The Eternal Fruits of Knowledge by Cecil A. Poole, F.R.C.
description
Transcript of The Eternal Fruits of Knowledge by Cecil A. Poole, F.R.C.
The Eternal Fruitso f Knowledge
liy Cecil A. Poole, F.R.C.
T H E E T E R N A L F R U IT S
O F K N O W L E D G E
V V V
Qtt)e (Eternal JfruitS of llnotolebge
ByC e c i l A. P o o l e , F.R.C.
ROS1CRUCIAN LIBRARY
VOLUM E xxxm
SUPREME GRAND LODGE OF AMORC Printing and Publishing Department
San jose, California 95191
a
Copyright 1975 by
Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC, Inc.
No part of this publication may he reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.
F IR S T E D IT IO N , 1975 SECOND ED ITIO N , 1970 t h i r d e d i t i o n , 1978
Printed and bound in U.S.A. KINGSPORT PRESS Kingsport, Tennessee
D edicated to Rosicrucians of
Y e s t e r d a y
T o d a y
T o m o r r o w
The Rosicrucian Library
V o l u m e
I Rosicrucian Questions and Answers with Complete
IIHistory of the OrderRosicrucian Principles for the Home and Business
III The Mystical Life of JesusIV The Secret Doctrines of JesusV Unto Thee I Grant
VI(Secret Teachings of T ibet)A Thousand Years of Yesterdays
VII(A Revelation of Reincarnation)Self Mastery and Fate with the Cycles of Life
VIII(A Vocational Guide) Rosicrucian Manual
IX Mystics at PrayerX Behold the Sign
XI(A Boole of Ancient Symbolism) Mansions of the Soul
XII(A Cosmic Conception)Lemuria—The Lost Continent of the Pacific
XIII The Technique of the MasterXIV The Symbolic Prophecy of the Great PyramidXV T he Book of Jasher
XVII Mental PoisoningXVIII Glands— Our Invisible Guardians
XXI W hat to E at— And WhenXXII The Sanctuary of Self
XXIII Sepher YezirahXXVI T he Conscious Interlude
XXVII Essays of a Modern MysticXXVIII Cosmic Mission Fulfilled
XXIX Whisperings of SelfXXX Herbalism Through the Ages
XXXI Egypt’s Ancient HeritageXXXII Yesterday Has Much to Tell
XXXIII The Eternal Fruits of KnowledgeXXXIV Cares That Infest
XXXV Mental Alchemy
( Other volumes will be added from time to time. Write for complete catalogue.)
F -15-578 Printed in U.S.A.
Contents
V
PAGE
Production ................................................................ 9
AFTER
I The Occult—a Path to Understanding . . 13
II Finite and In f in i te ......................................... 32
II Knowledge ..................................................... 51
V The Nature of the A b so lu te ....................... 66
V Human and Universal Purpose ............... 79
T Body, Mind, and S o u l .................................. 91
[I Good and E v i l .............................................. 103
[I Mysticism ....................................................... 118
K Im m orta li ty ..................................................... 133
X Rosicrucian Philosophy ............................. 149
IN T R O D U C T IO N
T h e foundations of Rosicrucian know ledge are
the princip les upon w hich to bu ild a practical
system of philosophic thought, w hich m ight be
re ferred to as a Rosicrucian philosophy. M ore
im portan t, these ideas are the basis upon w hich
to build a ph ilosophy of life.
T he hum an b e in g has always ev idenced a d e
gree of curiosity. In fact, curiosity seems to be
an a t tr ib u te of life. M any living creatures, in
addition to hum an beings, ind icate their curiosity
ab o u t objects a n d events. T he hum an being in
particu lar seems to b e end o w ed with a desire to
learn, to know . H e has always investigated the
unknow n. H e is distinguished from other living
th ings in tha t he has carried this investigation to
th e poin t of de te rm in ing causes and purposes that
exist in his environm ent.
T h e traditional Rosicrucian know ledge has been
the result of the efforts of individuals w ho have
delved into the unknow n, w ho have searched for
the foundations upon w hich know ledge can b e
built. Today, some persons believe tha t philoso-
[ 9 ]
p h y is res tr ic ted pu re ly to th e academ ic field.
T h ey therefore h av e only a vague u n d ers tan d in g
of the scope of philosophy. In fact, some m ay ask
the question as to w hy philosophy should b e
studied. Is it n o t a w aste o f time to specula te
up o n those p ro found questions w h ich never seem
to have a satisfactory answ er? Is it w orthw hile
to develop theories th a t do no t necessarily result in
ac tual fact o r in form ation up o n w hich proof can
be bu ilt?
T hese questions are legitim ate . O n th e o th e r
h an d , o u t of philosophical specula tion have d e
veloped m an y of th e p ractical as well as the th eo
retical d isciplines an d sciences w ith w hich w e are
familiar today. E ven m ore im portan t for the in
d ividual is th a t possibly th e best answ er to th e
questions concern ing the value of philosophy is
th a t there are questions. Ind iv iduals in the process
of asking questions are deve lop ing th e ir po ten tia l
possibilities an d attribu tes .
As long as m an asks questions an d speculates
upon th e answers, he is concerned ab o u t th e p ro c
ess of living. H e is inqu iring in to th e n a tu re of
m an and try ing to reach a realization of m an ’s
re la tionsh ip to th e universe w hich he inhabits.
[101
Questions in them selves cause m an to reach out of
h im self and there fo re possibly fulfill one of his
purposes, th a t is, to evolve. T hrough philosophy,
m an is utiliz ing his ow n creative ability in an a t
tem p t to ad just to his own life and to his env iron
m ent.
W h e th e r or n o t an ind iv idual develops an ind i
vidual ph ilosophy of life based upon an established
premise, form, doctrine , or creed, w e should realize
th a t living is an obligation as well as a necessity.
To find o u t m ore ab o u t th a t process of life and its
purpose should be an obligation of the intelligent
h u m an being.
I h av e a t te m p te d h e re to ou tline some of the
problem s of ph ilosophy and some of the principles
w hich h ave b ee n discussed and questioned by
m any individuals and w h ich in tu rn have con
tr ib u ted to the b ack g ro u n d of know ledge th a t the
R osicrucians teach today. This is m y in terp re ta
tion of m an y of th e principles of Rosicrucian
philosophy, and I m u s t frankly state th a t the
conclusions reached here are m y own personal
opinions and do not necessarily reflect the official
ph ilosophy of th e Rosicrucian O rder, AM O RC,
w ith w hich I have been associated for almost half
a century.
Nevertheless, I believe m y conclusions are b as
ically in accord with the Rosicrucian philosophy.
I have found th e s tudy of Rosicrucian principles
w orthw hile , and I hope that those w ho share w ha t
I have p re p a re d will also find, if not the answers
to all the profound questions of living, at least
some stim ulation for their ow n th inking th a t will
aid them in d irec ting the ir ow n deve lopm ent to a
w orthw hile p u rpose and the form ulation of a use
ful philosophy of life.
I acknow ledge m y d eb t to various Rosicrucian
publications for w hich I have w ritten over a
period of m any years. Parts of some of the chap ters
of this book are taken from articles tha t have b ee n
previously published. I also wish to acknow ledge
m y obligation to Mr. R alph M. Lewis, the Im pera-
tor and ch ief executive o f th e Rosicrucian O rder,
A M O RC, w ho encouraged m e to w rite this book,
also to Mrs. L ouise V ernon, w ho for m any years
has ty p ed and ed ited m anuscrip ts for me, includ
ing th e m aterial con ta ined in this publication.
C e c i l A. P o o l e
Sunnyvale, California
February 3, J975
T H E O C C U L T -A PA T H T O U N D E R S T A N D IN G
"And God hath spread the earth as a carpet that you may walk thereon along spacious paths.”
—The Koran (Sura LXXI)
H E hum an be ing is a un ique en ti ty in the
universe. O n e of the factors th a t makes
him u n iq u e is the ability to realize that
he is un ique. As far as we know, the
h u m an b e in g is the only en tity in the universe
with a w ell-developed aw areness bo th of himself
an d of his environm ent.
In all p robability some of the first th ink ing the
earliest hum an en tity ever d id w as to reflect upon
the impressions tha t cam e th rough his sense facul
ties, an d a t th e sam e time to reason or a t tem p t to
d ra w conclusions in regard to his own reaction to
th e sense stimulations. In o ther words, m an was
s tim ula ted by events and conditions. W hile at
[ 13]
first he m ay not have b een concerned b y his abil
ity to con tem pla te the physical world abou t him
an d his reactions to it, h e nevertheless gradually
a tta in ed a type of realization th a t enab led him to
s tore in his ow n m ind, in th e area w e know as
m em ory, an aw areness of the existence th a t he
h a d becom e familiar w ith in the physical world.
In this w ay th e h u m an b e in g was able to a c
co m m o d ate or ad just h im self g radually to the
physical env ironm ent in w hich he lived. T he fact
th a t fire b u rn e d and could cause p a in m ight only
have h ad to b e learned once, because m em ory im
m ediate ly cam e to his aid, m ak ing him p rep a red
to cope w ith the h e a t of fire u p o n its second p e r
ception. T h e sam e is true of m any o th e r experi
ences, such as dea ling w ith all physical forces,
which included those s teps o u r early ancestors
took for physical com fort, to p rov ide himself with
food, or to gain some d eg ree of en joym ent in the
course of his living process. All the steps th a t led
to these ends b ecam e n o t only physical accom
p lishm ents b u t m en ta l concepts , that, stored
w ith in the m ind, began to bu ild a group of m ental
[14]
ideas th a t he lped the individual to cope w ith th e
physical situations abou t him.
O nce a deg ree of know ledge is assim ilated
th ro u g h th e experience of th e individual it is very
difficult to conceive of a tim e w hen th a t know l
edge did not exist. W e w ould h ave great difficulty
in p lac ing ourselves in the position of ou r ancient
ancestors, w ho lived in caves an d w h o w andered
abou t the surface of the ea r th w ith a lim ited range
of know ledge an d experience try in g to gain a liv
ing for himself, because he o p era ted prim arily
up o n the instinctive drive to p ro tec t h im self from
harm and to satisfy his physical appetites. These
w ere th e necessities of ad jus tm en t if the individual
was to survive.
W hen w e look back at such a stage in the p roc
ess of h u m an evolution, w e can n o t dismiss the
know ledge an d experience th a t is ours th rough our
personal experiences an d th rough the know ledge
w h ich w e have gained in all of m an ’s accum ulated
learning. T herefo re the a t t i tu d e of m o d ern m an
looking at his env ironm en t p roduces a com pletely
d ifferent concept from th a t of the aborigine, the
[15]
ancient, m anlike crea tu re w ho first began to con
tem pla te the physical world an d in hours of d a rk
ness by him self began to relive his experience with
the physical w orld th rough the process of rev iew
ing his memories. T hese in tu rn led from e lem en
tary con tem pla tion to the consideration o f con
cep ts w hich he had stored in m em ory and of the
experiences th a t led to them.
In the b eg inn ing o f his experience as a th ink ing
being , m an faced a vast unknow n. E very th ing
was unknow n until it w as experienced, an d even
then its function or, w e m ight say, its cause and
effect con tinued to b e unknow n. M an m igh t b e
able to reach a satisfactory explanation in his own
mind, at least in his o w n thinking, to th e fact th a t
fire w as ho t and w a te r w as w et. Experience m ade
these accep ted facts. H e could not, how ever, ex
plain change in seasons, th e change be tw een day
light and dark , the changes th a t took p lace in h im
self physically as h e grew th rough the various life
cycles, nor could h e reach satisfactory explanation
in regard to n a tu re ’s phenom ena, such as electrical
storms, th e sound of th u n d er , the flash of ligh t
ning, th e eclipse of th e sun or m oon, or o ther
[ 16]
changes in his environm ent. In this sense, m an
then faced m ore unknow ns than he does today,
and yet even afte r m any m illennium s of existence
m an still lives in a universe m uch of which remains
unexplained.
To m any individuals the w ord occu lt raises
im ages of s trange an d m ysterious practices and
ideas. Actually, the occult is no th ing m ore than
the m eanings th a t lie beyond the range of ordinary
day-to-day know ledge. T ha t w h ich m an canno t
explain or is beyond his com prehension he classi
fies as unknow n. For example, anc ien t m an, w ho
could not u n ders tand th u n d er and lightning, d e
c ided th a t they w ere actions or the resu lt of ac
tions carried on by a being w h ich he was unable
to see, a be ing th a t was b eyond the range of all
his physical senses.
This idea m ay have con tr ibu ted one of the
bu ild ing blocks th a t caused m an to develop super
stitions and religion. To assign the cause of con
ditions th a t w ere beyond his im m ediate ap p re
hension, b eyond his im m edia te grasp of his
environm ent, to a factor outside him self and o u t
side his env ironm ent led to the estab lishm ent
[17]
w ith in the h u m an m ind of the concep t th a t there
a re forces and pow ers th a t lie b eyond the o rd inary
range of m an ’s com prehension . T herefore , all th a t
existed outside of m a n ’s experience or of the results
o f th a t experience w hich h e h ad accum ula ted in
m em ory an d in his m enta l concepts was in th e area
of the g reat unknow n . These concep ts w ere the
beg inn ing o f occultism.
T h e occult, or w h a t w e w ou ld classify to d ay as
h id d en know ledge, m ay h ave b een one of m an ’s
first ab s trac t conceptions. T o d ay an individual
m igh t th ink of occultism as being a system of
s trange p rac tices th a t are n o t to b e exposed to the
public eye, o r th a t occultism includes m ethods b y
w hich individuals m igh t b e able to a tta in unusual
pow ers w hich h e w o u ld use in dea ling w ith the
circum stances o f his environm ent.
This belief leads to a p o p u la r concep tion th a t
th e ind iv idual w ho is familiar w ith th e occult is
able to deal w ith p h en o m en a direc tly in a m anner
th a t the average ind iv idual is not able to co n tem
pla te o r unders tand . T herefo re , m an y individuals
classify such subjects as m agic, miracles, or u n
usual events as b e in g a p a r t o f th e occult. W e
[18]
m ust realize th a t w h a t m an considers in this p o p u
lar sense to b e th e range of th e occu lt is less
lim ited today than it was in the time of early man,
b ecause a t th a t tim e w e m igh t say th a t every th ing
was occult, in th a t the m ean ing and the basis of
m anifesta tion w ere h id d en or w ere unknow n.
As m an progressed in his th ink ing and rolled
back the boundaries of the unknow n into the
know n, he w as deve lop ing w h a t w e now call
science. T h a t is, m an s tud ied the phenom ena
w ith w hich he had to cope and g radually found
answ ers to some of th e questions th a t previously
h ad b een h idden . Therefore, th e concep t th a t the
occult has to do with s trange or weird practices, a
concep t p revalen t today , is n o t w ith o u t some
basis. Science, as w e know it today , has taken
over the boundaries o f m u ch th a t w'as the occult
in the past. W h a t was previously unknow n has
becom e know n and is no longer hidden.
Occultism still confirms, how ever, th a t there are
functions w ith in h u m an experience th a t are no t
com ple te ly understood . W e are n o t able to ex
p la in m an y o f the problem s th a t have occupied
the m inds of ou ts tan d in g thinkers th ro u g h o u t all
[19 1
th e ages. F o r exam ple, th e re has never been a
satisfactory solution to m any of w h a t are com
monly called th e problem s of philosophy. T hese
problem s include the question of reality, the q ues
tion of know ledge, the na tu re of the Absolute, and
w h e th e r there is p u rpose in th e universe. F u n d a
m entally , w e are not able to explain life or the
soul, or the perennial problem s of th e n a tu re of
evil or the re la tion of the m ind to th e body. T he
question of im m orta lity still lies outside th e area
of m an ’s positive know ledge.
T h e lack of answers to these problem s seems to
ind ica te th a t w e are deficient in our know ledge
of philosophy. Actually, philosophy, in a sense,
m ig h t have grow n ou t o f the occult, because as
m an co n tem p la ted an d dw elt upon the subjects of
his own b e in g and his own environm ent, he bu ilt
a vast accum ulation of opinions and ideas and
conclusions th a t led to the b o d y of m odern philo
sophic thought.
Some individuals h av e criticized philosophy for
never reach ing a final conclusion. It is a valid
criticism, because w hen a final conclusion is
reached , th e subject is no longer one of philosophy
120]
b u t one of science. T he idea or problem th a t is
solved passes from the realm of specula tion to the
labora to ry w here the problem can be dealt w ith
on a concrete basis. This does not m ean th a t all
such problem s in the area of science have reached
final conclusions and final solutions, b u t the trend
is in th a t direction.
T he electrical storm w hich ou r ancestors expe
rienced is no longer a question of philosophical
specula tion. Science has explained this p henom e
non. So m uch is know n ab o u t it th a t the m ystery
concern ing the p h en o m en a of th u n d er and l igh t
n ing no longer appalls the individual or forces
h im to explain th e p h en o m en a in term s of occult
know ledge.
Philosophy leads m an to unders tand ing . U n
d ers tan d in g leads to experim entation. E xperim en
tation leads to the accum ulation of laws and
principles that becom e the basis of science. M an
applies this know ledge to his benefit or his d e tr i
m ent, d ep e n d in g upon h ow he directs his activi
ties and his response to such information.
W e will then accept, I believe, th a t philosophy,
m a n ’s con tem pla tion of him self and the universe
[21 ]
m ig h t be considered a p rerequis ite to science, b u t
there is still an area of the occult. T h e re are p h e
nom ena w h ich are no t expla inable in term s of
physical science, as far as w e know today. N either
are th ey explainable in term s of p resen t-day psy
chology. T he realm of th e h u m an m ind is p ro b
ab ly less explored than the realm of th e entire
physical universe.
T o con tem pla te m an an d his p lace in th e u n i
verse, w e need to th ink in term s of philosophy, not
as a rigid discipline, such as m athem atics, physics,
o r chem istry , b u t as a specula tive discipline,
w h ich leads m an to consider h im self and his sur
round ings an d the m ethods and procedures by
w hich he fits h im self to his env ironm ent and tries
to explain th e circum stances in w h ich he lives.
M any peop le consider philosophy as being d e
tached from actual day-to -day experience, and
there fo re academ ic o r visionary. T he opposite
should b e the p opu la r concep t of philosophy. It
should b e a reflection of m an ’s ow n th o u g h t and
the conclusions w h ich he reaches. Anyone w ho
has considered an even t a f te r it has h ap p e n e d has
philosophized. E very ind iv idual has developed
[22]
beliefs th a t gu ide his actions. T hese actions lead
tow ard certain ends and purposes. O ur beliefs
and aspirations assist us in selecting a course of
plan in life. This process of selecting a course of
action or se tting aims for ourselves is in itself a
philosophical function.
A still m ore com plete conception of philosophy
takes us beyond everyday experience, Philoso
p h y makes a critical exam ination of the fo u n d a
tions or the reasons for an ind iv idua l’s beliefs or
goals. I t is not enough to accep t beliefs or to set
goals for ourselves. A nalyzing w hy those steps
have been taken leads m an into philosophical con
tem plation. Critical philosophy examines the va
lidity of the results of such an exam ination of the
beliefs and aims of th e h u m a n mind.
In the final analysis, w e m ight conclude that
life is a process of thinking. M an is a th inking
animal, and as a th inker, this th ink ing process is as
im p o rtan t as the steps th a t lead to experience. H e
direc ts m uch th o u g h t to w ard his p lace in the
physical universe. T h o u g h t of this n a tu re directs
us an d constitu tes philosophy.
All m en are to a certa in extent philosophers.
[23]
E very individual w ho has considered his own
m ind, his ow n experiences and his reaction to
those experiences has b een philosophizing. His
desire to gain an d respect w isdom and know ledge
will h e lp him realize the aims th a t he has set for
him self and to develop the procedures th a t will
lead to those even tua l goals.
In spite of m an ’s ability to philosophize, and in
spite of the volum inous know ledge th a t w e have
availab le today th rough our ow n and o thers’ ex
perience , there are m any unansw ered questions.
So i t is th a t the occult, b e in g the range of know l
ed g e th a t lies just beyond our im m ediate p ercep
tion, is still an existing fact. T here are still m any
w h y ’s asked today.
T h ere are gaps of know ledge in regard to h u
m an behavior, in regard to social questions, in
regard to an y th in g th a t has to do w ith m an’s liv
ing as an individual en ti ty or in association with
o th e r h u m an minds. T here are reports of events
and conditions that have no t always b een a n
sw ered b y the logic and reasoning of e ither p h i
losophy or science. W e h ea r almost daily of events
th a t have no t been com plete ly clarified. T hey are
[24]
mysterious. T h ey lie in the area of the unknown.
In this area occultism still exists. M an is in a posi
tion to con tinue in his evolu tionary process to r e
spect the boundaries of these unknow n factors
an d explore them in term s of reason. Eventually
w e hope to be able to assign them to a scientific
basis and reveal some of th e laws th a t have to do
w ith w h a t now m ay seem to b e s trange or unusual
manifestations.
M an is always in trigued b y w h a t he does not
unders tand . In the daily press w e re ad of events
that a re m ysterious or unexplained. T hey always
a t tra c t a ttention. T h e report of an unknow n o b
ject m oving in the sky, the report of an individual
w ho seems to gain know ledge o ther th an th rough
the usual physical perception , the reports that in
dividuals have com m unica ted w ith those w ho
have passed th rough th e shadow of d e a th —these,
th e cynics will say, have never b een verified.
T h ey sta te th a t miracles canno t take p lace in a
universe appa ren tly controlled b y established
laws. Possibly these cynics are right, b u t also pos
sible is th e fact th a t there are events an d condi
tions th a t do no t respond to the existing limitations
[ 2SJ
of h u m an analysis. T h ere are forces p lay ing in the
universe w h ich in term s of m an ’s advancem en t a t
this pa r ticu la r t im e seem to have no basis for valid
explanation.
To explore som e of the areas of ph ilosophy is to
rev iew the age-old problem s th a t h ave to d o w ith
m a n ’s th ink ing of h im self an d of his environm ent.
E ven th ough w e m ay n o t reach the conclusions
th a t will solve the problem s, it is th rough analysis,
con tem pla tion , and th ink ing th a t m an has m oved
from the specula tive to th e practical. H e has p ro
d u c e d answ ers to questions an d b ro u g h t th em in to
a re la tionsh ip w ith ou r ability to u n ders tand the
universe in w h ich ou r m inds and the physical ob
jects com posing the universe h ave a com m on fac
tor.
Som e believe th a t th e original sin on the p a r t
of m an was his seeking for know ledge, b u t it m ay
h ave b een ra th e r th e w a y in w hich h e sough t
know ledge. T h e be lie f th a t m an m ust strive to
w ard re -en te r in g the area o f the grace of G od is
com m on to m an y peoples in m an y parts of the
world. T h e princip le is based upon th e idea th a t
m an p ro ceed ed from a d ivine source b u t th rough
[26]
actions of his ow n w as sepa ra ted from th a t source.
Therefore, m an needs to re-re la te h im self to the
source from w hich h e came. In th e m inds of
some, this is the explanation of w hy m an seeks
know ledge. H e seeks k now ledge of his place in
the universe and his re la tionship to th e source of
th e universe.
T h a t m an needs G od is a s ta tem en t th a t seems
to h ave no contrad ic tion in religion an d philoso
phy, b u t the opposite po in t of v iew has seldom
b een expressed, th a t is, th a t G od needs m an. M an
is, afte r all, an expression of the source of all the
divine essence of th e universe.
Based u p o n a p an th e is tic concep t of the un i
verse th a t G od expresses H im self th rough all th a t
H e has crea ted , it is logical to p resum e th a t as God
c rea ted up the scale of life to the final achieve
m en t of m an, if G od found such creation neces
sary, then H e n eed ed to c rea te this expression in
o rd e r to fulfill Himself. M an is a fulfillment of
G o d ’s ow n expression. G od is fulfilled by the na
tu re an d existence of m an. Therefore, G od needs
m an. H e cannot exist w ith o u t man. W h ere m an
finds th a t h e experiences shortcomings, failures,
[27]
and m isunderstandings, it is due to the fact th a t
he fails to p u t h im self in a position to fulfill the
n eed o f God. To p u t this in ano the r way, m an is
no t an in d ep e n d en t u n i t H e is an expression of a
force th a t transcends an d supersedes himself. In
o rder to fulfill his ow n existence, to fulfill his ow n
destiny, m an m ust b e a w illing expression of the
force th a t b ro u g h t him into being. W h en m an re
volts or refuses to cooperate w ith the universal
forces, w hich are those of the C reator, then he is
failing to fulfill the purposes of c reation b y no t
b e in g in a position to express the force th a t
b ro u g h t h im in to existence in the first place.
G od is not, in a theistic sense, l im ited to the ex
te n t of an individual entity . H e is a m anifesta tion
o f force. R egardless of w h a t w e call th a t force, it
is expressing at this m om en t o r the universe w ould
n o t be w h a t it is. M an strives to m eet his own
needs, to w ork w ith his environm ent, to m ain ta in
himself. Som etim es in this process of tak ing care
of his ow n needs, m an forgets his greates t need,
th e need to express th e force th a t m ade him. If
w e as individual h u m an entities w ould give less
[ 2 8 ]
a tten t io n to w h a t w e w an t, to h o w w e w an t to
grow, to w h a t w e w an t to achieve, an d m ore a t
tention to ho w can w e express the resident crea
tive force tha t is inside of us, the w orld m igh t be a
far b e t te r p lace to live. T h e h u m an race m ight be
fa r m ore evolved a t this tim e than w e find o u r
selves,
At the present time w e find th a t m an has not
changed essentially in his basic n a tu re d u ring the
scope of h u m an history. M an still indicates his
desire to a tta in physical positions, to experience
physical pleasure, to dom inate o ther individuals,
to take over and utilize environm ent, regardless of
the sta te in w hich he leaves it af te r h e is th rough.
In so doing, he frequen tly becom es no th ing m ore
than a selfish en tity th a t is desirous only of ful
filling his own needs. In carry ing out these d e
sires, he fails to fulfill his m ost im portan t need,
th a t is, to reconcile his existence with the force
th a t caused him to b e in the first place.
W e as individuals m ust com e m ore and m ore to
the realization th a t w e can only fulfill our purpose
in life by becom ing closely a t tu n ed w ith the na-
[29]
tu re of life, w h ich is a func tion or extension of the
pow er of the c rea tive force th a t caused every th ing
th a t is to be. M an and G od are one. T h e y are es
sential m anifesta tions of each other. I th ink to a
d eg ree this is expressed b y a s ta tem en t m ad e bv-
M eister E ck h a r t w h e n he said, "The eye w ith
w hich I see G od is the sam e as th a t w ith which
H e sees m e.”
E ck h a rt w as try ing to convey th a t th e concep t
o f C o d an d the concep t of m an a re in terre la ting
conditions. T h ey are forces th a t seem to b e sepa
ra te d and distinct, b u t in actuality , th e re is only
one force. M an can voluntarily re la te h im self to
it or not, b u t it is th e re and it is a force of life
w h ich is th e essence of th e u l t im a te universal
force an d the essence o f m a n ’s im m aterial exist
ence.
M an m ust learn to perceive the C rea to r in all
his existence, physically, m entally , and spiritually.
I f he so lives th a t th e n a tu re o f th e D ivine
becom es a p p a re n t to h im in its m anifesta tion
th ro u g h o u t all creation , th en m an can be a p a r t of
t h a t c rea tion an d fulfill th e existence of the Divine
b y expressing h im self in a w ay th a t will c rea te a
[30]
cooperative type of existence. M an will then reach
a sta te of h a rm ony b e tw e en him self a n d the force
th a t no t only caused him to b e b u t m ain tains his
existence.
F I N I T E A N D IN F IN IT E
“I stand amid the eternal ways.” —John Burroughs
A IV E realism m igh t he considered the
ph ilosophy of the average m an in the
stree t. I t is th e concep t th a t does no t
take into consideration th e subtleties of
philosophical or scientific inquiry or investigation.
I t is the concep t th a t m an and his env ironm ent
are exactly w h a t they seem to be. T h a t is, m an
observes an object and he classifies th a t ob ject in
term s of his percep tion of it. T h e object seems
substantial. I t appears to exist com plete ly sepa
ra ted from his body. Its existence is com plete ly
external to his m ind. H e perceives it th rough one
or m ore of his sense faculties, such as seeing, h ea r
ing, tasting, or smelling, o r a com bination of these
senses. T h e objects w hich m an thus perceives
[32]
create an impression in the m ind w hich to him
is identical w ith the object itself.
This concept is the sim plest explanation of m an
an d his environm ent and the re la tionship be tw een
them . L et us for a m om en t accept this theory and
consider th a t w e are naive realists. If w e look
upon the world, or a t least our im m ed ia te environ
m ent, our p a r t of the w orld , w ith th a t po in t of
view, w e will say th a t the w orld consists of two
factors, the physical s truc tu re com posed of the
various elem ents th a t m ake u p w ha t w e ordinarily
classify as m ateria l, and w ith in ourselves a m ental
factor, the self, th a t is, o u r real, p rivate being,
w hich is separa ted from o ther individuals or b e
ings, as well as from the external world.
T he outside factors of the physical world seem
to b e obvious. T hey are the substantial p a r t of
the universe w ith w hich w e are in touch. T he
m ental factor is a m ore subtle condition. I t varies
w ith our moods, and it is d ep e n d en t u p o n still
ano ther factor th a t w e have not up to this point
taken in to consideration, and th a t is the fac to r of
life. W ith o u t life, there is no mind. O ur m ental
processes are subject to life. W e know this from
[33]
experience. A d eep sleep, or b e in g p laced u n d e r
an anesthetic , o r condition of unconsciousness due
to a b low on th e h e a d —all these factors not only
stop m en ta l ac tiv ity b u t they stop o u r aw areness of
life an d env ironm ent. W ith o u t an aw areness of
life, there is ap p a ren tly no mind. W ith o u t m ind
th e re is no realization of an external w orld abou t
us.
W e m igh t say th a t this fac to r of life is som e
th ing th a t is n o t controllable by ou r ow n m inds or
thinking. W hile life exists, the m ind is a func tion
ing condition , m aking possible for us to perceive
the ex ternal w orld and to con tem pla te an d d ra w
conclusions ab o u t it. W ith o u t life th e re is no
m ind. T h e objects w hich w e behold , a p iece of
w ood, a stone, a p iece of concre te or m etal, seem
to have little or no ev idence of life. E ven a tree,
w hich is a vege tab le in the b ro ad es t sense of the
w ord , seems only to live, an d in it w e perceive no
ev idence of m ind . As far as w e are able to p e r
ceive, it does no t have a m ental background.
T he condition w e know as life, then, is re la ted
to ano the r condition b ey o n d m aterial. M aterial is
finite, an d there fore w e w ou ld conclude on the
[34]
basis of this a rg u m en t th a t life is a p a r t of th e
Infinite. I t is con n ec ted w ith som eth ing above
an d b eyond the physical en tity an d the physical
w orld in w hich w e exist.
O u r accep tance of naive realism is, as the term
implies, naive because a very im p o rtan t considera
tion of the s tudy of ph ilosophy concerns itself
w ith the difference b e tw een th e ac tual appear
ance of th ings and w hat really lies beyond the
appearance . T he m ind is capab le n o t only of p e r
ceiving b u t of p ro d u c in g percep tions th a t are in
fluenced b y the background of the perceiver.
W e ordinarily can see th a t our so-called com
m on sense readily distinguishes be tw een w h a t is
only ap p earan ce and w h a t is reality. I see an ob
ject o u t of the w indow of th e room in w h ich I am
sitting, and I have no d o u b t of its reality, b u t if
I should see a nonm ateria l object, such as a ghost-
or a p h an tom , or even a flying saucer go by the
w indow , I w ould seriously d o u b t the reliability of
m y perception . M y tra in ing has been to recognize
certa in things as realities, and others as products
of the m ind an d therefore not having the sub
s tance th a t is norm ally connected w ith reality.
[35]
Philosophy goes even fu rther than try ing to dis
tinguish b e tw een ap p earan ce an d reality. I t tries
to ana lyze w h a t is the basis o f the ability to dis
tinguish e ither in the m ind or by experience the
classifications know n as app earan ce and reality.
Philosophy w’ants to know th e u ltim ate , the final
or fundam enta l reality. It is the province of m e ta
physics, one division of philosophy, to try to a r
rive a t an u n d ers tan d in g of a final reality. It
fu r the rm ore w an ts to exam ine the causes and ef
fects as well as the original cause and the final end
of th ings to know how to judge the value of any
th ing th a t exists in th e env ironm ent as well as
w ith in the na tu re of the hum an being.
W e find th a t naive realism breaks dow n in
m an y com m on experiences. W e need only to tu rn
to illustrations of various optical illusions to find
th a t we do not always see exactly w h a t w e th ink
w e see. O ne of th e com m onest of optical illusions
is to s tand in th e cen ter o f a railroad track looking
in to th e d istance. I t will ap p ear th a t the rails
m eet, w hereas w e know th a t they run parallel or
they could not serve their useful purpose.
In a t tem p tin g to arrive a t an u n d ers ta n d in g of
[36]
reality, w e try to advance ou r th ink ing along lines
th a t will account for the existence of all things, b y
which we mean the com position of the m aterial
world th a t constitu tes our env ironm ent and our
ow n bodies and the n a tu re of ourselves as th ink
ing entities. F u n d am en ta l to these questions is
the basic m etaphysica l p roblem , the p roblem of
reality. P robably even prim itive m an asked h im
self w h a t was real and w h a t was im aginary, and
from w h a t all substantial things evolved.
This problem involves two m ain issues. They
are as follows: W h a t is the na tu re or the charac ter
of th a t w hich is real, and w h a t is the relation of
the p a r t to the w hole? W h a t is the p lace of the
individual or any o ther p ar t of the universe to the
to tal universe? W e m igh t sum m arize this la tter
question b y asking w h a t is the p lace of personality
in the universe. Because of the im portance to us
of the position of personality in the universe, the
questions em erge w hich involve problem s of the
m ean ing of th a t personality as well as the m ean
ing of freedom , im mortality , and the existence of
forces th a t are no t obvious in the physical world.
W hen w e consider the problem of reality in con-
[37]
nection w ith experience, w e realize th a t th e re are
d is tinc t kinds of beings in th e world. T h e re seems
to b e no one essential form th a t explains all. W e
look ab o u t us and see nonliv ing th ings such as
m inerals, the ea rth , an d o ther objects existing in
ou r un iverse th a t h av e no ap p a ren t m anifesta tion
of life. W e also observe th a t there are living or
ganisms, inc lud ing the h u m a n being and m any
forms of life inc luded in the anim al a n d vegetab le
kingdoms. In add ition to nonliv ing th ings and
liv ing organisms, ano the r factor is ap p a ren t to us
th ro u g h ou r ow n experience in d raw in g conclu
sions from th e behav io r of living organisms.
T here are m inds. This pa r ticu la r fac to r is the
basis for the m ost com plex problem s hav ing to do
w ith the n a tu re o f reality .
M etaphysics concerns itself w ith the relation
tha t exists b e tw e e n these th ree m anifestations,
and also asks w hich , if any, of these three , is most
fu ndam en ta lly real o r substan tial. Are nonliving
things, living th ings, or m in d equal, o r does one
take p re ced en ce over the o ther tw o?
If w e ask w h e th e r organism s and m inds are the
resu lt o r th e offspring of physical processes, we
find tw o basic answers, one by the materialist,
[38]
w ho will say yes, and the o th e r b y the idealist,
w ho will say no. T h e idealist w ould say th a t m a t
te r an d life are p roducts of th e minds. T o this
s ta tem en t th e m ateria list w ould answ er th a t such
a conclusion is only supposition w ith no grounds
for facts in w h a t he , as a m ateria lis t, w ould con
sider th e real world.
Is this m an n e r w e see the fu n d a m en ta l clash
b e tw e en tw o theories of m etaphysics, m aterialism
and idealism. Both schools of th o u g h t have p ro b
ably existed ever since m an s ta r ted to philoso
phize. M an has reached various conclusions abou t
the reality of the universe. U sually his conclusions
d iv ide them selves in such a m an n er th a t they can
b e classified in one or the o th er of these schools of
thought.
Basically, m aterialism states th a t m atte r or m a t
te r in m otion, in o ther words, energy, is the funda
m en ta l reality. E v e ry th in g th a t occurs, including
m enta l processes, is e ither m ater ia l in charac ter or
d e p e n d e n t upon m a tte r in m otion. I t excludes the
existence of an y th in g external to the physical un i
verse. M aterialism excludes freedom of the will,
im m ortality , or the existence of God.
M aterialism has been sustained by m odern
[39]
science because it is th rough the advancem en t of
science based u p o n the s tudy of universal and
physical laws th a t so m uch has been accom plished
in the scientific age in w hich w e are living. W ith
ou t th e advancem en ts of science w e w ould live in
a m uch m ore inconvenien t or even m ore com pli
ca ted w orld th an w e do today. M uch th a t caused
labor, toil, suffering, disease, and m an y o ther h u
m an problem s has b een elim inated b y the p ro g
ress of science. Science has generally based its
research and its conclusions up o n its u n d e rs ta n d
ing of the materia] world.
Therefore, m aterialism has m uch to offer in its
favor. I t is a logical m etaphysical explanation of
all th a t i t conceives to exist, b u t it chooses to con
ceive existence in term s of w ha t it can explain on
th e basis of its own prem ise, w h ich is th a t m a
terial, in o ther words, the com position of the
physical world, is th e u lt im ate reality. Some forms
o f m aterialism go so far as to d eny consciousness
o r any of the a ttr ib u tes of the individuality .
O ne o f the im p o rtan t objections to such a th e
ory is th a t b y red u c in g everything, includ ing
m ind, to a form of a tom ic s truc tu re and motion
governed by m echanical laws, w e elim inate the
subject, or at least the serious consideration of the
subject. For an object to be perceived there m ust
b e a subject in the ac t of perceiv ing it. If m a
terialism is fundam en ta lly true and has the final
answ er as to the na tu re of reality , how can one
conceive of any form of m atter, w ithou t a subject
which w ould b e m ind, w hich in tu rn the m ateria l
ist claims does n o t exist?
T he most h a rd en ed m ateria lis t mus t adm it that
he conceives of m ateria l in his ow n m ind , and yet
m ind in its final analysis canno t be explained by
materialism . W e canno t deny its existence, to
ge ther w ith all its a ttribu tes. M em ory, for ex
am ple, is an experience w h ich is intangible, which
is not materia], w hich does no t occupy space, and
therefore for the m ateria lis t w ould no t exist, and
y e t it is difficult for us to d en y the use of m em ory
in our ow n experience. M aterialism is unab le to
explain life, because life gives no evidence of b e
ing a m ateria l entity . As far as the m aterialist is
concerned, life is only a form of energy o rig inating
in m atter.
T he o th er m etaphysical theory is idealism.
1 4 1 ]
F undam en ta lly , idealism is the exact opposite of
m aterialism . Its principal thesis is th a t the real
an d u nder ly ing p a r t of the universe is m enta l
ra th e r than m ateria l. Some forms of idealism state
th a t th e a p p a ren t m ateria lis tic aspect of the u n i
verse is com plete ly an illusion, th a t there is really
n o th ing b u t m ind. H ow ever, m ost forms of idea l
ism upho ld the princip le th a t th e external w orld
possesses objective validity, a claim also supported
b y materialism . In con trast to m aterialism , h o w
ever, idealism identifies th e essential ch a rac te r
istics o f the external w orld w ith m ind instead of
m a tte r and energy.
I t is difficult to discuss idealism w ith o u t dis
cussing one of the early ph ilosophers w h o ac
ce p ted the concept. T h e G reek philosopher Plato
is considered th e g rea t idealist. His idealism is a
theory th a t has echoed dow n th rough history in
all o f m an 's thinking. T h e distinctive fea tu re of
P la to ’s teachings is his doc tr ine of ideas, w h ich
upholds the th eo ry th a t ou tside o r beyond ou r
w orld o f space an d tim e and existing in d ep e n d
en tly of the physical universe is ano the r world, th e
real world w hich he calls th e w orld of ideas or
142]
forms. E v ery th in g th a t w e can consider is only a
replica of the idea. F o r example, th e idea of a
triangle com prises the essential p roperties of all
triangles. T h e id ea of a circle com bines the p ro p
erties and com position of all circles th a t h ave ever
b e e n draw n, This id ea of a circle or a triangle is
a po in t of perfection. No triangle or circle can
ever q u ite equal the idea, w hich will go on exist
ing th rough all time, even th o u g h m en continue to
t ry to rep roduce it.
Ideas are therefore though ts , no t physical
things, b u t they are no t necessarily thoughts in the
m in d of a th inker, e ither h u m an or otherw ise.
T h ey are though ts or ideas th a t m ay h e self
caused and exist in d ep en d en tly of all o ther things,
accord ing to the idealism of Plato.
C harac ter is t ic of this concep t is tha t the ideas
are eternal. T hey w ould exist even if there w ere
no h u m an beings. F o r exam ple, accord ing to
Plato, the idea of a perfec tly good m an w ould
exist even if no m an existed, or the idea of a p e r
fect o ra to r w ou ld exist even if all m en becam e
dum b. Such an ex trem e concep t of idealism has
in a sense b ee n a m odel for m an y idealistic theo-
143]
ries since th e tim e of Plato. M any have modified
an d changed these theories, h u t th ey are still a
concep t th a t requ ires ou r careful consideration in
con tem pla ting a w orld w hich is governed by
forces th a t lie outside the lim itations of the physi
cal universe.
T h e m iddle-of-the-road idealism accep ted by
various philosophers can generally be designated
u n d e r the head ing of objective idealism. O bjec
tive idealism is based upon th e concep t of m on
ism, th a t is, the belief th a t reality is one. I t does
not necessarily accep t th a t the universe is dual in
its na tu re , th a t it consists of two fundam en ta l d if
fe ren t realities, m ind an d m atter.
O bjec tive idealism believes th a t there is a force
th a t underlies th e m anifesta tion of bo th m ind
an d m atte r . I t is objective in the sense th a t it is
b ased up o n the theory th a t physical th ings can
an d do exist p rio r to our know ledge of them . This
m eans th a t w e do not accep t the princip le th a t a
condition such as th e external world w ould no t
exist if m an d id n o t exist. In o ther words, m an's
realization does not necessarily change the physi
cal world, b u t it does change m an’s concepts.
[44]
This theory m ain tains th a t w h a t we th ink the
w orld to b e is d e te rm in ed b y th e na tu re of the
physical world and not by the n a tu re of the know
ing mind.
W ith o u t idealism, it w ould seem to m any th a t
life w ould be meaningless and the w orld w ould be
a sterile, unnecessary creation. Idealism has a t
tem p ted to answ er the question of reality and give
m an the ability to b e t te r u n d ers tan d himself
and therefore ad a p t to his environm ent. Idealism
furnishes a more reliable b ackground for ethics.
To live justly in a society dem ands m ore than
m erely com plying w ith physical and m echanical
laws. T here is m ore m otiva tion to the individual
w ho believes th a t the u ltim ate reality of the un i
verse lies outside the physical world than there is
to those who accep t only the fact tha t the physical
w orld is the final an d u lt im ate composition of all
the universe, includ ing man.
T he idealist w ould natu ra lly ask the m aterialist
w h a t w ould be th e value of try ing to live in ac
cordance w ith the principles advanced by society
for the good of society, or w hy try to b roaden and
u n d ers tan d our moral lives. Idealism dem on-
145]
strates, as far as a m etaphysica l theory can do so,
th a t w e are essentially a p a r t of th e underly ing
reality , th a t is, th a t w e a re m ore re la ted to m ind
and its source th an w e a re to th e physical world.
This of course is a basis for religious and certain
philosophical th o u g h t because it makes us a p a r t
of a force th a t is ex ternal to us an d one w hich w e
try to u n d e rs tan d an d to ab id e w ith . Idealism
urges us to assum e our p ro p e r d ign ity in this r e
la tionsh ip and to express ou r m oral ac tion in a
m an n e r th a t m ay becom e universal and therefore
m ost closely allied w ith a source th a t exists o u t
side th e physical world.
T h ere are of course objections to idealism,
m ain ly th a t i t m ay be sentim ental, th a t it causes
us to shu t ou r eyes to w h a t th e m aterialists con
cern them selves w ith as th e u lt im ate reality. B u t
the ind iv idual w ho accepts objective idealism
need no t isolate h im self from the world. T h e
idealist asks th a t w e consider the u lt im ate decision
on th e p a r t of th e h u m an b e in g to b e a m a tte r of
d ec id ing on values.
Physical science will acknow ledge th a t th e laws
[ 4 6 ]
of ene rgy and conservation of m atte r and m otion
show tha t the physical w orld is a chang ing cond i
tion. It is obvious from w h a t we know of astron
om y an d of the geology and com position of the
physical w orld th a t its constan t change will p ro b
ably eventually b r in g it to com ple te annihilation.
W e see ev idence in the universe th a t suns and
stars have existed and died. I t is possible tha t the
solar systems have gone w ith them . T h e sun of
our solar system is a constan tly self-consum ing
form of energy tha t will eventually lose its ability
to p roduce energy. W hen th a t happens , this solar
system will becom e a cold, isolated p lace in the
universe w here life as w e know it, a t least, canno t
exist.
T h e finite is lim ited to the finite an d will not
always exist, b u t if w e accep t the theory th a t
there is rea lity in th e m ind an d it is associated
w ith an external pow er or an idea, then we can
look to the Infinite as a p lace of perm anency , an
a rea w ith w hich m an can becom e m ore ac
q u a in ted and tow ard w hich he can evolve. W e
generally accep t the princip le of physical evolu-
[47]
tion, th a t m an as a physical en ti ty has evolved
th rough aeons of tim e to the state in w hich he
exists now, M ore im portan t, in a sense, is the
evo lvem ent of m an himself, of his m ind, and that
m ind w hich is a p a r t o f th e m anifesta tion of life
is cen te red w ith in this physical entity , which
m an y believe will con tinue to exist w hen the
physical com position is w orn ou t an d can no
longer sustain the life force and m en ta l activity
th a t now resides w ith in it.
Therefore , if w e p lace our confidence in values
th a t will endure , idealism offers to m an the theory
of reality th a t is re la ted to eternity , and m an can,
accord ing to this concept, advance tow ard th e
realization of eternity . A ny physical or m aterial
ach ievem ent, w h e th e r in possessions, accom plish
m ents, o r m aking impressions on the world, is very
small in com parison to the source of all life. Life
will proceed. E ach physical existence tha t w e m ay
experience will b e a s tepp ing stone tow ard a rea li
za tion of an e te rna l existence and a realization of
the p lace th a t th e soul or real self exists in relation
to th e all-over existence of the universe.
W e canno t expect physical values, regardless of
[48]
h o w h igh w e m ay consider those values to be, of
any benefit except in relation to a physical fu n c
tion.
Jus t as a square p e g canno t b e p u t into a ro u n d
hole w ith o u t considerable modification, so a
physical en tity canno t b ecom e a p ar t of a n o n
physical en ti ty except as it serves as a m edium
for a tem pora ry experience. T h e physical con
stitu tes the external env ironm ent of the universe.
T h e psychic is the area of th e soul. T he physical
is the area of the body. T he soul is the hom e of
th e mind. T he physical is finite; th e soul is in
finite. Physical values are tem porary . E te rn ity is
forever.
I t is legitim ate th a t m an should accum ulate
physical values, b u t h e m ust p lace them in p roper
perspective, and th a t perspective is in relation to
the physical world. H e m ust also accum ulate im
m ateria l values, values w hich will cause him to
b ecom e a p a r t of the ete rnal force of the universe,
the area of th e ideas described b y Plato, a par t
of th e e te rna l force of th e Infinite. In th a t way,
m an ’s perspective will n o t b e lim ited by any physi
cal boundary . H e will find him self a segm ent of
[49]
th e Infinite as well as occupying a body, w hich is
finite.
M an's realization of the idea l and the actual
m ay lead him to w here he can find and live in an
u l t im a te reality th a t o rig inates in the Cosmic.
Such a realization will enab le us to develop a
philosophy w h ich perm its us to transform the b ad
to th e good an d perm its the ideal to control the
actual. W h e n w e gain a realization th a t includes
the v irtues an d m oral concep ts to w ard w hich
good m en aspire, w e are b ro u g h t to the portal of
m ysticism an d to a realization of the h ighest con
cepts of m etaphysics, a search for a true, u ltim ate
reality th a t will m o tiva te ou r lives, transform our
existence, and m ake us cosmic en tities ra th e r than
m ere physical beings.
V V V
K N O W L E D G E
“If there is anything within the reach of man that is worthy of praise, is it not knowledge?”
—Unto Thee 1 Grant
M O N G the problem s of philosophy it can
no t b e said th a t one is necessarily more
im portan t th a n another. Nevertheless,
in th e problem s concern ing know ledge
are found some of the fu n d am en ta l questions that
underlie the u n d ers tan d in g of m any o ther philo
sophical problem s. In the early history of philoso
p hy Aristotle s ta ted th a t all m en desire to a tta in
know ledge. H u m a n beings h av e know ledge of
m an y and varied objects. These objects are con
ditions w ith w hich som etim es there exists no d i
re c t experience.
F or exam ple, w e read in h istory of events or
objects th a t once existed and th a t no longer can
b e verified th rough ac tual physical percep tion , b u t
[51]
yet we have know ledge of them . W e have know l
edge of the n a tu re of p a r ts o f th e universe th a t w e
canno t possibly reach in term s of time. W e have
know ledge of stars in the universe which can b e
perceived only by the light th a t left them m any
centuries ago. T h e archaeologist and the pa leon
tologist tell us of ex tinct living creatures and ob
jects th a t no living person could possibly have
seen, and y e t w e h ave know ledge of them .
K now ledge in itself is a form of experience and
serves as a m edium th a t connects the self w ith
som eth ing ou ts ide of it. K now ledge links the
know er w ith the know n an d even bridges the
p resen t and th e past. I t also re la tes the im m ediate
su rroundings of our env ironm ent w ith objects and
even ts th a t lie external to th a t environm ent.
W h e n w e speak of the objects of hum an know l
edge , w e m ust realize th a t the object is not lim ited
m ere ly to a physical entity . A nyth ing th a t is p e r
ceived and comes to constitu te know ledge is in the
full sense o f the w ord one of th e objects of know l
edge. T he vital question of w h a t constitu tes
know ledge and h ow w e can recognize it is ac tually
very seldom considered un til w e direct our at-
[52]
ten tio n to it. If a child , after his first day at
school, is asked, "W h at did you lea rn?” he m ight
even b e confused by the question. H e w ould not
yet b e familiar w ith the fact that he h ad partic i
p a ted in a process of learning. Life has been ac
cep ted by the child of th a t age at its face value.
H e has no t previously s to p p ed to analyze that
there were facts previously unkn o w n th a t now
seem to he know n, or impressions that he was u n
able to in te rp re t th a t now seem to h ave some
meaning.
To such a child the process of learning has been
n o th ing m ore or less than a degree of adapta tion
to environm ent, w hich has taken p lace w ithou t
the conscious realization th a t a learning process
existed. T he child was not aw are th a t h e existed
as th e subject and th e things he learned w ere the
objects w hich w hen assem bled as a p a r t of his
m ental com prehension, becam e know ledge.
G enerally speaking, as adults, w e accept things
m ore or less at face value. W e look abou t us and
w e d raw conclusions based upon the impressions
w hich w e receive th rough our physical senses.
O ne of the basic problem s of know ledge is
[53]
w h e th e r our know ledge has an y correspondence
w ith the objects external to us. W h en , for ex
am ple, w e perce ive a t ree th ro u g h our sight, ex
actly w h a t is th e re la tionsh ip b e tw een the tree
w hich is ou ts ide of us an d the concep t of the tree
th a t is reg istered in th e brain th rough the stim ula
tion of s igh t and th e creation of a p ic tu re of th a t
tree in m in ia ture , as it were, on the re tin a of th e
eye?
Actually , w e accep t w ith o u t question th a t w e
acqu ire know ledge th rough the process of percep
tion. It is questionab le as to just exactly h ow w e
conceive an external object except th rough a p e r
cep tive process th a t transla tes into a definite im
pression w ith in ou r ow n consciousness. W hile
alm ost everyone seeks know ledge to a degree ,
know ledge th a t m ay be of value to one e ither in
his w ork o r in finding en te r ta in m en t is usually
a tta in ed th ro u g h presen ta tions outside of us, b y
read ing , by h ea rin g som eone else, or b y hav ing
d irec t sense im pressions o f conditions w hich bring
us concepts th a t crea te a to ta li ty of know ledge.
Those w ho have an inclination tow ard philo
sophical inquiry, s tudy the opinions of o thers in
[ 5 4 ]
order to b ro ad en the ir horizon of know ledge, yet
very few people consciously d irec t them selves
tow ard the acquisition of know ledge for the sake
of know ledge itself. T h e average individual does
n o t a t tem p t to define know ledge or w h a t it is th a t
constitu tes the process of learning. W e m ere ly
assimilate certain phases of experience w ithou t
going th rough a process of analyzing them . W h a t
w e a t te m p t to learn is p rim arily associated w ith
subject m atter. If an ind iv idual w ants to becom e
a bookkeeper, he studies tha t particu la r subject
m atter. In o ther w ords, he learns th e routine pro
cedures th a t are necessary for a basic know ledge
of accounting.
In th e experience of m ost people, know ledge is
usually specific, yet the na tu re and validity of
know ledge involves one of the most profound
phases of h u m an inquiry because w e are d ep e n d
en t upon know ledge for grow th. W h a t know ledge
is in itself ac tually is seldom analyzed separately
from the inform ation th a t w e a t te m p t to leam .
O u r n eed an d d e p en d en ce up o n know ledge is so
v ital th a t every s tep w e take in our lives, w h e th e r
these steps b e re la ted to ea rn ing a living, to
[55]
en te rta in ing ourselves, to gaining fu r ther facts, is
closely re la ted to the know ledge process.
D ow n th rough time m an has asked the question
th a t has been re-echoed from generation to gene
ra tion : W h a t is know ledge? H ow do w e know
w h e n th a t know ledge is valid? T he sam e question
from a philosophical p o in t of v iew m igh t be
s ta ted , "C an m an have tru s tw orthy know ledge?
Is it possible to perceive som eth ing th a t has suf
ficient value to b e the basis of learn ing w ith in the
hum an consciousness?”
This question arose w hen m an first began to
fo rm ula te an e lem entary philosophy. P la to clas
sified h u m an know ledge into two categories. T he
first he called true know ledge and the second h e
called belief or opinion. A ccording to Plato, true
know ledge is reliable, b u t it is difficult for an y
one o th er than a m athem atic ian or ph ilosopher to
grasp th e concep t of true know ledge. Belief or
op in ion is the e q u ip m e n t of th e ord inary in
dividual. This is qu ite unreliable . In fact, belief
o r opinion, accord ing to Plato, is the u ltim ate
source of all error. M an fell into error th rough de-
[56]
p en d in g upon opinions and not try ing to obtain
true knowledge.
In realizing the ease in w hich m an fell into
error, skeptics raised the question as to w he the r it
is possible to obta in ce rta in ty in any b ranch of
h um an knowledge. T h a t question still exists.
C an true know ledge be obta ined , or is every th ing
th a t w e know a h u m an error w ith in itself? Is
w h a t exists in our consciousness m erely the r e
sult of impressions th a t have sifted th rough our
sense faculties and from w hich w e form ulate our
ind iv idual conclusions? Are these conclusions
only opinions or beliefs w hich have little validity
in com parison w ith a true know ledge which by
itself w ould have existence and validity of its own,
regardless of w h e th e r or no t there w ere hum an
beings to perceive it?
It is impossible to discuss the problem of knowl
edge w ithout also considering the question fu n d a
m ental to metaphysics. M etaphysics asks, “W ha t
is real?” T here are two m etaphysical theories to
explain reality. If ou r m etaphysical point of view
is materialistic, the w orld of physical objects
[57]
constitu tes th e world of final reality , and there is
n o th in g in existence tha t has value beyond th a t
of m ateria l things.
If, on the o ther hand , our po in t of v iew is th a t
o f the idealist, if w e are m ore concerned abou t
the n a tu re of th e A bsolute an d the existence of
beau ty , tru th , virtue, an d justice th a n w e are of
the n a tu re o f the m ater ia l world, then these con
cep ts crea te a b e t te r life w ith fuller m eaning. In
th e world of th e idealist, w h e re ideals p re d o m i
nate , m ater ia l th ings obviously take second place.
M erely to m ake ou r th ink ing conform to w ha t we
in terp re t as b e in g the n a tu re of th e physical w orld
is n o t a true criterion for knowledge.
T h e average ind iv idual accepts naive realism,
the be lie f th a t the external world is identical to
w h a t w e perce ive it to be. H e therefore presum es
th a t w h a t h e perceives is an exact duplication of
w hat exists in the phenom enal world. H ow ever,
we all know th rough experience th a t the senses are
n o t always reliable. F rom tim e to tim e w e have
experienced optical illusions. Possibly you th ink
of a tab le to p as a rec tang le because experience
has show n you th rough m easu rem en t th a t it is,
[58]
b u t w e do n o t see it as a rectangle. W e see it
th rough th e position from w hich we view it, and
th a t is as a four-sided object th a t is no t a perfec t
rectangle.
Parallel lines w hich w e observe ap p e a r to m eet
at some d is tan t poin t, w hile w e know this is con
trary to fact. W e see m an y th ings contrary to
w h a t physical exam ination shows them to be, and
so our world is a w orld w hich is constan tly being
d iv ided b e tw een reality an d illusion. Illusion is
our concep t of w h a t m ay exist, or w h a t w e choose
to believe exists. Reality in this sense is our
realization of all th a t exists, w h e th e r it b e in the
field of physical phenom ena, psychic phenom ena,
spiritual existence, or any o th e r category.
W e also have experiences th a t confuse the n a
ture of know ledge. T h e naive realist assumes th a t
our experiences result in sense d a ta th a t p roduce a
dup lication of the w orld w hich w e observe. Yet,
to take a sim ple illustration, we say th a t h ea t is a
p ro d u c t of fire. If w e approach fire, we describe
our experience by observing th a t we feel w arm th .
W e say th a t the fire is w arm . T he w arm th seems
to be in the fire. If w e approach too close, w e will
[59]
feel pain. T hen w e say th a t the pain is in us. H o w
can we explain th a t w a rm th is in the fire and pain
is in us? W hy are not bo th h ea t and pa in e ither
in the fire or in us?
T he subject-object re la tionship here indicates
th a t in the acquisition of know ledge, know ledge
is a condition th a t results as an in te rchange b e
tw een a sub ject an d an object. O f all the objects
o f h u m an know ledge, the hum an being, to our
best inform ation and experience, is the only en tity
th a t can b e b o th a sub ject an d an object simul
taneously. As a subject, w e can perceive ourselves
a n d ou r ow n conscious activity.
T h ere is certain validity in naive realism. A c
cep tin g the p rem ise th a t th e w orld we behold in
o u r m inds an d th ro u g h our senses is essentially a
dup lica tio n of w ha t it is has proven useful. M an
can use the w orld based upon th a t principle.
G enera lly speaking, how ever, we believe th a t
though ts and ideas w hile b e in g different from
physical objects do have substance in th a t they
are in a sense m enta l replicas of w h a t we perceive.
W e ob ta in know ledge that is dependab le w hen we
can utilize it. Insofar as hum an experience is con-
[60]
cerned , most of ou r day-to-day know ledge is o b
ta ined th rough the physical senses. T hrough be ing
able to perceive the universe by seeing, hearing,
feeling, tasting, and smelling, w e create ou r m en
tal concep t of the objective world. If it serves our
purpose, if w e are able to ad just to it, we accept
w ith o u t question the fac t th a t the know ledge
which w e gained is substantially a w orking basis
upon w hich w e can accep t the fact, to us, a t
least, th a t there is correspondence b e tw e en sub
jective experience and objects external to us.
T h e m aterialist, of course, accepts this principle
w ith o u t question. T here is no reason w hy the
idealist canno t also accep t it, b u t the idealist will
go fu rther. H e will state that there are objects of
know ledge th a t t ranscend or supersede physical
experience. T he idealist states th a t the suprem e
values of life lie outside the physical universe.
T h ey lie in w h a t Plato re ferred to as the w orld of
ideas. T he expression of life itself is evidence
th a t w e are re la ted to factors, conditions, and
causes w hich lie beyond th e limitations of m a
terial. Therefore, if life itself is an expression
w ith in a physical b o d y of a force th a t transcends
[61]
the physical world, then it is only logical to b e
lieve th a t know ledge is also ob ta in ab le from th a t
source an d th a t m an need no t rely exclusively
upon th e physical senses for all sources of know l
edge.
T his is w hy th e Rosicrucians ad d a sixth sense,
w hich w e call in tu ition . I t , too, is a source of
know ledge just as the physical senses are th e
source of the basic com ponents of know ledge in
sofar as th e objective m ind is concerned . In tu ition
is frequen tly confused w ith reason. E ven for the
m ost accom plished individual, i t is no t always p o s
sible to de te rm ine how m u ch know ledge comes
to us th ro u g h in tu itive channels an d ho w m uch
com es from the process of reasoning w ith in our
ow n consciousness.
W h en w e re la te percep tive facts, the results
m ay a p p e a r to be n ew or a t least different from
the individual fragm ents of w hich th e know ledge
is com posed. This resu lt o f the reasoning process
frequen tly m akes it ap p e a r th a t inform ation we
have ob ta ined is en tire ly new an d therefore m ig h t
b e considered to b e intuitive, w hile ac tually it
m ay b e only th e m enta l functioning, the coordina-
[62]
tion of know ledge w hich is o b ta ined th rough
physical sources.
T here are m an y testim onies to the existence of
intuition. G rea t writers, leaders, inventors, m ys
tics, philosophers, teachers of the past and p resen t
h ave m an y tim es c red ited insp iration w ith the
source of w h a t they w ere able to gain as know l
ed g e and to use. U sing in tu ition is an art, h o w
ever. I t is not som eth ing th a t can be developed
overnight. I t cannot b e m astered m ere ly b y re ad
ing a set of instructions. It is a condition th a t
m ust grow. I t develops just as m ental faculties
develop. W e m ust learn to h eed the voice of in
tuition just as we lea rned to coord ina te our sense
faculties and gain know ledge through our physi
cal senses.
W h en an in tu itive ability is gained in any d e
gree, it perm its us to be gu ided by the coord ina
tion of know ledge and experiences th a t w e al
ready have ob ta ined from any source, physical or
intuitive. In tu it ion coupled w ith reason will d i
rect us in app ly ing w h a t w e a lready know. In
this sense, in tu ition is coord ina ted w ith experience
an d know ledge.
T h e individual w ho wishes to perfec t his in
tu itive ability will never cease to study, to learn,
an d to experience. By p ro p e r applica tion of his
m ental processes and b y a t tu n em e n t w ith the
Cosmic, th e h igher forces o f th e universe, and
w ith th e b ro ad en in g of his conscious and psychic
horizon, he will b e able to utilize th e in tu itive
k now ledge th a t m ay becom e, a little a t a time, a
p a r t of his consciousness. T herefore , if an in
d iv idual is going to advance m entally , spiritually,
or psychically, h e m ust n ev e r cease to d irect
conscious effort tow ard the acquisition of know l
edge th ro u g h any source th a t is available to him.
T h ere is no final answ er upon w hich all philoso
phers and scientists have ag reed in regard to the
epistem ological problem . A realistic answ er to
the p rob lem has a u tilitarian value, based on the
fact th a t we do know reality in part. W e are
ca p ab le of grow ing in ou r know ledge of it. By our
reaction to ou r env ironm ent and by the deve lop
m en t of ou r in tu itive abilities, know ledge becom es
m ore valuab le and m ore valid to ou r conscious
processes. T h e process of learning indicates an
increasing correspondence b e tw een the m ind, or
[ 6 4 ]
know er, and the world. T h a t is, the subject and
the object can becom e m ore familiar w ith each
other. T here is g row th in agreem ent be tw een
th o u g h t and things and this evolution is m an i
fested in the progress of science.
Above all else, th e real world from a m etap h y s i
cal s tandpo in t m ust always b e considered from
the s tandpoin t of the perc ip ien t organism. M an
is the subject of know ledge. W e know th a t we
are capab le of experiencing certain sensations and
perceptions. As tau g h t fundam entally by the
Rosicrucians, in th e final analysis, w hat is most
im portan t to the h u m an entity at the present tim e
in his present sta te of evolution is his realization.
W h a t he realizes of the external w orld and of the
inner self in coord ination w ith each o ther brings
a certain valid ity to the know ledge w hich he ex
periences, an d which, if he finds useful and p rac
tical, will serve him in dea ling w ith the problem
of learn ing an d know ledge.
V V V
T H E N A T U R E O F T H E A B SO L U T E
"I hold that God is the immanent, and not the extraneous, cause of all things.”
—Spinoza
O M E O N E has said th a t all m etaphysical
th ink ing leads to the p rob lem of G od,
w h ich is th e suprem e prob lem of philoso
phy. If God, th e Absolute, or th e Suprem e
Force of the universe, regardless of w h a t w e w an t
to call it, is th e suprem e prob lem of philosophy,
it is also th e basic prem ise of religion. Religion
an d ph ilosophy dev ia te in a t te m p tin g to arrive a t
an u n d ers ta n d in g in some d eg ree of the n a tu re of
th e Absolute.
In ap p ro ach in g the subject of th e Absolute, we
should be perfec tly honest. T h a t is, if there is an
abso lu te force in the universe, it has to b e infinite.
W e, on th e o th e r h and , are finite. T h e tw o ex
trem es can never b e reconciled . Proof is impos-
[66]
sible, insofar as the re la tion b e tw een the tw o is
concerned . T h e finite canno t p rove th e Infinite,
an d some m ight go so far as to say th a t the I n
finite canno t prove the finite.
T here are those w ho advance theories to the
effect th a t if there is a G od, if there is an absolute
force in the universe, it is no t all-powerful. It, in
a sense, is l im ited and exists som ew here in the
sta te tha t w e as h u m an beings w ould classify as
infinite or finite. For exam ple, even if G od is
infinite, it is inconceivable th a t H e could know
som eth ing th a t does not exist. E ven an absolute
force could not com prehend th a t w hich is not. In
th a t respect, an infinite personal pow er th a t
m any religions consider as G od could not know
the fu ture , because the fu tu re does not exist. H ow
could an y mind, finite or infinite, grasp a fact th a t
still is n o t in existence?
Philosophers have dea lt w ith th e p rob lem of
the Absolute. T h ey have a t te m p te d to prove the
existence of God. Such proofs are som ew hat
lim ited. T he ontological proof, for exam ple, is
based upon the princip le th a t perfection implies
existence. T h a t is, the idea of a perfec t b e in g of
[07]
w hich the m ind can conceive is p roof th a t such a
being exists, or the idea w ould not exist. T h e idea
of God, then, is the idea of a perfec t being. T h ere
fore, if m an has the ability to conceive of a s tate
of perfection , the idea is in itself ev idence of
existence. H ow ever, this is only an argum ent. It
does n o t conclusively p rove the existence of an
abso lu te being. I t is weak, in th a t an individual
could have an idea of som eth ing th a t did not or
could not exist a t all.
T h e cosmological a rgum en t for an absolute force
is based p rim arily upon the assertion that every
th ing th a t exists m ust have a cause. This First
Cause, or uncaused cause, w ould have to be an
abso lu te force or God. T h e teleological argum en t
is based on th e analogy th a t w henever w e find a
m an-m ade th ing, we infer th a t it is the work of an
in telligen t designer. Therefore, w e p resum e th a t
a purposeful th ing indicates a purposeful designer
or creator. Since there is a universe and th e re are
laws th a t cause it to function, it is p resum ed th a t
there w as som eone o r som ething w ho s tarted it.
T here is also th e m oral a rgum ent of Kant, w ho b e
lieved th a t a righ teous G od exists, and th a t if
[68]
m en live in accordance w ith accep ted m oral
s tandards , they will be in tu n e w ith th a t G od on
the merits of their m oral worth.
Regardless of how w e may conceive of an a b
solute force, there is one th ing certain , the belief
or conviction on the p a r t of m an th a t such a force
exists or argum ents on the p ar t of philosophers
to try to p rove th a t force is no basis for absolute
assurance th a t such a force does exist. In ancient
G reece m any in telligent individuals, b o th m en
and wom en, believed in O lym pian gods w ho re
s ided on M t. Olym pus. T he ir belief was sincere.
T he ir devotion to the gods was also sincere. T hey
w orsh iped the gods accord ing to prescribed p ro
cedure. T hey p rac ticed the rites of their religion,
b u t as we well know, no gods lived on Mt. O lym
pus. In o ther words, sincere belief and conviction
was not a proof of the existence of the gods.
T oday no conviction or sincerity can in any
w ay produce proof of the existence of a suprem e
being. A suprem e being is p robab ly best con
sidered on the basis of the teleological a rgum ent,
th a t is, if w e presum e th a t eve ry th ing th a t func
tions has b een created , has b een designed , th en
[69]
w e m ust p resum e th a t som eth ing external to man,
som eth ing b ey o n d his finite capacity , has caused
the en tire universe to be. I t is m an ’s lot to func
tion in i t an d a t te m p t to gain some idea, some
concep t of th a t designer w ho can be looked u p
to as a final source o r a final au thority for all
th ings. In acco rdance w ith th e concep t of m ysti
cism, he m ay a t tu n e h im self to this absolute cause
an d feel th a t he is in tim ate ly re la ted to th a t force.
T h ere are d ifferent views of G od's re la tionship
to the universe, if w e accep t the prem ise th a t
th e re is an existent h igher force. T h e pressure of
logic causes th e average in telligent individual to
accep t this fact. W hile n o t p roof in itself, there
is subs tan tia tion to a d eg ree in th e fact th a t in tel
ligent h u m an beings th ro u g h o u t all of m an's his
tory h av e accep ted generally th e concept th a t
there are forces in the universe w hich supersede
the ability or pow ers of man.
T h e tw o views m ost com m on in relation to the
Absolute are know n as theism and pantheism .
T heism is the belief in G od as th e c reato r and
ru ler of th e universe. Theism states th a t this b e
ing has th e p ow er of revela tion th rough contact-
[70]
ing the des tiny of h u m an beings, or th rough h u
m an beings con tac ting him. Deism, on the o ther
hand , acknow ledges the belief in a G od strictly as
a ru ler an d d irector, w ith no association w ith w h a t
H e created .
M any w ho subscribe to theism restr ic t their b e
lief to the concep t of a personal God, a h u m an
like ind iv idual w ho is the final judge of m an. This
concep t has grow n in some orthodox religions.
Theism ap p a ren tly grew o u t of a m onotheistic
concept, th e belief th a t one G od exists in the
universe an d is able to reveal him self to His c rea
tion. This com m on concep t of G od conceives of
a b e in g w ho exists aw ay from and ind ep en d en t of
the universe, b u t yet w ho can willfully, if H e
chooses, express H im self to parts of th a t universe.
I believe th a t m ost en ligh tened religions, p a r
ticu larly those of a m onotheistic nature , are a d
heren ts to a type of theism, the belief th a t G od
is external to the universe and yet is accessible to
th e intelligent entities th a t p o pu la te th a t u n i
verse. G od crea ted and d irec ted the universe,
yet H e can b e reached by m en w ho raise the ir con
sciousness and con tac t H im th rough prayer, con-
[71]
cen tra tion , and m editation . This, then , is the sum
an d substance of theism, except for modifications
th a t are particu larly re la ted to various religious
beliefs and practices.
A concep t w h ich m ay be less p revalen t b u t
w hich has m uch to recom m end it is pantheism .
I t is th e belief th a t the w hole universe partakes
of the n a tu re of the Absolute. Pantheism ex
presses the concep t th a t G od exists in th e com
b in ed forces and laws w hich are m ain ta ined in the
existing universe. This concep t ac tually conceives
of an absolu te force w hich is m ore in tim a te and
m ore atta inable . T h a t G od crea ted the heavens
an d th e ea rth is a trad itional s ta tem en t in a t least
th ree g reat religions, b u t these religions do not
say th a t G od en te red into the creation as a con
scious act and infused H im self into the universe.
In the p an the is tic concept, th e whole of all th a t
exists is an expression of God. In this concep t the
m ateria ls th a t com pose th e universe are extensions
of an abso lu te force. In accordance with th e
pan the is tic concep t, G od crea ted b y ex tending
Himself. G od is a force m anifesting in the form of
energy. This energy becom es expressive in physi-
[72]
cal m anifestations. T h e en tire universe cam e
ab o u t and continues to exist simply as a con tinua
tion of the m anifes ta tion of a force th a t is the
Infinite.
As long as God, then, expresses Himself, the
universe exists. If H e ceased to b e an expression,
the universe w ould also cease to be, because it is
an ex tended m anifes ta tion of th a t original abso
lu te force. In the panthe istic concept, the fu n d a
m ental or first force of the universe continues to
exist and exists in all th ings including the h ighest
expression of this force, m an himself. T he force
w e call G od m anifests in the physical sense as
p a r t of the com ponents of the physical body. At
the sam e time, the force m anifests as a nonphysi
cal force, w hich is the life essence or the na tu re
of the soul th a t expresses w ith in a physical entity.
Theism has a tendency to em phasize the doc
trine of cause an d effect, a doctrine th a t G od is
the fundam en ta l cause of all things. W hile this
w ould no t b e d en ied b y panthe ism , pan the ism on
th e o ther h an d stresses th e concep t of inherence,
th a t is, th a t G od is a living substance an d th a t all
th ings inhere in God. G od d id n o t exist simply
[73]
as a t ranscenden t b e in g b u t as a F irs t Cause. H e
is t ran scen d en t to the universe an d also im m anen t
w ith in it.
A ccording to pan the ism , all th ings, m ater ia l or
nonm ateria l, pa r take o f the n a tu re of God. T h ere
fore, G od is a p a r t of all tha t w e can conceive.
M an began as a living en tity , e i ther prim itively
or as an infant, to perceive th e w orld ab o u t him
and w ith his first conception perce ived a p a r t of
G od, since all th a t exists is a p a r t o f that absolu te
force.
T h ere are those w h o object to pan the ism , as
there are objections to all theories, because as a l
re ad y s ta ted , th e re can b e no absolute p roof of
this theory . O ne objection is m ad e up o n the basis
th a t it is a cold ph ilosophy th a t leaves no room for
a h u m an b e in g ’s em otional concep t of a force
h ig h er th a n himself. I believe this idea is due
to an overly vehem en t desire to upho ld a concep t
of G od as b e in g no m ore th an a superm an. W hile
I am ag reeab le to leav ing the concep t of G od to
each ind iv idual to dec ide for himself, m y reason
for n o t being ab le to conceive of a deistic concep t
of G od is sim ilar to the deis t’s reason for no t
[74]
being able to conceive of a pan the is tic concept.
T h a t is, it is based up o n the ex ten t of our total
philosophy, our in tim a te outlook on th e en tire
universe from our personal standpoin t.
T he critic of pan the ism also states th a t as a cold
philosophy, it does no t give p ro p e r cred it to a
d ivine be ing w ho should be considered som ew hat
rem oved an d isolated from the universe. T h e re
fore, it is conducive to disrespect. I t does n o t in
spire p ro p e r respect for a suprem e force of the
universe to consider th a t G od is an expression of
H im self in every th ing , includ ing th e clod, the
rock, the cloud, the b ird , th e m an, the s ta r—every
th ing th a t exists.
I t w ould seem to m e th a t this a rg u m en t could
also ap p ly to deism, to a ce rta in extent. To co n
sider G od as a h u m an lik e en ti ty w ith superior
pow er or super forces an d super ability is in a
sense a form of red u c in g G od to a h u m an level,
b u t on a slightly h igher scale. If G od is no m ore
th a n a h ighly evolved or h igh ly deve loped hum an
being , then H e w ould inevitab ly h av e the same
im perfections as m an and cannot b e the u ltim ate
or final absolu te force th a t supersedes all o ther
[75]
forces. A m anlike c rea tu re m ust pa r take of th e
n a tu re of m an , an d therefore , since m an is to a
degree lim ited, any crea tu re w ho is like him
w ould also b e lim ited.
T hose w ho argue in favor of accep ting a p er
sonal god are in a sense p lac ing G od at a low er
level than th a t o f an abso lu te universal force.
F u rth erm o re , to conceive of G od as b e in g only a
little h ig h er than m an and of an an th ropom orph ic
n a tu re is to p resum e th a t m an him self is an ulti
m a te of creation and has a tta in ed the superiority
th a t justifies conceiving e ither an absolu te force
as b e in g m odeled a f te r him or as a h u m an be ing
m odeled af te r the absolute force.
This idea is con tra ry to m any evolutionary con
cepts. T h e re is no p roof th a t m an is the u lt im a te
evolved living c rea tu re of all evolution. It is qu ite
possible th a t th e re m ay be o th e r living beings
evolved in th e course of tim e th a t will supersede
m an in every respect. Therefore, to conceive of
G od as a superm an is to place him low er than
wh a t an evolved m an of the fu tu re m ay be.
Both the theistic an d deistic concepts of God
[76]
low er the concept of G od to a low er level than a
concept of th e divine should be.
T he concep t of pan the ism puts G od on a scale
so enorm ous and so m uch g rea ter th an any ind i
v idual en ti ty th a t we read ily realize it is a force
transcend ing and at the sam e time pervad ing all
the universe. W ith this concept m an believes
th a t G od is approachable , tha t H e can be found
in the na tu re of the universe which is a p a r t of
m an's environm ent. M an can have em otional e n
joym ent in b eho ld ing th e expression of God.
Artists in their pain tings, their music, and o ther
creations have reached up and grasped the divine
concep t and p u t it in to a physical or m ateria l ex
pression.
W h e n we are im pressed by a sunset or an act of
heroism or by some expression of an existence b e
yond w h a t m an can create or conceive, then w e
are reach ing ou t and becom ing a m ore in tim ate
p ar t of th e Absolute existent in all th ings w hich
w« have b ehe ld , an absolute which expresses itself
in us. Thus, pan the ism places G od in an accessi
b le position to man. M an is never left w ith o u t
[77]
God, because G od continually and constan tly ex
presses in eve ry th ing th a t is, and it is m an ’s ch a l
lenge to learn ab o u t ev e ry th ing th a t exists, his
m ental, physical, sp iritual world, the w orld of
his m ind, the w orld of his total being. In learn ing
of little th ings, th e n a tu re of the physical world,
h e learns in p a r t the na tu re of the divine, creative
force p u t into effect by the Absolute.
As a lready s ta ted , there is no proof of an a b
solute force, except th rough m an ’s reasoning
based up o n his observation of his env ironm ent
and of his ow n nature . C onsequently , each in
d iv idual m ust arrive at his ow n in terp re ta tion b u t
he m ust also a t te m p t to feel a linkage w ith a
force th a t causes him to be. T h a t is w hy the
Rosicrucians have for centuries believed and d i
rec ted the ir th ough ts of a d iv ine force to “ the G od
of m y realization .”
V V V
H U M A N A N D U N IV E R SA L P U R PO SE
“For the eternal purposes of the Lord shall roll on.”
—The Book of Mormon (Mormon 8-22)
H E behav io r p a tte rn s of hum an life, at
least in this stage of history, are such that
w e th ink and act on the basis th a t p ra c
tically every th ing w e do is purposeful.
W e work, ea rn ing m oney to spend to satisfy our
desires or our physical appe tites . W h e n w e walk
in a certain d irection, it is usually w ith a purpose
in m ind, e ithe r to arrive a t a certain destination ,
to exercise, or sim ply to v iew the scenery. W h en
w e sit d o w n a t the tab le for a meal, the purpose
is to consum e food. E v ery th in g in th e general
area of h u m an behav io r is linked up w ith this
idea of purpose . E ven the individual w ho does
practically no th ing , w ho is a t rest, has gone
[79]
th rough certa in actions or p rocedures to b r in g
ab o u t the condition enab ling him to rest.
Purpose, therefore , to a considerable degree
dom inates our lives. I t is alm ost inconceivable
for the h u m an be ing to con tem pla te an existence
tb a t is no t purposefu l in some degree. Purpose,
how ever, in these term s is lim ited to individual
behav io r an d to individual desires and needs.
W h a t we do in ou r daily lives is due to th e p u r
poses w hich we have individually a d o p ted or th a t
society has forced up o n us.
T h e fact th a t m an lives w ith this constan t idea
of pu rpose in his consciousness has led him to ac
cep t the concept th a t every th ing abou t him is also
existing in c ircum stances or conditions w here
pu rpose is a factor. I t is almost impossible for
an ind iv idual liv ing as w e do to d ay to conceive of
a universe w ith o u t purpose.
In philosophy, the theory th a t the designs of
na tu re are purposefu l, th a t there is a purpose
b eh in d the expression of universe, and th a t there
is an u lt im ate end to b e a tta ined by n a tu re ’s forces
is a discipline know n as teleology. T he te leo
logical theory of the w orld concerns itself w ith
[80]
the purposes tha t exist in th e w hole of the world,
or ra ther, in the en tire universe. A process is
teleological if the end to be a tta ined , th a t is, the
final result, is the cause of all th a t goes to produce
it.
T he com m only accep ted basis of teleology in
religion is the belief th a t a suprem e being not only
caused all th a t now exists b u t th a t the final a t
ta inm en t of all the universal forces is to reach a
p o in t w here they are again associated w ith that
abso lu te force. Teleology, then, signifies th a t the
final end of all th ings is the cause. T he cause
and the en d are synonym ous. All n a tu re ’s func
tions originate with an absolu te force and even
tua lly will cu lm inate in it.
T he term teleological is also app lied to the
processes of nature , w hich are believed to be the
w ork of an intelligent purposer or designer. In
this sense the m eaning is only slightly different
from the first. T h a t is, it is an accep tance of the
principle th a t na tu re is purposeful, an d som eth ing
b eh in d na tu re or conta ined w ith in it is working
to b r in g abou t th a t purposeful end.
Purpose is a h u m an concept, however, and is
[81 ]
n o t p rovab le insofar as th e universe is concerned.
N evertheless, a rgum ents which support the teleo-
logical concep t have to do w ith hum an observa
tion of the c ircum stances th a t exist ab o u t bim.
O ne su p p o rtin g a rg u m en t of the concep t th a t
there is pu rpose in the universe is the obvious
m anifesta tion of law and o rder in nature . W e
know in general h ow the seasons will pass, how
th e ea rth will ro ta te , h ow d ay and n igh t will
com e and go. T hese m ovem ents o f universal
bodies w ith in the universe are governed by law
an d o rder to the ex ten t th a t m an can p red ic t m any
years in advance certa in occurrences, such as
eclipses of the sun or m oon, and o th e r natu ra l
phenom ena.
T h e h u m an reaction to the obvious sta te o f law
and o rder existent in n a tu re is to p resum e th a t if
there is law an d o rder th e re is also pu rpose in
the ir existence. M an , for exam ple, does not m ake
laws except to carTy o u t a purpose. A h ig h er force
there fo re m u s t exist and m ake laws to b ring abou t
a purpose .
A nother princip le th a t supports th e teleological
theory is the answ er to the question of h o w w e
[82]
can account for th e fact tha t the world is a cosmos
and no t a chaos. T he w hole universe could b e a
chaotic confusion, b u t w e observe from our h u
m an van tage po in t th a t it functions in accordance
to certain law and order. A nother a rgum en t in
su p p o r t of teleology is th a t the m anifesta tions of
n a tu re and the functions of n a tu re ’s activities
seem purposive, b ase d upon the fact of a d a p ta
tions of m eans to an end. W e see th a t p lants grow,
p roduce flowers, and eventually b ring forth seed
or fruit. T his p rocedure seems to be purposive
from the time the p lan t comes to life.
Wi t h o u t the teleological concep t w e can find no
reason, insofar as the hum an b e in g is com peten t
to reason, as to w hy the universe exists in the first
place. To the th ink ing hum an entity the observa
tion of existence is in itself a supporting a rg u
m en t of a teleological concept.
T h ere are, how ever, objections to the teleolog
ical theory. O ne obvious objection to the view
th a t the w orld is purposive an d has an u ltim ate
goal is the un w a rran te d assum ption of a likeness
b e tw e e n h u m an beings and the universe as a
w hole, or w e m ig h t say, a consideration of the
[83]
differences b e tw e en w h a t w e could call God's
purposes and m an 's purposes. In review ing w ha t
has a lready b een said ab o u t h u m an beings being
purposeful, w e m ust realize th a t m an’s purposes
are finite. T h ey are only the reasoning of the
h u m an b e in g and w e m ay b e presupposing too
m u ch to ex tend this reasoning to the belief that
a h igher, abso lu te force w ould also be reasoning in
term s of purposefu l activity. This, in sum m ation,
is th a t m an's purposes m ay not have any re la tion
ship w ith th e purposes of a h igher being , if that
b e in g exists and has b ro u g h t into existence a
purposefu l existence.
A nother objection is th a t th e idea of purpose
implies a goal. T h a t goal belongs in the fu ture in
some far-off event. T herefo re , to say tha t the
universe is pu rposefu l is to in te rp re t conditions
w hich we do not thoroughly u n d ers tan d as being
par ts of a purposefu l function th a t has its a t ta in
m ent far rem oved. W h en for exam ple we start
o u t for a certa in destination, it is conceded th a t
w e will arrive a t th a t destination w ith in a reason
ab le length of tim e and o u r purpose will be ac
com plished. In o th e r words, purpose will be ob-
[84]
vious, d u e to our actions cu lm inating in w hat we
w an ted to achieve. But if the universe is such
th a t the purposes for w hich it exists do no t culm i
n a te for millions of years, th e n it is difficult to see
a relationship b e tw een a purposefu l process and
th e e n d to b e a tta ined .
A fu r th e r objection to the teleological theory is
b ased upon the accep tance of evolution. T he
d ra m a of evolution, accord ing to the popu lar con
cep ts of D arw inism , is the struggle for existence,
or the survival of th e fittest. In such a p ic tu re
there is no n eed for purpose . All is a m a tte r of
developm ent, d ep e n d in g upon w h a t evolves and
w h a t survives. This is a m echanistic argum en t
against a teleological concept.
Still ano the r objection is based upon th e diffi
cu lty of u n d e rs ta n d in g w h a t is m e a n t by ideas,
purposes, and designs operative in nature . W e
do n o t know or u n d e rs tan d all of nature 's laws.
W e have little know ledge of the Absolute, and
there fo re ou r concep t of pu rpose is definitely
lim ited. T h e psychologist W illiam M cDougall
c la im ed the chief goals of life are survival and
grow th , and he m ean t grow th in the fullest sense—
[85]
physically, m entally , an d spiritually. H e th e re
fore believed th a t a purposeful universe existed
to m ake possib le the individual's s truggle for
survival and grow th.
I t is very difficult for us to u n d ers tan d a un i
verse th a t has no m eaning . T h e re is no exp lana
tion of th e existence of the universe th a t w ould
n o t have significance or an even tua l purpose.
C. E. M. Joad said, “T h e m ost n a tu ra l expression
of th e conviction th a t the universe is ra tiona l in
th e sense o f h av ing an explanation is the v iew th a t
it was c rea ted by a m ind and had there fore a b e
g inn ing in t im e .” This is a concep t th a t the A b
solute is a form of m ind , and th a t there is a dual
expression in th e universe of w hich m a tte r is
only one. O n this basis it is q u ite obvious th a t
there can n o t necessarily be any purpose pu re ly
in a m echan ica l o r physical universe, th a t if w e
a re to seek purpose , w e are going to have to reach
ou t beyond the physical universe and its m an i
festation.
M ind is an im p o rtan t facto r in m an's life, as
w ell as in consideration of the Absolute. M ind,
w e know from personal experience, can have an ef-
[86]
feet up o n m atter . After all, it is m inds th a t b r in g
ab o u t the b u ild in g of m achines, of buildings, of all
activities th a t have b ro u g h t ab o u t the accom plish
m ents of a m odern world. I f the m ind of m an is
d irec ted in the physical w orld tow ard a purpose
ful event, canno t it also b e a na tu ra l consequence
to believe th a t a h ig h e r m ind is p lann ing the
universe and its s tru c tu re and its composition?
T h ere is also a question of need . All liv ing in
d ividuals, an d all living entities, low er on the life
scale th an m an , have ce rta in needs. These needs,
in add ition to satisfying th e physical appetites
m ay b e no th ing m ore th an try ing to gain sus
tenance, w ealth , or pow er or to achieve some spe
cific h u m a n end. H ow ever, in themselves, such
needs are n o t w o rth y goals. In the first p lace, no t
everyone can achieve them , and insofar as w ealth
is concerned, as P la to po in ted out, the w ealth of
the w orld is lim ited to a certain extent, and if any
one ind iv idual a tta ins a great dea l of it, to a cer
ta in ex ten t som eone else does n o t a tta in it.
Also, the satisfaction of physical appe tites does
not b r in g peace of m ind or satisfaction. In the a t
ta in ing of w ea lth or pow er, for example, the
[87]
process of a tta in m en t feeds on itself, so th a t r e
gardless o f h ow m uch fam e o r p o w er or w ealth
you m ay have you never th ink you have enough.
You have to con tinue w orking to a tta in more.
This ind icates the fact th a t a t ta in m en t in the
physical w orld is no t an answ er to the pu rpose of
existence on th e p a r t of th e h u m an being.
M ost intelligent individuals will agree th a t
there are im pulses w hich are n o t satisfied th rough
selfishness. W e can look ab o u t us am o n g co n
tem poraries a n d also in h istory and find m any
exam ples of those w ho have served a cause. Some
have sp en t th e ir lives do ing good for someone
else. E veryone at times has he lp ed others w hen
th ey suffered hardships. M any peop le have done
these th ings even a t a cost or an inconvenience
to themselves. H o w can w e accoun t for such ac
tion on the p a r t o f h u m an beings? T h ey cannot
b e judged by an y s tan d a rd of a physica l o r
w orldly na tu re nor can they b e judged in the sense
o f b ring ing ab o u t w orldly possessions or even
fame.
A question w o rth y of serious consideration is,
W h y should one ind iv idual he lp ano ther? W hy
188]
should some individuals, and particu larly th inking
individuals, p re fe r d u ty to living a life d ed ica ted
to p leasure? W h y should individuals sacrifice for
any th ing? T he answ er to these w h y ’s is th a t such
sacrifices are for a h igher pu rpose than m erely the
accum ulation of worldly goods. T h is considera
tion seems to im ply a pu rpose in the universe
w h ich transcends or supersedes the pu rpose of
m en fulfilling the routine of the ir daily lives.
This concept, of course, has been long tau g h t
by moralists and in religion. It is b e t te r to live
m orally uprigh t lives, to evolve ourselves th rough
the deve lopm ent of our ow n unders tand ing , and
to establish a re la tionsh ip w ith an external, abso
lu te force ra th e r than m erely accum ulating
worldly goods, w hich are transien t and w hich do
no t give p e rm an en t satisfaction, b u t lead ra th e r
to fu r th e r an d fu r the r accum ulation and effort.
T he cosmos is vast and w e are experiencing
only a p a r t of it. To a tta in the even tual purpose
m ay possibly b e beyond hum an grasp. This does
not p reven t the process of evolution from ad v an c
ing b ey o n d the limitations of physical existence.
T h e eventual purpose of the universe lies external
[89]
to the universe itself. O n ly as w e as h u m an beings
ex tend our concepts of purposefu lness b ey o n d
th e physical lim itations with w hich w e are sur
ro u n d ed are w e able to grasp a v iew w h ich is
cosmic, ra th e r th an universal or personal.
W e will never p rove or d isprove on the basis of
h u m an reason or u p o n the basis of the com ponents
o f the physical world th e n a tu re of a purposefu l
universe. W e can, how ever, w alk and live in a
life w h ich is m orally good and w hich con tribu tes
to our ow n w ell-be ing as well as th a t of o ther in
d iv iduals as w e strive to a t ta in an u n d ers tan d in g
of a p u rpose th a t m ay lie just b ey o n d our finite
grasp.
V V V
BODY, M IN D , A N D SO U L
“T he proper a ttitude to em ploy in any consideration of the basic questions is always one of h u m ility touched w ith wonder."
— D avid Elton Trueblood
U R E L Y one of the most insistent an d p ro
found questions th a t has faced th inkers
th rough all ages of m an’s history has been
w h a t has generally been classified in p h i
losophy as the m ind-body problem , the re la tion
ship th a t exists b e tw een the m ind and the body,
par ticu la rly as applied to the hum an being. T he
decisions reach ed in answ er to this basic question
reflect generally the ph ilosophy of the individual
m aking the answer.
I t m igh t be well to consider briefly the scope of
this problem as it applies to the general outlook
of philosophers, and also some of the solutions
th a t have b een advanced . I t should b e po in ted
out, how ever, th a t n one of the solutions has been
[91]
universally accep ted b y all thinkers. In fact the
question is one w hich will be discussed and con
s idered b y all those w ho th ink on the problem of
hum an behav ior as long as there are hum an b e
ings.
G enerally speaking, we accep t the principle th a t
ou r m inds an d bodies, or our m ental activ ity and
onr bod ily activity , are different, b u t yet they are
in tim ate ly re la ted . W e know th a t they b o th seem
to exist and p roduce aw areness in our conscious
ness. W h a t is the n a tu re of this re la tionship?
H o w can tw o entirely different th ings b e re la ted
to each o ther? This la t te r question has puzz led
philosophers th rough all the time th a t speculation
has b een d irec ted to the subject.
T h e com m onsense a t t i tu d e tow ard the m ind-
b o d y p roblem is th a t th e re is no particu la r m ys
tery. Since experiences are re la ted to bodily ac
tion w e be lieve th a t bodily conditions affect
m en ta l conditions. T h ere are in terrelationships
b e tw e en m ind and body. H ow those in te rre la
tionships m ig h t exist is not u n d e r consideration,
Technically , how ever, the question is raised as
to how tw o different th ings affect each other. In
[92]
m an's experience the law of cause and effect is
usually concerned w ith situations tha t have a
causal relationship. W e unders tand for exam ple
th a t energy can p roduce m ovem ent. H ea t can
p roduce chem ical changes. But w hen w e th ink of
m ind, an entire ly nonm ater ia l thing, and then
think of bo d y as no different from the com posi
tion of the rest of the m ateria l world, we ask ou r
selves how a thought, w hich has no substance and
is of a nonm ateria l nature , can react upon that
physical body to the ex ten t th a t a though t of
m ovem ent can lift an entire hum an body or cause
it to walk, run , or move. H ow are the though t and
the w eight of the body re la ted?
T h e consideration of this problem goes back
into early G reek philosophy. Anaxagoras was b e
lieved to have w rit ten on the subject, because
Socrates was influenced by the theories of Anaxa
goras w hen he discussed the subject. Actually, in
the conclusions reached by Socrates, he e s ta b
lished a trad ition w h ich has been m ore or less
generally accep ted in the W este rn w orld and is
know n as psychophysical dualism. This po in t of
view is th a t m inds an d bodies, w hile different, are
[93]
often un ited . F o r exam ple, they are un ited in the
h u m an b e in g an d definitely have re ference to
each other. T houghts , for example, can b e ac tual
causes. M ind can be th e cause of m en ta l activ ity
and physical m ovem ent.
This p o in t of v iew is accep tab le to m any indi
v iduals for th e reason th a t it is logical and it does
no t d en y the existence of the physical w orld or the
m ateria l universe. I t em phasizes, in fact, the exist
ence of a physical w orld an d of a m enta l w orld
w ork ing sm oothly in cooperation with each other.
This theory is som etim es know n as th e in te rac
tion theory offered in explanation of the problem .
I t is based up o n th e ap p a re n t fact th a t m ind and
b o d y in terac t an d reac t upon each other. T he
m ain a rg u m en t in su pport of this theory points
o u t the absurd ities if w e deny the in teraction. We
know th a t m ental ac tions do resu lt in physical ac
tions. F o r exam ple , if I a t this m om en t h ea r an
unusual noise o r explosion th a t occurs w ithou t m y
an tic ipa ting it, it will cause a physical reaction if
no th in g m ore than b e in g startled .
O bjections to this theory are based prim arily
upon m ateria lis tic concepts , such as the fact th a t
[94]
it is obvious to m ost people tha t only m atte r in
m otion can cause changes in m ateria l things.
T h erefo re the m ateria lis t w ould say th a t thoughts
canno t ac tually influence m aterial conditions.
F u rtherm ore , it is generally accep ted th a t a series
of changes th a t are p resen t in the physical world
m ake a closed circle. This m eans th a t only physi
cal energy can exist in the physical world and
m en ta l in the m en ta l world. N e ither can in ter
fere w ith the o ther. In spite of the objections to
the theory it is still one w h ich seems to be gener
ally accep ted because it is obvious in the w orking
experience of the average individual.
T h e ph ilosopher D escartes was responsible for
advancing ano ther theo ry w hich is n ow know n as
the theo ry of parallelism. This theory states th a t
along with physical processes there are sim ultane
ous m ental processes. T he re la tion b e tw e en the
series is one of concom itance and not one of in te r
action. This theory extends th e idea th a t while
there seems to b e cause and effect b e tw een m ental
and physical processes, ac tually they are two sep a
ra te processes going on a t the same time. T h e
only ad v an tag e of this pa r ticu la r theory is th a t it
[95]
moves aw ay from one of ex trem e m aterialism . At
the sam e time, it is n o t com plete ly valid.
T h e a rgum ents against this theory are m ainly
those a lready given in support of the in teraction
theory . Com m onsense ev idence seems to support
a connection b e tw een m ind an d body, and to say
th a t there are tw o parallel functions is to c reate a
n e w situation th a t is not sup p o rted by logic and
is generally un tenab le .
F u rtherm ore , w e know tha t th e m ind is inti
m ate ly re la ted to the physical b ra in structure .
A nyth ing th a t interferes w ith th e norm al fu n c
tion ing of the bra in , such as drugs, injury, o r lack
of blood supply, also interferes w ith an ind iv idual’s
m en ta l life. If the theory of parallelism was co m
pletely acceptab le , one w ould h ave to accep t th e
idea th a t even though the physical s truc tu re was
affected, the separate , parallel m ental s truc tu re
could continue to w ork separately.
A fu n d am en ta l weakness of parallelism is th a t
th e C artesian dualism upon w hich it is based rests
up o n the assertion o f com ple te separateness of
m in d an d m atte r . I t m ay b e th a t they seem to b e
sepa ra ted w hen considered from a s tandpo in t of a
[061
m echanistic universe. Actually, they could have
th e ir origin in the sam e source.
W ith the unsatisfactory solutions to the ques
tion th rough in teraction or parallelism, m any
th inkers h ave ab an d o n ed the question altogether.
T h ey simply conclude th a t th e question is a riddle.
Some have as a result suggested a hypothesis based
upon the concep t of iden tity , th a t is th a t certain
m ental processes and physical processes are one
an d the sam e thing. This la tter explanation is
know n as monism, the idea tha t there is only one
force in the universe m anifesting in different
ways. Some idealists will not b e in accord with
the theory of monism because it can so easily be
transla ted in term s of materialism . T h e m aterialist
w ho believes in monism w ould state that there is
only one reality and th a t is m atte r . C onsequently ,
this w ould elim inate th e concep t of m ind as a
separa te force altogether.
In the Rosicrucian philosophy, the concep t of
m onism is qu ite satisfactory. W e accep t the p re m
ise th a t there is one fu n d am en ta l force in the un i
verse, a creative force th a t causes all to b e and to
con tinue to function. M ind and m atte r are tw o
197]
phases of this force. W e m ight say th a t they are,
for illustration, the positive an d nega tive m ani
festa tion of th e sam e force. T he in teraction of
m ind and m a tte r in the h u m an b o d y is of no p a r
ticu lar significance, because w e are dea ling w ith
a fundam en ta l force th a t is o p era tin g in tw o differ
en t expressions.
This la t te r idea appeals to m any individuals,
even th o u g h some philosophers do not consider
it to b e a substan tia l enough theo ry needed to
cause universal acceptance. Unless w e do accep t
th e p rincip le th a t there is a universal force, h o w
ever, w e have no explanation of the existence of
m ind o r m atte r . Thus, th e re are only two a l te rn a
tives in considering our question. E ith e r the m ind
is a p a r t of the body, or it is not. If the bo d y and
m ind bo th are m anifesta tions of th e sam e source,
b o th are in terre la ted . T he h u m an en tity is an ex
pression of a universal force show ing a com bina
tion of the tw o realms, w e m igh t say, of universal
expression, th e realm of the nonm ateria l and th e
realm of th e m aterial.
Basic to this question is still ano ther factor, the
factor of the soul. M any scientists an d philoso-
[98]
phers do n o t acknow ledge the existence of the
soul. W h e th e r w e use th e w ord soul is m u ch like
w h e th e r a person w ho is an agnostic uses th e word
God. I t makes no difference w h a t w e call the life
force th a t is res iden t w ith in us. W h e n w e are
alive w e express certain a t t r ib u te s an d perform
certa in functions. T hey seem to have origin in the
m ental states, and they are expressed at a physical
level.
As I have a lready stated , the force b eh in d b o th
of these is a p a r t of a universal force. T he ind i
v idual expression of it in the h u m an en ti ty is w ha t
w e can call the soul. Soul is therefore the te rm w e
app ly to One ind iv idual expression of a universal
creative force th a t is re s iden t w ith in th e physical
body. M an is a living soul, the soul be ing resident
an d inca rnated in a m ateria l m ed ium w hich w e
call the body. I t is the sam e m ateria l as th e rest
of the physical universe w hich the b o d y inhabits.
M an therefore looks ou t upon the universe, or
at least upon the p a r t of it im m ediate ly ad jacen t
to his physical b ody , and sees the expression of th e
physical w orld ab o u t him , b u t he occupies this
body as a vehicle. I t transpor ts him. I t provides
199]
a channel b y w h ich h e can becom e aw are of his
env ironm ent, w hich is m ad e up of the physical
an d nonphysical universe.
In accordance w ith the fundam entals of Rosi
crucian philosophy, m an is a living soul. H e is
no t a body an d soul. H e is a soul th a t has a body.
T he soul is of such a n a tu re th a t it expresses itself
in the area in w hich it is a t the m o m en t existent.
T he only w ay w h ich m an as a physical b e in g can
be conscious of the soul is its expression th rough a
physical body . W e do not perceive a soul as an
iso lated entity . W e perceive it as a form of ex
pression in th e behav ior of ourselves and in the
behav io r of o ther entities similar to us.
Life and soul are therefore substantially synony
mous. T hey are considered the same, because the
soul carries the essence of life, of being itself. I t
is to th e bo d y w h a t a b a t te ry is to a flashlight, or
an eng ine to an autom obile . H ow ever, this illus
tration has to b e taken w ith certain limitations,
because th e eng ine of the au tom obile is o f the
same n a tu re as th e o th e r p a r ts o f the m echanism.
T h a t is, it is a physical com position, as is the rest
of the autom obile. To m ake th e au tom obile fulfill
[100]
a purpose and b e of any value it m ust also be di
rected b y a m ind, th e m ind of th e m an or w om an
w ho drives the autom obile, and therefore utilizes
the engine to p roduce motion.
Therefore, we m igh t say th a t the soul is a com
bination of the engine an d the mind, because it
does not need a separate m ind to d irec t it. T he
soul produces the energy and makes possible the
m ental con tact of th e individual w ho utilizes the
soul. T h e soul is not of the physical world. I t is
no t a m ater ia l essence. T he soul is therefore
transitory in this physical world. Its true hom e is
elsewhere. It exists in the universe of which the
objective m ind and the physical body have little
knowledge. Only im agination furnishes a general
concept. Since th e soul is of the na tu re of the D i
vine, which is the source from w hich it came, it is
restless. It lives in a physical body to cause the
expression of bo d y and soul, to evolve a soul p e r
sonality which in the end in some mysterious way
w e canno t fully define adds to the totality of the
experience th a t constitutes all the lives th a t have
ever existed on the physical plane.
So it is tha t m an should seek to b e t te r realize
[ 101 ]
th e value a n d im portance of the soul th a t is resi
d e n t w ith in him. H e should d irec t h im self tow ard
th e realization o f this purpose, to w ard the realiza
tion of his true p lace in th e cosmic scheme. In
this w ay h e can utilize in his physical life the a t
t r ibu tes and the gifts of body, m ind , and soul.
V V V
G O O D A N D E V IL
“Freedom of choice betw een good and evil m ust be assum ed; au tom ata cannot acquire the thing called character.’'
— D avid R. M ajor
H IL O S O P H E R S and religionists have
th ro u g h o u t tim e puzzled them selves
ab o u t the existence of evil. T h e problem
of good and evil has always existed as
long as h u m an beings h av e given serious th o u g h t
to th e ir life upon this earth . I t is p ro b ab le th a t
no explanation in term s o f finite hum an existence
will ever be forthcom ing. W e canno t explain th e
existence of good and evil to the satisfaction of
every individual and to every type of thought.
Basically, evils can be classified in tw o ways.
First, those evils th a t are due to forces of na tu re
beyond hum an control: floods, tornadoes, e a r th
quakes; conditions th a t canno t always b e antici-
f 103]
p a te d and w hich b r in g m uch harm and suffering
to individuals d irectly affected. T hen there are
th e evils th a t are d u e to causes w holly or p a r tic u
larly w ith in m an 's pow er to control. These are,
for example, bod ily ills, diseases of bo d y an d mind,
m oral ills—sins, vice, and crime. I t is the la tter
th a t is th e m ost difficult to explain because so fre
q u en tly the innocent suffer. I t is true, of course
th a t the innocent suffer from evils caused by n a t
ural forces, b u t it always seems m ore pitiful w hen
individuals w ho live good, u p righ t lives and w ho
are m ind ing their ow n affairs and n o t in terfering
w ith anyone else should suffer th e ind ignity of
c rim e th a t results in the invasion of the hum an
righ t of an ind iv idual to live his ow n life an d ends
in pain, sham e, or disgrace.
T h ere has always existed the question raised by
cynics of w h e th e r G od could no t or w ould not
keep evil ou t of the world. This question has
never b een answ ered . If G od could no t keep evil
ou t of the w orld , then H e is not om nipo ten t and
all-powerful. If H e w ould no t keep evil ou t of the
world, then those w ho are cynical w ould say th a t
G od purposely wishes to to rm en t the very mani-
[ 1 0 4 ]
festations of H im self th a t m an is supposed to be
and th a t H e created . T here is no final answ er to
this question th a t is satisfactory to everyone.
Insofar as the problem of evil is concerned, man
can make one of th ree choices. H e can ignore the
problem , he can specula te or philosophize about
it, or he can assign the entire responsibility to a
deity, a force outside himself and outside the
universe. In these th ree choices w e sum m arize
w hat m an has done concerning the p roblem of
evil.
T here are those who like to ignore any problem
w hich seems to have no p a t solution. T here are
those who continue to develop theories abou t the
problem w ith o u t really arriving a t any final con
clusion or satisfactory explanation. T hen there
are those, who, like the first group, ignore the
problem in the sense th a t they pass responsibility
som ew here else. T he la tter is a form of religious
belief upon the par t of some individuals, and con
sists of assigning to a deity all the problem s that
m an cannot solve.
Such a p ractice seems to m e to be inconsistent
w ith the concept th a t m an is a living force, and
[ 105]
th e force of th a t life m u s t h ave com e from a source
ex ternal to th e m ater ia l w orld , w hich w e can call
d ivine or b y any o ther te rm w e choose. If we are
of th a t source, th en it is p a r t of our responsibility
to try to explain the problem s w ith w hich w e m ust
cope in life. I f this la tte r concep t is true, then it
is m an ’s responsib ility to learn all the intricacies
of th e force w ith w h ich he is endow ed , ra th e r
th an d irec t problem s b ack to its source and
th e reb y a t te m p t to relieve h im self of any responsi
b ility concern ing them .
I have b ee n in terested in the p roblem of good
an d evil over a long period of time, as have m any
o th e r individuals. O bviously, as w e study a p ro b
lem th rough th e years ou r po in ts of view will
change. I believe any individual w ho has seri
ously considered th e p rob lem of good and evil, or
as far as th a t is concerned , any o ther p roblem th a t
is in tim ate ly re la ted to ou r h u m an experience on
this earth , can trac e a change of opinion an d con
cep t in re g a rd to th e problem .
I rem e m b er a t one tim e w riting ab o u t evil, and
I said som eth ing to this effect: "Evil m eans an y
th ing th a t in terferes w ith our plans, th a t m ay
[106]
cause us to abandon our hopes and aspirations or
separa te us from our m ost cherished desires, th a t
destroys w hat w e have w orked to c rea te or causes
us to suffer bodily or m enta lly .” This is possibly
one definition of evil. In fact, it is m ore of a defi
nition than it is an explanation of the problem of
good and evil. I t is a concep t of evil th a t is sub
stantially subjective. M y definition was based
upon the accep tance of a simple fact, th a t an y
th ing w hich in terferes w ith our individual plans,
wishes, an d aspirations is evil.
Such a definition is relative. It is to a degree
true, b u t it does not go far enough. M erely to d e
fine an y th in g in term s of h u m an hopes, hum an
am bitions, or personal aspirations is to take a
som ew hat egotistical poin t of v iew th a t has been
described b y m any philosophers as anthropocen-
tric, th a t is, p u t t in g m an or self in the cen ter of
the universe, accep ting those things th a t con tr ib
ute to the well-being of th a t self and a t tem p tin g to
modify, control, or ignore any th ing th a t does no t
easily and w ith o u t effort con tribu te to th a t w ell
being.
H ow ever, w e m ust no t lose sight of the fact that
[ 107]
good and evil m ust always b e considered from the
s tandpo in t of a relative position. F o r example, it
is im possible to classify all th ings as e i th e r com
p le te ly good, or com plete ly evil. W e m ay use fire
as a good illustration of this fact. F ire is useful.
I t w arm s us. It cooks ou r food. I t con tribu tes to
our well-being. In these respects it is good, b u t
th a t sam e fire can b u rn us an d cause pain, or d e
stroy ou r possessions and cause us m uch m ental
h arm as well as bodily harm . In this respect it is
evil. Therefore, w e canno t p u t a label on fire and
s ta te th a t it is good or evil. T he sam e can app ly to
w ater. W ith o u t w a te r w e canno t live. I t
q u en ch es ou r thirst. I t sustains life w ith in our
bodies, b u t it can destroy ou r p rope rty in a flood,
or w e can drow n in it if w e are com plete ly sur
rou n d ed by it. I t is therefore in one respec t good
and in an o th e r re sp ec t evil.
I f fire an d w a te r can have re la tive m eanings,
th a t is, can be good or evil d ep end ing upon h ow
the ir effect is re la ted to us, th en is it no t possible
th a t if m an could see b ey o n d the lim itations of his
ow n self and his own env ironm ent all good and
evil m ight not b e a re la tive m atte r? It is possible
[ 108]
th a t this relative n a tu re makes it so difficult for
m an to arrive at a com plete u n d ers tan d in g of the
n a tu re of good and evil, or to explain their m ean
ings and functions w ith in his life experience.
F o r m any years I have he ld ano ther theory in
regard to evil, a theory th a t proved to b e ex
trem ely controversial. W h e n I have expressed it,
I have always received m an y criticisms and ob
jections. Nevertheless, it is a theory, and since w e
are dea ling here w ith theories and individual ex
p lanations, it m ay be w orthy of consideration.
Evil, accord ing to my poin t of view, is exclusively
an a t tr ib u te of th e m ater ia l world. Every th ing
th a t is evil, or has its repercussions in evil action
and evil behavior is in one w ay or ano ther re la ted
to the m ateria l w hich composes the physical
w orld in w hich w e live.
M ore an d m ore I am inclined to accep t as a
fundam en ta l prem ise th a t evil is inheren t in m a t
ter, and th a t evil exists as an ac tuality in the
world. As long as w e are b o u n d to the physical
world, as long as w e live as inca rnated h u m a n e n
tities, w e are forced to deal w ith the solution of
th e problem of evil because it is ever-present; it
[ 109]
is ever ab o u t us w ith in the env ironm ent of w hich
w e are a p a r t.
T h e concep t o f evil b e in g re la ted to m atter, as
I h ave ind ica ted here , is den ied bo th by m ater ia l
ists an d b y idealists. T h e m ateria lis t does not
w a n t to acknow ledge th a t th e physical world,
w hich h e considers the u lt im a te reality , is evil, al
th ough m any m aterialists are unconcerned as to
th e n a tu re of th e reality up o n w h ich they h ave
agreed. T he idealist f req u en tly prefers to consider
evil as an illusion, th a t th e pu rp o se b eh in d the
universe is good, an d th a t all th a t is c rea ted is
good, an d th a t it is only m a n s lack of u n d e rs ta n d
ing th a t causes him to in te rp re t certa in m anifesta
tions as b e in g evil.
Such an idealistic concep t w ould have us believe
th a t evil is pure ly an illusion of th e senses, th a t it
is no t an ac tuality , a n d exists only to th e ex ten t
th a t w e p ro jec t it in to th e en v iro n m en t and th e
c ircum stances th a t are a p a r t of our lives. This
p o in t of v iew cou ld be carried even fu rther. To
s ta te th a t evil, then , is only a subjective p h en o m e
non, th a t evil only exists in the m in d of m an and
he projects evil into his env ironm en t by his own
[ 110]
th inking, is a ra th e r ex trem e theory. I have taken
th e s tand th a t evil is in h eren t in m atter. A nother
ex trem e says th a t evil is inheren t in the m ind and
only p ro jec ted in to m atter. Still o ther individuals,
b o th m ateria lis ts and idealists, say th a t ne ither is
an explanation of th e problem , and th a t good and
evil do no t exist except in term s of experience.
C om m on sense and a degree of accep tance of
naive realism p rev en t us from w an d erin g fa r afield
in our specula tions in reg ard to the n a tu re of good
an d evil an d to acknow ledge the fact tha t we have
to cope w ith good and evil as a problem , w h e th e r
w e like to or not. If w e accep t th e princip le th a t
th e universe is purposefu l, w e m ust concede th a t
the c rea to r of a purposefu l universe could only
h ave p u t in to operation forces lead ing to the u l t i
m a te cu lm ination of the pu rpose w ith w hich he
en d o w ed th e universe in the first place.
Since it is only logical to assign good in ten tions
to th e A bsolute a n d to His creation, th en w e w ould
conclude th a t the u lt im ate pu rpose of the universe
a n d eve ry th ing th a t is affected by it is good. In
this sense, good is re la ted to the creative forces of
the universe. T hey are res iden t w ith in the m ani-
I i l l ]
festations th a t are m ost closely re la ted to the
source from w hich the m anifesta tions came. Life,
then, w ith its d ep e n d en cy upon this creative force
is the obvious external expression of tha t force
aw ay from itself, a t least insofar as our physical
ability to perceive the connection b e tw e en them
is concerned.
O u r concep t of the world, th e env ironm ent of
w hich w e are a p a r t and in w h ich we live, is based
upon the perceptions th a t w e receive, w he the r
those perceptions b e th rough ou r physical sense
faculties o r w h e th e r w e receive them intuitively
or psychically. W e give em phasis to the physical
perceptions and th e reb y create , as it w ere, a
screen or glass th ro u g h w hich w e perceive all
else. O u r env ironm ent is colored by the screen
o f o u r ow n opinions, ou r prejudices, o u r ideas,
our hopes, an d even ou r basic philosophy. L ook
ing through, as it were, the accum ulation of ideas
th a t is ours over the period of ou r l ifetim e, w e find
a diverse an d ra th e r unorgan ized accum ulation ,
because few can say w ith absolute t ru th th a t they
have deve loped a com plete ph ilosophy o f life th a t
1 112 ]
will b e satisfactory to m eet the dem ands of all
situations w ith w hich w e m ust cope.
To say th a t evil is inheren t in m a tte r does not
necessarily imply, as one m ight at first conclude,
th a t m a t te r itself is evil. This m ay ap p ear upon
first consideration to be a p lay upon words or an
actual contradiction. T h e concept th a t keeps oc
curring to m e is th a t m ater ia l is re la ted to evil b e
cause m aterial is no t a p e rm an en t condition. Since
m aterial is transitory, o u r observations and m a
nipulations of th is m ateria l cause us to deal w ith
it w ith a lack of perspective.
If you h ad before you a soap b u b b le and a nu g
ge t of gold an d you w ere given your choice to se
lect one or the o ther as your p erm an en t possession,
your decision w ould b e obvious. But w hy w ould
you choose the p iece of gold instead of the soap
b u b b le? T he reason is e lem entary . T he soap h u b
b le is transien t in n a tu re and therefore cannot
h ave en d u r in g value. From your experience w ith
m ater ia l objects, you know th a t gold is perm anen t
in its n a tu re an d w ould continue to have value.
Your choice w ould obviously b e to select w ha t
I 1 1 3 ]
has value. Actually, b o th of these objects a re m a
teria l things. W e can carry the id ea fu r th e r by
realizing th a t in th e overall existence of th e Cos
mic, th a t is, in th e re la tionship b e tw e en th e physi
cal objects here and in e tern ity , gold is relatively
as transien t as th e soap bubble.
This brings us to th e conclusion th a t m ay help
to develop a b e t te r app roach to th e u n d e rs ta n d
ing, or a t least some d eg ree of explanation of the
p rob lem of good an d evil. All th a t is m ateria l is
transitory. All th a t is n o t m ateria l is perm anen t.
T h e physical existence of the universe is finite.
T h e existence of the crea tive force th a t caused it
to b e and m ain ta ins it is infinite. T herefore , w e
resolve our p rob lem in a deg ree to th e level of the
physical decision b e tw een the soap b u b b le an d th e
gold nugget, th a t is, b e tw e en value an d no value.
V alue lies in th e gold in our physical experience
because of the use p laced upon th a t m aterial. No
va lue lies in th e soap b u b b le , because its short
span of ex istence can n o t possibly en d u re suffi
c ien tly to h ave o th e r th an possibly transien t, aes
th e tic value.
W7e m igh t there fo re conclude th a t evil is con-
[114]
fined to the n a tu re of the finite. I t will no t en d u re
forever, w hile good is in no m an n er res tr ic ted to
the finite. In fact, good is practically synonym ous
w ith th e Infinite and has p e rm an en t and e te rnal
endurance . I t exists ab o u t us a t all times. W e can
d ra w up o n it because it is endless and has its
origin in a bottom less source. O u r choice is to use
it or ignore it.
W e m igh t say th a t good is like the wind. O u t
of the w indow I see trees. O n the trees I see
leaves th a t are in motion. T h e w ind is m oving
these leaves, b u t the m ovem ent of the leaves on
the trees does not in any w ay use the w ind to the
ex ten t of exhausting its existence or its energy.
T he w ind passes by. It continues. W h e th e r the
tree is there or not, the w ind goes on, and so it is
th a t good, like the wind, exists ab o u t us and
passes b y us a t all times. M ost of the time, b e
cause of our p rim ary in terest in our physical e n
v ironm ent, w e let it pass by. W e simply becom e
like the leaf, som eth ing th a t good flows a round
and over b u t does not consume.
M an has designed objects tha t utilize the m ove
m en t of the w ind an d from its force w e d raw
[ 115]
pow er for useful purposes. M an can also let good
go into h im b y acknow ledging th a t it is a p a r t of
the Infinite and th a t w e can perceive th rough our
psychic senses th a t force w ith w hich w e can b e
in harm ony. H arm ony and realization of inner
selves, and in tu rn of the inner s e l f s realization of
th e presence of a d ivine source, will cause us to
gain in the unders tan d in g of infinite values and in
the realization th a t good is in tim ate ly re la ted to
ou r h ighest hopes an d aspirations an d is ours upon
w hich to draw .
If the d iv ine force th a t c rea ted th e universe and
functions th rough it is good, then m an can choose
th e good. If m an has a degree of freedom of
choice, any individual can choose to b e good w hen
he could h a v e been evil. In the process of acting
the good, m an is ad d in g to th e good of the world.
As good is a d d ed to m an ’s good behavior, he is
d im inish ing the totality of evil.
G ood and evil, therefore , are problem s of h u
m an existence. T o absorb one and avoid the o th er
is one of the purposes of life. Possibly ano ther
pu rpose of life is to gain the experience to learn
ho w to use th e good and to m inim ize the evil.
[116]
Good actions, good though ts p u t us in harm ony
w ith the purposeful an d good intentions of the
C reator. O u r lot h e re as hum an beings is to try to
live in h a rm o n y w ith those forces abou t us. I t is
obvious th a t to be harm onious w ith good and to
recognize th a t evil is res tr ic ted to the m aterial
world, w hich will eventually have no m ore value,
is to realize one of the universal purposes of crea
tion.
V V V
VIII
M Y STIC ISM
"In the strictest sense, a m ystical experience in volves a unity of the m ortal consciousness with th a t of the D ivine or Cosm ic M ind for a varying period of tim e.”
— Ralph M. Lewis
N view of the fact th a t mysticism is no t a
generally p opu la r sub ject or even g en
erally u nders tood b y m any individuals,
it is necessary to exam ine this subject
first from the s tan d p o in t of definition. T h ere are
those w h o do n o t or will n o t a t te m p t to differen
tia te b e tw e en w h a t is m ystical and w h a t is
mysterious. T o m an y individuals mysticism con
sidered in the p o p u la r sense has one of two con
notations. E i th e r it is considered to b e a system
of un ique and unusual m ysteries or it is associated
w ith a devou t, o rthodox religion. I believe th a t I
m igh t b e safe in say ing—although th ere is p rob-
[ 1 1 8 ]
ably no statistical p ro o f of the s ta tem en t—th a t
n ine out of ten people w ho m ig h t be app roached
reg a rd in g th e n a tu re of mysticism w ould indicate
th a t the ir concept fell in to one or tw o of these
classifications.
In reality, mysticism does n o t need to be as
sociated w ith m ystery o ther th an to the ex ten t
tha t an y th in g unknow n obviously carries a degree
of m ystery ab o u t it. To th e person w ho knows
no th ing ab o u t mysticism, then mysticism w ould
b e considered mysterious, b u t if th a t same person
knew no th in g ab o u t astronom y or h igher m a th e
matics, these subjects too w ou ld be a m ystery, in
sofar as their techn iques an d function ing are con
cerned.
M ysticism, then, is m ysterious only to the extent
th a t the ind iv idual w ho a ttem p ts to define it m ay
lack know ledge concern ing exactly w hat it is.
T h e re is no re la tionship b e tw een m ystery and
mysticism w hen a com plete and p rope r definition
of m ysticism is know n except possibly in the simi
larity of th e words.
T he o th e r p opu la r consideration of mysticism is
to associate it w ith religion, particu larly w ith a
[ 119]
devou t or orthodox religious practice. M any of
those considered to have been mystics from a
s tandpo in t of a religious organization are p ic tu red
as b e in g recluses, individuals w ho b y certain r e
ligious s tandards w ere considered holy m en or
wom en. W e see this ev idenced in th e a r t of the
church , w here some of these individuals are d e
p ic ted w ith a halo ab o u t their h ead , or p ic tu red in
o ther s trange appearances th a t w ould im m edi
ately sepa ra te them from th e rest of hum anity .
T hese mystics w ere individuals w ho seem ed ap a rt
from th e general stream of life, an d w ho lived in
a p hase of existence outside th e norm al experi
ence of o rd inary mortals.
T hese concepts of mysticism natu ra lly em p h a
size th e d ifference in individuals ra th e r th an the
com m on ground of h u m an beings. M ystics should
n o t b e looked up o n as freaks. T hey are hum an
beings w ho have h a d certain experiences th a t m ay
n o t b e com plete ly unders tood or com plete ly ac
cessible to all individuals b u t who are o therw ise
ra tional h u m an beings.
T o p ro ceed w ith a definition of mysticism, I am
going to com m ent on tw o definitions w hich have
[120]
m uch in com m on b u t yet w hich are slightly differ
ent. T he first definition is “Mysticism is the d o c
trine th a t the know ledge of reality, tru th , or God
is a tta inab le by d irect know ledge.” T he key w ord
in this definition is the word know ledge. I t p re
supposes th a t m an has the ability to gain know l
ed g e and th a t know ledge actually exists. In the
definition, the first time the w ord know ledge is
used it refers to the fact th a t mysticism is a d o c
trine, th a t is, a m an m ad e belief. All doctrines, all
beliefs are m ade by men. T here are no divinely
established doctrines, con tra ry to some religious
teachings. T h a t m an has and can gain know ledge
is ind icated in th e definition, because it proceeds
to sta te th a t m an can a tta in know ledge of reality,
of tru th , and of G od, th ree of the h ighest concepts
w ith in the ability of m an to receive.
Such knowledge, according to this definition, is
a tta inab le by w h a t the definition calls direct
know ledge , a contrast to w h a t w e m igh t term as
hearsay know ledge, th a t is, gained from another
source. I t is upon this basis th a t I take my objec
tions to m an y estab lished religious creeds and
dogm as. Such creeds and dogm as are based upon
[121]
the princip le th a t one m an, or a g roup of m en, has
estab lished as a system of thought.
Any creed o r doc trine th a t exists consists of a
dogm a th a t w as agreed upon b y one or m ore ind i
v iduals an d estab lished as a principle. W h e n
ano the r individual accep ts the concepts w hich
constitu te the doctrine , then th a t ind iv idual is re
stric ted to the concep t of the m an or the ind iv id
uals w ho estab lished or w ro te th e creed or dogm a
or doc trine in the first place.
By ad h e rin g rigidly to an estab lished created
doc trine th e individual does no t have d irec t access
to d irec t know ledge. H is access to know ledge has
b een sim ply th e accep ting as fact or know ledge
the opinion of som eone else. T h e accep tance of
such doctrines or creeds limits ra th e r than extends
m a n ’s ability to live an d learn, because he is not
exercising his ow n m ental faculties or his inner
abilities b u t ra th e r is satisfied to accep t th e ideas
of som eone else.
In accordance w ith this definition, mysticism as
serts th a t every h u m an en tity can gain know ledge
of reality , t ru th , an d G od directly . By b e in g able
to perceive an d c o m p re h en d th e wisdom of the
[122]
Cosmic, b e in g ab le to u n d ers tan d th a t each h u
m an en ti ty is an individual segm ent of life, w hich
afte r all is a m anifesta tion of the C rea tor, w e are
able to gain know ledge th a t does not have to
com e through ano the r ind iv idual secondhand, b u t
comes in tu itively in to the m ind of the individual.
T h ere is a similarity w ith the first definition in
the following: “M ysticism is the doctrine th a t d i
rect know ledge of G od, t ru th , and the cosmic
schem e is a tta inab le th rough im m edia te intuition
or insight in a m anner differing from ordinary
sense p ercep tio n .” In this phraseology, it is em
phasized th a t mysticism can be the means by
w hich direc t know ledge of G od, t ru th , and the
cosmic schem e is atta inable .
K now ledge is the keynote again, the know ing
situation, the know ing ability of the h u m an being
and the know ing of a source b eyond the physical
world. This d irec t know ledge is a tta inable
th rough im m edia te in tu ition or insight, th a t is,
th ro u g h ou r inner aw areness, th ro u g h a process
th a t m ight be com pared w ith Ju n g ’s explanation
of the unconscious m ind. This process of know
ing, this process o f unders tand ing , differs from
1 1 2 3 ]
day-to-day sense percep tion in th a t it comes from
th e source of all know ledge instead of be in g fil
te red th rough th e physical universe first or agreed
u p o n by o th e r individuals.
M ysticism concedes th a t we live in tw o worlds,
a physical w orld an d an im m ateria l world. W e
m igh t say tha t w e live physically and psychically.
O n e of th e challenges to the h u m an being is to
re la te these tw o areas so th a t they will b e in sym
p a th y w ith each other. T h ro u g h a p rope r sym pa
th e tic re la tionsh ip b e tw een the physical and the
psychic, th e h u m an en ti ty expresses itself as a
whole. M ysticism can prov ide th e means by
w h ich the physical and the psychic can be re la ted
an d establish harm ony. I t is in fact an app ropri
a te link an d possibly the only link th a t connects
th e know ing m ind w ith the unknown.
T he mystical experience, th a t is, hav ing aw are
ness of know ledge in tu itively o r from an external,
nonphysical source, is a function o r a t t r ib u te of
th e h u m an en ti ty in th e sam e m an n er th a t the
sense faculties provide the channels by which m an
perceives th e physical w orld . T h e mystical ex
per ience therefore, if described in the b roadest
1 124]
sense of m eaning , is a sensory process, a sixth
sense, as it w ere, th a t causes m an to be able to
perceive the area w h ich is b ey o n d the range of
percep tion of the physical senses.
T h ere are a n u m b er of ways in w h ich th e m ys
tical experience can re la te m a n ’s physical and psy
chic lives. F irs t of all, the m ystical experience
provides the basis for in tu itive know ledge. I n
tuitive know ledge can b e know ledge tha t is of
equa l or even h igher value than th a t w hich is p e r
ce ived th ro u g h the physical senses. P robably only
am ong a m inority of individuals is mystical ex
perience deve loped sufficiently th a t it can be well-
known.
T h ere are those w ho have cla im ed to have
achieved this ability b u t m an y have only m ade
claims and no t been able to ac tually utilize the
ability. To b e ab le to span the g ap be tw een the
physical an d the psychic and use the intuitive
aw areness of the mind, the soul m ust b e aw akened
to th a t ability th a t it alone possesses and th a t
enables it to perceive beyond the limitations of the
physical senses. T hrough such percep tion w e are
ab le to look into the m ean ing of the physical
[ 125]
w orld and b ey o n d the physical w orld into the sig
nificance of the Cosmic. M any w ho h av e p receded
us, mystics w ho have lived in the past have h ad
glimpses of k now ledge th a t w ere no t received b y
th e m ajority of mortals.
In the lives of these individuals w e see concrete
exam ples of th e m eans of es tab lish ing a re la tion
ship or link th a t re la tes the h u m an b e in g to a con
d ition d ifferent from physical sense percep tion
itself. In b e h o ld in g a scene of great b eau ty , such
as a sunset, o r see ing th e innocent w onder in the
eyes o f a child , o r in the observation of an ac t of
self-sacrifice w e experience th a t in addition to th e
physical percep tion of these events w e are also
affected or inw ard ly m oved by the experience
th a t accom panies such a percep tion .
I f we try to express a f te rw a rd w h y w e h ad such
feelings, it is p robab le th a t all w e can say is th a t
w e perce ived a glim pse o f som eth ing bey o n d an d
in add ition to th e physical sensation itself, th a t a
force ex ternal a n d accom panying th e physical
even t m ad e an im pression upon ou r conscious
ness. This is an experience similar to in tu itive
percep tion . W e gain a d eg ree of know ledge
[ 126]
th ro u g h ou r inner sense of percep tion th ro u g h
th a t connection of our life w ith the source of life.
This sensation or additional feeling th a t accom
panies physical percep tion is in add ition to the
physical pe rcep tion itself.
T h e in tu itive level of ou r percep tion pene tra tes
b eyond the ou ter experience of the physical o rder
of the universe. Such insights in themselves are
not uncom m on experiences. It is w ithin the ability
of each individual to develop the techniques th a t
will pe rm it him to func tion even further. T h e
m ost p rofound m om ents o f mystical experience are
lim ited in com parison w ith the vast scope of the
Cosm ic from w hich such in tu itive urges arise.
This idea was expressed in the words of Job,
“These are b u t fringes of H is ways. H ow small a
w hisper do we hea r of th em .” Until w e h ave the
com petence to perceive the A bsolute itself, w e
will be unab le to realize the vast extent of exist
ence th a t transcends th e physical world.
T h e second w ay in w h ich the m ystical experi
ence can serve as a link be tw een the physical and
th e psychic is th a t it recognizes the fact th a t tw o
orders of b e in g exist. M an is no t alone. H e is n o t
1127]
independen t. H e is a physical en tity , b u t as a soul
he is re la ted to all o ther souls th rough th e source
o f life. As long as m an lives here on ea rth , he func
tions as body and soul and m ust coord ina te those
tw o orders of b e in g into a harm onious balance if
he is to exist to his m axim um capacity .
T h a t there is a physical a n d a m enta l w orld I
h ave already m entioned , b u t these worlds of
w hich w e are a part, this w orld or env ironm ent
w h ich is of a physical n a tu re an d in w hich I live
and have m y m enta l concepts are tw o very m inute
segm ents of all existence. W e m ust realize th a t
the physical w orld in w h ich we live an d our p r i
vate m en ta l w orld are tw o small m anifestations
of tw o g rea t realm s of be in g w hich w ere orda ined
b y our C rea to r to be the total m anifesta tion of the
Cosmic. W e m ust learn to ad just ourselves to
b o th these orders of being if w e are to live a b a l
anced life.
T h e th ird w ay in w hich the m ystical experience
functions as a link be tw een the physical and the
psychic is to give recognition to the value and d ig
n ity o f the individual. T he ind iv idual soul-expres-
sion of the h u m an en ti ty is a p a r t of the Absolute,
[128]
a segm ent of the Divine. To deprec ia te this fact,
as some political theories w ould do and th ink of
life only as a conglom erate group of individuals
function ing for the benefit of the whole, is to d e
g rade the Divine. T he Divine, in all its m anifesta
tions, should b e considered to b e of m ore value
than the com posite force th a t a group of lives can
form jointly. T he sta te th a t a ttem pts to b end the
will of the individual to the purpose of the state
and to d eny the evolutionary g row th of the ind i
v idual is runn ing coun te r to the divine purpose of
the universe. T he divine purpose in its basic es
sence tends tow ard th e evolvem ent of each seg
m en t of life as found individually expressed in the
hum an being , so that this segm ent of life m ay re
tu rn to the level of the divinity from w hich it
sprang.
T h e fourth w ay in w hich the mystical experi
ence functions is to bring to the objective con
sciousness of m an the aw areness that the soul is
an equal p a r tn e r of our existence, its origin be ing
in the Divine and its n a tu re being that of the A b
solute. T h e soul is the po in t of contact w ith the
psychic world into which our physical senses can-
[129]
n o t pene tra te . T he m ystical experience serves as
a link b e tw e en th e physical an d th e psychic b y
giving m ore m ean in g to the soul, its origin, natu re ,
a n d re la tionsh ip w ith the Cosmic.
T he fifth w ay in w hich the m ystical experience
links the psychic an d the physical is in th e n a tu re
of th e m ystical experience itself. T his experience
is a process of perception . W e m ay w onder h y th e
free use of th e term inology just w h a t the term
m ystical experience m eans. I be lieve it canno t b e
b e t te r desc ribed than this co n cep t of b e in g a link
b e tw een th e tw o extrem es o r tw o orders of be ing
w ith w h ich m an is concerned.
T he m ost p ro found experience in w hich the
h u m a n b e in g can partic ipa te , w h ich brings him
an overw helm ing sense of co n tac t a t w h a t is u lt i
m ately an d fundam en ta lly real is the process of
th e m ystical experience. T h e em otional over
tones th a t accom pany such experiences are ex
pressed b y mystics w ho h av e w ri t ten in the past
b y such w ords as bliss, harm ony, joy, and perfec
tion. This concep t causes th e divisions w hich p ro
d u c e a sense of a separa te self as an ind iv idual
en ti ty to vanish o r cease to be. Consciousness is
[ 130]
greatly expanded . As a result, the self becom es
a p a r tic ip an t in the h igher levels of being and
existence. Such experiences can b e accom panied
by an infusion of know ledge w hich w e m igh t call
an in tellectual illum ination. In such an experi
ence there is a clearer aw areness on the p ar t of
the p a r tic ip an t in the vast p lan and pu rpose of the
cosmic schem e and a fuller realization of the fun
d am en ta l t ru th s of existence.
Such an experience con tribu tes to an evolution
ary process in th e sense th a t the soul is m oving
to w ard a n ew recognition of its source or a r e
union w ith the A bsolute from w hich it came.
P robab ly only a few in all of h istory have becom e
m asters, th a t is, have reach ed th e s ta te of p e r
m a n e n t illum ination, b u t to those individuals il
lum ination becom es a p a r t of their experience. I t
is w ith th em at all times, the sense of self becomes
su b o rd in a ted to the n a tu re of their unders tand ing
a g rea te r world, th a t is, a w orld of bo th physical
env ironm ent an d of a psychic nature .
U n d e r such c ircum stances the inner self or soul,
as far as w e u n d ers tan d it, will no longer be strictly
res tr ic ted to a physical level b u t will gain a full,
[ 1 3 1 ]
conscious aw areness of being as th e cen ter of cos
mic purpose . Ind iv iduals w ho have h ad such ex
periences have som eth ing even b ey o n d illum ina
tion, th a t is, an experience w hich is com pelling in
its w o n d e r and is felt as a condition th a t belongs
to h u m an n a tu re b u t has seldom been realized.
In the experience of most individuals w ho have
a tta in ed any deg ree of such experience or of il
lum ination, they have im m ediately experienced
th a t nostalgic feeling o f re tu rn in g hom e, re tu rn
ing to the p lace w here they feel they should have
rem ained all th e time. This is one of the criteria
o f m ystical experience.
W e can gain some com parison w ith the mystical
experience th rough the aesthe tic experience. T he
concep t of b eau ty causes any ind iv idual to have
em otions or feelings th a t extend b eyond the per
cep tion of a g rea t pain ting , a w ork of art or a
beau tifu l sunset. These overtones, as it were, are
indications of the ability of our m inds to receive
in tu itive impressions w hich are transferred to us,
as it were, th ro u g h the m edium of the soul.
V V V
IM M O R T A L IT Y
"H e giveth his heloved sleep.” — The Bible (Psalm s 127-2 )
T is almost im passib le to discuss intelli
gently the problem s of im m ortality b e
cause so m an y beliefs, opinions, and
prejudices have existed for so long that
everyone has p robab ly arrived a t his own opinion
of the subject. I t is certain , how ever, that the sub
ject of im m ortality canno t be app roached w ithout
giving a t least some consideration to the fact of
life.
Life can b e d iv ided into th ree parts, b irth , m a
turity , an d dea th . After b ir th the living entity
goes th rough a m atu ring process, and just as ce r
ta in as th a t individual was born , equally certain is
th e fact th a t the m atu rin g process will end in
w h a t w e know as dea th . In fact the living being
on earth , be it hum an , animal, or vegetab le begins
[ 133]
to d ie w hen it is born. W e m igh t say th a t dea th
is a fact of life.
Since m an has faced this fact th rough history,
h e has b u i l t u p all k inds o f theories ab o u t it. In
religion an d in philosophy there has been an a t
te m p t to explain this life process, to m ake some
explanation of h ow it begins and h o w it ends, and
if an y th in g p recedes its b eg in n in g or follows th e
en d in g o f this physical existence. Superstition
gave w ay to religious doctrine and gradually a
great deal of trad it ion has b een accum ula ted in
hu m an th o u g h t to prov ide various explanations of
the process. T h e process, of course, is m ost con
cerned w ith im m ortality , th a t is, w h a t follows
dea th , b u t first th e re is one th ing th a t every in
te lligent ind iv idual should consider. T h a t is the
realization th a t dea th is norm al an d inevitable. I t
is no t som eth ing to b e feared.
T h e fear of d ea th has grown in h u m an th ink
ing because of th e in d iv id u a ls desire to ho ld on to
m ater ia l possessions as well as to m ain ta in asso
ciation w ith those w hom they love. F u rth e r , there
is th e m istaken im pression th a t d ea th is painful.
Illness, accident, an y harm to the physical body
I 1 3 4 ]
m ay b e painful, b u t in ac tua lity d ea th is a release
from this pain, not an exaggeration of it.
In this respec t I w ould like to quo te a s ta tem en t
by R. V. C. Bodley: “ In w hatever w ay d ea th
comes, it need not b e feared or allowed to becom e
a source of worry. I t should b e though t of as a
fr iend w ho approaches w ith com forting relief to
sm ooth o u t our cares and take aw ay our pains and
infirmities. D ea th alone can d raw restful curta ins
over o u r tired eyes an d set us free to find th a t
peace w h ich passes all unders tand ing . In the a t
ta in m en t of serenity d ea th is the climax and the
greater th e tranqu ili ty of m ind the easier the d e
p a r tu re will be .”
F rom a physical s tan d p o in t an d from the s tan d
poin t of objectiveness th e re is no generally ac
ce p ted p roof of im m orta lity th a t can be proven
in a w ay th a t is accep tab le to all individuals. I
shall no t a t te m p t to analyze those claims of ind i
viduals who sta te th a t th ey have in one w ay or
an o th e r h ad com m unica tion w ith those w ho have
passed o u t of life in to im m ortality , as w e generally
conceive it. Those individuals have the ir ow n in
te rp re ta tions and are usually b ased upon th e ir
1 1 3 5 ]
ow n convictions th a t do no t lend them selves to
proof, insofar as o ther individuals are concerned.
If for exam ple you h ave h ad an experience that
leads you to believe th a t you have co n tac ted an
individual w ho has d ied , or, as the Rosicrucians
say, has passed th rough transition, an d th a t belief
an d conviction brings you peace and satisfaction,
th e n th a t is your experience. I t is your realization,
b u t you cannot share it w ith m e, because it is not
m y experience. A secondhand experience will
h ave little benefit as far as I am concerned.
W h a t w e m ust constan tly keep in m ind is the
fact th a t to those w ho believe in a teleological u n i
verse, w ho believe in th e existence of an abso lu te
force th a t p recedes an d follows th e creation of
th e universe and its purposes, th a t w h a t w e are
here as living beings are physical beings, an d th a t
physical phase of ou r existence is no t associated
w ith im mortality . P la to said, “T h e seen is th e
changing , th e un seen is th e u n chang ing .” In this
I in te rp re t his m ean ing th a t the ideals of a na tu re
h ig h er th an an y th in g associa ted w ith ou r m ateria l
existence rem ains w hile w h a t w e can perceive
w ith our physical sense, w h a t he refers to as th e
[ 136]
seen, is transient. I t is the transien t tha t dies. I t
is the unseen th a t shares immortality.
If it w ere possible to assemhle all the lite ra ture
tha t has been ga thered on the subject of im m or
tality, w e w ould have m any, m an y ideas, b u t I
share a view w ith Jam es M artineau, w ho said,
“W e do no t believe in im m ortality because w e
h av e p roved it b u t w e forever try to prove it b e
cause w e believe it.”
Almost every individual, regardless of the lite ra
ture and inform ation th a t has been assembled on
the subject of im m ortality , actually believes in the
privacy of his own though ts th a t there is som e
th ing m ore p e rm a n en t than physical existence,
and th a t some ty p e of survival will continue after
th e physical body no longer functions.
W hile it is t ru e th a t w e h ave no objective proofs
of im mortality, as I h av e already stated, it is also
tru e th a t w e have no objective proofs th a t anyone
w ho has passed th rough transition has suffered
from it. In o ther words, the millions and millions
of individuals w ho have lived th roughou t all time
an d have physically died h ave never to our know l
edge reg is te red a com plaint of any kind. I t m ust
1137]
b e a w ay th a t is in accordance w ith na tu re and
one w h ich w e will no t seek b u t w hich w e can
an tic ipa te as be in g a cu lm ination of our existence.
T h e one k ind of im m orta lity th a t each ind iv id
ual seeks is a personal survival. W h e th e r there is
such a th ing o r n o t w e do no t know. Some ind i
viduals believe th a t im m orta lity is the rem em
b ra n ce of w h a t w e have accom plished th a t m ight
b e w orthw hile d u r in g ou r lifetime. O thers b e
lieve th a t the life force w ith in us, w hich w e call
soul, is some w ay absorbed into the Absolute, and
th a t th e ind iv idual e n t i ty m ay no longer exist. W e
do no t k n o w w hich of these is true, b u t w ith the
s ta tem en t b y M artineau , the average individual
d ee p dow n in him self carries a con tinu ing hope
th a t im m orta lity will b e individual, th a t the p e r
sonality w hich w e have developed will in some
w ay b e associated th ro u g h e te rn ity w ith the soul,
an d it will con tinue to have an expression of its
own.
T h e hope for im m orta lity on th e p a r t o f m an
has n o t always been su p p o rted by the h ighest of
motives. I t has som etim es b e e n a pu re ly selfish
desire to p e rp e tu a te oneself, or in some cases to
I 1381
p e rp e tu a te one's p roperty , possessions, or p leas
ure. In o ther cases, this hope for im m ortality has
been a p a th e tic hope. M any religious doctrines
have em phasized in the ir beliefs and have a p
pealed to all w ho m ay have suffered or have been
p ersecu ted the princip le th a t life, a f te r all, is no t
w h a t it seems to be.
This belief is ingrained in the m ind of all those
w ho m ay b e u n fo r tu n a te or living u n d er stress of
some kind. T h e appeal he ld ou t by such a d o c
trine is th a t there is a b e t te r life than th a t w hich
w e now live. This o ther life will give us, as it
w ere, a chance to get even. T h e ideal is held out
to those w ho suffer th a t the time will come w hen
such suffering will be no more, w hen those w ho
are now rich m ay be poor, an d those poor m ay be
rich. Those w ho now suffer will be free from
pain, and those w ho are now free from pain m ay
th en b e caused to suffer in o rd e r to b a lan ce out
the ir freedom from suffering as a physical entity.
This is the fundam en ta l doctrine up o n w hich
th e belief of heaven and hell is based . T hese con
cepts g rew ou t of the prim itive religions and w ere
gradually incorporated into the th inking of hum an
[139]
beings in various places. This th o u g h t is never
theless based upon a fundam en ta l princip le th a t
life is a continuous en ti ty th a t w ould a t one time
arrive a t its u ltim ate purpose an d its u n d e rs ta n d
ing of all things, an d at the sam e tim e find its r e
w ard or its pun ishm ent.
T his concep t of im m ortality , how ever, is so
lim ited th a t it causes us to restric t our w hole con
ce p t of th e A bsolute an d th e Cosmic. I t is not
w ith in the ability of m an to conceive or describe
those phases of im m orta lity of w hich w e are no t
p resen tly conscious. Im m orta li ty is a condition
th a t lies com plete ly b ey o n d us. W e ca n n o t d e
scribe it because w e are no t aw are of it. W e do
not know, for it is impossible to define an un
know n. You cannot describe to me, for example,
som eth ing w ith w hich you are not familiar. W h a t
is unknow n canno t b e expressed in w ords or p u t
in to any kind of objective m anifestation. T h e re
fore, a n a t te m p t to describe an experience th a t
has no t previously existed in consciousness, th a t
has no t com e into a sta te of objective realization is
impossible w hile w e are living, physical entities.
Therefore, a concep t of im m ortality consisting of
[ 140]
exactly w h a t it is and h o w it functions lies beyond
the grasp of h u m an consciousness. Nevertheless,
there does seem to be some evidence th a t life is a
continuity and I believe th a t continuity is eternal.
O ne very im portan t factor w hich we do not take
in to consideration, if w e consider a personal im
m ortality , is the fact th a t time and space are
physical concepts. T im e an d space apply only to
th e m ateria l world. I t is impossible for us to con
ceive of a condition w here neither time nor space
w ould have physical existence an d therefore not
be a part of our environm ent.
I t is up o n this basis th a t I have often th o u g h t
th a t if there is a personal im m ortality , th en those
w ho have passed on from this life are living in a
s ta te w here th ey no longer are concerned about
time or space, and since tim e is nonexistent o u t
side the physical w orld they w ould not b e in a
position of try ing to con tact those w ho are still
living because for th em there would b e no pause,
no b reak in existence or contact w ith those w ith
w hom they have b een associated as physical b e
ings. ^
M any times th e te rm “the silver th rea d ,” has
[ 141 ]
been used sym bolically as b e in g the connection
b e tw e en the A bsolute and the spark of life th a t is
w ith in us. W h e th e r o r no t it is based upon evi
dence or t ru th is n o t im portan t. Symbolically,
the silver th read can b e considered to b e the evi
dence o r th e descrip tion o f th e link b e tw e e n the
A bsolute and the ind iv idual m anifesta tions of life
w hich w e observe in the physical world.
I f w e v isualize o r conceive of th e original source
of all force a n d energy as b e in g ano ther world in
w hich th e origin of this force resides, th en w e can
also conceive th a t ou t of th e Cosmic, w h ich is a
com posite te rm app lied to th e source of energy , is
th e po in t a t w hich the symbolic silver th read has
its origin. N ot only does this th read symbolically
have its origin, b u t it is th e channel b y w hich the
soul receives its nourishm en t and is m ain ta ined .
F rom this cosmic un ity o r cen te r there spring
these th rea d s th a t reach o u t to ind iv idual m ani
festations of life, an d th ere a t the term ination of
these th read s is the m anifesta tion of life as w e
are conscious o f it and as w e perceive it in physi
cal form.
W e can also conceive of th e silver th read as be-
[ 1 4 2 ]
ing th e th re a d of existence w hich even tually r e
tu rns to its source in an o th e r world, the storehouse
of all energy an d all force. E ach personality m ay
have a function , just as ind iv idual parts have fu n c
tions in a physical apparatus . T h e individual soul
th en m ay play a p ar t in a cosmic dram a.
Away from th e physical p lan e of w hich w e are
conscious n ow is the tru e h o m e of the soul. T h e
soul’s residence outside the im m ateria l w orld is
tem porary . Those w ho have tr ied to prove im
m ortality or the existence of life afte r transition b y
using as a s tandard the ju d g m en t of m an’s con
scious aw areness on a physical p lane are trying to
carry over into a nonm ateria l area a function th a t
m ay not equally app ly to b o th areas. T he m an i
festations of life th a t are passed over into this
h ig h e r p lane are different in the sense th a t they
no longer are prim arily entities in the sense th a t
w e consider a physical en tity com pletely isolated
insofar as be ing connected w ith o ther entities.
I am conv inced tha t if individual consciousness
in any sense of the w ord rem ains in this o ther life,
these souls th a t now dwell in ano ther p lane are
involved in functions of w hich w e can have no
[143]
concept. Therefore, if w e expect those souls to
m ake them selves know n to ou r consciousness,
w e m ay be de lu d in g ourselves, because w e are
no t tak ing in to full consideration the transitory,
tem pora ry n a tu re of this physical world in which
th e soul manifests in th e m edium of a body for a
lim ited time.
As a tem porary p lace of being , we can realize
th a t once w e have been re leased from our m ateria l
limitations, our a tten tion and concern will be d i
rec ted aw ay from the physical universe, an d w e
will no t be using w h a t w e m igh t describe on a
physical p lane as valuable time for th e purpose of
dea ling w ith a p lane from ano ther level to which
w e have escaped or evolved or advanced into
h igher processes.
O f all the theories in regard to im mortality , the
one w hich seems to be the most logical, a lthough,
like all o th e r theories cannot be p roven objec
tively, is the th eo ry of re incarnation. This is not
the time or the p lace to go into a s tudy of the
sub ject of re incarna tion , as it has b een done m ore
thorough ly in m an y o ther places.
In the book, Mansions of the Soul, Dr. H. Spen-
[ 144 J
cer Lew is outlines the theo ry th a t the soul is an
evolving entity , th a t over a period of time g ra d u
ally develops a m ore com plete soul personality
th a t a t some fu tu re time finds residence w ith the
Absolute. D u rin g its evolvem ent it is incarnated
in one physical b o d y af te r another. Exactly how
long this process lasts and exactly the na tu re of
th e full end to b e a tta ined is b eyond h u m an com
prehension, b u t there have b een indications of
individuals w ho have h ad m emories of situations
and conditions th a t seem to be inexplicable except
on the basis th a t they m ay have lived a t the time
w hen the experience took place.
F urtherm ore , w h e th e r or no t w e can p rove the
theo ry of re incarnation , it is a reassuring theory.
I t is a theory th a t accounts for the relatively short
t im e of physical life. I t also accounts for the fact
th a t the h u m an en ti ty has to have m any kinds of
experiences, some pleasant and some unp leasan t,
b u t th a t afte r a series of reincarnations, it m ay
reach a p lace w here all these experiences will be
p u t together in one w hole and th e reb y realized as
having b een a co n tr ib u tin g factor to a develop
m en t w hich now w e cannot see.
[ 1 4 5 ]
T h ere are, of course, o th e r theories o f im m or
tality , and each ind iv idua l will have to arrive a t
one th a t conform s to his o w n philosophy of life
and his ow n convictions, because all w e know is
th a t w e are a liv ing en ti ty an d th a t ou r obligation
in life is to express th a t en tity as a grow ing p e r
sonality as best w e can. If w e do th a t , then w e
will com e to the realization th a t im m ortality , con
trary to general opinion is no t a fu tu re sta te b u t
is the s ta te of life, th a t w e live in a s ta te of im
m orta li ty th ro u g h all time.
As a conclud ing th o u g h t regard ing im m ortality ,
it is in teresting to rem e m b er th a t m an has m any
physical appe tite s an d desires. M an lives insofar
as his physical existence is concerned on a level of
satisfying those physical appe tites w hich are a
p a r t of his nature . M an desires to fulfill any a p p e
tite th a t seeks fulfillment, and it is in teres ting to
observe th a t w ith in h is experience there are m eans
or w ays of fu lfillm ent for p ractically every desire.
M an can satisfy h is appetites. H e can strive to
fulfil] a desire th a t drives h im tow ard fulfillment.
H e m a y n o t reach com ple te satisfaction in his
lifetim e, b u t h e can work tow ard such fulfillment.
[ 146]
W h a t I am try ing to em phasize is th a t there
seems to b e even in th e lim itations of the physical
w orld a m eans of fulfillment for the desires and
appe tites th a t m an has. Since m an seems also to
have a desire for im m ortality , m ight w e no t follow
this logic in believ ing th a t since there are m eans
of fulfillment of o th er desires, there m ust also be
a m eans of fulfillment of this desire? It w ould
seem con trad ic to ry th a t m an w ould b e able
th rough his ow n efforts an d striv ing to fulfill his
physical appe tites and ye t carry th rough life a
s trong desire for im m orta lity w h ich w ould have
no m eans of fulfillment.
I will b e the first to acknow ledge th a t this ce r
tainly is not p roof of im m ortality , b u t it is an ind i
cation th a t m an seems to b e eq u ip p ed or c rea ted
w ith th e m eans of fulfilling th a t w hich h e really
has to fulfill. F u rtherm ore , in connection w ith
these thoughts, it w ould seem to m ake good sense
fo r m an to h o p e for im mortality . In h o p in g th a t
there is an im m ortality , there is no th ing to lose.
This h ope of m an gives life a ce rta in quali ty and
a fuller m ean ing than it w ould h av e w ithou t th a t
hope.
T o g eth e r w ith the quality and m ean ing th a t the
h ope inspires, m an is able to develop a perspective
w hich makes life seem b e t te r and also seem to
h ave m ore m eaning . E ven if w e as individuals
are in error an d there is no im m ortality , if th e re is
no fu tu re beyond a physical life; in o ther words
if w e are w rong in our conclusions and our beliefs,
w e are still ahead because of the satisfaction th a t
is b ro u g h t to us in ca rry ing this hope. If we are
right, if e te rnal life lies ahead , in our fu tu re is ful
fillment g rea te r than any a tta in e d in fulfilling a
physical desire.
V V V
X
R O S IC R U C IA N P H IL O S O P H Y
“A true Rosicrucian usually becomes a walking question m ark and gradually begins to analyze all past knowledge and bek'ef.”
— H. Spencer Lewis
T is true th a t the one purpose of being a
Rosicrucian is to seek know ledge and
w ays to use th a t know ledge for the b e t te r
m en t of oneself and of hum anity . H o w
ever, there is no one system of th o u g h t that can
be classified technically and strictly under the
te rm Rosicrucian philosophy. W h a t I have a t
tem p te d to ou tline in these chapters has been
some of the foundations of th o u g h t upon w hich
Rosicrucian know ledge is based , b u t ultim ately
and finally, the Rosicrucian philosophy is the p h i
losophy th a t the sincere individual evolves th ro u g h
his study of the Rosicrucian teachings.
I t is im portan t to em phasize th a t an individual
[ 149]
ph ilosophy is deve loped by the person w ho studies
th e Rosicrucian teachings an d th e principles th a t
underlie these teachings. I t is no t necessary for
th a t ind iv idual to have a com ple te grasp o f all the
philosophies th a t m an has evolved th ro u g h h is
tory, b u t ra th e r to be able to b r in g to g e th er in his
consciousness an expression of a know ledge th a t
leads the ind iv idual to w ard th e evolving of his
ow n a t tr ib u te s an d abilities.
D r. W illiam H. H alverson has w ritten , “O f all
the e lem ents th a t p lay a ro le in d e te rm in ing th e
affairs of m en, none are so persuasive or so far-
reach ing in th e ir influence as th e ideas to w hich
m en subscribe .” Dr. H alverson proceeds fu r th e r
to state , “Philosophy is m a n ’s q u es t for th e u n ity
o f know ledge .”
These ideas are consis ten t w ith th e s ta tem en t
of Dr. H . Spencer L ew is th a t the Rosicrucian is a
w a lk ing ques tion m ark, th a t h e analyzes every
p iece of in form ation a n d every experience in OTder
to de te rm ine the usefulness of th a t inform ation or
experience insofar as his o w n life is concerned ,
par ticu la rly w ith reg ard to his ow n developm ent,
m entally , spiritually, psychically, an d physically.
[ 150]
If m an has the ability to question, th en he is
able to realize th e t ru th th a t the m ost im p o rtan t
influences in his life are th e ideas to w hich m en
subscribe. M an will reflect his ideas. This has
b een s ta ted so m an y w ays on so m any occasions
th a t it should be an obvious fact. As som eone has
said, "I am a p a r t of ev e ry th ing I have ever m et.”
In o th er words, he ind ica ted one’s to tal environ
m en t was som eth ing th a t goes into the com posite
w hole th a t becom es the expression of his person
ality.
A m ong the m any purposes of life, there is a
need for m an to have ideas to u p ho ld an d to seek
a un ity of know ledge th a t will m ake these ideas
purposeful. H u m an endeavor should b e d irec ted
to w ard a goal th a t will m ake it possible for m an
to re la te himself in tim ate ly w ith all the existing
forces th a t exist in the en tire universe. T h e un i
verse is an extension of th e source th a t caused it
to be. This is particu la rly stressed in th e concep t
of pan the ism , w h ich we have discussed in earlier
chapters. As such, m an is a p a r t, then , of th e ex
pression of the force th a t has b ro u g h t ab o u t his
creation, has b ro u g h t ab o u t the basis of his ex-
[ 1 5 1 ]
pres.sion. W hile m an canno t sum m arize or define
on the basis of m athem atica l certa in ty the purpose
of life, it still m ust b e to be a w alk ing question
mark, to concern himself ab o u t the universe of
w hich he is a part, and to develop ideas to w hich
h e can subscribe th a t will be suitable to upho ld
him in his joum ey th rough life.
Such was th e message of P la to in try ing to po in t
m an ’s w ay in an area of ideas th a t superseded the
m ateria l world. Such is the concep t o f try ing to
deve lop a un ity of know ledge th a t will w eave to
ge ther, as it w ere, the th reads of individual pieces
of know ledge into a p a t te rn th a t will provide an
all-over expression of life.
In the p reced in g chapters , we m igh t consider
the various topics th a t m ay be re ferred to as indi
v idual th reads of ou r to ta l experience. W e have
considered the h idden , th e occult. W e have con
sidered th a t there are areas of physical an d he-
yond the physical. O th e r subjects h ave b een the
na tu re o f know ledge, th e Absolute, purpose , cer
tain a ttr ib u tes of m an an d his experiences in dea l
ing w ith the w orld and th e fact th a t h e faces b o th
the areas th a t are conducive to his g row th and
1 15 2 ]
those w hich th w art his purpose. T h en w e have
considered mysticism and im m ortality as im por
tan t subjects in the experience of m an ’s grow th .
E ach of these th reads, w hile seem ing separate,
should be considered to be no t isolated subjects,
not separate disciplines of m an ’s though t, b u t a
continuous process th a t m ust b e b ro u g h t toge ther
and the filaments of each th read w oven into a
tapestry tha t will cover us, as it were, in such a
m anner th a t it will becom e a unity of know ledge
w ith w h ich m an can develop himself and strive
tow ard the infinite from w hich h e sprang.
T h e Rosicrucian philosophy, then, is a com bi
nation of all sources of know ledge, those know n
an d those unknow n. As long as the hum an being
expresses himself in a physical body , as a physical
e lem ent, he will strive to reach out and p u t to
g e th e r these individual portions of knowledge,
try ing to develop a p a t te rn w hich will m ake life
for him m ore und ers tan d ab le , m ore useful, and
m ore purposeful. This will be the foundations of
Rosicrucian know ledge and upon these fo u n d a
tions can b e built a philosophy of life, a Rosicru
cian philosophy.
T here is more, how ever, to the Rosicrucian p h i
losophy th an m ere speculation. T h e re are m any
fine philosophical and religious concepts th a t have
b een deve loped th ro u g h o u t m an ’s h istory of
th o ugh t, b u t m ore im p o rtan t in a sense th an the
hasis of a philosophy is th e use of this philosophy.
In this respect, the Rosicrucians believe th a t the
Rosicrucian philosophy is u n iq u e because the
Rosicrucian teachings p rov ide th e d irec tion and
the exercises necessary to m ake p rac tica l m an y of
these concepts, so th a t m an m ay apply them to his
life an d utilize ideas no t m ere ly as a hypothetica l
concep t floating above him an d b ey o n d his reach,
b u t as the basis of a true philosophy of life tha t
is p rac tica l and th a t functions in his daily co n d u c t
an d becom es a p a r t of his behav io r pattern . M ore
im portan t than all th e h ighes t aspirations th a t can
b e expressed in philosophical or even religious
concepts is the ability of m an to take these ideas
and p u t them into p ractical use and application.
T h a t is the m essage of the Rosicrucian teachings.
O f w h a t value, then , w e m igh t ask, w ould be
th e d ev e lo p m en t of a ph ilosophy of life? I t m ay
help us if w e conscientiously use a ph ilosophy in
[ 154]
w hich w e have developed convictions to m ee t th e
obstacles of daily existence. T here is a ten d en cy
for all of us to overdo the em phasis up o n obstacles
in life th a t really have no significance. W e con
cern ourselves over m any grievances. W e tend to
exaggerate words and gestures th a t w e th ink r e
la te to ourselves. W e have a tendency to glorify
those things in w hich we believe. T he objects of
our affections are sometimes overly em phasized
in the efforts w e m ake to express our concern, and
yet w e perm it our spirit to d rop to the lowest ebb
the m o m en t an y th in g goes wrong, frequen tly
b lam ing som eone else or conditions exterior to
ourselves for w h a t is our own fault, and for our re
fusal to look b eyond the m ateria l level of our
existence.
W e dep en d too m u ch upon others to su pport us,
to give us praise, to express their opinions. In th a t
respect, w e frequen tly live a life expressing in
to lerance of everyone except ourselves w hen we
should b e looking within.
G eorge San tyana said, “M an is not m ade to u n
ders tan d life b u t to live it.” As I have frequen tly
s ta ted in these pages, w hile no philosophy m ay
[ 155]
give the u lt im ate answ er to the questions th a t
m an has asked to th e perenn ial p roblem s of p h i
losophy, the inqu iring m ental process can teach
m a n to live. H e m ay u n d ers tan d only in degree
b u t to the ex ten t th a t he understands, he can
apply , an d h e can live to the fullest ex ten t of his
potentialities. T h a t is th e true challenge of life.
This, in sum m ary, means th a t Rosicrucian p h i
losophy is a ph ilosophy of life, th e philosophy o f
life th a t the intelligent ind iv idual develops
th ro u g h his ow n study, con tem pla tion , and m ed i
tation. This is well il lustra ted in th e fact th a t no
tw o Rosicrucians subscribe in deta il to a fu n d a
m en ta l creed o r belief o r dogm a, such as has fre
q u en tly b een expressed in religion.
I kn o w th a t I disagree w ith some o ther Rosi
crucians. I h av e disagreed w ith some of the
Rosicrucian officials w ith w hom I have b ee n as
sociated. W e h av e each developed our ow n p h i
losophy of life, b u t have found a com m on source
of know ledge an d applica tion of th a t know ledge
in the Rosicrucian teachings. H u n d red s of books
similar to this one could b e w rit ten up o n the
foundations of Rosicrucian know ledge or upon
[156 ]
Rosicrucian philosophy, or upon philosophy and
o th e r disciplines in general, b u t each individual
will take from those sources the principles th a t
are m ost applicab le to his existence and to his life.
T he question as to w h a t constitutes Rosicrucian
know ledge is a complex one, because it, like every
system of th o u g h t or any course of study, is obvi
ously one w hich deals w ith various subjects. Rosi
crucian know ledge is com bined in an entire p h i
losophy w hich borrow s from m any philosophies
a n d the experience of m an y individuals, and is
transla ted in to a philosophy of life by the con
scientious students. This is sometimes referred to
in various forms, such as the Rosicrucian teach
ings, the Rosicrucian philosophy, or as a Rosicru
cian system of thought.
Philosophy in general has not always been re
s tric ted to any specific subject m atter, since the
w ord in its derivation means a love of wisdom.
T h e philosopher has been the individual w ho a t
tem p ted to examine all knowledge, learning, and
experience, in an effort to d ra w wise conclusions
as a result of his exam ination and contem plation .
Some philosophers have believed th a t all men
[157]
desire know ledge, th a t th ey are born w ith th a t
desire. T h ey base this conclusion up o n th e a p
paren tly obvious tru th th a t all m en do seek know l
edge in one w ay o r another. T h e know ledge th a t
one ind iv idual seeks m ay be considerably differ
en t from w h a t ano the r m ay seek, b u t m an in all
his activities ind icates th a t h e is consciously o r u n
consciously d irec ting his efforts to w ard learning
som ething.
T he lea rn ing th a t some m ay acqu ire m ay b e no
m ore th an th e satisfying of curiosity, or the a n
sw ering o f a com paratively u n im p o rtan t question ,
b u t still th e ind iv idual w ith a norm al curiosity
an d the resu ltan t questions th a t arise in his m ind
is a t tem p tin g to gain know ledge th rough th e an
swers. W orthw hile know ledge can b e transla ted
into useful experience. This is usually the know l
edge th a t m an gains w h ich he can p lace to effec
t ive use.
W h e th e r or no t a m an finds know ledge useful
d ep en d s a g reat deal upon his po in t of v iew and
his aim in life. If w e accep t as a basis of u n d e r
s tand ing th a t th e one purpose of m an ’s life on
[ 158]
ea r th is his ad jus tm en t to the env ironm ent in
w hich he finds h im self living, then it w ould seem
th a t the obvious conclusion from this prem ise
w ould be th a t m an can adjust him self b e t te r as
he acquires and utilizes m ore know ledge.
T h e concept of th e Rosicrucian philosophy
states th a t m an is not only a citizen of the physi
cal. b u t he is an existent en ti ty in the Cosmic; th a t
is, he is a soul expressing in the m anifesta tion of
all existence. T herefore , the Rosicrucian seeks
know ledge for the sam e fundam en ta l purpose as
anyone else, w h ich is to re la te himself b e t te r to
his env ironm ent, and therefore to find an expla
nation for the purpose of life and his place in th a t
process.
At the sam e time, this concept w idens the hori
zon of environm ent, E n v iro n m en t fo r the Rosi
crucian should be considered to be every th ing
th a t is, and the g rea ter know ledge th a t w e a tta in
an d ou r ability to utilize it, the nearer w e will
com e to the u n d ers tan d in g of all the forces th a t
exist in the universe ab o u t us.
T h e Rosicrucian philosophy, therefore, offers an
I ’ 59 ]
extensive know ledge th rough its synthesis of m ys
ticism, science, an d art. T hese th ree fields are
q u ite inclusive of all th a t m an seeks to a tta in in
his psychic, his physical, and his aesthe tic fo u n d a
tion for living. T hese th ree fields represen t the
com posite know ledge of m an. T hey s tand in
com ple te because m an is still evolving. H e is still
g row ing and developing physically and m entally .
T herefore each passing generation has the obli
gation of ad d in g to the know ledge as represen ted
in these fields, an d the p resen t generation benefits
from th e her itage th a t has com e from the past.
E ach individual w ho fails to con tribu te to these
fields of know ledge, even if i t b e in a small way,
has to th a t deg ree failed in living. A ccording to
th e law of Karm a, life becom es a repetition of
similar circum stances and events until m an grasps
his obligation to learn and th e reb y push back the
limits of th e unknow n to a b e t te r an d m ore com
plete u n d e rs tan d in g of th e Cosmic.
I t is im portan t to realize th a t m ere re s ta tem en t
of know ledge a lready a tta ined is no t the creative
g row th th a t is im portan t to the h u m an being. I f I
[ 160 l
w ould propose w hat I claim to be a new science
or a new philosophy, and upon examination it was
found th a t the only th ing new was the term inology
used to express it, then it is obvious th a t I have
only m ade a re s ta tem en t of already existent facts.
Since m an constantly searches and strives for
know ledge, there are always those who in an at
tem p t to benefit by this u rge on the p a r t of their
fellow m en will constantly hold out so-called new
ideas or systems w hich in the final analysis tu rn
o u t to be old facts in new ly coined terms.
W e have the r igh t an d privilege to use the
know ledge accum ula ted th rough history, b u t we
are also given the ability to reason and to re a r
range these facts creatively for m ore usefulness.
W e are given the curiosity and the im petus to d is
cover n ew facts. These are the challenge of m an ’s
g row th and evolvement.
Therefore, look upon all know ledge as a ch a l
lenge to creative thought. D o not fall in to the
h ab it of m erely rep ea tin g established facts or
ideas w hich w ere form ulated by ano ther person.
T hrough the accum ulation of know ledge and ex-
[ 161]
perience, you will evolve a ph ilosophy of life and
th e Rosicrucian teachings, w hen app lied to the
ind iv idual life, will be th e means o f d irec ting the
individual tow ard the utilization of a ph ilosophy
th a t o therw ise w ould be no m ore th an theory.
THE ROSICRUCIAN ORDER
ANncrPATmo questions which may be asked by the readen of this book, the publishers wish to announce that there Is but one universal Rosicrucian Order existing in the world today, united in its various Jurisdictions, and having one Supreme Council in accordance with the original plan of the ancient Rosicrucian manifestoes. The Rosicrucian Order is not a religious or sectarian society,
This international organization retains the ancient traditions, teachings, principles, and practical helpfulness of the Brotherhood as founded centuries ago. It is known as the Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, which name, for popular use, is abbreviated into AMORC. The International Jurisdiction of this Order has its headquarters at San Jose, California. Those interested in knowing more of the history and present-day helpful offerings of the Rosicrucians may have a free copy of the book entitled, The Mastery of Life, by sending a definite request to S c r i b e I. T. N., Rosicrucian Park, San Jose, California 95 1 9 1 , U.S.A.
The Rosicrucian Library
consists of a number of unique books which are described in the following pages, and which may be
purchased from the
ROSICRUCIAN SUPPLY BUREAU S a n Jo se , C a l i f o r n ia 85191 , U .S jL
V V V
Eternal Fruits of Knowledge
By C e c i l A. P o o l e , F .R.C .
T r u t h s are those thoughts which have a continuous value to m an in inspiration and service. D ow n through the ages have descended the illuminating ideas o f philosophers, mystics, and profound thinkers tha t are as realistic today as when conceived centuries ago. It has been rightly said that we stand upon the shoulders of those who have gone before.
U nfortunately, however, we often are not aware of the knowledge that has stood the test o f time. Such knowledge can serve you as well in our time as it did men of the past. There are points of experience an d understanding which are ageless in their benefit to mankind. W hat these golden gems of wisdom are, this book reveals clearly, c o n cisely, and interestingly.
This volume deals with such subjects as the nature of the Absolute; Body, Mind, and Soul; G ood and Evil; H u m an and Universal P u r pose; and many other interesting topics. I t is a well-printed paper- bound book.
V
Rosicrucian Questions and Answers with
Complete History of the Order
By H. S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
T h i s volume contains the first complete, authentic history o f the Rosicrucian O rder from ancient times to the present day. T he history is divided into two sections, dealing with the traditional facts and the established historical facts, and is replete with interesting stories of rom ance, mystery, and alluring incidents.
This book is a valuable one since it is a constant reference and guidebook. Questions tha t arise in your m ind regarding many mystical and occult subjects are answered in this volume.
F o r m any centuries the strange mysterious records o f the Rosicrucians were closed against any eyes but those o f the high initiates. Even editors of great encyclopedias were unable to secure the strange, fascinating facts of the Rosicrucian activities in all parts o f the world. Now the whole story is outlined and it reads like a story f rom the land o f the “ A rabian Nights.”
T he book outlines answers to scores of questions dealing with the history, work, teachings, benefits, and purposes of the Rosicrucian fraternity. It is printed on fine paper, and indexed.
Rosicrucian Principles for the
Home and Business
By H. S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
T h i s volume contains such principles of practical Rosicrucian teachings as are applicable to the solution o f everyday problems of life, in business and in the affairs o f the home. It deals exhaustively with the prevention of ill-health, the curing o f many common ailments, and the attainment o f peace and happiness, as well as the building up o f the affairs o f life that deal with financial conditions. The book is filled with hundreds of practical points dealing especially with the problems o f the average businessman or person in business employ. It points out the wrong and right way fo r the use of metaphysical and mystical principles in attracting business, increasing one's income, promoting business propositions, starting and bringing into realization new plans and ideals, and the attainment of the highest ambitions in life.
Rosicrucian Principles for the Home and Business is not theoretical but strictly practical. It has had a wide circulation and universal en dorsement not only among members o f the organization, who have voluntarily stated tha t they have greatly improved their lives through the application o f its suggestions, hut among thousands o f persons outside o f the organization. It has also been endorsed by business organizations and business authorities.
T he book is o f s tandard size and indexed.
V
The Mystical Life of Jesus
By H. S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
T h i s is the book that thousands have been waiting for—the real Jesus revealed at last! It was in preparation fo r a num ber of years and required a visit to Palestine and Egypt to secure a verification of the strange facts contained in the ancient Rosicrucian and Essene records.
It is a full account o f the birth, youth, early m anhood, and la ter periods of Jesus' life, containing the story of his activities in the times n o t mentioned in the Gospel accounts. The facts relating to the Immaculate Conception, the birth, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension wiil astound and inspire you. The book contains many
mystical symbols, fully explained, original photographs, and an unusual po r tra i t of Jesus.
H ere is a book lh a t will inspire, instruct, and guide every student o f mysticism and religion. It is one of the m ost lalked-about books ever written on the subject. Read it and be p repared for the discussions of it that you will hear among m en and women o f learning. Indexed for quick reference.
V
The Secret Doctrines of Jesus
By H. S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
D o e s the Bible actually contain the unadulterated words of Jesus the Christ? D o you know that from A .D . 328 until A .D . 1870, there were held twenty ecclesiastic or church council meetings in which man alone decided upon the content o f the Bible? Self-appointed judges in these councils decided to expurgate the Bible, removing those sacred writings which did not please them. T he G rea t Master 's personal doctrines, o f the utmost, vital im portance to every man and woman, were buried in unexplained passages and parables. The Secret Doctrines o f Jesus, by Dr. H. Spencer Lewis, eminent au thor o f The Mystical Life o f Jesus, for the first time reveals these hidden truths. Startling, fascinating, this book should be in every thinker 's hands. It is beautifully bound and illustrated.
V
“Unto Thee I G r a n t . .
By S r i . R a m a t h e r i o
T h i s is one o f the rarest Oriental mystery books known. It was translated by special permission o f the G rand L am a and Disciples o f the Sacred College in the G rand Temple in Tibet.
H ere is a book lhat was writlen two thousand years ago. but was hidden in manuscript form from the eyes of ihe world and given only to the initiates of the temples in Tibet to study privately.
Out o f the mystery o f the past comes this antique book containing the rarest writings and teachings known to man with the exception of the Bible. H undreds of books have been written about the teachings and practices o f the Masters o f the Far East and the adepts o f Tibet,
but none o f them has ever contained the secret teachings found in this book.
T he book deals with m an 's passions, desires, weaknesses, sins, strengths, fortitudes, ambitions, and hopes. It contains also the strange mystic story o f the expedition into Tibet to secure this m ar velous manuscript.
V
A Thousand Years of Yesterdays
By H . S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
H e r e is a book ihal will tell you about Ihe real facts o f reincarnation. It is a story o f the soul, and explains in detail how the soul enters the body and how it leaves it, where it goes, and when it comes back to E a r th again, and why.
The story is not just a piece of fiction, but a revelation o f the mystic la vs and principles known to the Masters of the F a r East and the Orient fo r many centuries, and never put into book form as a story before this book was printed. T ha t is why the book has been translated into so many languages and endorsed by the mystics and adepts o f India, Persia, Egypt, and Tibet.
Fascinating— Alluring— Instructive
T hose who have read this book say that they were unable to leave i( without finishing it at one silling. T he story reveals the mystic principles taught by the Rosicrucians in regard to reincarnation as well as the spiritual laws o f the soul and the incarnations of the soul.
An attractively bound book, worthy o f a place in anyone's library.
V
Self Mastery and Fate with the
Cycles of Life
By H . S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
T h i s book is entirely different f rom any other book ever issued in America, dealing with the secret periods in the life of each man and w om an wherein the cosmic forces affect ou r daily affairs.
T he book reveals how we m ay take advantage o f certain periods to
bring success, happiness, health, and prosperity into our lives, and it likewise points out those periods which are not favorable for many of the things we try to accomplish. It does not deal with astrology o r any system o f fortune telling, but presents a system long used by the M aster Mystics in Oriental lands and which is strictly scientific and demonstrable. One reading of the book with its charts and tables will enable the reader to see the course of his life at a glance. It helps everyone to eliminate “ chance" and “ luck," to cast aside “fate," and replace these with self mastery.
Here is a book you will use weekly to guide your affairs throughout the years. There is no magic in its system, but it opens a vista of the life-cydes of each being in a remarkable m anner. This boo k is beautifully bound.
V
Rosicrucian Manual
By H . S p e n c e r L e w is , F .R .C , P h .D .
T h i s practical book contains not only extracts f rom the C o n stitution o f the Rosicrucian Order, but a complete outline and explanation o f all the customs, habits, and teiminology o f the Rosicrucians, with diagrams and explanations of the symbols used in the teachings, an outline of the subjects taught, a dictionary o f the terms, a complete presentation o f the principles of Cosmic C on sciousness. and biographical sketches of important individuals con nected with the work. There are also special articles on the G reat White Lodge and its existence, how to attain psychic illumination, the Rosicrucian C ode of Life with twenty-nine laws and regulations, and a num ber o f portraits o f prominent mystics including M aster K .H , the Illustrious.
T he technical matter in the text and in the numerous diagrams m akes this book a real encyclopedia of Rosicrucian explanations, aside from the dictionary of Rosicrucian terms.
The Rosicrucian Manual has been enlarged and improved since its first edition. Attractively bound, and stamped in gold.
V
Mystics at Prayer
Compiled by M a n y C m ilab
T h e first c o m p i la t io n o f the fa m o u s p ra y e rs o f the ren o w n ed m ys tic s a n d adep ts o f all ages.
The book Mystics at Prayer explains in simple language the reason fo r prayer, how to pray, and the cosmic laws involved. You come to
learn the real efficacy o f prayer and its full beauty dawns upon you. Whatever your religious beliefs, this book m akes your prayers the ap plication not of words, but of helpful, divine principles. Y ou will learn the infinite power o f prayer. P rayer is man's rightful heritage. It is the direct means of man's com m union with the infinite force of divinity.
V
Behold the Sign
By R a l p h M. L e w is , F.R.C.
W h a t were the Sacred Traditions said to have been revealed to M oses— and never spoken by the ancient Hebrews? W hat were the forces of na tu re discovered by the Egyptian priesthood and embodied in strange symbols— symbols which became the everliving knowledge which built King Solomon's Temple, and which found their way into the secret teachings of every century?
Regardless of the changing consciousness of man. certain signs and devices have immortalized for all ages the trulhs which m ake men free. Learn the meaning of the Anchor and Ark, the Seven-Pointed Star, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and many other age-old secret symbols.
H ere is a book that also explains the origin o f the various forms of the cross, the meanings o f which are often misunderstood. It further points out the mystical beginnings o f the secret signs used by many f raternal orders today. This book of symbolism is fully Illustrated, simply and interestingly written.
V
Mansions of the Soul
B y H. S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
R e i n c a r n a t i o n ! T he world 's most disputed doctrine. The belief in reincarnation has had millions o f intelligent, learned, and tolerant followers throughout the ages. Ringing through the minds and hearts of students, mystics, and thinkers have always been the words: “ Why Are W e H ere?” Reincarnation has been criticized by some as co n flicting with sacred literature and as being without verification. This book reveals, however, in an intelligent m anner the many facts to supp o r t reincarnation. Quotations from eminent authorities, and from Biblical and sacred works substantiate reincarnation. This volume P RO VES reincarnation, placing it high above m ere speculation. Without exaggeration, this js the most complete, inspiring, and enlightening
book ever written on this subject. I t is not fiction but a step-by-step revelation o f p rofound mystical laws. L ook at some o f the thought- provoking, intriguing chapters:
The Personality o f the Soul; Does Personality Survive Transition7; Heredity and Inheritance; Karma and Personal Evolution; Religious and Biblical Viewpoints; Christian References; Souls o f Animals and the "Unborn"; Recollections o f the Past.
Over 300 pages. Beautifully printed, neatly bound, stamped in gold — a valuable asset to your library.
V
L e m u r ia — th e L o s t C o n t in e n t
o f th e P acific
By WtSHAR S. CERVt
B e n e a t h the rolling, restless seas lie the mysteries o f forgotten civilizations. Swept by the tides, half-buried in the sands, worn away by terrific pressure, are the remnants o f a culture little known to ou r age of today. W here the mighty Pacific now rolls in a majestic sweep o f thousands of miles, there was once a vast continent. This land was know n as Lemuria, and Its people as Lemurians.
W e pride ourselves upon the inventions, conveniences, and developments o f today. We call them m odern, but these ancient and long- forgotten people excelled us. Things we speak of as fu ture possibilities, they knew as everyday realities. Science has gradually pieced together the evidences of this lost race, and in this book you will find the most amazing, enthralling revelations you have ever read. H ow these people came to be swept from the face o f the Earth, except for survivors who have living descendants today, is explained. Illustrations and explanations o f their mystic symbols, maps o f the continent, and m any ancient tru ths and laws are contained in this unusual book.
If you are a lover o f mystery, o f the unknown, the weird— read this book. Remember, however, this book is not fiction, but based on facts, the result of extensive research. Does civilization reach a certain height and then retrograde? Are the culture and progress of m ankind in cycles, reaching certain peaks, and then returning to start over again? These questions and many more are answered in this intriguing volume. Read of the living descendants of these people, whose expansive nation now lies within the Pacific. These descendants have the knowledge o f the principles which in bygone centuries made their forebears huilders of an astounding civilization.
T he book, Lemuria— the Lost Continent o f the Pacific, is beautifully bound, well printed, and contains many illustrations.
W h is p e r in g s o f S e l f
By V a u d iv A r
Whisperings o f Self is the interprets lion of cosmic impulses received by a great mysiic-philosopher, R alph M . Lewis, who in this work writes under the pen nam e o f Validivar.
The aphorisms in this collection have appeared singly in copies o f the Rosicrucian Digest over a period of forty years and comprise in sights into all areas of hum an experience— justice, war and peace, ethics, morals, marriage, family, work, leisure, and countless others.
R a lph Lewis' f rank and direct style provides much food for thought in each brief impression. A reader develops the habit of using a thought a day, and there are m ore than two hundred from which to choose.
This is an attractive, hardcover book that makes an attractive gift as well as a treasured possession o f your own.
V
T h e S y m b o l ic P ro p h ec y o f
T h e G r e a t P y r a m id
By H . S e e n c e r L e w is , F . R . C , P h .D .
THE world 's greatest mystery and first wonder is the G reat Pyramid. It stands as a m onum ent to the learning and achievements o f the an cients. F o r centuries its secrets were closeted in stone— now they stand revealed.
N ever before in a book priced within Ihe reach o f every reader have the history, vast wisdom, and prophecies of the G rea t Pyramid been given. You will be amazed at the Pyramid's scientific construction and a t the trem endous knowledge o f its mysterious builders.
W h o built the G rea t Pyramid? W hy were its builders inspired to reveal to posterity the events o f the future? W hat is the path th a t the G rea t Pyram id indicates lies before m ankind? Within the pages o f this enlightening book there are the answers to many enthralling questions. It prophesied the W orld W ars and the great economic upheaval. L earn what it presages for the future. You must not deprive yourself o f this book.
T he book is neatly and attractively bound, and contains instructive charts and illustrations.
The Book of Jasher
T H E SA CRED BOOK W IT H H E L D
Bv w h a t right has m an been denied the w ords o f the prophets? W ho dared expunge from the Holy Bible one o f its inspired messages? F o r centuries man has labored under the illusion lhat there have been preserved for him the collected books of the great teachers and disciples— yet one has been withheld— T he Book of Jasher, discovered by Alcuin in A.D. 800. Later it was suppressed, then rediscovered in 1829, and once again suppressed.
W ithin the hallowed pages o f the great Bible itself are references to this lost book. As if by divine decree, the Bible appears to cry out to m ankind that its sanctity has been violated, its t ru th veiled, fo r we find these two passages exclaiming: “ Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"— Joshua 10:13; "Behold, it is written in the book o f Jasher" — 2 Sam. 1:18.
A n actual photographic reproduction o f this magnificent work, page for page, line for lute, unexpurgalcd. Bound in its original style.
V
Herbalism Through the Ages
B y R a l p h W h i t e s i d e K e r r . F .R .C .
V e r y f e w th ings in h u m a n ex p er ien ce h av e to u c h e d the w hole b e in g o f m a n as h av e h e rbs . N o t o n ly d id they p ro v id e m a n 's ear l iest fo o d s a n d b eco m e rem ed ies a n d m ed ic ines f o r his illnesses, b u t th e y a lso sym b o liz ed c e r ta in o f his e m o t io n s a n d psych ic feelings. F u r th e r , h e rb s a re o n e o f N a tu r e 's p r o d u c ts t h a t we still d e p e n d u p o n f o r th e ir v ir tu es , e v en in o u r m o d e r n age.
T he source of our first foods has a romantic and fascinating history. This book reveals man's discovery of natural foods, herbs, and their various uses through the centuries. M ost medicines prescribed o r purchased today owe their healing or pain-relieving value to the properties of herbs o r herbal products. Certain herbs are b natural medicine: they have a health-giving essence. M odern medical science uses m any herbs whose real identity is obscured by technical medical terms. This book lists many o f these herbs and tells their history and use.
Mental Poisoning
TH O U G H T S T H A T EN SLA V E M INDS
fly H. S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C., Ph.D.
T o r t u r e d souls. H um an beings, whose self-confidence and peace of m ind have been torn to shreds by invisible darts— Ihe evil thoughts of others. C an envy, hate, and jealousy be projected through space from the mind of another? D o poisoned thoughts like mysterious rays reach through the ethereal realm to claim innocent victims? Will wishes and com m ands born in hate gather m om entum and like an avalanche descend upon a helpless man or woman in a series of calamities? M ust hum anity remain at the mercy o f evil influences created in the minds of the vicious? Millions each year are mentally poisoned— are you safe from this scourge? Mental Poisoning fearlessly discloses this psychological problem. Read its revelations and be prepared.
This neatly bound , well-printed hook has been economically pro duced so it can be in the hands o f thousands because o f the benefit it wiU afford them.
V
Glands— Our Invisible Guardians
B y M. W. Kapp, M.D.
Y o u n e e d not continue to be bound by those glandular characteristics of your life which do not please you. These influences, through the findings o f science and Ihe mystical principles o f nature, may be adjusted. T he first essential is that of the old adage: “ Know Y ourself." Have revealed the facts about the endocrine glands— know where they are located in your body and what mental and physical functions they control. T he control of the glands can mean the control o f your life. These facts, scientifically correct, with their mystical interpretation, are presented in simple, nontechnical language, which everyone can enjoy and profit by reading.
Mystics and metaphysicians have long recognized that certain influences and powers o f a cosmic nature could be tapped: that a divine energy could be drawn upon, affecting o u r creative ability, personality, and ou r physical welfare. F o r centuries there has been speculation as to what area or what organs of the body contain this medium— this contact between the Divine and the physical. Now it is know n that certain of Ihe glands are governors which speed up o r slow down the influx of cosmic energy into the body. This process of
divine alchemy and how it works is explained in this boo k o f startling facts.
D r. M. W. K app, the author, during his lifetime, was held in high esteem by (he medical fraternity , despile the fact th a t he also expressed a deep insight into the mystical laws of life and their influence on the physical functioning of the body.
IN T R O D U C T IO N B Y H. S P E N C E R LEW IS. F.R.C., Ph.D.
Dr. H. Spencer Lewis— fanner Im pera to r o f the Rosicrucian O r der (A M O R C ) , for its present cycle o f activity, and au thor of m any works on mysticism, philosophy, and metaphysics— wrote an im portan t in troduction to this book, in which he highly praised it an d its author.
V
What to Eat— and When
By S t a n l e y K. C l a r k , M.D., C M , F.R.C.
" M i n d over m atte r" is n o t a trite phrase. Y o u r moods, your tem perament, you r very thoughts can and do affect digestion. A re you overweight— o r underweight? Appearances, even the scales, are not always reliable. Y o u r age, your sex, the kind of w ork you do— all these factors determine whether your weight is correct o r wrong fo r you. D o you know tha t m any people suffer from food allergy? Learn how y o u r digestion m ay be affected even hours a f te r you have eaten.
T he au tho r o f this book, Dr. Stanley K. Clark , was fo r several years s ta ll physician at the H enry F o rd Hospital in Detroit. H e is a noted gastroenterologist (specialist in stom ach and intestinal d isorders) . H e brings you his wealth o f knowledge in this field, plus his additional findings f rom his study o f the effects o f the mind upon digestion.
What to Eat-—and When is compact, free from unnecessary tech nical terminology. Includes complete handy index, food chart, and sample menus. It is no t a one-time-reading book. You will often refer to it throughout (he years. Well printed, strongly bound.
Sepher Yezirah— A Book on Creation
O R T H E JEW ISH M ETA PH Y SIC S O F
R E M O T E A N T IQ U IT Y
D r . I s i d o r K a l i s c h , T ranslator
A m o n g the list of the hundred best books in the world, one might easily include this simple volume, revealing the greatest authentic study of the secret Kabala. F o r those averse to fantastic claims, this book is truly comprehensible— for the wise student who does not care for magical mumbo-jumbo, it Ls dynamic.
T h e phantasies of those baffling speculations o f other writers b e come un im portant when the practical student of mysticism reverently thum bs through these pages and catches the terse and challenging statements. The woolgathering o f many so-called authors of occultism is brought to nothing hy this simple volume which makes a pattern fo r honest mystical com m on sense.
T he Sepher Yezirah contains 61 pages with both Hebrew and English texts, photolithographed from the 1877 original edition. F o r anyone interested in the best— also, considered by some, the most an cient— in Hebrew mystical thought, this book will be a refreshing discovery.
T he careful reader will be attracted to three characteristics o f this edition o f the Sepher Yezirah:
(1 ) A clear English translation o f a most ancient work, almost un available up to the present.
(2) A simple expose o f fundam enta l aspects of the ancient K abala without superstitious interpretations.
(3 ) An inexpensive translation of the World's oldest philosophical writing in Hebrew.
Attractive and convenient, paperbound edition.
V
The Conscious Interlude
By R a l p h M . L e w is , F.R.C.
H o w m a n y of the countless subjects which shape your life are inherited ideas? H ow many are actually yours? Would you like to have your own m ind look a t itself in perspective for an analysis? In this book, M r. Lewis, Im pera to r o f the worldwide Rosicrucian O r der, A M O R C , outlines the culmination o f years o f his original
thought. A s you follow him through the pages into b road universal concepts, your m ind too will feel its release into an expanding con sciousness.
Y ou will be confronted with and will answer such questions as: Is consciousness something innate o r is it generated? W hat is the reality th a t you experience a c tu a lly l ik e? WhaL are your own conscious in terludes? This work helongs to every seeker after knowledge. Indexed a n d illustrated, this is a volume of m ore than 360 pages.
V
Essays of A Modern Mystic
By H. S p e n c e r L e w is , F.R.C ., Ph.D.
T h e writings o f a true mystic philosopher constitute cosmic literature. T he ideas they contain are b o m o f inner experience— the self’s contac t with the cosmic intelligence residing within. Such writings, therefore, have the ring o f conviction— of truth.
This book, Essays o f A Modern Mystic, will disclose the personal confidence and enlightenment th a t mystical insight can give an in dividual.
The essays are a compilation of the private writings by Dr. H . Spencer Lewis which have never before been published in book form. Dr. Lewis is not only the author o f m any literary w orks h u t also was a con tr ibutor to publications and periodicals with worldwide circulation.
This hook is not hastily put together. I t has a hard binding, a ttrac tively stam ped in gold.
V
Cosmic Mission Fulfilled
By R a l p h M . L e w is , F.R.C.
T h e life o f Harvey Spencer Lewis, Im pera to r of the Ancient, Mystical O rder Rosae Crucis, is a fascinating account o f the struggle of a mystic-philosapher against forces of materialism. H e was charged with the responsibility o f rekindling the ancient flame of wisdom in the W estern world.
In the life of this great m an events swung like a pendulum from
trium ph to tribulation. These became a progressive stimulus to achievement.
H as each m an a purpose on the earth plane? O ur happiness lies in understanding this and in the realization o f hopes worthy of ou r best personal powers. The present is ou r moment in Eternity. In it we fulfill our mission.
In this book, the au thor combines his close and official knowledge o f Dr. Lewis with the anecdotes of many other persons who knew him.
Nine full-plate illustrations are inserted into this beautifully printed and bound volume.
V
E g y p t ’s A n c ie n t H eritage
B y R o d m a n R . C l a y s o n
M u c h o f what we know today began in Egypt! Out of that ancient civilization, which lasted three thousand years, came the first concepts o f the origin o f the universe, clothed in a symbology that showed a marvelous insight in to natu ra l law. Tru th , righteousness, justice, and moral codes were first taught in the ancient mystery schools of Egypt as was the belief in a mind cause or thought as the creative cosmic force.
The belief in the soul, o f life af ter death, and o f immortality was held by the Egyptians thousands of years before Christ. T he judgment of the soul in the next life evolved f rom an Egyptian cohcept and was dramatized by their rites and ceremonies.
This book tells o f the amazing similarity of Egyptian thought to m odern religious, mystical, and philosophical doctrines, and how many of ou r customs and beliefs of today were influenced by these ancient people. It is Iruly an amazing revelation!
Written in a straightforward, easily read style, Egypt's Ancient Heritage is hardbound.
The Sanctuary of Self
By R a l p h M. L e w is , F.R.C.
W h a t could be m ore essential than the discovery and analysis of self, the composite of that consciousness which constitutes one's whole being? This book o f sound logic presents revealingly and in entirety the four phases o f hum an living: T he Mysteries, T he Technique, The Pitfalls, and Attainment.
D o you not, at times, entertain the question as to whether you are living your life to y o u r best advantage? You may find an answer in some of the 23 chapters, presented under headings such as: Causality and K arm a, The Lost W ord, D eath : T he Law o f Change, Love and Desire, N a ture of Dream s, Prediction, M astership and Perfection. C o n sider “Love and Desire." In m uch o f ancient and m odern literature, as well as in the m any and various preachments o f the present-day world, L O V E is proclaimed as the solution to all hum an conflict. Do you understand truly the meaning o f absolute love? D o you know that there are various loves and that some of the so-called loves are dangerous drives?
W ritten authoritatively by R alph M . Lewis, Im pera to r o f the Rosicrucian O rder (A M O R C ) , this volume of over 350 pages, carefully indexed, is o f particular value as a text fo r teachers and students o f metaphysics, including philosophy and psychology.
V
Yesterday Has Much to Tell
By R a l p h M. L e w is , F.R .C .
M a n ' s conquest o f nature and his conflict with self, as written in the ruins o f ancient civilizations, found in the sacred writings o f temples and sanctuaries, and as portrayed in age-old tribal rites, are related to you by the au thor f rom his extensive travels and intimate experiences. This is not a m ere travel book. It constitutes a personal witnessing and account o f primitive ceremonies, conversations with mystical teachers an d austere high priests o f the N ea r and F a r East. It takes you in to the interior of Africa to see the perform ance of a witch doctor and to tem ples in Peru, India. Egypt, and o ther exotic lands. T he au tho r was privileged because o f his Rosicrucian affiliation to see and to learn tha t which is not ordinarily revealed. A h ardbound book o f 435 pages, including sixteen pages of photographs.
The Technique Of The Master
T H E W AY O F CO SM IC P R E P A R A T IO N
By R a y m o n d A n d r e a , F.R.C.
A c u t d e to inner unfoldmentl The newest and simplest explanation fo r attaining the stale o f Cosmic Consciousness. To Ihose who have felt the th rob o f a vital power within, and whose inner vision has at times glimpsed infinite peace and happiness, this book is offered. It converts the intangible whispers o f self into forceful actions that bring real joys and accomplishments in life. It is a masterful work on psychic unfoldment.
Cares That Infest
B y C e c i l A . P o o l e , F .R .C .
W e e a c h have problems— but it is how we solve them that affects ou r individual development and ou r relationships wilh others. L earn ing comes both from our problems and f rom our solutions.
Realizing ou r weaknesses and basing our lives on a workable system of values will help each of us in our personal evolution. This book discusses such specific problems as: worry, fear, and insomnia, and the development o f a practical philosophy o f life to alleviate the suffering caused by these difficulties.
This volume is attractively printed, bound, and stamped in gold.
V
Mental Alchemy
b y R a l p h M . L e w is , F .R .C .
N o w available— the latest volume by this distinguished and well- respected au tho r of mystical, metaphysical, and practical philosophical literature.
Are we each responsible for the creation o f our own surroundings?
Perhaps no t entirely— but by the proper mental attitude we can a l ter certain aspects of ou r lives, making them m ore compatible with our goals, it is easier to cope with a difficulty if we realize that, to some extent, we can transmute the problem to a workable solution through mental alchemy. T he process is neither easy nor instantaneously effective.
Long hours o f thought, frank appraisals o f ou r goals and (he goals of others, and honest assessments of personal capabilities are necessary elements for the process of menial alchemy. Eventually, however, the serious person will be rewarded by having the ability to alter (he direction o f his life through proper thought and the understanding of the elements involved.
This volume is attractively printed, bound, and stam ped in gold.
V
O rder B o o k s F r o m
ROSICRUCIAN SUPPLY BUREAUR o s i c r u c i a n P a r k , S a n J o s e , C a l i f o r n i a 95191, U.S.A.
F o r a complete, illustrated catalogue and price list o f (he books listed herein, please write to the
Rosictucian Supply Bureau.