The Rosicrucian Library0Volume

I Rosicrucian Q uest ions and Answers with Comple te History of the Order

II Rosicrucian Princip le s for the H om e and Bu sin essIII T h e Mystical Life of Je su sIV T h e S ecret D o d r in e s o f Je su sV Unto T h ee 1 Grant

(Secret T e a ch in g s of T ib e t 'VI A T h o u s a n d Years of Yesterdays

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

(A Vocational Guide)VIII R os icrucian Manual

IX Mystic s at PrayerX Behold the S ign

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

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

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

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

XVII M ental Po ison ingX X II T h e S an c tu ary of S e l f

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

X X V I T h e Con sc ious InterludeX X V I I E ssa y s of a Modern Mystic

X X V I I I Cosmic Mis s ion Fulf il ledX X IX W hisper ings of S e l fX X X H erbal ism T h ro u g h the Ages

X X X I Egypt 's Ancient HeritageX X X I I Yesterday H as M uch to Tell

X X X I I I T h e Eternal Fru it s of KnowledgeX X X I V Cares T h a i Infest

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

X X X V I I In S ea rch of RealityX X X V I I I T h ro u g h the M in d 's Eye

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

THROUGHTHE

MINDSEYE

LEWIS

THROUGH THE MINDS EYE

B y R a l t h M . L e w i s , F .R .C .

AMORC

Truth Is What Is Real To Us. Knowledge, experience, is the material of which truth consists. But what is the real, the true, of what we know? With expanding consciousness and knowledge, truth changes. Truth therefore is ever in the balance never the same. But in turning to important challenging subjects, the M inds Eye can extract that which is the true and the real, for the now. The book, Through the M inds Eye, calls to attention important topics for judgment by your minds eye.

THROUGH THE MINDS EYER A LPH M. L E W IS , F.R.C.

Published By

The Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC

Rosicrucian Park

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

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

About the Author

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

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

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

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

V V V

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

By

R alp h M . L ew is, F .R .C . Imperator o f the Rosicrucian Order, AM ORC

Rosicrucian Library Volume XXXVIII

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

San Jose, California

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

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

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

N o p art o f this pub lication m ay be rep ro d u ced , sto red in a retrieval system , o r tran sm itted , in any fo rm o r by any m eans, e lectron ic, m ech anical, ph otocopy in g , record ing, o r otherw ise, w ithout p rio r w ritten p erm ission o f the publish er.

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

Dedication

V

ToThe Memory o f

My Wife

R.M.L.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

I wish to express my appreciation for the valuable typing o f the manuscript by Cynthia Swanson.

Ralph M. Lewis September 1981

The Rosicrucian LibraryVolume

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

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

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

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

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

IX M ystics at PrayerX Behold the Sign

(A B ook o f A ncient S y m b o lism )XI M an sion s o f the Soul

(A C o sm ic C o n cep tio n )XII L em uria T h e L o st C on tin en t o f the Pacific

XIII T h e T ech n ique o f the M asterX IV T h e Sym bolic Prophecy o f the G reat Pyram idX V T h e B ook o f Jasher

XV I T h e T echn ique o f the D iscip leXVII M ental PoisoningXXII Th e San ctuary o f S e lf

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

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

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

X X X I E gypt's A ncient H eritageX X X II Y esterday H as M uch to Tell

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

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

X X X V III Th rou gh the M in d s Eye

(O th er vo lu m es will be added from tim e to time. W rite for com p lete catalogue .)

ContentsV

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

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

6 Things that Shape Our L iv e s ........................ 1077 The Cultivation o f Civilization ....................125

8 What Is Spirituality?........................................ 1499 When Should We Believe?............................. 171

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

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

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

IN T R O D U C T IO N

Fortunately, we have been endowed with periph

eral vision and have not been limited by nature to

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

mental vision also has its boundaries, but not just

those which are im posed upon it by nature but by the

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

selves those experiences that more expansive obser

vation and thought might have produced.

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

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

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

those observations, experiences, and thoughts that

could cause the final goal to be far more gratifying.

O ur life, our personal response to it, is deter-

mined by our evaluation o f experiences. The more

we perceive and think o f what we experience, the

greater the breadth o f our understanding. There is

also, then, m ore o f the things o f existence which we

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

W e are quite aware o f the im pact o f environment

upon our lives. It is a trem endous factor in influenc-

ing both our thoughts and the actions which follow

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

new experience from an entirely individual point o f

view, and quite another to appraise its value from

knowledge derived from the experiences o f others.

The great im portance o f history is attributed to

learning how men in the past responded to certain

circum stances and events which have their parallels

today. History reveals the errors which men have

made in their confrontation with unanticipated

occurrences. It likewise discloses what men have

learned in their relations with each other, the lessons

o f which have descended to us.

There are many things we should know that

might be beneficial to us, which ordinarily do not

come to our attention. They are not necessarily all

that which we should believe or accept; yet they often

may confirm what we think by the rational presenta

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

cause us to open-mindedly question our conclusions

and contem plate their value to us. M ost o f us can

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

and admit that a previous concept or decision was

not right and that we might have acted differently if

we then had known otherwise.

Psychologically and philosophically, we can only

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

first knowing its antithesis, that which, by contrast,

seem s bad. Therefore, how right or wrong we are

about our evaluation o f human experience, o f our

ideas and ideals, can be rationally appraised by con

templating those ideas counter to them which may

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

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

life. Such provides us, figuratively speaking, with a

peripheral vision o f relative and practical truths that

might otherwise escape us.

This book, Through the M inds Eye, seeks to

introduce a variety o f subjects which have an effect

upon not only our personal lives but upon modern

society. It is not a preachm ent; it is not a continuity

o f doctrines; it is not recom m ending any particular

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

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

effects we now experience and perhaps live by, also

those ideas which we confront today. The book is

concerned, too, with speculation about how our

thought and action should be directed toward the

onrushing tomorrow.

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

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

the readers beliefs and personal philosophy. But

even if they are rejected, we believe the reader will

derive a satisfaction in the renewed conviction aris

ing out o f his own outlook on life its past, present,

and what the future should be.

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

emerge from their beliefs

IS T H E U N IV E R S E C O N S C I O U S ?

In the abstract speculation o f this subject, a first

consideration m ust be had as to how the word uni

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

universe as a com plex o f galaxies and island universes

which are a posterior developm ent o f a primary

beginning. In other words, we are thinking in the

term s o f Absolute Being. The ancient Greek philos

opher Parm enides contended that Being could not

have com e into existence. For it to have com e into

existence, it would have need to have arisen from

som ething or from a nothing. If, however, we give

nothing such an identity as to make o f it a "so m e

thing, then that too is Being. W e consequently are

then obliged to ask, W hence came this "noth ing ? In

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

It, o f course, challenges the com m on credibility

to assum e that the C osm os, considered as the whole

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

conflicts with our com m on experience o f causation,

that is, that everything seem s to have a cause and that

therefore it is presum ed that Being, the C osm os,

m ust also have had one. But such only leads us to

imagining a prior state and then once again questioning

whence it came. W e conclude from this reasoning that

only Being could exist, and that it is eternal and

im mutable. By immutable we do not intend to imply

that the greater universe is inert or that it cannot

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

to convey the idea that Being can never be other than

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

Being could retrogress or dissolve, for that would

presum e the existence o f som ething other than itself.

In fact, we can use the philosophical abstraction

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

on the perception o f something. M ore succinctly, what

I see, for exam ple, I can therefore imagine as also not

existing. It is this idea o f som ething which gives rise

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

A pure nothing, if it existed, could never engender

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

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

seeming to exist.

This brings us then to the theory o f evolution.

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

be inert. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 500

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

becoming; all things are passing, nothing abides.

"Y o u cannot step twice into the sam e river, for fresh

waters are ever-flowing in upon you . Thus perm a

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

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

have things been ordained to be just as we perceive

them? M ore sim ply, was there a plan for the whole

C osm os? Are the changes that are occurring but a

moving upward in an evolutionary scale toward an

immanent, that is, indwelling idea in the Cosm os?

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

a final stage that would be reached in som e infinite

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

arrested under a condition o f final inactivity? Such a

concept would not be reconciled with the theory that

Being is eternally active and becoming.

Here we are brought into conflict with two

opposing ideas. O ne is that there is an innate intelli

gence existing in Being, which is its m otivating force.

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

process is but a progression from an original M ind

Cause. The other concept is that the whole operation

o f primary Being is mechanistic; sim ply, it does what

it does by the necessity o f what it is for analogy, just

as gravity functions as it does without any immanent

purpose behind or in it.

There is, o f course, the question often considered

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

from sim plicity to com plexity, actually constitutes a

superior state o f an organism or integrated thing.

The theory o f holism affirm s that an organic or

integrated whole has a m ore independent and greater

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

make the evolvement into com plexity a greater state

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

According to such reasoning, a star then is greater than

an atom. But are quantity and intricacy the criteria for

determining a goal in nature, or is this ju st the human

idea o f evolution? Simply, does nature consider the

star m ore im portant than the atom because o f its

complexity? However, one m ust take into considera

tion that the com plex stares do nor always remain so.

Devolution sets in and returns them to their simple

original constituents. Consequently, we have no

assurance that what we term evolution is indicative o f

a kind o f predeterminism.

However, many are the noted philosophers who

have conceived a substratum o f what to them appears

as axiom atic o f intelligence, that is, a purpose existing

in the C osm os. W ithout referring to such ancient

philosophers as the Greek, Anaxagoras, we can relate

the ideas o f relatively more recent philosophers in

this regard. Spinoza (1 6 32-77) expounded the doc

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

is a kind o f underlying intelligence which accounts

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

Reality is not a mere mechanistic process.

Leibnitz (1 6 4 6 -1 7 1 6 ) expounded the doctrine o f

"Petites Perceptions. Briefly, this declared that

behind our ordinary conscious act, deep in our mind,

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

unconscious mental states. Regarding these various

levels o f consciousness in the human, Leibnitz stated,

"F or a better understanding o f petite perceptions, I am

wont to em ploy the illustration o f the m oaning or

sound o f the sea, which we note when we are on the

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

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

that is to say, the sounds which com e from each

wave, although each o f these little sounds m akes itself

known only in the com pressed com bination o f all the

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

o f the sea, and no one o f the sounds would be

observed if the wave which makes it were alone. For

we must be affected a little by the m otion o f this

wave, and we m ust have som e perception o f each o f

these sounds, however little they may be, otherwise

we should not have a perception o f a hundred thou

sand waves, for a hundred thousand nothings cannot

make a something. W e never sleep so profoundly as

not to have som e feeble and confused feeling that we

should never be awakened by the greatest sound in

the world if it were not strained and stretched a little

by less effort though the small extension they produce

is not apparent.

W hat Leibnitz is bringing out here is that our

consciousness is a collective consciousness, that what

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

series o f lesser consciousnesses com bining to give us

the realization o f the whole.

Is consciousness, however, necessarily mind? Can

the universe, in the material sense, be regarded as

having a consciousness, just as we attribute that phe

nom enon to a function o f a living organism ? Leibnitz

attributed a kind o f indwelling consciousness to what

he term ed monads, in his fam ous work Monadology.

These m onads were stated by him to be innumerable

particles in the universe and o f which all things con

sisted, even living matter. Each m onad was imbued

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

perform . Som e constituted a so-called lower order,

as the structure o f physical phenomena; others o f

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

A ccording to this theory there is an obvious

correlation between consciousness and intelligence.

In other words, there would be sensitivity in these

m onads; it would be restricted to conform ing or

responding to certain functions which each monad had

to individually perform . The universe, then, from

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

elementary units with their built-in "p u rp o se . The

consciousness is the means o f attracting to it any

other units (m onads) which are necessary for the

fulfillment o f its function. Yet the individual m onad

does not exhibit intelligence in the sense o f under

standing the hou> or the o f what it does.

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

whatever that essence may be? This consciousness,

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

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

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

Such a purpose would imply a movem ent toward

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

pure Being, eternal and im m utable in essence, such a

determined cause leading to a relative inertia would

be contradictory. It is the seem ing repetition o f

phenom ena such as man perceives them which gives

rise to the hum an concept that Being follow s a deter

mined law and order. But in this thinking we are

confronted with the subjective ideas o f Tim e and

Space. T o the human mind, such may seem to be

objective realities and to be infinite. But what may

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

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

actually be going through a change not perceptible to

man. It would be a condition that would only suggest

to the human mind as being eternal.

The fact that we perceive phenomena that, accord

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

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

a purposeful order. W e are only presum ing that such

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

we experience them. The time o f which we can be

conscious o f a phenomenons existence is no assurance

that in a m ore rem ote period it was not different.

Further, we cannot be certain that it is not going

through a change which will make it different from

what it is or seem s to be now.

Pure Being, the noum enal world, the thing in itself

has no specific fixed qualitative nature. A s Immanuel

Kant has said, the human mind can only perceive the

phenom enal world, and what he attributes to it is his

related understanding. It would seem, in human com

prehension, that it would be m ore appropriate to

conceive o f a conscious universe rather than o f one

possessed o f mind having humanlike qualities as its

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

Now let us depart from the consideration o f the

m acrocosm , the greater universe, to that o f the

m icrocosm , the finite world o f which man is a part.

What are we?

Theology and philosophy have long attem pted a

definition o f man. They have each attributed to him

certain basic qualities. But theology and philosophy

have often not been in agreement on just what these

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

com posite o f body and soul, or body, spirit, and mind,

for exam ple, still leaves vague the self. The facts that

science has disclosed about man in such realms o f

physiology, anatomy, biology, and psychology have

not been integrated sufficiently to rem ove the aura o f

mystery which surrounds the personal self.

W hen we refer to self, just what do we mean by

that term? W hat does it represent to us? O ur separate

being independent from all else does not alone de

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

visually perceive our physical person, we still would

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

the faculty o f touch, nevertheless we could not deny

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

receptor organs were suppressed self would remain if

consciousness still persisted.

There is no particular quality which corresponds to

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

tinctive quality for identification as hard, cold, soft,

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

sophical abstractions we might generalize by saying

that se lf as a phenom enon is consciousness of con

sciousness. This means that som e aspect o f conscious

ness stands apart from the whole and perceives itself.

This awareness o f the stream o f consciousness by itself

constitutes a dichotom y, that is, a division o f con

sciousness into two parts insofar as its function is

concerned. O r we could say there is a m irror image o f

the nature o f consciousness, the image being the idea

o f se lf which we have.

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

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

however, phenom ena which though not being the

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

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

have a better appreciation o f what at least we com

monly call the self.

Let us begin with such a com m on phenomenon as

thinking. Here again we are confronted with a com

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

perceiving, that is, registering im pressions which

com e to us through our sense organs, thought? For

exam ple, is the visual sensation o f the color red,

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

These im pressions, vibratory in nature, go through a

transition in the brain and consciousness to com pose

the idea which we associate with them. M ore simply,

this sensation, its quality, is given ideation.

But thinking is m ore than an experience alone. Just

to receive external im pressions and to know them is

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

speaking, isolate an idea that form s in consciousness

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

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

are thinking. If we endeavor to not just involuntarily

react to im pressions but to evaluate them in term s to

ourselves, we are thinking. If we establish objectives,

goals to be attained, and give sam e a tem poral quality

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

thinking.

W e can subdivide our thinking processes. One

we may call perception, to receive and realize im pres

sions. The other we may term conception. This latter

is to give our experience identity or meaning to us.

Experience or perception, the gaining o f im pres

sions, is the material which conception uses. To

think, you first m ust think about something; there

has to be an idea which is related in som e degree to

previous experience. Sim ply, we cannot begin with a

virgin idea; a thought m ust incorporate the building

materials o f ideas engendered by experience.

How this whole phenom enon o f thought func

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

neurologists, brain specialists, and psychologists

endeavor to both discover and explain. However, the

manner in which we voluntarily arrange our thoughts

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

given several classifications. One o f these is called

reason. A technical term associated with it is syllogisti-

cal. This consists o f the intentional com bining o f

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

bring forth greater enlightenment. The arriving at

new and satisfying prem ises or conclusions does not

necessarily mean that such constitutes truths. For

analogy, prim itive man gazing into the heavens and

noting the movement o f certain celestial bodies found

it reasonable to call them gods. Yet he could not

empirically, objectively prove the conclusion which

he arrived at.

Tw o basic m ethods o f syllogistical reasoning are

deductive and inductive. These are part o f the system

o f form al logic; yet, whether we have any knowledge

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

com m only resort to deduction and induction. Su c

cinctly, deductive reasoning is the method from the

general to the specific, as, for exam ple, we are aware

o f a particular event and we desire to know what

elements contributed to it; what were its causes. For

analogy, what caused the decline o f the M ayan civili

zation? By deductive reasoning, we would try to

search out those factors in particular which may have

been its cause.

The inductive method is the principal tool o f

science. It consists o f reasoning from som e specific

fact, a particular leading up to the general or underly

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

crim inologist may select a particular piece o f evi

dence and by the inductive method seek to discover

the general motivating factor involved. Sir Francis

Bacon is credited with advocating the inductive method

in science. In this connection, Bacon placed im por

tance on negative instances. This consists o f stripping

away in ones reasoning all instances which appear to

have no relationship to the phenomenon which is

under investigation.

Imagination is yet another o f the important phe

nomena o f which self is capable. N o one is without

this attribute, though som e persons are more endowed

with it than others. Academ ic psychology and philos

ophy have theorized on this mental process exten

sively. T o even have a rudim entary understanding o f

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

marvel o f se lf at work.

Imagination em ploys three divisions o f time so

far as consciousness is concerned. First, imagination

em ploys the past; it draws upon ideas, the result o f

previous experience. These become its basic materials.

Sim ply, one begins with the known. And the known

to each o f us is o f the past.

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

moment, even though the ideas brought forth from

m emory at the time are o f the past. But the process o f

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

creating, bringing into existence that which is not o f

the past and which may not be objectified until a

future time. The function o f imagination is to arrange

elements o f our thoughts so that they may constitute

a new order and an image o f a th ingor an event as yet

unknown in actual experience. O ne cannot, as we

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

divested o f anything previously known. N o creation

by man has any such absolute originality. Imagination

projects elements o f the known so as to adapt them

to an end sought.

Creative imagination deviates from fantasy. In

fantasy there need not be any conform ity to known

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

if it is beyond all probability. For analogy, fantasy

may conceive an elephant suddenly transforming

itself into a human being. However, this would be

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

any intent to determine if such a possibility could exist

in nature. On the other hand, creative imagination

will, by contrast to fantasy, endeavor to utilize the

known so as to manifest that which is imagined.

Memory is a m ost vital factor in relation to the

phenom enon o f self. David Hume, English philos

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

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

chain o f causes and effects which constitutes our self

or person. But having once acquired this notion o f

causation from the memory, we can extend the same

chain o f causes, and consequently the identity o f our

persons beyond our m em ory . . . .

Hume, however, gave greater credit to memory

than to imagination. M em ory, he said, is the direct

result o f experience, whereas imagination may often

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

these remarks, Hume was evidently referring to fan

tasy.

W hat o f the emotions? W e are m ore inclined to

identify them with the self than other functions o f the

body and brain. W ith m ost o f us, em otions are far

more m otivating than are thinking, reasoning, and

imagination. The em otions are m ore specifically an

essential to personal survival. They give rise to many

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

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

use a homely analogy, pain and pleasure are the red

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

as the red light, inform s the organism that something

is disturbing the internal rhythmic harmony upon

which its continuance depends. There is nothing that

so forcefully engenders the instinct o f caution like

pain.

A s for pleasure, this inform s us that the titillating

sensation being experienced is in accord with the vital

processes o f the organism. It encourages us to continue

such conducive effects, provided that they do not

cross the threshold o f safety and become an excess and

then retrogress to pain.

The em otions are related to pain and pleasure in

that they serve them in various ways. Fear induces

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

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

he would have no hesitancy in engaging a threat to

life.

Love is the attraction for that which it is con

ceived will gratify the mental or physical aspect o f

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

ness, o f varied kinds. Each o f the em otions can be

analyzed in term s o f such a relationship. Even hatred

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

or detract from the personal ego.

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

that is, the individual is extending his personal feelings

in a circumstance so as to include another. In other

words, in com passion we vicariously feel the "h u rt

which another is experiencing, and we wish to help

that other person surm ount it in the manner we

would use personally under similar circumstances.

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

more subtle phenom ena o f mind, brain, and con

sciousness. They are m ore difficult to specifically

relate to such basics as we have touched upon. Even

these psychic im pressions are related in the sensations

they produce to ones which we experience from the

com m on receptor senses. The sensations which they

arouse are feelings contiguous to the em otions, but it

is often difficult to state specifically which em otions

they are related to.

W e cannot pass by the attribute o f toil! without

som e com m ent. The subject o f will has engaged phi-

losophers since antiquity. M odern psychologists

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

moment about will and quite apart from any techni

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

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

is stim ulated either by internal or external im pres

sions. However, will is a dom inant desire; it com

mands the full volition o f our being. W e will to do one

thing in preference to another because will as a desire

exceeds at the time all other ideation or even sensa

tions which we might experience. W illpow er is not a

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

nomenon by which the mind focuses its energy upon

a single thought to m ake o f it a dominant desire that

com pels action.

The ancients were right when they said that the

microcosm, the small universe, encompasses mysteries

as great as the m acrocosm , our greater universe. O ur

being and the phenom enon o f self are certainly one o f

the greatest realms o f the m icrocosm . Each o f us,

each day, can becom e better acquainted with it by a

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

whatweare. The ancient injunction, "K now thyself,

said to have appeared over a temple portal in ancient

Delphi, is worthy o f our contemplation.

IS E V O L U T IO N A N

A C C E P T A B L E T H E O R Y ?

The strongest objection to the theory that man has

descended from lower organism s comes from the

fundam entalists religious sects. They consider that

the evolution o f the species is a direct contradiction

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

to degrade man.

The biblical account in Genesis conceives o f man

as a spontaneous creation, that is, a creation that

came into existence in the physical form in which he

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

Creator, that he is the highest creation in reference to

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

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

exact word o f G od and on those grounds no further

facts can be considered, then one conclusively closes

his mind to all other knowledge.

In num erous ways, it is shown by science by

means o f empirical knowledge that the Bible is a

collection o f legends, historical facts, and personal

revelations. The Bible can be refuted in part, espe-

daily when one realizes that those who contributed

to it lacked much o f the knowledge available today.

In the still popular King Jam es version o f the

Bible, at the beginning o f the opening chapter o f

G enesis, there usually appears the date 4 0 0 0 B. C. as

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

tifically by geology, astronom y, archeology, and

Egyptology. It is known from the translation o f

Eigyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform tablets that

there were well-established cultures that had been in

existence for centuries at the time the Bible states as

the beginning o f creation.

G eologists, by means o f the so-called Earth clock

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

that this globe has been in existence for millions o f

years. Radioactive carbon in objects can be recorded

in such a manner as to establish their age accurately.

This latest m ethod o f physical science has confirm ed

estimates that archeologists have given to artifacts that

far antedate the creation date set forth in the Bible.

The m odern space age and its space probes and

explorations have put to a severe test the literal inter

pretations o f the Bible. Science is not resorting to

heterodoxy or heresy; it is, rather, impartially search

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

other celestial bodies and not exclusively on Earth

and if other beings equal to or superior in intelligence

to man are found, this will then make erroneous the

statement that the Earth alone was selected as the

habitat o f an especially created beingman. It must be

realized that the early prophets and contributors to the

O ld Testament accounts did not conceive o f heavenly

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

were o f the opinion that cosm ologically the Earth is

the principal body in the universe.

A t the time when Nicolaus C opernicus (1473-

1543), astronom er, promulgated his idea that the Sun

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

became the victim o f attack by the theologians. They

accused him o f detracting from the divine eminence

and im portance o f m an. Man was G o d s chosen crea

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

solely for him.

Consequently, if the Earth were not the center o f

the universe and if it held a subordinate position,

m ans status would thus be inferior, also. Copernicus

him self wrote, "In the center o f everything rules the

sun; for who in this m ost beautiful temple could place

this luminary at another or better place whence it can

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

royal throne guides the family o f stars surrounding

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

becom es pregnant with annual fru its.

Today, nearly five centuries after Copernicus,

truth is again in conflict with religious orthodoxy.

Even a high school student in his studies has the

evolutionary processes in nature dem onstrated to

him. Breeders o f cattle and poultry know the m uta

tions that result by special breeding; in fact, they

depend on such for the im provem ent o f their stock.

The horticulturist and even the amateur gardener can

discern the variations caused in plant growth and

form by environmental effects.

W hat seem s to strike particularly at the human

ego and dignity is the belief that organic evolution in

relation to man means that "he com es from a m on

key. M ost o f those who acrim oniously inveigh

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

Darwins works or any other textbooks on the sub

ject. Their opinion is that evolution is atheistically

designed to attack their faith.

Charles Darwin has not declared that man is a

direct descendant o f any primate. His postulations and

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

genealogical descent and that there are related form s

branching o f f from com m on parents. Sim ply put, he

meant that life came originally from simpler common

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

parents had many branches from their original stock.

These branches or their variations account for the

different species due to natural selection and environ

mental factors.

In his renowned work, The Origin of Species, Charles

Darwin states that these variations account for dif

ferent organism s as the result o f com petition for

restricted food. Those with favorable variations sur

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

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

survival, have brought about his organic structure.

Further, the impact o f present conditions will gradu

ally m ake other changes in him. M ans hands, for

exam ple, were not spontaneously given to him as

they are, but their prehensile quality was developed

with his need to cope with his environment.

In his works, Darwin shows that the embryologi-

cal developm ent o f the individual "tended to follow

roughly the evolutionary developm ent o f their races

revealed by fossil rem ains." That is to say, the human

em bryo goes through changes which can be observed

and which correspond to earlier form s o f organism s

whose fossilized remains have been found. This indi

cates that man preserves in him self the early form s o f

living organism s through which his physical being

passed until he reached his present highest stage o f

development.

Instead o f this being shocking and detracting

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

may not yet have reached his zenith o f attainment.

There is the potentiality o f still further developm ent,

which is a yet greater tribute to Cosm ic law and

phenomena. W e think that Charles Darwin beauti

fully expressed this thought in the following words:

"M an may be excused for feeling som e pride at hav

ing risen, though not through his own exertions, to

the very sum m it o f the organic scale; and the fact o f

his having risen, instead o f his being placed there

aboriginally, may give him hope for a still higher

destiny in the distant future.

Organically, man is an animal. T o try to separate

physically or to distinguish the organic functions o f

man from other anim als is an absurdity. The cells o f

the human have the sam e basic function, such as

irritability, metabolism, reproduction, and excretion, as

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

physical vehicle o f man which the evolutionary theory

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

W hat reflection does this have upon the reli

gious, the mystical, and philosophical conception

that man is "a living sou l ? Theology contends from

its hagiography, its collection o f sacred writings, that

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

this postulation be supported. M an, at least, as the

m ost intelligent being on Earth, has the m ost highly

developed self-consciousness.

It is this consciousness o f his em otional and psy

chic nature that causes him to conceive that entity o f

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

and it is divine if we designate all C osm ic forces as

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

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

having a self-consciousness equivalent to man are

found in the future to exist in the greater universe;

then, certainly, they would have the equal right to

claim such an entity as soul.

Until man became Homo sapiens, a rational highly

developed self-conscious being, he had only the

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

animals, there is that same vital force and conscious

ness, which gradually evolved in man to its own

awareness and designates itself soul. Those who fear

that the theory o f evolution dem eans that status o f

man will perhaps learn before another century has

passed that there are many other factors that strike at

m ans egotistic conception o f being "th e central

object o f all creation.

T H E O R IG IN O F T H E H U M A N R A C E

There is considerable interest today in people trac

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

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

otherwise it is not particularly expedient to the present

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

presum e the term roots refers to the origin o f man, a

hominoid.

The time factor o f the earliest known specimens

that can be designated as man is being m oved back

further and further. The earliest date proclaim ed

today by the renowned family o f anthropologists, the

Leakeys, is several million years. Africa is now being

recognized as the possible locale o f the earliest man

like creature, a H om o erectus, the erect walking

hominoid.

Throughout the earlier periods o f the science o f

anthropology the honor o f being the first center o f

human life has shifted from one continent to another.

The sinanthropus, or Peking man, was long heralded

as our ancestor. This resulted, however, in consider

able controversy as to the authenticity o f the find

ings. Kenya, East Africa, has brought forth skeletal

remains which, according to radiocarbon metering

are said to be nearly three million years old. Exam i

nation o f the skulls o f such early specim ens reveals a

capacity o f 6 0 0 -8 0 0 cubic centimeters. T his is about

half the brain capacity o f modern man.

Findings o f m ore recent human remains during

the last Ice Age, estimated to be som e 3 0 ,0 0 0 years

old show evidence o f sim ple craftsm anship. Pebbles

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

hammering. Then shaping or selecting o f flint for tools

was then acquired. This consisted first o f percussion,

that is, knocking o ff the edges o f flint rock to a

desired shape. Slowly, progress was made to the point

o f pressure. This consisted o f pressing a stone along

the edges o f the flint to remove undesired parts.

Attaching these flints to the pieces o f wood that were

groved to hold them and then affixing handles was a

far later technical advance.

A s one anthropologist has noted, there seem to

have been certain cultural advances existing side by

side with a stagnation in the improvements o f what

had been done. For exam ple, roughly executed art

depicting animals by scratches on bones was found.

This was an indication o f imagination and creativity.

However, this artwork was still carved with the same

crude tools that had been in use for thousands o f

years.

Did the variations in climate and temperature

during periods o f glaciation the advance and retreat

o f the ice cause m ans emergence to be localized in

one area o f the world? W e do know from extensive

research that the anthropoid apes were confined to

A frica by clim actic conditions. They never devel

oped the ingenuity and reasoning powers to venture

beyond their favorable climate to adapt themselves

elsewhere. But man, the H om o erectus, and later the

Homo sapiens, or thinking man, did venture forth and

had a degree o f adaptability to a new environment.

A question still being considered by science is

this: Did man evolve from prim ates to hom inoids

man-like creatures solely in Africa? Are the find

ings o f the Neanderthal man in France and Spain the

result o f later pilgrimages from Africa? There are

traces in Europe o f pre-historic peoples, called

M ousterian, o f the late paleolithic period. Their cul

ture appears the sam e as that o f the rem ains found in

sections o f Africa.

A rem arkable find was made in the suburbs o f

Vladimir near M oscow. It was a large upper paleolithic

settlement cemetery. It contained well-preserved

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

2 2 ,0 0 0 B. C . In one burial, apparently laid out in

cerem onial form , were the skeletons o f two young

boys. They had polished m ammoth ivory beads scat

tered upon what had been their clothing. Both also had

elaborate headdresses. In the burial were found a

number o f bracelets and rings. The burial was

obviously o f an advanced culture as indicated by the

arrangement o f the skeletons, the headdresses, and

the jewelry. D id these people originate in Russia or

did they migrate from Africa?

Science does not accept the theological idea o f a

spontaneous generation o f man. The fam ous estimate

o f 4 0 0 4 B. C . for the creation o f man, which still

appears in the King Jam es version o f the Bible, was

made by the A rchbishop Henry U sher (1550-1631).

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

given in the O ld Testam ent. This was later refined by

Dr. Lightfoot o f Cam bridge University. He consid

ered that "m an was created by the Trinity on

O ctober 23, 4 0 0 4 B. C. at nine in the m orning. T o

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

the empirical evidence o f the evolution o f man

throughout the aeons o f time. T o accept the evolu

tionary concept does not diminish m ans dependence

upon the C osm ic phenomena o f which all reality

exists. Man has evolved physically and he is continu

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

was finally arrived at when he became a self-conscious

beingwhen he realized him self as apart from all else.

This state o f creative awareness is still undergoing

developm ent (which we shall later consider further).

Race means breed. Race is said to have originated

where the human stock was subject to certain environ

mental conditions over long periods o f time. Physical

race m arks or characteristics were deeply im pressed

on "th e com petitive stocks o f the early w orld.

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

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

mate which will eventually reproduce racial character

istics through heredity. But due to the plasticity o f

the human organism, generations o f people subject to

a new environmental condition will eventually p ro

duce different physical changes in their offspring. In

other words, "so m e human characteristics undergo

alternative m odifications that once acquired, are

reproduced with a high degree o f regularity.

The variation is evidenced in head form s, hair

[ 54 ]

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

the breadth o f the nose are further examples.

The cradle lands o f races have been called "w arm

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

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

various and often extreme climates and other environ

mental factors, man has been subject in his early

beginnings to intense struggle for survival. The effects

o f this can be recognized among existing human stocks

and "se ts its mark for heredity and the birth o f a

race.

These prehistoric beginnings o f race are studied

by anthropom etric means, that is, the observation o f

height and weight o f the skeletal remains. Such find

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

variations related to extreme climactic differences.

W ith increasing intermingling o f races in the modern

world, racial distinction will become more difficult to

determine. Theories have been made with som e

degree o f veridity upon the differences in eye and nose

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

Certain climate and environmental influences are

attributed as the cause.

W hen it com es to the question o f "superiority

o f race, science at first attem pted to relate this to

intelligence and to brain capacity. However, it has

been established that som e primitive peoples today

have a brain capacity equal to the average dweller in

an advanced culture (approxim ately 1200 cc). Fur

therm ore, the offspring o f these primitive peoples, if

brought as children into a civilized, advanced culture

to be reared and educated, exhibit an intelligence

equal to those native to the place where they are

reared.

The alleged superiority o f race has been mostly

due to superiority o f advantage rather than any

innate quality. If we consider the subject mystically,

all hum ans are infused with the sam e C osm ic life

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

the exposure o f the being to environmental and cul

tural influences which can result in the greater exhibit

o f intelligence.

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

have doctoral degrees and in other ways show a

m arked intelligence. The I. Q . o f their parents would

also reveal an excellent native intelligence but per

haps they were not given the opportunity o f their o ff

spring to apply it through the medium o f education,

training, and application. Here superiority was in

advantage only.

W e refer to prim itive peoples as though all such

were necessarily naive and lacking in intelligence.

The general designation o f a primitive people are those

whose culture shows a considerable diversity from

the Euroam erican one. A s said previously, modern

anthropology, however, has proven that taking into

consideration the environment o f primitive people

they have often displayed in their custom s and prac

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

the influence o f the developm ent o f an advanced

culture.

There appears to be what may be termed a very

definite primitive reasoning on the part o f humans.

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

native to the human mind. W e may say it is an

em bryonic or elementary form o f thinking. How

ever, with experience, with literacy and with the effects

that com e from a m ore com plex culture this reason

ing is m ost often m odified. A lso this primitive type

o f reasoning, or term it immature thinking, does

persist even am ong many peoples in the so-called

advanced cultures. It is not indigenous to any one

race, country, or nationality. It constitutes the prin

cipal cause o f persistent superstitions and the perpet

uation o f often worthless custom s and practices.

The persons retaining this primitive reasoning may

outwardly use the habiliments o f m odern civilization.

They may utilize all the conveniences that science and

technology provide. However, such is only a veneer

and adaptation which often they do not fully under

stand. W henever a new and different circumstance

arises for which there is no existing custom to apply,

they revert to their immature thinking to provide the

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

ing which may com pound the problem they confront

rather than solve it.

W hat constitutes this primitive mind? The prim i

tive mind perceives differently. W e can ordinarily

distinguish an objective presentation from subjective

associations. In other words, we can tell the differ

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

see from that o f our em otional feelings about the

experience or what we may imagine about it. But with

the primitive mind the properties o f the particular

thing perceived are assum ed to also contain a m yste

rious occult force. The particular is thought to p o s

sess a certain immaterial supernatural or magical

power. Subsequently then, the perceptions, the

empirical experiences o f the primitive mind "are

overweighted by subjective elem ents.

Such magical and imaginative attributes cannot

be verified by sensation as can perception. For anal

ogy, when we perceive som ething visual we can go up

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

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

which is imagined to exist as a magical property in an

object cannot be verified by any external sensation.

Consequently, the nature o f the object is erroneously

presented to our mind. A t least a confused concep

tion o f it is had.

It m ust not be thought that the perceptions o f the

prim itive mind are necessarily clouded. Their per

ception, their faculties, for exam ple sight and hear

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

thinker. Their wrong reasoning is due to the influence

o f desire, anxiety, and imagination. The imagination

" is excited by pressing needs which attribute quali

ties to the perception which do not exist in the things

themselves. For analogy, the individual stum bles over

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

him. Then drawing upon his actual experience with

such reptiles, he imagines the inanimate stick to pos

sess the dangerous and fearful qualities o f the reptile.

A nthropologists are o f the opinion that the prim

itives have a m ore intense imagination and therefore

find it difficult to distinguish the ideas engendered by

it from those ideas arising from perception. Their

imagination is so intense that it may often cause their

death. If, for exam ple, they have been told that they

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

down upon them, their imagination will make this

suggestion becom e a reality in their mind and even

tually cause their death. The sam e results o f intense

imagination may occur from the fear o f the conse

quence o f the violation o f a taboo. Sim ply, to the

primitive mind thinking can be as efficacious as seeing

or feeling.

Another example o f primitive mind com m on

am ong men o f m odern society is the association o f

instances without concern for the differences in qual

ity. M ore sim ply put, two things quite different in

qualities will often be associated because o f som e

relative function. For exam ple, a prim itive may put a

lock o f a m ans hair in a fire that the hair may be

destroyed. He knows that fire burns the hand. The

lock o f hair belongs to man and therefore fire which

burns it likewise burns the man. W e see this type o f

primitive reasoning existing in modern religious sects.

Many who resort to prim itive practices in their reli

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

primitive reasoning which often shackles them to

superstition and prevents a true intellectual and spir

itual attainment.

Another example o f this sam e type o f reasoning is

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

expectation that as the wood is reduced to pulp, her

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

parallel, that is, the w ood and the heart are different.

But the relationship between them, the softening

process is thought to be the same. M any persons wear

amulets which are from places proclaim ed to be

sacred. W ith a great number o f such persons the

prim itive reasoning is thus; the place from which the

article was taken was sacred and had a supernatural

efficacy. Therefore, this object m ust likewise have

that efficacy and will extend its protective influence

to my person.

The primitive mind com m only confuses cause

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

presum ed by the type o f mind that the first one

which was observed was the cause o f the others which

followed when actually there was no such relationship.

In other words, similarity is presum ed a causal quality

when it may not actually exist as such. Observation

and mature thinking will often reveal that things will

appear similar yet have fundamentally different

causes for their existence.

There are a num ber o f theories with regard to the

way that we think. D ifferent schools o f psychology

advocate these different concepts. One is the stimulus-

response theory. W e have an external stimulus received

by one o f our receptor senses which in turn produces

a response, a sensation. That sensation may in turn

become a stim ulus to produce still another response

possibly arousing an idea within the mind by associa

tion. Meaning, however, is m ore than just a sim ple

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

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

com bining o f sim ple ideas into m ore com plex ones.

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

ideas just arise in the mind from previous perception.

When we reason, we intentionally will what

responses should be com bined or so related as to

confer their meaning. W e may be wrong in our inter

pretation o f the meaning but if such voluntary thought

is done, we are then less apt to fall into the com m on

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

all o f us.

Free association is that process o f thinking to

which at tim es we are all inclined. Free association o f

ideas is that form o f thinking over which less control

is exercised. In free association one thought just

stim ulates another. The thought is not oriented

toward any particular solution. It does not con-

sciously reflect a theme. For analogy, we may think

o f a warm day, then there com es to mind last

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

disappointm ent that we did not go, then the thought

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

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

an announcem ent o f a sale. T his is an example o f free

association.

O n the other hand, fantasy and daydreaming, as

we have said previously, are directed toward a so lu

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

imaginative. A youth in fantasy, for example, imagines

him self an astronaut on a journey to a distant world

I 64 ]

encountering other peoples there. He is creating a

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

In other w ords, it is not supported by fact or even by

the possibility at the time that he could ever experience

such an event.

Let us remember that it is not what the world is

that really matters but what we think it to be that

contributes to our conscious state o f reality and living.

However, we should create such a world as clearly as

our mental faculties permit. W e can discipline our

thoughts and our reason so as to avoid m isconcep

tions which may adversely affect the welfare o f our

lives.

W e often read or it is said that the prehistoric and

prim itive man have been m ore elementary in his

reasoning but that he had certain faculties which

were more acute than those possessed by modern

man. It im plies that the man o f today has such innate

faculties but that they are sem idorm ant within him.

In particular, the question has been asked, "S ince

primitive man developed his intuitive faculties to a

high degree and we know that inner development is

[ 65 ]

never lost, why is civilized man so lacking in this

faculty?

A distinction m ust be m ade between instinct and

intuition although there is undoubtedly a psychologi

cal relationship between them to som e degree.

Instincts are definitely lessons which have been

learned by an organism, especially a com plex one such

as man. These lessons have been acquired through

the long evolutionary process o f the living thing.

When we say "learn this cannot be equated with

our com m on interpretation o f the word. It is not that

which has been consciously realized and evaluated in

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

music, or mathematics. The organism in its slow

ascent and in its confrontation with its environment

was subjected to conditions which either favored or

opposed it. The continuous influence o f these similar

conditions for perhaps thousands o f generations left

permanent impressions on the genes. These alterations

and m utations, it is theorized, were transm itted to

offspring.

The inherited characteristics became behavioral

[ 66 ]

responses. In other words, whenever the organism

was subjected to the sam e stim ulus there would bean

im pulsive urge to act in response to it as it always

had. T o use com m on technical vernacular, the genes

o f the organism had been program m ed to function in

a certain way. These innate indwelling urges are what

we term instincts.

It takes a considerable exercise o f willpower to

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

there are several instincts which we wish to direct but

m ost certainly should not suppress. For example,

curiosity, the inquisitiveness that draws the attention

o f a person or o f lower anim als to the unfamiliar. If

we were devoid o f curiosity the humanoid would

probably never have advanced beyond the N eander

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

that status. There is also the alm ost irresistible

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

is deeply ingrained in the sim plest o f living organisms.

It is survival o f the life force itself.

Throughout the ages and with the varying cul

tures that occurred these instincts have been subject

to som e m odification. W e are also form ing new hab

its which if they are retained and perpetuated for

many generations will undoubtedly establish at least

the nucleus for additional instincts.

These instincts are not necessarily spiritual or

divine unless you attribute every human faculty and

characteristic to such a source. Generally summing

up, the instincts have very definite biological func

tions. It would appear that those long-formed habits

which are "rem em bered by the genes are principally

concerned with the protection and survival and the

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

o f an organism can be said to depend upon its instincts.

It therefore m ust be obvious that the organism could

not learn or acquire these necessary behavioral

responses in just one lifetime.

It is quite probable that early primitive man relied

more readily upon his instinctive im pulses than does

H om o sapien or rational man. The rational man is

inclined to establish intellectual values which counter,

that is, oppose his instincts at times. For further

example, there is the ascetic who for religious reasons

suppresses fundamental physical drives and impulses

and may even practice self-m ortification, that is,

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

its moral and ethical codes tend to restrict and subdue

impulses o f the instincts.

Intuition is termed "in sigh t in m ost m odern psy

chological texts. This is what we might term an inner

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

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

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

the reason and are suddenly realized. This intuitive

knowledge principally rises from our subconscious

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

and subconscious organization o f our knowledge so as

to com pose new ideas or concepts which are then

realized.

The stim ulus for these intuitive im pressions may

be derived from several sources but there are two

principal ones. If one has been laboring with a prob

lem for som etim e and his reason has not brought

forth a satisfactory solution, the subconscious con

tinues with the work that has been dism issed from

the conscious m ind. This is com m only called the

"unconscious w ork o f the mind. O f course, it isn t

really unconscious but rather a different phase o f the

stream o f consciousness applied to the problem. O ur

desire to know becom es a stim ulus that puts the sub

conscious to work even when the conscious mind has

discontinued acting upon the idea.

A lso, our subconscious can be psychically stim u

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

it may have becom e attuned without our conscious

mind realizing that it has been receptive to such

external ideas. Ultimately such ideas are discharged

into our conscious mind com ing as an intuitive

im pression. These aspects o f intuition are difficult to

relate to instinct, but there are other intuitive

im pressions which appear to be instinctively m oti

vated. For analogy, we may have an intuitive im pres

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

prem onition o f an impending danger as we perceive

it. Conversely and even som etim es opposed to the

conclusions o f our reason, we may have the intuitive

im pressions as "feeling, or again, a kind o f mental

vision, to go ahead with something.

W e can only surm ise that there are m ore subtle

aspects o f the instincts, or com binations o f instincts,

that in such cases are reacting to our conscious deci

sion. M ore sim ply, the instinct "k n o w s from its

innate experience that what we are intending to do or

to which we are exposed will in som e way threaten

our personal security and well-being. These instinctive

im pulses then act upon the organizing power o f the

subconscious mind to bring forth the intuitive

im pression in an intellectual or cognizant form. Suc

cinctly put, the instinct creates the sensation, the

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

motivate us.

A s said, m ost intuitive im pressions are always

related directly to the physical and mental well-being

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

concern m atters which we can say are extraneous to

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

connection with intuitive im pressions. Though it

would seem that instinct and intuition can and com

monly do function independently, yet in other

instances they give evidence o f a conterm inous and

harm onious relationship.

W e can only speculate but we doubt that prehis

toric man had a m ore developed faculty o f intuition

than contem porary man. It is because intuition plays

a greater part only where there is the intellect to

image in som e form the im pressions received. W hen

we have an intuitive im pression it has the structure o f

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

associate and we identify the intuitive im pulse with a

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

we have an intuitive im pression o f this or that nature

whereas instinct is expressed m ore through the em o

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

know why, for analogy.

W e may associate ideas with instinct now but

primitive man, as said, was primarily motivated by

them without associating any meaning to their impulses.

The prim itive man is m ore dependent upon instinct

only because he has not acquired the intellect and

reasoning capacity as its substitute and often as a

conflicting obstacle. Although we are able to be more

responsive to intuition as so-called civilized persons

we have been inclined to subordinate the com m uni

cations o f intuition to our conscious minds.

The society in which we live has com pelled us to

put alm ost total reliance upon our reason and objec

tive faculties. Only now is the populace becoming

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

these other levels o f consciousness. However, this is

not a new enterprise for the Rosicrudans. Their

m onographs have been teaching principles with

regard to this developm ent centuries before the pres

ent-day and before the often vague expositions by

modern parapsychologists.

C A N W E K N O W T H E A B S O L U T E ?

It has long been proclaimed by the adherents o f

m ysticism and esoteric studies that the apex o f such

practices is "un ity with the A bsolute . This unity is

variously described as a state o f oneness with the

Absolute. The personal consciousness is said to

merge with the Infinite to be absorbed, in a sense.

Another term for the phenom enon is Cosmic Con-

sciousness.

However, this absorption into the Infinite does

not imply a com plete loss o f personal identity; the

ego, the " I still persists. In other words, the individ

ual consciousness em braces a greater realization o f

reality than can be had by objective perception, yet it

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

an entity.

However, this suggests a question as to just what

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

Ultim ate, a state or a condition beyond which

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

progression and a hierarchical order o f development?

O r is the A bsolute to be construed as the Infinite, the

One and A 11 o f Being, and therefore a state o f perfec

tion? Is it a state o f perfection because it is fundam en

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

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

considered as other than perfect in itself if there is

nothing else by which it can be compared.

Another question that then arises is, How can the

mind o f man embrace this Absolute? O r to put it

another way, How can the finite consciousness o f the

human m ind com prehend that which is infinite and

limitless in its manifold nature? Figuratively speak

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

The human mind, its phenomenon o f consciousness,

is part o f the spectrum o f natural (or C osm ic) laws. It

is but one o f myriad o f C osm ic phenomena. This

propounds still another question: Can a part know

the whole o f which it consists?

M ystics in their writings have frequently referred

to this Oneness. Subsequently, Oneness resulted in a

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

an intellectual illumination like nothing had pre

viously. However, such revelations as are related to

us in mystical literature do not attempt a com prehen

sive picture o f Cosm ic phenomena. Little is presented

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

C osm os as a whole. Rather, these writings describe

the em otional state which is had during the Oneness

experienced. It is expressed in terms o f the sum m um

bonum o f moral righteousness. The individual also

endeavors to relate the ecstasy o f his experience in

terms o f freedom from the burdens or mortal finite

ness. This consciousness o f the Absolute is then not

so much knowing the structure o f the immanent

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

well-being.

The mystical experience o f unity with the Absolute

is a perception through an uncommon higher state o f

consciousness. It is a consciousness o f that which we

never ordinarily experience in our objective or sub

jective states o f mind. Therefore, the experience o f

this consciousness can embrace phenomena which

transcend our other levels o f consciousness.

N o doubt the mystical state o f consciousness

transcends the peripheral senses and reason. W e can

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

reality, o f the C osm os that evade the norm al mortal

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

entirely different from anything he has ever expe

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

state, a condition, beyond which he cannot think o f

anything greater. Consequently, to the reason it

would seem to be the Absolute.

But again, we find it difficult to conclude ration

ally that such an experience is actually a vision, an

insight into the whole o f reality. The exceptional

nature o f the mystical experience may suggest the

assum ption that the phenomenon em braces the

A bsolute in its entirety. M ystics who are strong

devotees o f a particular sect will relate their expe

rience as a personal consciousness o f whateveivimage

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

instead o f referring to a unity with the Absolute, they

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

or "an entrance into Heaven.

The em otional impact upon the individual who

experiences Cosm ic Consciousness is so all-absorbing

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

imagination to conceive o f anything beyond it.

Is knotting the Absolute a fantasy, a self-engendered

delusion? W e may not know the whole nature o f a

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

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

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

m olecules, atom s, electrons, protons, down to the

recent discovery, the gluons, we are gaining a more

com prehensive idea o f what its entirety may be, and

we are coming closer to the Rosicrucian concept as

well. So too, as limited as our mystical experience o f

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

outward o f the human consciousness by which the

ego feels its relationship with that Infinity. /

O rdinarily, we are made very conscious o f our

finite nature; its limitations are ever im pressed upon

us. Science is making the relative distinction between

our being and the vastness o f the physical universe

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

becom e dim inutive in com parison to the greater uni

verse consisting o f billions o f galaxies and an ines

tim able num ber o f suns and planets. The mystical

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

inferiority. W e are able to feel a oneness with that

which far transcends this Earth, this galaxy, and our

physical being. W e become m omentarily merged in

that onenessa state o f consciousness that objectivity

and the peripheral senses could never produce. The

mystical experience provides the pulse o f the Absolute,

if not its anatomy.

Since there are variations in the depth o f feeling

o f unity with the A bsolute, we can surm ise that som e

individuals are more contiguous to it in consciousness

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

t 80 ]

sensitivity and responsivity, then som e persons

inner perceptions o f the A bsolute will be far greater

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

W e can further assum e that if there are m inds

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

perception and responsivity, or consciousness, than

our own, then their experience o f the A bsolute may

have a dim ension which we can neither imagine nor

experience. But again, they too will not know the full

nature o f the Absolute.

The subject o f the A bsolute is often related to

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

often interchanged. There is an old adage that says:

A rose is a rose by any other nam e. However, a

distinction by other than name can be made between

these two. Religion, mysticism, metaphysics, and

certain philosophical doctrines expound that there is

an om nipotence that transcends not only man but all

phenomena.

Beyond this com m on agreement, however, var

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

this om nipotence conceived? There is the theistic

[ 81 ]

concept which states that this Suprem e Force is

anthropom orphic, an entity or being em bodying

humanlike qualities. It is presum ed to be an intelli

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

has purpose and em otions which to an extent parallel

those o f hum ans. This intelligent being/eels as well as

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

som e sects it is stated that it is jealous and expresses

its anger.

Theism, then, is proclaim ing a personal god, a

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

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

director o f all the phenomena which it has created.

Succinctly, it has the arbitrary power to alter that

which it has brought into existence. It is believed by

theists that this suprem e entity has established the

laws o f nature just as a craftsm an would create tools

for his purpose, that is, a mechanism to m anifest his

objectives. The fundamental theist will however