|
Post by stepnwolf on Apr 14, 2013 12:10:45 GMT 9.5
Until relatively recent times, belief in a Supreme Being/Higher Power was a given in all our Lodges until some of the French BB removed or ignored this requirement in the Ancient Landmarks. As Paul has reminded us, a practice becomes a Landmark when some grand body declares it to be such.
In those new rituals I suspect a wider variety of answers would be allowed in answer to the question, “In whom do you put your trust.” In such Godless Lodges I'd hope that “in God” would be permitted. I have read instances where “in myself” was not allowed nor are we as liberal as AA where the Supreme Being could be a bookcase.
As a believer in traditional religion, I would have no problem with the question. But what of the serious, thinking atheist? Has he no place in a Masonic lodge? I'm not prepared to judge the motives of such an applicant, but most applications state, “having a good impression of the Masonic order...” If he wanted to join just for personal gain, he certainly wouldn't be the first one. Or if he lied and said “in God” just to join, I daresay he wouldn't be the first one either.
Does an atheist carry contagion that would infect a Lodge? Would his personal philosophy interfere with the inner workings of a Lodge or disturb the peace and tranquilly of the BB? I am not quite sure of that.
I would like to believe that we would influence him/her. It's been my experience that atheists are a stubborn lot, but I would like to see how he would stand up to a devoted Lodge which works for the improvement of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 14, 2013 12:55:26 GMT 9.5
I wonder if it useful to distinguish Theism from Deism and hence Atheism from Adeism? " the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#The_history_of_classical_deismThus an atheist (no personal or religious god) might well be a deist and acceptable to tolerant Grand Lodges. I recently had to interview a candidate who did not believe in God but who was committed to serving humanity. After quite some conversation it was clear that she knew that Life has meaning - and hence was already a genuine 1st degree initiate. Life can only have meaning when there is a patterning intelligence behind it. I considered therefore that she was a Deist (although she was not familiar with the term) and she is now an EA and quite good too. She had no trouble tolerating the Theist form of the ritual and is actively studying it. It is arguable that the essential Masonic commitment is to support the Divine Plan. The task of perceiving the Supreme Being is much more difficult than perceiving the existence of the Divine Plan. Thus a candidate who is atheist may well qualify for Masonry on the grounds of perceiving the existence of a meaning to Life. The Supreme Being for this set of universes is validly accessed through the url The Great Architect of the Universe. It seems to me that there are universes beyond this set and the other (female) face of the GAOTU looks into those universes. Linkages between the two sets of universes may produce the multi-existential phenomenon known as avatars. Beyond those two sets of universes is more but I cannot perceive it.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Apr 17, 2013 9:01:38 GMT 9.5
-> it was clear that she knew that Life has meaning I was musing about our forum on the way into work this morning, and wondering if it held meaning for readers apart from our tried and true contributing members. After eight years of forum work, contributing something almost every day, I must admit to sometimes wondering if I am just running around in circles, what's the point? Am I wasting my time and energy. I actually thought that when the familiar symbol popped into my mind ... the Point within the Circle. That was followed by the image of the Three Principals from the Royal Arch as they descend to the floor.. etc I then received the notion that the (whole) Point is Consciousness. It does not matter if we are discussing physical matters, body electrics, planet electrics, extra planetary electrics, angels or aliens, inner dimensions and extra dimensions... all are the same, consciousness quantified. Consciousness, subconsciousness, superconsciousness are all explained in the various religions and mystical belief systems. Are these the Three who will not or cannot divulge their secrets to any part or parts until the part or parts are balanced and and able to retain and sustain the Truth. When you think about it, that about explains the Beauty and Strength parts that lead to Wisdom. Belief in a Supreme Being ... 'a' Supreme Being is different to The Supreme Being. Might we need extra-ordinary vision and extra-ordinary consciousness to be in any sort of position to have anything else but a belief in such Being if our consciousness is developed to the point where we can see that there is order amid the chaos. (Being - denotes a state of existence of life; is God (generator of dimensions) beyond/above/below/outsid/inside Being?) Just a thought
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 17, 2013 10:00:21 GMT 9.5
> the (whole) Point is Consciousness.
Quite so. It is irrelevant whether the human race lives under any particular political or economic system. What is relevant is that humans develop suitable individual and group consciousnesses.
>Consciousness, subconsciousness, superconsciousness are all explained in the various religions and mystical belief systems. Are these the Three who will not or cannot divulge their secrets
That is an entirely valid interpretation but the ritual may actually be based on physical plane theo-political events.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 18, 2013 12:18:41 GMT 9.5
>Belief in a Supreme Being ... 'a' Supreme Being is different to The Supreme Being.
I would have thought that by definition there can be only one Supreme Being (for this Existence). Thus the use of "a" demonstrates tolerance of different namings.
>Might we need extra-ordinary vision and extra-ordinary consciousness to be in any sort of position to have anything else but a belief in such Being
Certainly some sort of perception is necessary to move past belief. As I recall HRA there was a hymn indicating that when we see God, faith and hope pass away. This seems to indicate that is possible for the brethren.
There are of course layers of meaning:
- The densest is the humanoid gods referred to by the triple name that were recorded by ancient peoples on their periodic trips to and around the Earth
- Then there are the devas and nature gods as recorded by Hodson
- Then there are the logoi of the planets
- etc
- and finally for humans there is the GAOTU - the creator and manifestor of all the universes that humans can detect.
The experience of visual imagery based on a personal and/or group connection with GAOTU is possible for some humans. That experience could be referred to as seeing God, but the use of the term seeing is a bit strained.
Mostly those humans that see God are looking at lesser beings perhaps as far as the solar logos.
In this context it is perhaps worth considering what aspect of relationship determines if a cosmic entity is God for any particular human.
Since human bodies exist using the substance of the Earth and the Earth bodies exist using the substance of the Solar System, etc, how do we determine at what point Godness exists for a human?
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Apr 20, 2013 8:34:03 GMT 9.5
Again posters here have encouraged me to reconsider some of my cherished ideas and beliefs, like those regarding faith. I had to admit that most of my faith is belief-based and as such is not always reliable (but mostly reliable).
For a while I had to examine the articles of my faith and found that all of them are based on belief –- until I found one that seems to have emerged full blown without belief and that is the ultimate goal is good. I've seen evidence of that in my own life and in the lives of others.
This is not an ethical good, as opposed to ethical evil, but the Omega Point in the philosophy of the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. His writings helped me to give flesh to the ideas already in my head.
In spite of the evidence in recent events, humanity is drawn to that Omega Point, is drawn to good. Along with humanity, the universe is being drawn to higher complexity. There may be rounds, rings and chains, aliens and angels, but ultimately there is only this: our ultimate destination.
If I keep my eye on this goal, I may persevere. I don't believe that the Dieity is testing my faith, when I encounter pain or distress, even when I falter, it is merely part of the process of moving toward the Omega Point. I have to recognize that this isn't the only way to the Ultimate; there are probably many ways, but this is mine, based on Faith.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 20, 2013 8:50:34 GMT 9.5
>one that seems to have emerged full blown without belief and that is the ultimate goal is good
So direct perception occurs - without any engagement of the senses or rationality.
And so we can have faith (in this case that Existence in ultimately good) without needing belief.
Hence my acceptance of a candidate who did not think in terms of God.
|
|
|
Post by cwhite on Apr 21, 2013 2:31:56 GMT 9.5
Omega Point? The Hebrew equivalent would be the Tau Point? I think time will drag us all there, whether we are prepared or not.
The Tau is synonymous with Saturn..
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 21, 2013 6:24:47 GMT 9.5
>Omega Point?
If you are referring to the process of direct perception, that faculty is first encountered through the heart chakra.
>Tau is synonymous with Saturn.
I don't quite follow that.
|
|
|
Post by cwhite on Apr 21, 2013 8:05:52 GMT 9.5
ת = XXI The World = Saturn?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Apr 21, 2013 8:19:15 GMT 9.5
It is perhaps better to regard the Tau as an etheric energy operator. And when combined with a reversing loop we have:
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Apr 22, 2013 22:03:39 GMT 9.5
Omega Point? The Hebrew equivalent would be the Tau Point? I don't know anything about the Tau point (usually I transliterate the letter as Tav (= ת ) in Hebrew to avoid confusion with the Greek letter of the same name. As the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, ת could symbolize the last of time, that is the end time. Confirmation of your idea can be found in the XXI card of the Tarot major arcanum, called The World, to which is assigned the letter Tav. Among other things, the card signifies the end of the matter. In divination it signifies wholeness and integration. However, there is a Greek tau (= τ) which = 2π. I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the tau point you speak of.
|
|
|
Post by adrian on Nov 5, 2013 20:56:39 GMT 9.5
Good points in all of these. How do you define belief in a supreme being. How can you have a supreme being? Surely if a being is supreme it must be beyond comparison, and, since supreme is a term of comparison how can you use it in relation to God? Look in the older Hindu scriptures. In the Bhagavad Gita God is personalized as Krishna, but in The Upanishads God is not defined as such, they meditate on the Ultimate Reality, the Atman, they seem to be reaching beyond definition. Perhaps Creative Principle is the best we can do in defining the indefinable and ineffable. Thanks for all those pictures, The World, the Ankh say as much as one can, with Jacob's Ladder and the Hermit pointing the way.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 6, 2013 7:45:05 GMT 9.5
>Surely if a being is supreme it must be beyond comparison Perhaps the position of being supreme is relative or embedded in a system. Thus for the cells in my body, I am supreme in many ways. But from my perspective, I am a cell within a much greater system. Perhaps I can perceive the Supreme Being of the system within which I am embedded, but He too is embedded in a greater system. (His other half appears to me to be female but She faces away from us) >they meditate on the Ultimate Reality, the Atman And beyond Atman we have Paramatman en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParamatmanIs there more beyond that? >Perhaps Creative Principle is the best we can do in defining the indefinable and ineffable. I am not sure how useful definitions may be. Definitions are based on words and words are limiting. Perhaps it is a matter of increasing perspective as we rise on the planes - symbolised by ascending Jacob's Ladder. Thus the Absolute retreats before us as we encompass more of Reality within our own experience and capacity.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 6, 2013 7:49:39 GMT 9.5
>a local shaman group working to pop open his kundalini energy ....energize his kundalini circuits to higher utilization... within safe limits
A brave man!
I suffered damage long ago when I tried that. My body suddenly refused to do the exercises so I took the hint.
|
|
|
Post by adrian on Nov 9, 2013 10:08:01 GMT 9.5
Suppose we cut out the pronoun, and instead of 'A', or 'The' Supreme Being, attest to a belief in Supreme Being, or Supreme Creative Principle. That we we are not tying fellow Masons either theologically or scientifically. Thus we are acknowledging that mind comes before matter, that in fact matter is thought made solid, as is surely illustrated by the Tree of Life. Whether 'thought' is therefore eternal, or has a point of origin is then left open to interpretation. Such an approach also suggests a balanced understanding of the relationship between matter and spirit.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 9, 2013 10:24:44 GMT 9.5
>attest to a belief in Supreme Being
That is fine with me. I understand that the key is not so much a/the supreme being but rather that there is a divine plan to which Masons ought to contribute. The plan of course is much easier to perceive than the supreme being.
|
|
|
Post by Barclay on Nov 14, 2015 4:53:28 GMT 9.5
I've discussed this with other Masons, but we never seemed to reach a concensus. Many have accused me of some sort of hidden agenda. I suppose there are some who feel the fraternity to have some sort of hidden knowledge that they wish to get access to. I was once that way, very briefly.
Now I'm under the impression that many in the fraternity THINK they have hidden knowledge of some sort. I don't find the notion convincing however because I've met Masons who were not what I would call happy or 'bettered' men. For them to have access to "The Secret" they sure seem to be struggling just like the rest of us. Struggling for sustenance or struggling to find a meaning to their life.
I don't believe in a watchful intelligence, or even in an unwatchful one. I think consciousness is a result of our brains which is a result of evolution which is a result of nature. I don't know what 'nature' really means or whether or not there is an initial cause for it. Our minds try to understand things and even fabricate patterns when it fails to find any. It does not make sense that the world is eternal (no beginning or end), but it very well may be. I don't know if I'm atheist or deist or what. All I know is we're here, and it's interesting.
|
|
|
Post by pointwithinacircle on Nov 14, 2015 8:44:09 GMT 9.5
I don't know if I'm atheist or deist or what. All I know is we're here, and it's interesting. I regard an Atheist is someone who denies the possibility of things that he does not know. I have net very few people who have even the slightest idea of the possibilities contained in their own minds. Most of the Atheists that I have met are simply people who do not see much value in getting trapped in "The God Box".
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 14, 2015 8:52:18 GMT 9.5
More technically an Atheist is one that does not believe in the existence of individual deities - such as Zeus or Osiris or Jehovah.
Whereas a Deist may well agree that there is an Intelligence beyond all that exists but that that Intelligence may not pay any on-going attention to humans or even to solar systems.
|
|