personal work a special journal should be on hand to record the results of your work. This might include feelings, thoughts, dreams, divinations etc. which have occurred after you have begun your practices. This record will be essential if you desire to go further in your Tantric practices.
Lie down and begin deep breathing for 20 minutes.
Begin by opening and closing the eyes as described in Section One for another five minutes.
Begin by opening and closing the eyes as described in section one for another five minutes. Relax, sense and feel your body for ten minutes.
Now breathe backwards. This means on the inhalation pull your belly in and pull your chest up making the sound of a wheeze. (This should sound similar to someone who has a very bad chest cold.) Hold the breath for one or two seconds and let your chest collapse. Relax for one minute and repeat the backwards breath 5 times. Relax again and repeat 5 times. Do 6 more sets. You can increase the breathing movements to 10 times as well as increasing the sets to 10 when you become comfortable with this movement.
Relax and treat yourself to some gooey goodie.

Section Four
Begin deep breathing for 15 minutes. Then as you continue breathing, on the inhalation slowly tilt your pelvis toward your face. On the exhalation let it drop. Repeat this for 15 minutes. Do not tilt any part of your body except your pelvis.
Now slowly bring your knees together on the inhalation and let them fall open on the exhalation. Continue this for 10 minutes. If your legs, or for that matter anything else, begin to quiver or shake, just allow this to happen. (And by the way, congratulations.)
Now rest for at least 10 minutes, sensing and feeling your body.
Begin breathing again, this time with your legs flat on the bed. On the inhalation lift up your right leg and on the exhalation strike the bed as hard as you can with it. Now do this with the left leg. Alternate legs for 5 minutes. If the circumstances allow, give out a loud shout as your leg strikes the bed.
Now relax. Sense and feel your body for at least 15 minutes.

Important Notes

• Begin with the movements in Section One and work you way through each section to Section Four. Do not begin from Section Four and work your way backward.
• Sections one and two can be practiced together.
• Sections three and four should not be practiced together until you feel comfortable with the results of section one and two.
• Start a journal and use a tape recorder during your sessions.
• No session should be longer than one hour.
• If you have medical problems consult your doctor before undertaking the movements.
• You will be shaky for at least ten minutes after your sessions. Do not drive or operate dangerous equipment.
• After six months of practice you can try a grand session of four hours using all the movements in the described sequence.
• After a year of practice you can begin to mix up the movements when it suits your needs.
• These are bio-psycho-spiritual exercises and only individuals who have chosen to take the Path toward enlightenment and self development in the most profound sense should undertake these movements.
• If you have any questions about the movements please feel free to write. Please keep the questions simple, short and to the point.
• These movements can and should be used entire life. Not only will they help decrease depression and anxiety, they will continue to bring you insight and new energy.

Manifesto Against Totalitarianism

2010-10-30T11:10:00.003+10:30

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism

How to Say No to Unwanted Opportunities:

2010-10-22T11:02:00.003+10:30

“I appreciate the offer, but my intuition says no on this, so I’ll have to pass. I hope you understand.”

This approach, used by Steve Pavlina, rather than aloofness or outright refusal, has no comeback and no objections to overcome.

It's worth memorizing for those times when opportunities are too many and not high enough quality.

Put Your Dream to the Test!

2010-10-20T00:36:00.003+10:30

John Maxwell writes that a dream is an inspiring picture of the future that energizes your mind, will and emotions, empowering you to do everything you can to achieve it. Maxwell evaluates the process by asking if dream passes certain tests? The more questions below you can answer yes to the greater your probability of success:

The questions are:

1. The Ownership Question: Is my dream really my Dream?

2. The Clarity Question: Do I clearly see my dream?

3. The Reality Question: Am I depending on factors within my control to achieve my dream?

4. The Passion Question: Does my dream compel me to follow it?

5. The Pathway Question: Do I have a strategy to reach my dream?

6. The People Question: Have I included the people I need to realize my dream?

7. The Cost Question: Am I willing to pay the price for my dream?

8. The Tenacity Question: Am I moving closer to my dream?

9. The Fulfillment Question: Does working toward my dream
bring satisfaction?

10. The Significance Question: Does my dream benefit others?

Maxwell writes "Leading your life requires making the right decisions and managing those decisions daily. Find the right dream for you then manage it daily."

20 Lessons Learned by an Entrepreneur

2010-10-13T23:40:00.001+10:30

20 Things I've Learned as an Entrepreneur: the source article can be found here.

On my last day at Consorte Media I wrote an email to myself listing the twenty things I've learned as an entrepreneur. In honor of Consorte Media's birth anniversary of July 1st, I list them below.

1. It’s rare when someone is their word; treasure it in others, cultivate it in yourself

2. Call AND email – the squeaky wheel does get the grease

3. Hold yourself to a standard of behavior and business

4. Pay attention to detail

5. It truly is win/win – don’t work with folks who think about it any other way

6. Focus

7. Don’t bang your head against the wall – go with what works, but that doesn’t mean you don’t continue to innovate

8. Be kind but firm

9. Adopt the Cindy Crawford motto and never point out your flaws but do admit to your mistakes

10. FEAR: False Expectations Appearing Real

11. You always have a choice

12. People will fight you on everything – stick to your guns

13. Perception is reality - you’re always creating an impression

14. Everything is a negotiation, even if you don’t think it is

15. People hear what they want to and usually only remember the negative

16. Generosity looks good on

17. Have the difficult conversations – they’re always worth it

18. It goes by fast and your health is the most important thing - take care of it/make it a priority

19. Those old business axioms are true, e.g., take time to hire and be fast to fire

20. The path to hell really is paved with good intentions

Ready to jump into entrepreneurship? You don’t have to create a business to be an entrepreneur. You only have to realize that everything you ever wanted is just beyond your comfort zone.

The Vedic Path to Enlightenment

2010-10-11T10:20:00.001+10:30

How to Lead a Spiritual Life.

What is the path to attain liberation? Krishna makes the following suggestions. They are extraordinarily deep and merit study and reflection:

1. Perform actions as an offering to God. (Food that we eat, work we perform, prayer)
2. Singing songs and listen to devotional songs. Praising God.
3. Offering the body, senses and mind to God.
4. Reading Holy Scriptures to acquire transcendental knowledge.
5. Spend time in the company of the wise and enlightened

A Devastating Indictment of the Muslim Culture of War:

2010-10-06T12:53:00.001+10:30

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car burnings, etc.). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

Wise Advice From Solomon:

2010-09-16T23:07:00.001+09:30

"One of the wisest things you can do is to get an old King James bible, sit down with your family, and read through the book of Proverbs every month. There are 31 chapters, basically one for each day of the month. King Solomon packed them with wisdom.

"You don't need to be Jewish or Christian to get a lot of good things out of those proverbs; and that will be the best way to deal with the qualities about yourself that you don't like. That wisdom will start to assimilate itself into your heart and mind, and make a world of difference."

- From a friend.

Why did the Ancients not Develop Machinery?

2010-09-14T01:01:00.001+09:30

From Southwestern University, rare now, and recovered from an internet archive.

Energy is the basis of modern civilization; it dominates the headlines, makes and breaks the economy of nations, determines their foreign policy. Yet it is relatively a newcomer to history. It began to occupy men's minds only during the Middle Ages, not before. Egypt, Assyria, Persia, all fashioned their empires without it, Greece achieved her glory and Rome her splendor without it. Very possibly the glory and the splendor would have been still greater, had Greeks and Romans turned their attention to utilizing sources of power other than the muscles of man or beast. For some reason they did not.

They did not, even though they were fully acquainted with a number of easily exploitable forms of energy. As far back as 3000 B.C. the Egyptians had learned to harness the force of the wind to drive their craft up and down the Nile. But neither they nor anyone else ever went further than boats: as we shall see shortly, the earliest windmills date from the seventh century A.D. or even later. By the first century B.C. the Greeks and Romans had learned to use the flow of water to turn mills, but all over the world grain continued to be ground slowly and laboriously by hand or animal. They were even aware of more sophisticated sources of power, such as compressed air, hot air, steam. A Greek engineer named Ctesibius, who lived during the third century B.C. in the city of Alexandria_the center at the time of scholarly and scientific research_produced a hydraulic organ whose power was furnished by a column of water supported on a cushion of air. He designed a clock driven by water: flowing into a bowl at a fixed rate, it steadily raised a float topped by a figure whose hand pointed to lines representing hours engraved on a cylinder; the cylinder itself was made to rotate by the upward movement of the float.

Another Greek engineer named Hero, who also worked at Alexandria though at a later time than Ctesibios, perhaps the first century A.D., describes certain inventions for use in temples which, by exploiting the expansive property of hot air, were able to arouse wonderment and awe among the congregations. One consisted of a pipe and some figures mounted on a disk; when the altar fire was lit, the hot air from it, passing through the pipe, caused the disk to revolve and the figures to appear to dance. In a second device, hot air made the doors of a shrine open and shut. In a third, an altar flanked by two figures holding wine vessels and surmounted by a bronze serpent, the hot air produced a flow of wine from the vessels and a hiss from the serpent. Yet another is the earliest example on record of a steam engine: a hollow ball was mounted between two brackets made fast to the lid of a pot filled with boiling water; one of the brackets was also hollow, and the steam passing through it into the ball was vented in such a way that the ball was made to rotate. Hero even describes a windmill, a miniature version for providing the current of air required to power a small and simple type of organ. He includes any number of gadgets worked by means of levers and weights, among them the first known coin-operated machine: when a five-drachma piece was dropped through a slot in the cover of a sacrificial vessel filled with holy water, it triggered by means of a Rube Goldberg contraption a spurt from a spout on the side. But these and others like them were all that Alexandria's scientific savants turned out; their imaginative exploiting of water, wind, hot air, and steam went into toys and gadgetry, never into machines for replacing men's labor.

The ancients' failure in this regard stands in stark contrast with the accomplishments of their heirs, the men of the Middle Ages. By A.D. 983 there probably was a mill for fulling cloth on the banks of the Serchio in Tuscany. By 1008 there were water-driven grain as well as fulling mills around Milan. The windmill for grinding grain makes its debut in Persia, perhaps in the seventh A.D., certainly a century or two later. In the twelfth century it appears in Yorkshire_ an independent invention, though possibly inspired by news of such machines in the east_and spread over Europe almost explosively, to quote Lynn White, our ranking historian of technology, who has pioneered in bringing attention to the spectacular advances that took place in medieval times.

By the fourteenth century water- and windpower had replaced muscle not only for fulling cloth and grinding grain but for sawing wood, lifting water, operating the bellows of blast furnaces, driving triphammers, turning grindstones, and crushing anything from ore to olives. So wide and effective was the technological surge that, as White puts it, "by 1492. . . Europe had developed an agricultural base, an industrial capacity, a superiority in arms, and a skill in in voyaging the ocean which enabled it to explore, conquer, loot and colonize the rest of the globe during the next four centuries." Mighty Rome, restrained by its technological sloth, had been able to explore, conquer, loot, and colonize no farther than the Mediterranean and the western end of Europe.

Necessity, we say, is the mother of invention. We neglect to add that the necessity must be one that people are aware of. Greeks and Romans did not think it at all necessary to spare men the drudgery and time it took to grind grain into flour, even after the water mill had become known; the people of twelfth-century Yorkshire, it is clear, did. In the lands of medieval Islam the climate was so arid that streams with the flow to drive mills were few; on the other hand since sparseness of vegetation generates air currents, there was. plenty of wind. Here, if anywhere, a "need" existed for the windmill-and the Arabs did not even have to invent it but merely borrow it from Persia where, as mentioned above, it had been in use for centuries. They could not have been less interested. In 1206 by which time windmills were to be seen from Scotland to Syria, the leading Arab engineer of the day observed to his readers that the notion of driving mills by the wind was nonsense.

It was no one from the ancient world but a western European of the Middle Ages, Hugh of St. Victor, who said, "Propter neressitatem inventa est mechanica, necessity is the mother of technology. By his time technology had become integrated into men's thinking habits. They had learned to turn to it automatically as the way of solving certain problems; they had, in short, invented invention. The phrase would never have come to the lips of a Greek or Roman. They totally lacked a tradition of carrying on sustained effort to produce a technological solution to a felt need. Invention, as they saw it, was the result of happy accident. Among their heroes are no James Watts, no Thomas Edisons, no men who devoted a lifetime to studying, experimenting, perfecting a device Their classic story is of Archimedes' discovery of the principle of specific gravity while in his bath pondering how to test the honesty of a goldsmith.

What was it, then, that made people from the tenth century A.D. unaware of a need for labor-saving machinery and made them turn to technology for the solution What was it that prevented the ancients from doing this? Let us take the second question first.

It is said that the Greeks never exploited steam, that they never converted Hero's toy into a useful engine, because they did not have the materials or technology for steamfitting, for fashioning and joining tubing to take the pressures. True enough_but beside the point: they simply did not think in terms of using steam power for utilitarian purposes. It is said that they never exploited the water mill because the Mediterranean does not have the rivers that would provide the flow required. This is not only beside the point but not even true. The rivers were perfectly adequate for driving the mills that were there during the 'Middle Ages. Moreover, the Romans_and the Etruscans long before them_were expert at providing a flow where there was none. What mills the Romans eventually did construct, as often as not were run by water from aqueducts.

These and other similar specific explanations that have been offered do not get us very far. What about the broad generalizations?

There is a school of thought, whose ranks have been swelled by the unswerving adherence of most Marxist historians, which holds that slavery was the culprit: the economy of the ancients was based on slavery and, the argument runs, with slaves to do the work there was no incentive to develop technology. "Their slaves were their machines," asserts Ben Benjamin Farrington, author of a series of widely used handbooks on ancient science and technology, "and so long as they were cheap there was no need to try to supersede them. The supply of slave labor seems to have outlasted the heyday of ancient science." There is no denying that the Greek and Roman economy was based on slave labor, although the most important segment, agriculture, depended upon it only at certain times and in certain places. But one can emphatically deny that slave labor was always plentiful and cheap; there were long periods when it was nothing of the sort. And, if the ancients' technological backwardness is to be attributed to the availability of slaves, how can one explain the date of introduction of what labor-saving devices the Romans did use? It was in the second century B.C. that they replaced their hand-operated mills for grinding grain with the donkey- powered rotary mill-precisely when, thanks to Rome's conquest of the east and the consequent arrival on the block of hordes of prisoners, there was a glut of slaves. And, in the very next century, when there were still plenty of them around, Rome's bakeries began using horse-drawn machines for kneading dough.

Another school of thought holds that it was the abundance of labor in general, whether slave or free, which did the damage. "Labor was too cheap for much thought to be given to machinery," declares W. W. Tarn, one of the foremost historians of ancient Greece "Labour . . . was plentiful and cheap until the end of the third century [A.D.], precisely the period when the donkey-mills or slave-driven mills of Rome were gradually ousted by the water mill," declares R. Forbes in the standard work in English on ancient technology. This explanation no more fits the facts than slavery. The water mill_to which we will come in a few moments_did precious little ousting of man- and animal-power in the third century; a few more mills were built than before, but it is perfectly clear that most grinding was still being done in the time-honored, time-consuming way.

There is an anecdote that the adherents of this school often cite. Rome's Emperor Vespasian, who ruled from A.D. 69 to 79, was once approached, we are told, by an engineer who offered to haul big stone columns to the top of the Capitoline Hill for a very small charge; Vespasian gave him a handsome reward but refused his services on the grounds that he wanted "to be allowed to feed the mob." They assume that the story indicates an excess on the Roman labor market, a mass of unemployed whom the government supported by work projects. But "unemployment" and "work projects" are twentieth-century concepts; antiquity knew nothing of them. Ancient governments did not go about creating work to provide jobs. Certainly the Roman emperors did not, even though they were faced with the chronic problem of maintaining "the mob," that is, the thousands of poor Roman citizens who centuries earlier had drifted to the city and whose descendants had led an idle existence ever since. The emperors took care of them by means of the proverbial "bread and circuses," feeding them through public handouts of grain and keeping them content by enterraining them with free gladiatorial combats and horse racing. In any case, these people were in no way part of the labor force. Besides, manual labor, such as the handling of columns, was normally done by slaves, so the only ones who would have profited from Vespasian's rejection of the engineer's offer were not any theoretical unemployed but the owners of the teams of slaves who held the contracts for the hauling. Commentators on the story imagine that the engineer had in mind some power-driven lifting machinery, but this is pure fantasy. A more likely explanation is that this suggested to Vespasian something no emperor had ever thought of doing before_to entice some of the handout receivers to put in a few days or a few weeks of work for pay. This would no doubt have amounted to much less than the hire of teams of slaves, whose owners had to charge enough to cover the cost of maintaining them all year round, work or no work, and of writing off the loss whenever any died or were in jured. Vespasian, however, said no; he wanted to "be allowed to feed the mob," that is, carry on the traditional policy of giving them handouts, not try any newfangled ideas of putting them to work.

Another argument against those who blame the technological laggardness on a surplus of labor is that what clues we can gather point just the other way. A number of treatises on farming in Italy, written between the second century B.C. and the first A.D., have survived They make allusion to the difficulties farm farmers had because of the scarcity of hands. There were times when Egypt, one of the breadbaskets of the; ancient world, suffered from country-wide shortage of labor. Indeed, it has been argued that a key factor inhibiting the internal growth of the empires that. were established in the wake of Alexander the Great's conquests was the limited agriculture. manpower available: it was never possible to increase the number of peasants beyond a certain figure, and because of this, food production was never able to rise to levels that could support more or larger urban centers. Obviously the solution would have been the development of mechanical aids to relieve the peas ants' back breaking toil and increase his output. The Ptolemies, who ruled Egypt from 300 B.C. through the next few centuries, did their best to wring as much out of the land as they could. They reclaimed large tracts, improved the irrigation system, in introduced new crops. At the same time, being openhanded patrons of the arts and sciences, they supported research of all kinds, including the experiments of Ctesibius and other scientists in the use of water and hot air as a force. Yet it evidently never crossed their minds to suggest to these scientists that they give up playing around with toys and gadgets and get to work on a power-driven mill. Whether the effort would have succeeded is irrelevant; the point is that it was never made.

What is even more mystifying is that labor-saving devices actually came into existence and yet were not exploited. In the first century A.D. a mechanical harvester was developed. We know what it was like not only from descriptions of ancient writers but from a number of carved reliefs that picture it: it was, in effect, an oversize comb mounted on wheels and pushed by a donkey or mule; as it went along it took off the heads of grain, leaving the stalks standing. Admittedly, it could operate efficiently only on level ground and appeal only to farmers willing to forego the straw. So far as we can tell the device was used in a certain section of Gaul, roughly between Reims and Trier, and nowhere else, though there surely were other areas in the ancient world where the machine's advantages outweighed its limitations. Moreover, no effort was made to adapt it for farms whose owners wanted the straw or where the terrain was not appropriately level, an adaptation chat should not have been difficult. Ancient farmers, in short, were content to go on harvesting with sickles, even though this was a painfully slow way to do it and one of their complaints was a lack of hands.

Even more striking than the failure of the mechanical harvester to catch on is that of the water mill. We noted above that the Romans certainly knew the water mill by the first century B.C. A good argument can be made that the Etruscans knew it several centuries earlier. They were superb hydraulic engineers, particularly skilled in cutting long underground sewerlike channels through rock to control the direction and volume of the flow of water. In most cases these channels ran along the bottom of valleys to carry off rainwater and not let it erode the valley floors. At Veii, an Etruscan site some twelve miles north of Rome, the inhabitants cut one such channel, over one-third of a mile long and over eighty feet deep in one place, whose purpose could not have been to prevent erosion. It carried water from a larger stream to a point on a smaller, thereby increasing the velocity of the flow at that point. The only logical explanation for this elaborate piece of hydraulic engineering is that the Etruscans wanted to strengthen the flow at the point in question because they maintained a mill there-and, indeed, a mill has stood in the area from the Middle Ages to very recent times.

In any event, when we come to the first century B.C. we do not have to depend on argument or inference: we know that water mills existed then because Vitruvius describes them in the famous book on architecture and building techniques that he wrote probably in the closing decades of the pre-Christian era. The very way in which he deals with them is significant. In a discussion of the devices in use for raising water, after treating various forms of treadmills, he describes a water-powered wheel that turns an endless chain of buckets; this, he goes on to inform us, differs from the water-powered mill in that the water-driven wheel in the latter case turns a millstone. When he comes to his summing up of the discussion, he does not even bother to mention the water mill. That is all he has to say about the piece of machinery that was destined to revolutionize agriculture and industry. Vitruvius' indifference was typical. A water mill can grind effortlessly in under three minutes what would take a man or beast an hour of hard work Once discovered, it should have swept over the Mediterranean world as quickly as it was to sweep over Europe a millennium later. It did nothing of the sort. During the first three centuries A.D., the heyday of the Roman Empire, it saw scant use. The number of mills increased somewhat after that, but not importantly. In most places the age-old laborious methods of grinding grain still continued.

Michael Rostovtzeff, author of the definitive studies on the social and economic history of the ancient world, was well aware of the shortcomings of slavery or cheap free labor as an explanation of the Greeks' "slow technical progress and . . . restricted range of output." He argues that "the causes of these limitations are chiefly to be found, on the one hand, in local production of manufactured goods and the arrest of the development of large industrial centers, and, on the other, in the low buying capacity and restricted number of customers." This explanation simply puts us in a circle. Industrial centers could not develop because they could not be fed without increasing the production of food, and, as we have just seen, the fixed or even declining number of peasants prevented this. And without such industrial centers, the number of potential customers would inevitably be restricted and buying power low. Men did not break out of the circle until the Middle Ages. Why did they not do it in ancient times?

We cannot call upon mountains of statistics to help us with the answer, for there are no such from the ancient world. All we can do is go through whatever writings have survived, from agricultural treatises to Iyric poetry, in search of anything that will throw light, no matter how feeble, on the problem. There is an anecdote told by Lucian, a satirist and lecturer of the second century A.D., that is a good deal more to the point than the story about Vespasian and the engineer. In an essay that purports to be autobiographical Lucian recounts how he embarked upon his career. He had a dream, he informs us in which two women struggled for possession of him, one mannish and dirty and unkempt and covered with stone dust, the other lovely and poised and well dressed. The first sought to entice him to become a sculptor, to achieve the greatness of Phidias and Praxiteles, the other to turn to education and follow an intellectual career. If you become a sculptor, the lovely woman warned him, "hunched over your work, your eyes and mind on the ground, low as low can be, you will never lift your head to think the thoughts of a true man or a free spirit." Lucian did not hesitate: he joyously embraced the life of the mind.

The prejudice against the artisan that Lucian's words reveal can be traced throughout the fabric of Greek thought. In the Greek pantheon, Apollo, god of music, Ares, god of war, Hermes, messenger of Zeus, are all gloriously handsome; Hephaestus, god of the forge, is ugly and lame and, when he hobbles about Olympus, the sight makes the rest of the divine family break out into "unquenchable laughter," to use Homer's phrase. The Greeks admired and respected the artisan's work; they neither admired nor respected the artisan. Socrates, who ho happened to be a stonemason by trade, was often to be found lounging around the workshops of his fellow craftsmen_but not his blue-blooded pupil Plato, scion of one of Athens' best families. In the utopias he conjures up, Plato relegates craftsmen to the lowest rung of the social ladder. Xenophon, a fellow aristocrat, points our that in those Greek cities that pride themselves on their military reputation, citizens arc not allowed to practice a craft. Aristorle, tutor to Alexander the Great, sniffily remarks that "the finest type of city will not make an artisan a citizen."

One reason for the prejudice was that, from the very beginning, many artisans were slaves; one effect of the prejudice was to ensure that more and more of them would be. Throughout Greek history, the free and slave craftsman shared work, often laboring side by side. Records of the building of Greek temples and other structures have been preserved, and from them we can see that the stone blocks, the column drums, the sculptures, the scaffoldings, and all else, were fashioned by free and slave masons and carpenters working together and being paid exactly the same wage; the only difference was that the free man kept his while the slave turned his over to a master Work of the hands, no matter of what quality, whether the rough hacking of stone in a quarry or the delicate carving of a sculpture, was something that could be done by slaves, and in the eyes of the upper class_the class to which without exception all ancient writers and intellectuals belonged_was not for them. Cicero, categorizing the pursuits that men follow, declares without qualification that "all craftsmen are engaged in a lowly art, for no workshop can have anything about it appropriate to a free man" They were all, as it were, sicklied o'er with the pale cast of slavery

A passage in one of Plurarch's lives makes it crystal clear why Ctesibius, Hero, and the other scientists of antiquity stopped at toys and gadgets and never went on to machines_except in that one field which ail through history has had a special claim on men's faculties, the art of war. In his Life of Marcellus, the famed general who led the Roman forces during much of the Second Punic War, he describes the trouble Marcellus had in besieging the strongly fortified town of Syracuse. Before the invention of cannon, laying siege to any walled city was no easy job but Marcellus was having particularly rough going because the king of Syracuse had entrusted the defense to antiquity's most renowned engineer, Archimedes. Archimedes devised fiendish catapults which hurled monstrous stones upon attacking troops, fiendish cranes with huge claws that fastened upon attacking ships and lifted them right out of the water, even a Brobdingnagian burning glass that could set them on fire from a distance. After describing the formidable array, Plutarch remarks that Archimedes, though he had won universal acclaim for his military inventions "never wanted to leave behind a book on the subject but viewed the work of the engineer and every single art connected with everyday need as ignoble and fit only for an artisan. He devoted his ambition only to those studies in which beauty and subtlety are present uncontaminated by necessity." It was solely the intellectual challenge that led Archimedes to his discovery of the principle of specific gravity; its practical application, though it provided the occasion. for his inspiration, was beneath his notice.

Thus the best brains of antiquity did not occupy themselves with technology except as a pastime or for war. Snobbishness played its part, but there were other causes as well. Science seeks to understand nature, and ancient thinkers welcomed this challenge. But technology seeks to tamper with it, and there was a feeling that this was forbidden territory. Herodotus tells a revealing story about the people of Cnidus. Their city was located on the tip of a peninsula, and once, fearing the attack of a powerful enemy, they began to cut through the neck to put a barrier of water between them and the mainland. As the work proceeded, they noted an inordinate number of injuries from rock splinters, especially about the eyes. It was serious enough for them to consult the Delphic Oracle; the response was that they were to quit work, that "Zeus would have made your peninsula an island had he so willed."

The split between science and technology was by no means limited to antiquity. When the ancient world died, its science lived on among the Arabs. For five hundred years the best scientists wrote in Arabic, yet this did nothing whatsoever to hasten the pace of technological development in Islam. The idea that science can advance technology was not clearly formulated until as late as A.D. 1450 and was not consistently acted upon until our own century.

Another key reason for the ancients' indifference to technology was their attitude toward profit, an attitude totally at variance with what we today un-thinkingly accept as the natural order of things. The ancients were just as fond of money as we are. There were some philosophical sects whose members made a great show of scorning wealth-we all know the story of Diogenes, who preferred living in a barrel to a house-but they were no more representative of society at large than hippies are today. Most men upper-class or lower, were well aware that money was a good thing, that it was not possible to enjoy life without it. Where they differ from us is in their ideas about how it was to be made and what to do with i' after making it. Throughout the whole of antiquity men worked under the conviction that wealth should properly come from the land. All their great fortunes were landed fortunes: if they did not start out that way, they ended that way. Take the case of Trimalchio the hero of the best-preserved scene in Petronius'Satyricon, a brilliant and devastating satire about Rome's nouveaux riches in the first century A.D. Trimalchio, an ex-slave. who became a multimillionaire, got his start by taking a flyer in the import of wine. When his ship came in, he made a killing_and promptly switched to real estate, the buying of farm properties. He acquired so much that though there were vast tracts of his holdings he had never even seen, he would not be content until he could buy up all Sicily, so that he could travel from Naples right to a port of departure for North Africa without once having to leave his own property. Trimalchio would have applauded enthusiastically Cicero's statement that "of all things from which income is derived, none is better than agriculture, none more fruitful, none sweeter, none more fitting for a free man." Cicero exaggerates: there were any number of pursuits more fruitful, but that was of secondary importance compared with agriculture's preeminent respectability, its fittingness for a free man.

Next to owning land came commerce, the sort of venture in which Trimalchio had gotten his start. But it was a good cut below. Hear Cicero on the subject: "Commerce, if it is on a small scale, is to be considered lowly; but if it is on a large scale and extensive, importing much from all over and distributing to many without misrepresentation, it is not to be too much disparaged"_in other words, at its very best, barely respectable.

Lower even than commerce was industry-industry, the form of endeavor in which results depend squarely upon productivity, which has most to gain from technology. Ancient industry, it is happens never progressed beyond the large workshop stage. You will read in the writings of archaeologists' descriptions of centers of ceramic production that sound like operations employing a labor force of thousands, but that is only because' the archaeologist's stock in trade is pots herds and he tends to be overawed by the quantities he finds. The biggest pottery manufactories we know of were all owned by single individuals and never employed many more than fifty men. The very biggest privately owned (as against government-owned) industrial operation we know of was a shield-making establishment that employed something in the neighborhood of one hundred. Back in the eighteenth century David Hume wrote: "I do not remember a passage in any ancient author, where the growth of a city is ascribed to the establishment of a manufacture." Despite a century of archaeological discovery, his words need no qualification. There were no Manchesters or Birminghams in the ancient world, no equivalent of our New England mill towns.

Let us grant that Greeks and Romans did not exploit the potential of industry for making money and that we cannot therefore expect technological advance in that area. What about agriculture? We saw earlier that urban growth was restricted by the farmers' inability to feed more city mouths. Sometimes they could not even feed their own mouths; famines were not at all uncommon in ancient times. In the days of the Roman Empire there was plenty of land, with rich landowners holding the lion's share of it; why did they not seek to make better use of their resources? Pliny, Rome's savant whom we have several times quoted in earlier chapters, actually asserts that, for a landowner, "nothing pays less than cultivating your land to the fullest extent." Why?

The answer lies in another of the fundamental differences in attitude between then and now: the ancients simply did not think in terms of maximum profits; the prevailing mentality of the age was acquisitive, not productive. One strove, like Trimalchio, to acquire as much land as possible, but not to wring it to produce as much profit as possible. Take, for example, old Cato, who lived in the second century B.C. and wrote one of the treatises on farming that have survived. He is the classic example of the shrewd, frugal, hardworking Roman landowner. He has endless advice to give on how to run a farm economically: precise prescriptions for the amount of rations of clothing and food to be issued to the help, how many hours to work them, what jobs to give them on rainy days; he cautions that they must be made to work on holidays, and that old and worn-out animals and slaves must be discarded 'just like wornout tools. But if you had asked his advice on what crops sold the best or netted the most profit, about quickness of turnover, capital investment, and other standard bits of today's economic wisdom, he could not have known what you were talking about. Such matters were totally beyond the ken of the ancient farmer, peasant, or owner of vast estates. One of Cato's hard and fast rules was that a farmer "should be a seller, not a buyer." The same rule is expressed in different language by Columella, another expert on agriculture who wrote in the first century A.D. Some landowners, he tells us, "avoid annual expenses and consider it the best and most certain form of income not to make any investments." In other words, money not spent is money earned. If it costs more to install a watermill than a donkey-mill, then a donkeymill it shall be.

As a matter of fact, profitability of operation was so far from the ancient farmer's mind that he did not even have the bookkeeping that would make it possible. We happen to have some of the records_they were a lucky find in an archaeological excavation_ from a big Egyptian estate of the third century B.C. They reveal that the system of accounting in use was fine for the control of stock and staff but could not possibly yield the information required for efficient exploitation. The owner had not the slightest idea which of his numerous crops was the most profitable, what his cost per crop was, and so on.

We see, therefore, that it was not lack of knowledge which lay behind the poor technological record of the ancients but their lack of interest. The attitude of mind that made the artisan a human being of a lesser order, that glorified landowning as against land use, that left industry at a relatively primitive level, rendered technological advance of scant moment. And so we need not be surprised that the water mill and the windmill, though known, were, in the one case, far from fully exploited, and, in the other, not exploited at all. But what was it that changed matters so dramatically in the tenth century? Why was it that, from then on, men grasped eagerly at all ways to ease their labor, to increase their productivity?

Lewis Mumford thinks that the answer is to be found in that quintessentially medieval institution, the monastery. "The monastery," he writes, "through its very other-worldliness, had a special incentive to develop mechanization. The monks sought . . . to avoid unnecessary labor in order to have more time and energy for meditation and prayer; and possibly their willing immersion in ritual predisposed them to mechanical (repetitious and standardized) solutions. Though they themselves were disciplined to regular work, they readily turned over to machinery those operations that could be performed without benefit of mind. Rewarding work they kept for themselves: manuscript copying, illumination, carving. Unrewarding work they turned over to the machine grinding, pounding, sawing."

It is an intriguing theory, but hard to prove. The earliest mills did arise in monasteries, but that could very well be nothing more than a reflection of the key position enjoyed by monasteries in the life of the times. At any rate, in short order, mills were saving labor everywhere, not merely in the monasteries. The earliest medieval mill we know of dates from 983, as we mentioned earlier; within a century there were at least 5,624 in England alone, serving some 3,000 communities.

Yet Mumford was on the right track in seeking an explanation in that feature which most of all divides the medieval world from the ancient: religion. Unlike the deities of paganism, the Christian god was a creator God, architect of the cosmos, the divine porter who shaped men from clay in his own image. In the Christian conception, all history moves toward a spiritual goal and there is no time to lose; thus work of all sorts is essential, becomes in a way a form of worship. Such ideas created a mental climate highly favorable for the growth of technology.

But this alone cannot explain what happened in medieval Europe. There were, after all, two forms of Christianity: that practiced in the Greek east as well as that of the Latin west, both equally ardent in embracing the fundamentals of Christian teaching; yet technology got no further in the east than it did in ancient Greece and Rome. Progress was limited to the Latin west. Why?

This is a problem that has particularly engaged the attention of Lynn White, whose work on medieval technology we had occasion to mention earlier. He looks for the explanation in a basic difference in spiritual direction between the two churches: the eastern generally held that sin is ignorance and that salvation comes by. illumination, the western that sin is vice and that rebirth comes by disciplining the will to do good works. The Greek saint is normally a contemplative figure, the Latin an activist.

The effect of this theological difference was to restore respectability not only to the artisan but to manual labor, to remove the disrepute under which it had suffered during all of ancient times. And in this, monasticism played a significant role. From the beginning, the monks had been mindful of the Hebrew tradition that work was in accordance with God's commandment: Here, too, there was a division between east and west. The east had not suffered invasion and pillage as had the west; its level of culture had not descended as low, its intellectual and literary life continued much as before, and in this climate the Greek monks tended to concentrate on sacred studies. But in the west, civilization had fallen so devastatingly low that the monks had to assume responsibility for all aspects of culture, profane as well as sacred, the life of the body as well as that of the mind. Out of this grew an interest in practical affairs in general and, in particular, in the physical aspects of worship, a line of interest that led to the embellishment of the church and of the service through technology. Whereas eastern churches forbade music, holding that only the unaccompanied voice can worthily worship God, we find the cathedral at Winchester as early as the tenth century boasting a huge organ of 400 pipes fed by 28 bellows that required 70 men to pump them. By the middle of the twelfth century organs were given a part in the supreme moment of the service, the Mass itself. The east never permitted clocks in or on their churches; in the west, as soon as mechanical clocks were introduced they appear both on towers outside and walls inside.

The writings of western monks express their delight not only at the mechanical devices that embellished their religious life but at those that made their secular activities so much easier, the waterpowered machines that did the milling, fulling, tanning, blacksmithing, and other such tasks. As one of: them puts it: "How many horses' backs would have been broken, how many men's arms wearied, by the labor from which a river, with no labor, graciously frees us?" Technology was hailed as a Christian virtue. In a psalter that was illuminated near Reims about A.D.. 830 an illustration of one of the psalm shows David leading a small body of the righteous against a formidable host of the ungodly. "In each` camp," writes White, "a sword is being sharpened conspicuously. The Evildoers are content to use a old-fashioned whetstone. The Godly, however, are employing the first crank recorded outside China to rotate the first grindstone known anywhere. Obviously the artist is telling us that technological a.' advance is God's will."

The western attitude toward work and toward. technology , as an expression of Christian faith, thus stands in contrast equally to the ancient Greco-Roman attitudes and that of the medieval eastern church. It is dramatically symbolized in a manuscript of the Gospels produced at Winchester shortly after the year 1000. Here, God is portrayed as He would never be in the eastern church, as a master craftsman holding scales, a carpenter's square, and a pair of compasses. He is at the opposite pole from Homer's Zeus, who joined his fellow deities in laughing unquenchably at the gnarled, limping Hephaestus.

THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON

2010-09-04T13:12:00.002+09:30

THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON

Translated from Greek and Syriac manuscripts by G. Buchanan Gray
in R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2: 631-652

(Note: It seemed wise to rescue these Psalms from the web archive they were located in and make them public again. I hope you enjoy them. The wikipedia article on them is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms_of_Solomon ; the original site with scholarly apparatus may be found preserved here.)

1

1 1 I cried unto the Lord when I was in distress [ ],
Unto God when sinners assailed.
2 Suddenly the alarm of war was heard before me;
(I said), He will hearken to me, for I am full of righteousness.
3 I thought in my heart that I was full of righteousness,
Because I was well off and had become rich in children.
4 Their wealth spread to the whole earth,
And their glory unto the end of the earth.
5 They were exalted unto the stars;
They said they would never fall.
6 But they became insolent in their prosperity,
And they were without understanding,
7 Their sins were in secret,
And even I had no knowledge (of them).
8 Their transgressions (went) beyond those of the heathen before them;
They utterly polluted the holy things of the Lord.

2. A Psalm Of Solomon. Concerning Jerusalem.

2 1 When the sinner waxed proud, with a battering-ram he cast down fortified walls,
And Thou didst not restrain (him).
2 Alien nations ascended Thine altar,
They trampled (it) proudly with their sandals;
3 Because the sons of Jerusalem had defiled the holy things of the Lord,
Had profaned with iniquities the offerings of God.
4 Therefore He said: Cast them far from Me;

5 It was set at naught before God,
It was utterly dishonoured;
6 The sons and the daughters were in grievous captivity,
Sealed (?) (was) their neck, branded (?) (was it) among the nations.

7 According to their sins hath He done unto them,
For He hath left them in the hands of them that prevailed.
8 He hath turned away His face from pitying them,
Young and old and their children together;
9 For they had done evil one and all, in not hearkening.
10 (9) And the heavens were angry,
And the earth abhorred them;
11 For no man upon it had done what they did,
12 (10) And the earth recognized all Thy righteous judgments, O God.
13 (11) They set the sons of Jerusalem to be mocked at in return for (the) harlots in her;
Every wayfarer entered in in the full light of day.
14 (12) They made mock with their transgressions, as they themselves were wont to do;
In the full light of day they revealed their iniquities.
(13) And the daughters of Jerusalem were defiled in accordance with Thy judgment,
15 Because they had defiled themselves with unnatural intercourse.
(14) I am pained in my bowels and my inward parts for these things.
16 (15) (And yet) I will justify Thee, O God, in uprightness of heart,
For in Thy judgments is Thy righteousness (displayed), O God.
17 (16) For Thou hast rendered to the sinners according to their deeds,
Yea according to their sins, which were very wicked.
18 (17) Thou hast uncovered their sins, that Thy judgment might be manifest;
19 Thou hast wiped out their memorial from the earth.
(18) God is a righteous judge,
And He is no respecter of persons.

20 (19) For the nations reproached Jerusalem, trampling it down;
Her beauty was dragged down from the throne of glory.
21 (20) She girded on sackcloth instead of comely raiment,
A rope (was) about her head instead of a crown.
22 (21) She put off the glorious diadem which God had set upon her,
23 In dishonor was her beauty cast upon the ground.

24 (22) And I saw and entreated the Lord and said,
Long enough, O Lord, has Thine hand been heavy on Israel, in bringing the nations upon (them).
25 (23) For they have made sport unsparingly in wrath and fierce anger;
26 And they will make an utter end, unless Thou, O Lord, rebuke them in Thy wrath.
27 (24) For they have done it not in zeal, but in lust of soul,
28 Pouring out their wrath upon us with a view to rapine.
29 (25) Delay not, O God, to recompense them on (their) heads,
To turn the pride of the dragon into dishonour.
30(26) And I had not long to wait before God showed me the insolent one
Slain on the mountains of Egypt,
Esteemed of less account than the least on land and sea;
31 (27) His body, ( too,) borne hither and thither on the billows with much insolence,
With none to bury (him), because He had rejected him with dishonour.

(28) He reflected not that he was man.
32 And reflected not on the latter end;
33 (29) He said: I will be lord of land and sea;
And he recognized not that it is God who is great,
Mighty in His great strength.
34 (30) He is king over the heavens,
And judgeth kings and kingdoms.
35 (31) (It is He) who setteth me up in glory,
And bringeth down the proud to eternal destruction in dishonour,
Because they knew Him not.

36 (32) And now behold, ye princes of the earth,
the judgment of the Lord,
For a great king and righteous (is He),
judging (all) that is under heaven.
37 (33) Bless God, ye that fear the Lord with wisdom,
For the mercy of the Lord will be upon them that fear Him, in the Judgment;
38 (34) So that He will distinguish between the righteous and the sinner,
(And) recompense the sinners for ever according to their deeds;
39 (35) And have mercy on the righteous, (delivering him) from the affliction of the sinner,
And recompensing the sinner for what he hath done to the righteous.
40 (36) For the Lord is good to them that call upon Him in patience,
Doing according to His mercy to His pious ones,
Establishing (them) at all times before Him in strength.
41 (37) Blessed be the Lord for ever before His servants.

3.
A Psalm. Of Solomon. Concerning the righteous.

3 1 Why sleepest thou, O my soul,
And blessest not the Lord?
2 Sing a new song,
Unto God who is worthy to be praised.
Sing and be wakeful against His awaking,
For good is a psalm (sung) to God from a glad heart.
3 The righteous remember the Lord at all times,
With thanksgiving and declaration of the righteousness of the Lord's judgments.
4 The righteous despiseth not the chastening of the Lord;
His will is always before the Lord.
5 The righteous stumbleth and holdeth the Lord righteous:
He falleth and looketh out for what God will do to him;
6 He seeketh out whence his deliverance will come.
7 (6) The steadfastness of the righteous is from God their deliverer;
There lodgeth not in the house of the righteous sin upon sin.
8 (7) The righteous continually searcheth his house,
To remove utterly (all) iniquity (done) by him in error.
9 (8) He maketh atonement for (sins of) ignorance by fasting and afflicting his soul,
10 And the Lord counteth guiltless every pious man and his house.

11 (9) The sinner stumbleth and curseth his life,
The day when he was begotten, and his mother's travail.
12 (10) He addeth sins to sins, while he liveth (?);
13 He falleth—verily grievous is his fall—and riseth no more.
(11) The destruction of the sinner is for ever,
14 And he shall not be remembered, when the righteous is visited.
(12) 15 This is the portion of sinners for ever.

16 But they that fear the Lord shall rise to life eternal,
And their life (shall be) in the light of the Lord, and shall come to an end no more.

4. A Conversation of Solomon with the Men-pleasers.

4 1 Wherefore sittest thou, O profane (man), in the council of the pious,
Seeing that thy heart is far removed from the Lord,
Provoking with transgressions the God of Israel?
2 Extravagant in speech, extravagant in outward seeming beyond all (men),
Is he that is severe of speech in condemning sinners in judgment.
3 And his hand is first upon him as (though he acted) in zeal,
And (yet) he is himself guilty in respect of manifold sins and of wantonness.
4 His eyes are upon every woman without distinction;
His tongue lieth when he maketh contract with an oath.
5 By night and in secret he sinneth as though unseen,
With his eyes he talketh to every woman of evil compacts.
6 He is swift to enter every house with cheerfulness as though guileless.
7 (6) Let God remove those that live in hypocrisy in the company of the pious,
(Even) the life of such an one with corruption of his flesh and penury.
8 (7) Let God reveal the deeds of the men-pleasers,
The deeds of such an one with laughter and derision;
9 (8) That the pious may count righteous the judgment of their God,
When sinners are removed from before the righteous,
10 (Even the) man-pleaser who uttereth law guilefully.
11 (9) And their eyes (are fixed) upon any man's house that is (still) secure,
That they may, like (the) Serpent, destroy the wisdom of . . . with words of transgressors,
12 (10) His words are deceitful that (he) may accomplish (his) wicked desire.
13 He never ceaseth from scattering (families) as though (they were) orphans,
(11) Yea, he layeth waste a house on account of (his) lawless desire.
14 He deceiveth with words, (saying,) There is none that seeth, or judgeth.
15 (12) He fills one (house) with lawlessness,
And (then) his eyes (are fixed) upon the next house,
To destroy it with words that give wing to (desire).
(13) (Yet) with all these his soul, like Sheol, is not sated.

16 Let his portion, O Lord, be dishonoured before thee;
Let him go forth groaning and come home cursed.
17 (15) Let his life be (spent) in anguish, and penury, and want, O Lord;
Let his sleep be (beset) with pains and his awaking with perplexities.
18 (16) Let sleep be withdrawn from his eyelids at night;
Let him fail dishonorably in every work of his hands.
19 (17) Let him come home empty-handed to his house,
And his house be void of everything wherewith he could sate his appetite.
20 (18) (Let) his old age (be spent) in childless loneliness until his removal (by death).

21 (19) Let the flesh of the men-pleasers be rent by wild beasts,
And (let) the bones of the lawless (lie) dishonored in the sight of the sun.
22 (20) Let ravens peck out the eyes of the hypocrites.
23 For they have laid waste many houses of men, in dishonor,
And scattered (them) in (their) lust;
24 (21) And they have not remembered God,
Nor feared God in all these things;
25 But they have provoked God's anger and vexed Him.
(22) May He remove them from off the earth,
Because with deceit they beguiled the souls of the flawless.
26 (23) Blessed are they that fear the Lord in their flawlessness;
27 The Lord shall deliver them from guileful men and sinners,
And deliver us from every stumbling-block of the lawless (men).
28 (24) Let God destroy them that insolently work all unrighteousness,
For a great and mighty judge is the Lord our God in righteousness.
29 (28) Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon all them that love Thee.

5. A Psalm. Of Solomon

5 1 O Lord God, I will praise Thy name with joy,
In the midst of them that know Thy righteous judgments.
2 For Thou art good and merciful, the refuge of the poor;
3 When I cry to Thee, do not silently disregard me.
4 (3) For no man taketh spoil from a mighty man;
5 Who, then, can take aught of all that Thou hast made, except Thou Thyself givest?
6 (4) For man and his portion (lie) before Thee in the balance;
He cannot add to, so as to enlarge, what has been prescribed by Thee.

O God, 7 (5) when we are in distress we call upon Thee for help,
And Thou dost not turn back our petition, for Thou art our God.
8 (6) Cause not Thy hand to be heavy upon us,
Lest through necessity we sin.
9 (7) Even though Thou restore us not, we will not keep away;
But unto Thee will we come.
10 (8) For if I hunger, unto Thee will I cry, O God;
And Thou wilt give to me.
11 (9) Birds and fish dost Thou nourish,
In that Thou givest rain to the steppes that green grass may spring up,
(10) (So) to prepare fodder in the steppe for every living thing;
12 And if they hunger, unto Thee do they lift up their face.
13 (11) Kings and rulers and peoples Thou dost nourish, O God;
And who is the help of the poor and needy, if not Thou, O Lord?
14 (12) And Thou wilt hearken -for who is good and gentle but Thou?—
Making glad the soul of the humble by opening Thine hand in mercy.

15 (13) Man's goodness is (bestowed) grudgingly and . . .;
And if he repeat (it) without murmuring, even that is marvelous.
16 (14) But Thy gift is great in goodness and wealth,
And he whose hope is (set) on Thee shall have no lack of gifts.
17 (15) Upon the whole earth is Thy mercy, O Lord, in goodness.

18 (16) Happy is he whom God remembereth in (granting to him) a due sufficiency;
19 If a man abound over much, he sinneth.
20 (17) Sufficient are moderate means with righteousness,
And hereby the blessing of the Lord (becomes) abundance with righteousness.
21 (18) They that fear the Lord rejoice in good (gifts),
And Thy goodness is upon Israel in Thy kingdom.

Blessed is the glory of the Lord for He is our king.

6. In Hope. Of Solomon.

6 1 Happy is the man whose heart is fixed to call upon the name of the Lord;
2 When he remembereth the name of the Lord, he will be saved.
3 (2) His ways are made even by the Lord,
And the works of his hands are preserved by the Lord his God.
4 (3) At what he sees in his bad dreams, his soul shall not be troubled;
5 When he passes through rivers and the tossing of the seas, he shall not be dismayed.
6 (4) He ariseth from his sleep, and blesseth the name of the Lord:
7 When his heart is at peace, he singeth to the name of his God,
(5) And he entreateth the Lord for all his house.
8 And the Lord heareth the prayer of every one that feareth God,
(6) And every request of the soul that hopes for Him doth the Lord accomplish.
9 Blessed is the Lord, who showeth mercy to those who love Him in sincerity.

7. Of Solomon. Of turning.

7 1 Make not Thy dwelling afar from us, O God;
Lest they assail us that hate us without cause.
2 For Thou hast rejected them, O God;
Let not their foot trample upon Thy holy inheritance.
3 Chasten us Thyself in Thy good pleasure;
But give (us) not up to the nations;
4 For, if Thou sendest pestilence,
Thou Thyself givest it charge concerning us;
(5) For Thou art merciful,
And wilt not be angry to the point of consuming us.

5 (6) While Thy name dwelleth in our midst, we shall find mercy;
6 And the nations shall not prevail against us.
(7) For Thou art our shield,
7 And when we call upon Thee, Thou hearkenest to us;
8 For Thou wilt pity the seed of Israel for ever
And Thou wilt not reject (them):
(9) But we (shall be) under Thy yoke for ever,
And (under) the rod of Thy chastening.
9 (10) Thou wilt establish us in the time that Thou helpest us,
Showing mercy to the house of Jacob on the day wherein Thou didst promise (to help them).

8. Of Solomon. Of the chief Musician.

8 1 Distress and the sound of war hath my ear heard;
The sound of a trumpet announcing slaughter and calamity,
2 The sound of much people as of an exceeding high wind,
As a tempest with mighty fire sweeping through the Negeb.
3 And I said in my heart; Surely (?) God judgeth us;
4 A sound I hear (moving) towards Jerusalem, the holy city.
5 My loins were broken at what I heard, (5) my knees tottered:
6 My heart was afraid, my bones were dismayed like flax.
7 (6) I said: They establish their ways in righteousness.

(7) I thought upon the judgments of God since the creation of heaven and earth;
I held God righteous in His judgments which have been from of old.
8 God laid bare their sins in the full light of day;
All the earth came to know the righteous judgments of God.
9 In secret places underground their iniquities (were committed) to provoke (Him) to anger;
10 They wrought confusion, son with mother and father with daughter;
11 (10) They committed adultery, every man with his neighbor's wife.
They concluded covenants with one another with an oath touching these things;
12 (11) They plundered the sanctuary of God, as though there was no avenger.
13 (12) They trode the altar of the Lord, (coming straight) from all manner of uncleanness;
And with menstrual blood they defiled the sacrifices, as (though these were) common flesh.
14 (13) They left no sin undone, wherein they surpassed not the heathen.
15 (14) Therefore God mingled for them a spirit of wandering;
And gave them to drink a cup of undiluted wine, that they might become drunken.
16 (15) He brought him that is from the end of the earth, that smiteth mightily;
17 He decreed (?) war against Jerusalem, and against her land.
18 (16) The princes of the land went to meet him with joy: they said unto him:
Blessed be thy way! Come ye, enter ye in with peace.
19 (17) They made the rough ways even, before his entering in;
They opened the gates to Jerusalem, they crowned its walls.
20 (18) As a father (entereth) the house of his sons, (so) he entered (Jerusalem) in peace;
He established his feet (there) in great safety.
21 (19) He captured her fortresses and the wall of Jerusalem;
22 For God Himself led him in safety, while they wandered.
23 (20) He destroyed their princes and every one wise in counsel;
He poured out the blood of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, like the water of uncleanness.
24 (21) He led away their sons and daughters, whom they had begotten in defilement.

25 (22) They did according to their uncleanness, even as their fathers (had done):
26 They defiled Jerusalem and the things that had been hallowed to the name of God.
27 (23) (But) God hath shown Himself righteous in His judgments upon the nations of the earth;
28 And the pious (servants) of God are like innocent lambs in their midst.
29 (24) Worthy to be praised is the Lord that judgeth the whole earth in His righteousness.
30 (25) Behold, now, O God, Thou hast shown us Thy judgment in Thy righteousness;
31 Our eyes have seen Thy judgments, O God.
(26) We have justified Thy name that is honoured for ever;
32 For Thou art the God of righteousness, judging Israel with chastening.
33 (27) Turn, O God, Thy mercy upon us, and have pity upon us;
34 (28) Gather together the dispersed of Israel, with mercy and goodness;
35 For Thy faithfulness is with us.
(29) And (though) we have stiffened our neck, yet Thou art our chastener;
36 (30) Overlook us not, O our God, lest the nations swallow us up, as though there were none to deliver.
37 (31) But Thou art our God from the beginning,
And upon Thee is our hope (set), O Lord;
38 (32) And we will not depart from Thee,
For good are Thy judgments upon us.
39 (33) Ours and our children's be Thy good pleasure for ever;
O Lord our Saviour, we shall never more be moved.
40 (34) The Lord is worthy to be praised for His judgments with the mouth of His pious ones;
And blessed be Israel of the Lord for ever.

9. Of Solomon. For rebuke.

9 1 When Israel was led away captive into a strange land,
When they fell away from the Lord who redeemed them,
2 They were cast away from the inheritance, which Lord had given them.
(2) Among every nation (were) the dispersed of Israel according to the word of God,
3 That Thou mightest be justified, O God, in Thy righteousness by reason of our transgressions:
4 For Thou art a just judge over all the peoples of the earth.
5 (3) For from Thy knowledge none that doeth unjustly is hidden,
6 And the righteous deeds of Thy pious ones (are) before Thee, O Lord,
Where, then, can a man hide himself from Thy knowledge, O God?
7 (4) Our works are subject to our own choice and power
To do right or wrong in the works of our hands
8 And in Thy righteousness Thou visitest the sons of men.
9 (5) He that doeth righteousness layeth up life for himself with the Lord;
And he that doeth wrongly forfeits his life to destruction;
10 For the judgments of the Lord are (given) in righteousness to (every) man and (his) house.
(6) Unto whom art Thou good, O God, except to them that call upon the Lord?
12 He cleanseth from sins a soul when it maketh confession, when it maketh acknowledgement;
13 For shame is upon us and upon our faces on account of all these things.
14 (7) And to whom doth He forgive sins, except to them that have sinned?
15 Thou blessest the righteous, and dost not reprove them for the sins that they have committed;
And Thy goodness is upon them that sin, when they repent.
16 (8) And, now, Thou art our God, and we the people whom Thou hast loved:
Behold and show pity, O God of Israel, for we are Thine;
And remove not Thy mercy from us, lest they assail us.
17 (9) For Thou didst choose the seed of Abraham before all the nations,
And didst set Thy name upon us, O Lord,
18 And Thou wilt not reject (us) for ever.
Thou madest a covenant with our fathers concerning us;
19 (10) And we hope in Thee, when our soul turneth (unto Thee).
The mercy of the Lord be upon the house of Israel for ever and ever.

10. A Hymn Of Solomon.

10 1 Happy is the man whom the Lord remembereth with reproving,
And whom He restraineth from the way of evil with strokes,
That he may be cleansed from sin, that it may not be multiplied.
2 He that maketh ready his back for strokes shall be cleansed,
For the Lord is good to them that endure chastening.
3 For He maketh straight the ways of the righteous,
And doth not pervert (them) by His chastening.
4 And the mercy of the Lord (is) upon them that love Him in truth,
(4) And the Lord remembereth His servants in mercy.
5 For the testimony (is) in the law of the eternal covenant,
The testimony of the Lord (is) on the ways of men in (His) visitation.
6 (5) Just and kind is our Lord in His judgments for ever,
And Israel shall praise the name of the Lord in gladness.
7 (6) And the pious shall give thanks in the assembly of the people;
And on the poor shall God have mercy in the gladness (?) of Israel;
8 (7) For good and merciful is God for ever,
And the assemblies of Israel shall glorify the name of the Lord.
The salvation of the Lord be upon the house of Israel unto everlasting gladness!

11. Of Solomon. Unto expectation.

11 1 Blow ye in Zion on the trumpet to summon (the) saints,
2 Cause ye to be heard in Jerusalem the voice of him that bringeth good tidings;
For God hath had pity on Israel in visiting them.
3 (2) Stand on the height, O Jerusalem, and behold thy children,
From the East and the West, gathered together by the Lord;
4 (3) From the North they come in the gladness of their God,
From the isles afar off God hath gathered them.
5 (4) High mountains hath He abased into a plain for them;
6 The hills fled at their entrance.
(5) The woods gave them shelter as they passed by;
7 Every sweet-smelling tree God caused to spring up for them,
(6) That Israel might pass by in the visitation of the glory of their God.
8 (7) Put on, O Jerusalem, thy glorious garments;
Make ready thy holy robe;
For God hath spoken good concerning Israel, for ever and ever.
9 (8) Let the Lord do what He hath spoken concerning Israel and Jerusalem;
Let the Lord raise up Israel by His glorious name.
(9) The mercy of the Lord be upon Israel for ever and ever.

12. Of Solomon. Against the tongue of transgressors.

12 1 O Lord, deliver my soul from (the) lawless and wicked man,
From the tongue that is lawless and slanderous, and speaketh lies and deceit.
2 Manifoldly twisted (?) are the words of the tongue of the wicked man,
Even as among a people a fire that burneth up their beauty.
3 So he delights to fill houses with a lying tongue,
To cut down the trees of gladness which setteth on fire transgressors,
4 To involve households in warfare by means of slanderous lips.
(4) May God remove far from the innocent the lips of transgressors by (bringing them to) want
And may the bones of slanderers be scattered (far) away from them that fear the Lord!
5 In flaming fire perish the slanderous tongue (far) away from the pious!
6 (5) May the Lord preserve the quiet soul that hateth the unrighteous;
And may the Lord establish the man that followeth peace at home.
7 (6) The salvation of the Lord be upon Israel His servant for ever;
And let the sinners perish together at the presence of the Lord;
But let the Lord's pious ones inherit the promises of the Lord.

13. Of Solomon. A Psalm. Comfort for the righteous.

13 1 The right hand of the Lord hath covered me;
The right hand of the Lord hath spared us.
2 The arm of the Lord hath saved us from the sword that passed through,
From famine and the death of sinners.
3 Noisome beasts ran upon them:
With their teeth they tore their flesh,
And with their molars crushed their bones.
(4) But from all these things the Lord delivered us,
4 (5) The righteous was troubled on account of his errors,
Lest he should be taken away along with the sinners;
5 (6) For terrible is the overthrow of the sinner;
But not one of all these things toucheth the righteous.
(7) For not alike are the chastening of the righteous (for sins done) in ignorance,
And the overthrow of the sinners
7 (8) Secretly (?) is the righteous chastened,
Lest the sinner rejoice over the righteous.
8 (9) For He correcteth the righteous as a beloved son,
And his chastisement is as that of a firstborn.
9 10) For the Lord spareth His pious ones,
And blotteth out their errors by His chastening.
(11) For the life of the righteous shall be for ever;
10 But sinners shall be taken away into destruction,
And their memorial shall be found no more.
11 (12) But upon the pious is the mercy of the Lord,
And upon them that fear Him His mercy.

14. A Hymn. Of Solomon.

14 1 Faithful is the Lord to them that love Him in truth,
To them that endure His chastening,
(2) To them that walk in the righteousness of His commandments,
In the law which He commanded us that we might live.
2 (5) The pious of the Lord shall live by it for ever;
The Paradise of the Lord, the trees of life, are His pious ones.
3 (4) Their planting is rooted for ever;
They shall not be plucked up all the days of heaven:
(5) For the portion and the inheritance of God is Israel.
4 (6) But not so are the sinners and transgressors,
Who love (the brief) day (spent) in companionship with their sin;
(7) Their delight is in fleeting corruption,
5 And they remember not God.
(8) For the ways of men are known before Him at all times,
And He knoweth the secrets of the heart before they come to pass.
6 (9) Therefore their inheritance is Sheol and darkness and destruction,
And they shall not be found in the day when the righteous obtain mercy;
7 (10) But the pious of the Lord shall inherit life in gladness.

15. A Psalm. Of Solomon. With a Song.

15 1 When I was in distress I called upon the name of the Lord,
I hoped for the help of the God of Jacob and was saved;
2 For the hope and refuge of the poor art Thou, O God.
3 (a) For who, O God, is strong except to give thanks unto Thee in truth?
4 And wherein is a man powerful except in giving thanks to Thy name?
5 (3) A new psalm with song in gladness of heart,
The fruit of the lips with the well-tuned instrument of the tongue,
The firstfruits of the lips from a pious and righteous heart—
6 (4) He that offereth these things shall never be shaken by evil;
The flame of fire and the wrath against the unrighteous shall not touch him,
7 (5) When it goeth forth from the face of the Lord against sinners,
To destroy all the substance of sinners,
8 (6) For the mark of God is upon the righteous that they may be saved.
(7) Famine and sword and pestilence (shall be) far from the righteous,
9 For they shall flee away from the pious as men pursued in war;
(8) But they shall pursue sinners and overtake (them),
And they that do lawlessness shall not escape the judgment of God;
(9) As by enemies experienced (in war) shall they be overtaken,
10 For the mark of destruction is upon their forehead.
11 (10) And the inheritance of sinners is destruction and darkness,
And their iniquities shall pursue them unto Sheol beneath.
12 (11) Their inheritance shall not be found of their children,
13 For sins shall lay waste the houses of sinners.
(12) And sinners shall perish for ever in the day of the Lord's judgment,
14 When God visiteth the earth with His judgment.
15 (13) But they that fear the Lord shall find mercy therein,
And shall live by the compassion of their God;
But sinners shall perish for ever.

16. A Hymn. Of Solomon. For Help to the Pious.

16 1 When my soul slumbered (being afar) from the Lord, I had all but slipped down to the pit,
When (I was) far from God, 2 my soul had been well nigh poured out unto death,
(I had been) nigh unto the gates of Sheol with the sinner, 3 when my soul departed from the Lord God of Israel—
Had not the Lord helped me with His ever lasting mercy.
4 He pricked me, as a horse is pricked, that I might serve Him,
My savior and helper at all times saved me.
5 I will give thanks unto Thee, O God, for Thou hast helped me to (my) salvation;
And hast not counted me with sinners to (my) destruction.
6 Remove not Thy mercy from me, O God,
Nor Thy memorial from my heart until I die.
7 Rule me, O God, (keeping me back) from wicked sin,
And from every wicked woman that causeth the simple to stumble.
8 And let not the beauty of a lawless woman beguile me,
Nor any one that is subject to (?) unprofitable sin.
9 Establish the works of my hands before Thee,
And preserve my goings in the remembrance of Thee.
10 Protect my tongue and my lips with words of truth;
Anger and unreasoning wrath put far from me.
11 Murmuring, and impatience in affliction, remove far from me,
When, if I sin, Thou chastenest me that I may return (unto Thee).
12 But with goodwill and cheerfulness support my soul;
When Thou strengthenest my soul, what is given (to me) will be sufficient for me.
13 For if Thou givest not strength,
Who can endure chastisement with poverty?
14 When a man is rebuked by means of his corruption,
Thy testing (of him) is in his flesh and in the affliction of poverty.
15 If the righteous endureth in all these (trials), he shall receive mercy from the Lord.

17. A Psalm. Of Solomon. With Song. Of the King.

17 1 O Lord, Thou art our King for ever and ever,
For in Thee, O God, doth our soul glory.
2 How long are the days of man's life upon the earth?
As are his days, so is the hope (set) upon him.
3 But we hope in God, our deliverer;
For the might of our God is for ever with mercy,
4 And the kingdom of our God is for ever over the nations in judgment.
5 (4) Thou, O Lord, didst choose David (to be) king over Israel,
And swaredst to him touching his seed that never should his kingdom fail before Thee.
6 (5) But, for our sins, sinners rose up against us;
They assailed us and thrust us out;
What Thou hadst not promised to them, they took away (from us) with violence.
7 They in no wise glorified Thy honorable name;
(6) They set a (worldly) monarchy in place of (that which was) their excellency;
8 They laid waste the throne of David in tumultuous arrogance.
(7) But Thou, O God, didst cast them down and remove their seed from the earth,
9 In that there rose up against them a man that was alien to our race.
10 (8) According to their sins didst Thou recompense them, O God;
So that it befell them according to their deeds.
11 (9) God showed them no pity;
He sought out their seed and let not one of them go free.
12 (10) Faithful is the Lord in all His judgments Which He doeth upon the earth.
13 (11) The lawless one laid waste our land so that none inhabited it,
They destroyed young and old and their children together.
14 (12) In the heat of His anger He sent them away even unto the west,
And (He exposed) the rulers of the land unsparingly to derision.
15 (13) Being an alien the enemy acted proudly,
And his heart was alien from our God.
16 (14) And all things [whatsoever he did in] Jerusalem,
As also the nations [in the cities to their gods.]
17 (15) And the children of the covenant in the midst of the mingled peoples [surpassed them in evil.]
There was not among them one that wrought in the midst of Jerusalem mercy and truth.
18 (16) They that loved the synagogues of the pious fled from them,
As sparrows that fly from their nest.
19 (17) They wandered in deserts that their lives might be saved from harm,
And precious in the eyes of them that lived abroad was any that escaped alive from them.
20 (18) Over the whole earth were they scattered by lawless (men).
21 (19) For the heavens withheld the rain from dropping upon the earth,
Springs were stopped (that sprang) perennial(ly) out of the deeps, (that ran down) from lofty mountains.
For there was none among them that wrought righteousness and justice;
(20) From the chief of them to the least (of them) all were sinful;
22 The king was a transgressor, and the judge disobedient, and the people sinful.
23 (21) Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David,
At the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant
24 (22) And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers,
25 And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction.
(23) Wisely, righteously 26 he shall thrust out sinners from (the) inheritance,
He shall destroy the pride of the sinner as a potter's vessel.
(24) With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance,
21 He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth;
(25) At his rebuke nations shall flee before him,
And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their heart.
28 (26) And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in righteousness,
And he shall judge the tribes of the people that has been sanctified by the Lord his God.
29 (21) And he shall not suffer unrighteousness to lodge any more in their midst,
Nor shall there dwell with them any man that knoweth wickedness,
30 For he shall know them, that they are all sons of their God.
(28) And he shaIl divide them according to their tribes upon the land,
31 And neither sojourner nor alien shall sojourn with them any more.

(29) He shall judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. Selah.
32 (30) And he shall have the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke;
And he shall glorify the Lord in a place to be seen of (?) all the earth;
33 And he shall purge Jerusalem, making it holy as of old:
34 (31) So that nations shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory,
Bringing as gifts her sons who had fainted,
35 And to see the glory of the Lord, wherewith God hath glorified her.
(32) And he (shall be) a righteous king, taught of God, over them,
36 And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst,
For all shall be holy and their king the anointed of the Lord.
37 (33) For he shall not put his trust in horse and rider and bow,
Nor shall he multiply for himself gold and silver for war,
Nor shall he gather confidence from (?) a multitude (?) for the day of battle.
38 (34) The Lord Himself is his king, the hope of him that is mighty through (his) hope in God.

< > All nations (shall be) in fear before him,
39 (35) For he will smite the earth with the word of his mouth for ever.
40 He will bless the people of the Lord with wisdom and gladness,
41 (36) And he himself (will be) pure from sin, so that he may rule a great people.
He will rebuke rulers, and remove sinners by the might of his word;
42 (37) And (relying) upon his God, throughout his days he will not stumble;
For God will make him mighty by means of (His) holy spirit,
And wise by means of the spirit of understanding, with strength and righteousness.
43 (38) And the blessing of the Lord (will be) with him: he will be strong and stumble not;
44 (39) His hope (will be) in the Lord: who then can prevail against him?
(40) (He will be) mighty in his works, and strong in the fear of God,
45 (He will be) shepherding the flock of the Lord faithfully and righteously,
And will suffer none among them to stumble in their pasture.
46 (41) He will lead them all aright,
And there will be no pride among them that any among them should be oppressed.
47 (42) This (will be) the majesty of the king of Israel whom God knoweth;
He will raise him up over the house of Israel to correct him.
48 (43) His words (shall be) more refined than costly gold, the choicest;
In the assemblies he will judge the peoples, the tribes of the sanctified.
49 His words (shall be) like the words of the holy ones in the midst of sanctified peoples.
50 Blessed be they that shall be in those days,
In that they shall see the good fortune of Israel which God shall bring to pass in the gathering together of the tribes.
51 May the Lord hasten His mercy upon Israel!
May He deliver us from the uncleanness of unholy enemies!

The Lord Himself is our king for ever and ever.

18. A Psalm. Of Solomon. Again of the Anointed of the Lord.

18 1 Lord, Thy mercy is over the works of Thy hands for ever;
Thy goodness is over Israel with a rich gift.
2 Thine eyes look upon them, so that none of them suffers want;
3 Thine ears listen to the hopeful prayer of the poor.
(3) Thy judgments (are executed) upon the whole earth in mercy;
4 And Thy love (is) toward the seed of Abraham, the children of Israel.
(4) Thy chastisement is upon us as (upon) a first-born, only-begotten son,
5 To turn back the obedient soul from folly (that is wrought) in ignorance.
6 (5) May God cleanse Israel against the day of mercy and blessing,
Against the day of choice when He bringeth back His anointed.

7 (6) Blessed shall they be that shall be in those days,
In that they shall see the goodness of the Lord which He shall perform for the generation that is to come,
8 (7) Under the rod of chastening of the Lord's anointed in the fear of his God,
In the spirit of wisdom and righteousness and strength;
9 (8) That he may direct (every} man in the works of righteousness by the fear of God,
That he may establish them all before the Lord,
10 (9) A good generation (living) in the fear of God in the days of mercy. Selah.

11 (10) Great is our God and glorious, dwelling in the highest.
12 (It is He) who hath established in (their) courses the lights (of heaven) for determining seasons from year to year,
And they have not turned aside from the way which He appointed them
13 (11) In the fear of God (they pursue) their path every day,
From the day God created them and for evermore.
14 (12) And they have erred not since the day He created them.
Since the generations of old they have not withdrawn from their path,
Unless God commanded them (so to do) by the command of His servants.

How to Calculate Your Quality of Life

2010-07-17T21:17:00.000+09:30

Want to know a quick and easy way to calculate your quality of life?

Here's how.

1. List the following seven aspects of life and give each one a number out of ten for the quality of that area of life for you.

Spiritual
Mental
Emotional
Physical
Financial
Vocational
Familial

Don't overthink this. Let the answer fall out.

2. Now, add up the numbers for each area of life. For example, if you gave yourself 1 out of 10 for your spiritual area of life, and 7 out of 10 fo rthe mental area of life, then add 1 plus 7 plus the other numbers you gave.

3. You will now have a number somewhere between zero and seventy that describes the sum of your quality of life. Now we're going to average it so we have a really simply picture of your exact quality of life.

The average (arithmetic mean) is the sum of the values divided by the number of values. So the sum of your seven areas of life, divided by seven, is the number you are after.

4. Round the number up to the nearest digit and you now have your overall quality of life, on a scale out of ten! Well done.

Next post we will discuss how to improve your quality of life.

Personal Responsibility - A Quote From Jim Rohn.

2010-06-13T14:49:00.001+09:30

You can't hire someone else to do your push-ups for you.

- Jim Rohn

The Power of Kneeling

2010-06-01T22:34:00.004+09:30

We need the power to live. Even the very finest quality of prejudices are still blocks to power and happiness.

The prejudice that I do not merit God's help and love and support to the fullest degree must go.

The prejudice that I can do anything that can make God have such a bad day that He will not help me must go if I can live.

Because when I need God most, when I've done the thing that disgusts or horrifies me, that's precisely when I cannot reject that idea in myself of power.

So I let myself get down on my knees when I wake and ask whatever runs the universe for help. I need power. And when I go to bed at night I get down on my knees and thank whatever that was for what just happened.

My life is how I demonstrate the spirit to myself, through actions that do so.

- Scott L.

Five Subjects for Frequent Recollection

2010-05-12T12:40:00.003+09:30

Thannisaro Bhikku's translation from Access to Insight

Age, sickness, death, impermance, karma - these 5 subjects we should contemplate frequently.

I am of the nature to age, I have not gone beyond aging.
I am of the nature to sicken, I have not gone beyond sickness.
I am of the nature to die, I have not gone beyond dying.
All that is mine, beloved and pleasing, will become otherwise, will become separated from me.

I am the owner of my kamma, heir to my kamma, born of my kamma,
Related to my kamma, abide supported by my kamma.
Whatever kamma I shall do, for good or for ill -
Of that I will be the heir.

Thus we should frequently recollect.

Your dream home - a visionary poem:

2010-05-12T11:03:00.002+09:30

"You look out your window, past your gardener, who is busily pruning the lemon, cherry, and fig trees... amidst the splendor of gardenias, hibiscus, and hollyhocks.

"The sky is clear blue. The sea is a deeper blue, sparkling with sunlight.

"A gentle breeze comes drifting in from the ocean, clean and refreshing, as your maid brings you breakfast in bed.

"For a moment, you think you have died and gone to heaven.

"But this paradise is real. And affordable. In fact, it costs only half as much to live this dream lifestyle... as it would to stay in your past home!"

The Ten Commandments In Modern Conversational English

2010-04-26T01:24:00.004+09:30

Ever think about the Ten Commandments in modern conversational English?

Paulist Father John Behnke, former chaplain at St. Lawrence Church and Newman Center, offers a re-write of the biblical language in a new book whose target audience is younger people.

In “Lent and Easter for the Younger Crowd” (Paulist Press), he offers this take on Exodus 20:1-7, better known as the Ten Commandments:

"One day God said to his people, 'Here are some rules I want you to always follow:

1. Pray only to me because I'm the one who made you and saved you.

2. I don't want to hear any of you swearing.

3. I want one day out of the week to be a special day for you. Don't do too much work that day so you can relax and spend some time praying to me.

4. I want you to listen to your parents (even when you grow up) because they have lived longer and know more about life than you.

5. Don't kill anyone for any reason.

6. Don't fool around with someone you're not married to.

7. Don't take anything that isn't yours.

8. Don't lie about anybody.

9. Don't always be wanting things that belong to other people.

All I'm really asking is that you 'love me and keep my rules.'"

The 25 Principles of Healing by Jon Mundy, Course In Miracles Workshop

2010-04-24T03:21:00.004+09:30

The 25 Principles of Healing of John Mundy, received and revised by Alex Burtson at The Selfless Self

On a podcast from "A Cloud Does Not Put Out the Sun," they were discussing Jon Mundy's 25 principles of healing. Alex Burtson wrote them all down, simplifying and shortening a couple of them. Here they are:

One illness is not harder to heal than another.
The healer’s sole responsibility is to accept atonement for himself.
You heal by seeing past the patient’s ego and sick beliefs, as well as your own.
You heal by realizing that you don’t have to change the patient.
You heal by seeing the patient’s body and its sickness as unreal.
To heal, it is necessary to understand the mind’s purpose in making the body sick.
To heal, it is necessary to understand the fear of healing.
The patient is not a victim of a dangerous world, but is the commander of his situation, the dreamer of his dream.
The proper aim of healing is not the body, but the mind.
The patient is the same as you and one with you.
The patient is your equal.
You are not in a position to direct the process or judge the outcome. The Holy Spirit is the only healer.
You do not give the patient something from outside of her; you merely help her connect with the wholeness already within.
There is something in you that will tell you what each brother needs. You must not demand, decide, nor sacrifice- only listen and you will find the answer.
Do not doubt the power in you.
Healing occurs when, in a holy instant, you step outside your normal frame of reference.
You heal by forgiving the patient. The process that takes place in this relationship is actually one in which the therapist, in his heart, tells the patient that all his sins have been forgiven him.
You heal by aiding the patient’s own forgiveness processes.
Your true perception is what heals, not your behaviors, your words, your hands, or the energy you move around.
Calling on Jesus is part of the healing, but not because this is a magical invocation.
You heal through your happiness. Those who attempt to heal without being wholly joyous themselves call forth different kinds of responses at the same time, and thus deprive others of the joy of responding wholeheartedly.
Healing others is not a sacrifice- it is the road to happiness. There is a tendency to assume that you are being called on constantly called on to make sacrifices for those who come.
The healers reward lies not in demands or ingratitude but in the giving itself, which reinforces the healer’s own healing. An unhealed healer waits for something in return, and so he cannot give nor heal.
If symptoms persist, trust that the patient receives the healing- do not repeat it.
Self-doubt and self-concern represent a reliance on the false self.
All of the principles are simple- they are 25 different ways to say the same thing. This is basically what they say: There is no order of difficulty in healing, and you heal by knowing that you are the same, equal, and one with the patient. The mind is the focus in true healing, and the body is the focus in magic.You must forget the random judging of the ego and the belief in sickness, and instead be fearless and doubtless. You must not expect a result or make any demands (like money) or you will be unable to heal. You must understand that there is wholeness within each one of us, and that you must listen to the Holy Spirit that is within you if you want to perceive correctly. You know that we are not the victims but the commanders of our situations, and that you are able to heal through forgiving your false self and the false selves of others.

How to Practice Centering Prayer

2010-04-21T23:40:00.002+09:30

Centering Prayer is:

A relationship with God
The discipline is constantly at the service of this relationship
A movement beyond conversation with God to communion with God
Preparation for us to open the gift of contemplation
Not meant to replace other kinds of prayer
A connection to our source the Indwelling God
Focuses on a deepening of our relationship with God
Provides the Fruits of emotional balance, a sense of belonging, and fellowship
Centering Prayer Method - The Prayer of Consent

Centering Prayer is both

a relationship with God, a Power greater than ourselves
a discipline in total service to deepening this relationship
a movement from being self-centered to God-centered. Centering prayer is in the service of this action.

The Guidelines

1. Choose a sacred word as the symbol of your intention to consent to God’s presence and action within

2. Sitting comfortably and with eyes closed, settle briefly and silently, introduce the sacred word as the symbol of your consent to God’s presence and action within

3. When engaged with your thoughts, return ever-so-gently to the sacred word

4. At the end of the prayer period, remain in silence with eyes closed for a couple of minutes

Guideline 1

“Choose a sacred word as the symbol of your intention to consent to God’s presence and action within.”

Sacred word expresses our intention to consent
It is sacred only because of its intention (no inherent meaning)
Intention and consent are the heart and soul of Centering Prayer
What is God’s presence and action?

God’s presence is the divine life within us which affirms our basic core of goodness
God’s action is the grace of the transformation process
The Sacred Word

The sacred word is a word of one or two syllables

A few examples
God, Father, Mother, Abba
Faith, Yes, Let Go, Let God
Peace, Be Still, Listen, Shalom
Hope, Love, Breath, Home

Guideline 2

“Sitting comfortably and with eyes closed, settle briefly, and silently introduce the sacred word as the symbol of your consent to God’s presence and action within.”

Sitting comfortably … back straight
With eyes closed … as a symbol of “letting go”
Silently say your sacred word… as a symbol
of your intention and consent

Guideline 3

“When engaged with your thoughts, return ever-so-gently to the Sacred Word.”

“Thoughts” is an umbrella term for every perception, including body sensations, feelings, images, memories, plans, reflections, concepts, commentaries, and spiritual experiences
Thoughts are inevitable, integral and normal
“When engaged with your thoughts, return ever-so-gently…” — a minimum effort is indicated

Guideline 4

“At the end of the prayer period, remain in silence with eyes closed for a couple of minutes.”

The additional time enables us to gently bring silence into everyday life
Minimum time 20 minutes
Practice two periods of Centering Prayer daily

Practical Ways to Deepen our Relationship with God

Practice two 20 – 30 minute periods of Centering Prayer daily
Attend the remaining six continuing sessions of this Introduction to the Centering Prayer Practice
Join an ongoing Centering Prayer group and attend 11th step meetings
Study Open Mind, Open Heart by Thomas Keating and other spiritual literature

It Can Be Done - the Buddha's Kusala Sutta

2010-04-20T04:04:00.003+09:30

It can be done! If it couldn't be done, I would not say ‘It can be done.’

It can be done, so I say: ‘It can be done.’

Buddha, Kusala Sutta, from the Anguttara Nikaya..

Eleven Tricks To Teach You How to Love Your Self.

2010-04-12T13:29:00.001+09:30

1. Everyday, ask yourself the following question,"What makes me a good person?" The answer must be something positive and asked/answered before you eat breakfast/brush your teeth.

2. Think of all the things you don't like about yourself and write down the OPPOSITE. Your brain is a computer and it absorbs what you want it to know. Remind yourself that your a wonderful, beautiful person and no one can tell you different.

3. Make a List of Things you Like About Yourself. Ask Others to add to your List

4. Treat yourself like you own best friend. Pay attention to your own life first and formost. Invest actions in your own life that build a relationship with yourself.

5. Mother yourself. Nurture, nourish, pamper, cultivate, bring up yourself.

6. Pay yourself a compliment out loud.

7. Wear only nice underwear.

8. Avoid controversy and opinions by humbly seeking understanding and live in common unity of purpose.

9. Develop a thicker skin and look for the positive intention behind what people say.

10. Look at yourself in a full-length mirror and find something that you like.

11. Do a good deed everyday. Any positive action that helps someone else is good.

Celtic Poem - The Guiding Light of Eternity

2010-03-18T22:35:00.003+10:30

O Lord that brought me from the rest of last night
To the joyous light of today,
Bringing Thou me from the new light of this day
To the guiding light of eternity.

O! from the new light of this day
Unto the guiding light of eternity.

Celtic Prayer.

Bushbuck

2010-02-08T02:04:00.001+10:30

Notice the exquisite silence and sweetness in this Buckbuck's eyes?

Observe the lucid awareness in the shoulders, the way it is equally ready to flee or to approach?

Isn't that just so lovely?

Click on the title of this piece to see many more.

The Uses of Samyama, 3 of 6

2010-02-06T14:00:00.001+10:30

This is part three of six pieces on the genius state known as samyama.

The worldly use of samyama in education, science, politics, and arts is almost completely untapped. Patanjali is very open in the Yoga Sutras about the application of samyama to worldly goals, and it seems even behind his weird language it is an exceptionally powerful tool.

Samyama releases genius. In the field of economics, the real driver of capital creation is genius. Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein as individuals created more value for society than millions of people by their work. And the work of genius arises from concentrated, meditative absorption on the topic they choose.

In part two of this series we looked at the 3 components of samyama – dharana, dhyana, and samadhi. By applying these three approaches to a topic, you can easily penetrate the material form (through dharana) of any topic, comprehend it intellectually (through dhyana), and experience its essence (through samadhi). But it is by applying samyama that great leaps of genius insight unfold in whatever arena or field of knowledge it is applied in.

Samyama is the secret of genius. By samyama on a topic, you come to know it from the inside out, as you know yourself. Imagine knowing a person from the inside out through samyama, and the advantage it confers in dealing with them. Imagine knowing a political or business issue from the insight and the strength and clarity of insight it would bring to bear on the successful resolution of the issue.

I want to suggest that in the case of especially talented women and men, they have the unconscious imprint of the ability to samyama on certain topics or arenas. If they are able to unconsciously samyama on science, they may be a scientific genius. But without the requisite mind training their insights will seem accidental, random, and mediated through sleep, dream and reverie. With training in stilling the motions of the mind, otherwise known as yoga, this process becomes conscious.

If this idea is accurate, and unconscious samyama is the source of talents in everyday genius creators, then it opens a new path of inquiry:

Is it possible to teach genius through the systematic development of samyama?

More about Samyama, 2 of 6

2010-02-06T13:18:00.009+10:30

This is part two of six pieces on the highest state of mind training known as samyama.

One writer defined samyama as “the flowing of attention, awareness and energy.” I would like to look at that some more. Each of these three characteristics refer to very specific practices and states of consciousness that are cultivated separately first. Samyama therefore is the synergy of three distinct practices working together as one practice.

Samyama as a single practice that is greater than the sum of its three basic practices. By putting samyama in the technical and systemic context of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra’s, the precise nature and power of samyama becomes very clear:

Technically samyama is the simultaneous and synergistic practice of the last three of eight limbs of Patanjali’s yoga system. Individually these limbs are technically called “dharana”, “dhyana” and “samadhi”. For samyama to be understood by the mind for the amazing power it is, each word needs a precise definition. The trouble is, Sanskrit simply does not work that way. Its beauty as a sacred language comes precisely from the wide spectrum of potential meanings surrounding every major word. So instead of a definition, here are some synonyms:

Dharana: concentration, attention, focus, resolve, mindfulness.
Dhyana: meditation, awareness, witnessing, detachment, insight.
Samadhi: contemplation, energy, light, absorption into the object of meditation, bliss.

Can you catch a sense or intuition of the meaning of these words?

Much more precision can be gained from carefully looking and practicing Patanjali’s text. The first five limbs of yoga might be said to be the source of dharana, concentration. This is a state where the mind is still, clear, awake, and lucid.

Dhyana, meditation, is for Patanjali any focus on this concentrated attention. He lists a number of possible focuses and the consequences of a given focus in the form of various powers and experiences. Dhyana arises from the cessation of the movements of the mind; it is the state yogas aim at.

But Patanjali is an equal opportunity spiritualist; he doesn’t seem to care about theological matters except insofar as they support or hinder practice. He seems eminently practical in this. Meditation is mind practice, dhyana – no more, no less. What you practice the mind on is up to you.

In that context, then, samadhi is entering INTO the object of meditation. It is becoming that object. It is a pretty radical idea, but it is not just a becoming. It is a revelation also. The essence of a matter is revealed by samadhi on it.

When you become something, all stands revealed. All doubt is resolved, and nothing is left to say or do. Samadhi is high-seeing (sama = summit, dhi = seeing). Dhyana is insight as a vehicle (dhi = insight, yana = vehicle). Dharana is (clearly) seeing a (material) form (dha = seeing, rana = material form).

All depends on the context here. If I were to present these notions in modern language, I would say that dharana means sound reality testing and freedom from neurotic imprints and emotional chaos; dhyana means meditative experience and skill with the abstract nonlinear content of mind that generates perceptual dualities, thereby giving rise to categories and conditional states of consciousness; and samadhi means direct experience of the context in which mind arises as a consequence of witness awareness. But the downside with all this modern jargon is that it dates fast, while Patanjali’s words remain.

On Samyama, 1 of 6

2010-01-18T01:18:00.003+10:30

Samyama is defined as “the flowing of attention, awareness and energy”, “integration”, “the inner part of yoga”, “meditative absorbsion”, or even “beginner’s mind”. The word originates from the great spiritual teacher Patanjali.

I like to think of samyama like this:

When you set out to achieve something wonderful, you soon discover the mind is impeded through various arbitrary and conflicting positions of the ego. You might set out to get fit or change jobs and find many inner qualities which stop you going forward. If the inner sense of certainty is lacking, then the goal feels out of reach. How do you find the inner certainty? Through samyama.

And even when you achieve the goal, you may remain uncertain in yourself. You might find yourself feeling doubts about other goals, or discounting the value of your efforts in the past. This uncertainty is only resolved at the level of consciousness through the experience of samyama, which bring absolute certainty. For example, samyama on strength and optimism might bring to you the absolute certainty that something wonderful is unfolding.

Then on achieving the goal you learn that part of the benefit of setting and reaching goals comes from the resolution of these inner positionalities through samyama. You become one with the truth that you are an unlimited and empowered being through samyama. It is not the goal that brings peace and serenity; it was the state of consciousness that brought the power. Samyama, the state of consciousness, brings peace, serenity, and power.

It is difficult unaided to see that the source of all happiness and achievement arises solely from this the ability of consciousness to become absolutely peaceful, serene and empowered. Patanjali clearly says that from samyama arise all achievements and powers; he is referring to this state of certainty, power, resolution, and peace.

This is the first of six short talks about the power of samyama. I find they are the most complete collection of this empowering knowledge online or in print. Finding nothing online or in books that satisfied my interest, I created this and hope you will also benefit from it.

On Spiritual Awakening

2009-04-04T15:44:00.005+10:30

Spiritual awakening is the waking up in you of that which is inspired.

Inspiration and happiness go together, because the breath of inspiration gives birth to the freedom of happiness.

Spiritual awakening is just like physical awakening.

Waking up is not caused by an alarm clock or by someone shaking you gently; it is caused by your having had enough sleep. The kind of awakening that comes from externals waking you up is unreliable - that is, if you depend only on the alarm clock, you generally end up sleeping in. The kind of awakening that comes from being ready to stop sleeping is stable and happy.

Just as waking up the body naturally is reliable, so waking up the spiritual naturally is best. In other words, it is best to avoid occult gyrations and mystifications which might just as well be dreams (or nightmares) as genuine presagers of awakening.

When it has had enough sleep, the body wakes. When they have had enough drama, the emotions become habitually stoic. When it has had enough thinking, the mind becomes silent.

Why make this a matter right or wrong when it is clearly a matter of ready or unready?

But the spirit becomes awake when it knows it is free. Freedom is the nature of the spirit, just as meat is the nature of the body and energy the nature of the emotions. The spirit that knows itself as free is happy. And being happy, it is awake.

Do spirits go back to sleep? Yes and no. A spiritual awakening is a personal quality which awakens in a specific person. That awake quality may be enhanced thoughtfulness and kindness; it may be a heightened dedication to a code of conduct; it may be a deepened sense of instutional or collective commitment; or it may take on the various mystical facets of selfless service, devotional feeling, or meditative solitude. But each awake quality is not better or worse than another. They are all awake to the person who experiences that quality. So, to answer the question of whether spirits go back to sleep: no, because there are different kinds of awakening suitable to different types of people, therefore what to one person is a state of sleep is to another a glorious awakening; but yes, because kinds of awakening are different in degree, and while one is not better than another, some kinds of awakenings are more complete and rich, as judged by their results, than others.

What is your message?

2009-03-06T17:30:00.001+10:30

Q: What is your message?

A1: The question is irrelevant. Love is the answer.

A2: My life is my message.

A3: Clarity is the love of truth, charity the truth of life: together they are the good.

A4: [insert reply here]

View from your deathbed

2009-03-06T17:25:00.001+10:30

From your deathbed, what matters is that your final breath comes in with the sweet satisfaction of a life fulfilled and goes out with the blessing of a life complete.

- Gay Hendricks

America As the New Rome, by Mervyn F. Bendle

2008-05-21T00:34:00.006+09:30

Blogger Comment: This superb, erudite, and sophisticated essay undermines the notion of the fall of Rome, only to reinstall a sophisticated moral vision of the role of nihilism and moral relativism in the downfall of civilizations. The fact that whole societies just lose interest in behaving decently is the real source of the shift in loyalties and interests which we, in retrospect, oversimplify as "the Fall of Rome". I highly recommend the journal it comes from, Quadrant, as Australia's leading cultural journal.

America as the New Rome
Mervyn F. Bendle

FOR AT LEAST 240 YEARS Western societies have been fascinated by two inter-related events, one located in the distant past, and the other in the near but ever-receding future: the fall of the Roman empire with its causes and consequences; and apocalyptic expectations about the fate of America and Western civilisation. Three new books, Cullen Murphy’s The New Rome?, Naomi Wolf’s The End of America, and Chalmers Johnson’s Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (all first published in America, but issued in Australia by Scribe), in various ways cater to (and indeed exploit) these perennial concerns. All three authors have publicised their books widely in Australia, through press, radio, television and internet interviews, or appearances at writers’ festivals. While none can be commended, they raise some interesting questions about the historical study of ancient Rome and its contemporary relevance, and also illuminate some important preoccupations of the Western intelligentsia.

In contemplating the end of empire, Murphy and Johnson are joining a long tradition, exemplified by Edward Gibbon, who has described the moment when he first thought to write his monumental History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789):

“It was at Rome, on the fifteenth of October, 1764, as I sat musing amidst the ruins of the Capitol while the barefooted friars were singing Vespers in the Temple of Jupiter, that the idea of writing the decline and fall of the city first started to my mind.”

In 1782, the Frenchman Count Volney described a similar reverie before the ruins of another ancient city that led him to write Ruins, or Considerations on the Revolutions of Empires (1791):

“Here once flourished an opulent city; here was the seat of a powerful empire … Ah, how has so much glory been eclipsed! How have been annihilated so many labours! Thus do perish the works of men! Thus vanish empires and nations!”

Meanwhile (c.1778–80), Johann Fuseli captured a similar moment in a drawing of the artist slumped in awe next to the gigantic fragments of the Colossus of Constantine found in the courtyard of the Capitoline Museums in Rome. Then, a century on, Gustave Doré drew a similar picture, envisaging a future imperial London lying in ruins before the awestruck artist. Now, a further 140 years later, Murphy records the same type of experience as he wandered about Washington DC:

“I doubt I’m the only person who has trod, with lofty step, the sculpted gardens of the Capitol and been seized with a vision of how the city below might appear as a ruin. [Great national edifices] invite you to see them as derelicts … What calamity could bring the capital to this condition? Earthquake, Pestilence? Pride?”

Murphy found himself impelled to emulate Gibbon—albeit writing in a prophetic rather than an historical mode—and explore America’s impending decline and fall, if such is to be its fate.

By contrast, Johnson displays little of this prophetic vision or sense of historical depth, but is rather a pugnacious and pragmatic polemicist, merely exploiting the fate of Rome to continue his left-wing assault on the US government and its policies that he launched in Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire in 2002.

Wolf, for her part, has also produced a polemic, indeed an hysterical and paranoid effusion that is concerned with comparing America not to Rome but rather to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in order to identify “parallels” that show how America is devolving into a terrorist superpower. Her book compiles these into a sort of “how-to” manual for constructing a fascist state: invoke an internal and external threat; establish secret prisons; develop a paramilitary force; place ordinary citizens under surveillance; infiltrate citizens’ groups; arbitrarily detain citizens; target key individuals; restrict the press; represent criticism as espionage and dissent as treason; and subvert the rule of law. Rome appears only as the scene of Mussolini’s activities and Wolf’s book is best treated as an example of the strong apocalyptic tendency in American culture. It is also an example of the reckless, adversarial nature of the intelligentsia, to which we will return later.

Underlying Murphy’s book is the conviction that “the debate over Rome’s ultimate fate holds a key to thinking about our own”. In the American title of the book he asks of Americans: Are we Rome? And can Americans learn anything of contemporary relevance from the achievements, failures, weaknesses and fate of Rome? He himself is clearly convinced that Americans (and their allies and enemies) can indeed learn something, and (like Wolf) he identifies a set of “parallels” that allegedly exist between Rome and America, and he explores these in the chapters of his book: (1) A sense of imperial destiny and arrogance that tends to view the world as if it revolves around the imperial capital, be it Rome or Washington; (2) The enormous military power that underpins empire but increasingly comes to rely not on a professional army of citizens but on barbarians (Rome) and mercenaries (America); (3) A blurring of the distinction between public and private wealth and an associated tendency to privatise public assets that Murphy claims is inextricably linked to corruption; (4) An ethnocentrism shared by Rome and America that arises out of their dominance and leads them to disparage and underestimate the people beyond their frontiers; (5) The role of borders, which, Murphy claims, reveals a centuries-long Roman capacity to assimilate newcomers that America apparently cannot emulate; (6) Finally, Murphy identifies “the complexity parallel”, according to which, he claims, “the bigger the entity and the more things it touches, the more susceptible it is to forces beyond its control. Maintaining stability requires far more work than fomenting instability.”

These themes give Murphy’s book its structure, but right away there are problems. To begin with, some of the arguments are trivial, for example, the claim that Rome was ethnocentric and arrogant because it produced maps, arranged road markers, and erected monuments that placed it at the centre, as if it was conceivable that Romans would have sensibly orientated themselves in any other way at the time. And one suspects that these parallels could be drawn with many countries, including China throughout much of its history. Moreover, some of Murphy’s “parallels” seem obviously contrived, as if they have been chosen mainly to ensure the relevance of Murphy’s discussion to current political issues and preoccupations in America in the current presidential election year, rather than to explore authentically and systematically the true points of contact and divergence between Rome and the USA.

Johnson’s approach is similar, although he has a more limited agenda, using the example of ancient Rome to attack what he sees as American imperialism and militarism, which he insists will lead to catastrophe: “The collapse of the Roman Republic offers a perfect case study of how imperialism and militarism can undermine even the best defences of a democracy.”

ATTENTIVE READERS might notice that although Johnson invokes Gibbon and his explanation for the fall of the Roman empire, and also seeks to incorporate into his argument the fate of the British empire, he actually seems to focus on the Roman republic, which is conventionally taken to have ended with the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, whereas the end of the empire is usually given as 476 AD, when the last emperor of the western Roman empire, Romulus Augustus, was deposed and not replaced—half a millennium later.

Such readers might have even more pressing concerns—concerns that strike at the very heart of this type of polemical exploitation of the history of ancient Rome. Clearly, for such polemics to have any cogency two conditions need to be met: first, Rome needs really to have suffered a precipitous decline and fall; and, second, this needs to have happened for the reasons that the polemicists claim, otherwise their strategy of drawing close parallels between ancient Rome and contemporary America loses whatever power it might have.

Therefore, we must ask, what was the fate of Rome? Did Rome really “fall” sometime around the fifth century, as we have come to accept since Gibbon published his volumes of the Decline and Fall? Or did something else happen to it? And if it did fall, what were the causes? And were they primarily internal (for example, decadence or militarism), or external (barbarian invasions)? And do such questions really have anything to teach us across a gulf of 1500 years?

These are clearly substantial matters that illustrate the complex issues with which exercises in comparative history have to deal, and Murphy and Johnson generally avoid discussing them. Therefore, in order that we can more fully assess the type of arguments advanced in these books, we will review what Gibbon himself had to say about the fall of Rome, before more briefly reviewing some subsequent theories, including the great competing analysis proposed by Henri Pirenne in Mohammed and Charlemagne (1937), and the findings of the most recent historians of Rome. Ironically, Murphy and Johnson have chosen to launch their jeremiads at a propitious time for the study of Roman history. As Peter Heather (The Fall of the Roman Empire, 2005) points out: “Two generations of scholarship since the Second World War have revolutionized our understanding both of the Roman Empire and of the wider [barbarian] world … The intellectual impact of these [research] trends has been electric.”

Other historians before Gibbon had explored the idea of civilisational collapse. For example, Edward Wortley Montagu had published Reflections on the Rise and Fall of the Ancient Republics in 1759. Nevertheless, it was Gibbon who gave it brilliant and memorable expression. In Chapter 38 of The Decline and Fall (D.M. Low abridgement), Gibbon offers his “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”, concluding that:

“The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.”

These are, of course, memorable words, capturing the essential themes that have ever since been associated with Gibbon’s analysis of the fall of Rome and the fate of empires. They suggest, for example, that “immoderate greatness” leads naturally and inevitably to decline, that there is a “principle of decay” inherent in civilisations, and that such immense human achievements can precipitously collapse under “the pressure of [their] own weight”. These observations have the quality of general predictions about the history of civilisations and certainly helped provoke the subsequent interest in the fall of Rome, treated as a case study of “immoderate greatness”, as, of course, we are seeing once again with these efforts by Murphy and Johnson.

However, before Gibbon reaches this famous assessment of Rome’s fall he offers an equally grand encomium of its achievements, especially in its earlier centuries, invoking the great Greek historian Polybius, who had witnessed Rome’s annihilation of Carthage and whose work revealed “the deep foundations of the greatness of Rome”:

“The fidelity of the citizens to each other and to the state was confirmed by the habits of education and the prejudices of religion. Honour, as well as virtue, was the principle of the republic; the ambitious citizens laboured to deserve the solemn glories of a triumph; and the ardour of the Roman youth was kindled into active emulation as often as they beheld the domestic images of their ancestors. The temperate struggles of the patricians and plebeians had finally established the firm and equal balance of the constitution, which united the freedom of popular assemblies with the authority and wisdom of a senate and the executive powers of a regal magistrate.”

In a passage that would irritate Johnson, with his over-heated hatred of militarism and imperialism, Gibbon describes how Rome mobilised the power of its citizen army and its Italian allies, “who yielded to the valour and embraced the alliance of the Romans”. Rome was driven by “the spirit and success of a people incapable of fear and impatient of repose”, advancing “with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the Ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome”.

However, from the heights of this imperial apogee the story of the ruin of Rome, according to Gibbon, “is simple and obvious”:

“The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed and finally dissolved by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of barbarians.”

Despite the radical fervour that they bring to their jeremiads, not even Johnson or Wolf could claim that this offers a relevant parallel to anything that is happening in the USA.

GIBBON ACTUALLY acknowledges a range of causes for Rome’s fall, including the role played by Christianity, and because this is often taken as a central element of his explanation for the fall of Rome it is worth careful review. Gibbon observes that when “the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that … Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire”. The enervating

“doctrines of patience and pusillanimity were preached [while] the active virtues of society were discouraged, [until] the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister [where] the sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age.”

Vast amounts of public and private wealth were “consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion [and] lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity”. Inevitably, “the church, and even the state, was distracted by religious factions [and] the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods”. Nevertheless, despite these corrosive affects, Christianity also provided “a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign.” Consequently, “if the decline of the Roman Empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors”.

Christianity thus played a nuanced role. It gave expression to widespread feelings of guilt and unworthiness, of fatalism and despair with the present world, which conspired to produce a desire for salvation, with many escaping the vicissitudes of life in the here-and-now through new contemplative forms of religious life. The great martial ethic and absolute loyalty to Rome were swept aside by a new ethic of intense self-regard, elevated to supernatural heights. On the other hand, the new religion carefully rendered unto Caesar the civic observances that were required.

Having reviewed a range of causes for the fall of Rome, Gibbon turns from the Roman past to his own time, setting a precedent that Murphy, Johnson and many others have followed in suggesting that “this awful revolution may be usefully applied to the instruction of the present age”. For Gibbon, the civilisation of Europe (in which he includes America) enjoyed a high level of cultivation, prosperity, and happiness, and a system of arts, laws and manners that distinguished it from the rest of humanity. On the other hand:

“The savage nations of the globe are the common enemies of civilised society; and we may inquire, with anxious curiosity, whether Europe is still threatened with a repetition of those calamities which formerly oppressed the arms and institutions of Rome.”

In making this assessment Gibbon knew only too well how “cold, poverty, and a life of danger and fatigue fortify the strength and courage of barbarians”, while too many “polite and peaceful nations [neglect] the resources of military art”, and leave themselves unable to resist “the rude valour” of the barbarians. He laments that “the Romans were ignorant of the extent of their dangers and the number of their enemies” that were gathering: “poor, voracious, and turbulent; bold in arms, and impatient to ravish the fruits of industry”. These barbarian hordes were violently “agitated by the rapid impulse of war”, and behind them were the remorseless Huns, propelled westwards by their enemies, while beyond them all were “the distant revolutions of China”.

The French Revolution radicalised the historical study of Rome, with the French initially adopting doctrines and imagery that were inspired by the Roman republic, before shifting focus to the empire when Napoleon rose to power. Meanwhile, Britain and Germany turned to ancient Greece as a model of resistance to tyranny. Consequently, according to David Gress (From Plato to NATO, 1998), “ever since Napoleonic times, French thinkers … looked to Rome and accepted Rome’s contribution to the West, while progressive Germans, Britons, and Americans tended to see Rome as at best a necessary evil and to choose the Greeks as models”.

An interesting variation of this Northern view was proposed in 1800 by the German Romantic Johann Herder. He envisaged Rome as a near lifeless form that had lain on her deathbed for centuries until there came “northern giants, to whom the enervated Romans appeared dwarfs; they ravaged Rome, and infused new life into expiring Italy”. These are Northern European orientations towards Rome that have remained influential to this day, as we will see below.

The works of two later historians illustrate what was lost to Western civilisation with the eclipse of Rome. In his History of Rome (1854–56) Theodor Mommsen expressed the fundamental insight that it was the unparallelled stature and achievements of Rome that gave rise to the idea of the West considered as a civilisation distinct from, and opposed to, the East. Subsequently, in The Legacy of Rome (1920), Ernest Barker showed how the empire realised the Greek ideal of a universal society, a cosmopolis, in which all free men were equal under the law—thus providing the central political principle of Western civilisation. These observations emphasise the cataclysmic long-term cost of Rome’s destruction, the subsequent imposition of feudalism, and the unimpeded spread of Islam across lands that had for centuries lived under the rule of Roman law.

GIBBON’S VERSION of the fate of Rome was attacked at its very roots by Henri Pirenne, who began publishing his views in the 1920s. According to the “Pirenne Thesis” there was no fall, and neither the deposing of the last emperor in 476 nor the barbarian invasions of the fourth and fifth centuries involved the decline of Rome in any precipitant sense. The world of 600, he claimed, was no different in quality from that of 400, and many essential elements associated with civilised life under the Roman empire persisted for well over a century. The key event that signalled the transformation of Rome lay elsewhere:

“The cause of the break with the tradition of antiquity was the rapid and unexpected advance of Islam. The result of this advance was the final separation of East from West, and the end of Mediterranean unity. Countries like Africa and Spain, which had always been parts of the Western community, gravitated henceforth in the orbit of Baghdad. In these countries another religion made its appearance, and an entirely different culture. The Western Mediterranean, having become a Muslim lake, was no longer the thoroughfare of commerce and of thought which it had always been. The West was blockaded and forced to live upon its own resources.”
(Mohammed and Charlemagne, 1939)

The new Islamic empire meant that “for the first time in history the axis of life [in this region of the world] was shifted northwards from the Mediterranean”, and European society regressed into feudalism. A period of anarchy did ensue in the transition period between 650 and 750 but eventually the traditions of antiquity quietly disappeared and the society of the Middle Ages emerged and dominated European history for the next 700 years.

An entirely new perspective on the end of Rome emerged after Pirenne. This postulates a previously unobserved era of “Late Antiquity”, and concerns itself with religious, artistic and cultural concerns. The first great articulation of this view was provided by Peter Brown in The World of Late Antiquity: From Marcus Aurelius to Muhammad (1971), where he argued that “it is only too easy to write about the Late Antique world as if it were merely a melancholy tale of ‘Decline and Fall’ [when] we are increasingly aware of the astounding new beginnings associated with this period”, such as feudal society and the spread of Islam.

Brown shifted the historical focus to the study of contemplatives, monasteries, and holy men and women, and his relatively cheerful approach was a reaction not only to Gibbon but also to Eric Dodds, who had argued in The Greeks and the Irrational (1951) that the later centuries of the empire were an “age of anxiety”, which arose out of the collapse of paganism and the spread of an all-pervasive fatalism, and found expression in the increasing popularity of salvation religions, exemplified by Christianity. Significantly, Dodds drew parallels between this ancient religious revolution and the apocalyptic and millennialist obsessions of the extremist political religions of the twentieth century.

According to the Late Antiquity school, the Roman empire never fell at all, but was gradually transformed into the forerunners of the European state system. This position has been put succinctly by its leading proponents in a major reference work, Late Antiquity (1999):

“The period between around 250 and 800 [was] a distinctive and quite decisive period of history that stands on its own. It is not, as it once was for Edward Gibbon, a subject of obsessive fascination only as the story of the unravelling of a once glorious and “higher” state of civilization. It was not a period of irrevocable Decline and Fall; nor was it merely a violent and hurried prelude to better things … Not only did Late Antiquity last for over half a millennium; much of what was created in that period still runs in our veins.”

Our patrimony, according to this view, was not drawn from the Romans but from a world of Late Antiquity dominated by the Germanic peoples of the North and the Muslims from the East. As Walter Goffart, another leading proponent of this approach, has observed with breathtaking insouciance: “what we call the Fall of the Western Roman Empire was an imaginative experiment that got a little out of hand”.

Inevitably, there has been a reaction to this perspective, and Gibbon’s key insights reappear in some very recent books on the fate of Rome, reflecting research that is far more informed by archaeology than previously. While they retain some of the insights of the Late Antiquity historians they also reassert the powerful notion of the fall of Rome that Gibbon unleashed into the intellectual tradition of the West. In his own comprehensive history of the period, the Oxford historian Peter Heather reviews the various theories and concludes that the western empire most definitely fell but “not because of the weight of its own ‘stupendous fabric’ [as Gibbon concluded], but because its Germanic neighbours had responded to its power in ways that the Romans could never have foreseen”.

The contemporary political dimensions of the historiography of ancient Rome are illuminated by another Oxford historian. Bryan Ward-Perkins in The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (2007) points out that the present prominence of the Late Antiquity model reflects dramatic shifts within European politics, particularly in connection with the rehabilitation of Germany in the post-Nazi era: “Already in the 1960s and 1970s the [ancient] Germanic peoples had been rehabilitated from murderous and destructive thugs to become an essential [civilising] element in the making of modern Europe.” Consequently, any diminution of northern Europe and elevation of Rome was resisted, and much was made, for example, of the fact that Mussolini invoked Rome for Fascist propaganda purposes, while a Rome-centred vision of Europe, it was alleged, “might give the Pope ideas above his station”.

Moreover, it was felt that a linking of Western civilisation with Christianity “would be disturbingly ‘American’” and offend the sensitivities of liberal and left-wing European secularists. It would also tend to elevate Rome, Athens and Istanbul over Strasbourg, Frankfurt and Brussels in future accounts of historic Europe—an especially vital consideration as the European Union continues its policy of expansion eastwards while also seeking always to accommodate and placate the demands of its expanding Muslim population and influential Muslim governments and organisations. These increasingly demand that European education and scholarship reflect the “Islamisation of knowledge” that replaces the traditional narrative of the West with one that reflects the teachings of the Qur’an, especially with respect to the respective accounts of religious history and contributions to civilisation.

Consequently, “an interpretation of history that keeps the Roman past, but transforms it into a post-Roman Europe dominated by the Franks, is therefore much more satisfactory”. Given these political considerations it was not surprising that the European Science Foundation’s research project into this period was entitled “The Transformation of the Roman World”: “In this new vision of the end of the ancient world, the Roman Empire is not ‘assassinated’ by Germanic invaders” as earlier French historians claimed, “rather, Romans and Germans together carry forward much that was Roman, into a new Romano-Germanic world”.

Ward-Perkins is not comfortable with this politicisation of the historical study of ancient Rome, and its misrepresentation of the scale of the calamity, concluding his own analysis as follows: “The end of the Roman West witnessed horrors and dislocation of a kind I sincerely hope never to have to live through; and it destroyed a complex civilization, throwing the inhabitants of the West back to a standard of living typical of prehistoric time.” Retrieving some of the spirit of Gibbon, he concludes: “Romans before the fall were as certain as we are today that their world would continue for ever substantially unchanged. They were wrong. We would be wise not to repeat their complacency.”

WHAT IS STRIKING about the conclusions first reached by Gibbon, and echoed in vital respects by Ward-Perkins and other recent historians, is how apposite they are at the present time. On one hand, the external forces that are being mobilised to attack Western civilisation are increasingly revealed to be barbaric, benighted, and regressive in the extreme. On the other hand, the critical internal forces upon which the West should be able to call for support exhibit only opportunism, complacency, resignation and antagonism (and indeed “self-hatred”) towards their own civilisation.

Unfortunately, Johnson and to a lesser extent Murphy must be counted as members of this latter adversarial group, an intelligentsia upon whom the massive scale of the challenge facing the West barely registers. Indeed, their books are essentially quite predictable critiques of American society from a left-liberal perspective superficially cast in the form of a discussion of the fall of Rome, informed by little relevant in-depth scholarship about that event, despite the fact that it is one of the most vibrant areas of contemporary scholarship.

For example, Johnson relies principally on only three secondary texts for his discussion on ancient Rome, which he embeds within a rather impressionistic and predictable discussion of contemporary American politics. Murphy seeks to give an appearance of depth to his own discussion and cites a 1980 survey that identified some 210 theories for the fall of Rome, ranging from too many warm baths (causing impotence) and lead piping (poisoning the population), to more academically respectable possibilities. However, he chooses not to evaluate any of these but simply reduces them to the lowest common denominator, claiming that “looking at the range of explanations provides a montage of Rome’s condition”, apparently believing that the various major theories about the fate of Rome can somehow be readily fitted together or overlaid without major inconsistencies or obscurities. In one paragraph alone he indiscriminately lists some eighteen possible reasons for the fall, including six in one sentence, concluding that “all the prime suspects shared in the deed”. It appears that Murphy is anxious to avoid getting involved in complex and perhaps insoluble historical discussions because what he really wants to do is propose his agenda for the reform of America, all neatly laid out by chapter according to a set of alleged parallels between present-day America and ancient Rome.

Nevertheless, there is a degree of inevitability about the association of Rome with America, with the implication that the known fate of one might inform us about the likely fate of the other. Indeed, so close are the two narratives entwined in American culture that this has become a political factor in itself, a situation that polemicists like Murphy and Johnson know and exploit with their pot-boilers.

This association arises partly from the coincidence that Gibbon began to publish his history in 1776, the year the United States Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress. The educated elite of the thirteen colonies had embraced an inspiring vision of Roman history, according to which a simple, hardy community had held fast to the virtues of family life, sober conduct and self-discipline, and had consequently built a great society. They enjoyed also a good knowledge of classical authors, and references to Plutarch, Livy, Cicero, Sallust, Tacitus and their works abounded in colonial literature, especially those works that contrasted a corrupt and oppressive present with a noble past characterised by virtue, simplicity, patriotism, integrity, justice and liberty.

For the Founding Fathers the parallel with their own times was compelling. Consequently, the fate of Rome was discussed frequently in the constitutional debates at Philadelphia, strengthening, for example, the case of those who argued for federalism instead of the centralised system that was taken to have fatally weakened Rome. The educated elite were also steeped in a notion of civic virtue derived from Rome and epitomised by George Washington’s “Rules of Civility”, while Washington himself was seen as a contemporary Cincinnatus—a citizen-soldier who led the republic to military victory before downing arms and returning to his simple life on the land, resisting the temptation to usurp the power of the republic.

This history had other vital lessons, and John Adams, for example, in his Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America (1787) examined the governmental systems of twelve ancient democratic republics, three ancient aristocratic republics, and three ancient monarchical republics, finding them inferior to that adopted by the new American republic. Cato the Younger stood as a hero of republican liberty against those who would tyrannise the people, while Cicero suggested the pivotal principle that republics must be based on a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. Consequently, as Russell Kirk concludes in The Roots of American Order:

“the Roman concept of law and obligation, as variously expressed by Polybius and Livy and Virgil and Cicero and the Stoics, passed into American political thought and jurisprudence, and is permanently embedded in the American Constitution.”

Joseph Addison’s Cato: A Tragedy became one of the most popular plays in eighteenth-century America. Based on the last days of Cato the Younger, it deals with such themes as liberty versus tyranny, republicanism versus monarchism, and the duty of the individual to hold fast to his beliefs even under the threat of death. It was well known to the Founding Fathers, and was even performed for the Continental Army at Valley Forge. It gave rise to such iconic declarations as Nathan Hale’s “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”, and Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death”. After independence, Washington DC duly acquired its own Capital Hill named after Rome’s Capitoline Hill, while the Jefferson Memorial was a scaled-down version of the Pantheon, Union Station derived much from the Baths of Diocletian, the Washington Monument recalled Trajan’s Column and many other obelisks of ancient Rome, colonnaded federal buildings abounded, and even Goose Creek off the Potomac was renamed after the Tiber.

Conversely, Americans have also always had misgivings about Rome and what it might portend for their own young country as it continued its continental expansion. These fears found expression half a century later in one of the greatest and most popular works of American art, Thomas Cole’s five-part series of paintings, The Course of Empire (1834–36). This attracted huge crowds and gave brilliant visual expression to a popular enthusiasm for pastoral agrarianism as the ideal state of human civilisation, and the corresponding fear that the path of empire would lead inevitably to excessive centralisation, urbanism, corruption and decay. After depicting an Arcadian scene of pastoral tranquillity, Cole, in his third work, The Course of the Empire—The Consummation, depicts a future American imperial metropolis that is indistinguishable from a great Roman city. The next work however, The Course of Empire—Destruction, depicts its fate. In a scene inspired by the Vandals’ sack of Rome in 455, an enemy fleet and hordes of barbarian warriors lay waste to the city and all her people, raping, pillaging, and destroying every aspect of civilisation; even the sky is being consumed by a dark stormy vortex. Finally, in The Course of Empire—Desolation, we see the meagre fruits of imperial ambition, as the once grand buildings are swallowed up by the returning wilderness.

As Cole’s gigantic masterpieces demonstrate, concerns about the implications of empire recur throughout American history. Indeed, to Robert Hughes:

“the anxiety he expressed … is a very American one, and would raise its head at intervals right down to [the present]: the fear that this culture, so new, so full of shine and strength, could be swept away in one catastrophic eye-blink.”

And, crucially, the threat was not external military might but internal moral weakness, with the “seed of apocalypse … planted right in the heart of the American democratic experience”.

NOW, AS THE PRESENT POSITION of America as the world’s sole superpower sits atop the agenda of global politics, the perennial interest in the fate of Rome and its implications for America has once again intensified. Amongst contemporary commentators on the topic, Murphy identifies various positions that can be located between two opposed perspectives: the “triumphalists”, who believe that America is finally assuming its historic imperial role, imposing a Pax Americana on the world just as Rome brought its Pax Romana; and the “declinists”, for whom the USA is an arrogant and oppressive global force, an exponent and victim of “imperial overstretch”, “dangerously overcommitted abroad and rusted out at home, like Rome in its last two centuries”.

These perspectives can be found within America’s religious communities, taking a lead from the respective visions of the two great Christian saints of antiquity. The triumphalist “Ambrosians” see empire as a God-given vehicle for the propagation of the Christian faith, and here Murphy quotes from a Christmas card sent by Vice-President Dick Cheney and his wife in 2003: “And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Alternatively, there are the declinist “August-inians”, who compare contemporary America to the decadence of Rome condemned by St Augustine in The City of God, which called upon Christians to disengage from the irredeemably corrupt secular world and await salvation in the hereafter as the shadow of the Vandals passed over the empire in its death throes.

Caught between the triumphalist and the declinist positions are historians like Niall Ferguson, who argues in Colossus (2004) that the reality of global politics requires superpower leadership, and that this role has presently fallen to America. However, Ferguson laments, at the level of national leadership America is an “empire in denial”, and that this reflects a deep-seated uncertainty and failure of nerve within the American ruling elite, concluding that “the threat to America’s empire does not come from … rival empires to the West or the East. I regret to say that it may come from the vacuum of power—the absence of a will to power—within.”

Murphy also invokes Paul Kennedy who, in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987), argued that America was facing a relative decline in its agricultural, industrial and financial sectors while also suffering from “imperial overstretch”, where America’s global interests and obligations become larger than the nation’s power to defend them. This requires an ever-increasing expenditure on the military, which squeezes out productive investment and leads to a downward spiral of slowing growth, heavier taxes, and a reduced capacity to bear the military costs. Kennedy observes that if this reflects a pattern in history, then one must concede that just as Rome and Babylon fell, so America’s turn will shortly come. Kennedy appears comfortable with this sombre (and facile) conclusion, remarking that futile calls for “renewal” are themselves a confirmation of the decline of America.

In Arrogant Capital (1994), the one-time leading conservative political analyst Kevin Phillips compared Washington DC to nineteenth-century London and fifth-century Rome, as yet another “bloated capital” presiding over an age of imperial decline and characterised by entrenched and arrogant elites, economic polarisation and a shrinking middle class, moral decay and a devotion to luxury, a loss of patriotism, and a general sense of a society in decline. This recalls The Culture of Narcissism (1979) by Christopher Lasch, and his denunciation of a self-centred culture of consumption that has undermined America, producing a bourgeois society that has lost both the will and the capacity to confront the threats that may overwhelm it.

Murphy calls this type of perspective on the fate of empires the “rot-from-within camp” and cites several other contemporary examples, including the radical jeremiad by Jane Jacobs in Dark Age Ahead (2004), which predicts that the failure of each sustaining cultural institution weakens others, so that with each collapse, still further ruin is ensured. Wolf’s book adds another apocalyptic view with her claims that America is turning into a fascist terrorist state.

A conservative analysis that focuses on internal decay is provided by Victor Davis Hanson in an article on Iraq in 2002. Hanson notes the widespread anti-Americanism of the country’s intellectual and cultural elites and observes:

“The anti-Americans often invoke Rome as a warning and as a model, both of our imperialism and of our foreordained collapse. But the threats to Rome’s predominance were more dreadful in 220 BCE than in 400 CE. The difference over six centuries, the dissimilarity that led to the end, was a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but of something happening within that was not unlike what we ourselves are now witnessing. Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared.”

WHILE COMMENTATORS like Hanson might be convinced that America is in decline because of the corruption of its intellectual culture, they nevertheless lament the impending eclipse. Not so the intelligentsia, which is the target of Hanson’s attack and is likely to be the biggest consumer of works like those by Murphy, Johnson and Wolf.

Located on the political Left, the intelligentsia positively embraces the decline and fall of America and Western civilisation as an act of deliverance, welcoming it as the well-deserved fate of intrinsically wicked and corrupt societies. In fact, this group is the principal vehicle for the relentless internal attacks on the “stupendous fabric” of liberal democratic civilisation as it has been constructed laboriously and at great human cost in America, Europe, Australia and elsewhere in the West over the past few centuries. For them, in the words of David Gress, the West is

“of all civilizations, uniquely rapacious, racist, sexist, exploitative, environmentally destructive, and hostile to all human dignity. It [is] unredeemable. Only if the West [goes] down to destruction [can] the rest of the human race hope to survive.”

The wilful absurdity of such claims is astounding. As a vast number of careful studies show clearly, on virtually any measure of democratic freedom, economic, scientific, military, technological, communications, infrastructure, educational, life-expectancy, and health care performance, America and other Western societies far outperform the rest of the world. Nevertheless, for much of the past century intellectuals have forcefully projected a view of Western society as “greedily materialistic, spiritually bankrupt, and devoid of humane values. Modern people are always [depicted as] displaced, rootless, psychologically scarred, and isolated” (Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, 1997). Thus, for example, we find the radical Afro-American intellectual Cornel West applauding the “cultural decay [of] a declining empire”, with its “rootless, dangling people” and “powerless citizenry that includes not just the poor but all of us”, as America sinks further into inevitable and welcome decline.

A powerful adversarial intelligentsia seems to be an integral component of modernity in the West. Indeed, “never before the twentieth century had any civilization produced within itself as powerful, as varied, or as wide-ranging a tradition of radical self-criticism as that of the West” (David Gress). This intellectual elite enjoys a privileged status by virtue of its superior education and control over the critical apparatus of culture, a control that gives it leverage over the political system that its ideas would not otherwise achieve, especially if they were exposed to the normal democratic process. As Stephen Koch explains in Double Lives (1996), his study of the Soviet manipulation of Western intellectuals, this adversarial intelligentsia is drawn irresistibly towards radicalism because, it believes, radicalism alone can “tear aside the bourgeois façade [to reach] the deepest truth”, which is a vision of the fundamental wickedness and corruption of America society and Western civilisation. In terms of its cultural nihilism and hatred of everything respected or revered in the Western tradition it recalls the iconoclasts of eighth-century Byzantium and the image breakers of the Reformation.

Consequently, for this group of radical declinists “bad news is actually good news”, and all reports of “economic depression, unemployment, world wars and conflicts, and environmental disasters [are received] with barely concealed glee, since these events all foreshadow the final destruction of modern civilization” (Arthur Herman). Crucially for the ever-increasing influence of this dread-filled perspective of history,

“most people today are barely aware of [the influence of this] almost sadistically redemptive component of the pessimist tradition. Instead, the sowing of despair and self-doubt has become so pervasive that we accept it as a normal intellectual stance.”

Ultimately, it is the radical intelligentsia and the crisis of the cultural sphere that hold the key to the great historical questions about the fate of Rome, America and the West. Consequently, it is the failure of writers like Murphy and Johnson to draw creatively upon the history of Rome to systematically address the existence and role of this vital elite that constitutes their greatest weakness. And this is all the more surprising given that: (1) They are happy to do so in so many other areas; (2) The scholarship exists, because many historical analyses of the fate of Rome focus on the ideological, cultural and religious dimensions of the catastrophe. Any such analyses will be particularly useful where they focus on the origins and nature of civilisational fatigue and failure, such as that which saw the eclipse of Roman civic virtue and its traditional religions, and the emergence and ultimate victory of Christianity in the form we know.

This scholarly concern began with Gibbon but is present in many major historical works, even when they downplay the notion of a precipitant fall, including Pirenne and the Late Antiquity school. Perhaps the reason the intelligentsia does not engage with these issues is that it is afraid to confront within itself the same forces of nihilism that fatally undermined Roman civilisation and opened the way to a millennium of violence, oppression and stagnation.

Ultimately then, does the fate of ancient Rome have any lessons to teach us? Indeed it does, but these are not the facile offerings of Murphy, Johnson and other left-wing polemicists. Nor are they the lessons contained in the jeremiads of those who wish to embrace the desirability or inevitability of decline; such people know not what they wish for. Reviewing the work of the historians described above, it seems undeniable that civilisations and empires are indeed the awe-inspiring achievements that Gibbon and the others recognised. Consequently, they demand a massive and sustained investment of material resources and human faith and energy. They may well be subject to some principle of decay, and decline may indeed be the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness, with the causes of destruction multiplying as diverse peoples and regions are brought within their compass. At times crises may abound.

Nevertheless, in confronting such challenges, we enjoy today the great advantage over the ancient Romans that we have before us their timeless example—the stupendous fabric of their achievement—and also know clearly the terrors and desolation that civilisational collapse entails. For five centuries since the Renaissance revealed the achievements of the ancients, the West drew inspiration and insights from their example and these have guided our civilisation through the greatest period of sustained change in human history. The great dangers faced now by the West are not transitory political issues that find a place in polemics, but a failure of nerve at the deepest level, a loss of respect for the past, and a collapse of our commitment to building the future.

Dr Mervyn F. Bendle is Senior Lecturer in History and Communications at James Cook University. He contributed “Indicting Liberal Democracy for Genocide” in the March issue.

The Four Goals of Life, aka the Purusathas

2008-04-16T15:21:00.006+09:30

We will all die. Therefore, the purpose of life is to cease all this struggle, to go outside under the blue or cloudy or dark sky, and vanishing into the light itself or sun or star, vanish into enjoyment of the pleasure of the senses and the sense of mind. Death is infinite: enjoy today as if it is your last day.

We will be dead forever. Therefore, practice morality as if each act were judgement for forever. Rehearse each day for forever. If there is no afterlife, then at least you lived a decent live for the insignificant time you existed. Time is infinite: act wisely today as if it is you last act.

Space is infinitely abundant. Therefore, seek to own and possess as much space as possible with all your effort, knowing that gain, profit, spending and getting are a constant joy and teacher of wise frugality for as long as you live. Space is infinite: get rich today as if it is your last provision for the future.

The field of consciousness is unfathomably profound. Therefore, seek to know the source of consciousness and thereby become liberated from bondage to death, time, space and individuality. Consciousness is infinite; seek liberation in consciousness only.

========

There are 4 classical Indian life-goals, called the purusarthas:

Moksha (liberation)
Dharma (morality)
Kama (desire)
Artha (wealth)

========

Seeking desire, die exhausted.

Seeking living space, die rich and powerful.

Seeking decency, die satisfied.

Seeking to be enlightened, Go Beyond ego, existence and life, to the All, illuminated by the Light of the Self.

Acting Out On Negative Urges

2008-04-09T16:02:00.004+09:30

"Acting out" is jargon for bad behavior. The phrase "acting out" implies that it is OK to have negative thoughts and urges, just so long as one does not act out on them destructively. The phrase "acting out" is commonplace in personal development circles, where such urges are welcomed as stimuli for character growth.

Today I came across a fascinating concept that makes the idea of acting out more practical. Here it is:

We don't have to act on negative urges the moment we become not willing to pay the price for acting on such feelings.

In other words, the solution to negative urges is to expand awareness of the cost of acting on them until one no longer wishes to act. Freedom comes from asking "What are the costs of my acting out?"

The root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between acting out of negativity and exercising restraint in service to growth, is that negative urges produces backwardness because they do such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, and to worship.

The ultimate cost of acting out on negative urges is that it undermines the dignity and integrity of whole person. Such a cost is never worthwhile.

Tell yourself:

This defect of character will fall. It cannot withstand the exercise of faith, truth, and freedom.

[Masturbation, Tantra and Self-love, by Margo Woods]

2008-04-06T22:32:00.002+09:30

This article is obscure but I think important and deserving a wider audience

[Bruce's comment: It is okay to be sexual. Sexual energy is not only beautiful and valuable, but it's also a way to experience God, or Tao. This book provides an extremely effective to experience this - to make love to oneself, without shame. It is the key to healthy society and healthy relationships between men and women. It is an alchemy that is needed to open the heart and creates the love: not only the self love, but the love of any kinds.

If you do not have the open heart nor the willingness to experiment; or if you are irritated by the idea of masturbation, please simply skip this page and go back to the previous level. But I promise you that if you dare to experiment following this book, the return will be miracle.]

"Some Statistics according to Kinsey's research in his book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (Alfred Kinsey, 1948), a true eye opener:- 35% of all American males had sexual relationships with other males at some point in their live; 65% of all females masturbate - and more frequently, as they get older; 94% of all males had masturbated at some time in their lives, and that the other 6% was obviously Baptist ministers who lied to save their necks; Even at age fifty, over half of the males are all masturbating during the course of a single week; Some respondents whacked off twenty-three times a week in early adolescence; and even at age fifty, a few hardy souls were putting in two dozen shots a month. "

"You cannot truly experience love without having experienced self love."

"We all have our favorite masturbation stories, and favorite almost-got-caught stories. The wonderful thing about masturbation stories is that they give us full range to our fantasy for. "

"I cannot spot the difference between the act of intercourse and the act of masturbation, except for the delicious presence of another person."

"If this is nothing else to be learned from this book, it is that self love - without shame, with good humor, with a willingness to experiment - is the key to a healthy society and healthy relationships between men and women."

"Love for the self can be translated into a means of achieving energy release, spiritual growth, and a method of plumbing new artistry in thinking, feeling, writing, and growing. It's an alchemy that is needed to open the heart and creates the love: self love or any other kind."

"First, working with the sexual energy in this way helps the inner child to grow up and to have more strength to break the parent-induced patterns. It also gives him/her a sense of confidence, centering, and personal identity which are necessary to become a whole person. Secondly, my experience with opening the sexual energy in myself and others is that it is not a handicap in relating to other people, but rather an asset. I have become more loving and more powerful and more attractive. I have not been rejected on account of my heightened sexuality, nor am I crazed or horny all the time."

"If you delay your orgasm and raise the energy up in your body, you will eventually reach a level of energy at which orgasm does not bring you down. And in the meantime you will benefit from the effects of that energy flowing through your body whether you have orgasms at the end of your sessions or not."

"The Sexual Revolution has begun. Everyone, or almost everyone, know it's OK to be sexual. Human beings are sexual and passionate by nature, and it is not difficult to remove the negative conditioning and allow the natural human being to replace the conditioned one."

"Sexual energy is not only beautiful and valuable, but a way to experience God.

"To make love to myself, to masturbate, and to stop at the point just before orgasm, put my attention in my heart, and let the energy go up to my heart. The exact point to stop is the point where I know that one more stroke will make me come. "Just take your hand away, and let the energy go up to the heart." After each rush of energy to the heart I was to resume masturbating, repeating the cycle, until there seemed to be no more energy, or I felt like stopping. There was no prohibition against orgasm, only the requirement to delay it, letting the energy go to the heart first. Delaying my orgasms in this manner, I found, made them more intense."

"Exercise every day and makes it a part of my life. The simple exercise has proven to be a method of internal alchemy, a method by which I have begun to make changes in my psycho-physical system and thus changes in my states of consciousness."

The heart-opening experience: What I mean by that is, the experience of being in love but without another person to be love with, "Pure Love." In other words, I was in love with everyone and everything, felt totally at peace and physically beautiful. I was loving and clear and loved. I became Love Itself. My heart was clearly opening bit by bit. I became more loving, and more able to express love to others, more patient, more open, and less afraid of other people or their disapproval. I began to see my heart as a psychic organ as well as a physical one. I could put my attention in my heart when talking to a friend or client and know, in some inexplicable way, what they needed from me and how to give it to them."

"I became more magnetic and more satisfied with the ease and pleasure of my sexual experiences. It seems that the most important ingredient of sexuality if that personal magnetism, that magnetic attraction. With it, sex is easy. Without it, sex becomes a hassle and a chore. The masturbation exercise, without a doubt, increases one's personal magnetism. I also began to see that my vitality, my aliveness, and my enthusiasm were increasing noticably. Friends remarked how wonderful I looked, how alive I was. I began to learn that I could direct the energy to any part of my body, not only my heart, and began using it for healing, directing it to any place in my body that wasn't feeling right."

"Work with the heart center first. For one thing, you will probably not be able to generate enough energy to make it all the way to the head at first, but the most important thing is that the heart is a great safety valve. If the heart is open, even a little, there is no tendency to heart oneself or others. Love wishes everyone well."

"The problem that I see with many people who are taking this spiritual path is that they try to work on the upper centers before they work with the body and the heart. Work on your heart first. When you start to feel yourself loving the people in the supermarket and crying at parades you will probably be ready to work on the other centers. One of the most interesting aspects of this process has been that I have developed an unshakeable sense of identity and Oness about ourselves. This is the self love which is talked about so much in books and workshops these days. Have you ever asked, "How?" when the workshop leader said that it is important to love yourself?"

"The way of using the sexual energy produces self love more intensely than any other exercise I have ever tried. **One learns to love oneself by making love to oneself. I want to give you enough in this book that you can duplicate all of the experiences of myself and my students and learn for yourself how simple and easy and joyful sex can be. Love your body. Realize that what you don't like is not only conditioned by a Play-boy/Playgirl image of what is beautiful, but is one of the many ways you keep your body frozen and incapable of transmitting sexual energy. In so far as you don't like your body, you freeze your sexual energy. Realize also that you can change your body if you want to. Take a long baths, relaxing, and washing yourself tenderly with your bare hands. Give extra attention to the parts of your body you don't like, massaging them gently and lovingly."

"As for the masturbation exercise, the only thing to remember is that it is extremely simple - raising the body's sexual energy almost to the point of orgasm, and instead of letting the energy go out into the orgasm, allow it to come up in the body, up to the heart. It happens that, at the point just before orgasm, there is a channel open in the body, nad if you rest at that point and put your attention in your heart, the energy which has been generated will flow naturally upwards toward the heart. You don't have to do anything; it just happens. Don't worry about what it feels like, or if it is happening, just do it! Begin and adventure with yourself to see what your sexual energy is all about. Rediscover the physical system you were trained to ignore. "

"If you have difficulty talking yourself into a masturbation session, or in making love to yourself regularly, remember that you are conditioned away from that activity. Take the position that masturbation is now your meditation."

"Start your session by touching and loving yourself with your hands or soft fabrics all over your body before you go for your genitals and other erotic zones. You may have an orgasm at the end of a session if you like, or you may find that you come by accident, and that will probably end your session for you. Men particularly will need to stop each round far short of orgasm till they learn what the point of no return is for them."

"The idea that a man must have orgasm or risk physical pain is erroneous. It certainly does not happens to men who are moving the energy upwards. The biggest problem you will have with this exercise is not how to do it, because it is extremely simple, but your own training against masturbation."

"The pleasure you experience will do more to work against your negative conditioning about your body and your sexuality than anything else you can do or think."

"I suggest you have a session with yourself every day, as a meditation, for three months, and see what the results are for yourself."

"It is necessary to include a word about sexual fantasies. I can't imagine making love to myself without fantasies. They seem to create the experience for me. I suspect that much of the problem and lack of enjoyment people have with masturbation, in addition to their belief that is wrong, is that they do not use their fantasies. All of us have a potentially rich fantasy life. So go on with your fantasies. They won't hurt you - not even the weird ones."

Froglessness, a poem by Thich Nhat Hanh

2008-04-06T16:20:00.001+09:30

Froglessness

The first fruition of the practice

is the attainment of froglessness.

When a frog is put

on the center of the plate,

she will jump out of the plate

after just a few seconds.

If you put the frog back again

on the center of the plate,

she will again jump out.

You have so many plans.

There is something you want to become.

Therefore you always want to make a leap,

a leap forward.

It is difficult

to keep the frog still

on the center of the plate.

You and I

both have Buddha Nature in us.

This is encouraging,

but you and I

Both have Frog Nature in us.

That is why

the first attainment

of the practice –

froglessness is its name.

Thich Nhat Hanh.

Rudolf Steiner, thought gnosis, will gnosis, and feeling gnosis.

2008-04-04T14:29:00.005+10:30

Rudolf Steiner's six exercises effect thought (1), will (2), and feeling (3), then infuse positive thought into feeling towards equanimity (4), positive thought into will towards full open-mindedness (5), and unify will and thought with feeling in a positive evolutionary way (6).

I am reading Roy Wilkinson's superb introduction to anthroposophy online, and it stimulating excitement and a sense of energy in me to read about how the inner life of the soul functions.

However, I find the six exercises a little hard to apply easily. So here are my notes on the first two exercises, informed by my existing understanding of gnostic meditation:

Thought gnosis.

Build a mental picture of an entire field of accurate facts, holding them all in mind, then one by one eliminate the facts while retaining the entire picture. When the picture is eliminated completely let go completely into voidness of thought, and rest for a while until thought upsurges again.

It it best to read a short chapter or paragraph of a much loved spiritual teacher and create a mind map of their words to begin. Just assemble all the understandings they give, with no interpolations of your own ideas. Then eliminate one idea after another until only the energy field of the ideas remains.

I suggest starting with a paragraph of the Upanishads, a chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, or the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of the biblical book of Matthew.

Will gnosis.

Build up a field of interconnected intentions, values, and associated emotionalised ideas, such as a goals list, a prcoess plan, or a mind map of your intended actions. Feel the sense of motivation, then as you release each portion of the intentions, feel the sense of motivation lessen and diminish until you have let go of all willing and experience voidness of intention. Observe this void and notice if and when will re-arises of itself.

Feelings gnosis.

Take a non-verbal piece of music which seems full of feeling to you. Listen to it several times until it is by memory. Replay it mentally in full. Then replay it backwards. Then simply eliminate a piece of the music and note the feeling quality of the music that remains. Then eliminate piece by piece the entire composition until one is left with silent feeling alone.

Results.

You can expect these exercises to great augment thought, will and feelings over time. Patience and persistence is key.

Macrocosm and Microcosm

2008-04-04T13:25:00.003+10:30

There are two paths, the path of ecstacy and the path of the mystic. The ecstatic might be said to be lunar and thus learn lessons (saturn) in a haphazard nonlinear manner. The mystic may be said to be solar, that is, fixed in dedication, and thus the saturnian impacts are pure and clear.

The solar mystic feels more keenly the true nature of suffering as his own karma. The lunar ecstatic experiences rapture as release from the ego, and a loss of distinct self as well as distinction between true and false, fact and fancy.

The ecstatic in ecstacy penetrates his astral body tightly and feels himself to become a lunar mirror, illuminated with reflections of pure and indistinct consciousness. Like a sleeping person he forgets his ego in the feeling body of the astral. Like a sleeping person - since in sleep a man forgets both ego and astral body - he is disadvantaged in that he cannot distinguish true from false whilst in the state of rapture.

The microcosm is the objective real world of sustances and worldly meanings as experienced by the etheric body and the physical body. It can be languaged as earth, air, fire, water, and spirit, but as Plato points out in the Timaeus, these are just processes of one single substance in constant flow. In this sense it is the archetypal lunar sense of actuality, of felt experience as quality in and of itself.

The macrocosm is the objective energetic kosmos of integral structure, pattern, and flow: ego and astral body engage it. The ecstatic penetrates and grips the astral and the ego is made rarified; the mystic penetrates the etheric and the ego is made dense. Thus one might see the spheres of Geburah and Chesed exemplified. Or one might see Ken Wilber's clarifying pictures as the solar imperative, making sense of the universe.

To summarize: in expanding into the Macrocosm, the ecstatic's Ego becomes evanescent or rarified, whereas in shrinking into the Microcosm, the mystic's Ego becomes concentrated or densified through impacts with reality.

The hermetic four cherubim are the sins of omission. The eagle is omissions of thought, the lion omissions of feeling, and the bull omissions of will. Finally at the boundary of the microcosm itself stands the human, omissions of spirit, who is the Lesser Guardian of the Threshold.

One might visualise the pentagram with the accretions of past actions, errors of omission and comission, which slow down the flow of energy through the corners and back out into the macrocosm. The angles of the pentagram symbolise the sensory-nervous-hormonal reality of the bodymind, which can only generally focus on about five inputs at once. At one focuses attention on an input to the bodymind, it holds back the free flow of invisible spiritual energy and creates or forms an organ.

The senses hold back the flows which created them, forming the eye from light. The body holds back the flow which created it, creating matter from energy. The microcosm is the holding pattern of the macrocosm which created it, creating the individualised consciousness of the microcosm, the ego-I.

But it operates in reverse too. What the eye holds back from light effects in turn the source of light. Thus what I as microcosm hold back from freely flowing is what the macrocosmic spirits also hold back. The spiritual realm responds directly to our restraint from natural action. This concurs with the Kaballistic teaching, and also wtih the 12 step teaching of steps 6 and 7 of "doing what you don't want to do, and not doing what you do want to do."

Here is the process: through discernment, one notes a tendency to lie, or to steal, or to hate a certain kind of person. So when the tendency arises, instead of acting out of the tendency, one surrenders the urge and the satisfaction associated with the urge to the spiritual urge, the macrocosmic field. You turn it over to God. Thus the lower nature of the microcosm is denied free action, and the higher nature of the macrocosm is stimulated to act on our behalf. Through perseverance in practice the microcosm becomes transformed to more accurately carry the light of the macrocosm. All this arises through the simple process of surrendering self-centered actions, thoughts and feelings to a higher power.

The Six Exercises for Basic Esoteric Development of Rudolf Steiner

2008-04-02T22:58:00.004+10:30

Rudolf Steiner gave six exercises which are fundamental to his meditative work.

No. 1 - The Control of Thought

The first exercise has to do with the control of thinking. It is designed to keep our minds from wandering, to focus them, in order to strengthen our meditative work. There are several versions of this exercise. Here is one version:

Select a simple object - a pin, a button, a pencil. Try to think about it exclusively for five minutes. You may think about the way the object is manufactured, how it is used, what its history is. Try to be logical and realistic in your thinking. This exercise is best if practiced faithfully every day. You may use the same object every day or a new object each day, as you choose.

No. 2 - The Control of Will

Choose a simple action to perform each day at a time you select. It should be something you do not ordinarily do; it can even be a little odd. Then make it a duty to perform this action at that time each day. Rudolf Steiner gives the example of watering a flower each day at a certain time. As you progress, additional tasks can be added at other times.

This exercise is as hard as it is simple and takes a very strong intention to complete. To start you might think of it as you think of a dentist's appointment - you do not want to be late. It can be helpful to mark your success or failure on the calendar each day. If you completely forget at the time, but remember later, do it then and try to do better the next day.

No. 3 - Equanimity

The third exercise is the development of balance between joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, the heights of pleasure and the depths of despair. Strive for a balanced mood. An attempt should be made not to become immoderately angry or annoyed, not to become anxious or fearful, not to become disconcerted, nor to be overcome by joy or sorrow. Rather should your natural feelings be permitted to be quietly felt. Try to maintain your composure. This leads to an inner tranquillity and purer feelings of the soul.

No. 4

This exercise is the development of a positive attitude to life. Attempt to seek for the good, praiseworthy, and beautiful in all beings, all experiences and all things. Soon you will begin to notice the hidden good and beautiful that lies concealed in all things. This is connected with learning not to criticize everything. You can ask how something came to be or to act the way it is. One way to overcome the tendency to criticize is to learn to 'characterize' instead.

No. 5

For this exercise, make the effort to confront every new experience with complete open-mindedness. The habit of saying, "I never heard that" or "I never saw that before" should be overcome. The possibility of something completely new coming into the world must be left open, even if it contradicts allyour previous knowledge and experience.

No. 6

If you have been trying the earlier exercises of thinking, will, equilibrium, positivity and tolerance, you are now ready to try them together two or three at a time, in varying combinations until they become natural and harmonious.

For more information see Guidance in Esoteric Training, by Rudolf Steiner:

http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/outline_of_esoteric_science/outline_of_esoteric_science.pdf

Or click on the title of the this blog entry to go to the full list of basic Steiner books.

TheCenter and circumference of a sphere in Steiner.

2008-04-02T14:39:00.004+10:30

"In order to understand the center point of a sphere, you must understand the circumference."

This sentence adapted from Rudolf Steiner evokes the whole symbol of pisces excellently, and also reminds me of da Vinci's strategy of seeking the boundaries and limits of a field in order to understand its essence. I am also reminded of the description in Timaeus of the body of the cosmos as sphere - what remains in the center of the Platonic cosmos but that which is beyond it, the Creator itself! This saying applies just as excellently to the ten kaballistic spheres or sephirot.

The primacy of subjective experience in the process of coming to understand cannot be overestimated. Perhaps, even, such a subjective experience of the unity of center and circumference in a given sphere of activity is the sole aspect of wisdom that can last forever.

The Top Ten Ways To Remember Just How Much You Love Your Self

2008-03-30T03:50:00.000+10:30

"You may only be one person to the world, but you may also be the world to one person." – anonymous.

In order to love someone else, you first have to love yourself. This is an important truth, but what does loving yourself really mean? Well, the word “love” is a verb. If you plan and take actions to show your love to others, actively planning and doing things to love yourself works to create more love in yourself

Here are the top ten choices you can feel more self-love. (They also work on other people too!)

1. Make a List of Things you Like About Yourself

Sometimes we focus so much on what we’d like to change about ourselves that we actually forget there’s a lot to like as well. So take a few minutes and remind yourself of the positives you can be proud of. Think of physical attributes, mental or emotional strengths, successes you’ve experienced, the way you support your friends, or anything else. Make your list as long as possible, and then keep adding to it.

2. Ask Others to add to your List

Go to the people you trust—a friend, a romantic partner, a therapist, a family member—and ask them what they’d list as your most positive characteristics. You may be surprised to find out that people see a lot more of your strengths than you realize.

3. Treat yourself like a Best Friend

You know how you treat someone you really care about? The way you love and support that person and treat him or her with kindness and respect? Do that for yourself. And just as you’d challenge a close friend who’s making bad decisions with his or her life, challenge yourself as well. Just as you would for a good friend, remind yourself over and over again of your immense worth as an individual and that you deserve great things in your life. Challenge yourself to achieve the best life possible.

4. Pay Attention to your Needs and Desires

This may sound a bit silly, but some people really don’t know what they want and need. They can go through their entire adult lives living only for others without stopping to ask the question “What do I want here?” or “What’s best for me?” One of the best ways to love yourself is simply to pay attention to what it is that you want and need—in your job, in your relationships, in your friendships, and in your whole life.

5. Protect Yourself

When you love yourself, you’re much less willing to let someone take advantage of you or to have toxic people in your life. Refuse to be the kind of person who so desperately wants to be loved that they’ll put up with anything in a relationship. You’re worth more than that. Protect yourself from people who don’t have your best interest at heart, and choose not to allow yourself to be treated in unloving, disrespectful ways.

6. Listen to your Self-Talk

Repeatedly calling yourself an idiot or a loser is one of the least loving things you can do for yourself. So today, right now, commit to making your self-talk positive. Maybe take the list of things you like about yourself and repeat some of those attributes as you move through the day. When you do make a mistake, be generous with yourself, and instead of telling yourself how stupid you were to lose your keys, just say, “Oh, well. It happens. Everyone loses things from time to time.” As you talk to yourself, don’t say anything you wouldn’t say to someone else you love.

7. Take care of your Body

You don’t have to become a marathoner or a supermodel. But do your best to be healthy. Few of us eat exactly as we should or exercise as much as we ought to, so there’s no reason to beat yourself up over not being perfect. But taking small steps to take care of yourself physically is one of the best ways to show yourself love. By treating our bodies well, we send ourselves the message that we deserve good things.

8. Take Care of your Inner Life

Don’t neglect your spirit. Slow down from time to time and pay attention to what’s going on within yourself, where you’ll find all kinds of reserves to draw on when you need strength and support. Taking the time to pray, meditate, connect with others, and read meaningful books can nourish our love for ourselves and enrich our lives in many ways.

9. Show yourself Compassion

Be willing to forgive yourself, and be patient as you grow. All of us make mistakes, and we all have certain shortcomings that make it easy for us to get down on ourselves. But remind yourself that you’re only human. There’s no reason to expect perfection. When you make a mistake or notice something about yourself that you don’t like, don’t judge or harshly criticize yourself. Instead, be compassionate and remind yourself that you’re doing your best.

10. Live in the Now

This isn’t always easy to do, but one powerful way to love yourself is to focus your energy and attention on the present moment. Don’t dwell on the past, with all the painful regrets that might exist there. And let go of the future, with all its crippling concerns and anxieties. Then invest yourself in appreciating all the good in your life right now; pour yourself into the present moment and make the most of who you are right now.

Keep in mind that loving yourself isn’t selfish. Think of the heart, which pumps blood to itself first before sending blood out to the rest of the body. Similarly, the more loving you are to yourself, the more love you’ll be able to send out to the other people in your life—your family, your friends, and the people you date.

When you get right down to it, love’s not a feeling, it’s a decision. So make a choice right now to love yourself and to work on loving yourself more fully day after day.

On My Reading of Plato's Protagoras and Timaeus

2008-03-22T13:47:00.004+10:30

I read Plato's Protagoras this week.

It was confusing.

I think it was intended to be confusing. Protagoras and Socrates talk around the essential issue of virtue without ever hitting on the essence because of their cultural biases.

Look at these guys' huge blind spots:

Both men seem to believe in cause and effect - that every act must have a singular cause. Both men seem to strictly use defintions, as if the definition were the experience itself. Both men fail to refer to direct experience, or to even value it that highly - thought it must be said that Socrates seems the more pragmatic of the pair. Protagoras is a good talker, but is he full of hot air or not? The lack of praxis makes it impossible to assess him. Naturally we are supposed to take Plato's side that the sophists are tossers, but I find myself quite unsympathetic to the lot of them.

Granted the way the conversation is conducted is the height of good manners, and the way Socrates traps Protagoras is highly amusing. I think the message that we may not be able to know what virtue is objectively is fine: humbling and realistic philosophy. And perhaps it is a fine representation of Socrates view itself, rather than Plato's.

All the practicing Neoplatonists I have contacted are theurgists or fringe academics. Both, surprisingly, refer to the Timaeus as their starting point.

So yesterday, good Friday, I purchased the Timaeus at Imprints bookseller and started the read, so different from the outset from the Protagoras, it might as well be a different author. The cover of the Penguin edition is magnificent, incidentally, and it is fantastic value for 13 dollars.

I am only half way through the Timaeus, but it is a very magnificent and beautiful piece of writing.

Planetary Sigil Contemplations

2008-03-21T00:23:00.000+10:30

These simple contemplations are designed to help those wishing to explore the symbolism and magick of the Seven Classical Planets to come to a greater understanding of the sigils or glyphs associated with each in turn. They are suitable for complete beginners or those wishing to further expand their symbolic knowledge of the well known and powerful glyphs associated with each in turn. These contemplations were included in the book "Practical Planetary Magick" by Sorita d'Este & David Rankine as an appendix and those unfamiliar with the symbols for the seven classical planets are advised to first collect a set for use alongside these contemplations to avoid confusion.

Sun
Close your eyes and visualise the Sun symbol in gold on a purple background. As you visualise the golden circle with its central golden dot, contemplate the solar qualities of egotism, friendship, joy, success, wealth and will. How strong are each of these forces in your life?
Which of them are you actively trying to cultivate or transform? What other qualities or events do they bring to mind as you contemplate their influences?

Mercury
Close your eyes and visualise the Mercury symbol in orange on a blue background. As you visualise the orange circle on top of the orange equal-armed cross, surmounted by the orange crescent with its horns up, contemplate the Mercurial qualities of communication, deception, flexibility, magick, memory and speed.
How strong are each of these forces in your life? Which of them are you actively trying to cultivate or transform? What other qualities or events do they bring to mind as you contemplate their influences?

Venus
Close your eyes and visualise the Venus symbol in green on a red background. As you visualise the emerald green circle on top of the emerald green equal-armed cross, contemplate the Venusian qualities of beauty, culture, fertility, love, sexuality and sociability.
How strong are each of these forces in your life? Which of them are you actively trying to cultivate or transform? What other qualities or events do they bring to mind as you contemplate their influences?

Moon
Close your eyes and visualise the Moon symbol in silver on a yellow background. As you visualise the silver crescent facing to the left, contemplate the Lunar qualities of clairvoyance, dreams, glamour, spirituality, transformation, and your unconscious.
How strong are each of these forces in your life? Which of them are you actively trying to cultivate or transform? What other qualities or events do they bring to mind as you contemplate their influences?

Mars
Close your eyes and visualise the Mars symbol in red on a green background. As you visualise the scarlet red circle with the scarlet red arrow coming out of the upper right (NE) of the circle, contemplate the Martial qualities of anger, courage, passion, strength, vengeance and vigour.
How strong are each of these forces in your life? Which of them are you actively trying to cultivate or transform? What other qualities or events do they bring to mind as you contemplate their influences?

Jupiter
Close your eyes and visualise the Jupiter symbol in blue on an orange background. As you visualise the sapphire blue equal-armed cross with the sapphire blue crescent facing left joined to the leftmost tip of the horizontal bar of the cross, contemplate the Jupiterian qualities of authority, ethics, fortune, humour, responsibility and truth.
How strong are each of these forces in your life? Which of them are you actively trying to cultivate or transform? What other qualities or events do they bring to mind as you contemplate their influences?

Saturn
Close your eyes and visualise the Saturn symbol in black on a white background. As you visualise the black equal-armed cross with the black left-facing crescent attached to the bottom of the cross, contemplate the Saturnian qualities of austerity, duty, equilibrium, limitation, vpatience and self-discipline.
How strong are each of these forces in your life? Which of them are you actively trying to cultivate or transform? What other qualities or events do they bring to mind as you contemplate their influences?

The Book of the Sun, by Marsilio Ficino

2008-03-21T00:12:00.002+10:30

THE BOOK OF THE SUN (DE SOLE)

~MARSILIO FICINO~

Introduction

The Book of the Sun represents the culmination of Ficino's life and work. Published in 1494, five years before his death, it is a supreme example of the very synthesis of astrology, religion and philosophy for which Ficino strived all his life, and illustrates his ability to convey the deepest mystical experience within a lucid, authoritative prose. In the Dedication to Piero de' Medici Ficino tells us that the origin of this work is the metaphor of the Sun in Plato's Republic, and that he was inspired by Pseudo Dionysius on the same subject 1 Ficino's new reading of the Republic passage was destined for the third edition of his Plato translation, patronised by Piero.

In an "Apology" to Philippo Valori, Ficino begs Valori, now Florentine Ambassador to the Pope, to defend him against future accusations of heresy stemming from his two little 'solar' works (De Sole and De Lumine), for which he had already prepared himself; he precedes the De Sole with a preface to the reader in which he explains how his book should be interpreted in an allegorical and anagogical sense rather than dogmatically (a sentiment echoed in a letter to Poliziano, dated 20th August 1494). In fact De Sole is not lacking in material to invoke the anger of the theologians, and one of their possible accusations is anticipated by Ficino himself in a letter to Bernardo Rucella2 - some of his words on the creation - writes Ficino - could in fact be 'misunderstood' and interpreted as contradicting the text of Genesis (see Ch.X).

In this book3 about the Sun and its light there are certain passages which are also found in the other works of Marsilio.4 But since the author himself wrote this compendium out of a wish to present it and make it accessible to those who have not been able to obtain the large volume, we have wished to alter nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marsilio Ficino: De Sole Preface, to Piero de' Medici

I am daily pursuing a new interpretation of Plato already begun long ago under your auspices, Oh magnanimous Piero, and (as is not unknown to you) I expound it with rather frequent distinctions of terms and quite long arguments to the extent that the subject itself requires it. Therefore when lately I came to that Platonic mystery where he most exquisitely compares the Sun to God Himself, it seemed right to explain so great a matter somewhat more fully, especially since our Dionysius the Areopagite, the first of the Platonists, whose interpretation I hold in my hands, freely embraces a similar comparison of the Sun to God. Therefore while working for many nights, illumined by this Sun as if it were my lamp, I have thought to cull this choice subject from my great work, and to entrust it to its own compendium, and to send this mystery of the Sun - like the gift of Phoebus - to you. To you also, both as the finest student of Phoebus, the leader of the Muses, and as patron of the Muses, this new complete interpretation of Plato is dedicated, so that meanwhile by this light as if some kind of Moon (just like the Sun to the Moon), you may augur of what nature this whole Platonic opus will be; and if ever you have loved my Plato, or rather yours as he has been for a long time now, henceforth kindled by this light may you love him more ardently, and with your whole mind embrace the beloved.

Chapter I: Marsilio Ficino to the Reader,

that this book is allegorical and anagogical rather than dogmatic

Oh magnanimous Piero, it is a truly divine Pythagorean precept that mysteries and things divine are not fit to be spoken about without light. By which words I think that wise man not only means that nothing should be ventured in things divine unless in so far as the light of God itself has revealed it to inspired minds, but also he appears to advise us not to proceed toward the occult light of divine things, whether to receive or reveal them, without the mediation of the manifest light. Therefore for the present we will advance from the manifest to the occult, not so much by rational arguments, but through certain correspondences drawn from the light, according to our abilities. But meanwhile, most careful reader, be indulgent to me -just be mindful of the Apollonian and as it were poetic licence before the Sun, while not disallowing me a more serious and (as the Greeks say) dogmatic content. I have promised an allegorical and, to that extent, a mystical exercise of the wits, in the name of Phoebus the oath-orderer, whose gifts these are. The Muses never argue with Apollo, they sing. And indeed even Mercury himself, the first artisan of argument, although he may discuss weighty matters with Saturn or Jupiter, yet with Apollo he plays, their jests not only fitting but divine. May our play also not be unfitting! But now, having completed this our prelude on light, let us move forth into the light with the fortunate inspiration of goodness itself, that is God on high.

Chapter II: How the Light of the Sun is Similar to Goodness Itself, Namely, God.

Nothing recalls the nature of goodness more than light. Firstly, light appears very pure and very exalted in the realm of the senses. Secondly, of all things it is most easily and widely radiated in an instant. Thirdly, it harmlessly encounters everything and penetrates it very gently and pleasantly. Fourthly, it carries with itself a nourishing warmth, that cherishes all things, bestowing life and movement. Fifthly, while it is present and within everything, it is spoiled by nothing and mixed with nothing. Likewise goodness itself stands above the whole order of things, is spread very widely, and caresses and attracts everything. It forces nothing; like heat, it emanates love as its companion everywhere, by which every single thing is enticed from every direction and willingly admits of its goodness. Penetrating into the innermost parts of things, it mixes with none of them. Finally, just as goodness itself is inestimable and ineffable, so assuredly is light. For not one of the Philosophers until now has explained the following: that nothing anywhere is clearer than light; but that on the other hand nothing appears more obscure, just as goodness is both the most recognised of all things, and equally the least recognised. For this reason Iamblichus the Platonist finally came to refer to light as a certain active vitality and clear image of divine intelligence. The ray shining forth from the eye is itself the image of vision. So too perhaps is light itself the vision of the heavenly soul, or the action of vision reaching out to exterior things - acting from a distance, yet not leaving the heavens, but ever continuing there unmixed with external things, acting at once by seeing and by touching. At least we are used to speaking of light as a trace of universal light, offering itself to our eyes in a certain proportion; or indeed, as a vital spirit between the soul of the world and the body - but we have already said enough about this in the Theologia. 5 So whenever in your studies you make a serious attempt to postulate that there are many angelic minds beyond heaven, like lights, whose ordering relates them both to each other and to one God, the father of all lights, what will be the point in pursuing your investigations down long winding paths? Just look up at heaven, I pray, Oh citizen of the heavenly realm, at that heaven whose manifestly perfect order so clearly declares God to be its creator. When you look upwards at heavenly things, the firmament immediately announces the glory of God and the works of his hands through the very rays of the stars, and through the aspects or inclinations of their eyes as they wander. Above all the Sun is most able to signify to you God himself. The Sun offers you signs, and who would dare to call the Sun false? Finally, the invisible things of God, that is to say, the angelic spirits, can be most powerfully seen by the intellect through the stars, and indeed even eternal things - the virtue and divinity of God - can be seen through the Sun.

Chapter III: The Sun, the Light-Giver,

Lord and Moderator of Heavenly Things

The Sun, in that it is clearly lord of the sky, rules and moderates all truly celestial things (I shall omit for the present its enormous size which is thought to be 160 times the earth). Firstly, it infuses light into all the stars, whether they have a tiny light of their own (as some people suspect), or no light at all (as very many think). Next, through the twelve signs of the zodiac, it is called living, as Abraham and Haly 6 say, and that sign which the Sun invigorates actually appears to be alive. Moreover, the Sun fills the two adjacent signs with so much potency, that this space on both sides is called by the Arabs the ductoria of the Sun - that is the solar field. When planets pass through them, avoiding being burnt up in the meantime, they acquire a marvellous power, especially if the superior planets, finding themselves in this position, rise before the Sun and the inferior ones after the Sun. The sign in which the Sun is exalted, that is Aries, in this way becomes the head of the signs, signifying the head in any living thing. Also, that sign in which the Sun is domiciled, that is Leo, is the heart of the signs, and so rules the heart in any living thing. For when the Sun enters Leo, it extinguishes in many regions the epidemic of the Python's poison. Moreover the yearly fortune of the whole world will always depend on the entry of the Sun into Aries, and hence from this the nature of any spring may properly be judged; just as the quality of summer is judged from the ingress of the Sun into Cancer, or that of autumn from its entrance into Libra, and from the coming into Capricorn the quality of winter is discovered; these things are gleaned from the figure of the heavens present at that time. 7 Since time depends on motion, the Sun distinguishes the four seasons of the year through the four cardinal signs. Similarly when the Sun returns by the exact degree and minute to its place in the nativity of any person, his share of fortune is unfolded through the whole year. It happens in this way because the movement of the Sun as the first and chief of the planets is very simple (as Aristotle says), neither falling away from the middle of the Zodiac as the others do, nor retrograding.

Chapter IV: The Conditions of the Planets with Respect to the Sun

There appear to be certain definite spaces marked out throughout the heavens by the Sun itself; when the planets pass through them they quite change their motion and character. For when Saturn, Jupiter and Mars traverse a part of the heaven a third part from the Sun, finding themselves to be in a trine aspect in respect to Sun, they suddenly change direction, and move either forwards or backwards. If they are oriental to the Sun they go retrograde, if occidental they turn direct. 8 Venus and Mercury travel through certain shorter but still fixed spaces with respect to the Sun; Venus is prevented from separating beyond 49o and Mercury beyond 28o. The Moon changes her appearance and nature in whatever aspect she makes to the Sun. And as if she were another Sun, she herself has four ages, and represents the four seasons of the year. And whenever the Moon is joined to the Sun, from that very heavenly configuration and degree of conjunction she announces the nature of the month to come. Whenever any planet first touches the heart of the Sun, 9 at that time (however short it might be), it dominates the other planets. Otherwise, when close to the Sun they vacate their accustomed office - so that Saturn conjunct the Sun is judged to abandon his pristine rigidity and Mars his accustomed ferocity. In so far as the Sun approaches the superior planets they rise [in their epicycle], and as he separates from them, they descend. Indeed, when conjunct the Sun these planets are at the height of their epicycle, while when they are in opposition to it they are at their lowest, and when in square, at middle altitude. The Moon is at its highest point in the first two places of its cycle, while in the square aspect it is descending. Venus and Mercury, when conjunct the Sun, if direct, are at their highest; if retrograde, 10 at their lowest. Nor is it possible for the planets to complete the circuit of their epicycle without revisiting, by conjunction, the Sun as if their Lord; it seems quite clear that the superior planets, when they change their course into a trine aspect with the Sun, revere its regal appearance. And therefore conjunct the Sun they are highest and direct, because during that time they are concordant with the king. Now on the other hand, when discordant - that is, in opposition - they are retrograde and at their lowest point. When Venus and Mercury touch the Sun, if then they are direct, that is, obeying their Lord, they ascend to their heights. But if they turn aside they are like rebels, and they are cast down during that time. It ought not to surprise us if the Moon too rises [in its epicycle] when in opposition to the Sun. For what is the light of the Moon if not that selfsame light of the Sun sent to her and reflected in the lunar mirror? And at full Moon the light is turned back into the Sun, now in full view. The Moon appears to descend in a square aspect since then she gazes fiercely at her lord. As the Sun does not move backwards, so neither does the Moon, although due to her velocity her epicycle appears to regress. Lastly, when the Moon in the Sun's path seeks the north, a place constituted from the huge head of the dragon, 11 she signifies - by virtue of solar power - an increase for the signs situated there. When she seeks the south, marked by the projection of the tail, she brings a decrease. All the planets made oriental or occidental from the Sun change their condition and appellation in either of the two places. They all revere the path of the Sun which the astrologers call the ecliptic. The inferior planets more so and the feminine planets (that is, the Moon and Venus) most of all, therefore they diverge the most by latitude. Indeed all of the planets placed on that path - moving from there to the north or the south, are thought to change their condition. The Moon, the lady of generation, has no manifest light except from the Sun. When she is in perfect harmony with the Sun, she takes from it all the celestial powers which are gathered there, as Proclus says, so that she may convey similar powers down to our earth.

Chapter V: The Power of the Sun in Generating,

and in the Seasons, at the Time of Birth and in All Things.

In the birth chart of each person the very position of the Moon itself declares the Lord of the nativity and the moment of conception. And the conjunction or opposition of the Sun and Moon prior to the birth reveals the truth and fortune of the nativity. In any given chart that portion of the sky where the part of fortune falls is called the daemon of the nativity by the ancients, and it portends or governs (as the Egyptians say) the tenor of the whole life. The part of fortune is designated by the space observed between the Sun and Moon, projected from the degree of the Ascendant. Thus it is through their knowledge of the Sun's motion that astronomers discover and measure the movements of the planets. The Sun in its motion distinguishes days from nights and hours and months and years. Likewise by its light and warmth, it generates, quickens, moves, regenerates, fills with breath and cherishes all things which had been hidden; at its first advent it reveals them, and signals the coming and going of the four seasons of the year; and regions which are too remote from the Sun are likewise remote from life. Indeed Spring is the best of seasons since it begins with Aries, the kingdom of the Sun. Autumn is the worst, because it begins with Libra, the fall of the Sun. Finally a diurnal nativity is thought better than a nocturnal one, the former being judged mainly from the Sun, the latter from the Moon, which is like the Sun's mirror.

The celestial figure at the nativity is divided into twelve parts. Astrologers appoint the ninth part to the Sun, and the third to the Moon (calling the former God, and the latter Goddess), and they believe that wisdom, faith, religion and eternal glory are the greatest gifts of each. For the Sun signifies all these things, and simply all essential truth and prophecy and kingship. It follows from this, that as the Sun ascends to the midheaven it fosters the vital and animal spirits in us in a miraculous way, and as it descends, each spirit is debilitated. This is why David, the trumpet of Almighty God, rising to his lyre at daybreak broke forth into song and exclamation. It is vain for us to get up before dawn, for it is clear that the rising Sun brings us every benefit and revives our spirits, which wonderfully aroused and illumined, are called to sublime things. I shall pass over how (as tradition has it) the Sun, like a prophet, at its rising is thought to bring prophecies to those who sleep. The Moon, which Aristotle calls the lesser Sun, similarly restores the spirit and natural humour when rising, and weakens it when setting. And the more the Moon is full of the Sun's light, the more health she brings to all things. I shall also omit how the Moon, when she is not waning, should be observed in its aspect to the Sun, in each of the signs, signifying the various parts of the body; and so the virtues of all heavenly things are brought down to the limbs from the Sun via the Moon, to be nurtured through medicines ritually prepared at that particular time. But we have already said enough about this in the Book of Life. 12

Chapter VI: The Praises of the Ancients for the Sun,

and How the Celestial Powers are all Found in the Sun, and Derive from the Sun

For these reasons Orpheus called Apollo the vivifying eye of heaven, 13 and what I am about to say is taken straight from the Hymns of Orpheus: "The Sun is the eternal eye seeing all things, the pre-eminent celestial light, moderating heavenly and worldly things, leading or drawing the harmonious course of the world, the Lord of the world, immortal Jupiter, the eye of the world circling round everywhere, possessing the original imprint in whose image all worldly forms are made. The Moon is pregnant with the stars, the Moon is queen of the stars." These things Orpheus says. In Egypt, on the temples of Minerva, this golden inscription could be read: "I am all those things which are, which will be and which have been. No one has ever turned back my veil. The fruit I have borne is the Sun". Whence it appears that this Sun born of Minerva - that is, of divine intelligence - is both flower and fruit.

The ancient theologians, with Proclus as witness once again, stated that Justice, the queen of all things, proceeds from the middle of the Sun's throne through everything, directing everything, as if the Sun itself could be the moderator of all things. Iamblichus states the opinion of the Egyptians in the following way: Whatever good we have we get from the Sun, that is, either from itself alone, or from another agency as well, in other words either directly from the Sun, or from the Sun through other things. Likewise the Sun is the lord of all elemental virtues. The Moon by virtue of the Sun is the lady of generation. Therefore Albumasar said through the Sun and Moon life is infused into all things. 14 Moses thinks the Sun is lord of celestial things in the day and the Moon, like a nocturnal Sun, at night. They all place the Sun as lord in the midst of the world, although for different reasons. The Chaldaeans put the Sun in the middle of the planets, the Egyptians between two five-fold worlds: the five planets above, the Moon and the four elements below. Indeed they think it is placed by Providence closer to the earth than to the firmament, so that the gross material of the earth and the moisture of the Moon, air and water might be cherished by its fervent spirit and fire. Also, by another theory, the middle place is declared by that prosperity of the planets which requires their disposition to the Sun to be such that Saturn, Jupiter and Mars rise before it and Venus, Mercury and the Moon after it, thereby maintaining the King on the middle path. The others, in proceeding differently, turn out to be weaker. Moreover amongst them those planets are held to be more pre-eminent, which the lord Sun itself ordered to precede it. But let us return to the ancients. The old physicians called the Sun the heart of heaven. Heraclitus called it the fountain of celestial light. Most Platonists located the world soul in the Sun, which, filling the whole sphere of the Sun, poured out through that fiery-like globe just as it poured out spirit-like rays through the heart, and from there through everything, to which it distributed life, feeling and motion universally. For these reasons, perhaps, most astrologers think that just as God alone gave us an intellectual soul so he alone sends it to us under the influence of the Sun; that is, only in the fourth month after conception. But this is something that concerns them. On the other hand there is no doubt that Mercury, which signifies the movement of our mind, moves the least far from the Sun. Saturn, signifying the state of the separated mind, departs least from the ecliptic. Moreover Jupiter and Mars the former through Sagittarius and the latter through Aries - are concordant with the Apollonian Lion, and have obtained their respective gifts: Jupiter signifying religious justice, civil laws and prosperity, and Mars magnanimity, fortitude and victory. The Moon, Venus and Mercury are called the companions of the Sun; the Moon because of its frequent conjunction with the Sun, Venus and Mercury because they do not stray beyond the vicinity of the Sun, on account of their advancing in step with it. Hence they have received the rulership of universal generation. Accordingly the Moon, rather humid in conjunction or aspect with the Sun, having absorbed its vital heat, may thereby provide a warming and vital humour to those things to be generated. Moreover in this process of generation Mercury mixes these two parts with the rest in a certain harmonious proportion. Venus applies seemly forms to mixtures of this kind, and adds grace and joy. Thus the Sun has distributed the whole of the light collected in itself through various stars differing amongst themselves in kind, and thus sets in order virtues in every form, with light that can take any form. From which one may clearly conjecture that there are just as many virtues of the Sun as there are stars existing in the heavens.

Chapter VII: Dispositions of the Signs and Planets Around the Sun and Moon

The very disposition of the signs of the zodiac clearly declares that the Sun is the king, and the Moon which is both sister and wife of the Sun, is queen of heavenly things. For Leo, the place of the Sun, and Cancer, the place of the Moon, are next to each other; likewise are Aries the exaltation of the Sun and Taurus that of the Moon. 15 The other planets each take their seats on both sides around the King and Queen, who are placed in the middle. On one side next to Leo Mercury rules Virgo, on the other side next to Cancer it rules Gemini. Venus, on the one side Libra, on the other Taurus; Mars, Scorpio and Aries; Jupiter, Sagittarius and Pisces; Saturn, Capricorn and Aquarius. But once when I laid out the signs of the planets around the Sun and Moon like this, my friend Bindanio Recasolano, a man of profound judgement, objected thus: "Don't you see, Marsilio, that those same signs, although in a reverse order, have been laid out in the same pattern around the signs of Saturn?" I said, "I see that this arrangement, especially suiting the Sun, relates however to most lofty Saturn too. Is it surprising that Saturn is worthy of honour, since he appears least of all the planets to deviate from the regal path of the Sun?". But let us return to the purpose in hand.

These five planets each have two seats [rulerships]. One following the Sun as if from behind, the other in proximity to the Moon. The former are called occidental to the Sun, the latter oriental to the Moon. The Sun and Moon claim for themselves the whole Zodiac. For the province of the Sun comprises Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius and Capricorn; the province of the Moon, Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Gemini and Cancer. Perhaps Cancer is called the gateway of men, since there the Sun seems on the point of descending; and Capricorn the gateway of the gods, since there the Sun seems to ascend resolutely. 16 But we have explained these things elsewhere in a different way. Actually these two signs, together with Aries and Libra, claimed for themselves the signity of being called cardinal points of heaven, since there the Sun decrees the changes of the four seasons. Since the Sun, when passing through Aries and Libra, holds its middle course between ascent or descent and balances day with night, the circle produced from Aries to Libra is called amongst the Egyptians the Circle of Minerva, that is, of wisdom and justice. Indeed so wonderful an order of heavenly things declares that the world is not determined by fortune, but by providence. And a certain reverence of all things for the one Sun, the moderator of the whole, shows that angelic minds and all heavenly things entirely obey the one high up above the heavens, and that our souls ought to be much more obedient to the same.

Chapter VIII:

Planets are Fortunate when Concordant with the Sun and Moon,

Unfortunate when Discordant. How they may pay Respect to the Sun and Moon

Ptolemy considers the Sun and Moon to be the authors of life, in that the Moon supplies that which concerns growth and quickening, and the Sun, that which relates to consciousness. He also considers Jupiter and Venus to be salutary to life, because through a certain harmonious proportion they are consonant with the Sun and Moon. Jupiter is most harmonious of all with the Sun, and to some extent also with the Moon, and Venus the reverse. However Saturn and Mars are the opposite, since they disagree with the Sun and Moon Saturn more with the Sun, Mars more with the Moon. Jupiter is more supportive to life than all the others, since, in blending the lights of the Sun and Moon he unites the powers of both. Nor is it to be overlooked, that the planets obtain new vigour suddenly when they look upon the face of the Sun or Moon as if in greeting, which the Arabs called almugea. This happens when, following the Sun, they are as far from it as their sign is from the Sun's sign, or when, preceding the Moon, they approach it by as much as their sign is close to the Moon's sign. Thus Saturn will greet the Sun as often as it is occidental, that is, risen after the Sun, in the sixth sign from the sign of the Sun. Jupiter will give greetings when in the fifth sign from the Sun, Mars when in the fourth, Venus in the third, Mercury in the second. Similarly they will greet the Moon when, rising before her, they are found at the same distances from her. Again we find agreement between Jupiter and Venus and the Sun and Moon, disagreement from Mars and Saturn. In fact Jupiter has placed his seat in Sagittarius in a trine aspect to the sign of Leo, the seat of the Sun, whilst Venus located Libra through a beneficial sextile aspect to Leo. However, Mars placed his seat in Scorpio in a square, dissonant aspect to the Sun, and Saturn placed his in the sixth sign from the Sun, not consonant with it, and in the seventh, totally opposed to it. For he confronts both Leo with Aquarius and Cancer with Capricorn. In a similar fashion Venus establishes Taurus in sextile to Cancer, Jupiter places Pisces in trine, Mars sets Aries in square, Saturn, as we have said, is located in both the sixth and seventh signs from the Moon's. Therefore Jupiter and Venus are called the fortunes, in as much as they are concordant with the King and Queen of the heavens. Saturn and Mars are the infortunes, since they are discordant with them; but Saturn is the more unfortunate, since he seems to disagree most strongly with the Sun, even more so than Mars does with the Moon. Hence we can deduce that those minds which are in agreement with divine will will be happy, whilst those discordant with it will be miserable.

Chapter IX: The Sun is the Image of God. Comparison of the Sun to God

Having very diligently considered these things, our divine Plato named the Sun the visible son of Goodness itself. He also thought that the Sun was the manifest symbol of God, placed by God himself in this worldly temple so that everyone everywhere could admire it above all else. Plato and Plotinus said that the ancients venerated this Sun as God. The ancient gentile theologians placed all their gods in the Sun, to which Iamblichus, Julian and Macrobius testify. Certainly whoever does not view the Sun in the world as the image and minister of God, has certainly never reflected upon the night, nor looked upon the rising Sun; nor has he thought how extraordinary this is, nor how suddenly those things which were thought to be dead return to life. Nor has he recognised the gifts of the Sun through which it alone accomplishes that which the surrounding stars cannot. Therefore also consider, together with the Platonists and Dionysius, that Phoebus, the chief intelligence of the Muses, is the visible image of God. Also that Phoebe, that is, the Moon, is the image of Phoebus almost in the same way that he is of God. And as Hipparchus says, she is the mirror of the Sun in that light falling on her from the Sun deflects onto us. It is not appropriate to discuss it at present, but we must not overlook that Platonic comparison which I have described more fully elsewhere.

In the same manner as the Sun generates both eyes and colours, giving the eyes the power by which they may see, and colours the potency by which they are seen, and joining both of them together with a uniting light, so God is thought to be with respect to all meanings and intelligible things. God in fact created the intelligible species of things and intellects, giving them an appropriate natural power. Moreover the Sun daily pours out a universal light through which it excites to mutual action the virtues of both the intelligible and intellectual realms, and joins them together through action. Plato calls this light truth with respect to intelligible things, and knowledge with respect to the mind of man. He thinks moreover that the good itself, that is God, surpasses all these things, just as the Sun is superior to light, eyes and colours. But when Plato says that the Sun prevails over the whole visible realm, doubtless he alludes to an incorporeal Sun above the corporeal one - that is, the divine intellect. Seeing that it really is possible to ascend to the archetypal pattern partly by the taking away of that which is worse and partly by the adding of what is better, take from the Sun - from whom Averroes took gross physical matter - all definite quantity. But leave it with the potency of light, so that there will remain the light itself, cleansed by miraculous power, defined neither by a definite quantity nor by any definite shape, filling with its presence a space immense with respect to the imagination. This pure light exceeds the intelligence just as in itself sunlight surpasses the acuity of the eyes. In this way, in proportion to the strength you receive from the Sun, you will almost seem to have found God, who placed his tabernacle in the Sun. And finally just as nothing is more alien to the divine light than utterly formless matter, so nothing is more different from the light of the Sun than the earth. Therefore since bodies in which the earthly condition prevails are most unsuited to light, they accept no light within. This is not because the light may be powerless to penetrate - for while this light cannot illuminate inside wool or a leaf, it may however penetrate a crystal in a moment, which cannot be easily penetrated by anything else. In this way the divine light also shines in the darkness of the soul but the darkness comprehends it not. Is this not also similar to God, who first sows knowledge of divine things in angelic and blessed minds, and then love? Indeed God kindles a love for us believers here which purifies and converts, before it bestows the intelligence of divine things. Thus the Sun completely fills with light clear and pure natures everywhere, as if they are now, for a moment, heavenly; while those opaque and material natures it first warms and kindles with its light, then refines, and soon illuminates. And sometimes it elevates to the heights through heat and light this matter now made light and accessible. Hence Apollo pierces the dense body of the Python with the stings of his rays, purges it, dissolves it and raises it up. Nor must we forget that in whatever manner we hope that Christ will finally come into his kingdom, resurrecting human bodies from the earth with the splendour of his own body, similarly after the yearly dead winter, we look forward to the Sun's reign in Aries, which will recall to life seeds of things on earth, as if suddenly reviving dead or half-alive animals to life and beauty. Hence Mercurius, as the arms bearer of the Sun, is said to excite those who sleep with his caduceus, and Plato describes an almost similar resurrection in his book on the Kingdom. 17

Chapter X: The Sun was Created First, and Placed in the Midheaven

On this subject we might ask, what most powerful thing did God create in the beginning? Moses answered, light. Rightly so, for light emanates immediately from the divine - or rather intelligible - light itself, which of all things is most similar to God. Indeed the intelligible light is in the incorporeal world above us, that is, extremely pure intellect. However, the sensible light is in the corporeal world, that is, the solar light itself. But light in its first stage, as on the first day, was established simply to shine within and illuminate without. At the second stage it strengthened itself by its own power of heat, then it quickened everything else. At the third stage, it propagated itself in matter by its own efficacy and by the command of God. Lastly at the fourth stage of its nature and order, as if on the fourth day, it was allotted its spherical form, whence the light of divine intelligence having been diffused, it was reflected back onto itself. Therefore Moses declared that on the first day simply light itself was created; whereas on the fourth day light for the solar, that is, spherical form, was provided. Also Plato twice refers to the dual constitution of the Sun in the Timaeus, first placing it amongst the planets as their companion, secondly presenting it as divine, with a light miraculous beyond all things and with a regal authority. The majority of astronomers place the Sun, at the beginning of the world, on the horizon in Aries which is its kingdom, in the midst of the heaven which it would have occupied like a citadel and capital in the guise of a king. Also where Moses says that one day was completed, he did not mean morning then evening, but the other way around, indicating that after midday, in which the Sun was lit up, the newly-born day declined towards evening and must complete itself with the following morning. He certainly confirmed the regal authority of the Sun, when he assigned the first day, that is the solar, to the Lord. For if God indeed completed the world in six days, and rested on the seventh, undoubtedly he seems to have begun the world from the very day of the Sun, or rather under the auspices of the Sun's authority. Whereas he judged Saturn to be very remote from the Sun, unfavourable in generation and action, when he commanded a cessation of activity on the day of Saturn. Surely too Christ, the source of life, for whom the Sun mourned with covered face at midday, rose again from the dead at the hour and in the day of the Sun, and will restore to us intelligible light in the same way as the Sun gives us visible light?

Chapter XI: The Two Lights of the Sun. The Gift of Apollo.

The Degrees of the Lights. The Sun Renders all Things Divine

If we think of the Sun in its pristine nature, which it was allotted at the first moment of its creation, just as it were numbered in common fellowship with the planets, we will recognise that its first natural light was not as great as it was soon to become. For it does not exceed the other stars in magnitude as much as in light. In fact it is less than twice the size of Jupiter, but perhaps a hundred times greater in light. Of course these quantities are evaluated by comparison to the earth - indeed we said at the beginning how many times the Sun could contain the earth, and Jupiter is thought to be 95 times greater than the earth. Therefore this other immense light is entirely poured forth from another place, added from above to the natural light of the Sun. Clearly all heavenly things have brought with them their own light at their birth, but it escapes our notice, being either infinitesimal, or hidden from us through a certain fineness and brilliance, or for another reason. The Sun from the beginning appears to have brought with itself a certain similar light slightly greater in proportion to its magnitude. Indeed the Sun offers that innate light which is somewhat obscure, then immediately another light most evident to the eyes like a visible image of divine intelligence and infinite goodness.

God, as our theologians relate, gave a double light to our minds. The first they consider to be natural. The second was added freely from above according to merit through grace, and it renders minds blessed with a miraculous bountifulness. Therefore since the stars are images of minds, it is fitting that these stars likewise carry two lights. In whatever way God has wonderfully added this immense light to the first light of the Sun, so the Sun, at once the representative of God in this office, adds this second light to the innate light of the stars. Indeed, just as we are accustomed to call the light which appears in the Moon not the Moon's own, but the Sun's, transmitted all the way down to us through the Moon, so with respect to the most secret doctrine of the Platonists we shall say that such a great splendour revealed in the Sun proceeds not from itself, but from God through the Sun to all things; just as light reaches our eyes not from the Sun's globe, but from God himself. God, while he filled the solar globe, a tiny particle of heaven, with such great splendour that brilliance flowed out into all things from it, without doubt made it clear both that the small body of the Sun received such an incomparable gift not from itself, but from above, and that out of the one God, the whole goodness of the Sun was propagated throughout everything. Indeed in the same way that this sensible light is experienced by the senses, illuminating, invigorating and forming all sensible things and faculties of sense and converting them to higher planes, so a certain intelligible light in the soul of the Sun illuminates, kindles and recalls the inner spiritual eye. I think for this reason the Sun was called Apollo by the ancient Theologians, and creator of all harmony, and leader of the Muses, since he releases minds from a certain confused turmoil, not so much by visible but by hidden influxes of rays, and he tempers them proportionately, and finally leads them to understanding. Nor should it be thought that this most full and efficacious light, given to and extended among worldly things as the most perfect gift, takes its origin from the small body of the Sun, but from the good itself as the father of lights, in whom whatever is of light is certainly beyond intelligence and quite surpassing all understanding. From there descending into the divine or angelic intellect it becomes intelligible, and then reaching the mind of the world soul it becomes intellectual and imaginal, and then passing into heaven it becomes both sensual and sensible, finally being sent down to the lower regions (as if now divided) it becomes sensory in the eyes of living creatures and in sensible objects, and keeps both characteristics in a few creatures which can see in the dark. But let us return to where we were.

According to the Platonists there are three principles: the good itself, the divine intellect and the world soul. Only light clearly contains all of them in itself. It reveals the good itself, since while it surpasses wonderfully all things, it also spreads itself through all things, and recalls them to sublime planes at the same time with its miraculously preserved excellence and purity. It reveals the divine intellect because it declares, distinguishes and adorns everything, and the world soul, because it generates, warms and moves everything with a vital heat. And in the same way that it descends into heaven from the three supra-celestial principles and then manifests them under the heavens, the Sun in the middle heaven represents the good itself, and the divine intellect, or rather the plenitude of ideas manifest through the firmament full of stars, and finally the world soul through the mutable light of the Moon. Similarly below the heavens the first principle is represented through fire, the second through air and the third through water. Finally as the superior stars are illuminated by the Sun steadily, and the Moon receives the Sun's light mutably, so the angels receive it unchangingly, and souls are illuminated in a changeable way.

Chapter XII:

Similitude of the Sun to the Divine Trinity and the Nine Orders of Angels,

Likewise of the Nine Spirits in the Sun and of the Nine Muses around the Sun

There is nothing in the world more like the divine trinity than the Sun. For in the one substance of the Sun a certain three-foldness exists, distinct in its parts yet united. Firstly a natural fecundity which is completely hidden from our senses, secondly, a manifest light flowing out of this fecundity, ever equal to it, and thirdly a heating virtue quite equal to both. The fecundity represents the Father; light, likened to intelligence, represents the Son conceived of intelligence; heat stands for the loving spirit. Around this divine trinity our theologians discovered three hierarchies of angels, each one containing three orders. The first consecrated to the Father, the second to the Son, the third to the Spirit. Also around the solar trinity we find similar three-fold and nine-fold orders, since out of that very fertile nature of the Sun, three natural fecundities are generated through everything. The first of them is found in celestial nature, the second in the simple nature of the elements and the third in the nature of mixed things. Furthermore, beyond these natures both life and that three-fold order are propagated far and wide from the vital heat of the Sun. The first is vegetable as in plant-forms, the second is responsive but immobile as in zoophytes (plantlike animals), the third is responsive and purposively mobile as in more perfect living things, that is, animals.

Next, from the light of the Sun, three kinds of brightness are derived, both in and below the heavens: the light is either completely white, or completely red, or mixed. Indeed since light is found to be very similar to the dawning of perception, especially that of the senses, it is appropriate that to the three kinds of light there seem to correspond also three types of sense. To the red, the wholly corporeal senses of taste and touch; to the white the most incorporeal senses of imagination and sight; but to the mixed light correspond the senses in the middle between the incorporeal and corporeal, of hearing and smell. In this, the light of the Sun is not only the image of things of this kind, but also their cause. Indeed it is the sole image of pure intelligence, for just as pure intelligence pierces through instantly and penetrates deeply, and reveals things, mixing with nothing in its sublime existence, so light itself radiates through all things in a moment, and discloses particular things, whilst still remaining indivisible and whole, mixed with nothing else. Accordingly as the Sun sets, no light lingers in the air, not even for a moment, but everywhere accompanies departing Phoebus. But since - I know not how - I am here under Apollo as if a poet (even if not a good one), let me tell a little story. Firstly then concerning the higher gods (to speak Platonically), and the nine Muses, the ancients placed these divinities in the Sun. We may contemplate the substance or the powers of the Sun in its substance, essence, life, intelligence. In the manner of the ancients, we identify essence in the heavens, life in Rhea, intelligence in Saturn. If we contemplate the powers of the Sun after its substance, we will call its fecundity Jove and Juno, its light Apollo and Minerva, and its heat Venus and Bacchus. Indeed the ancients always represented Phoebus and Bacchus - who reign more gloriously in the Sun than the others - as youths, and if anyone were to experience the light and heat of the Sun with the sincerity and appropriateness by which they exist there, to take it up for their own use and to accommodate its properties, he would achieve eternal youth, or at least would live to be one hundred and twenty.

After these nine divinities inside the Sun let us move on to the nine Muses around the Sun. Now why nine Muses around the Sun, unless they mean nine types of Apollonian godhead distributed through the nine spheres of the cosmos? At first the ancients only recognised eight heavens. Later, under the celestial fire, they added pure air as the ninth heaven, which was heavenly with respect to its quality and motion. Indeed in each sphere they distributed divine spirits hidden from the eyes, each dedicated to a particular star, which Proclus called angels and Iamblichus archangels and principalities. But whichever ones amongst them are especially solar, the more ancient people called them Muses presiding over all knowledge, especially poetry, music, medicine, atonements, oracles and prophecies. Now let us return to the Sun. We inept ones admire too much certain very insignificant things, if only because they are very rare; but blind and ungrateful, we have long since stopped admiring the very great things we used to respect. No one wonders at fire, burning just like the Sun of heaven, pure without being mixed, perpetually in motion, most splendid, which makes a very great show out of nothing, reducing everything to itself. No one wonders at the Sun to the extent that it is right to do so, ruling as it does over everything incomparably, the father and moderator of all things, healing sadness, vivifying things not yet alive and reviving things now dead. Indeed if once every year the home of omnipotent Olympus were to be thrown open, so great a splendour would suddenly be contemplated that everyone would most likely admire the Sun more than they do; they would humbly adore the Sun as the highest God, or at least they would hardly doubt its divine provenance. They would thank God daily as much as possible, as the hidden author of so great a gift. Therefore the Platonists Iamblichus and Julian commanded us to imagine the night without any light from the Moon or stars (by which the gift of the Sun is also manifest) so that we might realise more clearly what we would be without the supernal Sun, and how much we should owe to it.

Chapter XIII: That the Sun is not to be worshipped as the Author of all Things

When he was in military service Socrates often used to stand in amazement watching the rising Sun, motionless, his eyes fixed like a statue, to greet the return of the heavenly body. The Platonists, influenced by these and similar signs, would perhaps say that Socrates, inspired since boyhood by a Phoeboean daemon, was accustomed to venerate the Sun above all, and for the same reason was judged by the oracle of Apollo to be the wisest of all the Greeks. I will omit at present a discussion about whether the daemon of Socrates was particularly a genius or an angel - but I certainly would dare to affirm that Socrates in his state of ecstasy had admired not just the visible Sun, but its other, hidden aspect. For since novelty alone encourages admiration, why would Socrates be so amazed at what he saw everyday, whose movement and all power mathematics and physics have for a long time comprehended? According to Plato, he called the Sun not God himself but the son of God. And I say not the first son of God, but a second, and moreover visible son. For the first son of God is not this visible Sun, but another far superior intellect, namely the first one which only the intellect can contemplate. Therefore Socrates, having been awakened by the celestial Sun, surmised a supercelestial Sun, and he contemplated attentively its majesty, and inspired, would admire the incomprehensible bounty of the Father. James the Apostle called this Father the father of light; light, I say, more than celestial, in which there is no change or shadow. For he supposes that these supercelestial things are naturally mutable, that the many celestial things are doubtless shadowed in some fashion, and that sub-celestial things are shadowed daily. For which reason every very good thing naturally sown in the mind, every perfect gift beyond natural gifts, does not come down from this Sun and from the mundane stars, but from even higher, from the father of light. With the powers of the intelligence, as if by means of not celestial but super celestial steps, we raise ourselves beyond the heavens, to the place where we know, love and venerate many things superior to the heavens, and especially the Maker of heaven himself. In any case, with our intelligence we would not be able to understand anything at all incorporeal, superior to the heavens, if our intelligence only came to us from the heavens. However, lest anyone should admire and adore the Sun, Moon and stars too much and venerate them as creators and fathers of intellectual gifts, James prudently reminded us that this Sun is not the beginning of the universe. I will not explain now the reasons why, according to our theology, the origin of the universe cannot be either body, soul or intellect, but something infinitely loftier from which indeed the heavenly Sun is most distant, and of which the Sun seems more like a shadow than an image. Instead I shall briefly review here James's arguments.

Since stillness, as the first principle and end of movement is the most perfect of all movements, God, beginning and regulator of everything, cannot himself be in movement. The Sun is in motion every day. Moreover the power of the first principle, being immense, touches everything with its power and it cannot be restrained in any way. On the other hand, the force of the Sun, working through its rays, is variously impeded by the obstacle opposed to its rays, diminishes through the opposition of the Moon, is often held back by clouds, is pushed back by the density of the Earth, is weakened by spatial distance. The Sun itself is only a small part of the world; it is contained within a narrow space, it is pulled around from its sphere, it is always carried backwards from the sphere above against the motion of its own sphere, it is obstructed by contrary signs and adverse stars, and, if I may speak thus, weakened by aspects of the malefics. Lastly the first principle of the universe operates everything always, everywhere and in everything. The Sun on the other hand does not create the globes of the cosmos, nor can it affect whatever is cold or moist or dense, or similar things its own power. Nor if there are similar powers in the heavens, do they derive their origin from the Sun. Moreover although the Sun is exceedingly far removed from the Creator of the world, nevertheless all celestial things appear by divine law to lead back to the one Sun, the Lord and regulator of the heavens. And we are made fully aware from this that things which are in heaven, and under heaven, and above heaven, are similarly referred back to the one beginning of all things. And finally considering that, let us worship this one first principle with that same ritual observance that all celestial things give to the Sun.

Note: This translation is copyright and may not be reproduced without permission.

Notes

1. Ficino refers to the authorities below in the course of this text. We have not given the exact references to particular passages in their works: a more thorough critical edition prepared by the Company of Astrologers will be forthcoming.

a. Dionysius the Areopagite: Christian neo-Platonist, fl.350-500 AD. Ficino translated his Celestial Hierarchies and Divine Names.

b. Iamblichus of Chalcis: c.250-325 AD. Neo-Platonist more interested in the practical rites of theurgy than theoretical speculation. Ficino translated and commented on his De mysteriis Aegyptiorum.

c. Heraclitus: fl. c.500 BC. Greek sage who spoke in riddles. d. Proclus Diadochus: 4l0-485 AD. Head of the Athenian neo-Platonist school. Ficino translated his On sacrifice and magic.

e. Claudius Ptolemy: fI.121-151 AD. in Alexandria. Astronomer, astrologer and mathematician. [See paper On the Knowledge of Divine Things by Angela Voss in this volume].

f. Macrobius: fI.400 AD. Neo-Platonist whose Commentary on the Dream of Scipio was the most important source-book of Platonism in the Latin west.

g. Julian the Apostate: b.332 AD. Actively repudiated Christianity in favour of pagan rites and sun-worship. Ficino would have been familiar with his Hymn to King Helios.

h. Hipparchus: b.190 BC. Greek astronomer who improved the estimates of sizes and distances of Sun and Moon.

i. Averroes: Abu al-Walid Muhammed ibn Ahmad 1126-1198 AD. Islamic Spain's renowned philosopher, physician and astronomer best known in Medieval and Renaissance Europe for his Commentaries on Aristotle.

2. Ficino, Opera omnia (Basle 1576) 958

3. ibid. 965-975. This translation was completed by members of the Latin translation group of the Company of Astrologers, London.

4. See in particular, Orphica comparatione Sole ad Deum, Op.om. 825f.

5. Ficino, Theologia Platonica. Modern ed. trans. R. Marcel, Théologie Platonicienne de l'immortalité des âimes 2 vols. ( Paris 1964)

6. Haly: the Arabic astrologer Haly Abenrudian (Abu Jafar Ahmad b. Yusuf b. alDayah) fl.c.920 AD. His commentary on the Psuedo-Ptolemy Centiloquium was available in the Renaissance via the translation by Hugh of Santalla.

7. That is, a horoscope cast for the moment of the equinoxes and soltices.

8. Oriental: rising before the sun. Occidental: setting after the sun.

9. That is, when any planet is at the same degree and minute of longitude as the Sun's centre.

10. Retrograde: apparent backwards motion in the zodiac.

11. This is most likely to refer to the lunar node: the intersection of the lunar orbit with the ecliptic.

12. Ficino, Liber de vita. Modern ed. trans. C. Kaske & J. Clark Three Books on Life (Binghamton, New York 1989)

13. On the supposed translation by Ficino of the Orphic Hymns, see Marsilio Ficino et la Théologie Ancienne ed. I. Klutstein (Florence 1987)

14. Albumasar: Abu Ma'shar, 787-886 AD. Arabic astrologer who had become an authority in the Medieval period through his Greater Introduction to Astronomy, twice translated into Latin in the 12th century.

15. Apart from rulership, planets are strengthened in certain signs.

16. Ficino is referring to the solstices, when the Sun reaches its maximum north and south declinations.

17. Evidently an apocryphal work.

Two Magnificent Inspired Quotes From Johannes Brahms

2008-02-22T01:32:00.002+10:30

"To realize that we are one with the Creator, as Beethoven did, is a wonderful and awe-inspiring experience. Very few human beings ever come into that realization and that is why there are so few great composers or creative geniuses in any line of human endeavor. I always contemplate all this before commencing to compose. This is the first step. When I feel the urge I begin by appealing directly to my Maker and I first ask Him the three most important questions pertaining to our life here in this world--whence, wherefore, whither? I immediately feel vibrations that thrill my whole being. These are the spirit illuminating the soul-power within, and in this exalted state, I see clearly what is obscure in my ordinary moods; then I feel capable of drawing inspiration from above, as Beethoven did. Above all, I realize at such moments the tremendous significance of Jesus' supreme revelation, 'I and my Father are One'. Those vibrations assume the forms of distinct mental images, after I have formulated my desire and resolve in regard to what I want--namely, to be inspired so that I can compose something that will uplift and benefit humanity--something of permanent value. Straightaway the ideas flow in upon me, directly from God, and not only do I see distinct themes in my mind's eye, but they are clothed in the right forms, harmonies and orchestration. Measure by measure, the finished product is revealed to me when I am in those rare, inspired moods, as they were to Tartini when he composed his greatest work--the Devil's Trill Sonata. I have to be in a semi-trance condition to get such results--a condition when the conscious mind is in temporary abeyance and the subconscious is in control, for it is through the subconscious mind, which is a part of Omnipotence, that the inspiration comes. I have to be careful, however, not to lose consciousness, otherwise, the ideas fade away."

Later in the same book, Brahms describes these experiences further to Abell and Joseph Joachim who was also present:

"I always have had a definite purpose in view before invoking the Muse and entering into such a mood; and as I pointed out to you before, contemplating what Goethe, Milton and Tennyson said stimulated by fantasy to a powerful degree. Then when I felt those higher Cosmic vibrations, I knew that I was in touch with the same Power that inspired those great poets and also Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Then the ideas which I was consciously seeking flowed in upon me with such force and speed, that I could only grasp and hold a few of them; I never was able to jot them all down; they came in instantaneous flashes and quickly faded away again, unless I fixed them on paper. The themes that will endure in my compositions all come to me in this way. It has always been such a wonderful experience that, I never before could induce myself to talk about it--even to you Joseph. I felt that I was, for the moment, in tune with the Infinite, and there is no thrill like it. I can understand why the great Nazarene attached so little importance to this life. He must have been in much closer rapport with the Infinite force of the Universe, than any poet or composer ever was, and He, no doubt had glimpses of that next plane, He called 'Heaven'."
~ From the book Talks with Great Composers

The Power of Names and Images

2008-02-14T14:36:00.000+10:30

"By names and images are all powers awakened and reawakened."

- the Golden Dawn.
(Cal:480.)

Beethoven post-work ritual

2008-02-01T16:03:00.000+10:30

This week I have been coming home from work exhausted, sat down online and put on one of Beethoven's symphonies.

It works a treat. These symphonies are the champagne of the soul. I feel a new man after listening to one.

Monday was public holiday (Australia Day).
Tuesday I heard the fourth symphony, which has been reported to give certain people spontaneous orgasms. I heard what they meant, but alas no orgasms.
Wednesday I heard the astonishing fifth, during which I fell of my chair in astonishment.
Thursday I heard the seventh; I whistled movement 1 on the way home today, Friday, realizing as I did how much more vital this music is than I am capable of comprehending.
Friday, tonight, I heard the first. I have never had much of a thing for his first. I like the low-key (compared to his own symphonies) opening.

I still have the second, third, sixth, eigth and ninth to listen to next week. How cool is that!?

Poem: In Conclusion

2008-01-23T23:19:00.000+10:30

The spirit hungers for the real and true,
And nothing else will satisfy it.
But the manifest real and true
depends on the unmanifest
alone for its existence.

The hunger for experience
consumes the world in fire and light
until it comes at last
to the ontological void of the infinite,
then it consumes itself .

In a conflagration of the actual,
Like a moth bursting into flame
As it plunges into a candle,
Or like a man who loses his self
As he thrusts deep into his lover’s body –

This is the edge of the real itself,
the point at which dissolution and creation,
being and nonbeing,
actual and potential,
merge and are one.

Tree of Life Powers and Chant

2008-01-22T01:08:00.000+10:30

A Simple Tree of Life Chant

The Kabbalist's tree of life can be spoken as well as drawn. Every sphere of the tree of life has 5 levels of consciousness, and a name for each level. The 5 levels for each of the 10 spheres are to 50 doors of knowledge.

The first 10 names are the names of God, showing a side of his face different for each plane of existance. The second are the sephirot, the soul of the univers, or the planes of existance themselves. The third are the names of the Archangels, rulers of the cosmos and the worlds of spirit. The fourth are the types of angelic aids available, and the fifth are the names of the physical/ethereal manifesation, or the intelligent planet spirits.

1- Eheieh
2- Iah
3- Yod He Vau He
4- El
5- Elohim Gibor
6- Eloha ve Da-ath
7- Yehovoh Tzebaot
8- Elohim Tzebaot
9- Shadaï El-Haï
10-Adonaï Melek

1- Kether
2- Hokmah
3- Binah
4- Hesed
5- Geburah
6- Tipheret
7- Netzah
8- Hod
9- Yesod
10-Malkut

1- Metatron
2- Raziel
3- Tzaphkiel
4- Tzadkiel
5- Kamael
6- Michael
7- Haniel
8- Raphael
9- Gabriel
10-Sandalphon

1- Hayot Ha-Kodesh
2- Ophanim
3- Aralim
4- Hachmalim
5- Seraphim
6- Malahim
7- Elohim
8- Beni-Elohim
9- Kerubim
10-Ischim

1- Reschit Ha-Galgalim
2- Mazaloth
3- Chabtaï
4- Tzedek
5- Maadim
6- Chemesch
7- Noga
8- Kohav
9- Lenava
10-Olam Yesodoth

Virtues on the Tree of Life

2008-01-22T01:01:00.000+10:30

Eight Circuit Tree of Life

2008-01-22T00:51:00.000+10:30

The Ecstacy of Influence

2008-01-22T00:44:00.000+10:30

A plagiarism by Jonathan Lethem

All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated. . . .

—John Donne
LOVE AND THEFT

Consider this tale: a cultivated man of middle age looks back on the story of an amour fou, one beginning when, traveling abroad, he takes a room as a lodger. The moment he sees the daughter of the house, he is lost. She is a preteen, whose charms instantly enslave him. Heedless of her age, he becomes intimate with her. In the end she dies, and the narrator—marked by her forever—remains alone. The name of the girl supplies the title of the story: Lolita.

The author of the story I've described, Heinz von Lichberg, published his tale of Lolita in 1916, forty years before Vladimir Nabokov's novel. Lichberg later became a prominent journalist in the Nazi era, and his youthful works faded from view. Did Nabokov, who remained in Berlin until 1937, adopt Lichberg's tale consciously? Or did the earlier tale exist for Nabokov as a hidden, unacknowledged memory? The history of literature is not without examples of this phenomenon, called cryptomnesia. Another hypothesis is that Nabokov, knowing Lichberg's tale perfectly well, had set himself to that art of quotation that Thomas Mann, himself a master of it, called “higher cribbing.” Literature has always been a crucible in which familiar themes are continually recast. Little of what we admire in Nabokov's Lolita is to be found in its predecessor; the former is in no way deducible from the latter. Still: did Nabokov consciously borrow and quote?

“When you live outside the law, you have to eliminate dishonesty.” The line comes from Don Siegel's 1958 film noir, The Lineup, written by Stirling Silliphant. The film still haunts revival houses, likely thanks to Eli Wallach's blazing portrayal of a sociopathic hit man and to Siegel's long, sturdy auteurist career. Yet what were those words worth—to Siegel, or Silliphant, or their audience—in 1958? And again: what was the line worth when Bob Dylan heard it (presumably in some Greenwich Village repertory cinema), cleaned it up a little, and inserted it into “Absolutely Sweet Marie”? What are they worth now, to the culture at large?

Appropriation has always played a key role in Dylan's music. The songwriter has grabbed not only from a panoply of vintage Hollywood films but from Shakespeare and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Junichi Saga's Confessions of a Yakuza. He also nabbed the title of Eric Lott's study of minstrelsy for his 2001 album Love and Theft. One imagines Dylan liked the general resonance of the title, in which emotional misdemeanors stalk the sweetness of love, as they do so often in Dylan's songs. Lott's title is, of course, itself a riff on Leslie Fiedler's Love and Death in the American Novel, which famously identifies the literary motif of the interdependence of a white man and a dark man, like Huck and Jim or Ishmael and Queequeg—a series of nested references to Dylan's own appropriating, minstrel-boy self. Dylan's art offers a paradox: while it famously urges us not to look back, it also encodes a knowledge of past sources that might otherwise have little home in contemporary culture, like the Civil War poetry of the Confederate bard Henry Timrod, resuscitated in lyrics on Dylan's newest record, Modern Times. Dylan's originality and his appropriations are as one.

The same might be said of all art. I realized this forcefully when one day I went looking for the John Donne passage quoted above. I know the lines, I confess, not from a college course but from the movie version of 84, Charing Cross Road with Anthony Hopkins and Anne Bancroft. I checked out 84, Charing Cross Road from the library in the hope of finding the Donne passage, but it wasn't in the book. It's alluded to in the play that was adapted from the book, but it isn't reprinted. So I rented the movie again, and there was the passage, read in voice-over by Anthony Hopkins but without attribution. Unfortunately, the line was also abridged so that, when I finally turned to the Web, I found myself searching for the line “all mankind is of one volume” instead of “all mankind is of one author, and is one volume.”

My Internet search was initially no more successful than my library search. I had thought that summoning books from the vasty deep was a matter of a few keystrokes, but when I visited the website of the Yale library, I found that most of its books don't yet exist as computer text. As a last-ditch effort I searched the seemingly more obscure phrase “every chapter must be so translated.” The passage I wanted finally came to me, as it turns out, not as part of a scholarly library collection but simply because someone who loves Donne had posted it on his homepage. The lines I sought were from Meditation 17 in Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, which happens to be the most famous thing Donne ever wrote, containing as it does the line “never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” My search had led me from a movie to a book to a play to a website and back to a book. Then again, those words may be as famous as they are only because Hemingway lifted them for his book title.

Literature has been in a plundered, fragmentary state for a long time. When I was thirteen I purchased an anthology of Beat writing. Immediately, and to my very great excitement, I discovered one William S. Burroughs, author of something called Naked Lunch, excerpted there in all its coruscating brilliance. Burroughs was then as radical a literary man as the world had to offer. Nothing, in all my experience of literature since, has ever had as strong an effect on my sense of the sheer possibilities of writing. Later, attempting to understand this impact, I discovered that Burroughs had incorporated snippets of other writers' texts into his work, an action I knew my teachers would have called plagiarism. Some of these borrowings had been lifted from American science fiction of the Forties and Fifties, adding a secondary shock of recognition for me. By then I knew that this “cut-up method,” as Burroughs called it, was central to whatever he thought he was doing, and that he quite literally believed it to be akin to magic. When he wrote about his process, the hairs on my neck stood up, so palpable was the excitement. Burroughs was interrogating the universe with scissors and a paste pot, and the least imitative of authors was no plagiarist at all.
CONTAMINATION ANXIETY

In 1941, on his front porch, Muddy Waters recorded a song for the folklorist Alan Lomax. After singing the song, which he told Lomax was entitled “Country Blues,” Waters described how he came to write it. “I made it on about the eighth of October '38,” Waters said. “I was fixin' a puncture on a car. I had been mistreated by a girl. I just felt blue, and the song fell into my mind and it come to me just like that and I started singing.” Then Lomax, who knew of the Robert Johnson recording called “Walkin' Blues,” asked Waters if there were any other songs that used the same tune. “There's been some blues played like that,” Waters replied. “This song comes from the cotton field and a boy once put a record out—Robert Johnson. He put it out as named ‘Walkin' Blues.' I heard the tune before I heard it on the record. I learned it from Son House.” In nearly one breath, Waters offers five accounts: his own active authorship: he “made it” on a specific date. Then the “passive” explanation: “it come to me just like that.” After Lomax raises the question of influence, Waters, without shame, misgivings, or trepidation, says that he heard a version by Johnson, but that his mentor, Son House, taught it to him. In the middle of that complex genealogy, Waters declares that “this song comes from the cotton field.”

Blues and jazz musicians have long been enabled by a kind of “open source” culture, in which pre-existing melodic fragments and larger musical frameworks are freely reworked. Technology has only multiplied the possibilities; musicians have gained the power to duplicate sounds literally rather than simply approximate them through allusion. In Seventies Jamaica, King Tubby and Lee “Scratch” Perry deconstructed recorded music, using astonishingly primitive pre-digital hardware, creating what they called “versions.” The recombinant nature of their means of production quickly spread to DJs in New York and London. Today an endless, gloriously impure, and fundamentally social process generates countless hours of music.

Visual, sound, and text collage—which for many centuries were relatively fugitive traditions (a cento here, a folk pastiche there)—became explosively central to a series of movements in the twentieth century: futurism, cubism, Dada, musique concrète, situationism, pop art, and appropriationism. In fact, collage, the common denominator in that list, might be called the art form of the twentieth century, never mind the twenty-first. But forget, for the moment, chronologies, schools, or even centuries. As examples accumulate—Igor Stravinsky's music and Daniel Johnston's, Francis Bacon's paintings and Henry Darger's, the novels of the Oulipo group and of Hannah Crafts (the author who pillaged Dickens's Bleak House to write The Bondwoman's Narrative), as well as cherished texts that become troubling to their admirers after the discovery of their “plagiarized” elements, like Richard Condon's novels or Martin Luther King Jr.'s sermons—it becomes apparent that appropriation, mimicry, quotation, allusion, and sublimated collaboration consist of a kind of sine qua non of the creative act, cutting across all forms and genres in the realm of cultural production.

In a courtroom scene from The Simpsons that has since entered into the television canon, an argument over the ownership of the animated characters Itchy and Scratchy rapidly escalates into an existential debate on the very nature of cartoons. “Animation is built on plagiarism!” declares the show's hot-tempered cartoon-producer-within-a-cartoon, Roger Meyers Jr. “You take away our right to steal ideas, where are they going to come from?” If nostalgic cartoonists had never borrowed from Fritz the Cat, there would be no Ren & Stimpy Show; without the Rankin/Bass and Charlie Brown Christmas specials, there would be no South Park; and without The Flintstones—more or less The Honeymooners in cartoon loincloths—The Simpsons would cease to exist. If those don't strike you as essential losses, then consider the remarkable series of “plagiarisms” that links Ovid's “Pyramus and Thisbe” with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story, or Shakespeare's description of Cleopatra, copied nearly verbatim from Plutarch's life of Mark Antony and also later nicked by T. S. Eliot for The Waste Land. If these are examples of plagiarism, then we want more plagiarism.

Most artists are brought to their vocation when their own nascent gifts are awakened by the work of a master. That is to say, most artists are converted to art by art itself. Finding one's voice isn't just an emptying and purifying oneself of the words of others but an adopting and embracing of filiations, communities, and discourses. Inspiration could be called inhaling the memory of an act never experienced. Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void but out of chaos. Any artist knows these truths, no matter how deeply he or she submerges that knowing.

What happens when an allusion goes unrecognized? A closer look at The Waste Land may help make this point. The body of Eliot's poem is a vertiginous mélange of quotation, allusion, and “original” writing. When Eliot alludes to Edmund Spenser's “Prothalamion” with the line “Sweet Thames, run softly, till I end my song,” what of readers to whom the poem, never one of Spenser's most popular, is unfamiliar? (Indeed, the Spenser is now known largely because of Eliot's use of it.) Two responses are possible: grant the line to Eliot, or later discover the source and understand the line as plagiarism. Eliot evidenced no small anxiety about these matters; the notes he so carefully added to The Waste Land can be read as a symptom of modernism's contamination anxiety. Taken from this angle, what exactly is postmodernism, except modernism without the anxiety?
SURROUNDED BY SIGNS

The surrealists believed that objects in the world possess a certain but unspecifiable intensity that had been dulled by everyday use and utility. They meant to reanimate this dormant intensity, to bring their minds once again into close contact with the matter that made up their world. André Breton's maxim “Beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an operating table” is an expression of the belief that simply placing objects in an unexpected context reinvigorates their mysterious qualities.

This “crisis” the surrealists identified was being simultaneously diagnosed by others. Martin Heidegger held that the essence of modernity was found in a certain technological orientation he called “enframing.” This tendency encourages us to see the objects in our world only in terms of how they can serve us or be used by us. The task he identified was to find ways to resituate ourselves vis-à-vis these “objects,” so that we may see them as “things” pulled into relief against the ground of their functionality. Heidegger believed that art had the great potential to reveal the “thingness” of objects.

The surrealists understood that photography and cinema could carry out this reanimating process automatically; the process of framing objects in a lens was often enough to create the charge they sought. Describing the effect, Walter Benjamin drew a comparison between the photographic apparatus and Freud's psychoanalytic methods. Just as Freud's theories “isolated and made analyzable things which had heretofore floated along unnoticed in the broad stream of perception,” the photographic apparatus focuses on “hidden details of familiar objects,” revealing “entirely new structural formations of the subject.”

It's worth noting, then, that early in the history of photography a series of judicial decisions could well have changed the course of that art: courts were asked whether the photographer, amateur or professional, required permission before he could capture and print an image. Was the photographer stealing from the person or building whose photograph he shot, pirating something of private and certifiable value? Those early decisions went in favor of the pirates. Just as Walt Disney could take inspiration from Buster Keaton's Steamboat Bill, Jr., the Brothers Grimm, or the existence of real mice, the photographer should be free to capture an image without compensating the source. The world that meets our eye through the lens of a camera was judged to be, with minor exceptions, a sort of public commons, where a cat may look at a king.

Novelists may glance at the stuff of the world too, but we sometimes get called to task for it. For those whose ganglia were formed pre-TV, the mimetic deployment of pop-culture icons seems at best an annoying tic and at worst a dangerous vapidity that compromises fiction's seriousness by dating it out of the Platonic Always, where it ought to reside. In a graduate workshop I briefly passed through, a certain gray eminence tried to convince us that a literary story should always eschew “any feature which serves to date it” because “serious fiction must be Timeless.” When we protested that, in his own well-known work, characters moved about electrically lit rooms, drove cars, and spoke not Anglo-Saxon but postwar English—and further, that fiction he'd himself ratified as great, such as Dickens, was liberally strewn with innately topical, commercial, and timebound references—he impatiently amended his proscription to those explicit references that would date a story in the “frivolous Now.” When pressed, he said of course he meant the “trendy mass-popular-media” reference. Here, transgenerational discourse broke down.

I was born in 1964; I grew up watching Captain Kangaroo, moon landings, zillions of TV ads, the Banana Splits, M*A*S*H, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show. I was born with words in my mouth—“Band-Aid,” “Q-tip,” “Xerox”—object-names as fixed and eternal in my logosphere as “taxicab” and “toothbrush.” The world is a home littered with pop-culture products and their emblems. I also came of age swamped by parodies that stood for originals yet mysterious to me—I knew Monkees before Beatles, Belmondo before Bogart, and “remember” the movie Summer of '42 from a Mad magazine satire, though I've still never seen the film itself. I'm not alone in having been born backward into an incoherent realm of texts, products, and images, the commercial and cultural environment with which we've both supplemented and blotted out our natural world. I can no more claim it as “mine” than the sidewalks and forests of the world, yet I do dwell in it, and for me to stand a chance as either artist or citizen, I'd probably better be permitted to name it.

Consider Walker Percy's The Moviegoer:

Other people, so I have read, treasure memorable moments in their lives: the time one climbed the Parthenon at sunrise, the summer night one met a lonely girl in Central Park and achieved with her a sweet and natural relationship, as they say in books. I too once met a girl in Central Park, but it is not much to remember. What I remember is the time John Wayne killed three men with a carbine as he was falling to the dusty street in Stagecoach, and the time the kitten found Orson Welles in the doorway in The Third Man.

Today, when we can eat Tex-Mex with chopsticks while listening to reggae and watching a YouTube rebroadcast of the Berlin Wall's fall—i.e., when damn near everything presents itself as familiar—it's not a surprise that some of today's most ambitious art is going about trying to make the familiar strange. In so doing, in reimagining what human life might truly be like over there across the chasms of illusion, mediation, demographics, marketing, imago, and appearance, artists are paradoxically trying to restore what's taken for “real” to three whole dimensions, to reconstruct a univocally round world out of disparate streams of flat sights.

Whatever charge of tastelessness or trademark violation may be attached to the artistic appropriation of the media environment in which we swim, the alternative—to flinch, or tiptoe away into some ivory tower of irrelevance—is far worse. We're surrounded by signs; our imperative is to ignore none of them.
USEMONOPOLY

The idea that culture can be property—intellectual property—is used to justify everything from attempts to force the Girl Scouts to pay royalties for singing songs around campfires to the infringement suit brought by the estate of Margaret Mitchell against the publishers of Alice Randall's The Wind Done Gone. Corporations like Celera Genomics have filed for patents for human genes, while the Recording Industry Association of America has sued music downloaders for copyright infringement, reaching out-of-court settlements for thousands of dollars with defendants as young as twelve. ASCAP bleeds fees from shop owners who play background music in their stores; students and scholars are shamed from placing texts facedown on photocopy machines. At the same time, copyright is revered by most established writers and artists as a birthright and bulwark, the source of nurture for their infinitely fragile practices in a rapacious world. Plagiarism and piracy, after all, are the monsters we working artists are taught to dread, as they roam the woods surrounding our tiny preserves of regard and remuneration.

A time is marked not so much by ideas that are argued about as by ideas that are taken for granted. The character of an era hangs upon what needs no defense. In this regard, few of us question the contemporary construction of copyright. It is taken as a law, both in the sense of a universally recognizable moral absolute, like the law against murder, and as naturally inherent in our world, like the law of gravity. In fact, it is neither. Rather, copyright is an ongoing social negotiation, tenuously forged, endlessly revised, and imperfect in its every incarnation.

Thomas Jefferson, for one, considered copyright a necessary evil: he favored providing just enough incentive to create, nothing more, and thereafter allowing ideas to flow freely, as nature intended. His conception of copyright was enshrined in the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This was a balancing act between creators and society as a whole; second comers might do a much better job than the originator with the original idea.

But Jefferson's vision has not fared well, has in fact been steadily eroded by those who view the culture as a market in which everything of value should be owned by someone or other. The distinctive feature of modern American copyright law is its almost limitless bloating—its expansion in both scope and duration. With no registration requirement, every creative act in a tangible medium is now subject to copyright protection: your email to your child or your child's finger painting, both are automatically protected. The first Congress to grant copyright gave authors an initial term of fourteen years, which could be renewed for another fourteen if the author still lived. The current term is the life of the author plus seventy years. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that each time Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain, the mouse's copyright term is extended.

Even as the law becomes more restrictive, technology is exposing those restrictions as bizarre and arbitrary. When old laws fixed on reproduction as the compensable (or actionable) unit, it wasn't because there was anything fundamentally invasive of an author's rights in the making of a copy. Rather it was because copies were once easy to find and count, so they made a useful benchmark for deciding when an owner's rights had been invaded. In the contemporary world, though, the act of “copying” is in no meaningful sense equivalent to an infringement—we make a copy every time we accept an emailed text, or send or forward one—and is impossible anymore to regulate or even describe.

At the movies, my entertainment is sometimes lately preceded by a dire trailer, produced by the lobbying group called the Motion Picture Association of America, in which the purchasing of a bootleg copy of a Hollywood film is compared to the theft of a car or a handbag—and, as the bullying supertitles remind us, “You wouldn't steal a handbag!” This conflation forms an incitement to quit thinking. If I were to tell you that pirating DVDs or downloading music is in no way different from loaning a friend a book, my own arguments would be as ethically bankrupt as the MPAA's. The truth lies somewhere in the vast gray area between these two overstated positions. For a car or a handbag, once stolen, no longer is available to its owner, while the appropriation of an article of “intellectual property” leaves the original untouched. As Jefferson wrote, “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

Yet industries of cultural capital, who profit not from creating but from distributing, see the sale of culture as a zero-sum game. The piano-roll publishers fear the record companies, who fear the cassette-tape manufacturers, who fear the online vendors, who fear whoever else is next in line to profit most quickly from the intangible and infinitely reproducible fruits of an artist's labor. It has been the same in every industry and with every technological innovation. Jack Valenti, speaking for the MPAA: “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Thinking clearly sometimes requires unbraiding our language. The word “copyright” may eventually seem as dubious in its embedded purposes as “family values,” “globalization,” and, sure, “intellectual property.” Copyright is a “right” in no absolute sense; it is a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results. So let's try calling it that—not a right but a monopoly on use, a “usemonopoly”—and then consider how the rapacious expansion of monopoly rights has always been counter to the public interest, no matter if it is Andrew Carnegie controlling the price of steel or Walt Disney managing the fate of his mouse. Whether the monopolizing beneficiary is a living artist or some artist's heirs or some corporation's shareholders, the loser is the community, including living artists who might make splendid use of a healthy public domain.
THE BEAUTY OF SECOND USE

A few years ago someone brought me a strange gift, purchased at MoMA's downtown design store: a copy of my own first novel, Gun, With Occasional Music, expertly cut into the contours of a pistol. The object was the work of Robert The, an artist whose specialty is the reincarnation of everyday materials. I regard my first book as an old friend, one who never fails to remind me of the spirit with which I entered into this game of art and commerce—that to be allowed to insert the materials of my imagination onto the shelves of bookstores and into the minds of readers (if only a handful) was a wild privilege. I was paid $6,000 for three years of writing, but at the time I'd have happily published the results for nothing. Now my old friend had come home in a new form, one I was unlikely to have imagined for it myself. The gun-book wasn't readable, exactly, but I couldn't take offense at that. The fertile spirit of stray connection this appropriated object conveyed back to me—the strange beauty of its second use—was a reward for being a published writer I could never have fathomed in advance. And the world makes room for both my novel and Robert The's gun-book. There's no need to choose between the two.

In the first life of creative property, if the creator is lucky, the content is sold. After the commercial life has ended, our tradition supports a second life as well. A newspaper is delivered to a doorstep, and the next day wraps fish or builds an archive. Most books fall out of print after one year, yet even within that period they can be sold in used bookstores and stored in libraries, quoted in reviews, parodied in magazines, described in conversations, and plundered for costumes for kids to wear on Halloween. The demarcation between various possible uses is beautifully graded and hard to define, the more so as artifacts distill into and repercuss through the realm of culture into which they've been entered, the more so as they engage the receptive minds for whom they were presumably intended.

Active reading is an impertinent raid on the literary preserve. Readers are like nomads, poaching their way across fields they do not own—artists are no more able to control the imaginations of their audiences than the culture industry is able to control second uses of its artifacts. In the children's classic The Velveteen Rabbit, the old Skin Horse offers the Rabbit a lecture on the practice of textual poaching. The value of a new toy lies not it its material qualities (not “having things that buzz inside you and a stick-out handle”), the Skin Horse explains, but rather in how the toy is used. “Real isn't how you are made. . . . It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real.” The Rabbit is fearful, recognizing that consumer goods don't become “real” without being actively reworked: “Does it hurt?” Reassuring him, the Skin Horse says: “It doesn't happen all at once. . . . You become. It takes a long time. . . . Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby.” Seen from the perspective of the toymaker, the Velveteen Rabbit's loose joints and missing eyes represent vandalism, signs of misuse and rough treatment; for others, these are marks of its loving use.

Artists and their surrogates who fall into the trap of seeking recompense for every possible second use end up attacking their own best audience members for the crime of exalting and enshrining their work. The Recording Industry Association of America prosecuting their own record-buying public makes as little sense as the novelists who bristle at autographing used copies of their books for collectors. And artists, or their heirs, who fall into the trap of attacking the collagists and satirists and digital samplers of their work are attacking the next generation of creators for the crime of being influenced, for the crime of responding with the same mixture of intoxication, resentment, lust, and glee that characterizes all artistic successors. By doing so they make the world smaller, betraying what seems to me the primary motivation for participating in the world of culture in the first place: to make the world larger.
SOURCE HYPOCRISY, OR, DISNIAL

The Walt Disney Company has drawn an astonishing catalogue from the work of others: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi, Song of the South, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Robin Hood, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Mulan, Sleeping Beauty, The Sword in the Stone, The Jungle Book, and, alas, Treasure Planet, a legacy of cultural sampling that Shakespeare, or De La Soul, could get behind. Yet Disney's protectorate of lobbyists has policed the resulting cache of cultural materials as vigilantly as if it were Fort Knox—threatening legal action, for instance, against the artist Dennis Oppenheim for the use of Disney characters in a sculpture, and prohibiting the scholar Holly Crawford from using any Disney-related images—including artwork by Lichtenstein, Warhol, Oldenburg, and others—in her monograph Attached to the Mouse: Disney and Contemporary Art.

This peculiar and specific act—the enclosure of commonwealth culture for the benefit of a sole or corporate owner—is close kin to what could be called imperial plagiarism, the free use of Third World or “primitive” artworks and styles by more privileged (and better-paid) artists. Think of Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, or some of the albums of Paul Simon or David Byrne: even without violating copyright, those creators have sometimes come in for a certain skepticism when the extent of their outsourcing became evident. And, as when Led Zeppelin found themselves sued for back royalties by the bluesman Willie Dixon, the act can occasionally be an expensive one. To live outside the law, you must be honest: perhaps it was this, in part, that spurred David Byrne and Brian Eno to recently launch a “remix” website, where anyone can download easily disassembled versions of two songs from My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, an album reliant on vernacular speech sampled from a host of sources. Perhaps it also explains why Bob Dylan has never refused a request for a sample.

Kenneth Koch once said, “I'm a writer who likes to be influenced.” It was a charming confession, and a rare one. For so many artists, the act of creativity is intended as a Napoleonic imposition of one's uniqueness upon the universe—après moi le déluge of copycats! And for every James Joyce or Woody Guthrie or Martin Luther King Jr., or Walt Disney, who gathered a constellation of voices in his work, there may seem to be some corporation or literary estate eager to stopper the bottle: cultural debts flow in, but they don't flow out. We might call this tendency “source hypocrisy.” Or we could name it after the most pernicious source hypocrites of all time: Disnial.
YOU CAN'T STEAL A GIFT

My reader may, understandably, be on the verge of crying, “Communist!” A large, diverse society cannot survive without property; a large, diverse, and modern society cannot flourish without some form of intellectual property. But it takes little reflection to grasp that there is ample value that the term “property” doesn't capture. And works of art exist simultaneously in two economies, a market economy and a gift economy.

The cardinal difference between gift and commodity exchange is that a gift establishes a feeling-bond between two people, whereas the sale of a commodity leaves no necessary connection. I go into a hardware store, pay the man for a hacksaw blade, and walk out. I may never see him again. The disconnectedness is, in fact, a virtue of the commodity mode. We don't want to be bothered, and if the clerk always wants to chat about the family, I'll shop elsewhere. I just want a hacksaw blade. But a gift makes a connection. There are many examples, the candy or cigarette offered to a stranger who shares a seat on the plane, the few words that indicate goodwill between passengers on the late-night bus. These tokens establish the simplest bonds of social life, but the model they offer may be extended to the most complicated of unions—marriage, parenthood, mentorship. If a value is placed on these (often essentially unequal) exchanges, they degenerate into something else.

Yet one of the more difficult things to comprehend is that the gift economies—like those that sustain open-source software—coexist so naturally with the market. It is precisely this doubleness in art practices that we must identify, ratify, and enshrine in our lives as participants in culture, either as “producers” or “consumers.” Art that matters to us—which moves the heart, or revives the soul, or delights the senses, or offers courage for living, however we choose to describe the experience—is received as a gift is received. Even if we've paid a fee at the door of the museum or concert hall, when we are touched by a work of art something comes to us that has nothing to do with the price. The daily commerce of our lives proceeds at its own constant level, but a gift conveys an uncommodifiable surplus of inspiration.

The way we treat a thing can change its nature, though. Religions often prohibit the sale of sacred objects, the implication being that their sanctity is lost if they are bought and sold. We consider it unacceptable to sell sex, babies, body organs, legal rights, and votes. The idea that something should never be commodified is generally known as inalienability or unalienability—a concept most famously expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the phrase “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” A work of art seems to be a hardier breed; it can be sold in the market and still emerge a work of art. But if it is true that in the essential commerce of art a gift is carried by the work from the artist to his audience, if I am right to say that where there is no gift there is no art, then it may be possible to destroy a work of art by converting it into a pure commodity. I don't maintain that art can't be bought and sold, but that the gift portion of the work places a constraint upon our merchandising. This is the reason why even a really beautiful, ingenious, powerful ad (of which there are a lot) can never be any kind of real art: an ad has no status as gift; i.e., it's never really for the person it's directed at.

The power of a gift economy remains difficult for the empiricists of our market culture to understand. In our times, the rhetoric of the market presumes that everything should be and can be appropriately bought, sold, and owned—a tide of alienation lapping daily at the dwindling redoubt of the unalienable. In free-market theory, an intervention to halt propertization is considered “paternalistic,” because it inhibits the free action of the citizen, now reposited as a “potential entrepreneur.” Of course, in the real world, we know that child-rearing, family life, education, socialization, sexuality, political life, and many other basic human activities require insulation from market forces. In fact, paying for many of these things can ruin them. We may be willing to peek at Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire or an eBay auction of the ova of fashion models, but only to reassure ourselves that some things are still beneath our standards of dignity.

What's remarkable about gift economies is that they can flourish in the most unlikely places—in run-down neighborhoods, on the Internet, in scientific communities, and among members of Alcoholics Anonymous. A classic example is commercial blood systems, which generally produce blood supplies of lower safety, purity, and potency than volunteer systems. A gift economy may be superior when it comes to maintaining a group's commitment to certain extra-market values.
THE COMMONS

Another way of understanding the presence of gift economies—which dwell like ghosts in the commercial machine—is in the sense of a public commons. A commons, of course, is anything like the streets over which we drive, the skies through which we pilot airplanes, or the public parks or beaches on which we dally. A commons belongs to everyone and no one, and its use is controlled only by common consent. A commons describes resources like the body of ancient music drawn on by composers and folk musicians alike, rather than the commodities, like “Happy Birthday to You,” for which ASCAP, 114 years after it was written, continues to collect a fee. Einstein's theory of relativity is a commons. Writings in the public domain are a commons. Gossip about celebrities is a commons. The silence in a movie theater is a transitory commons, impossibly fragile, treasured by those who crave it, and constructed as a mutual gift by those who compose it.

The world of art and culture is a vast commons, one that is salted through with zones of utter commerce yet remains gloriously immune to any overall commodification. The closest resemblance is to the commons of a language: altered by every contributor, expanded by even the most passive user. That a language is a commons doesn't mean that the community owns it; rather it belongs between people, possessed by no one, not even by society as a whole.

Nearly any commons, though, can be encroached upon, partitioned, enclosed. The American commons include tangible assets such as public forests and minerals, intangible wealth such as copyrights and patents, critical infrastructures such as the Internet and government research, and cultural resources such as the broadcast airwaves and public spaces. They include resources we've paid for as taxpayers and inherited from previous generations. They're not just an inventory of marketable assets; they're social institutions and cultural traditions that define us as Americans and enliven us as human beings. Some invasions of the commons are sanctioned because we can no longer muster a spirited commitment to the public sector. The abuse goes unnoticed because the theft of the commons is seen in glimpses, not in panorama. We may occasionally see a former wetland paved; we may hear about the breakthrough cancer drug that tax dollars helped develop, the rights to which pharmaceutical companies acquired for a song. The larger movement goes too much unremarked. The notion of a commons of cultural materials goes more or less unnamed.

Honoring the commons is not a matter of moral exhortation. It is a practical necessity. We in Western society are going through a period of intensifying belief in private ownership, to the detriment of the public good. We have to remain constantly vigilant to prevent raids by those who would selfishly exploit our common heritage for their private gain. Such raids on our natural resources are not examples of enterprise and initiative. They are attempts to take from all the people just for the benefit of a few.
UNDISCOVERED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

Artists and intellectuals despondent over the prospects for originality can take heart from a phenomenon identified about twenty years ago by Don Swanson, a library scientist at the University of Chicago. He called it “undiscovered public knowledge.” Swanson showed that standing problems in medical research may be significantly addressed, perhaps even solved, simply by systematically surveying the scientific literature. Left to its own devices, research tends to become more specialized and abstracted from the real-world problems that motivated it and to which it remains relevant. This suggests that such a problem may be tackled effectively not by commissioning more research but by assuming that most or all of the solution can already be found in various scientific journals, waiting to be assembled by someone willing to read across specialties. Swanson himself did this in the case of Raynaud's syndrome, a disease that causes the fingers of young women to become numb. His finding is especially striking—perhaps even scandalous—because it happened in the ever-expanding biomedical sciences.

Undiscovered public knowledge emboldens us to question the extreme claims to originality made in press releases and publishers' notices: Is an intellectual or creative offering truly novel, or have we just forgotten a worthy precursor? Does solving certain scientific problems really require massive additional funding, or could a computerized search engine, creatively deployed, do the same job more quickly and cheaply? Lastly, does our appetite for creative vitality require the violence and exasperation of another avant-garde, with its wearisome killing-the-father imperatives, or might we be better off ratifying the ecstasy of influence—and deepening our willingness to understand the commonality and timelessness of the methods and motifs available to artists?
GIVE ALL

A few years ago, the Film Society of Lincoln Center announced a retrospective of the works of Dariush Mehrjui, then a fresh enthusiasm of mine. Mehrjui is one of Iran's finest filmmakers, and the only one whose subject was personal relationships among the upper-middle-class intelligentsia. Needless to say, opportunities to view his films were—and remain—rare indeed. I headed uptown for one, an adaptation of J. D. Salinger's Franny and Zooey, titled Pari, only to discover at the door of the Walter Reade Theater that the screening had been canceled: its announcement had brought threat of a lawsuit down on the Film Society. True, these were Salinger's rights under the law. Yet why would he care that some obscure Iranian filmmaker had paid him homage with a meditation on his heroine? Would it have damaged his book or robbed him of some crucial remuneration had the screening been permitted? The fertile spirit of stray connection—one stretching across what is presently seen as the direst of international breaches—had in this case been snuffed out. The cold, undead hand of one of my childhood literary heroes had reached out from its New Hampshire redoubt to arrest my present-day curiosity.

A few assertions, then:

Any text that has infiltrated the common mind to the extent of Gone With the Wind or Lolita or Ulysses inexorably joins the language of culture. A map-turned-to-landscape, it has moved to a place beyond enclosure or control. The authors and their heirs should consider the subsequent parodies, refractions, quotations, and revisions an honor, or at least the price of a rare success.

A corporation that has imposed an inescapable notion—Mickey Mouse, Band-Aid—on the cultural language should pay a similar price.

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors but “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate.

Contemporary copyright, trademark, and patent law is presently corrupted. The case for perpetual copyright is a denial of the essential gift-aspect of the creative act. Arguments in its favor are as un-American as those for the repeal of the estate tax.

Art is sourced. Apprentices graze in the field of culture.

Digital sampling is an art method like any other, neutral in itself.

Despite hand-wringing at each technological turn—radio, the Internet—the future will be much like the past. Artists will sell some things but also give some things away. Change may be troubling for those who crave less ambiguity, but the life of an artist has never been filled with certainty.

The dream of a perfect systematic remuneration is nonsense. I pay rent with the price my words bring when published in glossy magazines and at the same moment offer them for almost nothing to impoverished literary quarterlies, or speak them for free into the air in a radio interview. So what are they worth? What would they be worth if some future Dylan worked them into a song? Should I care to make such a thing impossible?

Any text is woven entirely with citations, references, echoes, cultural languages, which cut across it through and through in a vast stereophony. The citations that go to make up a text are anonymous, untraceable, and yet already read; they are quotations without inverted commas. The kernel, the soul—let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances—is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are secondhand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment. There is no thread that is not a twist of these two strands. By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote. Neurological study has lately shown that memory, imagination, and consciousness itself is stitched, quilted, pastiched. If we cut-and-paste our selves, might we not forgive it of our artworks?

Artists and writers—and our advocates, our guilds and agents—too often subscribe to implicit claims of originality that do injury to these truths. And we too often, as hucksters and bean counters in the tiny enterprises of our selves, act to spite the gift portion of our privileged roles. People live differently who treat a portion of their wealth as a gift. If we devalue and obscure the gift-economy function of our art practices, we turn our works into nothing more than advertisements for themselves. We may console ourselves that our lust for subsidiary rights in virtual perpetuity is some heroic counter to rapacious corporate interests. But the truth is that with artists pulling on one side and corporations pulling on the other, the loser is the collective public imagination from which we were nourished in the first place, and whose existence as the ultimate repository of our offerings makes the work worth doing in the first place.

As a novelist, I'm a cork on the ocean of story, a leaf on a windy day. Pretty soon I'll be blown away. For the moment I'm grateful to be making a living, and so must ask that for a limited time (in the Thomas Jefferson sense) you please respect my small, treasured usemonopolies. Don't pirate my editions; do plunder my visions. The name of the game is Give All. You, reader, are welcome to my stories. They were never mine in the first place, but I gave them to you. If you have the inclination to pick them up, take them with my blessing.
* * *
KEY: I IS ANOTHER

This key to the preceding essay names the source of every line I stole, warped, and cobbled together as I “wrote” (except, alas, those sources I forgot along the way). First uses of a given author or speaker are highlighted in red. Nearly every sentence I culled I also revised, at least slightly—for necessities of space, in order to produce a more consistent tone, or simply because I felt like it.
TITLE

The phrase “the ecstasy of influence,” which embeds a rebuking play on Harold Bloom's “anxiety of influence,” is lifted from spoken remarks by Professor Richard Dienst of Rutgers.
LOVE AND THEFT

“. . . a cultivated man of middle age . . .” to “. . . hidden, unacknowledged memory?” These lines, with some adjustments for tone, belong to the anonymous editor or assistant who wrote the dust-flap copy of Michael Maar's The Two Lolitas. Of course, in my own experience, dust-flap copy is often a collaboration between author and editor. Perhaps this was also true for Maar.

“The history of literature . . .” to

“. . . borrow and quote?” comes from Maar's book itself.

“Appropriation has always . . .” to “. . . Ishmael and Queequeg . . .” This paragraph makes a hash of remarks from an interview with Eric Lott conducted by David McNair and Jayson Whitehead, and incorporates both interviewers' and interviewee's observations. (The text-interview form can be seen as a commonly accepted form of multivocal writing. Most interviewers prime their subjects with remarks of their own—leading the witness, so to speak—and gently refine their subjects' statements in the final printed transcript.)

“I realized this . . .” to “. . . for a long time.” The anecdote is cribbed, with an elision to avoid appropriating a dead grandmother, from Jonathan Rosen's The Talmud and the Internet. I've never seen 84, Charing Cross Road, nor searched the Web for a Donne quote. For me it was through Rosen to Donne, Hemingway, website, et al.

“When I was thirteen . . .” to “. . . no plagiarist at all.” This is from William Gibson's “God's Little Toys,” in Wired magazine. My own first encounter with William Burroughs, also at age thirteen, was less epiphanic. Having grown up with a painter father who, during family visits to galleries or museums, approvingly noted collage and appropriation techniques in the visual arts (Picasso, Claes Oldenburg, Stuart Davis), I was gratified, but not surprised, to learn that literature could encompass the same methods.
CONTAMINATION ANXIETY

“In 1941, on his front porch . . .” to “. . . ‘this song comes from the cotton field.'” Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs.

“. . . enabled by a kind . . . freely reworked.” Kembrew McLeod, Freedom of Expression. In Owning Culture, McLeod notes that, as he was writing, he

happened to be listening to a lot of old country music, and in my casual listening I noticed that six country songs shared exactly the same vocal melody, including Hank Thompson's “Wild Side of Life,” the Carter Family's “I'm Thinking Tonight of My Blue Eyes,” Roy Acuff's “Great Speckled Bird,” Kitty Wells's “It Wasn't God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels,” Reno & Smiley's “I'm Using My Bible for a Roadmap,” and Townes Van Zandt's “Heavenly Houseboat Blues.” . . . In his extensively researched book, Country: The Twisted Roots of Rock 'n' Roll, Nick Tosches documents that the melody these songs share is both “ancient and British.” There were no recorded lawsuits stemming from these appropriations. . . .

“. . . musicians have gained . . . through allusion.” Joanna Demers, Steal This Music.

“In Seventies Jamaica . . .” to “. . . hours of music.” Gibson.

“Visual, sound, and text collage . . .” to “. . . realm of cultural production.” This plunders, rewrites, and amplifies paragraphs from McLeod's Owning Culture, except for the line about collage being the art form of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, which I heard filmmaker Craig Baldwin say, in defense of sampling, in the trailer for a forthcoming documentary, Copyright Criminals.

“In a courtroom scene . . .” to “. . . would cease to exist.” Dave Itzkoff, New York Times.

“. . . the remarkable series of ‘plagiarisms' . . .” to “. . . we want more plagiarism.” Richard Posner, combined from The Becker-Posner Blog and The Atlantic Monthly.

“Most artists are brought . . .” to “. . . by art itself.” These words, and many more to follow, come from Lewis Hyde's The Gift. Above any other book I've here plagiarized, I commend The Gift to your attention.

“Finding one's voice . . . filiations, communities, and discourses.” Semanticist George L. Dillon, quoted in Rebecca Moore Howard's “The New Abolitionism Comes to Plagiarism.”

“Inspiration could be . . . act never experienced.” Ned Rorem, found on several “great quotations” sites on the Internet.

“Invention, it must be humbly admitted . . . out of chaos.” Mary Shelley, from her introduction to Frankenstein.

“What happens . . .” to “. . . contamination anxiety.” Kevin J.H. Dettmar, from “The Illusion of Modernist Allusion and the Politics of Postmodern Plagiarism.”
SURROUNDED BY SIGNS

“The surrealists believed . . .” to the Walter Benjamin quote. Christian Keathley's Cinephilia and History, or the Wind in the Trees, a book that treats fannish fetishism as the secret at the heart of film scholarship. Keathley notes, for instance, Joseph Cornell's surrealist-influenced 1936 film Rose Hobart, which simply records “the way in which Cornell himself watched the 1931 Hollywood potboiler East of Borneo, fascinated and distracted as he was by its B-grade star”—the star, of course, being Rose Hobart herself. This, I suppose, makes Cornell a sort of father to computer-enabled fan-creator reworkings of Hollywood product, like the version of George Lucas's The Phantom Menace from which the noxious Jar Jar Binks character was purged; both incorporate a viewer's subjective preferences into a revision of a filmmaker's work.

“. . . early in the history of photography” to “. . . without compensating the source.” From Free Culture, by Lawrence Lessig, the greatest of public advocates for copyright reform, and the best source if you want to get radicalized in a hurry.

“For those whose ganglia . . .” to

“. . . discourse broke down.” From David Foster Wallace's essay “E Unibus Pluram,” reprinted in A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again. I have no idea who Wallace's “gray eminence” is or was. I inserted the example of Dickens into the paragraph; he strikes me as overlooked in the lineage of authors of “brand-name” fiction.

“I was born . . . Mary Tyler Moore Show.” These are the reminiscences of Mark Hosler from Negativland, a collaging musical collective that was sued by U2's record label for their appropriation of “I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For.” Although I had to adjust the birth date, Hosler's cultural menu fits me like a glove.

“The world is a home . . . pop-culture products . . .” McLeod.

“Today, when we can eat . . .” to “. . . flat sights.” Wallace.

“We're surrounded by signs, ignore none of them.” This phrase, which I unfortunately rendered somewhat leaden with the word “imperative,” comes from Steve Erickson's novel Our Ecstatic Days.
USEMONOPOLY

“. . . everything from attempts . . .” to “defendants as young as twelve.” Robert Boynton, The New York Times Magazine, “The Tyranny of Copyright?”

“A time is marked . . .” to “. . . what needs no defense.” Lessig, this time from The Future of Ideas.

“Thomas Jefferson, for one . . .” to “‘. . . respective Writings and Discoveries.'” Boynton.

“. . . second comers might do a much better job than the originator

. . .” I found this phrase in Lessig, who is quoting Vaidhyanathan, who himself is characterizing a judgment written by Learned Hand.

“But Jefferson's vision . . . owned by someone or other.” Boynton.

“The distinctive feature . . .” to “. . . term is extended.” Lessig, again from The Future of Ideas.

“When old laws . . .” to “. . . had been invaded.” Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright.

“‘I say to you . . . woman home alone.'” I found the Valenti quote in McLeod. Now fill in the blank: Jack Valenti is to the public domain as ______ is to ________.
THE BEAUTY OF SECOND USE

“In the first . . .” to “. . . builds an archive.” Lessig.

“Most books . . . one year . . .” Lessig.

“Active reading is . . .” to “. . . do not own . . .” This is a mashup of Henry Jenkins, from his Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture, and Michel de Certeau, whom Jenkins quotes.

“In the children's classic . . .” to

“. . . its loving use.” Jenkins. (Incidentally, have the holders of the copyright to The Velveteen Rabbit had a close look at Toy Story? There could be a lawsuit there.)
SOURCE HYPOCRISY, OR, DISNIAL

“The Walt Disney Company . . . alas, Treasure Planet . . .” Lessig.

“Imperial Plagiarism” is the title of an essay by Marilyn Randall.

“. . . spurred David Byrne . . . My Life in the Bush of Ghosts . . .” Chris Dahlen, Pitchfork—though in truth by the time I'd finished, his words were so utterly dissolved within my own that had I been an ordinary cutting-and-pasting journalist it never would have occurred to me to give Dahlen a citation. The effort of preserving another's distinctive phrases as I worked on this essay was sometimes beyond my capacities; this form of plagiarism was oddly hard work.

“Kenneth Koch . . .” to “. . . déluge of copycats!” Emily Nussbaum, The New York Times Book Review.
YOU CAN'T STEAL A GIFT

“You can't steal a gift.” Dizzy Gillespie, defending another player who'd been accused of poaching Charlie Parker's style: “You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it you can have it.''

“A large, diverse society . . . intellectual property.” Lessig.

“And works of art . . . ” to “. . .

marriage, parenthood, mentorship.” Hyde.

“Yet one . . . so naturally with the market.” David Bollier, Silent Theft.

“Art that matters . . .” to “. . . bought and sold.” Hyde.

“We consider it unacceptable . . .” to “‘. . . certain unalienable Rights . . .'” Bollier, paraphrasing Margaret Jane Radin's Contested Commodities.

“A work of art . . .” to “. . . constraint upon our merchandising.” Hyde.

“This is the reason . . . person it's directed at.” Wallace.

“The power of a gift . . .” to “. . . certain extra-market values.” Bollier, and also the sociologist Warren O. Hagstrom, whom Bollier is paraphrasing.
THE COMMONS

“Einstein's theory . . .” to “. . . public domain are a commons.” Lessig.

“That a language is a commons . . . society as a whole.” Michael Newton, in the London Review of Books, reviewing a book called Echolalias: On the Forgetting of Language by Daniel Heller-Roazen. The paraphrases of book reviewers are another covert form of collaborative culture; as an avid reader of reviews, I know much about books I've never read. To quote Yann Martel on how he came to be accused of imperial plagiarism in his Booker-winning novel Life of Pi,

Ten or so years ago, I read a review by John Updike in the New York Times Review of Books [sic]. It was of a novel by a Brazilian writer, Moacyr Scliar. I forget the title, and John Updike did worse: he clearly thought the book as a whole was forgettable. His review—one of those that makes you suspicious by being mostly descriptive . . . oozed indifference. But one thing about it struck me: the premise. . . . Oh, the wondrous things I could do with this premise.

Unfortunately, no one was ever able to locate the Updike review in question.

“The American commons . . .” to

“. . . for a song.” Bollier.

“Honoring the commons . . .” to

“. . . practical necessity.” Bollier.

“We in Western . . . public good.” John Sulston, Nobel Prize‒winner and co-mapper of the human genome.

“We have to remain . . .” to “. . . benefit of a few.” Harry S Truman, at the opening of the Everglades National Park. Although it may seem the height of presumption to rip off a president—I found claiming Truman's stolid advocacy as my own embarrassing in the extreme—I didn't rewrite him at all. As the poet Marianne Moore said, “If a thing had been said in the best way, how can you say it better?” Moore confessed her penchant for incorporating lines from others' work, explaining, “I have not yet been able to outgrow this hybrid method of composition.”
UNDISCOVERED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

“. . . intellectuals despondent . . .” to “. . . quickly and cheaply?” Steve Fuller, The Intellectual. There's something of Borges in Fuller's insight here; the notion of a storehouse of knowledge waiting passively to be assembled by future users is suggestive of both “The Library of Babel” and “Kafka and his Precursors.”
GIVE ALL

“. . . one of Iran's finest . . .” to “. . . meditation on his heroine?” Amy Taubin, Village Voice, although it was me who was disappointed at the door of the Walter Reade Theater.

“The primary objective . . .” to “. . . unfair nor unfortunate.” Sandra Day O'Connor, 1991.

“. . . the future will be much like the past” to “. . . give some things away.” Open-source film archivist Rick Prelinger, quoted in McLeod.

“Change may be troubling . . . with certainty.” McLeod.

“. . . woven entirely . . .” to “. . . without inverted commas.” Roland Barthes.

“The kernel, the soul . . .” to “. . . characteristics of phrasing.” Mark Twain, from a consoling letter to Helen Keller, who had suffered distressing accusations of plagiarism (!). In fact, her work included unconsciously memorized phrases; under Keller's particular circumstances, her writing could be understood as a kind of allegory of the “constructed” nature of artistic perception. I found the Twain quote in the aforementioned Copyrights and Copywrongs, by Siva Vaidhyanathan.

“Old and new . . .” to “. . . we all quote.” Ralph Waldo Emerson. These guys all sound alike!

“People live differently . . . wealth as a gift.” Hyde.

“. . . I'm a cork . . .” to “. . . blown away.” This is adapted from The Beach Boys song “'Til I Die,” written by Brian Wilson. My own first adventure with song-lyric permissions came when I tried to have a character in my second novel quote the lyrics “There's a world where I can go and/Tell my secrets to/In my room/In my room.” After learning the likely expense, at my editor's suggestion I replaced those with “You take the high road/I'll take the low road/I'll be in Scotland before you,” a lyric in the public domain. This capitulation always bugged me, and in the subsequent British publication of the same book I restored the Brian Wilson lyric, without permission. Ocean of Story is the title of a collection of Christina Stead's short fiction.

Saul Bellow, writing to a friend who'd taken offense at Bellow's fictional use of certain personal facts, said: “The name of the game is Give All. You are welcome to all my facts. You know them, I give them to you. If you have the strength to pick them up, take them with my blessing.” I couldn't bring myself to retain Bellow's “strength,” which seemed presumptuous in my new context, though it is surely the more elegant phrase. On the other hand, I was pleased to invite the suggestion that the gifts in question may actually be light and easily lifted.
KEY TO THE KEY

The notion of a collage text is, of course, not original to me. Walter Benjamin's incomplete Arcades Project seemingly would have featured extensive interlaced quotations. Other precedents include Graham Rawle's novel Diary of an Amateur Photographer, its text harvested from photography magazines, and Eduardo Paolozzi's collage-novel Kex, cobbled from crime novels and newspaper clippings. Closer to home, my efforts owe a great deal to the recent essays of David Shields, in which diverse quotes are made to closely intertwine and reverberate, and to conversations with editor Sean Howe and archivist Pamela Jackson. Last year David Edelstein, in New York magazine, satirized the Kaavya Viswanathan plagiarism case by creating an almost completely plagiarized column denouncing her actions. Edelstein intended to demonstrate, through ironic example, how bricolage such as his own was ipso facto facile and unworthy. Although Viswanathan's version of “creative copying” was a pitiable one, I differ with Edelstein's conclusions.

The phrase Je est un autre, with its deliberately awkward syntax, belongs to Arthur Rimbaud. It has been translated both as “I is another” and “I is someone else,” as in this excerpt from Rimbaud's letters:

For I is someone else. If brass wakes up a trumpet, it is not its fault. To me this is obvious: I witness the unfolding of my own thought: I watch it, I listen to it: I make a stroke of the bow: the symphony begins to stir in the depths, or springs on to the stage.

If the old fools had not discovered only the false significance of the Ego, we should not now be having to sweep away those millions of skeletons which, since time immemorial, have been piling up the fruits of their one-eyed intellects, and claiming to be, themselves, the authors!

On Restitution to 'God', aka Tikkunim

2008-01-22T00:37:00.001+10:30

Tikkunim
(Meditations on the Raising of the Sparks)
by the Baal Shem Tov

"All that a man has - his employees, his animals, his tools - all conceal sparks that belong to the roots of his soul and wish to be raised by him to their Origin."
The Baal Shem Tov

Tikkunim For Your Employees
1. Speak to the Holy Spark that languishes inside them when you also
speak to their muscles and minds.

2. When you speak to the Holy Spark that languishes inside them,
envision it rising up to its Source.

Tikkunim For Your Animals
1. Speak to the Holy Spark that languishes inside them when you speak to their animal hearts.

2. When you speak to the Holy Spark that languishes inside them,
envision it rising up to its Source.

Tikkunim For Your Tools
1. Speak to the Holy Spark that languishes inside them when you speak to their steel and stone.

2. When you speak to the Holy Spark that languishes inside them, envision it rising up to its Source.

A Note on The Lurianic Theory of Creation and Redemption

The Lurianic and Sabbatian Kabbalah teach about a very dynamic process of self explication and self construction of the Absolute which as the process of tikkun (Restoration, or Universal Correction). The process of Tikkun is called "the repairing of the God's Face" because it corrects the existential break, or gap in the Absolute Being as such which is also a moment in His unfolding.

Adapted from http://www.kheper.net/topics/Kabbalah/tikkun.htm

A Basic Meditation Technique of the Kabbalah: Chanting the Name JHVH

2008-01-22T00:28:00.000+10:30

The meditative techniques created by Abraham Abulafia and his followers are unusual in several respects. First, they are some of the clearest meditative techniques in all of the Kabbalah, and come with directions that even a beginner may understand. Second, unlike most classical writers on meditation, Abulafia generally explains precisely why the techniques work, based on his particular synthesis of Kabbalah and Maimonidean philosophy. Third, and unlike most of the Kabbalah, Abulafia's practices are clearly intended to bring about a particular mystical experience; they are not speculations on the cosmos, or elaborations on the commandments. Rather, they are recipes for experience.

Abulafian meditation may be unusual for Kabbalah, but in some ways it more closely resembles the mystical literature of other religions. Christian mysticism, for example, is often recorded in first-person narratives: I did this practice, contemplated in this way, and then had this experience. Likewise with Sufi mysticism, though the practices are often communal rather than individual. Kabbalah, however, is primarily composed not of similar first-person accounts, but of abstruse literature which may or may not be about direct experience. Today, there are excellent anthologies of Jewish "mystical testimonies" -- but these testimonies are not the primary form of Kabbalistic literature.

The truth is, they are not even primary in Abulafia's writings. What has happened, in the last forty years, is that Abulafia's meditation practices have been extracted from his books and presented as stand-alone exercises. In fact, when one actually opens Abulafia's books -- none of which has yet been translated into English -- one quickly sees that this extraction is a bit misleading, because Abulafia's prophetic techniques are tied to the type of prophecy one receives. In general, the techniques involve manipulation and permutation of the Hebrew language. What they bring about, in Abulafia's accounts and my own experience, is often a kind of stream of free association which plays within the concepts and words being permuted. Notice, though, that if you don't have the tools to interpret the "prophesies" you are receiving, they will be meaningless.

Suppose, for example, you are associating using gematria, the numerical equivalents of letters. Abulafia makes much of the equivalence of "Israel" with the term "Sechel Ha-Poal," which means Active Intellect. But if you don't know that 541 is the numerical value of each, or can't calculate gematria that quickly, then you may reach the end of the line very quickly. Or suppose you have a vision of certain letters, as you are rotating through the 72-letter name of God (really, the 216 letter name, comprised of 72 triads). This can be a beautiful experience, but without the tools to make sense of what you are seeing, an experience is all it is. It's ecstasy, but not prophecy.

For those dabbling in spiritual matters, or using meditation as a substitute for "getting high," experience is quite enough. This is why, I think, the term "ecstatic Kabbalah," which was used by certain scholars, is often used instead of "prophetic Kabbalah," which was used by Abulafia himself. Ecstasy is a diffuse experience; prophecy is particular. Ecstasy is focused on the escape from the world; prophecy on how the escape relates to the rest of life.

In the wake of the 1960s, whose mass spiritual phenomena were often focused entirely on escape and experience, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan publicized the teachings of Abulafia, demonstrating that the mystical practices that were attracting many Jews to Buddhism, Hinduism, and other "Eastern" religions were present right within Judaism itself. Kaplan had his own reasons for doing so. For our purposes, I simply want to make clear that the attainment of a mystical state is really only half of the "point" of Abulafia. We will focus on those techniques which work with very limited knowledge of Hebrew or Kabbalah, as did Kaplan. But for the other half of the project, which integrates the knowledge received in mystical states with the rest of the world, there is no way around actually learning the language, the symbols, and the terms of Judaism and Kabbalah.

One of Abulafia's simplest practices, popularized by Aryeh Kaplan, involves a series of head movements and breath, combined with pronouncing the Divine name.

The shortest version works by sounding out different Hebrew vowels together with the tetragrammaton (Y-H-V-H). When you do the practice, you'll want to sit comfortably in a place where you will not be disturbed, and allow the eyes to close. One begins with the first letter of the Divine name, Yood, and pronounces with the yood the vowels Oh, Ah, Ay, Ee, and Oo. Each vowel has a corresponding head movement, which resembles the way the vowel mark is written in Hebrew: with Oh the head moves up and back to center, Ah to the left and back to center, Ay to the right and back to center, Ee down and back to center, and then Oo forward, backward, and back to center. Move your head with the breath: on each inhale you move away from center, then on the exhale, pronouncing the sound, you move back. So, it looks a bit like this:

Inhale - move head upward
Exhale - move head back to center, pronouncing Yoh
Inhale - move head to the left
Exhale - move head back to center, pronouncing Yah
Inhale - move head to the right
Exhale - move head back to center, pronouncing Yay
Inhale - move head downward
Exhale - move head back to center, pronouncing Yee
Inhale - move head backward
Exhale - move head foreward, backward, center, Yoo

You then repeat that process with the letters Hey, Vav, and then Hey again.

There are many layers to this practice. On the esoteric level, notice that since you're permuting each letter of the Divine Name with each vowel, somewhere in there you have pronounced the ineffable name of God. On the more practical level, the complexity of this practice really focuses the mind. You can be thinking about mortgages, tests, and kids when you start, but in order to keep it straight, those thoughts just have to leave. Moreover, this is just the simplest level of the practice. As you develop, there are more and more complicated versions. One is to visualize the letters and vowels as you pronounce them. Another is to combine Divine names, such as YHVH and ADNY ("adonai"), and rotate through the vowel-sequence with the two names. You can even do one name backward and the other name forward.

Now, if this is approached as a sort of parlor trick, it's not very interesting or uplifting. But look closely at what Abulafia is doing: focusing the mind, and training the mind and body to work together. And all in a system that expertly pushes distracting thoughts away.

The results can be amazing. For example, there's a version of the practice above in which you rotate through the vowels on the exhale. Instead of just inhaling, you pronounce a vowel and move the head on the inhalation. So it sounds like "Oh-Yo... Oh-Yah..." etc., then "Ah-Yo, Ah-yah," then "Ay-yo, Ay-yah," and so on. The practice takes about twenty minutes, if you don't rush. Usually, when I finish it, I've really got YHVH in my head -- I can imagine the letters of the name imprinted on whatever else I'm seeing: trees, people, traffic jams. And that is the truth, isn't it? That the trees and people and cars are just the skin of the Divine? Isn't that the simple truth we've been trying to wake up to?

Adapted from: http://www.learnkabbalah.com/basic_meditation_techniques/