MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA – Chapter eight: MYSTICISM – PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES

OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

CHAPTER EIGHT

MYSTICISM – PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

 CONTENTS:

8.1 Mystics and the inner meaning of Scripture

8.2 Surface and depth

8.3 Orthodox hermeneutics

8.4 Light in an earthenware lamp

8.5 Analogies – explaining the unexplainable

8.6 Outward forms and inner meanings

8.7 An example: Understanding Abraham and Moses

8.8 Inward and outward are one

8.9 Trends in hermeneutics

8.10 Different styles of writing

8.11 Understanding different types of writing

8.12 Parables

8.13 Allegories

8.14 Symbols

8.15 Types

8.16 Some personal examples

8.17 Degrees of knowledge

8.19 Spiritual discrimination

8.20 Mystical awareness and rational awareness

8.21 Revelation and interpretation

8.22 Revelation and unveiling

8.23 The source of spiritual metaphor and analogy

8.24 Inherent or embedded meaning

8.25 Relative meaning and the Absolute

8.26 The limits of orthodox hermeneutics

8.27 Direction and impetus – the Spiritual Journey

8.28 Techniques of self-interpretation of personal imagery

8.29 Conclusions

8.30 Iconoclasm and Theomorphism

8.31 Relative forms, paradigms and world religions

8.32 Sacred literature

8.33 Deluded, mentally ‘ill’ or what?

Further reading

References

 

 

One feature of mystical experience is the return to the practical, rational/active mode of functioning, which is then applied to the Immediate intuitive/receptive experiences that the person has had. The mystic is not stuck in the non-rational, impractical intuitive/receptive mode but rather they seek to frame, co-ordinate and cohere their experience. Part of this process involves the interpretation of the symbolism, allegories and metaphors that have arisen in the experience.

What does sacred mystical writing mean to us? What is the meaning of a passage or verse of sacred, mystical or spiritual writing? What do we mean by meaning? Well, what I am asking is ‘What is it that is conveyed or signified by a verse or passage of mystical sacred writing? What is the sense or significance of a portion of such literature? What is the purpose underlying or intended by such accounts? What is the true interpretation, value, or message that such literature or a portion of such literature seeks to convey?

8.1 MYSTICS AND THE INNER MEANING OF SCRIPTURE

Those of a mystical persuasion often declare that the ‘Truth is within oneself’ or that the ‘Kingdom of heaven is within’ and they do so across all religious persuasions. The discoveries that they have made in their mystical experiences have led to emphasise inner meanings and this is so when it comes to their understanding and interpretation of their respective holy writings or Scriptures. Sometimes these inner mystical experiences have led them to spiritual insights that do not conform to the mainstream orthodox views of their respective religions – and so sometimes they have been accused of heresy or been obliged to live a more solitary existence as hermits and recluses. In looking at the issues of spiritual meaning I am going to draw my examples largely from the Christian tradition and the Bible, because that is the tradition that I know, and in addition from my own experiences, but the arguments apply equally well to other religious traditions.

In order to remain in the mainstream, many mystics have stretched the conventional understanding of their respective Scriptures and adopted novel understandings of particular texts in order to support or justify their own perspective yet stay within the orthodox mainstream. In order to accomplish this, mystics within a particular religious tradition very often emphasise that their Scriptures or sacred writings have both an outer/literal/objective meaning and in addition an inner/metaphorical/subjective/spiritual meaning. The objective/literal meaning refers to the external world, the world of objects, the physical world and the universe. The subjective/metaphorical meaning refers to a persons inner, phenomenological world – the realm of the heart, mind and emotions, the soul or core of a person, their aspirations, inner musings, perceptions and so on. Thus presented with the text: ‘Jesus opened a door’, the objective/literal meaning is just that – the man Jesus opened a physical door in order to enter/leave a room or building. The subjective/inner meaning may be that the spiritual Jesus opens the door of the human heart in order to enter or dwell within us, or that the spiritual Jesus opens the door of our perception such that we may more clearly perceive and understand spiritual reality. These differing interpretations mean that we have to look at hermeneutics – the principles and discipline of interpretation, of drawing out and understanding the meaning of texts, especially sacred texts.

8.2 SURFACE AND DEPTH

Are the mystics correct in assuming that each text has an inner meaning? Some of them may go as far as to say that the individual words, letters and numbers have hidden inner meanings. We can say right away that any text has a surface meaning and application. The surface meaning of a historical passage of Scripture is to document the facts of someone’s life or of some incident or series of incidents, such as battles or the reigns of kings and so on. The surface application may be as a simple record of perceived events or perhaps, if there are inconsistencies with known facts, then it may be seen as a form of national/government/priestly propaganda to idolise and vindicate themselves and/or vilify and demonise those in opposition. The surface function and meaning of such a passage is not to relate inner, subjective, spiritual dynamics. Other passages of Scripture may be passages of spiritual philosophy/theology. The surface function of such a passage is not to relate historical events but to state philosophical/theological propositions logically and formally, perhaps anticipating and answering objects to the points proposed. In approaching Scripture or sacred writing then, our first task is to determine what the surface application and meaning of a text or passage consists of. Is it:

Historical

Propaganda

Moral Law

Ceremonial directives

Poetry

Praise

Theology/philosophy

Allegory/Parable

A vision or dream

Genealogy

Biography

8.3 ORTHODOX HERMENEUTICS

In the past, there have been various approaches to understanding the meaning of Scripture, but one problem is that they have sometimes approached the whole of Scripture using just one method. Thus for example, there are the Allegorical Schools of Interpretation of Scripture. This method of interpretation emerged among the Hellenised Jews and Christians who were strongly influenced by Platonic philosophies.  Clement of Alexandria and Origen are two early church fathers who viewed Scripture and particularly the Old Testament, as being symbolic rather than literal. The allegorical school teaches, like many mystics, that beneath each verse of Scripture (underlying the obvious surface meaning) is the “real” or deeper meaning of the passage or verse. In other words, each sentence or statement veils a deeper spiritual meaning. Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, Biblical interpretation was often dominated by this allegorical method. Looking back to Augustine, the medieval church believed that every Biblical passage contained four levels of meaning. These four levels were the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the eschatological. For instance, the word ‘Jerusalem’ literally referred to the city itself; allegorically it referred to the church of Christ; morally it indicated the human soul; and eschatologically it pointed to the heavenly Jerusalem. Under this school of interpretation it was the church that established what the correct meaning of a passage was for all four levels. What this does, amongst other things, is to impose an allegorical interpretation on a non-allegorical passage or verse of Scripture. For Christian mystics such as the Dominican mystic Meister Eckhart, these modes of interpretation would have been the norm, so the idea of verses and words of Scripture having allegorical meanings involving a deeper meaning beneath the surface meaning of the text would have been quite usual and also quite useful, since any non-orthodox theology or slightly unusual interpretations of Scripture could have been justified on these allegorical grounds.

So, when it came to the interpretation of sacred literature or Scripture, there were four typical levels for any and every verse or passage:

Empirical/Historical

Tropological/Moral

Typographical/Symbolical/Figurative

Allegorical/Anagogical/Mystical.

Each of these methods of interpretation yields quite different and sometimes contradictory or paradoxical information. Some theorists also regard these four methods as reflecting different depths of spiritual development: the first two stages are common to primary religious teaching and are the stages expressed by most religious organizations in the west, such as Christian churches, for example. The third level is one for those venturing to greater depths in their understanding of religious forms and the fourth and last tends to be one expressed by and delighted in by those who have savoured an Immediate experience of the Divine – such as mystics and Gnostics. So let’s briefly look at each of these methods in more detail.

Empirical/Historical – Here the focus is on facts – both historical and empirical. In this approach, the events described in sacred literature may be declared as literal, factual and an accurate history. In this approach, the staff of Moses literally physically turned into a serpent. The Red Sea literally parted to allow safe passage for the Israelites whilst the Egyptians were physically drowned when the waters merged again. Jesus really did turn water into wine. The earth was created in six literal 24hr days less than 10,000 years ago. God literally flooded the entire earth with a deluge of water in a great flood from which only Noah and his family and the animals he gathered survived by means of the ark or boat that he built. The ideas and events of Scripture are presented as actual historical facts. This is the level of much of Christian/Islamic or other religious Fundamentalist thinking. However the same emphasis on empirical facts and history may be used to challenge this literal interpretation of Scripture – Textual analysis may cast doubt on the claimed authorship of documents; science may bring forth evidence to question the idea of a young earth and six day creation, or whether there was a world-wide flood e.t.c.

Tropological/Moral – Here the focus is on virtues – on right and wrong, good and evil, morals and ethics, especially in the light of Divine Law or Commands. If level 1 is concerned with ideas and beliefs, this level is concerned with behaviour and practice – ‘Be ye Holy for I am Holy says the Lord’. It may or may not be linked to the literal level above. When joined to the literal level, emphasis is placed upon God’s Law, the Ten Commandments e.t.c. as having a direct spiritual impetus upon moral behaviour. Others may reject literalism yet still value some or all of the moral codes presented in sacred writing and seek to follow these dictates as a means of service to the Divine or just as a good, constructive way to order society and relationships.

Typographical/Symbolical/Figurative – This is where something is seen as representing a correspondence between a spiritual pattern and a material counterpart. Thus a ‘type’ is seen as an actual historical event or person that has a specific spiritual parallel, such as Melchizadek being a type of Christ. The literalism of level 1 allows for the idea of types and figures though it tends to use them in a limited way. Thus the verses describing the Wise men bringing gifts to infant Jesus are taken both literally – wise men actually visited the stable where Jesus was born and gave gifts, but also, layered over this, a symbolism may be added such that the gift of gold indicates kingship, the gift of Frankincense indicates priesthood and the gift of Myrrh indicates sacrificial victim. In Christianity, these types and figures often point to Jesus, or the Church or the means of redemption. The literal approach is not undermined by this extra layering of meaning but enhanced by it. This type of interpretation is a little more advanced, requiring some systematic knowledge of the Scriptures, the theology and doctrines that they declare and the history and tradition of the faith.

Allegorical/Anagogical/Mystical – This is a symbolic interpretation in which characters and events are to be understood as representing other things, especially a deeper spiritual meaning. An allegory is a prolonged metaphor, when one thing is used to represent another, from a root word meaning ‘to stand between’. These are interpretations that are intended ‘to lead up’ to the Transcendent. They are interpretations related to God-as-Essence, to Eternal Truths and Divine Realities. They convey the spiritual sense of an outward form – be it a literally existing form or myth. For example in Christianity, the word ‘Jerusalem’ may be used as a symbol of Paradise. Or as another example, there is this by Meister Eckhart: ‘We read that the Lord entered the temple and drove out those who were buying and selling there…..This temple, in which God wants to hold sway according to His will, is the human soul’. Now this allegorical type of exegesis is not unlike Jesus’ use of parables. As we have seen, it ‘all but dispenses with elementary religious teachings (the first three levels) such that what is given by the formal religion in these levels is transmuted into an internally experienced reality for the Spirit that Transcends form. This approach may sometimes appear to give quite lateral and unorthodox interpretations; it may even appear to contradict orthodox literalism. As we shall see later, the insights that it may portray do not arise from logical reasoning or analysis of the sacred literature, but from an Immediate experience and Insight from the Divine Source or Essence. Thus Eckhart, though using Scriptural terminology and ideas will go well beyond Scripture content: ‘Masters of little subtlety say God is pure being. He is as high above pure being as the highest angel is above a midge.’ or ‘God and Godhead are as different as heaven and earth…God becomes and unbecomes…God works, the Godhead does no work: there is nothing for it to do, there is no activity in it. It never peeped at any work.’. It is because these insights arise from Immediate experience of the Divine and are recognised by those who have had such experiences, that this level tends to be the highest level of interpretation – but it is a level frowned upon by literalists who see no principles or rules of exposition and who therefore tend to see these interpretations as flights of fantasy and delusion.

8.4 LIGHT IN AN EARTHENWARE LAMP

Mysticism tends to take then an opposite stance to literalism. Religious movements that focus upon literalism, stand in an opposite position to mysticism when it comes to hermeneutics; that is to understanding meanings and interpretations. Mystics tend to focus on the Inner Light, not on the outward, literal form. For Gnostics and Sufis for example, characters such as Abraham, Nimrod, Moses, Pharaoh and Jesus are not focused on in a literal sense. In fact even the very mention of these names is seen as being a shackle to our thoughts in the sense that they have a tendency to make us give literal and historical interpretations. Rather, these names are like masks or veils that hide the Essence or Light of say Moses or Abraham which should, according to these mystics, be our real concern. For these interpreters, these names also refer to aspects of our own being, thus the enmity between Moses and Pharaoh reveals two adversaries within ourselves. The Light or Essence of Moses, or the Light of Jesus is passed down from generation to generation right down to the end of time:
The Light remains the same – it comes from the world beyond the world.

The lamp that emits the Light varies – it is an earthenware lamp and wick of this world.

The lamp (the person, the name) is an outer form and if we focus on the lamp rather than the Light, then this is seen as a major error that gives rise to duality. We are encouraged then to focus on and give attention to the Light Itself in order to obtain freedom from the plurality of this finite world. Focusing on the Light distinguishes the True Believer from those nominal believers who focus merely on the outward forms, or on a particular set of beliefs, theology and philosphy or on that aspect of the individual which does so. This adherence to religious forms, beliefs and aspects of the individual also acts as a mask or veil regarding Absolute.

8.5 ANALOGIES – EXPLAINING THE UNEXPLAINABLE

Everything that is spoken by the Mystic is anagogical or analogy: because the Light of God cannot be contained by the created universe, let alone in a lamp, yet it may be found there. In the same way the Light of God cannot be contained in the heart, yet when a person seeks God’s Light, they find it there. The heart does not contain the Light, but it radiates there, as when you look in a mirror and see an image of yourself: your image is not contained in the mirror – yet you look in the mirror and you see yourself. Thus the unintelligible becomes intelligible when expressed in analogy.

8.6 OUTWARD FORMS AND INNER MEANINGS

Characters such as Abraham, Moses, Pharaoh and Jesus have therefore an underlying meaning.
· If we focus on the outward form we see them as historical figures or aspects of ourselves.
· If we focus beyond the outward form, we will see the underlying meaning.
The way that this is done is by purging your self of yourself – purifying yourself of all the attributes of your self so that you see your own untarnished Essence and perceive in your heart the knowledge of the prophets immediately, without Scripture, teacher or master. Therefore, we seek to rid ourselves of our rational/active mode of being, of our ego-centred self with its beliefs, opinions, prejudices and identifications e.t.c., to see the True Self Essence.

8.7 AN EXAMPLE: UNDERSTANDING ABRAHAM AND MOSES

In outward form, Abraham moved to convert his people from polytheism to monotheism by destroying their idols. This angered Nimrod the ruler, who ordered Abraham to be thrown into a fire, but God intervened to save Abraham. Using these outward forms, Abraham and his actions appear to be a significant event in establishing monotheism.

But let us consider the mystical inward meaning. In those days, polytheism meant any thing or being that had an independent existence outside of Divine Unity. Any such independently existing being or object was considered to be an idol. In this sense, even a mental image of God has the potential to become an idol. Thus a mental image may be reified to independent, objective existence quite apart from Divine Unity. Here lies a paradox. When the mirror of the heart becomes clear, you will behold images beyond the material world: you will behold the image and the Image Maker. These images, symbols, allegories, pictures, teachings of God are like Abraham: outwardly an idol, inwardly an idol breaker. Abraham, who broke idols every year was by day and night an idol-maker in God’s House. Every idol that Abraham broke received life from that breaking.

8.8 INWARD AND OUTWARD ARE ONE

As can be seen from this kind of interpretation, outward events: Abraham destroying idols or being cast into a fire – are transposed to inward realities. They are turned from literal events into internal aspects of our selves which must ultimately be transcended, sacrificed, abandoned in order to attain liberation to the True Essence. This idea is also picked up by Reza Shah-Kazemi in his focus on Christian mystic Meister Eckhart, who, according to Shah-Kazemi ‘all but dispenses with elementary religious teachings – what is given by the formal religion is transmuted into an internally experienced reality for the supra-formal spirit’ (for the Spirit that Transcends form.). (Paths to transcendence. 2006. p.131, World Wisdom)

Thus mystics may talk about Jesus being born in us:
We each have a Jesus within us
But until, like Mary, we feel the birth-pains within us
Our Jesus will not be born.

or say things like:
Come, O soul! You are Moses
Your bodily form is your staff:
Grasp hold of me, I am a staff
Throw me down I am a serpent.

In these cases, characters like Moses, Abraham and Jesus personify our Higher or True Self and characters like Pharaoh and Nimrod our lower, ‘ego’-self and material self, which may also be compared to old rags or old clothes which are to be cast off.

Or consider this by Meister Eckhart:

“Luke 10:38. ‘Jesus…came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him.’ Now then, pay close attention to this word: it was necessary that it be a virgin by whom Jesus was received. “Virgin” designates a human being who is devoid of all foreign images and who is as void as he was when he was not yet.”

8.9 TRENDS IN HERMENEUTICS

With the Protestant Reformation in Europe in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the analogical/mystical level came to be frowned upon, (probably because as we have seen, it is at an opposite end to a literal/historical view). The emergence of the protestant Reformation and later, the Age of Reason, meant that such interpretations were downgraded or even dismissed. The neo orthodox leaders of the Reformation saw that their new orthodoxy was under threat by giving credence to such alternative theologies and interpretations, and thus encouraged a more ‘objective’ or ‘literal’ interpretation. The emerging emphasis on logic, reason, science and objectivity meant that such internal interpretations began to be seen as just fancies and fantasies and there did not appear to be any principles to help discern a correct method of approach. Because the allegorical approach may contradict the literal orthodox one it presented a threat to the new Protestant orthodoxy: it was an alternative authority in its emphasis on personal experience of the Divine to that of the Reformers key rallying call of ‘Sola Scriptura’ – Scripture alone – as a rule of faith and conduct. Thus in the modern Protestant tradition, this form of interpretation often seems quite foreign. After the flowering of the European mystics in the 13th and 14th centuries, the Reformation by enlarge seemed to suppress this mystical tendency, though exceptions such as the Quakers, prove the rule.

At the time of the Reformation, knowledge of the Bible was scarce. However, with a new emphasis on the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, the fourfold method of interpretation began to fade. It was rejected by all of the Protestant Reformers in favour of the more literal approach. Luther called the allegorical method a ‘scourge’ and Calvin called it ‘Satanic’. Those holding to the principles of the Reformation generally regard the allegorical method of interpretation as undermining the power and impact of the literal Word of God.  This is not to say that the Reformers rejected all allegorical interpretations, but rather that they argued instead that allegorical or symbolic passages were contained in clearly defined contexts, such as the Book of Revelation. Martin Luther argued that the church shouldn’t determine what the Scriptures mean, but that rather, the Scriptures should govern what the churches teach. Luther further argued that a proper understanding of what a passage of Scripture teaches comes from a literal interpretation. This means that the reader must consider the historical context and the grammatical structure of each passage and strive to maintain contextual consistency. This method was a result of Luther’s belief that the Scriptures are clear, a view in direct opposition to the medieval church’s position that they are so obscure that only the church can uncover their true meaning. Calvin agreed in principle with Luther. He also placed great importance on the notion that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture,’ stressing that the grammar, context, words and parallel passages found in the text were more important than any meaning we might impose on them. He added that, ‘it is the first business of an interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say’.

However, even the most ardent literalists recognise that there is often an underlying meaning beneath the surface. I have already suggested this in our understanding of a historical section of Scripture: inconsistencies with known facts may reveal that the passage is not literal history at all but a propagandised version of it. Similarly, in the Old Testament, we have passages of elaborate instructions concerning ceremonies, rituals and sacrifices to be made by the Israelites. They cover what the priests should wear, how people should approach the ceremony, how the tabernacle is laid out, what sacrifices should be brought, what time of the year they should be performed, how often they should be performed and so on. This is their surface meaning – if the person is to bring a dove for sacrifice twice a year, then they bring a dove for sacrifice twice a year as prescribed. But even the literal, neo-orthodox reformers recognised that there is another underlying application – namely that these ceremonies point to aspects of the person and work of Jesus Christ in the atonement – such that these ceremonies are shadows of a deeper reality. These ceremonies are what are known as types or figures. In the same way, as we have seen, Melchizadek is regarded as a type of Christ – someone who prefigures and reveals aspects of the person and work of Christ. So, even within orthodox circles there is a principle that allows for a pointing to a deeper underlying reality beneath the surface shadows. Thus, even in an historical account of battles and confrontations, there may be a pointing to a deeper, underlying spiritual reality beneath these outward events. The encounter of Moses and Pharaoh in the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt is a good example. These events point to the deliverance of God’s chosen people, the elect, by the power of God and declare aspects of the plan and act of redemption. Thus we find a surface application and meaning of historical events at a literal level and at the same time, a pointing to underlying deeper spiritual realities. We will return to this theme in a moment.

8.10 DIFFERENT TYPES OF WRITING

The ‘literal’ approach then, recognises not only historical or biographical passages in holy writing, but also styles and approaches that are more lateral or abstract – such as the Book of Revelation. Within Scripture there are biographies, passages of praise and worship, historical passages and sections of doctrinal teaching. Scriptures also for various reasons, make use of more lateral teaching and illustrative approaches. But what this approach of interpretation has done is to remove the insistence that every verse or word has an allegorical, symbolic or figurative meaning. The four levels are still there – but they are not imposed on every verse or sentence. When we come across the statement like ‘Jesus opened a door’ we are no longer required to impose some inner, deeper, spiritual meaning on this statement. We can accept it solely on its surface meaning: the man Jesus opened a physical door in order to enter/leave a room/building. This statement does not require a moral interpretation, a symbolical one or an allegorical one. It is understood as a statement of plain fact and nothing more.

Nevertheless, there are sections of sacred writing that are indeed moral, or symbolic/figurative, or allegorical or combinations of these. With regard to the Bible, these more lateral or abstract passages can be defined as follows:

PARABLE A parable is a short story drawn from ordinary life in order to illustrate important teaching. Each parable illustrates aspects of God and God’s dealings and are more direct than allegories.

METAPHOR A metaphor is an implicit comparison. It is the application of a word or phrase to something or someone that is not meant to be taken literally, but which is rather used to make a comparison. For instance: ‘Winston Churchill is like a bulldog’. It involves the use of figurative language that involves symbolism which does not literally represent real things. A metaphor may stand between that which is known and that which is unknown.

ALLEGORY An allegory is a series of metaphors where each metaphor adds an element to form a composite picture of the message. It compares two distinct entities and involves a story or extended narrative developing figurative expressions. This narrative may express abstract ideas as concrete symbols. It is a symbolic work in which characters and events are to be understood as representing other things, especially having a deeper spiritual, moral or political meaning. It is a prolonged or extended metaphor, when one thing is used to represent another, from a root word meaning ‘to stand between’. The narrative of the allegory may be made up of fantasy figures, characters and animals. A good example of a literary and religious allegory is John Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrims Progress’.

SYMBOL A symbol is something that has a meaning apart from and in addition to its normal semantic field, going beyond it to stand for an abstract or spiritual concept. Thus ‘fire’ may symbolise ‘Judgment’. Symbolism does appear to be used extensively in mystical encounters, its meaning and hence it’s interpretation being partly determined by culture and partly determined by the meanings for the individual mystic concerned.

FIGURES At times Scriptures use figures of speech, poetic forms of speech like hyperbole to get a point across, whereas the literal interpretation would not be what the author intended: Matthew 5:29 “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you.”

TYPE A Type is something or someone that represents a correspondence or pattern between itself as a material object and a spiritual counterpart, especially of something that lies in the future. Thus a type is an actual historical event or person that has a specific parallel: such as Melchizadek being a type of the person of Jesus Christ.

8.11 UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT TYPES OF WRITING

What we can say is that the style of interpretation introduced at the time of reformation is more differentiated in its approach to Scripture passages, recognising that these different styles exist within holy writing and that we do not use the same approach and methods for understanding different types or styles of writing. We do not use the same approach for a historical section as we do for a symbolic, allegorical section. Different rules and principles apply to different styles.

In brief, these different approaches and principles include:

8. 12 PARABLES

 

A Parable is a narrative that is constructed for the sake of conveying important truth. It is inherently figurative language that draws an illustration from life to teach spiritual truth. There are many disagreements regarding the correct method for interpreting parables. However, the main principles seem to be:

1)       In parables, spiritual ideas are recounted in earthly actions or events that were well known to most people

2)       Parables always contain spiritual lessons.

3)       There is always an analogy between the spiritual lessons and the earthly illustration.

4)       Both the spiritual lesson and its illustration should be correctly interpreted.

5)       Parables are not allegories. In an allegory, the author controls every detail and the author can give a symbolic meaning to every detail. But a parable is a story from daily living: the author does not invent this story and does not invent all the details. Therefore, the details are often not important. Rather the parable has one or two main ideas and contains one or two main truths, not many truths. So, in every parable we should seek for these one or two main truths.

6)       When interpreting parables it is important to consider the prerequisites or context – the event and the application. Prerequisites are the circumstances in which the parable was told. Sometimes parables are preceded by the problems or an event that Jesus talks about in His parable. Parables are often followed by an explanation by Jesus to the disciples of the way that the parable should be applied. So the interpreter needs to try to find the explanation given by Jesus.

7)       When interpreting parables it is important to consider the place and time of their origin.

8)       Often Biblical culture (symbols, daily life, and so on) gives a key to understanding parables.

9)       The interpreter should compare the teaching that they find in the parable with the full context of Scripture. This principle is important because parables can and are often used for the twisting the meanings of the Bible, like that which takes place in abusive churches and cults. Their leaders use their own interpretations of parables in order to make the Bible say what they want it to.

10)    Note the literary setting of the parable in the gospel. This can provide clues to the overall interpretation of the parable, especially its mood and affective force.

11)    Note the wording, structure, general progression, plot progress and suspense. Remember these are stories and need to be read as such. In this connection it is helpful to note any changes in the same parable in another gospel.

12)    Read the parables in their original historical situation first. Nothing should be read out of them that are not consistent with the customs, etc. employed in them and certainly no later reading of theology or church experience should be read into them. In other words, no global or particular interpretation should be given any consideration that would not have been understandable to those to whom these parables were first addressed by Jesus or later communicated by the evangelists. In this way we preserve the distinction between authorial intent (author’s intended meaning) and significance (meaning to me).

13)    Note the main characters/things in the parable and any parallels and or contrasts between them. The main characters are often clues as to the main points being asserted.

14)    Recognize that there are two audiences being addressed by the parables. There is first the audience to whom Jesus originally spoke, e.g., the Scribes and Pharisees or crowds; and then also the disciples and the audience of the early church to whom the evangelists addressed their writings. A different audience signifies slightly different functions for the parables and thus little different emphasis in interpretation.

15)    Note carefully what occurs at the end of a parable as a (the) clue to the meaning of the parable. This is called the rule of “end stress.”

16)    Seek to place the teaching of the parable in the overall ministry of Jesus and his teaching as a whole. In this way, it will be seen that most of his parables deal with the kingdom of God, either its inauguration or consummation, and discipleship within the present phase of the kingdom in expectation of the consummation.

Context & Setting of parables

 

Jesus told parables to be understood and he told them to ordinary people (Luke 15:3, 18:9, 19:11). The telling of parables are historical events but it is unlikely that the content of the parable was historical. However, this does not mean they are irrelevant or that the truth and message they communicate is unreliable. The points of reference or points of comparison of a parable are usually indicated by the historical setting and situation and by the literary context. The original audience would have immediately understood the points of comparison when Jesus spoke them; therefore the interpreter needs to hear the parable as the original audience heard it. The original audience and their customs and culture needs to be studied in order to grasp how they would have heard understood and reacted to a particular parable. The interpreter needs to understand what the various people, places and objects meant and the significance they had to the audience. For example, most people are not aware of the dangers of putting new wine into old wineskins or the dangers of traveling the Jericho road. The interpreter must also be aware of any Old Testament allusions in parables (e.g. Mark 12:1-12 and Isaiah 5). Part of the difficulty in interpreting parables is because our modern western society is so far removed in time and culture from the original audience. The historical distance is not only chronological but also social, political and religious. Parables always occur as part of a larger context; therefore they need to be interpreted within this larger literary context and with respect to other parables and other sayings and events. This is particularly true of the parables of Jesus, which must be interpreted in relation to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. It should also be noted that no single parable contains the entire gospel.

 

The Meaning of Parables

Historically, most Christians have interpreted parables as allegories but modern scholarship has rejected this practice because it ignores the realism, clarity and simplicity of parables. Although parables do have some allegorical elements, these are the exceptions not the general rule. These allegorical elements are called the points of reference or points of comparison. Some parables come very close to being allegories because most of the details in the story are intended to represent something or someone else (i.e. they have many points of comparison). However even these parables are not allegories because of the function they perform. The parable in Luke 7:40-48 for example is not allegorical although it appears that way:

 ‘Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”
“Tell me, teacher,” he said.

“Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he cancelled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”

Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt cancelled.”

“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”

Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

 

The purpose of the story is not found in the points of comparison but in the intended response (of Simon and the woman). The details of a parable must be interpreted with strict reference to the points of comparison so the focus remains on the central meaning of the parable. Sometimes none of the details are important and do not need interpreting (e.g. The Good Samaritan); sometimes a few of the details are significant (e.g. Parable of the Tenants) and sometimes all the details are important. The interpreter must also be sensitive to the shape and form of parable. The assumption of 1 single point per parable is not always true: some parables are simple and some are complex. Simple parables will just have one central message but complex ones may have a central message and several related messages. For example, the Prodigal Son teaches that God accepts repentant sinners and also that God wants faithful people to accept repentant sinners. In fact the majority of parables make exactly 3 points.

A parable may also have multiple shades of meaning depending on the perspective of the hearer. When Jesus told the parable in Luke 7:40-48, the messages received by Simon and the woman would have been very different. Simon received a message of rebuke but the woman a message of acceptance and forgiveness. Also, Jesus told some parables (with modifications) on different occasions to different audiences in order to provoke a different response (e.g. Parable of 10 minas – Luke 19:10-26 and Parable of 10 talents – Matthew 25:14-28).

 

Understand the Details

For the Reformers, when it came to a parable, every detail was not necessarily significant. The details of a parable were often seen as just adding colour to the story: they are not the point of the story. However, having recognized the importance of the central point or points, the next thing was to understand the various details of the parable. The parabolic method is not expository but topical and parables must be treated in that fashion. The topical method looks first of all to find the central thought which the parable was designed to embody and it treats every detail with reference to its bearing upon this thought.The expositor must proceed on the presumption that there is import in every single point and only desist from seeking it when either it does not result without forcing, or when we can clearly show that this or that circumstance was merely added for the sake of giving intuitiveness to the narrative.It will much help us in the matter of determining what is essential and what is not, if, before we attempt to explain the parts we obtain a firm grasp of the central truth which the parable would set forth and distinguish it in the mind as sharply and accurately as we can from all cognate truths which border upon it; for only seen from that middle point will the different parts appear in their true light. The details are included for a purpose, either they have a definite role in the interpretation or they simply belong to the story as a true transcript of life.The difficulty and consequent diversity of interpretation of a given parable are for the most part the result of mistaken attempts to make the details of the parable mean something definite.

 

Augustine is a notable example of one who endeavoured to interpret parables on all the four levels that we saw earlier.  One illustration is sufficient to see his method. It is the parable of the Great Supper (Luke. 14:16-24):

Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’

“But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’

“Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’

“Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’

“The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’

” ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’ “

Augustine interprets the five yoke of oxen to be the five senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. They are in pairs: two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, the tongue and the palate and the inner and outer touch. These senses are double: the eyes see light and darkness, the ears hear harsh and musical sounds, the nose smells sweet and offensive odours, the mouth tastes bitter and sweet and the touch feels smooth and rough.

 

Against this view is Chrysostom. He taught that parables had only one central meaning and they were not to be allegorised. He writes, “And, as I am always saying, the parables must not be explained throughout word for word, since many absurdities will follow.”Thus, in the history of interpretations there have been these two extremes. It caused Trench to write: There are those who expect to trace only the most general correspondence between the sign and the thing signified; while others aim at running out the interpretation into the minutest detail; with those who occupy every intermediate stage between the two extremes.

Often it is difficult to determine which is to be interpreted and which is not. Christ gave the interpretation of the parable of the Tares (Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43):

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.  When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

” ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

 ”The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “

and Christ’s interpretation may be of help at this point…

 

He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

 

Note that Christ interpreted for the disciples the meaning of the tares, the Sower, the field, the good seed, the enemy, the harvest, the reapers; but, at the same time He does not interpret the meaning of the men who slept, the meaning of sleep, the springing up of the wheat, the yielding of fruit, or the servants. After dealing with the parables of the Sower and the Tares, one writer concludes: From the above examples we may derive the general principles which are to be observed in the interpretation of parables. No specific rules can be formed that will apply to every case and show what parts of a parable are designed to be significant and what parts are mere drapery and form. Sound sense and delicate discrimination are to be cultivated and matured by a protracted study of all the parables and by careful collation and comparison.Thus it is observed that the parts of the parable often play an important role in interpretation, but on the other hand they may be given just to streamline the story. The interpreter must determine the importance of every part.

 

Example 1. Jesus told the short parable of the two debtors to Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-47 quoted earlier) to open his eyes and to help him see things differently. In Simon’s eyes, he is the lesser debtor to God and the immoral woman the greater. Yet Jesus shows Simon, with a piercing parable, that Simon therefore has the lesser love for God! Now Simon would have missed the point of that parable entirely, had he wondered about the significance of why the amounts of money owed by the debtors are divisible by five, or whether there was any hidden meaning in the fact that the higher debt was exactly ten times the lesser debt.

Example 2. Likewise, the parable of the pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46): “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

This parable makes a point about the value of the kingdom of God compared to earthly wealth. The pearl stands for the kingdom of heaven and all the merchant’s possessions —which he sold to gain the pearl— represent earthly wealth. The point of this parable is that gaining the kingdom of heaven is worth sacrificing any amount of worldly possessions should that be necessary. We would be distracted from that point if we tried to find some significance in the fact that the merchant sought fine pearls rather than fine rubies or fine diamonds.

Problems and difficulties

In brief, a few dangers in interpretation should be mentioned. The parables contain much that is doctrinal and these doctrinal teachings are not to be taken lightly. Parables do teach doctrine and the claim that they may not be used at all in doctrinal writing is improper. But in gleaning our doctrine from the parables the interpreter must be strict in their interpretation: they must check their results with the plain, evident teaching of Jesus and with the rest of the New Testament.Parables should not be considered primary sources of doctrine: rather, doctrine may be illustrated and confirmed by parables, but the interpreter must be careful to check the interpretation with the whole body of Scripture. As a further warning, it is needful to be aware that parables are comparisons and illustrations. Every comparison must halt somewhere. The interpreter is to use the parable as an illustration and they must be careful not to interpret it further than the intent of Jesus.

8.13 ALLEGORIES

Many mystical accounts and journals are recorded in allegorical form and allegory is present in Scripture and sacred writings also. Spiritual themes cannot be properly described because of the limitations of human language. Mystical or spiritual allegories are teaching stories that divulge transcendent knowledge to initiates (advanced students). Mystical teachers use allegories to divulge knowledge in a specialized manner: meanings, information, concepts and inter-relationships are adumbrated, intimated, or foreshadowed in communications that require the recipient (student, reader, viewer, hearer) to decipher and grasp the knowledge relative to their intellectual and spiritual capabilities. Recipients who are merely aware that there is a higher level of being revealed by mystical allegories can learn a limited amount from them. Mystical savants who experience this higher level of being are able to create mystical allegories and teach the use of such allegorical stories. The recipient must first of all allow the working hypothesis that there may be a higher level of being that is operative in mystical allegories and the writings should be approached from the point of view that they may be documents created by persons with higher ‘technical’ knowledge: an ancient yet still irreplaceable method of arranging and transmitting a knowledge which cannot be conveyed in any other way. The mystical tradition possesses a disciplined approach for helping people develop higher states of consciousness: mystical books, essays and allegories contain carefully designed elements that act on the recipient’s psyche (personality and mind) to produce precisely designated effects. The prescribed results differ according to the capabilities of the various recipients and with a single reader who returns to the material over a period of time. Modern scholastic predispositions lead us to look at a book, essay or allegory as a simple collection of words expressing ideas and it is difficult for us to conceive of a genuine science contained in books and teachings that would be capable of producing evolutionary transformations in human beings. We find it easy to acknowledge that technical knowledge can be conveyed through a mathematical formula or a scientific textbook, but we are not so aware that mystical books, essays and allegories possess an equally ‘technical’ meaning and power. As with a mathematical formula or a scientific textbook, such elements can only be understood by a person who has taken the time and effort to study the underlying knowledge—as for example, physics.

So, having used the general approach to identify a book, or a section or passage of Scripture or mystical writing as being allegorical, then, the literal approach and method to understanding it is then no longer applicable. So how then do we approach an allegorical section of sacred writing?

Simply put, an allegory is a fiction, almost invariably a story, which is designed first and foremost to illustrate a coherent doctrine that exists outside of the fiction. Thus, the story and everything in it bear an immediate and point-by-point reference to a very specific aspect of the controlling doctrine that the fiction is illustrating. In that sense, allegories tend to be what we might call ‘philosophical’ fictions: a term which means that they are to a large extent shaped and controlled by ideas or by a system of ideas which exists independently of the allegorical text and to which they point to or refer. This should be easy enough to understand, because in one way or another most of us are thoroughly familiar with allegories – fictions which exist primarily to illustrate ideas rather than to explore them independently. There are many films in which good heroes are pitted against nasty villains (e.g., traditional westerns, James Bond) and these films operate within a fairly obvious and popular framework of belief. Even many sporting events present themselves in an allegorical context, especially ‘sports entertainment’ genres such as wrestling. Allegories tend to be very popular because they are the simplest way to appeal to and to confirm the belief system of the audience: we like to see the good people win out and the bad ones get punished, often expressed in a very simple way, because that confirms the belief system we bring to the world (or which we would like to bring to the world), namely that good triumphs over evil. Often allegories are the least complicated and most pleasing ways to remind people of a particular belief system. Hence allegories have always been an important way of educating people from childhood onwards, because they present important doctrinal or abstract ideas in the form of a pleasing fiction. A large part of the popularity of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress arises from the fact that it was the essential text in the raising of many Christian Protestant children within the home (in the days before Walt Disney).

Allegories need to be distinguished from symbolic stories however. Both allegorical structures and symbolic structures derive their full meaning from something beyond the literal meaning of the word, event, image, or character in the fiction. That is, they both point to a range of meanings beyond themselves. The major difference is that in allegories the reference point is clear and relatively unambiguous, whereas, with symbols the range of meaning is more ambiguous and uncertain. For example, money in Chaucer’s General Prologue or disease in Hamlet clearly exerts a recurring symbolic influence throughout these works. But what they refer to is not immediately explicit or obvious and as readers we need to interpret, argue about and come to some consensus (if possible) about the range of possible meanings. By contrast, in The Pilgrim’s Progress something like Christian’s scrap of paper or the Slough of Despond refer explicitly to some important aspect of the overarching doctrine which is controlling the shape of the fiction and which every detail of the fiction is designed to illustrate. About such references there is no ambiguity and therefore there is no need for argument about any supposed range of possible interpretative possibilities.

This point is particularly clear if we compare the characterization in Chaucer and Shakespeare with the characterization in Bunyan. The characters in the earlier two works are clearly (for the most part) complex, ambiguous and arguable. There may be some (like the Knight and the Parson) who are ideal characters and serve to point to a clear Christian standard, but for the most part we cannot simply define the characters in these works according to a simple and given frame of reference. In Bunyan however the situation is quite the reverse: the characters in the work almost all serve exclusively to present unambiguously a certain principle in the doctrine; we do not have to argue about the significance of people like Ignorance, Talkative, Lord Hategood, Obstinate, Pliable and so on. In a sense they are not characters; they are not even character types; they are the personifications of very explicit characteristics introduced into the fiction in order to illustrate a clear point. Their very names make this tendency obvious to the reader. In a sense, there is only one character in this story, Christian himself and the development of his spiritual understanding depends upon his ability to see the world in very simple terms.

In between clearly allegorical meaning and more ambiguous symbolic meaning stands the category of literary reference that we have already looked at, called a parable. In a parable, we seem to be working clearly within an allegorical framework in the sense that a very simple meaning seems to be indicated, but sometimes the simple meaning turns out to be not so immediately obvious to figure out.

Allegory: A literary view

If allegory is always illuminating a particular doctrine which exists outside the work such that the allegorical work is shaped by that doctrine, two questions at once arise:

1) Do I need to know the doctrine in order to understand the fiction?

2) What is the purpose of the allegory if the meaning is already worked out elsewhere?

The answer to the first question, concerning what background understanding might be necessary for understanding the allegory will depend upon the nature of the allegory. Some, like Pilgrim’s Progress will contain within themselves a sufficient explanation of the doctrine so that one understands why the fiction takes on the shape it does. That is, the allegory may serve both as an illustration of the doctrine and also, in places, as an exposition of the doctrine (as in the long conversations between Christian and Hopeful). Other allegories may not provide the exposition and may therefore require some familiarity with the shaping ideas in order for the reader to understand why the fiction has taken on the shape it has. For example, in the very simplest dramatic allegory – the fight between the good angel and the evil angel for the soul of Everyman as he contemplates the parade of the tempting seven deadly sins in front of him – if one has no immediate knowledge of angels or of the Christian doctrine of temptation, sin and damnation, then the entire story may seem somewhat puzzling; just as a person who has no knowledge whatsoever of North American history may find some old Western films set in a firmly allegorical framework rather odd in the ideas that they present.

The answer to second question, concerning the purpose of allegory, should be clear enough. The purpose of the allegory is first and foremost to entertain, to engage the imagination of the reader so that the pleasure which arises from dealing with fictions can be put in the service of a particular belief system. This is an especially important function if the aim of the writer is to convert people to the belief system. Allegories provide a very powerful alternative to other forms of persuasion (like rational arguments or sermons), because fictional stories have a way of engaging people’s attentions more forcefully than other means of persuasion. For that reason, most belief systems (religious and otherwise) rely a great deal on allegorical fictions in order to persuade people of truths that would be too complex or arid to present in the form of rational arguments or sermons.

Interpreting Allegorical Fictions

Interpreting allegorical fiction presents for the literary critic a tempting danger however. Since the fiction is so clearly and closely controlled by the external doctrine, there’s a natural temptation to devote one’s time as an interpreter to discussing the doctrine (the controlling ideas). This can be a major mistake, because it takes one’s attention away from the text under scrutiny and directs it elsewhere. For the literary critic, what matters in an allegorical fiction is not (repeat not) the adequacy, coherence, or consistency of the doctrine which is being illustrated (important as that may be for other forms of enquiry). What is of central importance is how the literary text deals with the belief system, how it brings it alive (or fails to bring it alive), how it succeeds as a literary work (that is, using the resources of literature) to create a particular vision.

For the interpreter, we find that through the centuries those who have sought to interpret the parables have not always seen the difference between an allegory and a parable clearly. An allegory, like a parable, is a story told in order to make a comparison. In an allegory every detail of the story has some kind of meaning. The apostle Paul used an allegory of two women, Hagar and Sarah, to contrast the Old and New Covenants (Galatians. 4:24-31):

These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
“Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labour pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

In this allegory Paul explained that Hagar represents Mount Sinai or the Old Covenant while Sarah represents the spiritual Jerusalem or the New Covenant. Every detail in this allegory corresponds to something.

The following interpretive principles can we draw from the Biblical example of allegory given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians:

1. Allegory is a bona-fide figure of speech used in sacred writing.

2. It employs comparison and correspondence of words and ideas.

3. It is illustrative and explanatory of a specific line of truth.

4. It cannot be divorced from its local context or the historical narrative from

which it is drawn.

5. It is comprised of a number of metaphorical expressions in which the

meaning of one word is invested in another, e.g. Hagar is Mt. Sinai,

that is, she represents the Law of Moses.

6. None of the figurative expressions are so obscure as to leave us guessing as

to their import.

7. We can expect to learn something from their use that will be of profit—

applicable to life.

8. We would be wise not to assume that such hidden meanings are latent in

 every place in the Bible or sacred literature.

Differences between allegories and parables
Lets remind ourselves of the differences between parables and allegories:
1. Parables are enlarged comparisons. Allegories are enlarged metaphors.

2. In parables, the narrative and the interpretation are separated. In allegories, they are mixed.

3. Parables have one or two main thoughts; the details are valuable only if they are related to these main ideas. Allegories have many comparisons and they are not always related to the main idea. So, all the details in allegories are important.

4. Characters of parables are real. Characters of allegories may be mythical or fantastic.
If the Bible contains an allegory, its interpretation is usually given in the text, for example, Ephesians 6:10-17:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armour of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

So, the main principle of interpretation of allegories is to read them carefully to find out explanation of each detail. It is also important to notice the context of the allegory: who said this allegory, why and when.

8.14 SYMBOLS

A symbol may represent a thing either past, present or future whereas a type, which I will look at in a moment, represents the future. A symbol then has no reference to time, but it often can be determined by the context. The names of symbols have to be understood literally first: symbols always denote something essentially different from themselves and yet some resemblance must be traceable.

Principles of interpretation of symbols:

 

There are two elements in a symbol: the mental image it represents and the image that represents it. Numerals, metals and colours may all be symbols depending on the context in which they are found, thus while all of these may have significance within the scope of a study of the Tabernacle or Temple, they probably have no significance if they are found in an undesignated type. For example, the gold used in the Tabernacle represents Deity, but the gold that used as a medium of exchange in a simple historical transaction would probably have no such significance. Symbols are usually explained somewhere in Scripture, so uninterpreted symbols need to be approached with caution and is the same as that for the interpretation of types (below). Special consideration must also be given to the context; cross-references need to be diligently checked; the nature of the symbol must be considered, such as the “Lion” of the Tribe of Judah – there will be similarities and dissimilarities but the intended ideas are found in the similarities. The interpreter must be especially careful of reading meanings from our present modern culture into the symbols. If the symbol is in a prophetic context, then the symbol may indeed be referring to something from that prophetic culture but again, caution must be exercised and doctrine must not be built on the interpretation of symbols with care. The interpreter should also be aware of “Double Imagery,” where a symbol has more than one meaning. Jesus Christ is a “Lion” (Revelation 5:5) and Satan is also “like a lion” (1 Peter 5:8). In addition, one entity may be represented by more than one symbol as is evident in the many symbols that are used to describe Jesus Christ: such as the “Lion” of the Tribe of Judah of Revelation 5:5 and the “Bright Morning Star” of Revelation 22:16. The interpreter should also recognize that there is some symbolism in numbers, but that this is easily abused. Finally the interpreter should also realize that each symbol has only one significant meaning and always has the same fundamental meaning.

8.15 TYPES

A symbol may represent a thing either past, present or future whereas a type represents the future. When the Bible clearly indicates that a certain thing or person is a type, then all the theologians agree that this thing or person should be considered a type. However, when the Bible does not contain these indications, some theologians still try to find types. The fact that the Bible contains types does not mean that everything in the Bible or other sacred literature should be interpreted typologically. If the Bible does not indicate clearly that a certain thing is a type of another thing (antitype), typological interpretation cannot be objective and will depend on the person who interprets the Bible. Leaders of abusive churches and cults often use typological interpretation in order to make the Bible say what they want it to.
The main characteristics of types:
1. There should be some point of similarity or analogy between the type and antitype. However, they may also have many differences: for example, Adam is a type of Christ: “Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” (Romans 5:14). However, the Scripture speaks more about the differences between them than it does of their similarity (Romans 5:14-19).

2. There should be evidence that the type was set by the Scripture writers to present what it illustrates. A similarity can be considered a type if there is some evidence of proof of that type.

3. A type should illustrate something in the future. Antitypes in the New Testament unveil the truths more fully than types in the Old Testament.

The kinds of types:
1. Persons as types illustrate some important principles or truth of redemption with their life. For example, Adam is a type of Christ (Romans 5:14).

2. Events as types have analogies with some later events. For example, Paul used the condemnation of Israel as a type to warn Christians about unfaithfulness (1 Corinthians 10:1-11).

3. Ordinances as types illustrate later events in the history of salvation. For example, the Sabbath was a type of the believers’ eternal rest (Hebrews 4:1-11)

4. Ministries as types include Moses’ ministry, who being a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15) is a type of Christ; Melchizedek’s ministry (Hebrews 5:6), which is a type of Christ’s eternal high priest ministry and David’s ministry of a king.

5. Actions as types. For example, Isaiah walked naked and barefooted as an illustration that Assyria would soon take the captives from Egypt and Ethiopia naked and barefooted (Isaiah 20:2-4).
Principles of interpretation of types:
1. Every type is interpreted in the same way in the Old Testament and the New Testament context. A type has only one interpretation and its interpretation is applied in a higher level. A type in the Old Testament has only one meaning that was implied by the author. So, the original meaning is not lost. However, God used types in a higher meaning as symbols of something else. An antitype is a realization of the original meaning of the type in a higher level.
2. When the New Testament gives an interpretation of a type, the interpreter should use only this interpretation. If the New Testament gives two or three analogies between a type and an antitype, the interpreter should not invent more types using every detail as a type.
3. Types should not be based on such weak analogies as colour, number, or shape.
4. A doctrine should only be drawn from a type with care. A type tends to serve only as an illustration of a doctrine.

 

The differences between types and symbols:
1. A type always implies something in the future. A symbol is not determined by time.
2. A type always something actual – a person, a place, an event, or a commandment. A symbol is invented – a fiction or a fantasy.
3. A type may include several symbols.
4. A type is always concrete. A symbol is abstract.
5. A type always has some similarity with the antitype. A symbol may not have a similarity with the thing it represents.

8.16 SOME PERSONAL EXAMPLES
My own mystical encounters and the resulting Journal that records these experiences make up an allegory. The characters that feature in it are fictional, just as they are in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s progress. Yet even within this structure, there are what are called ‘pictures’. One of the characters gives a rule concerning the interpretation of such pictures: I give you a principle that holds true whenever a teacher or interpreter gives you a picture. You must look at the general and obvious parallel for the insights that it gives. As with the Field of Illusions, if you press details too far, you are in danger of falling into a misunderstanding. This matches what was said earlier in the section on parables: Every comparison must halt somewhere. Examples of these pictures are given below:

Example 1: Consider the waves of the sea. The surface of the sea rises and turns over itself, forming droplets and spray as it does so, but they remain as the sea. They do not cease to be water, but remain seamlessly part of the ocean and return back again.

Example 2: “You have come already with a picture in your mind that has caused you to begin this journey, and you must take it to the Field of Illusions, for your journey starts there.”

Across the valley, in the direction that he was pointing, a field of harvested wheat shone in a silvery white glow, causing to stand out from all the surrounding fields. I made my way down to the base of the tower, but unlike my previous journey to the Heartland, there was no White Charger [Horse] waiting. So I walked to the field and on entering it though an open gap in the hedge, I was immediately met by a jolly, smiling fellow, dressed in a brown cassock.

“Welcome to the Field of Illusions!” he said warmly. “Everything here is an illusion, no matter what you see, no matter how real or logical it seems. It is an illusion, for there are many ways that seem right to a man, but the end thereof is death. And you have come with a picture to be explored in the Field, because that is where it belongs.”

“But just a minute,” I urged, “who are you?”.

“I am Michael.” he said in warm laughing tones, and smiled. “I am your Friend and Interpreter here in the Field of Illusions. No harm can come to you here. Everything here is an illusion. Now what is the picture that you bring?”

The picture that I brought, in my mind, was of myself as a small black Terrier with it’s teeth clenched around a rag, pulling it this way and that, though I could not prize it free. Another picture was of me as the same dog, pulling every-which-way against a dog lead, but despite all my efforts, I could not pull free. I explained my pictures to Michael and told him that the Visionary had told me that if I was to see God, I must first prepare myself, and that the first stage of preparation was to bring my picture to the Field of Illusions. We explored the picture together. I felt that the rag was mine by right and I was determined to have it. On inspection, it became clear that the rag was coloured red with white spots, symbolising Atonement and Purity.

Michael said, “The rag is already yours.”

 But the back portion of the rag was obscured in darkness that I could not penetrate. I sought as much as I could to see into this darkness, and a Voice said “You do not give that which is Holy unto dogs!”

In a similar way, I could not break free from the lead. Together, we explored what would happen if the lead was cut, and I saw myself as the little Terrier rush off, but with no direction or aim. I revelled in my freedom, but then I turned around and was lost. I could not find my way. The name of the lead was Caution. Then for the first time, I saw a hand, clothed with a white glove, holding the lead. Upon inquiry, I was told that this was the Hand of God, leading and restraining, the glove representing Gentleness and Purity without stain. I saw the uselessness of the struggle. But I began to wonder if any of this was real. Perhaps absolutely everything in the Field was an illusion. Perhaps, Atonement and Purity and even the Hand of God were an illusion. I asked Michael if this was so.

Example 3: “You know so little but you like to go about like some expert that thinks he is superior to others.”. Her voice rose in volume and she laughed contemptuously at me again. “It is like there is a vast plain, a huge expanse of flat land, and there is just a little ant hill on its surface, or some worm has burrowed up out of the ground, the ant or worm think that they are high above everyone else. But right next to them is Mount Everest. Your arrogance is beyond belief!

Compare these with the more allegorical sections of the Journal, like this passage:

This was clearly a bathing pool, for to my left there was a towel rail with a clean towel placed on it. The water seemed fresh and inviting, so I stripped naked and entered the pool. The water was pleasantly warm and I relaxed in the pool.  I noticed to the side of the pool was written, “I give you the Water of Life freely”. At the bottom of the pool there seemed to be some more writing, but I could not make out what it said because the water distorted it. I went beneath the surface and found that the pool was much deeper than I thought. Not that this alarmed me in any way, because I found I could stay under water for a very long time. I swam to the bottom, but rather than writing, I found a large ornate gold key. I became aware that in the corner of the pool, there was a treasure chest, so I swam over to it. I was able to open it immediately. As I lifted the lid, air bubbles gushed out about my face. Inside, resting on a brown velvet base was an ornate silver and gold cross, with its head and arms encrusted with rubies. I turned and saw that a treasure chest nestled in each corner of the pool. I opened them all and found a crown, an old, large rusty nail, and a sceptre. In the centre of the pool was a treasure chest that was not there before. On its lid, my name was written and when I opened it, it contained a magnifying glass. I could not carry all these objects, so I took the magnifying glass, since it was on the chest with my name, and the ornate gold key, which I thought might be useful and returned to the surface. Etheria was waiting, smiling and sitting by the pool. The air was warm, and the room full of light. I pulled myself out of the pool, clothed myself in the clean towel and sat by Etheria.

‘What have you found?’ she asked in her gentle voice.

I told her what I had seen and showed her the magnifying glass and key.

‘You have done well’, she said. ‘These may be useful for you. But relax now. There is a drinking fountain here so that you may refresh yourself.’

I drank the Water of Life, and being refreshed, fell into a deep sleep.

Here there are all kinds of symbolism and detail, much more than in the general ‘pictures’.

Whilst considerations of principles of Scripture interpretation are useful, is there anywhere else that we can look in addition? Is there another or additional system of correlation of meanings? We come across this problem in the area of dream interpretation. If I dream about a house by the blue sea, can I refer to a standard principle of interpretation in order to understand any meaning in this image? Is there a method or set of principles that correlate the symbolism and what it points to? Needless to say there are opposing opinions. Those who say ‘Yes’ are of the school that would devise a ‘Dream Dictionary’ – a handbook whereby one could look up ‘house’, ‘sea’ and ‘blue’ and be given the interpretation and correlation of their meaning – ‘house’ means ‘man’, ‘sea’ means ‘birth’ and ‘blue’ means ‘spiritual’ – thus we have the birth of the spiritual man. But of course there is another school of thought that says that such an approach is far too mechanistic and inflexible. If two of us have a dream about a diamond ring, then according to this second approach, the meanings would be different for both of us. What a diamond ring means to me and what it means to you are probably different because each of us brings to that image different associations and a different history and different experiences. One person may associate joy, happiness, belonging, friendship and companionship with a diamond ring whereas the other may have associations of expensive entrapment.

The correct approach is probably between the two – any society and community shares cultural meanings – so there is a shared understanding of symbols, but this is by no means universal and uniform amongst all its individual members. We have also seen that such shared cultural meanings differ and change over time, so that in considering Biblical symbols we need some awareness of the shared cultural meanings of that time and should not impose our own later interpretations. The Star of David may speak of nationality, shared history and shared religion to Jews but it means something completely different to a modern German neo-nazi. So what we have is a loose system of correlation of shared meanings of symbols, but it is a system that has very fuzzy boundaries and considerable differences of interpretation by different individuals within it. In the case of mystical writing, experience and the interpretation of its allegories, metaphors and symbols, this would suggest that the recipients themselves are in many ways the best positioned to make the interpretation and draw out the meaning – this is in a very real sense a personal revelation.

8.17 DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE

With regard to Scripture, we should also note to whom the passage is addressed in the sense of the depth of their spiritual respect and understanding. Like it or not, whether it is politically correct or not, or fashionable or not, there is, in most religious traditions, a hierarchy. I am not referring primarily here to an external hierarchy of a church or religious organisation: I am not referring to the hierarchy of Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, Bishops, Elder, Deacon and so on. I am referring instead to the hierarchy of the spiritual adept. In theory of course, the external hierarchy should reflect the inner hierarchy – the most spiritually experienced, insightful, wise and perceptive person should occupy the highest external authority, position or rank. But of course it is not so for many various reasons. For the sake of this discussion then, I am talking about personal spiritual growth and attainment and the use of discrimination in the recognising the degree of this in other people.

8.19 SPIRITUAL DISCRIMINATION

In Christianity, the Bible calls for the practice of such spiritual discrimination. This is not a judging or a condemning of others, (Matthew 7 v 1-6), but rather recognising a person’s disposition towards spirituality in order to speak to them appropriately. Thus, Scripture declares that those people who are not spiritual, or born again, CANNOT RECEIVE SPIRITUAL THINGS, indeed, they are foolishness to them. (I Corinthians 2 v 14). In the same way, there are others who are spiritual babes: unable to receive the meat of deep teaching, requiring rather the milk of the Word, or basic instruction. (I Corinthians 3 v 1-3, Hebrews 5 v 11-14). Then there are others, adepts, who are mature in the faith and are able to take the meat of the Word. Thus, only the person who is led by the Spirit can understand certain doctrines (I Corinthians 2:9-16):

However, as it is written:

“No eye has seen,

no ear has heard,

no mind has conceived

what God has prepared for those who love him”

 

but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
“For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

 

There is a blinding ignorance over the hearts of those who wilfully refuse the Spirit.

 

This means that the spiritually minded person has to appropriately limit what they say to others about spirituality. In this respect, Christ Himself gave His disciples a specific command: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.’ (Matthew 7 v 6). Now who are these dogs and swine? Scripture suggests that they are those who are insolent or who are not seeking after truth, or who have no desires after God. (Matthew 15 v 26, Mark 7 v 27, Philippians 3 v 2, II Peter 2 v 22, Revelation 22 v 15). There is then a principle of restraint in sharing spiritual matters. There is a limit to what a spiritually minded person says to an unbeliever: to an atheist or agnostic or secular humanist. It is not prudent to talk to them of certain intimate or personal things in the spiritual life. The spiritual-minded person lays themselves open not only to ridicule, but may lead others to blaspheme or misuse holy, sacred and precious things.

Thus in Christianity, when speaking to unbelievers, the climax of the conversation was:- ‘Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand’, or, ‘Repent, because God is going to judge the world, and this judgement is certain because it will be by the One whom God rose from the dead.’.(Matthew 4 v 17, Matthew 10 v 7, Mark 1 v 15, Mark 6 v 12, Acts 2 v 38-40, Acts 3 v 19, Acts 14 v 15, Acts 17 v 30-31, Acts 26 v 20). The way in which this climax was approached varied according to the kind of people that were been spoken to.

Similarly, it is interesting that Christ never taught the crowds fully. When outside the synagogue which was the meeting place for believers and the spiritually minded – he tended to speak to the non spiritually minded but curious crowds in PARABLES, the INTERPRETATION of which was NEVER GIVEN TO THE CROWDS, BUT TO THE DISCIPLES ONLY. Christ would not give pearls to swines: the explanation of parables was reserved for the spiritual minded. Matthew 13 v 10- 17:

 

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;

 though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them

 is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

 ” ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

 For this people’s heart has become calloused;

 they hardly hear with their ears,

 and they have closed their eyes.

 Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

 hear with their ears,

 understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

 

Again in Mark 4 v 10-12:

 

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
” ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’

 

And again in Mark 4 v 33, 34:

With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Contrary to modern ideas and practices, in the early New Testament times the onus was for unbelievers to seek out spiritual truths and spiritual minded people, not for believers to seek out and accommodate unbelievers in order to talk to them about spiritual matters or attract them into the meeting place. Jesus did not make it His practice to seek out those who were not interested in religion. At first, his main practice was to go to the synagogues on the Sabbath, where spiritually inclined people met together, in order to teach there. (Luke 4 v 15, 16, 31). It was in the synagogue, not outside, that He did much of his teaching and it was in the synagogue that He had a number of encounters with the Scribes and Pharisees – the orthodox and ultra orthodox believers. As His fame spread, He was followed by so many people that He was forced to preach outside in the open. But this teaching was done in parables, thus the message was now hidden from unbelievers. His teaching outside the synagogue was a RESPONSE to the demands of the multitude, but the message He gave was always limited and/or hidden.

We find that exactly the same is true concerning the practice of the Apostles. Though given the great commission to evangelise by Jesus, we find that they too restricted their message and only spoke to those who were interested. Thus we find that their MAIN PRACTICE was to speak to those who already believed the Old Testament. They spoke to these people on the Sabbath in the synagogues. This was the method by which they spoke to both Jews and Gentiles. (Compare Acts 26v 20, with Acts 5 v 42, Acts 9 v 20, Acts 13 v 5, 14,15, Acts 14 v 1, Acts 17 v 1,2,10,17, Acts 18 v 4,19, Acts 19 v 8.) Though the Apostles usually went to synagogues, they did not limit themselves to synagogues only, but would go wherever believers in the Old Testament gathered for worship. (Acts 16 v 3). As Jews themselves, this was quite a natural thing for them to do, and they had freedom to share applications of the Old Testament, though often of course, the Jews resented their teaching.

When it came to those people who did not attend synagogues, or gather for worship, we find that the Apostles did NOT seek them out. They did not seek to speak to everyone that they encountered and they did not seek such people out in out in order to evangelise them. We do however have some accounts of the Apostles speaking in public: One was on the occasion of a misunderstanding by the crowd, such that the Apostles were forced to defend themselves and their actions. (Acts 14 v 9- 15), and the other was given as a result of Paul being ASKED to preach by the Gentiles. (Acts 17 v 19). Whilst it is true that the Apostles did not as a general practice go from town to town setting up a public platform from which to speak, Paul did in one place speak in the market place to those who happened to be there. (Acts 17 v 17) He did this daily. The reason that he did this was NOT to teach unbelievers, or because of a perceived urgency of the gospel message, or because of his concern at souls being lost, but rather because ‘he was greatly distressed to see the city full of idols’. It does not appear to be the Apostle Paul’s normal practice to speak out in this way, but in this case, he was distressed by a prevalent religious practice. We should note also that the market place was not just a place of trade, but also a place where people gathered to talk and debate.

The effect of this is that different people were dealt with in different ways. Jesus and the Apostles did not deal with everyone in the same way. The sort of person that they were talking to, and their degree of spirituality affected the way in which they presented their message of the need to repent. They practiced spiritual discrimination. Apart from discerning a person’s level of spirituality, the main principle that the Apostles used in spreading the gospel to different types of people was that they became all things to all men, that by all means they might save some. (I Corinthians 9 v 22) Here is the mainspring, the hub of the Apostles method of dealing with different people. Scripture gives us some examples….

When dealing with people who claimed to believe the Old Testament, their approach was to skilfully use the Old Testament to show that Christ was the promised Messiah, showing His ancestry, how He fulfilled prophecy, types, e.t.c. (Acts 2 v 14-38, Acts 3 v 12-26, Acts 7 v 2-53, Acts 3 v 30-38, Acts 13 v 14-41, Acts 17 v 1-3, Acts 23 v 23.). Having shown from Scripture that Christ is the Messiah, they then called for repentance and belief on Him, together with a call for baptism and a warning of future judgement. (Acts 2 v 38, Acts 3 v 26, Acts 13 v 38-41, Acts 20 v 21).

However, when dealing with people who were ignorant of the Old Testament, or not familiar with it, or who did not claim to believe it, they did not use Scripture at all. A prime example of their approach is given in Acts 17 v 16-Ch 18 v 1. (See also Acts 14 v 15-18). For those who believe in the Bible, a spiritually minded person may use the Bible, for those who believe in the Koran, they may use the Koran, for those who do not, they may use the philosophers, thinkers, poets, religious leaders that they do accept in order to communicate a point, or perhaps use providence and creation to support the view being communicated. The Apostles NEVER demanded that people believe the Bible or Torah or any Scripture before they would speak to them. The one thing that was UNIVERSALLY seen to declare God’s existence is creation itself. (Psalm 19 v 1-4, Romans 10 v 18, Romans 1 v 18-23).

Now I have gone into this Christian perspective in a little depth, not to promote the Christian doctrine per se, but to indicate the practice of spiritual discrimination. There are similar stories from many other religions: a student of Sufi Ibn al-Arabi was seen walking with some of Arabi’s works and was asked by some Muslims what he was doing with them because he could not possibly understand them  – he needed a Primer – an basic introduction – and in any case, if he could understand Arabi’s works, then he had no need of them. This conveys a similar idea of spiritual discrimination, of restraint in sharing spiritual matters with the disinterested and unenlightened or the novice.

8.20 MYSTICAL AWARENESS AND RATIONAL AWARENESS

It is nevertheless central to some mystical perspectives, especially the non-dualistic ones, that ultimately all is One. There is if you like, a differentiation on the surface or expressive – the various discrete phenomenon that make up the manifest universe – but in Essence, all is Undifferentiated Oneness. Basically this means that everything – every existent – planet, tree, animal, stone, human, atom – is a delimited expression of Essence, a bounding of the Boundless, a theophany. On the surface there is manifold differentiation but underneath, all is Undifferentiated, Ineffable Essence.

Because Absolute Essence is Formless, Unknowable and Ineffable but also, in parallel manifest in all differentiated, contracted delimited form there is the problem of how to describe Essence in order to relate to Essence, (because we exist in relation) and to understand Absolute. The mind cannot encompass Absolute, delimited form cannot embrace Expansive, Formless Essence. Absolute Essence is not a ‘thing’ or ‘object’ to be observed or categorised. Thus, in mystical awareness we approach an intermediate world of ongoing Divine imaging underlying all manifestation. This is a sphere that is full of paradox, the coincidence of opposites and the logically impossible. Here, the impossible, or better, the Unexplainable, the Unknowable and Ineffable is given form. In the same way, meanings are disclosed through sensory forms. These forms arise in the imagination from sense perception, forms that are rich in metaphor and symbolism, where for example, knowledge is seen as a pearl, religions are seen as ships coursing the ocean and the Absolute is seen as Light or as human characters. Thus, in this intermediate sphere:

Ineffable spiritual meanings are given tangible delimited form

Tangible forms become subtle, spiritual meanings

What lies beneath tangible, phenomenological form is forever newly created with profound spiritual meaning. In mystical awareness the existential foundations of all manifest expressions or phenomena reveal aspects of Essence. All existents have this essential Theophanic aspect – it is the extraordinary aspect of the ordinary as opposed to the concept of a separate extraordinary realm. In mystical awareness, spiritual meanings or aspects of Essence are disclosed or revealed in sensory things and sensory things are subtilized or spiritualised.

In response to this, the rational mind either:

Accepts its own impotence in these matters or

Classifies such experiences as hallucinatory or delusional.

8.21 REVELATION AND INTERPRETATION

I spent some time earlier in this study elaborating on the principles of interpretation – on the method of identifying the type of writing that is under consideration and then applying the appropriate method of interpretation which that particular style of writing demands. Yet even as we turn for example to the Bible itself, we find instances where these carefully worked out principles are at least to some degree, strained, even within the confines of its own text. Acts 1 v 20 gives us such an example. Let us first of all look at the verse in context: it is concerned with the disciple Judas Iscariot and the aftermath of his betrayal of Jesus. The disciples are no longer twelve in number because of the death of Judas, so a replacement for him is to be considered. The passage reads:

‘(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, ” ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’[Psalm 69:25] and, ” ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ [Psalm 109:8] Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”.’ Acts 1:18-22

Let us take a look now at these verses that are quoted from the Psalms in turn and in context together with some quotes concerning this passage that have been made by Biblical commentators who had a high regard for the Bible as the infallible and inerrant Word of God. I am doing that because these commentators had a high view of the logical consistency and harmony of the Bible as a whole. Psalm 69 reads:

‘You know how I am scorned, disgraced and shamed; all my enemies are before you. Scorn has broken my heart and has left me helpless; I looked for sympathy, but there was none, for comforters, but I found none. They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. May the table set before them become a snare; may it become retribution and a trap. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever. Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them. May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents. For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt.’ Psalm 69:19-26.

What do the Biblical commentators say of Peter’s interpretation of these words of David?

“This quotation is not made literally from the Hebrew, nor from the Septuagint. The plural is changed to the singular, and there are some other slight variations. The Hebrew is, “Let there be no one dwelling in their tents.” The reference to the tents is omitted in the quotation. The term “habitation,” in the Psalm, means evidently the dwelling-place of the enemies of the writer of the Psalm. It is an image expressive of their overthrow and defeat by a just God: “Let their families be scattered, and the places where they have dwelt be without an inhabitant, as a reward for their crimes.” (Barnes notes on the Bible)

‘…what the psalmist says of the enemies of the Messiah in general, is applied by the apostle to Judas in particular. In the Hebrew text, the words are in the plural number, “let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents”; and refer to all the enemies of Christ, the chief priests, elders of the people, Scribes and Pharisees, who covenanted with Judas to give him so much money to betray Christ into their hands; and who delivered him to the Roman governor, by whom, at their instigation, he was crucified; and particularly may well be thought to include Judas, who betrayed him to them; and therefore are very fitly interpreted of him: though not to be understood to the exclusion of the others, whose house was to be left desolate, and was left desolate, as our Lord predicted’ (John Gill’s exposition of the Bible).

‘This Psalm refers to the Messiah. Mention is made but two or three verses before of their giving him gall and vinegar, and therefore the following predictions of the destruction of David’s enemies must be applied to the enemies of Christ, and particularly to Judas. Perhaps he had some habitation of his own at Jerusalem, which, upon this, every body was afraid to live in, and so it became desolate.’ (Matthew Henry’s Commentary)

In the case of the other quotation, Psalm 109, the passage reads:

For the director of music. Of David. A psalm.

‘O God, whom I praise, do not remain silent, for wicked and deceitful men have opened their mouths against me; they have spoken against me with lying tongues. With words of hatred they surround me; they attack me without cause. In return for my friendship they accuse me, but I am a man of prayer. They repay me evil for good, and hatred for my friendship. Appoint an evil man to oppose him; let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.’ Psalm 109:1-10 (New International Version)

Barnes declares: ‘This class of Psalms is commonly supposed to have expressed David’s feelings in the calamitous times of the persecution by Saul, the rebellion of Absalom, etc. They are all also expressive of the condition of a suffering and persecuted Messiah, and many of them are applied to him in the New Testament. The general principle on which most of them are applicable is, not that David personated or typified the Messiah which is nowhere affirmed, and which can be true in no intelligible sense – but that he was placed in circumstances similar to the Messiah; was encompassed with like enemies; was persecuted in the same manner. They are expressive of high rank, office, dignity, and piety, cast down, waylaid, and encompassed with enemies.’ (Barnes notes on the Bible)

When these Psalms were written, it was not understood by the contemporary readers that these matters referred to Jesus Christ (if indeed they do). The Apostle Paul and other writers understood this fact. Paul said:

‘Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.’ (Ephesians 3 v 2-6)

The writer of the first letter of Peter declares:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1 v 10-13)

8.22 REVELATION AND UNVEILING

There is an important principle of revelation or unveiling here in the interpretation of Scripture. David laments his suffering at the hands of others, but later, the Apostle, I suggest through revelation, applies these words particularly to Judas though it is not obvious from the original text that this is who is intended. Revelation is particularly important with regard to the metaphors used by mystics. Those who are describing their mystical experiences, particularly when that content is metaphorical, have such metaphors given to them – as we have seen in the consideration of mystical and rational awareness, the content of these experiences are received. The person who has had such a spiritual experience did not sit down as it were rationally and logically trying to think up suitable symbols and metaphors. They did not use analysis and reason in order to find suitable metaphorical descriptors. Rather, such metaphors arose in their imagination.

Indeed, when it comes to such allegorical, symbolic and metaphorical passages of Scripture, interpreters often suggest that we can only take a passage to be metaphorical, symbolic, allegorical or a type when the writer of the passage explicitly declares it to be so. This is for a number of reasons, some of which I have already explained:

If all passages and verses are regarded as symbolic or allegorical, we can draw out all kinds of novel and contradictory interpretations – we can make them mean what we want.

There is not a clear set of principles of interpretation – even Scripture itself contains examples of ambiguous principles of interpretation such as the suffering of David being applied to Christ and Judas.

Because of these vagaries, those who believe in the Bible as the Word of God and therefore inerrant rely on the Biblical authors themselves as special authorities because it is they who were given revelation under the inspiration of the Spirit. Furthermore, these commentators argue, such inspiration and revelation has now ceased and the canon or rule of faith is complete and closed in the books that we now have in the Bible.

It is tempting to see this as a cop-out from getting to the root of this difficult matter where the commentator is saying: ‘believe it because God says so in the Word even though I do not understand the principles behind such an interpretation and have no evidence for it’. But if we are not careful here, we throw the baby out with the bathwater as it were. So we need to look at this yet more closely.

8.23 THE SOURCE OF SPIRITUAL METAPHOR AND ANALOGY

What is it in mystical experience that makes me declare statements like:

God is like the ocean and existents are like ocean spray.

The great religions are like fleets of sailing ships coursing the ocean.

Seeking favour with God by obedience is like a man climbing steps – he falls, gets up, and starts to climb them again only to fall again and repeat the process.

Where do such metaphors come from? I want to suggest that the origin of such metaphors is our True Self – that is Essence or Absolute. Such encounters, as we have seen, are received – we do not actively speculate and construct ideas and forms of the Divine or spiritual themes, but rather we allow them to arise and emerge. The locus of this is our True Self with such forms manifest in our mind or imagination, in our emotions and in our inclinations. Thus it is then that we are encouraged to listen to the Still Small Voice often manifest as our Faithful Companion, Wise Guide, guardian Angel and so on. The Still Small Voice is present in everyone: it is the Voice that is niggling and insistent, always asking questions about Existence, Meaning and Ultimate Things. It is the point where the Spirit meets the material, the locus or focal point of personal inspiration and revelation. It is quiet and cannot be seen with physical eyes because the Spirit is Subtle. The Source of these images, Divine representations and teachings then is Essence, but they are expressed to our mind in meaningful, personal, individual ways that fit our temperament, background and circumstances. They are given to us in the degree and capacity to which we can accommodate them. They are personally tailored forms to suit us as particular individuals in a particular place and time. As we study these received encounters, teachings and forms, applying our rational, analytical faculties to them, we, as individuals may then begin to rationally, logically, through analysis, construct a personal web of meaning and orientation with regard to our relationship to the Divine, to construct a personal theology, a personal religious philosophy, which others may or may not find useful and relevant. So there is not only the Divine aspect to the Still Small Voice arising from Essence, but also an individual, personalised quality of mind in the forms presented to, and used and interpreted by the individual. However, such forms of the Divine are closer to Ignorance than to Formless Absolute. This is what is meant when we come across such statements as the following in the writings of Pilgrims: ‘Such ideologies are of human construction and ultimately become just one partial, flawed perspective, often set against other flawed perspectives in violent warfare’.

This reception and sensitivity to the True Self and the presentation of metaphor and symbol tailored to the individual concerned means that ‘God meets us where we are’ and also that the recipient themselves are in many ways the best positioned to make the interpretation and to draw out the meaning of what they have received – this is in a very real sense a personal revelation. When presented for example with the image or symbol or metaphor of a diamond – what this means to the recipient to whom it is given, and what it means to others who are told of or read the encounter, may be quite different interpretations. But the image is given to the recipient, not to others – though they may benefit from it.

8.24 INHERENT OR EMBEDDED MEANING

I am arguing that the Foundation and Ground of all phenomena is Essence or Absolute. I am arguing that the Essence, Foundation and Ground of all material existents is Spiritual. But does this mean, does it follow, as suggested at the start of this essay, that all objects have inherent spiritual meaning? Is there a spiritual meaning underlying and underneath all objects of existence? Are the mystics therefore correct in declaring that every passage, verse, word and letter in sacred writing has an inner, spiritual meaning? In other words, is there a meaning inherent in every object?

I agree with the mystics when they declare that the essential nature of all things is the One Absolute or Essence. I consider that there is the dimension of ‘What lies underneath’ in the sense that all existents are dependent upon Essence and have no real existence of their own. But the spiritual meaning of say, a stone, is not fixed or single faceted. It is not inherent or embedded in the stone itself. The underlying, spiritual, subtle meaning of a stone is forever changing and multifaceted. Its subtle meaning is dependent in part on the relationship, capacity and perspective of the observer. It is true that the delimited properties of an object may suggest a certain utility: a chair may suggest that it is a good object to sit on, but it may also suggest a good weapon in a fight, a good ladder to reach a high shelf and so on. Such suggestions arise from our conceptual framework – in other words, from what we bring to it, as well as the delimited forms of the object. Show a credit card to a native New Yorker and to a native in a hitherto undiscovered tribe in the Amazonian jungle and they would bring to it quite different understandings and values. The properties of some objects may bring fairly universal meanings to mind…most people would not equate a stone with quenching thirst for example. But objects do not have an inherent, fixed, embedded spiritual meaning that is veiled and waiting to be discovered in revelation by the spiritual adept. The words of sacred writing similarly do not have an inherent, fixed, embedded spiritual meaning that is veiled and waiting to be discovered in revelation by the spiritual adept. Rather, in mystical awareness we approach an intermediate world of ongoing Divine imaging underlying all manifestation. This is a sphere that is full of paradox, the coincidence of opposites and the logically impossible. Here, the impossible, or better, the Unexplainable, the Unknowable and Ineffable is given form. What lies beneath tangible, phenomenological form is forever newly created with profound spiritual meaning.

This ever-changing forever newly created meaning which lies underneath every phenomenological object is an aspect of the Divine non-repeatability or Infinity. In manifestation, nothing is repeated but rather reflects Infinite Diversity. The Divine does not manifest in the same form twice and underlying meanings and correspondences are not fixed and static. This is what is known as Theomorphism: that the Divine is forever displaying in new forms, aspects and meanings. The recipients of revelation are all unique – each one comes with their own unique history, context, personality, capacity, degree of knowledge and so on and therefore, each brings their own unique meaning to an object which the Divine uses in revelation in order to meet us where we are. Thus it is that each path to the Divine is unique – that there are as many paths to God as there are Pilgrims – and no-one else will travel along an individual Pilgrim’s path.

So let’s just summarise:

These existents have:

1)       Delimited qualities – they have shape or form.

2)       Certain properties – they are constituted of certain materials – skin, bone, flesh, metal, wood e.t.c.; some are sentient some are not, some can fly, some can not and so on.

3)       These qualities and properties suggest certain utilities or uses.

4)       Some of these qualities, properties and uses are more valuable than others.

5)       Each existent is unique.

In addition, we as individual sentient existents stand in relation to other existents, be they a stone, a chair, a tree, a galaxy or another human being. Therefore our knowledge is relative. Thus,

1)       We each have a relative subjectivity – a ‘true for me’ (a ‘true for them’)

2)       We each have relative perspectivism – a ‘true from here’ (a ‘true from there’).

3)       We each have a relative capacity – ‘ a true within…..certain bounds, limits, scopes and domains that we have by reason of our delimited expression or existence.’

8.25 RELATIVE MEANING AND THE ABSOLUTE OR ESSENCE

There is then an interaction between all these processes and vantage points which, when configured together, serve to create a certain meaning and value with regard to objects. However, when it comes to Essence or Absolute, then Essence has no form but is Formless, has no properties except those that are Transcendent – Essence is Timeless, Infinite, Stillness and so on. Essence is the Potentiality and Totality of all conceivable uses, utilities and value. We as delimited existents stand in relation to Essence, but Essence-as Essence transcends relationship – Essence IS all that exists. In other words, we as contracted, delimited relative existents stand in absolute relativity with regard to the Absolute. Essence-as-Essence suggests no form or property except Transcendent ones such as Undifferentiated Oneness, Unity and Stillness in the Eternal Now. Essence is Transcendent of utility and value. Essence may present to us in any conceivable form because nothing exists outside of Essence – there is no ‘outside’ of Essence. All that exists, has existed and can potentially exist is a Self-Disclosure of Essence.

Therefore, when we come to an embedded or inherent spiritual meaning in objects, phenomena or existents – then I suggest that there is no such thing. Delimited existents such as fire, water or gold may suggest certain relative or delimited aspects of Essence, as do for example, the Divine Names. But these are not properties or attributes of Essence. The relative view that we have of the delimited properties of water suggest only delimited aspects of Essence which may or may not be useful in giving us relative orientation to a relative delimited aspect of That which cannot be known or encompassed by the mind.

8.26 THE LIMITATIONS OF ORTHODOX HERMENEUTICS

The kinds of issues that I have been considering suggests that a different set of principles are used for interpreting the allegorical writings of others in comparison to the interpretation of our own experiences and the allegorical forms contained within them. We cannot fully know the associations and correspondences in the symbolism and allegory of another writer. The meanings and associations are personal and individual. I have already suggested that each person’s spiritual path is unique and that no-one else will travel along that particular path. The orthodox hermeneutical approaches are fine as far as they go and enable us to some degree to explore the symbolism in the writings of others. But when it comes to our own experiences, the are fuller and richer opportunities for drawing out the correspondences of our own experiences and expressions of symbolism and allegory.

8.27 DIRECTION AND IMPETUS – THE SPIRITUAL JOURNEY

What I have been suggesting is that everything – every phenomenon is a Self-Disclosure of Essence or Absolute and that the Essence or Ground of all phenomena is Essence or Absolute. There is nothing that exists that is not a delimited  expression and disclosure of Essence. In effect, returning to Ken Wilber’s diagram, the whole thing, including the paper on which it is written, is an expression of Essence. This may appear to leave us directionless – if everything is Essence then why go on any spiritual journey? What is its destination? Well in this approach there is a direction. Essence delimited or contracted from One Unity into multiplicity and plurality. Apparent division, separateness, differentiation and boundary arose from contraction of the Formless into form. But the direction to Essence is a return to Undifferentiated, Formless Unity. The spiritual direction, conceptually, morally and actively, is towards Unity. That which is divisive, isolating, separating and bounding takes us in a direction that is in opposition to the Ground and Transcendent Essence of all that is. With this principle in mind, we can now consider further approaches to understanding personal allegorical experience.

8.28 TECHNIQUES OF SELF-INTERPRETATION OF PERSONAL IMAGERY

Interpretation then is very much an individual matter since each revelation is personally tailored to the Pilgrim by the Divine to meet them where they are. The principles of interpretation are therefore closer to certain schools of dream interpretation that emphasise the unique personal meaning and content of dreams as opposed to a fixed, mechanistic dream dictionary approach. This approach to interpretation integrates phenomenological, client-centred, emotion-focused, Freudian, Jungian, Gestalt, Adlerian, and Behavioural theories for working with imagery and symbols. If we are working with a friend, a basic principle is that the facilitator is a coach rather than the interpreter of the imagery. In other words, the facilitator helps the person come to his or her own understanding of the imagery, but it is not the central role of the helper to be the one who provides ‘the’ interpretation. The approach has three stages: exploration, insight, and action.
A) Exploration

In the exploration stage, a few of the central images of the imagery content of the experience are explored. So after recalling the imagery, you are encouraged to pick 3-5 images. For each of these images, you are asked to describe the image in greater detail (“Paint the picture for me of what’s going on in this image”), re-experience the feelings in the image (“What were you feeling at his point?” “Where were feeling that in your body?”), associate to the image (“What’s the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of x?” “What memories do you have of X?”), and think about rational/active mode triggers (“What has happened that might have stimulated this image for you?”). We can use the acronym DRAW (description, re-experiencing, association, waking life triggers) to remind helpers about the four steps to use with each image. Exploration should take a while (perhaps even 2-3 sessions), helping you to delve deeply into a few images. If there is a facilitator, then their stance is client-centred with no agenda other than helping you explore the images deeply.

B) Insight

The exploration stage sets the foundation for the insight stage. With all the deep exploration of individual images, we move on to trying to put together all the information into a new understanding of what the imagery as a whole means. Sometimes you may spontaneously figure out the meaning given all the exploration that you have already done. At other times, however, you need more input from facilitators, although this input (e.g., interpretations) should always be done in a very tentative way, always leaving room for the person to make modifications and extensions.

In the insight stage, facilitators can help you think about the imagery in at least three ways.

• · First, the imagery can be understood in terms of the experience itself. Thus, rather than interpreting the imagery “as if” it means something else, one can look at the experience in the imagery session itself. Just as one would analyse a literary text, one can analyse the imagery session. What do you learn about yourself based on what you did in the imagery session?

• · Second you can interpret the imagery in terms of your usual daily life—what does the imagery reflect about what is going on in your current life?

• · Finally, you can interpret the imagery in terms of inner dynamics; more specifically, you can look at how each of the parts of the imagery reflects parts of the self, or you can think about how the imagery reflects spiritual/existential concerns; here you are looking to understand yourself in greater depth.

C) Action

Once you have some greater understanding of the imagery, facilitators can help you think about what you want to do about what you have learned. Again, you may often spontaneously move to the stage by talking about what you want to do differently in your life.

Mystical experience often has many layers of meaning and every object, person, and situation in imagery may have many meanings. So you need to take your time in trying to understand it. Think of your image session as something to EXPLORE. You have to look at it from different angles, walk around in it for a while, work with it – and then its many meanings will begin to reveal themselves. Try not to give into the pressure to “interpret” imagery. If you put yourself or others on the spot to “tell me what it means” then you are taking the wrong attitude toward working with the imagery. It’s not a game of Jeopardy or a multiple-choice test where there’s a right or wrong answer. Working with imagery is more like playing with it – the kind of play that involves creativity, imagination, and a willingness to experiment. It also requires patience!

Here are some approaches to use in the stages of processing outlined above:

Free Association
To unpack the various meanings of an experience, take each object, person, situation, etc. and free associate to them, one at a time. What does it remind you of? What comes to mind when you think of that element of the imagery? Let your imagination go. Let your attention wander. Come up with as many associations as possible. Do this in your head, or talk out loud. If you let yourself go with this, something will come up – a memory, an idea, a feeling. It may not tell you “The Meaning” to the imagery, but it will give you pieces to the puzzle. (You know you are onto something when you experience that AHA! lightbulb-popping experience).

Free Writing

Write down on paper a stream of consciousness reaction to your experience. Start anywhere and just keep writing whatever comes to mind. Don’t censor or edit anything out. It’s like free-associating onto a piece of paper. Record everything you are thinking and feeling. If you get stuck, simply write, “I’m stuck, I’m stuck…” over and over again until a new association comes up. Then keep writing.

Or write down on a piece of paper each element of the content of the experience and then write a stream of consciousness for each one. Compare what your wrote for each element of the imagery. Look for similarities and patterns. Hold onto these writings – and go back to them later on. Days or weeks later you may see something that you missed the first time around.

Mental Images

Another technique is to RELIVE the experience in your imagination. Close your eyes, start at the beginning of the imagery and relive it as vividly as you can. Then replay the imagery again, only this time let your imagination go. Let your imagination add to and change the imagery in any way it wants. It will lead you to important insights.  (Any sensations you experience in your body during imagery, or while working with it, may reveal something about its meaning.)

 

Dialogues
Create a conversation between you and the content of the experience, or between two elements of the imagery. If you experienced meeting a monk a forest, write down on a piece of paper a conversation between you and the monk (or the forest). What would you say to the monk (or forest)? What would the monk (or forest) say back to you? Don’t try to over-control the conversation. Let it be as spontaneous as possible. Stay with the dialogue and let it progress. Or create a conversation between the monk and the forest. What would they say to each other? Another possibility is to carry out this conversation LIVE. Set up two chairs. Sit in one chair and put the monk into the other. Talk to the monk. Then switch chairs and talk back to yourself. Keep switching back and forth. Let the conversation progress. Be spontaneous and honest! Sounds crazy, but THIS WORKS!

Imagery Enactment
If you are in an adventurous mood, get together some friends and re-enact the imagery as if it is a play. Assign roles to people. People can also be objects in the imagery. First replay the imagery as it actually occurred. Then do it again and let people improvise in their roles. Experiment with the play, with you as the “director.” This is a powerful technique.

(All of these techniques work best if you are SPONTANEOUS and FREE-WHEELING. Let your imagination go. Don’t try to force or over-control the process. Be honest. Don’t censor ideas.)

Day Residue
People, things, or events from the previous day that get incorporated into the experience were put there for a reason. They touched off ideas, feelings, and memories in the unconscious. Examining your thoughts and feelings about these events from the day will help you understand the imagery and why it is “commenting” on these events. What do these day residue events remind you of? Have these sorts of things happened before?

 

Imagery Intangibles
There is a tendency to focus just on objects, events and people in the imagery of the mystical experience. But there is more to the imagery than that. Consider also:

• · FEELING TONE : what is the primary feeling in the experience. What does it remind you of in your life? Does the feeling tone change at different points in the experience? Why?
• · COLOURS : how are colours used in the experience? What feelings and meanings might be associated with them? What do the colours remind you of?
• · TIME AND SPACE : how are time and space used in the experience? What feelings do these create? Is the imagery communicating an idea by how it uses time and space?
• · MISSING AND VAGUE PARTS : what parts of the experience are vague or unclear? Is something missing that should be there? These might be the points where censorship by the ‘ego’ is at its strongest. Focus on these parts. There’s something important going on there. Use free association and the other techniques described above to fill in the gaps. If there is a vague part to the imagery, try to catch whatever details you can. For example, if you can’t remember a person in the imagery, can you remember what they were wearing, the colour of their eyes and the colour of their hair? Who does this remind you of?

 

Connections Among Image sessions
Look for similar patterns or themes across your mystical experiences. Are your images progressing or changing somehow over time? This might indicate something about YOU that is changing over time. Pay particular attention to recurring elements of imagery since these are important! They point to a persistent theme or issue in your life. They may indicate some “unfinished business” in your life. How are the recurring imagery elements similar to each other? Different? Are they changing over time? What might this say about how you are changing?

 

Think Unusual
Remember that the unconscious thinking that affects mystical content is unusual and illogical by rational/active standards. Things can mean exactly the opposite of what they seem. Something you FEAR in the imagery may be something you unconsciously wish for. Things may contradict each other, which suggests a conflict in which you have contradictory feelings about something.

Try EXAGGERATING some important aspect of the imagery. In your mind, in writing, or in imagery enactment, amplify the feeling, action, or situation in the imagery. Take it to the limit. Make it as intense as it could be. Where does this take you?

Try REVERSING the important elements in the imagery. Turn them into the opposite feelings, behaviours, or characteristics. Does this ring any bells? Does it change the meaning of the imagery?

The Problem and Its Solution
The experience may be showing you a problem or issue that needs to be resolved. It may be showing you how you are reacting to the problem. It may even be suggesting a solution. For each imagery theme, ask yourself, “What is the problem? How am I reacting to it? Is the imagery suggesting a solution?”

 

Anxiety and Fear
Anxiety in these experiences usually indicates a point where important, perhaps threatening, ideas are surfacing from the unconscious. The anxiety is a signal. Pay close attention to these anxiety situations. Fear or anxiety causing you to abandon the session indicates the surfacing of particularly powerful material. In these cases, the mind can only think of one way to deal with the situation – ESCAPE!

Where are you?
You may be able to find yourself in various places in mystical experience. The most obvious place is the “image-ego”. This image-ego is the person who is having the experiences that make up the image. Examine this image-ego carefully. Even though you may experience this ‘ego’ as yourself, the person in the image session may be behaving and feeling in very different ways than you normally would. Compare yourself to this person in the imagery. How are you the same? Different? Is this person in the imagery some hidden part of you – some part you wish for, need, or fear?

Other people in the imagery may represent important people in your life – how they actually are, how you wish them to be, how you fear they might be.

Or, other figures in the imagery may represent hidden parts of yourself – the way you wish you could be, the way you used to be, parts you try to deny, your hidden potentials, something that is missing in your personality etc. Some believe that everything in the imagery – every person, object, and event – represents a hidden part of you.

Impasse
At some point in working on such experiences you will get stuck. This is an impasse, a barrier. It means you have to take a different perspective on the imagery. You have to reorganize your thinking. Immerse yourself into that stuckness. Stick with it and eventually you will be able to break through to a new level of understanding. If you’re REALLY stuck and frustrated, you may have to set the imagery aside and come back to it later. Let it percolate in the back of your mind. Look at other experiences if you have had them. They may help you make that breakthrough.

Don’t underestimate how “deep” an image session may be, even if it seems silly or simple. When you think that you are all finished working with an image session, think again. There is probably more there!

A Little Help from Your Friends
It often helps quite a bit to get someone else’s perspective on your imagery. Tell your imagery to a friend or family member, someone who knows you pretty well. With their help, try using some of the techniques described in these pages. Here are some other tips:

GROUP IMAGERY: In the presence of one or several friends (or when working with fellow explorers), close your eyes and describe your experience in the first person and in the present tense. Tell it, from beginning to end, as if it’s a story. With their eyes also closed, everyone quietly listens to your story and tries to imagine it in their mind as you describe it. Afterwards, they describe to you the reactions they had.

“IF THIS WERE MY IMAGERY…” – As a general rule, you can only make guesses about what someone else’s imagery means. And it’s quite easy for you to project your own personal meanings into it. Try using your own personal reactions to help your friend. What if your friend’s experience WAS your experience! What would you think and feel about it? What would you be thinking and feeling if you were the people inside the imagery? Tell your friend about your personal reactions. It might help your friend understand his or her experience.

 

Your imagery, You
Remember that your imagery was created in your mind. Other people can help you explore it, but that’s all. Listen to their feedback, take what makes sense and leave the rest. Ultimately, YOU are the expert on what your imagery means.

The Image Collage
In a group with fellow explorers, take turns creating an image collage. On a chalkboard or on a large posterboard, jot down words or phrases about your imagery session. Feel free to be creative in how you record these ideas. Pick an interesting spot for each item. Add arrows, boxes, patterns, drawings, doodles, whatever you like. Be as spontaneous as possible. The group can suggest ideas about things to add to the collage. Some items that you can add to the collage might include:

• · the people, places, animals, objects in your imagery
• · the important activities, actions, or events in your imagery
• · the emotions expressed in your imagery
• · quotes from things said in the imagery
• · how you would describe the image ego
• · the names of important people in your life
• · important past or current events in your life

Afterwards, you and the group can step back to take a look at the completed collage. Do any interesting patterns emerge? Is there meaning to how the different items are placed next to, above, below each other? What is written large, small, faintly, boldly? Do there seem to be distinct sections, centres, boundaries in the collage?

8.29 CONCLUSIONS

In summary then we have looked at six areas that are concerned with the interpretation of Scripture and also, by implication, mystical writings:

1) Surface meaning/underlying depth – though mystics often emphasise deeper, hidden meanings beneath the more obvious surface meanings of sacred texts, I have tried to show that the imposition of this on every verse is an outdated approach and that later approaches to the interpretation of Scripture are more differentiated. In this latter approach, allegorical meanings are not forced onto non-allegorical texts. Rather the text is differentiated as falling into categories such as historical, biographical, poetical, parables, prophesies and so on each with their own particular requirements when it comes to understanding them.

2) Spiritual discrimination and adeptness – this seems to be almost universally present in religious/spiritual traditions. Just as we do not expect someone who is just learning the principles of multiplication in mathematics to deal with complex algebra or differential equations, so there is a progress and evolution in spirituality. Those who are disparaging of spirituality or who are novices cannot embrace deeper and more advanced orientations. Rather, there is a progression, development and evolving of the Pilgrim as one insight, understanding and experience builds upon the previous ones.

3) Degree of detail. We have seen that there are differences between styles of scripture writing that determine the degree to which we explore the details of the narrative. In an allegory we take more notice of details and their meanings than we do in a parable for example.

4) Correlation of surface symbol and interpretive meaning. We have seen that there are different theories with regard to how strict and formulaic the correspondences are between a surface symbol and its corresponding deeper meaning and have further suggested that personal history, cultural context, personal knowledge and experience are all variables that generate different meanings for different people from the same symbol. There is a not a fixed meaning inherent in a given object waiting to be unveiled or revealed, even though all existents are, at their Ground and Foundation, Absolute Essence or Spiritual.

5) The Source and Authority for spiritual metaphor in mystical encounter and the authentic, faithful writings of mystics is the True Self which is Essence. Essence unveils or reveals aspects of Itself by means of metaphor and symbol tailored to the capacity and situation of the individual recipient. I have further argued that the recipient themselves are in many ways the best positioned to make the interpretation and draw out the meaning of such personally received metaphors – this is in a very real sense a personal revelation.

6)                   Hidden or deeper meanings then are not inherent or fixed in an object and revealed or unveiled to some, but are rather dependent in part on the relationship of the pilgrim to it. Deeper meanings are relative to the subject, their perspective and capacity. This means that it is impossible to create a fixed set of interpretive principles other than the most general principles and that it is impossible to create a dictionary or encyclopaedia of correspondences between metaphorical/allegorical objects and their deeper/hidden meanings.

7)                   Orthodox principles of hermeneutics are limited in scope and depth and best suited to the writings of others. When it comes to interpreting the meaning of one’s own experiences, the possibility of using other approaches arises.

8)                   The interpretation of personal metaphors is best drawn out using an integrated approach drawing on such modern disciplines as phenomenological, client-centred, emotion-focused, Freudian, Jungian, Gestalt, Adlerian, and Behavioural theories for working with imagery and symbols. If we are working with a friend, a basic principle is that the facilitator is a coach rather than the interpreter of the imagery. In other words, the facilitator helps the person come to his or her own understanding of the imagery, but it is not the central role of the helper to be the one who provides ‘the’ interpretation.

8.30 ICONOCLASM AND THEOMORPHISM

The Mystic focuses on allegory as a means to describe Transcendent Indescribable Essence that is in all things. They use allegories and metaphors as stepping-stones and intermediaries to understanding the Divine, to making the Incomprehensible comprehensible. They know that Absolute cannot be contained or circumscribed by such allegories, that Infinite cannot be contained by the finite. Infinite Essence is capable of being described in an infinite number of forms and that the forms used are those which are most apt and relevant to the person to which they are given. Moreover, such persons exist at different times, in different places and contexts. Therefore the Divine changes form constantly and fluidly such that no form is fixed and static. This, as we have seen, is the doctrine of Theomorphism: the idea that God is constantly being revealed in different forms. Indeed, the infinite quality of the Divine demands that this is so. Yet at the same time Mystics know that such forms have three inherent dangers:

• · As forms they mask and veil what they claim to reveal.
• · Such forms may be reified and literalised. Reification is the turning an abstract concept or emergent quality into a concrete object. For example turning manifestations of God into an external God or Deity, which is then seen as being capable of acting on the subject.
• · Such forms have a tendency to become fixed, static and venerated and to enter a form of religious tradition.

As a result mystics may choose not to be tied down by any form, even a form that has been revealed to them. As Tertullian noted, ‘no unity, only diversity….most of them [mystics] disagree with one another, since they are willing to say – and even sincerely – of certain points, ‘This is not so.’ and ‘I take this to mean something different’ and ‘I do not accept that’.’ For orthodoxy, unity consists of establishing and fixing one right set of forms, one belief and one doctrine. For mystics, unity exists in transcending particular forms and thus they are heterodox. More than this, mystics may be iconoclasts – they may seek to break the various forms of the Divine that become established in their minds – to allow the expression of new forms of the Divine and to prevent identification with forms.

8.31 RELATIVE FORMS, PARADIGMS AND WORLD RELIGIONS

Descriptions of external events then are internalised and spiritualised by mystics, the literal interpretation is of less importance. Elaine Pagels in her book on the Gnostic Gospels points out that when some of the Christian Gnostics were presented with the idea that Jesus had literally been physically raised from the dead and ascended to heaven they scoffed and thought that the idea was ludicrous, even though they would still use these ideas as metaphors and allegories for Realization. Neither do mystics necessarily stay with one religion: early Christian Gnostics took on board Greek pagan Platonic ideas for example and some elaborated multiple deities besides the Creator/Father in their creation stories. Some of them started with Christianity but moved on to forms that left these original Christian forms behind. Some today may use modern paradigms such as quantum physics. Yet others may be presented with quite original and novel expressions of the Divine which do not knowingly draw from any particular religious, scientific or philosophical tradition.

8.32 SACRED LITERATURE

Since God is expressed in all forms, any form may be used or may open up a pathway to the Divine, because all form is absolutely relative to Absolute. Thus, meditating on a candle flame, watching a sunset, gazing at a mountain, reading Scripture or following a religious discipline of whatever tradition may open up a path to the Divine. The intuitive/receptive mode may be entered into during any of these moments. Many mystics however refer to some sacred literature and tradition, be it Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Pagan, New Age, Hindu or whatever. It is argued by some that sacred literature is particularly useful because it contains accounts of the Divine communicating to Prophets/Seers/Mystics/Gnostics, the Divine Word itself and therefore it is more immediate and direct in opening up a path. As we have seen, the particular form does not matter: so different religions can be seen as so many different enclosures, so many different schools, so many different paths, so many different facets to and of the Divine, each of which provides it’s own map, its own sense of orientation and its own set of methods of approach. As with different schools and traditions of religion, so with disciplines like Transpersonal Psychology: Ken Wilber’s diagram is another such map, which in some ways we have begun to transcend and leave behind in the latter chapters of this study. No such map or scheme can encompass Essence or Absolute.

8.33 DELUDED, MENTALLY ‘ILL’ OR WHAT?

Of course it may well be that I am deluded by my mystical experiences and that I am rationalising them after the fact into an unfalsifiable hypothesis and world view. Neither side can prove this one way or the other. What I do know is that these experiences have given me depth, meaning and orientation. They have made me feel elevated and euphoric. I have never felt so clear headed and perceptive as when I had them. The have given me a base and foundation once I have got to grips with some of the dangers, errors and traps that the mystic can fall into. Sometimes they have been unsettling and caused a sense of flatness and emptiness at the loss of the experience. They have altered my prioroties and made me less materialistic generally and during and near to the experiences, much more altruistic and selfless for example. I believe that though closely related to psychosis and some symtoms of bipolar disorder, they are nevertheless distinct from them and for me, as a bipolar sufferer, thay have had a rich, stabilising effect. Whether it is true or not, I believe in the Divine as diffuse literal Spirit/Energy expressed in all that is. It makes me feel orientated, healthy and gives me a sense of purpose. Of course, like everyone else, I, for want of a better phrase, worship my own beliefs, because the Divine is Transcendent of the forms, boundaries and limits of my concepts. I have been able to elucidate principles of interpreting the allegorical and symbolic content of mystical experiences and to draw out a metaphysics, a mystical based philosophy, a theology that I think is internally consistent and coherent, one that is quite different from the trains of thought expressed in the letter by the schizophrenic quoted in chapter one. Such euphoria that arises from these experiences is based upon the perception gained and not a mere ambient mood change as in bi-polar instances where today I am depressed for no apparent outward reason and next week I want to spend all my savings and marry a new female aquaintance in Dubai.

I have found the following to be true of mystical experiences:

• · No evidence of thought disorder or disorganised thinking. Though entering a receptive/intuitive mode, they are able to return to the active/rational mode of being.
• · There is an integration or synthesis of the rational/active and intuitive/receptive modes.
• · The intuitive/receptive mode is entered into as a mature adult who then returns to the rational/active mode.
• · The experience is trans-rational and paradoxical.
• · The person is able to continue functioning in daily life after the experience.
• · Visual hallucinations are more common than auditory hallucinations.
• · Episodes are generally brief.
• · There is no impairment to social relationships.
• · They respond empathically to the needs and concerns of others.
• · There is often no family history of mental ‘health’ problems.
• · There is often no history of mental ‘health’ problems within the individual.
• · The event often has a positive outcome, resulting in improvement in the person’s functioning and their growth. It has a healthy effect.
• · 0.1% of people experience this.
• · They have a supportive social network
• · They undergo voluntary, structured detachment from and dissolution of ‘ego’.
• · The conceptual system that is constructed has internal consistency.
• · They are not anti-rational.
• · Their conceptual system is a general philosophy: it has an expansive explanation, yet retains a certain simplicity and elegance in its philosophy.
• · Their conceptual system sits alongside mechanistic claims and explanations, such as evolution.
• · Their conceptual system may be tolerant of multiple perspectives, even of contradiction and paradox.
• · Their conceptual system has balance, proportion, symmetry, simplicity and elegance.

I have the following indications common both mysticism and psychosis:

• · Both can enter the intuitive/receptive mode
• · The experience appears unmediated or Immediate and Real
• · There are biological effects in the brain
• · The content is non-rational and cannot be construed or remains unconstrued
• · The experience involves a unified perception and loss of boundaries
• · The experience involves a deeper quest for meaning.
• · The experience may give rise to a loss or orientation of the self momentarily
• · They may feel marginalized by modern western secular society and fear being marginalized by health professionals
• · The experience leads to a heightened sense of perception and insight

In terms of mysticism and bipolar disorder:

• · Both may lead to euphoria, ecstasy, elation and joy, but mystical content is always spiritual, whereas bipolar is not
• · Both may lead to preoccupation and withdrawal, even depression.

But, in bipolar disorder:

• · The euphoria, ecstasy, elation, expansiveness and joy may be disproportionate or have no apparent ground in external or internal events.

In Mysticism as opposed to bipolar disorder:

• · The euphoria, ecstasy, elation, expansiveness and joy arises from a clear perception of the transcendent content of the experience.

The following list gives indications of schizophrenia, (as opposed to mysticism):

• · The person’s thoughts are not easily understandable ie. what they say doesn’t make sense. They are irrational.
• · The person has difficulty functioning, or is unable to function, in everyday life: they are stuck in a ‘intuitive/receptive’ mode of functioning that does not deal with practical issues.
• · They lose touch with material reality and are stuck in a world of fantasy or delusion.
• · Auditory hallucinations are more common than visual hallucinations.
• · Episodes are generally prolonged.
• · Social relationships are impaired due to the person withdrawing socially.
• · They may respond inappropriately to the needs and concerns of others.
• · There may be a history of mental ‘health’ problems in the individual or the family.
• · The person has usually exhibited mental ‘health’ problems previously.
• · The event often has a negative outcome: hallucinations and delusions are considered a disruption to the normal functioning of the person’s consciousness.
• · The tendency is one of regression and pathology
• · They may feel alone and isolated
• · 1% of people suffer this disorder
• · Involuntary fragmentation of the ego
• · The conceptual system has internal inconsistency.
• · The person or their view is anti-rational.
• · The conceptual system does not provide a general philosophy.
• · The conceptual system contradicts or opposes mechanistic claims and explanations such as the theory of evolution.
• · The conceptual system is intolerant.
• · The conceptual system is imbalanced, disproportionate and to some degree   incoherent.

I think that through the course of these chapters, we have begun at least to differentiate a little between ‘madness’, ‘mental illness’, ‘mania’ and ‘manic depression’ or ‘bipolar disorder’ on the one hand, and ‘mystical’, ‘gnostic’, ‘transcendent’, ‘immediate spiritual’ experience on the other. Though there are differences there are also similarities, and we have also been obliged to question some basic concepts such as ‘reality’, challenging common conventional views.

I hope that this serves as some help and encouragement to those who have experienced such mystical encounters.

————————————————————-

Further reading:

Chittick, William (1983) ‘The sufi path of love – the spiritual teachings of Rumi’ SUNY Press.

Chittick, William (1998) ‘The self-disclosure of God – principles of Ibn al_Arabi’s cosmology’ SUNY Press.

Chittick, William, (2000) ‘The sufi path of knowledge – Ibn al Arabi’s metaphysics of imagination’ Suhail Academy

Chittick, William (1994) ‘Imaginal worlds – Ibn al-Arabi and the problem of religious diversity’ SUNY Press.

Deikman, Arthur J. (1992) ‘The Observing Self: Mysticism and psychotherapy’. Beacon Press

Deutsch, Eliot. (1986) ‘Advaita Vedanta: A philosophical reconstruction’. University of Hawai’i Press.

Eckhart, Meister (1994) ‘Selected writings’ Penguin. London

Edwards, J. (1974) ‘The complete works of Jonathan Edwards’ Vols 1 & 2 Banner of Truth Edinburgh.

Foreman, Robert (1991) ‘Meister Eckhart: The mystic as theologian’. Element books

Godman, David (Ed.) (1985) ‘Be as you are – the teachings of Sri Rama Maharshi’ Penguin Arkana. England

Huxley, Aldous (1946) ‘The perennial philosophy’ Chatto & Windus London

Jaynes, Julian, (2000) ‘The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind.’ Houghton Mifflin

Middlemiss, David, ‘Interpreting charismatic experience’ (SCM Press)

Mundschenk, P. (1995) ‘Aurobindo’ in ‘Great thinkers of the eastern world’ Ian P.

McGreal. (Ed) Harper Collins New York

Samkara on the Absolute, Creation, the Soul, Discipleship, The path of Enlightenment,(separate volumes) (1989) Alston, A.J. Shanti Sadan

Shah-Kazemi, Reza (2006) ‘Paths of transcendence according to Shankara, Ibn Arabi and Meister Eckhart’ World Wisdom.

Shafranske, E. (Ed) (1996) ‘Religion and the clinical practice of psychology’, American Psychological Association, Washington D.C.

Smith, Cyprian (1987) ‘Spiritual life as taught by Meister Eckhart – the way of paradox’ Darton, Longman and Todd. London.

Maharaj, Sri Nisargadatta (1973) ‘I am That’ Chetana Bombay.

Waite, Dennis ((2003) ‘The book of One – The spiritual path of Advaita’ O books. Ropeley

Watts, Alan (1989) ‘The book on the taboo against knowing who you are’ Vintage  books New York U.S.A.

Wilber, Ken. (1996) ‘The Atman project – the transpersonal view of human development’ Quest books U.S.A. This book includes a chapter on mysticism and schizophrenia. (Chapter 17)

Wilber, Ken. (1996) ‘A brief history of everything’ Gill and Macmillan. Dublin

Wilber, Ken. (1996) ‘Eye to eye – the quest for a new paradigm’ Shambhala Boston and London

Wilber, Ken. (2000) ‘The theory of everything – An integral vision for business, politics science and spirituality’ Shambhala Boston U.S.A.

Wilber, Ken. (1997) ‘The eye of spirit – An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad’ Shambhala Boston and London

 

REFERENCES

Armstrong, K (1983) ‘The first Christian. St. Paul’s impact on Christianity’. Pan London.

Bannister, D. & Fransella, F. (1971) Inquiring Man. Harmondsworth Penguin

Chadwick, Paul, Birchwood, M. & Trower, P. (1996) Cognitive Therapy for Delusions, Voices and Paranoia. Chichester: Wiley.

Chadwick, P.K. (1992) Borderline. A Study of Paranoia and Delusional Thinking. Routledge: London.

Chadwick, P.K. (1997) Schizophrenia: the positive perspective – in search of dignity for schizophrenic people. Routledge: London.

Jackson, M (1997) A Study of the Relationship between Psychosis and Spiritual Experience. Unpublished Thesis. Oxford University: Oxford.

Kingdon, D. & Turkington, D. (1994) Cognitive Behavioural Therapy of Schizophrenia. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove UK.

Mills, N. (1997) “Being centred” and being scattered: a kiaesthetic strategy for people who experience psychotic symptoms. Clinical Psychology Forum. 103, 27-31.

Teasdale, J.D. & Barnard, P.J. (1993) Affect, Cognition and Change. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove UK.

Warner, Richard. (1985) Recovery from Schizophrenia. Routledge: London.

Wapnick, Kenneth. (1980) ‘Mysticism and Schizophrenia.’ Understanding Mysticism. Image Books: Garden City,.

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA: Chapter seven: VERIFYING REALITY

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCE

OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

CHAPTER SEVEN

VERIFYING REALITY

CONTENTS

7.1 Putting it together: The reality of the mystic – illusions, ignorance and the Real

7.2 Faith versus direct knowledge

7.3 Enthusiasm

7.4 Uncertainty – the foundation of spirituality

7.5 Trying to grasp and know the Unknowable

7.6 Yes and no, real and not real

7.7 Uncertainty and faith

7.8 The material universe

7.9 Sacred writing and scripture

7.10 Orthodoxy and authority

7.11 Immediate and mediated

7.12 Mysticsm: Depth, certainty, truth, reality and assurance

7.13 Form, revelation and proof

7.14 Personal growth, enlightenment and realisation

7.1 PUTTING IT TOGETHER: THE REALITY OF THE MYSTIC – ILLUSIONS, IGNORANCE AND THE REAL

I want to ask whether the mystic, in moving to the intuitive/receptive mode really does perceive reality more accurately, or in a deeper way; or whether such perceptions are the merely distortions that result of this changed mode. This question is important, because one of the ‘distinguishing’ factors of psychosis, of schizophrenia and in some cases bipolar disorder, is losing touch with reality. We have said earlier, that if we are using such a criteria, then we need to have a good definition of what reality actually is. As we have seen, for the materialist, or for the empirical scientist, reality is that which is objectively measurable and the visions of mystics are therefore considered to be not real. But we have also seen that many mystics reverse this idea and suggest that it is the material that is not real and that the only Reality is Absolute Spirit or Energy. The material is not real in the sense that it has no existence in and of itself, but rather it’s existence is dependent upon Essence, since all that exists is an expression of Essence. Material substance is not real because it has a finite, temporary existence, whereas Absolute is Eternal Now. For the Mystic, it may well be that it is the scientist, psychologist and psychiatrist who are suffering from illusions and delusions, because in their spiritual Ignorance, they misunderstand the nature of Reality.

7.2 FAITH VERSUS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE

Mystics emphasise Immediate Experience or Tasting of the Divine as the source of their spiritual authority. They stress personal inner experience (Upper Left Quadrant 1) rather than an objectively measurable object, (Upper Right Hand Quadrant). The many sources of authority that are found in religion such as Scripture or sacred writing, tradition, ritual and ceremony, rules, laws and moral codes, teachers, leaders, founders of movements, gurus e.t.c., ideology, theology, philosophy, rationality, community and fellowship are all external to the person, they are objective or extrinsic forms of spirituality. Interior, mystical spirituality on the other hand offers individual and personal resonance and relevance: God meets us where we are and this personal intuited revelation takes primacy and precedence for many mystics over and against the mediated, objective, external authorities listed above. These external means of spiritual authority are not necessarily rejected by the mystic, but they are seen as inferior to the internal: they are seen as shadows, Illusionary and potentially restricting, burdensome and a hindrance in the spiritual walk, even as dangerous in their tendency to insist on orthodox forms.
But even these interior manifestations and forms of the Divine are partial: as we have seen in the previous chapter, they are relative views from a particular individual perspective. More than this these internal manifestations are symbols and allegories of That which cannot be understood or encompassed. They are merely pointers to That which cannot be known. Therefore, as we have seen, such symbols should not be reified, that is, they should not be turned into a concrete existing ‘object-out-there’ which is then perceived as being capable of exerting an influence over us. In addition, we have seen that the mystical experience has different degrees of depth, so that the content such mystical experiences varies both in category and style.
Even so, mystics stress this internal, intuited knowledge: immediate knowledge, tasting or experience over and against faith in external means or mere assent to theology and doctrine. The world’s religions are often talked about in terms of world ‘faiths’, but the mystic does not tend to talk about faith and belief, but about knowing, tasting and experiencing the Divine. Even so, despite this emphasis on experience, the mystic does have faith in the unprovable, unfalsifiable, indescribable Absolute Spirit as Final Reality.
7.3 ENTHUSIASM

This kind of approach places the mystic in the tradition of religious ‘enthusiasm’ with regard to religious and spiritual movements. The word ‘enthusiasm’ was originally a critical and negative term and has been applied to a wide diversity of movements such as religious revivals, Quakers, the Charismatic movement, Mysticism, Gnosticism and so on and is usually used by those who prefer to place emphasis on rationalism and orthodoxy. Orthodoxy and rationalism will never sit easily with religious or spiritual enthusiasm. The mystic’s reliance on personal revelation and experience is non-rational or irrational to the rationalist, (trans-rational to the mystic), and on the other hand presents a rival spiritual authority and system to that of the orthodox, who want to confine their spirituality to certain sets of sacred literature and traditions which they or the fathers of their tradition have selected. Thus, such ideas of personal revelation are dismissed by both the orthodox religious person and rationalist as vain belief, feverish imagination and the exaltation of fancy, or even, by the mythic level orthodox person, as the work of the devil. However, to take Christianity as an example, the Apostle Paul put his revelation of Jesus Christ on the Damascus road on an equal footing to the personal, physical encounters with Jesus by the other disciples: thus he needed no further authority or any sanction from the other Apostles. He did not try to justify his experience. (See Armstrong, K (1983) ‘The first Christian. St. Paul’s impact on Christianity’. Pan. London p.55). Of course I should also point out that orthodoxy itself is based upon the contents of such ‘enthusiastic’ claims to revelation by people like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul and so on. If Christian orthodoxy is to dismiss any subsequent revelations as mere ‘enthusiasm’, then it has to show:
a) That such revelation has indeed ceased, or,
b) That later revelations, if they do exist, are somehow inferior to Biblical ones and

how and why they are inferior.
c) That the revelation which forms the foundation of their own orthodoxy is right and

that other claimed revelations are wrong, together with principles of assessment.

We should remember that orthodoxy only seems united because it succeeded in effectively stifling alternative revelations such as the Gnostic gospels, by banning and outlawing such literature and punishing those who advocated them as heretics and blasphemers.

In his book ‘Interpreting charismatic experience’ (SCM Press) David Middlemiss looks at some of the qualities of groups that are accused of religious or spiritual ‘enthusiasm’. He suggests that some of these qualities are positive and that some of them are negative.
a) They claim to restore or return to primitive or pure spirituality.
b) They are denounced and opposed by mainstream (orthodox) groups.
c) They often become schismatic and divided. (Contradictory reified forms)
d) The supernatural is an expected part of life.
e) A transformation of the personality is expected.
f) There is a separation or detachment from that which is considered material or worldly coupled with a desire for purity.
g) Spirituality is an affair of the heart (internal) as opposed to merely following outward (objective) traditional forms, routines and ideas.
h) There is an impatience for grace – for heaven on earth now.
i) Direct insight and experience of God (Immediacy) may be accompanied by degrading of human reason and rationality.
j) The enthusiast has a new status and authority.
k) The enthusiast often hankers after theocracy. (God ruling society)
l) A group or community of spiritual ‘enthusiasts’ may retreat into the wilderness to set up its own society and sub-culture.
m) There may be a conviction that the end of the world and thus the New Age is shortly to be expected.
n) There may be a host of unusual phenomena (tingling of hands, weeping, laughing, falling over, changes in breathing e.t.c.) that accompany mystical experiences.
The mystic then gives primary importance to internal, subjective experience: to the Immediate experience of the Divine. Their perspective or philosophy is justified mainly on these terms which are then presented as relative perspectives on the Formless. Middlemiss suggests that any belief can be justified on these grounds and this is what we have declared – that there are as many paths to Absolute as there Pilgrims or individuals. The mystic does not talk about faith but about knowing the Unknowable through direct experience. Mystics argue that the Ground of Knowledge about Essence is through such mystical experience and that the beliefs, philosophy, doctrine and theology that is subsequently drawn out and implied in such experiences when we are in the rational/active mode, is accountable to the experience itself rather than any external, secondary authorities, such as priests, bishops, popes or gurus. That is why there is sometimes quite a bit of talk by mystics about faithfully recording what was seen, or heard, or experienced by them during their mystical encounter.

But this mystical experience cannot be verified, any more than I can verify to you that I got wet in the rain yesterday. But I know I got wet – I experienced it. Middlemiss, in looking at the justification for belief, declares that this branch of philosophy, called epistemology, is actually in crisis. He eventually argues, after a critical survey of different approaches, that to rely on just one criteria is problematic and that though none of the criteria by themselves are fully waterproof as it were, the more criteria that are taken together, the better the support. It is like taking three cups each with a hole in them. Put them inside one another and they will hold the water better.
The criteria that Middlemiss lists include:

• · A conceptual system that has internal consistency.
• · The person is not anti-rational.
• · The conceptual system is a general philosophy: it has an expansive explanation, yet retains a certain simplicity and elegance in its philosophy.
• · The conceptual system sits alongside mechanistic claims and explanations, such as evolution.
• · The conceptual system is tolerant of multiple perspectives, even of contradiction and paradox.
• · The conceptual system has balance, proportion, symmetry, simplicity and elegance.

7.4 UNCERTAINTY – THE FOUNDATION OF SPIRITUALITY

What is the basis on which we can build spirituality? Can we have assurance and certainty about the Divine? Can we prove God? Proof or verifiability of Absolute Undifferentiated Formless Spirit is impossible because Essence-as-Essence is Ineffable and Unknowable. Trying to prove Subtle Spirit using the methods of objective, material measurable scientific inquiry is ultimately inappropriate: therefore on the basis of scientific and rational inquiry alone, the existence of Spirit is uncertain – it is neither proved nor disproved.

Many spiritual approaches describe Absolute as Unknowable. By Unknowable, I mean that that Essence-as-Essence cannot be encompassed by the mind: Essence is too Transcendent to be encapsulated, bounded, conceptualised or understood in a final, complete or total sense. Does this then mean that we cannot know anything about Essence-as-Essence? Is Absolute Spirit Unmanifest: not apprehensible, not able to be grasped in any way? Is Essence hidden and obscure? As Absolute Spirit, as Essence-as-Essence, yes, Formless Absolute is Unknowable, Unmanifest, not apprehensible, hidden, obscure and cannot be grasped materially or conceptually.

If Absolute cannot be verified and is Unknowable in Essence, how can we know anything about Absolute? How is an invisible Essence perceived? Formless Spirit manifests in all form in a process which I have labelled as contraction or delimitation. As a result, delimited Essence is expressed in knowable, bounded form, yet Essence-as-Essence remains simultaneously undiluted and unfragmented in all forms. Thus:

• · The One becomes many

· The Formless assumes form
· The Hidden becomes revealed
· The Unity becomes diverse
· The Unbounded is bounded
· The Essence is expressed.

• · The Unknowable is known.

But this cannot be proved or verified, because the Unbounded, Hidden, Formless, One Unity, Essence of all is Unknowable and cannot be measured as an Object. But how can we even make this statement if Essence-as-Essence is Unknowable and Unverifiable? How can we know that the universe is a contracted expression of the Divine? Material existents cannot verify Spirit. Neither can Essence-as-Essence be demonstrated by rational argument, philosophical inquiry, the use of reason and logic, or by deduction and analysis. However, knowledge and verification are not the same thing. The Unknowability of Absolute Spirit per se does not mean that the impossibility of relative knowledge of the contracted, manifest Divine follows on as an inevitable result.

But how is this known? Revelation/manifestation is the basis of this knowing. What is revelation or manifestation? Primarily it is an unveiling of the veiled, a disclosure of the hidden. The means of access is the intuitive/receptive mode of perception. It’s Source is Essence as the Ground of our being, our True Nature, the Inner Light. Our usual rational/active mode of perception is an actively analytical, deductive, reasoning, differentiating mode, however subtle that process may be. It follows the path of contraction and delimitation by more and more differentiation, division and separation. Revelation involves the less usual, receptive, holistic, intuitive mode of perception, following the path of Unity and Oneness. It is an immediate, direct form of knowing and experiencing; that is, our reason and our conceptual framework mediate the experience to a lesser degree. But even in this mode, Absolute Spirit per se is not perceived: Essence per se cannot be perceived, but higher, deeper, hidden, veiled, realities are apprehended and known.

The sceptical inquirer may ask whether the experience is what the person who experiences it thinks it is. The person declares that they have encountered God; the sceptic asks whether they are deceived or mistaken, whether there is measurable proof. Well there is no proof. We should not be surprised at this lack of ability to provide proof of the spiritual in material terms: at this lack of ability to verify the spiritual. If I have a dream of Marilyn Monroe and remember it on awaking, I am aware of the experience. The experience is real – it happened in my head as an experience, but yet it is not-real – it did not happen in a material way (except as chemical reactions in my brain) – I did not physically meet Marilyn Monroe. Furthermore, I cannot prove the content of my dream to you. I could have been wired up to a machine measuring my brain waves e.t.c., and there may be evidence that I have been dreaming. But I cannot prove or verify the content of my dream: I cannot demonstrate to you that I met Marilyn Monroe in my head. I can only give you anecdotal evidence – I can only tell you about it and you can only weigh up what I say based on my tendency to be truthful, or otherwise. You might wire me up to a lie detector and so on, but I cannot demonstrate the content of my dream. If this cannot be done on a mental level, on the level of internal subjectivity, then how much less can it be done on the subtle spiritual level?

Even so, as a result of such an experience, I may begin to talk much about Divine things, I may begin to attend religious services, I may begin spiritual practices such as prayer and meditation. I may appear earnest and enthusiastic in spirituality, my life may change such that I abstain from immorality, I may have great confidence and assurance and spend a great deal of time praising God, but all this may arise from a mistake, an error, a delusion, and as such they offer no verification as to the existence of Absolute Spirit.

The best that one can do in terms of verification, is to follow the practice of those who have learned to cultivate the intuitive/receptive mode, so that one gains this perception, this mode of being, this apprehension, this revelation for oneself. What one experiences can then be compared with what others have found when they attained a similar experience. But of course, this may simply mean that you are entering into the same delusion…or not. It remains uncertain; it offers you insight, but not verification. The fact that brain states can be measured and that it can be demonstrated that such meditation or mystical experiences produce a predictable change in brain waves and patterns means nothing in terms of verification. Similarly, the fact that imbibing certain substances, such as drugs like Mescalin may result in initiating such intuitive modes of perception means nothing. Materialists love to think that they have explained away this ‘revelation’ in purely biological terms: it is not revelation they say: it is a change of brain activity. But this proves nothing one way or the other in terms of the existence of Absolute: it merely demonstrates a change of brain activity. Of course, the contents of the revelation may refer to material events: if it is revealed that a meteor will hit the earth tomorrow, then because it refers to a material event, this statement is highly verifiable. We will know after tomorrow whether it was correct or not. If the content is spiritual: ‘The Spirit is Immanent in all things’, then this is not verifiable, or falsifiable, because Spirit is Unknowable. The recipient may say ‘If this is not God, I cannot imagine what is, I cannot imagine anything beyond it’. Others, on hearing the account and knowing the person e.t.c. may choose to believe in and subscribe to the forms revealed and related. But this would be a faith based upon secondary events: on anecdotal evidence.

7.5 TRYING TO GRASP AND KNOW THE UNKNOWABLE
The base, the foundation of spirituality must be uncertain, even if we accept that the Divine exists and is Essence of all things. Therefore any theology, any religious philosophy or set of doctrines that act as a basis or foundation of and for spirituality is also, by definition, uncertain and prone to paradox and contradiction. As we have seen, this contradiction and paradox of forms of the Divine by no means nullifies spirituality nor does it mean that spirituality or the Divine have to be dismissed. The co-existence of the apparently contradictory phenomenon of fire and water does not mean that creation or existence is void: they both exist separately – and when together, fire may consume water or water may extinguish fire, but both fire and water are existents. Fire and water exist quite well in their respective suitable circumstances. But fire and water together do not co-exist easily. So it is with spiritual concepts and forms; with different forms of the Divine; with different religions and different religious systems. It may be that they arise from Essence, but in their expression, they may not co-exist easily together. Syncretism, that is, the drawing out of shared religious ideas from different religions to make one unified, or uniform religion will never work…it merely creates another religious framework, another set of religious forms, which for some, will be incongruent: an unacceptable compromise of forms of the Divine.

7.6 YES AND NO, REAL AND NOT-REAL

The Unknowabilty of Absolute Spirit with its necessary uncertainty, the Immanence of Essence, together with relative subjectivity and relative perspectivism, means that the answer to spiritual questions is often ‘yes and no’ or ‘Real and not-Real’. Even accepting an assumption that the Unknowable Absolute Spirit exists and is expressed in all-that-is, there is no question that can be answered with certainty. ‘Is this stone God?’ ‘Yes and no’ ‘Is this stone real?’ ‘Yes and no’. ‘What is the material universe?’ ‘It is Real and not-real.’. For the spiritually minded, sometimes it is the difference between expression and Essence. Theology deals with the unknown using illusionary bounded forms of the Unknowable: who am I, where do I come from, where am I going, is there life after death, is there a judgement, does the universe have meaning? Ultimately, theology answers from a position of uncertainty and illusionary delimitation of the Absolute. It gives relatively true answers. It gives answers from a particular perspective. The answer may be ‘yes and no’, ‘real and not-real’. The answer in relation to the Ineffable Formless Absolute is ‘I don’t know’. The answer is ‘These forms, these ideas and illustrations may point indirectly to that which we do not and cannot know – then again they may not’. In the end, theological debate is solely a debate about metaphorical forms; how metaphorical forms cohere into a system; what metaphorical forms mean and imply, which metaphorical forms are congruent with other metaphorical forms.

Ultimately then such immediate experiences are profoundly personal and individual. They offer an individual a degree of orientation concerning Absolute or Essence. The fact is that no-one achieves complete transcendence. While they are alive as a material existent in space and time, then whatever their subjective experience, they remain in relative existence and therefore in relation to delimited Divine. In Essence all is One, but this Oneness is manifest as the multiplicity of existents while contraction and delimitation remains.

Forms of personal revelation, of personal manifestation then, overcome to some degree the Ignorance that has arisen in us through the process of contraction, overcomes to some degree the veiling of Essence that arises in form and to some degree sees through the illusion that the surface material universe is the final and only reality. These revelations are truly and profoundly personal: the Divine meets us where we are, in our time, place and culture, according to our personality, experience, history and situation. What is revealed to one may contradict what is revealed to another. This is part of the Infinity of the Divine, the Paradox of the Transcendent, the Theomorphism and unrepeatability of God. Thus when we talk about profound personal revelation, we are talking about an individual’s Personal Lord and it is probably better that we use terms like:

‘It was revealed to [Moses]’
[Simon] had it revealed to him that…’
[Mohammed] had a revelation that…’
[Andrew] received a spiritual insight that…’
Because they are spiritual, unverifiable, unfalsifiable insights. The contents or forms of personal revelation tend to be simply declared: ‘God is in all things!’ The statement is made without recourse to means of verification. What is received, what is seen, what is heard is faithfully declared. It is like stepping out into the rain and declaring ‘I am wet!’ Revelation does not depend on or fall back on rational deductive logic to support or verify its claims. It does not fall back on scientific verification – it cannot. It simply declares what is received.

7.7 UNCERTAINTY AND FAITH

The uncertainty, which is at the very base and foundation of spirituality, means that spirituality does demand a certain kind of faith: the typical foundation of religion and spirituality. Faith is a near universal quality – it does not demand high intellect, or education, both the educated and uneducated may have faith, neither does it demand wealth and privilege but rather, faith is open to rich and poor alike.

7.8 THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE
Working on the assumption that Divine Absolute Spirit exists, (which as we have seen is Unknowable and cannot be verified), if we want to say anything about Divine Spirit in concrete terms, then many religious/spiritual traditions encourage us to look at the universe. Most spiritual traditions refer to the universe as displaying Absolute Spirit in some way. But the universe is not and cannot be a ‘proof’ of the existence of the Divine which cannot be demonstrated by appeals to the measurable material. If there was such a demonstrable, replicable proof of the Divine Absolute Spirit by using the measurable material universe, you can be sure that we would all know about it. The best that the person of faith can say is that when we consider the qualities and characteristics of the universe, then the universe may seem (to them) to be a witness to or seem to point to the existence of Essence. But it is uncertain; it is indirect. Those who have adopted a way of thinking that accepts the existence of Essence may see in the universe metaphorical and analogous forms that indirectly point to That which is Unknowable. Thus, for one already accepting the existence of the Divine:
a) Taken as a whole, the expression of the universe reveals the invisible Spirit to the full capacity of, and within the limits of the material.

b) Any individual or particular existent within the universe:

i) In its expression is seen by the person of faith as declaring and revealing the Unknowable Absolute Spirit according to it’s aspect and capacity.
ii) In itself as it’s Essence, the person of faith may consider it to be the full, undiluted, undivided, unfragmented Absolute.
7.9 SACRED WRITING AND SCRIPTURE

Religions tend to appeal to the external authority of Scripture: to holy or sacred writings, usually the writings of prophets and seers within their tradition, as a basis for their faith and theology. Some Scriptures, such as the collection of writings that make up the Bible are a mixture of historical narratives, hymns and poems, setting out of laws, rituals and ceremonies, and encounters with the Divine. Other traditions may have less historical narrative and more in the way of Divine encounters. With regard to the Bible, modern textual criticism and analysis has shown that some books have more than their one claimed author, that some texts are not written by their claimed author, that historical accounts are often those versions written down by the predominant, ruling, victorious priestly class who had their own agenda, that there are some errors and contradictions in and between writings and so on. Textual criticism at least shows that the Bible cannot be taken literally, at face value and that it is not inerrant or infallible in its accounts and teaching. There are also problems with the selection criteria used to decide which writings were included in the Bible and which were excluded.

7.10 ORTHODOXY AND AUTHORITY

From these experiences and this sacred literature, forms and concepts of Unknowable Divine become established, certain ideas come to the fore and also become established and eventually meshed into a theological framework. Such a framework of concepts and ideas of the Divine form a religious tradition and dogma: a set of religious or spiritual ideas that may reach a point of rarely being questioned. It may be that to question these ideas is seen as doubting God, or to doubt or even challenge the institution and it’s leaders. Entire religious institutions are built and maintained on such dogmatic traditions. This dogma and tradition may soon create a false certainty, (it is rarely questioned and there may be penalties if you do question: the authorities accept it, they always have….), it creates authority, (or perhaps authoritarianism and power), uniformity of belief and practice, (orthodoxy, orthopraxy, conformity) and discipline, often out of a fear of perceived chaos and disorder, either ideological or moral or both.

7.11 IMMEDIATE AND MEDIATED

We have been looking at the mystical experience. The writings of seers, mystics, Gnostics, prophets and visionaries form the basis of much sacred writing and therefore ways of thinking about Unknowable Absolute Spirit. For those who have not had a mystical experience of the Divine Spirit, these writings often form the only tangible base on which to build their faith. It is rather like a desert nomad who travels off to some far away land and ends up in a polar region of ice and snow. He sends back a report describing what he has experienced. His friends back in the desert, who have never even heard of snow or ice, marvel at what they hear. Some of them may believe the account, some of them may not believe. Those who do believe take on board these descriptions of cold, ice and blizzards, but they do so from a position of second hand knowledge: through the medium of their companions descriptions. But this knowledge and acceptance by these desert nomads of the descriptions of this other, ice-world is quite different from actually standing there in a blizzard. The means of knowing is different: one is mediated via reports, via language, the other is not mediated, but immediate. If you really want to know what snow is like, you have to go out and walk in it, hold it in your hand, feel it on your skin e.t.c. Many, in fact probably most spiritual and religious minded people are like the desert nomads – they have little or no direct mystical experience of the Divine, but rather, they take by faith the report given in their sacred literature as given by those who have had such Divine encounters.

7.12 MYSTICISM: DEPTH, CERTAINTY, TRUTH, REALITY AND ASSURANCE

Mystical experience carries with it a strong sense of assurance or certainty arising from the nature of its Direct or Unmediated perception. However, when we look at the content of mystical encounters: the forms and concepts used to describe the Divine, or the afterlife, or the means of being accepted by God, whether everything is Essence or God is eternally ‘Other’, then we find contradiction and paradox. Mystical experience is not limited to any one religion; it is to be found in Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, native religions and so on. Thus one mystic declares that salvation is obtained through knowledge, another declares it is through faith in Jesus Christ; one mystic declares that there will be a Final Judgement and a heaven and hell, another declares that there will be cycle of births, deaths and rebirths until attainment of perfection, while yet another says there is neither resurrection nor reincarnation, only a return to what one already is in Essence – Divine Absolute Spirit. Some declare that there is only God, others declare a panoply of spirit beings while yet others talk of many deities. The content of mystical experiences are full of paradox and contradiction. I can testify myself to having mystical experiences within Christianity, where forms of Christianity (Calvinistic), appeared Sure and Certain, but yet I have also had mystical experiences outside of Christianity, where the content and form, which appeared equally Certain and True is not compatible with the earlier Christian forms. All these experiences appear powerfully Certain, True and Real. I have suggested that this certainty arises from the unmediated nature of the experience. Mysticism is a non or less mediated mode of awareness that the rational/active mode. It is a passive-receptive mode of knowing involving a more holistic perception which is usually experienced as boundless even formless and timeless and quite uplifting. I suggest that the forms and concepts are something that the mystic projects onto the experience and that this may happen almost instantaneously, even unconsciously, or from deep within the subconscious, or such formulations may take some time cohere. Such forms appear deep, meaningful, real and authentic. They may appear to be received rather than consciously thought out, rationalised and deduced. But it is also not unusual for mystics to struggle to conceptualize their experience, any concepts or even language itself appearing inadequate to convey what has been sensed. Having perhaps written down the form of their experience, they may then find that they take some time: weeks, months or years to understand what they have written. But what cannot be denied is that the forms and concepts which mystics use have both contradictions and similarities, but the forms cannot be fully reconciled. Even one mystic may use contradictory forms in a number of experiences over time, therefore, though the nature of the experience may be the same, or be part of a closely related group of experiences, the forms that mystics use reflect the perspective of the person at that place and time. I am trying to draw out a difference between the Essence of the experience and the expression of the experience. It may or may not be that mystics experience Unknowable Spirit directly, but their expression of the experience is conceptually delimited and bounded. Many mystics describe the inadequacy of language to describe their experience: they struggle to put their experience into words and concepts that adequately describe the sensation. In effect they are trying to bound the Boundless, formulate the Formless and conceptualize the Ineffable. In the end, mystics propose delimited forms within the capacity of their language, knowledge and culture. The forms are bounded within the mystic’s relative subjectivity and relative perspectivism. In other words, the forms are uncertain, but the Essence of the experience may be an encounter with the Divine. Thus, with regard to mystical experience and its apparent Certainty, Reality and Truth we may say as we did earlier with the material universe, that:

a) Taken as a whole, mystical experiences may be an encounter with Absolute to the full capacity of, and within the limits of the material and the human ability to conceptualize.

b) Any particular mystical experience:

i)         In its expression may be a declaration and revelation the Absolute according to the mystics aspect, perspective and capacity to formulate and conceptualize the Divine.

ii) In itself as it’s Essence, it may be union with the full, undiluted, undivided, unfragmented Absolute.

7.13 FORM, REVELATION AND PROOF

As we have seen, even if we accept an assumption that the Ineffable Divine Spirit chooses to be revealed to us in our imagination and experience via allegorical forms, via analogies and metaphors, this makes no difference with regards to proof of the existence of the Ineffable Spirit-Essence, because the Spirit-Essence by its very nature cannot be known. Therefore, as in the case of the universe being declared to be a revelation/manifestation of God, we cannot validate any such claim, because half of the equation as it were, cannot be known. We cannot check or test any claimed relationship or correspondence between form and the Unknowable Formless. If Formless Absolute delimits to form, be it material form or metaphorical conceptual form impressed upon our minds and imagination, the best we can say is:

There is relative knowledge: we know something of the forms, be they material or conceptual.

There is relative lack of knowledge: we know nothing of the Essence per se, to which these known forms are claimed to point.

7.14 PERSONAL SPIRITUAL GROWTH, ENLIGHTENMENT AND REALIZATION

Personal growth in spirituality includes Realization of one’s True Nature really and Enlightenment concerning the Divine. We can now see that this is always a partial and relative perspective. This is partly because the Absolute is Unknowable and partly because, even in the highest mystical experience, the mystic does not abandon his or her body to become pure Absolute Spirit: they stay in the body no matter how elevated their mind becomes. Because the mystic does not attain pure Spirit; because the Spirit is unknowable; because form and concept are always partial and delimiting of Limitless Absolute – Realization, Enlightenment and the insights of mystical experience are always uncertain and partial. Despite the Certainty, Assurance, sense of Reality and Truth that arise from these experiences, their expression in concept and form remain as allegory and metaphor, indirectly pointing to something Unseen and Unknowable. The forms of Scripture and Mysticism provide an uncertain foundation of metaphorical form and concept of the Divine.

Those who declare that God cannot be proved have not won any victory: but they are stating the truth. Those who declare that because God cannot be verified God therefore does not exist press their argument too far. The lack of ability to verify spirituality does not prove anything other than uncertainty. Spiritual existence is neither proved nor unproved.

In a similar way we cannot verify the ‘world’ that a person diagnosed as ‘psychotic’ presents to us. Neither the world of the mystic nor the world of the ‘psychotic’ can be verified. Even the world of the person suffering manic depression or bipolar ‘disorder’ cannot be verified. Because they are all in a minority, the views expressed by all these groups may be considered unconventional. But for all the people in these groups, their perceptions seem real to them. But there distinguishing features which we have begun to outline.

 

End of Chapter seven. To go to chapter eight please click HERE!

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA Chapter six: Me, Manifestation, Reality and Essence

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

 AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES

OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

CHAPTER SIX

ME, MANIFESTATION, REALITY AND ESSENCE

6.1 Our self

6.2 projections of form onto the Formless

6.3 Self and Essence are One

6.4 Loss of dissolving of ‘ego’

6.5 Contraction and Ignorance

6.6 Depth

6.7 Deeper Reality and ‘objective’ reality

6.8 Ultimate or Final Reality

6.9 Limitations concerning objective information in mysticism

6.10 A spiritual journey

6.11 Is the universe conscious?

6.12 Defining consciousness

6.13 A conscious universe?

6.14 Real and not real

6.15 Absolute manifested

6.16 Contraction and materialisation

6.17 Unity, separation and division

6.18 Illusions

6.19 Back to Reality

6.20 Substance and Reality

6.21 The manifest: the material realm, medium and domain

6.22 Duality and multiplicity

6.23 The self

6.24 Bounded identity

6.25 Predestination

6.26 The continuum of experience – an aside

6.27 Predestination and perspective

6.28 Summary

6.29 Relativism

6.30 Different approaches to Absolute

6.31 Relative  subjectivity

6.32 Relative perspectivism

6.33 Relative capacity

6.34 The dominant reality

6.35 Reality and different worlds

6.36 ‘Truth’ is specific worlds

6.37 Contradictions and paradox within a world

6.38 Personal Lord, personal theology

6.39 Different systems

6.40 A mystical schematic view

6.41 Summary conclusions

I have been using Ken Wilber’s integral model as a framework in exploring the experiences of the mystic in comparison to schizophrenia and bi-polar ‘disorder’. I have looked at the four quadrants and illustrated some of the approaches and theories that are found in each quadrant and how they relate to these themes. But I want to return now to quadrant 1 for a moment. This is the quadrant that reflects our individual interior meanings and values at various levels of development. I have indicated that there is a horizontal line of depth in this quadrant expressing a continuum from the rational/active mode of being to the intuitive/receptive mode of being. I have explored some of the characteristics of these modes and how they relate to mystical experience. We are all familiar with the sort of internal world that we create in the rational/active mode, particularly those of us who live in the West, where this mode is much more dominant than the intuitive/receptive one. We are familiar with the developments, discoveries, inventions and applications of science which represents this mode very well. We have gone through industrial revolutions, landed men on the moon, invented computers and mapped the human genome – all examples of the application of rational/active mode of being. We are familiar with it’s world view – critical as it is of religion and rather placing emphasis on objectivity, measurement, prediction, analysis and so on. But what sort of world-view does the intuitive/receptive mode give us? What sort of framework or map of reality is created by our rational/active mode as a result of such experiences in this intuitive mode of being?

6.1 OUR SELF

We have already asked the important question: ‘Just what is it that moves through these levels and stages in Upper Left Quadrant 1?’ We have seen that we are not talking about physiological structures here such as aspects or components of the brain: those belong to Upper Right Quadrant 2. Neither are we talking about the collective or the group: we are not talking about objective measurable structures in society nor our culture with its shared meanings and values. Rather, as we have seen, Upper Left Quadrant 1 represents a more abstract subjective quality called the mind. We have seen that it is important that the mind is not confused with concrete, physiological aspects of ourselves: the mind is an abstract concept whereas the brain is a concrete, physiological one. The brain can be ill, damaged and so on, but as Thomas Szasz argues, there is no such thing as mental illness. This is because the abstract mind cannot be physically ill or damaged. Unfortunately we inevitably use mixed metaphors in describing the mind, such that we may talk about mental ‘structures’, or psychic ‘structures’, but there is no concrete physiological structure in the mind as such. The mind is an emergent quality from the brain and its processes. As we have already seen, each of the four Quadrants do not exist in isolation: rather, there is an inter-relationship. Thus the mind is not isolated or separate from the brain and body, or from society and culture. Nevertheless, we cannot perform a brain scan and locate a physiological mind, ‘ego’ or ‘mental complex’. The focal point of subjective mental processes seems to be our sense of self or ‘ego’ and it is the ‘ego’ that moves through the levels or stages in Upper Left Quadrant 1. ‘Ego’ is our subjective sense of self-as-object.

Is this then who ‘I’ am? This is a question that many mystics are led to explore. The answer that some of them give, and which I am presenting here is no, ‘I’ am not the ‘ego’ or my subjective self-sense. ‘I’ am not my body, not my mind and neither am I my ego. In the west, we are familiar with the idea of us having, as part of our nature, a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’. Am ‘I’ my ‘soul or ‘spirit’ then? No I am not. Some of us may think of ourselves as continuing to exist after death as some disembodied, essential ’I’, a disembodied, spiritual ‘ego’. Note that if we think in this way we are giving the abstract ‘ego’ a concrete existence: we don’t think of it like that but rather think in terms of an eternal ‘soul or ‘spirit’. In Christianity and in Islam this disembodied ‘ego/soul’ is eventually reintegrated into a new, glorious physical resurrection body ready to face the Final Judgement e.t.c.. Even if we do not believe in these religions, we may think in terms of our disembodied ‘ego/soul’ meeting up with friends and relatives who have gone before us, being welcomed and reassured by them. In other, eastern religions, this disembodied ‘ego/soul’ may go through many earthly rebirths, being reincarnated in various forms. But even if this were so, that some ‘ego/soul’, some ‘spirit/self’ continued after our physical death, who would it be? What is it that would be thinking, valuing, witnessing and giving meaning to what it encountered? What would be the ‘I’ of  the ‘I/spirit/self/ego’? Would there be a soul of the soul?

6.2 PROJECTIONS OF FORM ONTO THE FORMLESS

What about the Divine? How do we understand God? Just as we may mistakenly project our abstract ‘ego’ into some disembodied spirit state and call it our ‘soul’, ‘I’ or ‘real self’, so too, these days, if we believe in an external deity, we tend to project human characteristics on to such a deity and ‘spiritualise’ them to form an objectively existing ‘deity-out-there-with-characteristics’. This is made up two processes, firstly, ‘anthropomorphism’ – that is, projecting human-like qualities onto something, in this case, the Divine; and secondly, ‘reification’ – that is, projecting abstract qualities in such a way that we consider them to have concrete existence ‘out there’ such that they may in turn have a real influence us. It is by these processes that we might find ourselves thinking of God as some old, grey-bearded man-in-the-sky, or as a stern Judge looking down on us and taking account of all that we do, or as a compassionate, merciful Father ready to heal and forgive, or as an empowering Amazonian – like warrior queen, or a tender, nurturing mother and so on.

However, we have already seen that it is important for us to remember what these forms of the Divine really are: abstract, mental projections that do not exist in concrete, material reality. Many mystics agree that Essence is greater than such forms and limitations, that Absolute transcends such forms, concepts and ideas. Mystics across various cultures, such as Meister Eckhart (German, Christian Dominican Friar), Shankara (Hindu), Ibn al-Arabi and Rumi (Sufi, Islam) came to experience the Stillness, Emptiness, Silence and Formlessness of the Divine, Transcending all form, concept, language and understanding. Even when we read these words, we are such creatures of form that we may still think of God as a Disembodied Identity, a Spirit-with-Qualities, existing in a location in time and space, a Location and Seat of all Wisdom, Knowledge and Love. But these mystics describe the Absolute as without attributes or qualities, beyond language, beyond being.

What then do the mystics say of our abstract mental projections? Are these forms to be discarded? Well, typically, the answer is yes and no. We are such creatures of form, living as we do as form in a world of material forms, conceptual forms and linguistic forms, that it is hard for us to relate to the Divine as this Transcendent Formless Silence. If we wish to encounter nearness to Essence, we must ultimately abandon form to attain some sense of unity with the Formless, but in our early steps on such a journey, mystics argue that it may be useful to think of the Divine in terms of such forms. But if we adopt such forms of the Divine, we have to continually remind ourselves that:

• · These metaphorical forms both reveal and veil the Divine,
• · They limit the Divine and that
• · These forms are not objectively or concretely real forms, rather they are more or less useful metaphors to assist us in our spiritual discoveries.

Some mystics argue that Essence manifests to us in our imagination by the use of such metaphorical forms. In this way the Divine meets us where we are, with appropriate imagery and language to assist us on our unique, individual spiritual path. Such forms are useful at the moment they are given, but may be superseded later by other, contradictory or paradoxical forms, giving other insights into different aspects or facets of the Divine. Such forms, being presented as relevant to the individual, are invariably coloured by that individual’s context in history and location. (Lower Quadrants 3 & 4). Indeed, Ibn al-Arabi suggests that the Divine never repeats such imagery because the Divine is Infinite. This ever-changing presentation of forms of the Divine is called ‘Theomorphism’. The insistence that one form and one form only is ‘correct’ is what religious persons call orthodoxy, with its opposites of heresy and apostacy. It is this insistence of conformity to one form or another that leads to crusades, Holy Wars, intolerance and religious hatred. Religious traditions and institutions are usually the custodians of orthodoxy.

6.3 SELF AND ESSENCE ARE ONE

Ultimately, such mystics talk of Essence in incomparable, transcendent terms, as Absolute, Formless, in the Bliss of Perfect Stillness in the Eternal Now, without boundary – Total Unity. As I have said, this is perhaps difficult for us to grasp, since we always think in terms of form and objects which are by nature defined and bounded. Our existence is couched in terms of labelling, boundaries and forms. We label something as ‘x’ therefore other things are ‘not x’, it is ‘this’, therefore it is not ‘that’. Essence however is ‘not this and not that’. The distinction between subject and object is transcended. Deep level mystics come to a further conclusion, a conclusion not just logically thought through, but Immediately Experienced: Essence and Self are One: Atman is Brahman. There is no difference and no separation or distinction – the Absolute and ‘I’ are the same Essence. One metaphor used to describe this is that of the ocean and the spray from a wave. If Absolute is the Ocean, then the individual is like a droplet of Ocean spray: for a moment it has a separate existence yet it is always of the same Essence as the Ocean itself. Death is like the return of the droplet back into the Ocean again. It does not then continue to exist in the Ocean as a separate droplet: its individual, separate identity is lost in and merges with the Ocean completely as it is of the same Essence. The ‘ego’ is lost and perfectly merged in Total Unity with the Divine Essence.

6.4 LOSS OR DISSOLVING OF EGO

This loss of ‘ego’, the loss of the subjective sense of ourselves as a separate, distinct entity is an important factor:

• · For the mystic, the ‘ego’ has to be transcended or surrendered in order to experience Immediate Unity with the Divine in mystical experience. This is part of the process of renunciation.

• · For those experiencing a phase of madness, of schizophrenia, mania or depression however, the organisation of the mind and the ‘ego’, may ‘breakdown’ involuntarily. The term ‘mental breakdown’ is as bad as ‘mental illness’ – it is a mixed concrete and abstract metaphor, but I am sure that you get the gist of what I mean.

Of course the psychiatrist and psychologist may now be ready to have a field day. Both the mystic and the mentally ‘ill’ may display a fragmentation or loss of ‘ego’ and self-boundaries. Worse than this, the mystic has a delusion and thinks he is God! Surely such a person has lost touch with reality, they are suffering from hallucinations or illusions. To go to Lower Right Quadrant 3 – how many people think like this? Dennis Waite in his book ‘The book of One’ has spent time exploring the web for blogs and groups that adhere to the sort of mystical theology I have just begun to outline and he considered that in the whole world, there only seemed to be a few thousand members of such internet groups. Surely such people are misguided, or ill because they are in such a minority.

6.5 CONTRACTION AND IGNORANCE

What do the mystics say about this? If we are in Essence Divine, then why don’t we seem to know it? Those who do know it in experience are termed Self-Realised, Enlightened and so on. The details differ slightly from mystical system to mystical system, but essentially, only Absolute exists as Formless Essence beyond being in the Eternal Now. But there is a contraction of Essence to movement and to form: the One Essence is manifest or expressed in many forms. All that exists is a delimited manifestation in form of Formless Absolute. In Essence, all is Absolute but in expression, all is delimited form, having no existence in and of itself. In this contraction to form, Ignorance arises. Thus, though in Essence, we, like everything and everyone else is Divine, in expression we are Ignorant of our True Nature. We misperceive ourselves and the Nature of Reality: we think of temporary material forms as being Real, we think of ourselves as essentially a mind housed in a material body and so on. In our Ignorance, we fall for an Illusion and misperceive the nature of Reality. When someone says to a spiritually minded person, ‘Get into the real world!’ they usually mean stop daydreaming and drifting off in abstraction and get into this practical, physical, material world. In this practical, material world, death becomes a tragedy, because it is the apparent end of life and the dissolving of the ‘ego’, (unless one believes in the eternal soul which may of course be a defence against perceived personal extinction or dissolution). For the mystic however, the Reality is that that which is all around us – the universe and the material world – is an Illusion: it is not finally real, it has no existence in and of itself, but is rather a delimited expression and manifestation of Essence. Wealth, power, pleasure and so on are Illusory: just as we wake up from a dream and the apparent realities of the contents of the dream are sublated by waking consciousness, so too, this material, physical reality is a dream-like Illusion which itself will be sublated by Reality. Much of what we perceive as reality are in fact projections or constructions of our mind – categorising, dividing, separating, labelling, conceptualising and so on. We impose such structures onto existents.

Ibn al-Arabi talks in terms of real/not real: it is not that existents are just Illusions or dream-like vapours: things substantially and objectively exist as delimited contracted expressions of Essence. But they do not have existence in and of their own right – that belongs to Essence alone. Rather, they are given their existence and continued subsistence by Essence as a contracted, delimited expression or manifestation of the Unknowable. The One becomes many. Therefore, they are real, but not Real. They exist but have no existence in and of themselves, they have separate existence and form in expression, but in Essence they are One. For the mystic then, conventional thinking, (Ignorant thinking) is turned upside down: Essence is the Only True Reality, the rest is transient Illusion, only Absolute exists.

Of course, this has tremendous implications for psychiatry and psychology when their practitioners start to talk in terms of a person ‘losing touch with reality’ and this being a sign of madness. What they mean of course is that such a person is losing touch with the majority conventional (Ignorant, unenlightened, unrealised) view of reality. They mean that a person is no longer able to readily access the rational/active mode that enables them to differentiate, act on and manipulate the material world around them. As was said in Chapter One, such a statement needs a robust definition of what reality actually is.

6.6 DEPTH

We have also looked earlier at the concept of ‘depth’ in Upper Left Quadrant 1. At the deepest level, we have the sort of theology that I have just outlined above: theomorphic panentheism. Formless, Empty Essence manifests in all forms, in paradoxical and even contradictory metaphorical forms (diversity), Absolute is Immanent, that is, Absolute is the Essence of all that is and yet is also simultaneously Transcendent, cutting across all boundaries and formulations, (Unity). As creatures of form, this may be hard for us to grasp or maintain, especially because in Ignorance, we are used to the idea of God being separate and distinct from us. So, as a result, many sages argue that it is a useful stepping stone along the spiritual path to make use of (metaphorical) forms of the Divine, be they Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Judaic or whatever. The contradictions between the forms of the Divine in these systems of religion merely illustrate their limited, finite view of the Unlimited Infinite. Even so, the person on the spiritual path may find it easier to have a concept of the Divine in mind as they seek communion with Absolute Essence. Mystics regard this ‘formulation’ of the Divine as an individual’s ‘personal Lord’. It is the personal form that an individual uses in their relationship with the Divine. There are as many ‘personal Lords’ as there are people. Even two Christians, ‘converted’ at the same time and attending the same meetings will have different individual views of Christ and the Father. In effect then, Ibn al-Arabi suggests, the religious person worships their own beliefs. These forms of the Divine are purely metaphorical, they are personal conceptual constructs of the Absolute. They are at best a combination of the Divine suggesting relevant forms of the Absolute to our imagination from our Ground of being and True Nature, in order for us to gain in understanding and knowledge, together with projections on our part as we try to formulate the Unknowable. This path is not as deep as the path of  Formless, Attributeless Divine.

6.7 DEEPER REALITY AND ‘OBJECTIVE’ REALITY

One aspect that emerges then from these Immediate mystical experiences is the concept of a Deeper Reality. Thus, the mystically minded person often describes religious or spiritual rituals and ceremonies as shadows of a Deeper Reality for example. The implication is that the mystical experience of God-Immediacy is, whilst we remain a physical being, a deeper or the Deepest Level of Reality. The Immediacy of mystical experience carries with it a sense of Reality with a capital ‘R’: a Final, Absolute Reality. The experience of Immediacy then is Deep, Clear, Vivid and Meaningful. Even so, I have had these experiences at different times such that the qualities, forms and concepts that are sensed as Real are in fact contradictory and mutually exclusive from experience to experience. For example, in one instance, the experience arose from a perception of the Christian doctrine of the sovereignty of God: that God, as Big-Person-in-the-Sky, is in complete and absolute control of all events and circumstances, moulding and shaping the thoughts and hearts of both believers and sinners, ordering all to God’s glory and purpose. This concept appeared so Clear and Real, so Immediate and True that it elevated my mood and outlook and energised my whole being. I was in no doubt that God was in complete control of the universe in this way. Yet later experiences point to a view where God is Not-Big-Person-in-the-Sky and does not intervene and shape the affairs of the universe in this way at all. Despite the strong sense of Reality and Clarity, it seems that the relationship of the content of this experience to ‘objective’ or material reality is indirect or even completely divorced from that ‘objective’ or material reality. This confirms in my own experience the views of Ibn al-Arabi and Shankara in terms of the use of metaphorical imagery.

6.8 ULTIMATE OR FINAL REALITY

For mystics, Formless, Passive, Boundless, Attributeless Essence in the Eternal Now is the Final, Ultimate Reality (with a capital ‘R’). Ultimately, it is all there is – there is nothing other than this Absolute – there is not two. All that exists is a derivative, delimited, contracted form of the Formless, the One expressed as Many. This expression is temporary in time and space. It has no existence of its own, but is a contraction of Essence and dependent entirely on Essence for its continued existence. Furthermore, the mind has projected all kinds of categories and labels, via language onto these expressions, creating further separation, isolation and individuality. But this is an Illusion – because ultimately all is One, thus turning conventional ideas and notions of reality on it’s head. We are familiar with the person who regards ideas of the Divine and Absolute as nonsense, as illusions, deceptions, unreal, daydreaming, wish-fulfillment, primitive and so on. Such a person says ‘Get into the real world’ – by which they mean get your head out of the clouds and get into the practical, down to earth, physical, material world – get an education, get a job, earn some money, get a good house, get status and power, keep up with the Joneses – maintain the garden, get a fast car, decorate the house, or whatever. Implied in all of this is a perception of us as a separate entity among other separate entities. The mystic says exactly the opposite – that none of this is real – it is Ignorance falling for an illusion­ – temporary and empty, only the Divine is Real (capital ‘R’).  For the mystic, it is the majority who have lost touch with Reality and who as a result have misguided perceptions, understandings and values.

6.9 LIMITATIONS CONCERNING ‘OBJECTIVE’ INFORMATION

 

In this approach, the Deeper modes of being are not the place to explore the material universe. Deeper modes have a perspective on the material universe and may give some insight into it. Though things appear Lucid and Real because they are unmediated by the active/rational mode and subjective conceptualisations, they may not be as they appear. For example, the Divine may manifest as an Inner Wise Guide, but such guides do not necessarily make accurate predictions about the material world. Why is this?

As we have seen, there is a great danger in thinking of the Divine as ‘Person-out-there’, ‘Mind-out-there’ or worse still ‘Ego-out-there’. The assumption arising as a result of this is that as we approach the Divine in Unity, we merge with a focussed, Omniscient Mind and therefore because of that Union, should share in such focussed omniscience. But in my own experiences, I was continually told not to think of the Absolute in this way and in fact, this misconception is one of the greatest problems that I have had to overcome. Two illustrations help the point: the first arising from my own experience is that of the droplet of ocean spray returning to the ocean – the ocean is diffuse and the droplet, in merging again with the ocean, ceases to exist as a separate identity – it does not remain as a separate droplet somehow bounded within the ocean. The second is from another teacher, who compared this union to being like a river flowing into the sea. In the same way, the river eventually loses its identity as it merges seamlessly with the ocean into which it flows.

Enlightenment or Self-realisation then does not consist of merging with an Omniscient, focussed ‘Mind’ or ‘Divine-Ego-in-the-sky’. Those who have had mystical experiences do not suddenly become proficient nuclear physicists, world-class musicians or capable of speaking all the languages on earth. Neither does it mean that the mystic becomes an Omnipotent Powerful ‘Other’. He does not become a miracle worker, transcending the principles of nature, or develop immortality of body or any such thing. Rather, it means that the person identifies with forms less and less – such forms are recognised as finally unreal, or real with a small ‘r’: transient and temporary. Forms of the Divine are seen as merely metaphors, personal constructs and projections of form onto Formless Essence and though such forms useful for a time, they have to be transcended. It means that ultimately, the idea of the mystic being a separate self, a thinking, feeling independent existent: an ‘ego’ or ‘soul’ that is housed in a physical body also has to be transcended and abandoned, in favour of seeing everything is an expression of Essence that will finally return to Essence. The ‘ego’, the focussed ‘self-system’ of mind/body/emotions/memory and so on, has to be surrendered – and at death, the ‘ego’ is dissolved into the Diffuse Expansive Boundless Stillness.

 

6.10 A SPIRITUAL JOURNEY

My own personal mystical encounters insist that my experience of such metaphorical forms of the Divine are a part of a spiritual journey and that journey is about aspects of who I am: a journey to Absolute because I am That. In a sense, I do not journey anywhere, because I am already That. It is not a discovery about the material world, politics, science, mathematics or psychology. The whole narrative is about my True Nature, Who I really am. It uses metaphorical form: images, ideas and concepts drawn from the material world and language, in this case the English language, as descriptors. If it did not do this, nothing could be conveyed or communicated. By definition, it has to use the material world to declare the Ineffable. Because it uses material and anthropomorphic descriptors, it is therefore an easy trap to fall into to think that the encounters are describing the real, objective material world and God as a separate ‘Big-Person-in-the-Sky’. But the whole journey, its language, form and style, is a metaphor for Who I am: Absolute Essence.

6.11 IS THE UNIVERSE CONSCIOUS?

How far does down does consciousness go? Is the universe itself conscious? Mythical and magical stages of thinking sometimes suggest that it is and New Age devotees, in returning to magical and mythical levels of thinking may also claim that the universe is conscious. Thus there are ideas in Christianity such as ‘everything works together for good to those who love God’, or if Jesus were to be silenced, then ‘even these stones would declare the glory of God’, or ‘the whole of creation groaning and waiting for the redemption of the sons of God’ and of the trees of the field ‘clapping their hands’ at the revealing of the glory of God. This idea of consciousness going all the way down is also present in the more modern theory of Carl Jung, in his idea of synchronicity.

6.12 DEFINING CONSCIOUSNESS

What we need here is a good definition of consciousness. Other than in reference to Julian Jayne’s work, I have largely avoided using this word in this study because of this very issue. Jaynes defines consciousness as ‘that which is introspectable’ or as introspectable mind-space. Introspection is the examination of one’s own thoughts, impressions and feelings, especially for long periods. So consciousness here is our subjective examination of our own subjective content and processes. Thus, typical dictionary definitions of consciousness are that it is ‘an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation’, or, ‘having an awareness of one’s environment and one’s own existence, sensations, and thoughts’, or ‘denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person’s self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action’.

We can see that common elements here are:

• · Subjective Awareness and Knowledge
• · Of subjective self or ‘ego’ and subjective processes such as thoughts and feelings

and our

• · Objective situation and environment – the events and objects around us.

The origins of the word are from the Latin conscius – ‘sharing knowledge’, from com- ‘with’ + scīre ‘to know’. Here we get to the root of the meaning of the word – it means ‘to know with’ or ‘to share knowledge with’ and thus we tend to use it in two ways:

Active, alert awareness.

To know with oneself.

Now sometimes, the word Consciousness (with a capital ‘C’) is used as a designation of Essence or Absolute, especially in eastern thought. But I suggest that our western understanding of this word makes this an unsuitable designation for Essence. Essence-as-Essence is not active, but Perfectly Still. Essence-as-Essence does not ‘know with itself’ in the sense of perusing and musing on knowledge that is made up of discrete bounded items of information. It may be that we could say that Essence-as-Essence is Pure Awareness, or Witness, but for those of us in the west, consciousness has these other connotations and root meanings of activity and knowledge in terms of an accumulation of discrete items of information, of conceptualisation, of formulation. These differences and difficulties are subtle but important. Does a stone have active, alert awareness? Is a stone able to know with itself? Is a stone able to know?

6.13 A CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE?

In part these New Age and religious ideas arise from a particular perception of the Essential Unity of the universe, but does the universe have consciousness? This is where our definition of Consciousness becomes important. If we describe consciousness as active awareness or knowing with oneself then we begin to enter into problems, the sort of problems that we have just been looking at in terms of omniscience. This differentiated, focussed view of consciousness perhaps best describes our subjective awareness, which as we have seen is an emergent from our biological processes, a place where perception and awareness are focussed prior to conceptualisation. Beingness, or ‘Isness’ on the other hand is Diffuse, Passive, Boundless and Timeless, unlike attention, mental focus or concentration which is focussed, active and selective.

The universe is not static, but dynamic and evolving, as the lines of development in Wilber’s quadrants show and one of the qualities that evolves or emerges as part of this development is consciousness as we commonly understand it. Thus a human appears to be more self-consciously reflexive than a stone. Nevertheless, the Essence of both a stone and a human, their True Nature, is the Absolute One Formless Emptiness. This means that we can accept both the scientific idea of evolution of the universe over billions of years to more and more complex organisms and structures via the ‘laws’ of physics and so on, as well as the Essential of the Universe.

6.14 REAL AND NOT REAL

There is a difference between mystics when it comes to the balance between the material world and the Ultimate Reality of the Divine. Some completely reverse the conventional view. For them, only the Absolute is Real – the rest is an Illusion, a construct of the mind. Others use the terms ‘Real’ and ‘real’ or ‘Real’ and ‘not real’ to describe Absolute, Final, Ground of Eternal Reality in comparison to a qualified reality – a reality that is derived and sustained by the Divine in time and space but which has no existence of it’s own; a reality that will Ultimately return to and be absorbed back to Essence, the One Absolute Reality.

Some mystics equate non-existence with being unmanifest. They emphasise the need of our input and receptiveness in any situation by asking the question: ‘If I am not there in the forest when a tree falls, does the falling tree make a sound?’. The sound is dependent upon a receptor, in this case me as observer/brain. If there is no receptor – the sound is not manifest. Thus it is, they argue, that the observer/brain evokes or manifests the universe and each organism is the universe experiencing itself in endless variety.

6.15 ABSOLUTE MANIFESTED

The Totality of Energy or Absolute is described by some mystics as being at Rest in the Eternal Now. One writer suggests that at this point, the Absolute is not aware of its existence and that the Absolute only becomes aware of its existence in the intention to move. This has various names such in different traditions, such as the Primeval Sound, perhaps even the Big Bang, or Contraction. In the intention to move, which is itself a movement of contraction from the Expansive, Formless, Stillness,  Absolute becomes aware of itself as I AM. There arises the sense of existence, the sense of presence and in parallel with this, simultaneously and concurrently, it brings about the appearance in the Totality of Energy of what is manifest. Some call this the Creation; it is at least what we understand as the material universe. The word ‘manifestation’ means ‘to appear, to be revealed, to come into form; to make evident to the senses’ This manifestation necessitates certain presupposed conditions, without which, such manifestations would not be possible: the force of gravity is such a condition and principle to which manifest existents conform.

6.16 CONTRACTION AND MATERIALISATION

What is it that happens when Absolute Spirit manifests as all that is? Contraction is the movement away from Absolute, Expansive, God-as-Spirit to more narrow, separate forms and objects, particularly material forms. All that is manifest is the Divine contracted into form, concept, idea, language and value. At the end of time, this contraction will cease and the Balance and Unity of God-As-Spirit will be restored. In Contraction, all the material that exists is Absolute Formless Spirit contracted to material form such that there is nothing that exists that is not contracted Absolute and there is nowhere in time and space where Essence is not. This contracted physical or material form follows the laws of physics as discovered by empirical science (Right Hand Quadrants) and is in a process of evolution back to Spirit, though at some point, in a moment of time, all material will expand back to Absolute Spirit again. It is important to note that both Absolute Spirit and contracted form co-exist simultaneously so that in contracting to form, the Absolute Spirit does not cease to exist as Spirit, or merely change from one thing (Spirit) to another (material), but rather Absolute Spirit lies beneath all that is as the Ground and Essence of all existence. The Divine is simultaneously Immanent and Transcendent. This is different from the materialisation say of Marley’s Ghost where the spirit ceases to exist because it is now materialised. The idea of contraction also includes forms that are not material or physical, though they may arise from it: forms such as ‘mind’ together with it’s mental forms and concepts. In other words Contraction is not limited to material expression but includes mental expression too such as the use of metaphor, fantasy and imagination.

Contraction has at least four major effects:

God becomes divided against God, because form is set against form and form is set against Spirit.

Ignorance arises. Contracted forms, even if sentient, are ignorant about their True Nature and identify solely with their material form and environment, mistaking the dependent manifest reality for Ultimate Reality.

Suffering is born, for living contracted forms are capable of physical, emotional and mental pain and anguish.

Illness comes into existence, because contracted physiological organisms are capable of dysfunction and subject to disease.

All existents are Essence contracted to form – the Essence of all that exists is Absolute – distinction arising from its function or mode. Nevertheless, the Essence of all is One. Identification with or belief in the idea that things are in essence separate and distinct objects is an error.

Ultimately then, there is no ‘I’ and there is no ‘you’. There is only the Absolute expressed for a moment in space and time. ‘I’ and ‘you’, like every other existent, has a derived existence, an existence dependent upon Absolute. We are ‘real’, with a small ‘r’, but we are not, in this material form, Ultimate and Unchanging, but transient. But our Essence, our ‘Self’, like the Essence of all existents, is One United Formless Absolute, which Ultimately is not an object and alone is Real.

Contraction then is a bit like the two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen always being the essence of water. The water may manifest in infinitely different variety of individual snowflakes, as fog, as steam, as clouds, as water, as condensation, as ice cubes, as raindrops, as icebergs, as lakes, as the sea, as ponds and so on. All these different material forms, yet the essence to all these forms is always H20.

6.17 UNITY, SEPARATION AND DIVISION

We have now touched upon the idea of separateness and division. The question that we must ask is this: If all existents are expressions of the Divine then is there any real division or separateness? Can there be separateness in Unity? This begs further questions such as: Am I a separate existent? Do I exist as a separate object from other objects? Or is everything the Divine dancing a Cosmic dance? If I am not a separate individual then what implications does this has for my apparent freedom of action, for my faculty of choice or will, for my accountability for my behaviour and morals? Am I responsible for what I do? Do ‘I’ exist?

In contracting to manifest form, there is real separateness and division in expression, even though, simultaneously, in Essence, there is Total Unity for the Divine is both Transcendent and Immanent. The expressions or existents in manifestation are distinct and separate. This quality of separateness and division is intrinsic to the expression and unfolding of manifestation. This separateness and division relates to the essential nature of contracted manifestation; it is inherent to it; it belongs to manifest existents by their very nature as contracted, delimited forms of the Divine. Yet at the same time there is artificiality about this separateness and division. What is this artificiality? It is that that the manifest expression is transient, changing and has a derived existence, not having existence in and of itself, but an existence that is dependent upon  Absolute. The manifest universe is not Ultimately Real, but a temporal expression.

The Dominican friar Meister Eckhart expressed the possibility of making distinctions without having the concomitant of separation, thus, the three Persons of the Trinity are distinct on the outward plane, without this implying mutual exclusion on the inward plane. Each is identified with the other two by virtue of its inward identity with the Essence, whilst being distinct from the others by virtue of its mode or function which deploys the Essence, without this implying any numerical or material differentiation from it. There is here the application of a principle which plays a vital role in Eckhart’s perspective: everything pertaining to the spiritual realm (towards Essence and therefore Expansion) is inclusive and Unitive by nature, whilst matter, by its nature, (but not its Essence) is exclusive and implies separative peculiarity. The more spiritual a thing is, the more inclusive and universal it is, the more material a thing is, the more it excludes other things by the very rigidity of its specific contours. This is a view that I share with Eckhart.

6.18 ILLUSIONS

Some mystics however talk about the contracted manifestation as being an illusion. They do so by talking in terms of the world not being real, but rather as being a product of the mind, or as being an ‘appearance’. Illusion exists this side of Ignorance. We all have a conceptual understanding of where we stand in relation to the Divine, but this concept, this picture, is an illusion and as this illusion begins to be questioned we become aware that we are then venturing into new and unknown territory: certainties and dogma about God begin to evaporate and as we become dissatisfied with our understanding of the Divine, we begin to enter the unsettling Darkness of Ignorance. We thought that we understood our position in terms of the Divine – what the Divine is like, our relation to the Divine, whether the Divine exists and so on. Our conceptual understanding, our theology, be it formally or informally held, be it overt or more subconscious, may seem comfortable and settled and the ideas that they declare may appear certain and we may find ourselves resting in an assurance of our condition and beliefs. Then something stirs us – a life event, a trauma, a doubt – and we become unsettled – we begin to question our assumptions, presumptions and beliefs and begin to see them as unsatisfactory or inadequate in some way or another. We see that in these matters we have settled for a kind of fool’s gold, for trinkets, instead of the Real Treasure of the Divine. We have, in effect, fallen for an illusion. Unsettled and dissatisfied, we begin a search or quest in a desire for Truth and we see the Darkness of our Ignorance but we also see a pathway leading forward. If we look back, the illusions that we once held on to still seem comfortable and inviting in their familiarity. Yet we cannot settle there in our old ideas and beliefs any more, because we are also beginning to see their inadequacy and weakness.

6.19 BACK TO REALITY

What do we mean precisely when we talk about being ‘Real’ or about ‘Reality’? One definition of ‘Reality’ is that that alone is Real which exists unchanged and without intermission. It is indivisible and exists independently of other things. Thus a pot is not Real: it is made of earth: before it was made it was earth, when it was made it was earth and when it is destroyed it will be earth. The pot has temporary existence derived from something else and therefore it is not Real. Its substantial existence was transitory and derived.

In this sense, manifest existents, with their varieties of forms, functions and names, are not Real. Reality is One Infinite, Indivisible Formless Absolute. But, even if we obtain a degree of enlightenment whereby we understand this, manifest existents still seem real to us. Knowing that something is not Real does not necessarily mean that it ceases to exist. It is true that in the case where a rope on the floor is mistaken for snake in the half-light, once one perceives that it is a rope that is lying on the floor, then the ‘snake’ no longer exists. But in the case of a traveller crossing a desert and perceiving a mirage of an oasis, even though the traveller may have crossed this desert before and know that the oasis does not really exist in the place that it seems to, yet the mirage does not vanish, but the traveller continues to see an apparent oasis not too far away. So it is with manifest expressions or existents. Even though a person may come to an understanding that such existents are not Real in their expressive form, yet they have substantial existence that is reinforced by the behaviour and thinking of others in the world. Only the actual Immediate experience of the Divine transcends to some degree this substantial reality.

6.20 SUBSTANCE AND REALITY

However, we tend to confuse substance and Reality. This is one reason why I dislike the word ‘appearance’ in reference to manifestation: ‘appearance’ suggests something without substance. Of course, the fact is that if I stand in front of you and slap your face, you will feel the pain. If you then stamp on my toe, I will feel the pain in my foot. This goes some way to demonstrating that the world has substance: it has material, physical existence. It is not merely a product of my mind: it does not cease to exist when I enter dreamless sleep. Others who are awake testify to its continued existence and to changes in it while I am asleep which I can confirm when I awake. I realise that subtle and sometimes powerful arguments can be brought against the idea that the world exists as substance, but these are too subtle and involved to go into here. Rather, I am persisting in the view that the earth and manifest existents exist as substance or material, as opposed to merely existing in the mind as a sort of phantasm or product of imagination. But this assertion that the earth and material existents have substance does not mean that manifest existents are Real in the sense that we have defined the word. The pot made of earth had substantial material existence but it was not Real. Rather, manifestation has a temporary, changing, material or substantial existence. The forms, ideas, categories, labels, groups and concepts that we use to construe substantial material existents may only exist in our minds, but there is a substantial, physical, material existent ‘out there’ as I discover if I accidentally walk into a tree. When a sculptor makes a carving from a rock, it remains a rock, whatever is carved and even if it remains uncarved. We may call the carving a statue, a bust, a plaque, an ornament, a sculpture or whatever. Such names and concepts are products of the mind, differentiating shape, function and form. Even the name ‘rock’ is a construct, but that material which we call rock substantially exists. It is the mistaking of this substantial material reality for Final Ultimate Reality that is an illusion borne out of Ignorance.

6.21 THE MANIFEST: THE MATERIAL REALM, MEDIUM AND DOMAIN

The substance or material that manifest existents consist of is a medium: The dictionary definition of medium defines it as an intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on; an intervening substance or agency for transmitting or producing an effect; a vehicle – a medium through which something is transmitted, expressed, or accomplished. This fits in with the understanding of manifestation that is being put forward here. Material manifestation is not only a medium, but also as a realm. A realm is a domain in which something is dominant; in this case the domain is material in which matter is dominant. In the domain or sphere or realm of physics and the material, nothing more of the Divine can be displayed than that which is displayed in the manifest universe. Furthermore, we can argue that each existent manifests the Divine according to its own potential. A flower, a blade of grass and the starry night sky each display Absolute according to their own potential and function. We see different aspects of the Divine in each existent. Each manifestation or existent has its own domain or purview: in other words, there is a scope or range of a subject covered by a particular manifestation of God. The universe and life within it has evolved and unfolded according to the properties, principles and laws of physical matter such as those discovered and described in physics, chemistry, biology and so on.

This element of scientific discovery gives us another important distinction: not all that is manifest is known. Formless, Unmoving Absolute is unmanifest: it is not unveiled or revealed and remains Unknowable. These sorts of words are just pointers to That which is always Hidden. We have seen that in contraction, Formless becomes manifest or revealed form. Manifestation means that a particular manifestation or manifest existent has the potential to be known and discovered. We are making new discoveries and forming new understandings all the time. Take the example of Columbus discovering the Americas. The American continent was a manifest existent before Columbus discovered it. But to the western European world just before Columbus made his voyage, the Americas did not exist: the continent had not been discovered or uncovered or unveiled to western European minds. The situation is this then: There is the Unmanifest, Unknowable Absolute. Absolute becomes manifest or uncovered or revealed by contracting to substantial, material form. This manifest form makes up the object that is capable of being perceived. As we have seen, the whole universe is a manifestation and expression of the Divine. This manifestation, this realm and medium of material form and existents, though revealed, remains latent.  To be latent means to be present or have potential but not yet be evident or active: What is latent is present but not evident. It is not evident because the manifest object requires a perceiver or observer in order for the manifestation to be seen or understood and be readily apparent and clearly revealed to the mind or the senses or judgment. Thus the perceiver or observer is a vital part of manifestation being revealed.

This is where the old question is raised concerning a tree falling in a forest: If there is no one there to see it and hear it fall, does it make a sound? According to the above analysis, yes, it makes a sound: the molecules of air are made to vibrate which is the medium through which sound takes place. But the sound remains latent because there is no receptor, no human ear, nor perceiver to perceive it to make the sound evident. Aspects of the latent manifestation then are being discovered all the time. With new instrumentation to enhance and extend our senses, such as telescopes, microscopes and so on, new discoveries concerning previously undiscovered or latent manifestation are being made all the time. But none of this affects our basic position that what is manifest is Essence contracted and delimited to form. Even if an infinite number of parallel universes are discovered, it makes no difference to this premise.

6.22 DUALITY AND MULTIPLICITY

Absolute-at-Rest is also known as Unity and Balance, but at the first moment of movement or contraction, Unity and Balance is split and division and separation emerges. Conceptually speaking, this multiplicity of divisions can often be defined in terms of duality, such as Light and Dark, Love and Hate, Material and Spirit and so on. As we have already indicated, Essence chose to contract, to enfold downward into manifold forms. In other words, though that which is uncovered and revealed is in Essence is One, in expression it is many and varied; of many kinds; multiple: It has many features or forms: It is a whole composed of diverse elements, having many different forms, features, or elements. The use of duality is a conceptual device that we use to categorise and define a manifold manifestation. Duality is a conceptual construction which we overlay onto manifold manifestation – hence the bipolar constructs we looked at earlier. This is not to dismiss duality: my own spiritual experience makes use of duality particularly in the area of moral or Virtuous behaviour, which is described as Light and Dark or Positive and Negative. Duality is also used in the division of Spirit and material, or spiritual and material realms or worlds. Dualism is a major area of religious or spiritual philosophy or theology. There are different expressions of dualism. But dualism is any theory in any field of philosophical investigation that reduces the variety of its subject matter to two irreducible principles, such as good/evil or natural/supernatural.
In metaphysics it is any system that reduces the whole universe to two principles, such as the Platonic dualism of Ideas and Matter. It may appear that we take a dualistic approach in distinguishing Spirit and material, but we go beneath the material ultimately to One Formless Divine Spirit Unity. I am taking then, in contrast to dualism, a perspective of monism: The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being. In Dualism, it is often maintained that there is a major division or difference between God and creation. In this view, the creation: the material universe is different from and other than God. This is not our perspective.

In contraction, Divine Formless Spirit enfolds, covers with or ‘as if with’ folds; envelops, holds within limits; encloses and forms with or ‘as with’ folds into diverse manifest elements, having many different forms, features, or elements. These manifest elements are not static or stagnant, but evolve and develop on the journey of unfolding evolution to God-As-Spirit. In the course of this evolution, some of these manifest existents, including human beings, develop sentience: they can feel and sense their existence and presence. Sentience means ‘having the power of sense perception or sensation’; [from Latin sentiēns feeling, from sentīre to perceive], thus, ‘sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling’. This sentience is responsible for enabling sentient existents to perceive the manifestation of Absolute: they are the observer or perceiver that we mentioned earlier. However, it should be remembered that everything is equally an integral part of the manifestation, whether it is a stone, a river, a plant, an animal or a human being. There is no difference in Essence between the Unmanifest Absolute and manifest existents. Absolute is immanent in all existents: they have no nature of their own other than Absolute. Manifestation is the expression of Absolute which is the Essence of manifestation.

6.23 THE SELF

Despite holding a monist view, we have seen that in manifestation, in material existents, there is a duality between Essence and expression. Existents have bounded form and limitation in expression: a stone is not sentient, does not experience hunger and so on, whereas a human being thinks, discriminates, perceives and senses manifestation. As a material, substantial existent, the human being has real objective existence. Because the human being is sentient, each human being has a locus or centre of perception and is able to distinguish itself as subject/object in relation to other objects and subject/objects. There arises a sense of ‘I’ and ‘other’: of ‘me’ and ‘you’ and ‘it’.

This duality of Essence and expression serves to create a duality of self, or two selves. Firstly, there is our True Self: our Essence, what we Truly and Ultimately are – Absolute. We have seen though that the Divine is delimited to and expressed as material form through a process called contraction. Thus I am also, simultaneously and in parallel to Essence, a material, substantial, objective expression as a sentient human being. I am expressed as a particular physical body in time and space with a particular appearance, location and perspective. I have a particular biological and genetic makeup, unique individual experiences and knowledge, a sense of objective identity that is housed in this particular body/mind. This is our self (with a small ‘s’) because this self is not Real, it is not changeless and Infinite but transient, having an existence that is dependent upon and an expression of Self-sufficient Essence. This self is real (with a small ‘r’) in that it exists, it has material substance and is an object located in time and space in the manifest universe. As an individual then, I am a Self/self.

We said earlier that the word ‘self’ (with a small ’s’) is closely related to ‘ego’. If ‘ego’ refers to our subjective sense of our differentiation of ‘us as individual existent’, to the emergent mental structure that creates this sense, ‘self’ refers to the body/ego or body/mind if you like. If ‘ego’ is in the Upper Left Quadrant and our empirical body is in the Upper Right Quadrant, then ‘self’ covers both of these upper quadrants. Thus it is slightly wider in concept than ‘ego’, because whereas ‘ego’ refers to a cluster of subjective cognitive and perceptual processes, ‘self’ more overtly includes the idea of our physical body as well. So when we say that this is our self, we refer to our particular separate, individual existent as a body-mind organism, which tends, correctly, to be perceived as finite, because one day our body will die and with it our cognitive processes and our ‘ego’. Once again we have the idea of boundary or border: if the ‘ego’ is a subjective, psychological border, then with the ‘self’ the body also forms a boundary and border between us-as-existent and other existents. In the same way as the ‘ego’ then, the ‘self’, that is, the body/mind organism, may constitute the separate self-sense with which we tend to solely identify. We define, classify, label and identify ourselves as this particular body/mind organism. The ‘self’ is perceived as a cluster of subjective cognitive and perceptual processes including an ‘executive’ or ‘governor’ which serve to maintain psychological balance and which arise mainly from the brain which is located in and bounded by a physical body which is itself located in time and space and which possesses various attributes.

The word ‘self’ then covers both our subjective sense of being a differentiated existent and our objective, physical, bounded body with its processes of brain and nervous system, cardio-vascular system and so on. When we talk about the ‘self’ or ‘my self’, we are talking about this subjective/objective existent. We cannot avoid mixing abstract and concrete terms altogether. The ‘ego’ is an abstract emergent phenomenon, a focussed sense of individual selfhood derived and emerging from a subjective web of meaning, coherence and subjective experience which themselves emerge from objective biological processes. The ‘self’ covers both abstract and concrete elements of dimensions.

There is a sense then that through each sentient material existent, Formless Divine, as the Essence or Self of that existent, experiences and perceives Itself as manifested subject perceiving self and object. As expression the existent perceives, chooses and acts as a real, objective self in a material universe. However, it tends to be the latter experience, the experience of existent subject/object choosing and acting in an objective material world that dominates, even to the point of virtually obliterating the sense of True Self. This is so for at least three reasons:

Firstly, Spirit is subtle. Spirit is so slight as to be difficult to detect or describe; Spirit is in some senses elusive, delicate or faint. This is not so of the material realm at the level that we live in during our day-to-day experience. There is nothing subtle about walking into a brick wall.

Secondly, not only is Spirit subtle, but also, the process of contraction to form simultaneously brings about ignorance and with it a misperception by us of what is Truly Real.

Thirdly, manifest form acts simultaneously as both revelation and veil. Despite this affirmation concerning the manifest universe being an expression of the Absolute, there is a negative quality about the universe also and it is this: form, any form, acts as both a manifestation and a mask: in other words, form, including the material form of the universe, both reveals and veils. The Uncontracted or Expansive Absolute is Boundless and Formless, therefore, bounded form must to some degree mask or veil the Absolute. In this sense then, the material universe both reveals and simultaneously veils or obscures Absolute. This characteristic is a quality of form itself and is an inevitable consequence of the process of contraction, or creation.

Nevertheless, the Absolute alone exists and is Immanent in the manifest universe. Essence and the universe are not two in which any sort of relationship can exist. Millions of universes arise in the Infinite Absolute forming a totality of the known form in the totality of the Formless Unknown.

6.24 BOUNDED IDENTITY

Because of contraction, ignorance and the revealing but veiling nature of form, we tend to perceive ourselves not as our True Nature, Not as Essence or Self, but as our self with a small ‘r’. We identify our nature as being our bounded, material expression of body/mind, instead of Formless Essence. We have a bounded self-identity. Thus we tend to think of ourselves as being a mind housed in a body, a body/mind organism, or as a body with an ego, and so on. But this bounded identity is an error, a misperception arising out of contraction and ignorance.

 

Thus in Essence I am Self, but in expression I am a self with a mind that makes me aware of my self as a material object capable of choice, action, thought, discrimination, analysis and so on. I have an ‘ego’, a sense of individual identity and ‘I’-ness as a subject/object. My mind conceptualises, formulates, separates, analyses, discriminates and divides in order to categorise and discern separate elements or existents. My ‘ego’ is self-serving, pursuing my individual status, reputation, self-worth and so on, in relation to other ‘egos’. This is why, in seeking an Immediate experience of the Absolute, the mind has to be sidestepped or transcended, for the Absolute is Boundless Emptiness Alone.

 

6.25 PREDESTINATION

This leaves the question of how much freedom or choice of action do I really have? This has always been a thorny issue, but it remains so only as long as we think in terms of duality or multiplicity. If we think of the Absolute as ‘Other’ and ourselves standing in relation to it, then the issue of freedom, choice and agency arises. If all is One, then how can I have choice and agency?

For those non-dualists who consider manifestation to be an expression of mind and not to have any real existence, then the the problem is solved: it is only the Absolute that acts. The Divine dances a Cosmic dance and is both the Dancer and the dance. In this view, there are no existents to act: there is only the Divine dancing. Whatever occurs is in effect, the Absolute moving – any sense of  individual choice, action or agency is merely an appearance, an illusion. This is not the position that I am advocating.

I have declared that manifestation has substantial, material existence and that as human beings, like many existents, we have a separate objective existence in space and time and an interdependent existence with all manifestation.  We have a total dependence on Essence for our existence, as does all manifestation, since we are a contracted delimited expression of Absolute. Furthermore, as humans, we have sentience such that we can sense and perceive manifestation and a mind that can discriminate, categorise and analyse it.

We have seen that there is a simultaneous and parallel duality between Essence and expression, between Transcendence and Immanence, between Oneness or Unity and multiplicity and division. These are in fact at opposite ends of a continuum of experience.

6.26 THE CONTINUUM OF EXPERIENCE – AN ASIDE

As part of the discussion on predestination, we have to ask whether full enlightenment is possible for the human being. Can a person achieve or enter into full Self-realization, Total Enlightenment and Complete Unity with the Absolute? My answer to this is an emphatic ‘No!’ A person may indeed have a transcendent experience of Immediacy with the Divine – they may be transported as it were into expansive Formless Emptiness and experience Bliss and Rest. However, if the roof of the temple where they are situated collapses on them, they will be killed or seriously hurt. Their experience of Transcendence has not rendered them transcendent or immune from the material world – their body, their objective self, will be damaged in such an event. I am arguing then that full Unity and Transcendence is only accomplished at the end of manifestation and expression. Even when the individual expression that is the human body in the material world ceases to be a living organism, though life has ceased and there is in some senses a return to the Divine, yet the Divine remains Immanent and thus still remains the Essence of the cadaver or dead body. Only when all manifestation has ceased and all existents no longer exist, does Full Unity, Balance and Rest return.

There is then a continuum, a gradation, of experience and existence. At one end, there is non-sentient material existence. This evolves and gradates through to sentient beings with minds, emotions and so on. But as we have seen, even here there is a gradation or continuum: there are as it were levels of perspective and degrees of enlightenment. There are those who see only the material as being finally real. Then there are those who have glimpses of a more expansive perspective, who see something of what lies beneath, of the spiritual dimension. Some conceptualise these in terms of their own religious institutions and traditions. Others find such traditions inadequate in explaining and containing their experience, thus they may swap religious traditions, or embark on a personal spiritual quest for spiritual orientation. Yet other people have more regular and consistent experiences of Immediacy with the Divine and their perspective is correspondingly altered, such that they embrace deeper and more esoteric ideas and concepts. Transcendence is not all or nothing.

It is like a group of people climbing a hill or mountain. They become slightly separated such that those at the back, near the bottom of the hill can only see what they saw before: woodland and fields. Those half way up travel above the tree-line and see an expanse of open moorland, rocks and heather. Those at the top look over the peak to see a vast lake on the other side of the mountain. Their perspectives have changed according to the level they have reached and the distance that they have travelled. Those at the bottom never see the lake, they may not believe that it even exists and think that those at the top have suffered from a lack of oxygen to be reporting such a thing. Until they climb up themselves, they will not be able to entertain such a perception. This is what spirituality is like, and such levels of perception affect our view of predestination.

6.27 PREDESTINATION AND PERSPECTIVE

We seem to have a choice of action within limits, such as the physical limits of the material manifestation: I cannot make myself invisible at will; if I jump of the top of the Eiffel Tower I will probably die; and so on. The manifestation of Essence into the material, with its physical laws and so on, provides a generally conducive environment for our existence and survival. There is a natural order provided by the Divine in this manifestation, but we may choose to act contrary to it, to take risks by pushing against it and we even act contrary to our own self interest, survival or moral sense.

The part played by Essence in the activities of the world is like the part played by the spring season in the flowering of the trees. ‘Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes and the grass grows by itself’. Yet behind these acts of separate, individual, material existents, the experiencing and acting carried out within the manifestation by the multitude of psychosomatic, or mind/body mechanisms, (sentient existents) is Absolute – indeed the existent is Essence. The entire functioning of the manifest universe is Essence – it manifests somewhere as space, somewhere as time, somewhere as action. Essence is like a creeper with sentient and insentient existents as its aspects, sprinkled with latent tendencies of countless existents. No thought could arise or be expressed or be put into action except by the Infinite Formless Divine Essence. Formless Divine manifests as the physical bodies that experience various reactions through contact with one another, each one in its own aspect and domain as sentient existent. Formless Divine alone is the Reality, not only in all existents, but also in all experiences. It is from thought that action begins and thought is function of the mind, which is nothing but Formless Divine which has delimited Itself by identification with an individual psychosomatic mechanism.

Reality is the One Infinite, Indivisible Formless Divine which in contraction or delimitation makes manifest an apparent division or separation of observer, that which is observed and the function of observing. For an observation to take place, there must be a manifest observer and the manifestation that is observed. The function of observation can only take place in apparent duality. But the point is that that which is the subjective ‘I’ (Absolute) is precisely what is also manifest as the objective universe – there is no distinction between the two. The situation is that the manifestation of the universe exists in the Infinite Formless Divine, just as distance or emptiness exists in space. The universe, the mind and ‘ego’ do not and cannot exist in the absence of Formless Divine.

In terms of Essence, nothing separate has been created that exists apart from Essence: Absolute rests in Itself and is all there is, therefore, there can only be Pure Subjective experience. The universe is a contracted manifestation of Absolute. Absolute manifests in contracted existents in various domains or aspects such as intention, will, desire, space, time, natural order, destiny and in an infinite range of energies such as knowledge, dynamics and positive and negative action. These aspects, domains and potencies are notionally different in their manifestation and functioning, that is in their expression, but they are not different in their Essence, that is, Absolute. The manifestation exists in Absolute Essence which is transcendent of it. There is nothing other than the Absolute. Therefore, Absolute cannot be but immanent in manifest existents. However, no existent can have any kind of relationship with Absolute, because such a relationship can exist only between two entities.

6.28 SUMMARY

 

This then has been an overview of the nature of manifestation, the nature of the material universe and our place in it. Reality is One Infinite, Indivisible Formless Divine which in contraction or delimitation makes manifest a division or separation in substantial, material expression. The manifestation of the universe exists in the Infinite Formless Divine, just as distance or emptiness exists in space. The universe, the mind and ‘ego’ do not and cannot exist in the absence of Formless Divine. Nothing separate has been created that exists apart from Absolute. Nevertheless, existents have real substantial existence in space and time – the universe is not merely an insubstantial appearance or an illusion. Ultimately, all will return to Formless Unity.

6.29 RELATIVISM

As material existents living in time and space, we live in a relative existence. That is, we have a relationship with other existents around us. This relationship is conditioned by a number of factors, such as for example, the nature of the existents that we are in relation to. My relationship with regards to a stone is different from my relationship with regards to another human being. A stone has no internal representation of the world, it does not think, it does not have the use of language and symbol for example, whereas a human being is able to converse with me and exchange ideas and give comments. We can say then that conditional relativism is the principle with regard to the relationship of existents with each other.

With regard to Essence or Absolute we have no relationship. Essence-as-Essence is One Undifferentiated Unity and is all there is. Essence-as-Essence has no boundary – there is no Essence and outside of Essence and this is why Essence is referred to as Beyond-being. Being implies that there is a ‘not-being’ or that there is a boundary outside of which there is nothing or something else. There is only Essence and since this is Ultimately what we are in our Ground and True Nature then there is no relationship, either with us as existents or with manifestation. What there is is Essence contracted and delimited to manifest multiple forms or existents that exist in a principle of conditional relativism.

The forms and concepts of Absolute that we construct, or which Essence may contract to present to us in our minds, such as benevolent Father, or Righteous Judge, are metaphorical and allegorical intermediate transient forms. They have no existence in objective, material reality. These Divine Names, such as Father, Merciful e.t.c., are not therefore attributes of Essence, nor is there a ‘Divine-Spirit-Object-out-there’ that possesses any such attributes, qualities or characteristics. These Divine Names/attributes/characteristics/qualities are actually describing an orientation or relationship. They do not describe a relationship between us and Essence-as-Essence because the word ‘relationship’ implies ‘two’ or duality. Relationship is a particular type of connection existing between two existents, it means related to or having dealings with each other, a connection or association. The word orientation maysound better in that the emphasis is on the perceiver, but still we have this duality, because orientation is a location or position relative to, alignment of oneself to something else, but our True Nature is Essence and Essence is Undifferentiated One.

In a spiritual quest then, what is it that we have a relationship to? What is it that we orientate ourselves to? We can only orientate ourselves and be relative to a delimited form of Essence which means either:

a)       Manifest existents

b)       Metaphors and analogies that constitute conceptual delimitations of Essence

It is these metaphors and analogies that form the ‘object’ of our belief, even though our intention is Essence. Ultimately these ‘objects’ do not exist but in the early stages of a spiritual path, such metaphorical forms are necessary, since the Formless Path seems too abstract and arid. This means then that Ibn al-Arabi is correct when he says that we all worship our own beliefs. Our relationship to and use of forms of the delimited Divine are illustrated in the paths of spirituality.

6.30 DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO ABSOLUTE

What we need to be aware of is that there are degrees or levels of transcendence, insight, Enlightenment or Self-Realisation. As with anything else, there are novices, beginners, newcomers and learners as well as those who have more experience and understanding – seasoned, experienced travellers. There are also a number of diverse pathways to the Divine, indeed, each person’s path is unique but we can group these pathways into a more manageable group of broad approaches.

First of all we can consider a way that is more usually associated with individual experience. Then, as we move on to ways suitable for beginners, for those just embarking on the spiritual path and move on to those ways of devotion and approaches that are more suited to the seasoned traveller.

Via Eminentiae – The way of Eminence. The theology here is that all the positive qualities in the world have their origin in God, therefore, the Names or attributes of God can be predicated from them. In other words, God is revealed in creation. This approach relies on natural theology as opposed to revealed theology. It is indeed suitable for Pilgrims of a devotional inclination. In this approach there is a mounting up from things which are good and desirable for some goal or aim, up to that which is Itself the Supreme End, beyond all particular ends; the Highest Value. As I have already indicated, the Absolute is the Essence of all that is and is fully present, undiluted and unfragmented in all that is. Therefore, the Absolute can be discovered in the essence of any existent. This makes a good first stage because it begins with form, with the manifest separate forms that are an expression of the One True Reality. The forms that are used are those of the manifest expression – elements of nature and the Universe. As we have seen, the spectacular declaration of the existence of Essence is already done in the existence of the Universe. The whole Universe declares the power of Spirit. Thus, gazing at a mountain, or meditating on a blade of grass blowing in the breeze may lead to a Realization or Enlightenment in the form of nature mysticism, where it may be that no deity-form is acknowledged or proposed, but rather, the Essence of Nature Itself is communed with. Or it may be that nature conveys say, the Power of God and the person reflecting on nature may have a deep and immediate sense of the Divine Power in the manifestation of the Universe or some aspect of it. This way of devotion may not involve a religious setting or context. The particular form which triggers this experience, or is meditated on or contemplated on is largely irrelevant, since the Absolute is the Essence of all forms.

Via Purgativa – The Way of Purgation. As seen by classic theologians, this is the first level or stage of the way, a way for beginners. Unlike the previous way, this way does tend to have a religious context and also focuses on the outer life: on us and our behaviour in a material world whilst at the same time being sensitive to Spirit. It focuses on the rejection and removal of sin/Ignorance/Blindness; on ‘getting right with God’. This is a dualistic approach with God perceived as ‘Other’ or distinct from the Pilgrim. This is a way supported by St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila amongst others. The postulate of this approach is that before the Pilgrim (self) can properly meet God, (Other), the Pilgrim must first purify themselves of all sin and spiritual hindrances, of barriers and obstacles that obscure or oppose communion with God. Such hindrances and obstacles will tend to be defined in the Revealed Law of the Scriptures of the religious tradition concerned. Attendance of the reading, teaching and interpretation of Scriptures by authority figures within the religious tradition would be encouraged, together with observance of external rituals and ceremonies. Thus this pathway begins with the removal of outward behaviour and attachments to the world that are perceived as hindering fellowship with God. This is done via contrition, sorrow for sin, confession, amendment of life, self-(ego)emptying, self-(ego)abandonment, brokenness and so on. In short, the practice of humility and repentance before God, (God being seen as Spirit-Entity-with-attributes-existing-out-there). This procedure spirals inwards as deeper and deeper levels or layers of hindrances and obstacles are discovered and confessed. In Christian terms it is a pathway involving purification of sin by repentance and forgiveness together with the practice of positive virtues, such as love, mercy, kindness e.t.c.. Such devotional behaviour may be motivated by avoidance of punishment by God or by rewards for obedience, or through grace by God. Taken to an extreme, this approach may even involve self-flagellation and forms of self-torture in attempts to mortify sin from the body. It is an approach that requires balance if this sort of extreme is to be avoided.

Extremes aside, this would be a conventional pathway within say a Christian religious group. A pilgrim attending or joining a church for worship services would find these kinds of practices encouraged both within the group and as an individual in private. Different Christian groups would have different emphasis: Roman Catholics may emphasise ceremony and ritual, Protestant Calvinists would emphasise a more austere approach focussing on the Bible and its exposition as an authority for faith and conduct. Pilgrims would join together for worship, adoration, celebration, prayer to God through Jesus, communion or mass and affirm their belief and trust in Christ as Saviour through his death and resurrection. These are the shared relative forms of the Divine, shared symbols and concepts used for mutual encouragement in the spiritual journey. Islam would focus on the call to prayer, on listening to teaching from the Koran, on learning the Koran, and so on.

Via Illuminativa – The Way of Illumination. In classical theology, this is the second religious stage or level, entered into by one who has been following the earlier Purgative Way and who has achieved some proficiency there. This pathway focuses on the Inner Life: on prayer: meditation and contemplation; and on sensitivity to God within, to the Spirit moving within, or Light within e.t.c. It is a Way encouraged by the early stages of the writings of St. John of the Cross and by Basil the Great. At this stage, a practice of more complete non-attachment is continued, not just to the ways and values of the material world, bound as it is by Ignorance and Illusion. This non-attachment was begun in the Purgative way, but at this stage, in addition to that, a non-attachment to ‘good’ things, to ‘religious’ things, to ceremonies and practices is also encouraged. It serves as a preparation of the Pilgrim to be enlightened by Pure Spirit and to appreciate God more deeply. Moral conduct may change from an imposition of external commands, laws and codes to the more intrinsic ‘walking in the Spirit’; following internal principles of love, mercy and so on: lovingly emulating the Divine in any situation. There would be continued observation of ceremonies and rituals and attendance to Scripture study, increasingly, personal study, as means of developing the Inner Life. Such an approach is not limited to Christianity but may be present in a number of religious traditions or forms.

Within the Christian tradition, we see here something of certain forms of Quaker practice, though in their case, ceremonies and rituals, priests and elders, theology and creeds are all seen as hindrances which detract and distract from focus of the Divine. In fact certain forms of Quakerism are perhaps best described as having elements of the way of illumination as well as the following the way of Unity. These types of Quaker meetings do not have an Elder preaching or teaching – rather the focus is on silence and sensitivity to the Divine within. The meetings are not just individuals meditating, contemplating and reflecting, but rather engaging in a collective activity in which the Divine may be considered to be more present, or where sensitivity to the Divine may be more heightened.

We are moving here then to quite a different sort of gathering or meeting of Pilgrims from that of the previous two stages. In the Christian tradition, those first two stages involve corporate prayer and worship, singing songs of praise, being led in prayer by a priest or Elder, listening to Scripture being read, listening to an authority figure such as a priest or elder preaching, teaching and expounding principles of faith and conduct, being involved in rituals and ceremonies from regularly eating bread and wine representing the blood and body of the Redeemer Christ, possibly being baptised by full immersion as a declaration of being born-again, to lighting candles, making the sign of the cross, using holy water, priests burning incense, the recitation of creeds and responses by the laity and so on. Some groups within the Quaker tradition on the other hand have a meeting that consists of silent waiting, with participants contributing as the spirit moves them. It is designed to let God teach and transform the worshippers. In such a meeting for a group of people sit in a room mainly in silence for an hour. They usually sit facing each other in a square or a circle. This helps them to be aware that they are a group together for worship and puts everybody in a place of equal status. From time to time someone may speak briefly, but sometimes the entire hour may pass without a word being spoken. A set liturgy or code of rules is not followed – a service has no structure and no one (apparently or obviously) leads it. Everyone waits in shared silence until someone is moved by the Spirit (i.e. has a strong religious feeling) to do something as part of the meeting. A person will only speak if they are convinced that they have something that must be shared, and it is rare for a person to speak more than once. The words should come from the soul – from the inner light – rather than the mind. The words spoken are usually brief and may include readings (from the Bible or other books), praying, or speaking from personal experience. Each speaking is followed by a period of silence. The belief is that God speaks through the contributions made at the meeting. Some people say that there is often a feeling that a divine presence has settled over the group. They know that even if the words they feel moved to speak have no particular meaning for themselves, they may carry a message from God to other people. There may be no outward response to the contribution from other people, but if there is it will be something that builds positively on the previous contribution. Discussion and argument are not part of the meeting and the silence in a meeting for isn’t something that happens between moments of devotion – the silence itself is part of the devotion; it provides a space for people to separate themselves from the pressures and events of daily life and to get closer to God and each other. The people who are present try to create an internal silence – a silence inside their head. They do this by stopping everyday thoughts and anxieties and believe that if they wait silently for God in this way there will be times when God will speak directly to them. It is important that the waiting in silence and the listening are done as a group. The people taking part are trying to become something more than just a collection of individuals; they want to become aware of being part of a ‘we’, rather than just a solitary ‘I’.

This focus on Unity takes us to the next pathway:

 

Via Unitiva – The way of Unity. Advocated by St. John of the Cross and by Augustine, this is the third and final stage of the spiritual journey in classical orthodox theology in a religious context. This involves direct contemplation of God, (seen as Spirit-Entity-with-attributes-existing-out-there-and-in-me). The focus is usually on the unifying attribute of Love with imagery involving spiritual betrothal and marriage being common, such as in the Old Testament book, the Song of Songs. It is an attitude of ceaseless prayer: the prayer of the heart. Ideas and attachment to spiritual rewards are gradually and further withdrawn than that practiced in the earlier illumination stage, until the Pure Love of God as God, regardless of self-(ego)interest remains. The emphasis is on disinterested, wordless, contemplative love of God and this results in deep spiritual communion with the Divine which is seen as God-with-attributes-existing-out-there. Thus at this level, God and Pilgrim remain separate but in close communion or mutual presence. The only goal is to present oneself in love and submission before the only Object worthy of love, regardless of how that Object deals with us. Laudable characteristics that fall within human comprehension are ascribed positively to the Divine, but there may be clear recognition that these characteristics are imperfect indications of Essence, since Essence transcends all comprehension.

From a Christian point of view, what then about the presentation of Divine attributes in Scripture? At this stage and later, the purpose of the pathway may be seen as to deny or negate the opposite qualities to the noble ones being portrayed. For example, in affirming God is Love, the Pilgrim may be denying that God is Hate or Anger. The purpose is not to affirm the noble attribute as a fact. Conception of Essence is further purified by more negation in the next stage below.
The way of unity includes discursive meditation involving thinking about Scripture or the mysteries of the faith with a view to deeper understanding and the encouragement of a loving response. The Pilgrim may reflect on the significance of doctrines that they learned in the earlier stages and so on. Quite formal methods for meditation have been devised for this approach, such as those by Ignatius Loyola for example. Contemplation used at this stage also involves non-discursive mental prayer – a passive focusing on the Love of God for example: passively allowing and pondering a loving awareness to and of God. It is a prayer of silence, which can be learned and can lead to higher forms and to mystical states.

Hesychasm, advocated by Gregory Palamas, is a form of contemplative spiritual practice. It means to be quiet, be at rest; remain silent. It is the Way of stillness and repose. The approach involves drawing one’s consciousness into the heart and being aware of God there, together with the practice of pure prayer: the spontaneous intercourse of human spirit with God. The use of recitation following the rhythm of the breath may be used, for example reciting ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner’ over and over again. The Hesychast usually sits for prayer with the head pitched forward with chin on chest and gaze lowered – gazing at the navel.

In anticipation and movement to the next stage, one later version uses:
- no mental images
- no concepts
- no rational considerations
- no imaginings

We can see some similarities with some Quaker practices in these approaches. But again, this approach is not limited to the Christian tradition and is present in a number of traditional religious forms.

The final pathway, for the most advanced and experienced spiritual traveller is:

Via Negativa, Via Negationis – The Way of Negation. This is the fourth and final stage of the journey and it stands outside classical orthodox theology. It has been embraced by Gnostics and Mystics across religious traditions, such as Shankara, Meister Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa and Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite. It is characteristic of mystical theology in Neoplatonism, Eastern Christian Orthodoxy and Hindu Advaita Vedanta. This practice involves the denial of any conceptual forms as being applicable to Absolute or Essence: Essence is beyond conceptualisation. It involves recognition that Essence is not an Object and it sees that attributes of the Divine are an adjunct, an addition falsely overlaid on Essence: a guise. This means that Essence can only be spoken of analogically or poetically. It develops an apophatic theology where Essence is stressed by negative concepts: ‘not this, not that’.

To a great degree then, this approach incorporates Via Analogia: the Way of analogy. However, it is difficult to make this approach logically plausible in the face of philosophical and theological critique when it is used as a beginning stage approach. There are also all kinds of problems in presenting interpretations of Scripture using analogy. When we come across a Scripture verse that says ‘Jesus entered a house’, for those at the lower stages, this is what the verse literally means. But at this stage, it may be interpreted on the lines of Jesus entering the Soul and being One with it, such that our Ground of being is Divine: our True Self and Essence are the same. Orthodox thinkers, still at the previous stages, will not take to this kind of interpretation. It would appear that this is best reserved for this later stage where foundations of theology have been learned. The Way of negation requires courage and is an arid path for the beginner and as such usually unsuitable for them. Morality is rendered useless by Transcendence: ‘good’ and ‘bad’ being absorbed in Essence. The direction of movement is to ‘being’, in fact, to ‘Beyond-being’, into transcendence of time to the ‘Eternal Now’. Self (as opposed to ego-self) and Essence are seen as One – Atman is Brahman – Soul is Godhead, Godhead is Soul – all is Undifferentiated One.

When one is at this level, worship and adoration fall away – there is no form of devotion, no ‘you’ and ‘me’, no ‘self’ and no ‘God’.

The degree of transcendence that we are at determines the type and level of the individual’s relationship to the Divine and therefore the type of spiritual devotion and type of gathering that they engage in. The choice is not always easy for those who have been privileged to gain deep insights into Spirit. In many ways, they are more alone with the Alone, either at the cutting edge of devising fresh and more resonant spiritual conceptual constructs and systems, or they transcend the need for such systems and concepts altogether, rendering their perceptions distant or incommunicable.

6.31 RELATIVE SUBJECTIVITY

Descriptors, designations, names, attributes, qualities are only relatively true with regard to Absolute. There is no one form that is able to define Ineffable, Diffuse, Formless Essence, yet all forms have a relative truth because we stand in relation to delimited, contracted Essence. What we have here then is relative subjectivity: where we make the statement ‘This is true for….’ For example, ‘This is true for me’, or ‘This is true for me at this time’, or ‘This was true for him as he saw it’. (Incidentally, even relative subjectivity is subjectively relative). The result of this is that there are an infinite number of paths to Essence, because all approaches and forms of Infinite Divine Absolute are delimited and relatively true. The illusionary delimiting forms of Absolute Divine Spirit, the metaphors and allegories held by an individual as pointers to the Unknowable Essence, make up that individual’s Personal Lord. The individual’s Personal Lord, then, is made up of that individual’s own constructed delimited metaphorical and allegorical forms of the Formless and Unknowable. As we have seen, there are as many Personal Lords as there are people and when a person worships their Personal Lord, they are worshipping their own forms of belief. But the intention of such forms is Essence-as-Essence, and such forms enable us to relate to the Formless: it is difficult for us in most circumstances to worship Silent Attributeless Emptiness. The emphasis then of ‘Personal Lord’ is on the construct of congruent, personally meaningful (metaphorical) forms of the Divine, which resonate with the individual concerned. Gnosticism is a tradition that encouraged such diversity of form and which encouraged creative and novel use of metaphor and analogy.

6.32 RELATIVE PERSPECTIVISM

In addition to form being relative to the Absolute, that is, relative subjectivity, most spiritual traditions agree that there are levels of spiritual growth and development – there are, as we have already seen, differing depths. What this means for this discussion is that perspectives change as one moves into different, deeper modes of Enlightenment or Realization – different views or perspectives are obtained by going deeper into the territory. In other words, the views of the Divine and therefore the personally constructed forms of the Divine used by the spiritually ignorant are different from those forms used by those who attain spiritual awakening. This seems unfashionably elitist in these days of ‘equality’, but as far as I can tell, all spiritual traditions use this idea. What we have then is relative perspectivism. If relative subjectivity is ‘True for…’, then relative perspectivism is ‘True from….’, for example, ‘This is true from where I am standing’ or ‘It may be true from where you are over there, but not from where I am standing’.

Here is an illustration. Three people are out walking to the summit of a hill and become separated. But they have mobile phones and manage to communicate with each other. The first walker says, ‘I am facing the sun and there is a beautiful lake on my right’. The second walker says ‘I am facing the sun too, but you are wrong, the lake is on the left’. The third walker, further down the path says ‘What lake?’. Who is right? Well of course they all are from their own perspective, but none of them has the full picture – so they are right and not right.

This is how it is for mystics: their definition of who they are changes such that they no longer identify themselves as a physical body, or a mind housed in a body, or a soul, and so on. These self-identifications are at different depths and with these changes of self-identification there arise different perspectives. In one experience a person may see themselves ‘caught up’ as a spirit into the presence of the Divine – they remain distinct and separate and such person describes the Divine as being outside – an ‘object’. The material world is perceived differently in this perspective than from the usual one. Others may have a similar experience but also be ‘filled with the Spirit of God’, giving not only a sense of empowerment, but also closeness and intimacy with the Divine, which remains nevertheless separate from the ‘I’. Once again, this perspective is different from the other two. A person may be filled and ‘caught up’ with the Divine and be deeply aware of some projected or manifested attribute of the contracted Divine, such as Love, Acceptance, Mercy, Compassion and so on. This delimited facet of the Absolute may seem to fill the person, or creation and thus, the perspective is different again. Yet others may be united with the Divine, they become the Divine and see things from that perspective – they may become Love and Compassion, or deeper still, they be become Empty, Timeless, Spaceless, Silent and Formless. In this perspective, they may say things like ‘I am the universe’ or ‘no one is born, no one dies’ or ‘the universe does not exist’. The degree of depth of experience affects a person’s perspective, such that what is Real and what is ‘not real’ changes, until all that is Real is the Boundless Absolute Alone.

6.33 RELATIVE CAPACITY

In addition to the above two headings, we can add relative capacity. I have already touched on the idea that there are levels or stages of development within spirituality, and since spirituality underpins world-views, these levels also affect our understanding of the universe and the phenomena within it. By way of simple illustration, the atheist may have a materialistic world world-view whereby the universe is understood in purely material terms such that all phenomena within it and issues pertaining to its origin and ultimate fate are reduced to material/physical explanations. A spiritual adept on the other hand – that is one who has spent their life contemplating the Divine and/or who has had mystical experiences – may have a wider frame of reference to include spiritual explanations and perspectives. In other words, they do not reduce their understanding solely to a materialistic explanation. Relative capacity then makes use of the idea that we have limits: that we are in some ways containers that can only be filled to our capacity and that the capacity of each individual differs from one to another. Relative capacity says ‘This is True within…..’ Something is true within the scope, bounds, domain, border or limit of a person’s subjective, conceptual framework. Thus, within a materialistic framework, it may be true that the earth was formed millions of years ago from a cloud of dust and debris orbiting the sun and condensing under the influence of the laws of mass and gravity and so on. From a spiritual perspective other or additional explanations may be given concerning the origin of the Earth as a contracted expression of the One Formless Divine. This second framework is wider in scope…it takes in a bigger picture. Neither does it demand that the first materialistic explanation is false or untrue. It is more likely to declare that it is true ‘as far as it goes’. Within its own scope and frame of reference – the material – it offers a coherent, structured set of ideas and knowledge. But we cannot use its material, physical or empirical methods…which are quite appropriate in its own domain…to verify or explain much about the nature of the Absolute and the concept of contraction to expression.

The position that I am proposing is that Essence or Absolute exists but cannot be encompassed by the mind. The bounds and limits of language and concept cannot encompass Essence and are not adequate enough to circumscribe Absolute. Absolute essence remains Unknowable, Ineffable. However, this inability to define and describe Essence, or the inability of the empirical perspective to verify Essence does not mean that Essence does not exist. Just as the more expansive spiritual perspective does not negate or render as useless the material, empirical perspective, so in the same way the limited scope of the empirical perspective does not mean that Essence does not exist. As an example, let’s take the current issue of ‘dark matter’. Present scientific theories of mass and gravity do not explain how the universe holds together in the way that it does. If we apply present scientific understanding concerning mass, density and gravity, then the universe should be flying apart in a way that it is not. Scientific theories and models suggest that there must be something else that is holding the universe together in the way that we observe it. But scientists cannot at the moment detect what that something is. So, as a useful metaphor, scientists have proposed the idea of ‘dark matter’: there must be something there, but we can’t at the moment detect what it is. But this lack of knowledge, this lack of definition does not mean that this ‘something’ does not exist: just that we do not know what it is – it is uncertain. The capacity of our present scientific knowledge; the capacity of our present scientific conceptual systems are not adequate to encompass fully just how the universe hangs together. This means that our present scientific conceptual systems are O.K. within their limits, within their capacity, within their frames of reference. These conceptual systems have gone a long way to explaining the universe and helping us to advance in areas such as health.

What happens when the problem is solved? Concepts and conceptual systems are not static and rigid but rather they are fluid such that processes of accommodation and assimilation usually apply: in assimilation, as new information is received, it is assimilated or incorporated into the various categories, concepts, beliefs, schemes and scripts that we have already learned and constructed. But sometimes, new information does not fit into these very well, e.g. the world did not end as our prophet predicted, so the existing conceptual network may have to be modified to accommodate the new information. However, different concepts offer different resistances to change. Some concepts are peripheral and their alteration has hardly any effect on the conceptual and belief network that we have constructed and thus they do not pose a threat to our identity, purpose, cohesiveness, connectedness and anxiety reduction. Peripheral concepts and beliefs have not involved much in the way of investment or commitment. For example, the average person may not believe that there is water on the Moon. Assimilation of the discovery that there is water on the moon is probably quite easy: it has little real effect on day-to-day living. But other concepts and beliefs are more central and core: they are well established and deeply interconnected with our orientation, identity, purpose, integrity, sense of belonging and ability to keep anxiety at bay. To change these beliefs may entail great personal and psychological cost.

The explanation of ‘dark matter’ may be easily assimilated into current scientific conceptual frameworks, or, it may involve overthrowing the old paradigm because the new discoveries to some degree undermine and override our current concepts.

Now these sorts of ideas, as we have seen, are present within spiritual thought and I am going to draw on two illustrations from Christianity by way of example. In these examples, we are dealing with a form of reductionism – in this first case, exclusivity. Just as the empiricist may claim that everything can be reduced to the physical, objective, material, observable such that anything outside of that is invalid or does not exist, in the same way, for various reasons, there is a strong tradition of exclusivity within Christianity, which says in effect, we Christians have the Truth and we alone: anything outside Christianity is invalid, of no consequence or wrong.

Thus it is thought by some Christians that those people who are ignorant of Jesus Christ: those who have not heard the gospel, are doomed to a lost eternity of suffering in hell forever. This idea is further compounded by the words of Jesus, for example when he says: ‘No one comes to the Father but by me’ (John 14:6), a view echoed by other scripture writers: ‘Salvation is found in no one else – no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.’ (Acts 4:12). This acute narrowness and exclusion can be a real problem.

CASE 1:

THE SHEEP AND THE PENS OR SHEEPFOLDS

If followers of Jesus Christ are sometimes described as sheep, then Christ is described as both the Good Shepherd and the Gate of the sheep pen or sheepfold. (John 10). Interestingly, Jesus says that he ’has other sheep that are not of this sheep pen or fold. I must bring them also’ (John 10:16).

A sheep pen or sheepfold is an enclosure for the flock to rest together. They are couching places for flocks. We can notice that:

They enclose or confine the sheep

They keep the sheep together, stopping them from straying, becoming lost, getting into danger or becoming prey for predators.

They help protect the sheep from predators by keeping them together where they can be overseen.

Those that are of this sheep pen are usually interpreted as being the Jews whilst those not of this sheep pen are usually considered to be Gentiles, or non-Jews. It is usually considered that these non-Jews or Gentiles are those that respond to the gospel message and turn in repentance to Christ.

The Jews are portrayed in Scripture as both:

a) A Nation and

b) God’s people

Thus the pen or sheepfold may refer to a particular nation, (Israel, Jews) in which case there are other sheep pens or sheepfolds, (other nations and cultures) and Jesus will call people out of these other nations. For the Jews this was quite radical, since up until this time, they considered that God had dealt exclusively with Israel, for it is the Jews who received the commandments and promises and out of whom the prophets and Messiah arose. The sheep are believers (God’s people), initially the Jews, but also those who are not at present believers and not necessarily of the Jewish nation: those disparate peoples, the Gentiles, who follow different gods and systems of religion, out of whom the elect are yet to be effectually called by the Holy Spirit in grace.

We can note that both nationhood and religion of whatever kind have a tendency to enclose and confine people by their borders, ideology, beliefs, e.t.c (I am English, not Spanish, I am Christian not Hindu). They also tend to keep people together. (English people will tend to group together because of common bonds, just as Spanish people will tend to group together. Similarly, Christians will tend to group together, just as Hindus will group together.) Such gathering together helps, among other things to protect individuals: there is strength in numbers.

However, it is also important to note that Christ is the gate of this sheepfold, or pen and therefore, the emphasis is placed on the distinction between believers and non-believers. Believers, disciples, followers of Jesus come into the sheepfold by Jesus himself. Those who do not believe are outside this pen, either in the wilderness, or belonging to some other pen or enclosure of religious belief. Just as there was a distinction between Jew and Gentile, now there is a distinction between those who are God’s people and those who are not. The application then of this picture of the sheep and sheepfold is not so much one of nationhood, but of disciples/followers of Christ in contrast to the rest: people of different religious persuasions. (And here I include Atheism since it is a position in relation to God). The sheepfold is a picture of the Church in the gospel age: believers/followers/disciples of Christ in an ungodly and wayward world, a world of violence, threats and danger.

In this picture given by Jesus, the sheep are protected from wolves and thieves, who do not enter by the gate, but by some other way. They are enclosed and confined by God’s Word and Christ; they are together for mutual fellowship and support and watched over by the watchman – a picture perhaps of the Elders and pastors.

But sometimes, outsiders and predators do get in and cause problems for the flock. In Scripture, wolves are presented as:

Scattering the sheep John 10.12

Coming at night Jeremiah 5.6, Habakkuk 1.8

Being fierce and violent Habakkuk 1.8

Grievous and not sparing the flock Acts 20.29

They are identified as false prophets/teachers Matt 7.15

They destroy souls for dishonest gain Ezekiel 22.27

Similarly, thieves and robbers come to steal, kill and destroy.

Thus, those outside the sheepfold, those who are not disciples and followers of Christ, do not always co-exist peaceably with the sheep and the Shepherd. Sometimes, they seek to disrupt, scatter, destroy and steal from it.

Now I do not support the idea of Christian exclusivity and indeed further Biblical discussion can be made on this subject to move the position to a more open one but to present it here would be to be sidetracked from our discussion which is concerned with the concept of relative capacity. So I am going to move on to another illustration before I look at the application.

CASE 2:

DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF BELIEF

It is recorded in Mark 2 v 18 – 22 that ‘the disciples of John and of the Pharisees were fasting. Then they came and said to Jesus, “Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days. No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”

This second case involves the illustrations of putting a patch of unprocessed material onto clothing made of processed material and of putting new wine into old wineskins. In the case of the clothing, new cloth had not yet been allowed to shrink, so that to use new cloth as a patch or repair on older clothing would result in a tear or split as it began to shrink. In the second illustration, in the first century, wineskins would have been made of goatskin or sheepskin taken from the neck area of the animal. The result of putting new wine into old skins would be a disaster: a tragic waste of wine, because the new wine would ferment and cause the old wineskins to burst and the new wine would then be lost and the wineskin rendered useless.

What are these illustrations concerned with? They are concerned with trying to squeeze a new system or set of concepts into an old set of ideas, in other words with accommodation and assimilation. Sometimes, when new ideas or concepts arise which cannot easily be accommodated by the old ideas, people do not want to change their belief system or conceptual framework. They want to try and integrate the two somehow, to synthesise them together – a process or position called syncretism – an attempt at the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion. The message here though is that there can be no syncretism between what Jesus brings and the old tradition of Judaism with its ceremonial laws involving fasting. If it were tried, both would be destroyed. Jesus brings a new era and a fresh approach to God that cannot be mixed with the old traditions. In many ways the book of Acts is the historical outworking of this point. The gospel is a new way, so the practices of Judaism cannot contain it. This is why Luke will later call Jesus a prophet like Moses (Luke 9:35; Acts 3:12-26; see Deuteronomy 18:15). Jesus, like Moses, is the leader-prophet of a freshly formed community of God, revealing the new ways the new movement requires. Therefore new wine must be poured into new wineskins. Jesus’ presence requires a new way, new forms and a new spirit. Even when fasting continues after the bridegroom is gone, it will be different. It will always be done in hope of his return.

What I have spent some time on here is the idea of belief and conceptual frameworks as containers. The sheep pens and the wineskins in particular are containers. Belief and conceptual systems serve to contain, border, bound or enclose. They restrict, tie and constrain. As we have seen, they may provide order, structure and coherence but in so doing they limit, tie, bind and contain. By definition, conceptual frameworks have limits and boundaries; they have modes, scopes, domains and limits. To move out of those limits is to place stress and strain on the system as it is moved or applied outside of its scope. Alternatively, the same happens if we try and squeeze too much within its limits, or put something in it that is inappropriate. The framework may be stretched and strained until it bursts or tears. All this points to the principle of relative capacity: ‘True within…..certain bounds, limits, scope and domain.’

There is another interesting reference to capacity being predetermined in Matthew’s gospel, Chapter 19 v 3-12:

‘Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagebecause of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

This Biblical passage indicates that even this saying and precept cannot be accepted except God gives it. Certain sayings, precepts, teachings and truths cannot be accepted or thoroughly believed unless the power to receive it is given by God.

The position is this: Ultimately, all is One – the Ineffable, Unknowable Formless Absolute Essence.  But Essence is revealed in manifest expression – simultaneously Transcendent and Immanent. Undifferentiated One Essence is the only Reality – outside of Essence there is nothing, in fact there is no ‘outside of Essence’. However Essence is manifest as many – and is expressed as all differentiated phenomena. This Unity forms the Ground and Foundation of all that is, including all knowledge. All differentiation is only real with a small ‘r’, because it is Grounded upon the One Real Essence. This means that we as individual humans are a differentiated expression of the One Unity – though our Essence is One our expression is differentiated, delimited and relative. As an existent, we exist in a particular location in time and space relative to other existents and as humans we each have an emergent locus of consciousness and thus we perceive phenomena in a relative way. So we have a relative subjectivity – a ‘true for me’. We recognise that others exist in different locations and circumstances, that they have a ‘true from there’ that may be different from our ‘true from here’. So we have relative perspectivism. As delimited or contracted expressions of the Infinite we also perceive phenomena in a limited way according to our capacity which is determined by secondary causes such as biology, physics, location e.t.c.. So we all have a relative capacity. This capacity changes with spiritual growth and insight which leads to a more all-encompassing and less differentiated view, and therefore a corresponding sense of the One Unity of which all is an expression. Those with less spiritual insight tend to have a more reductionist conceptual framework.

This means that the Pilgrim should not be tied down and limited or restricted by allowing themselves to be drawn into a dogmatic framework of spiritual belief or theology. The position advocated here is antithetical to religious fundamentalism: it does not deny the usefulness of their insights and perspectives, but it will not be drawn into their exclusiveness or particularity. Rather it seeks to perceive the One Unity in all shades of belief and conceptual frameworks, because ultimately every phenomena and expression is a manifestation of the One Undifferentiated Reality.

6.34 THE DOMINANT REALITY

The usual waking rational/active mode is the most dominant mode that we find ourselves in. By dominant I mean it is the one that we are most aware of and spend most time in. We spend less time in the intuitive/receptive mode, less time in sleep and even less time in a dream mode and very often on waking, most people do not remember their dreams or only remember them occasionally or in fragments because the waking rational/active mode largely sublates the dream content. Waking consciousness then, especially in the rational, active mode, becomes the ‘norm’ and the referent by which other modes are assessed such that other modes may be dismissed altogether as completely irrelevant: dreams mean little or nothing and are just the random idling of the mind and spiritual experience is just an illusion based upon physiological changes of brain function. Spirituality and the Divine is thought of as an illusion, or worse, a delusion. The material perspective is the dominant perspective because of the Ignorance that arises from contraction which veils the spiritual from view. We identify ourselves as a person bounded in a physical body that exists in space and time and thus think and act accordingly. For the mystic in deeper experience, the normal waking rational mode is itself like a dream and is sublated by the deeper experience of Reality.

6.35 REALITY AND DIFFERENT WORLDS

The spiritual and the material are the extreme poles of two different worlds. The spiritual world is Expansive, Diffuse, Formless, Boundless, Undifferentiated, Silent Emptiness. The other world is the material. This comes from the Sanskrit root ‘matr’ from which we get the words ‘matter’ and ‘metre’ and means to measure. The material world is the measurable world – a world on which we impose a grid of measurement, (Kelly’s Repertory Grid is a formal expression of an implicit process), a grid of separation and boundaries, via language, concept, symbol and so on. ‘Material’ is often used as synonym for ‘physical’ – from the Greek ‘physis’ (nature) and Indo-European ‘bheu’ (to become). As such, ‘material’ does not contain the idea of a basic ‘stuff’ from which the universe is made. Ignorance arises from the Absolute contracting to material form, such that human beings mistakenly identify themselves solely as material beings – separate measurable forms of ‘stuff’ bounded by space and time. These two worlds are not reconcilable – in terms of world-views and perspectives at least. The spiritual world does not present us with an ideal political solution, an ideal structure of society or this kind of thing. The Absolute Formless transcends morals, space and time – aspects and qualities that are unique to contracted material measurable form. There is a very real sense in which the spiritually minded person is in a different place to the materially minded person. The mystic can be described as walking in two worlds – the material and the spiritual: the Real (Diffuse, Expansive, Formless, Ineffable) world and the real (focussed, qualified, illusory, measurable) world. However, since the Absolute is Essence all that exists, these realms or worlds are not wholly separate, but rather, there is a seamless gradation or crossover of the Expansive Diffuse Formless Spiritual into the contracted focussed measurable material. In addition, the contents of Ineffable mystical spiritual experience may spill over and pervade the measurable material world-view (and vice-versa). Thus, those who have an experience of mysticism may find their values concerning what is important, meaningful and real, significantly and permanently altered even when they return to the usual material world-view and the active/rational mode of knowing. This is a similar experience to falling into a dreamful sleep and the contents of the dream being affected by significant events that occurred during our previous waking hours.

6.36 ‘TRUTH’ IN SPECIFIC WORLDS

 

The two extreme poles of contracted measurable material and Expansive, Formless Spiritual are true in their own world and their own right and the crossover effect: the infiltration of one world upon another, helps to give us insights and a more holistic way of functioning. Ultimately, the mystic does not walk in two worlds because all is One: the spiritual world does not negate the material and the material does not negate the spiritual. The Mystic avails himself of both worlds, (which in Reality is One) just as a therapist and their client may avail themselves of dream work and may synthesise them with waking reality. But ultimately, these worlds cannot be reduced to one or the other – the Absolute is not just all that is measurable.

Dream awareness and dream logic does not allow us to function in the material world: I cannot levitate as I please in the material world like I may in the dream world. The non-material Absolute, is contracted to material measurable form and is immediately divided, not in terms of Nature or Essence, but in terms of expression into (apparently) separate forms: thus God is partially divided against God, just as one leaf is separate from another leaf yet both are of the same tree. Formless Spirit cannot be fully reconciled with or reduced to material form. What is true of the Absolute God-as-Spirit Essence, is not true for contracted material expressions. The Absolute Transcends morals, but humans do not, for example. The very nature of these realms then necessitates only a limited crossover.

6.37 CONTRADICTIONS AND PARADOX WITHIN A WORLD

 

So far we have seen that each of the two worlds: the measurable and the Formless, the rational/active and the intuitive/receptive has its own ‘truthfulness’, its own area of application of information: the spiritual world is not centred on how to maintain a car engine for example. We have also considered contradictions within a world: all forms of the Formless are metaphors and allegories illustrating aspects and facets of the Whole, but never the Whole Itself, because no mind can encompass God. They reflect our relative perspective. I want to give an example of this now from my own mystical experiences. A number of these were experienced at a time when I was involved in Fundamentalist Christianity and some were experienced at a later stage when the Christian world-view had been transcended. For example I have already referred to my experiencing clear views of God’s sovereignty only to later find such a view dismissed.

Here is a description of such an experience in my Christian phase:

‘The first Sunday of September 1975, was unlike any other. I entered the morning prayer-meeting of our church anniversary service very much with these concerns of the dryness and legalism of our church and pastor on my mind. I had given the pastor a book to read which seemed to express my feelings perhaps better than I could, in the hope that in some way he might perceive the problem. But as he prayed, I sensed immediately a difference in his approach: for the first time it seemed, he talked about the presence of the Holy Spirit and the need for his blessing. My heart and mind soared. There was such a sense of elevation and release that when we came out of the vestry I felt as if I could barely contain it and that it was as if I was walking about six inches off the floor. We entered the service and began to sing the opening hymn: one of the traditional ones. As I sang the words I had such a perception of the power and awesomeness of God which the words were describing, together with His Mercy and Gentleness that I could scarcely physically stand under the weight of the perception of these qualities of the Divine, which were almost overwhelming me. After the hymn, we sat down and the pastor then led in prayer and this perception of the attributes of God continued with such a weight that I felt completely melted, humbled and an awe. I KNEW, in an immediate and direct way the power of God to bring an instant revival and awakening. In the mere click of fingers, the power of the Holy Spirit could be poured out to hill the hearts and minds of all around such that they would perceive and be filled with the Love of God. This experience lasted for about twenty minutes, but the after effects lasted much longer: I joyfully began increased study, prayer and diligence; old habits that I felt God disapproved of fell away for months, yet before, I could not shake them with all my efforts; bitterness and animosity that had grown towards the pastor fell away; and the sense of a need for Christians to unite in love filled my mind and heart.

Here is the same incident described in another account:

During the course of the prayer meeting, the pastor prayed as usual, but I noticed a change in his words and attitude. Suddenly this man had shaken off some of his legalistic tone and seemed to embracing the Holy Spirit. It was as if I was being transported upwards out of the room. My heart and mind lifted as I was filled with the perception that God had changed this man. I was filled with a perception of the power of God over men’s hearts and minds. It was like the floodgates of heaven were opened and a torrent of blessing was poured into my soul. I walked out of the prayer meeting as if my feet were six inches off the floor…I was filled with optimism, expectancy, energy and joy. The service that morning was as many had been before it in form: the pastor briefly opened in prayer and we then sang a hymn. Alas I cannot remember what the hymn was, but it was a typical school anthem type hymn of praise. All I can remember now is that I sang the words of that hymn as I had done many times before, but now, again, it was as if a door in my mind had opened and I perceived clearly and plainly the depth and reality of the words of praise and descriptions of the character of God. These qualities of God, His Power, His Omnipotence, His Love, His Eternity, were so immediately Real, Deep and Powerful, so Clear to my mind that I groaned under the weight of the perception of them and could barely physically stand under the glory of what they described. I could barely sing because of my strong emotions, and tears filled my eyes. It was as if God was pouring out not just a shower of blessing but also a flood of power into my soul. At the end of the hymn I all but collapsed into my chair and the minister then lead us in prayer. He was a university-educated man, a qualified teacher, and by no means ineloquent. Even so, the prayer was like many that had been uttered before it, yet this time, my perception of the meaning of the words was so great that I was groaning under the weight of them. Words like Immortal, Sovereign, Merciful, Eternal, Lord, Love, Pardon, Ransomed, Healed, Forgiven, were so Rich and Deep, and I felt their meaning keenly in my heart and mind. I was hardly conscious of anything else. I felt their application to the Church and to me. I KNEW I was saved from the just deserts of hell, and that my heavenly Father who seemed very near and loving to me, loved me without question. After the prayer, the experience subsided, the immediate experience lasting about fifteen minutes. I don’t think I have ever felt so clear headed and balanced as I did then. The immediate perception was of God’s Almighty Power: that at any time, as it pleased Him, He could pour out such a torrent of blessing and turn people’s hearts no matter how indifferent or rebellious they were to Him. A revival and awakening could occur in the time it takes to snap one’s fingers and the Holy Spirit could pour out his blessing on one or a thousand with irresistible power, and this no matter how dark or oppressive the circumstances seemed. Though powerful, this experience was in no way frightening. It was coupled with such a sublime sense of God’s Supportive and Protective Love that my heart opened and rejoiced in this experience. At no time was I afraid. I should point out also that there was no self-exaltation or pride in this experience. Rather there was an experience of lowliness, of humbleness and unworthiness. This was a gift of God to me, an unworthy and undeserving servant.

Compare this with a later experience outside of Christianity:

Etheria flew down the corridor towards the room with the Water of Life. In the shadows at the end of the corridor, just beyond the bathing room, I realised that there was a locked door. I tried my key, which fitted the lock, and before I knew it, I was in a vast, cathedral-like room. Pews were laid out on a black and white tile floor. The vaulted roof was resplendent in gold and blue. There were ornate gold carvings everywhere, and at the front of the room, covering the ceiling and made of black stone, there was a huge eagle with wings outstretched. Etheria flew around the room. In the place where one would expect the altar to be, there was a stone table. From each corner of the table there rose a column and these supported a polished stone slab and dome. Between the four pillars was a glass globe, blue in colour, in which specks of light were swirling around. I became aware of a pulsating humming sound, like the sound of an electrical generator or vast electrical power. I asked Etheria what this was and she told me that it was the Hub of the Universe. I felt impelled to touch the globe, and this overcame my apprehension about getting an electrical shock or being hurt in some way. To my surprise, my hand went through the globe into the blue energy, and in a moment, I had entered it completely. I became the energy, and expanded out being the specks of light that infused the whole Cosmos. I began to lose my centre of being and feel that I was in all places at once. I heard Etheria say ‘As God fills the Universe, so God’s energy fills the Universe as the source of all life.’.  Then, the light seemed to dissipate and I found myself standing by the globe again. Etheria began flying in front of me and said ‘Come!’. I grabbed her ankles and together we flew out of the Treasure Room, high into the sky, until the Golden City appeared as a small dot below us. Up we went, beyond the Earth, the Solar System, the galaxy, to the outer reaches of the Universe. ‘All this is God’s Treasure’ said Etheria. Twice now I had felt as if I had expanded in space, but now the notion of time came to me. Did God transcend time? Etheria brought us back to earth, not in the Treasure Room, but in a park in the middle of the Golden City. The lawns were laid out formally, and there were benches to sit on. The paths converged to a clock tower, and I found myself sitting on one of the benches in the warm sunshine.  On both of the occasions of my expansion I had remained acutely in the present moment. As I sat on the bench in front of the clock tower, I wondered if God transcended time. I became aware as I sat in the warm sunshine that Etheria had now gone. Then, almost immediately I found myself taken up to a new place that words cannot describe. I felt as if I was caught up in space, yet it was not the same as the edge of the universe where I had just been. This was a place, a location, and yet no location. I heard a man’s voice saying ‘God exists in the eternal present. God does not stand outside of time, or above time. God does not look down at time like a measure or ruler where some things are in the past and others yet to come, somehow standing above both past and present. This idea is a mistake. God rests in the eternal present, continually enjoying the Bliss of the immediate Now. God is in a position of eternal, Self-sufficient rest. There is no need for God to move or act, and there is nothing that exists which exists outside of God. Rather, God enjoys the Now for ever. However, God chose to contract, to enfold downward into manifold forms and time came into being.’

Although there are similarities in these accounts, there are also differences and contradictions. When a systematic Christian theology is compared to the systematised theological implications and statements of later mystical encounters, these differences become more obvious. Compare the two following systems for example:

1) Human beings are affected in the totality of their being by a principle of disobedience and selfishness such that they cannot earn favour with a Just and Pure God and are helpless and doomed to God’s Judgement. Pure and Holy Commands and laws given by God only serve to compound the problem because this principle of disobedience present in all of us uses such commands and laws to create yet more disobedience. But before the foundation of the universe, God chose to save some from their deserved punishment: a remnant elected to salvation. This is accomplished by the giving, work and sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ, whom God sends to be a sacrificial offering in order to atone for the transgressions and failures of this limited group of the elect. Thus Justice is satisfied because the God-man acts as substitute and takes on the punishment that the transgressions and failures of the elect demand. Mercy and Love is also satisfied because this deliverance is a free gift of God and the elect are saved. Those whom God has elected to salvation cannot resist the free favour that God bestows and all of them will be effectively delivered: not one of them being lost. Those who are delivered will persevere in their state of grace for all eternity. The rest of humanity receives the fair wages that their transgressions have earned: an eternity of judgement and loss for offending an infinitely pure God. At the end of the age, the present universe will be rolled up like a scroll and destroyed; and a new heaven and earth will be established. The dead will be resurrected to an eternal physical existence either in a state of grace or judgement.

Compare the above world-view with that below:

2) The fact that God exists is known primarily by the direct experience of God’s Immediacy, an experience that is then expressed in terms partly determined by the culture, tradition and historical location of that person. However, not every person experiences this Immediacy because when God-as-Spirit contracted in space and time to form the universe, Ignorance came into being. Thus it is that some people rest satisfied in empty things such as material wealth. Those who pursue negative or dark virtues do so as a result of this ignorance and further compound it. Nevertheless, God is in all things, including the Dark Virtues and Ignorance. God is Real, and Unique. God is Imperishable, and Indestructible. God is not an object, but Spirit. God is also described as Energy and again as Light or Clear Light Emptiness. All things are an expression of God, be they living or dead, light or dark, truth or lie. God is all things by contraction and therefore unifies all things. God is Unity. Nothing can exist without God. The Energy of God fills the universe as the source of all life. God is Sufficient in and of God’s own Being and is always the same, unchanging. God is transcendent of the human mind, concepts, language and ideas, and transcendent of time and morals, existing above all polarity in a position of Absolute, Eternal self-sufficient Rest in the Eternal Now. As God contracts to various manifestations, attributes and qualities of God can be seen. The very description of God in terms of characteristics capable of description and naming is a contraction in itself, because God is Formless Absolute Spirit.  God may be manifest in masculine or feminine form, or in mythical symbols or animals and becomes expressed in moral dimensions. Thus God is described as moral or virtuous and God’s Names are Beauty, Love, Compassion, Balance and Purity. Such Light Virtues arise out of Unity, whereas the Dark Virtues arise out of contraction and the separateness and Ignorance that result from contraction. In contracting from the Absolute, God is the Author of suffering. God is also expressed in the emotional dimension as being passionate and sensuous.

 

In the beginning there was only God-as-Spirit unmoving, formless and changeless in the Eternal Now. There was no material at all. Then, in an act of contraction itself, God-as-Spirit chose to contract further, into material form. Thus God-as-Spirit is like a vast Ocean and God’s separate contracted forms like the ocean spray. These contracted forms of God make up the whole Cosmos. The Cosmos is God and is the product of God contracting, or enfolding and subsequently unfolding or expanding in an evolutionary process. God’s Energy is the very Hub of the Universe. In this contraction, God is not fragmented, or distributed by measure. The total Essence of God-as-Spirit, without diffusion or division fills the universe in all its parts, the whole of God in every place, present at the same moment in all. The universe is preserved and remains in existence by God’s pleasure in continual contraction.

 

There is no realm of spirit beings or spiritual principalities. Neither do the spirits or souls of dead persons continue to exist in a disembodied spiritual community. Rather at death, God returns or expands to God-as-Spirit.

 

Human beings are fallible, and a pinnacle of natural processes of evolution. They are an expression of contracted God. They are agents in a moral dimension. They are compound individuals of matter (physical), emotion, sexuality, mind and spirit. They are evolving back to God-as-Spirit. Because of contraction they are ignorant of and separated from the Immediacy of God-as-Spirit. Some people rest satisfied in this ignorance, resting on and identifying solely with the comparative emptiness and trinkets of the material world. Some further their ignorance of God-Immediacy by pursuing materialism and dark virtues. Because humans are agents acting in relation to the universe, they operate in a moral dimension. But God does not issue commands or laws. Rather, people act in the intrinsic moral dimensions of light and dark virtues.  Extrinsic laws and codes are necessary for society because of those who follow the Dark Virtues, but when it comes to approaching God-Immediacy, extrinsic laws are considered inferior to the intrinsic Virtuous Path followed by Pilgrims. Since all mankind is evolving towards God-as-Spirit, humans are on a journey and therefore known as Pilgrims.

 

The Virtuous Path consists of Love, Beauty, Truth, Compassion, Wisdom, Peace, and Respect, which lead to Unity. Failure to lead a life of virtue may lead to a sense of Guilt and separateness. The dark virtues are Deceit, Pain, Betrayal, Secrecy, Ugliness, Hatred, Anger, Imbalance, Lack of Mercy, Foolishness, Contempt, War and Lies.  Pursuing these virtues leads away from Immediacy to Ignorance, sorrow, destruction, division, separateness and isolation.

 

The journey of each Pilgrim is unique and each person travels alone with God-as-Spirit ready to manifest to them as their Faithful Companion, Who prepares them to enter the Golden City.

 

At death God returns to God-as-Spirit, yet God remains contracted in the physical remains, because the whole universe is one God. At death, all things become new in that all earthly and human institutions cease. Thus there is no marriage, or law courts, or society of disembodied spirits in an afterlife. Rather, God returns to God-as-Spirit in the Transcendent Unity of Clear Light Emptiness, Resting in the Bliss of the Eternal Now. The Universe and time itself will cease when God chooses to cease contraction. At the end of time, all things will return to God-as-Spirit in Transcendence.

These are two quite different, often contradictory and mutually exclusive systems of theology, yet both form the content of the apparently Real and Clear mystical experiences of one person. They are subjective personal conceptual constructs, a reasonably coherent interrelated system of metaphors forming a Personal Lord and Divinity. In the material, measurable, categorised world we are quite used to such contradictions, even with specialised knowledge. Scientist in exploring the nature of light find that it seems to behave like a wave and also like a particle. Light cannot be reduced to one or the other, yet seems to have the qualities of both, so they have invented a new word to describe the nature of light: wavicle. This kind of thing reveals our ignorance, our lack of full understanding but we are quite used to this ambiguity. In the global warming debate, some argue that global warming is being caused by excessive amounts of industrial pollution. Others argue that it is a natural part of cyclical movements and changes on the planet over a long period of time. At this time we are ignorant as to the true cause. There is much about our material measurable conceptual world that we do not fully understand, but we form some sort of theory or schema concerning these events in order for us to make predictions and function effectively. Some issues, like the nature of light do not really affect most of us – we note the ambiguity but get on with cutting the lawn and doing the shopping. Other issues do affect us because we need to make a decision or prediction. We use our schema and if it works, it does not matter too much if it is ultimately right or not – if it works we are able to function. Thus for years it was believed that the sun revolved around the earth and this approach was useful enough to predict seasons and times in order to plant crops. I am arguing that contradiction within the material measurable world is exceptionally common and that we are used to it and in many ways function alongside it until a clearer understanding comes along. Such contradictions reveal our ignorance and misunderstanding.

Now it is exactly the same in the Spiritual Formless world. A mystic enters the cathedral in which the Hub of the Universe is situated. Around the Energy that is God-as-Spirit, there is a structure: a religious building. God-Immediacy is essentially an ineffable experience: it cannot be described, but almost immediately, our mind does create structure and form in order to attempt to describe it, communicate it and order the experience so that we can orientate ourselves. The immediate surroundings of the Hub of the Universe are the structures that we all create in this way: supporting columns of theories supporting a view of Transcendent God, religious and spiritual ideas that are polished, refined and set in stone, black and white dogmas and doctrines on which we stand, ornate rituals and ceremonies and other constructs concerning the Absolute. These structures are almost inevitable: they serve to structure, orientate us and allow us to function in the light of our spiritual experience. They are evidenced in the multiplicity of extrinsic religious faith systems world-wide. What makes these contradictions more unusual is the sense of Reality, Clarity and resultant Assurance or Certainty that accompanies the experience of God-Immediacy – even contradictory ones. It appears to be true that the Veil of Ignorance has been lifted momentarily to varying degrees in different experiences of God-Immediacy, but almost immediately we try and grasp with our mind what we have experienced. We translate our experience into language, form and concept. But the Transcendent cannot be grasped by the mind any more than a stone can understand a human being. God can only be seen when we transcend the mind and especially the active,/rational/analytical mode. To see God, we must let go of this mode of the mind: all thought and organised structure by which we understand the measurable world must be surrendered.  All our thought and logic cannot encompass God’s Immediacy. In some ways the situation is the same as the material measurable world: we do not know fully. However great our knowledge and understanding, however deep our insights, they cannot encompass God and the experience of God-Immediacy is Ineffable, such that in the area of our mind we still remain in considerable ignorance and such ignorance gives rise to contradictions. The mystic’s attainments and knowledge in spirituality can be compared to an anthill next to Mount Everest. Even though the experience is Deep and Real compared with our perception of the material world, it is still wholly inadequate when it comes to encompassing the Absolute. Our mind imposes form on the Formless, anthropomorphic qualities on the Divine, language on the Indescribable, boundaries on the Boundless. It is part of our human nature that we do this and we seem to need to do this. What we must remember is that the forms that we use are metaphorical, inadequate, culturally and historically determined in part and partial in their scope, such that each Pilgrim truly comes along their own unique path. No wonder then that there are contradictions and paradoxes!

6.38 PERSONAL LORD – PERSONAL THEOLOGY

Despite these contradictions and paradoxes, the mystic should be able to extract a reasonably coherent and systematic philosophy or theology from their experiences. The important thing to remember is that these forms of belief are limited, metaphorical, and liable to change. They do not form a complete explanation – the mind cannot encompass God – they are not literal and concrete and should not be reified as such – they are transient and not permanent or eternal, but relative to our personality and contexts of our education, geographical and temporal location. They are finite formulations created in some degree of Ignorance of the Formless Unknowable Infinite.

6.39 DIFFERENT SYSTEMS

Relative subjectivism and relative perspectivism arising at different depths of experience mean that different, contradictory, paradoxical systems of theology arise. Such systems are different from person to person and within a person over time. This means that different people have different perspectives on:

The Nature of God and the spiritual realm.

How God should be approached

The nature of Unity and interconnectedness

How Divine Truth is communicated

The nature of Guidance (if any) from the Divine

The role, (if any), of providence, fate and destiny

The nature of the post death state

The nature and usefulness (if any) of Prayer

The importance of sin, guilt or moral failure before the Divine

The need (if any) for Forgiveness.

The value and method of seeking to walk a righteous path

The role, (if any), of Ritual and Ceremony

It also means that the individual’s perspective may change on these issues over time.

 

6.40 A MYSTICAL SCHEMATIC VIEW

In all our discussion so far them, from a deep, mystical perspective, we end up with a schematic view that looks something like this:

SPIRIT     EMERGENT SUBJECTIVE      CONCRETE/MATERIAL

Absolute        Relative subject      Relative Object

Expansion       Emergent constructed worldview Contraction/Delimitation

Formless       Concepts/Ideas                         Forms/Existents

Essence         Emergence                               Expression

Isness            Subjective movement      Physical Action/Inertness

One               Active conceptual differentiation  Many Pluralism/Dualism

Unity            Active conceptual differentiation  Infinite Diversity

Beyond-Being Concept of Divine as Being      being

Totality          Active conceptual differentiation Aspects/Domains/Realms

Transcendent  Emergent subjective    Expressed material Object

Real    real/not-Real       Relatively real/real/not-Real

Transcendent  Emergent       Immanent

Incomparability Shared symbols    Similarity

Boundless       Bounded       Bounded

Silent            Subjective word     The Word/spoken

Spirit            Mind/subjective content    Material/Objective

Godhead       Personal Divinity     Atheism

Self-existent  Derived emergence from material Derived existence from

Spirit

Infinite       Creative imagination      Finite/spacial

Eternal Now    Temporally orientated   Temporal

Undifferentiated Differentiated Sentience  Insentience

Undifferentiated Differentiated Knowledge    Reflex/instinct or inertness

Spirit    Mind/Conceptual forms of Spirit   Body

Spirit refers to Essence as Essence, or the Absolute as absolute per se. Expansive Spirit contracts to concrete material form. During the course of evolution, subjective mental capacities may emerge from physiological and biological processes for some organisms. One subjective quality that emerges in humans at about the age 2 – 4 years old is the ego – the subjective, bounded self-sense. If an existent is a contracted form of Essence, then we may ask ‘Who acts?’ It is not Essence as Essence – Essence does not act. It is the relative expression of delimited or contracted Essence that acts. But the ego, choice, will and sentience form only a part in determining the action carried out. Other factors include cultural context, personal history and experience, personal values, preferences, emotions, and so on. The whole complex existent is involved. The human existent acts within these and other constraints such as space, time and physicality, Essence as Essence immanent in every part of the existent. Essence as Essence is immanent in our body, in our hand, in our hair, in our skin cells, in every molecule and atom, like a hologram: if you break a hologram, the whole image remains in each of the broken parts. The subjective experience for the individual human organism takes place in their subjective centre or ego. Essence-as-Essence ‘knows experience’ through Essence being Immanent in all contracted existents. Therefore there is no predestination and Ultimate accountability – accountability, action and responsibility is relative.

Existents are real: they have concrete material existence. They are not an illusion or mere figment of imagination. Mental and emotional qualities, such as the subjective self-sense or ego, emerge from this concrete material existence and perish with it when the body dies. Thus, though having a real material existence, existents are not finally Real – their existence is derived from Spirit as human thoughts are derived from biological processes. Only Essence is Finally Real.

Unity, Enlightenment, Self-Realization and personal Transcendence is only relatively possible whilst a person remains a relative material existent. Principial thinking – taking the ‘perspective’ of the Absolute-as-Absolute is only relatively possible. The very phrase ‘principial thinking’ is a contradiction, because it implies forms of thought and Essence is transcendent of thought. Nevertheless, there may be an experience of Unity or Boundlessness, or of Identifying to some degree with the Essence of all that is. But even in this experience, the relative, bounded self is not transcended. Principial thinking is inappropriate for functioning in the relative world. Such a view as this therefore encourages active participation in the world and the experiencing of it. Since all diverse existents will expand back to One Spirit Essence, our moral actions are encouraged in the direction of Unity, which is our True Nature and the Nature of all existents.

6.41 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

Let us return again to summarise some of the differences between psychosis and mysticism. In addition to the factors outlined previously, we can now add some further factors:

As we have seen, both mysticism and psychosis may give rise to a loss of orientation, or even a loss of definition of the self or ‘ego’. But this occurs for different reasons. In the mystic, the journey to Self-discovery, to understanding one’s True Nature, means a series of changes of identifications and attachments as to who one is. The mystic begins to see that he is not a body, nor a mind, nor a soul/spirit. Eventually, the ‘ego’ itself is surrendered – that abstract cluster of thoughts/feelings/desires that seem centred in the head or heart, that locus of focussed perception distinguishing self from other, subjective from objective, internal from external is transcended in Union with the Divine. This may be arrived at by a number of paths and disciplines such as self-inquiry, meditation, drugs and so on. For the psychotic, this may be involuntary and frightening, a cause of fear, even terror rather than joy. It is a collapse or disintegration of the ego, of the self-identity, of the structured cohesive self-system of thoughts feelings and desires that are used to define who the person is. The constructs of the self, an implicit process that Kelly’s theory formally outlines, begin to become distorted or fails to integrate properly. As we have seen this may be due to genetic issues, to stress or mental conflict, the use of drugs causing permanent biological changes and so on. It is not perceived as Unity, but self-disintegration and disintegration of one’s personally construed world.

Another difference that we have seen is the nature of reality. Many professional health carers, as far as the mystic is concerned, fall in Ignorance for the Illusion that material reality is the only reality. The mystic sees a deeper, spiritual reality that does not fall into the testable parameters of material, measurable thinking and concepts. For the mystic, this Diffuse, Boundless, Silent Emptiness of the spiritual dimension is Essence, Absolute Reality from which all existents are made manifest. Material reality is temporary, transient and has no existence of it’s own, but rather, has existence because of Essence. The material rationalist or secular health professional sees this as irrational and illogical: a delusion or illusion that is a sign of illness because for them, anything not staying in touch with measurable, material reality is a sign of illness. The mystic however cultivates entering this mode and then returns to material reality and is able to function in it in a practical manner, as well as using and applying the insights gained in the intuitive/receptive mode. The mystic often reports a sense of bliss or joy, of peace, calm and well-being, often seeing the experience as positive. The psychotic also enters, to some degree a non-rational mode. They may hear non-existent voices created by an altered physiological function in the brain. They may then act quite logically and consistently with that voice in the light of what it says. But this experience of such voices is involuntary and often unwanted, yet such periods may persist over a long period of time and prevent practical functioning in the material world. The psychotic may display signs of inner conflict, disturbance and distortions of measurable reality such as paranoia – believing that people are talking or whispering about them for example. The experiences of voices or pictures and misperceptions of material reality are often perceived by the sufferer as negative or destructive, or grotesque, such as mistaking a bundle of newspaper in the street for a dead sheep. Thus, though both mystic and psychotic encounter non-rational modes of being and become detached from material reality, the nature, duration, desirability and characteristics of these experiences are quite different.

End of Chapter six. To go to Chapter seven, click HERE!

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA Chapter Five: MYSTICISM, QUADRANTS AND LEVELS

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES

OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

CHAPTER FIVE

MYSTICISM, QUADRANTS AND LEVELS

To read Chapter One, please click HERE!

To read Chapter Two, please click HERE!

To read Chapter Three, please click HERE!

To read Chapter Four, please click HERE!

Contents

5.1 Quadrant 1: The Mystic individual’s subjective experience

5.2 The dimension of depth

5.3 The Observing Self

5.4 Understanding the process

5.5 Contemplative meditation

5.6 Deautomization

5.7 Meditation as a deautomization technique

5.8 Is mysticism regressive?

5.9 Renunciation

5.10 Habituation in the rational/active mode

5.11 Receptivity: renunciation in monastic training

5.12 The receptive mode in everyday life

5.13 What is knowledge?

5.14 The two modes as complimentary

5.15 Summary 1

5.16 Madness and mysticism: clarifying the mystery

5.17 The explanatory power of this model

5.18 The spiritual, mystical experience

5.19 The psychotic experience

5.20 The logic of the illogical

5.21 Putting the model in perspective

5.22 Quadrant 2: The mystic, brain and physiology

5.23 The bicameral mind

5.24 Schizophrenia and bicameralism

5.25 The breakdown of bicameralism

5.26 Similar ideas

5.27 Quadrant 3: The mystic in modern western society

5.28 Quadrant 4: The mystic in community

5.29 Summary 2

5.30 Summary of differences and similarities between psychosis and mysticism

So far, in chapter one I have taken a general overview of what are loosely termed mysticism, madness and mania. In chapter two I took an overview of Ken Wilber’s Integral model which I have chosen to use as a model and ‘map’ to help orientate our discussion. Since then, in chapters three and four, I have largely focussed on just one of Wilber’s Quadrants – The Upper Left Quadrant 1 – which centres on the interior individual, that is on subjective experience. So I have looked at the way we conceptualise our personal world, constructing an internal network or web of concepts, value and meaning. In chapter four, I again stayed mainly within Upper Left Quadrant 1 to explore two different modes of being, knowing and perceiving – the active/rational and receptive/intuitive modes. As we move from the dominance of the rational mode to the dominance of the receptive mode, we saw that whatever level or stage of development we were at, there was a continuum of depth which led to different mystical experiences which were increasingly boundless and immediate. We saw that in the rational mode we discriminate and differentiate in or order to act on the world around us and that there is a device or tool in psychology that can draw out the personal conceptual framework that we use – the Repertory Grid. We also saw that what we are aiming at is a synthesis of these two modes – a synthesis of faith and belief. Finally I spent a little time looking at the importance of meaning and gave some personal examples of my own work with Repertory Grids. I want to step back a little now to look at not just the Upper Left Quadrant 1 but also in a little more detail, at the other Quadrants and levels in Wilber’s model.

Initially I am going to spend further time in Upper Quadrant 1 – our subjective internal experience, and introduce the work of Arthur Deikman and Isobel Clarke. Then I will move on to the other quadrants in an overview of our subject using Wilber’s map.

5.1 QUADRANT 1: THE MYSTIC INDIVIDUAL’S SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE

As we have already seen, Wilber’s theory suggests that the individual goes through a number of developmental stages or levels in which the world is understood and valued from different and increasingly inclusive orientations. Mystical or transcendent experience does not just occur at the end or top of the developmental line, but can occur at any stage, because it is a different mode of being at any stage. Mysticism is NOT primarily a leaping up to a higher stage or level, though this may be a consequence, but rather a change of mode of being at any given level of development or evolution. I have indicated that some forms of mystical experience serve to establish, confirm and deepen existing personal forms of the Divine. Thus a Calvinist Fundamentalist Christian may see their theological worldview deepened, made more meaningful and more firmly established, such that their perspective appears Real, True and Vital, so that they become assured and certain of their faith. However, this may also happen with a Pagan, Muslim, Jew or Hindu, even though all these different beliefs are contradictory or to some degree mutually exclusive of one another. Other people who have a mystical experience may not accept the Divine as ‘God-out-there’ at all, but may see deeper wonders and unity in Nature Itself. Yet others may see the Divine as Transcendent Other, whilst still others may see their own True Self as Divine: Self and God are One. Whilst for some, the forms of their beliefs may be deepened and more firmly established, others may have their beliefs and forms of the Divine challenged, transcended and radically changed. These different responses can even happen for one individual as I can personally testify: in one experience, belief forms were consolidated and deepened in a meaningful way, in later experiences, those very forms were challenged and overthrown.

5.2 THE DIMENSION OF DEPTH

We have also seen that we might think of this dimension as a horizontal line of depth in quadrant 1, (with corresponding effects in other quadrants), where at any stage, varying degrees or depths of the intuitive/receptive mode may be entered into. I want to suggest that the deeper the experience of the intuitive/receptive mode is, then the more Formless, Undifferentiated and Boundless Absolute appears, until all is One in the Bliss of the Eternal Now. On the other hand, the more shallow, or less deep the mystical experiences, then the more forms of the Divine are differentiated. Thus God may appear as Love, or Truth. The nature of the receptive/intuitive mode is that the rational/active/differentiating mode of being is to a greater or lesser degree suspended and this means that the experience is less mediated by rationality, form and conceptuality. The experience therefore appears Immediate, Direct, Unmediated, Real and True. It appears to the mystic as though the very Ground of Being or Ultimate Essence is being encountered Directly. This is why mystics use capital letters in their descriptions: it seems as though they have reached the very end, the very Foundation, the very Ultimate Essence of being – there is nothing beyond. However, as we have seen, the experience is in a continuum between active/rational and receptive/intuitive modes. Any forms, symbols, metaphors e.t.c. that arise in mystical experience may also appear Real and Certain. Thus, before the mystic reaches the greater depth of Formlessness, forms of the Divine may appear more Certain, more True, more Real, giving rise to certainty or great assurance and conviction. This in turn may, as we have seen, lead to the process of reification: to considering that these metaphors and symbols of the Divine actually exist ‘out there’. Thus we may end up with a strongly held view of the Divine as ‘Big-Person-Out-There-Who-Is-Judge’ for example and strongly oppose any who say otherwise, claiming a Direct and Immediate apprehension of this quality of the Divine.

5.3 THE OBSERVING SELF

Arthur Deikman is an academic medical researcher who underwent meditation training and experienced mystical states for himself. Thus he is not the lifeguard who does not believe in swimming. He proposed that mystical experience is a psychological phenomenon – (so he reduces it mainly to quadrant 1 and to some degree quadrant 2) – that largely has been ignored by contemporary scientists. He notes that scientists have waged a long battle to obtain freedom from religious control. One example is Galileo, typifying the struggle of the rational, active, analytical, mode and stage to emerge from the previous mythical stage and possibly more dominant intuitive/receptive mode. Furthermore, mystical experiences are usually described within a religious or spiritual framework, so it is only natural then that things mystical should be considered as suspect and categorized as part of organized religion by scientists, who are now highly critical of the mythical stage from which society and culture have emerged. Worse still, the content and form of some types of mystical experience seem to give clear evidence of psychopathology. For these reasons, the scientist, including psychologists and psychiatrists of a scientific persuasion, may be tempted to dismiss all such reports as some type of hysteria or madness.

Furthermore, in order to study the mystical experience the scientist must stand outside of his customary mode of thought long enough to experience the different mode of being involved in these phenomena. But such participant observation is not a part of the experimental model of contemporary science. Psychologists and psychiatrists in particular have tended to model themselves after the eighteenth century physicist who believed he could be ‘objective’ in observing the world. Deikman proposes that it is time to depart from this attitude and concludes that the broad terrain of mystical phenomena contains within it lawful processes pertaining to a mode of being as mature and vitally practical as the active/rational logical one to which we are accustomed.

5.4 UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS

Classical mystical texts from widely varying cultures and times seem to prescribe the same basic psychological techniques for attaining the same basic alteration of mode of being. The scope of this study precludes listing enough examples to convey this impression as vividly as it is justified, but, as an example, the instructions of Walter Hilton, a fourteenth century Roman Catholic, are similar to those of Patanjali, a yogi from about the sixth century. This vast literature can be summarized as follows: If a person wishes to achieve a different mode of awareness that goes beyond the usual feelings and perceptions of ordinary life, a mode in which the person perceives Absolute or his own basic Essence, then it is necessary that they practice:

A form of contemplative meditation and

Renunciation.

Treating these instructions as technical psychological procedures, Deikman investigated contemplative meditation in a laboratory setting.

5.5 CONTEMPLATIVE MEDITATION

Contemplation is a non-analytic apprehension of an object or idea. It is non-analytic because discursive thought is given up together with the ordinary attempt to psychologically grasp or manipulate the object of attention. ‘Non-demanding attention’ suggests the appropriate attitude: ordinary thought is considered to be an interference: it hinders the direct, immediate contact that yields essential knowledge through perception alone. Here then, the active/rational mode is being deliberately and temporarily suspended.

In a series of experiments, a group of people who were unfamiliar with meditation were instructed to contemplate a simple blue vase according to the following instructions which Deikman adapted from the yoga of Patanjali: ‘The purpose of the sessions is to learn about concentration. Your aim is to concentrate on the blue vase. By concentration I do not mean analysing the different parts of the vase, or thinking a series of thoughts about the vase; but rather, trying to see the vase as it exists in itself, without any connections to other things. Exclude all other thoughts or feelings or sounds or body sensations. Do not let them distract you, but keep them out so that you can concentrate all your attention, all your awareness on the vase itself. Let the perception of the vase fill your entire mind.’.

In the first series of experiments each subject performed the exercise for thirty minutes, during ten sessions spread over one month. Deikman interviewed each subject immediately following each session and then analysed the transcripts of the tape-recorded interviews. The subjects’ experience of the vase changed as follows:

There was an increase in the vividness and richness of the vase image (e.g., they described it as ‘luminous’, ‘more vivid’).

The vase seemed to acquire a life of its own, to be animated.

There was a decrease in the subject’s sense of being separate from the vase, occurring especially in those subjects who continued longest in the experiment (e.g., ‘I really began to feel . . . almost as though the blue and I were merging or that the vase and I were merging. It was as though everything was sort of merging’).

A fusing of perceptual modes (e.g., ‘when the vase changes shape, I feel this in my body’ and ‘I began to feel this light going back and forth’).

This data is not easily explained by the concepts of projection, autohypnosis, sensory isolation, direct suggestion, or the influence of the demand expectations of the experimental situation. Deikman hypothesized that these changes were a consequence of ‘deautomatization’: an undoing of the usual rational, logical, analytical ways of perceiving and thinking. This was because of the special way that attention was being used. In particular, he proposed that there seemed to be a deautomatization of the psychological structures that organize, limit, select, and interpret perceptual stimuli.

5.6 DEAUTOMATIZATION

Deautomatization is a concept derived from a discussion of the automatization of motor behaviour: in well-established routine behaviour, the body and mind function automatically. We are probably familiar with the example of driving a car and suddenly being aware that we have travelled through traffic signals without knowingly being aware of whether the lights were on red or not. Deutomatization is the opposite of this and is as it were, a shake-up which can be followed by an advance or a retreat in the level of self organization. Some manipulation of the attention is necessary if deautomatization is to take place.

5.7 MEDITATION AS A DEAUTOMIZATION TECHNIQUE

The technique of contemplative meditation constitutes just such a manipulation of attention as is required to produce deautomatization. The percept receives intense attention while the use of attention for abstract categorization, conceptualisation, analysis and thought is explicitly prohibited. Rather, attention is reinvested in perception. Since automatization normally accomplishes the transfer of attention from a percept of action to abstract thought activity: categorisation, conceptualisation, analysis, structuring and ordering e.t.c., the meditation procedure exerts a force in the reverse direction: cognition is inhibited in favour of perception, since the active/rational mode is replaced by a receptive/intuitive perceptual mode. In other words, the automization mode is synonymous with the active/rational mode. Automatization is a hierarchically organized developmental process and thus one would expect deautomatization to produce a shift towards a perceptual and cognitive experience that involves a stage and mode that developmentally precedes the more analytic abstract intellectual mode typical of present-day adult thought. The shift would be to a stage that is lower in Wilber’s hierarchy, and to the increased dominance of the receptive/intuitive mode of being.

Heinz Werner described the imagery and thought of primitive cultures and of children as:

Relatively more vivid and sensuous.

Syncretic: that is having a reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion.

Physiognomic: judging human character from facial features, and animated.

Less differentiated with respect to the distinction between self and object and between objects, characterized by a lack of differentiation and a fusion of sense modalities.

The phenomena that the subjects of Deikman’s experiments reported fulfilled Werner’s criteria completely, although the extent of the shift away from their normal awareness was varied from one subject to the next. Their perceptual and cognitive changes were consistently in the direction of what Werner would describe as a more ‘primitive’ or ‘regressive’ organization, in Wilber’s terms, a regression from rational to a pre-rational mythic level.

5.8 IS MYSTICISM REGRESSIVE?

I have placed the terms ‘primitive’ and ‘regressive’ in quotation marks for a particular reason. It is more accurate to say that the undoing of automatic perceptual and cognitive structures allows a gain in sensory intensity and richness at the expense of abstract conceptualisation, categorization and differentiation. One might call the direction regressive in a developmental sense, but the actual experience is probably not within the psychological scope of any child. Rather, it is a deautomatization occurring in an adult mind and as such, the experience gains its richness from adult memories and functions that are now subject to a different, intuitive/receptive mode of being. Deikman’s thesis is that scientific research has neglected the study of mystical experiences not only because of their association with organized religion, but because scientists have applied such terms as ‘regressive’, ‘immature’, and ‘childish’ to an area of function that may be of value.

5.9 RENUNCIATION

Poverty, chastity, isolation and silence are traditional techniques that are used in pursuing the mystical path. As dramatic as such techniques may be, they tend to obscure the fact that the renunciation that is sought is much more basic than merely modifying external behaviour. For example, mystic Walter Hilton prescribes a renunciation of thought: ‘Therefore if you desire to discover your soul, withdraw your thoughts from outward and material things, forgetting if possible your own body and its five senses. . . .’ Similarly, St. John of the Cross calls for the banishment of memory: ‘Of all these forms and manners of knowledge, the soul must strip and void itself and it must strive to lose the imaginary apprehension of them, so that there may be left in it no kind of impression of knowledge, nor trace of aught so-ever, but rather the soul must remain barren and bare, as if these forms had never passed through it and in total oblivion and suspension. And this cannot happen unless the memory be annihilated as to all its forms, if it is to be united with God’. A seemingly simple, but perhaps equally subtle and difficult statement, made by a contemporary Zen master is that renunciation ‘is not giving up things of this world, it is accepting that they go away’.

Deikman became a participant observer by undergoing meditation training under the auspices of the Zen Centre of San Francisco. The meditation experience, coupled with visits to a Zen monastery, interviews with the Zen master and reading of Buddhist literature, led him to view renunciation as relating to a change in attitude. It is a shift from doing to allowing, from grasping the world to allowing the world to enter us. It is the meditative attitude carried into everyday life. Ordinarily, we tend to categorize renunciation as virtuous, attributing various moral or holy qualities to it. But Deikman’s hypothesis is that the basic attitude or purpose of a person has a determining effect on their mode of being. From this point of view, renunciation is a practical, not a moral issue: your mode of being fits your intention and renunciation changes intention.

5.10 HABITUATION IN THE RATIONAL/ACTIVE MODE

The pervasiveness of the rational/active mode is evident when we consider how our language reinforces it. We tend ordinarily to use language to analyse, discriminate, divide, differentiate and conceptualise the world into pieces or objects which we can then grasp both psychologically and physically in order to act upon them. The richness and subtlety of our language for any particular area of our lives reflects the extent to which we apply the action mode to that sector. For example, most of us have only one word for snow, but if we are skiers we may have several.

In some cases, the issue is not how many differences we have learned to detect but the mode of being in which the experience takes place. ‘Love’ for example, is represented for the average person by only one word, yet each of us probably has experienced many different varieties of that condition. We have not developed a rich vocabulary for love because it is experienced in the receptive/intuitive mode: indeed, it requires the receptive/intuitive mode for its occurrence. Similarly, colour experience (rather than the use of colour as a sign) requires the intuitive/receptive mode and colours have only a relatively few names compared to the vast variety of hues to which we are sensitive. This is true even for the artist to works with, manipulates and makes colour objects and therefore has an expanded colour vocabulary compared to most people.

Some extreme examples can illustrate these contrasting yet complementary modes. Imagine a taxicab driver in heavy traffic, struggling to get a passenger to the airport in time so that he may earn a large tip. S/he is intentionally engaged in manoeuvring among the objects of his world and is focused on a future goal, trying as best he can to control what happens. S/he is not occupied with the colour of the automobiles, the blueness of the sky, or the aesthetic qualities of the streets and buildings, but sees only openings or blockades of traffic and notes only the colours of the traffic signals. The driver sees the shapes and understands the meanings of the various objects flashing into their narrowed field of attention while at the same time part of their attention recalls alternate routes and they scan their memory to remember the typical traffic flows. Their base-line muscle tension is high and their EEG would probably show a desynchronized, fast voltage pattern.

In contrast, consider a monk or nun who is sitting in contemplative meditation in a garden. At that moment, they are oriented toward taking in the environment, a function that is performed via the receptive/intuitive mode. If they are deeply into that mode, their mode of being may feature a marked decrease in the distinction between themselves and their environment to the extent that they merge with it or have a nonverbal (ineffable) perception of unity, or both. Sensory experience dominates their awareness; their muscles tend towards relaxation and their EEG is likely to show alpha and theta waves. In contrast to the taxi driver, they are not concerned with the future but instead are letting whatever happens happen, while language and thinking are relinquished almost entirely.

During most of our lives, what occurs is a mixture of the two modes or at least a fluctuation between them. For the majority of us, that fluctuation is heavily dominated by the active/rational mode. However, it is not the presence or absence of physical activity per se that determines the mode. Rather, it is the underlying purpose or attitude that seems to be crucial. For example, a monk working in a garden or lovers in embrace ideally would be given up to the receptive mode. However, if the monk or nun are worried about how soon they will gain enlightenment or experience mystical union, or if the lovers are preoccupied about how well they are performing, quite a different kind of experience will result. Thus, we are not talking about activity versus passivity as usually conceived, or about the secondary and primary processes of psychoanalytic theory. There is some similarity between aspects of the receptive mode and the cognitive style associated with primary process, however, this bimodal model addresses itself to a functional orientation – that of ‘taking in’ versus ‘acting on’ the environment. The receptive mode is not a ‘regressive’ ignoring of the world or a retreat from it, although it can be employed for that purpose, but rather it is a different way of engaging the world in pursuit of a different goal.

5.11 RECEPTIVITY: RENUNCIATION IN MONASTIC TRAINING

With this discussion in mind, we can understand renunciation as a strategy to establish the receptive mode as the dominant orientation and to intensify its effects. In most spiritual disciplines a psychosocial system has been developed for use in a monastery or ashram, e.t.c., where technical exercises, communal living and ideology are integrated to bring about this change. It is instructive to look closely at one example of such a system: we can consider life in a Zen monastery of the Soto Zen sect. The basic principles of its operation are similar to those of other spiritual disciplines. The Zen monastery teaches its students (monks or nuns) a state of acceptance and ‘non discrimination’. This is accomplished by meditation, communal living, an ascetic way of life, in the context of a supporting philosophy, in this case, Buddhism. There are different forms of meditation prescribed but the purest form is called shikan-taza, or ‘just sitting’. A person performing shikan-taza is not supposed to do anything except to be sitting, therefore trying to meditate better than the day before or trying to achieve enlightenment represent incorrect attitudes. The basic instruction is acceptance, rather than doing. Even intrusive thoughts or fantasies while meditating are not struggled against, but are treated as distractions that one must be patient with until they go away. The monk is told that if he is truly sitting, he is enlightened – to just sit, to just be, is enlightenment, itself.

The average person finds it very difficult to just sit and not do anything. When they try it, they begin to realize how rigorously they have been trained to be busy, to solve problems, to make objects, to look ahead, to strive toward a goal. The sitting meditation may be regarded as an experiment in which the student explores what it is like when he does not respond to the usual commands of pain, anxiety, boredom or desires. One effect of this meditation is to give the student the actual experience of having their ordinary sense of linear time change to something that might be described as timeless. For brief intervals, time can be felt to disappear and anxiety with it. Likewise, the feeling of a personal self or ‘ego’ (the core locus of the rational/active mode) tends to become less vivid and in some instances, may disappear.

The philosophical instruction that is given in lectures or, indirectly, through the chanting of religious texts, presents a theory that the world is one of constant change, composed of a basic nothing that takes an endless variety of forms but whose essence cannot be analysed. In particular, the usual concept of death is taught to be an illusion. In this way, the most powerful force that orients us towards the future – the fear of death – is diminished.

The social systems of the monastery also undercut the action mode by minimizing material rewards. No one accrues profits and one day is very similar to the next. The food stays the same, there are few status rewards and thus, there tends to be nothing very concrete to ‘look forward to’.

In these ways, the monastic system strikes at the attempt by the active/rational mode of being to grasp, to cling to, to strive for, to reach ahead and possess. The psychological importance of this is readily apparent. If we examine the content of our thinking, we can see that most of our energies are devoted to prolonging or bringing back a particular pleasure that we have had, often at the expense of enjoying the pleasure available at the moment. Operating in the rational/active mode with an orientation towards the future, we tend to lose what is available to us in the present. For example, a person taking a pleasant walk on a beautiful spring day may be unhappy because they are thinking about the end of their holiday. In contrast, a monk or a yogi is taught to accept, to allow, rather than to be concerned with seeking pleasure or avoiding pain. To the extent that they succeed in this reorientation, they establish the groundwork for a mode of being that the mystical literature describes as timeless, non-dualistic, nonverbal and completely satisfying. In brief, Deikman proposed that the key to this is the mode of being that he called ‘the receptive mode’, a mode that is natural to us, but which is seldom employed to its full potential.

5.12 THE RECEPTIVE MODE IN EVERYDAY LIFE

One lesson derived from Deikman’s research is that the receptive/intuitive mode is not the exclusive property of monks or mystics. Almost all of us make use of it (without being aware of it) to perform functions that we do not usually regard as esoteric or spiritual. To take a very mundane example: trying to remember a forgotten name by a direct, conscious effort may yield nothing. In such a situation we typically remark, ‘It will come to me in a minute’, and it usually does. We stop struggling to remember and allow ourselves to be receptive and only then does the name pop into awareness. Our shift in attitude – a change in strategy – permits a latent function to be exercised: switching to the receptive mode permits the operation of capacities that are non functional in the action mode.

The same principle is illustrated further when we consider a more important use of the receptive/intuitive mode: to solve more difficult problems by means of creative intuition. Typically, there is an initial stage of struggling with the problem but a sense of impasse develops and the struggle is given up. Sometime later, while completely occupied with a less important activity, or perhaps waking from sleep, the answer suddenly appears. Often, it is in a dreamlike symbolic or spatial form and needs to be worked over to make it coherent and applicable. In terms of Deikman’s bimodal model, the process begins with the use of the active/rational mode during the preliminary or preparatory stage. When progress is blocked, a shift takes place to the receptive/intuitive mode. In that mode, our capacity for creative synthesis is able to function and the intuitive leap to a new configuration takes place. Then, we shift back to the active/rational mode in order to integrate the new formulation with our previous knowledge and to communicate it to others.

For most people, the intuitive/receptive mode probably has its most important function in intimate relations. The capacity for a deep and satisfying experience with another is related to a person’s ability to relinquish control, to allow the partner to move through physical and psychological boundaries and to stay focused in the present. Furthermore, intimacy in persons who are thus able to ‘let go’ is associated with heightened sensation, diffuse attention, a decrease in the boundaries of the self (as in meditation) and in some cases, profound experiences occur that may be properly termed mystical. In contrast, persons who are unable to give up their customary rational/active mode of striving and control, will continue to suffer a constriction of their experience: for them the pleasurable sensations, the release of tension and feelings of closeness tend to be minimal or absent.

5.13 WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

Mystics claim to have a direct, intuitive perception of Reality – the Ultimate Reality and that claim is a reasonable possibility. As we have seen, studies in perception and developmental psychology indicate that typically we exercise a significant selection process over the array of stimuli with which we are presented. For efficiency’s sake, we have to pay attention to some things and not to others and we automatize that selection process to such an extent that it becomes difficult to recover our perceptual and cognitive options. For that reason, mystical disciplines make use of a variety of means to bring about a deautomatization so that a new, fresh perception can occur. Deikman hypothesized that when this deautomatization is combined with an increased capacity for receptive/intuitive mode function (as a result of ‘spiritual’ training), the event traditionally referred to as ‘awakening to the awareness of one’s True Nature’ takes place.

As in the case of creative intuition, descriptions of such ‘enlightenment’ experiences indicate that they are sudden, involuntary and present the ‘answer’ in a flash. They tend to follow a long period of struggle and are often triggered by something of an irrelevant nature – the same pattern noticed for creative intuition. Furthermore, accounts of enlightenment often stress that additional work was needed before the new knowledge was fully ‘realized’. We can say that it had to be integrated through use of the rational/active mode. Thus, Deikman proposed, mystical ‘enlightenment’ or ‘awakening’ may be the result of a radical use of the basic creative process with which we are already familiar.

5.14 THE TWO MODES AS MUTUALLY COMPLEMENTARY

Although our conscious experience may seem to be a mixture of these different modes, in a certain basic sense, the modes appear to be complementary. The term ‘complementarity’ was introduced by Niels Bohr to account for the fact that two different conditions of observation could lead to conclusions that were conceptually incompatible. For example, in one set of experiments light behaved as if it were composed of particles, while in another set of experiments light behaved as if it were a continuous wave. Bohr suggested that there was no intrinsic incompatibility between the two results because they were functions of different conditions of observation and no experiment could be devised that would demonstrate both aspects under a single condition. ‘Enlightenment’ has been likened to an open hand. When you try to grasp it, you transform your open hand into a fist. The very attempt to possess it (the rational/active mode) banishes the state because it is a function of the receptive/intuitive mode.

5.15 SUMMARY

Our ordinary and habitual mode of being is called the rational/action mode, which is organized to manipulate the environment and features an acute awareness of past and future time. Its basic reference point is the experience of a separate, personal self. In contrast, we have the capacity for a different organization, the intuitive/receptive mode, which is oriented towards the present, in which the personal self as a preoccupying orientation fades away and the world tends to be experienced as more unified and satisfying. As the rational/active mode is used for problem solving and manipulating the environment, the intuitive/receptive mode is used for receiving, for providing nutrition and satisfaction.

Which mode is better? Deikman proposes that if we think in such terms, we are missing the point. His claim is that we gain nothing by restricting our functions to one mode or the other. Rather, we need the capacity to function in both modes, as may suit the occasion.

What stands in the way? Deikman points out that the first barrier is a cultural bias (Quadrant 4), that tells us that ‘mystical states’ are unreal, pathological, crazy, or regressive. Without knowing it, under the banner of the scientific method, (Quadrants 2 and 3), our thinking (Quadrants 1 & 4), has been constricted. He proposes that we have been indoctrinated to avoid looking closely at these realms, but that it is time to make the receptive mode and the experience which it engenders, a legitimate option for ourselves. If we do so, we will be able to see more clearly the psychodynamic barriers that limit this option such as defences against relinquishing conscious control, defences against the unexpected and the unknown, defences against the blurring and loss of boundaries defining the self. We will be able to discriminate those instances in which the pathological or regressive are indeed present, but we will not miss seeing and exploring those phenomena that are truly mature and life promoting.

Deikman speculates that our survival as a species may depend on being able to utilize our receptive/intuitive mode function so that we can experience the basis for humanitarian values. The rational/active mode that pervades our civilization does not support selflessness, whereas the receptive/intuitive mode that is ordinarily the specialty of mystics, does. From this point of view, mystics have been the guardians of a potentiality that has been ours and it is now time for us to reclaim it. We can integrate or synthesise this realm with our present knowledge, making it less exotic and less alien. By doing so, we can explore and regain a functional capacity that we may now need for our very preservation.

In the end, Deikman’s very valuable contribution explains mysticism largely in terms of quadrants 1and 2 with some reference to other quadrants. He does not address whether the Divine actually exists ‘out there’ or not, but talks rather in terms of different modes of perception. We will return to this discussion of objectivity in due course.

5.16 MADNESS AND MYSTICISM: CLARIFYING THE MYSTERY

 

Psychologist Isabel Clarke, in her study ‘Madness and Mysticism: clarifying the mystery’ suggests that a simple (probably far too simplistic!) way of understanding the dichotomy between the two modes of experiencing the world could proceed as follows; perhaps the everyday mode is one where the rational/active analytical mode and the intuitive/receptive implicational mode are working nicely together in balance, whereas the spiritual/psychotic state is one where the two are disjointed and the person is essentially driven by the implicational intuitive/receptive mode or subsystem. The characteristics of this subsystem and some of the characteristics of this area of experience match well. The intuitive/receptive subsystem deals in relatively undifferentiated wholes and cannot manage fine discrimination; it is overwhelmingly emotional and swings between sharp dichotomies such as euphoria and terror, or is, somewhat paradoxically, unemotional or beyond emotion. It is centrally concerned with the self and threats to the self.

5.17 THE EXPLANATORY POWER OF THIS MODEL

Whilst being aware that all this is rather speculative, she appeals to the explanatory power of the model in making sense of puzzling aspects of both psychotic symptoms and of spiritual experience. Most people operate within a personally constructed conceptual web of meaning and value, using both the rational/active and receptive/intuitive modes of being, but with the rational/active mode being dominant. For most people, either some sort of a jolt, or a carefully designed process is needed to move them into the receptive mode or to shift the balance of dominance. This could be a crisis, a ritual or religious ceremony designed to shift the dominance of the rational/active mode, a drug or meditative practice. The psychological/biological boundary, which makes this sort of experience hard to access for most of us, is, for the person with psychosis on the other hand, dangerously loose. Clarke suggests that where this mystical/psychotic/intuitive/receptive mode is entered into fully, the personal conceptual web system, in its usual precise mode of operation, is essentially left behind. She therefore refers to this state as ‘beyond the construct system’ or ‘unconstrued’.

5.18 THE SPIRITUAL, MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE

When this boundary is passed in spiritual practice, the experience of the unmediated whole is usually reported as being one of euphoria. Clarke argues that this effect is sometimes (but certainly not invariably) present in psychotic experience also. Peter Chadwick testifies to this (Chadwick 1992 and 1997), and she herself has met it in the accounts of people she has had in therapy. It is possibly underreported in the literature as it is not asked about in standard interviews and the dismissing of personally significant experiences like this as just being a phenomena of illness will tend to inhibit their communication. However, Clarke is equally clear that many psychotic breakdowns do not pass through this experience of euphoria. The characteristic psychotic experience could be understood in terms of a loss of bearings or orientation, because of having drifted out of reach of the personally constructed sucjective conceptual web system, or the propositional rational/active subsystem, which people rely on to make sense of their environment. The often-cited timelessness of the mystical experience shows that time is one of the parameters lost in this transition. In the case of a mystical experience attained through spiritual practice, (or, as often happens, occurring spontaneously, but within a spiritual context that gives it meaning for the person experiencing it), managing the transition back to construed conceptualised reality, to the rational/active mode following the experience, generally (but not invariably) occurs naturally and after a short space of time. Where the same experience is achieved by taking a drug, the return again usually (but not invariably) occurs when the drug wears off.

5.19 THE PSYCHOTIC EXPERIENCE

In psychosis (and in drug experiences that go wrong, or shade into psychosis), the orderly return does not happen. The individual is stranded beyond the reach of their subjectively conceptualised web system or prepositional rational/active subsystem, but they are still trying to operate in the world. Not surprisingly this is extraordinarily difficult for them. The familiar boundaries between people, events, time and space are not accessible as they were before. Telepathy seems normal: other people can read, or worse, interfere with, the individual’s thoughts; coincidences abound – everything is connected and everything is disconnected, everything is possible and nothing is possible. Whilst this new reality might be exhilarating for a short while, if it is sustained and/or unwanted, then the experience is terrifying. The desperate sufferer tries to make sense of the unfamiliar environment, clutching at whatever connections come to hand. In this way delusions, which usually have their origin in the early stage of the breakdown are born. In another dissolution of normal boundaries, internal concerns are experienced as external communication and the person hears voices. Normal thought is disrupted – or as the psychiatrist would say, disordered.

5.20 THE LOGIC OF THE ILLOGICAL

Thus, Clarke starts to sketch the way in which a human being who is encountering reality unmediated by their constructed subjective conceptual system, or without benefit of the prepositional rational/active subsystem, will make sense of it. In psychotic material, in accounts of spiritual experience and in religious ideas from different faiths, a parallel logic can be discerned that is strikingly different from and frequently opposite to, our usual day to day commonsense and scientific logic. Possibly this parallel logic was and is better understood and utilised in other cultures and in former times. Perhaps this is because through science, we have gained unprecedented control over the material world and at least in the affluent northern hemisphere, created greater comfort and security for ourselves than any of our forefathers. The logic of science has unlocked so many secrets that as we have seen, we have downgraded the whole area of human experience that lies beyond the reach of its logic. Clarke suggests that this other area, the intuitive/receptive mode, has its own logic, which is even more compelling, but more difficult to pin down: It is the logic of archetypes; of myths and stories – full of paradox and a sense of mystery. As we have seen, science and rationality discriminates – things are ‘either – or’, but in the receptive/intuitive mode, two contradictory things can be simultaneously valid – a world of ‘both – and’. In archetypal stories, such as traditional mythic tales, the ordinary transitions of every human life, like leaving home and ‘seeking your fortune’, falling in love and marrying and death, are invested with cosmic significance. In Christianity and indeed most religious traditions, the individual is both supremely precious and insignificant in the context of the whole; God is distant, transcendent and simultaneously the True Essence of the individual. Such paradoxes could be elaborated endlessly.

There is an interesting parallel with a characteristic strand in the psychotic experience here. The sufferer may have a conviction of their great personal importance – such as seeing themselves as Jesus Christ or related to the Queen for instance. This is a common element in delusional systems, as is a conviction of personal worthlessness, often reinforced by derogatory auditory hallucinations. The common theme here concerns the self and the position of the self in the family, in society and in the cosmos. The subjective construct of the ‘self’ or ‘ego’ is among the concepts to be lost in the transition from rational/active to receptive/intuitive modes, which can lead to an exhilarating feeling of Unity and Interconnectedness, as well as the bewilderment of loss of self. Clarke argues that the characteristic themes of psychotic material, whether in the form of voices or delusions, concern issues of self worth, acceptability, sexuality and personal significance, which are all relevant to understanding the self. The paradoxical characteristic of logic beyond the subjective conceptual web system is the simultaneous significance and insignificance of the self. In religious traditions this is a mystery to be pondered and is normally experienced as a positive, whether in the form of Buddhist negation of self, or Christian assurance of the love of God for the undeserving sinner. These ideas differ in subtlety and flexibility rather than in content from the psychotic themes. Grandiose delusions fix on the supreme importance of the self, while persecutory voices denigrate and crush. Both of these can be experienced by the same individual but they are not somehow held in balance. Clarke agrees with the many writers, including Laing and Peter Chadwick (already cited), who suggest that the well-foundedness or otherwise of the ‘self’ of the individual undergoing the experience will predict whether it is a temporary, life enhancing spiritual event, or a damaging psychotic breakdown, from which there is no easy escape.

5.21 PUTTING THE MODEL IN PERSPECTIVE

This interior, cognitive approach (Upper Left Quadrant 1) does not deny a physical aspect (Upper Right Quadrant 2) of psychosis involving some disruption of brain function. In the case of drug taking there is a simple physical cause and indeed some ascetic practices such as fasting can create a physical precondition for mystical states in the context of spiritual practice. This model offers a complementary psychological understanding of the experience of the person suffering from psychosis as one who is trying to make sense of the world, as all human beings do, but with their usual bearings and orientation removed. Emphasising the overlap with spiritual experience brings psychosis in from the cold region of the utterly alien and incomprehensible where it is traditionally relegated. Our society’s particular illiteracy in the area of spiritual experience contributes to the even greater isolation of the person with psychosis. In ‘Recovery from Schizophrenia’, Richard Warner (1985) notes that in societies where experience of the spiritual/psychotic realm is valued, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have a far better prognosis than in modern Western Society. This research bears out the significance of a sympathetic spiritual and cultural context for a good outcome of an encounter with the unconstrued, whether labelled spiritual experience or psychosis; mysticism or madness.

Clarke concludes with the suggestion that this way of looking at things has implications for the extension of knowledge across the discontinuity – i.e., into the spiritual and the supernatural, having outlined the type of logic she sees as relevant to this area: the logic of ‘both – and’, as opposed to ‘either – or’. If we adopt this perspective, any enquiry into the unconstrued needs to be pursued with this logic in mind, together with its implications of radical provisionality and paradoxicality. Certainly in my experience, I have worked out many Personal Construct or Repertory grids and I have only struggled and ultimately failed with one. This concerned a grid mapping constructs of the Divine. The grid could not be completed because preferences in bipolar constructs could not be made. The Divine was both Light and Dark for example. The Divine transcended bipolar constructs, or to put it another way, the Divine could not be construed and remained unconstrued.

5.22 MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE AND EMOTION

In addition to the cognitive aspect of subjective experience, we also need to briefly consider the emotional side, especially in relation to bipolar ‘disorder’. Individuals have an array of emotional responses which vary from person to person in their degree or intensity. Some people seem to have a fairly constant emotional base: they never seem to get excitable and they never seem to get depressed or sad. They have an emotional constancy. Others have a richer, more variable emotional life: at parties they are ‘up’ and lively, at other times, especially when events around them are negative, they seem sad. Other people are what we would describe as ‘moody’. Though events around them seem fairly neutral, for a period of time they seem ‘down’, self-absorbed, even depressed and at other times, though their circumstances have not changed, they seem lively, cheerful and optimistic. Yet others seem to have a more exaggerated version of this: they seem to be over-excitable, or irritable such that their behaviour may even be considered as over-exuberant in relation to circumstances. At other times, even in similar circumstances, they may be withdrawn, depressed, glum – even suicidal. In other words they go through more extreme fluctuations of mood. Such moods may seem to have little relation to their circumstances, or their moods may be excessive and extreme compared to other people given a particular circumstance. They may start being extravagant in their purchases – buying a luxury car they do not need, or another house, they may go and have an affair putting their existing relationship and home at risk. Or they may commit suicide. Such a person is usually considered to be bipolar, especially when these mood changes are unwanted or begin to impinge on conventional functioning.

A mystical experience often has as part of its nature, a sense of being uplifted, of transcendence, of a release from burdens or problems, of moments of brilliant insight, of being ‘filled with the Spirit of God’, of being transported to close proximity to the Divine, of having one’s sins or transgressions being forgiven and so on. Now this is bound to produce an emotional reaction, just as the subsiding of the experience may also produce an emotional reaction. It should not be surprising that a person having one of these experiences becomes euphoric, full of joy and energy and lively in spiritual matters. Conversely, the loss or diminishing of such an experience may result in darkness, sadness, lack of energy and moroseness. Or their may be deep confusion, disorientation and concern. The mystical experience is deep and powerful and deals with Ultimate and Absolute matters. It would be more surprising if there was no emotional reaction or if the emotions remained flat. It is important for us to note that these emotions arise from the perceptions that themselves arise from the change of mode that the person has entered into. They have a Deep and Ultimate cause and concern. This is not quite the same as bipolar disorder, where small changes in circumstance, stress, or where perhaps internal changes in biology and chemical balance may cause extreme emotional reactions that are disproportionate to the situation. On the other hand, a doctor or psychiatrist dealing with a person who has had a mystical experience may themselves have negative assumptions concerning spirituality, or may not share the mystical world-view, such that they see it as a delusion, an illusion, an infantile regression and so on. It is highly likely that such a health professional would look to bipolar ‘disorder’, mental ‘illness’ or even psychosis as a diagnosis.

5.23 QUADRANT 2: THE MYSTIC, BRAIN AND PHYSIOLOGY

We have seen that Wilber’s Upper Right Quadrant 2, is concerned with the objective individual: with brain states and activity, neuro-physiology and so on and with the objective measuring of these states and conditions, via techniques such as brain scanning e.t.c.. We are in this quadrant when we look for the development of drugs to cure illness. It is here that we map out the human genome and seek genetic modifications to combat illness and vulnerabilities.

We have seen that the person who has a mystical experience shifts to a mode of being and perception that is not usually dominant in Western society. This shift of mode may arise spontaneously, may be the result of internal conflict, release, listening to music, meditation practice, the use of drugs, dance and so on. In this mode, which we have called receptive/intuitive, there are changes in brain waves and activity from the more usual and dominant rational/active mode and this is what we would expect. Some scientists think that they have achieved a victory for materialistic rationalism when they portray mystical experience as ‘nothing but’ changes in brain physiology and function. ‘Nothing buttery’ is just another name for reductionism. As we indicated at the start of this study, we cannot reduce any phenomena to just one quadrant. Rather the quadrants have interrelated correspondences: if I have an experience such as a thought, an emotion, an action or response, there will be a corresponding effect in my brain; if something affects my brain, their will be a corresponding effect in experience. Therefore the fact that a mystical experience or something like it can be produced by the administering of certain drugs or by the electrical stimulus of parts of the brain does not invalidate mystical experience or reduce it to ‘nothing but’ biochemical reactions. We have already seen that our subjective experience emerges from brain and biology – so this is no problem to us at all. We obviously cannot ignore Upper Right Quadrant 2.

5.24 THE BICAMERAL MIND

Within this quadrant, bicameralism is a controversial hypothesis which argues that the human brain once assumed a state known as a bicameral mind in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be ‘speaking’. and a second part which listens and obeys. With the distinctions that we have already made, we are aware of the mixture of concrete and abstract terms: In this quadrant we are dealing with ‘objective facts’ so the term ‘mind’ is not appropriate. Perhaps we can say that in this Quadrant we are referring a bicameral brain and that the type of subjective, internal experience (Upper left Quadrant 1), that this generates, or which emerges from it, is a bicameral mind.

In his 1976 work The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Julian Jaynes proposed that human brains existed in a bicameral configuration and that this lasted until as recently as 3000 years ago. In his book, using an interdisciplinary approach and drawing data from many different fields, Jaynes carefully builds a case for his hypothesis by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature.

Jaynes asserts that until roughly the times written about in Homer’s Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today. (Upper Left Quadrant 1). Instead, Jaynes argued, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands which they believed to be issued by external ‘gods’ – the commands which are so often recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts. These commands however were emanating from each individuals own mind. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which ‘sang’ the poems – Jaynes argues that while later interpretations see the muses as a simple personification of creative inspiration, the truth is that on the contrary, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.

As you are probably aware, the human brain has two hemispheres – right and left hemispheres. Jaynes, a psychiatrist, suggested that these two hemispheres were in the past, ‘wired’ differently – that the connections between the two hemispheres were different. He inferred that these direct and immediate voices and images experienced by the bicameral mind came from the right brain counterparts of the left brain language centres—specifically, the counterparts to Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area. (Upper Right Quadrant 2). These regions are somewhat dormant in the right brains of most modern humans, but Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain. So the question is, ‘Who then were these gods who pushed men about like robots and sang epics through their lips? They were voices whose speech and directions could be as distinctly heard by the Iliadic heroes as voices are heard by certain epileptic and schizophrenic patients…The gods were organizations of the central nervous system’. (Jaynes 1976 p.73-4).

What does this mean for our subjective experience? (Upper Left Quadrant 1). Jaynes asserts that in the Iliad and sections of the Old Testament, no mention is made of any kind of cognitive processes such as introspection and he argues that there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. According to Jaynes, the older portions of the Old Testament (such as the Book of Amos) have little or none of the features of some later books of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes) as well as later works such as Homer’s Odyssey, which show indications of a profoundly different kind of mentality—an early form of consciousness. Perhaps the most well known story in the West that uses the bicameral mode is the Genesis story of Adam and Eve – with Adam hearing God walking in the garden, God talking to Adam, and with Adam talking to the serpent and the serpent talking back. I want to suggest that this story is not just a made up fable or fantasy, or a myth that we should dismiss, but neither should it be taken literally as the Christian Fundamentalists do. It is an example of the Bicameral mind and a story concerning the origin not of the world and universe, but of consciousness and self-awareness as we know it: ‘their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked…’ is an exceptionally telling phrase.

Jaynes noted that in ancient societies the corpses of the dead were often treated as though they were still alive (being seated on chairs, dressed in clothing and even fed food) and he argued that the dead bodies were presumed to be still living and that they were the source of auditory hallucinations (thus, ancestor worship).This approach by the village communities of 100 individuals or more to anscestors formed the core of religion. Unlike today’s hallucinations, the voices and images of ancient times were structured by cultural norms (Lower Left Quadrant 4) to produce a seamlessly functioning society. In Ancient Greek culture there is often mention of the Logos – the ‘Word’ – which is a very similar concept. It was a type of guiding voice that was heard as if from a seemingly external source.

In ancient times, Jaynes noted, gods were generally much more numerous and much more anthropomorphic than in modern times and he speculates that this was because each bicameral person had their own ‘god’ who reflected their own desires and experiences. This is similar to the conclusions of mysticism, where each person follows their own path and where there are as many paths to God as there are Pilgrims.

5.25 SCHIZOPHRENIA AND BICAMERALISM

Even in modern times, Jaynes noted, as I have noted in chapter 1, that there is no consensus as to the cause or origins of schizophrenia (the subject is still hotly debated). According to Jaynes, schizophrenia is simply a vestige of humanity’s earlier state. Evidence seems to show that many schizophrenics don’t just hear random voices but experience ‘command hallucinations’ instructing their behaviour or urging them to commit certain acts. Jaynes’s argued that these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from the gods which feature so prominently in ancient stories. Indirect evidence supporting Jaynes’s theory that hallucinations once played an important role in human mentality can be found in the recent book Muses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination by Daniel Smith.

5.26 THE BREAKDOWN OF BICAMERALISM

Jaynes theorized that a shift away from bicameralism marked the beginning of introspection, consciousness and self-awareness as we know it today. According to Jaynes, the bicameral brain began malfunctioning or ‘breaking down’ during the second millennium BC. He speculates that primitive ancient societies tended to collapse periodically (as in Egypt’s Old Kingdom and the periodically vanishing cities of the Mayas) due to increased societal complexity that could not be sustained by this bicameral mindset. The mass migrations of the second millennium BC created a rash of unexpected situations and stresses that required ancient minds to become more flexible and creative. Self-awareness was the culturally evolved solution to this problem. Thus cultural necessity (that of interacting with migrating tribes, or surviving as a member of such a tribe) forced humanity to become self-aware or perish. Thus self-awareness like bicamerality, emerged as a neurological adaptation to social complexity. Jaynes suggested that the unprecedented stresses of the 2nd millennium B.C. forced the individual into isolation, within which a sense of I-ness appeared to fill the void left by the inadequacy of the ‘god’. This hypothesis posits a relatively homogeneous and stress-free existence prior to the development of consciousness or self-awareness. In short, Jaynes posits that there really was a psychologically perceived Eden, from which humanity fell.

To establish the disappearance of the ‘gods’, Jaynes cites a number of illustrations and cuneiform tablets dating from Sumerian times. He shows an image carved in stone of the King of Assyria kneeling in supplication before an empty throne, from which his ‘god’ is conspicuously absent. The accompanying cuneiform script reads, ‘One who has no god, as he walks along the street,/ Headache envelopes him like a garment’. Another tablet reads,

My god has forsaken me and disappeared,

My goddess has failed me and keeps at a distance.

The good angel who walked beside me has departed.

Jaynes interprets these and similar examples as evidence of a new subjectivity in Mesopotamia. The bicameral mind in which ancestors remained alive and personal gods appeared giving guidance and commands, has begun to collapse into the modern unicameral mind of the self-willed, self-aware “I”, and as a consequence the gods no longer speak to people, as they did in the days of old. (Ibid. p.223).

Jaynes further argues that divination, prayer and oracles arose during this breakdown period, as attempts to summon instructions from the ‘gods’ whose voices could no longer be so readily heard. Consulting special bicamerally-operative individuals, or  casting lots and so forth, was a response to this loss, and forms a transitional era depicted for example in the book of 1 Samuel. It was also evidenced in children who could communicate with the ‘gods’, but, as their neurology was set by language and society they gradually lost that ability. Those who continued prophesying, who continued operating in a bicameral way, eventually became marginalised and could be killed, because they were seen as threats to the new status quo and orthodoxy, or as demon-possessed. Leftovers of the bicameral mind today, according to Jaynes, include religion, hypnosis, possession, schizophrenia and the general sense of need for external authority in decision-making.

Jaynes’s hypothesis remains controversial and has lacked discussion by mainstream academics. The few criticisms that have been made include:

The idea that consciousness is a cultural construction is hard to take seriously.

The conclusions that Jaynes drew had no basis in neuropsychiatric fact at that time.

Difficulty with the idea that auditory hallucinations played a significant role in a previous human mentality .

Richard Dawkins discussed Jaynes’s theory in his recent book The God Delusion. In his chapter on the roots of religion, Dawkins writes: ‘It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between!’. Many considered Jaynes’s hypothesis worthy and offer conditional support, arguing the notion deserves further study.

In a 1987 letter to the American Journal of Psychiatry, Dr. H. Steven Moffic questioned why Jaynes’s theory was left out of a discussion on auditory hallucinations by Drs. Assad and Shapiro. In response, Drs. Assad and Shapiro wrote, ‘…Jaynes’ hypothesis makes for interesting reading and stimulates much thought in the receptive reader. It does not, however, adequately explain one of the central mysteries of madness: hallucination’. Drs. Assad and Shapiro’s comment that there is no evidence for involvement of the right temporal lobe in auditory hallucination was incorrect even at that time. A number of more recent studies provide additional evidence to right hemisphere involvement in auditory hallucinations. Recent neuroimaging studies provide new evidence for Jaynes’s neurological model, i.e. auditory hallucinations arising in the right temporal-parietal lobe and being transmitted to the left temporal-parietal lobe. This was pointed out by Dr. Robert Olin in Lancetand Dr. Leo Sher in the Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience and further discussed in the book Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett suggested that Jaynes may have been wrong about some of his supporting arguments, especially the importance he attached to hallucinations, but that these things are not essential to his main thesis. Gregory Cochran, a physicist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah, wrote: ‘Genes affecting personality, reproductive strategies, cognition, are all able to change significantly over few-millennia time scales if the environment favors such change — and this includes the new environments we have made for ourselves, things like new ways of making a living and new social structures. … There is evidence that such change has occurred. … On first reading, Breakdown seemed one of the craziest books ever written, but Jaynes may have been on to something.’. Author and historian of science Morris Berman writes, ‘[Jaynes's] description of this new consciousness is one of the best I have come across.’. Danish science writer Tor Nørretranders discusses Jaynes’s theory favorably in his book The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size.

Evidence taken to contradict Jaynes’s proposed date of the transition from bicameralism is the Gilgamesh Epic: although the story of Gilgamesh was recorded centuries before the Old Testament and though its setting is contemporaneous or earlier than the Old Testament stories, the Gilgamesh story describes such features as introspection. Jaynes himself, noting that the most complete version of the Epic of Gilgamesh dates to post-bicameral times (7th century BC), dismisses these instances of introspection as the result of rewriting and expansion by later, more self-aware scribes and points to differences between the more recent version of Gilgamesh and surviving fragments of earlier versions. (‘The most interesting comparison is in Tablet X.’ – detailed in The Origin of Consciousness, 1982 edition, p. 252f.). Others, such as science fiction author Neal Stephenson, have since conjectured that heroic epics and myths may be rooted in isolated individuals who became self-aware early and could accordingly outmatch and manipulate their fellows.

Brian McVeigh maintains that many of the most frequent criticisms of Jaynes’ theory are either incorrect or reflect serious misunderstandings of Jaynes’ theory, especially Jaynes’ more precise definition of consciousness. Jaynes defines consciousness — in the tradition of Locke and Descartes — as ‘that which is introspectable’. Jaynes draws a sharp distinction between consciousness (‘introspectable mind-space’) and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, and sense and perception — which occur in all animals. This distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes’ theory.

A collection of Jaynes’s essays on bicameralism combined with those of contemporary scholars was published in 2007, in a book entitled Reflections on the Dawn of Consciousness: Julian Jaynes’s Bicameral Mind Theory Revisited. Included in this book is new support for Jaynes’s theory by Marcel Kuijsten, psychological anthropologist Brian J. McVeigh, psychologists John Limber and Scott Greer, clinical psychologist John Hamilton, philosophers Jan Sleutels and David Stove and an expert in ancient Chinese customs and linguistics, Michael Carr. The book also contains an extensive biography of Julian Jaynes by historian of psychology William Woodward and June Tower, and a Foreword by neuroscientist Michael J. Persinger. Additional essays on Jaynes’s theory can be found in The Jaynesian, the newsletter of the Julian Jaynes Society.

5.27 SIMILAR IDEAS

Neuroscientist Michael Persinger also studied the role of the right temporal lobe in the feeling of a sensed presence and god beliefs. Neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran discussed cases of hyper religiousity in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Other theorists have also made the claim that self-awareness is a social construction, including Lev Vygotsky, Rom Harré and George Herbert Mead. Cognitive psychologist David R. Olson has written on the impact of reading and writing on cognition and the mind. Lloyd deMause and the psychohistorians have advanced a model that aims to understand the ubiquity of the schizotypal personality in the Old World. The main difference between psychohistorians and Julian Jaynes is that psychohistorians focus on childrearing modes as the main cause of the schizoid personality.

Like schizophrenia, bipolar ‘disorder’ also has physiological aspects. The mood changes from depression to mania are created by an interchange between the environment and brain physiology: there seems to be a complex genetic component that gives a predisposition to this condition. The inherent instability of mood that arises in bi-polar ‘disorder’ may provoke in the individual sufferer a search for stability and foundation, because changing moods, especially if reasonably acute or if they alternate fairly rapidly are destabilising. They may affect the sufferer’s sense of identity: they are an extrovert showman at one time and withdrawn and glum at another – just who are they really? It affects their view of the world: at one time it is a bright, vibrant place with each day an opportunity to be seized and at another time it is a dull, miserable cruel place full of hopelessness, despair and frustration. This search for foundation, stability, meaning and identity may well drift into spirituality, since other explanations and philosophies may appear too shallow and inadequate. But now we are drifting again into the Upper Left Quadrant 1, the interior individual.

In this section I have just wanted to make it clear that though we may not understand the biology fully, brain and biology have important effects on the subjective experience of spirituality, mystical experience, schizophrenia and bi-polar ‘‘disorder’’ and vice-versa.

5.28 QUADRANT 3: THE MYSTIC IN MODERN WESTERN SOCIETY

For our purposes, Lower Right Quadrant 3 is concerned with the objective measurement of phenomena in or of a collective, or society and how those collectives are structured. So here we might be concerned with the gender distribution of those who have these experiences, or in the age distribution of the people who have these experiences, their geographical and temporal location and so on. Thus when we say that trans-rational levels of mystical experience are only experienced by 0.1 percent of the world population or even less, then we are in this quadrant. It is here that we might also ask, how many of this 0.1 percent suffers with bi-polar ‘disorder’ or schizophrenia, what the age, gender and geographic distribution is of mystics with bi-polar ‘disorder’ or schizophrenia. In this quadrant we might ask if there are particular situations or contexts when these experiences are more prominent in a given group: for example, there appears to be an increase of mysticism in the Middle Ages in Europe. This may be related to political or religious changes and uncertainty arising in a previously stable religious community for example, to a crisis of meaning or identity for the group, in which case we drifting into Lower Left Quadrant 4. Lower Right Quadrant 3 is about objective, measurable research concerning mysticism, mystics and mental ‘illness’ and their prevalence and distribution in society. It is also about how a group of such mystics might organise themselves, or what their ideals would be about the way society should be organised, led and structured: are they egalitarian, or authoritarian? Are they democratic or theocratic? In passing we can note that some are authoritarian, relying on a spiritually enlightened guru or teacher. Others are egalitarian, such as a traditional Quaker meeting. It is in this Quadrant that we can note gender differences with regard to spiritual growth: the male tends to see spiritual growth in terms of moving upwards, whereas the female tends to look at spiritual growth in terms of increasing inclusivity – more and more is included.

5.29 QUADRANT 4: THE MYSTIC IN COMMUNITY

Lower Left Quadrant 4 is concerned with the meanings and values that are held by a particular collective, group, community or culture. As we have seen, the modern western community is influenced by rationality, objectivity and science, but also, as we have seen, science can have the conviction that the inside cannot be studied or measured and as a result we can lose sight of the interiority of the world and as a result everything in our life and culture loses or has a reduced meaning. It is in this Quadrant where we find evolutionary theory having the dominant hold and creationism being dismissed or marginalized as myth by those in government and education for example. This is the Quadrant where we can see how a person with mystical experience is valued and respected (or not) and what meanings and value the collective group gives to such individuals. In being in a considerable minority and in embracing the trans-rational, which is often confused by the collective with the pre-rational or irrational, the mystic is seen as unorthodox and is often marginalized. In the days when religion had a stronger presence, orthodoxy, or the idea of one correct religious belief dominated a given culture and to question this was to be a heretic or apostate. Therefore, such spiritual ideas as a mystic might proclaim were often seen as a threat to the prevailing religious order and it’s authority. Thus we find persecution and inquisitions as attempts to maintain the religious status quo. As a result, mystics were often recluses and hermits, or couched their ‘unacceptable’, ‘unorthodox’ ideas within the framework of the accepted orthodoxy as best as they could. Even so, notable mystics such as the Dominican Meister Eckhart found themselves accused of heresy and were brought to trial. Often then, unorthodox ideas are couched in ‘secret’ or hidden practices and writings. Thus European sexual mysticism (unity with the Divine through sexual practices as in Eastern Tantric disciplines) can be traced in the coded writings and practices of alchemists and Christian Gnostics. Nevertheless, even when such persecution is less of a threat, as in modern western culture, mystical ideas and practices are often embedded within the particular world-views of the individual mystic’s religious and spiritual traditions. These cultural contexts determine to a great degree the forms of the content of the mystical experiences. The perennial philosophy advocated by Wilber sees important similarities between seemingly different mystical traditions, whilst the constructivist demonstrates the essential differences between various traditions and cultures.

Today the rational, scientific outlook may also marginalize the mystic as being ‘mentally’ ill. As Thomas Szasz pointed out in his book, ‘The myth of mental illness’, the idea of ‘mental illness’ is itself a misnomer and mixed metaphor: the mind is an abstract concept but illness is concrete. People in western society often see psychology and psychiatry as an objective science, clearly defined and objective, yet the assumptions behind the different theories within these disciplines reveal different approaches to spirituality: some are neutral towards it, some are supportive, some are opposed, even hostile to spirituality. Psychology and psychiatry are not objectively neutral in their outlook, because here too, culture has its influence: many will be familiar with how Russian political dissidents in the early and mid twentieth century were branded as mentally ill and incarcerated in mental institutions just because they did not accept or opposed the dominant communist political ideology. The danger for psychiatry and psychology is that merely unconventional, non-conformist or unorthodox beliefs and behaviour may be categorised negatively as deviant, mental ‘illness’, mental disturbance and so on, which is a value judgement that may not be based on objective measurement of bio-chemistry or brain function. Psychology and psychiatry, in as far a they portray themselves as an objective scientific disciplines step out of this boundary when they make such judgements. Both psychology and psychiatry step out of this boundary in making value judgements that are inherent in the assumptions of their respective theoretical bases. To make things worse, the psychologist or psychiatrist tends to be seen as an authority figure by reason of their expertise and the role that western culture gives them. For example these are people, along with doctors, who decide whether you are fit for employment or not.

5.30 SUMMARY 2

This has been just a select overview of the mystic and mystical experience using Ken Wilber’s model. In Upper Left Quadrant 1 we have seen that we have two modes of operating on the world – the usual and dominant rational/active mode and the less common receptive/intuitive mode as described by Arthur Deikman and others. Whilst we can use a Repertory grid to  elicit something of our subjective conceptual web that we construct in the rational mode, the intuitive mode uses a different, non-rational kind of logic that cannot be construed in this way. We have also seen corresponding issues in brain physiology especially in Julian Jaynes’ theory of the physiological development of the brain from the Bicameral mind to the Unicameral mind. Both the intuitive mode and the bicameral mind relate to psychotic functioning – where rational constructs may fall apart such that the psychotic has difficulty construing the world and thus finding orientation in an unconstrued world-view. It appears that different parts and configurations of the brain come into play in psychosis. Mysticism and psychosis are often confused and lumped together as regressive and primitive by ‘experts’ and non-experts who lean towards a restricted, reductionist materialistic scientific and rational outlook. However, whereas those suffering from schizophrenia may fall into the non-usual intuitive/receptive mode spontaneously, with its resulting unsettlement, mystics often train themselves within a religious/spiritual context to develop this mode. Whereas schizophrenics may be unable to return to the rational/active mode and thus be stuck in the non-usual receptive mode, mystics are able to return to the rational/active mode and apply it to analyse and understand in a fuller way, the nature and content of the intuitive experience and perception. Schizophrenics make up 1% of the community but mystics 0.1% – they are both in the minority. As such they are often marginalized, with both groups possibly being classified as ‘mentally ill’. Mystics may often therefore live a solitary life.

5.31 SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN PSYCHOSIS AND MYSTICISM

Let us return to our list in chapter one to help us to tease out and summarise some of the differences between psychosis and mysticism:

The following list gives indications of schizophrenia, (as opposed to mysticism):

• · The person’s thoughts are not easily understandable ie. what they say doesn’t make sense. They are irrational.
• · The person has difficulty functioning, or is unable to function, in everyday life: they are stuck in the intuitive/receptive mode of functioning that does not deal with practical issues.
• · They lose touch with material reality and are stuck in a world of fantasy or delusion.
• · Auditory hallucinations are more common than visual hallucinations.
• · Episodes are generally prolonged.
• · Social relationships are impaired due to the person withdrawing socially. May respond inappropriately to the needs and concerns of others.
• · There may be a history of mental ‘health’ problems in the individual or the family.
• · The person has usually exhibited mental ‘health’ problems previously.
• · The event often has a negative outcome: hallucinations and delusions are considered a disruption to the normal functioning of the person.
• · The tendency is one of regression and pathology
• · 1% of people suffer this ‘disorder’
• · They may feel alone and isolated

The following list gives indications of mysticism, (as opposed to psychosis):

• · No evidence of thought disorder or disorganised thinking. Though entering the receptive/intuitive mode, they are able to return to the active/rational mode of being.
• · There is an integration or synthesis of the two modes.
• · They enter the intuitive/receptive mode as a mature adult and return to the rational mode.The experience is trans-rational and paradoxical.
• · The person is able to continue functioning in daily life.
• · Visual hallucinations are more common than auditory hallucinations.
• · Episodes are generally brief.
• · No impairment to social relationships. Responds empathically to the needs and concerns of others.
• · There is often no family history of mental ‘health’ problems.
• · There is often no history of mental ‘health’ problems within the individual.
• · The event often has a positive outcome, resulting in improvement in the person’s functioning and their growth. It has a healthy effect.
• · 0.1% of people experience this.
• · The mystic may have a supportive social network

The following list gives indications common both mysticism and psychosis:

• · Both enter the receptive intuitive/receptive mode
• · Both have experiences that appear unmediated or Immediate and Real
• · Both have biological effects in the brain
• · Both are non-rational and cannot be construed or remain unconstrued.
• · Both involve a unified perception and loss of boundaries
• · Both involve a deeper quest for meaning.
• · Both may give rise to a loss or orientation of the self
• · Both can be unsettling and disorientating
• · Both are marginalized by modern western secular society and even health  professionals
• · Both may lead to a heightened sense of perception

In terms of mysticism and bipolar ‘disorder’:

• · Both may lead to euphoria, ecstasy, elation, joy and other strong positive emotions
• · Both may lead to preoccupation and withdrawal, depression and other strong negative emotions.

In bipolar ‘disorder’:

• · Strong emotions and moods are disproportionate to or even seemingly totally unrelated to surrounding events and circumstances

End of Chapter five. To go to Chapter six, click HERE!

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA – Chapter four: MODES, FAITH, MYTH AND SPIRITUALITY

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES

OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

CHAPTER FOUR

MODES, FAITH, MYTH AND SPIRITUALITY

To read Chapter One, please click HERE!

To read Chapter Two, please click HERE!

To read Chapter Three, please click HERE!

CONTENTS

4.1 Essential and expressive self

4.2 Making sense of the world: two different modes of being

4.3 The mode of active rationality

4.4 Personal conceptual constructs in the active/rational mode

4.5 The mode of receptive intuition

4.6 Modes and western society

4.7 Objects of faith – Mysticism and depth

4.8 Paradox and contradiction

4.9 Essence and the Divine

4.10 Names, Qualities and Attributes of the Divine

4.11 Summary 1

4.12 Myths, allegories and metaphors

4.13 Myth and folklore

4.14 Related terms

4.15 Reification

4.16 Reification and religious fundamentalism

4.17 Contradiction in mystical content

4.18 Relative perspectivism

4.19 Another look at faith and belief

4.20 Stages of faith

4.21 Affirmation

4.22 Summary 2

4.23 The problem of meaning

4.24 Faith, meaning and mental ‘illness’

4.25 Personal experience and the quest for meaning, stability, orientation and integration.

4.26 Personal experience of mania and the intuitive/receptive mode

4.1 ESSENTIAL AND EXPRESSIVE SELF

A basic tenet of mysticism is that reality as ordinarily perceived is indeed a distortion. According to mystics, the problem is compounded by the inherent need of people to progress in their ability to perceive the reality that underlies the phenomenal world. People whose evolutionary need is frustrated experience a persistent dissatisfaction with the course of their lives. On the other hand, fulfilment of that developmental goal enables people to perceive the meaning of their own lives and the purpose of human existence. Thus, in the mystical tradition, meaning is a perceptual issue.

It is possible that the meaning and purpose of human life are outside the spectrum of ordinary awareness the widening and deepening of which is the concern of the mystical tradition. Western psychology, in its often vain attempts to explain away the sense of meaninglessness and its attendant symptoms, may have much to learn from mysticism, which sees meaning as something real and accessible to awareness, providing that the appropriate perceptual capacity has been developed.

The fundamental questions, ‘Who am I?’ and ‘What am 1?’ arise increasingly in the struggle to find meaning and purpose in life. Therapists hear them as explicit queries or to indirect form: ‘Who is the real me?’ or ‘I don’t know what I want – part of me wants one thing and part of me wants something else. What do I want?’ Western psychology is severely handicapped in dealing with these questions because the centre of human experience – Self – is missing from its theories. Yet, at the heart of psychopathology lies a fundamental confusion between the self as object and Self. Emotions, thoughts, impulses, images, and sensations are the contents of awareness: we witness them; we are aware of their existence. Likewise, the body, the self-image and the self‑concept are all constructs that we observe. But our core sense of personal existence the ‘I’, is located in awareness itself, not in its content. This distinction between awareness and the content of awareness tends to be ignored in Western psychology and its implications for our everyday life are not appreciated. Indeed, most people have trouble recognizing the difference between awareness and content, which are parts of everyday life. Yet, careful observation shows people that they can suspend their thoughts, that they can experience silence or darkness and the temporary absence of images or memory patterns – that any element of mental life can disappear while awareness itself remains. Self is the Ground of conscious life, the background or field in which all elements exist, different from thoughts, sensations, or images. One can experience the distinction simply by looking straight ahead. Be aware of what you experience, then close your eyes. Self remains. ‘behind’ your thoughts and images is Self, and that is where you are.

What we know as our Self is separate from our thoughts, memories, feelings, and any content of consciousness. No Western psychological theory concerns itself with this fundamental fact; all describe the self in terms of everything but the observer, who is the centre of experience. This crucial omission stems from the fact that Self is an anomaly – not an object like everything else. Our theories are based on objects: we think in terms of objects, talk in terms of objects. It is not just the physical world that we apprehend in that way; the elements of our mental life are similar. Seemingly diffuse and amorphous emotions are localized and observable; they have definite qualities: emotions, like fluid objects, are entities we observe. Images, memories and thoughts are objects we grasp, manipulate, and encompass by awareness just as we do the components of the physical world. In contrast, we cannot observe Self; we must experience it directly. It has no defining qualities, no boundaries, no dimensions. Self has been ignored by Western psychology because it is not an object and cannot fit the assumptions and framework of current theory.

Lacking understanding of this elusive, Essential Self, how are we to answer the essential questions ‘Who am I’, ‘What am I?’ that lie at the heart of science, philosophy, the arts, the search for meaning? To find answers we must step outside the boundaries of our traditional modes of thought.

Here too the mystical tradition has focused on an area ignored by Western science. Both Yogic and Buddhist metaphysics and psychology emphasize the crucial difference between Self and the content of consciousness and use meditation techniques to heighten the connection with Self. As with meaning, mystics hold that answering ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Why am I?’ requires a special mode of perception. That claim is not surprising, considering the anomalous character of Self. To understand the ‘I,’ we should first learn what the mystical tradition can teach us about it.

4.2 MAKING SENSE OF THE WORLD – TWO DIFFERENT MODES OF BEING

We can think of a human being as an organism composed of components having both internal, subjective, psychological aspects and objective biological dimensions: the Upper Quadrants 1 and 2. These aspects have two basic modes of operation: an ‘action mode’ and a ‘receptive mode’. The action mode is a state organized to manipulate our environment. To carry out this purpose the striate muscle system is the dominant physiological agency. Base-line muscle tension is increased and the EEG usually features beta waves. Internally, we find focal attention, heightened boundary perception, object-based logic and the dominance of formal characteristics over the sensory: that is shapes and meanings have a preference over colours and textures. In contrast, the receptive mode is a state whose purpose is receiving the environment, rather than manipulation of it. Thus the sensory-perceptual system is usually the dominant agency rather than the muscle system. Base-line muscle tension tends to be decreased, compared to the tension found in the action mode and the EEG tends to the slower frequencies of alpha and theta. Psychologically, attention is diffuse, boundary perception is decreased, non-logical thought processes are evident and sensory qualities dominate over the formal – colours and textures take precedence over shapes. These functions are coordinated or synthesised to maximize the intake of information from the environment. But as human development proceeds the receptive mode is gradually dominated, if not submerged, by a natural and culturally enforced emphasis on striving activity and the rational action mode that serves it. The receptive mode tends, more and more, to be an interlude between increasingly longer periods of action-mode organization. A consequence of this bias is that we come to regard the rational, analytic, action mode as the normal one for adult life and to think of the unfamiliar receptive states as pathological. The differentiating conceptualisation of our world that we examined in the last chapter is part of this ‘action mode’. Conceptualisation creates the forms, boundaries, shapes and meanings that have precedence.

Our ‘knowing’ then takes two forms: the active/rational and the intuitive/receptive. The active/rational mode is a form of knowing using and mediated by discursive reason and analysis resulting in the conceptualisation that we looked at in the last chapter. The active/rational mode is a mode of differentiation and in its more formal expression, it is the type of knowing used by science. The intuitive/receptive mode on the other hand is an immediate passive form of knowing, unmediated by reason or logic. In earlier times, both these forms of knowing were considered essential, indispensable and complimentary, each serving different functions such that each was impoverished without the other. It was a dangerous mistake to confuse the two or to ignore one in favour of the other. When the Crusaders allowed intuitive/receptive modes to dominate their battle strategies, they failed.

4.3 THE MODE OF ACTIVE RATIONALITY

When the active/rational mode is the dominant mode, we end up with an individual and cultural world-view that we usually call ‘modern’ or ‘logical’. The word ‘logic’ comes from the word ‘logos’ in Greek, as does the ‘-ology’ ending of words like ‘anthropology’, ‘psychology’, ‘biology’, etc.  The ‘logical’ way of viewing the world de-emphasizes emotions; it is ‘high focus, low affect’ and Western philosophy and science are paradigms of the ‘logical’ world-view. The active/rational world-view features linear time, which goes in one direction only (forward): the past is gone and each particular event is unique in space and time. So history becomes important as the record of unique non-repeatable events. In the active/rational world-view, time is imposed on religious ideas: for example, concepts like ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ start being applied to the universe. God becomes the ruler of linear time, deciding when it starts and stops and thus stories of creation and the last things emerge. The active/rational world-view features an empirical, practical orientation, wanting proof, validation and evidence: people begin to think of nature as governed by causal laws. By using evidence, methods of proof and verifiablility, humans can discover these laws of nature and use them to manipulate, predict, and control nature in increasingly large-scale ways. Active/rational/logical cultures typically have writing which allows knowledge to be accumulated and thus it is not limited to what the current group can remember. Linguistic precision becomes vital – everything is a something, everything has some specific kind of being. If this is an apple, then it’s not a banana: it has apple-ness, it lacks banana-ness. Everything is bounded, formulated and differentiated. Active/rational cultures often oppose thinking that is used with feeling and instead value people who can think efficiently and use language clearly. Men are considered to embody the logical ideal more than women, children, or slaves. In a active/rational society the law is attained by reason, it is flexible in order to meet change and development: it is pragmatic. Modern western society is an example of where the dominant mode is active/rational.

Active rationality or logic -

• · Makes things work more efficiently. e.g. its application in politics and science.
• · Discovers new facts and applications concerning the physical universe.
• · Does not assuage or relieve human emotional pain or sorrow.
• · Cannot answer questions about the ultimate value of human life.
• · Cannot explain the meaning of life.
• · Is concerned with truth, facts and practical matters.
• · Tends to develop an economy of reinvestment of capital into technological change and innovation. Thus it creates a society of institutionalised change and separation of church and state, religion and politics.
• · Is particularly associated with the Right Hand quadrants.

4.4 PERSONAL CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTS IN THE ACTIVE/RATIONAL MODE

We have seen in the previous chapter that in order to make sense of a partially structured or patterned objective material world and in order to function and survive in it, we subjectively interpret and categorise our selective and biased perceptions via cultural tools such as language. The active/rational mode of being has given us an approach in psychology which helps to extract and analyse the conceptual structures that we subjectively create in the form of Personal Construct Theory.

Personal Construct Theory gives one of the richest possible accounts of a person’s cognitive and conceptual processes. It is the only approach in psychology which was developed from the start as a complete psychology, explicit about its assumptions and theoretical base. To a greater extent than other ‘cognitively’ oriented theories of personality and psychotherapy, Personal Construct Theory places a strong emphasis on emotional experiences, understood as signals of actual or impending transitions in a person’s fundamental conceptual constructs for anticipating the world. For example, individuals might experience a sense of threat when faced with the prospect of imminent and comprehensive change in their core structures of identity (e.g., when facing dismissal from a valued career, or abandonment by a partner they counted on to validate a familiar image of themselves).  Alternatively, people might experience anxiety when confronted with events that seem almost completely alien to the point that they find it difficult to interpret them within their present conceptual construct system.  This attention to the delicate interweaving of meaning and affect has made Personal Construct Theory an attractive framework for contemporary researchers and clinicians concerned with such topics as relational breakdown, trauma and loss, all of which can fundamentally undercut one’s assumptive world, triggering a host of significant emotional and behavioural responses.

George Kelly single-handedly created Personal Construct Theory in 1955, and not surprisingly, given the mode of being from which it arises, Kelly’s model of the person was as ‘man as scientist’. He saw humans as constantly constructing hypotheses and concepts as to how the world is, and constantly checking and verifying our hypotheses just like scientists. Of course with the ordinary person in the street, the process is much less formal, overt and rigorous than that of a scientist. The essence of Personal Construct Theory is that our personal identity is defined by the way we construe or ‘understand’ our personal worlds – that is – our subjective conceptualisation of the objective material world. Its major tool is the ‘Repertory Grid’, which is a device used to explore how people construe or conceptually construct their world. When the grid is complete, there are several ways of rating or ranking all of the options against all the constructs, so as to permit sophisticated analysis of core constructs, how concepts form a mesh or interrelated web and other underlying factors.

Kelly pointed out some of the points that we made in the last chapter:

• · Our construct systems make our world more predictable:
• · Our construct systems can grow and change:
• · Our construct systems are not static.
• · Our construct systems influence our expectations and perceptions:
• · Some constructs, and some aspects of our construct systems, are more important than others:
• · Your construct system is your truth as you understand and experience it – nobody else’s:
• · Construct systems are not always internally consistent:
• · The extent to which one person can understand another’s construct system is a measure of that person’s empathy

In addition, we can note that for Kelly, loose versus tight construing was one of the most important constructs in his theory. This is about the process of construing and nothing to do with what is construed. It relates to that central component of personal construct theory – that construing is about predicting – making sense of the world so that we can function in it. As with all aspects of personal construct theory there are problems if we construe in some extreme manner. Thus one personal construct therapist declares, ‘I encourage my clients to adjust to an appropriate balance between loose and tight construing.’

Tight construct systems are clearly defined and make good definite predictions about the world, but they cannot handle ambiguity. A fine example is the rituals of the obsessive-compulsive neurotic – such rituals create a very predictable world. Thus tight constructs refer to specific situations and tend to collapse altogether if they are proved false, like scientific hypotheses for example. “A tight construct is one which leads to unvarying predictions”.  (Kelly, 1955/1991, Vol. 2, p. 7/1991). It is our tight use of constructs then that gives our lives a sense of predictability and permanence. Those who construe in an extremely tight way are at psychological risk since any substantial evidence that they are wrong may have the effect of causing the whole construing system to collapse like the proverbial pack of cards. The only psychological disorder that is sometimes associated with overly tight construing is that of paranoia. Here the predictions are indeed unvarying. In fact, a psychiatric definition of paranoid delusions is that they are totally resistant to invalidation. In his series of experiments on schizophrenic thought disorder Bannister found that the first response of those who were consistently invalidated in their construing of people was to tighten it before loosening to “try and get it right”. Bannister and Fransella (2003) say: “This leaves open the question of why, if paranoia is the bus stop on the way to schizophrenic thought disorder, some get off the bus there, while others go on to schizophrenic thought disorder” (p.150). Kelly was, however, not keen on the use of the psychiatric label of paranoia but, if it was to be used, he equated it more with over-dilated rather than tight construing. Indeed, there are no specific disorders in Kelly’s theorising that are based on extremely tight construing. Except, of course, as Kelly puts it: “If construing is tight, one runs the risk of being shattered on the uncompromising rocks of reality” (Kelly, 1955, p. 849/1991, Vol 2, p. 20). Our core sense of ourselves (ego) tends to be tightly construed. We like to have a stable sense of the sort of person we fundamentally are. Any loosening here can make us feel quite anxious because of the reduction in predictability.

On the other hand, loosening is defined as characteristic of constructs that lead to varying predictions. To construe loosely means to place an element at one pole of a construct today and on the opposite pole of that construct tomorrow. Loose construing is thus somewhat elastic but, importantly, it retains its identity within the person’s construing system. Loose construct systems are vague and can be used flexibly, they cope with ambiguity but are not precise in letting the person know what to expect as they move and act in the world. The loose construct system is not likely to be invalidated, or proved wrong, but it not much use in guiding the persons behaviour in the world either. Loose constructs can vary then, depending on circumstances, for example, ‘Learning can interesting or boring’. It can also lead to idiosyncratic construing, for example considering a person to be both loving and inconsiderate, especially if the person is placed in a double-bind situation – heads I win, tails you lose.

Changes from tight to loose construing and back again defines the Creativity Cycle. The tight-loose dimension is crucial in personal construct theory because it is about our ability to be creative and, therefore, about change. Tightening plays a central role in the Creativity Cycle. Tightening must take place after loose construing to complete the Cycle. The Cycle starts off with “letting the mind wander” or day-dreaming. But nothing creative comes of that unless we are able to tighten up on something that has struck us as interesting. We tighten our construing so that we can look at the idea conceptually to see if it is as good as it looked when it flashed through our mind’s eye.

Some people are so “locked in” to loose construing that they are unable to tighten in order to deal with their world at all. Schizophrenics tend to demonstrate loose construing – especially with regard to people as opposed to objects. In the past, such “thought disorder” was said to be similar to that personified in the paintings of such people as Picasso. But Picasso was able to tighten his construing at the end of his painting session and join others in social conversation – those with thought disorder cannot do that.
Loose construing is sometimes seen as similar to propositional construing. But the former is a construct about process and the latter is about how a construct relates to its elements. When I say “One day I think my feet are too big, yesterday I thought they were too small” – I’m construing my feet loosely. To construe my feet propositionally I might say “Amongst other things, my feet are too big”. I am certain about that and construe my feet, in terms of size, tightly and not loosely.

We shall return to this method of analysis later in this essay. But first, let me contrast the active/rational mode with its counterpart, the intuitive/receptive mode of knowing.

4.5 THE MODE OF RECEPTIVE INTUITION

Some people, usually those people emphasising the active/rational mode have called the contrasting intuitive/receptive subjective world-view ‘primitive’ or ‘irrational’. In the intuitive/receptive experience of life mathematics and logical types of thinking are not as important as high emotionality – ‘low focus, high affect’. The perspective is one of the eternal ‘Now’ – ‘everywhen’, in which roles and activities are always ongoing. In terms of culture, Lower Left Quadrant 4, we can see that some elements of the intuitive/reception mode remain in contemporary world religions: the ongoingness of Jesus’ salvation act in every Mass for example. The intuitive/receptive world-view is unhistorical because daily time is unimportant. The only time that matters is Now which is always ongoing. Cultures such as those of the Australian aboriginal also give us some insight into this mode of being. Ritual re-enactment of events and archetypal persons (Hunter, Warrior, Lover, etc.) give meaning to everyday life. In intuitive/receptive cultures, one achieves a kind of liberation from daily time by imaginatively merging with timeless archetypes and repeating archetypal activities in a ritual manner. According to intuitive/receptive world-views, there has been a devolution (a ‘fall’) from a Golden Age to daily time – things now aren’t as good as they were in a long-ago ‘Eden’. Intuitive/reception focuses on a sacred past or beginnings: on primordial origins. It focuses on the constants and the foundations of human life. Oral cultures — those without writing — tend to be intuitive/receptive, so knowledge is limited to what the group can remember. Sacred places and objects are thought to exist within the everyday world. The sacred texts of the ancestors teach all that needs to be known, so as a result intuitive/receptive mode people tend to be wary of changing the natural world and do not modify nature on a large scale. The categories of being merge: a thing can be simultaneously both X and not-X. Intuitive/receptive mode people and cultures seek to conserve what has been achieved since the ‘fall’ since they have a sense of the fragility of civilisation. Teaching therefore tends to be by rote, with little emphasis of originality, innovation or creativity as these can be seen as potential threats to what is usually, in these cultures, a dominant agrarian economy. Active/rational analysis is therefore limited. The intuitive/receptive mode of being resonates with the deepest unconscious being. In intuitive/receptive societies the law is given by the Supreme Being and is unalterable. Behaviour and practice seeks to be in harmony with the fundamental principles and laws of existence. To violate these principles is to be unnatural – like a fish out of water.

The intuitive/receptive mode cultures are less differentiated such that there are no sharp distinctions between:

tribe / self / ancestors

self / nature

thinking / feeling

living / dead

body / soul

conscious / unconscious

animal / human

sacred ritual / secular life activity

Intuitive/receptive cultures tend to focus on groups such that individuals matter only insofar as they exemplify the timeless archetypes. For example, intuitive/receptive cultures tend not to have the concept of an individual afterlife: one’s eternal destiny is bound up with the destiny of one’s clan or tribe.

Receptive intuition –

• · Is less differentiated than the active/rational mode
• · Accesses the inner working of the mind that is not readily applicable to the affairs of the external world.
• · Is not rational or reasonable in terms of logic
• · Cannot be demonstrated or validated by evidence and methods of proof
• · Does not form the basis for a pragmatic or practical policy or a blueprint for action
• · Is creative, insightful and inventive
• · Provides a context of meaning and significance with which to make sense of daily life
• · Is concerned with the timeless and constant in existence.
• · Is concerned with origins, foundations and the deepest levels of mind.
• · Directs attention to the eternal and universal.
• · Is rooted in the unconscious, an area of the mind not accessible by rationality yet which still has a profound effect on experience and behaviour.
• · Is associated with mysticism, one interpretation of which is that it is a descent into the mind, especially the sub conscious and unconscious by means of structured disciplines of focus and concentration in order to acquire insight and intuition.
• · Serves to illuminate the inner life of spirit.
• · Tends to be associated with agrarian economies where there is not the same investment of capital into technological change, and therefore not the same degree of innovation. Church and state, religion and politics are one, all areas expressing the unity of God. To fence off an area as off limits to spirituality would seem a shocking violation, a denial of God. Politics is a channel of God: the prophet IS the political head.

4.6 MODES AND WESTERN SOCIETY

However, as I have already suggested, western society has increasingly focused on the active/rational mode: on science and rational inquiry, such that the receptive/intuitive, mode is ignored, dismissed or suppressed. However, both are essential for a full human life: each is diminished unless complimented by the other. Thus the true philosopher has to be as rational as Aristotle, but then go beyond him in an ecstatic, imaginative apprehension of truth.

4.7 OBJECTS OF FAITH – MYSTICISM AND DEPTH

Both faith and belief require an object: it is meaningless to just say that I have faith: or I have belief. Both these statements beg the question ‘faith or belief in what?’ A person has faith and belief IN something, or ABOUT something, even if it is in an Absolute that transcends description and conceptualisation. If we look at the Upper Left Quadrant 1 there is a horizontal line ‘mystical modes at any stage’:

This indicates the depth of mystical experience. Mystical experience is not a jump to a higher stage, (though that may be a secondary effect), neither is it a regression to a lower stage of development. If we do access lower level structures, we do so as a developed adult. This line indicating depth of mystical experience is a continuum or smooth transition. Nevertheless, there are identifiable degrees of depth, from the subjective rational/active mode, through different degrees whereby the receptive/ intuitive mode becomes more dominant, and where the rational/active mode is increasingly suspended. The depth that we are at is indicated by the nature of the object of our faith.

Rational active mode. We begin at the rational active mode where the object of our faith tends to be in the objective material world as the only reality. We place our faith in knowledge gained from systematic, objective measurement and analysis of this reality through disciplines such as science, physics, biology, chemistry and so on whereby this reality is increasingly differentiated. If it cannot be observed or measured, it does not exist.

 

Nature mysticism. Here, an experience of the receptive/intuitive mode may mean that we see nature in a deeper, richer hue, as if we are seeing the Unity and Essence of nature and the natural world, with it’s beauty, proportion and symmetry. We many be gazing at the sea, or a beautiful mountain or landscape, or be watching tall grass blowing in the summer breeze and be taken out of ourselves as it were to perceive the Peace and Unity and Beauty of Nature and this perception may make us feel quite full of Joy or Peace. In this case, our rational/active mode of being does not overlay any theological or doctrinal concepts onto the experience. Rather we rationalise this as nature-in-essence or nature-as-it-is.

 

Literal mysticism. In looking say at a rainbow, we may be taken out of ourselves by the beauty of its colours, the perfect symmetry of it’s curve across the sky and so on, just as in nature mysticism. But we may go further: if we are of a Christian or Jewish orientation, may understand the rainbow to be a sign of God’s Covenant that He will never destroy the earth again by water as He did in Noah’s day. The appropriateness and aptness of the rainbow as such a sign may be impressed upon us. We may then be led to perceive the Beauty, Love and Mercy of God and be transported in wonder and delight in the simultaneous Power and Gentleness of the Divine. We may consider all this to be literally True and find that the concepts of our faith are strengthened and confirmed by such a perception. Of course, this may happen with whatever framework of transcendent belief we have: we may see angels, or feel that angels are present with us; we may believe in the fairy world: in sprites and elves and tree spirits and so on; we may believe that there are Wise Spirit Guides literally communicating to us as channels and helping us along the path; we may believe in a pantheon of Divine Beings: good and evil gods, mischievous gods and so on. Whatever our belief is, this depth of mystical experience may be understood and framed using our particular conceptual framework, which may be strengthened and deepened in us. The point is that we take it literally. Here is part of the testimony of Sarah Edwards, the wife of New England Calvinist minister Jonathan Edwards which gives an example of such a literal experience: ‘. ..all night I continued in a constant, lively, clear sense of the heavenly sweetness of Christ’s excellent and transcendent love, of his nearness to me, and of my dearness to him; with an inexpressibly sweet calmness of soul in an entire rest in him. I seemed to myself to perceive a glow of divine Love come down from the heart of Christ in heaven, into my heart, in a constant stream, like a stream or pencil of sweet light. At the same time, my heart and soul all flowed out in love to Christ; so that there seemed to be a constant flowing and reflowing of heavenly and divine Love, from Christ’s heart to mine; and I appeared to myself to float or swim, in these bright, sweet beams of the love of Christ, like the motes swimming in the beams of the sun, or the streams of his light which come in at the window. My soul remained in a kind of heavenly Elysium. …As I sat there, I had the most affecting sense of the mighty power of Christ, which had been exerted in what he had done for my soul, and in sustaining and keeping down the native corruptions of my heart…so intense were my feelings…that I could not forebear rising up and leaping with joy and exultation…’(The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol.1 [1974] p.lxv Banner of Truth Trust). Here, her mystical experience is framed within the Calvinist faith to which she belonged. Though she did not perceive herself as literally floating, she nevertheless believed in a literal work of Christ. Her beliefs in a literally existing Jesus as her personal saviour were deepened and strengthened. We could find similar examples in Islam and Judaism and so on. In this experience of the receptive/intuitive mode, our rational/active mode quickly and almost simultaneously acts to categorise the mystical experience within our existing or dominant spiritual and religious conceptual framework. Our religious or spiritual concepts are able to accommodate the experience which then seems to confirm and deepen our religious ideas. The forms and concepts that are embraced in literal mysticism depend upon the stage of development that we have reached. Those at a magic level will be more inclined to embrace pagan and magic conceptual systems. Those at the mythic level will embrace mythic system religions such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity, those at the rational level may look to scientific, psychological and pseudo versions of science and psychology and so on to conceptualise the experience.

 

Trans-religious mysticism. Sometimes the mystical experience is of such depth and breadth that it cannot be contained by the person’s contextual religious framework, or orthodoxy. Their conceptual system or network cannot accommodate the experience or what it seems to convey. The conceptual framework that we have built up in our rational/active mode is inadequate to encompass the receptive/intuitive mode experience. This may have the effect of disorientating, unsettling and displacing us, despite any sense of liberation and ecstasy during the experience itself. Thus a person may begin a spiritual journey that involves finding an adequate conceptual framework of faith and belief that is able to contain the nature and content of the experience. Such a person may move from western Christianity to an exploration of eastern religions for example. Thus such a person may leave one religion for another, or move from atheist to believer and so on. This move may also take a regressive form, such as returning to mythical or magical frameworks of belief: a move common amongst New Age devotees who regress from rational stages to pre-rational stages of development. Amongst a group of people at this depth or even within one individual over time, the Divine may be conceptualised in many different forms in order to accommodate the experience or series of experiences – especially to accommodate paradox and contradiction. Thus such a depth of experience transcends any one religious conceptual system. Here, eventually, the Divine takes the shape of the container. This is known as theomorphism, and we will return to it later.

 

Trans-forming mysticism. Here the experience or experiences may lead to a trans-forming position, where the Absolute cannot be formulated or conceptualised because the Absolute is perceived transcendent of forms, concepts, language and ideas. This is where we find talk of the Absolute as being Emptiness, Stillness, the Silent Desert, Attributeless, Beyond-Being, in all things yet none of them and so on, or where we define Absolute in terms of negation – not like this, not like that. Here theology and conceptualisation itself is virtually transcended. The active/rational mode cannot encompass the depth and breadth of the receptive/intuitive experience.

With regard to the Absolute then, in the ultimate mystical experience Absolute or Essence transcends concept and form. So then, there are degrees of mystical experience: some are deeper than others. This depth can be measured along a continuum in which the deeper the experience, the more Attributeless and Formless the Divine becomes. In experiences of less depth, the Divine may appear as the very Essence of Love – God IS Love. Or nature my shine with a Deeper Reality such that one perceives the Essence of Nature – what lies beneath the expressions of the natural world. But in deeper experiences, the opposite may occur: the dominance of formal conceptual characteristics – of forms, of attributes of God, concepts, language and ideas which are the dominant characteristic of the active/rational mode, becomes less and less. The Divine appears to transcend any delimitation to form or attribute or Name or categorisation, any boundary or differential. Yet in order to describe the experience, to communicate it to others, we have to force the experience into language and concepts, to images and symbols. This is where mystics struggle to find the words, to find exactly the right terminology to describe the nature and content of their experience, because language is inadequate to contain what they have perceived.

4.8 PARADOX AND CONTRADICTION

How can we understand these contradictions and paradoxes concerning the Divine? It is here that many give up and conclude that mysticism is indeed some sort of fantasy that has no basis in ‘facts’ (Upper Right Quadrant 2). In order to understand these paradoxes and contradictions of Divine forms and the deeper experience whereby the Absolute has not attributes or qualities at all, we must look to how the deeper mystics used their rational/active mode of thought to conceptualise the process and overall structure of these experiences. In other words, what sort of theology did these people create? Of course, the problem is that they lived in different cultures and at different times so their understanding and conceptualisations were formulated within different religions. However, we can stand above these religious expressions to some degree in order to draw out some general principles which will help to orientate us in this subject.

4.9 ESSENCE AND THE DIVINE

It is a common conceptualisation to talk in terms of body/mind/spirit. But this tri-part structure falls short as a descriptor of the situation. So far, in looking at Ken Wilber’s approach, we have seen ‘body’ and ‘bodies-in-relation’ covered by the Right Hand Quadrants. We have seen the ‘mind’ which is an emergent from the body, as ‘mind’ and ‘minds-in-relation’ in the Left Hand Quadrants. We have briefly looked at ‘spirit’ as being if you like, the paper on which the diagram of Wilber’s model is written. But we need to look more closely now at the spiritual aspect.

For deeper mystics such as Meister Eckhart, Ibn al-Arabi and Shankara, Spirit can be considered in two aspects:

a)       Essence-as-Essence

b)       Delimited or contracted Essence in relation to manifestation.

We simply call Essence-as-Essence ‘One’, ‘Essence’ or ‘Absolute’. This is the Formless not like this, not like that that we considered earlier. But Essence contracts or delimits to be expressed as all that is. Delimited or contracted Essence we call the ‘Divine’ or ‘God’. Essence is always fully present, or Immanent in all existents as their Ground of being whilst simultaneously being transcendent of all existents. This simultaneous parallel of Immanence and Transcendence is called panentheism. Essence delimits or contracts to be manifest as all that exists, to be manifest as a material existent and for some existents, to be manifest in their mental, sentient emergents.

Delimited or contracted Essence-in-relation is, in Essence, Essence-as-Essence– but Essence-as-Essence has no relationship because Essence is all there is, Essence is transcendent of all and therefore Essence-as-Essence is One, Alone. Therefore, in considering concepts of delimited or contracted Essence-in-relation we are looking to the highest, noblest pointers to Unknowable Essence. These pointers also consist of pathways to Unknowable Essence.

Therefore Essence is Formless, Undifferentiated and Boundless but is expressed in all form: in plurality and multiplicity. The One is expressed as many. Therefore, in delimitation or contraction, Essence is the author of division, differentiation and separateness in bounded forms. Here we are given a direction of approach: Essence is One and therefore Unity. The expression of the manifestation of Essence in contracted delimitation is that of division, separateness and differentiation. Therefore, the direction of approach to Essence is along a pathway of Unity or of increasing undifferentiation – as expressed in the receptive/intuitive mode of being.

4.10 NAMES QUALITIES AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE DIVINE

The Divine is considered as having Names, qualities or attributes. Names, qualities and attributes are all terms that describe specific ways by which Essence enters into relationships with contingent, manifest existents or expressions. How does this occur since Essence transcends relationships? Essence-as-Essence is the intrinsic Reality of these Names/Attributes. Essence-as-Essence comprises all the Names within itself in undifferentiated mode. Each Name, quality or attribute is an outward or extrinsic aspect of the manifestation of Essence: a contracted form or aspect which therefore belongs to the Divine. The Names or Attributes represent pathways by which Essence contracts into the realm of relativity.

Each Name implies That which is other than that which is manifested. Each Name, attribute or quality is ultimately identified with the other names, qualities and attributes because of their Essential identity with Essence/Absolute: the Source of all Names. This is the Unity of the One. But at the same time, each Name, attribute or quality is distinguished from the other Names qualities and attributes because of its specific and therefore bounded quality. Each Name is a delimitation, differentiation, aspect and expression. Therefore Names, qualities and attributes of the Divine belong to the realm of relativity and transience. Therefore they are an imagined or projected reality. This is the Unity of the Many.

What we are seeing then is degrees within the One Being. There is:

Essence-as-Essence which is no-thing, Emptiness, beyond-being, not like this, not like that, and necessary self-sufficient existence.

The Names which are simply the Named.

Manifest existents – the ‘effects’ of the Names, these ‘effects’ having a contingent existence.

The Names, attributes and qualities of the Divine act as an isthmus or peninsula standing between contracted manifest existents and Essence and there is a mutual dependency between Names, qualities and attributes of the Divine and manifest existents. Inwardly and intrinsically the Names qualities and attributes of the Divine have no separate entity. Outwardly or extrinsically they are ruling properties over manifest existents. They require ruled ‘effects’, just as ‘Lord’ requires ‘servant’ and ‘King’ requires ‘Kingdom’. Once again we see that the Names are in relationship and therefore, the Names properly belong to the Divine but not to Essence.

Here then we have primary sources and location for the Divine forms:

The Divine forms are not just a figment of imagination, neither is the Divine form a reified abstract idea turned by us into a perceived ‘objective reality’. The locus of the Divine form arises from our True Ground and Nature: from Essence within manifest in us as the Still Small Voice arising from our Innermost Self.

One source of information about the Divine is in the various religious scriptures of the world, especially in their moral codes, which, though they are weak, external and infused by Ignorance still reflect to varying degrees the Names and qualities of the Divine – the relationship of Essence to us in the relative world. Therefore, used with care, they can be a useful source of Divine form.

Another source of information about Divine forms can be found in the writings of those who have tasted the Immediacy of God through different ages and cultures. There are those who, though not writing Scripture, have had immediate experience and insight of the Divine and who have written down commentaries and essays concerning what they have learned, sages such as Meister Eckhart in Christianity, Shankara in Hinduism and Ibn al-Arabi in Islam. These writers and others like them reflect their own age, culture and traditions but nevertheless still offer us insights as to the Divine.

But all this is appropriate to the contracted, relative perspective only they are partial aspects of the Formless conceptualised in the active/rational mode – these forms of the Divine disappear in the transcendent perspective – in the receptive/intuitive mode. However, it is important to note that no-one ever achieves full transcendence, enlightenment or Self-realization: no-one achieves equality with Essence whilst remaining as a manifest existent.

The form, quality, attributes and Names of the Divine vary from pilgrim to pilgrim, over time and through cultures, nevertheless, there will be some commonality and agreement because they all lead to the One. The Infinity of Essence is reflected in the non-repeatability and diversity of manifestation. All forms and expressions are in their True Ground Essence-as-Essence. This means that any form or characteristic is an expression or aspect or quality of Essence. Wherever we look, there God is. Furthermore, there is the idea or doctrine of Theomorphism – namely that delimited forms of Essence are not fixed or permanent. Theomorphism means that the Divine changes form, just as water takes the shape of the container into which it is poured. There is a flexibility and adaptation of Divine forms. This is where mystics differ from religious fundamentalists who consider their forms of the Divine to be Absolute and unchangeable whereas in fact, they are transient pointers to the Unknowable Absolute Essence. With the viewpoint that I am adopting here, there is flexibility of forms of the Divine. There is a sense in which any form reflects Essence and personal forms of the Divine may change over time.

These forms of the Divine both reveal and obscure Absolute. They reveal aspects of the Divine, yet, because such forms cannot encompass the Divine, they also obscure or hide the Divine. For the mystic, as this is true of these conceptual forms, so it is true of the universe: the universe, being Essence expressed and delimited to form, both reveals and obscures the Absolute. Thus Arabi’s answer to all questions was ‘Yes and no’. Is this person God? Yes in Essence, no in their expression of delimitation. Personal forms of the Divine can at best be described as allegorical, symbolic or metaphorical. They stand between us creatures of form and the Formless Absolute.

What we can see then is that Names, qualities and attributes of the Divine are the forms through which Essence-as-Essence contracts and relates to manifest existents for as long as contracted manifestation continues. We can also see that Names both reveal and veil: Divine Names reveal or point to Essence, but they can only point to and reveal delimited aspects of that which is Unknowable. The Divine Names attributes and qualities, which are delimited forms, necessarily also veil the Formless by projecting many boundaries, differentiations and limitations onto the Undifferentiated One.

4.11 SUMMARY 1

With regard to the Names, qualities and attributes of the Divine:

• · They are a binding, tying, or formulating of the Formless. They both reveal and veil.
• · They do not Ultimately exist, but are transient and personal – continuing only as long as manifestation and contraction.
• · They are not exhaustive or Absolute in themselves – but are transcended by Formless Essence-as-Essence.
• · They are a reference to Essence in relationship and therefore refer to contracted Essence or the Divine, but the intention of such Names and forms is Essence-as-Essence.
• · The forms emerge from the locus of our own True Nature, our Ground of Being expressed in us as the Still Small Voice.
• · Those who have immediately experienced the Divine in the past and in different cultures have also often recorded their understanding and insights as to Divine form and these are to be found in their writings and also in religious Scriptures and Laws or codes.
• · Because of historical, cultural and temperamental differences, as well as different degrees of transcendence that have been experienced by all Pilgrims, it is for the individual Pilgrim to seek out that which resonates best for them.
• · The Pilgrim should remember that in seeking this or that, you are seeking Essence. Whatever the form of the Divine they accept, there are bound to be contradictions between different religious systems because form cannot embrace the Formless.
• · Though outward forms differ and contradict, yet the intention of every believer is Essence.

4.12 MYTHS, ALLEGORIES AND METAPHORS

I have indicated that the receptive/intuitive mode is related to deeper aspects of or being. We are not usually aware of the depths of the mind, which we often refer to as the unconscious or subconscious. This deeper realm exists between the realm of sense perceptions and that of intellectual abstractions. It is a realm of visions proceeding from the subconscious to the conscious level of the mind in dreams and in hypnogogic imagery: vivid sensory images occurring at sleep onset but especially vivid with sleep-onset, rapid eye movement sleep periods and which also may be accessed by some exercises and intuitive disciplines of the mystics. Mystics however go deeper and declare that our True Nature and Ground is Essence-as-Essence. As Shankara says: Atman and Brahman are One – Self and Essence are One. Thus there is within us what some would call the Inner Light, the Still Small Voice, the Immanent Essence which is the locus of the manifestation of personal forms of the Divine. This is where Spirit meets material. For the mystic, images and concepts intuited during a mystical experience are not just subjective or unconscious fantasies but have a grounding in Ultimate Truth and Reality, even if they remain impervious to logical analysis. Instead of discounting them as merely imaginary fantasies and therefore unreal and irrelevant, as modern rationalists might do, mystics argue that we should attend to this dimension of our experience.

Mythology is an attempt to organise such experiences into imagery, metaphors and symbols which enable men and women to relate to these fundamental regions of their own being. Thus truth is not merely that which can be logically, publicly and legally perceived, but it also has an interior dimension that cannot be apprehended by our normal waking consciousness. Divine Truth is without limit: fresh insights are always possible and no single interpretation could suffice. True Knowledge can never be a matter of intellectual conformity to a particular interpretation. No sage or religious authority, however eminent, can claim monopoly of spiritual truth.

4.13 MYTH AND FOLKLORE

A Myth is a narrative through which religious or spiritual affirmations and beliefs are expressed, from the Greek word meaning ‘tale’ or ‘speech’. Often a myth is a story of unknown or unverifiable origin, but part of the tradition of a group or culture, thus myths are shared cultural narratives, (Lower Left Quadrant 4). Myths often have a religious or spiritual component and usually also carry an explanatory component that ostensibly relates to historical events, especially those events that are of importance to the group. Myths are not concerned with the truth, factuality or historical accuracy of an event, but rather are concerned with the meaning of an event, because the event is seen as a manifestation of constant, timeless realities. Thus individual biographies are located in stories of a more extensive, expansive kind and concerned with the nature of time, space, place, origins and death. They are often stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system. When embodied in a cult, the components of ritual and ceremony related to the myth, illuminate and work aesthetically on the worshippers to evoke a sense of sacred or revered significance and meaning, enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence. The divine beings and the events that surround them are revered as true and sacred and endorsed by rulers and priests.

The functions of myth are to:

• · Change history from a threat of unpredictable chaos and chance to stability.
• · Place particular events and biographies into a larger context that then supplies them with meaning and significance.
• · Save us from spiritual and existential despair.

Myth is so predominant that it is a human universal, but he nature of this universality is open to interpretation. Thus, for:

• · Jung: Myths arise from a collective unconscious and use archetypes such as King,

Trickster, Hero and Fool.

• · Freud: They are created in the formation of the mind.
• · Levi-Strauss: They are created in the formation of the mind and its need for order and logic.
• · Joseph Campbell: They have four functions:

Mystical: Evoking awe and gratitude.

Cosmological: offering models of the cosmos that are coherent with the Divine

but beyond physics.

Sociological: supporting the existing social order.

Psychological: initiating individuals into their own, especially spiritual,

potentialities

Some theorists question whether people were ever intended to take myths literally. In Wilber’s mythic level of development, they do indeed often seem to be taken literally and those people who stay at this level or move back to it, say in Christianity for example, tend to believe that Adam and Eve literally existed, that the serpent literally spoke to them, that the earth is literally under 10,000 years old, that there was once a literal world-wide flood which Noah and the animals survived and so on. The later rational level of development on the other hand begins to dismiss these stories: it demythologises. It sees them as untrue in the light of scientific development and discovery and therefore often throws them out as meaningless. Because myths are ostensibly about matters of fact, it is assumed that if the events portrayed are shown to be in error, then the myth is in error also. People who move to later post-rational stages of development however may return to these myths and whilst seeing that the gods do not literally exist upon Mount Olympus for example, they nevertheless may draw from them a sense of meaning, using them as symbols and forms illustrating deeper realities.

4.14 RELATED TERMS

When the religious or spiritual link in a myth is broken, the actors in the story are then seen as human heroes, giants, fairies and such like and the myth becomes a folktale. If the actor is Divine, but the story is trivial, the result is a religious legend. Myths differ from legends and folktales by the way in which they offer explanations. Myths are usually stories which point to truths of a kind which cannot be told in other ways and which are not disturbed if the apparent ‘facts’ are shown to be otherwise. Thus it is that religion has many myths of creation which strictly speaking are incompatible with each other yet there is no need to reconcile them.

The difference between myths and other related terms can be found below:

Fantasy: This refers to unrestrained fancy, to fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements, a whimsical or far-fetched notion. It is a flight of imaginative fictional fantasy that has no pretence to reality.

 

Legend: This is a short traditional oral narrative about a person, place or object that really exists or is believed to have existed. Even when it recounts a supernatural event, it is claimed to have happened in real life. It is presented as true though there is some scepticism involved. It offers information, moral judgements and warnings. Examples are: Robin Hood, King Alfred burning the cakes and King Canute. Or they may involve real people and supernatural tales, such as the story of St Dunstan.

Folklore: This concerns something voluntarily and informally collected, created or done by a group of any size, age, social or educational level, in whatever media, oral, written or visual, which has roots in the past but which also has relevance to the present. It usually recurs in many places in similar but not quite identical form. It is the group, whose joint sense of right and wrong and of what is appropriate and so on, that shares the story, as opposed to being put forward or maintained by an institution or authority.

Fairytale:  These are not presented as true but as a fantasy. They are a group of oral narratives centred on magical tests, quests and transformations. They are defined by their plots which follow standard basic patterns and their function is the oral entertainment of children and adults. They are alternatively called magic tales or wonder tales since not all of them have fairies in them. The word ‘fairy’ covers a wide range of non-human yet material beings with magic powers who may be visible at will and change shape.

Fable:  This is a short comic tale making moral points about human nature usually through animal characters.

Parable: This is a short story drawn from ordinary life illustrating important teaching. The most familiar in western society are the parables of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower and so on. Each parable illustrates one aspect of God and God’s dealings. Parables are more direct than allegories.

Allegory: This is a narrative that may express abstract ideas as concrete symbols. It is a symbolic work in which characters and events are to be understood as representing other things, especially a deeper spiritual, moral or political meanings. It is a prolonged metaphor, where one thing is used to represent another, from a root word meaning ‘to stand between’.

 

Personal Mythologizing. It would seem that in engaging in mysticism, one can create a personal myth, a narrative with a complex web of meaning which relates to the Absolute and Divine and the whole of the cosmos, thus giving oneself a meaning, significance, purpose and value to all that is. The mystic inevitably constructs a set of concepts and a narrative (rational/active mode) which are arrived at intuitively via immediate experience (receptive/intuitive mode) that orders the cosmos for the individual, which is true for the individual, yet not reliant upon ‘facts’, just as a general myth or personal allegory or metaphor. By drawing out the themes and as it were, the ‘theology’ or ‘philosophy’ contained within such mystical narrative experiences, a personal mythic system is created.

Mystical encounters then are not fantasies, legends, folklore, fairytales, fables or parables. It is tempting to describe the contents of mystical experience as a prolonged metaphor or allegory, standing between the spiritual and the material, using symbols and forms drawn from the material realm to represent Formless Spirit. However making this definition is itself a move into the rational/active mode of conceptualisation: to call a myth a symbol, allegory or metaphor is to rationalise it, to throw things together so that they become inseparable. As soon as we say ‘only a symbol’, the rational/active mode has arrived. Myth contains its own truth – and at some deep level it is self-evident. If one had approached a Greek citizen and asked them whether a character really did descend into the underworld they would not have understood the question, it is to ask an inappropriate question. The mystic returns from the intuitive/receptive mode of knowing, in order to then synthesise such experience using the rational/active mode. The synthesis of these two modes gives a fuller, more rounded view of the nature and meaning of the universe and our place in it.

4.15 REIFICATION

However, another tendency that can occur with regard to accounts of mystical experience is to turn these metaphors and symbols into an objectively existing concrete object: into something that exists ‘out there’. It is to transfer something subjectively and internally perceived and imagined in Upper Left Quadrant 1 and to transpose it into a Right Hand Quadrant. This is a process called ‘reification’. For example we may turn metaphorical, symbolic manifestations of the Divine into an external God or Deity which is seen as independently existing ‘out there’ or ‘up there’ and which is seen as being capable of acting upon us, the subject, as well as on the world and universe around us. This process of reification happens because as creatures of form, we are nearly always operating in a rational/active/logical mode using forms: referring to ‘things out there’. Also, since many of the metaphors concerning the Divine are anthropomorphic, or human-like, there is then a tendency to reify these anthropomorphic symbols so that we tend to think of God as ‘Big-Person-in-the-sky-out-there’. Similarly we may reify our ‘ego’ as being our ‘soul – a disembodied self that exists as some sort of object following the dissolution of the body. It is a danger that we have to be constantly aware of. With reification comes a whole raft of burdens of proof. If we say something exists ‘out there’, (in the Right Hand Quadrants) then it is quite right that people ask for proof, for evidence. Remember, the Right Hand Quadrants are concerned with then ‘it’ and ‘its’. If we are saying in effect that God is an Object-out-there, then it is reasonable for people to want to observe it, measure it and have proof or evidence of it. This is not what the mystic is saying. Shankara argues that such notions are a projection and have no substance.

4.16 REIFICATION AND RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM

With the advent and onslaught of the Age of Reason, modern science and thinkers such as Charles Darwin, traditional religious ideas came under increasing scrutiny and stronger and stronger challenges. As a result, for example in Christianity, the approach of some religious people to Scripture and thus the teaching contained within it, hardened and became less flexible as a defence reflex. Certain doctrines, such as for example a literal six-day creation period and/or a young earth theory, whereby through calculating dates in the Bible, the earth was said to have been created between 6,000 and 10,000 B.C., became ‘badges’ of identification – ‘markers’ of a ‘true believer’ holding steadfastly to and conserving the traditions of truth held to by previous generations of born-again believers. Such believers hold tenaciously to the fundamentals of the faith, to the traditional forms of the Divine.

What this systematic, ultra-conservative orthodoxy does amongst other things is define and conceptualise God for believer and it does so in a way that is unquestionable. This Bible is the Word of Infallible, Perfect God, written by men inspired by God in such a way that all corrupting influence which would give rise to false and mistaken ideas about God is restrained and withheld. To question the orthodox teaching therefore is to question God. To doubt it, is to doubt God. To suggest alternative or contradictory ideas to those of Scripture is to fall into error, to be self-deceived or deceived by the devil, or to oppose God.

Despite this, fundamentalists know that there are different interpretations and different degrees on emphasis on different passages of Scripture and that these in turn lead to different practices. Thus, in Christianity, we have Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and so on all within the protestant fundamentalist banner. This is accepted and tolerated so long as the main principles: plainly understood verses and truths of the Scripture that conceptualise particular forms of the Divine are agreed upon.

But what the fundamentalist has done is to elevate these writings and the ideas and concepts that they contain to an Absolute level and it is this that is one of their mistakes. Let me give an illustration. Christians call God the ‘Father’ – ‘Our father who art in heaven…’ Yet if the point is pressed, many fundamentalists will agree that God is not male and certainly not female (since fundamentalism is male orientated and patriarchal). They will acknowledge that the term ‘Father’ is a metaphor for a God that cannot be defined by gender: a God that transcends gender. Nevertheless, the word ‘Father’ is useful for describing the relationship that the believer has with God, for the way God deals with humanity. It engenders the whole Christian theology of the only begotten Son – Jesus Christ, as well as the Apostle Paul’s approach whereby believers are thought of as being adopted as sons of God and heirs, by reason of adoption, to the promises of God. But when it comes down to it, fundamentalists do not see God as a literal ‘Father’ or even as ‘Male’, but rather use the term in this ‘useful metaphor’ way. Fundamentalists are not always as literal in their interpretations as is usually made out. Many fundamentalists with regard to the creation account in Genesis take a similar approach. Because of the advances of science, instead of being inflexibly defensive, many fundamentalist believers find the literal interpretation too difficult to maintain, so they will talk about the six days of creation not in terms of literal twenty-four hour days but in terms of ‘figurative days’, that is periods of unspecified length symbolically described as ‘days’. As long as the main principles and ideas of the fundamentalist faith are not compromised, such ideas may again be tolerated.

The question we have to ask is: Are such forms absolute? Are such ideas and concepts Ultimate? I suggest that they are not and we see a clue why in the approach by fundamentalists themselves to the Divine Name ‘Father’. The concept, attribute, Name, quality, characteristic, relationship of ‘Father’ is not Absolute because God transcends gender – God is neither Male nor Female and therefore not ‘Father’. I suggest that there is a higher view of the Divine than that which is encompassed and bordered by conceptual ideas and forms, whoever may advocate them – Christian, Jew or Muslim. God is transcendent of the concepts and formulations of ‘Father’, ‘Creator’, ‘Love’, ‘Judge’ and so on. These are all limited, finite, relational terms but God as Absolute is Infinite, Transcendent and Unique. Essence alone is Real – Essence alone has Self-sufficient existence – all else is manifestation of Essence dependent upon Essence. The Absolute is transcendent of these limited forms, names and designations. They are in fact just useful metaphors that stand between us as creatures of form and the Formless, Infinite Absolute. We stand in relation to God and these are relational terms that reveal aspects and facets of an Absolute that we cannot comprehend or encompass with forms, ideas and concepts. Essence transcends any philosophy or theology.

One mistake that fundamentalists fall into then is to elevate the language and conceptual ideas of Scripture to the level of Absolute – such that these main ideas are inseparable from the Divine and must be conserved and defended at all costs. The attention of the fundamentalist is taken away from Absolute and instead directed to relative level of Scripture and scriptural ideas which are then falsely elevated to the level of Absolute. This reification of and focus on form and concept actually distracts the attention away from Absolute Transcendent Divine. The eyes of the fundamentalist are often not on Essence, but on conformity to and agreement with a set of conceptual forms which fall short of Absolute and are merely pointers to That which cannot be known.

4.17 CONTRADICTION IN MYSTICAL CONTENT

So, to return to our earlier question – ‘If there is one God, how come there are so many different and contradictory beliefs and systems of worship?’ Well, we have just had the answer to this question. The Formless Absolute that is encountered in the deepest mystical encounters cannot be encompassed by the mind. The Divine is transcendent of concept, of language, of ideas, of forms. In describing the Divine, in conceptualising the Absolute, we delimit the Formless into form. Such descriptions are inadequate stepping-stones in conceptualisation that serve to point to, but cannot in any way encompass, the Absolute. They are myths, metaphors and allegories, symbols that both reveal and veil the Divine to the individual mystic. Such symbols are personally relative to the individual mystic: they are personally meaningful and significant. Thus many mystics will argue that each individual has their own path to the Divine – that there are as many paths as there are individuals. Being Formless and Transcendent of form, the Divine is full of paradox when it comes to form: because the Divine is in all things, then the Divine is both Good and Evil, yet cannot be reduced to one or both of these concepts. Thus it is easy to see how apparent contradictions in mystical content arise between one mystic and another, especially since each person who has a mystical experience is embedded in a particular culture at a particular time. Even more than this, we are finite beings in a finite location looking at the infinite – the mystic sees only facets of the Absolute, like looking at facets of a diamond. Though all the facets belong to the diamond, one may be on the opposite side to the other, which may reflect quite different, even opposite things.

4.18 RELATIVE PERSPECTIVISM

The mystic then, stands in a finite location relative to the Infinite. They stand at a particular point in time and space and therefore have a unique perspective. With regards to the content, the symbols, metaphors, allegories and images that the mystic uses to describe and delimit the Infinite, their position is one of relative perspectivism: this is how things look to me from here at this time. To someone else, standing over there at a different time, things look quite different, in fact they even contradict the view of the first person. We only start to have problems with this when we mistake these symbols and allegories for concrete realities by the process of reification, or delimit the Divine solely to one absolute set of symbols to the exclusion of others, not allowing for the infinity, transcendence and paradox of the Divine. The mystic is not saying that the Divine is just in the imagination. This would be a reductionist stance where the Divine is reduced to Upper Left Quadrant 1 and to some degree Lower Left Quadrant 4. The Divine is not perceived by the mystic as a mere fantasy of the imagination. Rather, the mystic is saying that it is in the imagination where delimited forms of the Divine emerge as symbol, metaphor and allegory from the Source or Essence that is our True nature and Ground. The Absolute exists, but in our ignorance, our minds cannot encompass the Absolute by forms.

4.19 ANOTHER LOOK AT FAITH AND BELIEF

Returning again to the issue of faith for a moment, psychologist Roberto Assagioli in his book, ‘Act of will’, describes the nature of faith in the following way. In talking about the choice, decision and will, he argues that affirmation is a pivotal stage in the act of the will. Once deliberation, choice and decision have been carried out, we enter the phase of achievement: of making what is willed happen or manifest itself. The first stage of this phase of this achievement is affirmation, because without it, the decision remains latent. Affirmation is a state of mind, a state of certainty: it is a synthesis of two attitudes: faith and conviction:

Faith is intuitive. It is a belief in things hoped for but not seen. It belongs to the intuitive/receptive mode of being.

Conviction is cognitive. It is arrived at via reason and obedience/adherence to that which is perceived as being in harmony with truth. This belongs to the active/rational mode of being.

To bring what has been chosen and willed into effect, affirmation – the synthesis of faith and conviction, of the active/rational mode and the intuitive/receptive mode – must be vigorous and intense, having the sense of an authoritative command. Assagioli suggests the following model:

INTUITIVE/RECEPTIVE           SYNTHESIS             RATIONAL/ACTIVE

     FAITH————AFFIRMATION———-CONVICTION

We can further refine this model by considering the word ‘conviction’. As we have seen earlier, beliefs are an acceptance of inferences, propositions, or hypotheses where there is insufficient evidence to prove them as correct. They exist along a continuum of certainty that includes such positions as conviction, assurance, opinion, persuasion, inclination and sentiment. Beliefs give us:

• · Identity: A sense of the qualities that make us who we are.
• · Purpose: an arousing of short and long term goals and directions.
• · Cohesiveness: a sense of personal integrity and unity.
• · Belonging: a sense of unity with others – of sharedness, connectedness that inevitably also means division and separateness from some other groups. For example if you are a Christian, you are divided from and separate from Muslims.
• · Reduction of anxiety: a calming of fear and uncertainty, though some beliefs will increase fear and anxiety, e.g. the belief that the world is going to end tomorrow.

So we could modify the above model to that below:

INTUITIVE/RECEPTIVE   SYNTHESIS   RATIONAL/ACTIVE

FAITH————AFFIRMATION——–BELIEF CONTINUUM

    (conviction-assurance-opinion- persuasion-inclination-sentiment)

Roots in Unconscious                             Conscious

Intuitive                                                  Analytical

Non-rational                                            Rational

Narrative                                                 Empirical

Why?                                                      How?

Truthfulness                                           Truth

Meaning                                                  Facts

Insight                                                     Deduction

Universal                                                 Particular

Foundations/Origins                               Present/Future

Spiritual                                                  Material

Cognitive/Emotional                               Cognitive

Conservative                                           Innovative

Unifies                                                    Separates

Orientates                                               Pragmatic

We have also earlier (Chapter 3) defined faith as an integral centring process, it is intuitive, underlying the formation of beliefs, values and meanings, especially in spirituality. It carries the connotation of restful reliance on its object. Faith is a foundation to social relations, personal identity and the making of personal and cultural meanings. It is a generic feature of human beings that is distinct from belief because faith includes unconscious dynamics as well as conscious awareness. Faith also includes deep-seated emotional dimensions as well as cognitive operations and content. Therefore faith is more personal and existentially defining than belief.

Faith:

• · Gives direction and coherence to people’s lives.
• · Links people in shared trusts and loyalties with others.
• · Grounds personal stances and communal loyalties in relation to a larger frame of reference.
• · Enables people to face and deal with the limit conditions of human life, relying on that which has the quality of Ultimacy in their lives.

We can see from this definition, that there is a close relation to the functions of the intuitive/receptive mode and the rational/active mode.

4.20 STAGES OF FAITH

Faith itself is not static or expressed in a single stage, but rather it progresses through the developmental stages, it forms one of the lines spiralling out on Wilber’s diagram.  Faith development is part of a complex interplay of factors, including biological maturation, emotional and cognitive development, psycho-social, religious and cultural experience. Thus it is a quasi-independent line of development and has corresponding lines in cultural meanings and values, society and biology. As we have seen before, each stage of faith development nestles within the other earlier stages, like a Russian doll, transcending but including the previous stage(s). Movement from one stage of faith to another is not automatic or assumed.

The stages below broadly relate to Wilber’s stage model of development. They are outlined by James W. Fowler in (Shafranske, E. 1996. p170)

1) PRIMAL FAITH. The infant has a pre-lingual disposition of trust that forms in the mutuality of the infant’s relationships with parents and caregivers and which serves to offset the anxiety and mistrust that arise from a succession of cognitive and emotional experiences of separation and self-differentiation. The experiences of body contact, care, vocal and visual interplay, ritualised interactions associated with early play, feeding and tending and the development of interpersonal emotional attunement serve to activate a latent potential:

• · For finding coherence and reliability in the self and primal others.
• · For forming bonds of attachment with them.
• · For shaping a predisposition to trust the larger value and meaning

commitments conveyed in parental care.

2) INTUITIVE-PROJECTIVE FAITH. In the child’s pre-lingual imagery stage, meaning is based on the emotional and perceptual ordering of experience. Imagery holds and orders the mixture of emotions and impressions that are gained by the child. Experiences of power and powerlessness orient children to a frequently deep existential concern about questions of security, safety and the power of those on whom they rely for protection. It is here that we find the first self-consciousness of being seen and evaluated by others and the child is sensitive to the twin polarities of pride and shame. Here also is the child’s first construction of representations and conceptualisations of God, which research suggests is made up of dominant emotional characteristics that the child has experienced in their relations with caregivers. Thus abuse or neglect may activate the child’s defences resulting in dissociation and splitting, where the child may construct images of a ‘bad’ self, deserving the inevitable punishment of a demanding but justifiably angry God.

3) LITERAL FAITH. Here, more stable forms of the interpretation and shaping of experience emerge. The child construes the world in terms of linearity and predictability. God is not constructed in personal terms or as having highly differentiated emotions. The ultimate environment is constructed in terms of fairness and moral reciprocity: God is consistent; caring but just – goodness is rewarded, badness punished. Symbols and concepts remain concrete and literal. This is a typical mythical stage in Upper Left Quadrant 1.

4) CONVENTIONAL FAITH. The child begins to think about thinking – this is the beginning of the reflexive self. The ultimate environment is now constructed in terms of a personal God who has accepting love, understanding, loyalty and gives support in a crisis. The child develops an attachment to those beliefs, values and personal style that link them in a conforming relationship to significant people in their life. They do not want to be rejected by these significant people who are depended upon for confirmation and clarity about the child’s identity and meaning. Thus the child can be trapped in the ‘tyranny of the they’, where the opinions and approval or otherwise of significant people matters more than their own beliefs of integrity. This too may be a typical mythical stage in Upper Left Quadrant 1.

5) INDIVIDUATIVE-REFLEXIVE FAITH. At this stage, beliefs and their underlying assumptions are critically examined. Self-identity is explored apart from the individual’s roles and relationships and the person at this level takes their own goals and identity for themselves. The ability to take the perspective of a third person emerges generally out of the conflict between external and internal authorities. Conceptual frames of meaning are created where the individual is aware of their worldview as a worldview. People at this level tend to demythologise symbols, rituals and myths, and take responsibility for choosing their own values and lifestyle. This is a typical Rational and Existential, Formal operational stage in Upper Left Quadrant 1.

6) CONJUNCTIVE FAITH. Here, polarities such as good and evil are embraced with alertness to paradox and there arises a need for multiple interpretations of reality. Symbols, myths and metaphors are appreciated as vehicles for expressing truth; and groups and traditions other than one’s own are included. It is the beginning of a world-centric orientation and a rational, existential universal pluralism. It is the beginning of a synthesis, (of active/rational and Intuitive/receptive modes of knowing) together with recognition of a seriously incomplete self-knowledge and a principled openness to the truths of other religions. This is a typical Existential, Vision-logic, Integral stage in Upper Left Quadrant 1.

7) UNIVERSALISING FAITH. Universalising is informed by the experiences and truths of previous stages. There is a trans-class awareness and the beginning of transpersonal intuition as well as a devotion to overcoming violence, oppression and division. Those people who matter in faith now extend well beyond the bounds of social class, nation race and gender. There is no polarisation of the saved and the damned. This is typical Integral, Holistic Post-rational stages in Upper Left Quadrant 1.

Returning to Assagioli’s model then, we could further modify the model I outlined above to that shown below:

INTUITIVE/RECEPTIVE       SYNTHESIS             RATIONAL/ACTIVE

FAITH—————–AFFIRMATION——————-BELIEF CONTINUUM

(primal-intuitive/projective-early literal-) (conviction-assurance-opinion-

persuasion-inclination-sentiment)

(-late literal-conventional-indivituative/reflexive)

(conjunctive-universalising)

Roots in Unconscious                                             Conscious

Intuitive                                                                  Analytical

Non-rational                                                            Rational

Narrative                                                                 Empirical

Why?                                                                      How?

Truthfulness                                                           Truth

Meaning                                                                  Facts

Insight                                                                     Deduction

Universal                                                                 Particular

Foundations/Origins                                               Present/Future

Spiritual                                                                  Material

Cognitive/Emotional                                               Cognitive

Conservative                                                           Innovative

Unifies                                                                    Separates

Orientates                                                               Pragmatic

This gives us a richer answer to the question of whether people tended to take myths literally: the answer depends upon the developmental level of an individual’s or group’s line of faith. This model also offers the relationship between faith and belief. The synthesis of faith and belief is an orientation, a meaningful world-view that has to be affirmed. Assagioli argues that even in ordinary decision making, in choosing one option among a number of alternatives, the affirmation, in order to be effective, must be vigorous and intense, having the sense of an authoritative command.

4.21 AFFIRMATION

Techniques of affirmation day-to-day life include:

• · Using words of power…’look to the stars’ e.t.c.
• · Using images such as a picture of an ideal already accomplished or a symbol, such

as a lion for strength e.t.c.

• · ‘Acting as if’: assuming the physical and mental attitudes which directly or

symbolically express that which is to be achieved.

• · Repetition: to reinforce these affirmations and images.

With a mythology, similar strategies may be used:

• · The use of repetition of key facets of the myth in ceremony and ritual.
• · ‘Acting as if’ by emulating the Divine for example.
• · Using images, objects, idols, symbols of key figures/truths in the mythology.
• · Using words of power – perhaps in meditation or chanting…’I am God manifest in

the material’…to access the Absolute or reinforce ones worldview.

• · Repetition: in chanting, meditation, prayer or singing.

4.22 SUMMARY 2

Deeper level mystics do not advocate the literal existence of ‘Big-Divine-Person-Up-There’ but follow a path whereby concepts are used in a metaphorical way to build a personal allegory or mythical system which stands between the literally existing material and the Unknowable. This is not mere fantasy but arises from our True Nature. One danger to be avoided is the reification of such ideas and concepts by imagining them to have concrete existence. Contradictions and paradoxes arise between these conceptualisations because we are trying to finitely formulate the Infinite Formless. Such conceptual schemes are therefore relative. Another danger is that we fail to synthesise the rational/active and intuitive/receptive modes of knowing. Both are important and they are synthesised through the affirmation of faith which itself goes through levels or stages of development.

4.23 THE PROBLEM OF MEANING

Human beings seem to need meaning. Without it they suffer boredom, depression, and despair. Increasingly, psychotherapists are called on to deal with these symptoms as people confront aging and death in the context of a society that is coming to realize the possibility of its own decline and extinction. In the West, and particularly Western Europe, the religious framework that formerly defined meaning has been replaced by a scientific world-view which has a tendency to reduce everything to the two Right Hand Quadrants, in which ultimate meaning either does not exist or is not addressed. ‘What is the purpose of human life?’ and ‘Why am I?’ are questions that are said by most scientists to lie outside the scope of science or to be false, since they assume that the human species developed by chance in a random universe. According to this view, human beings are complex biochemical phenomena, of considerable scientific interest but not essentially different from anything else that science examines. Western psychotherapy is hard pressed to meet people’s need for meaning, for it attempts to understand clinical phenomena in a framework, based on scientific materialism, in which meaning is arbitrary and purpose nonexistent. Such explanations, however tidy they may be, do not offer much help to adolescents and young adults seeking a life path, or to those who experience despair as death approaches, unable to find significance in life goals that are based on personal acquisition, unable to find meaning in the purposeless universe of scientific empiricism.

The greatest problem Western psychotherapists face may be the absence of a theoretical framework to provide meaning. Clearly, those struggling to find meaning are likely to be badly handicapped when the context within which they view themselves does not provide meaning, direction or hope. It is also clear that science’s vision of an orderly, mechanical, indifferent universe can provide no purpose for life. Yet our lives and our psychological health depend on a sense of purpose. Mere survival is a purpose, but not enough for human self-awareness. Nor is working for the survival of others sufficiently meaningful if one believes that the human race has no place to go, that it endlessly repeats the same patterns, or worse.

So for example, on reaching midlife, one’s own death becomes less theoretical and more probable. Goals of money, security, fame, sex, or power might formerly have peen purpose to life. With experience however, the limited nature of such satisfactions becomes increasingly evident. As one grows older, an awareness surfaces that one is on a relentless slide toward extinction, making self‑serving goals seem utterly futile. Even altruistic goals can wear thin without a larger picture of the human race than the one our scientific culture provides. As our life progresses, then our search for meaning becomes increasingly urgent. Profound despair and dull resignation are symptoms of failing in that search. The pervasive use of alcohol, sedatives and drugs in society might well reflect many people’s attempts to suppress despair at their purposelessness and to substitute heightened sensation for meaning.

I have tried to indicate that it is possible that the conclusions of scientific materialism are wrong. From time to time many of us sense a larger reality than the picture that science provides, a subtle perception pointing to a better, Meaningful existence. The dissonance between the scientific view and the one that we intuitively perceive produces restlessness and a need for resolution. Even the pursuit of material goals may be a blind response to the urge to attain a dimly sensed reality in which purpose and meaning are facts, not fantasies. Our ability to progress in that direction is severely hampered by our not understanding the nature of the problem, by restricting reality to the empirical realm. Indeed, Western psychological science tends to regard the very consciousness through which we know the physical world to be no more than a product of that world, an epiphenomenon less real than that which it comprehends. No wonder meaning vanishes.

4.24 FAITH, MEANING AND MENTAL ‘ILLNESS’

Western culture’s belief in positivistic empiricism where only the tangible is real produces increasing symptoms at the individual, social, and political levels. A person who seeks psychotherapy may be suffering from a distortion of reality, not only at the interpersonal but also at the metaphysical level and neither the person nor the psychotherapist is aware of that.

Those who have bipolar ‘disorder’ have an inherent instability of mood. Although the ‘disorder’ is primarily one of mood changes, this also affects perspective and thought. Today life may appear bright, purposeful, exciting, stimulating; an opportunity to be grasped and enjoyed and to hell with the consequences, later, it may appear dull, oppressive, meaningless and something to be endured. It may be so black and meaningless that suicide may seem the best option. This instability of mood and perception, and the sense of meaningless that can accompany depression may drive the bipolar sufferer to seek a stable, meaningful foundation; a rock to be anchored to in these storms of life. Such a stable, meaningful foundation may lead the bipolar sufferer to spirituality and religion. The case of the schizophrenic is more acute, especially if they are hearing voices or seeing things that are not there, which may take on Divine or supernatural qualities. There may again, at some level, be a search for a foundation of meaning and stability that leads to religion and spirituality. One researcher, psychiatrist Julian Jaynes, when studying and working with schizophrenics, noted how inescapable and authoritative such audible and visual hallucinations can be – like the voices and the appearing of gods. This theme will be explored in the next chapter.

Spirituality and in some cases it’s accompanying outward expression in religion, may serve then to give a deeper, richer stability, structure, meaning and orientation to life and existence, especially with regard to ultimate questions such as ‘Why am I here?’, ‘What is the purpose of the Universe?’, and so on. Those with ‘disorders’ such as bipolar ‘disorder’ or schizophrenia, may find that what people conventionally use as the usual levels of personal structure, stability, meaning and orientation become severely challenged for them. The depth of meaning, structure and orientation, e.t.c. that most people require in order to function in the world just may not be enough for these sufferers: these conditions may throw their world into imbalance, fear, instability and chaos so that a deeper exploration of meaning and orientation may be required in order to achieve stability and this may be found in the depths of spirituality. If god-like voices or visions are being encountered, the leaning to spirituality may be even greater. It is no surprise to me that many people suffering from such ‘disorders’ may seek stability in the depths of spirituality.

This can be a mixed blessing however: a spiritual orientation may be found, which, irrespective of whether it is ‘true’ or not, provides meaning, stability and orientation. Furthermore, there may be caring love and support from fellow believers. The down side is that if such a belief framework is subsequently severely challenged, such that doubt and uncertainty arise, then this may be very destabilising indeed. Not only may the person be thrown back into chaos, but they may be very angry, feel deceived and foolish. One only has to look at the testimonies of Christian fundamentalists who left their fundamentalism to see what a heartbreaking and unsettling phase this can be. See ‘Leaving the fold’ by Edward T. Babinski, Prometheus books.

4.25 PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF THE QUEST FOR MEANING, STABILITY, ORIENTATION AND INTEGRATION.

What has been discussed above is in agreement with my own personal experience. After a period of severe depression, my (undiagnosed) mood swings became regular and acute. After spending ten years in a Christian fundamentalist fellowship, I increasingly questioned and challenged Christian theology, eventually leaving the church. I spent a further ten years with alternating world views ranging from secular humanism to a return to Christianity, sometimes being on the fringes of Christian fellowships. I explored the theology and philosophy of the New Age, of Psychology and some world religions. After ten years of not being involved with any spiritual group or people, I was restless. It was in this frame of mind that I decided to carry out a Repertory Grid Analysis in order to explore the way in which I conceptualised these different religious groups and philosophies.

By comparing these options, about fifteen conceptual constructs were elicited. Further deeper or core constructs were in turn elicited from those concepts that seemed important or significant. The preferred option was placed under the ‘preferred pole’ heading and it’s opposite was placed under the ‘contrast pole’ heading. I have listed below those that are concerned with meaning, orientation, stability and integration with others.

Preferred pole

1)       Personal reward, satisfaction and achievement

2)       Fulfillment of my potential.

3)       A sense of purpose and direction socially

4)       Uplifting and absorbing: energising.

5)       Accepted by others, belonging, connected, being part.

6)       Truthfulness and integrity

7)       Orientation, I know where I am.

8)       Confidence.

9)       Long lasting commitment to God and others

10)    Involved in the purpose and meaning behind religion

11)    Reaches depths of my being, real me, relevant

12)    Affirming of life and self

13)    Gives clear perception and vision of God and Reality

14)    Sense of self-control, self-determination. Independence.

15)    A position of power and strength

16)    Stable, level, steady, firm base, good foundation

17)    Able to stand in storm and tempest

18)    A sense of order, structure, discipline and boundaries

19)    Able to build (on good foundation)

20)    Participation. Originality

21)    Part of my context, culture. Fits, established

22)    Able to function well

23)    Involvement in spiritual counselling, teaching e.t.c.

24)    Meaningful, deep

25)    Safe, within my limits

26)    Healthy self protection

27)    Happy, settled

28)    Orientated

29)    In control

30)    Can function

31)    Relaxed

32)    Even tempered

33)    Good relationships

34)    In touch with others

35)    Good foundation

36)    Ordered, steady

37)    Focussed

38)    At ease with myself

39)    Touch others live

40)    Companionship

41)    Help and support

We can compare these with the unpreferred contrast pole which indicate lack of meaning, disorientation, instability and lack of integration with others.

Contrast (unpreferred) pole

1)       Cold formality

2)       Closed, narrow, restrictive. A hindrance to immediacy.

3)       Frustration and dissatisfaction

4)       Poor performance, falling short of potential.

5)       Lack of social purpose, aimless, meaningless.

6)       Numbness, depression, tiredness, listlessness.

7)       Disapproved of by others, outsider, outcast, isolated.

8)       Do not know where I am, constantly wrong-footed. Bewilderment

9)       Anxious, guarded, uneasy, tense

10)    Drifting, temporary and transient fellowship

11)    Indifference, or involvement only in shadows.

12)    Empty, superficial, only touches surface.

13)    Unstable, fluctuating, up and down, unsettled.

14)    May collapse or fall in trial and difficulty.

15)    Undisciplined, eclectic, free for all, chaos.

16)    Restless, uncomfortable, unhappy.

17)    Not able to build

18)    Unfamiliar, foreign, alien, square peg in round hole

19)    Poor functioning, Distracted, restricted.

20)    No involvement, keeping self to self. Hiding ones light

21)    Out of my depth

22)    Risk of emotional hurt

23)    Unhappy, anxious

24)    Bewildered

25)    Overwhelmed emotionally

26)    Cannot function

27)    Cluttered, tense

28)    Moody, irritable

29)    Strained relationships

30)    Distance, barrier

31)    Baseless

32)    Tossed about

33)    Distracted

34)    Emotionally crippling

35)    Bounded, closed in

36)    Do not touch others lives

37)    Lonely

38)    Unsupported

Such conceptual themes as these are by no means limited to spiritual or religious issues but certainly, the individual who has religious and spiritual concerns and involvement may be quite overtly concerned with the issues of meaning, orientation, stability and integration with others that are listed above and be looking to spirituality and religion to deal with some of their concerns. We can note some bipolar ‘disorder’ issues here in this list also. This shows that for me, as a bipolar sufferer, deeper issues of meaning, stability, integration and foundation are indeed important issues that I am seeking to address at a spiritual/religious level.

4.26 PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF MANIA AND THE INTUITIVE/RECEPTIVE MODE

The experience of mania can sometimes be negative: irritability, distraction, racing thoughts and so on, or it can be positive: a sense of well-being, euphoria and so on. In this more positive aspect, the sense of well-being and euphoria has led me to a sense of being elevated, lifted up and expansive: a sense of transcendence. This state I have found can be conducive to entering the intuitive/receptive mode of being. I can feel so elevated and transcendent, so expansive and free that I can be more susceptible to the intuitive/receptive mode of being with its attendant sense of the Real. This is a double whammy for the bipolar sufferer: they not only have a destabilising elevated mood of euphoria, but they slip into the disorientating non-rational but immediately Real, Meaningful and Vital intuitive/receptive mode of being.

End of Chapter Four. To read Chapter Five, please click HERE!

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA – Chapter Three: MEANING, FAITH, BELIEFS AND CONCEPTS

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES

OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

CHAPTER THREE

MEANING, FAITH, BELIEFS AND CONCEPTS

To read Chapter One – please click HERE!

To read Chapter Two – please click HERE!

CONTENTS

3.1 The internal world

3.2 Definitions

3.3 Perception

3.4 Why don’t we wait for convincing proof of everything?

3.5 Meaning

3.6 Summary 1

3.7 Functions and concepts

3.8 Fluidity of concepts

3.9 Falsifiability and unfalsifiability of concepts and beliefs

3.10 Conceptual values and self-presentation

3.11 Summary 2

3.12 Beliefs and logic

3.13 World-view assumptions

3.14 The assumptions of psychology and psychiatry with regard to spirituality

3.15 Summary 3

 

So far, I have taken a very general overview of mysticism, madness and mania in Chapter one and in Chapter two I have introduced a very general framework or ‘map’ in Ken Wilber’s Integral Model so that we can orientate ourselves in the discussions that follow. In this chapter I am going to look at faith and beliefs – which is seen as primary in religion and spirituality – but which also extends to scientific or objective world-views as well. This discussion is also extended to concepts or conceptualisation: something that we all do in everything that we approach. The focus in this chapter then is on our internal subjective representation of the external, material world or universe and also our internal subjective representation of the internal subjective representations constructed by other people. In other words, we are looking at what we believe and value about the world and also what we believe and value about other people’s ideas and beliefs.

 

3.1 THE INTERNAL WORLD

 

Upper Left Quadrant 1 contains our subjective orientation to the world: our beliefs and conceptualisations which change as we develop along the various levels. We frame and conceptualise the objective world in our minds in order to orientate ourselves in the world and act efficiently on the world around us. Quadrant 4 is concerned with communal beliefs: the beliefs held in common and shared by a particular group. Our concepts, beliefs and faith form a foundation or base for social relations, personal identity and the making of personal and cultural meanings. In turn, these beliefs have correspondences in how society objectively structures itself, expressed in Lower Right Quadrant 3, – thus the rational, secular industrial society is structured differently than a medieval mythic-level Christian society. Beliefs, faith and concepts also have corresponding objective, measurable effects in the physical organism, Upper Right Quadrant 2, such as in brain activity and so on. Here however, we are primarily concerned with the internal subjective quadrants 1 and 4, with some asides to quadrants 2 and 3.

 

3.2 DEFINITIONS

 

There are subtle differences between faith, belief, concept, religion and spirituality so I am going to define them as they are used in this essay:

 

CONCEPT: Is a general idea; something formed in the mind; a thought or notion; a scheme; a plan; a theoretical construct; a general idea or notion that corresponds to some class of entities and that consists of the characteristic or essential features of the class. [Late Latin conceptus, from Latin, past participle of concipere, to conceive; see conceive.]. The key aspects that I want to emphasise in relation to our theme is that a concept is subjective formulation in the mind. It is the nature of a concept to have boundaries: a concept groups characteristics and features within a bounded class creating differentiation and similarity to greater or lesser degrees. Thus we might formulate or construct the concept of a house and within that concept we may include cottages, terraced properties, mansions, bungalows and so on. The concept ‘house’ generally excludes garden sheds, garages, offices and cinemas. But all of these may be included in the concept ‘building’. Ken Wilber’s Integral model or ‘map’ is a conceptual framework. It tries to group concepts together into an interrelated system that is able to accommodate all our development and experience.

 

We all use concepts, from the spiritually minded, religious believer, to the atheistic scientist to the child in the street. We organise, differentiate and categorise what we perceive into a more or less sophisticated and a more or less overt internal, subjective conceptual web which enables us to make predictions about our world and act upon it.

 

BELIEF: Beliefs are inferences, propositions, or hypotheses that we create where there is insufficient evidence to prove them as either correct or false. This is why we are in quadrants 1 and 4 more than quadrants 2 and 3. These beliefs exist along a continuum of certainty that includes such positions as conviction, assurance, opinion, persuasion, inclination and sentiment. Beliefs then are by no means limited to religion and spirituality. The empiricist scientist often makes inferences, propositions and hypotheses in the light of insufficient objective, measurable evidence. We can say then that a belief is a concept formed where there is insufficient objective evidence. A belief is a form of conceptual speculation and inference. In spirituality and religion such beliefs about the spiritual realm and the Divine form an intellectual base or ground from which are formed the doctrines, theology or ideological claims of a particular spiritual or religious tradition, group or individual. Theology, doctrines and religious philosophy and ideology are overt and systematised conceptual frameworks which are made up of the classification and differentiation of objective aspects of the world and universe, as well as inferences, speculations and hypotheses concerning the spiritual realm.

 

This should not be seen as some sort of negative prejudice concerning spirituality and religion: exactly the same can be said about scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists and politicians. In fact it can be said about each of us as individuals. We all conceptualise and we all hold conceptualised beliefs where there is insufficient objective evidence to inform us one way or another.

 

FAITH: Whereas concepts and beliefs are centred around cognitive differentiation and categorisation, faith includes unconscious dynamics, conscious awareness and deep-seated emotional dimensions as well. Therefore because of this greater breadth, faith is more personal and more existentially defining than belief. A central process that integrates or unites faith is intuition which underlies the formation of beliefs, values and meanings that form our faith. Faith also has a greater element of dynamic and action about it.  This faith serves to:

a) Give direction and coherence to people’s lives.

b) Link people in shared trusts and loyalties with others.

c) Ground personal stances and community or group loyalties in relation to a larger frame of reference.

d) Enable people to face and deal with the outer limits of the conditions of human life, relying on that which has the quality of Ultimacy in their lives.

 

This quality of faith is not limited to spirituality or religion. Scientists, atheists and so on also exhibit a faith that gives direction, group membership and ability to cope. We will return to faith again however in the next chapter where I will give a fuller definition in the light of what I say over the next few pages.

 

RELIGION: Is a cumulative tradition in a culture or society that is composed from the many and varied beliefs and practices that have expressed or formed the faith of individuals past and present. The components of religion include religious institutions, such as churches, temples, shrines and so on; authoritarian or hierarchical structures, such as Popes, archbishops and priests; as well as art, architecture, symbols, rituals, ceremonies, narrative, myth, Sacred writings, doctrines, ethical or moral teachings, music and practices of justice and mercy. Religion then tends to be an outward demonstration of internally held beliefs and faith.

 

SPIRITUALITY: Is the realm of the individual’s subjective beliefs and experiences in relation to the Absolute, Divine or Ultimate. Spirituality is inward and subjective, hence again our emphasis on the Left hand Quadrants 1 and 4. Spirituality often takes the form of a personal journey. Spirituality is always defined in this study as an individual’s relationship, perception and experience of the Absolute and not, as is common today, in relation to uplifting or liberating emotional experience.

 

3.3 PERCEPTION

 

The material, objective world of the Right Hand Quadrants has within itself some inherent structure or pattern and this in turn partly structures our perception of that material reality. But this objective material reality is perceived via our selective attention and sensory receptors. Our perception of material reality is not just a passive reception but rather it is an active seeking out of information from a particular viewpoint or perspective. Our particular perspective is a physical, cognitive, emotional, motivational viewpoint in the light of memory and experience. Thus, objective material reality is subjectively interpreted with a particular bias. This perception of reality is a mixture of what psychologists call ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ processing and is imbued with meaning and value. It is ‘top down’ because perception of an object is interpreted and categorised within our learned conceptual framework and it is selectively attended to and imbued with meaning and value. It is ‘bottom up’ because raw information enters and is filtered through our senses: grass is green because the sensors in our eyes pick up certain wavelengths of light and not others. In addition, this perceptual information is often processed automatically. The concepts that we construct about objective material reality are shared with others in a particular society and culture at a particular time. Our framework of constructed concepts is therefore shared and affirmed or verified by parallel experience and interpretation; by communication using shared symbols such as language and images which are cultural tools. This gives our constructed conceptual framework a cultural or group bias.

 

3.4 WHY DONT WE WAIT FOR CONVINCING PROOF OF EVERYTHING?

 

Why do we speculate and construct beliefs about objective reality? Why don’t we wait for convincing proof? Well, if we did, we would not be able to function: we would not have enough information to act when we needed to with the result that we would be paralysed and may not survive. Rather, based on what evidence we have, together with other related factors, we make inferences from our perception of the objective world in order to make sense of the world, so that we can make predictions about it in order to function and operate appropriately in the world so that we can survive. Making sense of the world then involves using bounded, differentiating forms: concepts and categories that are internal, subjective representations of the world which includes speculative beliefs and interpretations about similarities and differences in perceived reality. In this way, events, people and objects are labelled via a language; categorised according to features and prototypes and sorted with related concepts in memory. In addition we use scripts – stored routines in our memory that serve to give us expectations and enable us to make predictions. If I say the words ‘Boxing match’, we do not picture a hall of flowers, a violin or the ocean. We already expect to see a hall, with a boxing ring and anticipate to see a referee supervising two men fighting in the ring using boxing gloves and so on. That is our expectation and prediction.

 

These subjective conceptual representations are not isolated chunks of information but rather are highly interconnected with other concepts that we hold, other knowledge that we have, with our emotions, the behaviour of others and ourselves, our motives, our memory, our expectations and our values, to form a complex network. Since all these factors are related to our concepts, some of which are speculative hypotheses or beliefs, we invest varying amounts of ourselves in our conceptual web. For example, if we believe it is important to help those less fortunate than ourselves we may invest our time, energy, money and skills into various pursuits to this end such as donating money to certain causes or being involved in voluntary work or with a charity. Therefore our conceptual framework and our beliefs are loaded with investments and commitments, which vary in type according to the particular concept and it’s strength. As we embrace a set of concepts and beliefs then, consequences follow for other concepts beliefs via the interconnected network that we have formed and these concepts and beliefs in turn involve further investment of energy, commitments and consequences.

 

In the main, we do not consciously entertain investment and commitment to contradictory concepts and beliefs: a person does not hold belief in God and at the same time believe that there is no God, as this would be the opposite of the order, structure, predictability and stability that we seek in order to function in the world. Even so, we may hold on to inadequate concepts or false or erroneous beliefs because we feel that they may enable us to function reasonably well, even better than if we understand the truth, which we may seek to avoid or deny. The truth may be so threatening to our conceptual and belief network and therefore threatening to us, our sense of identity, meaning and orientation, that we prefer to deny and /or oppose the truth and hold on to an untruth, a lie, or illusion.

 

3.5 MEANING

 

Individual human beings seem to require meaning and this too is a subjective emergent that we would place in Upper Left Quadrant 1. I am defining meaning in broad psychological terms as synonymous with significance, importance and sense of coherence. To live in a world or universe that is merely random, incoherent and chaotic does not seem to be an option for the human mind. The need for meaning seems tied with our very existence: in other words it is an existential issue. Clinical psychologists and psychotherapists have observed that a lack of meaning leads us to boredom, apathy, emptiness, cynicism, lack of direction, criticism of the activities purported by others to have meaning, aimlessness, worthlessness, confusion and despair.

 

Meaning seems to exist at multiple levels: We can talk about the meaning of life: Does life in general, or at least human life, fit into some overall coherent pattern? Does the universe have any coherent importance and significance? But meaning exists at lower levels too. Our lives seem to be made up of a multiplicity of meanings as opposed to finding meaning in just one great coherent scheme, important as that may be to some of us. Thus we may find meaning in teaching others, in being employed, in repairing a car, in writing an article or creating a painting.  In contrast to those people who have a sense of meaninglessness, those who possess a sense of meaning experience life as having some purpose or function to be fulfilled and some overriding goal or goals to which to apply themselves. Religion and spirituality often deals with meaning in the grand themes: human origins, the fate of the universe, our place and purpose in the grand scheme of things. When it comes to religion or spirituality there is usually a reference in this coherence to some magical, supernatural or spiritual ordering of and purpose in the universe.

 

3.6 SUMMARY 1

 

In order to make sense of a partially structured or patterned objective material world and in order to function and survive in it, we interpret and categorise our selective and biased perceptions via cultural tools such as language. Since we cannot investigate all the evidence available, we have to speculate and make inferences. With these conceptualisations and beliefs we construct a highly complex conceptual framework through which we understand our world. These personal, subjective concepts interact not only with other concepts and beliefs, but also with our emotions, motives, behaviour, memory and expectations to produce an even more complex interrelated system. This network carries with it varying degrees and types of investment of our time, energy and behaviour e.t.c., and has logical and sometimes illogical consequences for other beliefs in the system. Because we are trying to make sense of our world, we do not tend to simultaneously hold on to explicitly contradictory beliefs. Our conceptual network helps to give us a sense of meaning.

 

3.7 FUNCTIONS OF CONCEPTS

 

One of the functions of constructing a subjective conceptual network is to give us differentiated identity: a sense of the qualities that make us who we are – we are this, not that. They give us purpose: an arousing of short and long term goals and directions: I am going in this way, not that. They also serve to give us cohesiveness: a sense of personal integrity and unity such that we do not feel divided or incoherent within ourselves. They often serve to give a reduction in anxiety: a calming of fear and uncertainty, though some beliefs will increase fear and anxiety, e.g. the belief that the world is going to end tomorrow. Conceptual networks often give us a sense of belonging: a sense of unity with others who hold to similar conceptual networks, a connectedness that inevitably also means division and separateness from some other groups. For example if you are a Christian, you may feel connection and unity with fellow Christians, but you are to varying degrees divided from and separate from Muslims.

 

It is important to note that these effects and functions of a speculative belief will follow regardless of whether the belief is true or not, so long as the person who holds the belief considers it to be true, or manages to effectively avoid serious and threatening contradictions to that belief. A Christian creationist may hold to their speculative beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary in order to maintain these qualities of identity, purpose, cohesiveness, connectedness with others and anxiety reduction that may override any considerations of the truth or falsity of the speculative belief concerned. It may be more important to belong to a group than become separate from them by overly challenging the group’s beliefs. Thus there may be an unwillingness to examine the truth or otherwise of some speculative belief concepts because of the investment/commitment/reward of these other factors. We will return to this theme in a moment.

 

3.8 FLUIDITY OF CONCEPTS

 

Concepts are not static and rigid but rather they are fluid such that processes of accommodation and assimilation usually apply: in assimilation, as new information is received, it is assimilated or incorporated into the various categories, concepts, beliefs, schemes and scripts that we have already learned and constructed. But sometimes, new information does not fit into these very well, e.g. the world did not end as predicted, so the existing conceptual network may have to be modified to accommodate the new information. However, different concepts offer different resistances to change. Some concepts are peripheral and their alteration has hardly any effect on the conceptual and belief network that we have constructed and thus they do not pose a threat to our identity, purpose, cohesiveness, connectedness and anxiety reduction. Peripheral concepts and beliefs have not involved much in the way of investment or commitment. For example, the average person may not believe that there is water on the Moon. Assimilation of the discovery that there is water on the moon is probably quite easy: it has little real effect on day-to-day living. But other concepts and beliefs are more central and core: they are well established and deeply interconnected with our orientation, identity, purpose, integrity, sense of belonging and ability to keep anxiety at bay. To change these beliefs may entail great personal and psychological cost.

 

3.9 FALSIFIABILITY AND UNFALSIFIABILITY OF CONCEPTS AND BELIEFS

 

We may have to accept that our investments in core concepts and beliefs have been misplaced and thus we may feel foolish in front of others. Our sense of understanding the world and ourselves may be threatened. Other concepts and beliefs may be affected as a consequence of changing this one. Our emotions, behaviours, motives, expectations and even our memory may be affected. Our sense of orientation, identity, purpose, integration and social belonging may all be threatened and anxiety, fragmentation and aloneness may increase. In short, challenging core concepts and beliefs will cause a person to feel threatened and disorientated, thus possibly leading to defensive measures such as physical threats, shouting people down, denial, refusal to listen and avoidance. The continuation of such dissonance may lead to psychological problems.

 

Concepts and beliefs are validated by reference to others, (social referents), the world itself and our internal system. We constantly monitor and review our position by learning new information and via social comparison with authority figures that we respect: scientists; religious leaders; experts; peers: friends in and out of the groups to which we belong and relatives. The pressure that such people can exert on our concepts and beliefs is very high and hence they can affect our behaviour, emotions and sense of identity.

 

Sometimes, new but contradictory information is reframed to fit in with the existing conceptual system. Thus when the ‘Aliens will destroy the world tomorrow’ prophecy fails, rather than admit failure, the believer may say that the aliens changed their minds as a result of the group’s efforts at warning the world, even when no such efforts have been made, because it is too costly to their personal integrity and cohesiveness to declare that the whole thing was a mistake. Time, effort and money had been invested in the speculative belief that the world would end…perhaps homes and jobs were given up and preparations made…

 

A popular model for looking at failed prophecy suggests three modes of reframing prophetic failure: adaptation, reaffirmation and reappraisal. First, believers may acknowledge an error of dating. Second, the blame may be shifted to some force inside or outside of the the group which has interfered with the cosmic plan. Lastly, believers may postulate that the event did in fact occur as predicted but that it happened on the spiritual rather than the material plane and was not, therefore, directly observable to believers. The denial of the failure of a prophecy is not just another option, but the common mode of adaptation of groups following a failed prophecy. Groups tend to reinterpret the promise of a visible verifiable event into the acceptance of a nonverifiable, invisible event. Members may however still experience dissonance and emotions such as sadness, fear, bewilderment and disappointment and it is for this reason that the prophecy must be reinterpreted. Emotional distress is addressed by placing an emphasis on renewing group ties after disconfirmation. The data demonstrates that even intense religious groups are not a group of fanatics who follow doctrine without question. They are sane people trying to reason their way through facts and doctrine in the pursuit of understanding. Even when a messianic leader is alive the messianic belief will be contested and some members do have doubts about the leader’s messianic status. Group members may cope with failed prophecy by appealing to a number of rationalizations which not only preserve, but enhance their commitment to a messianic prophecy. In one such group several members stated that although the leader was a potential messiah, the present generation did not possess enough merit to warrant his coming, i.e. it was their fault. Another explanation was that it is only God who knows when the messiah will arrive: group members thought that they knew the script, but they were wrong, because humans cannot know God’s intentions. However, one of the most common explanations was that even though the leader was dead, now that he was without the hindrance of his physical body, he was in fact more powerful spiritually and was better able to bring on the coming redemption. Thus if a prediction fails, the members of the group may not abandon the movement, but aim to resolve the dissonance while relying on the unfalsifiable beliefs out of which religious thought worlds are constructed and within that context believers can engage in a reaffirmation of basic faith and make a reappraisal of their predicament. The belief that someone is a messiah is empirically testable: it is verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. The belief that the now dead leader has become the messiah has changed into a supernatural unfalsifiable belief that he is more powerful in the spiritual world.

 

3.10 CONCEPTUAL VALUES AND SELF-PRESENTATION

 

As we have seen, our concepts and speculative beliefs are also imbued with values, e.g. good, bad, right, wrong or worthy. We have our own internal value system – what we think is good, right e.t.c., which though to a great degree is learned from others, is nevertheless our own. Such values are linked to our sensations of pleasant/unpleasant and are thus linked to our motives. However, society in general also has values, as do the groups to which a person belongs. Thus there may be dissonance between our own concepts/beliefs/values and those of the society/group to which we belong or are embedded in. To some degree this is overcome by presenting oneself to the group in such a way as is acceptable to them and thus in turn, one is accepted by them. However, too much dissonance will result in pressure: refusal to present oneself in an acceptable manner may maintain integrity but create the anxiety and threat of rejection. The more important the acceptance of others is to us, the more pressure we feel to conform. It is here that the unorthodox mystic may find a measure of conflict: do they stay faithful to the immediate experience that seems Real and True, but which also may run counter to the orthodoxy of the group? There may arise a conflict in the mystic between personal integrity and conformity to and acceptance by the group, especially any religious group, to which they belong. This is why the often radical contents of mysticism are couched in orthodox terms, all the more so in less tolerant days when one might be burned at the stake for heresy, or why mystics become hermits and recluses.

 

3.11 SUMMARY 2

 

Our interrelated conceptual networks, made up in part of speculative beliefs, which affect so many aspects of ourselves, help to give us orientation, identity, purpose, cohesiveness, a sense of security and understanding. New information is either slotted into our existing conceptual/belief schemes or our schemes may be changed to accommodate new information. Core concepts, closely related to our integrated sense of self, may be difficult to change, because such change makes us feel threatened and vulnerable. We validate our concepts in part by comparing ourselves with others, some of whom may exert considerable pressure on us to modify our stance in order to maintain the status quo of existing concepts and beliefs and the values linked with them. If we do not maintain the status quo, we risk losing their and the groups acceptance of us and threaten the coherence and identity of the group itself.

 

3.12 BELIEFS AND LOGIC

 

Because our concepts and speculative beliefs are so intimately connected to our emotions, behaviours, motives, expectations, integrity, identity and belonging, we are not purely logical or rational beings when it comes to belief, because all the above factors intrude on our logic. Typical examples of non-logical thinking include magical or mythical thinking where for example we may interpret events occurring closely in time as causal of each other, e.g. ‘I was just thinking about Joe and the telephone rang and it was Joe on the line…’. We may infer that our thought somehow induced Joe to ring. As a result we may consider that there are special powers or a subtle interconnectedness to the universe that we cannot explain. Thus, autistic people have no sense of the fact that other people have intentions, or are capable of deceit by saying one thing and meaning another. One autistic person on seeing the ability of someone to infer another person’s thoughts by their body-language, ascribed this to special powers. Our use of magical thinking is also affected by context: though amazed by an illusionist’s tricks at a magic show, we nevertheless ascribe it to the artist’s skill in sleight of hand and misdirection. The same trick carried out by a fortune-teller, or prophet, or person claiming special powers, may induce magical thinking. Mythical thinking occurs at a different, higher level. It is more concerned with grand schemes, issues of destiny, salvation of mankind and so on. Like magical thinking, aspects of it attempt to answer the meaning and purpose of existence. Unlike spells and direct interconnection between objects or between objects and the spiritual realms, it usually posits the ideas of gods, spirits, saviours, heroes, fate, destiny, grand purposes of the universe, predestination, the battle between good and evil and such like. In later stages, it moves to monotheism: the idea that there is one God and one God alone. Typically it involves fundamentalist religions.

 

Most New Age beliefs and modern religious fundamentalisms in western society are regressive forms of belief that offer us a return to child-like security and comfort in the face of a harsh existential reality. In this case, the feelings of comfort and safety offered by such beliefs, together with a sense of belonging when such ideas are shared in a like-minded group, override considerations of truth and logic. They provide an apparently safe haven when rationalism and logic appears to fail, or appears too harsh.

 

3.13 WORLD-VIEW ASSUMPTIONS

 

Unspoken speculative beliefs, or assumptions, underpin every world-view. If we did not make such assumptions, we could not construct theories about reality. We do not know everything so we have to speculate a foundation on which to build a conceptual system. We often unknowingly take such assumptions and speculations by faith as being true. We have already seen that empirical science, including psychiatry, is an approach that wants something to be verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment and that it has a tendency to a reductionist, materialistic view of reality. Unspoken speculative concepts about the nature of reality underpin not only psychiatry, but psychology, politics, science and religion. As we have seen, some assumptions emphasise the objective material, others the subjective and even unseen spiritual dimensions. We cannot avoid these assumptions, but it is good to be aware that they are there and if possible know what they are. Such assumptions are part and parcel of our conceptual framework of meaning and have implications and consequences on the perceptions, interpretations of reality and the framework of concepts and beliefs that we construct. These in turn affects our behaviour: if we do not subscribe to the concept of chemical imbalance in the brain, we will treat a schizophrenic or bipolar ‘disorder’ sufferer differently than if we do hold on to such concepts. If we subscribe to the concept of a spiritual realm, we will act differently towards one who claims immediate experience of the Divine than we would if we think that the existence of such a dimension is primitive nonsense. Our individual concepts are further shaped and affected by the common concepts held by the community in which we live. Fifty years ago in Britain, most people considered the practice of homosexuality ‘abhorrent’. Now it is the opposite: the polite refusal by a Christian couple running a guest house to have a homosexual couple as guests in the same room is seen as ‘archaic, outdated and abhorrent’. A few centuries ago, an atheist would have to have been quite circumspect about his beliefs in the light of living in a largely pro-Christian community because of all the outrage and sanctions that such a view might elicit from others around them with whom the atheist had to live. Today, in Britain particularly, we live in a largely secular society where political correctness has steadily and systematically been dismantling the traditional cultural Christian spiritual orientation in favour of so called neutrality and further eroded it by supporting or giving preference to minority, ethnic religions in the name of human rights. At it’s core, humanistic secularism is either atheist or agnostic – it either does not believe in God outright, or it does not know whether God exists or not and so sits on the fence. Thus in the community, spirituality may tend to be perceived negatively as regressive or naïve and mystics may be seen as eccentric or tinged with madness. In the meantime, a terrible vacuum and confusion of spiritual forms has been created which more organised and fervent religions such Islam may fill.

 

3.14 THE ASSUMPTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY WITH REGARD TO SPIRITUALITY

 

Since we are considering bipolar ‘disorder’ and schizophrenia, we inevitably find ourselves in the domain of psychology and psychiatry. Psychologists are interested in the healthy functioning of the brain and mind, psychiatrists are trained medical doctors specialising in the field of brain ‘disorder’ and as such are able to prescribe medications. We have already seen that psychiatry may well reduce its perspective to that of objective science, the Right Hand Quadrants 2 and 3. It often seeks to explain spirituality and spiritual experience solely in terms of brain activity and functioning. Psychologists on the other hand are to put it bluntly, divided. On the one hand, there is a descriptive trend of psychology, documenting the various types of religious experience where religion and spirituality are seen as an asset to personal growth, meaning and wholeness. The representatives of this position include psychologists such as William James, Edwin Starbuck, C. G. Jung, Gordon Allport and Abraham Maslow. On the other hand there is the explanatory trend, promoted primarily by researchers who are suspicious, sceptical or disdainful of religious and spiritual experience. They, like many psychiatrists, seek the origins of such experiences not in a transcendent realm, but in mundane psychological, biological and environmental events. Within this trend, religion and spirituality is seen as a liability. The best known representatives of this trend are James Leuba, Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner. With such widely divergent perspectives and agendas, psychologists are not only attentive to different aspects of spirituality and religion, but also likely to conceive of spirituality and religion in starkly contrasting terms. Descriptive psychologists focus on interior subjective states, Upper Left Quadrant 1 and to some degree Lower Left Quadrant 4. Explanatory psychologists typically focus on externals, represented in Right Hand Quadrants 2 and 3. When viewing external expressions such as creeds and rituals, they are likely to see them as unfounded and irrational: myths to be demythologised because they have little or no basis in objective facts. When it comes to mystical or transcendent experiences, like some psychiatrists, they may reduce these experiences to biochemical activity in the brain. In effect, they say something like: ‘Because we can observe changes in brain activity during a reported transcendent mystical experience, then that is all the experience is: a change in brain activity.’. How a psychologist or psychiatrist evaluates a bipolar or schizophrenic sufferer who has spiritual/religious interests or concerns depends then on the perspective of the individual expert and the assumptions of the overt conceptual framework or theory that they are adhering to. They may perceive such interest in spirituality or mystical experiences as a pathological symptom: irrational and out of touch with the reality which they advocate.

 

This means that psychologists and psychiatrists may be experts in their field, but they nevertheless still hold to a theoretical orientation with its accompanying assumptions: they are not neutral, especially when it comes to spirituality.

 

3.15 SUMMARY 3

 

In order to make sense of a partially structured or patterned objective material world and in order to function and survive in it, we interpret and categorise our selective and biased perceptions via cultural tools such as language. Since we cannot investigate all the evidence available, we have to speculate and make inferences. With these conceptualisations and beliefs we construct a highly complex conceptual framework through which we understand our world. These personal, subjective concepts interact not only with other concepts and beliefs, but also with our emotions, motives, behaviour, memory and expectations to produce an even more complex interrelated system. This network carries with it varying degrees and types of investment of our time, energy and behaviour e.t.c., and has logical and sometimes illogical consequences for other beliefs in the system. Because we are trying to make sense of our world, we do not tend to simultaneously hold on to explicitly contradictory beliefs. Our interrelated conceptual networks, made up in part of speculative beliefs, which affect so many aspects of ourselves, help to give us orientation, identity, purpose, cohesiveness, and a sense of security and understanding as individuals. New information is either slotted into our existing conceptual/belief schemes or our schemes may be changed to accommodate new information. Core concepts, closely related to our integrated sense of self, may be difficult to change, because such change makes us feel threatened and vulnerable. We validate our concepts in part by comparing ourselves with others, some of whom may exert considerable pressure on us to modify our stance in order to maintain the status quo of existing concepts and beliefs and the values linked with them. If we do not maintain the status quo, we risk losing their and the groups acceptance of us and threaten the coherence and identity of the group itself. These conceptualisations and speculative beliefs are not necessarily logical but serve deeper purposes of meaning, identity and belonging. Nevertheless, concepts and beliefs are fluid and change over time. There are unspoken and unexamined conceptual assumptions that underpin our constructed view of the world but which nevertheless affect our understanding and evaluation of the world, whether we are psychiatrists, doctors, psychologists or spiritually and religiously minded.

End of Chapter Three. To go to Chapter Four, please click HERE!

 

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA – CHAPTER TWO: A FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES

OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

COPYRIGHT ROBERT LAYNTON 2010

(For Chapter One, please click HERE!)

CHAPTER TWO

A FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS

CHAPTER TWO: A FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS

CHAPTER TWO CONTENTS

2.1 Four quadrants of existence

2.2 Developmental levels and lines

2.3 Theorists, theories, levels and quadrants

2.4 Quadrant 1: The evolution of a subject –‘I’

2.5 The Essential Self

2.6 The expressive self

2.7 Descriptive terms

2.8 The subjective self-sense

2.9 The ego and the self defined and distinguished

2.10 The subjective and objective aspects of the self

2.11 Aspects of the objective self

2.12 Aspects of the subjective self

2.13 The integrated subjective self-system

2.14 The integrated self

2.15 The presentation of the self

2.16 The objective self and subjective self-image

2.17 Quadrant one is related to the other three quadrants

2.18 The spiritual line of development

2.19 Consciousness – how far down does it go?

2.20 Levels and psychosis

2.21 Quadrant 2: The evolution of an object – ‘it’

2.22 Facts, thoughts and reality

2.23 Summary: The upper quadrants 1 & 2 – The individual

2.24 Quadrant 3: The evolution of objects in community – ‘its’

2.25 Quadrant 4: The evolution of the subjective community – ‘we’

2.26 Summary: The lower quadrants – the collective

2.27 The right hand quadrants: Objectivity

2.28 The left hand quadrants – Subjectivity

2.29 A summary of the whole diagram

2.30 pre and trans rational stages – A confusion

2.31 The problem of reductionsism

2.32 Objective empirical science

2.33 Subjective hermeneutics and interpretation

2.34 Problems with the all-level, all-quadrant system

In order to get a more thorough outlook on mystics, mysticism and the view of the universe that they portray, as well as the issues of bi-polar ‘disorder’ and schizophrenia, it is very important to take all sides of the coin into account, or else we fall into a trap called reductionism, where we try and explain something by reducing it to just one of it’s facets or dimensions. For example, Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ is more than just so many pages, letters, sentences and paragraphs and to try and fully explain Shakespeare’s work using just these terms would be to miss out much of what ‘Hamlet’ is and means.

2.1 FOUR QUADRANTS OF EXISTENCE

I am going to adopt an approach based on the Integral theory presented by Ken Wilber’s four quadrants’ of existence: intentional, behavioural, cultural and social. Quadrant 1 is concerned with the individual’s internal mental life: our meanings, values, thoughts, concepts and so on. It is here that we find our mental ‘structures’, our conceptual ‘frameworks’, our psyche, ‘ego’ and so on. Quadrant 2 is concerned with objects that make up the individual and which can be measured and observed: brain structures, brain activity, heart rate, biochemical processes, neuronal pathways e.t.c.. Quadrant 3 is also concerned with observation and objective measurable facts, but it is concerned with groups: what gender or age distribution is there in a group, how long has this group been together and so on. Quadrant 4 is also concerned with groups or collectives, but this quadrant is concerned with shared meanings and values present in cultures and groups. What is considered here if you like is the group psyche rather that the individual psyche. All these facets are important as we consider out theme.

2.2 DEVELOPMENTAL LEVELS AND LINES

There is more to this scheme though: within these four quadrants or aspects of existence, there are lines of development with various stages and levels. There appears to be substantial agreement between developmental theories and approaches as to these various stages or sequence of levels in each line. Radiating out from the centre, then, are diagonal lines of developmental stages within each quadrant.

Though we are going to stay with this for simplicity, in fact, Wilber’s theory is more complex than this in that he presents a number of quasi-independent lines of development spiralling outwards rather than progressing in a straight line as the diagram suggests. For example there are lines of linguistic, aesthetic, moral, spiritual, intellectual and mathematical development all spiralling out from the centre. Thus it is that a person may be clever, but morally reprobate, or have high artistic ability yet not be linguistically fluent. The idea of stages or levels may be most familiar to us in the example of our progression through childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood. The theories of thinkers such as Piaget or Freud merely put in more stages and levels to create a greater differential. In the natural world we can illustrate these stages of development by saying an acorn develops into a sapling which then develops into a fully mature oak tree. Note that with both these illustrations, the order of progression is fixed and that a later stage contains aspects and qualities that an earlier stage does not: a sapling has leaves, an acorn does not; and an oak tree is not just a giant acorn. We can also note for example that adolescence does not come before childhood and an adult is not just a giant baby. Of course people can and do differ about the details of such a diagram, but it is presented here in a simple form, as a reasonable and general summary that helps to frame and structure the present discussion. Wilber insists that to fully study something, we must adopt an ‘all quadrant, all level’ approach, because if we don’t, we fall into the trap of reductionism. Thus as we study a human being, they are not just a developing physical body: they have developing thoughts, awareness and intentions as well. Neither does the individual exist in isolation: they are part of measurable structures in the world: families, work groups, nations and so on and such groups, cultures and communities have shared meanings and values.

2.3 THEORISTS, THEORIES, LEVELS AND QUADRANTS

We can now begin to place various theories and theorists into the various quadrants. Someone whose theory is focussed on biology will be placed in Upper Right Quadrant 2 for example. At a more detailed level, we can actually place some theories at a particular level or set of levels within a quadrant. For example, the study of genetics with Upper Right Quadrant 2 would be placed at one of the lower level: it is concerned with building blocks of human biology. Though such building blocks affect later stages of development, the blocks themselves, genes and genetics, is at one of the lower levels. Though a theory is centred in one Quadrant, it obviously is related to all quadrants. So if schizophrenia is caused by a genetic problem, it still affects our internal subjective mental life – the way we think – as well as the way we behave. We can also explore frequencies and incidences in society and how a particular culture deals with and evaluates schizophrenia. But the focus for the geneticist is on the lower stages of Upper Right Quadrant 2. Other theories may openly cover more than one quadrant. Cognitive behaviourism is a good example. It basically says that how we think affects how we act and feel. Therefore, if we can change our thinking strategies, we will change our mood and behaviour. This theory then embraces both of the Upper Quadrants.

Obviously, we could build quite a sophisticated analysis of various theories in this way, by placing each theory/theorist at a particular level within particular quadrants. This is a little beyond the scope of this study, so I am going to approach this idea in a very general way rather than getting stuck in too much detail. In this respect, I am not going to focus too much on the levels within a quadrant, though I may make occasional reference as to the level of a particular approach. Rather I am more concerned with placing a theory within one or more of the quadrants.

We have seen that the various thinkers who have developed schools of sociology, psychology and psychiatry have tended to reduce their theories and explanations to one or two quadrants and even to levels or stages within a quadrant, thus giving only partial explanations. We can begin allocate some theorists like this:

Maslow                             |

Freud                                |                 B.F.Skinner

C.G.Jung                          |                  John Watson

Aurobindo                      |                 John Locke

Plotinus                           |                 Julian Jaynes

Gautama Buddha         |

George Kelly          Albert  Ellis

Carl Rogers            Aaron  Beck

Arthur  Deikman

Thomas Kuhn            |                Gerhard Lenski

Wilhelm Dilthey          |                  Talcott Parsons

Jean Gebser                  |                  Auguste Comte

Max Weber                   |                  Karl Marx

Hans-Georg Godamer|

———————————————————–

My main focus in this study is on the individual. I am not so concerned with details and theories as to how societies and cultures are structured and how they cultivate meaning and value. I will make passing references to society and culture but not in the same sort of detail as the individual. Society and culture gives the individual their context, their background and setting and places values and meanings on those who have mental ‘illness’ or who experience mystical encounters. In terms of this study, this is put in second place to the individual. But this is by no means to indicate that these Lower Quadrants are not vitally important and relevant. They are simply beyond my scope as an author for me to deal with in any depth. Focussing then on the Upper Quadrants, we can begin to place various approaches and theories into their respective Quadrants:

Human Potential Movement

Existentialism            |                 Behaviourism

Neoplatonism            |                Genetics

Gestalt theory           |                 Neurology

Rational Emotive Therapy   Human biology

Cognitive Behaviourism       Drug therapy

Personal Construct Theory  |  Surgery

Person centred Counselling  |  Bicameral brain

Psychoanalysis                          |

Psychodynamic theory         |

Theorists and theories are not neutral when it comes to spirituality and therefore they may have a bias not only in their thinking of mental ‘disorder’ but also in their approach to spirituality, leading to a false understanding. I will explore this in more detail as we go on but for now we can say that Psychology itself tends to fall into one of two major trends:

a)       Descriptive or

b)       Explanatory.

The descriptive school is sympathetic to religious life, perhaps even with a goal of fostering religious life, especially through religious education and pastoral care, whereas the explanatory trend is suspicious or disdainful of popular piety and seeks to find the origins of religion not in the transcendent, but in the mundane world of biological, psychological and environmental events. The goal for the explanatory theorist is the transforming, if not the elimination, of religion, at least in its most common varieties, because religion is seen as a liability. Thus Freud, saw religion as infantile wish fulfilment and an illusion. On the positive side, theorists such as William James, Abraham Maslow and C. G. Jung saw religion as an asset: a way to human excellence, or wholeness.

Lets look a little more at these four quadrants and their developmental lines:

2.4 QUADRANT 1: THE EVOLUTION OF A SUBJECT – ‘I’

Psychoanalysis is a typical approach within this quadrant and is co incidentally, the founding model of modern psychology. Developed by Sigmund Freud and others, it proposed that the individual developed through a series of psycho-sexual stages up to adolescence. It also developed an active, dynamic model involving ‘ego’, ‘super-ego’ and ‘id’ impulses often interacting at a subconscious or unconscious level, hence Freud’s interest in dreams as a ‘Royal Road’ to the unconscious.

In Psychoanalysis, schizophrenia is regarded as not treatable by psychoanalytic methods because the schizophrenic is unable to form relationships and thus key psychoanalytic processes such as transference cannot take place. Schizophrenia involves a  breakdown in ‘ego’ or ‘self-system’ function and according to Freud, this in turn causes impaired reality testing, therefore the schizophrenic has delusions, hallucinations, loss of personal identity and a failure to differentiate the internal from the external world. Some psychoanalysts argue that schizophrenia initially occurs at a very early stage of development where the internal/external dimensions are not yet differentiated.

Freudian theory has had many critics, but its proposal of developmental stages, accent on depth and on dynamics mean that it has continued to be developed and refined with new ‘neo-Freudian’ and psychodynamic successors. Ken Wilber’s theory itself emerges from some of this kind of thinking. So in this study we will be looking at ‘ego’ as part of the subject self experience.

If we do a data search among the evolutionary trends of interior apprehension or the subjective individual self, we find a largely uncontested hierarchy of emergent properties, in the Upper Left quadrant, quadrant 1. These stages develop through irritability to sensation, to perception, to impulse, to use of image, to a use of symbols, to use of concepts and the use of rules, to concrete operational thinking where one is able to make predictions and act on the material world, to formal, abstract operational thinking – creating theories about the world involving maths, concepts, symbols and so on, and on to synthesizing reason – bringing various theories together in synthesis. These are the levels or stages of individual interior development suggested in part by psychologists such as Piaget or Freud. Thus at lower stages for example, a child cannot see that the amount of water in a tall glass is the same as the amount of water in a shallower, broader glass. It takes a certain level of development to be able to accommodate this idea. The existence of most of these emergent properties are largely uncontested by specialists in the field, and the levels listed in the Upper Left Quadrant represent a simple summary of some of the major evolutionary capacities of interior apprehension and subjective thought.

Wilber describes these levels as holons. A `holon’ is a whole that is simultaneously part of some other whole (a whole atom is part of a whole molecule, a whole molecule is part of a whole cell, a whole leaf is part of a whole oak tree, etc.). As we move from one stage to another, the previous level does not just disappear, but is both included and transcended. Thus in moving from the emotional stage to the rational stage, emotions do not just disappear but are incorporated and included. Sometimes Wilber portrays this idea as being rather like one of those Russian dolls, with smaller and smaller dolls inside the outer, large doll. In a similar way, earlier stages are embedded in subsequent stages. Traumas at an early stage similarly do not just disappear. Unresolved issues carry through to the next stage like a fault line – distorting and affecting later development.

The Upper Left quadrant, quadrant 1, represents subjective phenomenological experience: an individual’s subjective meanings, values, and their agency or intention. It is concerned with interior individual experience: what does ‘Hamlet’ mean to me? What value do I give it? How richly do I perceive it’s content? Or, what does the Divine mean to me? What value do I place on God? How important is the Divine in my life? Or, what does bi-polar ‘disorder’ or schizophrenia mean to me? How important are they in my life? How do I synthesise these things into my experience? It is in this quadrant that we think in terms of talking therapies such as Person centred counselling, or personal construct analysis such as Kelly’s Repertory Grid. It is the area of phenomenology, and of many psychology disciplines, such as counselling and so on.

Some of the most interesting stages for religious expression in this quadrant include the magic, mythic, rational and existential stages or levels. Those at the magic level typically embrace pre Christian religion such as much New Age thinking and themes such as witchcraft, sorcery, spells, Tarot cards, Voodoo, paganism and so on. Those at the later mythic level embrace such monolithic religious ideas as Christianity and Islam, particularly in the fundamentalist expressions, whereas those at the rational level embrace the Age of Reason, Science, Atheism and secular humanism. Those at the existential level are concerned with broad issues of existence: uniqueness, finiteness, meaning and so on, as expressed by Sartre and so on.

Now this seems quite straightforward but we have some important and fundamental questions to ask concerning this quadrant. In various religious or spiritual traditions the person who is travelling on their spiritual journey is encouraged to deny themselves: ‘If any man would follow me he must deny himself…’. This is often taken to mean that a person should deny their self-interest and personal gain: they should deny themselves any personal pleasures and satisfactions, defer or avoid rewards, praise, honour and reputation, perhaps even their own needs and requirements, putting God first. But is this really what is meant? What is said is that a man must deny his own self. This at first may seem a contradictory thing to say. How can one deny oneself? How can one deny who one is by nature? If one’s very self is being denied, then who is doing the denying? Just what or who is it that is moving through these stages in this Upper Left Quadrant 1?

2.5 THE  ESSENTIAL SELF

In the deepest mystical spiritual view it is declared that Self and Divine, Atman and Brahman, are One. As Unmanifest, the Divine is Unspoken: the Potential of all that is or may be. The Divine is beyond-being in that the notion of Being is dualistic: if there is being then there is non-being or nothingness, but the view put forward by some of the worlds most profound mystics proposes that there is only the Divine Absolute as No-thing. However, this Essence that is beyond being, manifests Itself as Being and then simultaneously as Being and as all there is: as all existents. The Divine Word is Spoken and out of No-thing the plurality of manifest existents comes into being as a delimited expression of the Formless Divine. The Essence of all existents is the Essence-as-Essence, the Absolute, which at the same time remains Transcendent of all, thus Essence is simultaneously Transcendent and Immanent, a position known as panentheism. At the highest spiritual level there is no duality: all is One Unity: Essence, but in expression, there is multiplicity of form. There is no creation as such, but rather, a contraction and delimitation of the Unmanifest One Formless Essence to a manifest plurality of forms. There is only Essence: the universe and any parallel universes are the delimited Essence or Divine, One in Essence. In spirit then there is Unity, but in expression there is separateness, division and multiplicity, though the Essence of this multiplicity is One.

If the Essence of all that exists is Absolute, Essence-as-Essence, then, as already suggested, it follows that our True Essence or Nature is Essence also and that our expression in time and space is the Absolute delimited into our particular form, to a particular mode of existence, without fragmentation or dilution. Our Self then, the Ground of our being is Essence-as-Essence. There is nothing deeper or higher than this, which is why I use capital letters in writing it. Absolute and Self are One – the very same – the Eternal Formless Emptiness in the Bliss of the Eternal Now.

2.6 THE EXPRESSIVE SELF

As a particular, individual expression of the Self, we have a particular being and a particular location in time and space, such existence being derived from Absolute Essence-as-Essence. As a particular expression of form manifest as a particular body/mind organism, we have no existence in and of ourselves: we do not have self-sufficient existence and such existence as we do have as manifest form is temporal and transient. As an individual existent derived from Essence, as a material being capable of thought and action, we have a sense of self, (with a small ‘s’), a sense of individuality, a sense of location in time and space, a sense of agency and identity. Within this subjective sense of individual selfhood is our active locus or centre as an individual, separate, sentient, material being.

2.7 DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

 

We often mix our descriptors of human beings and this is something that we need to be aware of. Sometimes we use concrete terms such as brain, lungs, head and so on.

The more abstract or conceptual descriptors on the other hand talk in terms of ‘mind’, ‘ego’, ‘will’ or ‘psychic structures’. The terms ‘psychic’ or ‘psyche’ are limited in meaning in this essay. ‘Psychic’ means of, relating to, affecting, or influenced by the human mind or psyche; mental: mental as opposed to physical; [from Greek psukhikos of the soul or life]. ‘Psyche’ means the mind functioning as the centre of thought, emotion, and behaviour and consciously or unconsciously adjusting or mediating the body’s responses to the social and physical environment. I am not making reference at all to the supernatural here, or to a psychic as a spirit medium. Because these are not concrete terms, we cannot surgically open up a person’s head to look at the mind, the ego, the will or a psychic structure. They cannot be objectively observed or measured. These are conceptual abstractions describing the internal and subjective part of our phenomenal experience as individuals.

So it is important to be careful when we mix these two types of description. One cannot be ‘mentally ill’ for example. ‘Mental’ is an abstract concept, whereas ‘illness’ is a concrete one; hence the title of Thomas Szasz’s book ‘The myth of mental illness’. We can and should however avail ourselves of both types of description: both are valid in their own domain and both have their limitations. Scientists tens to talk in concrete, empirical terms, and the empirical model has enabled us to make great advances in knowledge enabling surgical interventions, the creation of life saving drugs and so on, but when taken alone it reduces all explanations to the measurable material level. It has no room for Spirit or spirituality, which it tends to see as primitive, or as regressive or as a baseless superstition. The abstract conceptual model on the other hand has a wider scope providing richer explanations and fuller meanings, but it cannot be verified by objective measurement, nor does it tend to lead to the kind of advances that science has developed. Spiritual and religious models tend to use the abstract descriptors of the person, because many spiritual traditions began before the advent of a disciplined, rational, scientific inquiry and the use of empirical medical models. Spiritual models tend to use terms like mind, heart, soul, spirit and will.

2.8 THE SUBJECTIVE SELF-SENSE

Given that we are a physical existent: a body with a brain that can perceive and feel and act – then this is the empirical aspect of us as a manifestation of the Divine in space and time. The Upper Left Quadrant 1 looks at the more abstract subjective parallel of this: the internal sense and perception of ourselves that arises from this biological organism: the subjective self which appears to act as conductor and governor to some degree at least, of what we do, what we give attention to, what we say and think and so on. If externally or objectively, we are a biological organism with a body, limbs, brain and sense organs such as eyes and ears, then internally, or subjectively, the locus of subjective separate identity and agency is the ‘self sense’ of ‘me’ as a separate entity in time and space. The ‘self’ is where our subjective, internal experience is focussed or centred and which governs and processes subjective experience as best as we can. It is also therefore the focal point of action or agency. But because of the Ignorance that arises out of the contraction of the Formless Essence to form, we mistake our body and/or our mind or this subjective self/agent as being the ground of our nature, but this is a mistake.

If we look to the upper left hand quadrant 1 then, we find subjective experience: value, meaning and truthfulness. Thus it is here that we find our subjective concepts and theories of interpretation and meaning. It is here that we find our beliefs, conceptual ‘frameworks’, values, ‘web’ of meanings and so on. Moving up and down the levels in this quadrant is the integrated active subjective self-sense, the ‘I’, the bounded self-sense: the subjective sense of being an individual ‘I’ located and acting in time and space.

2.9 THE EGO AND THE SELF DEFINED AND DISTINGUISHED

A) EGO

The word ‘ego’ is Latin for ‘I’. It refers to a cluster of processes in the brain (Upper Right Quadrant 2) that are subjectively experienced in Upper Left Quadrant 1 as cognitive and perceptual processes which appear to be at our core of subjective experience serving as an executive in order to maintain psychological or mental balance. Ego is sometimes referred to as the ‘self-as-object’, or ‘object-self’, but I disagree with that view or at least qualify it. It is better to describe it as our subjective sense of our expressive self-as-object. The ego is a subjective sense of the bounded-self existent. The ego then is not an object but an emergent, subjective sense, and it emerges from biological activity in the brain and body. This is where in some senses Wilber’s diagram is misleading. Our subjective sense of self is something that emerges and develops not from the centre of the diagram, but from the development of our body and particularly our brain which in Wilber’s diagram is represented in the Upper Right Quadrant.

The concept of ‘ego’ contains the important idea of a self that is perceived as separate from or differentiated from others, or other selves. ‘Ego’ contains within its definition the idea of a boundary: of a bordered or bounded ‘I’. This subjective differentiation begins to emerge and develop between the ages of 18 months to 4 years old. Thus any developmental stages before this are pre-egocentric. It is only at this stage of initial differentiation, that the child begins to be able to differentiate themselves from others. Thus, if the child is shown a piece of paper with orange on one side and blue on the other, and clearly shown both sides, when shown just the orange side they will correctly answer that they see orange. When asked what colour the person holding the paper sees, they will also say orange. They cannot take the role of the other. It is only with the ability to initially differentiate that the child begins to display the development of their own ego. They will clearly display the classic signs of ego-building even though there is no conscious awareness of this on the part of the child; there is a desire to please, to be liked, to be accepted and to be given attention, etc. This emergence of subjective ‘ego’ is also evident from the fact that we have a ‘dream ego’ – a subjective bounded self-sense that we have during sleep but which is not quite the same as that which we have when awake. For example, when asleep, we might be able to fly or walk through walls. This dream ego, like the contents of the dream itself, is a downgraded version of our wakeful subjective experience. It is downgraded because when we are asleep, some of our physiological activity, our brain activity and so on, is minimised or reduced. This minimisation of certain biological functions has the effect of downgrading our subjective experience. For example, we may dream in colour, but it may be one dominant colour, say the intense blue of the sky and sea, or the vivid green of a field of grass. In deep sleep, our physiological or biological functions are reduced even further, such that there is no emergent subjective sense of self: no ‘ego’, no dream ego and no dream landscape. Yet we as Essence are still present.

It is with this ‘ego’ or sense of bordered, bounded ‘I’ that we tend to identify. Identification is another cognitive emergent from biological activity: sometimes it is a conscious process, sometimes not, whereby a person labels, classifies and defines who and what they are. Thus ‘I am a….[man, office clerk, weakling,…’]. The fact that the ‘ego’, ‘self’ or ‘I’ is an emergent quality or phenomenon is also indicated by the fact that the ‘ego’, ‘self’ or ‘I’ does not necessarily remain in the same place. Often, ‘ego’ is felt to be in the head, or sometimes in the heart or chest. But in moments of severe stress, it may appear to move into the stomach or even to a place outside of the body altogether such that one seems to stand outside of one’s own body.

We also commonly talk of some people having a ‘big ego’ by which we usually mean that they have an over-inflated subjective sense of their own self-importance or value in comparison to others. Thus such people are usually loud, brash, opinionated, arrogant and so on.

Despite the abstract, emergent quality of ‘ego’, this bounded self-sense, this focal point or locus of control and agency may feel threatened. Death threatens to bring about its non-existence. For some mystics, but not all, death and the post-death state is not a situation whereby disembodied egos continue to exist or where egos are reunited with resurrection bodies continuing the existence of this core self. Rather, at death the ego is lost, as a droplet of ocean spray is lost when it falls back again into the ocean and merges with it.

Thus in an extract from one mystics spiritual journal:

 

Death is not what you think! You are thinking that when someone dies, they continue to exist in some spiritual form after death, caught up into some sort of spiritual society, mingling with the spirits of other people that they met on earth, as though this is some kind of extension of the material world. This is not what death is like. In death all things are become new. You have heard it said that in heaven there is no giving of people in marriage, and this is true. All these earthly ways cease. Heaven is not a spiritual earth, with its law courts and judgements and other institutions. It is not an extension of earth but a completely different realm. But it is true that the Spirit returns to God because the Spirit is God. God is in us all and is Imperishable, Indestructible and cannot die. Therefore, when a person dies, God returns to God. (Song of Simon 3 v 40-42.

 

Similarly, severe stress may cause the emergence of ‘ego’ to breakdown or fragment as psychic ‘structures’ are put under intolerable pressure or internal conflict. The results of this may be depression, anger, aggression, fear, defensiveness, transference, projection, madness, suicide and so on. Loss of ‘ego’ is loss of coherence, loss of identity, loss of self-governance and functioning and loss of touch with reality.

B) SELF

The word ‘self’ (with a small ’s’) is closely related to ‘ego’. If ‘ego’ refers to our subjective sense of our differentiation of ‘us as individual existent’, to the emergent mental structure that creates this sense, ‘self’ refers to the body/ego or body/mind if you like. If ‘ego’ is in the Upper Left Quadrant and our empirical body is in the Upper Right Quadrant, then ‘self’ covers both of these upper quadrants. Thus it is slightly wider in concept than ‘ego’, because whereas ‘ego’ refers to a cluster of subjective cognitive and perceptual processes, ‘self’ more overtly includes the idea of our physical body as well. So when we say that this is our self, we refer to our particular separate, individual existent as a body-mind organism, which tends, correctly, to be perceived as finite, because one day our body will die and with it our cognitive processes and our ‘ego’. Once again we have the idea of boundary or border: if the ‘ego’ is a subjective, psychological border, then with the ‘self’ the body also forms a boundary and border between us-as-existent and other existents. In the same way as the ‘ego’ then, the ‘self’, that is, the body/mind organism, may constitute the separate self-sense with which we tend to solely identify. We define, classify, label and identify ourselves as this particular body/mind organism. The ‘self’ is perceived as a cluster of subjective cognitive and perceptual processes including an ‘executive’ or ‘governor’ which serve to maintain psychological balance and which arise mainly from the brain which is located in and bounded by a physical body which is itself located in time and space and which possesses various attributes.

The word ‘self’ then covers both our subjective sense of being a differentiated existent and our objective, physical, bounded body with its processes of brain and nervous system, cardio-vascular system and so on. When we talk about the ‘self’ or ‘my self’, we are talking about this subjective/objective existent. We cannot avoid mixing abstract and concrete terms altogether. The ‘ego’ is an abstract emergent phenomenon, a focussed sense of individual selfhood derived and emerging from a subjective web of meaning, coherence and subjective experience which themselves emerge from objective biological processes. The ‘self’ covers both abstract and concrete elements of dimensions.

2.10 THE SUBJECTIVE AND THE OBJECTIVE ASPECTS OF THE SELF

It is reasonable for us to qualify the ‘self’ then by talking about the ‘subjective self’ and the ‘objective self’. The objective self refers to those qualities of us-as-existent that can be objectively measured: our physical body, our brain and its activity, our nervous system, our heart and vascular system and so on. The subjective self refers to the emergent subjective sensations, experiences and faculties that we have such as mind, thoughts, emotions, will, memory and ego. The subjective self, the objective self and the Essential Self are more precise terms for what is generally and loosely called mind, body and spirit.

2.11 ASPECTS OF THE OBJECTIVE SELF

The objective self is made up of various aspects and these include all the obvious divisions and differentiations that we make about the human body, such as the various limbs like hands, fingers, toes, feet, head, eyes, stomach, heart, brain, throat as well as the various biological systems and processes such as the cardio-vascular system, the nervous system, digestive system and so on.

2.12 ASPECTS OF THE SUBJECTIVE SELF

I have spent a little time looking at the ‘ego’, the active subjective sense of our expressive self-as-object. I have suggested that it forms the internal focus, centre or locus, the subjective governor or administrator, but governor and administrator of what? What is it that the ‘ego’ governs and administrates? Well I have already spoken about the emergent subjective, sensations that we have: experiences and faculties such as mind, thoughts, emotions, will and memory. Together, these make up the integrated subjective self-system or structure.

More fully, the aspects of this self-system include our awareness, our consciousness, unconsciousness, sub consciousness. We cannot focus on everything at once so information is attenuated, narrowed by our attention to an amount that we can process and digest. There is our will: our faculty of intention, choice, or agency: our volition. In addition there is our sense of values, ethics, standards or personal morality. There are also our emotions and feelings, our affections such as love, joy, hatred, anger, e.t.c.. There is our sense of needs, preferences and desires; our likes and dislikes, passions and dispositions for or against certain matters. The mind is another general concept with an emphasis on our cognition, our thoughts, ideas, concepts, imagination, intellect, reasoning, intelligence, knowledge, understanding and perception. Closely related to this is our memory, our store of knowledge and experience, some of which we can recall. This is in turn is closely related to the  ‘conscience’: a witness bearer that as it were stands alongside us in all that we do, think and feel – sometimes accusing us and sometimes excusing us in the light of learned experience, memory and the context of our culture. All this is governed by the active locus or focal point of our ‘ego’. All these work as a whole to create a subjective conceptual framework, a personal construct of the world and a web of meaning and value.

This is a two way process: I choose to think or concentrate, to focus my thoughts on a given subject for example, but also, thoughts arise involuntarily as distractions, daydreams, e.t.c. This is so for each of the above dimensions, though some are less voluntary than others.

There are other words that are sometimes used with regard to the subjective self which I tend to use in a very qualified way. One of these is the word ‘soul’. The essential meaning of the word ‘soul’ is: breath, especially, breath of life: the vital force that animates the body, showing itself in breathing. In this sense, it is applied to animals, as well as humans. Thus a dead soul, one that is soulless, is a dead, non-breathing or inanimate being. But the word ‘soul’ can be used in a secondary sense to describe the essential person, the personality, or inward person, with their reasoning, feelings, desires, affections and aversions. This use is synonymous with what I have called the subjective self, or alternatively with the ‘ego’, but not with the Essential Self. In addition, we may tend to think of a ‘soul’ as a disembodied spirit that makes up our Essential Self and I do not include this kind of usage or concept at all. Therefore I tend not to use the word ‘soul’ and prefer the more differentiated phrases of ‘subjective self’, ‘ego’ and ‘Essential Self’, which as we have seen, mean different things.

Another word we come across is the word ‘spirit’. Sometimes, the word ‘soul’ is used interchangeably with ‘spirit’ and indeed the words are very similar. The word ‘spirit’ means ‘breath of air or wind or breath of mouth.’ Thus, as with soul, this word refers to the breath that gives life to the body. The second sense in which ‘spirit’ is used is to describe any inner disposition, purpose or attitude in general, covering both our thinking and affections. Thus we find a spirit of courage, of pride, of jealousy, of determination, of fear, of error, of wisdom, of understanding. One can be hasty in spirit, faithful in spirit, poor in spirit, perverse in spirit. The spirit can be overwhelmed, broken, renewed, and revived. The word ‘spirit’ then, can have good or bad connotations and refers to our disposition, leanings, inclinations and tendencies, embracing mind, heart & will. This word can also be used in a third sense: that of an incorporeal being such as an angel, demon or disembodied person or soul. Once again this gives us the same kinds of problems as the word ‘soul’. I am only really happy here with second meaning: that of a transient of brief disposition.

The word ‘heart’ is sometimes used in a similar sense to ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ in referring the very centre and inward part of the person and again I have the same problems with this usage as I do with the words ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’. Often however, its emphasis is on the affections, emotions and desires. Obviously, the same word is used for the organ that pumps blood around the body. I do not have too much problem with these second two usages. If the ‘mind’ refers to cognitive processes and faculties, then the ‘heart’ refers to core emotional processes and faculties. Thus I may say ‘In my heart I feel very sad’ and mean that deep down, near to the core of my expressive self, I feel sad.

Another group of words, all related to the same root meaning, are ‘person’, ‘personality, and ‘persona’. These words all relate to a mask that actors wore in ancient Greece, so they refer to the way in which we present our selves to others – to our attitudes, disposition, character and behaviour which are consistently presented to others over time. Whereas ‘spirit’ refers to a brief or transient display of attitude, personality refers to such dispositions displayed over a long period of time. These words refer then to the presentation of the self to others.

2.13 THE INTEGRATED SUBJECTIVE SELF-SYSTEM

Bringing all this together then, the subjective self-system is comprised of about six or seven faculties or channels that interrelate in a complex way with each other. The information that they provide is filtered and narrowed through attention to a centre or active locus: an ‘ego’, that seeks to govern the system to provide psychological balance and to determine action. Some of this information impinges upon us without our being aware or fully aware of it. All of this emerges from our objective, biological self and its processes.

2.14 THE INTEGRATED SELF

The integration of these various aspects of subjective experience is experienced as the ‘inner person’. Here is our inner voice, our inner ear, our inner eye or mind’s eye and our inner desires and values. It is here, in this integration of subjective experience, that we get the sense of an inner person. But this does not go on endlessly: there is not an inner person of the inner person. This sense of inner person arises from the integration of our various subjective modes or channels or dimensions or aspects of subjective experience. It is here that we challenge ourselves, reason with ourselves, rebuke ourselves, punish ourselves, or reward ourselves and so on.

2.15 THE PRESENTATION OF THE SELF

It is in the objective presentation of the subjective self that we may be in conflict with ourselves or be duplicitous: ‘Outside they are like sheep but inwardly they are ravening wolves’. In other words there is often incongruence between the inward self or the integrated subjective self and the presentation that we make of our objective self to others. Outwardly we may present a generous character but inwardly, subjectively, our motives may be those of pride or the desire for a good reputation. Outwardly we may present a morally noble character but inwardly we may be prone to lust and sexual passion, tendencies, drives and needs which may demand satisfaction say by secretly visiting a whorehouse out of town and using a false name in order to both satisfy the subjective desire and maintain the outward appearance of morality which bolsters one’s reputation in society.

2.16 THE OBJECTIVE SELF AND SUBJECTIVE SELF IMAGE

Of course, if such a person is discovered visiting the whorehouse and their name is printed in the newspapers and they are taken to court where all the details come out, then this may affect the subjective self and the image of itself that it has created, say by creating a sense of guilt or shame or by falsely bolstering up the image by denial either to others and/or to one’s own subjective self. In other words, there is a two way process at work.

Well, I am now moving on to a rudimentary form of psychology and that is not the aim of this essay. I am just concerned to show the nature, dimensions and interconnections that make up the human being, to more properly define the terms that I am using and place them within Wilber’s model.

2.17 QUADRANT ONE IS RELATED TO THE OTHER THREE

It is important, as we have seen, that we do not merely consider one quadrant. There is a relationship between all the four quadrants and a correspondence between levels. Thus, as the brain develops and evolves, certain stages or levels of subjectivity emerge: new ways of thinking and perceiving arise. In turn, new shared meanings develop in the community, which may then organise itself in a new way, say from a tribal to a national structure.

2.18 THE SPIRITUAL LINE OF DEVELOPMENT

The spiritual line of development is concerned with Absolutes and Ultimates. Where do I fit in with regard to the ultimate scheme of things? Where did everything begin? Where does everything end? Is there an end? Is there an Absolute Being? If so, where do I stand in relation to It/Him/Her? Is there a meaning or purpose to existence? What is my value and role in the great scheme of things? The spiritual line of development is concerned with answers to these kinds of questions. In terms of Upper Left Quadrant 1, there is a spiritual line of development progressing through pre-rational magic, to mythic, to rational and to post rational levels of spiritual subjective experience, value and meaning. Wilber suggests that as a person emerges into each new stage, they tend to be very critical of the previous stage that they have just emerged from. In the magic stage people see an interconnection both between objects: stick a pin in this doll’s arm and the person whose likeness it represents will have a painful arm – and between objects and the spiritual dimension: as above so below. A multiplicity or pantheon of gods or spirits may be believed in and it is at this stage that we find pagans, witches, sorcerers, occult practitioners, voodoo, belief in nature spirits, the use of tarot cards, spells and so on. In the next, mythic stage, people move to belief in one God, one group of people elected or chosen by God, one people under God and so on. Here we typically find many elements of the Christian fundamentalist for example. As I have just suggested, we can note that the Christian fundamentalist tends to be highly critical of people at the previous stage: they denounce witches, burning them at the stake; they denounce magical practices as satanic and they denounce those outside of the one ‘true’ faith as heretics, have religious Inquisitions and so on, such that there arises a polarisation between the saved and the damned. The rational stage of individual development corresponds with the Enlightenment and the development of science. We can note that the scientist, like the mythic fundamentalist, is often highly critical of the previous stage, which in this case is the mythic world-view. Thus for example scientists like Richard Dawkins attack religious fundamentalism with an almost evangelical fervour of their own. The emphasis of the rationalist turns to logic, to science, to objectivity and thus we find the rise of scientism and positivism: an insistence that only that which can be seen or measured is real. Frames of personal meaning are created where the individual is conscious of their worldview as a worldview. The rationalist tends to demythologise symbols, rituals and myths, dismissing them as superstition and takes responsibility for choosing their own values and lifestyle. The rationalist stage sees the emergence of atheism or agnosticism, or on the other hand the rationalist’s faith may be placed in objective science and reason, or in a form of liberal, less literal religion for example. Beyond this level there are also post-rational stages of spiritual development. People at this level begin to embrace polarities such as Love and Wrath, Light and Dark with alertness to paradox and there arises a need for multiple interpretations of reality. The symbols, myths, rituals and metaphors that were rejected and demythologised in the previous rational stage may be returned to at this stage, but in a less literal fashion and they are instead appreciated as vehicles for expressing truth. There is a move away from exclusivity and closed viewpoints: groups and traditions other than their own are now included in their view of the world: there is a principled openness to the truths of other religions. We see here the beginning of a world-centric orientation and rational, existential universal pluralism. Yet those people at this level also begin to recognise their seriously incomplete self-knowledge. Science and logic may be attacked as closed, restricted, narrow and inadequate when it comes to a comprehensive explanation of existence. But there are yet more post rational stages: there can be a move to universalising faith informed by the experiences and truths gained by the person in their previous stages of development. A trans-class awareness may arise and the beginning of transpersonal intuition and a devotion to overcoming violence, oppression and division emerges. Those people who are considered important in matters of spiritual faith now extend well beyond the bounds of social class, nation, race and gender and there is now no polarisation of the saved and the damned.

2.19 CONSCIOUSNESS – HOW FAR DOWN DOES IT GO?

There is, however, within Upper Left Quadrant 1, a rather endless debate about just how `far down’ you can push any form of rudimentary consciousness. Some push it all the way down as existing in the very atoms of existence, while most scientists find this a bit much. The whole point of this evolutionary hierarchy of emergents of subjective apprehension is that consciousness is almost infinitely graded, with each emergent holon possessing a little more depth and thus a bit more apprehension. However much `consciousness’ or `awareness’ or `sensitivity’ or `responsiveness’ an oak tree might have, a cow has more, an ape has more than that and so on. Some theologians would claim that the centre point of four-quadrant diagram is the foundation of all that exists – Absolute Essence. However I have already indicated that subjective differentiation and webs of meaning are emergents that arise from the levels of biological development described in Upper Right Quadrant 2.  Others declare that the Absolute Essence is not just the centre point, but also the paper on which the diagram is written, the Formless Foundation of all that exists. Yet, at the same time, this Formless Absolute is expressed as form as well, in the very lines and words that make up the diagram. This is a position called pantheism, where the Divine is immanent: expressed in all that is. Others may argue that the Transcendent Divine is to be found either on the fringes of this diagram or outside it altogether: Conscious God, separate and distinct, looking down and acting on creation. Another position however, insists that the Divine is transcendent, standing across or above all that exists, whilst simultaneously the Absolute is the Foundation of all that is and is expressed in all that exists. This is a position known as Panentheism: the Divine is simultaneously Transcendent and Immanent: the Divine is the Foundation of all that is, expressed is in that is and beyond or across all that is. Does this mean that everything is conscious or that consciousness goes all the way down? We will return to this question later.

2.20 LEVELS AND PSYCHOSIS

As we have seen, each level or stage is transcended and included in the later stages. They are nestled within each other rather like one of those Russian dolls or like the layers of an onion. But what happens if something goes wrong at a particular stage? What happens if there is some sort of malfunction or distortion or malformation of development in a stage? Well, Wilber argues that either certain aspects of growth are hindered, or the distortion is carried through to later stages, distorting their development also. If schizophrenia and bipolar ‘disorder’ have roots in genetics and the biochemistry of the brain, then there will be corresponding effects in the subjective developmental quadrant. The higher subjective emergent levels of emotion and thought in Upper Left Quadrant 1 will be affected and distorted.

2.21 QUADRANT 2: THE EVOLUTION OF AN OBJECT – ‘IT’

The diagonal line of stages in the Upper Right Quadrant 2, presents the standard developmental hierarchy presented by modern evolutionary objective science: atoms evolve to molecules to cells to organisms, each of which `transcends but includes’ its predecessor in an irreversible fashion: cells contain molecules, but not vice versa; molecules contain atoms, but not vice versa, and so on. The `not vice versa’ constitutes the irreversible hierarchy of evolution through time. Each of these individual units or levels (molecules, atoms, organisms), each holon, is a whole that is simultaneously part of some other whole (a whole atom is part of a whole molecule, a whole molecule is part of a whole cell, etc.). The Upper Right Quadrant 2 is simply a summary of the scientific research on the evolution of individual holons.

This quadrant is concerned with the evolution of the human as material, physical, biological organism and how it functions. For example, it is concerned with how the brain processes the information contained in ‘Hamlet’, how shapes of letters are perceived by the eye and are then processed in the brain; which neuronal pathways are firing and so on. It is here that we would be looking for genetic causes of bi-polar ‘disorder’ and schizophrenia, or seeking to explain religious belief or mystical experiences in terms of neurophysiology: neuronal pathways, genes, bio-chemistry and so on. Bipolar ‘disorder’ and schizophrenia have a history of being seen as clear examples of a biological form of illness, that is, disorders in which there is a brain problem that is in need of medical treatment in order to return the person to health. This seems to be confirmed by evidence that bipolar ‘disorder’ and schizophrenia can be inherited. For example, studies show that children of a bi-polar sufferer have about a 30% chance of inheriting the problem. We are focussing in this Upper Right Quadrant when we might be thinking of performing brain scan research on a person who is in a meditational or mystical mode of being, in order to monitor their brain waves and brain activity and so on. It is here that we develop, research and administer biochemical interventions such as anti-depressant and mood levelling medications such as Prozac and Lithium. Similarly we are in this Quadrant when we are thinking in terms of electro-convulsive therapy and gene therapies. In other words, this is the quadrant of the biology, chemistry, physiology, genetics and anatomy of the individual. It is the area where medical doctors, psychiatrists and other scientific experts specialise and it is concerned with objective, measurable facts. The psychology discipline of classic behaviourism is here in this quadrant for example, because it is not concerned with the ‘inner mental life’ of Upper Left Quadrant 1, but with objectively measuring stimulus and response within an organism.

As we look at this quadrant then, we see that biology and genetics are thought to have a considerable input to the causes of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but no one single gene has been identified, suggesting that a complex of genes are involved. With regard to spirituality, those who take this approach tend to reduce spirituality to mere physiology – mystical experience is just a particular type of brain activity or balance of brain wave or chemical activity. We can imbibe certain drugs, such as Mescalin and reproduce the mystical experience, therefore they say, that’s all the mystical state is: a feature of a certain biochemical balance.

Also in this Quadrant we find learning theory or behaviourism. This approach has no specific model for cause of schizophrenia. It explains the unusual behaviour of schizophrenics as a response to the bizarre world they inhabit and their behaviour such as constant rocking, to amongst other things, attention seeking. In the same way, spirituality is seen as ‘nothing but’ a response to certain stimuli, therefore reducing the entirety of religion to mechanistically determined behaviour.

Julian Jaynes and his theory of the Bicameral Mind gave some indication of how a previous, different, ‘hard wiring’ of the brain has similarities with both mystical experience and psychosis. We shall explore this in more detail later. Valid and interesting as I think this theory is, spirituality is again reducible to biology and physiology of the brain.

2.22 FACTS, THOUGHTS AND REALITY

If we ignore the other quadrants and rely on this quadrant alone we end up with scientism and positivism. In these positions, only that which can be objectively measured and observed is real. We may use extensions to our natural senses: telescopes, microscopes, imaging technologies and so on, but this quadrant is concerned only with objective measurable ‘facts’ about the objective, individual organism. Therefore, for example, as soon as we move from behaviourism to cognitive behaviourism, to include the way we think together with how we act, we are moving out of our exclusiveness with this quadrant and starting to avail ourselves of the Upper Left Quadrant 1 as well. Paradoxically, by using this idea of relying solely on objective measurability, positivism, by it’s own criteria, does not exist because it cannot be objectively measured. Strictly speaking then, if we reduce any event to this Upper Right Quadrant 2, we reduce reality to that which can be objectively measured – the material. The rich, mental life of values and meanings, of interpretations and perspectives is largely or completely ignored and certainly any idea of a spiritual dimension to existence is almost always dismissed. Anyone who is hearing voices or seeing things that cannot be objectively measured and tested, (other than as brain activity) has clearly by this way of thinking, lost touch with reality. But if we are describing people as losing touch with reality, then we clearly need a good and accurate definition of what reality is. To reduce reality to this quadrant, or to the objective Upper and Lower Right Quadrants 2 and 3 is, I suggest, to severely restrict and limit the nature of reality: it is to fall into reductionism. But in our western, predominantly post enlightenment society with its reasoning perspective, many people including scientists, psychiatrists and doctors understand reality in this way and at the extreme, if something cannot be measured, in their view, it does not exist. Nevertheless, these people do avail themselves of the Upper Left Quadrant 1 aspect, whether they know it or not. Thus, given limited evidence or ability to measure, they speculate: they hypothesise, theorise and suggest solutions that are not measurable, and which are based on what they do know. This is a theme that we will return to later.

2.23 SUMMARY: THE UPPER QUADRANTS 1 & 2: THE INDIVIDUAL

These are the two `upper’ quadrants. What both of these quadrants have in common is that they are concerned with individual holons: subjective and interior on the left and objective and exterior on the right. They are concerned with the individual person and their development mentally and biologically through various stages or levels.

2.24 QUADRANT 3: THE EVOLUTION OF OBJECTS IN COMMUNITY – ‘ITS’

Individual holons always exist in communities of similar holons. These communities, collectives or societies are summarized in the lower quadrants. First of all, let’s look at the objective Lower Right quadrant, quadrant 3. These levels and stages also simply represent the results of generally uncontested scientific research.

There is a correspondence between quadrants 2 and 3. When atoms were the most complex individual holons in existence, proto-galaxies were the most complex collective structures; with molecules: planets; with prokaryotes: the Gaia system; with neuronal systems, reptilian brain stem and limbic systems: families and tribes; and so forth. Lower Right Quadrant 3 is concerned with collectives such as nation/states, agrarian societies, the organisation of industrial societies and so on. We are concerned here with the objective measurement of groups of ‘its’. In this Lower Right Quadrant 3, with regard to Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ we would be concerned with things like the age distribution of those people who read the play, whether more women than men read ‘Hamlet’, how many copies of ‘Hamlet’ are there in the average bookstore and so on. We might be concerned with how students of ‘Hamlet’ organise themselves together into a collective or group to study ‘Hamlet’. With regard to spirituality, schizophrenia and bipolar ‘disorder’, we would be concerned with age and gender distribution of bi-polar sufferers, schizophrenic sufferers, or mystical practitioners, and with religious community membership structures and so on. It is in this Lower Right Quadrant 3 that we note that about 1 in every 100 adults has bipolar ‘disorder’ at some point in their life and that 1 percent of the world’s population has schizophrenia, With regard to mysticism, it is estimated that only 0.1 percent of the world population or even less experience trans-rational levels of awareness. Clearly, not all bi-polar sufferers or schizophrenics are mystics.

2.25 QUADRANT 4: THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUBJECTIVE COMMUNITY – ‘WE’

As with the objective, measurable Right hand side, so on the subjective Left hand side: every subjective, conscious individual holon exists in a community, that is, every individual subjective agent is actually subjective-agent-in-communion. If we look at the collective forms of individual awareness, we find various world spaces or worldviews or communally shared sensitivity. These various cultural or communal interiors are summarized in the Lower Left Quadrant 4.

This Lower left Quadrant 4 deals with collective, shared subjective meanings and values. What value does English society give to ‘Hamlet’? What shared meanings do Shakespearian students have of ‘Hamlet’? Again, how far down you push a cultural background (or collective awareness) depends upon how far down you are willing to push individual awareness. But we can all probably agree that humans possess not only a subjective space (the Upper Left Quadrant 1) but also certain intersubjective spaces (the Lower Left Quadrant 4).

So here in Lower Left Quadrant 4, we are concerned with the value and meaning that different communities place for example on bipolar ‘disorder’, schizophrenia, spirituality and religion. In archaic and magical communities, the witch doctor, shaman or priest may be held in high esteem and respect with their words forming unquestionable rules and guidance. Meanwhile the schizophrenic may be regarded as possessed by evil spirits. In a mythic community witch doctors and occult practitioners may be severely criticised and pressured to conform to the ‘one right faith’ of the nation. Their literature may be destroyed and people punished for refusing to conform. The schizophrenic may be regarded as demon possessed or satanically oppressed, leading to attempts at exorcism. In more developed, rational level communities, it is the mythic level priest or the religious leader such as the Pastor, priest, or bishop that may be virtually dismissed as outdated, superstitious and of little value to the community, as for example occurred in communist Russia in the twentieth century. The schizophrenic is seen as suffering from a brain disorder. As with individual subjective development, so too here – communities tend to be critical of the stage from which they have just emerged. In rationalist liberal western society, mainstream Christian religion, previously the respected dominant spiritual practice, is in decline and crisis, often being seen as outmoded and outdated, even irrelevant in the modern scientific age where secularism tends to be dominant. Christianity may well be seen as backward, superstitious and a hindrance to progress. Even so, under the surface many of the populace continue to express a spiritual hunger. The spiritual line in the community wants to evolve and develop, but it is stunted by the rational/logical/materialistic outlook that is dominant in the community. Many people seek out novel beliefs and practices in the various new religious movements, or exotic ones such as eastern beliefs and practices. Or they may return to the old religions in new guises, as in for example New Age practice and belief: regression disguised as progression. Or they may hold on to more liberal and non-literal reinterpretations of the dominant traditional religion, which in the West, is Christianity. In the same way as with the other quadrants, there is a correspondence with levels in other quadrants. Mythic societies tend to organise in one fashion, whilst rational societies in another.

2.26 SUMMARY: THE LOWER QUADRANTS – THE COLLECTIVE

What both of these two lower quadrants have in common is that they are concerned with collective holons: subjective and interior on the left and objective and exterior on the right. They are concerned with collectives of people and how those collectives develop, how they objectively structure their society and what shared subjective meanings and values these communities hold to.

So now we also have two right hand and two left hand quadrants:

2.27 THE RIGHT HAND QUADRANTS: OBJECTIVITY

What both of the Right hand quadrants have in common is that they represent holons that all possess simple location — they can all be seen with the senses or their extensions such as telescopes, microscopes and so on; they are all empirical phenomena: they are in other words, objective and inter-objective realities – they are what individual and communal holons look like from the outside, in an exterior and objectifying fashion. They are concerned with truth.

2.28 THE LEFT HAND QUADRANTS: SUBJECTIVITY

What the two Left hand quadrants have in common is that they represent holons that are all subjective: they are subjective and inter-subjective realities; they are what individual and communal holons look like from the inside, in an interior and subjectifying fashion. They are concerned with beauty, goodness, value and meaning.

2.29 A SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE DIAGRAM

Thus, the upper quadrants refer to individual holons, the lower half, to their collective forms. The right half refers to the exterior or objective aspects of holons, and the left half, to their interior or subjective emergents. This gives us a grid of exterior-individual (or behavioural), interior-individual (or intentional), exterior-collective (or social), and interior-collective (or cultural) — a grid of subjective, objective, inter-subjective, and inter-objective realities.

2.30 PRE AND TRANS RATIONAL STAGES – A CONFUSION

In the subjective left hand quadrants there is a progression of stages or levels from pre-rational, to rational, to trans-rational. Magic and mythic levels are categorised as pre-rational and are typified by paganism, witchcraft and religious fundamentalism. Even so, Nazism was a mythic political system, (one race, one blood, one nation e.t.c.) which harnessed higher rational level aspects such as science to fulfil its mythic ends – Gas chambers to eliminate Jews for example. Fundamentalist creationists do the same: they harness scientific thinking and evidence to support a mythical young earth position. As we have seen, people at a given emergent level tend to be critical of the previous stage from which they are emerging. Thus scientific and enlightenment rationality is critical of religious fundamentalism; religious fundamentalism is critical of superstitious magic and so on. However, because pre-rational and trans-rational stages are both non-rational, they are often confused with each other, in what Wilber calls the Pre-Trans fallacy. Thus, on one hand, a regressive movement may often be mistaken for further development and evolution. Faced with a mental ‘collapse’ or a sense of inadequacy or crisis using the rational world view, a person or a society may evolve upwards to trans-rational levels, or they may regress downwards, retreating to comfortable pre-rational mythology and magic thinking even though they think they are moving upwards. They revert to the comfortable ‘old-time religion’. Wilber regards most New-Agers as falling into this category – they think that they are closer to the Divine, but they are in fact regressing to earlier, pre-rational perspectives that are contradicted by evidence and rationality. Conversely, on the other hand, a person may move to a higher trans-rational level and be considered to be regressing to a pre-rational level – to being childish and naïve in their outlook. Thus others may regard mystics as superstitious, naïve eccentrics.

2.31 THE PROBLEM OF REDUCTIONISM

Unfortunately, as has already been suggested, because many researchers specialize in one or two quadrants only they tend to ignore or even deny the existence of the other quadrants. Materialistic or Right-Hand theorists for example, tend to deny substantial existence to the interior – to the mind, subjective meaning and value, thus it is that classical behaviourists pay no attention to subjective mental processes described in the Left-Hand quadrants. There are many examples of this type of quadrant partiality or reductionism. When someone tells a bi-polar suffer or schizophrenic to ‘pull themselves together’ or ‘get a grip’, they are ignoring the Upper Right Quadrant of biology, of brain chemistry and genetics and their effect on mood and behaviour. They have a narrow view of reality.
Reductionism arises in two ways:

a) whenever we reduce any quadrant to any other quadrant, or

b) whenever we confuse or merge any quadrant with any other – quadrants are deeply related to each other but not the same.

In other words the reductionist problem can be described like this: empirical scientists want to reduce everything to what is empirically verifiable – and they will often deny the validity of anything that is not empirically verifiable. But, as we have already observed, much of what makes us human – art, psychology, meaning, philosophy and emotional values, are not empirically verifiable at all! The scientific reductionists will then say that all emotions are merely chemical, or there is no such thing as meaning because you can’t measure it with a slide rule….awareness has no objective reality because we can’t find it with a microscope etc…poetry has no intrinsic value either, right? On the other hand, those advocating ‘soft’ science will want reduce everything to the subjective (i.e. non-objective, non-empirical) realm. They will then say that all reality is merely a product of thinking (solipsism is the name of this not particularly new philosophical stance – thoroughly disproved at least a hundred years ago), or that all chemical imbalances in the brain are a product of traumatic experiences or repressed emotions etc….(in truth some are and some are not – schizophrenia and bi-polar ‘disorder’ are more often than not genetic). Both of these positions limit reality and do us a great diservice. Both positions are sometimes true, both sometimes false, often it is some combination of the two.

Quantum physics took science to its edge back in the 1930′s and showed us the limitations of our then extant empirical model to explain certain observable, repeatable, experimental phenomena. This in no way means that there is no such thing as physical reality or that everything is affecting everything else an insipidly meaningful way, or that that gravity is just a consensus reality illusion – the previous are all popular, fanciful, fun, science fiction concepts. Our generation got to see these concepts in wonderful films and T.V. programmes and they are a little confused at times as to how real they are – or whether or not any serious scientist believes them. These phenomena reveal that there are big gaps in how we understand physics at the sub-atomic level and much theorizing has ensued to try to make sense of these gaps. This theorizing has little if anything at all to do with any of the New Age beliefs that people have tried to merge them with in recent years.
In contrast to physics, both spirituality and psychology are soft dialogical sciences. They are concerned with depth, interiority, meaning, awareness. The attempt to apply the laws of physics to say, awareness or emotions (category error) is much like trying to apply the rules of chess to the game of tennis. On an abstract level it is fun for a minute or two, but in practical terms it is essentially meaningless. Likewise, trying to apply the observations of developmental psychology to the process of measuring radiation from the sun is like trying to apply the principles of the observed mating rituals of the musk otter to the process of  burning a Compact Disc – again meaningless. So too – the attempt to conflate what gets called ‘quantum physics’ with what gets called  ‘psychology and spirituality’ is a con of smart marketing perpetrated on those who know very little about either and walk away more confused about both than ever before – albeit pleasantly disoriented. The New Age movement commits both of these category errors: both the reducing and the merging of domains/categories/quadrants with each other. In doing so there is much confusion about depth and meaning. The New Age movement is in some ways a reaction to the empirical science and logical reasoning dominating western thought since the rational enlightenment – but unfortunately they do not attempt a higher order integration that stands on the shoulders of this important rational development while honoring and including the hermeneutical, dialogical domains. Rather, they romanticize and seek to regress to a pre-rational state in the name of spirituality.

2.32 OBJECTIVE EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

Objective empirical science has very specific paramaters: it requires things like provable, repeatable results without experimental bias and sometimes this entails some kind of double blind verification. Objective science concerns itself with what can be proven and as such it gives us a lot of very useful information about things that have ‘simple location’ – rocks, chemicals,  kidneys, the temperature at which paper combusts etc…But empirical science cannot tell us anything about meaning or any subjective valuing for that matter or material: it cannot tell us about morals or beauty – these are just simply not in its domain. Rather, it is limited to surfaces - and while this is a very  important domain of study, it can tell us nothing about depth. Depth has to do with interiority: awareness, hermeneutics (the interpretation of meaning) emotions, how we feel about things, what hurts us, what delights us, etc…
Empirical science is discovered through a ‘monological gaze’: it is a process of observing, not of interacting with interiors. We do not dialogue with the awareness of a stone to find out its chemical composition, we analyze its constituent parts using an empirical process. However, hermeneutics, morals, ethics, psychology and modes of being on the other hand are studied through a ‘dialogical process’ which reveals interior depth. These are the so-called ‘soft’ sciences. I have no empirical way of understanding what Picasso’s painting ‘Guernica’ means, but if I engage in a dialogical process of studying up on the history of that time and Picasso’s opinions and feelings about the events of that period and if I let myself enter a contemplative meditation on the painting, it starts to have all sorts of interior meaning…art is experiential and is situated in a historical and intellectual context. Thus, while empirical science can tell us that you are feeling happy because your dopamine and serotonin levels are elevated, it cannot tell us what subjective meaning the experience preceding your happiness (say, a meeting with the dalai lama) had for you.
2.33 SUBJECTIVE HERMENEUTICS AND INTERPRETATION
The ‘soft’ sciences such as some divisions of psychology are not empirically provable, therefore they rely on extensive dialogue, case studies, theoretical discourse, argument and counter argument. There are real experts in each field who represent a ‘community of the adequate’: those qualified to assess the claims of peers and less experienced newcomers, thus though it is not empirical, there is nothing arbitrary about this. Being subjective does not mean that everything is relative or that all opinions are equally valuable. For example: there are expert art historians whose interpretation of Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ painting would be significantly better and deeper than the little girls or boys down the road. There are expert psychological theorists and clinicians whose interpretation of a symptom would be better and deeper than your average tarot card reader at a seaside resort. There are experts who specialize in ethics who could make more nuanced and deeper arguments than the Prime Minister of England or the President of the United States.

2.34 PROBLEMS WITH THE ALL-LEVEL, ALL-QUADRANT SYSTEM

We have already seen one difficulty with Wilber’s system – namely that our subjective awareness and it’s structures can seem to arise from the centre of the diagram. In some senses, for the mystic, this is true as we shall see, but with Wilber’s diagram, there can be a sense of these subjective qualities developing and emerging from the centre quite independently of the material, physical body. Thus some could use this diagram to posit the idea of a disembodied soul or spirit – a sort of disembodied ‘ego identity’ that somehow exists independently of and continues beyond the death of the physical body which covers it. Contrary to this, I am suggesting in this essay that subjective experience and the integrated subjective self, the subjective ‘ego’, emerges from and is dependent upon the biological organism. In other words, when the body dies, the ‘ego’ and the subjective sense of bounded-self ceases to exist. I am suggesting that subjective experience and ‘ego’ as we know it can be reduced to biological and physiological processes of the organism.

Another difficulty with Wilber’s system is that most of its basic propositions (the spiritual philosophy that arises again and again throughout history, the existence of higher structures, states, modes and developmental lines in awareness; the spiritual evolution of the cosmos; the four quadrants; the notion of spiritual depth etc.); only seem to have validity if we ourselves have experienced or at least are open to the notion of the existence of higher trans-rational levels of awareness. We are back to the illustration of the lifeguard who cannot swim and who does not believe that swimming exists: the problem that we saw at the end of the last chapter. As we have seen, it is estimated that only 0.1 percent of the world population or even less experience these trans-rational levels. This problem is worsened by the fact that the different levels of awareness tend to misunderstand each other and sometimes are even hostile to one another: a child at a certain stage of development cannot understand the fact that a tall glass of water contains the same amount of water as a smaller but broader glass: the child is sometimes even hostile to the one who tells them otherwise. If a mystic in western society enters into a non-rational mode of awareness and reports what they experience to others, they really will tend to be seen by the majority who are in the dominant rational and analytical mode living in the community around them as being at best eccentric, offbeat, irrational and naïve, or worse: regressive, immature, or even crazy. Add the fact that those who are labelled as so called ‘mentally ill’: schizophrenics and sufferers from bipolar ‘disorder’, may also have a concern with religious themes and we can see that the whole thing gets a bit blurred. In other words, mystics may be perceived negatively as being ‘mentally ill’ or at being at best religious cranks and eccentrics, out of touch with reality in what is perceived by the majority as a modern, rational, scientific world.

Also, we should note that although the Right Hand Quadrants deal with objective ‘its’, these objects are subjectively categorised, conceptualised, classified and interpreted by us using shared symbols such as language. Certain interpretations are given higher premium and gain dominance in a given culture at a given time, and often become accepted as ‘facts’. In other words the objects in the Right Hand Quadrants are not simply self-evident and self-categorising – they are open to and subjective conceptualisation and it is this that we shall look at in the next chapter.

These and other difficulties aside, Wilber provides with a pretty good ‘map’, in fact I think the best ‘map’, to help us to orientate ourselves as we traverse the terrain of mysticism, madness and mania.

End of Chapter Two. For Chapter Three, please click HERE!)

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA: AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES OF GOD AND MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

AN EXPLORATION OF EXPERIENCES OF GOD

AND

MENTAL ‘DISORDER’

BY

PILGRIM SIMON

(ROBERT LAYNTON)

COPYRIGHT ROBERT LAYNTON 2010 All rights reserved.

Cover photograph by Robert Laynton

PREFACE

I suppose I got tired of being called a religious ‘fanatic’, of being told I was a ‘God botherer’ or that I was obsessed with God and religion and should get into the real world. Not that I was a religious ‘crusader’ who took every opportunity to berate people with spiritual concerns. Far from it – I am quite against such evangelical fervour. But every time somebody used these kinds of terms in reference to me, there did occur in the back of mind that sneaking concern as to whether there was some truth in what they were saying. Was I just an obsessive religious person? Yet I only had look at a football match on television, (not that I have the slightest interest in football), especially around the football World Cup time and watch people generally to see an ardent fanaticism that I find slightly unsettling. Just to watch how normally reserved people begin to get intensely excited about a group guys kicking a bag of wind about never fails to surprise me. To watch people in the actual crowd when I am in this slightly detached frame of mind, to watch the intensity on their faces is a real education. Then, after the season it all subsides. Does anyone tell these supporters to get into the real world or that they are obsessed? I suppose a few do, but generally, all this cheering, chanting, flag waving and intensity seems to be considered as O.K. Then there are those people (and I am thinking mainly here of women), who are ardent readers of romantic fiction. Their bookshelves heave with books by authors like Catherine Cookson, fairly light romantic fluff which they spend hours and hours, day after day reading. Just look at a market bookstall of second hand books and they are often full of such types of books and women buying and selling them. All that effort and focus and time spent reading light fiction. Does anyone say to them that they are some sort of fanatic, or that they should get into the real world instead of filling their heads with this stuff?

Yet somehow, if a person gets interested in spirituality or religion then they are considered a little odd, a bit obsessive. I can have my bookshelf full of books say on railways and railway history and technology. I can have my bookshelf full of Catherine Cookson and the like. No real problem. But if my bookshelf is full of philosophy, religious history, theology and the biographies of religious people, oh dear, watch out. You start to get those looks that say ‘Hmmm! He is a little odd reading all that stuff’. But the truth is that I happen to love theology and religious philosophy. I find the subject very interesting, challenging, deep and relevant – far more relevant and meaningful that football, or sport generally, or trains, or fiction books. (My own penchant is for American Crime Fiction from the nineteen fifties.)

Then throw into this mix the fact that I was eventually diagnosed as borderline manic depressive or bipolar. I suffer mainly from periods of depression and every now and again there is an unsettling upheaval caused by a manic period, which have wrecked relationships and caused major schisms or fault lines in my life and cost me a lot of money. In my worst period in my mid twenties, I really did think at one point that men in white coats were going to drag me away to some institution. Such instability took me on a search for a good psychological foundation, a solid ground, a world-view that would act as an anchor in such times of upheaval – and that meant a deeper religious or spiritual quest. I actually started going to church before my bipolar condition really emerged – there was a good youth club there. It was as mercenary as that. I enjoyed the friendship, sense of community and activities. But then came a number of mystical experiences – deep personal encounters with the Divine which again, though they made me very euphoric were also very unsettling. Eventually I left the church to follow a different spiritual course. Periods of depression led me to popular self-help psychology books and from there I moved to a more systematic study and obtained a University degree majoring in psychology. And so life went on – with bouts of depression, occasional periods of mania and occasional mystical experiences. But was there some truth in what people were saying? Could my mystical experiences just be explained away in psychological terms? Was I suffering from religious mania? Hence this book.

The text that follows was extensively revised about eighteen months after it was first written. No real changes were made to the conclusions, but the study was re-structured to some degree to present the contents in a more natural sequence. Some repetitive sections were removed and some new sections were added to clarify and expand certain important themes. The study is a general, sweeping overview of a deep and complex subject. I guess entire books could be written on some of the sections, but I could not and did not want to write an overly technical study, though I think that most people will find it deep enough, but rather I wanted to write more generally and expansively, to get the broad sweep and flavour of the theme. The Further Reading section at the end will give those readers who want more depth plenty to muse upon.

Rob Laynton

May 2010

CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: MYSTICISM, MOOD AND PSYCHOSIS

1.1     Introduction

1.2     Mystics and mysticism defined

1.3     Mystical phenomena

1.4     Bipolar Affective Disorder

1.5     Symptoms of depression

1.6     Symptoms of mania

1.7     Types of bipolar disorder

1.8     Is mania incompatible with mystical experience?

1.9     Symptoms of psychosis

1.10  Psychosis and schizophrenia

1.11  Types of schizophrenia

1.12  Mysticism and schizophrenia

1.13  The tradition of psychotherapy

1.14  The tradition of mysticism

1.15  Mysticism, schizophrenia and psychiatry

CHAPTER TWO: A FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS

2.1 Four quadrants of existence

2.2 Developmental levels and lines

2.3 Theorists, theories, levels and quadrants

2.4 Quadrant 1: The evolution of a subject –‘I’

2.5 The Essential Self

2.6 The expressive self

2.7 Descriptive terms

2.8 The subjective self-sense

2.9 The ego and the self defined and distinguished

2.10 The subjective and objective aspects of the self

2.11 Aspects of the objective self

2.12 Aspects of the subjective self

2.13 The integrated subjective self-system

2.14 The integrated self

2.15 The presentation of the self

2.16 The objective self and subjective self-image

2.17 Quadrant one is related to the other three quadrants

2.18 The spiritual line of development

2.19 Consciousness – how far down does it go?

2.20 Levels and psychosis

2.21 Quadrant 2: The evolution of an object – ‘it’

2.22 Facts, thoughts and reality

2.23 Summary: The upper quadrants 1 & 2 – The individual

2.24 Quadrant 3: The evolution of objects in community – ‘its’

2.25 Quadrant 4: The evolution of the subjective community – ‘we’

2.26 Summary: The lower quadrants – the collective

2.27 The right hand quadrants: Objectivity

2.28 The left hand quadrants – Subjectivity

2.29 A summary of the whole diagram

2.30 pre and trans rational stages – A confusion

2.31 The problem of reductionsism

2.32 Objective empirical science

2.33 Subjective hermeneutics and interpretation

2.34 Problems with the all-level, all-quadrant system

CHAPTER THREE: MEANING, FAITH, BELIEF AND CONCEPTS

3.1 The internal world

3.2 Definitions

3.3 Perception

3.4 Why don’t we wait for convincing proof of everything?

3.5 Meaning

3.6 Summary 1

3.7 Functions and concepts

3.8 Fluidity of concepts

3.9 Falsifiability and unfalsifiability of concepts and beliefs

3.10 Conceptual values and self-presentation

3.11 Summary 2

3.12 Beliefs and logic

3.13 World-view assumptions

3.14 The assumptions of psychology and psychiatry with regard to spirituality

3.15 Summary 3

CHAPTER FOUR: MODES, FAITH, MYTH AND SPIRITUALITY

4.1 Essential and expressive self

4.2 Making sense of the world: two different modes of being

4.3 The mode of active rationality

4.4 Personal conceptual constructs in the active/rational mode

4.5 The mode of receptive intuition

4.6 Modes and western society

4.7 Objects of faith – Mysticism and depth

4.8 Paradox and contradiction

4.9 Essence and the Divine

4.10 Names, Qualities and Attributes of the Divine

4.11 Summary 1

4.12 Myths, allegories and metaphors

4.13 Myth and folklore

4.14 Related terms

4.15 Reification

4.16 Reification and religious fundamentalism

4.17 Contradiction in mystical content

4.18 Relative perspectivism

4.19 Another look at faith and belief

4.20 Stages of faith

4.21 Affirmation

4.22 Summary 2

4.23 The problem of meaning

4.24 Faith, meaning and mental ‘illness’

4.25 Personal experience and the quest for meaning, stability, orientation and integration.

4.26 Personal experience of mania and the intuitive/receptive mode

CHAPTER FIVE: MYSTICISM, QUADRANTS AND LEVELS

5.1 Quadrant 1: The Mystic individual’s subjective experience

5.2 The dimension of depth

5.3 The Observing Self

5.4 Understanding the process

5.5 Contemplative meditation

5.6 Deautomization

5.7 Meditation as a deautomization technique

5.8 Is mysticism regressive?

5.9 Renunciation

5.10 Habituation in the rational/active mode

5.11 Receptivity: renunciation in monastic training

5.12 The receptive mode in everyday life

5.13 What is knowledge?

5.14 The two modes as complimentary

5.15 Summary 1

5.16 madness and mysticism: clarifying the mystery

5.17 The explanatory power of this model

5.18 The spiritual, mystical experience

5.19 The psychotic experience

5.20 The logic of the illogical

5.21 Putting the model in perspective

5.22 Quadrant 2: The mystic, brain and physiology

5.23 The bicameral mind

5.24 Schizophrenia and bicameralism

5.25 The breakdown of bicameralism

5.26 Similar ideas

5.27 Quadrant 3: The mystic in modern western society

5.28 Quadrant 4: The mystic in community

5.29 Summary 2

5.30 Summary of differences and similarities between psychosis and mysticism

CHAPTER SIX: ME, MANIFESTATION, REALITY AND ESSENCE

6.1 Our self

6.2 projections of form onto the Formless

6.3 Self and Essence are One

6.4 Loss of dissolving of ‘ego’

6.5 Contraction and Ignorance

6.6 Depth

6.7 Deeper Reality and ‘objective’ reality

6.8 Ultimate or Final Reality

6.9 Limitations concerning objective information in mysticism

6.10 A spiritual journey

6.11 Is the universe conscious?

6.12 Defining consciousness

6.13 A conscious universe?

6.14 Real and not real

6.15 Absolute manifested

6.16 Contraction and materialisation

6.17 Unity, separation and division

6.18 Illusions

6.19 Back to Reality

6.20 Substance and Reality

6.21 The manifest: the material realm, medium and domain

6.22 Duality and multiplicity

6.23 The self

6.24 Bounded identity

6.25 Predestination

6.26 The continuum of experience – an aside

6.27 Predestination and perspective

6.28 Summary

6.29 Relativism

6.30 Different approaches to Absolute

6.31 Relative  subjectivity

6.32 Relative perspectivism

6.33 Relative capacity

6.34 The dominant reality

6.35 Reality and different worlds

6.36 ‘Truth’ is specific worlds

6.37 Contradictions and paradox within a world

6.38 Personal Lord, personal theology

6.39 Different systems

6.40 A mystical schematic view

6.41 Summary conclusions

CHAPTER SEVEN: VERIFYING REALITY

7.1 Putting it together: The reality of the mystic – illusions, ignorance and the Real

7.2 Faith versus direct knowledge

7.3 Enthusiasm

7.4 Uncertainty – the foundation of spirituality

7.5 Trying to grasp and know the Unknowable

7.6 Yes and no, real and not real

7.7 Uncertainty and faith

7.8 The material universe

7.9 Sacred writing and scripture

7.10 Orthodoxy and authority

7.11 Immediate and mediated

7.12 Mysticsm: Depth, certainty, truth, reality and assurance

7.13 Form, revelation and proof

7.14 Personal growth, enlightenment and realisation

CHAPTER EIGHT:  MYSTICISM – PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

8.1 Mystics and the inner meaning of Scripture

8.2 Surface and depth

8.3 Orthodox hermeneutics

8.4 Light in an earthenware lamp

8.5 Analogies – explaining the unexplainable

8.6 Outward forms and inner meanings

8.7 An example: Understanding Abraham and Moses

8.8 Inward and outward are one

8.9 Trends in hermeneutics

8.10 Different styles of writing

8.11 Understanding different types of writing

8.12 Parables

8.13 Allegories

8.14 Symbols

8.15 Types

8.16 Some personal examples

8.17 Degrees of knowledge

8.19 Spiritual discrimination

8.20 Mystical awareness and rational awareness

8.21 Revelation and interpretation

8.22 Revelation and unveiling

8.23 The source of spiritual metaphor and analogy

8.24 Inherent or embedded meaning

8.25 Relative meaning and the Absolute

8.26 The limits of orthodox hermeneutics

8.27 Direction and impetus – the Spiritual Journey

8.28 Techniques of self-interpretation of personal imagery

8.29 Conclusions

8.30 Iconoclasm and Theomorphism

8.31 Relative forms, paradigms and world religions

8.32 Sacred literature

8.33 Deluded, mentally ‘ill’ or what?

Further reading

References

MYSTICISM, MADNESS AND MANIA

I looked and looked and this I came to see,

That what I thought was you and you,

Was really me and me

ABSTRACT

I am going to overview mystical experience with some consideration of mental ‘illness’ and in particular bi-polar ‘disorder’ and schizophrenia. I will explore the definitions and causes of mental ‘illness’ and then outline the Integral model of Ken Wilber which I will adopt as a framework of discussion. Then the nature and role of beliefs, faith and meaning will be explored. I will then discuss myth, faith and folklore, together with modes of being with reference to Julian Jaynes and the Bicameral mind and the work of Arthur Deikman and the Observing Self, before considering the individual mystic and their experience. In this discussion I shall consider the nature of the self and our conceptual constructs of the world around us. I will then explore mystical world-views and degrees of transcendence, drawing out a general philosophy before then moving the discussion on as to whether we can prove the existence of the Divine or not. During this discussion I shall explore the nature of reality. I conclude by looking at different principles of interpreting the content of mystical experience. Throughout the discussion I try to draw out features of mysticism and mental ‘illness’ in order to distinguish and differentiate between them.

About the author

Robert Laynton was born in England in 1951 and continues to live there. He has been involved in spirituality of one form or another since the late 1960’s and has had a number of mystical experiences in different religious contexts. He has also been diagnosed as being borderline bipolar. He gained an Honours degree in the 1990’s with the Open University majoring in psychology and also gained a Post Graduate Certificate and Diploma in Counselling at Keele University. He has been a member of the British Psychological Society and a member of their Transpersonal Psychology Division and has contributed both to their Journal and to ‘De Numine’ the magazine of the Alistair Hardy Society in Oxford.

CHAPTER ONE

MYSTICISM, MOOD AND PSYCHOSIS

1.1 INTRODUCTION

There are a number of people in the present and throughout history, from all over the world, who have claimed to have a direct and immediate experience of the Divine. Their experiences are described as mystical or Transcendent and they are often called mystics. What exactly is mystical experience? How is it valued in society? How is it understood in the community? Can such experiences be explained by biological means alone? Are such just mentally ill, or suffering some sort of mental aberration? In addition, it also appears that some peoples who are diagnosed as having so called ‘mental illness’, such as schizophrenia and those people suffering with bi-polar affective ‘disorder’ or manic depression, may also have tendency to focus on God, religion and spirituality. Why is it that people diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia or bi-polar ‘disorder’ seem to focus on spirituality and God? Are all such people just deluded? Are they just experiencing hallucinations or illusions? Do they have religious mania?  Are they eccentric, just plain ill or is there a spiritual dimension to be accessed which rational, western viewpoints mistakenly dismiss?

1.2 MYSTICS AND MYSTICISM DEFINED

Psychologist Arthur Deikman identified the basic characteristic of mystical experience as the intuitive perception that we are part of a universe that is a unified whole. As William James and others have remarked, such an experience is usually accompanied by feelings of reverence and awe; the experience is highly valued and is felt to be a more direct perception of reality than is possible ordinarily. Such an intuitive experience is called mystical because it is considered beyond the scope of language to convey. It may also include a direct, immediate experience of and/or identification with the Divine, which may be described in various ways and forms, not all of them consistent. Indeed, some descriptions may simply contradict other descriptions of the Divine. This identification of the person or self as Divine is opposed to the more usual sole identification of ourselves as being a finite body-self: in other words, a mind housed in a finite body.

1.3 MYSTICAL PHENOMENA

Reports of mystical experiences encompass a wide area, from moments of joy and sensory enhancement not much different from our usual mode of being, to modes that are said to go beyond all images, ideas and customary perceptual experiences. In other words, they vary in degree. For descriptive purposes we can group these experiences into (1) untrained-sensate, (2) trained-sensate, and (3) trained-transcendent.

Untrained-sensate applies to experiences occurring in people not regularly engaged in meditation, prayer, or other spiritual exercises. Apparently, anyone can have a sensate-mystical experience. Such experiences feature intense emotional, perceptual, and/or cognitive phenomena that appear to be extensions of familiar psychological processes. Thus, for example, we have an account of a person having a classical mystical experience, occurring with no particular stimulus at all, arising from a state of quietness: All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped around as it were by a flame coloured cloud. For an instant he thought of fire, some sudden conflagration in the great city, the next he knew that the light was within himself. Directly afterwards he found himself in a sense of exultation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination that was quite impossible for him to describe.

The trained-sensate category refers to the same phenomena, but occurring in religious persons who have deliberately sought blessing or enlightenment by means of long practice in meditation and/or religious discipline. The untrained sensate and the trained-sensate states are phenomenologically indistinguishable, but the reports of trained mystics are usually expressed in the language of the religious conceptual system in which they are trained.

As one might expect, a mystical experience that occurs as a result of training, with the support and direction of a formal religious or spiritual social structure and ideology, tends to have a more significant psychological effect. However, there are also accounts of spontaneous conversion experiences that are noteworthy for their influence on a person’s life. It is typical of all mystical experience that it more or less fades away, leaving only a memory or longing for that which was experienced.

The trained transcendent or enlightenment experiences are said to have more permanent effects, but even in those cases, training is continued for a long time until the person has realized the experience in his everyday life. It would seem that mystical experiences form a progression when they occur as part of a specific spiritual discipline. Mystics such as St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, and various commentators together with Eastern mystic literature generally divide the phenomena and the stages or levels through which mystics progress into a preliminary experience of strong emotion and ideation (sensate) and a higher experience – the ultimate goal – that goes beyond emotion or conceptualisation, (transcendent). It is this latter experience, occurring almost always in association with long training, that characterizes the trained-transcendent group. Thus: ‘The spirit is transported high above all the faculties into a void of immense solitude whereof no mortal can adequately speak. It is the mysterious darkness wherein is concealed the limitless good. To such an extent are we admitted and absorbed into something that is one, simple, divine, and illimitable, that we seem no longer distinguishable from it… In this unity, the feeling of multiplicity disappears. When, afterwards, these persons come to themselves again, they find themselves possessed of a distinct knowledge of things, more luminous and more perfect than of others…This state is called the ineffable obscurity…This obscurity is a light to which no created intelligence can arrive by its own nature.’

This is a very brief initial sketch of mysticism, just enough to establish the theme that I am addressing. But before we explore it any further, I want to take an overview of bi-polar ‘disorder’ and what are termed ‘psychoses’, because there are parallel qualities in these experiences.

1.4 BI-POLAR AFFECTIVE ‘DISORDER’

Bipolar Affective ‘disorder’ used to be known as manic depression. As the older name suggests, someone with bipolar ‘disorder’ will have severe mood swings which usually last several weeks or months and are far beyond the range of what most of us experience. They may swing from moods of deep depression to periods of overactive, excitable behaviour known as mania. Between these severe highs and lows can be stable times. The number and frequency of these periods of depression and mania vary from person to person: some people will experience just one or two episodes, whereas others will have many episodes of depression or mania. Also, some people see or hear things that others around them don’t (known as having visual or auditory hallucinations or delusions). A sufferer may be quite unaware of these changes in their attitude or behaviour and after a manic phase is over, they may be quite shocked at what they’ve done and the effect that it has had. Though mania may flare up periodically, depression is the most consistent symptom which may also provoke suicidal feelings. About 1 in every 100 adults have bipolar ‘disorder’ at some point in their life. It usually starts during or after the teenage years and it is unusual for it to start after the age of 40. Men and women are affected equally.

Differences in people’s genetic make up can make them more vulnerable to develop bipolar affective ‘disorder’, which has a history of being seen as a clear example of a biological form of illness: a ‘disorder’ in which there is a brain problem that is in need of medical treatment to return the person to health. However, it is also clear that the relationship between inheritance, biology and bipolar ‘disorder’ is far from being a simple one. Stressful events, illness or lack of support can trigger individual episodes of illness. The birth of a child might generally be regarded as a positive event, but sometimes the associated strain of changing roles, lack of sleep and possible additional financial burdens could be associated with increasing levels of stress which could in due course be associated with illness in someone with sensitivity to bipolar ‘disorder’. It seems that people with bipolar ‘disorder’ can if anything become more sensitive to such experiences that might cause them health problems and can develop skills to avoid such situations. When avoidance is either not possible or not appropriate, then people can learn to take steps to protect themselves at an early stage from the consequences of such situations.

In the past, there was a tendency to describe bipolar ‘disorder’ in relatively benign terms: there was an assumption that although specific episodes of depression or mania could be severe, they were also time-limited. Furthermore, and in contrast to views about schizophrenia for instance, it was assumed that people were actually quite well in between the episodes that brought them to the attention of psychiatric services. More recent work has, however, indicated that although some people do indeed cope very well with their lives for the vast majority of the time, there are a lot of people who have to cope with significant levels of symptoms even when they are ‘well’. In other words, many sufferers do not have sufficient symptoms to be said to be clinically depressed or manic but may at the same time have combinations of symptoms that serve to make day-to-day life very difficult. Indeed, an American survey suggested that on average a person with bipolar ‘disorder’ could expect to lose nine years of life, fourteen years of effective activity and twelve years of normal health. These figures are quoted to emphasise the seriousness of the problem that people with this diagnosis have to deal with. There is no single type of person who develops bipolar ‘disorder’. However, there are certainly a number of people with high levels of motivation towards achievement and significant perfectionism who suffer from bipolar ‘disorder’.

 

1.5 WHAT ARE THE SYMPTOMS OF DEPRESSION?

Feeling depressed or down is a normal reaction to events in our lives. In the depressive phase that occurs as part of bipolar ‘disorder’, the depressive feelings will be worse, they will go on for longer and they will make it harder to deal with day-to-day problems.

Some of these other symptoms may also occur:

• · Feelings of unhappiness that do not go away.
• · Losing interest in things.
• · Being unable to enjoy things.
• · Finding it hard to make even simple decisions.
• · Change of appetite.
• · Weight loss or gain.
• · Tiredness and loss of energy.
• · Excessive feelings of worthlessness or guilt.
• · Being unable to see a positive future.
• · Having trouble thinking or concentrating.
• · Finding it harder to be with people.
• · Having thoughts that one would be better off dead or thoughts about hurting oneself.
• · Difficulty in performing normal activities such as work, taking care of things at home or getting along with people.
• · Lasting sad, anxious, or empty mood.
• · Feelings of hopelessness or pessimism.
• · Loss of interest or pleasure in activities once enjoyed, including sex.
• · Restlessness or irritability.
• · Sleeping too much, or can’t sleep.
• · Chronic pain or other persistent bodily symptoms that are not caused by physical illness or injury.

A depressive episode is diagnosed if five or more of these symptoms last most of the day, nearly every day, for a period of 2 weeks or longer.

1.6 WHAT ARE THE SYMPTOMS OF MANIA?

This is diagnosed if there is a period of a week or more during which a person feels unusually good, high, excited, hyper or irritable. This can be so extreme that the sufferer loses contact with reality and starts to believe strange things, have poor judgement and behave in embarrassing, harmful or even dangerous ways.

This may be accompanied by:

• · An elevated mood that is out of keeping with the individual’s circumstances. Often the person will appear euphoric with an overwhelming sense of well-being and self-importance.
• · Increased speech that is often rapid and louder than usual, which may be difficult for others to follow.
• · A reduced need for sleep.
• · Loss of inhibitions, which may lead to inappropriate and impulsive behaviour.
• · Very grand, over-optimistic ideas and plans may be expressed.
• · In severe cases sufferers may develop ‘psychotic’ symptoms of delusions and hallucinations. The content of these is usually in keeping with the euphoric mood and the unrealistic sense of great self-importance.
• · Increased energy, activity, and restlessness.
• · Extreme irritability.
• · Racing thoughts and talking very fast, jumping from one idea to another.
• · Distractibility, can’t concentrate well.
• · Unrealistic beliefs in one’s abilities and powers.
• · Spending sprees.
• · A lasting period of behavior that is different from usual.
• · Increased sexual drive.
• · Abuse of drugs, particularly cocaine, alcohol, and sleeping medications.
• · Provocative, intrusive, or aggressive behavior.
• · Denial that anything is wrong.

 

1.7 WHAT TYPES OF BIPOLAR ‘DISORDER’ ARE THERE?

 

Bipolar I:  Here there has been at least one high, or manic episode, which has lasted for longer than one week. Some people with Bipolar I will have only manic episodes, although most will also have periods of depression. Untreated, manic episodes generally last 3 to 6 months. Depressive episodes last rather longer – 6 to 12 months without treatment.

 

Bipolar II: In this case there has been more than one episode of severe depression, but only mild manic episodes, called ‘hypomania’.

 

Rapid cycling: With this, more than four mood swings happen in a 12 month period. This affects around 1 in 10 people with bipolar ‘disorder’ and can happen with both types I and II. Rapid cycling tends to develop later in the course of illness and is more common among women than among men.

 

Cyclothymia: In this case, the mood swings are not as severe as those in full bipolar ‘disorder’, but can be longer and can develop into full bipolar ‘disorder’.

There are several specific similarities between self-reported descriptions of mystical and bi polar manic experiences:

• · Feeling of being transported
• · Feeling of communion with the ‘divine’
• · Sense of ecstasy, euphoria and exultation
• · Heightened state of awareness
• · Hallucinations
• · Unrealistic beliefs in one’s abilities and powers.

1.8 IS MANIA INCOMPATIBLE WITH MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE?

Some people argue that mania is incompatible with mystical experience because in the manic stage the mind is racing, over active e.t.c. In my experience I have found the manic stage to be more complex than that. I have found at least two stages, one that is positive; and one that is negative. Whilst it is true that the negative stage itself is not compatible with mystical experience, the positive stage is more conducive to mysticism.

Positive manic stage includes:

Happy, Euphoric, Optimistic, Clear headed, Insightful, Become spiritually minded, Impulsive, Spontaneous,

Negative manic stage includes:

Trying to ‘damp down’, on the edge of being in control, Distracted, Unable to concentrate, Mithered, Slightly paranoid, Reckless, Obsessive, Compulsive, Irritated with those who will not join in with me, or with myself, Become tired but still driven, exhausted mentally but unable to switch off, distracted dreamful sleep, overactive mind, Stressed, Conflicted, Putting myself under pressure/deadlines at work,

1.9 SYMPTOMS OF PSYCHOSIS

As indicated above, severe episodes of mania or depression can include so called ‘psychotic’ symptoms. ‘Psychosis’ is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a ‘loss of contact with reality’; a general term for a state of mind in which thinking becomes irrational and/or disturbed. It refers primarily to delusions, hallucinations and other severe thought disturbances.

These disturbances can be defined as follows:
a) HALLUCINATIONS – hearing, seeing, or otherwise sensing the presence of things that are not actually there.
b) DELUSIONS – having strongly held beliefs which are not based on logical reasoning or explained by a person’s usual cultural concepts and which are resistant to reason or factual disproof.

c) ILLUSIONS - mistakenly interpreting things in the external world. For example, being convinced that a ball of newspaper in the street is a dead sheep, or that a rope is a snake.
Such ‘psychotic’ symptoms in bipolar ‘disorder’ tend to reflect the extreme mood state at the time. For example, people may have delusions of grandiosity where the sufferer may believe that they are the Prime Minister or have special powers or wealth and these may occur during mania; whereas delusions of guilt or worthlessness, such as believing that that they are ruined and penniless or have committed some terrible crime, may appear during depression.

1.10 PSYCHOSIS AND SCHIZOPHRENIA

People with bipolar ‘disorder’ who have these symptoms are sometimes incorrectly diagnosed as having schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a severe ‘mental ‘disorder’’ characterized by delusions, hallucinations, incoherence and physical agitation; it is sometimes classified as a ‘thought’ ‘disorder’ while bipolar ‘disorder’ is sometimes classed as a ‘mood’ ‘disorder’, though of course, thought and mood are interrelated, so this difference should not be pushed too far.

Schizophrenia then is considered to be primarily a thought disorder: with the person suffering from delusions which are held with absolute conviction and experienced as self-evident truths, typically of great personal significance and which are not amenable to reason or modifiable by experience. The content of these delusions is unlikely or fantastic and is not shared by those of a common social or cultural background. For example, believing that the birds in the garden are singing in Greek. These delusions often have a religious or political content. Other qualities include sentences spoken by the sufferer being incomplete and rambling and phrases or sentences are not logically connected. There may be sudden changes in direction or irrelevances. Thinking is illogical such that conceptual and semantic boundaries are ignored, similar sounding words are given similar meanings or new words and phrases are created, for example: ‘cosmetic neurosurgery’, or placebionic (a combination of placebo and bionic). Abstract ideas are not processed properly – e.g. the phrase ‘a rolling stone gathers no moss’ – is explained in concrete terms, going into detail about how moss cannot stick to a stone – whilst ignoring the metaphorical content.

An idea of the peculiar flavour of schizophrenic thought can be given by referring to a letter written by Ivor Gurney, a talented composer and First World War poet, who, from the age of 33, spent the last fifteen years of his life in an asylum. He developed auditory hallucinations and delusions that he was tortured by wireless waves and could converse with the great composers and that he had in fact written much of their music. This letter was written when he was aged 43, as if from Siegfried Wagner, the son of the composer:

‘This is Franz Schubert’s death day and enough for Kent Reach to think of – whose chimneys smoked grandly, but Nature said ‘W. E. Henley Prague 1731 – So light dies down – But after saying that Europe should not stand war for its thought, by 137 degrees –

Barnet won I think/especially about the South most likely – but perhaps about the going North, where may Italy (North) and Rochester book-sellers flourish.

The weeks and battles forgotten – (terrible to remember) need all the good of Artois and Picardy’s poetry.

Meanwhile the regrets and hopes of Highnam Manor float about the world – now vast in great victory, and as urgently as Sidgwick & Jackson cry out for the honour of provinces.

Virgil is running 2/3 and is the master of business – music is at last in a very healthy state/and Rutland Boughton’s group is announced – Rudford and Minster, that accepts such news of pride every day, and seems to enjoy Welsh local poetry.

It seems true that Anton Dvorak and Rochester Cathedral have truly the salvation of music and poetry – and one might want for Spring with 137 hopes – But desperate is Hebbel’s need for Frankfort’s urgencies.

‘Lyrik, lyrik’ in Schiller’s name ever-demanding, and let London lose it’s regrets and clear its history there with the brutality of Eaglefield-Hull and as the name of Thames flows steadily to honour.

Nature, now sombre, sometimes says tremendous things, and sometimes lightly, as of the biographer of F. P. Schubert, and waits for Florence City’s reasons and reason –

That London may honour St Crispin – a saint glorious enough for Aqutaine/ and to please William Cartwright, magister artis.

I ask for some money, please, and a small poetry book if there is one (modern if it can be got). It is painful and hard to write about modern anthologies though – and so better to rejoice (theoretically) about Max Riger  –/ England is a South Place story…

The glory of 1913 and 1914 is here remembered/as always worth the imagination of Petrograd and Moscow. Later with the surpassing interest of men’s music –like our hopes of Novgorod’s earth.

With very best wishes

(yours very sincerely)

Ivor Gurney’

Schizophrenia is classed as a ‘psychotic’ ‘disorder’ or group of ‘psychotic’ ‘disorders’ that cause a patient to lose touch with reality. It is marked by severely impaired reasoning as well as emotional instability and can cause violent behaviour. Schizophrenics are often unable to make sense of the signals they receive from the world around them. They imagine objects and events to be very different from how most people would consider the ‘really’ are. If untreated, most people with schizophrenia gradually withdraw from the outside world. However, exactly what schizophrenia is has been the source of considerable disagreement among psychiatrists (doctors who deal with ‘mental disorders’). There is some thought that what psychiatrists call schizophrenia is actually a number of different conditions classified under a single heading. While there is evidence that genetic factors have a role in developing schizophrenia, other unknown causes play a significant part as well. Thus there are several competing theories as to what does cause the illness:

Heredity: Research shows that the condition tends to run in families: a person with schizophrenic relatives is ten times as likely to develop schizophrenia as someone who has no history of the disease in the family.

Viral infection: Some researchers have argued that schizophrenia is caused by a virus that attacks the brain. The virus is thought to attack the part of the brain that interprets messages from the senses. Damage to this part of the brain may account for a person’s delusions and hallucinations.

Chemical imbalance: A popular theory is that schizophrenia is caused by an imbalance of neurotransmitters in the brain. Neurotransmitters are chemicals that carry electrical messages between nerve cells. Too much of a neurotransmitter, or too little, may account for various mental ‘disorders’, including schizophrenia.

However there is still no agreement as to which, if any of these theories is correct, or whether it is caused by a combination of factors. Therefore, because schizophrenia’s cause is unknown, it is defined by a set of symptoms. Most sufferers have some, but not all, of these symptoms.

As we have seen, the most common symptoms are:

• · Delusions and hallucinations, which may include hearing imaginary voices.
• · Another common symptom is called insertion or withdrawal of thought: this term refers to the patient’s belief that someone or something can put thoughts in the patient’s head or take thoughts out. For example, some patients believe that God, the FBI, or alien beings talk to them and tell them how to behave.
• · Disorganized thinking and behaviour are also characteristic of schizophrenia: a sufferer may have trouble completing a sentence, thinking through an idea, or answering a question clearly. He or she may also have trouble carrying out routine tasks such as tying shoelaces, washing, or getting dressed.
• · Those suffering from schizophrenia may exhibit other unconventional behaviour: they may show no emotions, or be unable to speak, or may avoid taking any action at all.

It is estimated that 1 percent of the world’s population has schizophrenia, therefore millions of people worldwide are affected by it. Another way to express the prevalence of schizophrenia at any give time is the number of individuals affected per 1,000 total population. In the United States that figure is 7.2 per 1,000. This means that a city of 3 million people will have over 21,000 individuals suffering from schizophrenia. People diagnosed with schizophrenia make up about half of all patients in psychiatric hospitals and may occupy as many as one quarter of the world’s hospital beds. Schizophrenia can affect people of any age, race, sex, social class, level of education, or ethnic background. Slightly more men than women develop the condition. Most patients are diagnosed in their late teens or early twenties, but the ‘disorder’ can appear at any time in a person’s life. Schizophrenia is rarely diagnosed in children, though it has been reported in children as young as five years of age. Historically, people with these afflictions have been defined as “mad” or “insane” or were believed to be possessed by evil spirits. Those suffering from mental illness were often beaten, tortured, or locked up in special facilities.

1.11 WHAT TYPES OF SCHIZOPHRENIA ARE THERE?

Psychiatrists today recognize five subtypes of schizophrenia:

1) Paranoid schizophrenia – Those diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia tend to suffer from delusions and hallucinations. For instance, a person may believe he or she is someone other than who he or she really is. A person suffering from a paranoid delusion may believe, unrealistically, that someone intends to do them harm. Hallucinations often take the form of hearing imaginary voices and a patient may believe that he or she is receiving messages from a supernatural or unknown source. Although people with paranoid schizophrenia have relatively normal emotions and cognitive (thinking) functions, compared to those who suffer other forms of schizophrenia, their delusions and hallucinations, put them at high risk of violent or suicidal behaviour.

2) Disorganized Schizophrenia – People with disorganized schizophrenia have confused, disorganized patterns of speech, thought, and behaviour. They may act in a silly way or withdraw from the world.

3) Catatonic Schizophrenia – People exhibiting unconventional types of posture and movement characterize catatonic schizophrenia. A patient may stand or walk in peculiar patterns, may repeat certain motions over and over again, or become rigid and unmoving for long periods of time.

4) Undifferentiated Schizophrenia – This category is reserved for patients who show some symptoms of schizophrenia but do not fit into any of the three categories described above.

5) Residual Schizophrenia – Patients in this category have had at least one schizophrenic episode but no longer display the most severe symptoms of the first three types of schizophrenia.

1.12 MYSTICISM AND SCHIZOPHRENIA

Mystical experiences can be overwhelming for individuals who don’t already have a strong sense of self: they can become unsettled, frightened and confused by the sudden influx of spiritual awareness. It can be disturbing, unsettling and appear unconventional. Some may achieve a strong sense of self by considering themselves as Divine, for what can be stronger than to identify with the Absolute?

There is also a very strong link between schizophrenia and mysticism. Many people view both mysticism and ‘psychosis’ as insanity and ‘mental disorder’. People who go through schizophrenic stages or conditions also often experience great mystic awareness: the divine is very close to these people because of their hallucinations (positive schizophrenia). In many self-reported cases people showed enthusiasm to learn more about spirituality because of their experiences during different schizophrenic stages:

• · Feeling of being transported beyond the self to a new realm
• · Feeling of communion with the ‘divine’
• · Sense of ecstasy and exultation
• · Heightened state of awareness
• · Loss of self-object boundaries
• · Powerful sense of immediate, direct, intuitive knowing or perception
• · Distortion of time-sense
• · Perceptual changes (synesthesia, dampening, or heightening)
• · Hallucinations

Throughout history this question has been addressed by scholars from all fields of inquiry. Currently, psychologists are looking at the similarities and differences between the experiences, hoping to shed light on the nature, process and treatment of psychosis. Kenneth Wapnick concluded that both schizophrenics and mystics follow basically the same developmental path, but differ in preparation for that process. Joseph Campbell observed that the schizophrenic is drowning in the same waters in which the mystic swims in with delight. When research was conducted, neuro physicians and scientists came to know about the neural pathways of spirituality or mysticism and changes of brain structure and they proved to be the same during both schizophrenia and mysticism. Yet many patients recovered from their illness by experiencing mysticism during schizophrenia. Even so, differences can be teased out.

The following list gives indications of schizophrenia, (as opposed to mysticism):

• · The person’s thoughts are not easily understandable ie. what they say doesn’t make sense.
• · The person has difficulty functioning, or is unable to function, in everyday life.
• · Auditory hallucinations are more common than visual hallucinations.
• · Episodes are generally prolonged.
• · Social relationships are impaired due to the person withdrawing socially. May respond inappropriately to the needs and concerns of others.
• · There may be a history of mental health problems in the individual or the family.
• · The person has usually exhibited mental health problems previously.
• · The event often has a negative outcome: hallucinations and delusions are considered a disruption to the normal functioning of the person.

The following list gives indications of mysticism, (as opposed to psychosis):

• · No evidence of thought ‘disorder’ or disorganised thinking.
• · The person is able to continue functioning in daily life.
• · Visual hallucinations are more common than auditory hallucinations.
• · Episodes are generally brief.
• · No impairment to social relationships. Responds empathically to the needs and concerns of others.
• · There is often no family history of mental health problems.
• · There is often no history of mental health problems within the individual.
• · The event often has a positive outcome, resulting in improvement in the person’s functioning.

1.13 THE TRADITION OF PSYCHOTHERAPY

Psychotherapy arose in response to human suffering and as far as we can tell, human suffering has always existed. The ancient lineage of psychotherapy is seldom appreciated because Western culture considers psychotherapy as a relatively recent development of psychiatry and to be one of its subdivisions. If we define psychotherapy as the treatment of ‘mental distress’ through psychological means, we find records of such practices from the origins of civilization whenever priests, shamans and witch doctors appear. While it is true that psychiatry, a category of scientific medicine, is a modern development, psychotherapy has been associated with the sacred for thousands of years. Historians of psychotherapy acknowledge priests and shamans as the first to heal the psyche. A sorcerer, his head crowned with deer’s antlers, is depicted on the wall of a cave in southern France, dating from 15,000 B.C. Psychotherapists of one sort or another have been around a long time.

Formal psychotherapy originated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when treatment was taken over from the clergy by rationalistic medicine and it eventually became the specialty of psychiatry. Psychiatry at first dealt primarily with madness, but Freud’s psychoanalysis extended psychiatry and psychotherapy to neurotic and character problems as well. The scope of formal psychotherapy has been progressively enlarged and is now concerned with problems of existential human suffering – the traditional domain of religion, from which psychotherapy historically originated.

Psychotherapy appears to have come full circle then. Although the modern version is quite different from the archaic ceremonies that featured magic, taboos, gods and dramatic rituals of exorcism and so on, there have been changes other than appearance. The marriage of psychotherapy to rational medicine has given it a systematic understanding of neurotic and psychotic syndromes and refined technical procedures.

However, Western science is characterized by a split between the sacred and the rational, which has left modern psychotherapy less well equipped than the superseded ancient, primitive versions to handle certain problems. The loss of dramatic placebo devices is not the difficulty: the issue goes deeper, involving the most fundamental assumptions of Western thought. Freud’s view of reality and indeed the view of most contemporary theorists of psychotherapy is based on a nineteenth-century physical and biological scientific model that is far too narrow to encompass human subjectivity. Consequently, certain sources of suffering cannot be dealt with from within a Western framework. We are faced with major problems that call for the broadening of our perspective and the extending of our science.

 

1.14 THE TRADITION OF MYSTICISM

The mystical tradition is also ancient in origin. The oral teachings recorded in the Upanishads, Buddhist sutras and similar records go back thousands of years and provide evidence that mystical teachers of widely different cultures sometimes say remarkably similar things. They were also concerned with human suffering and they propose that human beings are ignorant of their true nature and that this ignorance leads to lives of pain and futility. The sages describe a Way that leads to a higher level of existence – one infinitely more desirable than the level on which most people conduct their lives. The mystical tradition does not offer therapy in the usual sense of that word, but achieving the goal of mysticism – experiencing the Real Self  - is said to cure human suffering because its very basis of suffering is thereby removed.

Often confused with religion, the mystical tradition occupies a place of its own. Religion and mysticism are both concerned with the sacred realm, but most religions tend to focus on externals and exteriors, whereas mysticism focuses on our Inner Self. Both Religion and mysticism may be Dualistic and associate the sacred with a deity: a Divine ‘Object’ or ‘Person’ that has qualities, attributes and characteristics that exist ‘out there’. Sometimes mysticism goes further and associates the sacred ‘Other’ as Unknowable and Transcendent of description. Non-dualistic mysticism goes even further, seeing all that is as an expression of the One Unified Absolute. This Undifferentiated Absolute is Transcendent of all yet Immanent in all – therefore the (often) unrecognised Real Self of each human being, their True Nature and Ground of being. Thus, while followers of formal religions often try to affect or alter the behaviour of a god -‑ propitiating, praising, seeking aid and following rituals and ceremonies, in contrast, the deepest mystical traditions assert the equation: I (Real Self) = Absolute. While “I am Absolute” is the fundamental realization of mysticism, it is a blasphemous concept in many religions, and often perceived as a delusion in psychotherapy.

Because both religion and mysticism respond to the perception of the sacred, the work of mystics historically took place within a religious context although it remained distinct from the activities of everyday religious practices. For example the wandering monks for whom the Upanishads were written often did not perform Hindu sacrifices and rituals, but followed special practices imparted in secret by their teacher. The monks, usually thought of by laypersons as part of an established religious tradition, were actually following a teaching that said that the ordinary, external forms and concepts of religion were illusions that one must transcend. A similar situation prevailed for Zen monks who pursued their training in the context of Buddhism.

Western culture often overlooks the distinction between religion and mysticism, especially in the psychological and psychiatric literature. This is unfortunate because the mystical emphasis on self‑development makes it consonant with modern psychotherapy. The mystical tradition has been concerned with the very problems that modern psychotherapy has been unable to resolve. It makes sense, therefore, to investigate mysticism with a view to dealing more effectively with those problems and gaining wisdom as human beings.

1.15 MYSTICISM, SCHIZOPHRENIA AND PSYCHIATRY

The confusion between ‘psychosis’ and mystical spirituality can be heightened by the approaches and assumptions of certain orientations within psychiatry and the medical world, such that the relationship between mysticism and psychiatry can be frought: one person has suggested that schizophrenia is to mystical experience as drowning is to swimming. Psychiatry in this analogy is like an over-zealous lifeguard who can’t tell the difference between drowning and swimming. Everybody he sees in the water is run over by his rescue boat, knocked unconscious and hauled out with a boat hook and most of the people rescued: swimmers and drowners alike are crippled in the process. The lifeguard, who can’t swim himself, denies that swimming is possible and claims that the crippling that people suffer is actually caused by the drowning experience rather than the rescue. This is confirmed by raucous praise for the lifeguard from many of the crippled drowners and their relatives. The crowd of spectators on the beach are divided: a few of them can tell the difference between swimming and drowning, but most of them can’t and the crowd is persuaded by the drowners and their relatives to support the lifeguard’s tactics. Swimmers who aren’t too badly crippled and who want to go back into the water have to learn how to swim without splashing so as not to attract attention from the crowds who are adoring the lifeguard. It’s important for those who know how to swim to maintain this skill of swimming without splashing so that it can be passed on to others. Common sense would indicate that an ability to swim should be a prerequisite for appointment as a lifeguard. In other words, psychiatrists need an appreciation of mysticism in their own experience experience, in order to understand the difference between mystical transcendence and ‘psychosis’. Perhaps this will happen one day.

End of Chapter One. For Chapter Two please click HERE!