Even if I walk in the light, I am not the light.

Even if I am a taut stringed lute, I am not the lute player

Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī

Seeing Michael Dowd give a discussion on his work to prevent the catastrophe of global climate change was interesting. He appeared at my local Unitarian Universalism church. Dowd outlined a “new” movement where people of all faiths are coming together with Science and scientists to discuss and hopefully combat climate change.

Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus is on the religious attributes of the universe/nature, the understanding of it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual and moral). These provide for the development of an eco-morality. Although it has an ancient heritage in many philosophical cultures, this modern movement is currently not well defined. Theistic or nontheistic religious naturalism is a basic theological perspective of liberal religion and religious humanism, according to some sources.

Religious naturalism is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more anthropocentric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: “What is the meaning of one’s life and does it have a purpose?” It is an approach to understanding the natural world in a religious way and does not offer a detailed system of beliefs or rituals. Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is a combination of objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature. It is a promising form of contemporary religious ethics and pluralism responding to the challenges of late modern religious transformations and ecological peril. In so doing, it is emerging as an increasingly plausible and potentially rewarding form of religious moral life consistent with the insights of the natural sciences.


This is a very adimarable goal. I enjoyed Dowd’s talk, until he started discussing Humanism. Dowd himself and his wife, Connie Barlow, are partners and Co authors. Both have spent more than a decade on the road discussing their views, books and the problem of the scientific community in our modern lives.

Dowd himself admits he is a preacher, an ordained minister. Connie is described as an author of “popular science” books. Popular science books, the term doesn’t bode well.

Dowd outlined the need to view reality with reverence and the physical as sacred.


The outer world of earthly existence corresponds in all its details to the inner world of man’s soul, and there is a similar correspondence between the Garden of the Heart and the Garden of the Soul, but these are only two particular  instances of the general truth that all the different domains in the Universe correspond to each other in that each is an image of the Universe itself. 

–Martin Lings, THE SYMBOL


(“The top is like the below”)



Now, this is great. Of course reality is sacred as is the very ground beneath my feet. Dowd admirably preaches and teaches a philosophy of reality as sacred. Hardly news to me or anyone with an ounce of sanity, in my opinion.

For Dowd, reality, or God as he interchangeably calls or labels things, is sacred and must be treated as such. Reverence for all, in order to prevent climate change… Dowd outlines this by dismissing God, destroying any notion of the supernatural and proposes that observation is our savior and will enable the unification of science and religion. Of course this is overly simplistic and not something I could get behind.

Not that scientific and aesthetic understanding is not necessary –but it should do its work faithfully and immerse itself and disappear in the truth of the relation which surpasses understanding and embraces what is understandable.

–Martin Buber (I And Thou)

By discarding the divine for:

“reality” is divine, but only that which is
” observable” we are being dishonest. By dishonest that is, to me it is dishonest.

Observation only works due to assumptions.

Assumptions include a shared language, for example if we are discussing chickens it is assumed we are discussing chickens that all have two legs and two wings, in reality what if the chicken is deformed? In a real sense this means we are assuming like and like. We are assuming that 1 (chicken) plus 1 (chicken) is 2 (chickens)…. Assuming that both chickens are equal. Which in the real world they would not be.

Observation only works due to an agreed upon yardstick. To quote Dowd

“You don’t have to believe in the sea, it’s just there.”
No, you are wrong Mr Dowd. The sea is only the sea because we agree it is the sea. If we measured using an electromagnetic measuring device, for example, we may have problems separating the sea from nearby rivers. In turn, if we change our yard stick a drop of rainwater is the sea. Benoit Mandelbrot demonstrates this in his essay on the coastline of Britain, demonstrating it is of infinite length, measuring from rocks, stones, sand… atoms etc.


The work of Werner Karl Heisenberg famously explored the problem of light being a particle and a wave, though I understand to some modern physicists the solution is that it’s a wave. At the subatomic level we can only measure where something is or its velocity, not both. To summarize Heisenberg we can simply say the
“observed and observer are inseparable ”

This means any observation is a compromise as it is fully changed by being observed. People may counter this by saying this is only at the subatomic level. Again though, it depends on our yard stick. There are numerous ways and means that demonstrate this phenomenon of the inseparable nature of observation. In the end, it is just a complex way if stating observation is dependent upon perspective and perception. For example if we only studied the sky at night we could learn many things, during the day, yet other things, at both times we observe the sky.

Every experiment destroys some of the knowledge of the system

which was obtained by previous experiments.

“Critique of the Physical Concepts of the Corpuscular Theory” in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 20; also in “The Uncertainty Principle” in The World of Mathematics : A Small Library of the Literature of Mathematics (1956) by James Roy Newman, p. 105

This isnt to mention other things like Godel’s incompleteness theorem, that demonstrates that the only logical conclusion of logic is that logic doesn’t work.

A statement sometimes known as Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus. Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.

At a basic level, if we started to discuss Star Wars with a dog, the dog would not understand who Darth Vader is…. sadly humanists are assuming that through observation we can understand reality, just as a dog can one day discuss Luke Skywalker. Uh, no….

But the cult of the intellect knows no bounds.

The point where we seperate from our origins…or the divine/God.

It is this type of world along with its overriding orientation and pursuits which we have destroyed. Our society is man-made, not a divine order. It is one in fact which represents a projection of the human mind that has cut its links with the divine and with the earth; and in so far that it has any ideals these are purely temporal and finite and concern only the terrestrial welfare of its members.


To a humanist mindset and many other similar groups (notably modern scientific pantheists for example) throwing out the divine makes perfect sense. If logic, observation, bar charts and other intellectual tools won’t cover reality then anything else is garbage, to the humanist (collectively humanists but each and every group with this mindset).

I am reminded by the recent book/TV show where Stephen Hawkins disproves God. All these groups seem to have one thing in common, an overly simplified verging on puerile understanding or concept of God. The science may or may not be remarkable, advanced and inspiring, but the understanding of the sacred is childlike at best. Hawkins demonstrated this very adequately in his television appearance, in his defense I have not, nor do I intend to read his book.

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up til he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.

–William Blake (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell)

Dowd, like Hawkins touches upon God, largely only in a puerile simplistic manner, the sky daddy playing chess. This overly simplistic image betrays a lack of perspective or genuine lack of investigation into the nature of God. As such, there is no place beyond the observable, the logical or even beyond the physical. As such we, to this modernist mindset, are merely dogs learning about Star Wars, one day able through language and concept to discuss the finer points of Star Wars.

Of course the talk was only an hour or so long, and I have not actually read his books, so my understanding may be limited.

Language of course fails us every time. Modernists use mathematics to overcome this.

The problem with secular liberals, as distinct from traditionalist liberals and traditionalist conservatives, is that they insist on inventing reality by denying any higher truth than themselves. They deny the natural law of holistic education, including the metalaw of holistic haqq, which is to be sought heuristic ally and holistically not created by human fiat.

By claiming the source of truth they deny the essence of anything and anything, because without essence everything is relative and truth cannot exist. If everything is relavistic, there is no purpose, then the practice of human responsibilities and the corresponding and resulting human rights has no logical basis.

The denial of any reality beyond the power of personal preference is the source of all totalitarian ideologies, beginning with the liberal logic of the French Revolution, which produced Communism, Fascism, and both Zionist and Muslim Statism today, where the sovereign state or global caliphate claims divinity based on top-down political process of might makes right.

 The Metalaw of Holistic Haqq: Toward a Just Third Way beyond Capitalism and Socialism in the Holy Land
by Robert Dickson Crane


In conclusion, Dowd and other humanists make giant compromises. Dowd does however stress the urgency of climate change. His concepts work for the ignorant i.e. those expecting the rapture, denying evolution, biblical aging of the planet and other ridiculous literalisms that demonstrate once again observer and observed change things; as literalisms as found in modern times, never existed in the ancient world. However, Dowd is educating the small of understanding, the ones that arguably need to be spoon fed understanding. His goals are also good ones. However, I don’t agree with all his political leanings. Sadly, I think Dowd’s allusions fit well at my church amongst the right people (which may or may not be a good thing depending on your perspective). I enjoyed his conclusions i.e. live in harmony with the earth or die, it is not all doom and gloom, we may do better in regards to combating climate change.


yet the crisis itself is not first of all an ecological crisis. It is not first of all a
crisis concerning our environment. It is first of all a crisis concerning the way we think. We are treating our planet in an inhuman, God-forsaken manner because we see things in an inhuman and God-forsaken way. How we see the world depends above all upon how we see ourselves. Our model of the universe – our worldview – is based upon the model we have of ourselves, upon our own self image. Unless our own evaluation of ourselves, and of what constitutes the true nature of our being, changes, the way we treat the world around us will not change either. The industrial and technological inferno we have produced around us, and by means of which we are now devastating our world, is not something that has come about accidentally. On the contrary, it is a direct consequence
of our allowing ourselves to be dominated by a certain paradigm of thought that impels us to look upon ourselves as little more than two-legged animals whose destiny and needs can best be fulfilled through the pursuit of social, political and economic self-interest. And to correspond with this self-image we have invented a worldview in which nature is seen as an impersonal commodity, a soulless source of food, raw materials, wealth,
power and so on, which we think we are entitled to abuse by means of any scientific and mechanical technique we can devise and produce, in order to satisfy our self-interest. Having in our own minds de-sanctified ourselves, we have de-sanctified nature as well.

Our contemporary secular scientific mentality goes hand-in-hand with a
corresponding and increased erosion in us of the sense of the sacred. We do not have any respect, let alone reverence, for the world of nature because we do not fundamentally have any respect, let alone reverence, for ourselves. It is because we have lost the sense of our own reality that we have lost the sense of every other reality as well. It is because we cripple and mutilate ourselves that we cripple and mutilate everything else as well. Our contemporary crisis is really our own depravity writ large.

So the only real answer to this crisis is to stop depraving ourselves. It is to
recover a sense of our true identity and dignity, of our creation in the image of God, of our self image as sacred beings. Once we repossess a sense of our own holiness, we will recover a sense of the holiness of the world about us as well and we will then act towards the world about us with the awe and humility that we should possess when we enter a sacred shrine, a temple of love and beauty in which we are to worship and adore the Creator. Without a sense of the holy – that everything that lives is holy – and without
humility towards the whole – towards man, towards nature and to God Himself Who is beyond both man and nature, their transcendent source and origin – we will simply proceed headlong along the course to self-destruction to which we are now committed and which is our own choosing and for which we are entirely responsible.

Philip Sherrard (1922-1995)
(The Rape of Man & Nature: An Inquiry Into the Origins and Consequences of Modern Science)

The cusp of Aries and Taurus is a cusp between the FIRE of Aries and the EARTH of Taurus.

We can see the RED above of the fifth emanation, that of MARS ruling Aries, with the diagonal to the seventh

Emanation to VENUS ruling Taurus (and Libra).

From the field of Sertenity, the field of Mindfulness is born. God the Most High, says, ‘They celebrate His praises night and day, nor do they even flag or intermit'(21:20).
Mindfulness involves striving and is of three kinds: being mindful of service, being mindful of the spiritual moment, and being mindful of the inner consciousness.
Being mindful of service is achieved through three things: revering God’s command, knowing the Prophetic tradition, and recognizing pretension.
And being mindful of the spiritual and metaphysical moment is achieved through three things: elimination of passion, purification of thought, and being overcome by divine love.
And being mindful of the inner-conciousness is achieved through three things: losing [attachment to] the world, becoming free from the self, and returning to God through intimacy

–The One Hundred Fields of Abdullah Ansari of Herat

The Fifth emanation is of course called Severity. This Martian war like energy is one of catharsis.

This is a cleansing, a mother spanking her child, a teacher forcing their student to rethink their actions.

This is a slap in the face to wake up through what may very well be a trial by fire.

It is not without reason that the fifth emanation also leads to DEVIL, JUTICE and DEATH.

This path between TOWER and LOVERS is of course mediated through the Harmonious sixth emanation



The TOWER is a card of destruction, lies, illusions and falsehoods are destroyed, the ivory tower.

The LOVERS is a card of EDEN. It is a card of polarity and beginnings and endings, a perfect state of being.





Occult explanations attached to this card are meagre and mostly disconcerting. It is idle to indicate that it depicts min in all its aspects, because it bears this evidence on the surface. It is said further that it contains the first allusion to a material building, but I do not conceive that the Tower is more or less material than the pillars which we have met with in three previous cases. I see nothing to warrant Papus in supposing that it is literally the fall of Adam, but there is more in favour of his alternative–that it signifies the materialization of the spiritual word. The bibliographer Christian imagines that it is the downfall of the mind, seeking to penetrate the mystery of God. I agree rather with Grand Orient that it is the ruin of the House of We, when evil has prevailed therein, and above all that it is the rending of a House of Doctrine. I understand that the reference is, however, to a House of Falsehood. It illustrates also in the most comprehensive way the old truth that “except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.”

There is a sense in which the catastrophe is a reflection from the previous card, but not on the side of the symbolism which I have tried to indicate therein. It is more correctly a question of analogy; one is concerned with the fall into the material and animal state, while the other signifies destruction on the intellectual side. The Tower has been spoken of as the chastisement of pride and the intellect overwhelmed in the attempt to penetrate the Mystery of God; but in neither case do these explanations account for the two persons who are the living sufferers. The one is the literal word made void and the other its false interpretation. In yet a deeper sense, it may signify also the end of a dispensation, but there is no possibility here for the consideration of this involved question.

I saw a lofty tower extending from earth to heaven; its golden crowned summit reached beyond the clouds. All round it black night reigned and thunder rumbled.

Suddenly the heavens opened, a thunder-clap shook the whole earth, and lightning struck the summit of the tower and felled the golden crown. A tongue of fire shot from heaven and the whole tower became filled with fire and smoke. Then I beheld the builders of the tower fall headlong to the ground.

And the voice said:–

“The building of the tower was begun by the disciples of the great Master in order to have a constant reminder of the Master’s teaching that the true tower must be built in one’s own soul, that in the tower built by hands there can be no mysteries, that no one can ascend to Heaven by treading stone steps.

“The tower should warn the people not to believe in it. It should serve as a reminder of the inner Temple and as a protection against the outer; it should be as a lighthouse, in a dangerous place where men have often been wrecked and where ships should not go.

“But by and by the disciples forgot the true covenant of the Master and what the tower symbolized, and began to believe in the tower of stone, they had built, and to teach others to so believe. They began to say that in this tower there is power, mystery and the spirit of the Master, that the tower itself is holy and that it is built for the coming Master according to His covenant and His will. And so they waited in the tower for the Master. Others did not believe this, or interpreted it differently. Then began disputes about the rights of the summit. Quarrels started, ‘Our Master, your Master,’ was said; ‘our tower, your tower.’ And the disciples ceased to understand each other. Their tongues had become confused.

“You understand the meaning here? They had begun to think that this is the tower of the Master, that He builds it through them, and that it must and, indeed, can be built right up to Heaven.

“And you see how Heaven responded?”


The sun shines in the zenith, and beneath is a great winged figure with arms extended, pouring down influences. In the foreground are two human figures, male and female, unveiled before each other, as if Adam and Eve when they first occupied the paradise of the earthly body. Behind the man is the Tree of Life, bearing twelve fruits, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is behind the woman; the serpent is twining round it. The figures suggest youth, virginity, innocence and love before it is contaminated by gross material desire. This is in all simplicity the card of human love, here exhibited as part of the way, the truth and the life. It replaces, by recourse to first principles, the old card of marriage, which I have described previously, and the later follies which depicted man between vice and virtue. In a very high sense, the card is a mystery of the Covenant and Sabbath.

The suggestion in respect of the woman is that she signifies that attraction towards the sensitive life which carries within it the idea of the Fall of Man, but she is rather the working of a Secret Law of Providence than a willing and conscious temptress. It is through her imputed lapse that man shall arise ultimately, and only by her can he complete himself. The card is therefore in its way another intimation concerning the great mystery of womanhood. The old meanings fall to pieces of necessity with the old pictures, but even as interpretations of the latter, some of them were of the order of commonplace and others were false in symbolism.

I saw a blooming garden in a green valley, surrounded by soft blue hills.

In the garden I saw a Man and a Woman naked and beautiful. They loved each other and their Love was their service to the Great Conception, a prayer and a sacrifice; through It they communed with God, through It they received the highest revelations; in Its light the deepest truths came to them; the magic world opened its gate; elves, undines, sylphs and gnomes came openly to them; the three kingdoms of nature, the mineral, plant and animal, and the four elements–fire, water, air and earth-served them.

Through their Love they saw the mystery of the world’s equilibrium, and that they themselves were a symbol and expression of this balance. Two triangles united in them into a six-pointed star. Two magnets melted into an ellipsis. They were two. The third was the Unknown Future. The three made One.

I saw the woman looking out upon the world as though enraptured with its beauty. And from the tree on which ripened golden fruit I saw a serpent creep.It whispered in the woman’s ear, and I saw her listening, smiling at first suspiciously, then with curiosity which merged into joy. Then I saw her speak to the man. I noticed that he seemed to admire only her and smiled with an expression of joy and sympathy at all she told him.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“This picture you see, is a picture of temptation and fall”, said the voice. “What constitutes the Fall? Do you understand its nature”?

“Life is so good”, I said, “and the world so beautiful, and this man and woman wanted to believe in the reality of the world and of themselves. They wanted to forget service and take from the world what it can give. So they made a distinction between themselves and the world. They said, ‘We are here, the world is there’. And the world separated from them and became hostile.”

“Yes”, said the Voice, this is true. “The everlasting mistake with men is that they see the fall in love. But Love is not a fall, it is a soaring above an abyss. And the higher the flight, the more beautiful and alluring appears the earth. But that wisdom, which crawls on earth, advises belief in the earth and in the present. This is the Temptation. And the man and woman yielded to it. They dropped from the eternal realms and submitted to time and death. The balance was disturbed. The fairyland was closed upon them. The elves, undines, sylphs and gnomes became invisible.

The Face of God ceased to reveal Itself to them, and all things appeared upside down.

“This Fall, this first ‘sin of man’, repeats itself perpetually, because man continues to believe in his separateness and in the Present. And only by means of great suffering can he liberate himself from the control of time and return to Eternity–leave darkness and return to Light”.

While MARS or severity is one of destructive cleansing, the fire that burns from which arises the dragon or phoenix. We see total destruction here. This is mostly thought of as a harsh encounter a place of destruction. Severity as an emanation is also catharsis. We all need to limit and reduce things in ur lives sometimes. This is constriction, reduction, a trial through fire from which new modes are created, war, yes…but not just.

Ruled by Khamiel and the Seraphim the metal of Mars is IRON.

Camael (Latin Camael), Means one who sees God. (also known as Kamuel, Chamuel, Camiel, Camniel) is an angel in Christian mythology and angelology, and is often included in lists as being one of the seven archangels. He is claimed to be the leader of the forces that expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden holding a flaming sword. Camael is not recognised by the Catholic Church due to the Vatican‘s decision to ban the veneration of angels not mentioned in the Bible

Camael is an angel who presides over beauty, joy, happiness, and contentment. Camael is the Chief of the order of powers and is one of the holy Sefiroth. Camael personifies divine justice and is listed as one of the seven truly powerful angels who have the great honour of standing in the very presence of God.

Camael’s name means ‘He who sees God.’

The angel Camael is credited with having authority over a mighty force ‘The Angels of Destruction’ and is honoured as the chief of the ruling princes of the angelic choir. 

Camael is also thought to be the angel of the garden of Gethsemane who gave comfort and encouragement to Jesus in the terrible hours prior to his arrest. Some people believe that Camael is the angel of divine love and the gatekeeper of heaven.

seraph (/ˈsɛr.əf/; pl. seraphs or seraphim /ˈsɛr.ə.fɪm/Hebrew: שְׂרָפִים śərāfîm, singular שָׂרָף śārāfLatinseraphi[m], singularseraph[us]Greek: σεραφείμ) is a type of celestial or heavenly being in the Abrahamic religions.

Literally “burning ones”, the word seraph is normally a synonym for serpents when used in the Hebrew Bible. A seminal passage in theBook of Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-8) used the term to describe fiery six-winged beings that fly around the Throne of God crying “holy, holy, holy”. This throne scene, with its triple invocation of holiness (a formula that came to be known as the Trisagion), profoundly influenced subsequent theologyliterature and art. Its influence is frequently seen in works depicting angelsheaven and apotheosis. Seraphs are mentioned as celestial beings in an influential Hellenistic work, the Book of Enoch, and the Book of Revelation. Tradition places seraphs in the fifth rank of ten in the Jewish angelic hierarchy and the highest rank in the Christian angelic hierarchy.

The word seraphim, literally “burning ones”, transliterates a Hebrew plural noun; translation yields seraphs. The word saraph/seraphim appears three times in the Torah (Numbers 21:6–8, Deuteronomy 8:15) and four times in the Book of Isaiah (6:2–6, 14:29, 30:6). In Numbers and Deuteronomy the “seraphim” are serpents—the association of serpents as “burning ones” is possibly due to the burning sensation of the poison.[1] Isaiah also uses the word in close association with words to describe snakes (nachash, the generic word for snakes, in 14:29, and epheh, viper, in 30:6).

The Isaiah vision of seraphs in an idealised Jerusalem First Temple represents the sole instance in the Hebrew Bible of this word being used to describe celestial beings.[2] “… I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and His train filled the Hekhal (sanctuary). Above him stood the Seraphim; each had six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.” (Isaiah 6:1–3) The seraphim cry continually to each other, “Holy, holy, holy, is YHWH of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory.” (verses 2–3) One seraph then carries out an act of purification for the prophet by touching his lips with a live coal from the altar (verses 6–7). The text uses the word “seraphim” but adds no adjectives or modifiers emphasizing snakes (nahash, etc.). The description gives the creatures both human and avian attributes. A strong association with fire, though, is maintained.[3]

In the Hebrew Bible the seraphs do not have the status of angels. It is only in later sources (like De Coelesti Hierarchia or Summa Theologiae that they are considered to be a division of the divine messengers.[4]

Seraphs appear in the 2nd century BC Book of Enoch[5] where they are designated as drakones (δράκονες “serpents”), and are mentioned, in conjunction with cherubs, as the heavenly creatures standing nearest to the throne of God. Two other classes of celestial beings were equated with the seraphim – the phoenixes and the chalkydri (from Greekχαλκός “copper”, “brass” + ύδρα “hydra“, “water-snake”; lit. “brazen hydras” or “serpents”), who were both described as “flying elements of the sun”. In the late 1st century AD Book of Revelation (iv. 4–8) the seraphim are described as being forever in God’s presence and praising him: “Day and night with out ceasing they sing: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come.'” They appear also in the Christian Gnostic text On the Origin of the World, described as “dragon-shaped angels”.[6]

Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae offers a description of the nature of seraphs:

The name “Seraphim” does not come from charity only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or fire. Hence Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) expounds the name “Seraphim” according to the properties of fire, containing an excess of heat. Now in fire we may consider three things.

First, the movement which is upwards and continuous. This signifies that they are borne inflexibly towards God.

Secondly, the active force which is “heat,” which is not found in fire simply, but exists with a certain sharpness, as being of most penetrating action, and reaching even to the smallest things, and as it were, with superabundant fervor; whereby is signified the action of these angels, exercised powerfully upon those who are subject to them, rousing them to a like fervor, and cleansing them wholly by their heat.

Thirdly we consider in fire the quality of clarity, or brightness; which signifies that these angels have in themselves an inextinguishable light, and that they also perfectly enlighten others.

Of the seven metals, iron is the ‘earthy’ one, having a stronger connection with the Earth than do the others – for a start, it’s the only one that aligns with the Earth’s magnetic field, in a compass. It’s present in far larger quantities in the earth’s crust than the other ‘classical’ metals. The others – lead, tin, gold, copper, mercury and silver – total no more than 0.01%, or one part in ten thousand of the Earth’s crust. They are in a sense little more than ‘visitors to the Earth’ (the phrase is Dr Steiner’s), although we use them so much nowadays that we forget their scarcity. Iron makes up about 5% of the crust, being the only one which has built itself solidly into the substance of the earth.

Reddish-looking soil means that iron is present, and, for the same reason, Mars is red. So the symbolism of Iron-Mars is direct and obvious, with nothing subtle about it. Mars has always been associated with blood and war because of this symbolism. But, let’s not forget that that symbolism is also physiological fact: the blood is red because of the iron in it! The main ore of iron is pyrites, ‘fool’s gold.’ Have some of its marvellous cubic-crystal structures on your mantelpiece! The other common ore is haematite, which has a quite different bulbous structure, and a dark reddish hue. ‘Haem’ means blood and ‘pyr’ means fire – blood and fire! These are indeed the Mars-attributes.

Of the seven metals, iron is the one that burns. A falling star is burning iron. A meteorite burns brightly as it falls through the atmosphere. Fireworks use the burning sparkle of iron filings. Some steel wool can be ignited, then plunge it into a jar of oxygen, when it will glow fiercely. Thereby one experiences the fiery energy of Mars. … One is reminded of Vulcan and Ares by such a demonstration, the two Mars-archetypes of antiquity. One was married to Aphrodite the Goddess of Love while the other just had an affair with her. Vulcan or Haephastos was the Smith, who forged the armour and instruments of war. The fiercely-glowing iron is removed from the furnace and then hammered into shape. Haephastos was lame, symbolizing an affliction that could befall Smiths from arsenic-poisoning. As copper and iron are bound together in the Earth, with most copper ores bound up with iron, as copper and iron interact in the blood, copper helping the iron metabolism – so Mars and Venus were mutually attracted. One sees this in the principle of a dynamo, where an iron-copperinteraction takes place to produce the throbbing pulse of electrical energy.



Ruled by COPPER the seventh emanation of VICTORY, VENUS is a place of the earth mysteries. Here we have the intuition, the place of the inner self as opposed to the intellect. The mysteries of Venus, the mysterious vault beneath the earth (Rosicrucianism). This is a center of the Orphic mysteries a clear path of Chthonic energies. Ruled by Uriel/Auriel and the Elohim. It is through here we find the light of the earth, a gateway beneath the earth to the stars.

Uriel (אוּרִיאֵל “El/God is my light“, Auriel/Oriel (God is my light) Standard Hebrew UriʾelTiberian Hebrew ʾÛrîʾēl) is one of thearchangels of post-Exilic Rabbinic tradition, and also of certain Christian traditions.

In apocryphal, kabbalistic and occult works Uriel has been equated or confused with Urial,[1] Nuriel, Uryan, Jeremiel, Vretil, Sariel, Suriel, Puruel, Phanuel, JacobAzrael and Raphael.

The angels mentioned in the older books of the Hebrew Bible are without names. Indeed, rabbi Simeon ben Lakish of Tiberias (230–270), asserted that all the specific names for the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon, and some modern commentators would tend to agree. Of the seven Archangels in the angelology of post-Exilic Judaism, only two, Gabriel, and Michael, are mentioned by name in the Scriptures consistently recognised by both the post-Jamnia Jewish tradition and the books common to both the Catholic biblical canon and the Protestant one. Raphael (archangel) features prominently in the deuterocanonical book Tobit (initially accepted by both the Jewish and Christian canons, but removed from the Jewish canon in late antiquity and rejected by the Protestant reformers in the 17th century). The Book of Tobit is accepted as scriptural by the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Where a fourth archangel is added to the named three, to represent the four cardinal points, Uriel is generally the fourth.[2] Uriel is listed as the fourth angel in Christian Gnostics(under the name Phanuel), by Gregory the Great, and in the angelology of Pseudo-Dionysius. However, the Book of Enoch clearly distinguishes the two Angels; Uriel means “the Light of God” while Phanuel means “the Face of God”. Uriel is the third angel listed in the Testament of Solomon, the fourth being Sabrael.

Uriel appears in the Second Book of Esdras[3] found in the Biblical apocrypha (called Esdras IV in the Vulgate) in which the prophet Ezra asks God a series of questions, and Uriel is sent by God to instruct him. According to the Revelation of Esdras, the angels that will rule at the end of the world are MichaelGabriel, Uriel, RaphaelGabuthelonBeburos,ZebuleonAker, and Arphugitonos. The last five listed only appear in this book and nowhere else in apocryphal or apocalyptic works.

Uriel, right, in the Virgin of the Rocks(Louvre version) by Leonardo da Vinci, 1483–86.

In Christian apocryphal gospels Uriel plays a role, differing between sources, in the rescue of Jesus‘ cousin John the Baptist from theMassacre of the Innocents ordered by King Herod. He carries John and his mother Saint Elizabeth to join the Holy Family after their Flight into Egypt. Their reunion is depicted in Leonardo da Vinci‘s Virgin of the Rocks.

Uriel is often identified as a cherub and angel of repentance.[4] He “stands at the Gate of Eden with a fiery sword”,[5] or as the angel who “watches over thunder and terror”.[6] In the Apocalypse of Peter he appears as the Angel of Repentance, who is graphically represented as being as pitiless as any demon. In the Life of Adam and Eve, Uriel is regarded as the spirit (i.e., one of the cherubs) of the third chapter of Genesis. He is also identified as one of the angels who helped bury Adam and Abel in Paradise.

Stemming from medieval Jewish mystical traditions, Uriel has also become the Angel of Sunday (Jewish Encyclopedia), the Angel of Poetry, and one of the Holy Sephiroth. Uriel is depicted as the destroyer of the hosts of Sennacherib.

In a few cases in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Hebrew elohim with a plural verb, or with implied plural context, was rendered either angeloi (“angels”) or pros to kriterion tou Theou(“before the judgement of God”).[14] These passages then entered first the Latin Vulgate, then the English King James Version (KJV) as “angels” and “judges”, respectively. From this came the result that James Strong, for example, listed “angels” and “judges” as possible meanings for elohim with a plural verb in his Strong’s Concordance, and the same is true of many other 17th-20th century reference works. Both Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon and the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon list both angels and judges as possible alternative meanings of elohim with plural verbs and adjectives.

The reliability of the Septuagint translation in this matter has been questioned by Gesenius and Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg. In the case of Gesenius, he lists the meaning without agreeing with it.[15] Hengstenberg stated that the Hebrew Bible text never uses elohim to refer to “angels”, but that the Septuagint translators refused the references to “gods” in the verses they amended to “angels.”[16]

The Greek New Testament (NT) quotes Psalm 8:4-6 in Hebrews 2:6b-8a, where the Greek NT has “ἀγγέλους” (angelos) in vs. 7,[17] quoting Ps. 8:5 (8:6 in the LXX), which also has “ἀγγέλους” in a version of the Greek Septuagint.[18] In the KJV, elohim (Strong’s number H430) is translated as “angels” only[19] in Psalm 8:5.

The KJV has elohim translated as “judges” in Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8; and twice in Exodus 22:9.[20]

Copper in women’s blood serum has a monthly cycle in tune with their menstrual period, peaking a week or so before the period arrives. This is because their serum copper exists chiefly as the protein, ‘ceruloplasmin’, whose metabolism is closely linked to the female sex hormone oestrogen. The Pill works by emulating conditions of pregnancy where oestrogen is high, and this has a drastic effect upon serum copper levels. During pregnancy, copper serum in the mother climbs up to double its normal level, reaching 1.9 parts per million. Conversely, iron in foetal blood also increases as the time of birth approaches, so a copper-iron polarity develops between mother and child. Insomnia, depression and changeable moods towards the end of pregnancy have been related to the raised copper levels. A woman taking the Pill has blocked off her monthly rhythm of serum copper, and instead retains a permanently high level corresponding to the ninth month of pregnancy. Evidence suggests that copper has a dynamic role in the reproductive process, rather than just being a by-product of the raised oestrogen.

In the early 1970s it was discovered that coil contraceptives using copper were much more successful than previous coil designs. The ‘copper-7’ coil became the most popular design and was marketed world-wide, used chiefly by women who have already had one child. Despite intensive research however, no-one had any idea as to the mechanism whereby copper in the coil helped prevent conception. Copper ions have a biological action on the inside of the uterus, preventing implantation of the fertilised ovum. Its modus operandi is thus quite unconnected with that of the Pill, where overall blood serum levels are raised. The sole connection is that in both situations a striking Venus-quality is shown by copper’s behavior.

Having compared copper and iron in the blood, let’s compare them in other aspects – as their two planets are nearest to us, one within Earth’s orbit and the other outside it. Pure copper is a metal of reddish-pink hue, and has a warm, beneficial glow which contrasts with the cold glint of steel. With something made out of iron one may feel ‘how strong’ or ‘how useful’, whereas with something made out of copper, the first impression is more aesthetic. Whether it is a copper bowl, a trumpet, or a green-domed copper roof, it is the visual appearance rather than the utility of the metal which first strikes one. It is such a soft and pliable metal that it needs to be alloyed with other metals, into brass or bronze, before it can be used for a structural purpose.

In an exhibition of mineral ores those of copper first attract the attention, providing a joy to the eye as do those of no other metal. Look at the delicate green-blue hues of malachite or azurite- how different from the massive, solid forms of the iron ores, pyrites or haematite! The pyrite crystals form perfect cubes, expressing Martial power and strength. A contrast to this is the copper ore malachite, often cut and polished for decoration, to disclose its swirling patterns and sea-green hues. The names of the ores of copper point to gentle Venus qualities: azurite, malachite, turquoise, chalcopyrite and peacock ore.




Just in case there are those who refuse to be caught forever by ugliness and seek some alternative, the evil of cruelty makes its claims. Cruelty is something we recognize so easily as a physical activity, yet find so hard to identify in its finer but no less dangerous forms. It is essentially an intentional misuse of power by a strong entity toward a weaker one on the same plant’ of action. For instance, a helpless cripple could scarcely be physically cruel to a strong and healthy person, yet could very well be diabolically cruel mentally to the same person if he were intellectually vulnerable. Cruelty is only possible as a calculated discharge of destructive energy directed at feebler creature unlikely to retaliate effectively. Thus cruelty automatically implies cowardice as well.The motivation of cruelty is commonly again the artificial ego-enlargement resultant from its practice. It makes the little boy feel bigger when he kicks his baby brother. If we can make others frightened of us we seem larger by comparison to their shrinking. That is the secret of cruelty. A false sense of boost because of aggressive action which appears to avoid injurious reprisals. To hurt and kill some helpless and defenseless creature makes cruel people feel enormously powerful by contrast. They may even delude themselves for an instant that they are acting like gods. Taking their pathetic little share of life energy, they are willing to expend this on damaging the lives of weaker beings for the sake of supposing themselves more powerful than they truly are. None cry louder than such cowardly criminals when justified retribution rebounds on them. Nobody hates being hurt more than those who hurt with hate.

We need not always look for evident violence in order to recognize cruelty. It is possible to be extremely cruel in the “nicest and sweetest” ways. Staging little scenes deliberately to humiliate and hurt someone’s feelings while remaining righteously on the side of conventional virtue meanwhile. With the aid of a little intelligence people can contrive all sorts of cruelties yet themselves keep in the clear so far as rule books apply. Attendants in mental hospitals, for instance, have ample opportunity on these lines. So has anyone in charge of children or animals, or whoever is unable to hit back where it hurts most. Let those who think they could not be cruel examine what conscience they have within their own life-frameworks If we are still in human bodies then we are yet capable of cruelty in some degree or another. It is well to see this and convert our energies otherwise as we can.

–William G. Gray (Exorcizing the Tree of Evil)


If only this did not relate to numerous people in my life at the moment… lol oh well, can’t change them, when it is their own internal battle, their own lack. A baby will eventually soil it’s diapers, a hateful, spiteful, ungrateful, manipulative personage will soil their diaper too…although as they are so oblivious they’ll probably sit in their own feces and not notice the difference…..

Sometimes kitty’s are so honest… at least their malice is only over kibble, belly rubs and how much wool you dangle in front of their face….

We and God are not two separate existences; therefore the will of God is also our own will. If we want to change, then God will not stop us from changing. The poet Nguyen Du put it like this:
“When necessary, the heavens will not stand in the way of humans.
The result of past actions can be lifted,
future causes and conditions can be created.”
The real question is, do we want to change or not?

Do we want to hold on to the lure of suffering and let our minds wander around in dreams? If in your heart you want to change, then whatever spiritual being you believe in will also be happy for you to change.

Families work the same way; no person is completely separate. If the son or daughter changes, then the father and mother will also change. If the energy arises from the son or daughter and effects a change in them first, then it will also produce a change in the heart of the father and mother some time later. Families are not made up of completely separate entities. Even if God has predisposed things to be a certain way, we can still change because, as the Bible says, “we are children of God” (I John 3:2).

What is the relationship between the creator and the creature? One has the ability to create and the other is what is created. If they are connected to each other then we can talk about them as subject and object. If they are not connected to each other, how can we call them subject and object? The subject that creates is God; the object created is the universe in which we live. Between the subject and the object there is a close relationship, just as there is a close relationship between left and right, night and day, satisfaction and hunger; just as, according to the law of reflection, the perceiver and the perceived have a very close link.

When the angle of incidence changes, the angle of reflection will change immediately. What we call the will of God is linked to our own will. That is why the retribution of our past actions can be changed.

— Thich Nhat Hanh (The Energy of Prayer: How to Deepen Your Spiritual Practice)


If this metaphysical space is to be known,

such knowledge can be attained only by faith and grace,

not by ‘entering’ but by ‘being entered’

-this is so because the greater must reveal itself to the lesser.

Put differently, that which is immanently ‘Spirit’ can only be known receptively,

through its own intellective vision, and not any derivative faculty such as reason,

feeling or sensation. Reason can only discern conceptually,

at best reducing reality to a dualism of subject and object

(as in the case of Descartes) or catagorical postulate

(as in the case of Kant) or dialectic process

(as in the case of Hegel) – its ‘telos’ will tend to be utopian(as in the case of Marx),

fundamentalist( as in the cases of religious, political or secular dogmatism)

or anthropocentrically consencual (as in the case of Rousseau’s social contract);

while sensation or feeling even where elevated to

the level of empirical ‘science,’ can only discern reality as matter or as psyche,

quantitatively, thereby cutting it off from its transcendent

and qualitative roots, leading to an emphasis on hypertrophic subjectivism

(as in the case of Nietzsche), Psychologism(as in the case of Freud),

or reductive positivism(as in the cases of philosophical positivism and of scientism).

That which transcends us cannot be known reductively

but only by that transcendent faculty which is immanent in us-which in

Tradition is termed the ‘Intellect’

or the Self-knowing Spirit. To know is to discern BEING.

We must empty ourselves or our ‘self’ in order to know who we ARE.

We must return to the sacred emptiness of the space that is our

ontological core in order to know that which truly IS.

–M Ali Lakhani (the Distance between us, found in Sacred Web issue 31) Church of St Mary Magdalene, Chewton Mendip
Church of St Mary Magdalene, Chewton Mendip

In the Western world, a strong belief in the objective truths of religion, which are viewed as incontrovertible, demonstrable facts, is regarded as essential to the life of faith. When asking if somebody is religious, peo- ple often inquire: “Does he or she believe?” as though accepting certain credal propositions was the prime religious activity. Indeed, faith is equated with belief, but this equation is of recent provenance. Origi- nally the meaning of the word faith was akin to trust, as when we say that we have faith in a friend or an ideal. Faith was not an intellectual position but a virtue: it was the careful cultivation, by means of the ritu- als and myths of religion, of the conviction that, despite all the dispirit- ing evidence to the contrary, life had some ultimate meaning and value. The Latin word credo (translated now as “I believe”) seems to have de- rived from the phrase cor dare: to give one’s heart. The Middle English word beleven meant to love. When Christians proclaimed: credo in unum Deum , they were not so much affirming their belief in the existence of a single deity as committing their lives to God. When St. Anselm of Can- terbury prayed in the eleventh century: credo ut intellagam (“I have faith in order that I may understand”), he was not blindly submitting to the doctrines of religion in the hope that one day these incredible asser- tions would make sense today, if he abdicated his critical intelligence. His prayer should really be translated: “I commit myself in order that I may understand.” The meaning of dogma would only be revealed when he lived a fully Christian life, embracing its mythology and rituals whole- heartedly. This attitude is foreign to modernity. Today people feel that before they live a religious life, they must first satisfy themselves intel- lectually of its metaphysical claims. This is sound scientific practice: first you must establish a principle before you can apply it. But it is not the way that religion has traditionally worked.
Karen ARmstrong (Faith an Modernity)

Next Page »