A common criticism people who condemn the mass immigration of recent years face is that they are unchristian. This has always struck me as a particularly insincere argument, and goodness knows we get plenty of those nowadays, because it completely reframes Christianity into something else entirely. No longer is it a spiritual path centred on the supernatural reality of God who became man in order to open up a way out of the material world for those who would accept it. It is now just a form of secular humanism.
The fact that there is no Jew nor Greek nor male nor female nor free nor slave in Jesus Christ does not mean we are all the same and all equal. It means that all human beings can find salvation in Christ. So it means that there is a kind of unity but the unity is in those who have turned to God through Christ. It is not spoken of as universal for all human beings under any circumstances. Besides, there are still Jews, Greeks, men, women and so on. There is now something that unites them at a higher level but on the ordinary, everyday level they remain what they are. They are not suddenly an amorphous, identikit mass. What is more, that quote from St Paul might be read in tandem with another from Acts chapter 17 verse 26 where he says, "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands." I am not saying this proves anything one way or the other but if you are seeking to make a point through Biblical quotes you can't just select the ones you like and ignore the ones that don't back up your already formed convictions.
Christianity is concerned with the salvation of the soul. That's all. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. So the immigration question, which is a worldly matter, is peripheral to the core purpose of Christianity. That means that the opening up of a country's borders to large numbers of foreign people to the degree that the country is radically transformed does not form part of a Christian's essential duties. However, the soul that would be saved must clearly behave in a certain way concordant with that, part of which is to love his neighbour. In obeying this commandment great Christians have made enormous self-sacrifices to benefit others. But what is right on an individual level is not necessarily so on a national one, and if you think loving your neighbour means allowing unlimited immigration then you must determine who your neighbours are. Are they the people thousands of miles away you don't know or are they your actual countrymen, many of whom might have their lives severely impacted by the arrival of newcomers? You see, glib generalities are not so simple after all and even sayings of Christ have to be understood with discrimination and wisdom, and not forced into inappropriate context.
On one occasion Christ fed the 5,000 but he didn't do that all the time. He left plenty of people hungry during his ministry. He healed the sick but he didn't heal everybody, and when he was asked why the man to whom he restored sight was born blind, he said it was so that the works of God might be made manifest. In other words, his miracles were mainly to demonstrate God's power and reality. If Christianity really were principally about healing the sick and feeding the poor then Christ didn't do very well. As he himself said, "The poor will always be with you." That doesn't mean don't heal the sick or feed the poor but it does mean don't claim that Christ would automatically say we should welcome all immigrants with open arms, no matter how many of them come. The principal focus of his teaching was spiritual not humanistic. It was heaven not earth.
This debate reminds me of something I read recently on Bruce Charlton's blog where he discussed sexual morality and made the point that sexual sin, although not the greatest of sins in itself, has the effect, if unrepented, of dulling the mind to proper morality in general. See here. In the post by Ed Feser which inspired Bruce's post someone had commented to dispute this point that we are far more advanced in matters of gender equality and racial equality than earlier generations were and this happened after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Point disproved according to him but I don't think so. He took these things to be moral matters but that just reflected his own prejudices and his assumptions that they are true and that someone holding these attitudes is more moral than someone who does not. But actually these are ideological attitudes not moral ones. Of course, there is overlap, sometimes considerable overlap, but real morality is based on the truth of God as manifested in the order of being expressed through creation. It is not a question of human opinion. Gender and racial equality are not spiritual beliefs, they are political ones. There is certainly no foundation for them, as understood nowadays, in either traditional religion or scripture.
By the same token, the idea of mass immigration being something a Christian must accept, even accept with joy, is not based on anything in traditional religion or scripture. Love and justice are part of the spiritual life but cultural self-destruction is not a religious obligation and those who claim that it is, or that which causes it is, are distorting Christianity and reducing it to a materialistic level to suit a leftist agenda which is primary. Which does not mean that the opposite is true, that Christianity by default must be against mass immigration; only that other criteria must be brought to bear to provide an answer. Bringing comfort to the suffering is a spiritual duty and no religion has approached Christianity in doing this. But you are instructed to love your neighbour as yourself which rather implies that you must first love yourself. Mass immigration is a kind of self-hatred since it will inevitably lead to a nation's destruction as the cultural entity it traditionally has been. It is, and I think has been conceived as such, an attack on a nation's soul disguised as humanitarianism.
Monday 29 July 2019
Saturday 27 July 2019
Mass Immigration
Does the mass immigration that has taken place in the West over the last 60 years, gathering considerable pace over the last 25, have a spiritual purpose or is it intended to effectively destroy the traditions of the West by dissolving the sense of national identity and connection to the past, and then construct a new culture based exclusively on secular/liberal principles?
First of all, what would any spiritual purpose be? I can think of two potential ones. It could be to introduce and establish the idea that humanity is one. We are all brothers and sisters with divisions external only. Of course, this is the popular trope and, because nothing is based on nothing, it has much truth to it. Which necessarily makes it harder to argue against. But is it so true that it overrides all other truths or does it need to be counterbalanced by less generalised considerations?
Then there is the idea which is summed up by something the Masters once told me that sometimes the less evolved can only advance through the sacrifice of the more evolved. This also makes sense because (I'm speaking frankly here) the less civilised groups and races can often only progress by mixing with the more developed. This is a hard fact that takes no notice of anyone's pride, self-image or sensitivities.
Set against this the reality that when you do add a large number of people of a lower culture with those more advanced you run the risk of bringing down the higher culture. This understanding was the rationale behind the Indian caste system, and often when it has occurred in the past it has seen the collapse of a civilisation. I'm not going to argue about the words lower and higher. If you don't accept that these describe something real, you are blinding yourself to reality for ideological reasons. That the lower may have things the higher lacks is beside the point and no excuse for ignoring the essential superiority of the higher. Some animals are faster or stronger than man but that doesn't alter human superiority. To those who say it is merely the degree of adaptation to environment that can objectively determine whether something is better or worse, I would ask do you really think an ant is equal to a man or a shark to Shakespeare? It is consciousness that indicates what is higher or lower, and the degree to which that can respond to and express higher realities. Naturally this statement implies the existence of higher realities but I am not writing for materialists here but for those who think a little more deeply about life and what it is. Materialism is just an excuse not to accept your spiritual responsibilities.
Western civilisation was more advanced than any other, scientifically, artistically and even spiritually because, despite the highly developed Indian and Chinese cultures, the West had Christianity. But it lost its way when it abandoned God and that meant that all its advances elsewhere became worthless, just cosmetic decorations covering up emptiness. However, the West did develop something that was supposed to be the next evolutionary step forwards, and that was the sense of the individual. If this could have been harnessed to the spiritual impulse centred in Christ then great advances could have been made. Men could really have started to have become gods just as Jesus promised. Christ could have been born in us, not just in the popular religious sense which really just refers to belief in Jesus as saviour, but Christ himself in the sense that we would start to become him. "Whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do greater things." But this was derailed by human weakness, selfishness, stupidity and greed, not to forget demonic subversion. So now we have individualistic atheism on the one hand or, on the other, spirituality seen either as a personal quest for enlightenment (the New Age sort) or existing in the form of conventional religion with God envisaged as basically separate from humanity. Neither of these represents the true path which is found by recognising that God is within the human soul but accessed through Christ.
First of all, what would any spiritual purpose be? I can think of two potential ones. It could be to introduce and establish the idea that humanity is one. We are all brothers and sisters with divisions external only. Of course, this is the popular trope and, because nothing is based on nothing, it has much truth to it. Which necessarily makes it harder to argue against. But is it so true that it overrides all other truths or does it need to be counterbalanced by less generalised considerations?
Then there is the idea which is summed up by something the Masters once told me that sometimes the less evolved can only advance through the sacrifice of the more evolved. This also makes sense because (I'm speaking frankly here) the less civilised groups and races can often only progress by mixing with the more developed. This is a hard fact that takes no notice of anyone's pride, self-image or sensitivities.
Set against this the reality that when you do add a large number of people of a lower culture with those more advanced you run the risk of bringing down the higher culture. This understanding was the rationale behind the Indian caste system, and often when it has occurred in the past it has seen the collapse of a civilisation. I'm not going to argue about the words lower and higher. If you don't accept that these describe something real, you are blinding yourself to reality for ideological reasons. That the lower may have things the higher lacks is beside the point and no excuse for ignoring the essential superiority of the higher. Some animals are faster or stronger than man but that doesn't alter human superiority. To those who say it is merely the degree of adaptation to environment that can objectively determine whether something is better or worse, I would ask do you really think an ant is equal to a man or a shark to Shakespeare? It is consciousness that indicates what is higher or lower, and the degree to which that can respond to and express higher realities. Naturally this statement implies the existence of higher realities but I am not writing for materialists here but for those who think a little more deeply about life and what it is. Materialism is just an excuse not to accept your spiritual responsibilities.
Western civilisation was more advanced than any other, scientifically, artistically and even spiritually because, despite the highly developed Indian and Chinese cultures, the West had Christianity. But it lost its way when it abandoned God and that meant that all its advances elsewhere became worthless, just cosmetic decorations covering up emptiness. However, the West did develop something that was supposed to be the next evolutionary step forwards, and that was the sense of the individual. If this could have been harnessed to the spiritual impulse centred in Christ then great advances could have been made. Men could really have started to have become gods just as Jesus promised. Christ could have been born in us, not just in the popular religious sense which really just refers to belief in Jesus as saviour, but Christ himself in the sense that we would start to become him. "Whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do greater things." But this was derailed by human weakness, selfishness, stupidity and greed, not to forget demonic subversion. So now we have individualistic atheism on the one hand or, on the other, spirituality seen either as a personal quest for enlightenment (the New Age sort) or existing in the form of conventional religion with God envisaged as basically separate from humanity. Neither of these represents the true path which is found by recognising that God is within the human soul but accessed through Christ.
This spiritual advance I describe can still take place on an individual level but, given the wrong turning taken by humanity over the last 200 years, that is the only level on which it can now happen. Quite probably this is all that was ever expected, going by predictions of the end times and the profound spiritual loss that would occur then. It also makes sense, given the nature of the new spirituality, that it must be forged and won on an individual basis. It is not gained by participation in a group but in the depths of one's own soul. It is a lonely quest but one that will eventually bring a person to union with God.
Back to immigration, mass immigration, that is, which is a completely different beast to small amounts of incoming people relatively easily absorbed by the host population without suffering dramatic change. Is it spiritually progressive or damaging? It has clearly been forced on Western countries by their elites, those on the (economic) right wanting cheap labour and those on the left wanting to damage traditional ideas of the nation and get more voters for themselves. So the motives for it are largely negative even if advocates can point to the willingness of immigrants to do jobs the populace are reluctant to do (for low wages) and bring skills that governments have neglected to train for sufficiently in the indigenous population.
The heavily pushed multicultural diversity might have both creative and destructive elements but generally it tends to bring short-term and relatively superficial gains in the sense of novelty and 'exotic' stimulation, but long-term losses of cultural depth and stability. Of course, much depends on how and how well all these elements are integrated and whether clashing attitudes can be reconciled without spiritual harm. But to view everything on the basis of equality as we are supposed to do now is clearly a grave mistake since it means the lower is not acknowledged as such and will therefore impact on the higher, also not acknowledged as such, to the latter's great detriment.
It is evident that the past is dead. We will not progress in a more or less unbroken line as has largely been the case before with Christianity the binding thread. But whether something new will emerge from the current tumult or whether it will lead to chaos and destruction remains to be seen. This could be a divine experiment but it is safe to say that, if it is, it has been captured and exploited by evil powers. That having been said, the ends that God is seeking to bring about may be realised anyway. We cannot know what those ends are. What we can do is remain faithful to the truth and not allow ourselves to be led astray by the illusion of modernity. Indeed, that may be the point of the whole thing. To test for those who can maintain true vision at a time of universal lies and deceit.
I realise I haven't answered the question I posed at the beginning of this piece. Before I do let me first say that, good or bad, mass immigration has been hugely enabled by modern technology which has provided easy access to everywhere from anywhere. And then it has been facilitated by the loss of confidence in its own way of the West, not to mention the sentimentality caused by a femininisation of attitudes. This immigration either has or soon will destroy the nations as they were, but then we are approaching the end of a major cycle and several minor cycles are also ending.
What I am saying is that mass immigration was probably inevitable. It is part of a general dissolution of everything prior to a new beginning. This does not mean it contains the seeds of a new beginning in itself. I see its purpose as largely destructive, though it may have benefits for the people involved on both sides as outlined above. But it represents a summing up and a conclusion of the past, and the new will arise from another, a spiritual, source. So the way to look at it is as a symptom and a consequence of the Kali Yuga. It is the triumph of materialism which we must expect at the end of an age. Is it good or bad? I'm not sure either of these words apply in the ordinary sense in this case. It is a phase in a cycle that comes as that cycle approaches its conclusion.
Back to immigration, mass immigration, that is, which is a completely different beast to small amounts of incoming people relatively easily absorbed by the host population without suffering dramatic change. Is it spiritually progressive or damaging? It has clearly been forced on Western countries by their elites, those on the (economic) right wanting cheap labour and those on the left wanting to damage traditional ideas of the nation and get more voters for themselves. So the motives for it are largely negative even if advocates can point to the willingness of immigrants to do jobs the populace are reluctant to do (for low wages) and bring skills that governments have neglected to train for sufficiently in the indigenous population.
The heavily pushed multicultural diversity might have both creative and destructive elements but generally it tends to bring short-term and relatively superficial gains in the sense of novelty and 'exotic' stimulation, but long-term losses of cultural depth and stability. Of course, much depends on how and how well all these elements are integrated and whether clashing attitudes can be reconciled without spiritual harm. But to view everything on the basis of equality as we are supposed to do now is clearly a grave mistake since it means the lower is not acknowledged as such and will therefore impact on the higher, also not acknowledged as such, to the latter's great detriment.
It is evident that the past is dead. We will not progress in a more or less unbroken line as has largely been the case before with Christianity the binding thread. But whether something new will emerge from the current tumult or whether it will lead to chaos and destruction remains to be seen. This could be a divine experiment but it is safe to say that, if it is, it has been captured and exploited by evil powers. That having been said, the ends that God is seeking to bring about may be realised anyway. We cannot know what those ends are. What we can do is remain faithful to the truth and not allow ourselves to be led astray by the illusion of modernity. Indeed, that may be the point of the whole thing. To test for those who can maintain true vision at a time of universal lies and deceit.
I realise I haven't answered the question I posed at the beginning of this piece. Before I do let me first say that, good or bad, mass immigration has been hugely enabled by modern technology which has provided easy access to everywhere from anywhere. And then it has been facilitated by the loss of confidence in its own way of the West, not to mention the sentimentality caused by a femininisation of attitudes. This immigration either has or soon will destroy the nations as they were, but then we are approaching the end of a major cycle and several minor cycles are also ending.
What I am saying is that mass immigration was probably inevitable. It is part of a general dissolution of everything prior to a new beginning. This does not mean it contains the seeds of a new beginning in itself. I see its purpose as largely destructive, though it may have benefits for the people involved on both sides as outlined above. But it represents a summing up and a conclusion of the past, and the new will arise from another, a spiritual, source. So the way to look at it is as a symptom and a consequence of the Kali Yuga. It is the triumph of materialism which we must expect at the end of an age. Is it good or bad? I'm not sure either of these words apply in the ordinary sense in this case. It is a phase in a cycle that comes as that cycle approaches its conclusion.
Monday 22 July 2019
Oppressors and Rebels
In my opinion there are few areas more confused these days than the relationship between the sexes even though, ironically enough, many people seem to think it is on a better footing now than ever. In some ways, it is but in others, more fundamental perhaps because based in the metaphysical origins of being, no. I believe we can get a fuller understanding of what men and women are and what they ought to be to each other by seeing what each accuses the other of when they are pointing to their respective faults. By looking at the quality of which the fault is a distortion we have an indication as to what the reality of the relationship should be when it is in good order. The thing gone wrong points to the right thing just as ugliness points to beauty or violence to strength.
What do feminists say about what they term the patriarchy, a word that almost always has derogatory undertones to it now but simply refers to male authority? They say it is oppressive. And what do traditionalist men say about feminists, a word that in liberal circles has a strong implication of something that is right and proper but is actually, using its own terminology, inherently sexist? They say they are rebels against natural or even divine order.
Now, oppression is the abuse of power or authority. It is taking a natural thing beyond its natural boundary. By the same token, rebellion is the attempt by one class to seize power from another. This may in certain circumstances be justifiable but often it is not and if you look back to the first rebellion, the one which set the pattern for subsequent ones, you see Satan rebelled against God because he could not accept the natural order and hierarchy. For in both cases, oppression and rebellion, it is very frequently ego, self-will and desire for power that are the motivating factors. Feminists may say they rebel because women are oppressed but that does not alter the basic dynamic that it is men who are seen as the oppressors and feminists as the rebels. I submit this does point to something real that exists beyond current behaviour.
I write on this subject quite often because it does seem to me that the broken relationship between men and women is one of the chief causes of the spiritual devastation in the world. It is the foremost example of how we have abandoned truth and the natural way of being for ideology based on atheistic materialism. Feminism, one cause of the breakdown, is a spiritual disorder because it is an instance of one part of a complementary duality seeking to usurp the prerogatives of the other, at the same time failing to observe its own duties and responsibilities. Of course, there is more to it than that and elements of feminism are justified. Nevertheless the overall effect is harmful and getting increasingly so as each generation wants more in the way of equality or what they call equality, assuming that to be a fundamental truth or right that nobody could argue with. You have exactly the same process at work with matter and spirit. In any sane world these two would be seen as complementary principles with life as the relationship between them. They would not be equals because they are different but both would be seen as essential to the whole even if one is more primary than the other.
Perhaps the most obvious way in which feminism shows itself to be a disorder is that it destroys families which, for most normal, properly adjusted people, are fundamental to happiness and fulfilment. Then it disrupts any real loving relationship between men and women who become rivals rather than helpmates. The relationship between the sexes is reduced to power rather than love, and competition instead of cooperation. Feminists point to male oppression of the past, which existed though not necessarily to the degree maintained. But to seek to overturn the whole order because elements of it have been abused is the mark of wreckers not builders.
It didn't strike me at the time but the Masters who spoke to me were decidedly patriarchal in their manner. That is, they exuded authority though this was combined with great love. There was no question of any kind of equality, and even they spoke of higher Masters pointing to the hierarchy in heaven. On the very rare occasions I was spoken to by a female spirit, only one of which occurred during the period covered by my book Meeting the Masters though there were a few more later on that I had forgotten about until writing the book brought back memories, the atmosphere and tone were completely different. There was a delicacy, refinement, purity and boundless compassion that were truly feminine in the best sense and which show contemporary feminist demands for equality to be shallow and self-centred. These beings were 'feminine-ist' not feminist. They had brought the archetypal spiritual quality of receptivity, archetypal because without it there could be no creation as the will of God could not be expressed, to a high peak, one that manifested in wonderfully deep gentleness, love and wisdom. When the Masters spoke I was awed and humbled (in varying degrees, not all were the same), but when these female spirits spoke my heart melted.
There is no doubt that the attempt to establish a greater harmonious balance between the masculine and the feminine at the beginning of the 19th century was necessary. The balance had tipped too far onto one side. Unfortunately the 20th century saw this attempt captured by forces that sought power rather than truth and we have reached a situation now that is worse than the one we tried to redress with real femininity even more ignored than it was back then though women may have more power and influence. But power and influence to do what? Not to pursue their dharma, a useful Sanskrit word that has no real English equivalent but includes such meanings as truth, law, cosmic order and life purpose so following or obeying your dharma would be coordinating yourself to your proper divine pattern.
A comment by Andrew on my last post mentioned the book of Genesis and spoke of the profound mystery embedded in the creation of Adam and Eve with Eve emerging from Adam as though different parts of the whole were being separated so they could eventually unite again in full consciousness through free choice. In other words, love. The deepest love is between complements that fulfil each other not between equals that are the same as each other. This story in Genesis is indeed a profound truth and one humanity urgently needs to rediscover.
Wednesday 17 July 2019
Do We Have Spiritual Parents?
This may seem a strange question to ask, especially given Jesus's words that there will be no marrying in heaven, but it would be a remarkable thing if one of the most important of earthly experiences had no correspondence in the spiritual world.
Our earthly parents give birth to our bodies but they do not give birth to our souls. If, like me, you assume that the soul exists before it takes birth in this world and is not formed along with the body at conception or whenever then it must either come directly from God or through a spiritual medium of some sort. You could also say it has always existed and, given that there is a piece of God in all of us (expressing a profound truth very simplistically), that is certainly true. But the creation of an individual soul is something that takes place in time, or at that point where time and eternity intersect, so though we have always existed in eternity, we have not always existed in time. The birth of the soul is the entry into time.
We all have a spark of the divine in us. Everything that lives must get its life from God and that life is the ground of all we are. But this spark of spirit is individualised and has its own quality right from its spiritual conception. I would speculate that this spiritual quality derives from its spiritual parents, higher beings who give the soul life, though in and through God who is obviously behind everything but not necessarily directly involved in everything. God works through intermediaries. This is what the chain of being means.
The doctrine of group souls, souls bound by the spiritual equivalent of blood (for everything earthly has its counterpart in the heavens), is quite well established in modern esoteric thought. I believe that my contact with the Masters reflects something of this truth. To go from group souls to spiritual parents is not a great leap for what are group souls if not spiritual families, and families are not just brothers and sisters and cousins. There is the horizontal family but there is also the family extended vertically through parents, grandparents and so on. If we think that the family is the reflection on earth of a great spiritual truth, and this is surely implied in the idea of God the Father and Jesus the son not to mention many instances of Mother goddesses in pagan religions, perhaps a somewhat confused intuition of a reality, then the notion of spiritual parents is not so far-fetched as at first sight it might appear.
And, of course, if we do have spiritual parents then we may also have, or may one day have, spiritual children. Truly creation is an unending process. It bursts forth from God, Father Spirit expressing himself through Mother Matter, but then spreads out through all things, the creation becoming creator in its own right though co- or sub-creator would perhaps be a better term since there is only one Creator, everything else being dependent on him.
Our earthly parents give birth to our bodies but they do not give birth to our souls. If, like me, you assume that the soul exists before it takes birth in this world and is not formed along with the body at conception or whenever then it must either come directly from God or through a spiritual medium of some sort. You could also say it has always existed and, given that there is a piece of God in all of us (expressing a profound truth very simplistically), that is certainly true. But the creation of an individual soul is something that takes place in time, or at that point where time and eternity intersect, so though we have always existed in eternity, we have not always existed in time. The birth of the soul is the entry into time.
We all have a spark of the divine in us. Everything that lives must get its life from God and that life is the ground of all we are. But this spark of spirit is individualised and has its own quality right from its spiritual conception. I would speculate that this spiritual quality derives from its spiritual parents, higher beings who give the soul life, though in and through God who is obviously behind everything but not necessarily directly involved in everything. God works through intermediaries. This is what the chain of being means.
The doctrine of group souls, souls bound by the spiritual equivalent of blood (for everything earthly has its counterpart in the heavens), is quite well established in modern esoteric thought. I believe that my contact with the Masters reflects something of this truth. To go from group souls to spiritual parents is not a great leap for what are group souls if not spiritual families, and families are not just brothers and sisters and cousins. There is the horizontal family but there is also the family extended vertically through parents, grandparents and so on. If we think that the family is the reflection on earth of a great spiritual truth, and this is surely implied in the idea of God the Father and Jesus the son not to mention many instances of Mother goddesses in pagan religions, perhaps a somewhat confused intuition of a reality, then the notion of spiritual parents is not so far-fetched as at first sight it might appear.
And, of course, if we do have spiritual parents then we may also have, or may one day have, spiritual children. Truly creation is an unending process. It bursts forth from God, Father Spirit expressing himself through Mother Matter, but then spreads out through all things, the creation becoming creator in its own right though co- or sub-creator would perhaps be a better term since there is only one Creator, everything else being dependent on him.
Saturday 13 July 2019
The Glastonbury Festival
The Glastonbury music festival took place recently. It's named after Glastonbury even though the site is about 6 miles away from the town. Presumably this gives it some kind of mystical cachet and admittedly it does sound better than Pilton, the original name in 1970. The festival has become extremely popular since then and is now celebrated as something that shows modern Britain in one of its best lights. Music, joy, love, peace, what could be better?
It is well known that the dark forces try to corrupt sacred sites by co-opting the spiritual power to be found there and using it for their own ends. Firstly, because there is power in these places, but secondly, so that its spiritual effect is nullified and negated. Glastonbury has been a particularly unhappy victim of this tendency and the festival is currently one of the main tools the devil employs to this end.
I'm not going to try to justify this what many would call extreme, if not mad, statement. If you don't already see that contemporary pop, rock and related forms of music are almost entirely negative from a spiritual point of view (though some, such as rap, are a good deal worse than others), there's nothing I could say that would convince you. I might mention that this music stimulates lower, primitive elements in our psychological make-up, especially by its use of beat but also through electrification and volume. I might point to the separation of crude physical sex from love, never mind marriage, it promotes. And I might mention the effect that it has on its audience which reverts to a kind of mindless mob mentality in which the individual is swallowed up by the crowd, just the reverse of what should take place in a true spiritual experience of which this is clearly a parody and distortion (see love and peace above). I might mention these things but they should be obvious. I'm not saying all this music is bad. I still like some from when I was young myself, but a great deal is and it's getting worse with the artistic elements diminished and all the negative aspects augmented.
I believe there is a strong case to be made that the corruption of music has played a big part in the corruption of the human soul and its separation from higher things over the last fifty years or so. When jazz first came in a hundred years ago it was regarded by many people as a very decadent musical form and things have certainly moved on since then. Plato thought that the introduction of new forms of music would have an effect on society, and while I don't think this plays out quite as simplistically as sometimes envisaged with decadent music causing decadence in society, there clearly is a link. Music has a definite effect on the human psyche even if it can only bring out or stimulate what is already there in some form. You are not made a good or bad person by music but you can be helped to rise or fall and so, in the broader sense, can a whole culture or civilisation.
Popular music has a relation to freedom, physically, emotionally and mentally. Freedom is regarded as a universal good but it depends what is being freed and what it is being freed to do. Is the sexual instinct being freed to be expressed in any way it likes, are the emotions being freed from judicious control so that lower instincts run riot and the higher impulses are blocked from coming through, is thought being freed to enfeeble itself in pointless speculation and chase after illusion, is the self being freed to pursue its own ends at the expense of submitting to the soul? Ultimately the only true freedom is to be found in God but for that freedom to be known many lower, apparent freedoms must be renounced. Much that comes under the umbrella of pop music does offer freedom of a sort, freedom to the lower self in its various guises, but if the listener is not careful it can chain him to forces in that same self it appears to liberate. Higher realities are completely obscured.
Music is one of the most powerful forces known to us but it can be used for good or ill. At the moment, we are in the strange position of having access to a vast amount of music, music of all styles and all periods, but contemporary popular music, that which is listened to by the majority of people, is the most spiritually harmful music there has ever been.
It is well known that the dark forces try to corrupt sacred sites by co-opting the spiritual power to be found there and using it for their own ends. Firstly, because there is power in these places, but secondly, so that its spiritual effect is nullified and negated. Glastonbury has been a particularly unhappy victim of this tendency and the festival is currently one of the main tools the devil employs to this end.
I'm not going to try to justify this what many would call extreme, if not mad, statement. If you don't already see that contemporary pop, rock and related forms of music are almost entirely negative from a spiritual point of view (though some, such as rap, are a good deal worse than others), there's nothing I could say that would convince you. I might mention that this music stimulates lower, primitive elements in our psychological make-up, especially by its use of beat but also through electrification and volume. I might point to the separation of crude physical sex from love, never mind marriage, it promotes. And I might mention the effect that it has on its audience which reverts to a kind of mindless mob mentality in which the individual is swallowed up by the crowd, just the reverse of what should take place in a true spiritual experience of which this is clearly a parody and distortion (see love and peace above). I might mention these things but they should be obvious. I'm not saying all this music is bad. I still like some from when I was young myself, but a great deal is and it's getting worse with the artistic elements diminished and all the negative aspects augmented.
I believe there is a strong case to be made that the corruption of music has played a big part in the corruption of the human soul and its separation from higher things over the last fifty years or so. When jazz first came in a hundred years ago it was regarded by many people as a very decadent musical form and things have certainly moved on since then. Plato thought that the introduction of new forms of music would have an effect on society, and while I don't think this plays out quite as simplistically as sometimes envisaged with decadent music causing decadence in society, there clearly is a link. Music has a definite effect on the human psyche even if it can only bring out or stimulate what is already there in some form. You are not made a good or bad person by music but you can be helped to rise or fall and so, in the broader sense, can a whole culture or civilisation.
Popular music has a relation to freedom, physically, emotionally and mentally. Freedom is regarded as a universal good but it depends what is being freed and what it is being freed to do. Is the sexual instinct being freed to be expressed in any way it likes, are the emotions being freed from judicious control so that lower instincts run riot and the higher impulses are blocked from coming through, is thought being freed to enfeeble itself in pointless speculation and chase after illusion, is the self being freed to pursue its own ends at the expense of submitting to the soul? Ultimately the only true freedom is to be found in God but for that freedom to be known many lower, apparent freedoms must be renounced. Much that comes under the umbrella of pop music does offer freedom of a sort, freedom to the lower self in its various guises, but if the listener is not careful it can chain him to forces in that same self it appears to liberate. Higher realities are completely obscured.
Music is one of the most powerful forces known to us but it can be used for good or ill. At the moment, we are in the strange position of having access to a vast amount of music, music of all styles and all periods, but contemporary popular music, that which is listened to by the majority of people, is the most spiritually harmful music there has ever been.
Tuesday 9 July 2019
The Mind is its Own Place
Perhaps the best known quote from Paradise Lost runs like this. "The mind is its own place and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." I was familiar with this quote, though not in its context, and always assumed it to be a kind of Buddhist-like statement referring to the primacy of consciousness and how the truly spiritual person can be at peace wherever he is and whatever his external circumstances. It seems a wise saying of the sort that any advanced practitioner of meditation might come up with.
Imagine my surprise then when, in my recent reading of Paradise Lost, I found out who actually says these words. It is Satan. He has just landed in hell and it is clear that he speaks from a sense of bravado, not detached wisdom at all. This set me thinking and what I realised was that this statement, at first glance profound, is actually highly dubious. For what it is saying is that we don't need God. We can create heaven all by ourself, wherever we are, just by the power of our own mind. We are supreme. It is essentially a magical rather than a spiritual belief, relying as it does on the action of will and imagination with no moral aspect to it.
This struck me with particular force because so much modern spirituality is all to do with acquiring spiritual gifts by the force of our own will and desire. It is approaching the spiritual from the standpoint of the material personality or fallen self, trying to take from God rather than becoming a humble supplicant before him. But this was not what Christ taught and the notes in my copy of Paradise Lost, which come from an edition of 1898, make the following point. "These lines are always quoted as particularly Miltonic rather than diabolic in their sentiment; but no doctrine is taught more consistently in the poem than that disobedience to God causes misery, and that no stoicism can dispel from the wicked the feeling of wretchedness and despair. The Stoic doctrine, that the wise man is king of circumstances and perfect in himself is shown by Christ (in Paradise Regained book iv verses 300-308) to be the offspring of philosophic pride and delusion."
Here, then, is a classic example of a quote meaning almost the opposite of what it is taken to mean because it is used out of context. The idea that we, by ourselves, can become spiritual is clearly false but it is a deep-rooted one in the human psyche which wishes to acquire all the benefits of spiritual consciousness without fitting itself properly to receive that.
This quote also devalues heaven. If we only have to change our mental attitude in order to enter it then it is not something much better than what we already are. I am not saying we do not have to alter our mental attitude to become worthy of it but that is a different thing. Heaven is not created by our own mind (or consciousness if you prefer the term, it makes no odds). It is of God and he alone can grant right of entry.
None of this means that we should not work on our mind to make it a fit receptacle for heavenly inspiration or that we shouldn't attempt to cultivate the kind of inner detachment that is not affected by outer circumstances. That goes without saying. The mind truly is its own place and can certainly make the best or worst of any given situation. But it cannot make heaven. That is a popular New Age fallacy which derives from the egotistical notion that you can do without God or even are God yourself once you realise the fact. This idea is actually sinful because it replaces God with self. God may be in us but we are not God. No wonder this statement comes from the mouth of the devil.
Imagine my surprise then when, in my recent reading of Paradise Lost, I found out who actually says these words. It is Satan. He has just landed in hell and it is clear that he speaks from a sense of bravado, not detached wisdom at all. This set me thinking and what I realised was that this statement, at first glance profound, is actually highly dubious. For what it is saying is that we don't need God. We can create heaven all by ourself, wherever we are, just by the power of our own mind. We are supreme. It is essentially a magical rather than a spiritual belief, relying as it does on the action of will and imagination with no moral aspect to it.
This struck me with particular force because so much modern spirituality is all to do with acquiring spiritual gifts by the force of our own will and desire. It is approaching the spiritual from the standpoint of the material personality or fallen self, trying to take from God rather than becoming a humble supplicant before him. But this was not what Christ taught and the notes in my copy of Paradise Lost, which come from an edition of 1898, make the following point. "These lines are always quoted as particularly Miltonic rather than diabolic in their sentiment; but no doctrine is taught more consistently in the poem than that disobedience to God causes misery, and that no stoicism can dispel from the wicked the feeling of wretchedness and despair. The Stoic doctrine, that the wise man is king of circumstances and perfect in himself is shown by Christ (in Paradise Regained book iv verses 300-308) to be the offspring of philosophic pride and delusion."
Here, then, is a classic example of a quote meaning almost the opposite of what it is taken to mean because it is used out of context. The idea that we, by ourselves, can become spiritual is clearly false but it is a deep-rooted one in the human psyche which wishes to acquire all the benefits of spiritual consciousness without fitting itself properly to receive that.
This quote also devalues heaven. If we only have to change our mental attitude in order to enter it then it is not something much better than what we already are. I am not saying we do not have to alter our mental attitude to become worthy of it but that is a different thing. Heaven is not created by our own mind (or consciousness if you prefer the term, it makes no odds). It is of God and he alone can grant right of entry.
None of this means that we should not work on our mind to make it a fit receptacle for heavenly inspiration or that we shouldn't attempt to cultivate the kind of inner detachment that is not affected by outer circumstances. That goes without saying. The mind truly is its own place and can certainly make the best or worst of any given situation. But it cannot make heaven. That is a popular New Age fallacy which derives from the egotistical notion that you can do without God or even are God yourself once you realise the fact. This idea is actually sinful because it replaces God with self. God may be in us but we are not God. No wonder this statement comes from the mouth of the devil.
Friday 5 July 2019
Technological Gain equals Spiritual Loss
Since the industrial age, at least, there are solid grounds for saying that all technology makes human beings worse. More 'me-focused' and more exteriorised in their consciousness in that the outer world becomes more real to them and the inner world correspondingly less so. If ever one doubted this to be the case the computer age has surely confirmed it. You only have to see the addicted state of people to their mobile phones to perceive this. You might say that in the past the people who stare at their phones all the time on the train (for example) would have been reading books, and some might be doing that on their phone. But most aren't. They're doing trivial stuff, and their phones have just facilitated and encouraged the unfortunate human desire to distract itself with baubles and be constantly entertained. Reading a book requires a much deeper level of engagement. Now, people live more and more on the surface, separated at several removes from reality and are increasingly unable to engage with life at a deeper level. Of course, this is not all down to mobile phones but they have enabled a weakness that in the past would not have been so easily indulged.
That's one example but it's just the most obvious. There are others. Take cars. They seem a universal good to most people (as long as one ignores the noise, pollution and disfigurement of the land). But they can subtly change character. All that power seems to be an extension of me and gives me an inflated sense of myself. Then I feel that it is my right to have this ease of transport instead of it being a gift and a privilege. If I can pay for it then it is mine. Again, more me. This attitude is the reverse of the spiritual approach that sees everything as coming from God. Obviously, it's not restricted to cars but the point is that technological advances encourage it because they take us further away from the natural and the simple. Unless we are very alive to the dangers they pose, they can easily corrupt us.
Communities like the Amish are aware of this but I don't believe they are the answer. Technology is a fact of life and one we have to engage with if we are born at a time when it exists in a certain form. But, if we should not cut ourselves off from it, nor should we give it our full allegiance. We should use it while being aware of its spiritual dangers, and therefore use it sparingly.
Early humanity had no technology as such. Then we invented tools and set off down the path which has brought us to where we are now, completely in thrall to it, its master but also its servant. I have a theory that as we progress, if we progress in the way God intends, we will gradually strip ourselves of technological dependence and revert to something like the old hunter gatherers. But with this critical difference. We will acquire the ability to mentally engage with our environment. I believe the environment itself will become more pliable as we become more spiritually attuned. It is the hardening of our consciousness that has aided and abetted in the hardening of the environment. The reverse process is possible, indeed desirable. Jesus told us we would be able to do what he did. That is what he meant. But note that unlike magicians, many of whom are still amongst us, Jesus worked through God, making himself the vessel of his Father. That is what we have to learn to do to overcome our technological addiction without falling into magic which always separates its practitioner from God. For all magic is black magic.
That's one example but it's just the most obvious. There are others. Take cars. They seem a universal good to most people (as long as one ignores the noise, pollution and disfigurement of the land). But they can subtly change character. All that power seems to be an extension of me and gives me an inflated sense of myself. Then I feel that it is my right to have this ease of transport instead of it being a gift and a privilege. If I can pay for it then it is mine. Again, more me. This attitude is the reverse of the spiritual approach that sees everything as coming from God. Obviously, it's not restricted to cars but the point is that technological advances encourage it because they take us further away from the natural and the simple. Unless we are very alive to the dangers they pose, they can easily corrupt us.
Communities like the Amish are aware of this but I don't believe they are the answer. Technology is a fact of life and one we have to engage with if we are born at a time when it exists in a certain form. But, if we should not cut ourselves off from it, nor should we give it our full allegiance. We should use it while being aware of its spiritual dangers, and therefore use it sparingly.
Early humanity had no technology as such. Then we invented tools and set off down the path which has brought us to where we are now, completely in thrall to it, its master but also its servant. I have a theory that as we progress, if we progress in the way God intends, we will gradually strip ourselves of technological dependence and revert to something like the old hunter gatherers. But with this critical difference. We will acquire the ability to mentally engage with our environment. I believe the environment itself will become more pliable as we become more spiritually attuned. It is the hardening of our consciousness that has aided and abetted in the hardening of the environment. The reverse process is possible, indeed desirable. Jesus told us we would be able to do what he did. That is what he meant. But note that unlike magicians, many of whom are still amongst us, Jesus worked through God, making himself the vessel of his Father. That is what we have to learn to do to overcome our technological addiction without falling into magic which always separates its practitioner from God. For all magic is black magic.
Monday 1 July 2019
Why Leftism is a Spiritual Poison
It can be hard to make the case that leftism is spiritually destructive if you are discussing the matter with someone who operates under a totally different set of assumptions about life. Such a person can only see how their ideology might liberate a person in a worldly sense. And so it might (in some respects anyway), but they don't see that this aspect of things is altogether secondary. Indeed, it may even be counter-productive in terms of what really matters.
Everything comes down to first principles. If you have the foundations of your view of the world wrong then whatever you build on top of that is going to be wrong too. Leftism is essentially an ideology that derives from a this-worldly focus. It is grounded in materialism and atheism (clearly, since the two rose together), even if many of its adherents might think of themselves as spiritual believers. But their spirituality is humanistic which means it puts man first and any idea of God is only fitted into the needs and aspirations of man as he is on this Earth. Basically, leftism is the religion of humanity and it denies God, if not literally then as the chief end to which human attention should be directed. This is why leftism is, when viewed in the light of a God-centred understanding, actually evil. That might seem an over-the-top thing to say but hear me out. Because leftism reduces good to material good ( which we may tritely sum up as being nice), it obscures the real good which is rooted in the transcendent and its values of Goodness, Beauty and Truth as conceived spiritually, and focused on the spiritual needs and proper destiny of the soul. Such an approach which diverts attention from spirit to matter, prioritising the latter over the former, does effectively make it an enemy of the true good, and that is why it is encouraged by those supernatural forces who wish to separate man from God which also means separate man from his own true self.
Although this anti-good aspect has always been present, it has only recently become clear that leftism ends up (because nothing stays the same and seeds sprout) by giving preference to quantity over quality and replacing a natural, hierarchical order with an imposed spiritual disorder that is liable to conclude in totalitarian control because that's the only way the disorder engendered by egalitarianism can be managed. The (undeniable) fact that the old order was corrupt was used as an excuse to sweep it away entirely instead of returning it to its proper origins in God. But the inroads made by leftism could only have been made in a society that had already begun to lose touch with spiritual reality since once the basis of order with its roots in God is no longer acknowledged then the whole edifice becomes shaky and all the component parts of it can be challenged. So there are valid grounds for saying that there was a real need for the goods that a leftist ethos represents to be introduced into society. But what was suitable or even necessary as a temporary medicine became harmful when transformed into a permanent diet.
If all this had been instigated by love, love of the poor, the left behind, the suffering, then the results would not have been so bad. And, of course, there is this aspect to it. There was real concern for those groups and for people who were seen as the world's underdogs. There was a real need to redress an unfair balance in society. But this was not all there was to it and, increasingly, it became less and less of a factor. The real motivating forces behind much of the rise of the left over the last couple of centuries were resentment and hatred, and this has been easily exploited by the demons who pervert the course of history for their own anti spiritual ends.
Essentially, and despite its good points which, of course, it has or it would not have been the success it has been, leftism is a rebellion against God. If you don't see that it may be because you are not properly orientated in your heart. You might have a spiritual health problem as so many people in the world do today. The fact that leftism, though false, derives from the misconception of a truth (the oneness of humanity) might make it harder to see, but a rightly ordered person should still be able to see that the truth has been distorted and twisted out of its proper context. Some people do see the falseness of the left and how it will result in a death spiral but their reaction to it takes place on the same level and is therefore part of the same materialistic/secular process. What is required is a higher response that shifts the whole debate to a spiritual level. Then leftists not solely motivated by grievance would see that the things they value are included but their relevance will be considered in a new light. For the greater includes the lesser but if you try to force the greater into the framework of the lesser, you mutilate it.
Leftism is an ideology. It is not based on an understanding of the human being seen in the overall perspective of what it really is but on a limited (material) part of it that has no independent reality. In contrast, traditions may need to be modified as humanity evolves (and it does, human consciousness does not remain the same) but they are built on real experience over centuries. They do not come from theories or abstractions but from life itself. And when they are modified, they are modified not uprooted and thrown out. The growth should be organic like that of a tree not artificial like a machine. Christ did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfil them.
Some of the ideas behind the left arose in response to a real need at one time. There is still a need for them. But this should be within the overall context of the world as traditionally conceived; that is to say, as spiritually conceived. It should not replace that but supplement it, as and where needed, and it should always be secondary to that. Now, unfortunately, it has supplanted it and what may once have been nourishing has become a poison. There is no doubt that leftist ideas arose at a time when humanity was discovering itself anew, and they were part of that discovery which, roughly defined, involved the advance into a more creative consciousness, more focused on the individual. But when they became separated from higher spiritual understanding and taken on their own terms the good they might have done turned to harm. The servant usurped the role of the master, and when natural hierarchies are toppled the only outcome possible is disorder and chaos.
Everything comes down to first principles. If you have the foundations of your view of the world wrong then whatever you build on top of that is going to be wrong too. Leftism is essentially an ideology that derives from a this-worldly focus. It is grounded in materialism and atheism (clearly, since the two rose together), even if many of its adherents might think of themselves as spiritual believers. But their spirituality is humanistic which means it puts man first and any idea of God is only fitted into the needs and aspirations of man as he is on this Earth. Basically, leftism is the religion of humanity and it denies God, if not literally then as the chief end to which human attention should be directed. This is why leftism is, when viewed in the light of a God-centred understanding, actually evil. That might seem an over-the-top thing to say but hear me out. Because leftism reduces good to material good ( which we may tritely sum up as being nice), it obscures the real good which is rooted in the transcendent and its values of Goodness, Beauty and Truth as conceived spiritually, and focused on the spiritual needs and proper destiny of the soul. Such an approach which diverts attention from spirit to matter, prioritising the latter over the former, does effectively make it an enemy of the true good, and that is why it is encouraged by those supernatural forces who wish to separate man from God which also means separate man from his own true self.
Although this anti-good aspect has always been present, it has only recently become clear that leftism ends up (because nothing stays the same and seeds sprout) by giving preference to quantity over quality and replacing a natural, hierarchical order with an imposed spiritual disorder that is liable to conclude in totalitarian control because that's the only way the disorder engendered by egalitarianism can be managed. The (undeniable) fact that the old order was corrupt was used as an excuse to sweep it away entirely instead of returning it to its proper origins in God. But the inroads made by leftism could only have been made in a society that had already begun to lose touch with spiritual reality since once the basis of order with its roots in God is no longer acknowledged then the whole edifice becomes shaky and all the component parts of it can be challenged. So there are valid grounds for saying that there was a real need for the goods that a leftist ethos represents to be introduced into society. But what was suitable or even necessary as a temporary medicine became harmful when transformed into a permanent diet.
If all this had been instigated by love, love of the poor, the left behind, the suffering, then the results would not have been so bad. And, of course, there is this aspect to it. There was real concern for those groups and for people who were seen as the world's underdogs. There was a real need to redress an unfair balance in society. But this was not all there was to it and, increasingly, it became less and less of a factor. The real motivating forces behind much of the rise of the left over the last couple of centuries were resentment and hatred, and this has been easily exploited by the demons who pervert the course of history for their own anti spiritual ends.
Essentially, and despite its good points which, of course, it has or it would not have been the success it has been, leftism is a rebellion against God. If you don't see that it may be because you are not properly orientated in your heart. You might have a spiritual health problem as so many people in the world do today. The fact that leftism, though false, derives from the misconception of a truth (the oneness of humanity) might make it harder to see, but a rightly ordered person should still be able to see that the truth has been distorted and twisted out of its proper context. Some people do see the falseness of the left and how it will result in a death spiral but their reaction to it takes place on the same level and is therefore part of the same materialistic/secular process. What is required is a higher response that shifts the whole debate to a spiritual level. Then leftists not solely motivated by grievance would see that the things they value are included but their relevance will be considered in a new light. For the greater includes the lesser but if you try to force the greater into the framework of the lesser, you mutilate it.
Leftism is an ideology. It is not based on an understanding of the human being seen in the overall perspective of what it really is but on a limited (material) part of it that has no independent reality. In contrast, traditions may need to be modified as humanity evolves (and it does, human consciousness does not remain the same) but they are built on real experience over centuries. They do not come from theories or abstractions but from life itself. And when they are modified, they are modified not uprooted and thrown out. The growth should be organic like that of a tree not artificial like a machine. Christ did not come to abolish the law or the prophets but to fulfil them.
Some of the ideas behind the left arose in response to a real need at one time. There is still a need for them. But this should be within the overall context of the world as traditionally conceived; that is to say, as spiritually conceived. It should not replace that but supplement it, as and where needed, and it should always be secondary to that. Now, unfortunately, it has supplanted it and what may once have been nourishing has become a poison. There is no doubt that leftist ideas arose at a time when humanity was discovering itself anew, and they were part of that discovery which, roughly defined, involved the advance into a more creative consciousness, more focused on the individual. But when they became separated from higher spiritual understanding and taken on their own terms the good they might have done turned to harm. The servant usurped the role of the master, and when natural hierarchies are toppled the only outcome possible is disorder and chaos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)