We are Sovereign and Divine - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VII.70

Meditation VII.70 - We are Sovereign and Divine - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil

The gods who are immortal are not vexed because during so long a time they must tolerate continually men and women - such as they are - and so many of them bad; and besides this, they also take care of them in all ways. But you, who are destined to end so soon, are you wearied of enduring the bad, and this too when you are one of them?¹

Explanation

(1) As discussed in Meditation XII.28, Marcus Aurelius would be expected to proclaim and protect the official state religion and maintain his allegiance to a polytheistic mix of gods from several cultural traditions. In his capacity as a Stoic philosopher Marcus generally makes reference to a single divine entity, the universal intelligence or Logos. It is Logos that governs the destiny of the universe.

Logos of course never speaks, and is never in Stoicism endowed with anthropomorphic characteristics. The Stoic has no need to be vexed about divine intention. We have no reason to pray to this "God" for divine "mercy." Nor should we expect this "God" to exact divine retribution on us for being "bad." Logos has no reason or need to punish us. These concepts are meaningless in a system in which the divine aspect of nature is self defining. In a very real sense we are the gods because our intelligence is an emanation of Logos. If we are "wearied of enduring the bad" it is only because we have refused to live as a human being. We have ignored our divine nature and choose rather to follow sensation. We seek solace from pain and pursue pleasure, fame, money, and power. While there is nothing inherently wrong with these activities, to do so in ignorance of our divine nature misses the point of our existence - to act mercifully and compassionately toward all human beings. We are alienated from the divine in us when we are vexed or frustrated with our inability to satisfy our animal desires. This vexation is inevitable because our animal nature is self-serving.

Ironically the pursuit of pleasure, and the avoidance of pain, are activities that will always require the cooperation of other self serving actors. The only path to happiness in the Stoic universe is to act in the only ways in which we are completely sovereign. Read through the understanding of the Stoic, the storied creation image by Michaelangelo shown here, reinforces the notion that this sovereign element is in us. Our nature is divine. It is therefore invulnerable because we are one with creation and with the creator. Sovereignty does not require the cooperation or approval of others. When our will coincides with the will of nature we live according to divine law.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

To Move a Star - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VII.71

Meditation VII.71 - To Move a Star - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil

It is a ridiculous thing for you not to fly from your own badness, which is indeed possible, but to fly from another's badness is impossible.¹

Explanation

(1) Badness is nothing other than conduct that is not aligned with universal Law. In Stoic language it is living contrary to nature. Human beings are completely sovereign in the actions we take and in the opinions we hold. We can live according to nature or live outside of nature's framework. But whatever our choice, the consequences of our actions are universal. If we are good, the totality of nature is moved by our actions. If we are bad, the totality of nature is also moved. This is because action and thought emanate from the activity of mind, and although the particular individual mind is sovereign, it is connected to the universal nature as a thread in a universal web. Those connections are based on the physical nature of the Stoic conception of mind and matter. The human mind or soul is not a distinct supernatural entity. It is indeed a physical construct regulated by natural laws with universal reach. Nothing in nature exists in isolation from anything else. The Stoics understood this intuitively from their observations of nature two thousand years ago and long before the work of Issac Newton (1642-1727) in the 18th century who asserted that the force of gravity exerted by a single partcle extended to the farthest reaches of the universe. One of the greatest minds of modern Physics - 1933 Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac (1902-1984) - reasserted this essentially Newtonian and Stoic idea in the modern era: Pick a flower on Earth and you move the farthest star.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VII.72

Meditation VII.72 - The Only Thing We Have to Fear - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil

Whatever the rational and political (social) faculty finds to be neither intelligent nor social, it properly judges to be inferior to itself.¹

Explanation

(1) If something is "neither intelligent nor social" it is, by inference, irrational and self serving. Marcus does not claim that it is improper to be irrational. Nor does he maintain that the interest of the self ought never be satisfied. The meditation simply notes that whenever irrational and/or self-serving impulses occur, these actions need to be evaluated by reason. For example, there is nothing at all wrong with tending to our irrational or emotional needs. Emotions play a critical role in maintaining our physical well-being. We feel fear when we are in physical danger. It is normal to respond to that emotion by seeking protection. By the same token, satisfying our senses is necessary for the maintenance of physical and psychological well-being. Good food, fine music, warm clothing, safe shelter, and the development of entertaining activities and hobbies are important aspects of living well. We should also get adequate sleep; we should have regular exercise; we should strive to be sexually satisfied. But in all areas of our emotional and physical life there is a second and higher faculty at play, and that is reason, and the activity of reason must always take precedence over emotional and physical demands. Will my actions interfere with my primary duty in life which must always consider the community before the self? If any action prevents me from acting rightly toward others, then that action must be subordinated to the interest of others.

It is interesting to bring this meditation to bear on the political rhetoric employed by television and radio commentators, political bloggers, and politicians seeking elected office. Many of these actors play to the emotional and physical fears of their audiences. This sort of rhetoric is very old, and can be very persuasive. The strategies are at the heart of political propaganda, or political spin. In many cases commentators play on the prejudices of their target audiences using innuendo to stir up racial or class hatred, homophobia, fears of terrorism, fear of economic catastrophe, or fears of an impending environmental disaster. Whatever the messages - and they are employed on all sides of the political spectrum - the listener, viewer, or reader is manipulated to suspend reason - in the interests of an emotional appeal. Testing the validity of these appeals through the filter of this meditation can be revealing. We need only ask ourselves whether the messages are really intelligent, and whether they are really social. Do they meet the needs of all members of the human community? Do they meet the tests of rudimentary logic? Do they meet the tests of truthfulness? Above all else, do these messages lessen our fears by offering constructive stratagems? If the answers to these are no, we have adequate evidence for suspecting that - in Stoic terms - these messages are (like much advertising) both irrational (designed to strike an emotional chord) and designed therefore to serve the interests not of the community at large, but of special interests. In other words, they are neither intelligent nor social.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Stoic Grace - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VII.73

Meditation VII.74 - Stoic Grace - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil

When you have done a good act and another has received it, why do you look for a third thing besides these, as fools do, either to have the reputation of having done a good act or to obtain a return?^1,2

Explanation

(1) The community takes precedence over the individual. The "good act" of the Stoic is performed for the sake of virtue itself. Virtue conveys happiness on the actor. As in Buddhism this is the sort of happiness or serenity that might better be called Stoic enlightenment. The Christian would call it a "state of grace." Doing the right thing is why we exist, and the only reason we exist. The influence of this Stoic perspective had an important influence on the Christian gospels. A parallel sentiment is echoed in the words of Christ in Matthew 6:2: So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others.

(2) Amoghasiddhi Buddha

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

The Cozy Hearth - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VII.74

Meditation VII.74 - The Cozy Hearth - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil

No person is tired of receiving what is useful.¹ But it is useful to act according to nature. Do not then be tired of receiving what is useful by doing it to others.²

Explanation

(1) In strict philosophical terms the sorts of things we generally describe as "useful" will not be so designated by a Stoic. In Stoicism something is useful only if it is according to nature. This would rule out any actions by others that might increase our personal wealth, pleasure, power or fame. Curiously it would also rule out actions that were designed to alleviate pain. This does not mean that those actions are wrong or inconsiderate or should not be performed. A Stoic would disallow such actions only if they hindered our capacity to act with virtue. The specific circumstances of each situation needs to be examined to make that call. For example, it might be useful for me to expend more energy during the winter in order to feel more comfortable. But if doing so increases carbon dioxide emissions and contributes to global warming, the world is not a better place. More specifically however living more comfortably could also be a disincentive to leaving my cozy hearth to do difficult things for others. On the other hand if living more comfortably does no harm nor prevents me from doing the right things, the Stoic attitude would be one of indifference, because the choice to have more creature comfort neither encourages nor discourages right behavior.

(2) To receive something that is truly useful is equivalent to remaining open to the kindnesses and good intentions of others who themselves may be trying to act rightly toward you. These would include any of those sorts of things that we might normally call "loving." They will also include corrective actions - given or received - that are intended to direct people away from behaviors that are not according to nature. Using the environmental example above, we should not be insulted if a friend were to inform us that our methods for keeping ourselves warmer were environmentally unfriendly. Alternatively, a Stoic should not be shy about tactfully and diplomatically pointing these sorts of things out to others.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Creation - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VII.75

Meditation VII.75 - Creation - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil

The nature of the All moved to make the universe.¹ But now either everything that takes place comes by way of consequence or continuity; or even the chief things towards which the ruling power of the universe directs its own movement are governed by no rational principle.² If this is remembered it will make you more tranquil in many things.³

Explanation

(1) The Judeo-Christian version of creation is equally oblique. Genesis 1.1 reads simply: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Neither account explains why, other that to imply an artistic act which as such is a reflection of the beauty inherent in the divine nature. Stoicism is clear however that the "nature of the All" is immutable and perfect but not transcendent. Stoic divinity is in nature not outside of nature - as is the case for the divinities in most religious traditions. Because Stoic divinity is nature herself, the creative movement Marcus refers to here is in a real sense unavoidable. The movement Marcus refers to is not a willed movement. It is not therefore something around which nature has a choice or, as religions might assert, an act of divine love. The move to creation is in Stoicism a consequence of the property of natural Law.

(2) The dichotomy Marcus offers - a rationally determined series of events regulated by a series of causes and effects, or a non-rationally determined series of causes and effects, implies that what happens in the world - and by implication in our lives - is either predetermined, or governed by chance. This dichotomy does not negate divinity. It simply declares that the unfolding of events is either under the direct governance of reason, or it is not.

(3) It is interesting that the Stoics are not dogmatic on whether the divine agency at the helm of creation plays a hands-on role, or leaves the unfolding to the action of physical laws. Whichever is so does not change the basic tenets of Stoicism. We are free to accept (live according to nature), or reject (live contrary to nature) the unfolding of events in our lives as governed by the Law of Nature - whether that Law is rationally directed, or not rationally directed. If we choose to accept the Law, we will be tranquil. If we choose to rebel, or to denounce the Law (of which we are undeniably also a part), we will become alienated or detached from those forces over which we have no control, whatever their nature.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

The Promise of Happiness I - The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius - Published Selections Explained, Med. VIII.01

Meditation VIII.01 – The Promise of Happiness I - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil

Note: Meditation VIII.01 is published in The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained; McNeil. Russell, PhD, Skylight Paths, Ch. 1 ("The Promise of Stoicism – The Promise of Happiness I), p. 21, 2007

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.