Why the New Age "Movement" is Unhelpful

As a tarot reader, sometimes I get a tad self-conscious. I find myself discrediting certain bits of my analysis because they're based on a mythology that my querent doesn't regard as necessarily sane. Not having the patience to explain to them in the moment why what I'm saying actually has some academic relevance, I end up leaving these readings feeling like I've let my cause down. Lately I've been questioning where this general phobia of all things occult comes from. Of course, we can easily point to the general Judaeo-Christian bias in the West, which in a post-Enlightenment, post-modern world vehemently frowns upon such things like tarot and magic. But there's something else too inherent in the average person's skepticism, a kind of mocking insistence that practices belonging to the occult are "pseudo-sciences," and are therefore rendered useless. These things become mere entertainments that don't supply us with anything profound.

The more I explore the history of tarot and use it in my everyday life, the more I am convinced it is anything but a pseudo-science. Firstly, we must understand that tarot as we see it today is a product of 19th and early 20th-century occultism. The two founders of modern tarot, Arthur Edward Waite and Aleister Crowley, were both members of the same hermetic order, and were rigorously educated in multiple related systems, namely the Qabbalah, alchemy, astrology, geomancy, and mythology. Each of these systems possesses its own language of symbols that must be assimilated by the occult student. Thus, the tarot operates on an intricate, symbiotic network of symbols and myths from various religions and philosophies, and by doing so professes to divulge a general universal truth. It is literally a deck of hieroglyphics. Secondly, its intended use was for communication with divine powers and to ascertain the nature of one's unique life purpose. The deck is therefore designed with this lofty spiritual purpose in mind, and the original spreads created by orders such as the Golden Dawn were not intended for minor, mundane things, but for deeply important matters. Thirdly, my experience in only a little under two years has proved to me that the system is far from faulty. The tarot, when used properly, will tell you or your querent exactly what you need to know. I only do cold readings for querents, rarely asking them questions so that they will be as unsettled as I am by the cards' accuracy. This unnerving moment is absolutely crucial! It suggests to us that all is not entirely as it seems, and that perhaps there truly is something out there that knows better than we do what's best for us in a given situation. Disputing the reading becomes far more difficult this way, and the querent comes to trust your abilities far more, albeit with a bit of quiet uneasiness.

Therefore, how can we call tarot a pseudo-science? Like science, it is based on a coherent linguistic system; it strives for accuracy; and operates on the assumption of the existence of some pre-existing truth that awaits discovery. However, there is an entire breed of tarot readers out there who create this unfortunate stigma for the art. Here I must entirely blame the so-called "New Age movement," which, at its worst, is a vaguely lucid, barely coherent, hodge-podge amalgam of dreamy, semi-formed ideas, wholly ignorant of effective methodology and solely interested in the touchy-feely gift of intuition. Now, I warrant that self-discovery and individual perspective are wonderful virtues, but there is a fine line between these and ineffectual day-dreaming about auras and crystal healing. While these too are also systematic in scope and effective for certain people, this whole mindset of the new age individual is poisonous. I have met or heard of far too many tarot readers who claim one can read tarot without needing to understand Qabbalah. This would be like suggesting that one can properly evaluate the quality of a house without knowing a thing about architecture and design, as the Qabbalah is literally the framework of the tarot. Sure, I can superficially guess that the quality of said house is good based on its general aesthetics, or by whether or not I "feel good" in that space, but I cannot, without a doubt, make any truly profound or knowledgeable statements about the house's identity or essence as a unique structure.

The decks created today are infused with this same sort of bland understanding of the tarot, and their artists are motivated by new age demands for absurd themes such as fairies, paganism, and vampires. Half of these decks, mind you, have little to no long-term aesthetic appeal. After their novelty wears off, one is left grasping for their original reason for buying such a toy in the first place. This is not the sort of relationship one should have with their deck. One look at the top ten decks of 2010 on aeclectic.net (http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/topten.shtml), plainly demonstrates this trend.

The top-selling deck, the Shadowscapes Tarot, contains a set of soft, fluid, effeminate

images of fairies (surprise, surprise). The cards have no obvious label, nor do they remotely seem to depict anything one could possibly divine from, but I guess they sure are pretty! A deck should be able to speak to both genders simultaneously, as legitimate tarot can help us come to find that we have both genders within our personalities. A deck of all feminine or all masculine images is relatively useless for real introspection.

The Tarot of Vampyres is second on the list, and this too lacks any

coherent language system. This image of IX The Sun from this deck, here on the left, has actually left me stumped. No definition of the Sun I have ever read includes the fusion of opposites like this - that is usually depicted by XIV Art. Why is there a skull on the sun when the sun represents rebirth, not death? Even the mundane definition of love and relationships is rarely, if ever, associated with this card. The four of wands from this pack is

also largely irrelevant. How this naked woman covering herself before a set of four candles is supposed to represent the celebratory and governmental nature of the four of wands is beyond me. The deck's creator, Ian Daniels, writes that, "The vampyre legend is rooted in darkness and seduction, but its enduring message is one of spiritual hunger - to drink the everlasting divine." Right. This sounds like a really poor attempt to fuse the new-age appreciation for mythical creatures like vampires with its misguided quest for accessing God. Vampires are creatures that drink the blood of mortals, usually virginal young women. It is not as if they traditionally do so in order to try and replicate the blood of Christ, or any other sacrificial god. It is to perpetuate their own survival and sexual lust - not much else.

Tarot readers who buy into this sort of nonsense greatly concern me. Recently I had my cards read by a woman in San Francisco, mainly for S & G, as I was curious what "professional" and "psychic" readers were like. I probably should have asked for my money back as soon as I saw she was using only half of poor Arthur Edward Waite's deck, the other half despondently remaining on her coffee table. This is another bit of self-determining bull that compromises the validity of the system. Some readers read only with the majors... To those readers, I would like to ask, "Does the universe often give you a choice to tell it how to constitute itself?" To return to my story, the woman began by placing half-pack of cards against my forehead and invoking the Goddess and the light, and a slew of other stuff. Her selected spread was unique but her reading method was entirely positional. She proved to be a good story teller, but not a good advice giver, asking as she did incorrect questions, or suggesting the exact opposite of things I'd been feeling or thinking in the same day. I knew I was entirely sunk when she told me my chakras were dark and that I needed to have her light a big white pillar candle in order to remedy this. I declined her "generous" offer and instead offered to read her cards, as I had brought my own with me. My reader became immediately concerned and defensive and hastily said, "No, I'm going to say no to that because I've put energy into you and I don't want that energy coming back to me." Indeed. Let me tell you, the ENERGY I felt upon leaving that woman! My goodness, it was exhilarating... Not in the least, my friends. The only energy I felt was the vibes of frugality leaving my wallet, as I was then out $20 dollars.

Ultimately, this is a difficult issue to solve. I'm a strong proponent of using whatever means necessary in order to discover one's personal Truth. But at the same time, Westerners want to believe that beatification can be achieved without methodology, without structure. We want to believe in "spirituality," not religion, as the latter term implies restriction, bigotry, and difficulty. We must remember that the Great Work, or whatever you'd like to call it, is difficult, and requires patient struggle. It's not as if systems such as monasticism, hermetic orders, and priestly hierarchies were invented out of the blue. Humanity needs some sort of structure, even if it's only to understand that God isn't a being who particularly cares for such boring things like structure. Therefore, in order to better use the tarot - truly one of God's many gifts to mankind, and one of the best tools we have in helping the Great Work along - we must accept that the tarot's connotations and defining attributes are deeply, inherently, crucially important. Even if we as a community begin to pay more attention to these things in order to stave off skeptical criticism of non-believers, it will be an improvement. And I also believe that it's perfectly possible to maintain individual perspective while working within a particular guiding framework. The new age movement with its utter diffuse and unfocused nature cannot get us anywhere, and it will only continue to generate meaningless tarot decks, fueled by the whims of capitalism.

Lady Gaga's Judas and the Christian Reaction

It is time, my friends, that I finally addressed Lady Gaga, in particular, her newest songs, Born this Way and Judas. What has pushed me to the most extreme limits of my patience is the disturbingly laughable ignorance hopping around the blogosphere in response to these two songs, especially the latter, as Christians around the world feel scandalized over the idea of a song about Judas, the betrayer of Christ... My heart bleeds for them. God forbid the most tyrannical, sometimes meretricious institution on the face of the earth should ever feel offended. God help the individual who dares to hold a second opinion in regards to Christ.

Part 1

Now, the first absurdist post I stumbled upon was this one, http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110424/OPINION03/104240323/Lady-Gaga-s-Judas-sells-Christ-again, written by a Paul Kokoski from Hamilton, Ontario. Paul goes on to say that Gaga's use of Judas as a literary figure is nothing new because of the relatively recent discovery of the Judas Gospels in 2006. Paul writes: "Lady Gaga's recent attempt to rehabilitate the disciple Judas is nothing new. In April 2006, the agnostic "Gospel of Judas" went on display in Washington. It incorrectly portrayed Judas as Jesus' closest disciple saying that Jesus asked Judas to hand Him over to the Roman authorities so that He could fulfil His mission."

Dear Paul: perhaps it would be best for you to get your terminology straight. "Agnostic" refers to a worldview in which God is ambiguous; its adherents generally prefer not to question the question of religion too much as they believe they can never really find the truth. The Judas Gospels, however, are a Gnostic text. The Gnostics were a sect of early Christians who had a particularly interesting spin on Christian cosmogony. Gnostics insist that the God of the Old Testament is a liar and is the source of ignorance, whereas Christ is the messenger of the True God, the ineffable, loving source of all things. The Gnostics always had a tendency to upset the normal interpretation of things, but it is also not fair to label their interpretation as "incorrect." They have just as much legitimacy as the early Church Fathers did - the difference between them is that the Fathers had the papacy and what was left of the Roman government on their side. But in the early Christian period, the faith was in an amazingly ambiguous, syncretic state. Your singular interpretation of the Passion story demonstrates that you are still under the influence of archaic monotheistic thinking: "there is only one way to look at this!" This is the state of ignorance, my friend. It's obvious that you didn't come up with this opinion by yourself, that it was taught to you by your religious background. Attaining Truth takes the courage to question the world views imposed upon you by others!

Paul further writes that, "With Lady Gaga's new single 'Judas' we can see how Christ is being sold again... The song 'Judas' deliberately suppresses the truth about Christ's life, His death on the cross and His resurrection." I'm not sure I follow. The lyrics only represent a conflict between the Magdalene and Judas. Christ is only mentioned as the Magdalene's "virtue." The fact that Paul has failed to note this perhaps represents the undying Protestant contempt for the saints, which can become utterly disgusting as we will soon see. That sect of Christianity is always quick to zoom in on Christ until they utterly lose sight of Him, and by doing so, invent a myopic worldview that has no practical applicability. The "oneness" of God is so mentally contaminating, that Paul has the nerve to suggest that the song "suppresses the truth" about Christ. Does the fact that there are four sometimes conflicting Gospels also "suppress the truth?" The Gospels themselves were written by four separate individuals who were not Christ himself. How are they to have perfectly represented the true account of His life? (A miracle? An easy explanation that makes your faith too unquestionable. If you are to really have faith, shouldn't it be able to withstand the possibility that the Gospels were not written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?)

I only single out Mr. Kokoski as an example, as it was the first thing I found, and I was unnerved by his false terminology. How are we to take the criticism of Lady Gaga's work seriously when its mouthpieces don't even know what they're talking about?

Part 2

I also was able to find this lengthy gem from "Emancipation From Slavery," a pseudo-"Gnostic" (in the sense that they believe in some kind of hidden truth that society tries to suppress) Christian propagandist website that attempts to find Illuminati symbolism in celebrity photos and whatnot. Thank goodness we have such knights of faith to create inspiring, worthwhile websites such as these. WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT YOU???

The site refers to Gaga as an "Illuminati puppet" and uses some pretty ridiculous analysis in order to "reveal" the "demonic content" of her media. (I apologize for the reckless use of quotation marks, but they are necessary for obvious reasons.) For my personal amusement, and to further vindicate Dame Gaga, I would love to just go through the site's post on Judas and dismantle their argument. I suggest you follow along with me by going to the page itself.

http://emancipationfromslavery.com/lady-gaga-illuminati-puppet/lady-gaga-illuminati-puppet-judas/

First paragraph! The word is "whet," not "wet." More foolish and poor use of terminology. I'm so pleased the uneducated are trying to explain something about religion to me. This seems promising. Down a bit: the writer states, "Her whole persona (whether its [sic] an act or not) is a tribute to mind control, where being vacuous, incoherent and absent minded [sic] becomes a fashionable thing." What a delightful turn of events! The ignorant are attempting to demonstrate that the liberally educated Stefani Germanotta of NYU is vacuous and incoherent. I was under the impression that she was just a well-educated liberal who is not afraid to use her mind and speak out against social constructs, like those propagated by certain sites... ahem.

The site then posts this picture and claims it is a

depiction of Gaga possessed by the devil himself, who apparently also caused Judas to betray Christ. If this is the big, bad, Prince of Darkness himself, why am I not terrified for my life? I'd like to think that Satan can do better than photoshopped-red or red contact eyes. My dear friends at EFS should remember that we live in an age of technology, where there are ways of giving yourself zebra-striped eyes if you want them.

They should also do a little more thinking about Gaga's entire "monster" campaign right now. For this, we must briefly discuss Born This Way. In a video steeped in Qabbalistic/Crowleyan symbolism (oh dear, maybe I'm only fueling the fire for the Illuminati argument), Gaga portrays "Mother Monster," who gives birth to a race of humans devoid of prejudice. Mother Monster on a "different plane" is also dark vixen who

gives birth to a machine gun in order to defend her creations. I'm sorry Gaga, but if you haven't read about the Qabbalistic understanding of the Mother as both Light and Dark, I'm left utterly confused. Crowley also writes that women are meant to be more militant and aggressive in this age - perhaps this explains the machine gun. But the symbolism is at least blatantly reminiscent of the fact that Binah, the Mother, loves all her creations with no prejudice, and the only reason we come to hate one another is because we believe in the illusion of separateness. The Mother does, in a way, create "monsters," for our natural, divine selves, have no real understanding of social constructs. There is only impulsiveness for action of any kind. We are also animals. This is always important to remember! And lastly, divine inspiration is sometimes akin to "madness," sometimes a kind of bestial raving in which one communes with the divine. The holy are never quite sane; they always have something wrong with them, and God continues to love them despite their given infirmity.

Moving on. If you scroll down, you will be treated to some humorous photoshopped pictures of Gaga, or the lovely compilation of satanic outfits supposedly to be worn by Gaga in the upcoming Judas video. Somewhere along the way, the writer tries to make the connection between the triangle and the occult. While I see what they're getting at, can't we just as easily make a connection between the Holy Trinity and the triangle? The writer attempts to make more claims that Gaga is possessed and has become a puppet. Apparently she has made a blood pact and she is condemning her fans to hell to please the devil. THANK YOU EFS.COM. I FEEL SO ENLIGHTENED NOW. This is utter poppycock. Where on earth do these people come from?

Next, the writer bashes a picture of Gaga depicted as the Virgin with an aureole behind her head. They claim that this aureole is a symbol of "sun worship," and that the darkness of the photo in conjunction with Gaga's "emotionless" expression demonstrates the false forces at work through her. They also make some hateful comment about Catholicism being a false religion because of its belief in saints. Apparently the writer has not thought to consider the old depiction of Mary as the Lady of the Seven Sorrows.

Remember that medieval iconography often depicts the saints as devoid of emotion or human sentiment so as to better demonstrate their other-worldliness. As beings with little attachment to the here and now, they often are shown as distracted or not-quite-present. In the case of Gaga, we see a combination of the two. Mary as the Lady of Seven Sorrows is attributable to the Dark Mother of Binah (abovementioned), who laments her separation from her children.

Let us also remember that Judas is a song about the Magdalene's inner conflict over still loving Judas despite his constant betrayals. The Magdalene is always a bizarre conflation of virginity and meretriciousness that becomes confusing. In some ways, she is a hybridization of all the Mary figures in the Bible. The Magdalene was also very close to Christ, was the first female preacher, and was canonized - hence the aureole. I only raise these points to demonstrate that this image of Gaga is heavily layered with meaning, and it is the pinnacle of foolishness to write it off as an representation of her "evil-side." One one level, it represents Mother Monster, on another it's the Magdalene, on another it's the Virgin Mary (here covering her breast, a traditional gesture of modesty, believe it or not).

Might I also take a minute to yell at the writer of this nonsense about their interpretation of the upside-down triangle as simply a symbol of the womb. Yes, you're right, you win. It's a symbol of the chalice, the element of water, and the Divine Feminine. Congratulations. But it's also colored magenta. As an anthem supporting homosexual society and culture, isn't it obvious that the symbol is mainly a gay one?

I could go on and on with this website - there's unfortunately more to their post that I could work on, but I'm frankly getting bored and frustrated with it. I may or may not have had a minor fit over the claim that Gaga's performance of Paparazzi at the 2009 VMA's was a depiction of Masonic rituals. Clearly, the performance went right over the writer's head.

Part 3: Interpretation

Now I get to provide my own spin on these "enigmatic" lyrics.

Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GaGa
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GaGa
[Lady Gaga - Verse 1]
When he comes to me, I am ready
I'll wash his feet with my hair if he needs
Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain
Even after three times, he betrays me
I'll bring him down, bring him down, down
A king with no crown, king with no crown
[Chorus]
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GaGa
[Lady Gaga - Verse 2]
I couldn't love a man so purely
Even darkness forgave his crooked way
I've learned love is like a brick, you can
Build a house or sink a dead body
I'll bring him down, bring him down, down
A king with no crown, king with no crown
[Chorus]

I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
EW
[Bridge]
In the most Biblical sense,
I am beyond repentance
Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind
But in the cultural sense
I just speak in future tense
Judas kiss me if offensed,
Or wear ear condom next time
I wanna love you,
But something's pulling me away from you
Jesus is my virtue,
Judas is the demon I cling to
I cling to
[Chorus]
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GAGA
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GAGA

I am first struck by the line, "Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain." The brain being the hub of our reason and logic, it only seems to me that Judas is lying/betraying because it seems like the reasonable thing to do. Of course, Judas turns Christ in for silver - a seemingly "practical" thing to do. Judas seems entirely human in this depiction - not demonic. The Magdalene, being a forgiving, penitent woman, forgives him out of love. What kind of love does this represent other than divine love? Love that can forgive endlessly despite betrayals? Unlike some of her other material, there is no blatant sexuality in this text. The Magdalene is not in her former role as whore, but in her role as mediatrix, the holy intercessor with the divine. Here's the thing, my narrow-minded Christian critics: we are all Judas. You will find this in almost every Easter sermon since the dawn of the faith. We all deny Christ, we all give Him up for "rational" things. We deny the fact that He is within us showing us the light of reality, ignoring Him because materiality "makes more sense." God continues to love and forgive us despite this sinful action - that's the true nature of Divine Love. In that sense, God is a bit of a "whore," as He/She does not discriminate between what It loves. Everything is equally good in Its eyes, despite the "fault" inherent in creation.

Further interesting is the fact that Judas betrays the Magdalene "three times." It makes sense that this is a reference to Peter, who denies Christ three times. Therefore, Christ and the Magdalene are conflated in Gaga's narrative. I am reminded of Julian of Norwich (14th century), who said that Christ is also a spiritual mother who nurtures us through faith. But also, by using the Magdalene as a savior figure, Gaga allows women to feel more connected to a patriarchal cosmology, and with a mostly masculine savior figure. Salvation is available to everyone, of course. Here we first see the inkling of a theme I believe links the work together as a whole: that the textual narrative of a song/myth is an opportunity for an artist to harmonize polar principles in a quasi-sexual union.

The next line of interest is "I'll bring him down, bring him down, down, A king with no crown, king with no crown." A crown, of course, is a reward given to the faithful upon entering heaven. It's a symbol of martyrdom and intense faith. Judas is a king because he sees his own agency and reason as more important than the lordship of Christ, and he is associated with a sort of material power, but he is also false because he is uninspired by the Divine. I have read a suggestion that this lyric is actually in the voice of Judas, which I could also buy, since Gaga's vocal timbre shifts to a darker, more nasal quality at this point in the song. It contrasts all the more with the "wailing" vocal line that we hear in the same section; this counter-subject, if you will, is more reminiscent of Gaga's natural tone, even though it sounds electronically manipulated. So perhaps the line is illuminating Judas's perspective - perhaps it's again a conflation, this time between him and the Magdalene. If the latter is the case, then we see a merging of the polar principles - the love-spurning masculine and the ever-loving feminine - through a textual relationship. The text actually becomes the vehicle for the sexual act.

My favorite part is definitely the bridge, in which she writes, "In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance; fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind. But in the cultural sense I just speak in future tense. Judas kiss me if offenced [sic], or wear ear condom next time." She is clearly saying that, in the old Christian way of looking at things, she is nothing more than a harlot because she speaks her mind. As a motivated woman who is unafraid of sexuality, she would certainly be labeled as a prostitute according to the Bible (St. Paul's invective against women's speech comes to mind). But in modern times, now that that old order is slowly being overturned, this schema for women is no longer relevant - hence the reference to "future tense." Why would Judas be offended by her speech? Because he is once again us, the public, who have failed to see the liberating message Gaga has tried to bring through her music and persona, and who have only scorned her. Despite all this, she still "loves" us, trying to get us to see the relevance of her "divinely inspired" message. I'm not suggesting that Gaga is a prophet or a saint - I'm just suggesting that her actual message is not demonic, but is actually quite beatific. The liberation of mankind from sin and guilt is the whole purpose of the Passion. The use of an "ear condom" implies that Gaga's message is a sexual act - it is a way of consummating the love she believes she represents. It is interesting though that she still wants him to kiss her if he's offended by her words. It's as if she wants to provoke discussion and thought - not suppress it. The debate she stirs is also a kind of loving act; the discourse it raises furthers the relationship between Gaga and her audience. If Judas doesn't even care enough about the message to even have a negative reaction, she tells him he can just ignore her. So once again, the textual discourse created by Gaga is an opportunity to bring polar forces together in a kind of sexual balance - love.

Part 4: Concluding Remarks

Who, then, are the Illuminati here? Is it Gaga, who tells everyone to be themselves and to not feel restricted by societal oppression? Or is it the ignorant Christians who think they understand the Lord's message but really just miserably botch it up? who convince people to keep their heads in the sand? I believe the answer is horrifyingly clear. I will admit that Lady Gaga seems to have been expressing Crowleyan/Qabbalistic ideas, and perhaps has been using certain symbolism to this end. But by no means is this a bad thing. If the message makes people feel better about themselves, how is that wrong? The real "Illuminati" want you to feel guilty, to feel sinful, to feel incompetent, so that you keep running back to them for "salvation." How is this healthy?

Love Through the Dark: The Implications of a Dying God

Since today is Good Friday, a singularly bleak day in the Christian calendar, I thought I would take a moment to reflect on the meaning of the Pascal Sacrifice.

Of course, the mythology tells us that Christ was incarnated in the flesh in order to redeem mankind from sin and to liberate those trapped in Hell by dying on the cross. Superficially, it is easy to see this action simply as one of the deepest love and conviction. At another glance, it seems to me to become a quagmire of questions. How does God incarnate himself into one singular human being when God supposedly exists within all things? One only has to read the beginning of St. Augustine's Confessions in order to see how this is a conundrum in itself. But it is highly relevant for our discussion here. If God is within everything, including "sinful" humanity, then what is Christ? Metaphysically speaking, he is co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and he is also the Logos, the Word of God - the mouthpiece and inventor of the Divine Will. But this still doesn't help us understand his incarnated form as both God and man. How can everyone be made of God, be a part of God's body, and there be only one Son? And if all of this "stuff" is also God, who is supposedly infinite and eternal, how can it "die" in the first place? Can we not only say that it appears to die?

The only solution that I can remotely come up with is that we are all the Son of God. Therefore, we must all equally partake in the Passion, and we are all enduring its trials, its temptations, and pains, its changeability as opposed to the divine's constancy. The Passion becomes not a literally story about the redemption of man, but is revealed to be a deeply moving allegory about the nature of divinity in its relationship with that which it has created. We are taught that God sacrifices Himself out of love. Therefore, we must draw the conclusion that God loves not only us humans, but loves the gross and the fine equally. The term "sacrifice" implies this, as well as the old medieval adage that Christ dies a dishonorable death, one suited for common criminals. God humbles Himself in order to love and admire his own creation, his own Self. For how can a Being that is One distinguish any part of itself? How can it say that it loves anything if it sees everything as one and equal with itself? Love therefore demands divine sacrifice.

How, then, does this affect the most crucial aspect of the myth? - that Christ's sacrifice opens the door to Heaven. I believe there are several ways we have to look at it. Firstly, if we consider the sacrifice in terms of God's general incarnation - the divine becoming mortal and becoming subject to change in order to experience itself - then the Paradise that is opened is not one beyond our reach, but is rather the world we are exposed to by living. Another way of looking at it is that, since Christ also represents the recognition that the human contains and literally is the divine, Christ's sacrifice provides us with the opportunity to understand our divine natures. By doing so, we come to understand that we are here for love, and that all our experiences happen for love. Everything we see as painful can also be seen as an expression of divinity's intense love. It loves what it has created so much to the point where it is willing to surrender itself unto endless terrible experiences. It never questions these experiences either. Christ gives in quite willingly, and tells us to literally "turn the other cheek."

Now, Christ is also a King of Glory. This humility must not be taken to extremes. The Crown of Thorns is a symbol of triumph through adversity, and we must all wear our respective Crowns with pride and eagerness, not with shame and despair. Simply being in existence warrants the crown of paradise - there is little reward beyond this. The only other reward is love in its purest sense! It is not love that hinges on expectations, falsity, and foolishness, rather, it is the love of a lover that has so forceful a faith in itself that it believes that the death/surrender of love cannot destroy it. It sees dissolution into the beloved (in this case Christ as the lover dissolves himself in physical death and pain - the ultimate condition of his beloved, corporeality) as an opportunity only for joy and pleasure. It is fearless, and bears no inhibitions.

Since everything in the physical world then is a sacrifice of sorts on the part of the divine, then the idea of sacrifice nullifies itself. Again, there is only love - there is no greater love. This analysis begs the question, "why do we give things up for Lent?" Is it not enough that we take a whole month to egotistically celebrate ourselves as beings who undergo sacrifice for love? It's ironic in this light, isn't it? It's as if humanity has been playing the largest prank possible on itself. Happy April Fool's Day! it would seem. So Easter should not remind you that you are a sinful being, racked with guilt and grief. It should not hammer into you the idea that the only recompense is self-sacrifice. It should, however, remind you that you are constantly going through this self-sacrifice already, and that it is a wonderful, amazing, miraculous experience. The only thing which you should feel guilty of is not enjoying it all enough.

This is the Kingdom of Heaven. Its doors have been opened for you in all sincerity and love. It is a virginal paradise, with inexhaustible potential. Learn to make use of it.

Image: The Crucifixion by Raphael

Knight of Wands in Nietzsche

Came across this interesting passage in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. I must say, it matches up pretty exactly with the description for the Knight of Wands in the Book of Thoth. Remember that the Knight is 1/3 Scorpio and 2/3's Sagittarius.

"He who can command, he who is by nature 'master,' he who is violent in act and bearing - what has he to do with contracts! One does not reckon with such natures; they come like fate, without reason, consideration, or pretext; they appear as lightning appears, too terrible, too sudden, too convincing, too 'different' even to be hated. Their work is an instinctive creation and imposition of forms; they are the most involuntary, unconscious artists there are - wherever they appear something new soon arises, a ruling structure that lives, in which parts and functions are delimited and coordinated, in which nothing whatever finds a place that has not first been assigned a 'meaning' in relation to the whole. They do not know what guilt, responsibility, or consideration are, these born organizers; they exemplify that terrible artists' egoism that has the look of bronze and knows itself justified to all eternity in its 'work,' like a mother in her child..."

-Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals

trans. Walter Kaufmann and RJ Hollingdale, Vintage Books Edition, pg. 86-87.