34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to part asunder a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a [m]newly (more…)

We do not say something is true because it is logical, we say that it is logical because it is true; we perceive a greater truth beyond logic since we have the intuition of it intellectually –Intellection being a kind of seeing and not a conclusion–but it is necessary for us to refer to logic as soon as we wish to explain something, unless we express ourselves by means of a symbol, but the symbol is a suggestion aiming at intuition, not an explanation addressing itself to thought.

From the Divine to the Human: A New Translation with Selected Letters (Writings of Frithjof Schuon)

“Yet here you are not to fall. into the clumsy error of supposing that the things which are beyond the grasp of reason are necessarily unreasonable things. Immediate feeling, so far as it is true, does not oppose but transcends and completes the highest results of thought. It contains within itself the sum of all the processes through which thought would pass in the act of attaining the same goal: supposing thought to have reached–as it has not–the high pitch at which it was capable of thinking its way all along this road.”

Evelyn Underhill


Wells Cathedral Interior, Somerset, UK (12th Century)


The interior side view of the main dome of Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, Turkey.

The interior side view of the main dome of Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, Turkey.

The Principle is Reality in contrast to all that appears as real but which is not reality in the ultimate sense. The Principle is the Absolute compared to which all is relative. It is Infinite while all else is finite. The Principle is One and Unique while manifestation is multiplicity. It is the Supreme Substance compared to which all else is accident. It is the Essence to which all things are juxtaposed as form. It is at once Beyond Being and Being while the order of multiplicity is comprised of existents. It alone is while all else becomes, for It alone is eternal in the ultimate sense while all that is externalized partakes of change. It is the Origin but also the End, the alpha and the omega. It is Emptiness if the world is envisaged as fullness and Fullness if the relative is perceived in the light of its ontological poverty and essential nothingness. 7 These are all manners of speaking of the Ultimate Reality which can be known but not by man as such. It can only be known through the sun of the Divine Self residing at the center of the human soul. But all these ways of describing or referring to the Principle possess meaning and are efficacious as points of reference and support for that knowledge of the Real that in its realized aspect always terminates in the Ineffable and in that silence which is the “reflection”or “shadow”of the non-manifested aspect of the Principle upon the plane of manifestation. From that unitary point of view, the Principle or the Source is seen as not only the Inward but also the Outward, 8 not only the One but also the essential reality of the many which is but the reflection of the One. At the top of that mountain of unitive knowledge there resides but the One; discrimination between the Real and the unreal terminates in the awareness of the non-dual nature of the Real, the awareness which is the heart of gnosis and which represents not human knowledge but God’s knowledge of Himself, the consciousness which is the goal of the path of knowledge and the essence of scientia sacra. 9

— Seyyed Hossein Nasr (SCIENTIA SACRA)

9 This is the view of the Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism and of the transcendent Unity of Being (waḥdat al-wujūd) in Sufism which, because of the myopia of a reason divorced from the sanctifying rays of the Intellect, have been often mistaken for pantheism. See Nasr, Three Muslim Sages (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 104-108; also Titus Burckhardt, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine (London, 1976), pp. 28-30.


So they rode till they came to a lake that was a fair water and broad.

And in the middle Arthur was aware of an arm clothed in white

samite. that held a fair sword in that hand.

“Lo.” Said Merlin. “yonder is the sword that I spoke of

So with that they saw a damsel going upon the Lake.

“What damsel is that?” said Arthur

“That is the Lady of the Lake ” said Merlin.

“There is a great rock, and therein is as fair as a palace as any on earth, and richly beseen.

And this damsel will come to you anon, and then speak ye fair to her, that she may give you that sword.”

So anon came this damsel to Arthur and saluted him, and he her again.

“Damsel” said Arthur, “What sword is that yonder that the arm holdeth above the water?

I would were it mine, for I have no sword.”

“Sir Arthur.” said the damsel, “that sword is mine, and if you will give me a gift

when I ask it of you , ye shall have it.”

“By my faith,” said Arthur, “I will give you what gift ye will ask.”

This pre-eminence of the Creative Feminine as epiphany of divine Beauty was expressed in admirable paradoxes she was apprehended on the metaphysical plane of eternal birth and on the plane of second birth, the birth which by modeling the mystic’s being on this preeminent Image, causes the supreme secret of spiritual life to flower within him. Sometimes Ibn ‘Arabi seizes upon simple lexicographical or grammatical facts, which for him are not inoffensive matters of language but disclose a higher metaphysical reality, and treats them with the methods of a highly personal philology, which may well baffle a philologist but are eminently suited to the detection of symbols.

In a hadith of the prophet, he notes a grave breach of grammatical convention: in disregard of a fundamental rule of agreement the feminine outweighs the masculine in the sentence. This is the point of departure for remarks which were to be amplified by the commentators. Ibn ‘Arabi points out that in Arabic all terms indicating origin and cause are feminine. Thus we may assume that if the sentence attributed to the Prophet is grammatically incorrect, it is because the Prophet wished to suggest that the Feminine is the origin of all things. And indeed the origin or source of anything is designated in Arabic by the word umm, “mother.” This is the most striking case in which a lexicographical fact discloses a higher metaphysical reality.

–Henry Corbin (Alone with the Alone)



Uniterian Universalism, the supposed place of the open mjnd. I believe in the principles of UUism… Sadly not sure our local church does. After incident after incident and a concensus that not only do we face prejudice there, neither of us are learning…..anything. The church’s mantra of “we are doing better than we were ten years ago” is no longer cutting it. I really don’t want to wait another five years in a church where its unacceptable to have beliefs..or more accurately to mention them.

Am I done with UUism? Maybe. Done with our church? Probably.

However I think it is dishonest to blindly continue in an environment of hostility or one which correctly or incorrectly I find puerile.

Having being given hostility by voicing a contrary position… I post the following words:

Despite the insistence of uninformed (largely online) Humanists there are holes in the “theory of evolution”. As this extract discusses. But the how dare someone have a different idea…amongst supposed….and I do mean supposed free thinkers.

#hypocrisy #closedminds #horsetheyrodeinon

“This exposition shows that the theory of evolution is impossible. In reality, despite appearances, no one any longer believes in it. . . . Evolution is a sort of dogma whose priests no longer believe in it, though they uphold it for the sake of their flock.”Though undeniably exaggerated in its manner of expression—that is, as regards its sweeping implications of hypocrisy on the part of the “priests”in question—this judgment, coming where it does, is significant in more than one respect. There is no doubt that many scientists have transferred their religious instincts from religion to evolutionism, with the result that their attitude towards evolution is sectarian rather than scientific.

The French biologist Professor Louis
Bounoure quotes Yves Delage, a former Sorbonne Professor of Zoology: “I readily admit that no species has ever been known to engender another, and that there is no absolutely definite evi dence that such a thing has ever taken place. None the less, I believe evolution to be just as certain as if it had been object ively proved.”

Bounoure comments: “In short, what science asks of us here is an act of faith, and it is in fact under the guise of a sort of revealed truth that the idea of evolution is generally put forward.” He quotes, however, from a present day Sorbonne Professor of Palaeontology, Jean Piveteau, the admission that the science of facts as regards evolution “cannot accept any of the different theories which seek to explain evolution. It even finds itself in opposition with each one of these theories. There is something here which is both disappointing and disquieting.”

Darwin’s theory owed its success mainly to a widespread conviction that the nineteenth-century European represented the highest human possibility yet reached. This conviction was like a special receptacle made in advance for the theory of man’s sub-human ancestry, a theory which was hailed without question by humanists as a scientific corroboration of their belief in “progress.”It was in vain that a staunch minority of scientists, during the last hundred years, persistently maintained that the theory of evolution has no scientific basis and that it runs contrary to many known facts, and it was in vain that they pleaded for a more rigorously scientific attitude towards the whole question. To criticize evolutionism, however soundly, was about as effective as trying to stem a tidal wave. But the wave now shows some signs of having spent itself, and more and more scientists are re-examining this theory objectively, with the result that not a few of those who were once evolu tionists have now rejected it altogether. One of these is the already quoted Bounoure; another, Douglas Dewar, writes: “It is high time that biologists and geologists came into line with astronomers, physicists, and chemists and admitted that the world and the universe are utterly mysterious and all attempts to explain them [by scientific research] have been baffled”; and having divided evolutionists into ten main groups (with some subdivisions) according to their various opinions as to what animal formed the last link in the chain of man’s supposedly “pre-human”ancestry, opinions which are all purely conjectural5 and mutually contradictory, he says: “In 1921 Reinke wrote: ‘The only statement, consistent with her dignity, that science can make [with regard to this question] is to say that she knows nothing about the origin of man.’Today this statement is as true as it was when Reinke made it.”


Martin Lings

Martin Lings (24 January 1909 – 12 May 2005), also known as Abu Bakr Siraj ad-Din, was an English writer and scholar, a student of Frithjof Schuon[1] and a Shakespearean scholar. He is best known as the author of a very popular and positively reviewed biography, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, first published in 1983 and still in print.



1.  The inherent worth and dignity of every person

Unitarian Universalism is a high humanist system of thought, emphasizing the inherent worth of all people rather than any inherent flaws in humanity.

2.  Justice, equity and compassion in human relations

While UUs do not have a specific list of laws of behavior and are encouraged to personally consider the nature of ethical choices, they do agree that ethical behavior should include notions of justice, equity and compassion.

3.  Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth

UUs are very non-judgmental. A UU gathering might easily include atheists, monotheists and polytheists, and this diversity is to be tolerated and encouraged. Spirituality is a highly complex and subjective topic to UUs, which can lead to multiple conclusions. UUs are also encouraged to learn from this diversity as they develop their own personal ideas of spirituality.

4.  A free and responsible search for truth and meaning

UUs focus on their own personal spiritual development and understanding rather than being concerned about everyone reaching a consensus. Every person has the right to their own spiritual seeking.

5.  The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process

UUs egalitarian outlook lends itself to the promotion of democratic organization. As a second ethical statement, UU also endorses action based upon one’s own conscience

6.  The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all

The notion of inherent human worth lends itself to an emphasis on the world community and the allowance of basic rights for all members.

7.  Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

UU acknowledges that reality consists of a complex and interconnected web of relationships. Actions taken seemingly in isolation can still have far-reaching effects, and responsible behavior includes being mindful of these potential consequences.

Right away this signifies a refusal to recognize any kind of living away from this world, or indeed taking the least interest in supramundane affairs.

All forms of religion, mysticism, magic, or the slightest hints of spiritual states must be resolutely rejected. Being begins with physical birth and terminates with death. Provided we stay within whatever bounds have been laid out by our “people-planners” our brief lives here may not be too bad. After all, we are only animals to be eaten up by earth when we are surplus on her surface. And so forth and so forth. The principle of all this is to divert us away from inherent divinity at all costs, whether by distracting attention, screening and obscuring viewpoints, or any other likely tactic.

People who are prepared to accept materialism as a way of living offer no opposition to intended evil or very much opportunity for intended good. So long as they willingly remain with their noses firmly glued to the ground their eyes are unlikely to discover any stars. They are no threat to evil doers at all. True, they may, and often do, draw distinct lines at physical or observable ills that might be traced to chemical and allied causes, but they will cheerfully allow all kinds of much more subtle and spiritually dangerous contaminants of consciousness first because they do not believe these have any reality, and then because they suppose that whatever will not respond to physical treatment can scarcely be much of a menace in a totally material world. The more humans who can be held as relatively happy captives of entirely greater opportunities earth bound environments, they occur for dedicated evil doers to operate on levels rather above the heads of those who refuse to up lift themselves beyond bodily bounds. In addition, if evil is intelligently presented as socially or economically expedient, it is incredible what materialists will not only accept, but actively insist upon. Perhaps the worst evil possible among materialists is to become convinced there is no such principle as evil at all. It has been said that the devil being the “father of lies”, his greatest deception has been to disguise himself from humanity altogether.

At all events, materialism might positively be marked up as a high major score for the “baddies” of life, whether incarnate or not. At a stroke, it reduces any serious opposition to their intentions right down to minimum. It may not provide over whelming possibilities of profit, but it does at least afford a definite work able basis in this world for whatever worst might be coming to it. By clever use of the powerful coercion compulsion persuaders to discourage man from seeing his divine spiritual heritage, humanity may remain condemned to the eventual extinction of all who refuse to rise above their material marks.

–W G Gray ( Exorcizing the Tree of Evil )


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers