[plasmid]

I'm curious about non-theist opinions on this matter, but theists are of course invited to participate and provide illumination as well. The almost universal development of religion in some form or other across many different cultures seems to indicate that there is a deep underlying drive to have some sort of religious experience which is embedded in many (if not to some degree all) humans. I doubt that it's purely due to primitive attempts to understand the universe before the development of science -- even with modern science and state endorsement of atheism, the Soviet Union still had plenty of believers. If religion as we know it were wiped from the face of the earth, it seems likely that it would simply resprout in some new form.

If this is the case (which is certainly open to argument) then would it not be in our best interest to fill this illogical but evident need with a religion that is as benign and perhaps even beneficial as possible? Most mainstream religions at least preach to love thy neighbor and straighten up and fly right and all that, whether or not it's actually put into practice. Christianity may stand to be improved regarding its opposition to stem cell research and discrimination against homosexuals to name a few issues. However, it was previously opposed to a non-geocentric solar system and abolition of slavery (in areas where it was profitable) and has since mended its ways, not without cost in the meantime, but the point is that it's adaptable.

Is it better to have such a mainstream religion fill the void of the masses who apparently can't do without it, or attempt to eliminate all but reason and leave open the chance for something much more uncontrolled and potentially malignant to take root in the open void (militant jihadists, or another Jonestown)? If something must fill the void but not any currently existing religion, would it be possible to design something better, bearing in mind that you have control only over the text of the holy doctrine but not people's interpretation and implementation of it, and that it must have enough of this intangible spiritualistic property that people crave in order to persist?

And the ultimate question: could you craft a doctrine to fill this need in such a way that its propagation would have an overall positive effect on humanity, and be so convinced in its potential that you would put forth whatever effort and resources were required to make it a reality? I have no intention of converting any nonbelievers into messiahs, I'm just curious what people think. Seeing as how we're on BrainDen, you can consider this a practical riddle.

Edited April 20, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

4 give all bad spelling and grammer i am varry lazy but i am still smart enuf to under stand menny things

hello I just read the first page and can't bring my self 2 read the rest. But I wanted to tell u and evry 1 who will read this i am creating a religion wich as the basis has evry religion in it. all the others are right but in a small way all the other gods are just the 1 A.M.O.B. all mity hole 1 abouve us and why not wership the hole not the smaller parts. thare were things in all the religions i just could not exept so i started a new 1 using pricabuls from all and i would like 4 it to grow and over take the others if this is out of the blue i'm sarry like i sead i just read some of the first page.

[plasmid]

well the purpose ( ) of the monk parable (the first one anyway) was to adress the religious/philosophical issues of free will, meaning and purpose... these are heavy concepts that we can't ignore if we want to be a complete philosophy. So I was just getting them all out of the way in one parable... the parables stressed the concept of how meaning is applied by the observer of the meaning, allowing us to live more in the day and not assume the existence of a grand cosmic plan for everything. The free will part was just a bit thrown in the middle that really can't be written without showing the bias of the writer. For example, my version was about how we as biological computers built on axiomatic particles are making the choices our brain wants to make, so we can be said to be making choices. I then asked how else would you want a choice to be made (ie, how else would you have it other than based on pre-existing states?). I redid some of it, reducing the physics from 20th/21st century to 17th century. Then seeksit redid parts of it and the newer one reflects his bias on choice just like my earlier one reflected mine (ie, his version had references to things like "forking paths" and "ever-dividing braids").

So I guess what I'm saying is, we need to address these things as a group, and decide what our stance is on things like choice, before I do a final rewrite of this parable and a few others.

Here is my 2cents on what our stance should be on philosophical issues:

* Meaning: applied by the observer of the meaning, the journey IS the destination, carpe diem, etc (what the monk parable is currently preaching)

* Choice: based on pre-existing states, yes, but how else would have it. We can be said to make our choices since we are the sum of the particles in the brain that are taking that input and generating output. In other words, "optimistic randomism" or something, adding a new term to list

* Ethics: in the earlier "allegory of the rave" (pun on Plato's Allegory of the Cave... the name will have to be changed for multiple reasons lol) I addressed ethics and karma. I'd have to go back and see what exactly I was going for, because I don't remember, but I imagine it was something like "morals change with the times and are natural social laws that emerge when organisms or other intelligent things interact" or something along those lines. I figure that little moral details should be left to the denominations to fill in at their leisure: because denominations are fluid and change, live and die with the times, they'll keep our ethical code modern and ever-advancing

Interesting. Regarding the topic of meaning / purpose, both you and octopuppy seem to have been of the mind that Phronism should avoid making assertions about there being any fundamental purpose to life. I see such a statement to be at odds with encouraging people to harmonize with the Essence by doing something good for humanity: the purpose of life would have to be to harmonize with the Essence. Of course, exactly how to harmonize with the Essence would only be spelled out in vague terms by Phronism (something good for humanity) and could be further refined by the denoms, but nevertheless it would be a purpose in life. Of course, since there are many different ways of enriching humanity, and since people get to choose their denominations, they are really pretty much choosing what their purpose in life is and just calling it harmonizing with the Essence. The only requirement is that it has to be something constructive; you can't choose to be a burglar. So I would recommend saying that the purpose is to harmonize with the Essence, while we understand that doing so practically means that you're choosing your own (noble) purpose.

The concept of free will I pretty much agree with you on. I generally avoid the term "free" will and just call it a "will" though. The whole implication of free will vs determinism arguments is about whether or not people can really be held accountable for their actions, and the determinism argument would seem to imply that people do what they are destined to do and it would be just as senseless to punish someone for their actions as it would be to punish a clock for chiming at midnight and waking you up. By throwing out the "free" part, I do two things. First, determinism and having a will are not mutually exclusive, so the mere fact that determinism is true doesn't change anything. Second, I can say that a person was driven to commit their acts by whatever sort of will they have and that they should be treated as an entity that carried out those acts according to their will's programming (regardless of how the will came into existence) because that will has demonstrated its inclinations. The "free" part may be relevant if, say, your family were being held hostage on the condition that you help embezzle money from your corporation to the ransomers, in which case the embezzlement might be condoned to some degree. But I digress. I'm not entirely sure that this is an issue that Phronism needs to take up, but if it is taken up, I advise that whatever stance we take be guided by the principle that the point of the religion is to be practically useful, and the logic can then be selected to back up that stance. (Of course, the stance had better be fairly logical.) In this case, as long as people are responsible for their actions and it's reasonably logical, it should be fine.

Finally, ethics. I agree that the only sorts of things that should be part of the core of Phronism are really fundamental, basic ethics. I'll go ahead and repost the latest version of the core dogma, which addressed purpose and ethics to some degree, so we can give it another looking over and see if it needs to be modified. I would plan on having it be the thrust of the final parable (well, the final parable at Samarkand anyway) and delivered by the Seventh Shepherd.

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, and our Acts of Legacy will define our relationship with the Essence. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something that you're good at that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

It is fit that there be many denominations of Phronism, for not all people are alike, and diversity helps humanity flourish. The denominations shall each have their own customs and ways of harmonizing with the Essence. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is imperative for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world. As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside Phronism who are most fit to view it objectively and dispassionately. Outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are to be welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware if outsiders bring ideas that are based not on reason but on unsubstantiated beliefs such as gods, for these may be illusions of human imaginations that guide the way to decay.

(Hope that helped give insight for parable writing and wasn't too much rambling.)

So another thought along my previous lines of inquiry:

I'm not sure how modern worshipers of these religions whose important persons/founders we are borrowing as figureheads would react to the sudden discovery of additional stories regarding their authoritative figures. They could welcome the new doctrine and join onto the faith with ease, but it we were borrowing from the Abrahamic religious figures, I would think that the sudden discovery of new stories would lead followers to distrust them and consider them to be not canonical and thus not valid. So I'm not sure how the other religions (Jainism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, et al.) would take it.

As I said, they might take it at face-value, but there is also a risk that they will treat it like the Compromise of 1850 in the USA. That was Henry Clay's last great effort in the US Congress to enact change and protect the Union. With the increasing tensions between North and South, he tried to pass an "omnibus" bill that had a number of things supporting both sides, with the expectation that the bill would pass since each supporter of a particular component would support the entire thing. However, it didn't happen that way as people voted it down for the parts they didn't like. To pass the reforms, Stephen Douglas rewrote the bill into a series of paired bills, with each one having one North and one South provision and each passed separately when they didn't pass together.

So I'm a little worried that looking at the "omnibus" of teachings derived from important historical religious figures might drive out that particular religion conversely to the problem Henry Clay had. Since they have never heard of these teachings from a figure whom they take to be authoritative (and happen to be the current living authoritative source on his teachings), they might think them to be blasphemy or apocryphal and thus reject the idea of Phronism. Of course, the denominational effort may be the Stephen Douglas of the equation, but it's more to consider as we iron out our approach (to mix metaphors ).

Of course, maybe I'm just being paranoid. If any of that didn't make sense, I'll try to clarify what I am saying. I know what I mean in my head, but I'm having trouble putting it into words specifically.

I guess the question is: would we be better off using these historical figures, or making up others (either in the ancient past or even in the present day, in which case they could even be real). The advantage of using these historical figures is that by associating Phronism with these wise guys people, it would potentially carry some weight by being associated with people who are generally revered for their understanding and spirituality in a way that simply couldn't be achieved with modern folks. The disadvantages are several, including as you pointed out that it may draw harsh opposition from the religions included because of being apocryphal. For Confucianism and Taoism, which are arguably not really religions at all, I don't expect that the opposition would be too harsh. Greek philosophers are no longer around to object to Diotima's use, and I think Zoroasterism is so rare now that it's not really an issue. For Jainism and Buddhism, it might be more problematic. Fortunately, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many Hindus would not have their founders represented and would not consider this terribly apocryphal; perhaps a little absurd that these ideas were underground for so long, but not apocryphal. The other drawback of our current story that we discussed is that it's, well, simply not true to our knowledge. That raises the possibility that the factual accuracy could be called into question, and also is just sort of poor form for a religion that is meant to be a positive force in society. But I think that in the end we decided that this made such a compelling story (for someone inclined to believe in religion) that we just couldn't pass it up. If there were a great way to launch Phronism with modern people, creating a true story that could capture the hearts and imaginations of our target audience so powerfully, then we would prefer to go that route. But this seemed like a really good story and is currently the best one we could come up with.

4 give all bad spelling and grammer i am varry lazy but i am still smart enuf to under stand menny things

hello I just read the first page and can't bring my self 2 read the rest. But I wanted to tell u and evry 1 who will read this i am creating a religion wich as the basis has evry religion in it. all the others are right but in a small way all the other gods are just the 1 A.M.O.B. all mity hole 1 abouve us and why not wership the hole not the smaller parts. thare were things in all the religions i just could not exept so i started a new 1 using pricabuls from all and i would like 4 it to grow and over take the others if this is out of the blue i'm sarry like i sead i just read some of the first page.

Got any followers? If so, mind if we assimilate them? On second thought don't bother answering that second one, it doesn't matter. Resistance is futile.

[Guest]

Interesting. Regarding the topic of meaning / purpose, both you and octopuppy seem to have been of the mind that Phronism should avoid making assertions about there being any fundamental purpose to life. I see such a statement to be at odds with encouraging people to harmonize with the Essence by doing something good for humanity: the purpose of life would have to be to harmonize with the Essence. Of course, exactly how to harmonize with the Essence would only be spelled out in vague terms by Phronism (something good for humanity) and could be further refined by the denoms, but nevertheless it would be a purpose in life. Of course, since there are many different ways of enriching humanity, and since people get to choose their denominations, they are really pretty much choosing what their purpose in life is and just calling it harmonizing with the Essence. The only requirement is that it has to be something constructive; you can't choose to be a burglar. So I would recommend saying that the purpose is to harmonize with the Essence, while we understand that doing so practically means that you're choosing your own (noble) purpose.

Lots to say and no time to say it. I hope this quick sketch of my take on the great issues of meaning, choice and purpose, make sense. In my mind, at least, they are a coherent whole. The three issues cannot be considered separately. Unreality was wise (as usual) to combine them.

Meaning: The quest for meaning is the "original sin". The demand for meaning only arose at the time of bifurcation between observer and observed that came about at the dawn of the self-aware, conscious mind. We observe something (as a neutral observer) and internalize it (apply it to our experience) and almost inevitably make some judgement about it. A lion mauling its child is viewed with natural distaste--our primate nurturing instincts tell us that this is an "evil" act. Thus the origin of good and evil emerges at the time of the dawn of consciousness as a carry-over from our pre-existing animal instincts. These instincts are their own form of intelligence (the intelligence of DNA, the "design"--yes, an intelligent design ) DNA has the wisdom of billions of years of experience. It is an intelligence that operates on time scales barely detectable to the conscious mind, but it is an intelligence just as certainly as our conscious mind is. We are products of that DNA programming. That's the real "gospel" and the real "canon" of the human religion that Phronism is trying to channel. So ...

Choice: Nearly every choice we make has a DNA-prescribed value on a scale of good (as in good for survival and well-being of the person, family, village, etc.) and evil. Our biological computers are pre-wired with myriad hardware that we are just beginning to unravel. The software of our experience also begins long before our consciousness matures so that virtually everything our software programming tells us to do is tainted by (often forgotten) childhood experiences. What Phronism seeks to help people do is to find the community standards that merge and balance the DNA hardware and the best of the individual human's software into a coherent message that makes the sum of human existence the best it can be (the nebulous and always elusive "noble course".)

NB: I vehemently object to any fall-back to determinism because it abrogates personal responsibility. This, IMHO is always a recipe for disaster. This needs to be discussed more. Humans need to always be responsibly choosing their noble course and feeling maximally empowered to do so.

Finally Purpose: There is no grand pre-determined purpose, as I think all of us here agree (?). But paradoxically, this is precisely what steers us to the noble course. Our DNA/mental hardware and our practical experience define all kinds of parochial purposes for us--more than we can process or even recognize, and often at "cross-purposes". If we can clear our minds of these purposes and touch the Essence of ultimate reality, where absolutely no purpose exists, we find the greatest of all purpose: the purely selfless (indeed existence-less) one. Being free of purpose liberates the Phronist to act for the benefit of those who have yet to achieve this merger with the Essence. Each of us can "behave as if" we have achieved this perfect state even though we haven't. We emulate this ideal. It is the best way to cut through all the BS of life and get to the kernel of noble actions.

I guess the question is: would we be better off using these historical figures, or making up others (either in the ancient past or even in the present day, in which case they could even be real). The advantage of using these historical figures is that by associating Phronism with these wise guys people, it would potentially carry some weight by being associated with people who are generally revered for their understanding and spirituality in a way that simply couldn't be achieved with modern folks. The disadvantages are several, including as you pointed out that it may draw harsh opposition from the religions included because of being apocryphal. For Confucianism and Taoism, which are arguably not really religions at all, I don't expect that the opposition would be too harsh. Greek philosophers are no longer around to object to Diotima's use, and I think Zoroasterism is so rare now that it's not really an issue. For Jainism and Buddhism, it might be more problematic. Fortunately, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many Hindus would not have their founders represented and would not consider this terribly apocryphal; perhaps a little absurd that these ideas were underground for so long, but not apocryphal. The other drawback of our current story that we discussed is that it's, well, simply not true to our knowledge. That raises the possibility that the factual accuracy could be called into question, and also is just sort of poor form for a religion that is meant to be a positive force in society. But I think that in the end we decided that this made such a compelling story (for someone inclined to believe in religion) that we just couldn't pass it up. If there were a great way to launch Phronism with modern people, creating a true story that could capture the hearts and imaginations of our target audience so powerfully, then we would prefer to go that route. But this seemed like a really good story and is currently the best one we could come up with.

My take on the origin story is that it's totally true in the broad sense that there must have been a cross-fertilization of ideas among these great minds during that great (amazing if not miraculous) awakening time around 500 BCE. The Seventh Shepherd could have been a traveler/wanderer (or multiple ones) who visited all these great figures and traded in ideas as well as goods, but we choose to (metaphorically, at least) place the story at a central locus. The whole Samarkand council could be considered a uberparable.

Finally, LABU, share with us the methods you are using or hope to use to "recruit" followers.

Edited June 2, 2009 by seeksit

[Guest]

My take on the origin story is that it's totally true in the broad sense that there must have been a cross-fertilization of ideas among these great minds during that great (amazing if not miraculous) awakening time around 500 BCE. The Seventh Shepherd could have been a traveler/wanderer (or multiple ones) who visited all these great figures and traded in ideas as well as goods, but we choose to (metaphorically, at least) place the story at a central locus. The whole Samarkand council could be considered a uberparable.

I like that metaphorical sense that you're mentioning. Especially with the Seventh Shepherd being the connecting factor between the others. Up until now, I had been wondering about the Seventh Shepherd and what purpose he served (other than bringing the number of people to seven). We could turn that so that the Seventh Shepherd doesn't represent just one person and in a metaphorical sense, he signifies everyone that seeks to understand the Essence and to spread that understanding. In that way, you or I (or any follower) could be the "Seventh Shepherd," though I'm not sure how to take this and make it fit in with what has already been developed.

The problem with the "Uberparable" (uh oh, there's that Uber again ) is that all of the other parables are drawing from it. If there isn't a basis in fact, then the rest of the parables might just crumble under scrutiny. (That's been my focus and I guess I'll keep focusing there. ) I don't know that this is a directly relational analogy, but if we think about the parables as "Cups of Knowledge" and the "Uberparable" as the source of Knowledge (something with which to fill the cups), then it's sort of like saying, we have all this ability to hold knowledge, if we had anything to put in them (since we don't have any real water, just Uber pretend water ).

That didn't translate well from my head. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't make sense to treat the Council as an Uberparable. For the rationally-inclined, it might work to view it that way, though realists (and some historians) will find the idea offensive. Meanwhile, I don't see the masses latching onto a series of parables derived from an "Uberparable" if it is billed as such. We're right in thinking that a real-life source for this knowledge and wisdom is required to build legitimacy, but there are risks inherent however we approach the problem. Of course, I know that calling it an Uberparable is just another way to explain it, but I don't see it as a short-term solution to build followers. (Plus, you sort of said it in jest, but I thought that it led down an interesting path so I decided to follow it to see where it led.)

To change tracks completely, one underlying problem that none of us are really equipped to deal with is knowing what the religiously-minded individual is seeking in a religion. Some of us have undoubtedly come from some sort of religious background and chosen to go our own path, but because we've chosen a different path, that implies to me that there is an inherent difference between us and the masses that we are attempting to reach out to. In an effort to do so, we are trying to build some sort of plausible deception that would benefit the masses, but we're all on the outside looking in and even so, we have no way of knowing how these efforts (if anything were ever to come of them) would affect things in the long-run...This paragraph is really trying to address two different ideas and I realize now that they are different and should be treated separately.

1. How do we know what the religious masses want (since none of us can accurately be included in that category)?

2. How is this deception going to turn out differently from all of the former deceptions that are already inundating the landscape?

Most of our focus has been on 2 above, and I think that there are some good answers on this thread already, but 1 is something that I think needs more consideration. We think that we know what they want, but how do we know? The problem is that anyone who would be qualified to tell is is probably like our friend Bran and will find the very idea of Phronism abhorrent.

I think that I've rambled on long enough. Hope I said something useful in all of that.

[unreality]

I like that metaphorical sense that you're mentioning. Especially with the Seventh Shepherd being the connecting factor between the others. Up until now, I had been wondering about the Seventh Shepherd and what purpose he served (other than bringing the number of people to seven). We could turn that so that the Seventh Shepherd doesn't represent just one person and in a metaphorical sense, he signifies everyone that seeks to understand the Essence and to spread that understanding. In that way, you or I (or any follower) could be the "Seventh Shepherd," though I'm not sure how to take this and make it fit in with what has already been developed.

The problem with the "Uberparable" (uh oh, there's that Uber again ) is that all of the other parables are drawing from it. If there isn't a basis in fact, then the rest of the parables might just crumble under scrutiny. (That's been my focus and I guess I'll keep focusing there. ) I don't know that this is a directly relational analogy, but if we think about the parables as "Cups of Knowledge" and the "Uberparable" as the source of Knowledge (something with which to fill the cups), then it's sort of like saying, we have all this ability to hold knowledge, if we had anything to put in them (since we don't have any real water, just Uber pretend water ).

That didn't translate well from my head. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't make sense to treat the Council as an Uberparable. For the rationally-inclined, it might work to view it that way, though realists (and some historians) will find the idea offensive. Meanwhile, I don't see the masses latching onto a series of parables derived from an "Uberparable" if it is billed as such. We're right in thinking that a real-life source for this knowledge and wisdom is required to build legitimacy, but there are risks inherent however we approach the problem. Of course, I know that calling it an Uberparable is just another way to explain it, but I don't see it as a short-term solution to build followers. (Plus, you sort of said it in jest, but I thought that it led down an interesting path so I decided to follow it to see where it led.)

I agree that the parables need to be rethought. Maybe we should just admit that they're bogus but should be treated as metaphors and allegories... we can point out that this is similar to the bible. Most people today think of many bible stories as just that - "stories", but stories with meaning behind them. Like fables, meant to teach a moral lesson or somesuch. We can liken the parables of Phronism to moral fables tought in modern religions.

That's just a suggestion, I haven't fully thought it out yet. I'm still on the fence about the Samarkand "deception"... I think if we do go with the Samarkand meeting-of-many-cultures story, we need to be very vague and very careful... which brings me to, how would these parables, core rules, concepts, etc, be communicated? One "holy book"? A multimedia presentation? Or ideas leaked into the general public overtime or something, insinuating in the minds of the folk... before we get too in depth with how we are going to present the parables we need to get more in depth on how we would present Phronism as a whole

1. How do we know what the religious masses want (since none of us can accurately be included in that category)?

2. How is this deception going to turn out differently from all of the former deceptions that are already inundating the landscape?

Most of our focus has been on 2 above, and I think that there are some good answers on this thread already, but 1 is something that I think needs more consideration. We think that we know what they want, but how do we know? The problem is that anyone who would be qualified to tell us is probably like our friend Bran and will find the very idea of Phronism abhorrent.

I think that I've rambled on long enough. Hope I said something useful in all of that.

#2 is the question that spawned this whole topic. I think we've crafted the makings of a religion that truly trumps most modern religions in terms of how fulfilling it is to the members (provided we spin everything the right way) with minimal deception (a tale of an ancient Samarkand meeting is nothing compared to, say, the Earth drowned in flood or fire or something) and system in place to avoid corruption, infighting, prejudice, and instead promote change, fluidity, flexibility and social brotherhood.

I think much of the philosophy and "positiveness" that sets Phronism apart has been gone over a lot and led us to this point - we've left the theoretical and gone to the practical. I think #2 has been sufficiently answered though of course we should always be looking for ways to improve and expand our philosophy and teachings (for example our recent discussing on purpose - btw I agree with plasmid that we should purpos-ize the term "harmonizing with the Essence").

As for #1, that's something we brainstormed near the beginning of the topic and we came up with a few "religious motives" but obviously none of us are qualified enough, as you said, to be an authority on this. I think it's time to grab some external input on what we've cobbled together so far

[Guest]

I agree that the parables need to be rethought. Maybe we should just admit that they're bogus but should be treated as metaphors and allegories... we can point out that this is similar to the bible. Most people today think of many bible stories as just that - "stories", but stories with meaning behind them. Like fables, meant to teach a moral lesson or somesuch. We can liken the parables of Phronism to moral fables tought in modern religions.

Of course, it depends on how you define "most." And numbers aren't necessarily the deciding factor. The Bible literalists seem to hold much more clout than their numbers would suggest...

That's just a suggestion, I haven't fully thought it out yet. I'm still on the fence about the Samarkand "deception"... I think if we do go with the Samarkand meeting-of-many-cultures story, we need to be very vague and very careful... which brings me to, how would these parables, core rules, concepts, etc, be communicated? One "holy book"? A multimedia presentation? Or ideas leaked into the general public overtime or something, insinuating in the minds of the folk... before we get too in depth with how we are going to present the parables we need to get more in depth on how we would present Phronism as a whole

Yeah, that's where I've been for the whole time. How much is the deception helping compared to hurting the possibilities of a movement to Phronism? If done correctly, it could be a huge boon to humanity, but following anything other than the knife's blade path (if it exists at all), it crumbles into little more than a thought experiment on a web-forum. If we want the ideas of Phronism to flourish, they need to be properly cultivated. The problem with the sudden appearance of an ancient-day parable is the speed with which it can travel in today's environment. If we were doing this even 150 years ago (though it would be impossible without the Internet to have reached where we are in this discussion ), it would have been a lot easier to build up the deception. You spread a few words here and there across the globe and while there wouldn't be any material evidence, it would build up in different relatively isolated communities separately so that when they do cross paths, they would both be able to find "roots" that would appear deeper than they actually were, because both sides would recognize the similarities between them that seemed to have developed independently (even though in my postulation, they really haven't). But with instant communication so prevalent in today's society, there is no way (that I can think of) to build that legitimacy slowly. Once it first hits the masses, it will flare up and either burn brightly and strongly or quickly fizzle out. Already, if you search "Phronism" on Google, the first two hits are this forum thread, so it would be hard to build a fake legitimacy with access to the real explanation so readily accessible to the masses (if they knew where (or what) to look (at)).

[Guest]

Of course, it depends on how you define "most." And numbers aren't necessarily the deciding factor. The Bible literalists seem to hold much more clout than their numbers would suggest...

Yeah, that's where I've been for the whole time. How much is the deception helping compared to hurting the possibilities of a movement to Phronism? If done correctly, it could be a huge boon to humanity, but following anything other than the knife's blade path (if it exists at all), it crumbles into little more than a thought experiment on a web-forum. If we want the ideas of Phronism to flourish, they need to be properly cultivated. The problem with the sudden appearance of an ancient-day parable is the speed with which it can travel in today's environment. If we were doing this even 150 years ago (though it would be impossible without the Internet to have reached where we are in this discussion ), it would have been a lot easier to build up the deception. You spread a few words here and there across the globe and while there wouldn't be any material evidence, it would build up in different relatively isolated communities separately so that when they do cross paths, they would both be able to find "roots" that would appear deeper than they actually were, because both sides would recognize the similarities between them that seemed to have developed independently (even though in my postulation, they really haven't). But with instant communication so prevalent in today's society, there is no way (that I can think of) to build that legitimacy slowly. Once it first hits the masses, it will flare up and either burn brightly and strongly or quickly fizzle out. Already, if you search "Phronism" on Google, the first two hits are this forum thread, so it would be hard to build a fake legitimacy with access to the real explanation so readily accessible to the masses (if they knew where (or what) to look (at)).

If Phronism develops a sizeable, well-thought-out "canon", the inconsistencies demonstrated in this seminal thread will not stop it. In a 10 December 2008 Harris Poll, 71% of Americans stated that they believe in Angels whereas only 47% said they believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The majority of people are not inclined to be critical thinkers. Give them a coherent, well developed canon and a reason to believe it and many people will not be skeptical. Patience is the key. This will not happen overnight, not in a decade.

But let me recall two other notable accomplishments of modern religious zeal:

On 7 November 1948 L. Ron Hubbard, while addressing a Science Fiction group in Newark, NJ, is documented to have said "If you really want to make a million, the quickest way is to start your own religion". Scientology now has about 500,000 adherents.

In March 1830, Joseph Smith, Jr. published The Book of Mormon, which he claimed he translated from a non-existent "reformed Egyptian" language recorded on metal tablets buried on a hill near Manchester, New York by a group of settlers from Jerusalem who he claims arrived in the new world around 600 BCE. Conveniently, after he translated them, he returned the tablets to the Angel Moroni who he claims led him to them. Thus they are "not available for scrutiny". Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the book is fiction, created by Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has about 4,000,000 self-described adherents today. In fact some moderate Mormons concede that the book is fiction, but cling to the belief that it is nonetheless inspired by God.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote and lectured extensively. The scientology "canon" is thus voluminous. Similarly the Book of Mormon is not merely a pamphlet the size of a 210 post internet thread. There is work to be done. But, as I have already said, if a dedicated group of proponents is willing to put in the work and be patient, the movement *will* succeed in attracting a healthy number of adherents.

[plasmid]

I'm kind of inclined to agree with unreality that we should look for some outside opinions to help with salesmanship. I would propose putting together what we have now in a coherent package (going ahead and using the Samarkand approach for now, as I still think it's currently the best plan we've got) so we can take the current product and re-post it on a new thread so people don't have to read >20 pages of posts to get caught up. Sound reasonable? If so, I'll give Zoroaster his parable soon and the monk can get his revised parable, and we'll have a side-manual talking about the Council Days, and initial plans for some denominations to mimic current religions to siphon off members who might like the new philosophy but feel a need to maintain their current traditions or just have something that feels pretty familiar. And anything else you remind me about that I'm likely forgetting now.

[Guest]

I would propose putting together what we have now in a coherent package (going ahead and using the Samarkand approach for now, as I still think it's currently the best plan we've got) so we can take the current product and re-post it on a new thread so people don't have to read >20 pages of posts to get caught up. Sound reasonable? If so, I'll give Zoroaster his parable soon and the monk can get his revised parable, and we'll have a side-manual talking about the Council Days, and initial plans for some denominations to mimic current religions to siphon off members who might like the new philosophy but feel a need to maintain their current traditions or just have something that feels pretty familiar. And anything else you remind me about that I'm likely forgetting now.

That makes good sense and is therefore the Phronist thing to do . Might I suggest that you add a short paragraph to the end of Buddha's parable where he explains that he (and the other leaders) will go back home after the council and form their own denominations. Let him make clear that the intent is for the various denominations to continue to cross-fertilize via the process of pilgrimages of individuals of each denomination to all others. But perhaps in response to a question about how that is to be done, Buddha can lament that the great distances and difficulty of travel across the world of that time will make pilgrimages difficult and arduous. How about if he concludes with: "If in future days, you learn of men of inspired, reasoned faith and prudence, but do not hear the words 'Phronist' or 'Essence', look deeper. For although these words may fade from our diverse languages, their Spirit cannot be extinguished." This provides the explicit explanation for the state of Phronism on 20 April 2009, the day you started this thread.

[Guest]

Hi guys. I'm afraid I've lacked the time or historical knowledge to contribute significantly lately, but I'd just like to say I'm in awe

[plasmid]

Time for Zoroaster to step up. With Zoroastrianism emphasizing good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, there's no question what he'll be talking about. His is the shortest, but quite possibly the most important. He'll be between the two Mahavira parables, the first of which introduced the concept that existence with the Essence depending on the type of life you lead.

The followers were daily learning more about the Essence, and they began to understand that it was no mere idol demanding prayer or sacrifice but a force that is guided by every action they take. Yet the followers still lacked direction to channel their efforts. So as the council dismissed for the day, a group of them approached Zoroaster and asked, "Our actions shape the flow of the Essence and determine how we will ultimately exist with it, do they not?" Zoroaster replied, "Any one person's actions may influence the Essence and thereby affect the world around us, and they will affect both your ultimate existence and your existence now. The Essence should be your partner, your efforts must harmonize with it for you to achieve fulfillment."

"Then Zoroaster, if our actions are so important: how ought we to act?" Zoroaster answered them, "As your existence helps shape the Essence, the Essence shapes the lives of everyone else. The most noble of paths would have the Essence bring the world peace and prosperity, understanding of the world around us, imagination to create works that stir our hearts and minds, courage to explore new paths, and compassion to help our fellow man. Guide the Essence toward this end with your acts, and help others do the same with your speech. Focus your thoughts ever on this goal so that you can see clearly how to achieve it. With these right thoughts, right speech, and right acts, your life can harmonize with the Essence for the betterment of all."

I kind of like the idea of having Buddha say something along those lines to explain why Phronism could have fizzled initially, but I couldn't find an elegant way of having him instruct the followers to carry out an impossible task without making it seem, well, unappealing to someone who's looking for the ultimate answers to life. How would you feel about instead having the intended crossroads be consumed by war, like when Alexander the Great conquered Samarkand in 329 BC?

Also, one more thing that we haven't really talked about. We all want Phronism to be able to adapt to the times, but how would we envision that actually playing out in practice? I think it might be valuable to include a story in the Phronist history about a denomination changing its ways. It would serve as a model for how change ought to be accomplished, how a denomination should entertain the views of skeptics, judge whether any proposed changes would be detrimental or beneficial, and handle an internal division between people who are willing and those who are unwilling to accept the change. It could be a scientific idea that gets adopted, like changing from a view of a flat earth to a round one, but I think it might be even better to have it deal with a social issue like trading slaves or giving rights to women.

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Laozi, introducing the Essence

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God, for you at least know to ask of him. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament for she believed that, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain and disease," said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." At this, the woman began to wonder if her husband might have attained Moksa, and asked if he had reached a state of eternal bliss. Mahavira asked, "How had your husband lived and even perceived his life? Did he see pleasure and pursue it, and did he see pain and try to avoid it? Or did he instead see his duty, and carry it out faithfully regardless of the pleasures or pains it might bring?" This the woman could not answer. "Then I cannot tell you whether he is in eternal bliss with the Essence," Mahavira answered, "but know this: we all return to the Essence at some time, and I have told you now what must be done to achieve the ultimate state with the Essence. You yourself have the opportunity to do so if you follow this path, as do all those around you. Do so, and teach others to do likewise."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Buddha, introducing the denominational system

As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers:

"You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it.

"Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

[Guest]

I kind of like the idea of having Buddha say something along those lines to explain why Phronism could have fizzled initially, but I couldn't find an elegant way of having him instruct the followers to carry out an impossible task without making it seem, well, unappealing to someone who's looking for the ultimate answers to life. How would you feel about instead having the intended crossroads be consumed by war, like when Alexander the Great conquered Samarkand in 329 BC?

Add to Buddha's parable:

Later, when these words of the great Buddha reached the people, the master was approached by a follower and questioned. "Revered One, we have learned that Phronists are to form various denominations that are instructed to travel to one another to exchange wisdom and understanding. You have traveled far to come to this council. Men of ordinary means cannot abandon their fields and flocks and make such an epic sojourn. What are we to do?"

The great Buddha heaved a deep sigh. His eyes lifted whistfully toward the sky as he responded. "My child, Phronism is a patient faith. I foresee a day when the teachings of Phronism have been completely forgotten for precisely the reason of the difficulty of our many denominations to stay in contact. But this is as it must be. For it is prophesied that the great Mithra, the Maitreya shall not arrive to provide the true dharma of the Essence until a far day when the oceans seem to have decreased in size such that the true dharma, the knowledge of the Essence of Phronism, may traverse the seas freely. In this time will the revival be readied, and Phronism shall finally flower. Be patient, my son."

Amazingly, this is no fairy tale. The prophesy of a "new Buddha", the Maitreya, is widely known, and the conditions for his appearance are exactly as Buddha specifies in the parable. Only the references to Phronism were lost to the transcriptions of the Buddha's words, exactly as they must have been in order for the prophesy to be fulfilled! Even the oddly unusual connection with Zoroastrianism's deity Mithra ("that which causes binding - as in 'covenant, contract, oath'!") is recognized by scholars: thus a huge hint that the Council of Samarkand actually took place!

[Guest]

Hi guys. I'm afraid I've lacked the time or historical knowledge to contribute significantly lately, but I'd just like to say I'm in awe

I couldn't agree more on every point. I've had several changes in my life, so I'm anxious to get back in here. I have so much to add! But right now the computer at the library is about to log me off. See y'all soon.

[plasmid]

Excellent find, seeksit. I'll go ahead and add it to the Buddha supplement to the parable archive. My sympathies to octopuppy & Grayven. As a matter of fact, on July 1 I'll start my new job and my visits to BrainDen will become few and far between. The Seventh Shepherd's final parable for the meeting of Samarkand will close things out. (Of course, if we do need any more to be said at Samarkand we can add more stories in the middle.)

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, and our Acts of Legacy will define our relationship with the Essence. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something that you're good at that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

It is fit that there be many denominations of Phronism, for not all people are alike, and diversity helps humanity flourish. The denominations shall each have their own customs and ways of harmonizing with the Essence. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is imperative for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world. As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside Phronism who can view it objectively and dispassionately. Outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are to be welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware if outsiders bring ideas that are based not on reason but on unsubstantiated beliefs such as gods, for these may be illusions of human imaginations that guide the way to decay.

Human understanding of the Essence is a never ending quest requiring the joint efforts of many, and humanity's understanding should be reviewed from time to time. Phronist councils should take place to review what is known, and when a more complete description of the Essence becomes clear it will be shared with the followers. The council must also evaluate whether people's practices truly guide the Essence to positively affect people's lives. If denominations need to be altered to harmonize with the Essence, they will be so instructed, or will be excluded from Phronism if they cannot harmonize. The council will evaluate new denominations and determine whether they harmonize with the Essence, and will admit those that do into Phronism and allow them to participate in the council.

That leaves hopefully the monk parable, a story of how a denomination changes, and the rules for the subsequent councils to be added before releasing this in a new thread. And an explanation of the Actual and Potential at some point in Samarkand since I don't think I included one yet.

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Laozi, introducing the Essence

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God, for you at least know to ask of him. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament for she believed that, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain and disease," said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." At this, the woman began to wonder if her husband might have attained Moksa, and asked if he had reached a state of eternal bliss. Mahavira asked, "How had your husband lived and even perceived his life? Did he see pleasure and pursue it, and did he see pain and try to avoid it? Or did he instead see his duty, and carry it out faithfully regardless of the pleasures or pains it might bring?" This the woman could not answer. "Then I cannot tell you whether he is in eternal bliss with the Essence," Mahavira answered, "but know this: we all return to the Essence at some time, and I have told you now what must be done to achieve the ultimate state with the Essence. You yourself have the opportunity to do so if you follow this path, as do all those around you. Do so, and teach others to do likewise."

Zoroaster, on how to harmonize with the Essence

The followers were daily learning more about the Essence, and they began to understand that it was no mere idol demanding prayer or sacrifice but a force that is guided by every action they take. Yet the followers still lacked direction to channel their efforts. So as the council dismissed for the day, a group of them approached Zoroaster and asked, "Our actions shape the flow of the Essence and determine how we will ultimately exist with it, do they not?" Zoroaster replied, "Any one person's actions may influence the Essence and thereby affect the world around us, and they will affect both your ultimate existence and your existence now. The Essence should be your partner, your efforts must harmonize with it for you to achieve fulfillment."

"Then Zoroaster, if our actions are so important: how ought we to act?" Zoroaster answered them, "As your existence helps shape the Essence, the Essence shapes the lives of everyone else. The most noble of paths would have the Essence bring the world peace and prosperity, understanding of the world around us, imagination to create works that stir our hearts and minds, courage to explore new paths, and compassion to help our fellow man. Guide the Essence toward this end with your acts, and help others do the same with your speech. Focus your thoughts ever on this goal so that you can see clearly how to achieve it. With these right thoughts, right speech, and right acts, your life can harmonize with the Essence for the betterment of all."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Buddha, introducing the denominational system

As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers:

"You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it.

"Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind."

Later, when these words of the great Buddha reached the people, the master was approached by a follower and questioned. "Revered One, we have learned that Phronists are to form various denominations that are instructed to travel to one another to exchange wisdom and understanding. You have traveled far to come to this council. Men of ordinary means cannot abandon their fields and flocks and make such an epic sojourn. What are we to do?"

The great Buddha heaved a deep sigh. His eyes lifted wistfully toward the sky as he responded. "My child, Phronism is a patient faith. I foresee a day when the teachings of Phronism have been completely forgotten for precisely the reason of the difficulty of our many denominations to stay in contact. But this is as it must be. For it is prophesied that the great Mithra, the Maitreya shall not arrive to provide the true dharma of the Essence until a far day when the oceans seem to have decreased in size such that the true dharma, the knowledge of the Essence of Phronism, may traverse the seas freely. In this time will the revival be readied, and Phronism shall finally flower. Be patient, my son."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

Edited June 5, 2009 by plasmid

[Guest]

My sympathies to octopuppy & Grayven. As a matter of fact, on July 1 I'll start my new job and my visits to BrainDen will become few and far between.

Well, whatever comes next, it has already been a great ride. Your enthusiasm and dedication to keeping this thread moving forward has paid dividends.

As we consider "presenting" the ideas on a new thread, it may be worthwhile to deliberate here a bit more, to think about a first impression "sound byte" or "elevator pitch". Given 15 seconds of an uninformed reader's or listener's attention, what do you say to inspire some interest and have them want to inquire further and/or participate. Then there needs to be some succinct, answers to the basic FAQ's. What is Phronism? What do you believe (a list of one-sentence bullet items)? How is it different from other religions? What are the goals, mission, vision?

[unreality]

Given 15 seconds of an uninformed reader's or listener's attention, what do you say to inspire some interest and have them want to inquire further and/or participate. Then there needs to be some succinct, answers to the basic FAQ's.

definitely!

What is Phronism?

Phronism is the pursuit of truth, the balance of chaos and order, the harmony of man, mind, Earth and Essence. Phronists value rational thought and imaginative intellect to expand their view of the Actual and Potential states of the Universe in order to harmonize with what we call the Essence.

What do you believe?

Phronism is about the belief of a current of insight, wonder and life that almost literally flows through the universe. Understanding this Essence and becoming one with it is the primary mantra. We Phronists believe in the innate spirit of arisen life and its meaning within this thing we call the universe. We believe in free-will via entity-embodiment (something akin to positive determinism). We believe in no afterlife but rather a blissful reconnection with the eternal Essence. We believe in no gods but rather the collective social force of mankind, of species in general, of life in general, of the Earth, of the Universe, of Nature, of the Essence. We believe that recipricocity is built into the universe at all levels, reflecting itself on the macro scale with a karma-esque permeation within life and a ripple-effect of the 'golden rule'.

How is it different from other religions?

Phronism is perhaps the only 'benign' religion: it flows as does the Essence, constantly adapting to the shifting moral zeitgeist, minds of the people, scientific advancements, social advancements, etc. It has a fluid, open structure that engenders its own evolution. It has no central leadership and no basis for corruption, infighting, religious zeal/extremism or crusadism. It values the role of nonbelievers. It appreciates the insights and views of all members, and gives total freedom to its members to change around within and out of the system. It tries to take up as little time and energy as possible away from the lives of its adherents. It promotes a full, happy, opportunistic life. It is open to new ideas and opens its member's minds to think about everything around them and learn more about themselves, their friends and the universe. It is a benign religion and a true World Philosophy.

What are the goals, mission, vision?

I think these have been pointed out in the previous responses, but I'm interpreting each of those words separately:

* Goal - to harmonize with the Essence

* Mission - to appreciate and expand and positively influence the collective Humanity

* Vision - a world free of tyrant religions, a world free of ignorance, a world free of unfulfilled lives. A world full of Potential and a world full of Actual... a world, a planet, a people, all harmonized with the Essence

[plasmid]

I think unreality has tied it all up quite nicely. I agree with everything, but wonder if the denominations are able to override the no gods part? We had been holding off saying what exactly denominations should and shouldn't be allowed to do while we were getting the rest sorted out, but now it seems like a good time to address it.

It also reminded me that I haven't really put the karma-esque reciprocity he talked about into any of the parables yet.

Gautama Buddha was deep in thought as he walked a road by the fields of Samarkand when a farmer saw him and approached. The farmer came holding another man at knife point and asked Buddha, "You are one of the men of the Phronist council, are you not? I have caught this thief stealing from my fields! How should I punish him in accordance with your faith?" Buddha looked to the thief, "Have you stolen from this man's farm?" "Yes, Buddha, I stole from him. Is this a sin? If so, let your Essence strike me down. I say there is no justice from your Essence. I grew up without my parents and rarely knew the shelter of a house, but what had I done to deserve such a fate while I was just a child? If fairness is not dealt to me then I need not grant it to others. Let your Essence that knows no justice be the one to punish me. It is inept and I fear nothing from it."

"Do you expect that the Essence should watch your every move, pay you promptly for every kind act, and punish all who cross you before they leave your sight? With every evil deed you tarnish yourself, and whether repaid immediately or not, you mark yourself for suffering. Good men are not paid for every act they perform, but by developing noble habits and becoming an honorable person they pave the way to happiness and contentment." Buddha turned to the farmer, "Samarkand has laws. Let the authorities punish this thief."

The thief taunted Buddha, "See, your Essence is powerless to bring justice! You are a fraud, deceiving your followers." Buddha answered the thief, "The Essence flows through everything, including the authorities. How did you expect it to act?" Buddha then turned to the farmer, "Just as the Essence brings punishment to this man for stealing, so this man was a punishment for you. Do the people of Samarkand cast children to the street? Do people of means give no way for those without to be a useful part of their society? If that is the case, you have just faced your own punishment at the hands of the Essence."

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Laozi, introducing the Essence

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God, for you at least know to ask of him. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament for she believed that, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain and disease," said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." At this, the woman began to wonder if her husband might have attained Moksa, and asked if he had reached a state of eternal bliss. Mahavira asked, "How had your husband lived and even perceived his life? Did he see pleasure and pursue it, and did he see pain and try to avoid it? Or did he instead see his duty, and carry it out faithfully regardless of the pleasures or pains it might bring?" This the woman could not answer. "Then I cannot tell you whether he is in eternal bliss with the Essence," Mahavira answered, "but know this: we all return to the Essence at some time, and I have told you now what must be done to achieve the ultimate state with the Essence. You yourself have the opportunity to do so if you follow this path, as do all those around you. Do so, and teach others to do likewise."

Zoroaster, on how to harmonize with the Essence

The followers were daily learning more about the Essence, and they began to understand that it was no mere idol demanding prayer or sacrifice but a force that is guided by every action they take. Yet the followers still lacked direction to channel their efforts. So as the council dismissed for the day, a group of them approached Zoroaster and asked, "Our actions shape the flow of the Essence and determine how we will ultimately exist with it, do they not?" Zoroaster replied, "Any one person's actions may influence the Essence and thereby affect the world around us, and they will affect both your ultimate existence and your existence now. The Essence should be your partner, your efforts must harmonize with it for you to achieve fulfillment."

"Then Zoroaster, if our actions are so important: how ought we to act?" Zoroaster answered them, "As your existence helps shape the Essence, the Essence shapes the lives of everyone else. The most noble of paths would have the Essence bring the world peace and prosperity, understanding of the world around us, imagination to create works that stir our hearts and minds, courage to explore new paths, and compassion to help our fellow man. Guide the Essence toward this end with your acts, and help others do the same with your speech. Focus your thoughts ever on this goal so that you can see clearly how to achieve it. With these right thoughts, right speech, and right acts, your life can harmonize with the Essence for the betterment of all."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Buddha, introducing the denominational system

As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers:

"You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it.

"Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind."

Later, when these words of the great Buddha reached the people, the master was approached by a follower and questioned. "Revered One, we have learned that Phronists are to form various denominations that are instructed to travel to one another to exchange wisdom and understanding. You have traveled far to come to this council. Men of ordinary means cannot abandon their fields and flocks and make such an epic sojourn. What are we to do?"

The great Buddha heaved a deep sigh. His eyes lifted wistfully toward the sky as he responded. "My child, Phronism is a patient faith. I foresee a day when the teachings of Phronism have been completely forgotten for precisely the reason of the difficulty of our many denominations to stay in contact. But this is as it must be. For it is prophesied that the great Mithra, the Maitreya shall not arrive to provide the true dharma of the Essence until a far day when the oceans seem to have decreased in size such that the true dharma, the knowledge of the Essence of Phronism, may traverse the seas freely. In this time will the revival be readied, and Phronism shall finally flower. Be patient, my son."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

The Seventh Shepherd's closing speech at Samarkand

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, and our Acts of Legacy will define our relationship with the Essence. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something that you're good at that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

It is fit that there be many denominations of Phronism, for not all people are alike, and diversity helps humanity flourish. The denominations shall each have their own customs and ways of harmonizing with the Essence. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is imperative for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world. As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside Phronism who can view it objectively and dispassionately. Outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are to be welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware if outsiders bring ideas that are based not on reason but on unsubstantiated beliefs such as gods, for these may be illusions of human imaginations that guide the way to decay.

Human understanding of the Essence is a never ending quest requiring the joint efforts of many, and humanity's understanding should be reviewed from time to time. Phronist councils should take place to review what is known, and when a more complete description of the Essence becomes clear it will be shared with the followers. The council must also evaluate whether people's practices truly guide the Essence to positively affect people's lives. If denominations need to be altered to harmonize with the Essence, they will be so instructed, or will be excluded from Phronism if they cannot harmonize. The council will evaluate new denominations and determine whether they harmonize with the Essence, and will admit those that do into Phronism and allow them to participate in the council.

[Guest]

Fantastic job at tackling the questions. I'm suggesting some edits and offering some comments as merely a first reaction. (Yes, it may inject some of my personal biases, which are always open to revision.)

What is Phronism?

Phronism is the pursuit of the noble course in life. We seek truth through knowledge and prudent actions. Phronism fosters the natural balance of chaos and order, the harmony of man, mind, Earth and Essence. Phronists value rational thought and imaginative intellect to expand their viewunderstanding of the Actual and Potential states of the Universe in order to harmonize with what we call the Essence.

(From this, the next question naturally arises:) What is the Essence?

The Essence is our spiritual path: our journey into the realms beyond understanding. It is what binds humans to the great mysteries of life and existence. The Essence consists of the Actual (what men have come to understand through our many millenia of truth seeking) and the Potential (the great sea of undiscovered reality that surrounds us). Phronism encourages a vigorous pursuit of the rational understanding of the Potential while at the same time celebrating its sheer, awe-inspiring depth and complexity.

What do Phronists believe?

Phronism is about the belief of a current of insight, wonder and life sustaining force that almost literally flows through the universe. Understanding this Essence and becoming one with it is theour primary mantra. We Phronists believe in the innate spirit of arisen life and its meaning within this thingphysical channel we call the universe.

We believe in free-will via entity-embodiment (a difficult term: how about something simpler, like enlightened choice" with a simpler parenthetical explanation like (that is, we are the conscious expression of the Essence) (something akin to positive determinism) (another difficult term. It looks very useful (lots of potential). It has a specific but somewhat esoteric meaning [see note*]. This "FAQ" for the masses needs something more down-to-earth).

We believe infind no evidence for afterlife (survival of consciousness after death), but rather we anticipate a blissful reconnection with the eternal Essence.

We believe in no infallible or omnipotent gods but rather the collective social force of mankind, of species in general, of life in general, of the Earth, of the Universe, of Nature, of the Essence.

We believe that recipricocity is built into the universe at all levels, reflecting itself on the macro scale within our daily lives by a karma-esque permeation within life and a ripple-effect of the idealized (Phronist) 'golden rule': "Do unto others according your noble (prudent) understanding of their noblest wish." This expression of man's ideal behavior is rooted in our belief that acting in one's self-interest is unavoidable, that it can even be enlightened and wise when done prudently, but that it ultimately isolates one from the full expression of the Essence.

* Note on "Positive Determinism": This is a term used by Julia Eksner, and described as follows (I'd need to dig deeper to really understand it:) This paper centrally discusses the cultural nature of cognitive schemata for selfregulation. I focus on “Positive Determinism”, a self-regulatory mental model based on faith and optimistic beliefs, in which control is relinquished. Positive Determinism describes a particular kind of mental model of how the world works, that is in a benevolent and orderly manner. I conceptualize the employment of positive deterministic beliefs as a “hypoegoic” self-regulatory strategy (Leary et al., 2006), in which individual control and effort is relinquished. This culturally specific pattern of self-regulation has not been explored adequately in the literature.

How is Phronism different from other religions?

Phronism is perhaps the only 'benign' religion. By this we mean that it does not judge, suppress, belittle or restrict the human spirit, but enables, sustains and nurtures it. Phronism itself flows as does the Essence, constantly adapting to the shifting moral zeitgeistsensibilities of the times, minds of the people, scientific advancements, social advancements, etc. It has a fluid, open structure that naturally engenders its own evolution. It has nolimited central leadership and, through a system of freely evolving, cross-fertilizing and self-correcting "denominations", no basis for corruption, infighting, religious zeal/extremism or crusadism. It values the role of nonbelievers. It appreciates the insights and views of all members, and gives total freedom to its members to change around within and out of the system. It tries to take up as little time and energy as possible away from the lives of its adherents. It promotes a full, happy, opportunistic life. It is open to new ideas and opens its member's minds to think about everything around them and to learn more about themselves, their friends and the universe. Phronism found its roots at the dawn of human self-awareness. It re-affirms the original meaning an purpose of religion: to re-connect the people with one another and with every level of reality from the parochial to the Essence. It is a benign religion andIt extends beyond religion to being a true World Philosophy.

goals, mission, vision

I'm thinking more along the lines of institutional guidance. What are the goals, mission, vision of the Phronist movement and of its "founders"/leadership. TBD.

I think these have been pointed out in the previous responses, but I'm interpreting each of those words separately:

* Goal - to harmonize with the Essence

* Mission - to appreciate and expand and positively influence the collective Humanity

* (This is great!) Vision - a world free of tyrant religions, a world free of ignorance, a world free of unfulfilled lives. A world full ofmaximally and dynamically realizing the Potential and a world full of the noblest Actual... a world, a planet, a people, all harmonized with the Essence.

[unreality]

nice edits - and damn I didn't know "positive determinism" was already associated with something else. I'll have to think of a new term: how about enlightened cognitivism or something? I was trying to fit 'positivism' in there too but the semantics is tricky

[Guest]

It also reminded me that I haven't really put the karma-esque reciprocity he talked about into any of the parables yet.

Gautama Buddha was deep in thought as he walked a road by the fields of Samarkand when a farmer saw him and approached. The farmer came holding another man at knife point and asked Buddha, "You are one of the men of the Phronist council, are you not? I have caught this thief stealing from my fields! How should I punish him in accordance with your faith?" Buddha looked to the thief, "Have you stolen from this man's farm?" "Yes, Buddha, I stole from him. Is this a sin? If so, let your Essence strike me down. I say there is no justice from your Essence. I grew up without my parents and rarely knew the shelter of a house, but what had I done to deserve such a fate while I was just a child? If fairness is not dealt to me then I need not grant it to others. Let your Essence that knows no justice be the one to punish me. It is inept and I fear nothing from it."

"Do you expect that the Essence should watch your every move, pay you promptly for every kind act, and punish all who cross you before they leave your sight? With every evil deed you tarnish yourself, and whether repaid immediately or not, you mark yourself for suffering. Good men are not paid for every act they perform, but by developing noble habits and becoming an honorable person they pave the way to happiness and contentment." Buddha turned to the farmer, "Samarkand has laws. Let the authorities punish this thief."

The thief taunted Buddha, "See, your Essence is powerless to bring justice! You are a fraud, deceiving your followers." Buddha answered the thief, "The Essence flows through everything, including the authorities. How did you expect it to act?" Buddha then turned to the farmer, "Just as the Essence brings punishment to this man for stealing, so this man was a punishment for you. Do the people of Samarkand cast children to the street? Do people of means give no way for those without to be a useful part of their society? If that is the case, you have just faced your own punishment at the hands of the Essence."

This is inspiring--really well done. It actually sounds to me more like something Confucius would deal with. Might you consider changing the teacher in this parable from Buddha to Confucius?

[plasmid]

Good point: Buddhist karma never applied to groups of people, so the twist at the end does make it more Confucian.

Since I now understand that this nutshell summary of Phronism is something we're designing as a sort of "Phronism pamphlet" for a modern audience, I would invoke George Carlin (the honorary Eighth Shepherd) to propose some modifications to cut it down to the real core principles, keeping it very succinct yet with a degree of spirituality and mysticism. But please tell me if I've cut out anything important to get across in the first introduction.

Phronism is the pursuit of a noble course in life through prudent actions. It uses the concept of "the Essence" that drives the flow of events – a representation merging everything from the most basic laws of physics to the rules of behavior for intelligent people interacting within complex societies. The Essence includes science and extends beyond it, binding humans with the great mysteries of life and existence currently beyond understanding. Phronism encourages a vigorous pursuit of understanding the Essence through rational thought and imaginative intellect while simultaneously celebrating its sheer awe-inspiring depth and complexity, with the ultimate goal of using this knowledge to "harmonize" with the Essence: to act in ways that promote a safe, prosperous, and caring society.

Understanding this Essence and becoming one with it is our primary mantra. Phronism currently finds no evidence for afterlife (survival of consciousness after death), but instead anticipates a reconnection with the eternal Essence in ways that are determined by the legacy of our actions throughout life. We believe in no infallible or omnipotent gods, and avoid indulging in prayer, sacrifices, or other forms of worship that might distract from taking action toward useful ends. We instead believe that people's acts shape the Essence, manifesting itself in our daily lives by a karma-like reciprocity. We espouse harmonizing with the Essence by following the idealized "golden rule": "Do unto others what will benefit them most."

Phronism itself flows as does the Essence, constantly adapting to the sensibilities of the times and scientific and social advancement. It has a fluid, open structure that naturally engenders its own evolution: it has (*limited or no... did we ever say there needs to be any at all?*) central leadership and, through a system of freely evolving, cross-fertilizing and self-correcting "denominations", mechanisms to prevent corruption, infighting, extremism or crusadism. It gives total freedom to its members to change within and out of the system. It appreciates the insights and views not only of members but of any person with sound reasoning and noble intentions. It is open to new ideas and opens its member's minds to think about everything around them and to learn more about themselves, their friends and the universe. It re-affirms the original meaning an purpose of religion: to re-connect the people with one another and with every level of reality from the parochial to the Essence. It extends beyond religion to being a true World Philosophy.

The Seventh Shepherd, on questioning words regardless of the speaker

After a long day of discussion at the council, the Seventh Shepherd walked out to the quiet hills outside Samarkand to reflect. But he noticed a crowd gathering and following him. "Teach us, master," they cried, "what has the council learned of God?" And so despite weariness from the day's deliberations the master spoke. "God says thusly," he began. "All persons have the manifest destiny to influence the course of events, acting to impact the community of all other living things – even the Earth itself – and so to steer everyone's and everything's path into the future. As such, the world's destiny is in each of our hands. We are each entrusted with this great responsibility, and for guidance to carry it out dutifully we must employ all tools at our disposal. Toward this end, one's spiritual consciousness must be unified with one's reason. Men do this best in community, for reason often fails the individual striving alone for truth. Those who stop improving or eschew reason are acting blindly and risk ruin for themselves and all around them. Each day is a cycle of habitation in physical body and spiritual pursuit while one's spirit takes shape. For most people, a striving toward balance, meditation in search of the guidance and support from one's ancestral past, consultation with the wise, and sincere veneration of truth is sufficient to find guidance for their actions so that they may shape a better future. Those with strong motivation to shape destiny may study nature to understand its inner workings and thereby know how best to guide it. Others may consult my Word. In invoking the Word of God, however, exquisite care is required to ensure alignment of thought and action, of humility and strength, of reason and divine guidance."

The Shepherd paused, gazed upon the people kindly and spoke again. "I ask you now: Why should men heed these words?" An eager seeker responded quickly, "Because they are the Word of God! Have we not now heard His voice, as if spoken through your mouth?" The Shepherd replied, "This is not the reason. The prudent man weighs the words rather than the speaker of them. How do you know that I did not just lie to you? Indeed, how do I myself know that I am not suffering from delusion and attributing wild thoughts to God? Judge words. Put them to the test. If they are wise and guide you toward honesty, compassion, and the courage to act with integrity then heed them. If they defy all reason and guide you down the path of corruption, hatred, and sloth then have nothing to do with them. Such would be a wise course whether you hear words from a prophet or from a child." As the seven met in council again the following day, the followers themselves met to discuss the wisdom of what the Seventh Shepherd had just told them, for now they began to understand.

Laozi, introducing the Essence

A group of followers waited outside for the Seventh Shepherd to emerge from the day's deliberations, but it was Laozi who first stepped out. The followers questioned him, "Laozi, we have discussed what the Seventh Shepherd told us, and we believe it may be true. Please then, teach us what more you have learned about God today?" Laozi responded, "You wish for me to tell you about God? How curious is this. Perhaps it is I who should be asking you about God, for you at least know to ask of him. Had I never heard of Zoroaster, I should not walk up to someone and say 'Tell me of Zoroaster' for I would not know the name. In fact, I should have no reason to ask of Zoroaster at all until someone had already told me something of him and I wished to learn more, or unless I saw him and asked another man 'Who is that person over there?' but I would not know to use the name Zoroaster. But here you come asking me to tell you about God, so you must already know something of this God. Did the Seventh Shepherd describe God to you the other day, or do you know him through some other means? Tell me."

A follower answered, "He spoke the word of God with his voice." Another follower corrected him, "He told us words that might have been from God. We have discussed them and believe they may be true regardless of their source." Laozi then said, "Is this all you can tell me about God, some words that might or might not have been said by him? There are several things I might speak about, but you want to know about God which is a name I do not find meaning in. How should I recognize this God you speak of so that I might explain this thing to you?"

A third follower answered, "Ancient scripture taught to me declares that God made the heavens and the Earth. He created us. He makes the plants grow, and gives the animals life. He brings the sun and the rain. He is the one we should worship." Laozi then said, "How did the hand that wrote these scriptures come to know that all these things emanated from one great being? Regardless, you have now given me a question I can address: who is this 'one' that gives life to the plants and animals, and brings the sun and the rain. You have formed ideas about this thing 'God' that you thought you knew, yet you were merely given words from a hand in an ancient book, or from the voice of a humble Shepherd. But hear me: things of power must not be named until they may be called by their proper names. So you do not attribute these ideas you had about 'God' to the thing I describe, let us give it a different name. Let us call it 'The Essence'. This is what brings the sun and the rain, and what brings life to the plants and animals. It is what brings the wind and the waves, what drives fire to dance. It is what gives breath to a living man and light to his eyes, and what makes the mountains keep their shape instead of crumbling like sand. You want me to describe this thing, 'The Essence', to you? In council we ponder this deeply. For indeed, the Essence ought to be explained to the people. Let me say simply now, just this: The Essence obeys its own laws - laws that men do not fully comprehend. The sun and the moon fly through the skies in patterns. New life looks similar to its predecessors: a goat does not beget a monkey. It is our noblest duty to learn these laws. For if you know how the Essence will act, you will know how to act yourself. A farmer would plant seed where crops might grow, but avoid land that will be scorched by fire. Tell me now, is this what you wanted to know about when you asked me of 'God'?"

A follower said, "It is not what I expected; but I thirst for your teaching. Please tell us more about the Essence." Laozi smiled and gazed beyond the horizon, "One might spend a lifetime learning about the Essence and not understand it completely. But you have taken the first step for now, you have begun to call this thing of apparent power by its proper name."

Diotima of Mantinea, on the nature of the Essence and rejoining it

Diotima was restless after the day's discussion with the six others. Unable to sleep, she began to pace. Her thoughts were interrupted by sounds from a neighboring room, and because she was expecting no visitors she went to investigate. There she found one of her traveling companions lying with a local man who Diotima knew spoke sweetly to the women. Diotima left them for the night, going unnoticed, but the next morning she approached her fellow traveler. "Last night, when you were visited by that local man, do you think you were acting wisely with him?" Knowing that she had been discovered, she was too embarrassed to answer, so Diotima continued, "Such men are but beggars whose only art is casting illusions to draw you near. They will leave you with nothing save an illness or a child with no father. You would do well to avoid them." "Diotima, surely he loved me! He told me things I had never heard from any man before. I listened to my heart, and it told me to be with him." But as soon as the words left her mouth, the traveler thought the situation over and realized that she was acting foolishly and recanted. Diotima continued, "Their behavior springs from a deep wish to live forever. Not being capable of this, they instead seek to live forever through their seed. But even that is failing to understand the situation. We have long known that it is not our flesh but our ideas that most define who we are, and such men are foolish enough to spread their flesh but do not pass on their ideas."

The traveler then said, "Were he only like us, seekers of truth. Surely we will find the answers, and as the others have said we will not have to settle for passing on our ideas to others because we will have eternal life itself." Diotima recalled the previous day's discussion and responded, "It does not seem that they are entirely correct. The Essence is no god like Zeus, and we do not simply live in its presence for all eternity. The Essence is something else entirely. It does not drive the sun like Apollo with a chariot and horses, and it does not fire an arrow like Cupid. Instead, the Essence is more like the waves and the wind, but reaching into everything around us. After we die, we do not live as we do now in a new land with the Essence; it would be more accurate to say that we join the Essence by becoming a part of it."

"Diotima, do you mean that we will have the powers of a god after we die? If this were true, imagine the things we could do. We would be able to so many great things for the world." As Diotima prepared to rejoin the others for the day she said, "You don't realize your own potential now. You might not have the power of the seas and wind, but you have your two hands. If you want to do great acts for the world, then now is the time." And so she left to meet the others.

Mahavira, on existence with the Essence

Mahavira came upon a woman in Samarkand who he found to be weeping, and seeking to comfort her, he asked why she wept. The woman answered that her husband had died, struck down by fever and festering boils, and she was sorrowful over the suffering he faced in his final days. But she wept most of all because, although her husband was a good man, he found little but suffering in this life. "Do you believe, then, that your husband's soul is gone? Far be it from the truth. At the end of the stream of life is a return to the Essence from which life is drawn. Do not grieve if your husband has returned." But the woman continued to lament for she believed that, as her husband had suffered in his life on Earth, so he would continue to suffer in his existence flowing back into the stream of the Essence.

Mahavira asked her, "Was your husband brutal, or a liar, or a thief, or a glutton, or full of avarice?" The woman answered that he was none of these. "Then his existence now with the Essence is free of pain and disease," said Mahavira, "Now tell me: was your husband faithful, and was he wise, and did he conduct himself well at all times?" The woman answered that he was. "Then at the end of his stream of existence here, in his existence with the Essence, is a safe and happy and quiet place." At this, the woman began to wonder if her husband might have attained Moksa, and asked if he had reached a state of eternal bliss. Mahavira asked, "How had your husband lived and even perceived his life? Did he see pleasure and pursue it, and did he see pain and try to avoid it? Or did he instead see his duty, and carry it out faithfully regardless of the pleasures or pains it might bring?" This the woman could not answer. "Then I cannot tell you whether he is in eternal bliss with the Essence," Mahavira answered, "but know this: we all return to the Essence at some time, and I have told you now what must be done to achieve the ultimate state with the Essence. You yourself have the opportunity to do so if you follow this path, as do all those around you. Do so, and teach others to do likewise."

Confucius, on reciprocity of the Essence

Confucius was deep in thought as he walked a road by the fields of Samarkand when a farmer saw him and approached. The farmer came holding another man at knife point and asked Confucius, "You are one of the men of the Phronist council, are you not? I have caught this thief stealing from my fields! How should I punish him in accordance with your faith?" Confucius looked to the thief, "Have you stolen from this man's farm?" "Yes, Confucius, I stole from him. Is this a sin? If so, let your Essence strike me down. I say there is no justice from your Essence. I grew up without my parents and rarely knew the shelter of a house, but what had I done to deserve such a fate while I was just a child? If fairness is not dealt to me then I need not grant it to others. Let your Essence that knows no justice be the one to punish me. It is inept and I fear nothing from it."

"Do you expect that the Essence should watch your every move, pay you promptly for every kind act, and punish all who cross you before they leave your sight? With every evil deed you tarnish yourself, and whether repaid immediately or not, you mark yourself for suffering. Good men are not paid for every act they perform, but by developing noble habits and becoming an honorable person they pave the way to happiness and contentment." Confucius turned to the farmer, "Samarkand has laws. Let the authorities punish this thief."

The thief taunted Confucius, "See, your Essence is powerless to bring justice! You are a fraud, deceiving your followers." Confucius answered the thief, "The Essence flows through everything, including the authorities. How did you expect it to act?" Confucius again turned to the farmer, "Just as the Essence brings punishment to this man for stealing, so this man was a punishment for you. Do the people of Samarkand cast children to the street? Do people of means give no way for those without to be a useful part of their society? If that is the case, you have just faced your own punishment at the hands of the Essence."

Zoroaster, on how to harmonize with the Essence

The followers were daily learning more about the Essence, and they began to understand that it was no mere idol demanding prayer or sacrifice but a force that is guided by every action they take. Yet the followers still lacked direction to channel their efforts. So as the council dismissed for the day, a group of them approached Zoroaster and asked, "Our actions shape the flow of the Essence and determine how we will ultimately exist with it, do they not?" Zoroaster replied, "Any one person's actions may influence the Essence and thereby affect the world around us, and they will affect both your ultimate existence and your existence now. The Essence should be your partner, your efforts must harmonize with it for you to achieve fulfillment."

"Then Zoroaster, if our actions are so important: how ought we to act?" Zoroaster answered them, "As your existence helps shape the Essence, the Essence shapes the lives of everyone else. The most noble of paths would have the Essence bring the world peace and prosperity, understanding of the world around us, imagination to create works that stir our hearts and minds, courage to explore new paths, and compassion to help our fellow man. Guide the Essence toward this end with your acts, and help others do the same with your speech. Focus your thoughts ever on this goal so that you can see clearly how to achieve it. With these right thoughts, right speech, and right acts, your life can harmonize with the Essence for the betterment of all."

Mahavira, on listening to outsiders

As Mahavira was returning home, he saw in the distance a man who he recognized from a gathering of those who now called themselves "Phronists". Drawing nearer Mahavira watched as the man drew out from his robe a branch, and baring his back, he began to beat himself with it. When Mahavira drew nearer, he asked the man why he was flogging himself. "Mahavira," the man said, "I am practicing ascetic ways. I am forsaking my own worldly pleasures and comforts so that I might achieve loftier goals." Mahavira saw that the man did not fully understand his actions, but he did not correct the man himself. Indeed, Mahavira knew that although he might be able to correct this one mistake, he would not always be there to correct every mistake the man might make. So instead, Mahavira asked "Have you spoken with any of the others about this? Do they agree that striking yourself is a wise path?" The man answered, "No, but the other Phronists are only men just as I am a man. If we should disagree, then who is to say which of us is right and which is wrong? I have faith that my course is wise." Mahavira saw onlookers who watched as the man flogged himself, and he pressed the man again, "Look around you. Do you see those people over there staring at you? What do you suppose they think of your acts?" The man responded, "Why should I care what they think of my acts? They are not even Phronists! Their words are useless to me."

At this Mahavira became most concerned, and he called the onlookers forth and explained what the man was doing, and asked them if they thought it was wise. One of them said, "This seems foolish. You are beating yourself to deny yourself comfort, but what are you accomplishing? If you wish to deny yourself comfort, then go plow a field. Then you would not only be practicing asceticism, but you would produce a harvest in the Autumn." After the onlooker left, Mahavira asked the man what he thought of the advice. Again the man said that the onlooker's words were useless because he was not a Phronist. Then Mahavira said, "Would you have accepted the same words had they come from my mouth? Because I tell you truthfully, I would have said the same thing." The man was silent for a moment, but then asked "Surely you do not want me to live my life by the whims of an outsider, do you?" Mahavira answered, "Had the man mocked you, or tried to swindle you, or told you that his God has other commandments then you should ignore him, for his God is likely a figment of his imagination. But this man spoke to you as an outsider with no malice toward you, no eagerness to see you make a fool of yourself, and with full sincerity. You should consider such advice carefully. Beyond that, he gave reasoning with his words. Nowhere have we said that Phronists are always right, nor have we said that non-believers are always wrong. Reason is the best guidance that humans have, so do not forsake it no matter where it comes from."

Buddha, introducing the denominational system

As the young Phronist faith was taking shape, the followers began to disagree about the proper ways of observing the faith. The Hindu practice of cremating bodies was bewildering to the Egyptians, and the Hellenic sacrifices of cattle were reprehensible to the Hindus. The seven discussed this mounting discord in their council, and Gautama Buddha then addressed the followers:

"You each carry your own traditions, your own scriptures, and your own lessons from past teachers that now shape your beliefs. I submit that you should not rely so heavily on such sources of wisdom. The Essence makes itself manifest, for it is what gives the world its form and its function. Every day we interact with the Essence, and so we each learn about it through our own experiences. This experience will guide you in discerning what practices should be followed. When you know that a practice is good and that it is blameless, follow it. When not only your teachers but many wise men praise a practice, follow it. When a practice leads to the benefit and happiness of yourself and all others while avoiding suffering, follow it.

"Because you come from different lands with different customs, by no means must you all follow the same set of practices. Such practices do not define Phronism itself. They are merely different means of harmonizing with the Essence. For that reason, those of you who have found the practice of arranged marriage to lead to greater harmony than allowing each to find their own spouse should continue to do so as long as this is judged to be wise. Those of you who shun alcohol because of the disharmony it breeds, continue avoiding it as long as this course is judged to be wise. Since different groups of people will find different ways of harmonizing with the Essence, let them each form denominations of Phronism to practice the ways that they have found to be fit. Although each will be different in their own ways, these denominations will all be part of Phronism, united in their dedication to understand the Essence, expand the Actual, and benefit all of humankind."

Later, when these words of the great Buddha reached the people, the master was approached by a follower and questioned. "Revered One, we have learned that Phronists are to form various denominations that are instructed to travel to one another to exchange wisdom and understanding. You have traveled far to come to this council. Men of ordinary means cannot abandon their fields and flocks and make such an epic sojourn. What are we to do?"

The great Buddha heaved a deep sigh. His eyes lifted wistfully toward the sky as he responded. "My child, Phronism is a patient faith. I foresee a day when the teachings of Phronism have been completely forgotten for precisely the reason of the difficulty of our many denominations to stay in contact. But this is as it must be. For it is prophesied that the great Mithra, the Maitreya shall not arrive to provide the true dharma of the Essence until a far day when the oceans seem to have decreased in size such that the true dharma, the knowledge of the Essence of Phronism, may traverse the seas freely. In this time will the revival be readied, and Phronism shall finally flower. Be patient, my son."

Confucius, on selecting a denomination

As Confucius left the council for the day he was set upon immediately by a group of followers. "We have heard the instructions to each follow a denomination in our pursuit to harmonize with the Essence. How should we identify which of the denominations sets forth the best commandments?" Confucius responded, "Commandments? Laws may prevent people from doing harm, but guide a man by laws and you will only teach him to avoid the punishments that violation brings. If you seek to carry out Acts of Legacy, find those who can teach you virtue and excellence, for this will not only prevent you from doing ill but will drive you toward doing good. Those who know virtue and excellence cannot help but show this in their daily lives. They are the ones who act towards all others just as they would wish for others to act towards them. Their examples may be your instructor. Furthermore, seek those who not only know virtue but are able to teach it. If you see greatness but this does not drive you to greatness yourself although you make a sincere effort, then find a better teacher."

"Very well. We shall set forth to look for someone perfect in his virtue from whom to learn." Confucius was amused at this and said, "One with perfect virtue? Such a man I have yet to know. You might spend all of your life looking for this man and none of it learning. Let the man beside you be your teacher: select his good traits and emulate them, and if you see faults then avoid them. But unless you should find this perfectly virtuous man you speak of, do not stay with only one denomination. After three years of learning you should have learned something, if you are to learn anything at all; at that point go forth and look for others from whom to learn. Find and adopt the virtuous aspects of many people, and you will have few regrets."

The Seventh Shepherd's closing speech at Samarkand

Humanity struggles to fulfill our potential as it emanates from the Essence, and much remains to be learned and understood. Connecting with the Essence is an endless quest along a path that will be increasingly revealed as humanity parts the veil of the unknown through reason and sober study. While science reveals the mechanics of nature, it remains silent on our overall purpose, and for this we turn to the Essence. Purpose implies a need to act, and our Acts of Legacy will define our relationship with the Essence. To harmonize with the Essence: Help others, be generous, be reliable. Do not harm others, steal, or lie. Learn throughout your childhood, and fulfill your potential as an adult. Find something that you're good at that will benefit society and do it. Understand at all times that faith is a supplement to, and not a supplanter of, reason; it is a way to see the world that will lead to fulfillment, and its worth is measured by the degree to which it accomplishes this goal.

It is fit that there be many denominations of Phronism, for not all people are alike, and diversity helps humanity flourish. The denominations shall each have their own customs and ways of harmonizing with the Essence. As it is important for people to each find their unique role in the harmony of the Essence, it is imperative for them to visit other denominations from time to time and experience their ways, and thus find their place in the world. As it is important to have many denominations, so it is important to have people outside Phronism who can view it objectively and dispassionately. Outsiders that understand the world through mankind's endeavors are to be welcomed, for they offer a unique perspective and often seek to advance humanity as the followers do. But beware if outsiders bring ideas that are based not on reason but on unsubstantiated beliefs such as gods, for these may be illusions of human imaginations that guide the way to decay.

Human understanding of the Essence is a never ending quest requiring the joint efforts of many, and humanity's understanding should be reviewed from time to time. Phronist councils should take place to review what is known, and when a more complete description of the Essence becomes clear it will be shared with the followers. The council must also evaluate whether people's practices truly guide the Essence to positively affect people's lives. If denominations need to be altered to harmonize with the Essence, they will be so instructed, or will be excluded from Phronism if they cannot harmonize. The council will evaluate new denominations and determine whether they harmonize with the Essence, and will admit those that do into Phronism and allow them to participate in the council.

[Guest]

... it has (*limited or no... did we ever say there needs to be any at all?*) central leadership ...

Well, for now *we* are the central leadership. The guiding texts we write are "leadership", in that they are the central docrtine. If these guiding texts are to be adaptable, there would seem to be some need for a central process of adapting it. I remember discussing an annual gathering.

The way the Unitarian Universalists are organized, none of the 1000+ individual congregations are actually beholden to the central association in Boston. They may drop out at any time and are always free to control the content of their Sunday services and the overall agenda of their congregation. Money flows to the central association voluntarily. Their system works well enough; and the individual congregations are like Phronism's denominations.

[unreality]

I went back and found some of my past musings on a loose decentralized guidance system:

I was thinking about this and how much do we actually want the "core" Truth to be adaptive? Is the point to have the Truth be hardset and the denominations change with the times so that we have up-to-date ethics while still attached to the core dogma from whenever it was first made? Or do we want everything to be fluid and changeable?

I vote that the core dogma is changeable as well, but much more gradually than denominational whims. That's why I was thinking of some kind annual council, like a Superrendezvous (was tempted to say Uber tongue.gif) where each registered denomination (bringing me to another point: I think starting a denomination should need about 10-20 ppl minimum with a sort of "tithe" charge for clerical costs or something) sends 3 representatives to the Council. They have a big bash (anyone can come of course, but only up to 3 official reps from each denom) and banquet and party and stuff, and have philosophical discussions & debates (some official, some not) and have an all-round fun Councilday (we can make it a holiday ;D). Then at the end there's a big convention where various points of <NAME> are discussed and a triumvirate of three denoms can co-present a proposed change to the core Truth. Then there's a big vote where each official rep has equal vote value. The 9 reps from the three presenting denoms cannot vote

nice point about "phrony denominations" instigated by rival pagan religions. Yeah a revision should be necessary: one of the events of Councilday (besides partying, doctrine-change-voting and disband-a-bad-denom-voting) should be a thing where people can register a new denomination. They would need, say, 9 people as the initial founders (subject to change), some legal documents, some cash, etc. They present their denom (we could have sub-Councils for this event so that it goes by quicker... boredom is not on the Councilday event list), get it vouched for, prove its worth and what it will stand for, etc. If approved and generally well liked, it becomes a "quasidenom" for exactly 1 year. During this time, it acts like any other denom except it has the sole goal of getting off the ground, advertising itself, gaining members, etc. At the next Councilday, it does NOT send reps (nor does it send reps to any Emergency Councils that may be called - that requires a coalition of three denoms, like most called actions do) but rather is "reviewed" and the Council (or a sub-Council) inspects what it has accomplished during its first year. It will either get canned (but in more helpful terms of course), extended for another "quasidenom" year (no more than one extension ever) or, like most should be, made into a full denom.

So, events of Councilday:

* partying, events, fun for all ages

* Council/sub-Council(s) for approving new quasidenoms

* Council/sub-Council(s) for elevating quasidenoms to full denoms

* general Phronetic chatting before, during and after philosophical speeches and formal debates held around-the-clock in various exposition halls and stuff

* Council for the doctrine change (requires 3 denoms working together to present change idea, it is debated and discussed, then voted on... 95% needed) as well as denom suspension (same dealio - 3 denoms file a charge against a denom to suspend it from <NAME>, and all the other denoms other than the presenters and the accused vote, needs 97% or something to proceed with the suspension)

* Essence hymns at your local phronastary

* etc

[Guest]

Well, for now *we* are the central leadership. The guiding texts we write are "leadership", in that they are the central docrtine. If these guiding texts are to be adaptable, there would seem to be some need for a central process of adapting it. I remember discussing an annual gathering.

The synopsis is good; it fits a pamphlet well enough, but the 15 second version is still missing. Don't know that I can help there...

As for an annual meeting, if it exists, I think it should be held on (or around) the Winter (Summer in Southern Hemisphere) Solstice or the Spring (Autumnal in SH) Equinox (around the first or second week of April) on a Sunday.

Hey, it worked for the Christians.

[Guest]

Obsolete religion is to God as Eve is to the apple.

she tempted man with false promises

Phronism is to God as Sir Isaac Newton is to the apple.

he correctly explains its interaction with man without passing on its content.