Curiosity and Intuition

Curiosity and Intuition

Not long ago, a friend asked how I’ve come to this point in life with the vocation and avocations that I have. Were these all conscious choices or not? I thought long and hard about it, and decided it was a combination of mind and gut – of curiosity and intuition. Sometimes, I felt like the job offers appeared before me and the universe was saying, “Okay, how about this one?” Curiosity propelled me toward research and ultimately jumping in. Other times, my intuition said, “Hey! You need to be over there, now!” So, I took the fresh position without any research whatsoever. Pure gut. Pure terror, more like it.

Yet, at each of these moments, I grew in equal measure. Curiosity provided expansion while intuition afforded me introspection and trust in something greater than myself. Fate. God. Destiny. Connectedness. Consciousness. Whatever you wish to call it, that seems to be the place where that voice-not-ours originates.

According to the University of Chicago, “intuition”  was first used in a text at the end of the 15th century. Until the 17th century intuition meant “mentally looking at”; “the act of regarding, examining, or inspecting”; “a view, regard, or consideration of something”, all of which are now obsolete meanings. In the modern world, it reflects insight not necessarily borne of cognition. In fact, the root of the word intuition means “to look over, to watch over.” Who, or what, is watching and even more important, who or what is speaking to us?

Conversely, curiosity is nothing but mental questioning, inquisitiveness stemming from, “I don’t know but I really want to know.” One might say it has less to do with the mind and more to do with the heart. It is an eagerness to learn, a desire for expansiveness of mind, body, or emotion. Curiosity makes us step into the water without knowing the depth or temperature, to see what lies at the bottom. Oddly enough, the word curiosity stems from the same root as “to cure.” Curiosity is hungry mind.

Both words have that measure of terror with them. I don’t mean this literally; I mean that there is the sense of the unknown, the essence that we might be too fragile to cope with what is on the other side of knowledge, or that we might not like what we find. The opposites of these two words, curiosity and intuition, might be equally interesting to measure: indifference and intellect, respectively. They take on a hard aspect, something cold and somewhat lifeless.

Why explore these? I am curious. Why do they exist? Why are humans propelled to investigate while others do not? Is this an evolutionary drive? Why do we rely on intuition when it might steer us wrong? Are we really able to let go of fact and simply go with our gut?

This question becomes highlighted when we talk about divinity and our motivations in perfecting humanity. What would our humanity look like without curiosity and intuition? Would it be cold intellect, heartless? Or would it be mindless automatons, moving through the world without the reason or passion to ask why? Would either of these antithetical properties propel us forward toward becoming better versions of ourselves? I’d have to say no.

Yet, today, we fight something something insidious, something related and underlying: apathy. We fight it in our politics, our work places, our schools, and even in our families. It’s easier to take the intuition and curiosity to the depths rather than bring it into the light. It’s interesting that this is what our Masonic Philosophical Society meetings do – bring out curiosity and intuition and work toward crushing apathy.

And time after time, I hear how needed these meetings are, how hungry people are for color where there is only black and white. Only divisiveness. It seems to me that something we should, as the “human race” should cultivate is curiosity and intuition, in our babies and children. Forty years ago, Dr. Wayne Dyer cultivated the idea that we limit curiosity in our children, and it creates frightened or apathetic adults; adults who do look to others for guidance at every turn are neither curious nor intuitive. They have lost touch with themselves and thus, lose their own sovereignty. Can humanity move forward without such sovereignty? I do not think so.

So, here is the encouragement:

  • Be curious about something you “think” you detest.
  • Listen with an open mind to a political rival, and ask questions.
  • When the voice tells you to send your friend an email, do it.
  • Pick up that call from a number you don’t know, when the drive tells you to.
  • Listen to the quite nudges of your mind and heart.
  • Smile at a stranger, hug your boss or your coworker if you need to, and learn to listen to the subtleties of human movement in the world.

The world opens wide, full of wonder, when we listen deeply.

PRISONERS OF THE MIND: Shining Masonic Light on the Mysterious Meaning of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

PRISONERS OF THE MIND: Shining Masonic Light on the Mysterious Meaning of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

What is the meaning of Brother Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in Book Seven of his immortal work, The Republic? And why is this allegory so widely read and studied in the world of “higher education” today, over two thousand years after it was first published? The purpose of this short labor of love is to explore the possible answer to the first of these two vital questions for the mutual benefit of myself and the reader, leaving the answer to the second question to the reader to explore and find independently, if he or she so chooses, as such an intimate journey into the depths of one’s own heart and mind will be sure to reveal to him or her just how important, beautiful, and fulfilling it is for each of us to discover the true meaning and purpose of human existence for ourselves, as common, yet unique, individuals.

Fortunately, for us, Plato explains the gist of the meaning of his allegory of the cave within The Republic itself. This should make things a little bit easy for us. Unfortunately, for some, the fact is that Plato was a mystic and a philosopher– a lover of wisdom— which means that he wrote all of his timeless dialogues for the sole purpose of sharing and examining the nature of wisdom with other philosophers through the interrelated philosophical principles of epistemology, dialectic, metaphysics, ethics, The Republiccontemplation, and meditation.

In other words, the genuine and intended meaning of Plato’s allegory will forever remain an incomprehensible mystery to any reader of it who is not a true wisdom lover. Furthermore, the meaning of all of Plato’s sublime wisdom that has come down to us in written form through the ages, can only be captured by one who pursues true and ancient philosophy in the manner of the immortal philosophers of antiquity, who were known Initiates of the Ancient Mystery Schools such as Freemasonry. Such a noble pursuit demands nothing less or more than an open heart and mind that are both truly focused and desirous of knowing ultimate reality, as well as the true meaning and purpose of living in this world as a mortal– as a human being. From this we can understand that no matter how clearly and eloquently Plato may have briefly explained his allegory’s hidden meaning through the wise lips of Socrates within the pages of The Republic, it can only begin to be even vaguely understood by the man, woman or child who deeply loves wisdom.

And there is more: The meaning of the allegory of the cave will not unfold and reveal itself deeply within one’s soul if we overlook the importance of the philosophical concept of justice. This is due to the resplendent fact that The Republic is a philosophical lamp whose light is centered around the mystical oil of the search for the true meaning of justice and the heart’s burning desire to know what it truly means to be Plato Cavejustor virtuous. We must therefore keep the mystery of justice firmly in heart and mind as we proceed. Now, let us step into the Light.   

A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGORY 

There is a group of chained prisoners in a cave, who have been prisoners there since they were born. They are chained in such a way that they can only see a low stone wall in front of them, and they have never seen anything else in their entire lives. There is also a fireplace constantly burning at a short distance behind them, which allows for the shadows of people outside the cave, who walk past it, to be casted upon the low wall in front of the prisoners. The prisoners, who have never seen anything else in life but themselves and these shadows, believe that these shadows are real things, and that there is nothing much more to life than the appearance of these shadows. One day, however, one of the prisoners in the cave breaks free and escapes from the cave. Upon seeing the world outside of the cave for the very first time, he quickly realizes that his former perception of life was limited, and all wrong. He has seen the light of the Sun and now knows that the shadows in the cave were not what they appeared to be. He then returns to the cave in an attempt to enlighten his former prisonmates about the true nature of the shadows, but they do not believe him. Instead, they threaten to kill him when he offers to set them free so that they can see the truth for themselves.

THE SECRET AND INNER MEANING OF THE ALLEGORY

The prisoners in the cave, as Plato vividly points out in The Republic, are us, or “you” and “I”. They are the symbolic personifications of the popular but mistaken notion that there really is such a thing as a separately existing “you” and “I”, as it is the crown jewel of trueplato-allegory-of-the-cave and ancient philosophy that there is really only one or self that exists, and that this authentic exists eternally as the infinite Universe in its entirety.

According to Plato, the underground den or prison within the cave is symbolic of the “world of sight”, by which he means the objective world as perceived by a non-discriminating and irrational mind through the five outward-focused senses of sight, taste, touch, sound, and smell. This prison is therefore a philosophical symbol of the mind itself, which lets us know that the cave, which contains this prison, and which, like the mind, is a secret dwelling place, is likewise a philosophical symbol of the mind, so that there is essentially no difference between the cave and the prison described by Plato. More precisely, the cave symbolizes the human mind in general, while the prison within the cave symbolizes the human mind or ego that is delusional and out of touch with reality.

The fire and light that are both inside and outside of the cave are symbolic of the “light” and life of both individuated consciousness and cosmic or universal consciousness, which are ultimately interconnected as One Mind. Plato states this darkly through the symbolic character of his wise teacher, Socrates (whose name means master of life), by having Socrates explain to Plato’s brother, Glaucon (whose name means owl-eyed), that, “the light of fire (in this allegory) is the Sun, which, when seen, is inferred to be the universal author of all things that are beautiful and right. It is the parent of light and the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual world. It is the power which he who wants to act rationally in public or private life must keep his eye fixed upon.” Now, ask yourself, does it sound like these alleged words of the enlightened Socrates are referring to the Sun in a literal sense, or to the Sun as being an ancient symbol of the “light” and life of consciousness which constitutes the The-Allegory-of-the-Cave-by-Plato-1-1024x761mind? Isn’t it true that you can close your eyes and still see things through the “light” of your mind, even while you are sitting or lying down alone in the dark?

What about the shadows in the cave? And what about the wall in the cave that serves as the screen upon which these shadows are seen? This wall and the shadows casted upon it are symbolic of the various objects, or people, places, and things, that the individual mind perceives as the objective world, or the world “outside of”, and “separate from”, one’s own relative self or ego-personality. Like shadows, these objects or forms that collectively make up the objective plane of life are merely the fleeting reflections of something that can be said to be real. They are nothing more than transitory effects that are caused by the obstruction and limitation of the light or illumination of consciousness. These philosophical shadows are what Plato would call relative and substantially illusory or unreal “forms”, while the metaphysical objects of which they are merely the reflections and imperfect revelations are what he would call the absolute, eternal, and perfect “ideas” behind these phantom-like forms.

As for the chains that keep the prisoners locked up and divested of mental and spiritual freedom within the cave of their own dim consciousness, they are a potent symbol of our closed-minded concepts and selfish ways of thinking, as these counterproductive mental constructs keep us mentally binded, blinded, and unable to behold the light of metaphysical and philosophical enlightenment. When we succeed in breaking these chains by freeing our minds through true education, which involves philosophy and meditation, we discover the greatest secret of life and existence, which in turn gives us insight into the true meaning of justice, the main subject of Plato’s Republic. Platos - CaveThis most valuable secret of all secrets is that all life is One Life, all minds are One Mindand all things are One Thing.

Not only does Plato’s Republic teach us that the mind can be, and that it all too often is, the worst kind of prison that we can ever find ourselves locked up in, this golden dialogue also teaches us, perhaps paradoxically, that the mind is also the key that we must use in order to free ourselves from that prison:

The mind is the prison

And also the key

And as Freemasons 

We have chosen to be free

 

Dharma, Duty, and Freemasonry: Part II

Dharma, Duty, and Freemasonry: Part II

This is Part II of a two part series on Dharma, Duty, and Freemasonry. Readers can view the first installment here: Part I.


“Hindu Dharma is like a boundless ocean teeming with priceless gems. The deeper you dive, the more treasures you find.”  –  Mahatma Gandhi, 1946


In the previous post of this series, I discussed the concepts of duty and dharma. Here, we continue to explore the factors in determining one’s dharma, dharma’s theological foundation, and address the Masonic connection of these themes. 

The Ashrams: Stages of Life

THE next factor in determining one’s Dharma is to consider the stage of life one is currently in: Youth (Student), Adulthood (Householder), Middle Age (Transition away from Worldly focus on the material), and Old Age (Devotion and isolation). These stages are as follows:

Brahmacārya:
  • Life of Preparation, responsibilities as a student
  • Duty: To learn and gain skills

Gṛhastha:

  • Life of the Householder, with family and other social roles
  • Duty: Focus on family and building up Material wealth

Vānprastha:

  • Life of Reflection, retired from past actions, transitioning from worldly occupations and affairs
  • Duty: Contribute back to society with intellectual, spiritual, or material wealth & spending time furthering spiritual development
Sannyāsa:
  • Life of Renunciation, giving away all property, becoming a recluse and devotion to spiritual matters.
  • Duty: Meditation, spiritual study, and worship

Note that individuals move through these stages on a unique basis. Some skip stages entirely, and some never reach the later stages. This is a part of one’s Svadharma or calling in life.

Syadharma: An Individual’s Calling or Life Purpose

FOR example, Sannyasa is a form of asceticism and is represented by a state of disinterest and detachment from material life with the purpose of spending one’s life in peaceful, love-inspired, simple spiritual life. Siddhartha, or Buddha, walked away from the material life to follow the path of Sannyāsa. Similar to a Monk or Nun, individuals may take this path after Brahmacarva and skip the two intermediate stages.

This means that what is “right” action for one individual is “wrong” conduct for another.  A soldier’s duty may require the individual to kill someone, but murder is incorrect conduct for a banker or teacher.

Dharma in The Bhagavad Gita

THERE is a 2,000-year-old treatise, called the Bhagavad Gita or “Song of God”, which is considered the world’s greatest scripture on Dharma. A smaller section of the larger epic work called the Mahabharata, the seven hundred verses of the Bhagavad Gita are arranged in a conversational format between two main speakers Krishna and Arjuna.

Dharma is the first word in the Bhagavad Gita. The great work begins when the blind old king, Dhritarashtra, asks his secretary, Sanjaya, about the battle that was to take place at “the field of Dharma” (Dharma-kshetra). In the name of Dharma, Arjuna (a great warrior and general of the Pandavas) argues for nonviolence by assuming that to attack and kill so many leading men, nearly all of whom are fathers and husbands, will destabilize the important families and communities for which these men are responsible. The families themselves are vital to the peace and virtue of society. 

Lord Krishna (God and Arjuna’s spiritual master) does not at once address Arjuna’s argument about Dharma, as we would expect in a typical debate. Rather, the Lord first reveals to Arjuna, in twenty verses (Bg. 2.11- 30) the eternal nature of the soul. Then the Lord comes back to the topic of Dharma to show that it is Arjuna who is neglecting his Dharma by refusing to fight:

“And even considering your personal Dharma as well, it is not right for you to hesitate. There is nothing better for a warrior than a fight based on Dharma.” (Bg. 2.31)

Here, we find that Dharma itself is meant to assist the real goal of life: understanding the eternal soul and its relationship with the Supreme Soul, Krishna. Lord Krishna concludes this brief reference to Dharma as one’s personal duty by saying: “Now if you do not execute this battle, then having given up your personal Dharma and reputation, you shall incur sin.” (Bg. 2.33)

Throughout the rest of the Volume, Lord Krishna speaks of Dharma in terms of His own teaching of spiritual knowledge and not directly in response to Arjuna’s argument about Dharma as ordinary religious and moral practices. Krishna’s next reference to Dharma reinforces his earlier statement that Arjuna must perform his own Dharma and not neglect it in the name of Dharma. Arjuna can neither protect Dharma nor keep himself on the spiritual platform if he abandons the duties born of his nature. Krishna explains:

“One’s own Dharma, performed imperfectly, is better than another’s Dharma well performed. Destruction in one’s own Dharma is better, for to perform another’s Dharma leads to danger.” (Bg. 3.35)

Thus, the complete picture begins to emerge. An effective government must not only create laws but enforce them as well. Similarly, the Supreme Lord brings forth His law as Dharma. When obedience to His law collapses, and human beings instead propagate their own illicit “law,” the Lord descends to protect the good citizens of His kingdom, vanquish the outlaws who practice adharma, and reestablish in human society the prestige and power of His will.

We can now see why Arjuna’s initial argument – that to obey Lord Krishna and fight would go against Dharma – cannot be correct. Dharma is nothing but the Lord’s will. For Arjuna to fight, then, is true Dharma.

Thus, Lord Krishna starkly contrasts the ordinary Dharma of the Vedas with “this Dharma,” which is pure devotional service to Krishna. Krishna concludes the important ninth chapter by showing the power of this Dharma – unalloyed Krishna consciousness – to purify and save the soul. It is simply on the strength of devotion to Krishna that even a man of terrible conduct quickly becomes devoted to Dharma. So, in this manner all human beings can approach duty or Dharma in the same manner. If all individuals seek the Divine and follow the leading which springs forth, the different rules or requirements of individual Dharma become a single path.

Dharma and Freemasonry

DUTY is an important concept in Freemasonry, similar to a code of conduct by which individuals should mold their character. Moreover, members are instructed to do their duty regardless of the consequence.

Since Masonry is an institution founded on the highest virtues and principles of morality, Masonic duties are in harmony with proper conduct and the laws of their country. Some of these duties include:

To think high, to speak truth, to do well, to be tolerant to others, to search after truth, and to practice liberty under law, fraternal equality, justice, and solidarity.

Moreover, Freemasonry calls on its members to follow an individual path while also working together to uplift humanity. The Craft also inspires the cultivation of similar virtues to those considered part of the Dharma system such as patience, fortitude, and prudence. For some individuals, I posit that Freemasonry could be viewed as a major component or the culmination of that Brother’s individual dharma. What do you think?

Dharma, Duty, and Freemasonry: Part I

Dharma, Duty, and Freemasonry: Part I

WE all have duties, which we are responsible for in life, although some may not ascribe these responsibilities that term. We are responsible for the well-being of families and our own self-improvement. Many of us would say that we have a duty of service to our community or even to humanity as a whole. “Duty” is an important concept in Freemasonry and can be viewed or defined in two basic ways:

  1. a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility, commitment, or allegiance.
  2. a task or action that someone is required to perform.

The first definition speaks to a higher concept – an attitude of reverence or respect in the cause of fidelity. The second definition is more concrete and delineates a specific action one is required to perform. What duties do we owe in life, and do these duties circumscribe our personal Dharma?

What is Dharma?

Dharma is an integral concept in many eastern religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. In Hinduism, Dharma has been defined as a spiritual law, which governs the necessary conduct of each individual. While there is no direct, one-word translation in the English language, Dharma can be described as duty, morality, virtues, or calling.

Nothing is higher than Dharma. The weak overcomes the stronger by Dharma, as over a king. Truly that Dharma is the Truth (Satya); therefore, when a man speaks the Truth, they say, “He speaks the Dharma”; and if he speaks Dharma, they say, “He speaks the Truth!” For both are one. — Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1.4.xiv

Dharma signifies behaviors that are in accord with Rta, (i.e., the order that upholds the universe). In the Vedic religion, Ṛta (ऋत, “order, rule; truth”) is the principle of natural order which regulates and coordinates the operation of the universe and everything within it. Those ordinances, or life paths, which upholds Rta, are referred to as Dharma, and the action of the individual in relation to those ordinances is referred to as Karma. Ṛta – as an ethical principle – is linked with the notion of cosmic retribution.

A central concept of the Ṛig Veda (an important Hindu Scripture) is that created beings fulfill their true natures when they follow the path set for them by the ordinances of Ṛta, and failing to follow those ordinances was thought to be responsible for the appearance of various forms of calamity and suffering. Committing one’s actions to the governance of Ṛta, referred to as its “Dharma“, was therefore understood as imperative in ensuring one’s own well-being. Karma (lit., “action”) refers to the works one performs, which can occur either in congruence with or in opposition to Dharma – and thus, to Ṛta – and which are posited to stand in a causal relationship to the pains and pleasures one experiences in life. Described also as a “law of moral causation,” Karma places the responsibility for one’s life on the shoulders of the individual. Thus, an individual’s circumstances in life – calamity or fortune – are considered the outcome of that person’s past actions.

Determining One’s Duty: Aspects of Dharma

There are aspects of Dharma that apply to everyone (universal Dharma) and aspects that are specific to each individual (personal Dharma). In order to be in accordance with Rta, one first needs to cultivate certain universal moral principles including:

Dhriti: Perseverance Dhi: Reasoning
Kshama: Patience Vidya: Wisdom
Dama: Self-control Satya: Truthfulness
Shauch: Purity Asteya: Refraining from Theft
Indriya Nigrah: Control of One’s Senses Akrodha: Absence of Anger

Such moral principles are part of the universal application of Dharma, which apply to every individual and is referred to as sadharana Dharma. This is augmented by a person’s specific Dharma, which is impacted by three factors: 1) Gunas: Individual Tendencies, 2) Ashrams: Stages of Life, and 3) Syadharma: One’s Personal Calling.

The Gunas: Tendencies of Each Individual

“What is action; what inaction? Even the wise are hereby perplexed. It is needful to discriminate action, unlawful action, and inaction; mysterious is the path of action” – Bhagavad Gita, iv. 16-17

 The concept of Gunas is based on the idea that all human beings have a mixture of three tendencies: Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas.

  • Sattva: Tendency towards Truth and Purity
  • Rajas: Tendency towards Action
  • Tamas: Tendency towards Inaction, Obstruction, or Ignorance

Gunas, or individual tendencies, are expanded upon by their application to Varnas – or groups within the Hindu social structure – based on the recognition of the difference in individual tendencies and sort all members into one of four categories. Thus, each group follows a different life path and is assigned different duties.    

The Varnas: Groups Within Society

Varnas are groups within society, including Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras.

Brahmins: Priests, Scholars, and Teachers
  1. Predominant tendency: Sattva (Righteous and Purity)
  2. Duties: Control of the mind and the senses, austerity, purity, forbearance, and also uprightness, knowledge, realization, belief in a hereafter
  3. Action: study the Vedas, live according to Vedic principles, and share that knowledge
  4. Form the head of the cosmic being: As they make up the Mouth: Relay Truth

Kshatriyas: Rulers, Warriors, and Statesmen

  1. Predominant tendency: Rajas (Quick to take action)
  2. Duties: Prowess, boldness, fortitude, dexterity, and also not flying from battle, generosity and sovereignty
  3. Action: Protect righteousness
  4. Arms: Protect Truth
Vaishyas: Businessmen, Bankers, Merchants, and Farmers
  1. Mix of the tendencies of Sattva (Truth) and Rajas (Action)
  2. Duty: Agriculture and Trade
  3. Action: Meet the material needs of society without over indulging
  4. Thighs: Provide Material wealth
Shudras: Custodians, Laborers, and Service Providers
  1. Predominant Tendency: Tamas (Inaction)
  2. Duty: Service
  3. Action: Support the other activities of the other groups
  4. Feet: Provide Support

These classifications were once the basis of the Caste system in India and other nations. Based on the Caste or class someone was born into, these classifications cemented the person’s opportunities and social status. This is no longer the case in India, but it does highlight the past subjection of certain people based on their circumstances at birth. This raises the interesting question: Is one’s future predetermined at birth? Are we born with certain qualities [Gunas] which influence our life path, duties, or Dharma?

To be continued…


This is Part I of a two part series on Dharma, Duty, and Freemasonry. Readers can view the second installment here: Part II.

Brother or Friend?

Brother or Friend?

A long time ago, I heard a Freemason tell another that they “should not be friends” with their Brothers. It was a strange comment to me, as I thought that when I joined Freemasonry, I would find like-minded people who I could spend time with, conversing and changing the course of the universe, all of us achieving amazing and lofty ambitions. These are the things you do with people you like. And don’t you like your friends?

Later on, once I moved into the higher degrees, another, more experienced Freemason said the same thing, adding, “it is a lonely path, being in these higher degrees.” While I might have doubted before, I did not doubt now. I have seen too many things go awry to question that wisdom. My quandary, though, was trying to figure out what the difference between Freemason and Friend is all about? Why can’t a Brother also be a Friend? Why shouldn’t a Brother be a Friend? How do I communicate that to others, who have stumbled into some awkward and emotionally disturbing situations? How do I avoid them, too?

Let me preface this with saying that this discovery, this understanding between friend and brother, has been a long journey. I have learned a lot about myself, as Freemasonry is wont to provide to a person on its path. I am the type of person who tries to have a pleasant demeanor and be welcoming. Call it being a Libra, a caretaker, eldest daughter, or whatever you will; my personality is to bring in as much hospitality as possible with my attitude, thoughts, and feelings so as to create a circle of warmth, trust, and authenticity. I feel it’s the only way to communicate well with people, and how I want people to communicate well with me. Being open gives me insight into who they are. Many people mistake this for friendship; I think in general, people from the United States mistake quite a bit for friendship, but that might be a topic for another time. Being nice does not equate to friendship. Being nice is, well, simply being nice. I have had this issue all my life and it’s something I understand about myself. While I attempt to be clear, I sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. I struggle to see how being nice may cause misunderstanding. Let’s call it knowledgeable naivete.

A friend is someone who you have created a bond with, someone with whom you know and have a mutual affection. Someone once said to me, you win friends. They are created through experiences of trust, sharing, and having someone with which is common. You might or might not provide some kind of support for a friend; it might be emotional, mental, or physical support.

Different friends have different levels of engagement and meaning. A friend might be someone with whom you share events throughout your life or someone with whom you only share coffee once in a while. There are no expectations in overall friendship; each relationship creates its own boundaries and ways of thinking and being together. In Europe, acquaintances are not friends. You may know someone for 20 years, but they are not your friend. They are someone you know. We have less distinction about that here in the United States. We rely a lot more on others who tell us what we should be. Friends are necessary for everyone; they provide us a window to the world and an ear to speak to when we need that confidant, that supporter, that person who knows us best.

A Brother is very different. While we choose our Brothers in Freemasonry, it’s a very democratic and discussion-heavy process. Brother, it should be clear, is a title. It may mean a fellow Freemason, but it is also a title of someone who is a Freemason. For someone to become a Brother, there is a lengthy and stringent process, where the requirements are spelled out based on the Masonic organization or body. For example, one has to be just, upright, and free, of mature age, sound mind, and strict morals. They don’t have to meet my morality; they have to demonstrate a morality that upholds the tenets of Freemasonry – for example tolerance and prudence. As a Freemason who makes a judgement about an applicant, I can say with authority that this isn’t a popularity contest: the applicant must meet the criteria and the majority of the Lodge members agree to the membership. While it’s nice to have people get along, it is certainly not a requirement unless something is seriously disharmonious. Some Masonic groups do not admit the other gender, or some do not admin non-Christians. Whatever the rules are about entrance, they are tightly controlled by the overarching organization.

In my opinion, the more diverse the group of Freemasons, the better the growth of the human and humanity. What better way to gain a better understanding of the self than to rub up against those people with whom we don’t particularly fit well? Think… rock tumbler. We like to think we have no rough edges but all rocks in a tumbler are pokey. If you catch on someone else, it’s not because your surface is super smooth. You have bumps, like we all do. That is how we get better. By working them out. We’ll talk more about this later.

Selecting who becomes a Brother is only one part of answering the question, what is the difference between Brother and Friend? The second comes from repeatedly working in Lodge together as Freemasons. Human beings are normally drawn to one another as they perceive common interests. In Freemasonry, many Brothers travel together or offer their homes for visits and boarding. In the outer world, the non-Masonic world, this indicates or implicates friendship. For someone who is not clear about their Masonic boundaries, this kind of interaction can be misconstrued. Being nice isn’t being a friend; being nice in Freemasonry is expected and hospitable. Conversely, as I noted above, agreeing with someone isn’t a requirement to be or remain a Freemason. We all don’t have the same thoughts, same views, nor would we want to. Debate and rhetoric are things which create better humans, and Freemasons value the well-informed, opinionated debate. If you can’t discuss topics of importance with your Brothers, then you may not have success as a Freemason. In other words, disagreement or debate isn’t cause for hate or strife. It’s a cause for growth.

Rock. Tumbler.

There is a code of conduct that Freemasons have in interacting with one another that is fairly formal and is intact whether they are in a Lodge meeting or out in public or at a non-Masonic event. No Freemason would dream of striking another physically, calling names to them or their families, or treating them with anything but human decency. There is a respect for them as a human being but even more so, they have earned respect because they have the title Brother. There is also a respect for the hard work someone has put into their Masonic Order, whether it be from years of service, traveling to instruct or mentor, hours of meetings and committees, or other volunteer time. There is a respect of position, formally granted by the Lodge to that person who must spend their time coordinating, planning, instructing, and fostering further Masonic influence, as well as that Lodge’s officers who carry out the work. There’s respect for memorization, degree work, and one hopes, for the execution of the ritual. All of these require a sense of honor for fellow Brothers and a real dedication to support what they do, even if we don’t want to, can’t, or are not able to do it ourselves. We respect merit and ability. This respect is backed up by rules and regulations that demand respect, and a jurisprudence that enforces those rules.

I think this is where the waters become muddy. In the non-Freemasonic world, we bestow respect by our own credo. We win friends by living by our own ideals and sometimes we compromise those ideals for the benefit of having those around us who share our proclivities. We tend to choose our friends because they think like us, not because they think differently. We choose friends with our egos, generally. In a society that is increasingly polarizing, we need our armies around us to make us feel better. In a society that increasingly insular, we mistake the slightest hint of personal niceness as being hit on or being courted for, well, becoming a courtier. It can’t be stated enough that we don’t bring the outside world into Freemasonry and expect it to adapt. Likewise, we shouldn’t misconstrue the hospitality and fraternity of Freemasonry for friendship.

As you move through the path that is Freemasonry, your responsibilities, duties, and obligations become greater, wider reaching. Your duty grows, and your mind must be set to think of not only your own Lodge but your District, your Grand District, and perhaps your entire Order; it may even grow so far as to be responsible for the growth of Freemasonry itself. While a true, authentic friend would never ask you to compromise your avocation for them specifically, it places everyone in a precarious balance if you mix responsibility, duty, and obligation with going out for a few beers on a Saturday night with a single Brother. One has to be very careful where one boundary ends and another begins. How one comports themselves is in direct relation to how they have obligated themselves to a position within Freemasonry.

The largest and most difficult challenge is being “friends” with people early in your Masonic career and then weighing that with greater obligations as you grow. As we change, sometimes our friends do not. Maybe we don’t go out for beers any longer but stay home and enjoy a good study group online. There may be a bitterness about placing Freemasonry above friendship. There might be sadness because you spend time with a Lodge instead of a single person. I know of one person who became the head of their local Lodge. When that happened, people flocked to her to place them in positions of seeming importance in the Lodge, offices they desired. She succumbed to putting them in these positions and the Lodge suffered because of it because they weren’t equipped to do the jobs they desired; she thought of their desires and not the needs of the group. Friendship above Freemasonry. She learned a valuable lesson that first year.

In some cases, maybe you never were friends and simply Brothers, but that is where the niceties and hospitality of Freemasonry confuse with the outside world. When you first enter into Freemasonry, maybe you are looking for friends or even family. You might be looking for those like-minded people and hope for friendship. Going and getting coffee and talking about esoteric subjects may be something you do with friends or with Brothers; it is the building of the relationship, and context, that makes the difference. It is not impossible to be a friend with a Brother – not by a long shot. Yet, what I see work is when Freemasonry is the basis of the relationship and that takes precedence. I can think of many instances where the reverse does not work.

In Co-Masonry, there is the added, extra challenge of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and other family members becoming Freemasons, sometimes in the same Lodge. This seems to take the modern familial relationship and make it even better. You have the common purpose of becoming better people, together, with a deeper grasp on your relationship. Perhaps it is because that “friendship” relationship never existed between siblings or parents – after all, it’s family. It was family first, even if the adults are friends, too. Freemasonry, in its familial format, supports those ideas and relationships deeply and helps them, in my opinion, become richer. I have seen whole families join Freemasonry and it creates a very strong, lifelong bond.

I have seen more than a few people who have given their entire adult lives to helping Freemasonry grow, and it is not an easy path. They are on the phone from 6:00 to 18:00, backed up in emails and meetings, planning and executing all the time. If they are lucky, they are able to carve out time for family and some close friends, some travel, and laughter. They have raised families who were nearly all Freemasons and have maybe raised some who were bitter about Freemasonry’s influence. Some have worked for decades to improve the lives of all Freemasons, with no thought to their own service or sleep. It is all a choice, and that sacrifice can be as hard as those that give up their individual lives to raise a family or a flock of parishoners. For these dedicated few, they have very few friends but many, many Brothers. For them, that is satisfying and healthy, and it helps them create the True, the Good, and the Beautiful in the world.

So, Friends? Or Brothers?

Symbolism & The Literalists

Symbolism & The Literalists

Fundamentalism is everywhere.

Let’s be clear: fundamentalism is strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline. In most cases, people use it to discuss religious adherence to the “word” of any particular religion as being absolutely true and literal, in all sense. You can be, however, a fundamental ballet dancers, barista, or car mechanic. And, also to be fair, being a “fundamentalist” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It comes down to one additional feature: an open mind. Tolerance does not mean you walk away with someone else’s views being your new truth or a completely changed mind. It only means being able to accept that which fills the universe might be slightly bigger than your own fundamentalism.

What has this got to do with Symbolism? I just read a recent article on the symbol of the skull in Freemasonry. The article, is well written and somewhat shocking to me. How could anyone who has been a Freemason for any length of time, at all, think that the skull represents something horrible and to be feared?

Then, I realize, there are literalists in Freemasonry, like there are everywhere. They might not understand the idea of teaching via symbolism or that symbols are human communication mechanisms meant to stir the deep unconscious and subconscious, ala Joseph Campbell. So, let’s take a look at the purpose of symbolism.

Books, tomes, volumes, caves, papyrus, walls, and stele have been written about symbols, their meanings, their other meanings, and still stranger meanings. You cannot spit in a metaphysical bookstore without hitting a volume about that author or society’s view of what a particular pictograph meant. A cat means the afterlife and it means cleanliness, or attentiveness, or patience.

That’s well and good, but what is symbolism? What is a symbol? Symbolism is using symbols to represent ideas or qualities. A symbol is something that simply is a picture that stands in for something else. It isn’t what it is, but what it might act like, or a quality it exudes. So a picture of a cat can be a cat. It can also stand in for the idea of patience, observance, or hospitality. What matters here, is context. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar. Sometimes, as Freud so eloquently poked at, it is not.

By their very definition, a literalist cannot understand symbolism. A literalist does not, can not, see that cat as anything but a cat. A fundamentalist takes words for their exact meaning; there is no such thing as allegory, metaphor, or symbolism. There cannot be, else it breaks the very idea of their fundamentalism. Fundamentalists must have a very difficult time at comedy clubs. The point is that many conflicts come from a literalist and non-literalist arguing over meaning. Religions splinter and fragment based on a symbolic or literal meaning of a single text. The two ways of approaching thought, mind, discovery are challenged every day to come together.

Symbols are there for the explorative mind. Symbols expand our ways of thinking about something and break us out of following a single track. It cracks fundamentalism and provides new neural pathways of consciousness. What does it take? Yes, an open mind. It takes a curious mind. It takes a mind that is us afraid of being different than it once was. It might even take a little comfort in the chaos and disharmony of discovery.

The Freemason is an adventurer, an explorer. She is looking for a world bigger than herself, bigger than her current roadmap. She’s looking to build a map of imagination and wonder. Freemasons discuss and debate symbols because to the Freemason, a symbol is only a beginning point. The symbols take on myriad meanings, all being correct at some level, right at some level. When we share our discoveries with others, we’re offering a guidepost in a new land. We’re opening portals to a wider existence, not just for one but for all. The goal is the search for Truth. Not one truth, or a person’s opinion, but Truth – the fundamental idea of why we are here.

Thus, I think it would be very difficult for someone who is a literalist or fundamentalist to be a Freemason. Even “Fundamental” Freemasons are struggling in decay. Discovery breeds creativity and creativity is growth. Can a literalist be a discoverer? My open, inquiring mind wants to know.

Should The U.S. Electoral College Be Abolished?

Should The U.S. Electoral College Be Abolished?

Many Americans uphold the U.S. Constitution as a visionary document: drafted in a spirit of equality and encouraging the maximum democratic participation for all voters. The Preamble’s introductory line, “We the people of the United States, in order to establish a more perfect union,” seems to imply that all citizens of our Nation would be involved in the process of creating and directing the government. In reality, however, the framers of the Constitution only provided a small voting role for the general electorate. The drafters intended that only members of the U.S. House of Representatives would be subject to direct election by the general voting population. In contrast, U.S. Senators and the U.S. President would be indirectly elected for longer terms of office. 

Indirect Versus Direct Democracyfederalistpapersauthors

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, wrote against the concept of direct elections of the President and Senators. Alexander Hamilton stated that the objective of the Electoral College was to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

In his papers #49 and #63, Madison argued that giving ordinary citizens the right to elect their president would mean that “the passions, therefore, not the reason, of the public would sit in judgement.” Moreover, the indirect election plan would protect the American public against “their own temporary errors and delusions,” “their violent passions,” and “popular fluctuations.” Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper #68 advocated for indirect elections as a means to avoid “tumult and disorder” and “violent movements.” 

Have indirect elections for the U.S. President protected the country from irrational and Alexanderhamilton.pngdelusional public voting?

In contrast to appointing others to vote on one’s behalf, “direct democracy” describes when citizens make decisions about elections and policy in person, without going through representatives and legislatures. In this context, “direct democracy” means that individual citizens could cast a vote which would then be counted to determine which candidate would be elected.  Another example of direct democracy granted to citizens, including to citizens in Colorado and twenty other U.S. States, is the power of initiative by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can bring about a public vote on a proposed law or constitutional amendment. Should U.S. citizens be given the right to “direct democracy” at the Federal level?

The Constitutional Limits to Direct Democracy

The Electoral College was not the only limit the founders included on direct democracy in the Constitution, though we have discarded most of those limitations. Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and states were permitted to ban women from voting entirely. Slaves were also denied the right to vote, and a slave only counted as three-fifths of a person in the determination of the number of legislators a State would receive in Congress. The 14th Amendment abolished the three-fifths rule and granted male former slaves the right to vote. The 15th Amendment abolished federal and state government’s authority to deny a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

 The U.S. Constitution’s Requirements for Electing the President

James Madison’s and Alexander Hamilton’s indirect voting philosophy informed the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the method of selecting in the President in Clauses 2, 3, and 4 of Article 2, Section 1. 

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

9electorscastvotesinColorado

Nine Colorado electors take the oath before casting their votes on Nov. 19, 2016 at the State Capitol.

Under the U.S. Constitution, by means of a constitutional grant of authority to the State legislatures, the President and Vice President are chosen by electors. This system allows each State to determine the means by which it will create its State College of Electors. In current practice, State legislatures create their panel of electors by indirect popular vote. 

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3: The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot… they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed… (Note: This clause was changed by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804).

Each individual State chooses its electors in the popular election. Once chosen, the electors meet in their respective states to cast ballots for the President and Vice President. In the case where no Presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House chooses from the top three candidates. 

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4: The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Congress determines the national Election Day, which has been determined to be the Tuesday following the first Monday in November in the year before the President’s term is to expire. Then, the Electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year. The votes are then opened and counted by the Vice President, as President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress. The Constitution does not include a requirement that the electors cast their votes to match the voting outcome Electoral+Collegeof the popular elections within the state.

The Electoral College 

The political philosophy that ordinary citizens were not qualified to choose their leaders was common practice in the early years of popular voting. Instead, nations made use of indirect voting, whereby the voters would elect a group of representatives to select public leaders on their behalf. The Electoral College is the last vestige of this arcane system still operating in the United States. Thus, when Americans go to vote for the President on Election Day, they are not voting for the President; instead, they are choosing representatives who will vote on their behalf. In each State, the voters are technically choosing between the groups of electors who have been elected or appointed months prior to the election. The electors are then pledged to support their own party’s presidential candidate. 

The Electoral College operates on a system of 538 total electoral votes for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. To win the general election, 270 votes are needed for a candidate. Each state is entitled to a number of electoral votes equal to the combined number of Senators plus the number of U.S. Representatives for that state. For example, Montana has a single member of Congress and two senators. Thus, Montana receives three electoral votes in the Presidential contest. In contrast, California has 53 ElectoralCollegeVoteCertificationmembers of Congress and 2 Senators, receiving 55 electoral votes. 

Following the general election on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, the winning balloted electors travel to their State Capitol to formally cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. While rare, electors have, in the past, broken their pledges and voted for a different candidate. Although most states have passed statutes binding their electors to their pledges, constitutional authorities have raised doubts as to whether these state laws would be enforceable in the National election. In the 2016 Presidential Election, six U.S. electors broke with tradition to vote against their state’s popular vote tallies – the largest number of “faithless electors” seen in a century. Four U.S. electors declined to vote for Hilary Clinton, and two electors refused to vote for Donald Trump. Should the Electors of the Electoral College be allowed to vote their conscience?

While the popular vote usually correlates with the election of the President, there have been exceptions in American History.

1824 Election – There was no majority winner in the electoral college. Four candidates split the vote: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William H. Crawford. The election was sent to the House of Representatives who chose John Quincy Adams despite Andrew Jackson winning the popular and electoral votes. The choice was the ultimate result of what is historically referred to as “The Corrupt Bargain,” devised and executed by Adams and Clay.

USPresidentsLostPopularVote1876 Election – Samuel Tilden was chosen by the popular vote, but a special commission overruled this vote, electing President Rutherford B. Hayes instead.

1888 Election – Grover Cleveland received more popular votes, but the Electoral College elected President Benjamin Harrison.

2000 Election – Al Gore won the popular vote with 48.4% of the vote, but President George W. Bush won the Electoral College with 271 votes, following the recount in Florida. Gore received approximately 540,000 more votes nationwide than Bush. This vote count, however, pales in comparison to the 2016 Presidential Election final votes tally.

2016 Election – Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with nearly three million more votes than President Donald Trump. According to the non-partisan Cook Political Report, Clinton received approximately 2,864,974 more votes nationwide than Trump. Donald Trump won the presidency by securing 306 electoral college votes which is 36 more than the 270 votes needed to claim victory.

Thus, in 53 of the 58 total elections, the winner of the national popular vote has also carried the Electoral College vote.

Equality and Justice in American Elections

Do Americans still lack the responsibility and reasoning necessary to elect the President? Electoral-College-1Must we still be protected against our “own temporary errors and delusions” and “violent passions” as James Madison argued? Freemasonry rests under the banner of the universality of all mankind and operates under the principles of tolerance, justice, and equality. 

When American Citizens are withheld the electoral power to choose our President, are we truly operating as, “we the people?” Can we form a “more perfect union” when we voluntary abdicate our voting choices to others deemed to be more rational and less ruled by passions? Perhaps, we need to realize the responsibility inherent in acting as mature adults, subdue our unruly passions, and advocate for equal voting rights in the election of the U.S. President. 

 


 

How to Attend an MPS Meeting

How to Attend an MPS Meeting

The Masonic Philosophical Society (M.P.S.) has officially been active for more than five years now. It has grown to over 30 Study Centers across the globe, in at least five different countries. There are even online Study Centers for North America and International seekers. Many people come to this blog without knowing that there are actual live meeting that you can attend to discuss nine very broad areas of study in a philosophical format. Why did the M.P.S. get created, and what is the goal? How do you go about attending one?

If you read the Mission Statement for the M.P.S., it states:

“The Masonic Philosophical Society is an institution which aims to provide an environment of exploration within the framework of Masonic principles and to inspire individuals to self-awareness. Dynamic study centers foster a culture for discussion and questioning with each center going beyond traditional education by delving deeper into the mysteries of the individual and his or her universe.”

While that might seem like an abstract goal, it has very concrete applications. Gone are the days of Pythagoras when men, and women, would learn the arts of astronomy, music, mathematics, logic, and rhetoric. It is a fact that over the course of the past 200 years, the Liberal Arts education has fallen in esteem and in attendance. Liberal Arts colleges are struggling to find validation. As we see in our media, on our Senate floors, and even in sporting events, human beings are losing the ability to express themselves in positive, constructive ways. While we may deliberate the individual merits of specific areas of study, it is not wrong to say that studying the Liberal Arts and Humanities creates a better society, a more positive, engaged, and enlightened civilization.

head1In the United States, it is the rare place where people may go and discuss freely, with informed beliefs, and expand their intellectual horizons. These M.P.S. Study Centers provide the interested individual with access to a wide range of topics, some controversial, into which they may dig their “teeth.” In general, we laymen may sit around with friends over a bottle of wine once in a great while and discuss the finer points of politics, religion, and solving the world’s problems, sometimes even with success. In the cases of the Study Centers, there is structure and content, and an easy place to learn more about the world and ourselves. The Study Center infrastructure supports keeping an open mind, listening, and healthy debate. We hopefully leave with more than what we carried with us into the meeting.

Many people hear the word “Masonic Philosophical Society” and believe that this is a Masonic organization. It is not. Let me say that again – it is not an official Masonic Organization. The M.P.S. is an independent 501(c)3 non-profit organization, built off the principles of Universal Freemasonry,  a Masonic organization that has been in the United States for more than 100 years. The ideals and ideas of Universal Freemasonry were the foundation for the building of the Masonic Philosophical Society Study Centers, where Freemasons and non-Freemasons may go to have enlightened discussions on a wide, and I mean WIDE, variety of subjects.

These Study Centers provide a place for people to discover what subjects are of interest to Freemasons and dispel myths about what Freemasonry may be; of prime importance, they further the ideals of helping humanity rise above the petty squabbles that pepper our daily life by providing thought and fodder for personal action. This isn’t a call to arms or a recruitment station. This is a place where all people can discuss on equal footing difficult, complex, and maybe unknown subjects within a group.

Most M.P.S. Study Centers are located in a library or public location. The times listed in the notices from meetup.com or from the Facebook Masonic Philosophical Society page are the actual start times for the meetings. No food is served at the meetings but you may choose to bring water or a drink, and most public locations allow for this. If you have questions about the topic or the location, the best place to access this is from the meetup.com links on the philosophicalsociety.org website. Here is an example of the meetup.com site for Santa Cruz, California. You may want to “like” the Facebook page and then you will see a continuous feed of blog posts, polls, questions, and inspiring quotations.

sepiaSo, you might have found an M.P.S. Study Center and now you want to attend? Excellent!  The discussions are led by a “Presenter” and a “Moderator.” While there may be handouts on the topic, with information and points of discussion, there may also be videos, art, music, or other displays to help foster the discussion. Topics really run the gamut; the group may be discussing climate change or Spinoza’s ethics or the Mona Lisa. The question that is the title of the Study session will normally be a yes or no question, providing the opportunity for debate and informed discussion on the merits of each side. The Presenter will provide the information up for debate and pose questions to the group to stimulate discussion. The Moderator will ensure that the guidelines of the Study Centers are kept in mind and will help foster the discussion should it either turn away from the original topic or slow/falter.

For those who are nowhere near a physical Study Center, there are three online Study Centers which may work for you. One is for all of North America and another is International. There is also a Spanish-Speaking Study Center. All of these online forums use Zoom as the online platform for voice and video. If you do not have a camera, that is okay – you can use your computer, phone, or even a landline to dial in. Video makes the experience more interactive and you can see what a Presenter is offering. It is important with online Study Centers to make sure that you are on time, and have as good of access as possible, and are in a location where you can talk for 90 minutes without interruption. You should mute yourself when you are not talking during the meeting. Make sure you have the Zoom app or desktop setup complete before the beginning of the meeting. If you have questions about how to access the online Study Centers, use the Contact Form on the website or contact the M.P.S. Director, Dennis Garza at dennis.garza@philosophicalsociety.org.

There is no need to come to the Study Center with deep experience in the topic being discussed. However, it does help to come with at least an idea of the topic being discussed. Google the question and inform yourself of some of the aspects that may be brought up. I will stop here, briefly, because there is something to say about belief, opinion, and fact. Many Study Centers have debates on potentially “hot” topics.

The purpose of the debate is to not change someone else’s mind; the purpose is to have an informed discussion that helps enlarge and enliven your own world view. M.P.S. does not adhere to any dogma and everyone is free to think what they wish. Opinions are informed by facts and knowledge; beliefs are unstudied theories in our minds. Facts are, well, just that. To come to an M.P.S. Study Center with the idea that you would change the minds of individuals is not its purpose. While you may not need to come informed in detail about a subject, you also should not come with a personal mission to recruit the group to your personal beliefs. Keeping an open mind is extremely important and, as we all know, sometimes difficult to do.

There might be an impassioned debate or there might be quiet discourse. In all cases, the Moderator will ensure that no one talks over another, that no one expresses hate or intolerance, and that each person is respectful of the beliefs and opinions of others. The goal is to listen, and anyone who cannot listen will not gain very much from attending these Study Centers. Being respectful of the general rules of the discussion will ensure that you and the rest of the attendees get the most out of your time together. No one will be selling or lecturing at an M.P.S.; anyone doing either of these activities will be expected to retire to a more suitable location.

Everyone is welcome to an M.P.S. Study Center and no fees are ever accepted or expected. This is a free forum discussion and people of all walks of life, education, religions, work background, ethnicity, or locale are welcome to attend. In fact, diversity delivers a far more stellar discussion than if everyone is sitting in a circle agreeing with everything. Don’t be afraid to speak up if you disagree; bring your experience and knowledge to the fore to share. Attendees do not get a full picture of a debatable question aristotleif they don’t have all opinions.  Do your best to keep a very open mind about a subject, especially those that you feel strongly about. Listen carefully and feel free to take notes or bring your own materials for reference. Many times, this is the key to a very healthy debate – many sources forming a single view of a difficult question.

You may want to become a member of the M.P.S. It’s free, and it shows your support for the continuing efforts of the M.P.S. By signing up, you state that you are behind three Grand Objectives of the organization:

  1. To destroy ignorance in all its forms; and
  2. To encourage the study of Culture, Philosophy, and Science; and
  3. To work for the Perfection of Humanity.

Additionally, you can support the M.P.S. by using your smile.amazon.com account to donate proceeds from Amazon sales to the M.P.S. Again, it’s a small way to show your support for this important educational and community service that is so lacking in our lives.

Lastly, don’t be shy about asking to know more about Freemasonry. Many of the attendees are Masons and are happy to discuss the merits of Freemasonry. You may be able to stick around and continue your discussion to your satisfaction. The Moderator will be happy to also provide you further contact information should you desire it.  Interaction is great; and curiosity is even better. Check out some of the links above if you want to know more; it only takes one step to dive into a wider world.

Additional Note (8/12/19): There is also an online Study Center in French. For those interested in this, please contact dennis.garza@philosophicalsociety.org.

The Illusion That Is Caste

The Illusion That Is Caste

The word “caste” comes from the Portuguese word casta, meaning “race, lineage, tribe or breed.” It originally comes from the Latin word castus meaning pure. The Spanish and Portuguese used the word differently in the Renaissance period; to the Spanish, it was applied more in a hereditary way, indicating family and/or lineage. For the Portuguese, it leaned toward something more akin to “breed” or social standing.

Many know that India was a British Colony but what many do not know is that it was a Portuguese one as well. From the beginning of the 16th century, the “Estado de India” or State of India was a Portuguese colony until 1961, when the country of India invaded Portuguese India and a treaty was signed. In fact, the Portuguese had a far longer history as a colonial power in India than did the British. For an American, this is nearly unheard of unless you are a history buff. While this is as oversimplification of the complicated workings of colonialism in India, we will delve into this to make a point, I promise.

This same time period of Portuguese rule (Early 1500s to 20th Century) is marked by British rule in India, which ended in 1947. While the Portuguese were the first, after the Romans, to begin trading with modern India, it was the British who seized dominance by the mid-19th Century. In 1661, Portugal was at war with Spain and needed assistance from England. This led to the marriage of Princess Catherine of Portugal to Charles II of England, who imposed a dowry that included the insular and less inhabited areas of southern Bombay while the Portuguese managed to retain all the mainland territory north of Bandra up to Thana and Bassein.

While the British were in India before this, this marriage marked the beginning of rulership, not just trade, within India. What is interesting to note is what while the Portuguese were using the word casta to denote the hereditary social groups they perceived in India almost as soon as they arrived, it wasn’t until 1613, during the time of British interest, that we see the word translated to “caste.”

BrahminPriestAssistantChristopherPillitzImageBankGetty-56a0428f5f9b58eba4af9280What may surprise some people is that there is no Hindu word for “caste.” In Hinduism, rising from ideas within the Rig Veda, the term associated with the Vedic social structure is varna.

According to one author, “The Four Varna system reflects a deep ecological and yogic vision of social and universal unity very different from the divisive idea of caste by birth.” This is an organic and natural social order that does not coincide with a hierarchy of rule which was applied by both the British and the Portuguese. The term varna is not specifically found in Hindu writings until later, possibly as an add-on in the Purusha Sukta. The text noted to discuss this social structure is:

When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet? The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced.

The basic idea of this is that we, humanity, are one construct made up of different, outward talents. The one construct, the Purusa, is the cosmic being, or some say, the cosmos itself. All human structure is built off this Purusa. Some may have an inclination toward knowledge and thought (Brahman), like a philosopher or religious person, and some way have an inclination toward service (Shudra) like a fireman or waiter.

However, all are part of the same construct called humanity and all have a part to play in helping the body move. No one of these is higher than the other – they are all necessary. Additionally, there was never the idea, in Vedic writings, of a non-Varna, or outcast/out caste member. Everyone is part of the whole. It would not make any sense to have a whole and then have something that is not part of the whole. To quote another author, “There is in this original Vedic model no outcaste, Dalit or untouchable. Each Varna constitutes a necessary part of the whole and all are mutually interdependent. Each is a manifestation of the same Divine consciousness working in humanity.”

Basor_Dalit_casteIndeed, this is an application of the British and Portuguese who were exerting control over the Indian population.

Either through misunderstanding or, perhaps, intentional co-opting, the Varna outline was translated and Westernized into a caste-oriented system where everyone fell into a suppressive class system, one type of human being better than the other. The adoption of these changes, from varna to caste, caused the dalit to be “created,” those that were considered outcasts and not part of society.

Dalit was a term coined about 1873, by the leader of a non-brahman-centric movement called Satyashodhak Samaj. Over time, this rigid caste hierarchy became the consciousness of a country. I remember being younger and hearing the words, “there is no caste system in India.” Yet, every Indian person I had met had embraced the idea of perhaps one group being above all others, superior to them, and others not being of equal value. The term unclean was part of the vernacular.

It’s important to know the origins of this, I think, not because of the events of history but because of the corruption of something uplifting and universal into the tool to create an oppressive society. Said clearly, from the American Institute of Vedic Studies:

“The Vedic social order was meant to instill an intrinsic feeling of unity in each individual with the greater society, and human society with the greater universe. The Varna system was based upon a transcendent ideal of human unity in the Divine, not an effort to give power and domination to one section of society.”

What was once a purely unifying religious concept was co-opted to create disharmony and foment discord among people.

gahndiWe have all seen this, as base, human need to tear down another group, using religion, education, resources, or a combination of all three in order to build the suppressive group up – whatever ‘up’ means.

Freemasons care about these things because, in the search for Truth, the goal is to build up and not tear down. It is to seek truth and Truth. In order to do this, we need to understand not only human history but the motivations behind the scenes. It doesn’t hurt to dig and explore the perhaps little known histories of the world.

One of the best podcasts recommended in this is “Revisionist History,” by Malcolm Gladwell. He does an excellent job bringing out about the little known facts of what we have taken to be “truth” and made the visible. Would that we were all as curious.

There are many things which are, I think, of interest to those who want to know Truth and build a better world, things which are knowledge gaps for us. Curiosity and an open find fill those gaps and shed light.  I know that I will never again think of the caste system as something arising from Hinduism, and I think this gives me the tools to help others think differently as well.

Fear and Freemasonry

Fear and Freemasonry

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Frank Herbert, Dune

In our youth, we rail against the unfairness of the world. In developing our philosophies, we also develop our fears. In a recent discussion group regarding specific symbolism of Freemasonry, the question was asked, how do we get rid of fears, which are really false gods? Fear, one person postulated, is that which motivates negative behavior. Another postulated that fear motivates all behavior. After much discussion, we never really came to a solid conclusion about how to mitigate fear.

Fear is the unpleasant sensation caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, threatening, or likely to cause pain. That definition is ripe with opportunity for dissection, to pull apart the chunks that create philosophical reasons for fear.

First of all, it’s an unpleasant sensation, and humans hate unpleasant feelings. No one really wants to feel icky, and yet, that icky feeling is built on a belief ― it is not necessarily based in fact or reason. It is simply a belief. By definition, a belief is a “trust, img_0142faith, or confidence in something.” Taken apart and put back together, we can say that fear is an icky feeling caused by a trust, faith, or confidence that someone or something is out to cause some kind of harm to our person, our connections, or perhaps, our way of life.

This explanation is not to trivialize fear, or some major manifestations of fear, like post-traumatic stress syndrome. This is simply to discuss common fears that most, if not all of us, experience. Are fears founded? Some, yes. Some, perhaps not. In the face of an immediate disaster, fear is certainly appropriate. Sigmund Freud said, about real fear vs. neurotic fear:

You will understand me without more ado when I term this fear real fear in contrast to neurotic fear. Real fear seems quite rational and comprehensible to us. We may testify that it is a reaction to the perception of external danger, viz., harm that is expected and foreseen. It is related to the flight reflex and may be regarded as an expression of the instinct of self-preservation. And so the occasions, that is to say, the objects and situations that arouse fear, will depend largely on our knowledge of and our feeling of power over the outer world…   

Proceeding now to neurotic fear, what are its manifestations and conditions…? In the first place we find a general condition of anxiety, a condition of free-floating fear as it were, which is ready to attach itself to any appropriate idea, to influence judgment, to give rise to expectations, in fact to seize any opportunity to make itself felt. We call this condition “expectant fear” or “anxious expectation.” Persons who suffer from this sort of fear always prophesy the most terrible of all possibilities, interpret every coincidence as an evil omen, and ascribe a dreadful meaning to all uncertainty. Many persons who cannot be termed ill show this tendency to anticipate disaster.

That is, fear is simply the lack of feeling powerful over our own world, whether it is caused by an oncoming tornado or by feelings of inadequacy. What we’re concerning ourselves with here is what Freud called neurotic fears. Yet, the basis for our reactions, that lack of control, does come from the same “fight of flight” process of survival. Both have their roots in control.

It was once explained to me that all vices – Sloth, Envy, Greed, Avarice, Gluttony, Pride, and Lust – are all major manifestations of fear. Aristotle, in Nichomachaen Ethics, made similar statements – explaining that virtues and vices were a spectrum, and deficiencies were the expressions of the ends of the spectrum. Management courses in many places talk about how to address employees fears with some of these same techniques but, again, no one really gets to the heart of dealing with fear head on. So, we know what fear might be and how it manifests, but how do we actually deal with it?

In younger days, I read a series of books based on “The Michael Teachings.” These teachings are channeled thoughts on life and living, how and why people do what they do, and general human relations. One aspect that stayed with me had to do with fears. Many people have a dominant negative attitude which they must overcome in their lives.

Some examples of these are 1) self-depreciation, 2) self-destruction, 3) martyrdom, 4) stubbornness, 5) greed, 6) impatience, and 7) arrogance. Many of us go through all of these at some time in our lives but, in general, we stick with one (maybe two) when we’re tired, depressed, feeling overwhelmed, or just not working at our peak. When our sense of comfort, our inner child, is attacked or feeling vulnerable, we resort to these attitudes which are really manifestations of fear.

These are born from our childhood and are placed there by our reactions to environment and experiences. Each of these blocks is based in a very specific fear and can be overcome, with conscious effort. These are the dominant negative attitudes with their spectrum of manifestation, to use Aristotle’s idea of a sliding scale of virtues and vices.

  1. Self-depreciation is the fear of not being good enough – manifests as Humility (positive) to Self-Abasement (negative).
  2. Greed is the fear of not having enough – manifests as Egoism | Desire (positive) to Voracity | Gluttony (negative).
  3. Self-destruction is the fear of losing control – manifests as Self-Sacrifice (positive) to Suicide |Immolation (negative).
  4. Martyrdom is the fear of not being worthy – manifests as Selflessness (positive) to Victim Mentality (negative).
  5. Stubbornness is a fear of change, of new situations – manifests as Willfulness |Determination (positive) to Obstinacy (negative).
  6. Impatience is the fear of missing or losing opportunities – manifests as Audacity (positive) to Intolerance (negative).
  7. Arrogance is the fear of being vulnerable – manifests as Pride (positive) to Vanity (negative).

In taking a deeper look into our own behavior, it may be easier to see how a reaction to one situation or another traces backward to one of these negative attitudes, and the fear which grounds it. When one swings from pride in a job well done to believing that the job done was the best job anyone has ever seen, there might be some fear going on there. That line that separates the two extremes can be different for different people, and it is clear that we all have different levels of tolerance and abilities to process reactions when we encounter fear. When we start delving beyond the surface of our own psyche, introspection uncovers, perhaps, those negative attitudes based in experiences of childhood.

Children create, depending on environmental experience and personal proclivities, distorted world views. We all create these distortions (big and small) and they eventually become our personal myths. Think: “I’m ugly,” “I’m stupid,” or “I’m not going to eat tonight.” Repeated situations or traumatic events reinforce this myth. Driven by a deeply-held fear, and steered by a distorted worldview, the emerging, dominant negative attitude springs into action in their lives, even unto adulthood.

The child thinks for instance, “I will stop life from hurting by taking control of my pain. I will hurt myself more  than anybody else can.” The child’s chosen survival strategy involves some sort of conflict, a war against self, against others or against life. It is a defensive behavior pattern which looks irrational from the outside but from the child’s perspective is perfectly rational. As we mature, we must address these dominant negative attitudes or they will endanger any chance of self-improvement. They hide our true nature. *

–  Excerpt from, The Michael Teachings

When someone lashes out, at me or others, I believe the reason is always fear. Fear is not the motivator of all activity we do. It always seems, though, that fear is the core of truly negative and destructive behaviors. Hatred, lies, and fanaticism are true fear-based reactions and attitudes. In dealing with these reactions in the world, we need to keep in mind that fear is the motivator, and that perhaps by making the person feel safe, by letting them air their real fears, healing can begin.

At another study group, we discussed fear and how to use it to unravel truth. It struck me then that Freemasonry provided us opportunities to run up against our own and other’s fears. From speaking in front of a group to taking charge of ritual work to providing leadership for volunteer work, Freemasonry offers us a chance to continually transmute fears into relationship gold by providing the types of experiences that test us and force us to face those fears.

Why does the Freemason care about fears? There is a lot of the world that runs on a steady diet of fear. The only way to find a better world and improve humanity is to rise above those things which cause us to live a base, irrational, and mundane life. By addressing and recognizing when people are moving in fear, we can possibly stop the cycle for them and for ourselves.

Additionally, Freemasons strive to be leaders. Leadership is about learning what motivates people; by learning their fears and helping them maneuver around them, we find talents and skills waiting to be uncovered. Leadership is shedding light on that which holds people back from being the very best they can be. Addressing fears is difficult unless we create true, honest dialogue. Freemasonry provides an environment to express honesty and be supported.

This honest dialogue extends to ourselves. What are our fears? What is our dominant negative attitude. and how does it affect me, my family, and my connections? What relationships are healthy and positive and which are not?

Asking “why” is a good start. Perhaps by looking at the motivations within us which cause us to have painful relationships with others, we can come face to face with our fear. In order to do that, we need to be able to actively look at our behavior, assess any damage we cause ourselves, and like Paul Atriedes from the Dune Series, turn an inner eye to the path it has taken, and find ourselves in its wake.

Try looking into that place where you dare not look!

You’ll find me there, staring out at you!  

― Paul-Muad’Dib to the Reverend Mother, from Frank Herbert’s “Dune”