Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Pythagorean-L] The archives, stoicism, etc.

Expand Messages
  • Larry Rafey
    I wonder if optimism is an appropriate descriptor here. Epictetus, for example, as governor oversaw some rather aggressive, complicated and tedious
    Message 1 of 89 , Jan 23 9:07 AM
         I wonder if 'optimism' is an appropriate descriptor here.  Epictetus, for example, as governor oversaw some rather aggressive, complicated and tedious campaigns and extremely frustrating beaurocratic problems all of which he tended to with nearly complete detachment. He was neither supportive nor antagonistic concerning them and appears to have looked upon every thing as...well.. that's just the way it goes.
         The Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have a "promised land is on the way" mentality, while a more valid spirituality believes that the "promised land" is always with us and within us.  (I might add here that materialists ...or secularists...also have a 'promised land to come' mentality, but they embrace the concept that only science and technology will bring us that kind of Utopia .. (note my previous posting to ACB concerning technology).
      LD Rafey
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Sawmi
      Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:45 AM
      Subject: Re: [Pythagorean-L] The archives, stoicism, etc.

      And don't forget, re your last paragraph below, the implied suicide/homicide
      that is inherent in Christian apocalyptic beliefs.  The idea that the "world we
      know must end so that Jesus can come back" ("Jesus is coming and he's
      packing") is one of the "five fundamentals" that define the Christian
      fundamentalism that is now so prominent in the popular culture
      and imagination. See for example
      I find that when I start talking to these smiling, optimistic fundamentalist
      Christians, quite often the talk turns unbidden to beatific descriptions
      of the end of the world.  This is not a "fringe" idea, it is central to
      the entire theology. I can remember quotes from President Reagan to
      the effect that conservation was unnecessary because the endtimes
      were so near.... Not to mention the activities of the current administration. 
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 2:12 AM
      Subject: Re: [Pythagorean-L] The archives, stoicism, etc.

      I've never seen Stoicism as pessimistic. 
      Virtually everyone I've spoken to on the subject, who
      has read about Stoicism, but isn't a practitioner, has
      told me they see it as pessimistic.  I'm not sure what
      it's pessimistic about. 
      I see it as being almost ludicrously optimistic.
      These men like Epictetus have found a way to be happy
      no matter what is thrown their way.  They're attitude
      is, "bring it on." 
      That's the essence of Cleanthes' prayer, "Zeus, here I
      am, bring it on." Its scary in its defiance.  It
      reminds me of Dienekes statement at Themopylae when
      told that a volley of arrows from the Persian archers
      would darken the sky, "Good, then we'll have our
      battle in the shade."
      They've seen that strength of character, virtuous
      character, is happiness and that you can have
      happiness despite whatever trouble the world brings.
      They understand that happiness is a mind state, and
      cannot be given or taken by externals. 
      I suppose that I do, after all, see why people call
      Stoicism pessimistic.  It seems to them pessimistic
      about what they call life.  And of course they are
      non-practitioners, because if they had been
      practitioners they wouldn't view what they are calling
      life as any kind of life at all.
      Yes, Stoics don't see the world and its events as
      being much. People who are lovers of this life and
      still believe that somehow its events and endowments
      can bring you happiness would certainly see Stoics as
      pessimistic when they tell you, like Solomon in
      Ecclesiastes, that it's all Vanity of vanities. The
      fact is that Stoics are optimists, because we believe
      that happiness can be found even by someone like
      Boethius, who sitting in prison awaiting execution
      wrote his Consolation of Philosophy.  We believe that
      a person who pays attention to his own thoughts more
      than his surroundings can find happiness wherever he
      Christians often tell me that I won't be going to
      Heaven because I'm a pagan.  I tell them Heaven isn't
      a place you go, it's a mind state.  You can cast me
      into a lake of fire and brimstone, but if my mind is
      at peace I am Heaven. 
      I can't imagine a more optimistic attitude than that.


      hat --- "A.C.B." <ballasac@...> wrote:

      > Hello James:

      > Stoicism can lead to a very pessimistic view of
      > life.  Cleanthes, for example, when he reached I
      > believe the age of  seventy he thought of going on a
      > prolonged fast.   He actually did that to end his
      > life, which he did.  He committed suicide.  I do not
      > intrepret his behavior as an act of "ataraxia."  He
      > did not live according to the laws of nature.  This
      > is a manifestation of  extreme anti-social behavior;
      >  or is this misanthropic behavior  an expression of
      > the ultimate  perfection?

      > Is life not worth living?

      > Regards.  
      > James McKinnon <metatron121@...> wrote:
      > Yes, It has been my custom to pray Cleanthes' prayer
      > regularly, though I admit that I sometimes lack the
      > courage to mean it. 
      > It takes a strong person to want the world to be as
      > God has made it.  It takes an enlightened person to
      > know that God's world is truly good.
      > I never meant to suggest that Stoicism isn't
      > religious.  I meant only to address Mr. Beecher's
      > comment and the religion associated with it. 
      > It's very clear that Stoicism is a religion but not
      > the pathetic type that some versions of Christianity
      > appear to be. 
      > We don't sit around believing that Zeus will solve
      > our
      > problems because we believe in him. 
      > We don't want Zeus to solve our problems.  We know
      > as
      > Seneca explained that our troubles are the gods way
      > of
      > training us and if Zeus removed them it would be as
      > if
      > we went to a gym and someone took away all of the
      > weights and trainers.  
      > If we look at the world in the right way, that,
      > "Some
      > things are in our control and others not. Things in
      > our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion,
      > and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things
      > not in our control are body, property, reputation,
      > command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own
      > actions." and subsequently if we tend to what is
      > ours
      > and not worry about what is not ours we truly can be
      > happy. 
      > Having some deity solve our problems, either in this
      > life or the next, does nothing to help us with the
      > real problem which is our judgment of things.  The
      > world is good, it is a useful training environment.
      > Sorry, I started droning on.
      > Salus,
      > James
      > --- "A.C.B." <ballasac@...> wrote:
      > > James:
      > > 
      > > You might like to read:
      > > 
      > > "Lead me O God, and thou my destiny.
      > > To that one place which you will have me fill.
      > > I follow gladly.  Should i strive with thee,
      > > A recreant, I needs must follow still."
      > > 
      > > This is Stoicism and it does address the
      > importance
      > > of  religious faith.  Although it is true that
      > > Stoicism is a materialistic philosophical system,
      > > does  it acknowledge the existence of God and its
      > > importance to man.  Christianity borrowed a great
      > > deal from Stoicism. The concept of Logos
      > > Spermatikos, or Seminal Reason is, I believe, of
      > > Stoic origin.
      > > 
      > > Regards,
      > > ACB
      > > 
      > >
      > >
      > > James McKinnon <metatron121@...> wrote:
      > > I would respond to Beecher by saying that his
      > > religious method seems to amount to waiting around
      > > for
      > > some other being to solve your problems, and that
      > > the
      > > Stoic method is to look at what the causes of
      > > conflict
      > > really are and directly address them.
      > >
      > > In fact Beecher's method of sitting around
      > insisting
      > > that some powerful being will surely, eventually
      > > solve
      > > our problems (as long as we believe in him) is the
      > > most pathetic thing I've ever heard of.
      > >
      > > Count me among the Vulgar.
      > >
      > > Salus,
      > > James
      > >
      > > --- "A.C.B." <ballasac@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Peter:
      > > > 
      > > > Very well.
      > > > 
      > > > What do you think of this: 
      > > > 
      > > > "There are two ways of escaping from suffering;
      > > The
      > > > one by rising above the causes of conflict, the
      > > > other by sinking below them.-The one is the
      > > eligious
      > > > method; the other is the vulgar, the wordly
      > > > method.-The one is Christian elevation; the
      > other
      > > is
      > > > stoicism."   (H.W. Beecher). \
      > > > 
      > > > Regards,
      > > > Angelos
      > > >
      > > > James McKinnon <metatron121@...> wrote:
      > > > I don't think stoicism is about suppression of
      > the
      > > > feelings, I think it's about having Reason, "the
      > > > best
      > > > Charioteer," be our guide. 
      > > > I think that reason finds itself in conflict
      > with
      > > > our
      > > > feelings when our feelings are, well...
      > > > unreasonable.
      > > >
      > > > The Stoics, namely Epictetus, focus on looking
      > at
      > > > things in a more realistic way.  They have no
      > > > interest
      > > > in suppression or denial. 
      > > > They simply observe that most of the useless
      > > > whining,
      > > > complaining and anger we do is the result of
      > > > unrealistic expectations on our part and that we
      > > can
      > > > have peace of mind if we will only insist on
      > > > admitting
      > > > to ourselves the very temporal nature of things.

      > > > A case in point might be the lost archives.  A
      > > stoic
      > > > wouldn't get upset about the lost archives
      > because
      > > > he
      > > > would have trained himself to acknowledge that
      > > > archives, like paper, stone, bodies, glass, or
      > any
      > > > other temporal thing, will eventually pass
      > either
      > > > sooner or later.  The stoic won't be in denial
      > > about
      > > > the temporal nature of material things.  He or
      > she
      > > > won't cling to the absurd idea that somehow the
      > > > archives will last forever, so when the archives
      > > are
      > > > lost, the stoic won't be taken aback or
      > surprised,
      > > > but
      > > > will rather acknowledge that nature has done
      > what
      > > > nature always does and let something pass away.
      > > > Now, in saying this, no one should believe that
      > > the
      > > > Stoic excuses him or herself from the duties of
      > > > life.
      > > > If it was the Stoics duty to preserve the
      > archives
      > > > he
      > > > or she would have made every effort to do so,
      > but
      > > he
      > > > would do so detached from the belief that in a
      > > world
      > > > of constant flux and flow that he would always
      > be
      > > > able
      > > > to succeed.
      > > >
      > > > Salus
      === message truncated ===

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

      But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke these Gods with fervour, that whose aid,Thy work begun, alone can terminate.  Instructed by them,naught shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt sound the essence; And thou shalt know the principle and end of All.

      But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke these Gods with fervour, that whose aid,Thy work begun, alone can terminate.  Instructed by them,naught shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt sound the essence; And thou shalt know the principle and end of All.

    • Cal
      And what you describe as transformation is what I ve been describing as a change in relationship. The childhood material and the wounding is still there (and
      Message 89 of 89 , Feb 23, 2005
        Re: [Pythagorean-L] Critiques of Jung [was: The archives,
        And what you describe as transformation is what I've been describing as a change in relationship.  The childhood material and the wounding is still there (and the part that was wounded will never heal).  Changing our relationship to that material and to the wound(s) will bring about what we might easily call healing, as we are no longer held hostage by something that we're trying to avoid, and instead embrace and integrate what comes from our wound, and utilize it in a way that serves.


        At 2:30 PM -0600 1/29/05, Larry Rafey wrote:
           It is interesting to take note of the recent death of Phillip Johnson who was a truly magnificent architect in the best Pythagorean sense of the word. Yet, once upon a time, he was a vehement supporter of Hitler and Mussolini. He was a big fan of the "final solution." How such contrast in persona came about within this great artist can only be ascertained with an good deal of analysis, but............. he came around many years later, publicly apologizing for his lack of insight and subsequently designing and building........ Pro Bono ... a great synagogue.
           People can change. The initial blindness may arise out of a childhood trauma. The later transformation may also arise out of a laterday trauma of equal psychological dimension, displacing the projection inward to reveal and to heal the old wound.
        LD Rafey
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Cal
        To: Pythagorean-L@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:34 PM
        Subject: Re: [Pythagorean-L] Critiques of Jung [was: The archives, stoicism, etc.]

        At 8:03 AM -0800 1/27/05, Unknown wrote:
        <<People who have acted despicably have produced amazing things.  And people who have acted "respectfully" have more often contributed little of value, or have even produced destruction.>>
        Certainly people like Buddha, Jesus, Gahndi and Mother Teresa are very dangerous and destructive to have in a society.

        I suppose that this forum is a good place for me to practice clarifying (as in clarifying butter) my messages to find ways to express them that are less likely to be misinterpreted or carried out to an extreme distortion.  Thanks...I'll give it another shot.

        Wrote above now begins, "There are people who have acted despicably who have produced amazing things.  And there are people who have acted..."  Better?

        <<I'm not justifying anything here,>>
        You're not? I think maybe you're saying that good people do bad things sometimes and bad people do good things sometimes. That makes sense without justifying anything.

        Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying (other than the "good"/"bad" lingo).

        You can not seperate a man from his work anymore than one can seperate an artist from their art. The work is representative of the man for both good and bad. The work is the manifestation of the energies of the man. The work speaks volumes of the man.

        Yes and no.  We can be a conduit for so much more than who we are personally.  History has many figures who were one thing personally and another thing entirely impersonally.  As I reflect on that now, it seems kinda cool...another example of balance.

        And I too have that dichotomy.  When I'm in front of hundreds of people, in a public or impersonal role, I'm one set of things.  When I'm just being the personal man, I'm a different set of things.  And the set of things from either role won't serve very much in the other role.

        I've had the occasional experience (increasing slightly in frequency lately) of opening my mouth to say one thing and completely different words come of my mouth.  I've learned to trust that those are not coming from me personally.

        Have you ever had the experience that you've done something that was out-of-character (either beneficial or the opposite)?  Or been able to do something that you haven't been trained to do, or know something that you haven't learned?

        Any of those are likely energies moving through you that aren't part of your personal make-up.

        In Mystery School, we practiced being a conduit for different energies, some of which are part of our personal makeup and some of which are not (such as archetypes, animals, and elemental forces).

        <<One of the conservative men who participated in the
        conservatives/liberals meetings says I'm a prophet.  How do we know who is a prophet and who isn't?>>

        Mama told me I was gonna be President....

        I hestiate to even entertain such thoughts from the ignorant. I fear they appeal to nothing but our egos and I try to keep that in check. Its tough. Nice compliment though.

        I understand what you're saying.  Let's work a hypothetical example:

        If a million people say you're a god (or a savior or a prophet), that doesn't make you one.  Or does it?...  If multiple people independently offer the same feedback, then there's something worth looking at.  So those million people may be able to see something in you that you can't "see", but owing to the distortion in their perceptive ability (they being swept by larger forces), saying you're a god per se is likely not accurate.  It does, however, provide the opportunity to consider what it is they're "seeing" (which could be an archetypal force) that they can only articulate as "god"

        Except in rare cases, I can learn from pretty much anyone.  In those who are "ignorant" (and I prefer not to use such a perjorative word, since everyone contains a bit of wisdom somewhere within them),  When dealing with the uniformed, it's just harder to separate out what the real nugget is from the distortion in perception.

        <<I am interested less in the man than in the essences of his work.  (Hitler had his genius, too.)>>
        I just think they go hand in hand, the men and their work. I don't know if manipulative ability consitiutes genius, but it certainly constitutes charisma.

        There are non-charismatic geniuses, who personally can't/don't interact in a way that was acceptable to society.  I've know some (Steve Jobs comes to mind).  That's all I'm saying there.

        <<Almost.  Dictators, tyrants, and unaccountable presidents rising to power (and therefore wars) are caused by an unmet need in the collective, conscious (extremely rare, I'd wager) or unconscious (more usual).>>
        See, I don't know that this is accuracte, but I think ther eis a thread of truth in it. I felt from day 1 that JFKerry had no "mojo" in his campaign. I don't know if that is a collective unconscious thing, but considering how badly he got beat perhaps it was. Do these theories apply even in scenarios you personally don't like or do they only apply when it serves individual purposes?

        I learned that there is _always_ a direct correspondence between the people's unmet need and type of leader that rises.

        And like any bonding pattern in relationship (be it between two people, a person and a collective, or between collectives), the pattern is constellated on both sides at the same time, and exists within the unconscious of both parties.  So a leader, is groomed his whole life for the potential to be a certain kind of leader, so that when the time comes, he can fill the role that the need of the people are inducting.

        <<This is partly why I asked who the writer is.  His language drips with projection and judgments arising from his childhood programming.>>
        To be fair, lets admit we all do that, unconsciously perhaps, but everything we write or say or do reveals something about oursleves and our opinions.

        While we all do that, we don't all do it in everything we write.  When we're a conduit for something else, we are writing or saying things that may have nothing to do with ourselves, our desires, our opinions.  The better we are at being a pure vessel, the less our personal coloring mixes in.

        I myself have stood in front of people and laid out a vision for something that I (my ego) don't agree with personally.  The notion of personal vs. impersonal (let alone transpersonal) is hard to get.

        <<Yes, wars do not simply happen... Long before wars are planned, certain forces, in order to be expressed>>

        If you are saying that there are larger cosmic forces that move through humanity I would agree. I would add that perhaps that energy is like our emotions, things that we can unconcsious react to fufill or things that if we think about them objectively we can control (Stoics again?!?). As indivuals mature that becomes more possible, I imagine that as a race/species of man matures we'll be able to better handle those energies more constructively.

        Close...our emotions are particular energy patterns.  In my work so far, I've identified five groups of energy patterns:

        - Emotions
        - Stages of life (the various child, adolescent, adult, parent, elder parts)
        - Archetypal energies (Warrior, Magician, World Leader)
        - Animals
        - Elemental forces (earth, air, fire, water, and forms these appear in such as volcano, wind, rain...)

        The first two are personal, although it could be argued that either category could also be archetypal, depending on the particular instance.
        The last three are impersonal, i.e., they don't belong to us individually, they are of a collective psyche or the cosmic psyche.

        <<I think that what Jung was getting at was that we can't be responsible for the impact of a force moving through us, if we're not conscious and therefore not in relationship with that force.>>
        Ignorance is no excuse for the law.

        Yes...IMO, that was Jung's point exactly.  I believe he was making a case for becoming conscious, so that we can be responsible.

        <<Since the psyche always seeks balance, a tsunami is a re-balancing agent.  So what is the tsunami a balancing force for?  And are we a party to having created what it's
        balancing, i.e., the need for this re-balancing?>>
        All 11 of the worlds greatest natural disasters (death tool wise since mid 1800's), as listed by US News & World Report, have all occured in China, India, Thailand, Bangladesh... all in the southeast & asian areas. None in South America, none in the US, none in Eurpoe... all in the most densly overpopulated area of the globe. Hmmm........

        Hey...how about that?
        <<So in a way, we may be at least partly responsible for earthquakes, tidal waves>>
        That is absurd. The movement of the Earths plates has little if anything to do with humanity. You imply that without humanity there would be no natural disaster, no hurricane, no floods, no earthquakes.... thats just silly.

        No, I don't imply that...again you're going beyond what I actually wrote into a distortion.  Let me clarify:  To imagine that those forces would not express, just because we wouldn't be here, would be arrogant of us humans (although that sure hasn't stopped us before).

        Humanity, by its presence, has influence over its environment -- physically and energetically (and I'd likely say that the energetic causes the physical).

        "All social policy is based out of economics." -Marx

        "Underlying all are energetic patterns." -Cal

        <<No one knew what was happening to him, least of all the Germans>>
        As being half German myself I appreciate the gesture, but no, Germany was responsible for what it did, everyone was involved.

        Yes, just as all in America are responsible, regardless of whether or not we voted for those in power.

        <<In the next paragraph Jung says it was the devil/Satan that led Germans down the path to war from 1871 onwards.>>
        Well, there goes my opinion of Jung.... I tend not to listen to people who belive in the boogieman, ghosts or UFOs.

        Hold on.  You've mixed in quotes from me to quotes from Alan Pert.  I wouldn't want anyone to thing that I said those things.  And I've already commented on Pert in another post.

        <<you can see Hitler as being the balancing force, similarly (but not identically) to Bush coming to power is the
        balancing force for our nation's unmet unconscious need.>>

        Hmmm...... Yes, the first thing Bush did when he came into office was start a war.. of wait, yeah, that didn't happen until 10 months into his presidency when we were attacked on US soil. That must be Bush's fault, or maybe the fault of the American unconscious instead of the fault of the Islamo-fascists who flew the planes into the buildings. Yeah, can't just be their fault for doing what they did.

        (Sound of a game buzzer)...oops, and thank you for playing!

        First of all, you're talking about fault, and I'm talking about source and cause.  Responsibility: To be the source and cause of something.  And we must own being a party to what happens in the world and to us.  9/11 was brought about through a partnership between the terrorists and the American unconscious.  9/11 wouldn't have been possible without us disowning our violence, our terroristic tendencies, etc.  The inappropriate wielding of power was and is brought about through a partnership between Bush et al and the American unconscious.  And on it goes...  America will continue to suffer, so long as we act as if we don't have to own these.

        Bush et al had planned to go to war in Iraq before they ever got into the White House.  It's utterly short-sighted to believe that the war was merely a response to 9/11...that was simply a convenient excuse that made it a lot easier to push the war agenda.  Get yourself informed, my man.

        That is my problem with all this, it gets so convuluted in unproven tehories taht the clear and simple truth becomes impossible to see. It's self deluding when taken too far.

        Have you taken the time to sort out what's what?

        That's starting to sound like those who say, "I can't know the truth about something...therefore no one can know the truth about it."  I've been told this by conservatives who say, "There are find scientific minds working on the question of whether global warning is a problem.  It's so complicated, you and I couldn't possibly know."  To that I say, rubbish.  To me, and many others, it's clear that if we punch holes in our bubble, it will have disastrous results.

        Just because you can't see the clear and simple truth doesn't mean that there aren't others who can.  It takes time and patience, and a high level of emotional mastery (and not talking about control).  A number of people have gone through that effort, so you only need to ask outside the circle of people who only reinforce your beliefs.

        Why is America needing to be in so delusional a state?

        Boy...wait until you start hearing about Peak Oil and how, without the availability of affordable fossil fuels, just about every aspect of our "civilized" lifestyle will rudely crumble in the next few decades (or possibly sooner).  I can hear it now..."it gets so convoluted in unproven theories that the clear and simple truth becomes impossible to see".  Isn't there a Bible story about the people refusing to hear the truth.  But I fear we'll wander too far off-topic...let's see, how can I work this out so that's on-topic?...

        <<But make no mistake, a very similar force moved/is moving
        through them both.>>

        That's ridiculous. Ya know what gets tiring? The constant babble from the left comapring Bush to Hitler. Just like you lefties to call whoever you don't like a Nazi then try to rationalize through someone like Jung. I didn't like Clinton, but when he sent us to war in Bosnia I didn't call him Hitler.

        Okay, clearly a personal nerve has been hit.  i get why you don't want to discuss politics, what with your emotional triggers getting activated.  We were doing so well, and then suddenly...boom!

        To clarify, I didn't say Bush was Hitler, or even the same as Hitler.  I said that a very similar force is moving through him.

        Malcolm said Bush was more like Mussolini.  Different dictator, similar energies.  The differences between Hitler and Mussolini can be accounted for in the differences in the two collectives they led.  Just as Hitler and Mussolini aren't identical, so also Hitler and Bush aren't identical, since the collectives they lead have differences, and their egos' relationships to the force are different (inasmuch as that relationship existed).  Note that we're still talking about dictator energy.

        On the other hand, Bush and Saddam seem much more energetically similar.

        <<Yup...just like all the naysayers/dissenters are being swept aside by Bush et al.  The parallels continue.>>
        Sheesh..... have  you not heard a word from Barbara Boxer? Ted Kennedy? Where do you get your information?!?

        Yes.  Did ya catch the results?  The vote was 85-13, sweeping the whistle-blowers aside.  Condi got in, despite it being made public that she's skirting (no pun intended) those confronting her.

        Well, I guess its time for me to go.
        If I continue to subject myself to these ingnornat frustrations and poison my mind with delusions from the uninformed its my own damn fault. Best of luck to all of you!

        Yep...it is time for you to go, because you are on the verge of being subjected to data that might challenge your beliefs about our leaders.
        How would you like it if I walked around calling you "ignorant" or "deficient" simply because you can't see energetic patterns?

        Whenever you point the finger, three fingers point back at you!

        Matt, it seems like you're bumping along just fine with me, and then, when you encounter something that doesn't correspond with your beliefs, it's so much easier to take the cowardly way out, call someone a name, and then just leave the conversation.  I ask you to consider not leaving the conversation just because of the last few short paragraphs in an otherwise long and interesting thread.  Instead, I invite you to stay in your discomfort, and see where it leads you.


        But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke these Gods with fervour, that whose aid,Thy work begun, alone can terminate.  Instructed by them,naught shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt sound the essence; And thou shalt know the principle and end of All.

        But before all, thy soul to its faithful duty,Invoke these Gods with fervour, that whose aid,Thy work begun, alone can terminate.  Instructed by them,naught shall then deceive thee: Of diverse beings thou shalt sound the essence; And thou shalt know the principle and end of All.
        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        Children International
        Would you give Hope to a Child in need?  
        · Click Here to meet a Girl
        And Give Her Hope
        · Click Here to meet a Boy
        And Change His Life
        Learn More

        Yahoo! Groups Links

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.