I Rosicrucian Quest ions and Answers with Comple te History1 of the Order

II Ros icrucian Princip le s for the H om e and Bu sin essIII T h e Mystical Life of Je su sIV T h e Secret Doctrines o f J e su sV Unto T h e e I Grant

(Secret T e a ch in g s of T ibet)VI A T h o u s a n d Years of Yesterdays

(A Revelation o f Reincarnation)VII S e l f Mastery and Fate with the Cycles o f Life

(A Vocational Guide)VIII Rosicrucian M anual

IX Mystics at PrayerX Behold the S ign

(A Book o f Ancient S y m b o l i sm )XI M an sion s of the Sou l

(A Cosmic Conception)XII L e m u r ia T h e Lost Continent of the Pacif ic

XIII T h e T e ch n iq u e of the MasterXIV T h e Sym bol ic Prophecy of the Great Pyramid

XV T h e Book of Ja sherXVI T h e T e ch n iq u e of the Disciple

X V II Mental P o ison in gX X I I Th e S an c tuary of S e l f

X X I I I S ep h er YezirahX X V S o n of the S u n

X X V I T h e Con scious InterludeX X V II Essa y s of a Modern Mystic

X X V I I I Cosmic Mis s ion Fulfil ledX X I X W hisper ings of S e l f

X X X Herbal ism T h ro u gh the AgesX X X I E gy p t s Ancient Heritage

X X X I I Yesterday H as M uch to TellX X X I I I T h e Eternal Fru it s of KnowledgeX X X I V Cares Th at Infest

X X X V Mental AlchemyX X X V I M essages from the Celestial S a n c tu m

X X X V I I In S e a rch of RealityX X X V I I I T h ro u g h the M in d s Eye

(Other volumes will be added from time to time. Write for complete cata logue .)

THROUGHTHE

MINDSEYE

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

BY RALPH M. LEWIS, F.R.C.

AMORC

Truth Is What Is Real To Us. Knowledge, experience, is the material of which truth consists. But what is the real, the true, of what we know? With expanding consciousness and knowledge, truth changes. Truth therefore is ever in the balancenever the same. But in turning to important challenging subjects, the Mind's Eye can extract that which is the true and the real, for the now . The book, Through the Mind's Eye , calls to attention important topics for judgment by your minds eye.

THROUGH THE MINDS EYERALPH M. LEWIS, F.R.C.

Published By

The Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC

Rosicrucian Park

San Jose, California, 95191, U.S.A.

P-24 1281 Printed in U .S .A .

About the AuthorRalph M. Lewis, F.R.C., Imperator of the

Rosicrucian Order, AMORC has made many contributions to the body of contemporary mystical thought. For many years his articles have been included in the pages of widely-read international publications. His insights into philosophy, metaphysics, and related subjects have circulated throughout the world and fascinated the scholar and layman alike.

Ralph Lewis has always been a student of humanity. Through many years of closely observing and interacting with people of many cultures and beliefs he has attained the rare ability to see people as they really are and how they hope to become. In caring about his fellows he has observed the varied and involved processes of the mind.

Through this, his latest volume, he shares this knowledge with the rest of the world. Through the M inds Eye is an inspiring aid to personal evolvement and a source of understanding of the greater world around us.

T H R O U G H T H E M IN D S EYE

V V V

By

Ralph M . Lewis, F .R .C . Imperator o f the Rosicrucian Order, AM O RC

Rosicrucian Library Volume XXXVIII

SUPREM E GRA ND LODGE OF AM ORC, INC. Printing and Publishing Department

San Jose, California

F IR S T E D IT IO N , 1982 C opyrigh t, 1982

S U P R E M E G R A N D L O D G E O F A M O R C , IN C . A ll R ights R eserved

L ibrary o f C on gress C atalogu e C ard N o .: 8 1 -8 4 9 5 4

N o part o f this pub lication m ay be rep ro d u ced , sto red in a retrieval sy stem , o r tran sm itted , in any fo rm o r by any m eans, e lectron ic, m ech an ical, ph otocopyin g, record ing , o r otherw ise, w ithout p rio r w ritten perm ission o f the publisher.

P R IN T E D A N D B O U N D IN T H E U .S .A . BY K IN G S P O R T P R E S S , IN C ., K IN G S P O R T , T E N N .

Dedication

V

ToThe Memory o f

My Wife

R.M.L.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTI wish to express my appreciation for the

valuable typing o f the manuscript by Cynthia Swanson.

Ralph M. Lewis September 1981

The Rosicrucian LibraryVolume

I R osicru cian Q u estion s and A n sw ers with C om plete H istory o f the O rder

II R osicrucian Principles fo r the H om e and B usin essIII T h e M ystical L ife o f Je su sIV T h e Secret D octrin es o f Je su sV U n to T h ee I G ran t

(Secret Teach ings o f T ib et)VI A T h o u san d Y ears o f Y esterdays

(A R evelation o f R ein carn ation )VII S e lf M astery and Fate with the C ycles o f L ife

(A V ocation al G u id e )VIII R osicru cian M anual

IX M ystics at PrayerX Behold the Sign

(A B o o k o f A n cient Sy m b o lism )XI M an sion s o f the Sou l

(A C o sm ic C o n cep tio n )XII Lem uria The L o st C on tin en t o f the Pacific

XIII The T ech n ique o f the M asterX IV The Sym bolic Prophecy o f the G rea t Pyram idX V The B ook o f Jasher

X V I The T ech n ique o f the D iscip leX V II M ental Poison ingXXII T h e San ctuary o f S e lf

X XIII Sepher YezirahX X V S o n o f the Sun

X X V I The C o n sc io u s InterludeX X V II E ssays o f a M odern M ystic

X X V III C o sm ic M ission FulfilledX X IX W h isperin gs o f S e lfX X X H erbalism T h rou gh the A ges

X X X I Egypts A n cient H eritageX X X II Y esterday H as M uch to Tell

X X X III T h e Eternal Fru its o f K now ledgeX X X IV C ares T h at InfestX X X V M ental A lchem y

X X X V I M essages from the C elestia l San ctumX X X V II In Search o f Reality

X X X V III T h rou gh the M in d s Eye

(O ther vo lu m es will be added from tim e to tim e. W rite for com plete catalogue .)

ContentsV

Chapter PageIntroduction...................................................................... 11

1 Is the Universe Conscious?............................. 162 Is Evolution an Acceptable T h eory ?........... 393 The Origin o f the Human R a c e .................... 494 Can We Know the Absolute?........................ 755 Is There a Predetermined D estin y ?............. 89

6 Things that Shape Our L iv e s ........................ 1077 The Cultivation o f Civilization ....................1258 What Is Spirituality?........................................1499 When Should We Believe?.............................171

10 What Is Human Harmony? .......................... 18911 Adjustment to the New A ge .......................... 20512 Is the W orld W orsening?...............................22713 Is Peace on Earth Possible?.............................25514 On Intelligence and Education...................... 27315 What Is Mystical Enlightenment?................293

16 The Practical Application o f Mysticism . . . 31117 The Roots o f K a rm a ........................................32718 Does the Personality Survive D eath?........... 33919 The Mystery o f Why ..................................... 355

Index .................................................................... 363

r F T W g g a s

INTRODUCTION

Fortunately, we have been endowed with periph

eral vision and have not been limited by nature to

only that which may be seen directly ahead o f us. The

mental vision also has its boundaries, but not just

those which are imposed upon it by nature but by the

will o f man. As a consequence, we often deny our

selves those experiences that more expansive obser

vation and thought might have produced.

It is advantageous to have a primary goal in life. It

becomes the focus o f our mental powers. However, if

the line o f mental vision is too narrow, we exclude

those observations, experiences, and thoughts that

could cause the final goal to be far more gratifying.

Our life, our personal response to it, is deter-

mined by our evaluation o f experiences. The more

we perceive and think o f what we experience, the

greater the breadth o f our understanding. There is

also, then, more o f the things o f existence which we

can draw upon to create a world o f our liking.

We are quite aware o f the impact o f environment

upon our lives. It is a tremendous factor in influenc

ing both our thoughts and the actions which follow

from them. However, it is one thing to respond to a

new experience from an entirely individual point o f

view, and quite another to appraise its value from

knowledge derived from the experiences o f others.

The great importance o f history is attributed to

learning how men in the past responded to certain

circumstances and events which have their parallels

today. History reveals the errors which men have

made in their confrontation with unanticipated

occurrences. It likewise discloses what men have

learned in their relations with each other, the lessons

o f which have descended to us.

There are many things we should know that

might be beneficial to us, which ordinarily do not

come to our attention. They are not necessarily all

that which we should believe or accept; yet they often

may confirm what we think by the rational presenta

tion o f their ideas. On the other hand, such may

cause us to open'mindedly question our conclusions

and contemplate their value to us. M ost o f us can

look back upon our lives in a manner o f self-analysis

and admit that a previous concept or decision was

not right and that we might have acted differently if

we then had known otherwise.

Psychologically and philosophically, we can only

arrive at a personal notion o f the good o f anything by

first knowing its antithesis, that which, by contrast,

seems bad. Therefore, how right or wrong we are

about our evaluation o f human experience, o f our

ideas and ideals, can be rationally appraised by con

templating those ideas counter to them which may

exist. It is through the minds eye, our mental vision,

that we discover the real essence o f the vicissitudes o f

life. Such provides us, figuratively speaking, with a

peripheral vision of relative and practical truths that

might otherwise escape us.

This book, Through the Mind's Eye, seeks to

introduce a variety o f subjects which have an effect

upon not only our personal lives but upon modern

society. It is not a preachment; it is not a continuity

o f doctrines; it is not recommending any particular

way o f life. Rather, the book is an anthology, a collec

tion o f challenging thoughts, o f past ideas, whose

effects we now experience and perhaps live by, also

those ideas which we confront today. The book is

concerned, too, with speculation about how our

thought and action should be directed toward the

onrushing tomorrow.

It is hoped that one or more o f these facts, theo

ries, and abstractions herein may fit into the fabric o f

the readers beliefs and personal philosophy. But

even if they are rejected, we believe the reader will

derive a satisfaction in the renewed conviction aris

ing out o f his own outlook on lifeits past, present,

and what the future should be.

"It is not what men believe that matters, but what actions

emerge from their beliefs

1IS THE UNIVERSE CONSCIOUS?

In the abstract speculation o f this subject, a first

consideration must be had as to how the word uni

verse is to be accepted. We are not thinking o f the

universe as a complex o f galaxies and island universes

which are a posterior development o f a primary

beginning. In other words, we are thinking in the

terms o f Absolute Being. The ancient Greek philos-

opher Parmenides contended that Being could not

have come into existence. For it to have come into

existence, it would have need to have arisen from

something or from a nothing. If, however, we give

nothing such an identity as to make of it a "some-

thing, then that too is Being. We consequently are

then obliged to ask, Whence came this "nothing ? In

this manner, we can be led on and on, ad infinitum.

It, o f course, challenges the common credibility

to assume that the Cosmos, considered as the whole

o f Reality, had no beginning. Such an idea ordinarily

conflicts with our common experience o f causation,

that is, that everything seems to have a cause and that

therefore it is presumed that Being, the Cosmos,

must also have had one. But such only leads us to

imagining a prior state and then once again questioning

whence it came. We conclude from this reasoning that

only Being could exist, and that it is eternal and

immutable. By immutable we do not intend to imply

that the greater universe is inert or that it cannot

express itself in myriad ways. Rather, it is the intention

to convey the idea that Being can never be other than

what it is. There is no substance or state into which

Being could retrogress or dissolve, for that would

presume the existence o f something other than itself.

In fact, we can use the philosophical abstraction

that the idea o f a so-called "nothing is first dependent

on the perception of something. More succinctly, what

I see, for example, I can therefore imagine as also not

existing. It is this idea o f something which gives rise

to the notion o f a state, or condition, o f not existing.

A pure nothing, if it existed, could never engender

the idea o f anything coming out o f same if first we had

not had a previous experience o f Reality, o f things

seeming to exist.

This brings us then to the theory o f evolution.

Being is, but in human experience it does not seem to

be inert. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 500

B.C.) said that nothing ever is, but everything is

becoming; all things are passing, nothing abides.

"Y ou cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh

waters are ever-flowing in upon you. Thus perma

nency o f form, o f particulars, is but an illusion. If

there is fixity, then there would be a predeterminism, but

have things been ordained to be just as we perceive

them? More simply, was there a plan for the whole

Cosmos? Are the changes that are occurring but a

moving upward in an evolutionary scale toward an

immanent, that is, indwelling idea in the Cosmos?

Again, would this not result in a state o f ultima Thule,

a final stage that would be reached in some infinite

period o f time? And further, then, would Being be

arrested under a condition o f final inactivity? Such a

concept would not be reconciled with the theory that

Being is eternally active and becoming.

Here we are brought into conflict with two

opposing ideas. One is that there is an innate intelli

gence existing in Being, which is its motivating force.

It plans, determines, and in its so-called evolutionary

process is but a progression from an original Mind

Cause. The other concept is that the whole operation

o f primary Being is mechanistic; simply, it does what

it does by the necessity o f what it isfor analogy, just

as gravity functions as it does without any immanent

purpose behind or in it.

There is, o f course, the question often considered

as to whether evolution, that is a series o f changes

from simplicity to complexity, actually constitutes a

superior state o f an organism or integrated thing.

The theory o f holism affirms that an organic or

integrated whole has a more independent and greater

reality than the parts o f which it consists. This would

make the evolvement into complexity a greater state

o f reality than those parts out o f which it evolved.

According to such reasoning, a star then is greater than

an atom. But are quantity and intricacy the criteria for

determining a goal in nature, or is this just the human

idea o f evolution? Simply, does nature consider the

star more important than the atom because o f its

complexity? However, one must take into considera-

tion that the complex states do not always remain so.

Devolution sets in and returns them to their simple

original constituents. Consequently, we have no

assurance that what we term evolution is indicative o f

a kind o f predeterminism.

However, many are the noted philosophers who

have conceived a substratum o f what to them appears

as axiomatic o f intelligence, that is, a purpose existing

in the Cosmos. Without referring to such ancient

philosophers as the Greek, Anaxagoras, we can relate

the ideas o f relatively more recent philosophers in

this regard. Spinoza (1632-77) expounded the doc-

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

trine o f "su b specie aeternitatis, that is, that there

is a kind o f underlying intelligence which accounts

for law and order in the universe, and that the whole o f

Reality is not a mere mechanistic process.

Leibnitz (1646-1716) expounded the doctrine o f

"Petites Perceptions. Briefly, this declared that

behind our ordinary conscious act, deep in our mind,

is a reservoir o f dark, obscure consciousness, that is,

unconscious mental states. Regarding these various

levels o f consciousness in the human, Leibnitz stated,

"For a better understanding of petite perceptions, I am

wont to employ the illustration of the moaning or

sound of the sea, which we note when we are on the

shore. In order to hear this sound as we do, we must

hear the parts o f which the whole sound is made up,

that is to say, the sounds which come from each

wave, although each o f these little sounds makes itself

known only in the compressed combination o f all the

sounds taken together, that is to say, in the moaning

of the sea, and no one of the sounds would be

observed if the wave which makes it were alone. For

we must be affected a little by the motion of this

wave, and we must have some perception o f each o f

these sounds, however little they may be, otherwise

we should not have a perception o f a hundred thou

sand waves, for a hundred thousand nothings cannot

make a something. We never sleep so profoundly as

not to have some feeble and confused feeling that we

should never be awakened by the greatest sound in

the world if it were not strained and stretched a little

by less effort though the small extension they produce

is not apparent.

What Leibnitz is bringing out here is that our

consciousness is a collective consciousness, that what

ever we are conscious o f is in part the fusion o f a

series o f lesser consciousnesses combining to give us

the realization o f the whole.

Is consciousness, however, necessarily mind? Can

the universe, in the material sense, be regarded as

having a consciousness, just as we attribute that phe

nomenon to a function o f a living organism? Leibnitz

attributed a kind o f indwelling consciousness to what

he termed monads, in his famous work Monadology.

These monads were stated by him to be innumerable

particles in the universe and o f which all things con

sisted, even living matter. Each monad was imbued

with a consciousness o f a specific duty which it had to

perform. Some constituted a so-called lower order,

as the structure o f physical phenomena; others o f

plants, animals, and finally, even the human soul.

According to this theory there is an obvious

correlation between consciousness and intelligence.

In other words, there would be sensitivity in these

monads; it would be restricted to conforming or

responding to certain functions which each monad had

to individually perform. The universe, then, from

this point o f view, would be a collection o f these

elementary units with their built-in "purpose. The

consciousness is the means o f attracting to it any

other units (m onads) which are necessary for the

fulfillment o f its function. Yet the individual monad

does not exhibit intelligence in the sense o f under

standing the how or the why o f what it does.

Can then the universe be conscious o f what it is,

whatever that essence may be? This consciousness,

then, is driving it to persist in its very nature o f Being.

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

Nevertheless, it would not have a teleological, that is,

a Mind Cause, a purpose such as man is wont to think.

Such a purpose would imply a movement toward

finality, an ultimate end. Since there can be naught but

pure Being, eternal and immutable in essence, such a

determined cause leading to a relative inertia would

be contradictory. It is the seeming repetition o f

phenomena such as man perceives them which gives

rise to the human concept that Being follows a deter

mined law and order. But in this thinking we are

confronted with the subjective ideas o f Time and

Space. To the human mind, such may seem to be

objective realities and to be infinite. But what may

seem to be a constant succession, that is, a phenom

enon having a regular order in a period o f time, may

actually be going through a change not perceptible to

man. It would be a condition that would only suggest

to the human mind as being eternal.

The fact that we perceive phenomena that, accord

ing to the speed o f light, occurred a billion light-years

ago and yet are o f the same nature now is not proof o f

a purposeful order. We are only presuming that such

phenomena have a built-in, infinite, eternal state as

we experience them. The time of which we can be

conscious o f a phenomenons existence is no assurance

that in a more remote period it was not different.

Further, we cannot be certain that it is not going

through a change which will make it different from

what it is or seems to be now.

Pure Being, the noumenal world, the thing in itself

has no specific fixed qualitative nature. As Immanuel

Kant has said, the human mind can only perceive the

phenomenal world, and what he attributes to it is his

related understanding. It would seem, in human com

prehension, that it would be more appropriate to

conceive o f a conscious universe rather than o f one

possessed of mind having humanlike qualities as its

basic cause, such as we are inclined to attribute to it.

Now let us depart from the consideration o f the

macrocosm, the greater universe, to that o f the

microcosm, the finite world of which man is a part.

What are we?

Theology and philosophy have long attempted a

definition o f man. They have each attributed to him

certain basic qualities. But theology and philosophy

have often not been in agreement on just what these

constituents o f the human were. To refer to man as a

composite o f body and soul, or body, spirit, and mind,

for example, still leaves vague the self. The facts that

science has disclosed about man in such realms of

physiology, anatomy, biology, and psychology have

not been integrated sufficiently to remove the aura o f

mystery which surrounds the personal self.

When we refer to self, just what do we mean by

that term? What does it represent to us? Our separate

being independent from all else does not alone de-

scribe the personal nature o f self. If we were not able to

visually perceive our physical person, we still would

have a consciousness o f self. If we were not able to have

the faculty o f touch, nevertheless we could not deny

the existence o f our self. In fact, if other o f our

receptor organs were suppressed self would remain if

consciousness still persisted.

There is no particular quality which corresponds to

the nature o f self. In other words, self has no such dis

tinctive quality for identification as hard, cold, soft,

large, small, or any color. If we fall back upon philo

sophical abstractions we might generalize by saying

that self as a phenomenon is consciousness of con-

sciousness. This means that some aspect o f conscious

ness stands apart from the whole and perceives itself.

This awareness o f the stream of consciousness by itself

constitutes a dichotomy, that is, a division o f con

sciousness into two parts insofar as its function is

concerned. Or we could say there is a mirror image of

the nature o f consciousness, the image being the idea

o f self which we have.

It would be difficult, if at all possible, to empirically

prove that self is aware o f its own nature. There are,

however, phenomena which though not being the

substance of self, yet are related to the workings o f it in

our own being. If we just give thought to them, we then

have a better appreciation o f what at least we com

monly call the self.

Let us begin with such a common phenomenon as

thinking. Here again we are confronted with a com

plex process o f our being. To think, is just what? Is

perceiving, that is, registering impressions which

come to us through our sense organs, thought? For

example, is the visual sensation o f the color red,

thought? Is the tactile sensation o f cold, thought?

These impressions, vibratory in nature, go through a

transition in the brain and consciousness to compose

the idea which we associate with them. More simply,

this sensation, its quality, is given ideation.

But thinking is more than an experience alone. Just

to receive external impressions and to know them is

not the whole process o f thinking. If we, figuratively

speaking, isolate an idea that forms in consciousness

and try to determine its cause, we are then thinking. If

we begin to associate mental images, that is, ideas, we

are thinking. If we endeavor to not just involuntarily

react to impressions but to evaluate them in terms to

ourselves, we are thinking. If we establish objectives,

goals to be attained, and give same a temporal quality

as to have them happen in the future, we are likewise

thinking.

We can subdivide our thinking processes. One

we may call perception, to receive and realize impres

sions. The other we may term conception. This latter

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

is to give our experience identity or meaning to us.

Experience or perception, the gaining o f impres

sions, is the material which conception uses. To

think, you first must think about something; there

has to be an idea which is related in some degree to

previous experience. Simply, we cannot begin with a

virgin idea; a thought must incorporate the building

materials o f ideas engendered by experience.

How this whole phenomenon o f thought func

tions organically, that is, in a physical sense, is what

neurologists, brain specialists, and psychologists

endeavor to both discover and explain. However, the

manner in which we voluntarily arrange our thoughts

to arrive at new ideas, or the process o f conception, is

given several classifications. One o f these is called

reason. A technical term associated with it is syllogisti-

cal. This consists o f the intentional combining o f

ideas, or the arranging o f them, into an order that will

bring forth greater enlightenment. The arriving at

new and satisfying premises or conclusions does not

necessarily mean that such constitutes truths. For

analogy, primitive man gazing into the heavens and

noting the movement o f certain celestial bodies found

it reasonable to call them gods. Yet he could not

empirically, objectively prove the conclusion which

he arrived at.

Two basic methods o f syllogistical reasoning are

deductive and inductive. These are part o f the system

o f formal logic; yet, whether we have any knowledge

o f this subject o f logic or not, in our reasoning we all

commonly resort to deduction and induction. Sue-

cinctly, deductive reasoning is the method from the

general to the specific, as, for example, we are aware

o f a particular event and we desire to know what

elements contributed to it; what were its causes. For

analogy, what caused the decline o f the Mayan civili

zation? By deductive reasoning, we would try to

search out those factors in particular which may have

been its cause.

The inductive method is the principal tool of

science. It consists o f reasoning from some specific

fact, a particular leading up to the general or underly

ing law o f the phenomenon. For further analogy, a

criminologist may select a particular piece o f evi

dence and by the inductive method seek to discover

the general motivating factor involved. Sir Francis

Bacon is credited with advocating the inductive method

in science. In this connection, Bacon placed impor

tance on negative instances. This consists o f stripping

away in ones reasoning all instances which appear to

have no relationship to the phenomenon which is

under investigation.

Imagination is yet another o f the important phe

nomena o f which self is capable. No one is without

this attribute, though some persons are more endowed

with it than others. Academic psychology and philos

ophy have theorized on this mental process exten

sively. To even have a rudimentary understanding of

it, however, does bring us a greater appreciation o f the

marvel o f self at work.

Imagination employs three divisions o f time so

far as consciousness is concerned. First, imagination

employs the past; it draws upon ideas, the result of

previous experience. These become its basic materials.

Simply, one begins with the known. And the known

to each of us is o f the past.

However, when we think it is always o f the present

moment, even though the ideas brought forth from

memory at the time are o f the past. But the process o f

imagination is the future; that is, it is desirous o f

creating, bringing into existence that which is not o f

the past and which may not be objectified until a

future time. The function o f imagination is to arrange

elements o f our thoughts so that they may constitute

a new order and an image o f a thing or an event as yet

unknown in actual experience. One cannot, as we

have said, have a completely original idea in that it is

divested o f anything previously known. No creation

by man has any such absolute originality. Imagination

projects elements o f the known so as to adapt them

to an end sought.

Creative imagination deviates from fantasy. In

fantasy there need not be any conformity to known

law and order. It is only that which pleases the mind, even

if it is beyond all probability. For analogy, fantasy

may conceive an elephant suddenly transforming

itself into a human being. However, this would be

based upon no law o f nature, and it would be without

any intent to determine if such a possibility could exist

in nature. On the other hand, creative imagination

will, by contrast to fantasy, endeavor to utilize the

known so as to manifest that which is imagined.

Memory is a most vital factor in relation to the

phenomenon o f self. David Hume, English philos

opher, said, "H ad we no memory, we never should

have any notion o f causation, nor consequently o f that

chain o f causes and effects which constitutes our self

or person. But having once acquired this notion of

causation from the memory, we can extend the same

chain of causes, and consequently the identity o f our

persons beyond our memory . . . .

Hume, however, gave greater credit to memory

than to imagination. Memory, he said, is the direct

result o f experience, whereas imagination may often

lead to the exaggeration o f ideas and self-deceit. In

these remarks, Hume was evidently referring to fan

tasy.

What o f the emotions? We are more inclined to

identify them with the self than other functions o f the

body and brain. With most o f us, emotions are far

more motivating than are thinking, reasoning, and

imagination. The emotions are more specifically an

essential to personal survival. They give rise to many

o f the ideas which we have. Pain and pleasure are the

guidelines o f the survival o f the living organism. To

use a homely analogy, pain and pleasure are the red

and green lights in life, with certain limitations. Pain,

as the red light, informs the organism that something

is disturbing the internal rhythmic harmony upon

which its continuance depends. There is nothing that

so forcefully engenders the instinct o f caution like pain.

As for pleasure, this informs us that the titillating

sensation being experienced is in accord with the vital

processes o f the organism. It encourages us to continue

such conducive effects, provided that they do not

cross the threshold of safety and become an excess and

then retrogress to pain.

The emotions are related to pain and pleasure in

that they serve them in various ways. Fear induces

caution; it warns us o f possible endangering o f the

self. W ithout normal fear, man would not survive, as

he would have no hesitancy in engaging a threat to

life.Love is the attraction for that which it is con-

ceived will gratify the mental or physical aspect o f

being. Love is the desire for pleasure, or call it happi

ness, o f varied kinds. Each o f the emotions can be

analyzed in terms o f such a relationship. Even hatred

is founded on the fear o f that which seems to demean

or detract from the personal ego.

Compassion, or sympathy, is a form o f empathy;

that is, the individual is extending his personal feelings

in a circumstance so as to include another. In other

words, in compassion we vicariously feel the "hurt

which another is experiencing, and we wish to help

that other person surmount it in the manner we

would use personally under similar circumstances.

The so-called psychic side o f man consists o f the

more subtle phenomena o f mind, brain, and con

sciousness. They are more difficult to specifically

relate to such basics as we have touched upon. Even

these psychic impressions are related in the sensations

they produce to ones which we experience from the

common receptor senses. The sensations which they

arouse are feelings contiguous to the emotions, but it

is often difficult to state specifically which emotions

they are related to.We cannot pass by the attribute o f will without

some comment. The subject o f will has engaged phi-

losophers since antiquity. Modern psychologists

have their diverse opinions about it. Let us think for a

moment about will and quite apart from any techni

cal definition. W e will to do something, but why?

Will is a desire; it is an urge caused by thought, which

is stimulated either by internal or external impres

sions. However, will is a dominant desire; it com

mands the full volition of our being. We will to do one

thing in preference to another because will as a desire

exceeds at the time all other ideation or even sensa

tions which we might experience. Willpower is not a

separate entity or attribute o f our being. It is a phe

nomenon by which the mind focuses its energy upon

a single thought to make o f it a dominant desire that

compels action.

The ancients were right when they said that the

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

microcosm, the small universe, encompasses mysteries

as great as the macrocosm, our greater universe. Our

being and the phenomenon o f self are certainly one of

the greatest realms o f the microcosm. Each o f us,

each day, can become better acquainted with it by a

little self-analysis, that is, by endeavoring to learn

what we are. The ancient injunction, "Know thyself,

said to have appeared over a temple portal in ancient

Delphi, is worthy o f our contemplation.

2IS EVOLUTION AN

ACCEPTABLE THEORY?

The strongest objection to the theory that man has

descended from lower organisms comes from the

fundamentalists religious sects. They consider that

the evolution o f the species is a direct contradiction

of the biblical story o f creation and that it also tends

to degrade man.

The biblical account in Genesis conceives o f man

as a spontaneous creation, that is, a creation that

came into existence in the physical form in which he

now appears. It also states that man is the image o f his

Creator, that he is the highest creation in reference to

the faculties and attributes that he exhibits. If, o f

course, the Bible is to be taken literally as being the

exact word o f God and on those grounds no further

facts can be considered, then one conclusively closes

his mind to all other knowledge.

In numerous ways, it is shown by science by

means o f empirical knowledge that the Bible is a

collection o f legends, historical facts, and personal

revelations. The Bible can be refuted in part, espe

cially when one realizes that those who contributed

to it lacked much o f the knowledge available today.

In the still popular King James version o f the

Bible, at the beginning of the opening chapter of

Genesis, there usually appears the date 4000 B. C. as

the time o f creation. This date is easily refuted scien

tifically by geology, astronomy, archeology, and

Egyptology. It is known from the translation of

Egyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform tablets that

there were well-established cultures that had been in

existence for centuries at the time the Bible states as

the beginning o f creation.

Geologists, by means o f the so-called Earth clock

(the ages o f the Earth revealed in its strata), disclose

that this globe has been in existence for millions o f

years. Radioactive carbon in objects can be recorded

in such a manner as to establish their age accurately.

This latest method o f physical science has confirmed

estimates that archeologists have given to artifacts that

far antedate the creation date set forth in the Bible.

The modern space age and its space probes and

explorations have put to a severe test the literal inter

pretations o f the Bible. Science is not resorting to

heterodoxy or heresy; it is, rather, impartially search

ing for truth. If it is established that life exists on

other celestial bodies and not exclusively on Earth

and if other beings equal to or superior in intelligence

to man are found, this will then make erroneous the

statement that the Earth alone was selected as the

habitat o f an especially created beingman. It must be

realized that the early prophets and contributors to the

Old Testament accounts did not conceive o f heavenly

bodies as being other worlds. In fact, most o f them

were o f the opinion that cosmologically the Earth is

the principal body in the universe.

At the time when Nicolaus Copernicus (1 4 7 3 -

1543), astronomer, promulgated his idea that the Sun

and not the Earth was the center o f our universe, he

became the victim o f attack by the theologians. They

accused him o f detracting from the divine eminence

and importance o f man. Man was G ods chosen crea

tion, they said, citing the Bible. The Earth was created

solely for him.

Consequently, if the Earth were not the center o f

the universe and if it held a subordinate position,

mans status would thus be inferior, also. Copernicus

himself wrote, "In the center o f everything rules the

sun; for who in this most beautiful temple could place

this luminary at another or better place whence it can

light up the whole at once?in fact, the sun setting in a

royal throne guides the family o f stars surrounding

him . . . the earth conceives by the sun, through him

becomes pregnant with annual fruits.

Today, nearly five centuries after Copernicus,

truth is again in conflict with religious orthodoxy.

Even a high school student in his studies has the

evolutionary processes in nature demonstrated to

him. Breeders o f cattle and poultry know the muta

tions that result by special breeding; in fact, they

depend on such for the improvement o f their stock.

The horticulturist and even the amateur gardener can

discern the variations caused in plant growth and

form by environmental effects.

What seems to strike particularly at the human

ego and dignity is the belief that organic evolution in

relation to man means that "he comes from a mon

key. Most o f those who acrimoniously inveigh

against the theory o f evolution have never read any o f

Darwins works or any other textbooks on the sub

ject. Their opinion is that evolution is atheistically

designed to attack their faith.

Charles Darwin has not declared that man is a

direct descendant o f any primate. His postulations and

researches present the idea that there is "a tree o f

genealogical descent and that there are related forms

branching o ff from common parents. Simply put, he

meant that life came originally from simpler common

forms. In the passing o f time, these common forms as

parents had many branches from their original stock.

These branches or their variations account for the

different species due to natural selection and environ

mental factors.

In his renowned work, The Origin of Species, Charles

Darwin states that these variations account for dif

ferent organisms as the result o f competition for

restricted food. Those with favorable variations sur

vive and produce their kind. Man was not created as he

is, but various factors in his existence, in his gradual

survival, have brought about his organic structure.

Further, the impact o f present conditions will gradu

ally make other changes in him. Mans hands, for

example, were not spontaneously given to him as

they are, but their prehensile quality was developed

with his need to cope with his environment.

In his works, Darwin shows that the embryologi-

cal development o f the individual "tended to follow

roughly the evolutionary development o f their races

revealed by fossil remains. That is to say, the human

embryo goes through changes which can be observed

and which correspond to earlier forms o f organisms

whose fossilized remains have been found. This indi

cates that man preserves in himself the early forms of

living organisms through which his physical being

passed until he reached his present highest stage o f

development.

Instead o f this being shocking and detracting

from the status o f man, it actually indicates that man

may not yet have reached his zenith o f attainment.

There is the potentiality o f still further development,

which is a yet greater tribute to Cosmic law and

phenomena. We think that Charles Darwin beauti

fully expressed this thought in the following words:

"M an may be excused for feeling some pride at hav

ing risen, though not through his own exertions, to

the very summit o f the organic scale; and the fact o f

his having risen, instead of his being placed there

aboriginally, may give him hope for a still higher

destiny in the distant future.

Organically, man is an animal. To try to separate

physically or to distinguish the organic functions o f

man from other animals is an absurdity. The cells o f

the human have the same basic function, such as

irritability, metabolism, reproduction, and excretion, as

living cells in other forms o f lower life. It is the

physical vehicle o f man which the evolutionary theory

states is a product o f evolution and continues to be.

What reflection does this have upon the reli

gious, the mystical, and philosophical conception

that man is "a living soul ? Theology contends from

its hagiography, its collection o f sacred writings, that

man alone has soul. From one point o f view only can

this postulation be supported. Man, at least, as the

most intelligent being on Earth, has the most highly

developed self-consciousness.

It is this consciousness o f his emotional and psy

chic nature that causes him to conceive that entity o f

his personality which he calls soul. He terms it divine,

and it is divine if we designate all Cosmic forces as

being o f a divine nature. It is erroneous to say that

man alone has a soul. If, as previously stated, beings

having a self-consciousness equivalent to man are

found in the future to exist in the greater universe;

then, certainly, they would have the equal right to

claim such an entity as soul.

Until man became Homo sapiens, a rational highly

developed self-conscious being, he had only the

essence o f soul but no conception o f it. In the lower

animals, there is that same vital force and conscious

ness, which gradually evolved in man to its own

awareness and designates itself soul. Those who fear

that the theory o f evolution demeans that status o f

man will perhaps learn before another century has

passed that there are many other factors that strike at

mans egotistic conception o f being "the central

object o f all creation.

3THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACE

There is considerable interest today in people trac

ing their "ro o ts their family origin. Knowledge o f

such may or may not he gratifying to the ego, but

otherwise it is not particularly expedient to the present

day. In reference to the human race in general we may

presume the term roots refers to the origin o f man, a

hominoid.The time factor o f the earliest known specimens

that can be designated as man is being moved back

further and further. The earliest date proclaimed

today by the renowned family o f anthropologists, the

Leakeys, is several million years. Africa is now being

recognized as the possible locale o f the earliest man

like creature, a Homo erectus, the erect walking

hominoid.

Throughout the earlier periods o f the science o f

anthropology the honor o f being the first center o f

human life has shifted from one continent to another.

The sinanthropus, or Peking man, was long heralded

as our ancestor. This resulted, however, in consider

able controversy as to the authenticity o f the find

ings. Kenya, East Africa, has brought forth skeletal

remains which, according to radiocarbon metering

are said to be nearly three million years old. Exami

nation o f the skulls o f such early specimens reveals a

capacity o f 600-800 cubic centimeters. This is about

half the brain capacity o f modern man.

Findings o f more recent human remains during

the last Ice Age, estimated to be some 30,000 years

old show evidence o f simple craftsmanship. Pebbles

were used as tools for cutting and percussion, that is,

hammering. Then shaping or selecting o f flint for tools

was then acquired. This consisted first o f percussion,

that is, knocking off the edges of flint rock to a

desired shape. Slowly, progress was made to the point

of pressure. This consisted o f pressing a stone along

the edges o f the flint to remove undesired parts.

Attaching these flints to the pieces o f wood that were

groved to hold them and then affixing handles was a

far later technical advance.

As one anthropologist has noted, there seem to

have been certain cultural advances existing side by

side with a stagnation in the improvements o f what

had been done. For example, roughly executed art

depicting animals by scratches on bones was found.

This was an indication o f imagination and creativity.

However, this artwork was still carved with the same

crude tools that had been in use for thousands of

years.

Did the variations in climate and temperature

during periods o f glaciation the advance and retreat

o f the icecause mans emergence to be localized in

one area o f the world? We do know from extensive

research that the anthropoid apes were confined to

Africa by climactic conditions. They never devel

oped the ingenuity and reasoning powers to venture

beyond their favorable climate to adapt themselves

elsewhere. But man, the Homo erectus, and later the

Homo sapiens, or thinking man, did venture forth and

had a degree o f adaptability to a new environment.

A question still being considered by science is

this: Did man evolve from primates to hominoids

man-like creaturessolely in Africa? Are the find

ings o f the Neanderthal man in France and Spain the

result o f later pilgrimages from Africa? There are

traces in Europe o f pre-historic peoples, called

Mousterian, o f the late paleolithic period. Their cul

ture appears the same as that o f the remains found in

sections o f Africa.

A remarkable find was made in the suburbs of

Vladimir near Moscow. It was a large upper paleolithic

settlement cemetery. It contained well-preserved

burials, the date o f which have been estimated to be

22,000 B. C. In one burial, apparently laid out in

ceremonial form, were the skeletons o f two young

boys. They had polished mammoth ivory beads scat

tered upon what had been their clothing. Both also had

elaborate headdresses. In the burial were found a

number o f bracelets and rings. The burial was

obviously o f an advanced culture as indicated by the

arrangement o f the skeletons, the headdresses, and

the jewelry. Did these people originate in Russia or

did they migrate from Africa?

Science does not accept the theological idea o f a

spontaneous generation o f man. The famous estimate

o f 4004 B. C. for the creation o f man, which still

appears in the King James version o f the Bible, was

made by the Archbishop Henry Usher (1550-1631).

It was based on the age o f Adam s descendents as are

given in the Old Testament. This was later refined by

Dr. Lightfoot o f Cambridge University. He consid

ered that "m an was created by the Trinity on

October 23, 4004 B. C. at nine in the morning. To

accept such a date, o f course, would be to reject all

the empirical evidence o f the evolution o f man

throughout the aeons o f time. To accept the evolu

tionary concept does not diminish mans dependence

upon the Cosmic phenomena o f which all reality

exists. Man has evolved physically and he is continu

ing to evolve mentally as well. The real status o f man

was finally arrived at when he became a self-conscious

beingwhen he realized himself as apart from all else.

This state o f creative awareness is still undergoing

development (which we shall later consider further).

Race means breed. Race is said to have originated

where the human stock was subject to certain environ

mental conditions over long periods o f time. Physical

race marks or characteristics were deeply impressed

on "the competitive stocks o f the early world.

However, no biological stock is, in a sense, invaria

ble. Man may be subject to certain severities o f cli

mate which will eventually reproduce racial character

istics through heredity. But due to the plasticity o f

the human organism, generations o f people subject to

a new environmental condition will eventually pro

duce different physical changes in their offspring. In

other words, "som e human characteristics undergo

alternative modifications that once acquired, are

reproduced with a high degree o f regularity.

The variation is evidenced in head forms, hair

[ 54 ]

texture, and in skin color. Eye color and shape and

the breadth o f the nose are further examples.

The cradle lands o f races have been called "warm

fauna and cold fauna, in other words, animals (and

humans) o f cold or warm areas o f the world. In these

various and often extreme climates and other environ

mental factors, man has been subject in his early

beginnings to intense struggle for survival. The effects

o f this can be recognized among existing human stocks

and "sets its mark for heredity and the birth o f a

race.

These prehistoric beginnings o f race are studied

by anthropometric means, that is, the observation o f

height and weight o f the skeletal remains. Such find

ings, o f course, are not absolute but they do show

variations related to extreme climactic differences.

With increasing intermingling o f races in the modern

world, racial distinction will become more difficult to

determine. Theories have been made with some

degree o f veridity upon the differences in eye and nose

shape, skin coloring, and height and weight as well.

Certain climate and environmental influences are

attributed as the cause.

When it comes to the question o f "superiority

o f race, science at first attempted to relate this to

intelligence and to brain capacity. However, it has

been established that some primitive peoples today

have a brain capacity equal to the average dweller in

an advanced culture (approximately 1200 cc). Fur

thermore, the offspring o f these primitive peoples, if

brought as children into a civilized, advanced culture

to be reared and educated, exhibit an intelligence

equal to those native to the place where they are

reared.

The alleged superiority o f race has been mostly

due to superiority o f advantage rather than any

innate quality. If we consider the subject mystically,

all humans are infused with the same Cosmic life

force and its potentials, and there is no variation. It is

the exposure o f the being to environmental and cul

tural influences which can result in the greater exhibit

o f intelligence.

Each o f us knows o f young men and women who

have doctoral degrees and in other ways show a

marked intelligence. The I. Q. o f their parents would

also reveal an excellent native intelligence but per

haps they were not given the opportunity o f their off

spring to apply it through the medium o f education,

training, and application. Here superiority was in

advantage only.

We refer to primitive peoples as though all such

were necessarily naive and lacking in intelligence.

The general designation of a primitive people are those

whose culture shows a considerable diversity from

the Euroamerican one. As said previously, modern

anthropology, however, has proven that taking into

consideration the environment o f primitive people

they have often displayed in their customs and prac

tices a high degree o f intelligence. But it has not had

the influence o f the development o f an advanced

culture.

There appears to be what may be termed a very

definite primitive reasoning on the part o f humans.

This type o f reasoning seems to be innate, that is, it is

native to the human mind. We may say it is an

embryonic or elementary form o f thinking. How

ever, with experience, with literacy and with the effects

that come from a more complex culture this reason

ing is most often modified. Also this primitive type

o f reasoning, or term it immature thinking, does

persist even among many peoples in the so-called

advanced cultures. It is not indigenous to any one

race, country, or nationality. It constitutes the prin

cipal cause o f persistent superstitions and the perpet

uation o f often worthless customs and practices.

The persons retaining this primitive reasoning may

outwardly use the habiliments o f modern civilization.

They may utilize all the conveniences that science and

technology provide. However, such is only a veneer

and adaptation which often they do not fully under

stand. Whenever a new and different circumstance

arises for which there is no existing custom to apply,

they revert to their immature thinking to provide the

solution. The result, then, is often a fallacy o f think

ing which may compound the problem they confront

rather than solve it.

What constitutes this primitive mind? The primi

tive mind perceives differently. We can ordinarily

distinguish an objective presentation from subjective

associations. In other words, we can tell the differ

ence between the qualities o f what, for example, we

see from that o f our emotional feelings about the

experience or what we may imagine about it. But with

the primitive mind the properties o f the particular

thing perceived are assumed to also contain a myste

rious occult force. The particular is thought to pos

sess a certain immaterial supernatural or magical

power. Subsequently then, the perceptions, the

empirical experiences o f the primitive mind "are

overweighted by subjective elements.

Such magical and imaginative attributes cannot

be verified by sensation as can perception. For anal

ogy, when we perceive something visual we can go up

to it, feel it, and by our other receptor senses verify

the essence o f that which we see. Conversely, that

which is imagined to exist as a magical property in an

object cannot be verified by any external sensation.

Consequently, the nature o f the object is erroneously

presented to our mind. At least a confused concep-

tion o f it is had.

It must not be thought that the perceptions o f the

primitive mind are necessarily clouded. Their per

ception, their faculties, for example sight and hear

ing, are as fully developed as those o f the mature

thinker. Their wrong reasoning is due to the influence

o f desire, anxiety, and imagination. The imagination

"is excited by pressing needs which attribute quali

ties to the perception which do not exist in the things

themselves. For analogy, the individual stumbles over

a stick in his path. In its form it resembles a snake to

him. Then drawing upon his actual experience with

such reptiles, he imagines the inanimate stick to pos

sess the dangerous and fearful qualities o f the reptile.

Anthropologists are o f the opinion that the prim

itives have a more intense imagination and therefore

find it difficult to distinguish the ideas engendered by

it from those ideas arising from perception. Their

imagination is so intense that it may often cause their

death. If, for example, they have been told that they

have been execrated, that is, a curse has been called

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

down upon them, their imagination will make this

suggestion become a reality in their mind and even

tually cause their death. The same results o f intense

imagination may occur from the fear o f the conse

quence of the violation o f a taboo. Simply, to the

primitive mind thinking can be as efficacious as seeing

or feeling.

Another example o f primitive mind common

among men o f modern society is the association of

instances without concern for the differences in qual

ity. More simply put, two things quite different in

qualities will often be associated because o f some

relative function. For example, a primitive may put a

lock o f a mans hair in a fire that the hair may be

destroyed. He knows that fire burns the hand. The

lock o f hair belongs to man and therefore fire which

burns it likewise burns the man. We see this type o f

primitive reasoning existing in modern religious sects.

Many who resort to primitive practices in their reli

gious zeal are, o f course, not aware o f their immature

primitive reasoning which often shackles them to

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

superstition and prevents a true intellectual and spir

itual attainment.

Another example o f this same type o f reasoning is

the Zulu courting a girl. He chews a piece o f wood "in

expectation that as the wood is reduced to pulp, her

heart, too, will be softened. The processes are not

parallel, that is, the wood and the heart are different.

But the relationship between them, the softening

process is thought to be the same. Many persons wear

amulets which are from places proclaimed to be

sacred. With a great number o f such persons the

primitive reasoning is thus; the place from which the

article was taken was sacred and had a supernatural

efficacy. Therefore, this object must likewise have

that efficacy and will extend its protective influence

to my person.

The primitive mind commonly confuses cause

and relation. If one thing happens after another, it is

presumed by the type o f mind that the first one

which was observed was the cause o f the others which

followed when actually there was no such relationship.

In other words, similarity is presumed a causal quality

[ 62 ]

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

when it may not actually exist as such. Observation

and mature thinking will often reveal that things will

appear similar yet have fundamentally different

causes for their existence.

There are a number o f theories with regard to the

way that we think. Different schools o f psychology

advocate these different concepts. One is the stimulus-

response theory. We have an external stimulus received

by one o f our receptor senses which in turn produces

a response, a sensation. That sensation may in turn

become a stimulus to produce still another response

possibly arousing an idea within the mind by associa

tion. Meaning, however, is more than just a simple

response. It is the allocating o f identity to response.

This consists o f the evaluation o f the response and the

combining o f simple ideas into more complex ones.

Such a process is often done involuntarily, that is, the

ideas just arise in the mind from previous perception.

When we reason, we intentionally will what

responses should be combined or so related as to

confer their meaning. We may be wrong in our inter

pretation o f the meaning but if such voluntary thought

[ 63 ]

is done, we are then less apt to fall into the common

errors o f the primitive mind, which mind is latent in

all o f us.

Free association is that process o f thinking to

which at times we are all inclined. Free association o f

ideas is that form o f thinking over which less control

is exercised. In free association one thought just

stimulates another. The thought is not oriented

toward any particular solution. It does not con

sciously reflect a theme. For analogy, we may think

o f a warm day, then there comes to mind last

summer, then perhaps a place to which we went or a

disappointment that we did not go, then the thought

o f those who bought clothes for a journey, then we

may think o f a shop we may recently have seen with

an announcement o f a sale. This is an example o f free

association.

On the other hand, fantasy and (ia^dTeaming, as

we have said previously, are directed toward a solu

tion but one that is not realistic, that is, principally

imaginative. A youth in fantasy, for example, imagines

himself an astronaut on a journey to a distant world

encountering other peoples there. He is creating a

theme in a related manner o f ideas but it is not realistic.

In other words, it is not supported by fact or even by

the possibility at the time that he could ever experience

such an event.

Let us remember that it is not what the world is

that really matters but what we think it to be that

contributes to our conscious state o f reality and living.

However, we should create such a world as clearly as

our mental faculties permit. We can discipline our

thoughts and our reason so as to avoid misconcep

tions which may adversely affect the welfare o f our lives.

We often read or it is said that the prehistoric and

primitive man have been more elementary in his

reasoning but that he had certain faculties which

were more acute than those possessed by modern

man. It implies that the man o f today has such innate

faculties but that they are semidormant within him.

In particular, the question has been asked, "Since

primitive man developed his intuitive faculties to a

high degree and we know that inner development is

never lost, why is civilized man so lacking in this faculty?

A distinction must be made between instinct and

intuition although there is undoubtedly a psychologi

cal relationship between them to some degree.

Instincts are definitely lessons which have been

learned by an organism, especially a complex one such

as man. These lessons have been acquired through

the long evolutionary process o f the living thing.

When we say "learn this cannot be equated with

our common interpretation o f the word. It is not that

which has been consciously realized and evaluated in

relation to the self such as we would learn a language,

music, or mathematics. The organism in its slow

ascent and in its confrontation with its environment

was subjected to conditions which either favored or

opposed it. The continuous influence of these similar

conditions for perhaps thousands o f generations left

permanent impressions on the genes. These alterations

and mutations, it is theorized, were transmitted to offspring.

The inherited characteristics became behavioral

responses. In other words, whenever the organism

was subjected to the same stimulus there would be an

impulsive urge to act in response to it as it always

had. To use common technical vernacular, the genes

of the organism had been programmed to function in

a certain way. These innate indwelling urges are what

we term instincts.

It takes a considerable exercise o f willpower to

resist the intensity o f the stimuli o f instincts. In fact,

there are several instincts which we wish to direct but

most certainly should not suppress. For example,

curiosity, the inquisitiveness that draws the attention

o f a person or o f lower animals to the unfamiliar. If

we were devoid o f curiosity the humanoid would

probably never have advanced beyond the Neander

thal stage. In fact, he might not ever have attained

that status. There is also the almost irresistible

instinct o f the preservation of self. This instinct or urge

is deeply ingrained in the simplest o f living organisms.

It is survival o f the life force itself.

Throughout the ages and with the varying cul

tures that occurred these instincts have been subject

to some modification. We are also forming new hab

its which if they are retained and perpetuated for

many generations will undoubtedly establish at least

the nucleus for additional instincts.

These instincts are not necessarily spiritual or

divine unless you attribute every human faculty and

characteristic to such a source. Generally summing

up, the instincts have very definite biological func

tions. It would appear that those long-formed habits

which are "remembered by the genes are principally

concerned with the protection and survival and the

well-being o f the organism. In fact, the very existence

of an organism can be said to depend upon its instincts.

It therefore must be obvious that the organism could

not learn or acquire these necessary behavioral

responses in just one lifetime.

It is quite probable that early primitive man relied

more readily upon his instinctive impulses than does

Homo sapien or rational man. The rational man is

inclined to establish intellectual values which counter,

that is, oppose his instincts at times. For further

example, there is the ascetic who for religious reasons

suppresses fundamental physical drives and impulses

and may even practice self-mortification, that is,

abuse the body. Further, the conventions o f society,

its moral and ethical codes tend to restrict and subdue

impulses o f the instincts.

Intuition is termed "insight in most modern psy

chological texts. This is what we might term an inner

perception, a kind o f immediacy o f knowledge. In other

words, an influx into the conscious mind o f ideation,

a chain o f ideas which have not been labored upon by

the reason and are suddenly realized. This intuitive

knowledge principally rises from our subconscious

mind. It consists mostly o f a kind o f higher judgment

and subconscious organization o f our knowledge so as

to compose new ideas or concepts which are then realized.

The stimulus for these intuitive impressions may

be derived from several sources but there are two

principal ones. If one has been laboring with a prob

lem for sometime and his reason has not brought

forth a satisfactory solution, the subconscious con

tinues with the work that has been dismissed from

the conscious mind. This is commonly called the

"unconscious work o f the mind. O f course, it isnt

really unconscious but rather a different phase o f the

stream o f consciousness applied to the problem. Our

desire to know becomes a stimulus that puts the sub

conscious to work even when the conscious mind has

discontinued acting upon the idea.

Also, our subconscious can be psychically stimu

lated by the Cosmic or the thoughts o f others to which

it may have become attuned without our conscious

mind realizing that it has been receptive to such

external ideas. Ultimately such ideas are discharged

into our conscious mind coming as an intuitive

impression. These aspects o f intuition are difficult to

relate to instinct, but there are other intuitive

impressions which appear to be instinctively moti

vated. For analogy, we may have an intuitive impres

sion to not do a certain thing. It may be a kind o f

premonition of an impending danger as we perceive

it. Conversely and even sometimes opposed to the

conclusions o f our reason, we may have the intuitive

impressions as "feeling, or again, a kind o f mental

vision, to go ahead with something.

We can only surmise that there are more subtle

aspects o f the instincts, or combinations o f instincts,

that in such cases are reacting to our conscious deci

sion. More simply, the instinct "know s from its

innate experience that what we are intending to do or

to which we are exposed will in some way threaten

our personal security and well-being. These instinctive

impulses then act upon the organizing power o f the

subconscious mind to bring forth the intuitive

impression in an intellectual or cognizant form. Suc

cinctly put, the instinct creates the sensation, the

ideas o f intuition at times, so as to either arrest or to

motivate us.

As said, most intuitive impressions are always

related directly to the physical and mental well-being

or to the security o f the individual. Rarely do they

concern matters which we can say are extraneous to

self. That is, self is always the determinant factor in

connection with intuitive impressions. Though it

would seem that instinct and intuition can and com

monly do function independently, yet in other

instances they give evidence o f a conterminous and

harmonious relationship.

We can only speculate but we doubt that prehis

toric man had a more developed faculty o f intuition

than contemporary man. It is because intuition plays

a greater part only where there is the intellect to

image in some form the impressions received. When

we have an intuitive impression it has the structure o f

thought, the form o f an idea. In other words we

associate and we identify the intuitive impulse with a

specific chain o f ideas. We may say, for example, that

we have an intuitive impression o f this or that nature

whereas instinct is expressed more through the emo

tions as in feeling. We may feel but we do not always

know why, for analogy.

We may associate ideas with instinct now but

primitive man, as said, was primarily motivated by

them without associating any meaning to their impulses.

The primitive man is more dependent upon instinct

only because he has not acquired the intellect and

reasoning capacity as its substitute and often as a

conflicting obstacle. Although we are able to be more

responsive to intuition as so-called civilized persons

we have been inclined to subordinate the communi

cations o f intuition to our conscious minds.

The society in which we live has compelled us to

put almost total reliance upon our reason and objec

tive faculties. Only now is the populace becoming

aware o f this and trying to reawaken the channels o f

these other levels o f consciousness. However, this is

not a new enterprise for the Rosicrucians. Their

monographs have been teaching principles with

regard to this development centuries before the pres-

ent-day and before the often vague expositions by

modern parapsychologists.

4CAN WE KNOW THE ABSOLUTE?

It has long been proclaimed by the adherents o f

mysticism and esoteric studies that the apex o f such

practices is "unity with the Absolute. This unity is

variously described as a state o f oneness with the

Absolute. The personal consciousness is said to

merge with the Infiniteto be absorbed, in a sense.

Another term for the phenomenon is Cosmic Con-

sciousness.

However, this absorption into the Infinite does

not imply a complete loss o f personal identity; the

ego, the 1 still persists. In other words, the individ

ual consciousness embraces a greater realization o f

reality than can be had by objective perception, yet it

is not devoid o f the awareness o f its own existence as

an entity.

However, this suggests a question as to just what

is meant by the Absolute. Can it be defined as the

Ultimate, a state or a condition beyond which

nothing else can be? Is this Absolute the end o f a

progression and a hierarchical order o f development?

Or is the Absolute to be construed as the Infinite, the

One and All o f Being, and therefore a state o f perfec-

tion? Is it a state o f perfection because it is fundamen

tally o f one essence, there being nothing in its nature

less than its quality? In other words, a thing cannot be

considered as other than perfect in itself if there is

nothing else by which it can be compared.

Another question that then arises is, How can the

mind o f man embrace this Absolute? Or to put it

another way, How can the finite consciousness o f the

human mind comprehend that which is infinite and

limitless in its manifold nature? Figuratively speak

ing, can a cup hold within it the vastness o f the sea?

The human mind, its phenomenon o f consciousness,

is part o f the spectrum o f natural (or Cosmic) laws. It

is but one o f myriad o f Cosmic phenomena. This

propounds still another question: Can a part know

the whole of which it consists?

Mystics in their writings have frequently referred

to this Oneness. Subsequently, Oneness resulted in a

noetic experience, that is, an influx o f new knowledge

an intellectual illumination like nothing had pre

viously. However, such revelations as are related to

us in mystical literature do not attempt a comprehen

sive picture o f Cosmic phenomena. Little is presented

to explain the workings o f the physical order o f the

Cosm os as a whole. Rather, these writings describe

the emotional state which is had during the Oneness

experienced. It is expressed in terms o f the summum

bonum o f moral righteousness. The individual also

endeavors to relate the ecstasy o f his experience in

terms of freedom from the burdens or mortal finite

ness. This consciousness o f the Absolute is then not

so much knowing the structure o f the immanent

nature o f reality as it is a state o f euphoria, o f ecstatic

well-being.

The mystical experience of unity with the Absolute

is a perception through an uncommon higher state o f

consciousness. It is a consciousness o f that which we

never ordinarily experience in our objective or sub

jective states o f mind. Therefore, the experience of

this consciousness can embrace phenomena which

transcend our other levels o f consciousness.

No doubt the mystical state o f consciousness

transcends the peripheral senses and reason. We can

say that it is responsive to phenomena, to aspects o f

reality, o f the Cosm os that evade the normal mortal

state o f awareness. To the mystic it is so unique, so

entirely different from anything he has ever expe

rienced before, that it seems to be the Ultimate. It is a

state, a condition, beyond which he cannot think of

anything greater. Consequently, to the reason it

would seem to be the Absolute.

But again, we find it difficult to conclude ration

ally that such an experience is actually a vision, an

insight into the whole o f reality. The exceptional

nature o f the mystical experience may suggest the

assumption that the phenomenon embraces the

Absolute in its entirety. Mystics who are strong

devotees o f a particular sect will relate their expe

rience as a personal consciousness o f whateveivimage

o f the Deity is set forth in their theology. Thus,

instead of referring to a unity with the Absolute, they

will term the experience "a glorious vision o f G od,

or "an entrance into Heaven.

The emotional impact upon the individual who

experiences Cosmic Consciousness is so all-absorbing

o f his higher sentiments, it exceeds the capacity o f the

imagination to conceive o f anything beyond it.

Is knowing the Absolute a fantasy, a self-engendered

delusion? We may not know the whole nature o f a

thing, yet we can know a representation o f its quality.

For example, as yet we do not know the whole nature

o f the structure o f matter. But piece by piece, from

molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, down to the

recent discovery, the gluons, we are gaining a more

comprehensive idea o f what its entirety may be, and

we are coming closer to the Rosicrucian concept as

well. So too, as limited as our mystical experience of

the Absolute may be, it is o f its nature. It is a spreading

outward o f the human consciousness by which the

ego feels its relationship with that Infinity. /

Ordinarily, we are made very conscious o f our

finite nature; its limitations are ever impressed upon

us. Science is making the relative distinction between

our being and the vastness o f the physical universe

more and more apparent to us. Objectively, then, we

become diminutive in comparison to the greater uni

verse consisting o f billions o f galaxies and an ines

timable number o f suns and planets. The mystical

experience bolsters our ego, releases it from a sense o f

inferiority. We are able to feel a oneness with that

which far transcends this Earth, this galaxy, and our

physical being. We become momentarily merged in

that onenessa state o f consciousness that objectivity

and the peripheral senses could never produce. The

mystical experience provides the pulse o f the Absolute,

if not its anatomy.Since there are variations in the depth o f feeling

o f unity with the Absolute, we can surmise that some

individuals are more contiguous to it in consciousness

than others. If consciousness is a stream o f levels o f

sensitivity and responsivity, then some persons

inner perceptions o f the Absolute will be far greater

than those o f others, but none will know its entirety.

We can further assume that if there are minds

elsewhere in the universe capable o f a greater depth o f

perception and responsivity, or consciousness, than

our own, then their experience o f the Absolute may

have a dimension which we can neither imagine nor

experience. But again, they too will not know the full nature o f the Absolute.

The subject o f the Absolute is often related to

God and the Cosmic. In fact, these two latter words are

often interchanged. There is an old adage that says:

"A rose is a rose by any other name. However, a

distinction by other than name can be made between

these two. Religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and

certain philosophical doctrines expound that there is

an omnipotence that transcends not only man but all phenomena.

Beyond this common agreement, however, var

iance begins. In other words, in just what manner is

this omnipotence conceived? There is the theistic

concept which states that this Supreme Force is

anthropomorphic, an entity or being embodying

humanlike qualities. It is presumed to be an intelli

gence and determinative, that is, a mind that reasons,

has purpose and emotions which to an extent parallel

those o f humans. This intelligent being feels as well as

thinks; that is, it loves. And in sacred literature o f

some sects it is stated that it is jealous and expresses

its anger.

Theism, then, is proclaiming a personal god, a

super-entity. Such an entity, it is stated, is not only

the first cause o f all reality, but it is also the conscious

director o f all the phenomena which it has created.

Succinctly, it has the arbitrary power to alter that

which it has brought into existence. It is believed by

theists that this supreme entity has established the

laws o f nature just as a craftsman would create tools

for his purpose, that is, a mechanism to manifest his

objectives. The fundamental theist will however

conceive that the God he accepts may at any time

intervene to suppress, rescind, or alter those laws or

phenomena which He has brought into existence.

Though this God in all His attributes cannot be

completely embraced and understood by man, yet

the theists will generally affirm that "man can know

the Deity. It is further believed by such theists that

this God is a patronizing one, that is, a "loving

Father. Simply, it is thought that man can appeal to

this Deity as a loving, beneficent Being, who also

functions as an omniscient judge. In this sense, the

laws o f nature are not believed to be absolute but

rather subject to the "Divine W ill o f the single,

eternal Deity, who is infinite in wisdom and power

and in all o f His fiats and acts. Such actions by this

Deity are considered by the theists to be innately

good, no matter how they may be perceived or expe

rienced by man.

These qualities attributed to God are difficult to

distinguish from the mind and consciousness o f

humans except in the extent o f their efficacy. The

absolute theist embodies this super-mind in a kind of

form; it is not ethereal, but rather a sort o f immaterial

substance which is commonly imaged by him as a

humanlike form.

There is also the mystical and metaphysical concept

which advocates that there is a Primary Cause which

is a kind o f Universa