The Holy Qur’an

The Holy Qur’an

In a recent blog post, we discussed what a sacred text might be. In conversation, the idea that the West view the Qur’an as suspect deserves some further introspection. Most people is North or South America have not read nor understand what the Qur’an is, and make assumptions about different interpretations of texts. Christians should not have any trouble struggling with the idea of different interpretations of texts. As of this writing, Wikipedia lists 108 completed versions of the Bible in English and dozens more partial and unfinished versions. That’s just English. That does not count the different languages and their own idiosyncrasies of language which may change subtle meanings. Let’s just say that there is a wide variety of translations, interpretations, and commentary on meanings contained within the Bible, perhaps more so than any other “sacred text.”

Be that as it may, the Qur’an is a relatively new piece of literature in the consciousness of Western peoples, mainly due to global conflicts and media hype. The Quran or Qur’an is one of the world’s newer religious texts, having thought to been revealed to Muhammad beginning in 609 C.E. over the course of 23 years by the Angel Gabriel. The book itself is considered a miracle and is considered to be one of the foundational reasons for Muhammad’s prophethood. Margot Patterson, in her book “Islam Considered: The Christian View,” states: “The Quran is of inestimable importance in Islam, more important to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians, even fundamentalist Christians.”

Because of the timing of its delivery and the beginnings of wider literacy amongst people at that time, the Quran was completed in written form within 20 years of the Prophet’s death, by the third caliph, Uthman, in 654 C.E. Even with its relatively new nature, there are slight variations that have to do with the spread of Islam in the years after the Prophet’s death, especially as it moved throughout Arabia, Persia, and eastward.

The meaning of the word Quran is “that which is recited” or “the recitation.” The whole foundation and working of the Quran is complicated and challenging. While there are many, many translations into languages other than Arabic – upwards of 112 in 2010 were counted – there seems to be lesser variation on Arabic texts than there are for Biblical translations. Muslims generally believe that to understand the true meaning of the Quran, one must learn Arabic and, even better, ancient Arabic. This would not dissimilar to learning Aramaic to understand the original translations of many of the works attributed to contributing writers of the Bible. To be clear, when using the term “Bible,” the meaning is both the old and new testaments.

The recitations, or lessons, contained within the book trace from Adam through to Muhammad, all of which are told with a specific type of prose language. Indeed, when reciting the Quran for prayer, there are different, codified ways to recite the text, with different emphasis given to each method. The Quran is organized into chapters called suras but they are organized in no particular order. Even though it covers the revelations to Moses and Jesus, both considered to be Allah’s Prophets, they are not necessary sequential. One does not generally read the Quran from beginning to end.

All of this information is easily obtained and digested by the serious investigator. What is a little more difficult to digest is the differences in meaning between the Quran and other religious texts, like the Bible. The Bible is viewed by Christians as generally being the influence of the divine on its individual writers, all conveying the message as they understand it. It is divinely inspired, for the most part, but not actually divine itself.

Because the Quran is generally a single Prophet’s words, an illiterate Prophet, the words are seen as purer, as divine as if the hand of God had grasped a pen and wrote them. Christians see that God became manifest in Jesus. While Muslims do not see God manifest in the actual Quran, it’s as close as one might be able to get to having god speak to them directly. This difference, subtle as it may be, is profound when it comes to understanding how the words of each are held in regard.

Additionally, because of nature of the texts, the directives given therein, the challenge ongoing for humanity, Islam believes, is to incorporate the Quran’s doctrine into humanity’s ever changing Earth. This leads one to the discussion about Sharia Law. Christianity and indeed, the Bible, are not structured in such a way as to govern a community.

The Christian Church is the last living legacy of the Roman Empire, a government in and of itself. Judaism and Islam have both created a law-giving structure built off religious, sacred texts, in which to govern a community or far-flung communities. They were not tied to a central government much as the Christian Church was since its inception. It’s difficult for many modern Christians to get their heads around; many typically see religious law as a kind of impingement on their freedoms. What one must understand is that many people feel a higher judgement above the laws of man; many would submit themselves to religious laws before they submit them to an independent government, one which may not have the sanctity of their after-life in mind.

Halakhah and Sharia have many similarities. The word sharia comes from the word halakhah, the Jewish canonical law. The difference between Christian canonical law is that it generally comes from a single source – the Pope. In this community based law system, rabbis or imams are responsible for interpretations and their interpretations stand unless a council may be called to help with judgments. The misunderstanding comes from most American’s belief that Muslims or Jews in America would prefer canonical law rather than the country’s legal judgments. This is generally untrue. An excellent article on this is located in the Jewish Observer, here: https://thejewishobserver.com/2013/04/16/afraid-of-sharia/. While there outliers across religions – yes, there are Christians who oppose American law as well – observant Jews and Muslims follow the laws of the country in which they live, even if these laws impinge on their religious freedoms. As the article states, polygamy is legal under sharia but even in Arabic countries, it is still rarely practiced. It is not practiced in the United States because it is illegal here, for every religion.

There have been many interfaith conferences between Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders. There will most likely need to be more. While this continues, the onus is on the rest of us, the believers of whatever faith we have, to learn more about the other people in this world, what they believe, how they act, what they find important. As the article in the Jewish Observer relates, we should not be afraid of any religion. We may need to work hard to understand the nature of religions and under and when something is mainstream and when it is fundamentalism. Just like political extremists, there is a great difference between the far ends of the spectrums of religions and a great deal in the middle. The edges is where extremists and fanaticism reside. This is where most people begin to go sideways in their understanding: believing the fundamentalism is the entirety of a religion.

Fundamentalism spans the globe. There are fundamentalist Buddhists, after all. Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to irreducible tenants of a religion. An example for Christians is the virgin birth of Jesus. In many cases, other Christians would not be seen as Christian because they do not necessarily believe in a virgin birth. Included in fundamentalism is the general literalness of translation. It is not enough to believe that Mary was “metaphorically” virgin; fundamentalist Christians believe that she was actually a virgin. There is no symbology in the meaning. The words of the sacred texts are interpreted literally, not symbolically. In general, fundamentalists are not militants unless they feel a fanaticism that is above all else. Militancy to faith also spans religions and it is born more from fear than from the religion itself. “Religious fanaticism is defined by blind faith, the persecution of dissents and the absence of reality.” In his book “Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk,” Neil Postman states that “the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming….(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are ‘false’, but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false.” One cannot confuse Fundamentalism, Fanaticism, and Faith. They are very different and cannot be singularly tied to any one religion.

The best way to combat fanaticism is understanding and knowledge. The Freemason knows that there is a fundamental law that underlies human nature, and these texts really seek to make that divine law accessible to all human beings, regardless of where, when, and to whom they are born. The Quran is piece of that understanding. We might be seen as the generations that demonized Islam, much as other generations and countries have demonized Judaism and Christianity. Do we have to be? Seeking to learn is what sets the discerning, intelligent human apart. We can’t develop a better humanity if we can’t understand what is important to all of us, not just ourselves. There is beauty, grace, and knowledge everywhere, if we can be strong enough to listen.

Sacred Lore

Sacred Lore

What is Sacred Lore? These words are on the tongue of almost every Freemason, regardless of obedience, religion, creed, or geography. Yet, I have seen little depth into figuring out what they are, how they made their way into a Lodge and Freemasonry, what is their significance in Lodge. Many writers have spoken about these volumes, which may be termed sacred lore or sacred law. The inference there is that one is suggestive of stories and myths, while the other is orderly and a series of rules and codes by which to live. Here we really get into the difference between dogma, ethics, and morality. Does one need a book to be a moral person? Does one need religion? Does a Freemason need religion to be a true Freemason?

Some Freemasons think so, and others do not. Since its inception, Freemasonry has juggled a thin line between religion and morality. Not all Masonic Orders are the same, and there are wild variations about what is acceptable and what is not. Some Freemasons do not allow anyone who is not an avowed, church-going Christian. Catholics are discouraged, and in some cases forbidden, from becoming Freemasons. Some orders of Freemasons allow atheists, and still others don’t care what you believe in, as long as it is “something greater than yourself.” Religion and Freemasonry have struck a unwieldy dance through the ages and it does not promise to get any better any time soon.

Most Freemasonry groups have a requirement for a general belief in “god,” and study religious texts as they apply to overall morality and ethical behavior. These religious texts are, for the most part, guidelines on how one should live their life and are the generally accepted texts of most major religions. Taken in their “symbolic” form, they are meant to be an expression of the highest human civilization can achieve, for itself and the world it lives in. Whether you call them codes, rules, mores, or dogma, the end result is the same: guidelines for how to be a good human being in a world filled with other human beings and living creatures. We need to get along to survive as a species and these texts are there to provide us the guidelines. While not everyone needs a guideline, many do. Even if you do not feel like you personally need a guideline, it is probably a good idea to know how other people think, in order to get along and be a generally good citizen of the world.

In general, many people take these books to be “inspired by God,” although written by men. When one asks,”Is the Tao de Ching a sacred text?”, the answer is likely to be yes. Written by man, it is still generally to be an inspired text to assist with the building of a human race. Why? Why did a culture choose that particular text to venerate? Isn’t it likely that it could be anything? What about the I-Ching? Is that not a sacred text? Perhaps it is, perhaps not. There may be many answers to the “what makes something sacred” question and any of them may be correct. It may be that the leaders of specific religions are the authority on their related texts; yet, who is to say really what makes something sacred? Perhaps we just take their word for it and call them all sacred.

To be sacred means that it’s entitled to reverence or veneration. It’s set apart – a text, in this case, that is set apart from other texts. This implies that being inspired by divinity sets it apart. It has a different quality; it was written by someone to be venerated or exalted, for example, or it has a quality that we recognize as being special, valued, or important.

The controversial question is this: who are we humans to say what is divinely inspired and what is not? From those who have read widely, it may be clear that works by Shakespeare are something special. Were they not language-changing for English speakers? I do not believe we mere mortals can say that these works were not divinely inspired and yet, we would not call them sacred texts. We assume that a sacred text must belong to a religion. Yet, there is sublime poetry by Sappho, Byron, and Borges that touches the face of god and strikes directly to our hearts. Anything that creates an intense, life-changing emotion could be communication from the divine and perhaps we would do well to listen.

Encyclopedia Britannica states that “…their common attribute is that their words are regarded by the devout as sacred.” That is, the words that are on the page are to be revered by the devout. This does not mean that they are revered by all… except, perhaps, by Freemasons. Freemasons, in general, accept all of the world’s “sacred” texts as words to be studied.

Where a religion may view its own texts with reverence and exclusivity, Freemasons see the wisdom included across all of the world’s religions and venerate them all equally. Why? Because morality and ethical behavior are really the crux of what these texts are about. They teach humans how to live well with each other, how to live well with the world around them, and how to be able to not only help the human race continue to survive but to increase the positive influence in the world and promote the general welfare and progress of human society.

These texts, because of their sacredness, are also open to negative and destructive morality. Religion taken to the extreme, any religion, corrupts the message of something positive into something consumptive. This has been true throughout the history of the human race but even more so in the last two thousand years. The baser human nature twists the message and those who live in primal fear follow that message. There are many who view “sacred texts” of religions with disdain and hatred for the corruption they have sown. In all of this, its up to the human element to decide how the word will be interpreted – for the good of humanity or the destruction of it.

There is truth everywhere we look, depending on how deeply we look. One must take the time to explore to really learn and to experience to really learn. What is it that Mulder would say? The Truth is out there…


Read more Sacred Texts at sacred-texts.com. They have nearly every conceivable sacred text that one could ever want to study.

Metaphor: The Language of the Mystics

Metaphor: The Language of the Mystics

In the outskirts of every society, you will find the mystics. Some are holy men in monasteries; some are Buddhists seeking enlightenment; some are public figures; some are Christians serving Jesus; some are Freemasons, like myself. Mystics have an amazing amount in common despite all that. They are not satisfied with what they learn in books, with ceremonies passed on for the sake of tradition, or with faith that comes from an assertion that “You really ought to believe in this.” What they want, instead, is conviction— the kind of conviction that comes only from a direct spiritual experience. Many say they have found it.

How do mystic seers convey their experience in words, or in stories? Our ancestors’ answer was: with tons and tons of different images – with metaphors, that is. Metaphors, after all, are symbols used to creatively describe a deeper reality, to give a sense of the color and taste of it. There are many metaphors in the teachings of Freemasonry.

How significant, then, is the relationship between mysticism and metaphor?

There are hundreds, maybe thousands or millions of metaphors in existence about mystical things. Rumi, the great Sufi poet, once said that God created everything in the outer world to serve as a metaphor for the inner. The outside world contains objects that can awaken and remind us of truths that, when applied, can be of real benefit. For example, if you read mystic literature about the soul, you might find the soul as ladder, the soul as garden, the soul as mountain, the soul as ark, the soul as mansion or castle, the soul as shining, living stone or even precious jewel, and so on. There are equally as many metaphors about the path to enlightenment.

34382722213_6e1d57324f_zA metaphor is a comparison. A metaphor establishes a relationship at once; it leaves more to the imagination. It is a shortcut to the meaning; it sets two unlike things side by side and makes us see the likeness between them. A metaphor is a comparison that doesn’t use the words “like” or “as,” while a simile is one that does use those words.

Why do metaphors in the writings of the mystics even matter? As the great consciousness-researchers Julian Jaynes and Owen Barfield both explained in their writings, it is very difficult to discuss consciousness except through metaphor. Metaphors create new ways of thinking, new realities, and new worlds.

Do metaphors shape the way we think? Let us look at an example.

Juliet is the Sun
From Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is the metaphor, “Juliet is the sun.”

This statement equates two different things: one human, the other sidereal. Juliet is a human; the sun is a star. How do they get to be equal?

For the purpose of illustration, I will show how a metaphor is born, logically. We could say:

There is a human called Juliet.
There is a star called the Sun.
The human called Juliet is radiant.
The star called the Sun is radiant.
Therefore, the human called Juliet is like a star, called the Sun (because of the radiance).

Not very thrilling or poetic, is it? How can we make it more exciting? How is the metaphor created? First, we delete all the unnecessary words and steps, only leaving the simile “Juliet is like the Sun.” The final deletion comes about by eliminating the word, “like.” Voila! “Juliet is the Sun.” 34382660583_c940b54102_z

As we can see, this metaphor comes alive through deletion and transformation. Keep taking away words until something “becomes” something else. Keep stripping away the Maya and the illusion until we arrive at the truth: the direct perception or the mystical experience.

In the words of William Blake, “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to a man as it is, infinite.”

If you have ever had an “aha” moment, there is something wonderfully joyous about experiencing the mystical – to remember that we have spiritual faculties in us open to the dimensions beyond. Wonder. Awe. The metaphorical language of the mystics points us to the stars – bridging earth to heaven and to a world beyond itself.

But how do we react when we encounter something that exists outside of our realm of study? Does everything have to fit into what is already known, otherwise it doesn’t exist? The experience of the Transcendent seems to defy expression.

One of the greatest mystical saints of all times, St. Teresa of Avila, says that the intellect cannot go with her to the higher realms. It must stay behind. She writes in her book The Interior Castle: “One should let the intellect go and surrender oneself into the arms of love, for His Majesty will teach the soul what it must do at that point.”

I do believe the central role of metaphor in shaping consciousness can be impactful in someone’s life. I also believe the intellect is not always our ally. 35192178685_29b4993ed4_z

Such was the case with Edgar Mitchell, astronaut on the Apollo 14 mission. On his return trip from the moon, he stared out of the window at our blue planet, Earth. At that moment something profound hit him. All of a sudden he was lifted out of his normal consciousness and felt an intense oneness with planet Earth and the universe. In a flash of higher consciousness a higher truth was revealed to him that dramatically changed his intellectual perspective. (Watch Edgar Mitchell’s “We Are One” video)

How lovely to live in possibility, to think in beautiful metaphors, to cherish the precious jewel in each sacred word,  and to overflow with sweeping amazement. Your turn. What mystical metaphor would you want to leave behind as a jewel to humanity?


Note: Featured images are from the Art Exhibition, Beyond the Stars; The Mystical Landscapes from Monet to Kandinsky.

Are Sacred Places Important? The Labyrinth at Chartres

Are Sacred Places Important? The Labyrinth at Chartres

In our present time, there seems to be a huge market for “buying” your way to enlightenment. Everyone is peddling a secret. Chant this mantra. Hold this crystal. Buy some incense. Rub that oil. Say these words. Go to this retreat. Some of these things may have some value. Spiritual longing is a real part of the human experience. Labyrinths hold a special attraction for me. Can a labyrinth really be a tool for enlightenment? Are sacred places important?

The first labyrinth that I ever experienced was a Chartres Labyrinth, although I was not lucky enough to be in at the famous labyrinth in Chartres, France. I liked it so much I began to investigate labyrinths in general and the Chartres Labyrinth in particular.

Chartres Cathedral was built one thousand years ago to be the site of a Mystery School. Not only was the cathedral an architectural feat but was one of the leading learning centers at the time. The edifice combined the visionary teachings of Plato with Christian mysticism. You must walk the entire labyrinth path before gaining entrance to the Temple. It is the “way in,” if you will, a Chamber of Reflection of sorts.

Those who have been to the actual site in France say that the effect of the Cathedral is peaceful and nurturing. You are at rest, left to wander or to meditate in tranquility. The atmosphere suggests that the veil between the human and celestial worlds is thin, and God is very near. It represents the ideal of a sacred space: a blending of the divine and material. The impact of Chartres on people at that time must have been enormous. How can a place be so heavenly?

Sacred Geometry

The Divine mystery of the labyrinth walk might be due in part to the magical pattern. One path leads inwards to the center, and the same path leads back out again. Chartres has an eleven-circuit design, divided into four quadrants. They are encircled by an outer ring of lunations, thought to represent a type of lunar calendar. The quadrants suggest the even armed cross. At the center is a Rosette pattern of 6 petals which is the place of 14761614336_92dabf6bf4_zrest. It reminds us of the sacred lotus, symbol of enlightenment.

In medieval times, the path was considered a substitute for a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. It is symbolic of the pilgrim’s journey into his Soul: the Center. It must be a two-way journey, which ends at the starting point. The pilgrim must not seek to remain inside. He goes and comes back. He visits. He walks from the unreal to the real, from the periphery to the center, from the mundane to the spiritual and back. Is this not life?

Symmetry of the Design

In his book, The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral, Louis Charpentier recalls his first experience of being inside the cathedral. He was immediately struck with the impression that “everything contained its opposite in itself.” He said that the same balance contained in the secret of the Chinese Tai Chi, is at work in Chartres where the “proportions, orientation, position and symbolism have all been designed to alert the psyche and refresh the spirit.”

This idea is hinted at in Chapter 14 of the Tao Te Ching

LabyrinthWhat we look for beyond seeing 
And call the unseen,
Listen for beyond hearing
And call the unheard.
Grasp for beyond reaching
And call the withheld,
Merge beyond understanding
In a oneness
Which does not merely rise and give light,
Does not merely set and leave darkness,
But forever sends forth a succession of living things as mysterious
As the unbegotten existence to which they return.

Charpentier further states:

“If the pilgrim experienced the entire sensuousness of the cathedral, it would be because the body’s senses had apprehended all the musical and geometrical proportions, and all the numbers and lines expressed in the building’s interior.”

Geometric forms that exist in the labyrinth or even the Masonic Temple such as the cube, triangle, sphere, square, or oblong square could act as a doorway into various states of awareness. “God Geometrizes.” Sacred Temples can be said to stand for an unseen condition of something that can be known.

Beauty as an Expression of Truth

Divine archetypes are said to be not only doorways to the unknown, but as Plato has indicated, they are the very essence of beauty. The nature of beauty cannot always be described in words, and so it is possible, that certain symbols act as a bridge between the visible and the invisible. Satisfying both a physical and metaphysical need, sacred architecture can:

2248714047_a3a0d5da4f_z

1. Provide an energetic focusing center on the physical plane wherein the mysteries are learned and enacted;

2. Serve those seekers who enter the building and become intellectually and spiritually stimulated.

The more beautiful the appearance in form – the more closely will it correspond with spiritual truth. Buckminster Fuller stated it like this, “When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty, but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.”

My sense is that if a person does not appreciate beautiful or holy things, he will lose them. Without reverence, the sacred feeling will diminish and then be forgotten. Thereafter, his only concern will be his personal comfort and selfish desires.

On the other hand, as we honor holy places we will be entrusted with holy things. Just the opposite of disbelief and despair, the goal is eternal life and peace. Contemplating art and architecture, the spiritual and the divine, moves us away from the mundane world of the daily round.

Do sacred spaces make us more enlightened? Some have scoffed at labyrinths, masonic temples, mantra, and things like crystals or incense for centuries. In times of need, I have tried all of them.

The History of the All Seeing Eye

The History of the All Seeing Eye

What people in the U.S.A. commonly referred to as the “All Seeing Eye” is more appropriately called the “Eye of Providence.” No, not Rhode Island. This would be the more divine providence – the big guy watching over all of us. Or gal. Or it. Whichever you prefer.

The Eye of Providence is the idea that some divine force is watching over us all, sees our deeds and actions, and judges accordingly. The Eye is associated with the Judgement card of the Tarot: Alchemical texts of the 17th Century and Egypt.

While the Eye of Providence, as noted above, has from the 18th Century C.E. onward been associated with Christianity, the idea of an “all-seeing God” has been around for Millenia. What is called “The Eye of Horus” originally was known as the Wadjet Eye, for the goddess Wadjet.

EyeofHorus

The Eye of Horus

Wadjet, as many can read on the Internet and in several Egyptian Mythology books, was one of the oldest deities in Egypt and dates from the pre-dynastic period. She is associated with Lower Egypt as well as the papyrus. Her name symbolizes the color of blue/green – the color of the papyrus plant. She is nearly always associated with a cobra and is considered the protector of pharaohs and the ruling classes of Egypt.

She’s seen as the Goddess, which represents time, heaven, and hell, and she is an ardent protector, especially of children. Over the millennia, she has been merged with many other goddesses, such as Bast and her sister, Nekhebet, Goddess of Upper Egypt, who is shown as a vulture. Wadjet has also been associated with Buto, the city which first revered her – originally named Per-Wadjet.

According to Herodotus, in his Histories ( Herodotus, The Histories, ii 55, and vii 134), “The Egyptians were also the first to introduce solemn assemblies, processions, and litanies to the gods; of all which the Greeks were taught the use by them. It seems to me a sufficient proof of this that in Egypt these practices have been established from remote antiquity, while in Greece they are only recently known.” There is note of a Temple to Wadjet in Buto (Per-Wadjet) that had an Oracle in it; it was considered that the Greek practice of using Oracles was co-opted from the Egyptians who, as Herodotus states, “taught them in their use.” 

The Eye of Wadget

The Eye of Wadget

Originally, oracles were used to be able to link the individual to the divine. A worshiper would travel to the oracle with a very specific and important question relevant to their lives. Kings would consult oracles to strategize on war or gain insight on divine events which would influence their people, like famine or floods. Using auguries drawn from various animals innards, smoke, visions, the flight of doves, or other “symbols,” the oracle would define the upcoming events based on intuition and divine inspiration. Oracles were eventually replaced by priests and religious figures as a way to connect the individual with their god or goddess, and in a way be a conduit for the divine.

We humans have always been looking for a way to have some kind of communion with the mind of our Divine source, whether it is through other individuals, hallucinogens, runes, tarot, channelling, or simply study. We look for some higher source to tell us what we ought to do, what will help us be successful, happy, healthy, or free. In this case, I find the idea of the Eye of Wadjet to be a symbol that connects us to a dusty, mythic past with some vague idea of what it really meant.

We’ve gone from the protection of a goddess to the protection of a country or our ideals, or maybe even our prosperity. I think this is the most interesting thing in this: the symbols we have in our daily lives are historical treasures that have been modified as our cultures modify them. They come to reflect what, and how we think about the world.

Legacy

Legacy

The human condition: it is “the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotional nature, aspiration, conflict, and mortality.” One key element was left off this Wikipedia definition: creation. Humans were born to create. We die hoping we have created enough. Humans were born to build, adjust, renovate, improve, birth, tend, cultivate – to create.

This might be a general assumption of the readers here, but we are all searching for the meaning of life. Why are we here? If you’re Neil Peart, the answer is “because we’re here. Roll the Bones.” If you’re Jung, it’s to “realize a vision.” The Bible (Isaiah 43:7) tells us that the purpose of man’s existence is to “glorify God.” Pain, frustration, weakness, and chaos seem to all stem from a lack of purpose in our lives, or a not having a goal towards which we strive. We come to the World’s Table with expectations, complications, and baggage. By the time we’re ready to create something, we stumble. What are we doing here on Earth, at this time and place? We have way overthought the question. Our purpose is to create. It really is that simple.

All of the examples above can all be distilled to creation. From babies to businesses, from community to chaos to cash reserves – humans cannot help but build something. Even if it’s a stack of beer cans beside the couch while we chill, we’re building. Our minds want to make things better, bigger, faster, higher, more pleasing, more chaotic, different, and new. We build better drugs, faster cars, and higher buildings. Think carefully, when are you *not* creating? Even your body is creating while you sleep.

A recent conversation with some friends involved discussing the attributes of avatars, archetypes, and virtues. This was in conjunction with a question posed to an audience: Do you want to be (a) God? What an audacious question! Do I want to be God or a God? Oh, heck no. Hubris has brought down many a man, and woman, and I have no desire to experience that pain. It did bring me back to the question of “why am I here, then?” Having thought about that often, I find it’s difficult to distill a lifetime of thought into so simple of a question. Am I here to be a god, or THE God? That’s a firm “no” in my mind. The very idea makes me shudder. I’m here to be a human being: the best expression of my own form of human being that I can be. Yes, that’s it. Very firm “no” on the “god” thing.  And then the niggling, wormy, repetitive thoughts of legacy5humanness and godhood would not leave me alone.

What is a “god?” To Webster, it is: “ a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically :  one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality — Greek gods of love and war.” Interestingly enough, if it is capitalized, it means, “ the supreme or ultimate reality.” Whoa. Wait. NOT a person? So, someone who is a “god” controls part of the reality, but God controls all of reality. Gods and gods create realities. They create.

If our desire is to create, our very need for existence is to create, and God is commonly known as “the creator, the controller of reality” well… yes, let’ say it – Are we trying to be like God? Are we trying to BE Gods? It seems we humans do nothing but try to create and live in our own realities. In Genesis 1:26 though 28, the Bible talks about God making mankind in “their” image, and “he made them man and woman.” We’ll set the plurality of that aside for right now but divinization has been around for 2000 years as a Christian concept. In the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202), said that God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.” Irenaeus also wrote, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.”

Maybe we have no choice. Our destiny as a species is to become gods, or God-like. Or even God. We’re inevitably going there, through our experience of creating, whatever it might be. As much mental gymnastics that we do via theology, psychology, astronomy or astrology, it all ends up in the same destination: we live, we create, and we die to forward the human species to return to their God home. We are creating our realities. We control our reality. People attach such reverence, deference, fear, and glory to the term God; I think, however, that it is the same way with ice cream and puppies, money and fame: it’s a human lens viewing and interpreting but it simply falls short. There is a rose-colored lens coating our idea of God, via religion or not, and that rose-color makes everything pretty. What if It just is, and we’re part of the “It?” We can categorize as Archetypes or manifest as avatars or embody ideals and in the end, we create whatever is our own special aspect of the Divine. The individual voice of God, whatever you legacy2deem that to be, becomes a painting, a piece of music, a child, a poem, a home, an organization, a community, or a new way of thinking.

The aforementioned conversation inevitably turned to “Well, we’re either supposed to be gods or not, so what?” If we’re supposed to become higher expressions of ourselves, then that’s great. But we’re dead. The point is…? Humanity is constantly changing. Maybe we wouldn’t go as far as saying “evolving” but perhaps that is wrong. Perhaps evolution is not a conscious “thing.” That is, we evolve, regardless of whatever we think about it. It’s not about being conscious about evolving; it’s not even about evolving consciousness. The human being species continues to propel itself forward via creation. The evolution will be a reflection of that creation. I think we may have to forget about the what (evolution) and work toward the creations that are within our aspect of the “God whole.” In other words, if my “god-given” gift is speech, then speak. Speak to the best ability and training you can and make an impact. Stir people. Find the Truth of what your little land plot is of “God” and make it prosperous. Forget fame and approbation: do the best you are able, no matter what it is.

In truth, isn’t that the Legacy we’re leaving for our descendants? For the Humans that follow us, we’re leaving what we create, whether it is more humans or more books, fine art, the echoes of music, or beautiful gardens. Maybe it is also a life saved because we cared enough to write the policies for the Red Cross that allowed that to happen or because we ran the sound equipment that recorded Martin Luther King’s speeches. It’s the difference between someone finding a new way forward because you took the time to bring your gifts to an organization, like Freemasonry, or not finding any kind of guiding light at all. Perhaps they would, eventually through some other organization or group; yet, it wouldn’t be the same, would it? It legacy4would be different, and thus cast a different turn on the evolution of Humanity. The best expression of who we are is the creations we give by utilizing our talents, whatever they may be. Like light in a prism, we’re individual colors that come together to make a whole. The idea is that we contribute what god-like qualities we have to weave a whole that helps our descendants move closer to a better expression of the god-like qualities, and so on.

Weird as that may be, maybe that’s what our ancestors were also trying to say when they said that God made humans in their image, and God became “Word” so that we could understand what it was like to be God. In our limited capacity as human beings, in a mortal world, we only see part of the whole. Similar to the workings of a Masonic Lodge, where the many play their parts but only one can see the ALL, we humans are the many. We’re part of the All, but we don’t get to see it yet. We don’t get to play in that playground until its time. When it is time for our individual self? No. When it is time for all. We get to move forward glacially. Progress measured in epochs. When the evolution clock ticks, it won’t seem like evolution at all.

Is Freemasonry a Cult?

Is Freemasonry a Cult?

As one of the largest organizations in the world, Freemasonry has weathered its share of criticism. In America, questions have been raised as to whether the fraternal organization qualifies as a “cult.” The Oxford Dictionary defines cult as “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” However, another definition describes a cult as “A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.” Obviously, the definition utilized makes a difference as to which organizations fit the term “cult.”  Is Freemasonry a cult?

 Sociological Analysis of Cults

The German political economist and sociologist Max Weber is considered to be a founder of Sociology:  the scientific study of social behavior, including its origins, development, maxweberorganization, and institutions. In his book Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Weber describes the role charismatic leaders play in the formation and operations of extreme groups such as cults.

Weber writes about charismatic leaders as possessing a “certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Weber established a way to distinguish different religious organizations, such as churches, sects, and cults. Utilizing a continuum along which religions fall, Sociologists differentiate between protest-like orientation of sects to the equilibrium maintaining churches. The diagram below illustrates a church-sect typology continuum.

ReligionChurchSectCultBeginning in the 1930s, Sociology was utilized to explore cults within the context of the study of religious behavior. In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices. Sociologist Roy Wallis argued that cults are “oriented towards the problems of individuals, loosely structured, tolerant, non-exclusive” without possessing a “clear distinction between members and non-members” and having “a rapid turnover of membership.”

By sociological typology, cults are new religious groups representing a radical rejection of the teachings and beliefs of established faith traditions. Often resulting during periods of social turmoil, cults tend to operate within a distinct period of time before either collapsing or amalgamating into another larger religious group. Three main characteristics are often used in defining the “cult” status of an organization:

  1. Founded by a charismatic leader, as described by Max Weber
  2. Claim a new revelation or insight from God that deviates from traditional faiths
  3. Viewed with extreme suspicion by society and dominant religions

Freemasonry and Religion

Freemasonry is an ancient system designed to impart morality and ethics and teach mutual service to its members. Utilizing the matrix enumerated above, we can examine whether the organization qualifies as a cult by sociological metrics. Modern Freemasonry is generally traced back to the early 1700s although some groups claim it existed prior to the 18th century and was not founded by a single leader.

Furthermore, Masonry is founded upon traditional faiths and does not espouse any new bible-lightrevelations. Within a Masonic Lodge, many holy texts are revered including the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and the Hindu Vedas. All of these books provide examples of moral truths, such as the Golden Rule, and constitute ethical guides to teach individuals.

Expanding beyond sociology, general definitions of a cult, as listed at the beginning of this article, are tied to whether or not the organization is a religion. Although Masonry expresses a belief in a Supreme Deity and the immortality of the human soul, Freemasonry is not a religion. Each individual is entitled to hold their own view about the nature of God.

Within Freemasonry there are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. In order to join Freemasonry, individuals must believe in God, but they are left to their own choice as to the attributes of God. The renown Free Masonic scholar, Albert Mackey, wrote describing the religious inclusivity of the fraternity by stating: “God is equally present with the pious Hindu in the Temple, the Jew in the Synagogue, the Mohammedan in the Mosque, and the Christian in Church.”

To qualify as a “Religion,” Academic Scholars have established characteristics including, but not limited to:

  1. A Plan of SalvationThe-Four-vedas-of-Hinduism
  2. A Theology
  3. Dogmas
  4. Sacraments
  5. Clergy

Freemasonry lacks the tenets which define an organization as a “Religion.” Instead, Masonry seeks to make good individuals better through education, improvement, and service. While containing religious elements, Masonry is also a fraternal organization that encourages morality, charity, and philosophical studies. It has no clergy, no sacraments, nor a prescribed path of salvation. Moreover, Masonry rejects dogma and inspires individuals to utilize reason to search for Truth.

Among Freemasons, discussions and debates on social, philosophical, or religious questions help in understanding the universality of mankind and inspiring the let-there-be-lightintellectual development. Such discussion enable all members to reach for a greater understanding of themselves and Humanity in the pursuit of fulfilling their duties as Freemasons.

In Universal Co-Masonry, those duties include: to think high, to do well, to be tolerant to others, to search after truth, and to practice liberty under law, fraternal equality, justice and solidarity. Utilizing builders’ tools as symbols, Freemasonry teaches basic moral truths that enable individuals to meet in harmony and be charitable.

Questioning Religion: The Rock Opera Jesus Christ Superstar

Questioning Religion: The Rock Opera Jesus Christ Superstar

In 1971, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice debuted the rock opera, “Jesus Christ Superstar,” on Broadway at the Mark Hellinger Theatre. The musical began as a rock opera concept album which was released in 1970, and a film adaptation of the musical was released in 1973. The narrative is based on the New Testament Gospels’ account of the final week of Jesus’ life: spanning from the preparation of Jesus and his disciples prior to their arrival in Jerusalem to Jesus’ crucifixion. A worldwide phenomenon, “Jesus Christ Superstar” has been professionally produced in forty-two countries and has grossed more than $205 million dollars since 1970.

The Final Seven DaysJudas1

The Rock Opera begins focused on the Apostle, Judas Iscariot as he watches Jesus with a group.  Judas expresses his growing concerns that Jesus and the disciples will be perceived as a threat to the Roman Empire and will receive deadly retribution.  In somber tones, he reflects his premonition “My mind is clearer now. At last all too well, I can see where we all soon will be.” As the pragmatist of the drama, Judas sees Jesus’ current behavior as reckless, foolish, and selfish.

Thinking that Jesus has put his own stardom above the safety of the group and the Jewish people, Judas pleads with Jesus with a series of questions. Has Jesus forgotten how put down the Jewish people are by the Romans? Has Jesus forgotten that the Empire has enormous power and could crush them if they are not careful? Does Jesus not see how close he is to ending all the good they have accomplished in the last three years?

More than anything, Judas wants to be heard and wants Jesus to listen to reason. He raises a series of valid points as to why Jesus should abandon his super-stardom and keep a low profile, so that the group can continue to spread tJudasheir message and help the people. It is important to note that at this point in history there were dozens of men claiming to be the Messiah: the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies. Each one of the “supposed” messiah has his own group of followers and message. To Judas, this Messiah role was never a part of his group’s trajectory, and he is concerned that the public mistakenly believes that their movement is based on his Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Clearly confused by this turn of events, he demands that Jesus answer if he believes that he is the Messiah. If Jesus is the Messiah, Judas feels entitled to that information considering his dedication and service to their cause. The musical does an uncanny job of allowing Judas to serve as a “placeholder” for all Christians who are questioning their faith in Jesus. Jesus remains an enigma both to Judas and the questioning audience. Just what was he thinking in the week leading up to his crucifixion? 

The High Priest, Caiaphas and his associate Annas, echo Judas’ concern that Jesus’ popularity will bring down the wrath of the Romans. The Priests’ Council determines that Jesucaiaphass and his movement must be crushed, and that Jesus must be killed, sharing the fate of John the Baptist. Undeterred by the danger involved, Jesus and his disciples triumphantly enter into Jerusalem, surrounded by cheering, palm waving crowds singing, “Hosanna.” Finding the Temple overrun by money lenders and unsavory merchants, Jesus lashes out and angrily throws them out of the Temple. At this point, Judas decides that Jesus has lost his mind, and he feels obligated to do something to stop the impending Roman attack on the disciples and the Jewish people. He is driven by fear, trying to protect those he cares about and himself.  What he does to stop the Romans is for the good of all, he believes, and it is not because he seeks “blood money.” He is aware enough to realize that he may be “damned for all time,” but he acts because he feels he has no choice otherwise. Judas goes to the Romans and tells them that Jesus will be at the Garden of Gethsemane the following night and receives thirty silver pieces in return for the information. JesusChristSuperstar Last Supper

The next night at the Garden, the audience witnesses the famous last supper. When Jesus announces that one of his followers will betray him, an angry Judas jumps up and retorts “cut the dramatics you know very well who!…To think I’d admired you,” Judas lashes out. “Well now I despise you!” Jesus responds by calling him “a liar” and tells him to go. The two men, teacher and pupil, share a final embrace, and the audience can see the pain, compassion, and regret exhibited on both sides. “Every time I look at you,” a frustrated Judas sings, “I don’t understand, why you let the things you did get so out of hand.” He then flees to retrieve the Roman soldiers and identifies Jesus with a kiss. Jesus is arrested, sent to a series of inquisitions: first with Caiaphas, the High Priest; second, with the Roman Pontius Pilate; and third, with King Herod.

In the performance, Pontius Pilate serves as another questioning archetype, compassionate and full of reason. Pilate argues Jesus’ innocence before the crowds, only to have Jesus’ supporters retort, “we have no king but Caesar.” The angry mob now threatens to end Pilate’s career if he does not fulfill his duty and crucify Jesus. Pilate knows Jesus’ innocence and entreats Jesus to save his own life, but Jesus declares the future to be fixed. Responding with disgust, Pilate declares Jesus a fool, sentences Jesus to death, and exclaims “die if you want to, you misguided martyr.” With the crowds screaming, “Crucify him,” Jesus is whipped, sentenced, and condemned to death on the cross. 

Judas and Jesus: Pragmatism and Idealism for the Same Cause

“We made him a type of Everyman. Judas did not think of himself as a traitor. He did what he did, not because he was basically evil, but because he was intelligent. He could see Christ becoming something he considered harmful to the Jews. Judas felt that they had been persecuted enough. As far as what Christ was saying, general principles of how human beings should live together, Judas approved of this. What Judas was worried about was that as Christ got bigger and bigger and more popular, people began switching their attentions from what Christ was saying to Christ himself… Judas reckoned that if the movement got too big and people began worshiping Christ as a god, the Romans who were occupyingJesusChristCross Israel would come down and clobber them.” – “Jesus Christ Superstar” Lyricist Tim Rice

Jesus, Judas, and the rest of the disciples share a belief in the philosophy of love, peace, and brotherhood. They dedicate their lives to serving humanity, but they maintain very different beliefs in what choices the group should make in the final days of Jesus’ life. The dichotomy between Judas and Jesus is a fascinating one. Judas is the practical one, concerned with image, message, public opinion, money, etc. Jesus is concerned only with the Message. That central relationship shows us a mammoth tug-of-war between pragmatism, represented by Judas, and ideas, represented by Jesus. Judas finds himself constantly frustrated and confused by Jesus’ refusal to look at the practical side of their situation, as verbalized in many songs from the Rock Opera, including “Heaven On Their Minds” and “Superstar.” They fight because they both care passionately about the cause and about each other. There are three main arguments that break out between them, during the songs “Strange Thing Mystifying” and “Everything’s Alright,” as well as, at the Last Supper. Judas acts as a kind of business agent and PR man, concerned over the political message they’re sending out, the perceived inconsistencies in Jesus’ teachings, and the money wasted on Mary’s ointments and oils.superstarcarlanderson

Questioning Religion and Freemasonry’s Role

Freemasonry is not a religion, but it requires its members to believe in God, whatever name they choose to give him. Masonry embraces all world religions, rejects dogmatic teachings, and teaches its members to question their beliefs. Those who have studied comparative religion will find that many facets of Christianity, including the Genesis story, the sacrifice and resurrection hero myth, and the miracles performed by Jesus were present in other world religious texts long before Jesus was born. While these similarities do not discount all of Christianity for many believers, they do raise questions that are voiced in Jesus Christ Superstar.  In the song “Superstar,” Judas questions Jesus about Christianity’s relationship with other world religions and whether all religions are essentially one. He sings, “Tell me what you think about your friends at the top. Who’d you think besides yourself’s the pick of the crop? Buddha, was he where’s it at, is he where you are? Could Mahomet move a mountain or was that just PR?” A Mason is at liberty to practice any religion in the worship of God, but Freemasonry does obligate him to question his beliefs in an effort to better know himself and his God.