LIMIT: A STRANGE, MOST SANE & PRAGMATIC GNOSTIC TEACHING

"Understanding" has, for the greater part of my life, been more important than anything else. I have sought to understand why everything is the way it is, what underlies it all, why it happens as it does, why there is an "I" I call "myself." "Understanding the mind of God" took priority over "believing in God." This might define me as "gnostic" in terms of worldview, for gnosis (knowledge) has held far more interest to me than faith. This is not to say that I have not sought to be a "man of faith," for I have, but found that I just needed to "know" more than I wanted to "believe." And this "need to know" is addressed in this essay.
   I have been studying The Gnostic Religion by Hans Jonas for a while now. It is profoundly interesting to me. There is so much to convey. But at this point I will have to focus on the one point of limit as designated in the title. The writing and thought is very abstruse, abstract, and seemingly paradoxical. It is quite similar to the creation of Parvati by Shiva in Hindu cosmology. I am beginning with "Limit" though it is actually the ending rather than the beginning. I am quoting [and commenting in brackets] from The Crisis in the Pleroma from within the chapter, The Valentinian Speculation, from The Gnostic Religion. It's a bit challenging to "plunge in" to this narrative and hope that anyone might follow it, including myself, but I trust that they may be a few who will and can. I will begin with a bit that might briefly introduce a few terms. 
   Aeons: "These Aeons, produced to the glory of the Father [First Creator], wished to glorify the Father by their own creations, and produced further emanations. ... The last female Aeon in the chain of emanations is Sophia" (181).
   Pleroma: The additional emanations [further Aeons] created by the Aeons "constituted the Fullness (Pleroma) ... 'Pleroma' is the standard term for the fully explicated manifold of divine characteristics ... forming a hierarchy and together constituting the divine realm" (181). 
   Fore-Father or Abyss: "a perfect Aeon pre-existent... No thing can comprehend him. ... With him was the Ennoia (Thought), also called Grace and Silence. And once this Abyss took thought to project out of himself the beginning of all things, and he sank this project like a seed into the womb of the Silence that was with him, and she conceived and brought forth the Mind (Nous: male), who is like and equal to his begetter and alone comprehends the greatness of the Father. ... Together with him, Truth (Aletheia: female) was produced and this is the first Tetrad: Abyss and Silence, then Mind and Truth"(180).

[Now for "the crisis in the Pleroma"]. "The Only-Begotten Mind alone ... can know the Fore-Father: to all the other Aeons he remains invisible and incomprehensible. ... The Nous wished to communicate the Father's greatness also to the other Aeons, but the Silence restrained him by the will of the Father [my emphasis] ... So the Aeons longed only secretly to behold the begetter of their seed and to search for the root without beginning. 'Indeed the All (the world of Aeons=the Pleroma) was searching for Him from whom it came forth. But the All was inside of Him, that Incomprehensible, Inconceivable One who is superior to all thought' [my emphasis]. (This is the beginning of a crisis in the Pleroma, since its harmony rests on its natural order, and this one the observation of their inherent limits by its members--which members yet, being spiritual subjects, cannot forgo the aspiration to know more than their limits permit [my emphasis] and thus to abolish the distance separating them from the Absolute.) [I can absolutely identify with this need "to know more than their limits permit."] At this point, Sophia, "the last and youngest (and therefore outmost) of the Aeons, ... leapt farthest forward and fell into a passion apart from the embrace of her consort [the Fore-Father/Abyss]. That passions had originated and spread from the vicinity of the Mind and Truth but now infected the Sophia and broke out in her so that she went out of her mind, ... since she had so such community with the Father ... 'Oblivion did not come into existence close to the Father, although it came into existence because of Him.' The passion was a search for the Father, for she strove to comprehend his greatness [my emphasis]. This, however, she failed to achieve, because what she attempted was impossible, and so she found herself in great agony; on account of the depth of the Abyss, into which in her desire she penetrated more and more, she would in the end have been swallowed up by its sweetness and dissolved in the general being, had she not come up against the power that consolidates the All and keeps it off the ineffable Greatness. This power is called Limit (horos): by him she was stopped, consolidated, brought back to herself, and convinced that the Father is incomprehensible" (182).

There is much more to convey, but this piece is sharply pointed. The Valentinian school was a second century form of Christian Gnosticism. This writing posits the idea that humanity lives, moves and has its being within the being of the Fore-Father/First Creator, but believes itself as outside and independent of this Source/Container, which it also sees as external to itself. I share this with the reader because the notion of "limit," much less "limit to understanding," is challenging and perhaps impossible to accept for some of us. I hope to present other little sharp arrows that may also hit their target.
   
   

APPROACHING DEATH AND LIFE AFTER DEATH

[I wrote this some time ago; apparently in a moment of particular self-doubt, but sometimes these can be the very best moment of clarity and insight and honesty.]

How does one approach, that is, prepare for one’s own death, much less what may proceed after death? I gave up immediately after typing the title. A bit of time has passed. I have to do something. Walking around in this flesh, I am compelled to at least write something, to bring something to someone’s attention, even if only my own, though hopefully much more, about what all of this is. I of course refer to existence, to life, to my life, to our lives on this planet, perhaps more. It is most difficult to write about something that you do not know for sure and can only surmise, taking other people’s words for it, at best. I want to simply say, “No, I cannot and will not do this. It is a self-deception being passed on to others. It is my own desperation inflicted upon others by a promise of knowledge and hope, and is best just pitied and left at that.” But what if there were truth to what I say, to what others have said? What if there were something, however small, that provided a glimpse of something greater, something that contained a greater reality, a greater truth? If we bark up every tree in existence, may we not ultimately bark up the “right” tree? I have been barking up wrong trees ever since I can remember, but that doesn’t mean I should stop; there is no “lesson to be learned” in barking up the wrong tree. It’s just the wrong tree, that’s all. And perhaps each of these wrong trees contains a wee bit of the truth, a tiny part of the right tree. There is something that draws me to each particular tree; I believe it is a bit of reality, a bit of what is real, even if only a reflection.

          And so, not knowing where to begin, I begin. While it may be quite true that the longest journey begins with the first step, the shortest journey may be only one step. I see life as a long journey because I believe that it also includes what we call “death.” Nature does not reveal any form of life, as far as I know, that consists of only one manifestation and then it is gone. Even mutations are not that short-lived. Everything regenerates and seemingly evolves or at least adapts to a changing environment. Humans are walking, talking crops. Plus, I am aware that I have lived as other identities, other people, though many lifetimes. While I am being quite literal in this, it also seems as if I am other people around me; it is as though I know their very thoughts, feelings, and sensations. But I digress; I am speaking of reincarnation, of past lives of which I am aware.

          While death is of interest to me, the after-death period interests me more. I do remember dying just a bit, however, the experience after that escapes me. I believe I remember even being in the womb, but not prior to that. So, the most I can accomplish in this writing is a kind of discussion of the various writings of others who have claimed to know something about this death and after-death experience. Of course, such a discussion entails the process of life itself, of what it means to exist, of what it is to exist. It becomes a highly metaphysical topic: how best to live our lives as human beings. I am familiar with a fair number of world views, as it were, and of life-after-death views as well. I will discuss these not as necessarily true in themselves, but, rather, as springboards for further thought and discussion. I don’t know where or how far such thought and discussion may go. I don’t think it will necessarily be a short journey though I do think it will be a meandering one; one that may include some of my own past life experiences, as I call them. But I must call even them into question, as well as the notion of past lives, for though I do rather firmly believe in them, based on my own seeming experience, they may not be valid whatsoever. But we must start somewhere. I must speak; I must talk about this, if not for the sake of humanity, then for my own sense of sanity and purpose. People keep journals as chronicles of their own existence; otherwise, they may simply cease to exist.

          Life’s importance, as I have come to sense as true, is to learn how to be a humane human being, that is, to make ourselves into “good” people, to undue “bad” karma and create “good” karma; karma being the effect of our actions as well as our thoughts, the two being obviously connected. Rudolf Steiner writes that it is not that we have to reincarnate to undue our karma, but that we see so clearly the effects of who we were and what we did that we want to (and know we must as well) come back again to make things right; the soul is a decent, moral, responsible entity. From another perspective, the pain of our wrongs, our sins, as it were, is so great that we create a living hell for ourselves, and know we must return to right our wrongs. Christianity, in denying reincarnation (at this point), manufactures an eternal Hell, whereas Islam and Judaism see Hell as more temporary, though they do not officially believe in reincarnation. Hinduism and Buddhism do teach reincarnation, especially Hinduism.

Even as a young child I found it strange and uncomfortable to be in a body; it just seemed too foreign; as if something was definitely wrong. I lost much of this discomfort when I discovered the profound pleasures of literal and physical sexual union with a woman, and came to identify with this sexual aspect of “myself,” and then, as I was compelled to enter into the world of commerce as well as many kinds of intercourse, I had successes and received attention. Venus on my Ascendant made me attractive to some and the net effect of all of this was that my sense of ego, of self-identity, of identity with the body strengthened, and I realized that I could use it to influence others and attain things that I wanted. It was a great ego rush of personal power. I rose in the ranks, as it were, and attained a kind of pinnacle of success. However, even as this was happening, which took about ten years, I was engaging in a Theosophical path and meditation that simultaneously led me to disidentify with myself and my seemingly worldly life; so much so that I just dropped that whole life and became almost reclusive and silent. I saw how identified I was with my body, its pleasures and life, and entered into a Buddhist path and sitting meditation, not so much as a member of Buddhism but as one doing the practice of a Buddhist.

          I do not comprehend why it is that we must take form in physical, human bodies, though, on the other hand, I do understand the power of our identification as physical human beings, and our desire to return to them as if we are “coming home” again. This also pertains to our identity as ourselves, as separate individuals, which is also a most powerful ego identity. I believe that I would like to return to “my” primordial state, as its referred to in Buddhism and Daoism; the state of being before I became myself, a separate individual entity. But, that said, my desire to return to an a priori  state of being, in which “I” do not exist as such, is probably impossible except by the “grace of God”; for my awareness of myself is in no way adequately separated from my physical and mental self-identity. Apparently it requires many existences of self-disidentification and abnegation before such “primordial being” is possible. Steiner notes that after death one is unable to make any changes to one’s being or one’s relationship to others. Whatever was accomplished or left wanting during one’s life is what one takes with them as is upon death. If such were to be true, it would be incumbent on us to right all wrongs while we are alive. Otherwise, we bring a bit of Hell upon ourselves as we suffer the pain of sorrow for the effects of our actions and our non-actions during our lives. This is precisely why I am compelled to write this; I must share it and explore further while I am alive. I may be the only person it helps, though I hope it will help many others to have understanding and mercy in their own lives.

          It is possible to see what drives people to do what they do, to be who they are, to think what they think, and feel how they feel. But seeing this does not change them at all; even if you told them what was happening and what they were doing, they would still most likely have to do it because they would not be able to comprehend what you were saying to them. If you’re in their way they might even kill you or worse. But there is the slightest chance that they will hear what you are saying, and alter their own course, change their behavior, diminish the negative effects of themselves. I am sometimes able to see what drives me to do what I do, to be who I am, to think what I think, to feel what I feel, but even me seeing that doesn’t necessarily change me in the long run. We are addicted to ourselves, living in “the shell of our own being,” as Steiner says, unable and unwilling to see ourselves as we truly are, even though we have seen ourselves clearly now and then; “through a glass, darkly,” as Paul says. We are fearful, guilty, and angry. Some of us become psychopathic, cold-blooded killers in the name of a hateful, wrathful God whom we have come to see in our insane self-addicted being as righteous, a reflection of our own twisted mind.

I am writing this in small “pieces” that are meant to be focused on a specific thought, all related to “approaching death and life after death.” Some parts will seem fragmented, but I like to think that these are pieces of what could be a jigsaw puzzle very slowly being put together, though it could be several jigsaw puzzles very slowing being put together. In fact it may take many lifetimes before it makes even the slightest sense, but, as I noted earlier, I am compelled to begin now, which could be a taking up where I left off some long time ago.

          One “practice” that I have utilized for probably forty years, on and off, has been that of Buddhist “sitting meditation” in the zazen style. I “sat” just now before coming to write this. I do not and have not done this for “spiritual” reasons, but rather so that I might be able to isolate myself for forty minutes and just see what’s on my mind, what I’m thinking, how I’m feeling. It’s a self-observational practice in which I give myself the opportunity to notice who I am in this time allotted. It does have a certain level of efficacy in that it removes me a bit from myself, from the perpetual psycho-mental-somatic process that makes me “me.” It is not devotional nor intellectual in its process, though there is sometimes strong emotion and always thinking, except for those brief moments when there is none, and “I” cease to exist in my own mind.

In this discussion of life after death, the notion of soul enters in almost universally, as in “the soul continues on,” be it eternally in a Heaven or a Hell, or, more specifically here, in terms of reincarnating in another human body. Whatever one may believe, this ubiquitous soul of which we speak, needs to be pinned down, for just what is the soul and what is its function? Perhaps in due time an equal discussion of God will come forth, though for now let us look at soul. In my estimation, based on the various sources I have read, soul may be seen as the link between spirit and matter, divine and human; mythologically, it might be seen as Mercury or Hermes or the Holy Ghost, as messenger traveling between the gods and humanity or the Father and the Son. From the Theosophical perspective, the soul is seen as kind of a “higher aspect” of ourselves that is in closer contact with the Divine and with which we in our lower mind, as it were, should seek to make constant contact. So, the soul is perceived as a kind of “higher mind” as compared to a lower, instinctual, animalistic, physical, reactive, automatic, unreflective mind. However, the soul is also recognized as changing and evolving in its own awareness; there can be “tortured” souls and souls upon a wrong and negative, if not evil, path of development. The soul is supposed to be obedient to the directives of the Spirit, the Divine quality, the Godly source, but, since the soul is evolving in and of itself, it too is on a learning curve. And, it should be noted, the Spirit too evolves and only seems absolute by comparison. The soul is also part and parcel of living in the flesh, and it does not exist where matter is not present; matter can be highly subtle and refined as in the “substance” of emotion and thought. The soul can also be identified as conscience, that is, our inherent moral quality that enables us to be “good,” to be loving and compassionate, to determine “right” from “wrong.” The soul is clearly distinguished from the ego, which in many schools of thought, is seen as the illusory image of the separate and separated self that is only able to see itself and thus live so that itself may survive, though from a few other perspectives ego or Ego is equated with soul. Here, ego pertains to the self-focused and self-centered aspect of human being. One of Steiner’s teachings is that the “immoral” person, that is, one who lacks the loving and compassionate component in life, is destined in death to being unable to relate with other beings in the after-life realm, to be trapped in the “shell of his (or her) own being” to the extent that any awareness is dimmed as if he is hermetically sealed off from interaction with other beings. Such a person is consequently quite alone, dimmed, and falls asleep to be rather quickly born again into a new body, largely unable to receive many of the infusions of repairing energy and awareness that occur after death and before rebirth.

          However, one can seriously over-literalize this notion of the soul as the overweening element of existence. In certain circles, like the Theosophical and the Jungian, the word soul may become a mere catchword, like the word God among Christians and religionists in general. One can come to associate certain emotions with the concept of soul-contact and engage in all kinds of self-deceptive pretensions, through which one further deludes oneself and others. Steiner and others make the point that one cannot pursue the “higher powers” that are present with us in both life and after death, but must keep still and quiet in order that they may approach and affect us. When I walk in the nearby redwood forest, the silence and stillness there is palpable, but, though I am very aware of it, it remains outside of me. It is only when I stop and sit and remain still myself that it begins to permeate my body, emotions, and mind—until I am it and it is me. Those who do not make the allowance and establish themselves in a properly receptive mode are unable to take into themselves the peace and stillness of the forest. They may “think” or “believe” that they have taken it in as they ran or biked, but it is not the same as when they actually stop all activity and become receptive.

THE SOUL

[Though this essay in incomplete, it is a intentional exploration of that which is called "soul," a most overused word in both religion and psychology, often even a "buzz word." It had to have been copyrighted where I went to school, but I digress. Like it's great forebearer, "God," I have wanted to explore "soul" for so many years. This is not such much an "exploration of soul" as my own personal and too brief story. But I warn you: more will follow.]

I have been “sitting” (zazen) off and on for forty years now. I have at times experienced myself as a flowing river, usually calm on the surface though not always. At times when I have sat, the level of the river recedes a bit, revealing some of what is beneath the surface, whether it be the actual layout of the land under the water or whether it be objects like old tires or tree trunks or other debris lodged together in a mass obstacle to the flow of the river. Sometimes the obstacles have dislodged of their own accord and other times I have been able to loosen or free them. And sometimes, when the rock shelf that is the river’s foundation has been revealed to me, I am able to understand how and why the river flows as it does, why its banks have formed as they have. One such revelation occurred to me just yesterday as I sat. I realized that it is not “my soul” that I possess but rather that I am the vehicle of this soul that I call mine. For I exist in the context of the soul; it does not exist in the context of me. The soul is greater than “I” am, “I” being the physical, mental, emotional, psychic/spiritual all tolled. In other words, what I consider to be myself is the form in which the soul inhabits. In time and in space, the soul will leave and this form, the body will die.

             In my life I have visited many different “spiritual” milieus, from Roman Catholicism, to Quakerism, to Rosicrucianism, to Hinduism, to Theosophy, to Buddhism (Tibetan and Zen, in particular), to Vedantism, to Jungism, shamanism and more). I have heard the word soul bandied about even more frequently than the word God. And, it usually meant something quite different depending on whether its particular setting was theological, psychological, religious (as distinct from theological), devotional, shamanic, cultural, and so on. Joseph Campbell noted that, though Christianity claims to be monotheistic, every single Christian he asked to define “God” presented a different picture. I think that the term soul, if asked to be defined, would even be more varied; soul lacks the dubious advantage of the old white man with flowing robes standing in the clouds. However, the soul does have its definite images, which will be examined later. In my experience, particularly within Roman Catholic, Theosophical, and Jungian circles, the word soul is ubiquitous, paramount to all discussion, conversation, and literature. Yet, like use of the word God, though everyone used the word soul freely, it was a catchword that referred to something everyone wanted to understand but that no one really did. People used soul interchangeably with other words, such as “spirit,” “psyche,” “higher self,” “feeling,” “truth,” “daemon,” and more. It was so obvious to me that there was no understanding, much less consistency, in the use of the word soul. Thus, I realized that it would behoove those interested to come to a greater understanding and comprehension of soul, that is, of what it is and what is its purpose.

             Being raised Roman Catholic and going to Catholic grade school, high school, and college (Jesuit), soul still was not very clear in my mind at all. Since I had been taught that one’s “immortal soul could burn in Hell,” I suppose I had the inclination to believe that the soul was always highly at risk of being misled and consequently not particularly dependable at all, so I didn’t pay it much mind. It was only after studying Theosophy as presented by Alice Bailey and the Arcane School that I began to look at the soul rather differently. The Theosophists, while putting much emphasis on “the journey or evolution of the soul,” also tended to foster a belief in it as one’s “higher self,” perhaps simply because it was considered the aspect of ourselves that continues living on after the physical body is vacated. In many respects this is the same as the Roman Catholic view, however it felt as if the Theosophists held the soul in higher regard than the Christians did. It seems that the Theosophists viewed the soul more in its spiritual potential, in its evolutionary spiritual journey, more than the Roman Catholics did or understood, since the Roman Catholic writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine had much to say about the soul and its journey. As I read Rudolf Steiner, who used the term anthroposophy, though also theosophy as well as “spiritual science,” to describe his teachings, I find that he does not hold the soul in particularly high esteem whatsoever, noting that it is very impressionable and easily susceptible to error and evil. Mythologically, the soul is best represented in the Mercury-Hermes, the Messenger of the Gods, who travels between the Gods and humanity, Heaven and Earth, as well as Heaven and Hell. In Roman Catholicism, this function of communication between Spirit and Matter, God the Father and God the Son is represented by the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. Mercury-Hermes is the bridge between matter and spirit, human and divine. He has this particular power and is equally distrusted by God and human, for he is devious, egotistical, demonic, unangelic, and the “Trickster” wherever he appears. But he is the only one able—and willing—to make the risky journey between Heaven and Earth-Hell; his only payment may be the ability to play a trick or two. It may be that this is the nature of the soul: messenger between God and human, bridge between the worlds of the seen and the unseen, Matter and Spirit.  When the “esotericists” and “occultists” of Theosophy enjoin their members to “find an identity with the soul” in the context of “higher being,” they demonstrate great faith in what could very well be a more developed and evolved state of soul-being, or they could be naively hoping against hope, for the soul may perhaps see itself as merely a “messenger” delivering highly precious messages. I believe that the soul inherently must be able to be aptly refined and purified if it is to be able to carry such divine messages; if it were not, it would not be able to hold such power. When the Theosophists speak of the soul it appears that they are referring to this higher level of soul manifestation or expression. 

WHY METAPHYSICS? WHAT IS THE KEY?

"Why metaphysics?" is something one who purports to write about it or even be interested in it must ask perpetually. For it is a question without boundaries, a seemingly infinite question, like "What is God?" Since I was a child, I have wondered about and have sought the "greater context" in which I exist, in which we all exist. I began asking, "What am I doing here?", "What is my purpose?", and then to the core, "What am I?", "Who am I?". I have always wanted to understand, wanted to know. I have always wanted to "have faith" as well, but not blind faith; I wanted something based in the knowledge of my own soul and my own experience so that I might have my own foundation for any faith that I possessed. Most people, it seems, are not drawn to understanding this metaphysical realm, as it were. They tend to be satisfied and also challenged enough in the living of their lives, in simply surviving, which in itself, can be an overwhelming task. I have, in my life, been quite absorbed by the responsibilities of survival in society, but this metaphysical quest has still been at the forefront of my mind. It may be that it is a quest that is like the carrot hung in front of the donkey's eyes to keep it moving forward. People follow God and "enlightenment" steadily, or the ability to "be in the moment." We humans seek direction for ourselves, seek our place in the universe or in heaven. We do not like being or even feeling "lost"; we want to at least have an understanding of "where we are," of our purpose in life. It may be that certain life experiences and revelations bring us to having such an interest in the "transcendent," or it may be that this interest was already within us when we were born, or both. I came into this life remembering previous lives and in this one had experiences with "ghosts" of the dead and other beings more malevolent, beginning at an early age. Such experiences of different "realms of being," even if frightening, pique a child's interest, and if there is a threat to others, cause one to want to have mastery over them. I initially sought meditation to be able to "rise above the astral" level on which such "earthbound spirits," as they are called, abide, and to send them on their way, as it were. I protected the children who were in my care and who were being affected by them. Consequently, my interest in metaphysics has a definitely practical and pragmatic side to it. Most of these "metaphysical adventures" occurred almost fifty years ago. I have studied and meditated in many different disciplines (Catholic, Zen Buddhist, Hindu, Theosophical) and for long periods. More importantly, I have been and am caregiver to people with disabilities for many years. I say that this is "more important" because it actually requires that your life focuses upon another rather than yourself. I have found that the most vital element of any "metaphysical quest" is the "opening of one's heart" through deep love of others. This goes far deeper than any intellectual or mental understanding. In reality, there is no comparison. I don't know if love destroys the self, the ego, as such, but it greatly diminishes the kind of self-centeredness that is narcissistic, that is, unable to recognize and love others. In the metaphysical quest, one must develop one's heart, one's ability to love others, more than anything else. In my estimation, this is the key to discovering the metaphysical "heart of all life."

M. ESTHER HARDING'S POST-WWII THOUGHTS AS PERTINENT TO OUR CURRENT AMERICAN PSYCHE

[This essay was originally intended for my "Jungian audience." Harding was a Jungian author. I include it here because I believe it to be quite relevant to our current political situation. I trust my readers to make up their own minds.]

Harding wrote Psychic Energy: Its Source and Its Transformation, first published in 1948, with its Foreword written by Jung in 1947. I have excerpted quotes from the text (pp. 3-9) that, in my estimation, can be clearly related to our current political, social, and cultural situation in America. A crossroads seems to have been reached with choices to be made. My hope is that we may approach what confronts us as consciously and responsibly as possible.  The following material is directly from Harding. My own attendant thoughts are designated in brackets.

Beneath the decent façade of consciousness with its disciplined moral order and its good intentions lurk the crude instinctive forces of life, like monsters of the deep—devouring, begetting, warring endlessly. They are for the most part unseen, yet on their urge and energy life itself depends … But were they left to function unchecked, life would lose its meaning … In creating civilization man sought, however unconsciously, to curb these natural forces and to channel some part at least of their energy into forms that would serve a different purpose. For with the coming of consciousness, cultural and psychological values began to compete with the purely biological aims of unconscious functioning.

             Throughout history two factors have been at work in the struggle to bring about the control and discipline of these non-personal, instinctive forces of the psyche. Social controls and the demands of material necessity have exerted a powerful discipline from without, while an influence of perhaps even great potency has been applied from within the individual himself, in the form of symbols and experiences of a numinous character … So powerful indeed were these experiences that they became the core of religious dogmas and rituals that in turn have influenced the large mass of the people. That these religious forms have had power to curb the violence and ruthlessness of the primitive instincts to such an extent and for so long a time is a matter for the greatest wonder … It must mean that the symbols of a particular religion were peculiarly adapted to satisfy the urge of the conflicting inner forces, even lacking the aid of conscious understanding, and in many cases without the individual’s having himself participated in the numinous experience on which the ritual was originally based.

             So long as the religious and social forms are able to contain and in some measure to satisfy the inner and outer life needs of the individuals who make up a community, the instinctive forces lie dormant … Yet at times they awaken … and then the noise and tumult of their elemental struggle break in upon our ordered lives and rouse us rudely from our dreams of peace and contentment. Nevertheless we try to blind ourselves to the evidence of their untamed power, and delude ourselves into believing that man’s rational mind has conquered not only the world of nature around him but also the world of natural, instinctive life within.

             These childish beliefs have received not a few shocks of late. The increase in power that science has made available to man has not been equaled by a corresponding increase in the development and wisdom of human beings; and the upsurge of instinctive energies that has occurred in the last twenty-five years in the political field has not as yet been adequately controlled, let alone tamed or converted to useful ends. Yet for the most part we continue to hope that we will be able to reassert the ascendancy of reasonable, conscious control without any very radical concomitant change in man himself. It is of course obviously easier to assume that the problem lies outside of one’s own psyche than to undertake responsibility for that which lurks within oneself … Can we be so sure that the instinctive forces that caused the dynamic upheavals in Europe, and obliterated in a decade the work of centuries of civilization, are really limited by geographical or racial boundaries to the people of other nations? May they not, like the monsters of the deep, have access to all oceans? … Is “our sea”—the unconscious as we participate in it—exempt from such upheavals?

             The force that lay behind the revolutionary movements in Europe was not something consciously planned for or voluntarily built up; it arose spontaneously from the hidden sources of the Germanic psyche, being evoked perhaps but not consciously made by will power [and it is here that the comparison to our American circumstances may come to mind]. It erupted from unfathomable depths and overthrew the surface culture that had been in control for so many years. This dynamic force seemingly had as its aim the destruction of everything that the work of many centuries had laboriously built up and made apparently secure, to the end that the aggressors might enrich themselves in the resulting chaos, at the expense of all other peoples, meanwhile ensuring that none would be left with sufficient strength to endanger the despoilers for centuries to come.

             The excuse the offered for their disregard of international law and the rights of others was their own fundamental needs had been denied. They justified their actions on the ground of instinctual compulsion, the survival urge that requires living space, defensible frontiers, and access to raw materials—demands in the national sphere corresponding to the imperatives of the instinct of self-preservation in the individual.

             The aggressors claimed that the gratification of an instinct on the lowest biological level is an inalienable right, regardless of what means are employed for its satisfaction: “My necessity is of paramount importance; it has divine sanction… Your necessity, by comparison, is of no importance at all.” This attitude is either cynically egotistic or incredibly naïve. The Germans are a Western people and have been under Christian influence for centuries; they might therefore be expected to be psychologically and culturally mature. Were this the case, would not the whole nation have to be judged to be antisocial and criminal? It was not only the Nazi overlords, with their ruthless ideology, who disregarded the rights of others so foully; the whole nation manifested a naïve egocentricity akin to that of a young child … and this, rather than a conscious and deliberate criminality, may perhaps account for their gullibility and their acquiescence in the Nazi regime. Deep within the German unconscious, forces that were not contained or held in check by the archetypal symbols of the Christian religion, but had flowed back into pagan forms, notably Wotanism [regressive because focused on the individual in contradistinction to the collective focus of Christianity], were galvanized into life by the Nazi call. For that which is the ideal or the virtue of an outworn culture is the antisocial crime of its more evolved and civilized successor.

             The energy that could change the despondent and disorganized Germany of 1930 into the highly organized and optimistic, almost daemonically powerful nation of a decade later, must have arisen from deeply buried sources … These dramatic changes swept over the country like an incoming tide or a flood brought about by the release of dynamic forces that had formerly lain quiescent in the unconscious. The Nazi leaders seized upon the opportunity brought within their reach by this “tide in affairs of men.” They were able to do this because they were themselves the first victims of the revolutionary dynamism surging up from the depths, and they recognized that a similar force was stirring in the mass of the people; they had but to call it forth and release it from the civilized restraints that still ruled the ordinary, decent folk. If these forces has not been already active in the unconscious of the German people as a whole, the Nazi agitators would have preached their new doctrine in vain; they would have appeared to the people as criminals or lunatics, and by no means would have been able to arouse popular enthusiasm or to dominate the nation for twelve long years.

             The spirit of this dynamism is directly opposed to the spirit of civilization. The first seeks life in movement, change, exploitation; the second has sought throughout the ages to create a form wherein life may expand, may build, may make secure. And indeed Christian civilization, despite all its faults and shortcomings [which are legion], represents the best that man in his inadequacy has as yet succeeded in evolving. … Crimes against … humanity are constantly being perpetrated not only in overt acts but also … through ignorance and … ego-oriented attitudes. Consequently the needs of the weak have been largely disregarded, and the strong have had things their own way.

             But those who are materially and psychologically less well endowed have as large as share of instinctive desire and as strong a will to live as the more privileged. These natural longings, so persistently repressed, cannot remain quiescent indefinitely. It is not so much that the individual rebels—the masses of the people being proverbially patient—but nature rebels in him: the forces of the unconscious boil over when the time is ripe. The danger of such an eruption is not, however, limited to the less fortunate in society, for the instinctive desires of many of the more fortunate likewise have been suppressed, not by a greedy upper class but by the too rigid domination of the moral code and conventional law. This group also shows signs of rebellion and may break forth in uncontrollable violence, as has so recently happened in Germany. If this should happen elsewhere, the energies unleashed would pour further destruction over the world. But there remains another possibility, namely, that these hidden forces stirring in countless individuals the world over may be channeled again, as they were at the beginning of the Christian era, by the emergence of a powerful archetype or symbol, and so many create for themselves a different form, paving the way for a new stage of civilization.

             [At this point Harding approaches Communism.] For this new dynamic or daemonic spirit that sprung into being is endowed with an almost incredible energy … Can it conceivably create a new world order? … It does not look as if it could be repressed once more into the unconscious. It has come to stay. And the spirit that conserves and builds up, if it survives at all, cannot remain unaffected by the impact of so vital a force.

             These two world spirits, which Greek philosophy called “the growing” and “the burning,” stand in mortal combat … Will the revolutionary spirit triumph and become the dominant spirit of the next world age? Will war follow war … ? Or dare we hope that out of the present struggle and suffering a new world spirit may be born, to create for itself a new body of civilization?

             [Now Harding turns to the psychologist-as-healer.] For the psychologist can observe the unfolding of this same conflict in miniature in individual persons. The problems and struggles disturbing the peace of the world must in the last analysis [this has to be a pun!] be fought out in the hearts of individuals before they can be truly resolved in the relationships of nations. On this plane they must of necessity be worked out within the span of a single life.

             In the individual, no less than in the nation, the basic instincts make a compulsive demand for satisfaction; and here to civilization has imposed a rule of conduct aimed to repress or modify the demand. Every child undergoes an education that imposes restraint on his natural response to his own impulses and desires, substituting a collective or conventional mode of behavior. In many cases the result is that the conscious personality is too much separated from its instinctive roots; … until in the course of time the repressed instincts rebel and generate a revolution in the individual similar to that which has been threatening the peace of the world.

             … But not real solution of such a fundamental problem can be found except through a conscious enduring of the conflict that arises when the instincts revolt against the too repressive rule of the conscious ego. If the ego regains control, the status quo ante will be re-established and the impoverishment of life will continue … If, on the other hand, the repressed instincts obtain the mastery, unseating the ego, the individual will be in danger of disintegrating either morally or psychologically. That is, he will either lose all moral values … or he will lose himself in a welter of collective or nonpersonal, instinctive drives … .

             But if the individual who is caught in such a problem has sufficient courage and stability to face the issue squarely, not allowing either contending element to fall back into the unconscious, regardless of how much pain and suffering may be involved, a solution of the conflict may develop spontaneously in the depths of the unconscious. Such a solution will not appear in the form of an intellectual conclusion or thought-out plan, but will arise in dream or phantasy in the form of an image or symbol, so unexpected and yet so apt that it appearance will seem like a miracle. Such a symbol has the effect of breaking the deadlock. It has power to bring the opposing demands of the psyche together in a newly created form through which the life energies can flow in a new creative effort. Jung has called this the reconciling symbol [and sounds much like Hegel’s “synthesis”]. Its potency avails … to effect a transformation or modification of the instinctive drives within the individual … .

             This is something entirely different from a change in conscious attitude, such as might be brought about by education or precept. It is not a compromise, nor is the solution achieved through an increased effort to control the asocial tendencies, the outbursts of anger or the like. … It is only after all … efforts towards a solution have failed that the reconciling symbol appears. It arises from the depths of the unconscious psyche [or, as I see it, soul or embodied spirit] and produces its creative effect on a level of the psychic life beyond the reach of the rational consciousness, where it has power to produce a change in the very character of the instinctive urge itself, with the result that the nature of the “I want” is actually altered.

It seems that Harding, in her understanding of Jung, is suggesting a mass radical evolution of consciousness, an enlightenment for all, a Hegelian synthesis of understanding and action, a Christian “act of God,” even a miracle, an Anthroposophical recognition and understanding of the positive aspects of our “lower (instinctive) nature” as presented in the luciferic (ego-centered, individualistic) and ahrimanic (materialistic, nature-based, instinctive) “impulses” (as put forth in The Influences of Lucifer and Ahriman: Human Responsibility for the Earth by Rudolf Steiner), and a Jungian exposition of Self, including all of its shadow aspects, as an individuation of humanity. I share Harding with you that we may all find the Greater Context in which we “live and move and have our being.” And thus be more enabled to make wise and good choices.

             Please note that I do not necessarily agree with all that Harding or Jung say here, but that I do believe that what Harding says is quite relevant and important here and now for us all.

RUDOLF STEINER'S SCINTILLATING METAPHOR, METHOD OF ATTAINING "SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE," AND OTHER STORIES WANTING TO BE TOLD

                                                                                                      

It is my normal practice to read various “spiritual” teachers/sources, be they Western, Eastern, Northern, or Southern. I do so to weigh all and sundry weirdnesses and possible truths that are put forth,  being aware to that which may “resonate” with me in some way, revealing a pattern, a parallel, a correspondence, a connection with that which I seem to “know” (though I am most often unable to determine just where it comes from). This resonance occurs strongly but rarely. With Steiner, I found it to be worth mentioning and conveying to the common understanding, interest, and pool of awareness.

             First, a little about Steiner: Rudolf Steiner (and his newly created Anthroposophical Society) was expelled from the Theosophical Society (though the decision was mutual) in 1913; his presentation of “esoteric Christianity” was at odds with the anti-Christian sentiment and “occult” practices of Theosophy, and, just as importantly, because he was very critical and unaccepting of the Theosophical Society’s Order of the Star in the East for its presentment of Krishnamurti (who ultimately refused the title and position) as “World Avatar.” Steiner believed that, rather than an individual World Teacher, the universal “Christ impulse” present within each and every person (regardless of religion or personal belief) would affect him or her and present itself consciously or unconsciously in their lives, thus presenting the possibility of changing human consciousness and thereby the world through a universal, collective process. Steiner also taught that the Christ, through his incarnation in human physical form two thousand years ago, had entered into and permeated the physical world and was present to and within all people as well as the Earth itself on even the dense, physical level.

             In reading Steiner, I realize that much of what he says pertaining to actual “spiritual experience” (which is necessary if one is to attain “spiritual understanding”) corresponds closely with other religious and/or spiritual methods or techniques to “experience spirituality.”  Certain aspects of Steiner’s writings are clear parallels to other methods, though expressed in his rather unique, fairly straightforward, and down-to-earth manner along with what I see as his wonderfully resonant and original metaphor. It is these aspects that I feel are important enough to share with others.

             For those who may be interested, I will simply note that Jung and Steiner were contemporaries, that Jung does mention Steiner a few times in his CW and does seem to approve of Anthroposophy while disapproving of Theosophy, that Steiner makes no mention of Jung, that they probably were not personally acquainted, that they were similar in their emphasis of the “unconscious and/or subconscious,” that both expressed an appreciation of “esoteric/gnostic Christianity,” but that Steiner did not accept the Jung’s notion of the “collective unconscious,” seeing this principle more in terms of what he called the “Christ impulse” as universally present within humanity.

             My main source for this essay is Approaching the Mystery of Golgotha, a compilation of ten lectures from 1913-14 by Rudolf Steiner, published by SteinerBooks in 2006. Steiner’s metaphor regarding the proper perspective on and use of thought is, to my mind, powerful, instructive, and original. He begins by focusing on “thinking”:

Human beings are evolving in the world; they crown their evolution by filling the world with thinking. Thinking completes the world. Human beings recognize their surroundings through it. (101)

Then he further develops and categorizes this “thinking,” and presents the metaphor of “thought as seed”:

However, thinking can achieve two things. It can be developed properly, which can be compared with the development of the seed to the blossom. But the seed can also serve for human nutrition, it which case it will be torn out of its regular, continuing flow. If it stays in its continuous flow, it develops into a new plant; predictably, life for the future comes from it. It is the same with human thinking. We can say that through it we make pictures for ourselves of our surroundings. However, the employment of such knowledge is like using seeds for nutriment. We drive thinking from its flow. If, however, it remains in its flow, then we let it live its own seed-life. We let it unfold in meditation and inspiration and let it develop itself into a new, fertile existence. That is the right flow of thinking. (101-102)

This is the essence of Steiner’s metaphor. However, it has further implications and direction:

In the future, we will recognize that what we have regarded as knowledge of the world behaves like the grain that does not progress to the new grain, but rather is driven out to a totally different flow. But the knowledge we learn through knowledge of the higher worlds is the thinking, that is philosophically comprehended in freedom and that leads directly into spiritual life through meditation and concentration. We stand at a point where it will be recognized that ordinary knowledge is to supersensible knowledge as a grain used for food is to a grain that progresses to a new grain. Inner knowledge of thinking is what the future must bring. … And we will know that living thinking, which transforms itself through meditation and concentration, leads to spiritual knowledge of human nature and to knowledge of the spiritual worlds. (102)

Now, Steiner considers what his metaphor of “thought as seed” means and further explains how it is to be applied in one’s own life and to the current time, over a hundred years ago:

Today a person who is regarded as a great philosophical mind basically limits his wisdom to talking over and over again about the same subject. He says: “Human beings should not stop with mere external knowledge. They must grasp the spirit. … They must grasp the spiritual within themselves. It may not be grasped merely in concepts; it must come alive.” Such people are not saying what spirit is; they know nothing about it. … [However], when we form thinking out of itself [my emphasis], it does not become a vague experience of spirit, but becomes whole in itself. … In other words, if we transform thinking in meditation, our meditative thought will form itself. And then … our spiritual being will become present. Humanity is on its way in its evolution from philosophy to a living spiritual knowledge. (102)

Steiner goes on further assess the current situation and the ability of the current “state of the soul” to prepare and progress:

Those who see this understand their time, but it is not possible to gain a real insight into these things without developing reverence for the knowledge, which holds one back with the power of judgment that one has from applying the criterion universally. One must be willing to prepare oneself ever and again for new knowledge, for in its present state, the soul is suited only for a tributary of knowledge. Only when the soul develops to a higher level is it really suited to enter into the spiritual world. … We will make no progress by acquiring only more and more concepts for what the spiritual world is. We must acquire them, but we only start to make real progress when we join with each new thought something that comes from the deepest foundation of our soul, so that this process of “understanding more and more” can prove itself before the leading powers of our time. We can feel them, how they speak in the most intimate foundation of our soul. … This consciousness should pour itself out over what we are doing as a true current of the soul. (103)

Steiner further implores that his readers join in his Anthroposophical Movement as the main force of this new consciousness, however, in my own estimation, I think that many of us are already upon our own paths and directions, be they individual or group-oriented, and are already following the “true current of the soul.”

             Again, I am struck by the simplicity and power of Steiner’s metaphor in which thoughts are as “seeds,” and if we eat the seeds as our nourishment, which is to say, focus on the appearance of  thoughts in our minds as “our thoughts” and consciously attempt to thereby control them by leading and directing them with our conscious direction, we limit the inherent creative potential of the thought,  which does not then develop and cannot come to fruition. I find a very close correspondence to Steiner’s “method” in the Buddhist view of thinking as presented in two of its techniques of meditation, zazen and vipassana. In these techniques or methods, thoughts, though initially recognized, are not dwelled upon nor “followed” by the conscious mind; rather, they are simply “let go of.” Through this practice, one returns to a state of “natural mind,” of “emptiness.” In such a mind, which is no longer reflective of self, the “I” ceases. If thought no longer “occupies” our mind, “I” cease to exist. A pertinent exercise: Let go of all thoughts in your mind, and, keeping that mind, try thinking of yourself or anything about yourself. Yes, it is a bit of a trick question. Humor is always a valid ingredient of being.

             These are my own vague words meant to describe a state of being that is more expansive and real than our “normal” state of mind and perception. I imagine most Buddhists (to say the least) would find it ridiculously simplistic if not inaccurate). However, I see a correlation between Steiner’s metaphor and description of the process or method, and that of Buddhist meditation, in which I have had forty years’ experience. I never heard any Buddhists present such an explanation for the process and method of Buddhist meditation in any way similar to as Steiner’s metaphor and method, but then, Buddhists don’t tend to explain such things, much less in a logical, “scientific” Western mode. A quite similar technique to Steiner’s is presented in Theosophy (Alice Bailey), which I also practiced for many years. In this practice, one focuses upon a “seed thought” (repeatedly for a period of time like a week or month) by “raising awareness up” to the fifth chakra (or energy center in the body, according to the Hindu yogic system), holding it there, then raising it up to the seventh before “letting go” of it so that it “ascends” (which reminds me of the “cloud of unknowing” practices of Meister Eckhart and other Christian mystics). Then, after a few minutes have passed, one then allows the “seed thought” to “descend” back into the fecund and receptive mind (fifth chakra) once again, where “divine knowledge” is then disseminated into one’s consciousness, where it is “digested,” and then shared with others in a more “edible” and palpable form.

             Steiner’s metaphor and description also somewhat correspondent with The Little Rule of Saint Romuald (www.contemplation.com), a Christian contemplative method, as introduced more than a thousand years ago and practiced in Camaldolese Benedictine monasteries today. Monks are instructed to:

Sit in your cell as in paradise. Put the whole world behind you and forget it. Watch your thoughts like a good fisherman watching for fish. … Realize above all that you are in God’s presence, and stand there with the attitude of one who stands before the emperor. Empty yourself completely and sit waiting, content with the grace of God, like the chick who tastes nothing and eats nothing but what his mother brings him.

This practice takes place within the context of the Psalms and in dedication to Christ, which, in my view,  thereby separates it more from Steiner’s or the Buddhist approach.

In addition to the comparison between Steiner’s method and those of Buddhism and contemplative Christianity, there is a notion presented by Steiner in the same aforementioned text that is reflected in Native American beliefs as well as in some Asian religions (which I will not specifically speak of due to ignorance). Steiner view is that since Christ incarnated in a human body on Earth, after his death the “Christ energy,” or, more specifically, the “Christ impulse” entered into and suffused or enlivened the physical realm of the Earth itself, in addition to existing in other more sublime dimensions. (This is similar to the Theosophist view [Alice Bailey] of divine life occurring within the atoms that compose the material world and universe, including, of course, our own bodies.) Thus, the earthly world is permeated and suffused with divine energy, specifically Christ energy. Steiner (and some Theosophists) see this as the direct result of Christ’s incarnation into the physical body, and universally, the physical level of the world.

             Christianity makes reference to this perspective in its teaching of an ultimate life after death on Earth in physical bodies, however, it seems confused in its mixing of the spiritual with the material.  Native American “religion” specifically venerates the ancestors, i.e., those who have died and whose spirits have passed back into the Earth, the Mother. I know the medicine man of the Esselen People, Little Bear, a physically big man who, among other things, leads ceremonial sweat lodges. When I teased him years ago about losing some weight so that he wouldn’t have a heart attack in the intense heat of the sweat lodge, he matter-of-factly informed me that “seven grandfathers” lived in his body, that they were “always hungry” and that he had to feed them. He was quite serious. Whether this was his own choice, the price of ancestral wisdom, or both, I did not ask him. The point is that this “spiritual energy” present within the physical world is visceral in the living experience of some people.

I present this compilation of information in an attempt to coalesce seemingly different or perhaps even  oppositional religious and spiritual perspectives and understandings regarding such notions as “spiritual experience” and “spiritual world.” This essay may possess some kind of relevant truth; that I do not know. I am only presenting possible correspondences for the sakes of new or greater understanding. For me it is a story that wants to be told. I am not compelled by a need to “prove” or otherwise demonstrate validity. What I can honestly say comes closest to this: That Which dwells within these earthly bodies of ours may present us, if we are able and willing to listen and to hear, with stories that want to be told, and, if we are able to comprehend our place and role in the matter, we convey these stories as best we can in the hope that they might, in turn, be listened to and heard for the edification and fulfillment of all of us. Children of Mythos, we are each the primary character of the story of our own lives, contained within the Book of All Life. It may not matter a bit but we believe it does. We hope it does. Those with the least faith must demonstrate the most, and thus heed the call to tell those stories wanting to be told.