The Death of Marcus Aurelius
Sunday, October 18, 2026
The Basel Dance of Death 21
"Gracious and pure Lady Abbess,
How do you have such a small belly? Still, I will not hold that against you,
I would sooner bite myself in the finger."
"I have read from the Psalter,
In the choir before the Lord's altar.
Now no praying will avail me,
I too must here follow after Death."
In the choir before the Lord's altar.
Now no praying will avail me,
I too must here follow after Death."
Saturday, October 17, 2026
Ellis Walker, Epictetus in Poetical Paraphrase 66
Doth any one bathe earlier than the time
That's usually observed, or drink much wine;
Censure him not, nor say 'tis not well done,
Say only, he drinks much, or washeth soon.
For why should you, 'till you have understood
His reasons, judge his actions bad or good?
Perhaps he washeth early, with intent
Thus to refresh himself with watching spent.
Whate'er your grave sobriety may think,
In him perhaps 'tis temperance to drink;
Perhaps his constitution may require
More wine, his lamp more oil to feed its fire.
First know the reasons then you may proceed
With safety to dispraise, or praise the deed:
Thus will you never any action blame,
And then on second thought commend the same.
That's usually observed, or drink much wine;
Censure him not, nor say 'tis not well done,
Say only, he drinks much, or washeth soon.
For why should you, 'till you have understood
His reasons, judge his actions bad or good?
Perhaps he washeth early, with intent
Thus to refresh himself with watching spent.
Whate'er your grave sobriety may think,
In him perhaps 'tis temperance to drink;
Perhaps his constitution may require
More wine, his lamp more oil to feed its fire.
First know the reasons then you may proceed
With safety to dispraise, or praise the deed:
Thus will you never any action blame,
And then on second thought commend the same.
William Hogarth, Industry and Idleness 4
Many of my peers are so on fire with the struggle for social justice, that they feel the need to despise anyone who is rich, condemn all forms of profit, and cry out for the abolition of property itself. They look at me funny when I suggest that it is not money, but the love of money, that is the root of all evil.
Given my predilection for sticking it to the man, it took me some time to appreciate the difference between affluence and avarice, and I still need to remind myself why worldly success is entirely compatible with good character. Indeed, if we all chose to play our parts with integrity, and refused to be tempted by sleazy shortcuts, then the wonderful scene depicted here would be the rule, and not the exception.
Hogarth presents us with an example of good business, in the best possible sense of the word. By proving himself worthy of trust, Francis has now been granted a position of authority, gaining control over the weaver's keys. ledger, and cash. This is as it should be, and it reflects well on both the dedication of the apprentice and the fairness of his master.
The gloves lying on the desk appear as if they are two hands shaking, which is a perfect image for how any honest enterprise should operate. Sadly, we are far too familiar with workers being exploited, which blinds us to the fact that the greatest gains are always the result of friendship and cooperation. A profit is not selfish when it is distributed according to merit instead of privilege.
Observe the demeanor of the master: he is proud of his achievements, and he is proud of the young man who has worked together with him. Observe the demeanor of the apprentice: he stands with a glorious combination of confidence and reverence. I wish I had a boss like that, who would offer me such familiarity in return for my service.
In case there is any doubt that things are going well, the man delivering supplies is wearing the livery of the Corporation of London—a government contract is usually a good sign! The calendar hanging by the desk shows an allegory of Industry assaulting Time, for it is within our power to make the most of the moments we are given.
The standoff between the dog and the cat may represent the contrast between Francis and Thomas, which in turn symbolizes the deeper conflict of diligence and indolence. Though my own preference has always been for cats, I can accept why a stalwart companion is more reliable than a shrieking ball of fur.
I would humbly suggest that tearing down the free market is not the best solution to inequality. If it is truly free, then all of us will have the opportunity to prove our worth, and there will be no need for resentment and recrimination. I can decide to begin with myself.
Matthew 25:21
Well done good and faithful
servant, thou hast been faithful
over a few things, I will make thee
Ruler over many things.
William Hogarth, Industry and Idleness 4: The Industrious 'Prentice a Favourite, and Entrusted by His Master (1747)
Friday, October 16, 2026
Udana 1.3
When the seven days had come to a close, the Exalted One arose from the state of trance and in the last watch of the night thoroughly thought out the chain of cause and effect in both the direct and indirect orders.
Now by the complete destruction of Ignorance, there is cessation of Conformations. And the Exalted One in this connection, on that occasion, breathed forth this solemn utterance:
"When the conditions of existence dawn upon the strenuous, meditative Brahmana,
He stands, scattering the hosts of the Tempter, as the Sun, diffusing its rays through space."
Sayings of Publilius Syrus 202
IMAGE: Jacques-Laurent Agasse, Androcles and the Lion (c. 1810)
.jpg)
Thursday, October 15, 2026
Plutarch, The Life of Cato the Younger 33
No one spoke against the law except Cato, and him Caesar ordered to be dragged from the rostra to prison. Cato did not any the more remit his bold utterances, but as he walked along discoursed about the law and advised the people to put a stop to such legislation.
Moreover, the senate followed him with downcast looks, as well as the best part of the people in silence, though they looked annoyed and troubled, so that Caesar could not fail to see that they were displeased; but he was obstinate, and expected that Cato would resort to appeal or entreaty, and therefore had him led along.
However, when it was clear that Cato did not so much as think of doing anything of the sort, Caesar was overcome by the shame and infamy of his course, and by his own secret persuasions induced one of the tribunes of the people to rescue Cato.
Nevertheless, by these laws and by other favors Caesar's party so cajoled the people as to get a vote passed giving to Caesar the government of Illyria and all Gaul, with an army of four legions, for five years, although Cato warned the people that they themselves by their own votes were establishing a tyrant in their citadel.
They also unlawfully transferred Publius Clodius from patrician to plebeian rank and got him elected tribune of the people, a man who, in order to secure Cicero's banishment as his reward, was using all his political influence for the gratification of the people.
For consuls, too, they secured the election of Calpurnius Piso, who was Caesar's father-in‑law, and Aulus Gabinius, a man from the lap of Pompey, as those say who knew his ways of life.
-en.svg.png)
Seneca, Moral Letters 87.9
Hence, good does not spring from evil, any more than figs grow from olive trees. Things which grow correspond to their seed; and goods cannot depart from their class. As that which is honorable does not grow from that which is base, so neither does good grow from evil. For the honorable and the good are identical.
Certain of our school oppose this statement as follows: “Let us suppose that money taken from any source whatsoever is a good; even though it is taken by an act of sacrilege, the money does not on that account derive its origin from sacrilege.
“You may get my meaning through the following illustration: In the same jar there is a piece of gold and there is a serpent. If you take the gold from the jar, it is not just because the serpent is there too, I say, that the jar yields me the gold—because it contains the serpent as well—but it yields the gold in spite of containing the serpent also.
“Similarly, gain results from sacrilege, not just because sacrilege is a base and accursed act, but because it contains gain also. As the serpent in the jar is an evil, and not the gold which lies there, beside the serpent; so in an act of sacrilege it is the crime, not the profit, that is evil.”
But I differ from these men; for the conditions in each case are not at all the same. In the one instance I can take the gold without the serpent, in the other I cannot make the profit without committing the sacrilege. The gain in the latter case does not lie side by side with the crime; it is blended with the crime.
Certain of our school oppose this statement as follows: “Let us suppose that money taken from any source whatsoever is a good; even though it is taken by an act of sacrilege, the money does not on that account derive its origin from sacrilege.
“You may get my meaning through the following illustration: In the same jar there is a piece of gold and there is a serpent. If you take the gold from the jar, it is not just because the serpent is there too, I say, that the jar yields me the gold—because it contains the serpent as well—but it yields the gold in spite of containing the serpent also.
“Similarly, gain results from sacrilege, not just because sacrilege is a base and accursed act, but because it contains gain also. As the serpent in the jar is an evil, and not the gold which lies there, beside the serpent; so in an act of sacrilege it is the crime, not the profit, that is evil.”
But I differ from these men; for the conditions in each case are not at all the same. In the one instance I can take the gold without the serpent, in the other I cannot make the profit without committing the sacrilege. The gain in the latter case does not lie side by side with the crime; it is blended with the crime.
—from Seneca, Moral Letters 87
The effect will always be a likeness of the cause. Do not permit the sophists to perplex you, because this is a matter of logical identity, and their usual dilemmas are derived from jumbled accounts of the good.
Go back to the beginning, recognizing why our human good is defined by our human nature, through which any other conditions can thereby become beneficial or harmful to us, and then you will no longer be troubled by the contorted conundrums.
I could go on for pages and pages about the gold and the serpent example, along with dozens of others that are intended to trip us up, but I will resist the temptation. It is enough to know how the problems arise from being distracted, by fiddling about with the circumstances alone, instead of relating them back to the proper measure of our understanding.
The critic’s analogy falls short, since the good or the evil is through the disposition, and not, strictly speaking, in either the snake or the money: I do not have to do anything harmful in order to get at something profitable.
Some time ago, I was deeply frustrated by a friend—I use the term loosely—who refused to tell his girlfriend that he was also seeing someone else on the side. I nagged him incessantly to come clean, to be honest about his intentions, on the grounds that nothing would go well for him if he failed to uphold his own integrity.
“What use is the outcome—whether you end up with both of the girls, or one of them, or neither—without the knowledge that you have been a stand-up guy?”
He resisted, of course, and offered many reasons why he could continue to maintain the deception, without any painful consequences. Indeed, he seemed to have convinced himself that he was doing the kindest thing, by not allowing a revelation of the truth to upset anyone’s feelings.
“What she doesn’t know won’t hurt her.”
“Is it your call to decide what she should or shouldn’t know? The best way to help her make the right choice is for you to make the right choice. It will end poorly, not because you will cease to be gratified, but because you will have failed to take any responsibility for yourself.”
He’s a very successful sort of fellow now, though I fear he has yet to learn anything about being a decent sort of fellow. I unfortunately know he is still lying, when he brags about how happy he is.
A few years later, I was on the receiving end of a similar subterfuge, and while I felt great agony from being tricked, there was a far greater sadness from seeing someone I loved turn into a person who was unwilling to love. The good in your life comes from how you choose to give of yourself, not from what you can conspire to receive for yourself.
I cannot isolate the circumstances from one another, based merely upon my preferences, or act as if committing a sin is somehow necessary for getting ahead. It is a conscience, whether informed or deficient, that will bind it all together or tear it all apart.
The effect will always be a likeness of the cause. Do not permit the sophists to perplex you, because this is a matter of logical identity, and their usual dilemmas are derived from jumbled accounts of the good.
Go back to the beginning, recognizing why our human good is defined by our human nature, through which any other conditions can thereby become beneficial or harmful to us, and then you will no longer be troubled by the contorted conundrums.
I could go on for pages and pages about the gold and the serpent example, along with dozens of others that are intended to trip us up, but I will resist the temptation. It is enough to know how the problems arise from being distracted, by fiddling about with the circumstances alone, instead of relating them back to the proper measure of our understanding.
The critic’s analogy falls short, since the good or the evil is through the disposition, and not, strictly speaking, in either the snake or the money: I do not have to do anything harmful in order to get at something profitable.
Some time ago, I was deeply frustrated by a friend—I use the term loosely—who refused to tell his girlfriend that he was also seeing someone else on the side. I nagged him incessantly to come clean, to be honest about his intentions, on the grounds that nothing would go well for him if he failed to uphold his own integrity.
“What use is the outcome—whether you end up with both of the girls, or one of them, or neither—without the knowledge that you have been a stand-up guy?”
He resisted, of course, and offered many reasons why he could continue to maintain the deception, without any painful consequences. Indeed, he seemed to have convinced himself that he was doing the kindest thing, by not allowing a revelation of the truth to upset anyone’s feelings.
“What she doesn’t know won’t hurt her.”
“Is it your call to decide what she should or shouldn’t know? The best way to help her make the right choice is for you to make the right choice. It will end poorly, not because you will cease to be gratified, but because you will have failed to take any responsibility for yourself.”
He’s a very successful sort of fellow now, though I fear he has yet to learn anything about being a decent sort of fellow. I unfortunately know he is still lying, when he brags about how happy he is.
A few years later, I was on the receiving end of a similar subterfuge, and while I felt great agony from being tricked, there was a far greater sadness from seeing someone I loved turn into a person who was unwilling to love. The good in your life comes from how you choose to give of yourself, not from what you can conspire to receive for yourself.
I cannot isolate the circumstances from one another, based merely upon my preferences, or act as if committing a sin is somehow necessary for getting ahead. It is a conscience, whether informed or deficient, that will bind it all together or tear it all apart.
—Reflection written in 2/2014
IMAGE: Vincent van Gogh, Olive Trees in a Mountainous Landscape (1889)
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
Tuesday, October 13, 2026
Monday, October 12, 2026
Chuang Tzu 6.15
Once, when it had rained continuously for ten days, Tsze-yü said, "I fear that Tsze-sang may be in distress." So he wrapped up some rice, and went to give it to him to eat.
When he came to Tsze-sang's door, there issued from it sounds between singing and wailing; a lute was struck, and there came the words, "O Father! O Mother! O Heaven! O Men!"
The voice could not sustain itself, and the line was hurriedly pronounced. Tsze-yü entered and said, "Why are you singing, Sir, this line of poetry in such a way?"
The other replied, "I was thinking, and thinking in vain, how it was that I was brought to such extremity. Would my parents have wished me to be so poor?
"Heaven overspreads all without any partial feeling, and so does Earth sustain all—would Heaven and Earth make me so poor with any unkindly feeling?
"I was trying to find out who had done it, and I could not do so. But here I am in this extremity! It is what was appointed for me!"
IMAGE: Ma Yuan, The Yellow River Breaches Its Course (c. 1200)
Seneca, Moral Letters 87.8
“Good does not result from evil. But riches result from greed; therefore, riches are not a good.”
“It is not true,” they say, “that good does not result from evil. For money comes from sacrilege and theft. Accordingly, although sacrilege and theft are evil, yet they are evil only because they work more evil than good. For they bring gain; but the gain is accompanied by fear, anxiety, and torture of mind and body.”
Whoever says this must perforce admit that sacrilege, though it be an evil because it works much evil, is yet partly good because it accomplishes a certain amount of good. What can be more monstrous than this? We have, to be sure, actually convinced the world that sacrilege, theft, and adultery are to be regarded as among the goods.
How many men there are who do not blush at theft, how many who boast of having committed adultery! For petty sacrilege is punished, but sacrilege on a grand scale is honored by a triumphal procession. Besides, sacrilege, if it is wholly good in some respect, will also be honorable and will be called right conduct; for it is conduct which concerns ourselves. But no human being, on serious consideration, admits this idea.
Therefore, goods cannot spring from evil. For if, as you object, sacrilege is an evil for the single reason that it brings on much evil, if you but absolve sacrilege of its punishment and pledge it immunity, sacrilege will be wholly good.
And yet the worst punishment for crime lies in the crime itself. You are mistaken, I maintain, if you propose to reserve your punishments for the hangman or the prison; the crime is punished immediately after it is committed; nay, rather, at the moment when it is committed.
“It is not true,” they say, “that good does not result from evil. For money comes from sacrilege and theft. Accordingly, although sacrilege and theft are evil, yet they are evil only because they work more evil than good. For they bring gain; but the gain is accompanied by fear, anxiety, and torture of mind and body.”
Whoever says this must perforce admit that sacrilege, though it be an evil because it works much evil, is yet partly good because it accomplishes a certain amount of good. What can be more monstrous than this? We have, to be sure, actually convinced the world that sacrilege, theft, and adultery are to be regarded as among the goods.
How many men there are who do not blush at theft, how many who boast of having committed adultery! For petty sacrilege is punished, but sacrilege on a grand scale is honored by a triumphal procession. Besides, sacrilege, if it is wholly good in some respect, will also be honorable and will be called right conduct; for it is conduct which concerns ourselves. But no human being, on serious consideration, admits this idea.
Therefore, goods cannot spring from evil. For if, as you object, sacrilege is an evil for the single reason that it brings on much evil, if you but absolve sacrilege of its punishment and pledge it immunity, sacrilege will be wholly good.
And yet the worst punishment for crime lies in the crime itself. You are mistaken, I maintain, if you propose to reserve your punishments for the hangman or the prison; the crime is punished immediately after it is committed; nay, rather, at the moment when it is committed.
—from Seneca, Moral Letters 87
I must tread lightly here, since I have little patience for those who compromise their supposed principles in order to achieve the most convenient results. They nobly claim they are being pragmatic, when they are really just looking for the easiest way out.
At the heart of it is a confusion about the very nature of the good, treating our moral worth as if it could be calculated in a bank ledger. It’s all fine, they say, as long as we end up in the black, where the profits outweigh the losses, and we can therefore overlook having done a few vicious things, in order to achieve a far greater number of virtuous things.
With the Peripatetics, I do not doubt that goodness admits of degrees, but this does not override a more fundamental distinction of kind. As clever as it sounds, the ends cannot justify the means, because any evil act, however small it may appear, is inherently opposed to any good act, however big it may appear. It is just as illogical when the schemers insist that two wrongs can make a right, when they now are left with only two wrongs.
I believe Marcus Aurelius put it best: “If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.” The Stoic knows full well why fudging it is a form of cowardice. Wickedness takes us in one direction, and righteousness takes us in the other.
“Yes, I admit that stealing the money wasn’t terribly nice, but I now intend to use that money to do a whole bunch of much nicer things. Stop being such a goody two-shoes!”
It isn’t merely about being nice, and it isn’t simply about getting the preferred results. Each and every one of my thoughts, words, and deeds reflects my whole character, such that my integrity as a person depends upon living with prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice, in each and every situation. Anything less is to act in bad faith, to abandon my human dignity.
“Well, it’s not like I burned down the whole church or anything! Does it make such a big difference that I snatched a handful of bills out of the collection plate?”
Even if the quantity happens to be more or less, the quality of the offense remains exactly the same. The true harm is in the soul, not in the circumstances. The real rewards and punishments proceed from the inside, not from the outside. I have gained nothing if I have accumulated more stuff, and I have lost nothing if I have maintained my character. Why would I sell my conscience for the sake of a few comforts?
Once again, the Thomists taught me properly: a good can never come from committing an evil, though a good can always come from suffering an evil. The distinction is a critical one: we are defined by whatever we do, as an efficient cause, which includes transforming whatever might be done to us, as a material cause.
If we start to excuse ourselves from some of the sins, it won’t be too long before we excuse ourselves from all of the sins. When we dodge any of our responsibilities, both to ourselves and to others, we engage in the perverse practice of painting over the rot. Forgive, but do not condone.
I must tread lightly here, since I have little patience for those who compromise their supposed principles in order to achieve the most convenient results. They nobly claim they are being pragmatic, when they are really just looking for the easiest way out.
At the heart of it is a confusion about the very nature of the good, treating our moral worth as if it could be calculated in a bank ledger. It’s all fine, they say, as long as we end up in the black, where the profits outweigh the losses, and we can therefore overlook having done a few vicious things, in order to achieve a far greater number of virtuous things.
With the Peripatetics, I do not doubt that goodness admits of degrees, but this does not override a more fundamental distinction of kind. As clever as it sounds, the ends cannot justify the means, because any evil act, however small it may appear, is inherently opposed to any good act, however big it may appear. It is just as illogical when the schemers insist that two wrongs can make a right, when they now are left with only two wrongs.
I believe Marcus Aurelius put it best: “If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.” The Stoic knows full well why fudging it is a form of cowardice. Wickedness takes us in one direction, and righteousness takes us in the other.
It isn’t merely about being nice, and it isn’t simply about getting the preferred results. Each and every one of my thoughts, words, and deeds reflects my whole character, such that my integrity as a person depends upon living with prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice, in each and every situation. Anything less is to act in bad faith, to abandon my human dignity.
“Well, it’s not like I burned down the whole church or anything! Does it make such a big difference that I snatched a handful of bills out of the collection plate?”
Even if the quantity happens to be more or less, the quality of the offense remains exactly the same. The true harm is in the soul, not in the circumstances. The real rewards and punishments proceed from the inside, not from the outside. I have gained nothing if I have accumulated more stuff, and I have lost nothing if I have maintained my character. Why would I sell my conscience for the sake of a few comforts?
Once again, the Thomists taught me properly: a good can never come from committing an evil, though a good can always come from suffering an evil. The distinction is a critical one: we are defined by whatever we do, as an efficient cause, which includes transforming whatever might be done to us, as a material cause.
If we start to excuse ourselves from some of the sins, it won’t be too long before we excuse ourselves from all of the sins. When we dodge any of our responsibilities, both to ourselves and to others, we engage in the perverse practice of painting over the rot. Forgive, but do not condone.
—Reflection written in 2/2014
Sunday, October 11, 2026
Vivekachudamani 165-166
The breath-formed vesture is formed by the life-breath determined by the five powers of action; through its power the food-formed vesture, guided by the Self and sustained by food, moves in all bodily acts.
Nor is this breath-formed vesture the Self, since it is formed of the vital airs, coming and going like the wind, moving within and without; since it can in no wise discern between right and wrong, between oneself and another, but is ever dependent.
Saturday, October 10, 2026
Wisdom from the Early Cynics, Diogenes 45
To the man who said to him, "You don't know anything, although you are a philosopher," he replied, "Even if I am but a pretender to wisdom, that in itself is philosophy."
When someone brought a child to Diogenes and declared him to be highly gifted and of excellent character, "What need then," said he, "has he of me?"
Those who say admirable things, but fail to do them, he compared to a harp; for the harp, like them, he said, has neither hearing nor perception.
Diogenes was going into a theater, meeting face to face those who were coming out, and being asked why, "This," he said, "is what I practice doing all my life."
—Diogenes Laërtius, 6.64
IMAGE: Taras Shevchenko, Diogenes (1856)
Wisdom from the Early Stoics, Zeno of Citium 85
Their physical doctrine the Stoics divide into sections (1) about bodies; (2) about principles; (3) about elements; (4) about the gods; (5) about bounding surfaces and space whether filled or empty.
This is a division into species; but the generic division is into three parts, dealing with (i.) the universe; (ii.) the elements; (iii.) the subject of causation.
The part dealing with the universe admits, they say, of division into two: for with one aspect of it the mathematicians also are concerned, in so far as they treat questions relating to the fixed stars and the planets, e.g. whether the sun is or is not just so large as it appears to be, and the same about the moon, the question of their revolutions, and other inquiries of the same sort.
But there is another aspect or field of cosmological inquiry, which belongs to the physicists alone: this includes such questions as what the substance of the universe is, whether the sun and the stars are made up of form and matter, whether the world has had a beginning in time or not, whether it is animate or inanimate, whether it is destructible or indestructible, whether it is governed by providence, and all the rest.
The part concerned with causation, again, is itself subdivided into two. And in one of its aspects medical inquiries have a share in it, in so far as it involves investigation of the ruling principle of the soul and the phenomena of soul, seeds, and the like.
Whereas the other part is claimed by the mathematicians also, e.g. how vision is to be explained, what causes the image on the mirror, what is the origin of clouds, thunder, rainbows, halos, comets, and the like.
—Diogenes Laërtius, 7.132-133
.png)
Friday, October 9, 2026
Songs of Innocence 15
William Blake (1757-1827)
Sound the Flute!
Now it's mute.
Birds delight
Day and Night.
Nightingale
In the dale
Lark in Sky
Merrily
Merrily Merrily to welcome in the Year.
Little Boy
Full of joy.
Little Girl
Sweet and small,
Cock does crow
So do you.
Merry voice
Infant noise
Merrily Merrily to welcome in the Year.
Little Lamb
Here I am,
Come and lick
My white neck.
Let me pull
Your soft Wool.
Let me kiss
Your soft face.
Merrily Merrily we welcome in the Year.
Now it's mute.
Birds delight
Day and Night.
Nightingale
In the dale
Lark in Sky
Merrily
Merrily Merrily to welcome in the Year.
Little Boy
Full of joy.
Little Girl
Sweet and small,
Cock does crow
So do you.
Merry voice
Infant noise
Merrily Merrily to welcome in the Year.
Little Lamb
Here I am,
Come and lick
My white neck.
Let me pull
Your soft Wool.
Let me kiss
Your soft face.
Merrily Merrily we welcome in the Year.
_object_22_Spring.jpg)
_object_23_Spring_p2.jpg)
Seneca, Moral Letters 87.7
Why, then, is the wise man great? Because he has a great soul. Accordingly, it is true that that which falls to the lot even of the most despicable person is not a good.
Thus, I should never regard inactivity as a good; for even the tree-frog and the flea possess this quality. Nor should I regard rest and freedom from trouble as a good; for what is more at leisure than a worm?
Do you ask what it is that produces the wise man? That which produces a god. You must grant that the wise man has in an element of godliness, heavenliness, grandeur. The good does not come to everyone, nor does it allow any random person to possess it. Behold:
“What fruits each country bears, or will not bear;
Here corn, and there the vine, grow richlier.
And elsewhere still the tender tree and grass
Unbidden clothe themselves in green. Seest thou
How Tmolus ships its saffron perfumes forth,
And ivory comes from Ind; soft Sheba sends
Its incense, and the unclad Chalybes
Their iron.”
These products are apportioned to separate countries in order that human beings may be constrained to traffic among themselves, each seeking something from his neighbor in his turn.
So the Supreme Good has also its own abode. It does not grow where ivory grows, or iron. Do you ask where the Supreme Good dwells? In the soul. And unless the soul be pure and holy, there is no room in it for God.
Thus, I should never regard inactivity as a good; for even the tree-frog and the flea possess this quality. Nor should I regard rest and freedom from trouble as a good; for what is more at leisure than a worm?
Do you ask what it is that produces the wise man? That which produces a god. You must grant that the wise man has in an element of godliness, heavenliness, grandeur. The good does not come to everyone, nor does it allow any random person to possess it. Behold:
“What fruits each country bears, or will not bear;
Here corn, and there the vine, grow richlier.
And elsewhere still the tender tree and grass
Unbidden clothe themselves in green. Seest thou
How Tmolus ships its saffron perfumes forth,
And ivory comes from Ind; soft Sheba sends
Its incense, and the unclad Chalybes
Their iron.”
These products are apportioned to separate countries in order that human beings may be constrained to traffic among themselves, each seeking something from his neighbor in his turn.
So the Supreme Good has also its own abode. It does not grow where ivory grows, or iron. Do you ask where the Supreme Good dwells? In the soul. And unless the soul be pure and holy, there is no room in it for God.
—from Seneca, Moral Letters 87
Do not praise the part as if it were separate from the whole. Do not pursue the means without the dignity of the end. Do not elevate the inferior to the status of the superior. In the absence of a virtuous soul, there can be nothing else that is good in my life.
Money has never made me a better man, though there were times when I did manage to spend it rightly. Fame has never offered me dignity, though there were times when it followed from doing my duty. Luxury has never granted me happiness, though there were times when my principles also happened to be pleasing.
I have little a mantra that helps me to keep it straight: I have known good people who were rich, clever, or charming, but I have yet to meet any people who were good because they were rich, clever, or charming.
“Thank God I have been this fortunate!” That is not a blessing, for it can just as easily be a curse.
“I only need enough so I don’t have to worry!” Circumstances of any sort will leave you anxious. The solution lies in seeking that good which can never be taken away.
“If I’m lucky, one day I won’t have to work at all!” Labor will only appear to be a burden when we are confused about the purpose of living itself.
Back in high school, my friends and I would apply the phrase “like a god” to most anything—yes, teenagers come up with the goofiest expressions. It turned out having the hair of a god, or the car of a god, or the record collection of a god didn’t really make much sense, since a god wouldn’t need any of those things. The divine must be self-sufficient, wanting in nothing beyond itself.
How could a mere mortal approach such a height? By nurturing what is distinctly his own, what lies within his soul, instead of chasing after superficial diversions, which will always leave him begging for more and more. Do not be fooled by the usual routine, the rules they teach you about in school or promote incessantly at the office: you can’t get there from here.
If my nature is indeed to understand and to love, what else could possibly matter? The world is full of trade, of folks seeking to profit from buying and selling every product under the sun, and yet the one thing that remains priceless is always there for the taking, if we just put our minds to it.
By all means, put the many fruits of this world to use, but recognize why the good in their use is derived exclusively from the virtues that stand behind them. I would propose a radically different way of judging between the “haves” and the “have nots”.
It isn’t enough to leave room for dessert. Make more room for the God who already dwells inside you.
Do not praise the part as if it were separate from the whole. Do not pursue the means without the dignity of the end. Do not elevate the inferior to the status of the superior. In the absence of a virtuous soul, there can be nothing else that is good in my life.
Money has never made me a better man, though there were times when I did manage to spend it rightly. Fame has never offered me dignity, though there were times when it followed from doing my duty. Luxury has never granted me happiness, though there were times when my principles also happened to be pleasing.
I have little a mantra that helps me to keep it straight: I have known good people who were rich, clever, or charming, but I have yet to meet any people who were good because they were rich, clever, or charming.
“Thank God I have been this fortunate!” That is not a blessing, for it can just as easily be a curse.
“I only need enough so I don’t have to worry!” Circumstances of any sort will leave you anxious. The solution lies in seeking that good which can never be taken away.
“If I’m lucky, one day I won’t have to work at all!” Labor will only appear to be a burden when we are confused about the purpose of living itself.
Back in high school, my friends and I would apply the phrase “like a god” to most anything—yes, teenagers come up with the goofiest expressions. It turned out having the hair of a god, or the car of a god, or the record collection of a god didn’t really make much sense, since a god wouldn’t need any of those things. The divine must be self-sufficient, wanting in nothing beyond itself.
How could a mere mortal approach such a height? By nurturing what is distinctly his own, what lies within his soul, instead of chasing after superficial diversions, which will always leave him begging for more and more. Do not be fooled by the usual routine, the rules they teach you about in school or promote incessantly at the office: you can’t get there from here.
If my nature is indeed to understand and to love, what else could possibly matter? The world is full of trade, of folks seeking to profit from buying and selling every product under the sun, and yet the one thing that remains priceless is always there for the taking, if we just put our minds to it.
By all means, put the many fruits of this world to use, but recognize why the good in their use is derived exclusively from the virtues that stand behind them. I would propose a radically different way of judging between the “haves” and the “have nots”.
It isn’t enough to leave room for dessert. Make more room for the God who already dwells inside you.
—Reflection written in 2/2014
IMAGE: Master of the Dominican Effigies, The Garden of the Virtues (c. 1350)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)