The Rosicrucian Library0Volume
I Rosicrucian Q uest ions and Answers with Comple te History of the Order
II Rosicrucian Princip le s for the H om e and Bu sin essIII T h e Mystical Life of Je su sIV T h e S ecret D o d r in e s o f Je su sV Unto T h ee 1 Grant
(Secret T e a ch in g s of T ib e t 'VI A T h o u s a n d Years of Yesterdays
(A Revelation o f Reincarnation)VII S e l f Mastery and Fate with the Cycles o f Life
(A Vocational Guide)VIII R os icrucian Manual
IX Mystic s at PrayerX Behold the S ign
(A Book of Ancient S y m b o l i sm )XI M an sion s of the S ou l
(A Cosm ic Conception)XII L e m u r ia T h e Lost Continent of the Pacif ic
XIII T h e T e ch n iq u e of the MasterXIV T h e S ym bol ic Prophecy of the Great Pyramid
XV T h e B ook of Ja sherXVI T h e T e ch n iq u e of the Disciple
XVII M ental Po ison ingX X II T h e S an c tu ary of S e l f
X X I I I S ep h e r YezirahX X V S o n of the S u n
X X V I T h e Con sc ious InterludeX X V I I E ssa y s of a Modern Mystic
X X V I I I Cosmic Mis s ion Fulf il ledX X IX W hisper ings of S e l fX X X H erbal ism T h ro u g h the Ages
X X X I Egypt 's Ancient HeritageX X X I I Yesterday H as M uch to Tell
X X X I I I T h e Eternal Fru it s of KnowledgeX X X I V Cares T h a i Infest
X X X V M ental AlchemyX X X V I M essages from the Celestial S a n c tu m
X X X V I I In S ea rch of RealityX X X V I I I T h ro u g h the M in d 's Eye
(Other volumes will be added from time to time. Write for complete cata logue .)
THROUGHTHE
MINDSEYE
LEWIS
THROUGH THE MINDS EYE
B y R a l t h M . L e w i s , F .R .C .
AMORC
Truth Is What Is Real To Us. Knowledge, experience, is the material of which truth consists. But what is the real, the true, of what we know? With expanding consciousness and knowledge, truth changes. Truth therefore is ever in the balance never the same. But in turning to important challenging subjects, the M inds Eye can extract that which is the true and the real, for the now. The book, Through the M inds Eye, calls to attention important topics for judgment by your minds eye.
THROUGH THE MINDS EYER A LPH M. L E W IS , F.R.C.
Published By
The Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC
Rosicrucian Park
San Jose, California, 95191, U.S.A.
P-24 1281 Printed in U .S .A .
About the Author
Ralph M. Lewis, F.R .C., Imperator of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC has made many contributions to the body of contemporary mystical thought. For many years his articles have been included in the pages of widely-read international publications. His insights into philosophy, metaphysics, and related subjects have circulated throughout the world and fascinated the scholar and layman alike.
Ralph Lewis has always been a student of humanity. Through many years of closely observing and interacting with people of many cultures and beliefs he has attained the rare ability to see people as they really are and how they hope to become. In caring about his fellows he has observed the varied and involved processes of the mind.
Through this, his latest volume, he shares this knowledge with the rest of the world. Through the Mind's Eye is an inspiring aid to personal evolvement and a source of understanding of the greater world around us.
T H R O U G H T H E M IN D S E Y E
V V V
T H R O U G H T H E M IN D S E Y E
By
R alp h M . L ew is, F .R .C . Imperator o f the Rosicrucian Order, AM ORC
Rosicrucian Library Volume XXXVIII
SUPREM E GRAND LODGE OF AM ORC, INC. Printing and Publishing Department
San Jose, California
F IR S T E D IT IO N . 1982 C opyrigh t, 1982
S U P R E M E G R A N D L O D G E O F A M O R C , IN C . All R ights R eserved
L ibrary o f C on gress C atalogu e C ard N o .: 8 1 -8 4 9 5 4
N o p art o f this pub lication m ay be rep ro d u ced , sto red in a retrieval system , o r tran sm itted , in any fo rm o r by any m eans, e lectron ic, m ech anical, ph otocopy in g , record ing, o r otherw ise, w ithout p rio r w ritten p erm ission o f the publish er.
P R IN T E D A N D B O U N D IN T H E U .S .A . BY K IN G S P O R T P R E S S , IN C ., K IN G S P O R T , T E N N .
Dedication
V
ToThe Memory o f
My Wife
R.M.L.
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T
I wish to express my appreciation for the valuable typing o f the manuscript by Cynthia Swanson.
Ralph M. Lewis September 1981
The Rosicrucian LibraryVolume
I R osicru cian Q u estion s and A n sw ers with C om plete H istory o f the O rder
II R osicrucian Principles fo r the H om e and Busin essIII T h e M ystical L ife o f Je su sIV T h e Secret D octrin es o f Je su sV U n to T h ee I G ran t
(Secre t Teach ings o f T ib et)VI A T h o u san d Y ears o f Y esterdays
(A Revelation o f R ein carn ation )VII S e lf M astery and Fate with the C ycles o f L ife
(A V ocation al G u id e )V lll R osicru cian M anual
IX M ystics at PrayerX Behold the Sign
(A B ook o f A ncient S y m b o lism )XI M an sion s o f the Soul
(A C o sm ic C o n cep tio n )XII L em uria T h e L o st C on tin en t o f the Pacific
XIII T h e T ech n ique o f the M asterX IV T h e Sym bolic Prophecy o f the G reat Pyram idX V T h e B ook o f Jasher
XV I T h e T echn ique o f the D iscip leXVII M ental PoisoningXXII Th e San ctuary o f S e lf
XXIII Sepher YezirahX X V S o n o f the Sun
X X V I The C o n sc io u s InterludeX X V II E ssays o f a M odern M ystic
X X V III C o sm ic M ission FulfilledX X IX W h isperin gs o f S e lfX X X H erbalism Th rou gh the A ges
X X X I E gypt's A ncient H eritageX X X II Y esterday H as M uch to Tell
X X X III T h e Eternal Fru its o f K now ledgeX X X IV C ares T h at InfestX X X V M ental A lchem y
X X X V I M essages from the C elestia l San ctumX X X V II In Search o f Reality
X X X V III Th rou gh the M in d s Eye
(O th er vo lu m es will be added from tim e to time. W rite for com p lete catalogue .)
ContentsV
Chapter PageIntroduction...................................................................... 11
1 Is the Universe Conscious?............................. 162 Is Evolution an Acceptable T h eory?........... 393 The Origin o f the Human R a c e .................... 494 Can We Know the Absolute?........................ 755 Is There a Predetermined D estin y ?............. 89
6 Things that Shape Our L iv e s ........................ 1077 The Cultivation o f Civilization ....................125
8 What Is Spirituality?........................................ 1499 When Should We Believe?............................. 171
10 What Is Human Harmony? .......................... 18911 Adjustment to the New A ge.......................... 20512 Is the W orld W orsening?...............................22713 Is Peace on Earth Possible?.............................25514 On Intelligence and Education......................27315 What Is Mystical Enlightenment?................293
16 The Practical Application o f Mysticism . . . 31117 The Roots o f K a rm a ........................................32718 Does the Personality Survive Death?........... 33919 The Mystery o f Why ..................................... 355
Index .................................................................... 363
IN T R O D U C T IO N
Fortunately, we have been endowed with periph
eral vision and have not been limited by nature to
only that which may be seen directly ahead o f us. The
mental vision also has its boundaries, but not just
those which are im posed upon it by nature but by the
will o f man. A s a consequence, we often deny our
selves those experiences that more expansive obser
vation and thought might have produced.
It is advantageous to have a primary goal in life. It
becomes the focus o f our mental powers. However, if
the line o f mental vision is too narrow, we exclude
those observations, experiences, and thoughts that
could cause the final goal to be far more gratifying.
O ur life, our personal response to it, is deter-
mined by our evaluation o f experiences. The more
we perceive and think o f what we experience, the
greater the breadth o f our understanding. There is
also, then, m ore o f the things o f existence which we
can draw upon to create a world o f our liking.
W e are quite aware o f the im pact o f environment
upon our lives. It is a trem endous factor in influenc-
ing both our thoughts and the actions which follow
from them. However, it is one thing to respond to a
new experience from an entirely individual point o f
view, and quite another to appraise its value from
knowledge derived from the experiences o f others.
The great im portance o f history is attributed to
learning how men in the past responded to certain
circum stances and events which have their parallels
today. History reveals the errors which men have
made in their confrontation with unanticipated
occurrences. It likewise discloses what men have
learned in their relations with each other, the lessons
o f which have descended to us.
There are many things we should know that
might be beneficial to us, which ordinarily do not
come to our attention. They are not necessarily all
that which we should believe or accept; yet they often
may confirm what we think by the rational presenta
tion o f their ideas. On the other hand, such may
cause us to open-mindedly question our conclusions
and contem plate their value to us. M ost o f us can
look back upon our lives in a manner o f self-analysis
and admit that a previous concept or decision was
not right and that we might have acted differently if
we then had known otherwise.
Psychologically and philosophically, we can only
arrive at a personal notion o f the good o f anything by
first knowing its antithesis, that which, by contrast,
seem s bad. Therefore, how right or wrong we are
about our evaluation o f human experience, o f our
ideas and ideals, can be rationally appraised by con
templating those ideas counter to them which may
exist. It is through the minds eye, our mental vision,
that we discover the real essence o f the vicissitudes o f
life. Such provides us, figuratively speaking, with a
peripheral vision o f relative and practical truths that
might otherwise escape us.
This book, Through the M inds Eye, seeks to
introduce a variety o f subjects which have an effect
upon not only our personal lives but upon modern
society. It is not a preachm ent; it is not a continuity
o f doctrines; it is not recom m ending any particular
way o f life. Rather, the book is an anthology, a collec
tion o f challenging thoughts, o f past ideas, whose
effects we now experience and perhaps live by, also
those ideas which we confront today. The book is
concerned, too, with speculation about how our
thought and action should be directed toward the
onrushing tomorrow.
It is hoped that one or m ore o f these facts, theo
ries, and abstractions herein may fit into the fabric o f
the readers beliefs and personal philosophy. But
even if they are rejected, we believe the reader will
derive a satisfaction in the renewed conviction aris
ing out o f his own outlook on life its past, present,
and what the future should be.
"It is not what men believe that matters, but what actions
emerge from their beliefs
IS T H E U N IV E R S E C O N S C I O U S ?
In the abstract speculation o f this subject, a first
consideration m ust be had as to how the word uni
verse is to be accepted. W e are not thinking o f the
universe as a com plex o f galaxies and island universes
which are a posterior developm ent o f a primary
beginning. In other words, we are thinking in the
term s o f Absolute Being. The ancient Greek philos
opher Parm enides contended that Being could not
have com e into existence. For it to have com e into
existence, it would have need to have arisen from
som ething or from a nothing. If, however, we give
nothing such an identity as to make o f it a "so m e
thing, then that too is Being. W e consequently are
then obliged to ask, W hence came this "noth ing ? In
this manner, we can be led on and on, ad infinitum.
It, o f course, challenges the com m on credibility
to assum e that the C osm os, considered as the whole
o f Reality, had no beginning. Such an idea ordinarily
conflicts with our com m on experience o f causation,
that is, that everything seem s to have a cause and that
therefore it is presum ed that Being, the C osm os,
m ust also have had one. But such only leads us to
imagining a prior state and then once again questioning
whence it came. W e conclude from this reasoning that
only Being could exist, and that it is eternal and
im mutable. By immutable we do not intend to imply
that the greater universe is inert or that it cannot
express itself in myriad ways. Rather, it is the intention
to convey the idea that Being can never be other than
what it is. There is no substance or state into which
Being could retrogress or dissolve, for that would
presum e the existence o f som ething other than itself.
In fact, we can use the philosophical abstraction
that the idea o f a so-called "nothing is first dependent
on the perception o f something. M ore succinctly, what
I see, for exam ple, I can therefore imagine as also not
existing. It is this idea o f som ething which gives rise
to the notion o f a state, or condition, o f not existing.
A pure nothing, if it existed, could never engender
the idea o f anything coming out o f same if first we had
not had a previous experience o f Reality, o f things
seeming to exist.
This brings us then to the theory o f evolution.
Being is, but in human experience it does not seem to
be inert. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 500
B .C .) said that nothing ever is, but everything is
becoming; all things are passing, nothing abides.
"Y o u cannot step twice into the sam e river, for fresh
waters are ever-flowing in upon you . Thus perm a
nency o f form , o f particulars, is but an illusion. If
there is fixity, then there would be a predeterminism, but
have things been ordained to be just as we perceive
them? M ore sim ply, was there a plan for the whole
C osm os? Are the changes that are occurring but a
moving upward in an evolutionary scale toward an
immanent, that is, indwelling idea in the Cosm os?
Again, would this not result in a state o f ultima Thule,
a final stage that would be reached in som e infinite
period o f time? And further, then, would Being be
arrested under a condition o f final inactivity? Such a
concept would not be reconciled with the theory that
Being is eternally active and becoming.
Here we are brought into conflict with two
opposing ideas. O ne is that there is an innate intelli
gence existing in Being, which is its m otivating force.
It plans, determines, and in its so-called evolutionary
process is but a progression from an original M ind
Cause. The other concept is that the whole operation
o f primary Being is mechanistic; sim ply, it does what
it does by the necessity o f what it is for analogy, just
as gravity functions as it does without any immanent
purpose behind or in it.
There is, o f course, the question often considered
as to whether evolution, that is a series o f changes
from sim plicity to com plexity, actually constitutes a
superior state o f an organism or integrated thing.
The theory o f holism affirm s that an organic or
integrated whole has a m ore independent and greater
reality than the parts o f which it consists. This would
make the evolvement into com plexity a greater state
o f reality than those parts out o f which it evolved.
According to such reasoning, a star then is greater than
an atom. But are quantity and intricacy the criteria for
determining a goal in nature, or is this ju st the human
idea o f evolution? Simply, does nature consider the
star m ore im portant than the atom because o f its
complexity? However, one m ust take into considera
tion that the com plex stares do nor always remain so.
Devolution sets in and returns them to their simple
original constituents. Consequently, we have no
assurance that what we term evolution is indicative o f
a kind o f predeterminism.
However, many are the noted philosophers who
have conceived a substratum o f what to them appears
as axiom atic o f intelligence, that is, a purpose existing
in the C osm os. W ithout referring to such ancient
philosophers as the Greek, Anaxagoras, we can relate
the ideas o f relatively more recent philosophers in
this regard. Spinoza (1 6 32-77) expounded the doc
trine o f "su b specie aeternitatis, that is, that there
is a kind o f underlying intelligence which accounts
for law and order in the universe, and that the whole o f
Reality is not a mere mechanistic process.
Leibnitz (1 6 4 6 -1 7 1 6 ) expounded the doctrine o f
"Petites Perceptions. Briefly, this declared that
behind our ordinary conscious act, deep in our mind,
is a reservoir o f dark, obscure consciousness, that is,
unconscious mental states. Regarding these various
levels o f consciousness in the human, Leibnitz stated,
"F or a better understanding o f petite perceptions, I am
wont to em ploy the illustration o f the m oaning or
sound o f the sea, which we note when we are on the
shore. In order to hear this sound as we do, we must
hear the parts o f which the whole sound is made up,
that is to say, the sounds which com e from each
wave, although each o f these little sounds m akes itself
known only in the com pressed com bination o f all the
sounds taken together, that is to say, in the moaning
o f the sea, and no one o f the sounds would be
observed if the wave which makes it were alone. For
we must be affected a little by the m otion o f this
wave, and we m ust have som e perception o f each o f
these sounds, however little they may be, otherwise
we should not have a perception o f a hundred thou
sand waves, for a hundred thousand nothings cannot
make a something. W e never sleep so profoundly as
not to have som e feeble and confused feeling that we
should never be awakened by the greatest sound in
the world if it were not strained and stretched a little
by less effort though the small extension they produce
is not apparent.
W hat Leibnitz is bringing out here is that our
consciousness is a collective consciousness, that what
ever we are conscious o f is in part the fusion o f a
series o f lesser consciousnesses com bining to give us
the realization o f the whole.
Is consciousness, however, necessarily mind? Can
the universe, in the material sense, be regarded as
having a consciousness, just as we attribute that phe
nom enon to a function o f a living organism ? Leibnitz
attributed a kind o f indwelling consciousness to what
he term ed monads, in his fam ous work Monadology.
These m onads were stated by him to be innumerable
particles in the universe and o f which all things con
sisted, even living matter. Each m onad was imbued
with a consciousness o f a specific duty which it had to
perform . Som e constituted a so-called lower order,
as the structure o f physical phenomena; others o f
plants, animals, and finally, even the human soul.
A ccording to this theory there is an obvious
correlation between consciousness and intelligence.
In other words, there would be sensitivity in these
m onads; it would be restricted to conform ing or
responding to certain functions which each monad had
to individually perform . The universe, then, from
this point o f view, would be a collection o f these
elementary units with their built-in "p u rp o se . The
consciousness is the means o f attracting to it any
other units (m onads) which are necessary for the
fulfillment o f its function. Yet the individual m onad
does not exhibit intelligence in the sense o f under
standing the hou> or the o f what it does.
Can then the universe be conscious o f what it is,
whatever that essence may be? This consciousness,
then, is driving it to persist in its very nature o f Being.
Nevertheless, it would not have a teleological, that is,
a M ind Cause, a purpose such as man is wont to think.
Such a purpose would imply a movem ent toward
finality, an ultimate end. Since there can be naught but
pure Being, eternal and im m utable in essence, such a
determined cause leading to a relative inertia would
be contradictory. It is the seem ing repetition o f
phenom ena such as man perceives them which gives
rise to the hum an concept that Being follow s a deter
mined law and order. But in this thinking we are
confronted with the subjective ideas o f Tim e and
Space. T o the human mind, such may seem to be
objective realities and to be infinite. But what may
seem to be a constant succession, that is, a phenom
enon having a regular order in a period o f time, may
actually be going through a change not perceptible to
man. It would be a condition that would only suggest
to the human mind as being eternal.
The fact that we perceive phenomena that, accord
ing to the speed o f light, occurred a billion light-years
ago and yet are o f the same nature now is not p ro o f o f
a purposeful order. W e are only presum ing that such
phenomena have a built-in, infinite, eternal state as
we experience them. The time o f which we can be
conscious o f a phenomenons existence is no assurance
that in a m ore rem ote period it was not different.
Further, we cannot be certain that it is not going
through a change which will make it different from
what it is or seem s to be now.
Pure Being, the noum enal world, the thing in itself
has no specific fixed qualitative nature. A s Immanuel
Kant has said, the human mind can only perceive the
phenom enal world, and what he attributes to it is his
related understanding. It would seem, in human com
prehension, that it would be m ore appropriate to
conceive o f a conscious universe rather than o f one
possessed o f mind having humanlike qualities as its
basic cause, such as we are inclined to attribute to it.
Now let us depart from the consideration o f the
m acrocosm , the greater universe, to that o f the
m icrocosm , the finite world o f which man is a part.
What are we?
Theology and philosophy have long attem pted a
definition o f man. They have each attributed to him
certain basic qualities. But theology and philosophy
have often not been in agreement on just what these
constituents o f the human were. T o refer to man as a
com posite o f body and soul, or body, spirit, and mind,
for exam ple, still leaves vague the self. The facts that
science has disclosed about man in such realms o f
physiology, anatomy, biology, and psychology have
not been integrated sufficiently to rem ove the aura o f
mystery which surrounds the personal self.
W hen we refer to self, just what do we mean by
that term? W hat does it represent to us? O ur separate
being independent from all else does not alone de
scribe the personal nature o f self. If we were not able to
visually perceive our physical person, we still would
have a consciousness o f self. If we were not able to have
the faculty o f touch, nevertheless we could not deny
the existence o f our self. In fact, if other o f our
receptor organs were suppressed self would remain if
consciousness still persisted.
There is no particular quality which corresponds to
the nature o f self. In other words, self has no such dis
tinctive quality for identification as hard, cold, soft,
large, small, or any color. If we fall back upon philo
sophical abstractions we might generalize by saying
that se lf as a phenom enon is consciousness of con
sciousness. This means that som e aspect o f conscious
ness stands apart from the whole and perceives itself.
This awareness o f the stream o f consciousness by itself
constitutes a dichotom y, that is, a division o f con
sciousness into two parts insofar as its function is
concerned. O r we could say there is a m irror image o f
the nature o f consciousness, the image being the idea
o f se lf which we have.
It would be difficult, if at all possible, to empirically
prove that se lf is aware o f its own nature. There are,
however, phenom ena which though not being the
substance o f self, yet are related to the workings o f it in
our own being. If we just give thought to them, we then
have a better appreciation o f what at least we com
monly call the self.
Let us begin with such a com m on phenomenon as
thinking. Here again we are confronted with a com
plex process o f our being. To think, is just what? Is
perceiving, that is, registering im pressions which
com e to us through our sense organs, thought? For
exam ple, is the visual sensation o f the color red,
thought? Is the tactile sensation o f cold, thought?
These im pressions, vibratory in nature, go through a
transition in the brain and consciousness to com pose
the idea which we associate with them. M ore simply,
this sensation, its quality, is given ideation.
But thinking is m ore than an experience alone. Just
to receive external im pressions and to know them is
not the whole process o f thinking. If we, figuratively
speaking, isolate an idea that form s in consciousness
and try to determine its cause, we are then thinking. If
we begin to associate mental images, that is, ideas, we
are thinking. If we endeavor to not just involuntarily
react to im pressions but to evaluate them in term s to
ourselves, we are thinking. If we establish objectives,
goals to be attained, and give sam e a tem poral quality
as to have them happen in the future, we are likewise
thinking.
W e can subdivide our thinking processes. One
we may call perception, to receive and realize im pres
sions. The other we may term conception. This latter
is to give our experience identity or meaning to us.
Experience or perception, the gaining o f im pres
sions, is the material which conception uses. To
think, you first m ust think about something; there
has to be an idea which is related in som e degree to
previous experience. Sim ply, we cannot begin with a
virgin idea; a thought m ust incorporate the building
materials o f ideas engendered by experience.
How this whole phenom enon o f thought func
tions organically, that is, in a physical sense, is what
neurologists, brain specialists, and psychologists
endeavor to both discover and explain. However, the
manner in which we voluntarily arrange our thoughts
to arrive at new ideas, or the process o f conception, is
given several classifications. One o f these is called
reason. A technical term associated with it is syllogisti-
cal. This consists o f the intentional com bining o f
ideas, or the arranging o f them, into an order that will
bring forth greater enlightenment. The arriving at
new and satisfying prem ises or conclusions does not
necessarily mean that such constitutes truths. For
analogy, prim itive man gazing into the heavens and
noting the movement o f certain celestial bodies found
it reasonable to call them gods. Yet he could not
empirically, objectively prove the conclusion which
he arrived at.
Tw o basic m ethods o f syllogistical reasoning are
deductive and inductive. These are part o f the system
o f form al logic; yet, whether we have any knowledge
o f this subject o f logic or not, in our reasoning we all
com m only resort to deduction and induction. Su c
cinctly, deductive reasoning is the method from the
general to the specific, as, for exam ple, we are aware
o f a particular event and we desire to know what
elements contributed to it; what were its causes. For
analogy, what caused the decline o f the M ayan civili
zation? By deductive reasoning, we would try to
search out those factors in particular which may have
been its cause.
The inductive method is the principal tool o f
science. It consists o f reasoning from som e specific
fact, a particular leading up to the general or underly
ing law o f the phenomenon. For further analogy, a
crim inologist may select a particular piece o f evi
dence and by the inductive method seek to discover
the general motivating factor involved. Sir Francis
Bacon is credited with advocating the inductive method
in science. In this connection, Bacon placed im por
tance on negative instances. This consists o f stripping
away in ones reasoning all instances which appear to
have no relationship to the phenomenon which is
under investigation.
Imagination is yet another o f the important phe
nomena o f which self is capable. N o one is without
this attribute, though som e persons are more endowed
with it than others. Academ ic psychology and philos
ophy have theorized on this mental process exten
sively. T o even have a rudim entary understanding o f
it, however, does bring us a greater appreciation o f the
marvel o f se lf at work.
Imagination em ploys three divisions o f time so
far as consciousness is concerned. First, imagination
em ploys the past; it draws upon ideas, the result o f
previous experience. These become its basic materials.
Sim ply, one begins with the known. And the known
to each o f us is o f the past.
However, when we think it is always o f the present
moment, even though the ideas brought forth from
m emory at the time are o f the past. But the process o f
imagination is the future; that is, it is desirous o f
creating, bringing into existence that which is not o f
the past and which may not be objectified until a
future time. The function o f imagination is to arrange
elements o f our thoughts so that they may constitute
a new order and an image o f a th ingor an event as yet
unknown in actual experience. O ne cannot, as we
have said, have a completely original idea in that it is
divested o f anything previously known. N o creation
by man has any such absolute originality. Imagination
projects elements o f the known so as to adapt them
to an end sought.
Creative imagination deviates from fantasy. In
fantasy there need not be any conform ity to known
law and order. It is only that which pleases the mind, even
if it is beyond all probability. For analogy, fantasy
may conceive an elephant suddenly transforming
itself into a human being. However, this would be
based upon no law o f nature, and it would be without
any intent to determine if such a possibility could exist
in nature. On the other hand, creative imagination
will, by contrast to fantasy, endeavor to utilize the
known so as to manifest that which is imagined.
Memory is a m ost vital factor in relation to the
phenom enon o f self. David Hume, English philos
opher, said, "H ad we no memory, we never should
have any notion o f causation, nor consequently o f that
chain o f causes and effects which constitutes our self
or person. But having once acquired this notion o f
causation from the memory, we can extend the same
chain o f causes, and consequently the identity o f our
persons beyond our m em ory . . . .
Hume, however, gave greater credit to memory
than to imagination. M em ory, he said, is the direct
result o f experience, whereas imagination may often
lead to the exaggeration o f ideas and self-deceit. In
these remarks, Hume was evidently referring to fan
tasy.
W hat o f the emotions? W e are m ore inclined to
identify them with the self than other functions o f the
body and brain. W ith m ost o f us, em otions are far
more m otivating than are thinking, reasoning, and
imagination. The em otions are m ore specifically an
essential to personal survival. They give rise to many
o f the ideas which we have. Pain and pleasure are the
guidelines o f the survival o f the living organism. T o
use a homely analogy, pain and pleasure are the red
and green lights in life, with certain limitations. Pain,
as the red light, inform s the organism that something
is disturbing the internal rhythmic harmony upon
which its continuance depends. There is nothing that
so forcefully engenders the instinct o f caution like
pain.
A s for pleasure, this inform s us that the titillating
sensation being experienced is in accord with the vital
processes o f the organism. It encourages us to continue
such conducive effects, provided that they do not
cross the threshold o f safety and become an excess and
then retrogress to pain.
The em otions are related to pain and pleasure in
that they serve them in various ways. Fear induces
caution; it warns us o f possible endangering o f the
self. W ithout normal fear, man would not survive, as
he would have no hesitancy in engaging a threat to
life.
Love is the attraction for that which it is con
ceived will gratify the mental or physical aspect o f
being. Love is the desire for pleasure, or call it happi
ness, o f varied kinds. Each o f the em otions can be
analyzed in term s o f such a relationship. Even hatred
is founded on the fear o f that which seems to demean
or detract from the personal ego.
Compassion, or sympathy, is a form o f empathy;
that is, the individual is extending his personal feelings
in a circumstance so as to include another. In other
words, in com passion we vicariously feel the "h u rt
which another is experiencing, and we wish to help
that other person surm ount it in the manner we
would use personally under similar circumstances.
The so-called psychic side o f man consists o f the
more subtle phenom ena o f mind, brain, and con
sciousness. They are m ore difficult to specifically
relate to such basics as we have touched upon. Even
these psychic im pressions are related in the sensations
they produce to ones which we experience from the
com m on receptor senses. The sensations which they
arouse are feelings contiguous to the em otions, but it
is often difficult to state specifically which em otions
they are related to.
W e cannot pass by the attribute o f toil! without
som e com m ent. The subject o f will has engaged phi-
losophers since antiquity. M odern psychologists
have their diverse opinions about it. Let us think for a
moment about will and quite apart from any techni
cal definition. W e will to do som ething, but why?
W ill is a desire; it is an urge caused by thought, which
is stim ulated either by internal or external im pres
sions. However, will is a dom inant desire; it com
mands the full volition o f our being. W e will to do one
thing in preference to another because will as a desire
exceeds at the time all other ideation or even sensa
tions which we might experience. W illpow er is not a
separate entity or attribute o f our being. It is a phe
nomenon by which the mind focuses its energy upon
a single thought to m ake o f it a dominant desire that
com pels action.
The ancients were right when they said that the
microcosm, the small universe, encompasses mysteries
as great as the m acrocosm , our greater universe. O ur
being and the phenom enon o f self are certainly one o f
the greatest realms o f the m icrocosm . Each o f us,
each day, can becom e better acquainted with it by a
little self-analysis, that is, by endeavoring to learn
whatweare. The ancient injunction, "K now thyself,
said to have appeared over a temple portal in ancient
Delphi, is worthy o f our contemplation.
IS E V O L U T IO N A N
A C C E P T A B L E T H E O R Y ?
The strongest objection to the theory that man has
descended from lower organism s comes from the
fundam entalists religious sects. They consider that
the evolution o f the species is a direct contradiction
o f the biblical story o f creation and that it also tends
to degrade man.
The biblical account in Genesis conceives o f man
as a spontaneous creation, that is, a creation that
came into existence in the physical form in which he
now appears. It also states that man is the image o f his
Creator, that he is the highest creation in reference to
the faculties and attributes that he exhibits. If, o f
course, the Bible is to be taken literally as being the
exact word o f G od and on those grounds no further
facts can be considered, then one conclusively closes
his mind to all other knowledge.
In num erous ways, it is shown by science by
means o f empirical knowledge that the Bible is a
collection o f legends, historical facts, and personal
revelations. The Bible can be refuted in part, espe-
daily when one realizes that those who contributed
to it lacked much o f the knowledge available today.
In the still popular King Jam es version o f the
Bible, at the beginning o f the opening chapter o f
G enesis, there usually appears the date 4 0 0 0 B. C. as
the time o f creation. This date is easily refuted scien
tifically by geology, astronom y, archeology, and
Egyptology. It is known from the translation o f
Eigyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform tablets that
there were well-established cultures that had been in
existence for centuries at the time the Bible states as
the beginning o f creation.
G eologists, by means o f the so-called Earth clock
(the ages o f the Earth revealed in its strata), disclose
that this globe has been in existence for millions o f
years. Radioactive carbon in objects can be recorded
in such a manner as to establish their age accurately.
This latest m ethod o f physical science has confirm ed
estimates that archeologists have given to artifacts that
far antedate the creation date set forth in the Bible.
The m odern space age and its space probes and
explorations have put to a severe test the literal inter
pretations o f the Bible. Science is not resorting to
heterodoxy or heresy; it is, rather, impartially search
ing for truth. If it is established that life exists on
other celestial bodies and not exclusively on Earth
and if other beings equal to or superior in intelligence
to man are found, this will then make erroneous the
statement that the Earth alone was selected as the
habitat o f an especially created beingman. It must be
realized that the early prophets and contributors to the
O ld Testament accounts did not conceive o f heavenly
bodies as being other worlds. In fact, m ost o f them
were o f the opinion that cosm ologically the Earth is
the principal body in the universe.
A t the time when Nicolaus C opernicus (1473-
1543), astronom er, promulgated his idea that the Sun
and not the Earth was the center o f our universe, he
became the victim o f attack by the theologians. They
accused him o f detracting from the divine eminence
and im portance o f m an. Man was G o d s chosen crea
tion, they said, citing the Bible. The Earth was created
solely for him.
Consequently, if the Earth were not the center o f
the universe and if it held a subordinate position,
m ans status would thus be inferior, also. Copernicus
him self wrote, "In the center o f everything rules the
sun; for who in this m ost beautiful temple could place
this luminary at another or better place whence it can
light up the whole at once? in fact, the sun setting in a
royal throne guides the family o f stars surrounding
him . . . the earth conceives by the sun, through him
becom es pregnant with annual fru its.
Today, nearly five centuries after Copernicus,
truth is again in conflict with religious orthodoxy.
Even a high school student in his studies has the
evolutionary processes in nature dem onstrated to
him. Breeders o f cattle and poultry know the m uta
tions that result by special breeding; in fact, they
depend on such for the im provem ent o f their stock.
The horticulturist and even the amateur gardener can
discern the variations caused in plant growth and
form by environmental effects.
W hat seem s to strike particularly at the human
ego and dignity is the belief that organic evolution in
relation to man means that "he com es from a m on
key. M ost o f those who acrim oniously inveigh
against the theory o f evolution have never read any o f
Darwins works or any other textbooks on the sub
ject. Their opinion is that evolution is atheistically
designed to attack their faith.
Charles Darwin has not declared that man is a
direct descendant o f any primate. His postulations and
researches present the idea that there is " a tree o f
genealogical descent and that there are related form s
branching o f f from com m on parents. Sim ply put, he
meant that life came originally from simpler common
forms. In the passing o f time, these common form s as
parents had many branches from their original stock.
These branches or their variations account for the
different species due to natural selection and environ
mental factors.
In his renowned work, The Origin of Species, Charles
Darwin states that these variations account for dif
ferent organism s as the result o f com petition for
restricted food. Those with favorable variations sur
vive and produce their kind. Man was not created as he
is, but various factors in his existence, in his gradual
survival, have brought about his organic structure.
Further, the impact o f present conditions will gradu
ally m ake other changes in him. M ans hands, for
exam ple, were not spontaneously given to him as
they are, but their prehensile quality was developed
with his need to cope with his environment.
In his works, Darwin shows that the embryologi-
cal developm ent o f the individual "tended to follow
roughly the evolutionary developm ent o f their races
revealed by fossil rem ains." That is to say, the human
em bryo goes through changes which can be observed
and which correspond to earlier form s o f organism s
whose fossilized remains have been found. This indi
cates that man preserves in him self the early form s o f
living organism s through which his physical being
passed until he reached his present highest stage o f
development.
Instead o f this being shocking and detracting
from the status o f man, it actually indicates that man
may not yet have reached his zenith o f attainment.
There is the potentiality o f still further developm ent,
which is a yet greater tribute to Cosm ic law and
phenomena. W e think that Charles Darwin beauti
fully expressed this thought in the following words:
"M an may be excused for feeling som e pride at hav
ing risen, though not through his own exertions, to
the very sum m it o f the organic scale; and the fact o f
his having risen, instead o f his being placed there
aboriginally, may give him hope for a still higher
destiny in the distant future.
Organically, man is an animal. T o try to separate
physically or to distinguish the organic functions o f
man from other anim als is an absurdity. The cells o f
the human have the sam e basic function, such as
irritability, metabolism, reproduction, and excretion, as
living cells in other form s o f lower life. It is the
physical vehicle o f man which the evolutionary theory
states is a product o f evolution and continues to be.
W hat reflection does this have upon the reli
gious, the mystical, and philosophical conception
that man is "a living sou l ? Theology contends from
its hagiography, its collection o f sacred writings, that
man alone has soul. From one point o f view only can
this postulation be supported. M an, at least, as the
m ost intelligent being on Earth, has the m ost highly
developed self-consciousness.
It is this consciousness o f his em otional and psy
chic nature that causes him to conceive that entity o f
his personality which he calls soul. He terms it divine,
and it is divine if we designate all C osm ic forces as
being o f a divine nature. It is erroneous to say that
man alone has a soul. If, as previously stated, beings
having a self-consciousness equivalent to man are
found in the future to exist in the greater universe;
then, certainly, they would have the equal right to
claim such an entity as soul.
Until man became Homo sapiens, a rational highly
developed self-conscious being, he had only the
essence o f soul but no conception o f it. In the lower
animals, there is that same vital force and conscious
ness, which gradually evolved in man to its own
awareness and designates itself soul. Those who fear
that the theory o f evolution dem eans that status o f
man will perhaps learn before another century has
passed that there are many other factors that strike at
m ans egotistic conception o f being "th e central
object o f all creation.
T H E O R IG IN O F T H E H U M A N R A C E
There is considerable interest today in people trac
ing their " r o o ts their family origin. Knowledge o f
such may or may not he gratifying to the ego, but
otherwise it is not particularly expedient to the present
day. In reference to the human race in general we may
presum e the term roots refers to the origin o f man, a
hominoid.
The time factor o f the earliest known specimens
that can be designated as man is being m oved back
further and further. The earliest date proclaim ed
today by the renowned family o f anthropologists, the
Leakeys, is several million years. Africa is now being
recognized as the possible locale o f the earliest man
like creature, a H om o erectus, the erect walking
hominoid.
Throughout the earlier periods o f the science o f
anthropology the honor o f being the first center o f
human life has shifted from one continent to another.
The sinanthropus, or Peking man, was long heralded
as our ancestor. This resulted, however, in consider
able controversy as to the authenticity o f the find
ings. Kenya, East Africa, has brought forth skeletal
remains which, according to radiocarbon metering
are said to be nearly three million years old. Exam i
nation o f the skulls o f such early specim ens reveals a
capacity o f 6 0 0 -8 0 0 cubic centimeters. T his is about
half the brain capacity o f modern man.
Findings o f m ore recent human remains during
the last Ice Age, estimated to be som e 3 0 ,0 0 0 years
old show evidence o f sim ple craftsm anship. Pebbles
were used as tools for cutting and percussion, that is,
hammering. Then shaping or selecting o f flint for tools
was then acquired. This consisted first o f percussion,
that is, knocking o ff the edges o f flint rock to a
desired shape. Slowly, progress was made to the point
o f pressure. This consisted o f pressing a stone along
the edges o f the flint to remove undesired parts.
Attaching these flints to the pieces o f wood that were
groved to hold them and then affixing handles was a
far later technical advance.
A s one anthropologist has noted, there seem to
have been certain cultural advances existing side by
side with a stagnation in the improvements o f what
had been done. For exam ple, roughly executed art
depicting animals by scratches on bones was found.
This was an indication o f imagination and creativity.
However, this artwork was still carved with the same
crude tools that had been in use for thousands o f
years.
Did the variations in climate and temperature
during periods o f glaciation the advance and retreat
o f the ice cause m ans emergence to be localized in
one area o f the world? W e do know from extensive
research that the anthropoid apes were confined to
A frica by clim actic conditions. They never devel
oped the ingenuity and reasoning powers to venture
beyond their favorable climate to adapt themselves
elsewhere. But man, the H om o erectus, and later the
Homo sapiens, or thinking man, did venture forth and
had a degree o f adaptability to a new environment.
A question still being considered by science is
this: Did man evolve from prim ates to hom inoids
man-like creatures solely in Africa? Are the find
ings o f the Neanderthal man in France and Spain the
result o f later pilgrimages from Africa? There are
traces in Europe o f pre-historic peoples, called
M ousterian, o f the late paleolithic period. Their cul
ture appears the sam e as that o f the rem ains found in
sections o f Africa.
A rem arkable find was made in the suburbs o f
Vladimir near M oscow. It was a large upper paleolithic
settlement cemetery. It contained well-preserved
burials, the date o f which have been estimated to be
2 2 ,0 0 0 B. C . In one burial, apparently laid out in
cerem onial form , were the skeletons o f two young
boys. They had polished m ammoth ivory beads scat
tered upon what had been their clothing. Both also had
elaborate headdresses. In the burial were found a
number o f bracelets and rings. The burial was
obviously o f an advanced culture as indicated by the
arrangement o f the skeletons, the headdresses, and
the jewelry. D id these people originate in Russia or
did they migrate from Africa?
Science does not accept the theological idea o f a
spontaneous generation o f man. The fam ous estimate
o f 4 0 0 4 B. C . for the creation o f man, which still
appears in the King Jam es version o f the Bible, was
made by the A rchbishop Henry U sher (1550-1631).
It was based on the age o f A dam s descendents as are
given in the O ld Testam ent. This was later refined by
Dr. Lightfoot o f Cam bridge University. He consid
ered that "m an was created by the Trinity on
O ctober 23, 4 0 0 4 B. C. at nine in the m orning. T o
accept such a date, o f course, would be to reject all
the empirical evidence o f the evolution o f man
throughout the aeons o f time. T o accept the evolu
tionary concept does not diminish m ans dependence
upon the C osm ic phenomena o f which all reality
exists. Man has evolved physically and he is continu
ing to evolve mentally as well. The real status o f man
was finally arrived at when he became a self-conscious
beingwhen he realized him self as apart from all else.
This state o f creative awareness is still undergoing
developm ent (which we shall later consider further).
Race means breed. Race is said to have originated
where the human stock was subject to certain environ
mental conditions over long periods o f time. Physical
race m arks or characteristics were deeply im pressed
on "th e com petitive stocks o f the early w orld.
However, no biological stock is, in a sense, invaria
ble. Man may be subject to certain severities o f cli
mate which will eventually reproduce racial character
istics through heredity. But due to the plasticity o f
the human organism, generations o f people subject to
a new environmental condition will eventually p ro
duce different physical changes in their offspring. In
other words, "so m e human characteristics undergo
alternative m odifications that once acquired, are
reproduced with a high degree o f regularity.
The variation is evidenced in head form s, hair
[ 54 ]
texture, and in skin color. Eye color and shape and
the breadth o f the nose are further examples.
The cradle lands o f races have been called "w arm
fauna and cold fauna, in other words, animals (and
hum ans) o f cold or warm areas o f the world. In these
various and often extreme climates and other environ
mental factors, man has been subject in his early
beginnings to intense struggle for survival. The effects
o f this can be recognized among existing human stocks
and "se ts its mark for heredity and the birth o f a
race.
These prehistoric beginnings o f race are studied
by anthropom etric means, that is, the observation o f
height and weight o f the skeletal remains. Such find
ings, o f course, are not absolute but they do show
variations related to extreme climactic differences.
W ith increasing intermingling o f races in the modern
world, racial distinction will become more difficult to
determine. Theories have been made with som e
degree o f veridity upon the differences in eye and nose
shape, skin coloring, and height and weight as well.
Certain climate and environmental influences are
attributed as the cause.
W hen it com es to the question o f "superiority
o f race, science at first attem pted to relate this to
intelligence and to brain capacity. However, it has
been established that som e primitive peoples today
have a brain capacity equal to the average dweller in
an advanced culture (approxim ately 1200 cc). Fur
therm ore, the offspring o f these primitive peoples, if
brought as children into a civilized, advanced culture
to be reared and educated, exhibit an intelligence
equal to those native to the place where they are
reared.
The alleged superiority o f race has been mostly
due to superiority o f advantage rather than any
innate quality. If we consider the subject mystically,
all hum ans are infused with the sam e C osm ic life
force and its potentials, and there is no variation. It is
the exposure o f the being to environmental and cul
tural influences which can result in the greater exhibit
o f intelligence.
Each o f us knows o f young men and women who
have doctoral degrees and in other ways show a
m arked intelligence. The I. Q . o f their parents would
also reveal an excellent native intelligence but per
haps they were not given the opportunity o f their o ff
spring to apply it through the medium o f education,
training, and application. Here superiority was in
advantage only.
W e refer to prim itive peoples as though all such
were necessarily naive and lacking in intelligence.
The general designation o f a primitive people are those
whose culture shows a considerable diversity from
the Euroam erican one. A s said previously, modern
anthropology, however, has proven that taking into
consideration the environment o f primitive people
they have often displayed in their custom s and prac
tices a high degree o f intelligence. But it has not had
the influence o f the developm ent o f an advanced
culture.
There appears to be what may be termed a very
definite primitive reasoning on the part o f humans.
This type o f reasoning seem s to be innate, that is, it is
native to the human mind. W e may say it is an
em bryonic or elementary form o f thinking. How
ever, with experience, with literacy and with the effects
that com e from a m ore com plex culture this reason
ing is m ost often m odified. A lso this primitive type
o f reasoning, or term it immature thinking, does
persist even am ong many peoples in the so-called
advanced cultures. It is not indigenous to any one
race, country, or nationality. It constitutes the prin
cipal cause o f persistent superstitions and the perpet
uation o f often worthless custom s and practices.
The persons retaining this primitive reasoning may
outwardly use the habiliments o f m odern civilization.
They may utilize all the conveniences that science and
technology provide. However, such is only a veneer
and adaptation which often they do not fully under
stand. W henever a new and different circumstance
arises for which there is no existing custom to apply,
they revert to their immature thinking to provide the
solution. The result, then, is often a fallacy o f think
ing which may com pound the problem they confront
rather than solve it.
W hat constitutes this primitive mind? The prim i
tive mind perceives differently. W e can ordinarily
distinguish an objective presentation from subjective
associations. In other words, we can tell the differ
ence between the qualities o f what, for example, we
see from that o f our em otional feelings about the
experience or what we may imagine about it. But with
the primitive mind the properties o f the particular
thing perceived are assum ed to also contain a m yste
rious occult force. The particular is thought to p o s
sess a certain immaterial supernatural or magical
power. Subsequently then, the perceptions, the
empirical experiences o f the primitive mind "are
overweighted by subjective elem ents.
Such magical and imaginative attributes cannot
be verified by sensation as can perception. For anal
ogy, when we perceive som ething visual we can go up
to it, feel it, and by our other receptor senses verify
the essence o f that which we see. Conversely, that
which is imagined to exist as a magical property in an
object cannot be verified by any external sensation.
Consequently, the nature o f the object is erroneously
presented to our mind. A t least a confused concep
tion o f it is had.
It m ust not be thought that the perceptions o f the
prim itive mind are necessarily clouded. Their per
ception, their faculties, for exam ple sight and hear
ing, are as fully developed as those o f the mature
thinker. Their wrong reasoning is due to the influence
o f desire, anxiety, and imagination. The imagination
" is excited by pressing needs which attribute quali
ties to the perception which do not exist in the things
themselves. For analogy, the individual stum bles over
a stick in his path. In its form it resembles a snake to
him. Then drawing upon his actual experience with
such reptiles, he imagines the inanimate stick to pos
sess the dangerous and fearful qualities o f the reptile.
A nthropologists are o f the opinion that the prim
itives have a m ore intense imagination and therefore
find it difficult to distinguish the ideas engendered by
it from those ideas arising from perception. Their
imagination is so intense that it may often cause their
death. If, for exam ple, they have been told that they
have been execrated, that is, a curse has been called
down upon them, their imagination will make this
suggestion becom e a reality in their mind and even
tually cause their death. The sam e results o f intense
imagination may occur from the fear o f the conse
quence o f the violation o f a taboo. Sim ply, to the
primitive mind thinking can be as efficacious as seeing
or feeling.
Another example o f primitive mind com m on
am ong men o f m odern society is the association o f
instances without concern for the differences in qual
ity. M ore sim ply put, two things quite different in
qualities will often be associated because o f som e
relative function. For exam ple, a prim itive may put a
lock o f a m ans hair in a fire that the hair may be
destroyed. He knows that fire burns the hand. The
lock o f hair belongs to man and therefore fire which
burns it likewise burns the man. W e see this type o f
primitive reasoning existing in modern religious sects.
Many who resort to prim itive practices in their reli
gious zeal are, o f course, not aware o f their immature
primitive reasoning which often shackles them to
superstition and prevents a true intellectual and spir
itual attainment.
Another example o f this sam e type o f reasoning is
the Zulu courting a girl. He chews a piece o f wood "in
expectation that as the wood is reduced to pulp, her
heart, too, will be softened. The processes are not
parallel, that is, the w ood and the heart are different.
But the relationship between them, the softening
process is thought to be the same. M any persons wear
amulets which are from places proclaim ed to be
sacred. W ith a great number o f such persons the
prim itive reasoning is thus; the place from which the
article was taken was sacred and had a supernatural
efficacy. Therefore, this object m ust likewise have
that efficacy and will extend its protective influence
to my person.
The primitive mind com m only confuses cause
and relation. If one thing happens after another, it is
presum ed by the type o f mind that the first one
which was observed was the cause o f the others which
followed when actually there was no such relationship.
In other words, similarity is presum ed a causal quality
when it may not actually exist as such. Observation
and mature thinking will often reveal that things will
appear similar yet have fundamentally different
causes for their existence.
There are a num ber o f theories with regard to the
way that we think. D ifferent schools o f psychology
advocate these different concepts. One is the stimulus-
response theory. W e have an external stimulus received
by one o f our receptor senses which in turn produces
a response, a sensation. That sensation may in turn
become a stim ulus to produce still another response
possibly arousing an idea within the mind by associa
tion. Meaning, however, is m ore than just a sim ple
response. It is the allocating o f identity to response.
This consists o f the evaluation o f the response and the
com bining o f sim ple ideas into m ore com plex ones.
Such a process is often done involuntarily, that is, the
ideas just arise in the mind from previous perception.
When we reason, we intentionally will what
responses should be com bined or so related as to
confer their meaning. W e may be wrong in our inter
pretation o f the meaning but if such voluntary thought
is done, we are then less apt to fall into the com m on
errors o f the primitive mind, which mind is latent in
all o f us.
Free association is that process o f thinking to
which at tim es we are all inclined. Free association o f
ideas is that form o f thinking over which less control
is exercised. In free association one thought just
stim ulates another. The thought is not oriented
toward any particular solution. It does not con-
sciously reflect a theme. For analogy, we may think
o f a warm day, then there com es to mind last
summer, then perhaps a place to which we went or a
disappointm ent that we did not go, then the thought
o f those who bought clothes for a journey, then we
may think o f a shop we may recently have seen with
an announcem ent o f a sale. T his is an example o f free
association.
O n the other hand, fantasy and daydreaming, as
we have said previously, are directed toward a so lu
tion but one that is not realistic, that is, principally
imaginative. A youth in fantasy, for example, imagines
him self an astronaut on a journey to a distant world
I 64 ]
encountering other peoples there. He is creating a
theme in a related manner o f ideas but it is not realistic.
In other w ords, it is not supported by fact or even by
the possibility at the time that he could ever experience
such an event.
Let us remember that it is not what the world is
that really matters but what we think it to be that
contributes to our conscious state o f reality and living.
However, we should create such a world as clearly as
our mental faculties permit. W e can discipline our
thoughts and our reason so as to avoid m isconcep
tions which may adversely affect the welfare o f our
lives.
W e often read or it is said that the prehistoric and
prim itive man have been m ore elementary in his
reasoning but that he had certain faculties which
were more acute than those possessed by modern
man. It im plies that the man o f today has such innate
faculties but that they are sem idorm ant within him.
In particular, the question has been asked, "S ince
primitive man developed his intuitive faculties to a
high degree and we know that inner development is
[ 65 ]
never lost, why is civilized man so lacking in this
faculty?
A distinction m ust be m ade between instinct and
intuition although there is undoubtedly a psychologi
cal relationship between them to som e degree.
Instincts are definitely lessons which have been
learned by an organism, especially a com plex one such
as man. These lessons have been acquired through
the long evolutionary process o f the living thing.
When we say "learn this cannot be equated with
our com m on interpretation o f the word. It is not that
which has been consciously realized and evaluated in
relation to the self such as we would learn a language,
music, or mathematics. The organism in its slow
ascent and in its confrontation with its environment
was subjected to conditions which either favored or
opposed it. The continuous influence o f these similar
conditions for perhaps thousands o f generations left
permanent impressions on the genes. These alterations
and m utations, it is theorized, were transm itted to
offspring.
The inherited characteristics became behavioral
[ 66 ]
responses. In other words, whenever the organism
was subjected to the sam e stim ulus there would bean
im pulsive urge to act in response to it as it always
had. T o use com m on technical vernacular, the genes
o f the organism had been program m ed to function in
a certain way. These innate indwelling urges are what
we term instincts.
It takes a considerable exercise o f willpower to
resist the intensity o f the stimuli o f instincts. In fact,
there are several instincts which we wish to direct but
m ost certainly should not suppress. For example,
curiosity, the inquisitiveness that draws the attention
o f a person or o f lower anim als to the unfamiliar. If
we were devoid o f curiosity the humanoid would
probably never have advanced beyond the N eander
thal stage. In fact, he might not ever have attained
that status. There is also the alm ost irresistible
instinct o f the preservation of self. This instinct or urge
is deeply ingrained in the sim plest o f living organisms.
It is survival o f the life force itself.
Throughout the ages and with the varying cul
tures that occurred these instincts have been subject
to som e m odification. W e are also form ing new hab
its which if they are retained and perpetuated for
many generations will undoubtedly establish at least
the nucleus for additional instincts.
These instincts are not necessarily spiritual or
divine unless you attribute every human faculty and
characteristic to such a source. Generally summing
up, the instincts have very definite biological func
tions. It would appear that those long-formed habits
which are "rem em bered by the genes are principally
concerned with the protection and survival and the
well-being o f the organism. In fact, the very existence
o f an organism can be said to depend upon its instincts.
It therefore m ust be obvious that the organism could
not learn or acquire these necessary behavioral
responses in just one lifetime.
It is quite probable that early primitive man relied
more readily upon his instinctive im pulses than does
H om o sapien or rational man. The rational man is
inclined to establish intellectual values which counter,
that is, oppose his instincts at times. For further
example, there is the ascetic who for religious reasons
suppresses fundamental physical drives and impulses
and may even practice self-m ortification, that is,
abuse the body. Further, the conventions o f society,
its moral and ethical codes tend to restrict and subdue
impulses o f the instincts.
Intuition is termed "in sigh t in m ost m odern psy
chological texts. This is what we might term an inner
perception, a kind o f immediacy o f knowledge. In other
words, an influx into the conscious mind o f ideation,
a chain o f ideas which have not been labored upon by
the reason and are suddenly realized. This intuitive
knowledge principally rises from our subconscious
mind. It consists mostly o f a kind o f higher judgment
and subconscious organization o f our knowledge so as
to com pose new ideas or concepts which are then
realized.
The stim ulus for these intuitive im pressions may
be derived from several sources but there are two
principal ones. If one has been laboring with a prob
lem for som etim e and his reason has not brought
forth a satisfactory solution, the subconscious con
tinues with the work that has been dism issed from
the conscious m ind. This is com m only called the
"unconscious w ork o f the mind. O f course, it isn t
really unconscious but rather a different phase o f the
stream o f consciousness applied to the problem. O ur
desire to know becom es a stim ulus that puts the sub
conscious to work even when the conscious mind has
discontinued acting upon the idea.
A lso, our subconscious can be psychically stim u
lated by the Cosmic or the thoughts o f others to which
it may have becom e attuned without our conscious
mind realizing that it has been receptive to such
external ideas. Ultimately such ideas are discharged
into our conscious mind com ing as an intuitive
im pression. These aspects o f intuition are difficult to
relate to instinct, but there are other intuitive
im pressions which appear to be instinctively m oti
vated. For analogy, we may have an intuitive im pres
sion to not do a certain thing. It may be a kind o f
prem onition o f an impending danger as we perceive
it. Conversely and even som etim es opposed to the
conclusions o f our reason, we may have the intuitive
im pressions as "feeling, or again, a kind o f mental
vision, to go ahead with something.
W e can only surm ise that there are m ore subtle
aspects o f the instincts, or com binations o f instincts,
that in such cases are reacting to our conscious deci
sion. M ore sim ply, the instinct "k n o w s from its
innate experience that what we are intending to do or
to which we are exposed will in som e way threaten
our personal security and well-being. These instinctive
im pulses then act upon the organizing power o f the
subconscious mind to bring forth the intuitive
im pression in an intellectual or cognizant form. Suc
cinctly put, the instinct creates the sensation, the
ideas o f intuition at times, so as to either arrest or to
motivate us.
A s said, m ost intuitive im pressions are always
related directly to the physical and mental well-being
or to the security o f the individual. Rarely do they
concern m atters which we can say are extraneous to
self. That is, self is always the determinant factor in
connection with intuitive im pressions. Though it
would seem that instinct and intuition can and com
monly do function independently, yet in other
instances they give evidence o f a conterm inous and
harm onious relationship.
W e can only speculate but we doubt that prehis
toric man had a m ore developed faculty o f intuition
than contem porary man. It is because intuition plays
a greater part only where there is the intellect to
image in som e form the im pressions received. W hen
we have an intuitive im pression it has the structure o f
thought, the form o f an idea. In other words we
associate and we identify the intuitive im pulse with a
specific chain o f ideas. W e may say, for example, that
we have an intuitive im pression o f this or that nature
whereas instinct is expressed m ore through the em o
tions as in feeling. W e may feel but we do not always
know why, for analogy.
W e may associate ideas with instinct now but
primitive man, as said, was primarily motivated by
them without associating any meaning to their impulses.
The prim itive man is m ore dependent upon instinct
only because he has not acquired the intellect and
reasoning capacity as its substitute and often as a
conflicting obstacle. Although we are able to be more
responsive to intuition as so-called civilized persons
we have been inclined to subordinate the com m uni
cations o f intuition to our conscious minds.
The society in which we live has com pelled us to
put alm ost total reliance upon our reason and objec
tive faculties. Only now is the populace becoming
aware o f this and trying to reawaken the channels o f
these other levels o f consciousness. However, this is
not a new enterprise for the Rosicrudans. Their
m onographs have been teaching principles with
regard to this developm ent centuries before the pres
ent-day and before the often vague expositions by
modern parapsychologists.
C A N W E K N O W T H E A B S O L U T E ?
It has long been proclaimed by the adherents o f
m ysticism and esoteric studies that the apex o f such
practices is "un ity with the A bsolute . This unity is
variously described as a state o f oneness with the
Absolute. The personal consciousness is said to
merge with the Infinite to be absorbed, in a sense.
Another term for the phenom enon is Cosmic Con-
sciousness.
However, this absorption into the Infinite does
not imply a com plete loss o f personal identity; the
ego, the " I still persists. In other words, the individ
ual consciousness em braces a greater realization o f
reality than can be had by objective perception, yet it
is not devoid o f the awareness o f its own existence as
an entity.
However, this suggests a question as to just what
is meant by the Absolute. Can it be defined as the
Ultim ate, a state or a condition beyond which
nothing else can be? Is this A bsolute the end o f a
progression and a hierarchical order o f development?
O r is the A bsolute to be construed as the Infinite, the
One and A 11 o f Being, and therefore a state o f perfec
tion? Is it a state o f perfection because it is fundam en
tally o f one essence, there being nothing in its nature
less than its quality? In other words, a thing cannot be
considered as other than perfect in itself if there is
nothing else by which it can be compared.
Another question that then arises is, How can the
mind o f man embrace this Absolute? O r to put it
another way, How can the finite consciousness o f the
human m ind com prehend that which is infinite and
limitless in its manifold nature? Figuratively speak
ing, can a cup hold within it the vastness o f the sea?
The human mind, its phenomenon o f consciousness,
is part o f the spectrum o f natural (or C osm ic) laws. It
is but one o f myriad o f C osm ic phenomena. This
propounds still another question: Can a part know
the whole o f which it consists?
M ystics in their writings have frequently referred
to this Oneness. Subsequently, Oneness resulted in a
noetic experience, that is, an influx o f new knowledge
an intellectual illumination like nothing had pre
viously. However, such revelations as are related to
us in mystical literature do not attempt a com prehen
sive picture o f Cosm ic phenomena. Little is presented
to explain the workings o f the physical order o f the
C osm os as a whole. Rather, these writings describe
the em otional state which is had during the Oneness
experienced. It is expressed in terms o f the sum m um
bonum o f moral righteousness. The individual also
endeavors to relate the ecstasy o f his experience in
terms o f freedom from the burdens or mortal finite
ness. This consciousness o f the Absolute is then not
so much knowing the structure o f the immanent
nature o f reality as it is a state o f euphoria, o f ecstatic
well-being.
The mystical experience o f unity with the Absolute
is a perception through an uncommon higher state o f
consciousness. It is a consciousness o f that which we
never ordinarily experience in our objective or sub
jective states o f mind. Therefore, the experience o f
this consciousness can embrace phenomena which
transcend our other levels o f consciousness.
N o doubt the mystical state o f consciousness
transcends the peripheral senses and reason. W e can
say that it is responsive to phenomena, to aspects o f
reality, o f the C osm os that evade the norm al mortal
state o f awareness. T o the mystic it is so unique, so
entirely different from anything he has ever expe
rienced before, that it seems to be the Ultim ate. It is a
state, a condition, beyond which he cannot think o f
anything greater. Consequently, to the reason it
would seem to be the Absolute.
But again, we find it difficult to conclude ration
ally that such an experience is actually a vision, an
insight into the whole o f reality. The exceptional
nature o f the mystical experience may suggest the
assum ption that the phenomenon em braces the
A bsolute in its entirety. M ystics who are strong
devotees o f a particular sect will relate their expe
rience as a personal consciousness o f whateveivimage
o f the Deity is set forth in their theology. Thus,
instead o f referring to a unity with the Absolute, they
will term the experience "a glorious vision o f G o d ,
or "an entrance into Heaven.
The em otional impact upon the individual who
experiences Cosm ic Consciousness is so all-absorbing
o f his higher sentiments, it exceeds the capacity o f the
imagination to conceive o f anything beyond it.
Is knotting the Absolute a fantasy, a self-engendered
delusion? W e may not know the whole nature o f a
thing, yet we can know a representation o f its quality.
For example, as yet we do not know the whole nature
o f the structure o f matter. But piece by piece, from
m olecules, atom s, electrons, protons, down to the
recent discovery, the gluons, we are gaining a more
com prehensive idea o f what its entirety may be, and
we are coming closer to the Rosicrucian concept as
well. So too, as limited as our mystical experience o f
the A bsolute may be, it is o f its nature. It is a spreading
outward o f the human consciousness by which the
ego feels its relationship with that Infinity. /
O rdinarily, we are made very conscious o f our
finite nature; its limitations are ever im pressed upon
us. Science is making the relative distinction between
our being and the vastness o f the physical universe
more and m ore apparent to us. Objectively, then, we
becom e dim inutive in com parison to the greater uni
verse consisting o f billions o f galaxies and an ines
tim able num ber o f suns and planets. The mystical
experience bolsters our ego, releases it from a sense o f
inferiority. W e are able to feel a oneness with that
which far transcends this Earth, this galaxy, and our
physical being. W e become m omentarily merged in
that onenessa state o f consciousness that objectivity
and the peripheral senses could never produce. The
mystical experience provides the pulse o f the Absolute,
if not its anatomy.
Since there are variations in the depth o f feeling
o f unity with the A bsolute, we can surm ise that som e
individuals are more contiguous to it in consciousness
than others. If consciousness is a stream o f levels o f
t 80 ]
sensitivity and responsivity, then som e persons
inner perceptions o f the A bsolute will be far greater
than those o f others, but none will know its entirety.
W e can further assum e that if there are m inds
elsewhere in the universe capable o f a greater depth o f
perception and responsivity, or consciousness, than
our own, then their experience o f the A bsolute may
have a dim ension which we can neither imagine nor
experience. But again, they too will not know the full
nature o f the Absolute.
The subject o f the A bsolute is often related to
God and the Cosmic. In fact, these two latter words are
often interchanged. There is an old adage that says:
A rose is a rose by any other nam e. However, a
distinction by other than name can be made between
these two. Religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and
certain philosophical doctrines expound that there is
an om nipotence that transcends not only man but all
phenomena.
Beyond this com m on agreement, however, var
iance begins. In other words, in just what manner is
this om nipotence conceived? There is the theistic
[ 81 ]
concept which states that this Suprem e Force is
anthropom orphic, an entity or being em bodying
humanlike qualities. It is presum ed to be an intelli
gence and determinative, that is, a mind that reasons,
has purpose and em otions which to an extent parallel
those o f hum ans. This intelligent being/eels as well as
thinks; that is, it loves. And in sacred literature o f
som e sects it is stated that it is jealous and expresses
its anger.
Theism, then, is proclaim ing a personal god, a
super-entity. Such an entity, it is stated, is not only
the first cause o f all reality, but it is also the conscious
director o f all the phenomena which it has created.
Succinctly, it has the arbitrary power to alter that
which it has brought into existence. It is believed by
theists that this suprem e entity has established the
laws o f nature just as a craftsm an would create tools
for his purpose, that is, a mechanism to m anifest his
objectives. The fundamental theist will however