|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 29, 2010 0:04:23 GMT
It seems to me that in this discussion you have left out one of the most influencial movements of before and during this time zone. The Cathars, The goal of Cathar eschatology was liberation from the realm of limitation and corruption identified with material existence.
Which created a great unease in the Church and the kingdoms of Europe.
The KT were set against the Cathar movement by the king of France and the history of these engagements made a mark on them. i believe especially as the same kingly force then termed against the KT.
so do you not think that this period in European history had an impact ?
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Dec 29, 2010 0:42:50 GMT
I am unclear as to the position the Templars took on the Cathar question...did they participate in their persecution or did they abstain? Any and all info is appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 29, 2010 2:37:06 GMT
Stephen Dafoe touches on the Cathar issue, how much is his opinion and how much history i am not sure. blog.templarhistory.com/2010/03/were-the-templars-heretics/Wiki give some good info ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism This snip gives a view on what happened to the Cathers, who were really just people, not an army. The crusader army came under the command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars. The Cathars spent much of 1209 fending off the crusaders. The leader of the crusaders, Simon de Montfort, resorted to primitive psychological warfare. He ordered his troops to gouge out the eyes of 100 prisoners, cut off their noses and lips, then send them back to the towers led by a prisoner with one remaining eye. This only served to harden the resolve of the Cathars. The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[15] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword,
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 29, 2010 2:50:06 GMT
I wonder what led to the rise of the Sufi fundamentalist movement in the 13th Century ? Does not take a great leap of imagination. The Moorish Empire was a significant force also at this time. According to Ronald Segal, by 1200 CE, some 5.6 million of Iberia's 7 million inhabitants, nearly all native inhabitants, were Muslim. More snips from Wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoorsIn 1212, a coalition of Christian kings under the leadership of Alfonso VIII of Castile drove the Muslims from Central Iberia. The Portuguese side of the Reconquista ended in 1249 with the conquest of the Algarve The Moorish Kingdom of Granada continued for three more centuries in the southern Iberia. On January 2, 1492, the leader of the last Muslim stronghold in Granada surrendered to armies of a recently united Christian Spain (after the marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the Catholic Monarchs). They forced the remaining Muslims and Jews to leave Spain, convert to Roman Catholic Christianity or be killed for not doing so. My point is the Templars were by no means the entire story here, while they have been made something of a romantic entity, facts tell a different story, they were at times ruthless and cruel.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 29, 2010 15:46:52 GMT
I am unclear as to the position the Templars took on the Cathar question...did they participate in their persecution or did they abstain? Any and all info is appreciated. An hour well spent searching the internet will answer this question for you. There were many crusades, both Islamic and Christian. Do a search with the words Cathars/Albigensians
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Dec 30, 2010 1:35:31 GMT
That was a POPE that said that, wasn't it? Leo X, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 30, 2010 4:48:49 GMT
According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, one of the leaders of the Crusader army, at the siege of Béziers in 1209, when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, Arnaul Amalric answered:
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His.)[2].
This is the origin of the modern phrase, "Kill them all and let God sort them out."
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Dec 30, 2010 5:16:25 GMT
I read recently a quote by Petrarch denouncing as a moral sewer the thirteenth century papal court , then situated at Avignon...It was this very court that spawned the future Pope (Clement VI) who collaborated with King Philip in the the plot that eventually brought the Temple down in that fateful day in 1307...I will try and remember where I read it and post it for you here.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Dec 30, 2010 5:31:57 GMT
It may interest Rembrandt to read the initiatory literature regarding the OTO; he will discover sufficient evidence of "Sufi involvement in the Templar Movement in the modern-day world. Aleister Crowley studied withc actual Sufis it would be interesting to know what THEY thought of HIM. It is interesting to note that not long after the pubication of the Confessions" Crowley went to visit the Sufi adept Gurdjieff at his "ashram". Apparently while he was there, he hit on one of the young men/boys, who promptly informed Gurdjieff of Crowley's imposition on their hospitality. Gurdjieff told the young man to stay out of A.C.'s way and remained coldly polite until he was certain that Crowley was leaving and had no further need of his hospitality(hospitality is taken very seriously in the Middle East/ central Asia) and then denounced him: "You are dirty, filthy! Never darken my doorway again!" It is reported that Crowley boarded the train "white and shaking" I can't remember if it was a disciple recounting the incident; I don't believe he mentioned the incident in 'Meetings with Extraordinary Men"
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 30, 2010 10:18:00 GMT
Gurdjief was an interesting man and Crowley was a putz. Why would anyone strike a host? I am familiar with the OTO and their special semen and menstrual blood communions. Sorry, just cant' take that seriously.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Dec 30, 2010 22:15:18 GMT
Actually, if you knew anything about Tantric magick, you would; OTO is the Order of the Oriental Temple, after all, and practices 'Western Tantra".
Oh, and did you know that the Yezidi "devil-worshipping" cult was founded by a SUFI? Would you take THAT seriously, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Dec 31, 2010 2:43:06 GMT
I might at that, I am not well schooled in tantric magic.
I am familiar with the Yezidi's, spent some time a while back conducting some research on the group. Perhaps you would benefit from a deeper study into their religion and history.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Dec 31, 2010 3:14:39 GMT
I might at that, I am not well schooled in tantric magic. I am familiar with the Yezidi's, spent some time a while back conducting some research on the group. Perhaps you would benefit from a deeper study into their religion and history. Perhaps the vibrations of this forum can be risen a little: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brethren_of_Purity
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jan 2, 2011 4:40:03 GMT
Gurdjieff mentions an encounter with a Yezidi boy in his youth: A group of children had found a Yezidi boy asleep under a tree and drew a chalk circle around him. When he awoke he could not leave the circle by any means, until part of it was rubbed away. Gurdjieff also mentions that no Yezidi can cross a closed circle; it took two strong men to drag an old Yezidi woman out of a circle (there were no details given of this incident) . Upon being forced out of the circle, the Yezidi falls into a trance and cannot be revived except by their priests chanting over them.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jan 2, 2011 4:48:30 GMT
One of the more interesting things that Shah tells us about the Sufis is that the "Asasin" cult was in fact a Sufi Order; "asasin' means something like "People of the Foundation/Fundamentals", and that Hassan i-Sabbah took over a branch of this cult in the tenth century.
The Yezidi cult was, according to Shah, founded by the Sufi master Sheikh Adi ben Musafir, who died in 1162.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Jan 2, 2011 5:23:31 GMT
It seems as if you haven't studied much more than Idries Shah. Have you taken the time to study other, perhaps more astute, Sufi writers?
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jan 2, 2011 5:50:50 GMT
Another thing I like about Shah is that he is not sectarian in any way; he emphasizes that no one Sufi school is 'better' than another; it is a matter of the teacher fulfilling the needs of the disciple and vice versa that is what is important; not whether any one school or teacher meets some arbitrary standard of "better than...". Just because I have succeeded at a 'dirty" Path; it does not then follow that a 'dirty" Path' is the right one for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Jan 3, 2011 5:44:43 GMT
Only sectarian in claiming to be the Shaykh al-Islam.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jan 4, 2011 5:36:53 GMT
Funny, I don't remember that part. I was busy focusing on the part about actual Sufi teachings and not fussing over credentials, like some people seem determined to do. I never got the sense at any time that Shah was concerned about "my master has more credentials than your master, nyah-nyah." which is why I liked his writings. He seems more concerned about correcting misapprehensions about Sufi in general than promoting himself or anyone else; a very mature approach! And he's FUNNY, too!
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Jan 4, 2011 15:08:53 GMT
. . . and wrong at many points, questionable in land dealings, and other assorted items that call him into question. Claims of being from the male line from Muhammed are highly questionable because all three of Muhammed's sons died young. The only children that lived were daughters so his claim of being seyyid from the male line is laughable.
Credentials are important because they are useful in establishing whether or not someone is a wanker when making very bold and grandiose claims.
I am sure that you have not read of the halal meat scandal, back in the 40's. Idries Shah was involved in that. Made some easy money though.
Hence my earlier recommendations. Shah may very well have some interesting things to say in his several books. I do recommend that those claims be checked.
|
|