My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Books or readings recommended for the “construction of the internal Temple".

Mark89

Registered User
The neophyte and the Mason Apprentice must be aware that they are a rough stone, which must be polished, in such a way that it can be used in the construction of the Internal Temple, which has not been finished because the "secret word" is lost with the death of the master Hiram.

In a humble way, I would recommend at least the following readings:

- The Kybalion of Hermes Trismegisto.
- The four Agreements.

Then it is important to understand the essence that we are not alone in the universe, so a reading about the cosmology and mythology of origin of the world, could be recommended. Personally, I would recommend:

- Popol Vuh.
- Bhagavad-gītā.
- The poem of Gilgameš.

Then all the acquired knowledge can be internalized for the "construction of our temple", and we can relate it to the sacred books of the Abrahamic and polytheist religions, among others, with which we will have an invaluable knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

Elexir

Registered User
L
The neophyte and the Mason Apprentice must be aware that they are a rough stone, which must be polished, in such a way that it can be used in the construction of the Internal Temple, which has not been finished because the "secret word" is lost with the death of the master Hiram.

In a humble way, I would recommend at least the following readings:

- The Kybalion of Hermes Trismegisto.
- The four Agreements.

Then it is important to understand the essence that we are not alone in the universe, so a reading about the cosmology and mythology of origin of the world, could be recommended. Personally, I would recommend:

- Popol Vuh.
- Bhagavad-gītā.
- The poem of Gilgameš.

Then all the acquired knowledge can be internalized for the "construction of our temple", and we can relate it to the sacred books of the Abrahamic and polytheist religions, among others, with which we will have an invaluable knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

The kyballion is by the tree initiates not by Hermes.
I honestly think that to understand the world in wich freemasonry apeard a deep study of history is the best start.
 

Mark89

Registered User
L


The kyballion is by the tree initiates not by Hermes.
I honestly think that to understand the world in wich freemasonry apeard a deep study of history is the best start.

True, the book is attributed to the Three Initiates, however its authorship can be attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, even if metaphorically, just as the Hippocratic Corpus is attributed to Hippocrates despite not knowing if he actually wrote it.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

CLewey44

Registered User
From my understanding, the Kyballion was written by the Three Initiates, but one of them is rumored to have been Bro. Paul Foster Case. A regular Freemason from the state of NY.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
My experience is that newbies, initiates and apprentices who get involved in reading philosophical and theological materials* before they lay their apprentice and fellow craft foundations are asking for trouble. They start chasing all sorts of imaginary metaphysical things before they have mastered their basic physical things.

There are countless warnings provided all over, but the Sorcerer's Apprentice captures it best.

* You know... metaphysical stuff
 

CLewey44

Registered User
My experience is that newbies, initiates and apprentices who get involved in reading philosophical and theological materials* before they lay their apprentice and fellow craft foundations are asking for trouble. They start chasing all sorts of imaginary metaphysical things before they have mastered their basic physical things.

There are countless warnings provided all over, but the Sorcerer's Apprentice captures it best.

* You know... metaphysical stuff
Very true. Easy to get off in left field sometimes.
 

Mark89

Registered User
From my understanding, the Kyballion was written by the Three Initiates, but one of them is rumored to have been Bro. Paul Foster Case. A regular Freemason from the state of NY.

Thank you for the information. Some says that The Kybalion was inspired in the teaching from Hermes, but there can be metaphoric.
 

Mark89

Registered User
My experience is that newbies, initiates and apprentices who get involved in reading philosophical and theological materials* before they lay their apprentice and fellow craft foundations are asking for trouble. They start chasing all sorts of imaginary metaphysical things before they have mastered their basic physical things.

There are countless warnings provided all over, but the Sorcerer's Apprentice captures it best.

* You know... metaphysical stuff

A good reflection, it may be true. Here in Colombia, I was instructed to read books on the basic physical aspects, at the time I had to start the metaphysical readings, accompanied by my own readings on the history of Freemasonry (York Rite, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Memphis Rite and Mizraim , etc), its objectives, among many other information.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
... the history of Freemasonry (York Rite, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Memphis Rite and Mizraim , etc), its objectives, among many other information.
These too need to be taken with a sack of salt. What masquerades as Freemasonic history is all too often lore, conjecture and tales told supporting not so obvious agendas.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
My experience is that newbies, initiates and apprentices who get involved in reading philosophical and theological materials* before they lay their apprentice and fellow craft foundations are asking for trouble. They start chasing all sorts of imaginary metaphysical things before they have mastered their basic physical things.

There are countless warnings provided all over, but the Sorcerer's Apprentice captures it best.

* You know... metaphysical stuff

As long as you have a strong resistance to conspiracy theory type thinking you should do just fine reading the metaphysical stuff. If you're one of the folks interested in the topic at all which most aren't.

Done right science answers the how, religion or philosophy answers the why, both without conflicting with the other. This is something very easily gotten wrong. The second degree teaches us to study the science stuff. The metaphysical stuff is addressed briefly in the obligations with words like hidden mysteries that don't even appear in the obligations in all jurisdictions.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
As long as you have a strong resistance to conspiracy theory type thinking you should do just fine reading the metaphysical stuff. If you're one of the folks interested in the topic at all which most aren't.
We'll have to politely disagree on this point as a prescribed saving grace. I've seen far too many people go down rabbit holes of imaginary wonder because they simple didn't have a strong foundation telling them what was before them was either not based upon reality or rhetorically worded to suck them in with little to no possibility of escape.
Done right science answers the how, religion or philosophy answers the why, both without conflicting with the other. This is something very easily gotten wrong.
Agreed!
The second degree teaches us to study the science stuff.
It doesn't teach us this. It only points us toward it and the arts. Both prepare us to spot BS no matter how artfully presented.
The metaphysical stuff is addressed briefly in the obligations with words like hidden mysteries that don't even appear in the obligations in all jurisdictions.
The metaphysical stuff should be left alone until one masters the physics stuff. It's the entire reason why such literature was not provided to students until AFTER they got the 7 LAs&Sa down pat. The LAs&Sa prepared students for the serious study of Theology and Philosophy; and not before hand.
 

otherstar

Registered User
The metaphysical stuff should be left alone until one masters the physics stuff. It's the entire reason why such literature was not provided to students until AFTER they got the 7 LAs&Sa down pat. The LAs&Sa prepared students for the serious study of Theology and Philosophy; and not before hand.

Actually, isn't the reason you should study metaphysics after physics because you don't even know metaphysics is possible as a science until you prove the existence of something immaterial in physics (e.g. as Aristotle does by proving the existence of the Prime Mover at the end of his Physics, and Aquinas does by showing that the Prime Mover is actually God in his work the Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk I, Ch. 13? BTW, I am using the word science in the more traditional sense of sure and evident knowledge gained through demonstration, and/or the knowledge of things through their causes).
 

otherstar

Registered User
Some of our greatest scientists were metaphysicists and arguably their metaphysical skills were central to their discovery of material sciences.

Newton wrote more about alchemy than he did about mathematics. Read Tesla's interviews to find the metaphysics that underlay his discoveries.

The word you probably should use is occultists.

Metaphysics, especially as understood by men like Newton, et al., is the branch of philosophy that concerned with first principles, such as being, substance, causality, and the like. Many of our greatest scientists actually spent much time denying that there is such a thing as metaphysics and that the material world is all that exists.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Actually, isn't the reason you should study metaphysics after physics because you don't even know metaphysics is possible as a science until you prove the existence of something immaterial in physics (e.g. as Aristotle does by proving the existence of the Prime Mover at the end of his Physics, and Aquinas does by showing that the Prime Mover is actually God in his work the Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk I, Ch. 13? BTW, I am using the word science in the more traditional sense of sure and evident knowledge gained through demonstration, and/or the knowledge of things through their causes).
That works too. There are multiple reasons, many of which involve an underlying lack or emotional and intellectual maturity on the part of the seeker.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Some of our greatest scientists were metaphysicists and arguably their metaphysical skills were central to their discovery of material sciences.

Newton wrote more about alchemy than he did about mathematics. Read Tesla's interviews to find the metaphysics that underlay his discoveries.

Science is a mystical process. Newton gets called sometimes the first modern scientist, other times the last magician. These descriptions miss that the discovery phase of science is a mystical act. I suggest that Newton did his numerology to build his incite rather like body builders do resistance training to build their muscles.

Not all scientists ever need the mystical part because most of science is puzzle solving.

Rabbis teach Kabalah to folks after the age of 40 traditionally. This is related to the discussion of how and why to tell when you are ready to study the mystical.
 

otherstar

Registered User
Science is a mystical process. Newton gets called sometimes the first modern scientist, other times the last magician. These descriptions miss that the discovery phase of science is a mystical act. I suggest that Newton did his numerology to build his incite rather like body builders do resistance training to build their muscles.

Not all scientists ever need the mystical part because most of science is puzzle solving.

Rabbis teach Kabalah to folks after the age of 40 traditionally. This is related to the discussion of how and why to tell when you are ready to study the mystical.

Could you please explain what you men by saying that science is mystical? If you are understanding science in the classical sense, I understand what you're saying, but if you are using science in the contemporary sense of experimental/mathematical science based on testable explanations and predictions about the world around I, I have a much tougher time seeing how it is mystical...quite the opposite in fact (e.g. scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson are emphatically anti-mystical).
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Could you please explain what you men by saying that science is mystical? If you are understanding science in the classical sense, I understand what you're saying, but if you are using science in the contemporary sense of experimental/mathematical science based on testable explanations and predictions about the world around I, I have a much tougher time seeing how it is mystical...quite the opposite in fact (e.g. scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson are emphatically anti-mystical).

I definitely explicitly mean the modern rendition of the Scientific Method.

The first step of the process is Formulate a Hypothesis. Completely and totally mystical. The more major or innovative the discovery the more mystical it is. Here's a non-mystical phrasing for a mystical act. Pull an idea out of your butt. Here are a couple of mystical phrasing for the same act of creation - Dip into the well of infinite knowledge and see what comes up in the bucket. Look at chaos and find order. The step can be phrased in hundreds of ways and every single phrasing is a description of the mystical act of creating knowledge - Which may well be incorrect knowledge.

All of the other steps of the modern rendition of the Scientific Method are puzzle solving, falsification or psychological tricks that exploit the human desire for fame and/or fortune. Those steps are to see if what came up in the bucket was incorrect knowledge. It usually is incorrect.

Some scientists spend their careers duplicating the results of others. Necessary but without using the mystical part. Most scientists fill in the gaps of existing knowledge which is like a minor league version of the Formulate a Hypothesis step. Those scientists who gain fame make the discoveries that push out the limits of knowledge creating the gaps that get filled in which is the major league version of Formulate a Hypothesis.

The process of discovery in mathematics is equally mystical for exactly the same reasons. I'm deeply steeped in Science having gone to Caltech (flunked out) and started my civilian career working on the space program at NASA JPL (one of the better uses my student ID card was ever put to was getting that internship). I'm not as deeply steeped in Mathematics so I don't know the equivalent terminology.

In Engineering we call that step Invention rather than Discovery and our target is the Patent Gazette rather than Acta Physica or other science journals.
 

otherstar

Registered User
I definitely explicitly mean the modern rendition of the Scientific Method.

The first step of the process is Formulate a Hypothesis. Completely and totally mystical. The more major or innovative the discovery the more mystical it is. Here's a non-mystical phrasing for a mystical act. Pull an idea out of your butt. Here are a couple of mystical phrasing for the same act of creation - Dip into the well of infinite knowledge and see what comes up in the bucket. Look at chaos and find order. The step can be phrased in hundreds of ways and every single phrasing is a description of the mystical act of creating knowledge - Which may well be incorrect knowledge.

Methinks you and I use a totally different definition of the word "mystical." I've always considered things to be mystical if they are tied to more of a religious type of experience, like an experience of God in Church or at prayer.

The non-mystical type of experience you described could just as easily be explained in Aristotelian terms: we experience things, and draw inferences from our experiences. We also store our experiences in our memories. Then our mind uses its imaginative powers (not in the sense of creating stories, but in the sense of our minds ability to be resourceful) to combine ideas and create a question. There is nothing mystical about this. This is all just using our rational powers as human beings.

All of the other steps of the modern rendition of the Scientific Method are puzzle solving, falsification or psychological tricks that exploit the human desire for fame and/or fortune. Those steps are to see if what came up in the bucket was incorrect knowledge. It usually is incorrect.

So cynical.

Some scientists spend their careers duplicating the results of others. Necessary but without using the mystical part. Most scientists fill in the gaps of existing knowledge which is like a minor league version of the Formulate a Hypothesis step. Those scientists who gain fame make the discoveries that push out the limits of knowledge creating the gaps that get filled in which is the major league version of Formulate a Hypothesis.

So I guess there is no room for normal human inquiry with you, no?

The process of discovery in mathematics is equally mystical for exactly the same reasons. I'm deeply steeped in Science having gone to Caltech (flunked out) and started my civilian career working on the space program at NASA JPL (one of the better uses my student ID card was ever put to was getting that internship). I'm not as deeply steeped in Mathematics so I don't know the equivalent terminology.

In Engineering we call that step Invention rather than Discovery and our target is the Patent Gazette rather than Acta Physica or other science journals.

I still wouldn't call that mystical. Abstractive, insofar as we abstract mathematical ideas from physical things, but not mystical. We may just have to agree to disagree. I think we humans derive all of our knowledge from our senses. Then, we reflect upon that knowledge and combine ideas to form other ideas and arguments. From those arguments, we draw conclusions (in Aristotelian Logic, I've just described the three acts of the intellect: simple apprehension, judgement, and reasoning).

FWIW, my academic background is Aristotelian/Thomist philosophy (Master's Degree) and I focused on the Philosophy of Nature, Philosophy of Science, and the Philosophy of Mathematics.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Methinks you and I use a totally different definition of the word "mystical." I've always considered things to be mystical if they are tied to more of a religious type of experience, like an experience of God in Church or at prayer.

The non-mystical type of experience you described could just as easily be explained in Aristotelian terms: we experience things, and draw inferences from our experiences. We also store our experiences in our memories. Then our mind uses its imaginative powers (not in the sense of creating stories, but in the sense of our minds ability to be resourceful) to combine ideas and create a question. There is nothing mystical about this. This is all just using our rational powers as human beings.

If your experiences of science or mathematics are any less moving than your experiences in an ecstatic celebration at church, then I am saddened at how you have experienced science and mathematics. And vice versa.

Of course our definitions of mystical differ. Where's the fun in disagreeing. I even know people who define it as the stuff that does not work. I prefer a usage that is useful. And more importantly that is the way it's used by practicing mystics.

I have encountered plenty of practicing mystics who nod when they read about Newton's numerology and how it can act as strength training for insight. Then they get fidgety when I apply the principle to mathematics. Math is one of the highest forms of mysticism in that view but a lot of people get uncomfortable when they get too close to it.

And here you are with the opposite. You used the word imagination not noticing the act of creating new knowledge. You got fidgety just like a practicing mystic shown a calculus book.

There is symmetry.
 
Top