Reflection for January 1, 2012:take me out to the ball game

“As long as I assume the world is something I discover by turning on the
radio or looking out the window I am deceived from the start.  As long
as I imagine that the world is something to be ‘escaped’ in a
monastery–that wearing a special costume and following a quaint
observance takes me ‘out of this world,’ I am dedicating my life to an
illusion. Of course, I hasten to qualify this.  I said a moment ago that
in a certain historic context of thought and of life this kind of
thought and action once made perfect sense.  But the moment you change
the context, then the whole thing has to be completely transposed.
Otherwise you are left like the orchestra in the Max brothers’ Night at
the Opera where Harpo had inserted ‘Take Me Out to the Ball Game’ in the
middle of the operatic score.”

 

–Thomas Merton

 

Reflection for October 25 2011: I became a bird

As soon as I attained to His Unity I became a bird with a
Body of Oneness and wings of Evelastingness, and I continued
Flying in the air of Quality for ten years, until I reached
An atmosphere a million times as large, and flew on, until I
Found myself in the field of Eternity and saw there the Tree
Of Oneness.

–Abu Nasr al-Sarraj

http://www.uga.edu/islam/sufism/sarraj.html

The Kitáb al-luma’ fi’l-Tasawwuf of Abú Nasr ‘abdallah b. ‘Ali al-Sarráj al-Tusi; edited for the first time, with critical notes, abstract of contents, glossary, and indices

 

Reflection for September 29, 2011:Jigsaw Puzzle

There must have been a time when you entered a room

And met someone and after a while you understood that

Unknown to either of you there was a reason you had met.

You had changed the other or he had changed you. By

Some word or deed or just by your presence the errand

had been completed. Then perhaps you were a little

bewildered or humbled and grateful. And it was over.

 

Each lifetime is the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

For some there are more pieces.

For others the puzzle is more difficult to assemble.

 

Honey from the Rock Anniv Ed PB

 

reflection for September 12, 2011:why should we cling to this perishable body?

He lives only to be a help to others

–questions of king Milinda

why should we cling to this

perishable body?

In the eyes of the wise,

the only thing it is good for is to

benefit one’s  fellow creatures

–katha sarit sagara

full of love for all things in

the world,

practising virtue in order to

benefit others

-this man only is happy

-fa kheu pi u

though  a man conquor a

million men in battle,

a greater

conqueror still is

he who conquors himself

–udanavarga

 

reflection for July 22, 2011: time space and events

I, like everyone else, have had my own personal

“sturm und

drang

” about God and existence. However, in the back of my mind

I always believed that, if I could get beyond this internal conflict,

I might be able to realise

Ain Sof. Eventually I reached a

fundamental understanding that existence revolves around the still

centre of the “Life/Death Principle.” In my quest for what I

perceived to be the hidden truth, I personified “Death” as a

“Mother archetype,” and through a most intimate communication

with this anthropomorphized principle, I was led to comprehend a

“Model of the Universe,” that blueprint of existence which

Kabbalists call the

Etz Chayim or Tree of Life. With this tool I was

able to face basic issues of existence, like the question of “Time.”

It is certainly most important to grasp the “Ternary of

Time” if one wants to understand what is happening within the

womb of our Great Mother, which is the eternal process of genesis,

the “

Ladder of Descending and Ascending Stages” commencing in

the “Hidden Origin,” unfolding in the evolution of all existence

throughout cosmos, and returning back into the “Infinite No-

Thing.” This is the fundamental meaning of the “Tree of Life,” and

once this is understood, one can reverse the machine of time for

oneself so to speak, and reach back to the original state of

Perfect

Peace Profound

within the Eternal Life/Death Process.

In fact, the so-called “

Abyss,” shown on the Kabbalistic

Tree of Life, is in one sense the vagina of the Great Mother, and

the seven

Sefirot below it the creation of all that was, is and ever

will be

, constantly emanating out of that “Dark Womb in the

Now.” Conjointly, the three “Supernal

Sefirot,” that is, the three

Spheres above the

Abyss, might then be considered the “Male

Seed” of the

Great Emanator, suggested by the Upper Triangle, or

the Hebrew letter

Alef ()), the Life–Death principle of all that is

and all that is not. This would be altogether beyond time since even

time must issue from the womb of the Great Mother.

Comprehending this will facilitate the ability to reverse the

machinations of time within ones own being, but

Time itself is a

Ternary……..

–Jacobus Swart(the book of self creation)

 

To consider persons and events and situations only in the light o their effect upon

myself is to live on the doorstep of hell. Selfishness is doomed to frustration, centered as it is upon a lie. To live exclusively for myself, I must make all things bend themselves to my will as if I were a god. But this is impossible. Is there any more cogent indication of my creaturehood than the insufficiency of my own will? For I cannot make the universe obey me. I cannot make other people conform to my own whims and fancies. I cannot make even my own body obey me. When I give it pleasure, it deceives my expectation and makes me suffer pain. When I give myself what I conceive to be freedom, I deceive myself and find that I am the prisoner of my own blindness and selfishness and insufficiency.

It is true, the freedom of my will is a great thing. But this freedom is not absolute

self-sufficiency. If the essence of freedom were merely the act of choice, then the mere

fact of making choices would perfect our freedom. But there are two difficulties here.

First of all, our choices must really be free—that is to say, they must perfect us in our

own being. They must perfect us in our relation to other free beings. We must make

the choices that enable us to fulfill the deepest capacities of our real selves. From this

flows the second difficulty: we too easily assume that we are our real selves, and that

our choices are really the ones we want to make when, in fact, our acts of free choice are (though morally imputable, no doubt) largely dictated by psychological compulsions,

flowing from our inordinate ideas of our own importance. Our choices are too often

dictated by our false selves.

Hence I do not find in myself the power to be happy merely by doing what I like.

On the contrary, if I do nothing except what pleases my own fancy I will be miserable

almost all the time. This would never be so if my will had not been created to use its

own freedom in the love of others.

My free will consolidates and perfects its own autonomy by freely co-ordinating its

action with the will of another. There is something in the very nature of my freedom

that inclines me to love, to do good, to dedicate myself to others. I have an instinct that

tells me that I am less free when I am living for myself alone. The reason for this is that

I cannot be completely independent. Since I am not self-sufficient I depend on someone

else for my fulfillment. My freedom is not fully free when left to itself. It becomes so

when it is brought into the right relation with the freedom of another.

At the same time, my instinct to be independent is by no means evil. My freedom is

not perfected by subjection to a tyrant. Subjection is not an end in itself. It is right that

my nature should rebel against subjection. Why should my will have been created free,

if I were never to use my freedom?

If my will is meant to perfect its freedom in serving another will, that does not mean

it will find its perfection in serving every other will. In fact, there is only one will in

whose service I can find perfection and freedom. To give my freedom blindly to a being

equal to or inferior to myself is to degrade myself and throw away my freedom. I can

only become perfectly free by serving the will of God. If I do, in fact, obey other men

and serve them it is not for their sake alone that I will do so, but because their will is the

sacrament of the will of God. Obedience to man has no meaning unless it is primarily

obedience to God. From this flow many consequences. Where there is no faith in God

there can be no real order; therefore, where there is no faith obedience is without any

sense. It can only be imposed on others as a matter of expediency. If there is no God,

no government is logical except tyranny. And in actual fact, states that reject the idea of

God tend either to tyranny or to moral chaos. In either case, the end is disorder, because tyranny is itself a disorder. The immature conscience is not its own master. It is merely the delegate of the conscience of another person, or of a group, or of a party, or of a social class, or of a nation, or of a race. Therefore, it does not make real moral decisions of its own, it simply parrots the decisions of others. It does not make judgments of its own, it merely “conforms” to the party line. It does not really have motives or intentions of its own. Or if it does, it wrecks them by twisting and rationalizing them to fit the intentions of another. That is not moral freedom. It makes true love impossible. For if I am to love truly and freely, I must be able to give something that is truly my own to another. If my heart does not first belong to me, how can I give it to another? It is not mine to give!

Free will is not given to us merely as a firework to be shot off into the air. There

are some men who seem to think their acts are freer in proportion as they are without

purpose, as if a rational purpose imposed some kind of limitation upon our liberty. That

is like saying that one is richer if he throws money out the window than if he spends it.

Since money is what it is, I do not deny that you may be worthy of all praise if you

light your cigarettes with it. That would show you had a deep, pure sense of the ontological value of the dollar. Nevertheless, if that is all you can think of doing with money you will not long enjoy the advantages that it can still obtain.

It may be true that a rich man can better afford to throw money out the window

than a poor man, but neither the spending nor the waste of money is what makes a man

rich. He is rich by virtue of what he has, and his riches are valuable to him for what he

can do with them.

As for freedom, according to this analogy, it grows no greater by being wasted, or

spent, but it is given to us as a talent to be traded with until the coming of Christ. In

this trading we part with what is ours only to recover it with interest. We do not destroy

it or throw it away. We dedicate it to some purpose, and this dedication makes us freer

than we were before.

-Thomas Merton No Man Is an Island (Shambhala Library)

 

reflection for June 19 2011:giving and receiving

http://www.kabbalah.torah-code.org/kabbalah/essays/giving_receiving.shtml

Giving and Receiving

 

In every interaction there is a giving and receiving that happens simultaneously at multiple levels. Each level of giving and receiving constitutes a unification. The base level is when the giver gives what is to be given and the receiver receives it. The giver gives a vessel and the receiver receives and takes possession of the vessel being given. This is how conventional street wisdom understands giving and receiving.

This base level is not unified when the transaction is not complete. That is, when the receiver does not take possession of what is given. But this is not the only level. For the giver gives not only the vessel but also gives a spiritual essence along with the vessel. The spiritual essence is the essence of the giving from the giver’s point of view. The essence is relative to the giver’s intent of the giving and to how the giver hopes the receiver will be able to utilize the given vessel for both physical and spiritual purposes.

When the receiver receives what is being given, the receiver not only receives the vessel, but also receives the spiritual essence of what is given, as this spiritual essence is interpreted by the receiver. In the complete transaction, the receiver indicates to the giver that the receiver has received the spiritual essence of the giving by giving back to the giver the acceptance of the giving. For the receiver, in accepting what is given, is also giving this acceptance to the giver. To complete the unification at this level, the giver must accept the receiver’s acceptance.

This second level of unification is easily understood by thinking about the usual social etiquette in the giving of a gift. The giver gives and the receiver receives. The receiver says something like, “Thank you, it is just what I wanted.” indicating such an acceptance of what is received that the receiver’s acceptance constitutes the receiver’s giving to the initial giver. Then the initial giver says something like “Enjoy and use it well.” This constitutes the initial giver’s acceptance of the receiver’s giving the receiver’s acceptance of what the initial giver has given. Because the receiver has already told the giver that “it was just what I wanted,” the giver’s statement, “enjoy and use it well,” completes the unification.

But when the receiver does not accept what the giver is giving, the transaction is not complete. Instead of a unification there is a disunification. The giver will feel rejected or angry. And unless the giver is able to control these feelings, the giver will initiate an entire new action sequence that in effect rejects the receiver’s giving that consists of a rejection of the initial giver’s giving. It would not be unusual for the initial giver’s rejection to be emotionally raw and initiating a new round of disunifications.

There is yet another level to the giving and receiving that is not necessarily apparent from the verbal social interaction. This level is a higher spiritual level and has to do with the more global understanding and intent of the giver and the receiver. This level is activated when the giver understands and feels that the giver has been the receiver of Divine giving and as an agent of the Divine, the giver chooses to pass along the giving. The giver’s understanding and feeling that the giver has been the receiver of the Divine giving constitutes the giver’s acceptance of the Divine giving. For this the giver thinks or says a blessing. This level is unified when the receiver understands that the giver is in fact acting as an agent of the Divine and therefore, the receiving is not just a physical/spiritual receiving, but a spiritual receiving from the Divine as well. For this the receiver thinks, says or gives a blessing. And this constitutes the receiver’s acceptance of the Divine giving.

There is one higher spiritual level. This is the level at which both giver and receiver make a conscious choice to understand everything happening in their lives starting from the point of receiving the Divine giving. This is the level of so aligning their individual wills with the Divine will that the giver and receiver are always evaluating and understanding, not from their individual point of view, nor from their family’s point of view, nor even from their country’s point of view. But they are evaluating and understanding from the point of view of the Creator. The issue is whether the act in question will in its direct and indirect effects be of greater benefit to the universe than any other act that could be undertaken.

We call this level the level of cosmic consciousness. It carries with it a central internal calmness and peacefulness, an equanimity, that cannot be shaken. For at this level, the ego is nullified. There is no reason for reacting or getting upset about the seemingly bad things that others are doing. There is no reason for being upset about a giving that is not being received. All this is understood as the hand of the Divine setting up situations that make possible the revealment of the highest level of virtue that we, to whom the badness is done, or we whose giving has been rejected, are capable of revealing. For it is in these situations that we have the possibility of bringing into manifestion (open revealment) the virtues of a tzaddik.

The challenging or difficult situations are precisely those situations in which a special Divine spiritual giving is occuring to us. The issue is whether we are open for receiving it. When we are, we are deeply thankful for this possibility. We complete the transaction by completely receiving what has been given and we do what must be done to reveal the highest level of virtue that we can. Our center is not moved and we experience indescribable delight.

Let us consider the situation where the giver forces the receiver to receive something the receiver does not want to receive. The receiver may not want to receive the given vessel itself or may not want to receive the spiritual essence given along with the vessel, or may not want to receive either. For example, what happens when the giver gives an insult to the receiver or when the giver-merchant overcharges the receiver-buyer. In these kinds of giving the receiver has been wronged and the unification of the complete-giving/complete-receiving will not happen, unless the receiver acts in a specially virtuous way.

The insulting statement not only is a put down, but it is not true. The overcharging merchant is not fair. We engaged in the transaction with an implicit understanding that the exchange was to be a fair exchange. We had no desire to get from the merchant either more than what is proper or less than what is proper for the fair exchange. We, the receiver have been violated by the bad thing given to us.

Let us look more closely at the situation. The giver was in control. The giver was the initiator and was responsible for the wrong doing given to the receiver, a wrong doing that has a dimension of vessel and has a dimension of spiritual essence. And the receiver must receive the bad thing the giver is giving. How can the receiver completely receive such a giving? For the giving by nature was not complete.

In another kind of situation, we may be the giver who gives essential and important information to a receiver. But the receiver actively rejects the information. Here, the rejection by the receiver constatutues a giving to the initial giver and the initial giver becomes the receiver of the initial receiver’s rejection of the initial giver’s giving. This rejection by the receiver constitutes the receiver’s giving back to us. Our perception of this giving is that it is not a good giving. We have received something bad. When we receive a bad thing we feel bad for having been wronged; we get angry. An injustice was done. Our essential being has been violated.

In every situation that we do not completely receive, we judge that in some sense we have been violated. When we are violated we get angry. As the receiver, our problem is to completely receive a violation! How can we do that?

We must think as follows: We must think that the giver of the violation is the hand of God. Perhaps the bad we have been given is spiritually similar to a bad that we had earlier given to someone else. Or perhaps it is a bad that we were about to give to someone else. Or perhaps the bad we have been given carries within it a spark of Godliness and the situation has been expressly created for us to provide an opportunity to bring into action a virtue, to manifest a quality of Godliness, that is beyond what might be ordinarily expected. For example, God might have expressly created the situation for the purpose of providing us the possibility to manifest the appropriate virtues which would help the giver become a complete giver. If we, the receiver, could do this then since the giving would be complete, the receiving would be complete and the violation and hurt would disappear from existence. Or God might have expressly created the situation for the purpose of providing the possibility for us to manifest the virtues required to enable us to be a complete receiver of what the hand of God has given us. This latter case commonly happens for the purpose of bringing the realization to the receiver that the receiver must change the way the receiver makes judgements so that the the receiver might learn how to be more correct in interpreting the spiritual essence of what has been given.

Our first step to completely receive the bad is to accept the hurt and move on to take action which brings out the sparks of Godliness concealed within the bad, i.e. to act as the tzaddik. When we do this, something very interesting happens. Because we begin to engage in an action to reveal Godliness, the hurt goes away. It dissolves.

Initially it is the ego within us that yells: hurt! hurt! hurt! Return hurt to that which has hurt us! Withdraw from, isolate, conquer or destroy that which has hurt us! But as soon as we engage in an action to reveal Godliness, the ego becomes occupied as the coordinator of the activity we engage in to bring out and reveal the spark of Godliness. The ego which had been yelling hurt no longer is in existence.

With respect to the giver of the wrong, there is more. For the giver has not become a complete giver. To facilitate the giver becoming a complete giver the receiver must try, in a proper way, to make sure that all the facts are known by the giver. For perhaps if the giver more fully understands what actually happened, the giver would have acted differently. Doing this properly means that the receiver must fully understand the giver’s assumptions, perspectives, and framework of operation, so that the receiver can engage a dialog with the giver and do so from the giver’s point of view. This kind of dialog can straighten out mistakes made by the giver at the level of vessel or mistakes by the giver at the level of spiritual essence of what is given, or mistakes made by the receiver relative to the interpretation of the spiritual essence of what has been given.

If this level of action does not work, the receiver may initiate actions which catalyze social pressure to be put on the giver to right the wrong. Or the receiver may take legal action. Or the receiver may take no further action and just drop the situation. But for the receiver, the essence of what the receiver does is to help facilatate the giver to become a complete giver and for the receiver to become a complete receiver.

Now let us consider the situation from the point of view of the giver. How does the giver completely give in this situation in which the giver has just given a bad to the receiver. First the giver has to come to a recognition that a bad had been given. When the giver recognizes that the giver has made a mistake, the giver must immediately stop any other activities that involve making the same mistake and resolve not to make similar mistakes in the future. Then the giver must right all the similar past wrongs that the giver committed. This level is the level of nullifying the bad vessel of what had been given. The amount overcharged the receiver must be returned to the receiver. The giver must explain to the receiver that the giver made a mistake and that the giver will not make the mistake again. The insult must be taken back. The giver must go to the receiver and explain to the receiver of the insult that the giver no longer feels about or judges the receiver in such an insulting way.

Finally, the giver tells the receiver that the giver is sorry for having made the mistake. This is important because it is the action which undoes the giver’s intent of giving the bad to the receiver and/or undoes the receiver’s judgement that the giver had intended to give the bad to the receiver. This level is the level of nullifying the bad spiritual essence of what had been initially given.

The receiver completely receives the giver’s taking back of the giver’s mistake and completely receives the giver’s regrets by telling the giver that the receiver has forgiven the giver. Everything now is all right. All is forgiven. The giver receives or acknowledges the receiver’s acceptance of the giver’s taking back of the giver’s bad by telling the receiver “thankyou for understanding.” This level is the level of unification that completes the nullifying of the bad spiritual essence of what had been initially given.

This process of recognizing the mistake, stopping all other such mistakes that may be in process, resolving not to make such future mistakes, righting all the wrongs, and telling the receiver of the mistake that the giver is sorry constitute the process of return. The bad, both the vessel and its spiritual essence, which had been brought into existence is completely taken out of existence. It is returned to non-existence. We call this process Teshuvah, whose literal meaning is reply, answer, response, rejoinder, return, or repentance. It is related to the root שוב and associated with the passage:

And you shall return unto the Lord your God and hearken to His voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul.{Deuteronomy 30:2.}

When we have made an error by incompletely giving or incompletely receiving, Teshuvah is our response, our reply, our answer, to the repair which must be done. It is the way we can recover from a mistake and continue on the mission of completely receiving and giving that we are called upon to do. Completing this mission is our return to a greater nearness to God, to a greater God-consciousness. Completely receiving and giving is how we unify God’s name.

 

 

Reflection for June 6, 2011: If I were

Sleep deserts my eyes and I toss like a

ship in the sea of my yearning for You

as I imagine these things: If I were an

infant and you were my nurse, I would

suckle your beautiful breasts, and

quench my thirst. If I were a stream

and you and I sat in the shade of my

garden, I would loook after your fruit.

If I was a spear and you thrust me

into your enemies’ hearts, I would be

drunk with their blood. If I were a tent

and you dwelt in me, we would delight

ourselves with love and clothe ourselves

with joy. If I were a tongue and you

were my words, I would soothe desire’s

flame with a song. If I were a slave and

you were my lord, I would long to

serve you, I would never choose

freedom.

Israel ben Moses Najara (c. 1555, Damascus – c. 1625, Gaza) (Heb. ישראל בן משה נאג’ארה Yisrael ben Moshe Najarah) was a Jewish liturgical poet, preacher, Biblical commentator, kabbalist, and rabbi of Gaza.

According to Franco (Histoire des Israélites de l’Empire Ottoman,
p. 79, Paris, 1897), there is another account which declares that
Najara was born about 1530 and that he lived for some years at Adrianople. From his secular poems, which he wrote in the meters of various Turkish, Spanish, and modern Greek songs, it is evident that he knew well several foreign languages. He travelled extensively in the Near East, had lived in Safed, where he came under the extensive influence of Lurianic Kabbalah and served as a rabbi at the Jewish community of Gaza.

As may be seen from his works, he was a versatile scholar, and he corresponded with many contemporary rabbis, among others with Bezaleel Ashkenazi, Yom-Ṭob Ẓahalon, Moses Hamon, and Menahem Ḥefeẓ. His poetic effusions were exceptionally numerous, and many of them were translated into Persian. While still young he composed many religious hymns, to Arabic and Turkish tunes, with the intention, as he says in the preface to his Zemirot Yisrael, of turning the Jewish youth from profane songs. He wrote piyyuṭim, pizmonim, seliḥot, widduyim, and dirges for all the week-days and for Sabbaths, holy days, and occasional ceremonies, these piyyuṭim being collected in his Zemirot Yisrael. Many of the piyyuṭim are in Aramaic.

For his hymns on the marriage of God and Israel, Najara was severely blamed by Menahem Lonzano (Shete Yadot, p. 142) when the latter was at Damascus. The Shibḥe Ḥayyim Wiṭal (p. 7b) contains a violent attack by Ḥayyim Vital upon a poet whose name is not mentioned, but who some take to be Israel Najara. Nevertheless, Isaac Luria, Vital’s teacher, declared that Najara’s hymns were listened to with delight in heaven. His piyyuṭim were praised also by Leon of Modena, who composed a song in his honor, which was printed at the beginning of the Olat Shabbat, the second part of the Zemirot Yisrael.

He is buried in the ancient Jewish cemetery in Gaza. His son, Moses Najara was also a poet, who succeeded his father as the chief rabbi of Gaza.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_ben_Moses_Najara

Sing To The Eternal

The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (Penguin Classics)

 

Reflection for May 27, 2011: Exploring the Grail

I praise the Lord, Prince of the realm and King!

His rule extends across the whole wide world.

Gweir was penned beneath the fortress mound,

As tell the tales of Pwyll and Pryderi.

None before him passed into the prison,

With a heavy chain a faithful servant bound.

Bitter before the spoils of Annwn he sang,

And until Doomsday lasts our bardic prayer.

Three companies of warriors we went in –

Seven alone rose up from Elfs-castle.

 

Song rang out, honoring me with praise

In the four-peaked fortress, four its mighty turnings.

My verses from within the cauldron uttered,

By breath of maidens ninefold they were kindled.

The lord of Annwn’s cauldron: how is it made?

A dark ridge on its border, crusted pearls.

Its fate is not to boil the meat of cowards,

The deadly flashing sword is lifted to it,

And in the hand of the Leaper it was left.

Before the doors of hell the lamps were burning.

When we went in with Arthur, blinding trouble –

Seven alone rose up from Meads-castle.

 

 

Song rang out, honoring me with praise

In the four-peaked fortress, isle of the strong door.

Flowing water and shining jet are mingled,

They drink the sparkling wine before their followers.

Three companies of warriors sailed the sea –

Seven alone rose up from Hard-castle.

 

I do not deserve to be put with poetasters:

Beyond the fort they missed the valor of Arthur.

Six thousand men stood on the glass wall,

Their sentinel was difficult to speak with.

Three companies of warriors went with Arthur –

Seven alone rose up from Guts-castle.

 

 

I do not deserve the mean men, slack their shield straps.

They do not know the day of our creation,

Nor what time of day the One was born.

Who made him who strayed far from Defwy meadows?

They do not know the ox, his thick headband,

Full sevenscore links upon his chained collar.

And when we went with Arthur, woeful visit –

Seven alone rose up from Gods-castle.

 

 

I do not deserve these men — slack their will.

They do not know which day the chief was sired,

Nor what hour of day the lord was born,

Nor what beasts are kept, their heads of silver.

When we went in with Arthur, sorrowful strife –

Seven alone rose up from Box-castle.

 

 

Monks are a pack together — a choir of dogs –

They shrink away from meeting the lords who know:

Is there one course of wind? One course of water?

Is there one spark of fire?  Of fierce tumult?

Monks are a pack together, like youngling wolves

They shrink away from meeting the lords who know:

They do not know when night and dawn divide,

Nor wind, what is its course, nor what its onrush,

What place it ravages, nor where it strikes.

The grave of the saint vanishes, grave and ground.

I praise the Lord, great Prince of the whole world,

And so I am not sad, for Christ endows me.

further:

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/annwn.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preiddeu_Annwfn

http://igerne.tripod.com/annwn.htm

http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/poetry/taliesin/spoils_annwfn.htm

 

In the center of the Castle of Brahma, our own body, there is a small shrine,

in the form of a Lotus flower, and within can be found a small space.

We should find who dwells there and want to know him….

for the whole universe is in him and he dwells within our heart.

–Chandoga Upanishad

 

Or, as one might say; In the center of the Castle of the Grail, our own body, there is a shrine,

and within it is to be found the Grail of the Heart.

We should indeed seek to know and understand that inhabitant.

It is the fragment of the divine contained within each one of us- like the sparks of

unfallen creation which the Gnostics saw entrapped within the flesh of the human envelope.

This light shines within each one, and the true quest of the Grail consists in

bringing that light to the surface, nourishing and feeding it until its radiance suffuses the world.

–John Matthews (“Temples of the Grail” found in At The Table of the Grail: No One Who Sets Forth on the Grail Quest Remains Unchanged )

 

 

The Grail Mystery Returned underground, wrapped itself again in its esotericism

and waited for another time toi unfold its inner revelation. Such a point was reached

after the Reformation, when the inner Grail mystery…surfaced again in the Rosicruccian

movement of the early seventeenth century. At this time…the Rosicrucians tried to incarnate

an Esoteric Christianity within the Protestant movement…in order to provide a much needed

resolution of the polarities of Protestantism. Thus we should see the Rosicrucian

movement as being inwardly related to the Grail mystery. The spiritual alchemy that

was the esoteric foundation of Rosicrucianism can be seen as a development of the Grail impulse.

–Adam Maclean (“Alchemical transmutation in history and symbolism” , found in At the Table of the Grail 1982)

 

 

The

intrinsic definition of Limitlessness is that It lacks nothing and can

receive nothing, for It is everything. As It is everything,

theoretictically It is the potential to be an infinite source of giving.

 

The

question arises, however, that there is nothing for It to give to

because It is everything. It would have to give to Itself. This has been

a major creation. conundrum in philosophy and theology for thousands of

years.

 

Kabbalah

suggests one way of dealing with this issue. It says that as long as

the infinite source of giving has no “will” to give, nothing happens.

However, the instant It has the will to give, this will initiates a

“thought.” Kabbalah says, “Will, which is [primordial] thought, is the

beginning of all things, and the expression [of this thought] is the

completion.

 

That is, the entire creation is nothing more than a thought in the “mind” ofEin Sof, so

to speak. Another way to express this idea is that the will to u give

instantly creates a will to receive. The idea that an infinite giver can

create receptivity in Itself is what Kabbalists call tzimtzum (contraction). It has to make an opening within Itself for receiving.

 

That which is given is called light. That which receives is called vessel. Light

and vessel are always in balance, because light comes from an infinite

source and thus will fill a vessel to its capacity. If we put a bucket

under Niagara Falls, it instantly fills. If we put a freight train

there, it also instantly fills. Imagine that the entire universe rests

under a Niagara Falls of light, continuously being filled.

 

According

to Kabbalah, the interaction between vessel and light is what makes the

world go around. Everything in the universe is a vessel that “wills” to

receive the light of theinfinite bestower. Each molecule, plant,

animal, rock, and human is a vessel; each has the “will” to be exactly

what it is.]

 

Human

consciousness is unique in that it has the quality of being “in and the

universe. If we the image of God.” This quality is expressed by what we

call free will, and free will at its core is nothing more than the

ability to bestow light. That is to say, human consciousness has an

inherent will to give. This human capability of acting like God in being a bestower is the fulcrum upon which the entire universe is balanced.

 

The

reason this is so important is that if there were a will only to

receive, as described above, the universe would be completely

predictable. Everything would be predetermined, all receptivity would

find shape in its implicit design, and every aspect of the unfolding of

creation could be anticipated. The wild card introduced here is the

premise that human consciousness is informed by a soul force that gives

it the capacity to emulate the infinite Bestower.

 

 

Thus

human beings have an extraordinary capacity to influence the direction

of creation. Each time we make use of our free will by giving, we are in

copartnership with the infinite Bestower. When this is accomplished,

with clear awareness of what we are doing, we raise the consciousness of

creation.

–David A Cooper (God Is a Verb: Kabbalah and the Practice of Mystical Judaism)

 

Reflection for May 2, 2011: Yes We Can

http://youtu.be/xhejw2ljXHY

For
we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We
are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and
non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from
every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of
civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger
and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall
someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the
world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that
America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To
the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest
and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow
conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your
people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To
those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing
of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we
will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To
the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make
your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies
and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy
relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to
suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources
without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change
with it.

–Barak Obama (Inaugural Speech 1/20/09)