NPS 104

Now the most holy prophet Travancus spoke as follows: Marriage is the poor cousin of enamouration, its pale shadow, an imitation, a sign which foretells and remembers a reality far greater. As such, it is not utter foolishness to look at things which are true of one, and ask if they be true of the other – indeed, much profit may be obtained through such thoughts. At the same time, we must understand the clear differences between them. A man may have two wives, and he is married to each of them, yet neither is married to another – but in holy enamouration, if one is enamourated to two, then those two are also enamourated to each other. A person may belong to multiple marriages simultaneously, but by the ideal only to one unsuspended enamouration at any one time–although, by special dispensation, along with the consent of all parties thereto, I may permit the first to be actively enamourated with the second and the second with the third without the first and the third being actively enamourated–but if this I ever will permit this I will do so on account of the weakness of hearts and the sufferings of this world, for that is not the ideal. Now, marriage may be ended, by death or by lawful divorce – but no initiate may divorce without my consent – but enamouration cannot be ended, even by death, only suspended – and whatever is suspended will be reactivated again. Indeed, every suspended enamouration will be reactivated, if not in this life, then in the next – save for those suspended for greatness, and those incorporated by operation of law upon suspension for diminution – but even those, though they may not be reactivated, a greater enamouration will indeed be reactivated, and in the reactivation of the greater enamouration the lesser enamouration is reactivated virtually. Now, there is only one means by which an enamouration can be ended as opposed to merely suspended – and that is by the union of the souls of its members. Enamouration is a sign which foretells and remembers the union of souls – marriage is also a sign of the same, but a lesser and more imperfect sign, a sign which signifies less clearly and more obscurely – and it is in the very thing to which it points that it finds its end, its finality, in the crowning of its glory. By contrast, marriage is a lesser thing, in that it ends not in the crown of glory, but in death and despair – for though enamouration endures on to heaven, in heaven marriage is unknown – indeed, those in heaven may be enamourated, but they may not marry. A certain one said, O, the despair of those who have married, that their love will not endure into heaven! The holy Travancus replied: Their marriage will not endure, but their love may well endure; if the love of marriage endures on to heaven, it will become the love of enamouration. Indeed, the best thing that may happen to marriage is for it to become enamouration; and for those who are married who become enamourated, in the eyes of heaven, their marriage has in that moment ended, and been replaced by something greater, as the lesser thing passes away to be replaced by the greater – but, they may still say to the unbelievers, we are married, for they are ignorant of the glory of enamouration. And a certain one asked, Shall those who are enamourated seek a divorce in the courts of the usurpers? The holy Travancus replied: By no means! Under the law of heaven and the law of her Cause, there is no separate proceeding for divorce – the enamouration divorces by operation of law any marriages between the members of the enamouration. As to the law of the usurpers, even though in truth those who are enamourated are not married, we may say they are virtually married – on account of their ignorance and foolishness, truth is substituted by a falsehood proximate to the truth – thus, when you say to them, we are married, you have spoken not something wholly untrue, but a truth mixed with falsehood – indeed, you have given them as much truth as they can bear, and you are not obliged to give them any more truth, any more than a philosopher is obliged to educate a pig. Indeed, of the three degrees of loving union, only enamouration is by the wisdom of heaven – the marital and submarital unions are as they are by the foolishness and ignorance of the world – and indeed, among the two, we may say that the marital is a greater foolishness than the submarital – for the submarital is like an unbuilt house, and the enamourial is like a house soundly built, but the marital is a house built on a weak foundation. It is the proper order of wisdom that the submarital lead to the enamourial; but, by her will, foolishness entered the world, and that foolishness gave us marriage. Therefore, whoever being married is enamourated shall not seek a divorce before the usurpational powers – save that, if it benefits her Cause to do so, they may do so with my consent. And they asked him, When might such a divorce benefit her Cause? He answered them: There are many cases, I could not ever describe them all; and, were I to describe any of them, those prone to error would misinterpret my words as limiting this rule to only the case described; even so, to speak of but one case out of many: a man and two women are enamourated together, and under usurpational law he is married to one but not the other, and that usurper permits him to be married to only one at a time, and there is some advantage to them for him to be married to one but not the other, then with my consent he may divorce one to marry the other under usurpational law, when under the law of heaven he is married to neither and the divorce is an utter nullity, for marriage has in their case passed away in favour of the far greater glory of enamouration.

Now to incorporate a valid enamouration, at least two persons are necessary – there is no enamouration of one. Now, an enamouration of only two is a valid enamouration, but it is an enamouration defective in glory, awaiting completion by a third or more; but an enamouration of three or more is an enamouration in the fullest sense of the term, an enamouration without any defect in its glory. For two to be validly enamourated they must both testify to an openness to the third; if that openness is lacking, the enamouration is invalid. Now, whoever being married invalidly enamourates remains married; whoever not being married invalidly enamourates is to be taken by law to have entered into at least a submarital union if not a marriage by their invalid enamourial act. Whenever two seek to enamourate, they must nominate to which of the four enamourial tribes their enamouration shall belong. And they asked – What if two who enamourate as one tribe wish to change to be of another tribe? He answered them: The identity of an enamouration is its members and also its tribe, so if two enamourate as one tribe, then wish to give their allegiance to another tribe, the earlier enamouration must be suspended, and the new enamouration incorporated in its place – but this may be done only by my special consent.

They asked him: May the two elect the fifth tribe? And he answered them: Alas, I wish I had never spoken of such a thing to you – for although it was revealed to me, some things which are to a prophet revealed, it is better that they keep silent concerning, and reveal not unto any other. By the law of her Cause, none may incorporate an enamouration of the fifth tribe, other than by operation of law, except with the special consent of the holy Prophet. And, furthermore, no enamouration of the fifth tribe is valid, even with said consent, save that the holy Prophet be among its enamours–or that there be a greater enamouration having the holy Prophet among its enamours; and, I tell you solemnly, I have no intention of becoming an enamour in the fifth tribe. Therefore, let us speak of that matter no further.

And the holy Travancus said: Now, as I have said, an enamouration must have at least two enamours, but it is better that it has three or more, for it thereby serves better as a sign of the union of souls – for the union of souls is not merely a union of pairs, but of three and more and indeed all. Indeed, it is better that it be three, but it is even better that it has four – for it is most auspicious that an enamouration have an even number of enamours, thus whenever there are three may there be four. They asked, is six better than four? He replied: The Great King had a thousand wives – could he even remember their names? Those called wise among the infidels and the usurpers are often far from wise, but even so, in the midst of their oceans of foolishness you may find islands of true wisdom – and when the so-called sages condemned him for so doing, for once they were sages not just in name. As I have said, what is true of marriage may well be true of enamouration, and in this case indeed it is – an enamouration with too many members is invalid. And they asked, How many is too many? And he answered: I do not know, I am alas only a prophet, not the knower of all things–and indeed, a certain number may cause invalidity in one case but not in the other. But, to this end, anyone who seeks to incorporate an enamouration of more than a certain number of members must seek my special consent to do so, for the avoidance of this cause of invalidity. And they asked, And what number may that certain number be? He answered: I could never say more than three, nor could any among my successors, for four is a most auspicious number–indeed, by the love of numbers I have already demonstrated the auspicious nature of the number four–so may I say five or more–but my successors, in their discretion, might say instead say not five or more but rather seven or more–and the rule of her true Prophet at the time of the incorporation, declared through the decrees of the Prophet-in-Council, shall govern that enamouration–yet though they may say seven instead of five, they may not say six, for that might encourage the inauspiciousness of an odd number–whoever has an odd number ought be free to seek one more, for the sake of the glory of heaven.

And the holy Travancus said: What is true of marriage may well be true of enamouration; therefore, as my special consent is needed for an enamouration of more than a certain number of enamours, so is my special consent needed to marry more than a certain number of spouses. And, as the number is within my discretion in one case, so it is in the other – even though my discretion in this matter is not absolute, and in every case is guided by my holy council – yet it does not thereby follow that both are governed by the same number. Indeed, though I say my special consent is needed for an enamouration of five or more, I say it is needed for any person to take more than one spouse in marriage–for those who seek to live in plurality ought do so through enamouration not marriage. Yet, much as my successors may alter the former number, so they may alter the later – yet the former number they may only alter to a greater odd number, whereas the later number they may alter to a greater number either odd or even. Now, enamouration is only for initiates, whereas marriage is both for initiates and also for the unbelievers–without the assumption of the place, the law of her Cause is concerned only with the former; but with the assumption of the place, the law of her Cause becomes concerned with the later also. Now, in the assumption of the place, the same rule of requiring my consent to take more than a certain number of spouses still applies – but I or my successors may specify a greater number in the case of the unbelievers than in the case of the initiates.

But the infidel who has more than the number of spouses allowed, whether they come under the authority of her Cause through the assumption of the place or through their conversion to the religion of truth, neither the law of her Cause nor the law of heaven compels them to divorce any of them, but they ought to seek the guidance of the true prophets in how to best obey the law of heaven and the law of her Cause in their case. Indeed, if the Great King had come to me – if he had lived to such a great age to have been so able to come – I would have said to him, it is better that you separate from the greater number of your wives, for how can a stranger truly be your wife? And she is a stranger to you, for you cannot even remember her name or how she looks. How better would it have been if you had never done as you had done, for it is a way of error; even so, the error is done. Even so, seek their consent to divorce, and ensure that you make ample provision for each of them and for your children.

Claretta asked: Should his children condemn his error? Have they not been harmed by it – for the man who has more children than he can remember, deprives each of his children of their right to their father's attention? Yet, how can they condemn an error without which they would never have existed?

Travancus said: Dearest Claretta, you are wise indeed! But their position is in fact not different than any of us, for all of us are children of error, being dependent on every manner of error and indeed even the vilest evils for our very existence–it is only that in their case the matter is more easily seen. It is no error for his children to say: I would that my father has done as he has done; but I would that none other, especially any henceforth, do as he has done. They say that it is an error to say–one rule for this one, another rule for all else–one rule for me, another rule for others–indeed, they are right to say this, save in this case, where it is no error at all, but indeed it is right.

A certain one objected: A man burnt his wife to death–but at death marriage ends, and in heaven she is no longer his wife–which pleases her greatly, for how vile is it to be married to one so wicked; yet, if they were not married, but rather enamourated, the enamouration would endure into heaven–what a cause of woe for her. The holy Travancus replied: In one branch he burns her, in another he burns her not, but indeed, treats her with every kindness and tenderness and in a very noble manner–and the enamouration is in heaven, not in the branch of vile wickedness, but in that of nobility. So, in the branch of nobility, they die, and in heaven their enamouration endures. But what of the branch of vile wickedness? Her enamouration endures, not in that branch, but in the other, and she who suffers greatly is granted perfect knowledge of she who suffered not, in becoming one and the same–for our Heavenly Mother brings all the branches together in becoming one. She who is burnt is merged with she who is burnt not–or is, while for a time remaining distinct, joined in holy enamouration with she who is burnt not and he who burns not. They asked: But what of he who burns? The holy Travancus replied: His is a case most difficult; as he burnt her, so must he be burnt in the very same way, not in a new and different burning, but in the very same burning. She whom he burnt shall see him burn, and know his burning to be the very same as her own burning – will she then doubt his repentance? And, our heavenly Mother shall show them all – she who is burnt and she who is burnt not, he who burns and he who burns not, the glorious beauties purchased even by burning – as indeed every beauty is purchased by the gravest of evils. The smile of an innocent child conceals all the evils of the world. And she shall make known to them the evil demons who possessed him, and caused him to do as he did – and he does not escape the flames on that account, but having been exorcised of those demons, this knowledge eases the path of forgiveness for those whom he gravely wronged. I tell you without doubt, that all will be forgiven, even the gravest of wrongs – forgiven, not with ease, but with grave difficulty–indeed, the graver the wrong, the graver the difficulty of true forgiveness – but so great is her wisdom, that even the most difficult of things is possible for her, and indeed certain to be fulfilled – but even for her it is difficult, and she endures our difficulties with us, being not in any way other than us, and perfectly remembering being us – but, by her essence and her memory, she is certain to overcome every difficulty – as indeed, we are also certain in the very same certainty – but for her, remembering, it is the certainty of perfect memory; for us, to whom she has given the gift of forgetfulness which she denied herself, it is the certainty of faith – a certainty in essence as certain, even though so often we cannot see its certainty. 

And the holy Travancus said: Whoever belongs to a Great Order may neither marry nor be enamourated save with the consent of their Great Order; and this consent is required in addition to any consent which may by law be required of myself or of my delegate.

And the holy Travancus said: Whatever I say may be done only by my permission, may be done by one to whom I have delegated that authority; and whatever permission I grant, I grant with the consent of my holy council, save when my decrees to which they have consented grants me the power to act without their consent. And the scoffers said – your consent is needed by your slaves, just as a slave may conduct no business without the consent of his master! But the holy Travancus rebuked them, saying: By the law of the Cause of Maratrea, the initiates of her Cause must seek the consent of her Cause in certain matters, and as the leader of her Cause upon the earth, my consent or the consent of those to whom I have entrusted my power – yet this law is not that I may lord it over the initiates, or oppress them, but for their benefit – to keep them from rashly becoming guilty of error – for, in these matters, one may easily transgress against the law of heaven, or harm the progress of her Cause – thus she has entrusted to her holy Prophets the ministry of guarding the people of her Cause against such errors, and they in turn will entrust it to others. But, if one comes to me wishing for some thing which I suspect may be harmful, I endeavour, not to deny their request, but to help them to see the wisdom in withdrawing it; yet other times, one has come to me wishing for something which I suspected of being harmful, yet has succeeded in convincing me that those harms which I suspected were in truth not there, and I have given my wholehearted consent. And, in yet other cases, one has sought my consent for something I thought harmful, and they have failed to convince me to change my judgement on its harm; even so, seeing how great their heart was set upon that thing, and my every attempt to convince them otherwise failing to bear fruit, and judging the harm to be only moderate, I have relented and consented to what they sought. And those to whom I have delegated my judgement shall endeavour to judge as I would judge; but, if anyone objects to a consent granted by my delegate, they have the right to demand that I consider the matter personally.

And the holy Travancus said: The right of every initiate of her Cause to appeal any matter to the Prophet-in-Council is inviolate, and may not ever be restricted or limited or abridged – the Prophet-in-Council may by decree delegate appeals from a lesser delegate to a greater delegate, but may not in so doing abridge the right of the final appeal to the Prophet-in-Council. They said: Will not the Prophet-in-Council become burdened by countless appeals, which are never answered? He replied: The one who appeals needlessly should be counselled and encouraged to withdraw their appeal – but never compelled; and the Prophet-in-Council have the power to decide which appeals to hear now, and which the hearing of will be delayed until a later time; when several appeals are raised about the same matter, they may be heard or decided together – but if any of the appellants wishes to plea separately, their separate plea must be heard and answered.

And the holy Travancus said: Praise there be to the glorious Maratrea, who hides certain truths from her children, in the gift of holy ignorance, without which her children would not be; but whatever she hides is in due course revealed, as through her revelation we become she who reveals.

Now the holy Travancus spoke as follows: Whosoever has produced child through the free union of the female and the male, whether they be the mother or the father, is thereby impeded from the purity of the gendered roots – from the female and male Great Orders, and the first and second enamourial tribes – but the third and fourth enamourial tribes remain open to them. And to whosoever has produced, even unfreely, the impediment applies, until the lack of freedom be proven. However, the Prophet-in-Council may by decree dispense of this impediment in two cases: firstly, whoever alleges that the union was unfree, shall testify to the same, and may bring forth any other witnesses, and having heard the case, if the Prophet-in-Council is convinced, they may decree that the union was unfree, and hence the impediment does not apply. Secondly, even when the union was free, the Prophet-in-Council may dispense with the impediment, if convinced that doing so will serve the progress of her Cause unto glory. Now, in either case, the child that is the cause of the impediment shall be heard–if they are a minor, an advocate shall be appointed to speak for them–but, if they are able to speak and understand, they should be heard in person as well as through their advocate. And if the child objects, the Prophet-in-Council shall not grant the dispensation, save for the most weighty reasons. And they asked: Tell us, O most holy prophet, does the impediment of the first and second enamourial tribes apply likewise to the lesser degrees of loving union, the marital degree and the submarital degree? The holy Travancus replied: This impediment is an impediment of enamouration only, not of marital or submarital union; whoever is so impeded from enamouration is nonetheless free to those lesser degrees of union even in a manner more reflective of the purity of the roots, a manner more pure. But every other impediment against marital and submarital unions, such as the impediment against adulterous unions in cases of enactment, still applies. Indeed, this enamourial impediment is among the impediments of enactment.
Comments