Prayers and Reflections

The Re-emerging Mother-Goddess

 

(from “Pagan Rites in Judaism)

 

 

 

by

 

Theodor Reik.

 

I. In a Synagogue for the First Time

If Hamlet had known the insight psychoanalysis has given us into the laws of mental processes, he would certainly have added that strange phenomenon to his praise of man (“What a piece of work is a man!” – II, ii). The wonders of unconscious thoughts would have surprised him as they still amaze us every day even though we have been familiar with that particular “piece of work” for a long time now.

    Why did an early childhood memory suddenly pop up in my thoughts, which had been focused on a research project? It dealt with the problem of what happened to the great mother-goddesses, common to all the peoples of the ancient Middle East, in the religion of the prehistoric Hebrews. There was no discernible connection between that research project and a reminiscence from the past of perhaps seventy years ago. Only much later, when my exploration had progressed to a certain point, did I become aware of a latent thought-connection that had remained concealed for weeks.

    It was a memory: I must have been four or four and a half years old when my grandfather took me to a synagogue for the first time. I was not astonished by the sight of men in prayer shawls because I had earlier seen my grandfather covered with such a mantle.

    What amazed me was the scene that took place shortly after our entrance. Two or three men went up to a platform and to a kind of recess or closet, the curtain of which they pulled away. After they opened that recess they took out a strange object. Or was it a person? Was it a prisoner who had been locked up there?

    I am sure that my first impression must have been that it was a woman the men lifted from the closet. What I saw must have confirmed that impression: there was a wonderful long dress with many adornments and decorations and a beautiful crown on the head of the figure. Was she a queen? Everyone had jumped to his feet when she appeared.

    There were, it was true, no feet visible, but the figure had a long dress as was the fashion in those days. Later on I saw something like a hand – a real hand – that seemed to come out from the dress, following the lines the men read from the parchment.

    Only much later I understood my mistake. The closet was of course the recess, the ark, in which the scrolls of the law are kept, and that mysterious, richly dressed figure was the Torah. Naturally the boy was then too scared to ask.

    The belief of the little boy who was fascinated and looked at the scene was strengthened when he saw that the men were “undressing” the figure. They took her precious clothes off and removed the crown, while they prayed or, actually, sang. But even before that, they had done something which must have confirmed my impression that the figure was a woman, and a highly respected or loved one at that. She was carried around in a brief procession to the lectern. The men of the congregation near her touched her mantle with their prayer shawls (talith) and kissed them on this spot.

    I still remember that when the men had removed the wrappings and adornments of the figure, they lifted the white scrolls high, showing them to the congregation. I vividly remember the feeling of sudden shame I experienced then. The corporal form of the Torah did not allow any doubt. The kissing had supported my belief: I had been a witness to the process of undressing a woman so that the figure appeared naked now. I had been present at a kind of peep-show, an exhibition shared by all the men present.

    It cannot be denied that this impression renewed earlier attempts of the little boy to peep, but the scene in the synagogue was itself enough to convey that distinct impression. The physically or corporeality of the Torah in its center was of great weight.

    This childhood memory, whose significance became recognizable only much later, should merely form an introduction to the treatment of the subject of the mysterious disappearance of a mother-goddess in the religion of prehistoric Israel.

 

II. The vanished Mother-Goddess

It is likely that for all the Semitic migrants who wandered from Arabia into the fertile lands of Mesopotamia and Syria “the moon was originally the supreme deity.”¹ Even Moses Maimonides states that moon worship was the religion of Adam. The name of the moon goddess in ancient Babylonia was Sinne; she corresponds to the great goddess Manat in Arabia and to Venus, and Aphrodite in other countries. The moon was the emblem of Israel in Talmudic literature and in Hebrew tradition. The mythical ancestors of the Hebrews lived in Ur and Harran, the centers of the Semitic moon-cult.²

    The moon did not long remain the ancient Hebrews’ only goddess. As did all people of the ancient Middle East, they imagined that man had been produced by a divine couple as the product of their sexual intercourse. The Egyptians and Babylonians believed that man was conceived in the embrace of heaven and Earth. In the psychoanalytic interpretation of the Genesis saga, Otto Rank arrived at the reconstruction that Adam was born as the product of sexual intercourse between a father-god and the mother-goddess Eve or Adamah (the earth). The myth-formation we know, the tradition that Adam gives birth to Eve, is a reversal of the original version that Adam was born from Adamah, the great earth-goddess.³

    Adamah or Eve would correspond to the great mother-goddess of the ancient Orient, to the divine mother of the Babylonians called Ishtar, the Egyptians Isis, the Phrygians Cybele, the Greeks Aphrodite, and the Romans Venus. All these goddesses were consorts of their divine sons, called Osiris, Tamus, and so on. After the liquidation of the kingdom of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, the Jewish refugees in Egypt associated Yahweh with two goddesses. The name of the Lord was blended with that of the goddess as Anath Yahu.⁴ When Jeremiah came to Egypt in 585, he gave the Jews there a severe lecture (44:2ff), but the men answered that they would continue “to burn incense unto the queen of heaven and pour out drink offering unto her as we have done, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem for then we had plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.”

    Only tangential notice can be given here to the idolatry of that generation and of the preceding ones because our attention is given to the question What happened to that great mother-goddess of the ancient Hebrew tribes? What, for instance, was the destiny of the female deity who produced the first man according to the primal tradition? Did she disappear? Do we here encounter a surprising reversal in the form “La recherche de la maternité est inderdite”? And what happened to other, later female deities?

    Before we try to answer this question we hasten to add that other goddess-figures of ancient West Asia were also subjected to changes of various kinds. The divine family (preferably in triads of father, mother, and son) had various histories. There were in early Babylon, for instance, as many goddesses as gods; each male deity had at least one female companion. The city goddess Ninlil, the lady of the great mountain; Nana, the patroness of Uruk; and others later changed their functions. Some became “more shadowy reflections of the gods; but with little independent power, and in some cases none at all.”⁵ There was, as Edwin D. Starbuck once called it, a kind of “twilight extinction” of goddesses in early Babylonia and Assyria and among other nations eager to conquer the world.⁶ There were various forms of the subjection and transformation of the goddesses.

    The strangest was defined by W. R. Smith: “In various parts of the Semitic field we find deities originally changing their sex and becoming gods.”⁷ It is questionable whether such change of sex was really, as Robert Briffault and others assume, the outcome of the struggle of patriarchal principles against the survival of matriarchal society. In any event, such change makes an odd impression, and it is difficult for us to imagine its development.

    But to return to our particular subject here, the vicissitudes of the ancient mother-goddess of the Hebrew tribes, we know (better: we assume that we know) what happened to her: She became a victim of the great religious and social reform we connect with the name of Moses. This tyrannical and intolerant leader of the Hebrew tribes and his followers banned the figure of the mother-goddess into the nether world. That removal was performed so radically that scarcely any trace of her previous existence remained in the official Hebrew religion. Occasionally Yahweh, the victor, took over her functions, saying “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you: and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” Even the root of the goddess-idea was torn out: there is no feminine form of Adon, the name of the Lord.

 

III. A Mysterious Story and a Mystery Story

The idea that a goddess changed her sex and become a god is entirely alien to us, and we have no means to help us understand this transformation. There is a lack of communication between us and the mental world of the ancient Near East. To facilitate our understanding of the mentioned change and of others, I shall introduce here a comparison that will, in a lighter vein, prepare us for acceptng some peculiar aspects of the problem. The question is not only how the figure of the mother-goddess disappeared, but also what happened to her afterward. We would like to investigate the circumstances of her disappearance, but we also want to find out if she turned up again in some disguise or other within the Hebrew religion. We know that she reappeared as the virginal Mary, the mother of Jesus, that this was in Christianity, a religion whose roots were in Judaism but which severed all ties with it. What happened to that originally female figure before that and what since?

    The comparison I am introducing is with a mystery story. Here is the plot. The elderly wife of Lord A had disappeared. A sleuth, a figure similar to Agatha Christie’s Monsieur Poirot or Inspector Maigret, whom George Simenon created, takes over the task of investigating the manner of her vanishing and, if possible, the task of finding her again.

    No trace of the missing woman is discovered. Investigation brings to light the fact that there was a severe marital conflict between the Lord and his wife, who was unwilling to accept his autocratic rule. A young butler or major-domo called Moses, engaged only a short time before, plays a sinister role in that conflict. Lord A has made him the delegate in the household. Some rumors indicate that the Lady left after a furious argument with this major-domo – who ejected her and forbade her to enter the house again.

    What happened to her and where did she go? There, is a temporary suspicion that Lord A or this major-domo murdered her, but it cannot be confirmed. Could she still be hiding in some secret room of Lord A’s palace? No one saw her leave the house. Since she left no belongings, it is as though she had never lived in the palace at all.

    A long time after the disappearance of the mistress of the house, new persons appear on the scene: women who hold highly responsible positions. The detective who is still suspicious of the Lord considers it possible that one of those new women-figures is the Lady in disguise, but his suspicion seems unjustified. These women are not only much younger, but also very different in character and behavior. The unavoidable exploration of Lady A’s life had revealed that she had had several lovers – there were even rumors that she had once been a prostitute. These new women seem extremely virtuous and have spotles reputations. Nothing indicates that there is any sexual relationship between them and Lord A, who is harshly puritanical.

    The detective who quietly observed those women inside and outside the house could find nothing that confirmed his suspicions. In vain the detective asked himself again and again: where is she now? There was not the slightest physical or psychological resemblance between the vanished Lady and any of the women-figures. Yet the detective could not rid himself of the thought that there existed a relationship between them.

    So much for the plot of the fanciful mystery story introduced here for the sake of comparison. The reader will have guessed long ago what the points of comparison are. The Lord is, of course, Yahweh; the vanishing Lady the original goddess whom the Hebrews at first worshiped like other Semitic tribes – a mother-goddess, but also the goddess of love and sexual desire; the major-domo is Moses, the religious reformer of the Israelites, who banned the goddess as well as her divine son, ejecting both of them. But who are these women-figures who came to the house much later to hold mysterious and responsible positions?

 

IV. Personifications

After this Intermezzo in a lighter vein let us return to the question of what happened to the missing goddess of the Hebrew tribes. For many centuries she remained lost and forgotten. As a matter of religious fact, she has never been heard of, only traces of her existence have been found in the early creation myth of Eve and a few distorted Biblical passages. There is no female deity in Judaism.

    We expressed our astonishment at the fact that some goddesses of the ancient Semites changed their sex and became gods. Even more odd or freakish apears to us another peculiarity of ancient mythology: the personification of an abstract idea or of attributes of the gods. Yet those phenomena are universal in ancient and primitive religions and have their roots in the animistic beliefs attributing a soul to natural objects and later to the powers of nature. Such personifications are not, as one would assume, results of late developments. They are present among the aborigines of Australia and Africa and are found as well in early Babylonia and Egypt. And are they entirely alien to us? Do we not ourselves sometimes personify death and time? On the monuments of great men of the last century you often see symbolic or allegoric figures such as Courage, Virtue, or Victory, quite independent of the personality presented. Justitia, for instance, is still alive for us as a bindfolded figure holding a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other.

    Scholars have described great numbers of such personifications in ancient Egypt, where some were worshiped as gods and goddesses while others had no cult. The same is true of Babylonia and Greece as well as of the ancient Roman civilization. The most frequently mentioned of all Egyptian personifications is Maet (“:that which is straight or direct or what is the truth”). She is depicted as a goddess with a feather on her head and is thought of as the daughter of Re and closely connected with her spouse Thoth, the god of law and regularity. She had a cult of her own in an early period. We know that there were similar personifications in prehistoric Israel (for instance the Depth, corresponding to the Babylonian Tiamat ), but they too fell into oblivion following the severe religious upheaval of Yahwism

 

    In the following paragraphs we shall be exploring the three most important personifications, all female, of a much later period, beginning perhaps after the close of the biblical canon. All these figures present emanations or attributes of God, but increase in their importance as time passes. (They can be compared to the women with responsible functions as the house of Lord A in our interlude.)

    The first of these figures is perhaps Wisdom (hebraic Chochma), known to everybody from the Wisdom literature of the Bible. It was always understood that Wisdom is of divine origin, but she developed by and by an individuality of her own. As Samuel J. B. Wolk points out, Wisdom made speeches, exhorted men to follow her if they would find God – “The adjective became a substantive.”⁸ A human quality became a distinct personality (Prov. 1:1-9; Sirach 24). On account of the rigid monotheism of Yahwistic religion. Wisdom could never attain a thoroughly independent personality such as that of Ea, the Babylonian god of wisdom, or the Logos of Philo whom we later encounter as the second or third person of the Christian trinity. Wisdom developed an individuality but did not become a creator or competitor of God – “hypostatized, but never apotheosized.”⁹ Wisdom was identified with the Torah. In Ben Sirach Wisdom quotes (Deut. 33:4) and applies the verse to herself (24, 23).

    The Babylonian god of Wisdom dwelt in the great Deep, in popular theology associated with the Tehom Rabbah (Babylonian Tiamat), but the author of Job energetically rejects the ancient myth and lets the depth say that wisdom “is not in me” (28:4). Yet chochma “was the first of the works of old” (Prov. 8:22) and “the Lord by wisdom founded the earth” (Prov. 3:19).

    A philosophical discussion erupted later concerning whether Wisdom was a being of herself or an attribute of God. She was certainly once conceived as something outside of God. Who consulted her in the process of creation. Is such “consultation” perhaps a later diluted form of a more vital participation of the wisdom-goddess in the process of creation?

    The second personification to be discussed is the Shekinah, the female figure as is Chochma, but one who has quite a different function. Shekinah means the omnipresence of God. The word is derived from the Hebrew shchan - to dwell. Philo assumes that Shekinah corresponds to logos. This is also the view of Maimonides.¹⁰ The Cabbalists and the mystics regarded Shekinah as the real entity. In the Talmud and Midrash the Shekinah descended into the Tabernacle in the wilderness in the form of a cloud. We find her again in Solomon’s temple. In the Talmud, Shekinah appears as the omnipotence and is synonymous with the divine light.

    The mystical philosophy of later Judaism assumed that there was first unity between Creator and Creature.¹¹ With the Fall of Adam there arose a barrier between them. God did not entirely withdraw from the world. When Adam was driven out of Eden, an aspect or emanation of the Divine followed him into his captivity. She went before Israel, going through the wilderness. In the same way the Shekinah follows everyone as long as he observes the precepts of the Torah.

    The Shekinah also followed Israel into the Exile. It is said that she “always hovers over Israel like a mother over her children!” It is because of Israel that the Shekinah dwells on earth. The doctrine of the Shekinah has a central place in the doctrine of the Cabbala.

    None of these female figures is comparable in impact to that of the Torah, the image of God, the creator of the world. The Cabbala explained that the stories we find in the Torah are subordinate to her essence.¹² Those stories are only her “garments”; without them the world could not endure her.

    Together with God and Israel, the Torah forms the base upon which Judaism rests. She is considered older than the material world and was assigned a cosmic role as an instrument whereby God created the universe. Even in this thoroughly diluted form we recognize the primal female goddess who, with God, produced the world.

    Shekinah, Chochma, Torah – these are the disguised, scarcely recognizable figures of the Hebrew primal mother-goddess. Driven out, they returned by a side door in order to remain in the house – especially true of the personified Torah.

    It is remarkable that the unadmitted cult of those female figures is sometimes at the expense of Yahweh, whose emanations they represent. I was once present at a heated discussion between one religious Jew and another. Impatiently brushing aside an argument, one said: “Who speaks of God? I am talking about the Holy Torah.”

    The ability to personify those remnants of the primal Hebrew mother-goddess did not perish even after the Talmudic period. It continued to live in the artists who kept old traditions alive. E. M. Lilien presented Sabbath as a queen.¹³ In Heinrich Heine’s Hebrew Melodies, Princess Sabbath is praised and celebrated because she changes the doggish life of the Jew into that of a prince every Friday evening. He sings then the old hymn:

 

“Lecho Daudi Likras Kalle,”

Komm, Geliebter, deiner harret

Schon die Braut, die dir entschleiert

Ihr vershaumtes Angesicht…..

 

["Lecho Daudi Likras Kalle,"

Loved one, come. The bride already

Waiteth for thee, to uncover

To thy face her blushing features.

This most charming marriage ditty

Was composed by the illustrious Minnesinger

Don Jehudah ben Halevy.

In the song was celebrated

The espousal of Prince Israel

With the lovely Princess Sabbath

Whom they call the silent princess.]

 

This hymn, erroneously ascribed here to Judah Halevi, was composed in 1540 by Salomon Halevi Alkabeth and reflects the old Cabbalistic tradition in which the disavowed mother-goddess reappears in another form.¹⁴

 

V. Return to the Childhood Memory

Even if the Hebrew names Shekinah, Chochma, and Torah were not feminine, one could easily guess that they are women from the descriptions we have of them. Their prototype, the mother-goddess, suffered a rude expulsion more than two thousand years go and was never officially readmitted. In the best Old Testament fashion, even her name was expunged from the records.

    Yet let us look at a few myths or tales connected with those substituting figures and let us consider the tales as definite evidence of their true identity. There is, for instance, a tale about the Shekinah. As mentioned before, the Shekinah followed Israel into Exile “always hovering over Israel like a mother over her children.” In the Cabbala the Shekinah is called “the Matrona,” which is itself revealing. The mystics predicted that in times to come, God would restore the Shekinah to her place. There would then be a complete reunion and the Lord would be one, and His name one. It may be said: “Is He not now one?” The answer is no, for the Matrona is removed from the king. The king without the Matrona is not invested with the crown as before. But when He joins the Matrona, who will crown Him with many resplendent crowns, then the supernatural mother will invest Him in a fitting manner.

    The Cabbala does not consider that the Lord as long as He is without crowns has less responsibility (“Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown”). But now that the king is not with the Matrona, the supernatural mother withholds her crowns. Therefore, as it were, He is not one. When the Matrona shall return to the place of the temple, the king will be wedded to her. Then all will be joined together without separation.

    It is easy to recognize that in this Cabbala prediction the primal mother is readmitted and the old Semitic myth of a sexual union of God with her has returned from the area of the repressed after many centuries of expulsion.

    The other tale or simile will bring us closer to the quintessence of my childhood memory, especially to the boy’s impression of the indecent “undressing” of the Torah in the synagogue. The Jewish scholars declared that the stories to be found in the Torah are to be compared to “outer garments,” as Simeon said. Whoever looks at them otherwise, woe to that man! He will have no portion in the next world. We are told that one has to observe the things beneath the garments. The Torah has a body made up of the precepts called gufe Torah (bodies), and that body is enveloped in garments made up of worldly narratives. The senseless people see only the garment, the mere narratives. Those who are somewht wise penetrate as far as “the body” while the really wise penetrate right to the soul.

    This is the doctrine of the Cabbala and the comparison is, of course, meant only as a simile. Yet the word Torah has a double significance, a literal and a symbolic one. The little boy who saw several men take out the queenly dressed Torah from the ark and who looked, half-curious and half-ashamed, at her undressing was not entirely mistaken when he assumed that the mysterious object was a woman.¹⁵

 

^1. Otto Weber, Arabien vor dem Islam (Leipzig, 1901), p. 19.

^2. Robert Briffault, The Mothers (New York, 1928), p. 32.

^3. Otto Rank, Das Inzest motiv In Dichtung and Sage (Leipzig, 1921), p. 317, and Psychoanalytische Beiträge zur Mythenforschung (2d ed.; Leipzig and Vienna, 1922), p. 77. I modified and completed Rank’s theory in my The Creation of Woman (New York, 1960).

^4. Eduard Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine (2d ed.; Leipzig. 1912), p. 63, and A. Cook, The Cambridge Ancient History, I, 206.

^5. Morris Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (New York, 1898), p. 104.

^6. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, V, 857.

^7. Religion of the Semites (2d ed.; London, 1894), p. 52.

^8. Universal Jewish Encyclopedia , X, 537.

^9.  Ibid.

^10. More Nebuchim 1, 28..

^11. In this description I am using Abraham J. Herschel’s chapter on the mystical elements in Judaism, in Finkelstein (ed.), The Jews (Philadelphia, 1949).

^12. Ibid., pp. 613ff.

^13. Universal Jewish Encyclopedia , IX, 296.

^14. Herschel, loc. cit. , pp. 614ff.

^15.Addendum 1963. When God destroyed the Temple, Abraham rose up as a complainant against Him and demanded who should witness that Israel transgressed the Torah. God answered that the Torah herself would bear testimony to that effect. Summoned by God, the Torah appeared. Abraham reproached her, saying, “My daughter, dost thou forget how, when God did lead thee from one people to another and none would receive thee, Israel alone did welcome thee? And thou, in this nation’s time of stress, wilt come up as a witness against her?”  These words abashed the Torah and she refused to give evidence. Abraham was thus victorious over God. (Immanuel Olsvanger, Contentions with God, A Study in Jewish Folklore [Capetown, 1921], p. 8) Olsvanger points out that according to tradition the Torah was drawn up even before the creation of the world. As Midrash says, God himself acted in accordance with it “as an architect with his plans.” Olsvanger compares the Torah as the supreme law which stands above God with the Greek Tyche, to whom Zeus later eventually submitted (p. 13).

My son Arthur reminds me that I had already presented the view of the re-emerging Hebrew mother-goddess more than forty years ago in a book not yet translated (Der Eigene und der Fremde Gott [Vienna-Zurich, 1923], pp. 57ff.).

How could I forget that? Here is a confirmation of Freud’s statement in a conversation with me that one easily forgets what one has oneself written. What one has written is, so to speak, intellectually and emotionally conquered and will therefore be easily dismissed from one’s memory.

 

 

The Otherworld melts away before our eyes, and we see before us the Vault of the Lady Venus through the eyes of C.R. He reads, ‘When the fruit of my tree shall be quite melted down then I shall awake and be the mother of a king.’

 

–Caitlin Matthews

 

 

 

First, to profess no other thing, than to cure the sick, and that gratis. We have already remarked that this rule, as stated, is a rule of love. “Compassion,” wrote Paracelsus, “is the true physician’s teacher.” “Compassion,” of course, means “feeling with,” and what is love (or healing) but to feel another’s suffering as one’s own and recognize that the disease, the pain, is one in all. In addition, however, we should also note that the primary orientation is toward the world, the Liber Mundi—that is, toward other beings, for we can love only other, living beings. The Rosicrucian, then, works for the sake of the world, not the individual soul. Granted that from a nondualist perspective there is no difference between the healing of one’s soul and the healing of the world, the Rosicrucian rule nevertheless affirms the primacy of service and of action. If one is a true Rosicrucian, one walks “the true thorn-strewn way of the cross—the renunciation of all selfhood—for the sake of the redemption of the world, that is, the building of the New Jerusalem.” That is why the rule specifies that the nature of the service as aimed at “healing,” which, too, must be understood in the largest sense to include nature. From this point of view, nature, like humanity, fell with Adam and is sick and needs healing. Like humanity, nature is not the unity it ought to be: it groans and travails in pain; it is diseased. Paracelsus called this state of separation and disunity the “cagastrum.” Yet precisely to heal this disease, to renew the unity of nature in and through humanity, Christ came. Indeed, as Prince Lapoukhin writes, Christ not only “mystically sprinkled every soul with the virtue of his blood, which is the tincture proper to the renewal of the soul in God. . . but he also regenerated the mass of immaterial elements of which he shall make a new heaven and a new earth.” In other words: “The crown of all the mysteries of nature adorns the altar of the sanctuary, lit only by the light of the stainless Lamb…[whose] precious blood, sacrificed for the salvation of the world, is the sole tincture that renews all things.” To conjoin the Rose and the Cross in nature as a whole, to heal and unite nature and human nature in its center or heart, is thus the Rosicrucian aim.

 

– Christopher Bamford

 

 

 

“There is always an element of indeterminacy in creation. This is due, in large part, to man. The truth is that whenever man activates his free will, God’s Da’at disappears and Keter manifests in its place.

 

        One of the most fundamental premises of Judaism is that man was given the ability to choose and act without the slightest compulsion. This ability distinguishes him not only in his actions, but also in the profound effect that an act of human will can have on a seemingly irreversible situation. In fact, as we have said, in order that man could resemble God, He gave him a divine soul and endowed him with free will. According to many commentators, this is the meaning of man having been created ‘in the image of God.’

 

        Thus, man’s Keter, his aspect of free will, is analogous to God’s Keter. The Sefirah of Keter represents God’s absolute freedom of action in bringing about His purpose in creation. It also represents man’s most basic internal volition and essential being. On the level of Keter, man is compelled neither by internal predisposition nor external stimuli. His decisions are completely independent of all other considerations. It is only thus that he can be a truly responsible being. God may have absolute knowledge of the future, but this in no way deprives the individual of his own free choice. For no matter what determining influences he may have been subject to, he has the power to transcend his own limitations. This is the meaning of the Talmudic statement that God leads a person along the path that he has chosen to follow.”

 

—Aryeh Kaplan (Inner Space)

 

For those of you who are interested to see how Gnostic science works in the real
world I submit the following essay. The U.S. Constitution is a Pythagorean
model document, like other law oriented documents, the “Coropus Juris Secundum”
being another.

You will notice I declare a right on the basis of the tetrad. You will also
note that although it is not stated in the essay, the first sentence of the U.S. Constitution is a Monadic sequence. In the time of the writing of the
Constitution, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and a few more, were privy to the
private work of Gottfried Leibnitz, who is responsible for the term Monadology
in modern science. Leibnitz’ work defined the Monad only and not the sequence.
He also only defined the Monad as a material thing, at least in his public
works.

As a Monadic sequence the Preamble of the Const. is directed at the Collective
Mind. “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.”

The types in the sequence (hexad) are “Unity of the People,” Justice, Domestic
Tranquility, Common Defense, General Welfare, “Secure Liberty.” As a Monadic
sequence the types are polarized….

Unity of the people is the primary or Monadic force of the sequence. Justice
serves as the dyad, and therefore the dualities of justice pertain to all the
types. Secure Liberty, is the last type and in the Pythagorean system it
polarizes all the other types to this action. As a Monadic force this sequence
serves as the primary wisdom to the body of the text, and should be applicable
to every other part of the document as the Monadic force, or primary directed
wisdom to the enumerated rights and procedures prescribed in the document.

Unity of the American people is dependent upon the following…

Organizing Diverse American Activists

by

Tom Saunders

I’m on the Board of Directors of the Congress Against Racism and Police
Corruption, and the National Judicial Conduct Disability Law Project. These are
activist organizations that focus on Judicial corruption. On the other hand, I’m
a member of the Oklahoma Task Force for Initiative Rights, and an officer in the
Oklahoma Libertarian Party. These organizations focus on legislation reform, and
ballot access, and were instrumental in the “Free Paul Jacob Movement.”

I am actually a part of a few more organizations or groups like those above, but
I want to point out something about them. There are two kinds of political
activists who do very different things, and actually know very little about each
other. They, however are not mutually exclusive, in that they both want
Constitutional protections, and see the corruption in the courts and
legislatures as a major problem in fixing American liberty. However, Judicial
Activists don’t tend to focus on legislation reform, and the those activist who
focus on getting laws passed or rescinded, stay focused on their perspective,
either judicial or legislative. For instance my colleagues in Judicial Activism
don’t know my colleagues in other civil libertarian efforts.

This organizational diversity has created a gap in knowledge that effects unity
in American activism.

For instance, the group, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, and
the John Birch Society both want Constitutional rights restored. However, both
tend to target the base beliefs of the core organizations’ membership to the
point where they are never likely to bond. One reason is the ‘John Birchers,’
are heavily Conservative and dedicated Right Wing, Christians. ‘Americans for
Separation,’ attracts atheists, more liberal Christians, and others. In the
context of ‘liberal vs. Conservative,’ or even Democrat vs. Republican, these
folks see one another as the enemy in enough ways that the diversity can and
does become counter productive to the mutual goals of restoring liberty.

Restoring liberty may be a matter of creating unity among the diverse groups
seeking goals in different aspects of liberty, before meaningful change can be
brought about.

So far the ‘movers and shakers’ of ‘Judicial’ reform, are not bonded with groups
that focus on ‘Legislative’ action. There are a few activists who work both
sides of the street and I am sure they see what I am seeing, the diversity of
the two groups. There is also a tendency to be mutually exclusive to a single
cause, like Americans for the Separation of Church and State, (A.U.) focus on
just that ”First Amendment” issue, the mandate against forming a state
religion. So, what does this have to do with Judicial corruption or say freedom
of speech, or other Constitutional protections? All of these protections are
wrapped up together in the First Amendment, and therefore they are not mutually
exclusive.

Activism, is like any other economy. There is a supply and demand factor that
cannot be ignored. The social fabric contains just so many people that will have
a direct role in restoring liberty. Diversity has made a lot of individual
organizations. Sometimes it seems to me everyone who opened up a separate cause
drained the main social corpus, to the point where we became ”fished out,” and
there are not enough activists to go around.

I no longer try and recruit for any one organization. I am simply involved with
too many. The up side is many of the organizations I am involved with, still
focus on their particular cause, but an overall realization that diversity needs
to be overcome is happily a growing awareness. One way to do this is to present
liberty in a way that it circumvents the mindset of liberal vs. conservative.
The way to frame the civil liberties issues is to take them out of liberal vs.
conservative agendas, and make the agenda, liberty vs. legalism

It is also logical to try and present liberty issues in the context of science
rather than dogma.

Legalism for instance is a rather well defined term in regard to both formal and
historical references. Legalism vs. liberty can be seen as polar opposites. What
makes this a significant duality is that liberty is secured by Constitutional
provisions, and mandates, starting with the first sentence of the Constitution.
This shows one purpose of the Constitution is to provide a guidepost for liberty
over legalism. The preamble or first sentence of the U. S. Constitution
states….

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.”

The provisions of the preamble are not mutually exclusive, and the protections
of the First Amendment are not either.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”

It is logical that the concepts in the preamble are also, not mutually exclusive
to other parts of the body of the document, which means the Preamble and First
Amendment are mutually linked to provide just what the preamble would suggest.
That would be a synergy between the provisions of the document. One part of the
Constitution provides direct support of other parts. So the provisions of the
preamble are aligned with all other parts. This would be to provide the issues
of the preamble to the specific protections of the First Amendment, and others.

This type of dependence is also seen in the way the Constitution organizes the
government into the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches. American law
is made two ways. One through the legislation of laws through the Congress, and
through the ‘stare decisis,’ of Court decisions. This method of making law is
meant to be a safeguard for the protection of Constitutional provisions, and
enumerated rights.

American civil liberties are not mutually exclusive to either the Legislative,
or Judicial branches as to remedies. But organizations that only focus on one
aspect, either legislative method, or judicial reform, don’t utilize the whole
scope of American law. Further both legislative and judicial corruption are at
an all time high, and one of the reasons is the checks and balance systems of
Constitutional law have been allowed to faultier. Legalism has been allowed to
triumph over liberty. This is a direct result of legalism being promoted in both
the judicial and legislative branches of law making.

Another factor that provides a gap in American legal reform is that judicial
matters require a command of legal and technical knowledge higher than the
educational level of most people. Judicial reformers tend to be lawyers or
academics that understand Legalese. Organizations like the Fully Informed Jury
Association, address the issues of how juries work, but they don’t organize to
promote other issues concerning matters out of that domain. For instance FIJA,
or ACORN as organizations would not participate in say the ”Free Paul Jacob
Movement,” although individuals would support freedom of speech issues. So how
can anyone link these diverse organizations for any cause out of their domain?

I have discovered that bringing diverse organizations together can be done.

One way is to make all discussions about civil liberties in the context of
liberty vs. legalism. Another is to show people in various civil liberties
organizations the way to enumerate an American right, using a formula. It is
fairly simple, and can put diverse activists on the same page, this is because
it combines the various law making bodies and methods together, so nothing as to
rights are mutually exclusive from the very process of providing rights.

Further, the method of using a formula to put people on the same page, makes the
process of defining rights a valid science. It works like the checks and
balances of measurement. In other words you show a right the same way you show a
yardstick is both 36 inches and three feet long.

The formula uses the following methodology….

1. Show the right mandated or enumerated from the Constitution.
2. Show any legislation that supports the right.
3. Show court decisions, or stare decisis that support the right.
4. Show where the right has been violated..

This formula can be shown to work with the various Amendments and other mandates
of the U.S. Constitution. It encompasses the entire law making process of both
the legislature and judicial branches. It puts diverse activists on the same
page for showing rights. A person does not need a law degree to find the
provisions of the formula, but would have to do research into what particular
right is being addressed. The advantage is clear, the formula can put certain
rights and diverse views on the same page, although there are some issues it
won’t solve, for the most part it provides a basis in fact for anyone to be able
to prove a Constitutionally protected right.

 

“The Parabola, A Golden Tractate,” by Hinricus Madathanus (c.1630)

 

 

As I once was walking in a beautiful, green, young forest, meditating and deploring the difficulties of this life, considering how, through the grievous Fall of our first Parents we came into such wretchedness and grief, I left the accustomed road and came, I know not how, upon a narrow footpath, very rough, untrodden, difficult and overgrown with so many bushes and brambles that it was easy to see it was very seldom used. At this I became frightened and wished to retrace my steps. But this was not possible, especially since a strong wind blew so mightily behind me that I had to take ten steps forward for every one I could take backward. Therefore I had to press on, despite the roughness of the way.

After advancing thus for a good while, I came at last to a lovely meadow, encircled by beautiful fruit-laden trees, and called by the inhabitants, The Field of the Blessed. Here I met a group of old men with snow-white beards, and one among them was young and had a pointed black beard. A still younger man was present also, whose name I knew, but whose face I did not yet see. These men conversed about many things, particularly about a high and great secret in Nature which God kept hidden from the multitude, revealing it only to the few who loved Him. I listened to them for a long time, and their words pleased me much. But some among them appeared to mutter foolishly, indeed not about the objectives or the work, but about Parabolas, Similitudes and other Parergons. In this they followed the Figmenta of Aristotle, of Pliny and of others, each of whom had copied from the other. At this I could no longer remain silent, but put in a word of my own, answering many futile things on the basis of experience, so that many listened to me, examining me in their speciality, putting me to some very hard tests. But my foundation was so good that I came through with all honors, whereat they all were amazed. However they unanimously accepted me into their Brotherhood, whereat I rejoiced heartily.
But they said that I could not be a full colleague so long as I did not know their Lion and was not fully aware what he could do internally and externally. I was therefore to set about diligently to make him submissive to myself. Confidently I promised them I would do my best, for I enjoyed their company so much that I would not have parted from them for anything in the world.

So they led me to the Lion and very carefully described him to me. But what I was to do with him at first, no one would tell me. Indeed some of them did give me certain hints, but so confusedly that not one in a thousand could understand them. However, when I had tied him and made certain that his sharp claws and pointed teeth could not harm me, they no longer kept anything back. The Lion was very old, fierce and huge; his yellow mane hung over his neck, and he really appeared unconquerable. I was nearly terror-stricken, and had it not been for my agreement and for the old men who stood around me to see how I would begin, I would have run away. Confidently I approached the lion in his cave and began to cajole him, but he looked at me so sharply with his glittering eyes that I nearly let my water for fear. At the same time I remembered that as we went to the Lion’s cave one of the old men had told me that many people had attempted to conquer the Lion, but very few had succeeded. Since I did not wish to fail, I recalled many grips I had learned through careful application to athletics, and in addition I was well trained in natural magic, so I forgot about the pleasantries and attacked the Lion so artfully and subtly that before he was aware of it, I had pressed the blood out of his body, indeed out of his heart itself. The blood was beautifully red, but very choleric. But I examined his anatomy further and found many things which greatly surprised me; his bones were white as snow, and they were of greater quantity than his blood.

When my old men, standing round the cave and watching me, realized what I had done, they began to dispute with each other violently so that I could see their gestures. But what they said I could not understand because I was so far inside the cave. And when they began to shout at each other, I heard one who cried, “He must also bring the Lion to life again; otherwise he cannot be our colleague.”

I did not wish to make trouble. Therefore I walked out of the cave and crossed a broad space. Then I came, I do not know how, to a very high wall which rose over a hundred ells into the clouds. But above there it did not have the width of a shoe. From the beginning where I started, to the end there ran an iron railing along the top of the wall, well fastened with many supports. I walked along the top of this wall and thought I saw someone going along a little ahead of me on the right side of the railing.

After I followed him a while, I saw someone following behind me on the other side of the railing (to this day I don’t know whether it was a man or a woman) who called to me and said that it was better to walk on his side than where I was going. I easily believed this, for the railing which stood in the middle of the wall made the passageway very narrow so that it was difficult to walk along it at such a height. Then behind me I saw some people who wanted to go that same way. So I swung myself under the railing, holding it fast with both hands, and continued along the other side until I came to a place on the wall where it was especially dangerous to descend. Now I regretted that I had not remained on the other side; for I could not pass under the railing again; also it was impossible to turn back and take the other way again. Therefore I summoned my courage, trusted in my sure-footedness, held on tightly, and descended without harm. When I went on for a while, I had indeed forgotten about all dangers and also did not know where the wall and railing had vanished.

After I had descended I saw standing a lovely rosebush on which beautiful red and white roses were growing; but there were more of the red than of the white. I broke off some of them and put them on my hat.

I soon saw a wall encircling a great garden, in which were young fellows. Their maidens also would have liked to be in the garden, but they did not wish to make the great effort of walking the long distance around the wall to the gate. I was sorry for them and returned the whole distance I had come, then followed a smoother path, and I went so fast that I soon came to several houses, where I hoped to find the cottage of the gardener. There I found many people; each had his own room; often two were working together slowly and diligently; but each had his own work. And it appeared to me that all this they were doing, I had done before them, and that I knew it all very well. Then I thought, “Look, if so many other people do such dirty and slovenly work only for appearance’s sake, and each according to his own ideas, but not established in Nature, then you yourself are forgiven.” Therefore I would not stay there any longer for I knew that such art would disappear in smoke, so I continued on my destined way.

As I now went toward the garden gate some looked at me sourly, and I feared that they would hinder me in the fulfillment of my intentions. Others, however, said, “See, he wishes to go into the garden; but we who worked for so long in its service have never entered it. We shall laugh at him if he blunders.”

But I paid no attention to them, for I knew the plan of the garden better than they, although I had never been in it, and I went straight up to the gate. This was locked fast, and one could not discover even a key-hole from the outside. But in the gate I saw a tiny round hole which one could not distinguish with ordinary eyes, and I thought it was necessary to open the gate there. I took out my skeleton-key, especially prepared for this purpose, unlocked the gate and walked in.

After I was inside the gate I found more locked gates, but I unlocked them without more difficulty. But I found that this was a hallway as if it were in a well-built house, about six shoes wide and twenty long, covered with a ceiling. And although the other gates were still locked, I could see through them sufficiently into the garden as soon as the first gate was opened.

And so in God’s Name I wandered further into the garden. There in the midst of it I found a little flower-bed, square, each of its four sides six measuring-rods long, and covered with rosebushes, on which the roses were blossoming beautifully. Since it had rained a little and the sun was shining, a very lovely rainbow appeared. After I left the flower-bed and had come to the place where I was to help the maidens, behold! instead of the walls there stood a low wattled fence. And the most beautiful maiden, dressed all in white satin, with the most handsome youth, clad in scarlet, went past the rose-garden, one leading the other by the arm and carrying many fragrant roses in their hands. I spoke to them, asking how they had come over the fence.

“My dearest bridegroom here helped me over,” she said, “and now we are leaving this lovely garden to go to our room to be together.”

“I am happy,” I replied, “that without further effort of mine you can satisfy your wish. Nevertheless you can see how I ran so long a way in so short a time, only to serve you.”
After this I came into a great mill, built within stone walls; inside were no flour-bins nor any other things necessary for milling; moreover, through the wall one saw no waterwheels turning in the stream. I asked myself how this state of affairs came about, and one old miller answered me that the milling-machinery was locked up on the other side. Then I saw the miller’s helper go into it by a covered passage-way, and I followed close after him. But as I was going along the passage, with the waterwheels on my left, I paused, amazed at what I saw there. For now the waterwheels were above the level of the passage, the water was coal-black, although the drops from it were white, and the covered passage-way itself was not more than three fingers wide. Nevertheless I risked turning back, holding fast to the beams over the passage-way; thus I crossed over the water safely. Then I asked the old miller how many waterwheels he had. He answered, Ten. This adventure I long remembered and dearly wished I could know what it meant. But when I saw that the miller would not reveal anything, I went on my way.

In front of the mill there arose a high, paved hill; on its summit some of the old men I have mentioned were walking in the warm sunshine. They had a letter from the Brotherhood and were discussing it among themselves. I soon guessed its contents, and that it might concern me, so I went to them and asked, “Sirs, does what you read there concern me?”

“Yes,” they replied, “Your wife whom you recently married, you must keep in wedlock or we shall have to report it to the Prince.”

I said, “That will be no trouble, for I was born together with her, as it were, was raised with her as a child, and because I have married her I shall keep her always, and death itself shall not part us. For I love her with all my heart.”

“What have we to complain of, then?” they asked; “the bride is also happy, and we know her wish is that you must be joined together.”

“I am very happy,” I replied.

“Well then,” said one of them, “the Lion will come back to life, mightier and more powerful than before.”

Then I recalled my previous struggle and effort, and for some curious reason I felt this did not concern me but another whom I knew well. At that moment I saw our bridegroom walking with his bride, dressed as before, ready and prepared for the wedding, whereat I was very happy; for I had greatly feared that these things might concern me.
When, as has been said, our scarlet-clad bridegroom came to the old men with his dear bride, her white garments gleaming brightly, they were soon united and I greatly wondered that the maiden who might be the bridegroom’s mother was nevertheless so young that she seemed newly born, as it were.

Now I do not know how the two had sinned; perhaps as brother and sister, united in love in such a way that they could not be separated, they had been accused of incest. Instead of a bridal bed and brilliant wedding they were condemned to a strong and everlasting prison. However, because of their noble birth and station, in order that they could do nothing together in secret, and so all their doings would always be visible to their guard, their prison was transparent-clear like crystal and round like a heavenly dome. But before they were placed inside, all the clothing and jewels they wore were taken from them so they had to live together stripped naked in their prison. No one was assigned to serve them, but all their necessities of food and drink — the latter drawn from the stream mentioned above — were placed inside before the door of the room was securely closed, locked, sealed with the seal of the Brotherhood, and I was placed on guard outside. And since winter was near I was to heat the room properly so they would neither freeze nor burn, but under no conditions could they come out of the room and escape. But if any harm resulted from my neglect of these instructions, I would undoubtedly receive great and severe punishment.

I did not feel well about this, my fear and worry made me faint-hearted, and I thought to myself, It is no small task which has been assigned to me. I also knew that the Brotherhood did not lie, always did what it said, and certainly performed its work with diligence. However, I could change nothing, and besides, the locked room was situated in the midst of a strong tower, encircled by strong bulwarks and high walls, and since one could warm the room by a moderate but constant fire, I took up my task in God’s Name, beginning to heat the room in order to protect the imprisoned married couple from the cold. But what happened? As soon as they felt the faintest breath of warmth, they embraced each other so lovingly that the like of it will not be seen again. And they remained together in such ardor that the heart of the young bridegroom disappeared in burning love, and his entire body melted and sank down in the arms of his beloved. When the latter, who had loved him no less than he had loved her, saw this, she began to lament, weeping bitterly over him and, so to say, buried him in such a flood of tears that one could no longer see what had happened to him. But her lamenting and weeping lasted only for a short time, for because of her great heart-sorrow she did not wish to live longer, and died of her own free will. Ah, woe is me! In what anxiety, grief and distress was I when I saw those two I was to have helped, dissolved entirely to water and lying before me dead. Certain failure was there before my eyes, and moreover, what to me was the bitterest, and what I feared most were the coming taunts and sneers, as well as the punishment I would have to undergo.

I passed a few days in careful thought, considering what I could do, when I recalled how Medea had restored the corpse of Jason to life, and so I asked myself, “If Medea could do it, why cannot you do it also?” Whereat I began to think how to proceed with it, but I did not find any better method than to maintain a steady warmth until the water would recede and I could see the dead bodies of the lovers once again. Then I hoped that I would escape all danger to my great gain and praise. Therefore for forty days I continued with the warmth I had begun, and I saw that the longer I did this, the more the water disappeared, and the dead bodies, black as coal, came to view. And indeed this would have happened sooner had not the room been locked and sealed so tightly. But under no conditions dared I open it. Then I noticed quite clearly that the water rose high toward the clouds, collected on the ceiling of the room, and descended again like rain; nothing could escape, so our bridegroom lay with his beloved bride before my eyes dead and rotten, stinking beyond all measure.

Meanwhile, I saw in the room a rainbow of the most beautiful colors, caused by the sunshine in the moist weather, which heartened me no little in the midst of my sorrows. And soon I became rather happy that I could see my two lovers lying before me. However, no joy is so great that sorrow is not mixed with it; therefore in my joy I was sorrowful because I saw the ones I was to have guarded lying lifeless before me. But since their room was made from such pure and solid material and was shut so tightly, I knew that their soul and their spirit could not escape, but were still enclosed in it, so I continued with my steady warmth day and night, carrying out my duty as prescribed, for I believed that the two would not return to their bodies so long as the moisture was present. This I indeed found to be true. For in many careful observations I observed that many vapors arose from the earth about evening, through the power of the sun, and ascended on high as if the sun itself were drawing up the water. But during the night they gathered into a lovely and fertile dew, descending very early in the morning, enriching the earth and washing the corpses of our dead, so that from day to day, the longer such bathing and washing continued, they became even whiter and more beautiful. But the more beautiful and whiter they became, the more they lost their moisture, until at last when the air became light and clear and all the foggy, damp weather had passed, the spirit and soul of the bride could no longer remain in the pure air, and returned into the transfigured, glorified body of the Queen, and as soon as the body felt their presence, it instantly became living once again. This brought me no little joy, as one can easily imagine, especially as I saw her arise, dressed in a very rich garment, the like of which very few on this earth have seen, wearing a costly crown, adorned with perfect diamonds, and heard her say; “Harken, you children of men, and learn, all of you who are of women born, that the All-Highest has power to enthrone kings and to dethrone them. He makes rich and poor, according to his will. He kills and makes to live again. And all this behold in me as a living example! I was great and I became small. But now after I became humble, I have been made queen over many realms. I was killed and am resurrected again. To me, the poor one, have the great treasures of the wise and mighty been entrusted and given. Therefore have I been given power to make the poor rich, to extend mercy to the humble, and to bring health to the sick. But not yet am I like my dearest brother, the great, mighty king, who will also be awakened from the dead. When he comes he will prove that my words are true.”

And as she said this, the sun shone brightly, the days became warmer, and the dog-days were near at hand. But long before the sumptuous and great wedding of our new queen many costly robes were prepared from black velvet, ash-grey coloured damask, grey silk, silver-coloured taffeta, snow-white satin; indeed, a silver piece of extraordinary beauty, embroidered with costly pearls and worked with marvellous, clear-sparkling diamonds was also made ready. And robes for the young king were also made ready, namely of pink, with yellow aureolin colours, costly fabrics, and finally a red velvet garment adorned with costly rubies and carbuncles in very great numbers. But the tailors who made these garments were invisible, and I marvelled when I saw one coat after another, and one garment after another being finished, for I knew that no one except the bridegroom and his bride had entered into the chamber. But what astonished me the most was that as soon as a new coat or garment was finished, the former ones disappeared from before my eyes, and I did not know where they had gone or who had locked them away.

And after this costly coat was made ready, the great and mighty king appeared in all his power and glory, and there was nothing like him. And when he discovered he was locked in, he asked me in a friendly manner and with gracious words to open the door for him so he would be able to come out; he said it would result in great blessing for me. Although I was strictly forbidden to open the room, I was so overwhelmed by the great appearance and the gentle persuasive powers of the king that I opened the door willingly. And as he walked out, he was so friendly, gracious, even humble, that one could indeed see that nothing graces noble persons so much as do these virtues.

And since he had passed the dog-days in the great heat, he was very thirsty, weak and tired; and he asked me to bring him some of the fast-flowing water from beneath the waterwheels of the mill, which I did, and he drank it with great eagerness. Then he returned to his chamber and told me to lock the door fast behind him, lest someone should disturb him or waken him from his sleep.

There he rested for a few days, and then he called me to open the door. But I saw that he had become much more handsome, full-blooded and splendid, and he also noticed it; and he thought that the water was marvellous and healthy. Therefore he asked for more, and drank a larger quantity than he had the first time, and I resolved to enlarge the chamber. After the king had drunk his fill of this wonderful beverage which the ignorant do not value at all, he became so handsome and glorious that in all my life

I never saw a more splendid appearance, or anyone more noble in manner and character. Then he led me into his kingdom and showed me all the treasures and riches of the world, so that I must say that not only did the queen speak the truth, but he also gave the greatest part of it to those who know the treasure and can describe it. There were gold and precious carbuncle stones without end, and the rejuvenation and restoration of the natural powers, as well as the recovery of health and the removal of all illnesses were daily occurrences there. But most delightful of all in this kingdom was that the people knew, reverenced and praised their Creator, receiving from Him wisdom and knowledge, and at last, after this happiness in the world of time, they attained an eternal blessedness. To this may God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit help all of us.

 

http://www.alchemywebsite.com/parabola.html

 

A Christian Rosenkreutz Anthology

 

The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz (Magnum Opus Hermetic Sourceworks Series)

 

 

 

You are at a race, the men are lined up, the gun shoots they run….
You are supporting no 10,

 

but in the confusion and fast pace of the race you think no 8 has won.

You cry and get upset and spend the rest of your life thinking no8 won.

Then someone lets you know that no 10 won.

You now see the race as it truly is, not as you thought it was.

This is Gnosticism.