Ritual representation and theurgic practice
…Well, if football was popular then as it is now, I’m sure it would
have been included...
Dear Paolo, I have appreciated the placidity of your intervention. A refreshing
note, dare I say, for its humour despite the subject being in many ways “thorny”,
because it causes passions close to ire and because religion is a topic usually
accompanied by some partial sympathy.
Talking about religions means drawing the attention on a set of materialistic,
passional, carnal and sensual rules, despite the attempts to show a different
side of it. These rules have always laid bare the worst sides of mankind (have
a look around), despite the acclaimed virtues.
Things change when we talk about spirituality. It is a subtle subject that
means being able to distinguish between the metaphysical “spiritual power”
and the “holy bungles” made by man for man and his limits.
This distinction is not possible in many ways; because we are all “depositaries”
of an impressive cultural transference that makes it difficult for us to distinguish
the “profession” of the religious materialism from spirituality,
which doesn’t have anything in common with the physicality (even moral).
Symbolic initiate are caught in the whirl of this superficial culture. They
are not able to distinguish the “devotional practices” of the exoterical
rituals from the spirituality (inner light) of which they consider themselves
If this was true, the exoterical (exterior) rituals would be esoterical (interior)
ones, with no need for symbolic materials or false instruments.
This is the heart of the matter, dear friend.
Discussions are held about the principles of a conventional faith, forgetting
that spirituality is pure abstraction and immateriality. Physical rituals thought
to be sacred are carried out, not knowing that the only initiatory rituality
is the theurgic one.
How many Masons can distinguish between ritual representation
and theurgic practice?
Here, dear friend. Talking about initiation everything can be said.
Furthermore, I think that many Masonic misunderstandings are caused by confusion
about the origins. For example by words like these: « … builders
of cathedrals, … »
Some Masons find gratification in calling themselves heirs of one or another
They don’t know its fundaments; they can just show off using some exterior
symbols like Templar decorations, Rosy-Cross or whatever, but without true knowledge.
Some even compare themselves to the creators and builders of Temples and Cathedrals,
forgetting the modest reality of our daily life.
Few want to be heirs of those whose only privilege was to obey without objections
to the orders of the initiate Architects which were depositaries of the “divine
They were bricklayers and stone-cutter, sure not deep experts of religious
stuff or depositary of Ancient initiatory Traditions!
When you mix up the workman with the engineer you are guilty of pride, apart
Everything would be better and easier if we realized that “three raps
of a mallet” aren’t enough to be an initiate or sitting on the tallest
seat to be competent in initiatory matter.
But pride spreads widely underneath masks unable to distinguish between an
initiatory principle (for example the sacred theurgy of the “ancient mysteries”)
and a hedonistic principle (display of the “small mysteries”).
Esonet Editorial Staff