The reason why peace of soul is the “most elementary trace”of this holy slumber, induced by prayer, is that “prayer places us in the presence of God, Who is pure Beatitude.” To pray is to give oneself to God; and since God is pure Beatitude, prayer itself is already something of this Beatitude, whether the person praying is conscious of it or not. The awareness of what prayer is, and of what God is, imparts to the very act of prayer the capacity to bestow peace on the soul. Once this peace is “tasted,”and the sense of the sacred is awoken, with the heart rendered receptive to the presence of God—then does metaphysical doctrine begin to take root in our being, conviction deepens into certitude, the “obscure merit of faith” begins to give way to the ineffable verities of gnosis.

Reza Shah-Kazia

“A consciousness glistens within each creature and each creature’s creation, even as it guided the hand of the One who spoke and the world came into being. Rabbi Oshaya, at the beginning of Genesis Rabba, reminds us that when even a king builds a castle, he uses a blueprint. So the Creator, too, returns again and again to that underlying pattern of being. Arrangements of motion that organize and animate all being. This is reality’s dream. Holy literature. Organizing motif beneath the apparent surface.
This consciousness is never still, not even for a moment. It will not be photographed or even named. In its wanting to become aware, it rearranges itself in one pattern after another. Feel it now in the blinking of your eyes. The moisture on your tongue. The gentle filling and emptying of your lungs. It rises unnamed through us, the incessant motion of the four creatures bearing the chariot in Ezekiel’s vision: human, lion, ox, and eagle, running and returning. Creation is in us. The plan the Creator used reappears everywhere from the most erudite contemporary cosmological theory to the opening sentences of Genesis, it is the same.”
– Lawrence Kushner (The River of Light)
phinneas water can

The multitude of the Buddhas and bodhisattivas indicates the

relativity of the human receptacle: in his manifest personality

the Buddha is distinct from principle Unity; there is nothing absolutely

unique in manifestation, so the indefinite differentiation of the type or model

of all Buddhahood is like an inverted reflection of the non-differentiation of the Absolute

–Titus Burckhardt (Sacred Art in East and West)

20150728_075036_Marquette Rd


Who am I?—and What is Personality?

(Extract from: the human and transpersonal dimensions of personality by Samuel Bendeck Sotillos, sacred web journal 35)

“The concept of personality is central in [contemporary] Western
psychology”.31 “In the West it was Freud who began the systematic study
of personality”.32 Nonetheless, after more than a hundred years since

the inception of contemporary psychology as a separate and distinct
scientific discipline, it is still wrestling with the essential question of
“what is personality?”

Consequently, it is widely recognized that:“There is no agreement among contemporary psychologists on a definition of the term personality.’”33

In addition: “Modern theorists of personality seem to differ radically from one another in their assessment of the
importance of the identity issue.”34 The issue is not that modern and
postmodern psychology is in its infancy and will one day develop into
a true psychology; the issue is much more precarious due to the fact
that contemporary psychology attempts to study what is beyond its
epistemological and ontological scope and trespasses upon the domain
of metaphysics.

Since contemporary psychology is unable to verify either the existence of the spiritual domain or the existence of the human psyche, it has been called (as from the passage by Carl Jung, quoted below) “a psychology without a soul”35—a powerful, and yet
paradoxically puzzling assessment given that soul is the raison d’etre
for psychology’s very existence:

It was universally believed in the
Middle Ages as well as in the Graeco-Roman world that the soul is a substance. Indeed, mankind as a whole has held this belief from its earliest beginnings, and it w as left for the second half of the
nineteenth century to develop a
“psychology with out a soul.”

Under the influence of scientific
materialism, everything that could not be seen with the eyes or touched with the hands was held in doubt; such things were even laughed at because  of their supposed affinity with metaphysics. Nothing was
considered “scientific” or admitted to be true unless it could be p erceived by
the senses or traced back to physical causes.36

Key representatives from within modern psychology have openly
disclosed the impasse of today’s therapeutic orientations:

“There is a tie that can unite all of us [the whole of contemporary psychology]: the
frank acknowledgement that we know very little”.37 And again: “[W]e
know so little of the earliest and deepest strata of the human mind.”38
Because it attempts to operate beyond its capacity, contemporary
psychology takes on an impossible task and is ill-equipped to comprehend
personality or anything else pertaining to the human psyche.

The chief characteristic of the last half of the nineteenth century was the
breaking up of personality into
fragments.These fragments were
symptoms  of the psychological, and spiritual disintegration occurring in the culture and in the individual. One can see this splitting up of the individual personality not only in the psychology and the science of the period but in
almost every aspect of late nineteenth century culture.39

When viewed through the lens of
modern and postmodern
psychology and its materialistic science in the absence of the Sacred,
human personality becomes disintegrated and essentially dehumanized:

“[Contemporary] psychology comes in with the bulk of its theories, its
prevailing views of human personality, its images of man, obviously in
league with the objectives of the nihilist Satanic spirit. Man is a computer,
an animal, or an infant. His destiny is completely determined by genes,
instincts, accidents, early conditionings and reinforcements, cultural
and social forces.”40

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist, and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. Although ontology as a philosophical realm is academic in the sense that it is inseparable from each thinker’s epistemology, it has practical application in information science and information technology, where it informs ontologies with chosen taxonomies.

Epistemology (Listeni/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and λόγος, logos, meaning “study of”) is a term first used by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier to describe the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”. Put concisely, it is the study of knowledge and justified belief. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. The term was probably first introduced in Ferrier’s Institutes of Metaphysic: The Theory of Knowing and Being (1854), p. 46.

31.  Charles T.Tart,“Some Assumptions of Orthodox, Western Psychology,” in Transpersonal Psychologies, ed. CharlesT.Tart (New York, NY: H arper & Row, 1975). p. 84.

32. A.H.Almaas,“Being and Ego ,”in The Pearl Beyond Price: Integration o f Personality into Being:An Object Relations Approach (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2001), p. 22.

33. Anand C. Paranjpe, “A Personality Theory According to Vedanta,” in Anand C. Paranjpe, David Y.F. Ho and Robert W Rieber (eds,), Asian Contributions to P sychology (New York. NY: Praeger. 1988), p. 185.

34. Anand C. Paranjpe, “A Personality Theory According to Vedanta,” in Anand C. Paranjpe.
David Y.F. Ho and Robert W Rieber (eds.), Asian Contributions to Psychology (New York, NY: Praeger, 1988),p. 197.See also Anand C. Paranjpe, S e lf a n d Identity in Modern Psychology and Indian Thought (New York. NY: Plenum Press. 1998).

35 Metropolitan of Nafpaktos H ierotheos,“Orthodoxy as aTherapeutic Method,” in The Illness
a n d Cure o f the Soul In the Orthodox Church, trans. Effie Mavromichali (Levadia-Hellas,
Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1995). p. 46.” (Psychology without a psyche.”
(George Feuerstein. “Pure Awarness.” in The Psychology of Yoga: Integrating eastern and Western Approaches for Understanding the Mind (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2013), p. 135): see also Hubert Gruender, Psychology w ith o u t a Soul:A Criticism (St. Louis, MO:
B. Herder, 1917).

36 C.G. Ju n g  T h e Basic Postulates of Analitical Psychology,” in Modern Man in Search o f a Soul, trans. W.S. Dell and Cary F. Baynes (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933),
p. 173.

37 Frederick S. Peris, “Theory and Technique of Personality Integration,” American Journal
o f Psychotherapy, Vol. 2. No. 4 (October 1948), p. 586.

38 Erik H. Erikson.“The Life Cycle: Epigenesis of Identity.” in ldentity:Youth a n d Crisis (New
York. NY:W.W. Norton & Company, 1968), p. 104.

39. Rollo May, “Compartmentalization anil Inner Breakdown in the Nineteenth Century,” in The Discovery o f Being: Writings in Ex istential Psychology (New York, NY: W.W. Norton
& Company, 1983), p. 62.

40 Henry A. Murray, “Personality and Career of Satan,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 18. No. 4
(October 1962), p. 53.

But what, according to you, is a true philosopher? he asked.

He, I answered, who loves to contemplate truth…who is able to arrive at whatever remains ever constant. He who is capable of seeing the Whole is a philosopher; he who is not, is not.

(Republic, V, 475; VI, 481-485)


According to the Taoist view of things the Divine Art is essentially the art of transformation: the whole of nature is ceaselessly being transformed, always in accordance with the laws of the cycle; its contrasts revolve round a single center which always eludes apprehension. Nevertheless anyone who under stands this circular movement is thereby enabled to recognize the center which is its essence. The purpose of art is to conform to this cosmic rhythm. The most simple formula states that mastery in art consists in the capacity to trace a perfect circle in a single movement, and thus to identify oneself implicitly with its center, while that center remains unspecified as such.



There is no Natural Religion. . . . As all men are alike (though infinitely various),

so all Religions, as all similars, have one source.

William Blake

Tolerance, then, is a merely negative virtue, demanding no sacrifice of spiritual pride and involving no abrogation of our sense of superiority; it can be commended only in so far as it means that we shall refrain from hating or persecuting others who differ or seem to differ from ourselves in habit or belief. Tolerance still allows us to pity those who differ from ourselves, and are consequently to be pitied!

. Tolerance, carried further, implies indifference, and becomes intolerable. Our proposal is not that we should tolerate heresies, but rather come to some agreement about the truth. Our proposition is that the proper objective of an education in comparative religion should be to enable the pupil to discuss with other believers the validity of particular doctrines, leaving the problem of the truth or falsity, superiority or inferiority, of whole bodies of doctrine in abeyance until we have had at least an opportunity to know in what respects they really differ from one another, and whether in essentials or in accidentals.

We take it for granted, of course, that they will inevitably differ accidentally, since “nothing can be known except in the mode of the knower.”One must at least have been taught to recognize equivalent symbols, e.g., rose and lotus (Rosa Mundi and Padmāvatī); that Soma is the “bread and water of life”; or that the Maker of all things is by no means accidentally, but necessarily a “carpenter”wherever the material of which the world is made is hylic. The proposed objective has this further and immediate advantage, that it is not in conflict with even the most rigid Christian orthodoxy; it has never been denied that some truths are embodied in the pagan beliefs, and even St. Thomas Aquinas was ready and willing to find in the works of the pagan philosophers “extrinsic and probable proofs”of the truths of Christianity.

He was, indeed, acquainted only with the ancients and with the Jews and some Arabians; but there is no reason why the modern Christian, if his mental equipment is adequate, should not learn to recognize or be delighted to find in, let us say, Vedantic, Sufi, Taoist, or American Indian formulations extrinsic and probable proofs of the truth as he knows it. It is more than probable, indeed, that his contacts with other believers will be of very great advantage to the Christian student in his exegesis and understanding of Christian doctrine; for though himself a believer, this is in spite of the nominalist intellectual environment in which he was born and bred, and by which he cannot but be to some degree affected;

while the Oriental (to whom the miracles attributed to Christ present no problem) is still a realist, born and bred in a realistic environment, and is therefore in a position to approach Plato or St. John, Dante or Meister Eckhart more simply and directly than the Western scholar who cannot but have been affected to some extent by the doubts and difficulties that force themselves upon those whose education and environment have been for the greater part profane.

Martin Lings (the spirit of the times)
Hylic: “Of matter.” Can be thought of as a level of thinking, dealing with the lowest portion of human nature. It is considered living by instinctual drives with no sublimation. Hylics, choikus, sarkics, etc. are said to be below ‘Psychics’ which are below ‘Gnostokoi,’ the highest order of transcendence according to Valentinian and other Gnostic teaching. The world of the psychic, is still in the realm of the hylics in most Gnostic scenarios because existence in the earthly state separates one from the pleroma. (See; Psychic, Kenoma. Pleroma.)

The “Hylic”, corresponds to “Hyle” or gross manifestation, and is
represented by individuals who see nothing beyond “form”, or material



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers