Solomon's Magic Secrets

Folklore and common traditions create in the mind of ordinary men unshakable opinions that resist even solid facts.

A tradition is already something that comes from the 'outside' of a private rite or ritual or set of important actions; they are just 'traditions' - they don't functionally work, or achieve anything practical flowing from their actual mechanisms of action. Somebody relays to somebody else: 'this is what is done; the way to do things...'

And folklore is what people tell each other - not what an authentic prescription for some causative procedure literally is. Because then it would become science, and a 'manual of operations.'

A Sabaean, a Persian, and an Egyptian 

Solomon - a name that means 'Man of Peace' - was a leader of his people, and born a leader. It may be that what happened to Solomon, and what he himself did, was on account of his being someone through whom knowledge was expected to be passed to a larger number of people than just a single person; namely, not just to him himself - to 'Solomon' only.

His story is not merely something designed for us to read as distant history and be entertained or enlightened by, or to learn moral lessons from - no, Solomon was king of his people in his day. While he lived he served an active and direct purpose doing things, and teaching things directly to others.

So what we can learn from Solomon is about doing things. And since he exists in a single line of narrative theme, we can learn too from the later part of the narrative: 'Consider the Lilies of the Field, they toil not neither do they spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was adorned like one of these.'

Hmn, so - great wealth and power come not from toil...

To a great leader it may be that one must be seen to perform whatever acts of apparent magic are done that affect the lives of people. But to the private individual, things have no such requirement. 

We are all private individuals around here and so we may simply know, and do, quietly, and even in a clandestine fashion.

Solomon's title was 'Lord of the heavens...' He was one of several who had that title - Genghis Khan being another. It's possible that Cyrus the Great also was called by this title although today, the history books say 'God of the Cosmos.'

'Of' = 'from' the heavens...

Although however an astute and rational person like Cyrus the Great would have presumed to have been all over the Universe and been a ruler across its vast expanse seems implausible to me. No, he was just 'Lord of the heavens.' Or maybe - a 'lord of heaven.'

Solomon, you will recall, managed to get some kind of beam of light to come down from the sky and set fire to the golden bowl in his temple... And this was in the presence of many.

Someone like Solomon is a leader for the purpose of giving moral teachings to a large number of people - and his wealth may thus have had an ethical justification in the 'eyes of heaven,' as it were. That is, if we continue to adopt this understanding (which is contained in the authentic written narrative) that there is a numinous dimension to these things.

But is there any ethical prohibition to private wealth from such 'magical' means...? And let us address the question in terms of the authentic narrative in the first instance; this would seem a logical way to proceed, and I'll show you why presently.

You see, it appears to have eluded most people's sensibilities, that the implication of the words of Jesus Christ which I quoted ('the lilies of the field...' et cetera) is that he - Jesus, 'God' - is actually teaching ALL listeners, and in a private direct message way (he is speaking to whoever hears the Gospels personally) that individuals may have greater than the adornment and wealth of Solomon, and may have it without toil, since the lesson of the lilies is that they do not toil, nor spin.

'In all his glory.' LOL

Now you can be a curmudgeon and say well oh, but Jesus Christ either did not exist or was not in actual history the same exact person as he is depicted in the religious accounts to be... But this will prevent you from testing the hypothesis about 'the heavens' being able to make you wealthier than Solomon was in all his glory - as is the suggestion by Jesus in the accounts. 

The continuation of what Jesus says is that 'God provides for the lilies while they are alive, and he will do more for you by a great scale because you are more important than the lilies - and you must seek in order of priority the kingdom of god and these things shall be yours as well...'

The passages that deal with this subject end up focusing on the idea that many rich people - particularly the legalistic ones (IE Pharisees) have made their money by extortion. (Extortion is the actual word used in the Gospels). And then the passage goes on to say one may expunge the moral problem of having made money by extortion, by giving away money to the needy, once you realized that extortion was not the ethical way to make money as far as Universal moral codes go.

And then, contained inside the passages is another reference to Solomon and how the Queen of the South observes that while she traveled far to hear the wisdom of Solomon today's men take no notice of someone even greater than Solomon.

And so the lesson here is that there is something about wisdom, that leads directly to wealth.

As I said at the beginning, common tradition and folklore regularly prevent us from perceiving what is going on. 

Ptolemy II Philadelphus ordered the translation into Greek of the books of Solomon - and let us note that one of those books was NOT the so-called 'Testament of Solomon' (that's the one full of names of demons and weird beings and magical sayings and so on) - and although this translation is preserved to us down to this day, many of the most important writings of that era and before it, and a little after it, were destroyed in the fire that Julius Caesar set to the great Library of Alexandria when he managed his slippery escape from otherwise certain death and defeat.

Like Jesus I will point to a single lesson in the Caesar story - namely, that Caesar's point was that human beings are alive, while books, no matter how important, are not themselves 'people.' People can re-make books. People cannot be re-made once destroyed. Now you can destroy people in many ways, not just by killing them.

And so in the tricky game-play of great strategies unfolded on the field of actual human affairs, moral justifications in accord with the Great Law of the Heavens, sometimes elude the mentality of the common human mind.

Caesar behaved not only ethically, but morally, and in accordance with the Divine Mind. He placed the highest value on human life, while accountants place a higher value on their books.

And so I will challenge you: understand this, without understanding, or without 'underlying basis' (for that is the correct translation of what is recounted in religious texts as 'Oh men of little faith') then you cannot receive wealth by the same 'magic' of Solomon. But with the requisite underlying basis of accord with the heavens, you will be given immense wealth.

The mistake in the common narrative of the Bible is that when the seventy ancient scribes translated the old books, they apparently (I say 'apparently' because that is how it is rendered in our modern English translations from the Greek) translated 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' as 'Ego Eimi Ho On.' Which appears to say 'I Am Who Is...' When of course, this omits the second 'Ehyeh' which when included makes the correct translation: 'I Am The One that is the I Am.' 

Which is a sentence that expresses the direct idea that 'Divinity' is conscious, alive, and present.

So a conscious alive and present Divinity (I choose 'Divinity' because that is what is really said in the most ancient texts, not 'he' or 'she' only and definitely not the royal 'we' as many Muslims try to suggest) will - according to Jesus Christ - give you enormous wealth and physical adornment, greater than what Solomon had in his glory which impressed everyone and featured as a narrative icon of wealth down to this day, instantly you 'seek the kingdom of Divinity.'

But what is this 'kingdom...'

Going by the slips and slides of translations and misunderstandings everywhere, we cannot be sure the common tradition knows what it is, and certainly not any common religion knows it either - otherwise we'd all be wealthy, replenished on the Monday after we went to Church on the Sunday, having lost our money at the races on Saturday.

Next 'epistle' - we shall indulge in a search for the 'kingdom of the Divine' and I propose we shall find it.