LIBERTY DOLLAR ALERT: Bernard von NotHaus (BVNH) on the Peter Schiff Show
April 1, 2011
BVNH on the Peter Schiff Show
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters!
If you have been appalled with the government's comments trying to paint me as a "unique terrorist," you are not alone. The gov is now trying to brand all local non-government currencies as illegal and anybody who expresses opposition to the current US monetary policy is a "unique terrorist." Since the Liberty Dollar trial the word "terrorist" has lost any rational meaning and has morphed to simply mean, "doing something the government doesn't like."
Seth Lipsky's article in The New York Sun regarding a "Unique form of Terrorism" confirms the gov's intention to tailor "terrorism" to any definition they want or need for any occasion. As a result, the adverse reaction to government's "terrorist" comments has generated a tremendous "blow back" in their face.
So I am pleased to announce I will be a guest on the Peter Schiff Show at 11:00, this Friday, April 1, 2011. This is the first time I have spoken publicly since my conviction. The interview will be very informative so I urge you to tune into Peter's live radio show at http://www.schiffradio.com/. The show's toll free number is 866.226.5620.
For over twenty years, Peter Schiff has been the forerunner to accurately forecast the U.S. stock market, economy, real estate, the mortgage meltdown, credit crunch, sub-prime debacle, commodities, gold and the dollar. He has distinguished himself as an expert on money, economic theory, and international investing. Peter's best-selling book, "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse" has cast him as a legend in predicting the course of the US dollar and what is best for your money.
I have been consistently impressed with Peter's investment advice and his dedication to those values that the Liberty Dollar represents. It is an honor to be on his show.
Please note: Currently, Peter Schiff is President and Chief Global Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital that is not affiliated with or responsible for the content of SchiffRadio.com.
I hope you can join Peter and I for an engaging interview - one not to be missed!
Bernard von NotHaus
HUMAN AGENCY IN KARMA By Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D
HUMAN AGENCY IN KARMA By Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D. (compiled, edited by Juan Schoch [email@example.com, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alvinboydkuhn, http://tekgnosis.typepad.com] for educational, research,. purposes)
(From the Canadian Theosophist, Vols. XXXI & Vol. XXXI, No. 1 & 2, Toronto, March & April 15th, 1950)
It is one of the strangest of paradoxes or anomalies in the domain of philosophical thought that principles of truth which can be intellectually conceived as sound and valid have the power to delude the human mind and virtually wreck human lives. It is in general a difficult enough matter to determine what is true and what is not, so as to make right choice of action and live in accordance with the law of good while avoiding the path of evil. But the task and the problem are further complicated by our discovery sooner or later that we can make application of certain of the highest and most universal truths at our peril, if we do not hold them under distinct leash of limitation in our thinking.
It is a recognition that comes to very few even among closer students of life and philosophy that there is a certain class of truths that can be held as authentic in a highly conceptual sense and at a high conceptual level, but which yet are not to be, indeed can not be, made the basis of guidance in human conduct. It will finally dawn on deeply reflective thought that there is a class of truths that may be conceived as valid for dialectical reasoning, but yet are not to be put in practice in human life, or made the rules of action in our human sphere. They may well and indeed strikingly be likened to the bright flame of a lamp, which attracts with irresistible lure the moth-instinct of the human mind, only to scorch and scourge that mind and cripple or destroy its environing body if the human rushes in impetuously to grasp the fatal power of the light. Or again they may be said to be like the mighty radiant power of the atom, against which man has to insulate himself by massive walls of protection in his efforts to harness to his hand its stupendous energies. Or they are like the rays of the sun, which can not be faced by our eyes without a mechanism to reduce the glare to the range of our capacities.
The discovery of this apparently anomalous predicament in the realm of philosophical study was a truly surprising revelation in a life of eager search in the esoteric science. The profound realization of the actualities in the case seemed somehow to tie in very closely with the Biblical pronouncement that no man can look upon the face of God and live. It loomed up as a corollary to this that no man can look upon or take as realistic actuality for his use in this world the principles of universal and eternal verity that may be said to be the light of God’s mind, conceived as abstract truths in the lesser mind of man. So to express it, man may hold these paradigms of abstract truth in the remoter levels of his pure conceptual understanding, but dare not drag them down to incorporate them into his actual life and conduct. If he attempts this he will be singed and blinded by their too powerful dynamic, or shattered and wrecked by their rending force. I think there must be a hint of this in the Greek myth of Phaeton, son of Apollo, the God of the Sun, who, too eager to show his youthful prowess, begged his father to permit him to drive the chariot of the sun across the sky for one day, and when given the reins of the fiery steeds, dragged the sun too close to the earth and scorched up the rivers and burned up the growing crops. Against all forces, both physical and mental, which range above those to which his equipment of evolutionary mechanism accustom him to safe usage and which are the normal instrumentalities for his life in body on this globe, man must be protected and shielded by either physical or mental safeguards. “The Lord God is a sun and a shield,” assumedly from the sun.
This series of articles will have to do with the function of the shield in the realm of philosophical wisdom. It has been almost totally unseen and unexploited for general intelligence, that man must indeed guard himself advisedly against the sunburn of too strong and unshielded glare of Divine Light in his mind. A verse from the Talmud represents Deity as bidding man to build a tabernacle in which the divine nature may “be raised up,” and God orders him to build it “half in light and half in shade.” So man is to build the temple of his evolution in the light of God’s glaring sun of truth, but in the shade of his own limitations under the shield of matter and body. Man must learn that he is to build in the light of God’s truth, but in a position that is well shaded by the conditions of his own physical existence; not up under the blazing sun of Nirvanic heavens, but down under the trees of earth.
Let it be said that in the context of this thought is to be found a prime and most obviously essential lesson so sadly needing to be driven home to the arrant and ignorant presumptions of the endless run of “spiritual” cult groups at the present day. All in more or less directness assume fundamentally that we mortals can do God’s work practically at God’s level or with his range of power. The truth that will safeguard human philosophy and human sanity alike is the great realization that man is to do God’s work at man’s level and in man’s world, not to usurp God’s prerogatives in God’s world. Most “spiritual” cults constantly exhort us to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps out of our homely world and somehow project ourselves to the nirvanic palace of God’s own household. The true slogan of wisdom must ever be, as the sage Egyptians phrased it, “Head in heaven, feet on the earth;” or again, “Soul in heaven, body in the deep deep grave”—of matter. Yes, man is to activate God’s will, but surely here on earth and in the place and station in the hierarchy of life values and expressions at which he stands. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” chants the Lord’s Prayer. Man’s single task, as Plato tells us, is “to weave together mortal and immortal natures,” or to unify the God principle germinally in us with the human elements or forces of the body and the psyche. “Spiritual” cult philosophy, both in and out of the Theosophical movement, has somehow come to take Yoga as the work of lifting the human clear out of his world and exalting him into states entirely removed from human provenance. This is the error that must be corrected in a true view of spiritual evolution and the true pursuit of the higher life.
Returning to the starting point, the class of truths that come under the category of “true in abstract conception—but unworkable in human life” are those that the philosophers have called “abstract universals.” They are principles that are true in the absolute sense, true according to the laws of logical thought, but can not be implemented by us in our world of relativities. My attention was first called to the necessity of such a demarcation between two modes of the relevancy of truth when I noted what Hegel had said in reference to them. He asserts that the only reality is the concrete: “all abstract universals are shams,” Cushman says in expounding Hegel’s thought. Kant asserts much the same thing in saying that the reason leads us to soar beyond experience to what it discerns abstractly as absolute verity, but that such abstracted conceptions in our noumenal world add nothing, or at any rate little, to our practical knowledge and are of little service to us. “Mere conceptual thought,” comments Cushman in his History of Philosophy, “cannot be knowledge of the reality of the soul, God and the world.” Still, he adds, expounding Kant’s philosophy, the Ideas of the reason are an integral part of the human mind and they must have their purpose and function. They can not be verified by experience, in which alone is truth, but they can “regulate” experience. Kant says they have a slight “regulative” influence in our lives. Somewhat like the sky in a landscape picture they make a frame in which the earthly scene is set.
It is difficult to enumerate specifically the ideas that are here referred to as abstract universals. But under the term would come such asserted truths as that God exists, that he is wholly perfect and good, omniscient and omnipotent, that the soul exists and is immortal, that all life is one and not multiple, that matter does not exist, spirit being the only reality, that life is an illusion, not real being, that time is a false creation of mortal sense and present, past and future are illusions of that sense and that all is one eternal Now. It is possible for reason to substantiate all these and many more such ideas as rational and necessarily true. Yet it is not possible to verify them in our concrete experience. Still it is necessary for all minds to hold them as conceptually true, to keep the mind in a posture of balance and sanity. Amid man’s distractions through the multiplicity and diversity of his sensual experience, it is essential that such abstruse recognitions as these influence his consciousness sufficiently that he does not lose entirely his sense of direction toward his ultimate goal.
The final point of practicality with them, then, is to determine how to entertain them without upsetting the normal balance of perspective in man’s world. This gives them the slight value that Kant calls “regulative.” We can make no direct practical or overt use of them, we can not put them to work for
us for practical ends. But we can see how life sizes up in relation to them. This presents a bit of a strange predicament for mortals, the general reader will conclude. Yet it is a mistake to think of these ideas as lying so far remote in the world of theoretical abstraction as to be incapable of afflicting us with serious injury if we attempt, like the moth, to grasp at and embrace them in too realistic a fashion! No problem of the mind that concerns something in any way pertinent to truth and reality can be dismissed as too remote to affect life, if the mind is not held in sane relation to it. When we find now that even the “unconscious” elements in our psyche determine our conduct, we are hardly permitted to disdain as unimportant any ideas that may be held in the open area of consciousness. Sooner or later they work into the “unconscious” and operate from there. Ideas rule the world, said Plato, and the highest philosophies have upheld his pronouncement.
But danger lurks in the human handling of ideas. This is hardly to be thought strange, since there lurks a constant danger in man’s handling any of the forces or powers or faculties of life itself. Human life is perpetually endangered, threatened by every arm of the divine energy that creates and empowers the
existence of living creatures. That is, every ray of potency that animates living beings must be handled always in a certain due measure and proportion of its power, determined at a point lying exactly midway between the two extremes of excess and deficiency in its expression or use. This is the great principle enunciated and dialectically vindicated by Plato and Aristotle in their quest for a formula that answers man’s eternal question: what is the good? The good thing and the right thing, they found, is that exact measure and proportion of the elements of pro and con which marks the point midway between too much and too little of their power. True courage, for instance, is that exact measure of determined action that falls in between recklessness or foolhardiness, as too much of it, and cowardice, or over-caution, as too little of it. All this, bespeaks likewise the quite surprising significance of the sign of Libra, the Balance, in the zodiac. When the Scriptures declared that we are being weighed in the Great Balance, and the Egyptians called Horus, who is our Christ, “the Lord of the Balance,” they were reasserting this supreme principle for the enlightenment and guidance of humanity.
Every idea, then, and every intuition of verity, while it is the veritable bread of life to hungering humanity, is at the same time a two-edged sword that cuts both on the side of excess and of deficiency in the wisdom that must be achieved to make its proper application. We see every day how wisdom must be the constant employment of discrimination in determining the precise point of balance between a too direct and forthright, and a too feeble or hesitant decision or action. All action in this sense is a compromise between the two pulls in opposite directions, just as such a medicament as insulin must be determined in its exact quantity between too strong and too weak dosage.
Nothing could so well illustrate the difference between knowledge and wisdom, which are often used almost synonymously. Well does Tennyson say “knowledge comes but wisdom lingers.” Knowledge is a precious tool that we can get into our hands by earnest endeavor; wisdom is the skill and artfulness needed to use it aright. Tragedy and ruin can come from the ignorant use of knowledge. The truth is precious and shall make us free; but only on the terms that rightly prescribe its proper use. The great art of living and growing beautifully toward the fulfilment of man’s destined end in godhood, inheres in the attainment of this wisdom, which is the master skill in giving play to every potential force of
goodness, truth and beauty in its appropriate measure and proportion. Hence we see the wisdom of the two great maxims that greeted the candidate for initiation into the Greek Mysteries: “Man, know thyself” and “Nothing in excess,”—and obviously “nothing in deficiency.”
With these eternal principles of understanding now laid down, the discussion can take up the great doctrine of Karma and give it that treatment which it obviously so sorely needs for the release of its full beneficence as a truth of the mind. Whether the danger that besets the unwise application of any principle shall be realized in harm or happily avoided is the stake in the matter. The challenge to occultists is to determine the proper measure and proportion in which it is to be administered in its implementation by humans. Good and happiness, or evil and suffering are the issues inherent in the problem. Good or ill hangs in the balance between the judicious and the faulty way in which Theosophists react to their doctrine of Karma. Its importance is thus sufficiently accentuated.
The former two articles in the series aimed to reorient the doctrine more directly in line with its sounder mental conception, as education for future growth rather than as consequence of past action or failure. This realignment of mental view will help vastly to adjust esoteric thinking more harmoniously to the sounder view of the great law’s mode of operation. But another rectification of mental position, in order to encompass the final beneficence of the law is its ultimate right envisagement and usage, is necessary. It covers the whole ground of true wisdom in the mode of our reaction to the actual impingement of the law upon us and others in the concrete events of life. The ultimate, the inexorable challenge of every truth the mind can envision is what must we do in reference to it? And, as seen, this will be determined by our making as best our character and our genius may work it out, the closest approach to the right degree of wisdom to guide us to a balanced decision in every case. The two points to be decided, then, are: to what extent can we turn an abstract universal principle into a concrete practical regulator of conduct? And in what measure between excess and default is action to be gauged?
The prime danger that haunts our reaction to Karma’s decrees is the temptation to fall back on it as one of those abstract universals that, being true—and abstract—can be counted on to do their work under God without our interference or our concern. This is indeed the danger which this article aims to point out and to warn against. It is not going crazily overboard with an intemperate statement to claim that nearly all “spiritual” cultism of our day is treading on very perilous ground in following the bent of this inclination to devalue and diminish the human initiative, in the face of a law assumed to operate universally by divine or cosmic fiat. These cult systems err both in postulating the possibility of using or applying abstract universals in literal concreteness in our world, on the one hand, and in assuming that we need do nothing about them, on the other side.
As an illustration of the first one can mention the philosophical conception that matter has no real existence, hence no power to affect man’s life. This is a sample of a doctrine that it is presumed by ardent sectaries can be acted upon at our level with concrete effects in healing disease by denying the existence of the medium in which it could have its manifestation. Examples of the other kind are such doctrines as Karma and Maya (the latter to be dealt with in a later article), which afflict the uncritical mind with the assumption that they work automatically and need no help from us. These two attitudes are in fact two aspects of one and the same reaction to the universal truths referred to. The one in effect says that the law will work independently of us; the other affects to think that we can actually work it ourselves. Both confront us with the imminent danger that we will not take our station on the line of exact balance between how much we can and how much we can not operate these principles conceived in the mind as true. The one attitude represents an all-too-human illusion that the soul of man can build and climb up its giant tower of Babel and assault the very kingdom of heaven by storm; the other shows the spirit of man in its extreme opposite mood of feebleness and unworthiness to the abject degree that it hides from the presence of the Lord in the garden, and fears to stand forth and walk with God in his march to evolution’s bright goal.
Where, then, is the golden mean, the point of right thought to determine right action, either to work with God in his scheme for universal beneficence, or to shrink into inaction; to stand aside or sit with folded arms under the assumption that the great cosmic laws will sweep on to their great cosmic ends without our participation? Knowledge enlightens us with the fact and the play of the great law of Karma; what does wisdom say as to our response to the impact of the law upon us and our near interests? Taking it as an abstract universal law or principle of truth, are we to let it go its own way without our injecting a mite of our own influence by overt action into its working? Or are we to accept and assume a share of responsibility where we can become causative agents in the flow of events, and thus modify its decrees; and if so, to what measure?
Much of the danger of our being maneuvered into false position in the problem inheres in our unfortunate habit of thinking that truth, principle, law and things abstractly conceived are, as it were, sheer forces of an entirely impersonal sort that work in nature like a vibration in the air, needing no personalized expression or organic instrumentalization. This naive view assumes that they work abstractly and automatically. This errant basis of so much thinking in occultism should long ago have been replaced by the understanding that all forces and laws work only through the agency of organic beings. Truth and principle are things that come to play in and through the lives and consciousness of great or lesser living beings. Truth and law must be implemented by knowers and administrators of their edicts. Truth is that which is true for some organic life and consciousness. It does not go floating through the air, impersonalized. It does, in fact, go floating through space, like a sonata transmitted by a radio projector; but only potentially, and in a sense it is not existent in a world of consciousness until it is caught by a personalized registering instrument such as a brain mechanism. Only then is it a verity for some type of conscious being.
Karma must then be a law that comes to concrete manifestation only in the sphere of living personalized being. And the immediate corollary inference is that personal beings can, nay, must, be participants in its operation and conditioners of its decrees. It is the law of action and reaction. Those beings dowered with freedom to initiate action obviously are constituted as its agents. “Every man is his own absolute law-giver, the dispenser of glory or gloom to himself, the decreer of his life, his reward, his punishment,” asserts one of the three Great Truths.
Well, then, Karma is an abstract universal that we dare not make the mistake of assuming will work in the realm of the abstract with no call upon us to participate in it. The Oriental wisdom has introduced into the Theosophic ideology the awesome thesis that “inaction in a deed of mercy becomes an actin in a deadly sin.” Broaden mercy into more general godliness and we have the challenging realization that if our action is too feeble on the one side, or too unwisely vigorous on the other, we are transgressing the just law of Karma and inviting corresponding reaction.
The chief fault in Theosophic tendency in face of the problem of due and proper action is, as it appears, the tendency of members to take Karma as an abstract universal that does not concern them or demand of them active participation in its operations. This, one must feel, can be the generating cause of error and tragedy, certainly the occasion of neglected opportunity. The assumption that the great law of justice and balance will work in the abstract—in the air, so to say—without reference to or dependence upon human intervention, human initiative, is a lurking hazard that is all too likely to catch the mind not given to a constant critical studiousness in the philosophical realm. It is of a piece with the general bent of people lured to all forms of “spiritual” cultism to think that spiritual forces are things that vibrate throughout the cosmos and generate their beneficent influences by some sort of magic, much in the fashion of sunlight, which simply shines everywhere and blesses all who bathe in its rays. All you have to do is to open the window of your mind to the benign radiance of universal spirit and the divine influx from on high will inundate and transfigure you. That you have to provide a mechanism of highly conditioned receptivity, of requisite sensitivity, of power to transmute purely potential energy radiations into currents of brain and nerve force so as to issue in forms of consciousness for you, does not often enter into the consideration of the problem of spiritual realizations.
So it is with Karma. That it is not a thing that works by automatism in an upper world, but on the contrary is implemented by human action and works its decrees through human agency, is the corollary of the doctrine that hardly seems to be recognized by those who count on it as the principle of justice in a tangled web of living actions. Adversity bears down on those about us, our friends, our enemies, their lives touching ours weightily or lightly; it even strikes heavily upon us ourselves. All too readily and easily it is our ingrained recourse to think: well, it is Karma; the law is working out its decrees. It is a just and beneficent law; all then is well. And we incline to relax into the posture of complacent mind and folded hands. We stand aloof and let the law work its goodly will. There is not too much risk of an untrue statement to add that, if ill befall those around us whom we have compared adversely with our own standards and virtues, the tendency of many in their own feeling of self-righteousness is to gloat a bit inwardly in a superficial judgment that is much like the oft-delineated joy of the one hundred and forty-four thousand of the redeemed as they sit on the clouds of heaven at the Apocalypse and gloat over the writhings of the multitudes of earth’s damned in the flames of Gehenna beneath them. “It is only what the person deserved” is the only too ready reflection in our minds. And this judgment may be quite correct. But the sobering thing in the situation is that we so tragically fail to see what its correctness involves for us ourselves.
It was a healthy sign and a short step in the right direction when Clarence Darrow challenged society collectively with its onus of responsibility in such a crime as the thrill-murder of a Chicago lad by young Loeb and Leopold. Sagacious and conscientious philosophers had suggested the same idea before that. The Scriptures had accentuated it in the moral situation that led to the asking “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The entire matter then resolves down to the point of critical judgment at which the individual, acting alone or in the milieu of the group, must in every case that brushes close to him come to a decision as to what should be his reaction, his degree of action or inaction, or aloofness or participation. The nub, and gist of our essay, then, is the suggestion of a principle that should be the guiding light in the determination of proper courses. This principle will embody and bring to a focus the whole burden of our presentment. It is that every individual should consider that his decisions, whether to stand aloof and let Karma work its supposed effects without his participation, or to act in the situation as if it was a matter demanding the deployment of his initiative, should be made on the basis of the knowledge that human and not cosmic agency is to be implicated in the case if it falls within the range of the possibility of human agency becoming in any way determinative. To grab it out of the hands of impersonal law, so to say, and bring it within the law of righteousness which the individual can himself initiate or implement, is perhaps, the core of the idea that we mortals must thoroughly take home, to ourselves and use as our conscious criterion of all motive to action on our part.
The tremendous ethical principle involved and at stake in all human action is this awakening of the sluggish mortal mind to the realization that it is the function and destiny of the divine Ego within each one, as it slowly steps out from under the dominance of the automatic instinctive forces of the universal Mother, Nature, that gave it birth and reared it to ripening maturity, and moves over into the free territory of its Father, Mind and Soul, to inject its judgment, will and moral initiative into the area of its activity. So long have we lived under the rulership of the automatic forces of the natural world, which forces, be it understood, are the automatisms of the subconscious mind of God—his autonomic nervous system, so to say—that we are slow to come to the final realization that in life’s schematism, the time has come for us to play the part and assume the prerogatives of young god’s ourselves, making our willed determinatives the norms of living procedure for the forces in the area that we can control. “Thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will make thee ruler over many things,” is undoubtedly the ancient dramatization of the voice of God as he commissioned his Sons, the twelve legions of angels, to descend to earth and convert lower animal natures to higher human and divine status, promising them elevation to higher rank in the hierarchy as reward, for faithful fulfilment of their part of the covenant. As the divine Ego in us advances in its evolution farther and farther from the group soul and its instinctive and almost automatic responses to the impact of outer conditions and events, it can be understood, as expressed in Biblical terms, to be moving ever farther out from under the “bondage to the elements of the world,” “bondage to them that by nature are no gods,” as Paul expresses it in his Epistles, or again that “bondage under the law” of Nature which forms so large a segment of his analysis of the human situation, in which divine soul is imprisoned in natural body. Just as the child in the family is more strictly under the tutelage and rulership of the mother until the age of young maturity, and then passes out from that guardianship to become an ever freer actor on its own initiative, so in the volutionary or spiritual spheres the young soul lives throughout its “childhood” period under the sway of the forces manifesting in the world of Nature, the universal Mother of life—Isis and the other goddesses—until such time, as it steps upward to maturity and begins to deploy its own untrammeled resources in the exigencies of its experiences, and thus begins to gain a knowledge and mastery of the forces which it is destined to use in its chore in the creational work.
We read in the Secret Doctrine of the Lords of Karma. To the degree of our status in evolutionary development, we are all to be, if we are not now, Lords of Karma. Laws, as we have seen, do not work abstractly, “in the air;” they must be implemented by the agencies of organic beings, laws that seem automatic and impersonal being the habituated routines ingrained in the autonomic or subconscious “nervous systems” of higher planetary and cosmic beings. All advance for the human being is clearly seen to be progress made in his movement away from automatic natural instinct over to reasoned and self-initiated free activity of his own. This is dramatically depicted in the New Testament by the “incident” in which the child Christos runs away from his mother and when she finds and rebukes him, he reminds her that he must now be “about my Father's business.” As his Mother is Nature and his Father is the divine mind; is vividly portraying this transition from the childhood of the race and the individual man from early subjection to the rule of Nature over to the birth of mental responsibility and moral initiative. As, again, the life of the individual human is a recapitulation and epitome of the evolution of the race, and that in turn a miniature of the run of every cosmic cycle, we have the analogical ground for understanding and evaluating our own status and steps in progress.
The upshot of all this is that more and more, as we advance in stature and in the knowledge and love of God, both within and without, we will and we must step forward ever more boldly into the stream of events and interpose our own influence, our decisions and our forthright courses of action to determine the flow of the current. We are to become as gods, knowing, to choose the good and avoid the evil; and as gods we, so to say, incorporate more and more of what will seem to the orders below us as an automatism of abstract law, or what indeed is an abstract law until we at our level implement it through having made it the living principle of our motive and action. What we must understand more clearly is that what we think of here as “abstract law” or “principle” is the automatic subconscious functioning of our Planetary’s mind, being the routine procedures that he at an early time initiated by conscious thought and then by constant repetition made habitual, which means that his conscious mind turned them over to the care of his subconscious. Mind eventually turns every one of its determinatives over to the custodianship and handling of Nature. Mind, just like any father, plants the seed of its ideation in the body of Mother Nature, and lets that universal Mother tear and rear the child through the years during which it quickly runs over the recapitulation of its former progress in previous cycles. When it catches up with its highest advanced stage of growth in the last cycle, it begins then afresh its education for still higher achievement in divine unfoldment of godly power and faculty.
So we must cease thinking of Karma as an “abstract law” working independently of our participation. We must think of making ourselves in ever wider scope the agents and executive dispensers of its decrees. For our inaction in a positive way is ever on an action in a negative evil, a missed opportunity for active good. We must not expect mature actions from a child, but we must expect the child to grow toward maturity.
We are told in the archaic lore that every atom and cell is an entity launched on the stream of being and destined to expand and unfold potential power until it becomes a god in the heavens. After infinite stretches of experience in Nature’s orders of creation, it comes to a point at which it sheds the veil of ignorance from its eyes, rejoices in the wondrous light of dawning self-consciousness and intelligence, and from then on stands on its own feet as an active coadjutant with God in the process of creation.
Upon developed man finally rests the tremendous obligation to rise at last to the philosophical perspective through which he sees that in his sphere of action and influence he—and not an abstract law—is the agent of creative will. His developing will is that creative Karmic force, free to act within the field of its possible reach. If he does not implement God’s creative work, it simply does not get implemented at that given place, in that open opportunity. His ignorance, his failure, his feebleness, his cowardice tie God’s hands, stall his procedure, negative his effort, defeat his purpose. God expects each cell of his cosmic body, each cell of our bodies—and science now tells us that each cell has its own degree of intelligence—to learn its special lesson, unfold its own quantum of sagacity and perform its own duty at its rightful place. Like Lord Nelson, the cosmic Lord expects every man to do his duty.
The “practical” point in the situation, where man is called upon to exercise his prerogative of free will in such a way that inaction, rather than action, is dictated by his best judgment, is his sincere mental determination of the question how far he can go with the best will to act. He must indeed know his limitations, for rash impetuosity can throw confusion into the orderly stream of progress. He can throw only his little mite into the stupendous complex of world life. He has only so much time, strength, power. He must act wisely in his choice of modes and degrees in the use of his available contribution.
If our analysis is to head up in one “moral” of particular impressiveness, perhaps that would be the rather startling realization that the general assumption that Karma may be dodged by inaction is a delusion, that inaction involves through negative channels as much entanglement in the Karmic complex as action does positively. One does not obviate Karma by sitting still and twiddling thumbs. After all the heaviest Karma is the misery generated by failure to grow. Man is under the cycle of necessity to rise to mastery and perfect implementation of every cosmic law, no matter how much practicing or drilling it takes. Life is the drill-master, generous and bountiful in the end, but stern enough to see that the candidate for infinite blessings fulfils the conditions on which alone the reward of beatitude can be bestowed. No human will escape that exact amount of pressure necessary to make him develop the divine potential within him.
What is so necessary to know is that, if inaction is decided upon when action would better solve the situation, the inaction becomes a dam to stop the free flow of the law’s operation, and that it only causes the forces driving through to accumulate greater power, the result being a later bursting through with greater violence. The moral again is that if all become intelligently alert to seize the always present opportunities to act in positive ways, instead of clinging on to the last degree of inertia and thus precipitating periodic violent cataclysms of Karmic dispensation, the treading of the upward path would be made far more a delightful pilgrimage than the via dolorosa it so generally is. Contributing mightily toward this keener alertness would be the wider Theosophic realization that the Karmic law is waiting and counting upon us to implement it most beneficiently. This essay is intended to suggest a change in Theosophic thinking and understanding which might tend to quicken this alertness and bring a generally more spirited facing up to Karma.
Perhaps the fullest instruction from the discussion condenses in the realization that we humans must act in human relations at the often unromantic level of the concrete actual. We dare not fold our hands and count on great abstract universals to work out their grand procedures as we watch. It is we who must lay hold of the essence of those mighty universals and put them to work in the milieu of the tawdry human and earthly things. The moment we implement cosmic principles amongst these things, they cease to be tawdry and become haloed with splendid romance.
What we have seen with ever-mounting dismay is that the wholly unphilosophical expectation that abstract universals will work independently of our implementation has dried up the flow of the milk of human kindness or turned that milk sour. A glaring sun will quickly turn milk sour. Well may we be instructed then that the too powerful glare of the sunlight of great cosmic truths in our little minds can thicken and sour the sweet stream of human charity and personal helpfulness. To refrain from action from the belief that Karma will in some “spiritual” way take care of all things in complete beneficence, needing nothing from us, can commit us to the sterilization of our human kindliness.
Karma is action, and it is time that the Theosophical movement take closer to mind and heart the clarion trumpet voice of its revered Scripture, the Baghavad Gita, when it says: "Verily action is better than inaction."
Abstract universals can and do lethalize the human mind. They can all too seductively derationalize the reason, dehumanize the human. Their Siren power is in their truth. But it is truth too binding for the human consciousness to betaken in its unmodified and purest brilliance. Man can not lay hold of the sun in the heavens. He can utilize and be blessed with its life-giving rays only after they have been tempered and reduced in their might by passing through the media of moist air about the earth. They have undergone a conversion or transformation of their stupendous power into milder and softer radiations beneficently adapted to man’s receptive capacity. So it must be with the power-laden rays of divine truth. Truth unmodified for appropriation by humans at their level will singe the wings and crisp the very body of mortal man. Absolute truth is for God; for man is relative truth. Indeed it may be said, in a certain mode of relevance, that Truth is not for man. For him are all the little separate individual truths. Eventually he will be able to synthesize all these little facets into a composite organic whole of resplendent beauty and moving power, which will come closer to being Truth. But he will then be leaving manhood and approaching Godhood.
“The Lord God is a sun and a shield.” The great sun of his being, falling full upon man, would consume him to a cinder in a flash. Only behind the shield of matter and of the law of relativity can man endure and be blessed in the dimmed light of Truth, resolved into the precious glittering and wholly salutary little truths.
It is to be assumed that the connection is quite indirect and partly coincidental, though I would not think entirely so, that the word “moth” is both the Egyptian and the Hebrew word for “death.” And man, like the moth, is to live happily in the light, but must beware lest he die in the flame.
(From The Canadian Theosophist, Vol. XXXI, No. 3, Toronto, May 15th, 1950)
Editor, The Canadian Theosophist:— Referring to Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn’s article, “Human Agency in Karma”, in the March 15, 1950 issue of The Canadian Theosophist and which is the opening one of a new series; the key statement contained therein is one that can not and must not go unchallenged in any Theosophical publication.
Dr. Kuhn’s thesis is: “that there is a certain class of truths that can be held authentic in a highly conceptual sense and at a high conceptual level, but which yet are not to be, indeed can not be, made the basis of guidance in human conduct—the class of truths that come under the category of ‘true in abstract conception but unworkable in human life’—those that the philosophers have called ‘abstract universals’ (or)—the Ideas of the reason (Kant)”.
Dr. Kuhn’s key statement is the bald assertion that “They (the highest and most universal truths) can not be verified by experience”.
If this statement be correct, the testimony of the “so great a cloud of witnesses” who down through the ages have asserted with such perfect unanimity the reality of the mystical experience, is invalid, and the term Theosophy, which means literally “Knowledge of God” is a hollow mockery so far as its application to man and his life on earth is concerned.
Detailed analysis of Dr. Kuhn’s article reveals some very grave weaknesses in his argument, particularly in the interpretation he puts upon several scriptural and other references he uses to support his thesis.
For instance: “‘The Lord God is a sun and a shield’, assumedly from the sun” and: “This series of articles will have to do with the function of the shield in the realm of philosophical wisdom”. If the biblical quotation be studied in its context in the 84th Psalm, and particularly in that of the verse from which it is lifted, the “shield” can be most reasonably interpreted as from extraneous interests that would distract attention from the “sun”, and Dr. Kuhn’s “assumedly from the sun” is by way of wishful thinking on his part and “the function of the shield in the realm of philosophical wisdom” becomes a phrase without meaning.
Again, the words from the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”, surely carry a meaning the direct antithesis of what Dr. Kuhn seems to infer, the more so when corroborated by such admonitions of Jesus as, “But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” and, “Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”.
After stating and developing his thesis at the beginning of the article, Dr. Kuhn suddenly changes his ground as follows: “Man’s single task, as Plato tells us, is ‘to weave together mortal and immortal natures’ (and incidentally, to apply this in support of his opening thesis requires the most tortuous of reasoning) or to unify the God principle germinally in us with the human elements or forces of the body and psyche. ‘Spiritual’ cult philosophy, both in and out of the Theosophical movement, has somehow come to take Yoga as the work of lifting the human clear out of his world and exalting him into states entirely removed from human provenance. This is the error that must be corrected in a true view of spiritual evolution and the true pursuit of the higher life”.
The question of possible misuse of Yoga by certain groups of people is of course entirely aside from Dr. Kuhn’s thesis that universals cannot be verified by experience, and its sudden introduction into the article at this juncture is indicative of lack of clarity of thought on his part.
If this is to be the thesis of his articles, why did Dr. Kuhn not say so to begin with—instead of virtually denying the validity of Yoga, which certainly does predicate the verification of universal truth by experience.
In general, Dr. Kuhn’s approach to the higher life is along purely intellectual lines. This approach is quite valid for those who wish to use it, but it does not preclude the more direct approach of the mystic. Rather, if the implications of the higher reaches of the intellectual approach are honestly faced, instead of “rationalized” aside as Dr. Kuhn attempts to do, they lead to a merging of intellect with intuition, and the final verification of universal truth by direct experience.
E. B. Dustan.
218 Albertus Ave., Toronto,
April 2, 1950.
MORE ON “HUMAN AGENCY IN KARMA”
(From The Canadian Theosophist, Vol. XXXI, No. 3, Toronto, May 15th, 1950)
The strictures of my good friend, Mr. E.B. Dustan, upon my article, Human Agency in Karma, afford such a splendid opportunity to add further items of value to the discussion raised by the article, that I fear my reply will run to the proportions of a full article in itself. But since I feel that Mr. Dustan has quite misinterpreted and misrepresented my position, I should like to have the space to clarify the matter, the more so as he has claimed that my views in the article should not go unchallenged in any Theosophic publication. Also, as the points in discussion bear vitally upon general modes of Theosophical thinking, the value of the discussion should justify the use of the space needed.
I might condense my entire reply in the brief statement that my critic has ignored the fact that my article confined itself to statements referring only to “a special class of conceptions” validated as true in high conceptual levels, which philosophers have called “abstract universals,” which I stated could not be actualized concretely or used as guides to practical living by man as long as he is man. Ignoring my reference to this special class of principles conceived by abstract thought as true, my critic charged me with asserting that universal truth in its entirety could not be verified by man in his human experience. If I were stupid enough to make such a claim, surely my ideas should not find space in any Theosophical magazine.
Also, perhaps, I might sum up my whole rebuttal in the single statement that surely there are many things that man’s mind has conceived as being true for God himself, even true for beings far transcending man’s life, which man can not implement or actualize, in any concrete way at all. Man’s thought can conceive that for God matter does not exist, that time does not exist as present, past and future—all being resolved in one eternal Now—, that space does not exist dimensionally, that a thought to God is the same thing as a material object, that all difference between things is illusory and that all things are one and the same, that the world can exist without being caused, that God himself has no sense of having been caused or created, being himself cause and creation, that, as Hindu philosophy asserts, things both are and are not at the same time, that a thing can really be, and yet be only an illusion and not a reality. But would any one hold that man can mentally realize these concepts as true for himself, much less actualize them concretely in his experience? Yet Mr. Dustan’s bald endorsement of the validity of God’s command to us to be as perfect as God himself commits him to the claim that we can equalize our realizations with those of God. May I be excused for putting forth my suggestion that this point of view, rather than the one my article emphasized, should not stand unchallenged in any Theosophical publication?
It should be enough as answer to this position that my critic seems to ignore totally the recognized canon of philosophical thought that man lives wholly in the world of the relative and therefore can have no realization or cognition of the Absolute, or of God. Practically all philosophers unite in denominating God the Unknowable, the Infinite, the Ineffable, the Unattainable. Our Secret Doctrine repeatedly speaks of “him” as the forever uncognizable one real Being, about whom to even speculate is forever futile. If merely to speculate about that eternal finality of being is beyond the power of finite mind, how much more must it be conceded that for man to realize the God consciousness is the most arrant of all presumptions? In one view and in a specially defined use of the term, all consciousness is God consciousness, and therefore we are constantly manifesting the mind of the Creator. But this is not in debate. Mr. Dustan speaks of our ability to have knowledge of God in immediate connection with his Bible citation that we are expected to be as perfect as God himself, and this commits him to claiming that we can know God in all his complete and ultimate fulness of being. We think we are fully warranted in asserting that this is dangerous doctrine to let stand unchallenged in a Theosophical periodical. This would align him with the position taken by so many unintelligent groups of “spiritual cultists” in all ages, that by grabbing his bootstraps in some right way man can be in a few jumps right up beside the angels, the adepts, the planetaries, solar logoi, archangels, Elohim, Dhyan Chohans and gods, nay with God himself. Are we to presume that Mr. Dustan has applauded the shameless proclamation of the recently deceased Robinson, of Moscow, Idaho, that—for a cash sum—he could bring us to talk with God—, as he claimed he was doing? Yes, of course, any man can talk with God, if he ignorantly interprets any one slightly higher rate of vibration of the germinal divine mind within him as “all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” which is just what gullible thousands have done. Surely it is time that Theosophists show the intelligence to distinguish carefully between the genuine possibilities implicit in man’s slow evolutionary rise to divinity, on the one hand, and, on the other, the foolish belief that man now can attain those ultimates, perfections and consummations which the human mind postulates for God always and for man “at the last end.” It has been one of the tragic aberrations and delusions of the uncritical religious thinking of millions of cult enthusiasts to interpret the Scriptural assurances of man’s “perfection” at the end of the cycle as being attainable by some special devotion or magic now or at any time during the process of growth. This involves the delusive belief that by some extraordinary effort the creature can thrust himself forward and be at the climactic fulfilment of his journey without traveling the whole long road. I preclude from man no possibility of high and higher realization of his advance into knowledge of God, as Mr. Dustan claims I do. I simply assert that you can not be at the end of the course until you have covered all the mid-ground. And as God is the Infinite, the forever Unknowable, and progression in being is endless, it would appear that to talk of ultimates and perfections is so much inane babbling. It has been a well-grounded observation of mine that the misunderstanding of that word “perfect” in religious ideology has done more to derange sane mental view of life and theology than perhaps any other single word, unless it be that other misleading term, “only-begotten.” “Perfect,” as used in the Scriptures and Theosophy means simply “finished, completed,” and refers, where it concerns man, to the finished stage of his growth in divinity which will be reached at the termination of the human cycle, the so-called “end of the age,” so wildly mistranslated as the “end of the world.” But the “perfection” or finishing of one stage of the endless march only prepares the creature for the beginning of the next higher stage; so the thought of final “perfection” had better be dismissed forever from our philosophical thinking.
In this connection it should be said that the talk of the attainment of “cosmic consciousness” by such men as Emerson, Walt Whitman, Plotinus, talk that is very common among Theosophists, is to be viewed as overweening miscalculation of the possibilities, unless the term “cosmic” is used in a very limited and relative sense. But people take it to mean final consummation of God consciousness, and superstitious folly is the result. Such a single item can become a broken cog in the machinery of mental sanity, deranging the whole psychic area.
And can my critic be oblivious of the oft-repeated statement in the Secret Doctrine that all conscious manifestation below the first emanation, indeed all below the Absolute, is Maya or Illusion? All man’s realizations, then, are still mayavic, hence no true vision of reality. How, then, can man know God, if all our knowledge is Maya?
It might be well if Theosophists considered the force of Cardinal Newman’s thought in Lead, Kindly Light:
I do not ask to see
The distant scene;
One step enough for me;
Lead thou me on
Assuredly, of course, not one step only, but assuredly one step at a time.
I fail to see that anything in my article gave ground for Mr. Dustan’s contention that my “intellectual approach” to the principles considered invalidates the realities of the mystical approach. He claims that the testimony of “so great a cloud of witnesses” (to the mystical experience) down the ages negates my declaration that certain abstract conceptions of man’s mind are not concretely workable by us humans. This gives me the happy opportunity to disenchant all needing such treatment of the overweening idea that saints’ raptures and trance-like seizures of the mystics demonstrates beyond cavil all claims put forth as to man’s ability to consummate complete “union with God.” They prove nothing except our capacity for mystical experience. What possible motive would I have to deny or discount that? Such experiences have their own validity and their own importance in the psychology of religion. What I contend is that they do not prove any or all the dialectical propositions that they have so generally been claimed to establish. They surely do not prove that man may know God, have vision of God or be perfect as God is.
The piano keyboard helps us to see these things more clearly—and sanely. Let us say the keyboard, extended endlessly, represents the many keynotes of real beings, to be sounded in man’s progressive experience one by one. Let us say his present range of experience is one octave of seven keys, somewhere near the “middle.” Normally his experience falls within this gamut of seven tones. But in some high moment he lifts his apperceptive faculties to a state of keen sensitivity at which they register for a brief blessed moment the glorious enchanting vibrations of the first key in the octave above. If he is intelligent he will be happy with the knowledge that he has sounded one higher note in the grand diapason of endless life.
But if he is unintelligent he will announce pompously that he has contacted God, has experienced ultimate beatitude, has been “seven minutes in eternity,” has been in heaven with God, and all that. And so the testimony of the long list of mystics counts for nothing in the argument. If, as the Secret Doctrine so often says, even the Dhyan Chohans and the planetaries are still behind a veil of Maya which prevents them knowing more than a limited portion of the God-knowledge, it is beyond all argument irrational to predicate for man the possibility of rising in his human state to full realization of his divine potential.
All such principles of “universal truth” as can be demonstrated within the range of the human gamut of consciousness will be so demonstrated and verified. But this just as definitely fences us off from the capabilities of the gods and the archangels—while we are humans. The Greeks beautifully say that “the gods distribute divinity to secondary natures;” but they discreetly add to each order in proportion to its capacity to utilize.
I am particularly keen about answering Mr. Dustan’s charge that I impose my own unwarranted interpretation upon certain passages I cited from the Bible to bolster up my “weak arguments.” He instances my quotation of the Scriptural declaration that “the Lord God is a sun and a shield” as one passage I thus misinterpreted. As it is my constant care to avoid this very thing he charges me with, and as my rendering of the meaning is not the result of my own “wishful thinking,” but solidly grounded on reasons, I must take the space to validate my interpretation.
I stated that the function of the symbol of the shield in the realm of philosophical wisdom had not been seen or depicted adequately, and I implied that it was of great importance. Mr. Dustan pooh-poohed this statement and asserted that I had read into the symbol unwarranted significances for the sheer purpose of strengthening my argument. I fear he does not know on what perilous ground he stands when he attempts to belittle the significance of symbols in the ancient Scriptural field. He can not have read the Zohar or other Haggadoth of the Jews, or studied the antique religious lore of the Egyptians, for in these every symbol of the Old Testament is expounded in its meaningful reference to great truth. When even so un-esoteric an Egyptologist as E.A. Wallis Budge will say that every single symbol in the vast ancient Egyptian religious literature and ritualism has its definite significance—and the Hebrew is largely derived from the Egyptian—it is a rash assertion to claim that I am reading my own wishful translation into one of these symbols. It is just as silly to deny pertinent significance to the shield as to the cross, the crown, the tree, seed, river, sun, moon, star, water, earth, air, fire, the serpent and all the rest.
Nor does my critic seem to know that the sage writers of the Old Testament almost universally were committed to the peculiar methodology of grouping the two “pairs of opposites” in single phrases. The positive was hardly ever presented without its counterpart, the negative; as light-dark, day-night, good-evil, right-left, above-below, inner-outer, heaven-earth, spirit-matter. So there is every solid reason to assume, as I did, that since the positive term here used, the sun, was the absolutely universal ancient symbol and hieroglyph of the God of spiritual light, the counterpart term going with it, shield, would signify the opposite of spirit, i.e., matter. The verse only restates that God is, as we know he is, (and again the Secret Doctrine is solidly with me on this) the dualism of spirit-matter. To take it any other way would be to ignore established Old Testament method. And at the same time, matter is the shield that God interposes for our protection, between the unbearable effulgence of his glory and our limited vision. And I certainly do not risk this as a sheer assertion of my own. It is based on both the assured implications of analogy and on other Biblical statements. There is that declaration that “no man can look upon the face of God and live.” Moses had to cover his face with a veil when he went into the presence of the Lord on the mount. (And the “mount” of the Bible is just our earth!) And—a startling evidence of how marvelously symbolism follows truth—since man can not look upon God’s face and live, so man’s eye can not look into the face of the God-symbol, the sun, without injury.
On top of all this we have in Exodus (33:22) a declaration by God himself that adds strength to my interpretation: “And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will hide thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by. And I will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.” Several verses above he had said, “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live.” Here God expressly states that unless he shield man from the full glare of his divine power, symboled by the sun always, man will be overpowered. And it is significant that he uses as the shield his own hand; for it is a remarkable fact that in all languages of antiquity the word “hand” is in the feminine gender. And matter, the eternal mater (mother), is universally feminine. These are not chance coincidences, but positive guides to cardinal significances. The power involved in matter—now so well known—is the “hand” that God wields to do his work in creation. Matter is that Biblical “handmaid of the Lord,”—again feminine, be it noted. Nuclear fission has—at last—lifted a corner of that veil of Isis; and the whole world trembles before the possibility of having to face a fuller flash of that terrible radiation. Verily to talk of “seeing” or “knowing” God is one of the tragic lunacies engendered by religious fatuity. And verily it is the failure of religious philosophy to discern the relevant force of this shield in theology that has loaded matter, the very twin of spirit, with that obloquy which has twisted the thinking of untold millions into forms of hurtful error. Blocking and dimming the light of the sun of God—for man’s protection—it has been held as evil! The Secret Doctrine itself joins this chorus without, I fear, adequate vindication of matter’s ultimate beneficence.
With my best effort I can not see any basis for my critic’s allegations that my position negates the force of the Lord’s Prayer, that God’s will be done on earth as in heaven. Beyond question, God’s will is being done even now in part on earth, and will eventually be done in full measure, it may be assumed. But obviously his will is that man shall perfect (finish) that segment of the divine creative work which is limited to man’s sphere; and this certainly can not include anything in the way of finalities, ultimates, perfect knowledge of God. Above perfected man stretch the illimitable heights!
Again, I am accused of having to resort to “the most tortuous of reasoning” to square Plato’s statement that our business on earth is “to weave together mortal and immortal natures” with my opening declaration as to certain unrealizable abstractions of thought. Surely it is a fact that we can join our mortal animal nature with that of the immortal spiritual Ego implanted as seed within us, while still being unable to actualize certain noumenal abstrusities of our minds. That certain truths are unverifiable by mortals posits no denial of the validity of mysticism and Yoga.
If Mr. Dustan will turn to Kant’s so-called “antinomies” in any good history of philosophy, he will find listed the famous four, the antinomy of Creation, of Immortality, of Freedom, of Theology. In these he will be surprised to find that man’s reasoning mind and man’s actual experience directly clash in an impasse seemingly unresolvable by our thought, shaking our confidence decidedly that such high abstract conceptions are verified by experience. In fact our experience seems precisely to contradict our conceptual genius. It is a staid observation that truth is astonishingly paradoxical.
And my critic must needs include what has become too generally a point of attack among Theosophists,—a belittling of the intellect as distinct from “intuition.” He says my approach is “along purely intellectual lines,” though he does say that this “is valid for those who wish to use it.” (When has wishing or not wishing become a gauge of validity?) Then he adds that this intellectual approach “does not preclude the more direct approach of the mystic.” Surely the time has arrived when some one should straighten us out on this eternal twanging the harpstring of disparagement of the “intellect,” and our nebulous, vacuous exaltation (in mere words) of the “superior” faculty of the intuition. I have never said nor intimated that the use of the intellect precludes the function of the intuition. What it is most important to clarify once for all is that the intuition is a superior faculty to intellect only in the sense that it is the perfected development of that “lower” faculty itself. It is the intellect, but brought to such a stage of masterly efficiency that it grasps as in a flash the complete frame and conclusions of what the mind at less capable stages of its genius takes the long processes of concatenated or discursive reasoning to arrive at. It is, the mind at the flower of its divine potentiality of clear seeing. And what we so sorely need to know is that its discernments and revelations of truth do not contravene the conclusions reached, however tortuously, by the "lower" mind when this is correctly used. Truth naturally looks different from the higher point of vantage, no doubt; but as "higher mathematics" do not refute arithmetic, neither does the higher clarity of vision that apprehends truth instantaneously negate or falsify the conclusions of the logical mind. Intuition is to the intellect what the master sweep of a Paderewski is to the first piece laboriously learned by the beginner. The intuition does not refute or negate the intellect; it is its very own perfection. Let us have done at last with this constant belittling of the intellect. It does but subject us - and rightly - to the scorn of the really intelligent. It could be one of the reasons why highly intellectual people look down on us as a little hypnotized group of religionists who have not used their intellects to good purpose.
Needing correction also is the idea so widely prevalent among cultists that one can develop the intuitions without giving more than kindergarten cultivation to the intellect. Because all sorts of psychic afflations in the mystical world can be so easily assumed to be the work of intuition, it is a frequent spectacle of people in cult groups going around boasting of their ability to get truth firsthand by intuition, who could not get to first base in algebra, geometry or technical logic. The greatest of the philosophers have positively asserted that the whole road of long laborious intellectual development has to be trodden before that seemingly diviner immediacy of insight called intuition can be won. Spinoza reeks of pure intellect; yet he has been dubbed the “God-intoxicated philosopher.” I am happy to note that Mr. Dustan himself says that “the implications of the higher reaches of the intellectual approach,” if they “are honestly faced,” “lead to a merging of intellect with intuition.” Here at least we seem to be on common ground. But he says that I have “rationalized aside” the implications of the higher intellectual approach. I have done no such thing. I have said that certain abstractions of our noumenal faculty can not be verified in human experience or used as actual guides to human behavior. This does not reason away any reaches of the intellect, higher or lower. It happens to be a simple fact.
And my critic ends by saying that these higher implications of the intellectual approach, if honestly faced, lead to “the final verification of universal truth by direct experience.” Since he uses the word “final,” as also “universal,” without specific limitations of any kind, his statement must mean that man, as man, here and now, can directly in his experience verify every range, order, phase and the completeness of all truth possible within the scope of final and universal attainment. If so rash a statement would need refutation, I will set beside it just one paragraph taken at random from Cushing’s History of Philosophy (Vol. II, p. 273) , in which, dealing with Kant, he writes: “God, purely as a conception [let it be noted how this is in line with my description of the class of abstract universals referred to] is constituted by Kant as the sum total of reality, the ens realissimum [the most real finality, or final reality] which so includes all finite qualities in Himself that they do not limit him. He is the primal cause of the possibility of all being. Now, can such an Idea have objective validity? No; the Idea of a sum total of all that is conceivable is not an object of possible experience. Only particular things or phenomena are realities for us. God as the transcending total of particular things can have only a conceptual reality and a validity for thought. The total has the reality that any idea has. This is Kant’s general criticism of the dialectic Idea of God.” Here is a great philosopher’s complete endorsement of my position.
I grant in advance the possible rebuttal that one quotation from one philosopher, or even passages from God’s own mouth in Scriptures, no matter how “sacred,” does not necessarily settle a point in discussion. But I think the inherent force of the recognition of rightness in several verses of the Bible with which I will close my rebuttal will accredit them with overwhelming pertinence as upholding my side of the debate. Here are the eighth and ninth verses of chapter 55 of Isaiah: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Then we have the two verses (7 and 8) of chapter 11 of Job: “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?"
— Alvin B. Kuhn, Ph.D.
Liberty Dollar / URGENT ACTION: Bad News for your Property!
URGENT ACTION: Bad News for your Property!
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:
Thank you, thank you, thank you for the 100s of replies. The two most common words re my conviction were "sorry" and "sad." I wholeheartedly agree and am sorry I can't reply to every email. URGENT we have no time to lose to protect your property from gov theft!
Please do NOT let the government steal your property!!!
I have just learned that the government will aggressively defend against any claims once the judge decides on April 4th whether or not the property in whole or in part is subject to forfeiture. This means that the government may steal your property i.e. the silver that backs the paper or digital Liberty Dollar Warehouse Receipts 'without just compensation' i.e. fair market value! Please stand up for your Fifth Amendment!
URGENT ACTION IS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY!!!
Unless you are identified as an "interested party" on the official record prior to the April 4th Forfeiture Hearing on Monday morning, you may not have standing with the court to redeem your Liberty Dollar warehouse receipts or the gov process may be so encumbered that the government prevails and steals your property.
You do not have to identify the total value of your paper or digital Warehouse Receipts that you are holding to qualify as an "Interested Party." So, even if you are holding just one $1 Liberty Dollar silver certificate, you are qualified as an "Interested Party" and encouraged to register - IMMEDIATELY.
Registering is easy, fast and free: Simply email the statement below to Assistant US Attorney Thomas R. Ascik <firstname.lastname@example.org>, the government attorney who is trying to steal your property. And send a CC to me <Bernard@LibertyDollar.org> and I will send all the emails to the attorney who will represent you after you sign an attorney/client agreement. Your CC to me is very important! Please do NOT forget to CC me so you will be on the list to have your property or its fair market value returned to you.
EMAIL THE STATEMENT BELOW to Thomas Ascik with a CC to me. Be sure to include your name and address:
I hereby certify that I am the bearer of Liberty Dollar warehouse receipt(s) and an interested party in any forfeiture action regarding my property. I demand the return of my property or its fair market value in a timely manner and to be informed with sufficient time to reply to any and all actions until my property is returned.
INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
SHARE THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE WITH YOUR EMAIL LIST!!
Please note that you will need to sign an attorney/client agreement and agree to pay a contingency fee prior to any legal services. NO FEE is required at this time.
But that may not be enough! If you are holding a serious amount of paper or digital Warehouse Receipts, I strongly encourage you to attend this Forfeiture Hearing on April 4, 2011 at the Federal Courthouse, 200 W Broad St. in Statesville, NC. I know the time is short, the distance is great and the cost is dear; but that is the best suggestion I can make at this time for anyone with a serious amount of paper or digital Warehouse Receipts. If you do appear, you will be called as a witness and officially recognized as an interested party in the court record.
NOTICE: There is a small chance that the Hearing may be continued (postponed) so please email me for the latest info for the Hearing.
Please do NOT let the government steal your property!! At the very least, email Thomas Ascik and send a CC to me to protect your silver. Stand up for your property and continue to be a part of the Liberty Dollar effort by demanding the gov return your silver or its fair market value.
Glenn Beck devoted his Friday, March 25, 2011 show to exposing the Federal Reserve and featured Ed Griffin. Google "glenn beck federal reserve" to find the show.
Now Anybody can be a "Unique Terrorist" Please read this open letter to America calling for your cry out about my conviction.
Click HERE for a list of recent articles regarding the BVNH conviction.
Please get your article published and contribute to this public outcry or encourage someone to do so.
Meanwhile I will continue to work with my attorneys to find justice. Stay tune.
Thanks again for your support!
Bernard von NotHaus
Wikileaks / Cablegate / State Secrets (03/25/11) cablegate-201103250153.7z.torrent
Wikileaks / Cablegate / State Secrets (03/24/11) cablegate-201103240154.7z.torrent
THE IRS & WHY NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO FILE
Form 1040 is for "U.S. Individuals" -- it says so RIGHT AT THE TOP!!
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hicks/memo04.htm Meaning of “United States person”
A "United States Individual" is the living, breathing human variant
of "United States person" as the latter is defined at IRC 7701(a)(30):
federal citizen and resident alien.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Sent: 3/22/2011 1:33:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: RE: [freedomfightersforamerica] WHY NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO FILE
I remember seeing the movie "Freedom to Facism" by Aaron Russo. A guy was acquitted by a jury of his peers for failing to pay state income taxes. At the top of the state form, it says "Anyone who is required to file a Federal return must also file a state return". Of course, this is a fancy play on words, because no one is required to file a Federal return.
While deliberating the case, the jury tried to do a thorough job, and asked the judge to show them the law that required the defendant to pay income taxes. The judge gave the jury around 10 different bits of information and instructions on a list, but not what the jury wanted. The lead jurist asked the judge again to show them "the law". The judge simply told them, "You have everything you need". The jury went back into deliberations.
When the jury came back with a verdict of "Not Guilty", the judge suddenly got a grieved, stressed-out, quiet, look on his face, and walked slowly out of the courtroom.
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:56:13 -0700
Subject: [freedomfightersforamerica] WHY NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO FILE
Continuously updated national radiation maps showing environmental radiation levels across the USA
From: tommy bryant [
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 1:47 PM
Subject: National Radiation Maps (continuously updated), depicting environmental radiation levels across the USA
National Radiation Map, continuously updated, depicting environmental radiation levels across the Continental USA
Online Geiger Counter Nuclear Radiation Detector Map - Global
French Radiation, Continuously Updated, Radiation Projections Animation
Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the United States
Video: Leaked US Navy Map of projected submerged area of the USA can be seen in the beginning seconds of the video - watch the video!
7000 Micro-tremors along New Madrid fault in Eastern central USA in the last 10 days
BNVH (Bernard von NotHaus) Convicted. Liberty Dollar Dies
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters,
I sincerely regret to inform you that I was found guilty on all four counts regarding the Liberty Dollar in less than an hour on Friday, March 18. The only explanation is that a strong, anti-liberty person took control of a weak-willed jury and pushed the verdict through in record time in spite of well worded Jury Instructions. A government forfeiture hearing immediately followed the conviction. PLEASE NOTE: Your property is at risk so please continue to read these emails and take action so the government does not steal your property. An appeal is planned but that will take years. More news to follow. An unofficial, but most interesting account of the trial is available via Heather's blog at:
God help you and our country as American descends into a hellish hyperinflationary future without the benefits of the Liberty Dollar.
I am very sorry our efforts to return America to value failed.
Thank you so much for your support.
Bernard von NotHaus
Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta's message to Anonymous re: BofA (Bank of America)
Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 1:07 AM
Why is the United States Government allowing $1.575 trillion that belongs to the American people sit in accounts at major investment banks while taxpayers lose jobs, fight fraudulent foreclosures on their homes, and watch the indebtedness of their grandchildren grow?
In 2006, Bank of America received a CHIPS wire transfer to deposit in the account of Ambassador Lee E. Wanta. The amount? $4.5 trillion on which he agrees to pay the U.S. Treasury $1.575 trillion in taxes. The money was transferred, but Bank of America never gave the Ambassador his money… it disappeared into the black pit of the Federal Reserve System and accounts at various Wall Street investment banks.
How do I know that’s true? At http://wtsnb.blogspot.com is a Writ of Mandamus filed by Ambassador Wanta on June 20, 2007. On the same day a decision on the Writ was handed down, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond entered a Pleading stating:
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
"Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. , Respondent Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (“FRB Richmond”) moves to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Other Extraordinary Relief (the “Petition”). The grounds of this Motion, as amplified in the attached Brief, are as follow.
"For the purposes of this Motion only, all well pleaded facts will be taken as true."
The Ambassador’s Writ of Mandamus precisely tells of the disappearance of his funds. The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond precisely says “…all well pleaded facts will be taken as true.” No wonder the feds won’t let Bank of America go down the tube. What it must have on them!
As you read the Writ (linked above), remember that the Fed says its content is to “…be taken as true.”
From: pc93Subject: AnonymousTo: <email@example.com>Date: Saturday, March 19, 2011, 10:43 AM
Obama's Authorized Release of Inward Remittance USDollars 4.5 Trillion, of May 2006 to Bank of America-Richmond, Virginia would bring USDollars One Point Five Seven Five Trillion into United States Department of the Treasury
from Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
to Officer in Charge <email@example.com>,
OIG_Federal Reserve Bank <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
OIG_Office of Inspector General <email@example.com>,
OIG_US Department of the Treasury <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
OMB Director Jack Lew <email@example.com>,
OPM_Derek Holt <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
OPM_Richard Mayr <email@example.com>,
OSC_Audre Fields-Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
OSC_William Reukauf <email@example.com>,
OVP_Chief of Staff Bruce Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
POTUS_Office of the President <email@example.com>,
"President Al Gore Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
President Albert Gore <email@example.com>,
President Barack Obama <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
President Nicholas Sakorzy <email@example.com>,
President William J Clinton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
date Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 4:52 PM
subject Fw: Confirmation - Office of the President - 18 March 2011
--- On Fri, 3/18/11, Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta <email@example.com> wrote:
From: Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Confirmation - Office of the President - 18 March 2011
To: "President Barack Obama" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "US President Barack H. Obama" <email@example.com>, "US President Barack Obama" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Attorney General Eric Holder" <email@example.com>, "Chief of Staff_Bill Daly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Co-Chairman Erskine Bowles" <erskine@2Bowles.com>, "Co-Chairman Paul A. Volcker" <email@example.com>, "DCI_Leon Panetta" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "DNI_Lt General James R Clapper" <email@example.com>, "FDIC_Chair Sheila Bair" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "FedResSystem Inspector General" <email@example.com>, "FRB_President Janet L Yellen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Harvard_Professor Elizabeth Warren" <email@example.com>, "NSA_General James Jones" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "OCC_Trustee Paul Segues" <email@example.com>, "Office of Inspector General" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Office of the Inspector General" <email@example.com>, "OIG_Office of Inspector General" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "OVP_Chief of Staff Bruce Reed" <email@example.com>, "OVP_Vice President Joe Biden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Presidential Advisor David Plouffe" <email@example.com>, "SEC_Chair Mary Schapiro" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "SEC_Inspector General H David Kotz" <email@example.com>, "Treasury Secretary_Timothy Geithner" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "US Department of Justice" <email@example.com>, "US Department of Justice" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "US Department of the Treasury" <email@example.com>
Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 4:20 PM
Attachment: Office of the President_et al_18mar11.doc
To : Office of the President, Office of the Vice President, Cabinet Members, Office of the Governors, State and Federal Officials, Congress of the United States, OMB Director Jacob Lew, et al ….
Confirmation – With President Obama’s authorized release of my personal, civil and repatriated Inward Remittance of USDollars 4.5 Trillion, of May 2006 to Bank of America-Richmond, Virginia as confirmed under Penalty of Perjury in the Federal Reserve Bank - Richmond’s Court Motion.
1.) On or about April 15, 2003 The Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee, in Case No. 02-1363-A filed in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Order and Memorandum of Opinion. As part of the Order, the Court stated that the Plaintiff [ Lee E. Wanta, Leo E. Wanta, Ambassador Leo Wanta ] should pursue liquidation of corporations, recovery of financial assets and pay all required taxes in accordance with the law.
2.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, Civil Action No. 1:07 cv 609 T3E/BRP – PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF,
filed JUN 20 2007, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
RESPONDED IN THEIR COURT MOTION STATING ….
“ PURSUANT TO RULE 12 (B) (6), fed.R.civ.P., Respondent Federal Bank of Richmond (“FRB Richmond”) moves to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Other Extraordinary Relief, are as follows.
“For the purposes of the Motion only, all well pleaded facts will be taken as true.”
In other words, The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond accepted the truthful statements in the Writ of Mandamus and confirmed the Inward Remittance designated the Petitioner for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of Petitoner, Lee E. Wanta, Leo E. Wanta, Ambassador Lee E. Wanta, an American citizen, born June 11, 1940. Ref: Rogers-Houston Memorandum, Act of Congress, H.R. 3723.
Having Said That, Upon my Economic Receipt, I will lawfully pay USDollars One Point Five Seven Five Trillion [US$1,575,000,000,000.00] as my personal/civil/repatriation tax payment, directly to our United States Department of the Treasury, among other “set-aside allocations”, to immediately enhance Our Economic Recovery and National Security.
/s/ Lee Emil Wanta 202 379 2904, ext 001 firstname.lastname@example.org Dated : 18 mar 11