The Symbol of the Rosy CrossThe well-known Symbol of the Rosicrucians—"The Rosy Cross"—appears in several forms, as for instance: The Cross surmounted by the Rose; the Sword (the Cross handle) attached to the Rose; the Cross surmounted by the Crown; a modification of the Phallic Cross, etc. The explanation of the general Symbol is Sevenfold—the three highest being reserved for Initiates of a certain rank, only, and therefore cannot be stated here. Below follow several of the meanings which we are permitted to translate and explain here:
(1) The Cross Surmounted by the Rose, indicates that the "Rose" (the mystic symbol of the Divine) can be attained only by the suffering of mortal life (symbolized by the Cross).
(2) The Sword Attached to the Rose indicates that the Sword of the Spirit must be actively employed in the Battle of Life, in order to win the reward of the Rose (the Rose being the reward bestowed by the Queen upon the victorious Knight, in the olden days).
Click to enlarge
Figure 2. The Symbol of the Rosy Cross. (Conventionalized)
(3) The Cross Surmounted by the Crown, indicates that the suffering of mortal existence, borne by the faithful disciple of Truth, will inevitably be rewarded by the attainment of the Crown of Mastery. "Every Cross has its Crown"; and "No Cross, no Crown"; being old aphorisms seeking to express this truth.
(4) The Modified Phallic Cross, indicates the Sexual Duality of the Manifested Universe—the Presence and Activity of the Universal Male Principle and the Universal Female Principle, respectively. [The Modified Phallic Cross of the Rosicrucians, however, must not be taken to indicate any relationship of the Rosicrucians with the gross forms of Phallic Worship, however. The latter is merely the distorted shadow of the Truth, and must not be mistaken for the Reality.]
Concluding this introductory statement, and inviting you to enter into the study of the Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians, let us ask you to carefully consider the following words of an ancient aphorism: "The possession of Knowledge, unaccompanied by a manifestation and expression in Action, is like the hoarding of precious metals by the miser—a vain and foolish thing. Forget not The Law of Use, in this and all other things."
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Friday, March 01, 2013
The revival of Platonic Orientalism was a serious attempt, many decades before Luther, at reforming Christianity by going “back to the sources”. Plethon seems to have hoped that, in fact, Platonic Orientalism would eventually take the place of Christianity as the religion of the future; Ficino believed, rather, that the ancient wisdom was perfectly compatible with the true Christian faith, and hence the rediscovery of the Greek sources could lead Christians back to the actual revelation at the core of their own religion; Pico, finally, was hoping for a great unification of all religious and philosophical traditions under the umbrella of the rediscovered kabbalah, and believed that the Jews would have to convert to Christianity once they had accepted the shocking revelation that a quintessentially Christian message formed the true secret of their own mystical tradition. Plethon and Ficino defended a “Zoroastrian” form of Platonic Orientalism, and Pico’s Christian kabbalah was its “Mosaic” counterpart.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Mr. Ed Fast,
The following is a letter I submitted to ICBC today regarding a $250 driver reinstatement fee that I was informed was necessary in order to renew my learner's licence:
"I recently applied to renew my learner's licence and was notified that I needed to pay a 'Driver Reinstatement Fee' of $250. This fee was not a part of the original documentation related to the procedures of my suspension, and according to your website it only applies to suspensions that are a year or more in duration. My suspension was of the duration of three months, so this obligatory fee has no bearing on my licence. Please have this remedied so I can renew my licence without having to pay this erroneous fee.
I will be contacting my member of parliament concerning this. Please forward any official documentation pertaining to the driver reinstatement fee to my email."
This is the only documentation I could find concerning this fee (via http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/tickets/licence-suspensions/reapplying-suspension):
If you have reached the end of a one-year suspension, you can reapply for your driver’s licence by following these steps:
Pay any outstanding fines or debts you owe to the court or government.
Pay any amounts owed to ICBC, such as for the:
driver penalty point premium or driver risk premium
Visit a driver licensing office with required ID.
Pay the $31 short-term driver’s licence fee and $250 reinstatement fee.
Aside from seeming an over-costly amount, I could find no valid reason for the existence of this fee and felt the need to inform you of the duress it is causing me by its nature of being a barrier to my societal rights. Being of low income, it is difficult to come up with the money they are asking for, and obtaining a valid driver's licence is a crucial step that will afford me more opportunities to build up wealth in my life and contribute to society. Although I disputed the stipulation that the fee should not apply to my case, I still felt the need to contest the necessity of this fee and its amount.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
"Discovered in an academic archive in the former East Germany, the elaborately bound volume of gold and green brocade paper holds 75,000 characters, a perplexing mix of mysterious symbols and Roman letters. The name comes from one of only two non-coded inscriptions in the document.
"Kevin Knight, a computer scientist at the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California, collaborated with Beata Megyesi and Christiane Schaefer of Uppsala University in Sweden to decipher the first 16 pages. They turn out to be a detailed description of a ritual from a secret society that apparently had a fascination with eye surgery and ophthalmology."
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
"So i have some time on my hands and wanted to explore a little further into Existentialism.
As I have learned it, especially through Nietzsche's writings, there is no ultimate purpose or goal in the universe. When you die, nothing happens and that's all there is. However, it is up to the individual to create his own purpose in life and reason for living. This belief doesn't justify any sort of living. If a man's purpose in life is to kill and steal, there is his purpose. This also applies to the religious people...their purpose in life is to praise God and be a religious/good person. As an extistentialist, you can't blame them because that is their purpose.
That's kinda my philosophy on life so far....and Existentialism as I understand it. Am I getting the point of the theory or am I incorrect in what I believe what existentialism is?"
If a man's purpose in life is to kill and steal, there is his purpose. This also applies to the religious people...their purpose in life is to praise God and be a religious/good person. As an extistentialist, you can't blame them because that is their purpose.
I don't think anyone should stick to any one purpose, especially if it is something as appalling as killing. If someone has come to a place where they have decided that killing and stealing is their purpose, then I think it is only inevitable that others will make their own purpose a reaction against that.
As an extistentialist, you can't blame them because that is their purpose.
Yes you can blame them for things like screwing up the world if they have made something awry of their purpose in life, and if you have the capacity you can show them their errors in a hope that they may reconsider their ambitions.
It's true that we, especially those of us who aren't subject to enforced doctrines of 'right living', do have to at times to generate or find our own purposes to direct our will and energy.
Many people don't really seem think about this, and simply follow the social norms that are ingrained within whatever culture they are raised in. It's not that these norms are in themselves harmful, but they can be limiting if they are viewed as exclusive and regard deviation as anathema.
there is no ultimate purpose or goal in the universe. When you die, nothing happens and that's all there is.
I myself do not agree with this assertion. It's true that the purpose of existence itself is a baffling mystery that many people come up with their own answers for, but it is not something readily realized by everyone equally, like, say, the purpose of hunger and thirst. There are, however, clues that cause us to see patterns in life that point toward perceived purposes, like the evolution of species or the strive toward peace and equality. Also, I believe in (or rather, hold a high favour with the concept of) reincarnation, but I don't think that in any way would hinder my own perception of existentialism itself.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Below is a comment I posted in response to an article published in The Guardian today, titled Is religion a force for good... or would we be happier without God?. The article is an interesting read, asking five 'leading thinkers' what their take on religion is.
The sphere of religion today, as perceived by the general public, is in definite need of elucidation. As the article shows, the commentators themselves hold on to the negativities of religion as things that, for them at least, actually constitute what religion is about.
The role and purpose of religion itself is heavily scrutinized because many only see it for the harm that ignorant and non-understanding religious followers have done, using their faith as an excuse for their own misplaced infallibility.
Ideally it should be about encouraging benevolence, including non-violence and moral discipline. Other beneficial traits of religion include the search for mystical truths and spiritual discernment within ourselves and the world we live in, in order to better understand our place in existence (both personally and collectively).
Would we be happier without God?
This is irrelevant. Yes, some people may be happier without the god in their head that they think is god. Others would say that without god they would have no reason for being, but this only illuminates their lack of understanding and courage in the face of life itself, or their incapacity to at least hold their friends and family as reasons for being.
Even as a mystic, I cannot fully describe my conception of god, or even hope to convince another person as to the validity of my conception, unless they too have had similar spiritual experiences as mine. Still, I choose to seek the divine, keeping sacred these aspirations, even if only to have the solemn experience of sacredness toward life itself.
Although I am spiritually inclined at times, and hope to see religion someday in better favour with the general public, I also understand the animosity toward its insult to reason among the intellectuals and free-thinkers. With them I am in accordance; I easily dismiss much of what religious people pander to the masses, because they think they speak for the divine when they are only promulgating biased and one-sided doctrines and philosophies. Yet I am also put off that many disdain spirituality itself in light of these inaccuracies, and would rather tear down everything it is associated with than seek an open-minded and cautiously skeptic reciprocity of learning and tolerance.
Friday, November 19, 2010
There's a pretty interesting interview with him as well:
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
"is it legitimate to criticize religious beliefs in others?"
I suppose any criticism is legitimate, but what is the intent of the criticism? Hopefully it is to bring to surface an inconsistency with what you think is false, or inaccurate, or simply superstitious.
As with most areas, self-criticism is a key to a well-developed confidence, and religious people who criticize their own beliefs are usually better at explaining to others exactly why they believe what they believe.
Many times a skeptic will criticize a religious person because that skeptic has a preconceived notion as to why the believer is in line with a certain way of thinking. And in some cases, belief does start out as superstition, only to be illuminated later in life as to that belief or superstition's usability in life.
Take prayer for example. The skeptic says, 'Why pray? It doesn't work. You won't get what you want. God doesn't even exist.' To which a religious person might answer, 'I do not pray to ask for things, but to express to a higher power my desire to be a better person, or to express my worries and desires to help my friends or to think of a way understand an issue that has been on my mind. I have found an applicable use for it to which I use because in the long run I have found it to be helpful in times of distress and confusion.'
I will have to find more of the thought-provoking discussions I partake in and post them here. Or, if you're a registered user of Reddit, feel free to add me as a friend.