Uncategorized


On the Nature of Boundaries

by Tom Kenyon

Awhile back, at one of my workshops, a woman approached me quite upset.

She had been having lunch with other participants in the seminar and the topic of trust had come up. She admitted to the group that she had trouble trusting others. Her new-found friends began to immediately offer ways to help her.

One suggested affirmations like “I fully and completely trust the universe.” Another offered a visualization exercise to see herself as a flower of light fully open to the world. A third offered her a private healing session at half price. Everyone at the table seemed to agree that if she trusted enough, the universe would mirror itself back to her that way.

In other words, she should be trusting to everyone and then they would act in a trustworthy way. This person, new to personal growth, left the group quite dismayed. She found me in a hallway between sessions and asked if she could run something by me.

“What do you think?” she asked. “Can I trust the universe?”

“Trust the universe to do what?” I asked.

She blinked and proceeded with her line of thought. “They say I need to trust more”

“Trust whom,” I asked.

“Everyone.”

“Rubbish,” I said.

She blinked again and a slight smile came across her face.

“Tell me,” I asked. “Who in your life, right now, do you find trouble trusting?”

“My boyfriend,” she responded without a moment’s hesitation.

“And what has he done?” I asked.

“Well he says he loves me, but he has cheated on me twice. I wonder if I can trust him.” “

How did it feel when you found him cheating?” I asked. “It hurt.”

“I think that your natural gut-wisdom is telling you to put up a boundary to protect yourself.”

“But is it spiritual?” she asked, truly perplexed.


As a psychotherapist it has been my observation, for some time now, that much in the New Age is psychologically dysfunctional. I had an engineer friend who referred to these New Age “truisms” as NABS, or New Age Bullshit. They are like those little snacks you eat at cocktail parties. They fill you up for a bit, and give the illusion of nutrition, but they are empty calories.

I think that one of the NABS currently in vogue is the notion that one should let down one’s guard and be fully and completely open. As a therapist I think this idea is potentially dangerous and here’s why.

We have many levels to ourselves. At one level, the transpersonal, we may be spirit, unbounded by time and space, but at another level we are mammals, like dogs, and cats, whales, dolphins and monkeys, to name a few. We have biology. And our psychological health depends upon balancing our transpersonal (out-of-time) aspects of “self” with our personal (bound by time) aspects.

At the level of our biology, our body wisdom understands quite clearly the need for boundaries. Every cell has a cell wall that keeps out the world. Any cell that lets down its guard is quickly going to perish. The cellular walls set a boundary for the cellular processes inside to continue. The walls also keep out toxic invaders like viruses, bacteria and other biochemical demons.

The message? Without boundaries, there is no life.

However, the cellular walls also have little openings to the world. These portals are guarded, but if the cell senses that a visitor is beneficial, it will open the molecular doors. If the visitor is toxic, however, the doors remain closed. Among the beneficial visitors are things like oxygen and nutrition. Without these “life messengers” the cells will eventually die. The precarious forces within our animal bodies responsible for continuing life depend upon a balance between boundaries and openness.

In other words, at a cellular level, our biology has an innate wisdom to distinguish between something toxic and something life-enhancing. Biological systems set up boundaries between themselves and that which is toxic while, at the same time, they open themselves to that which brings increased life.

In the psychological realm the same principle holds true. There are situations and people that are life-enhancing and others that are toxic. The psychological task for mental and spiritual health is to distinguish between toxic people and those that are healthy. Unfortunately, while our bodies naturally create healthy boundaries, we have to learn how to create both mental and emotional boundaries between us and the world. For many of us, growing up in dysfunctional families, the skills of compassionate boundary making were never taught.

And what do I mean by compassionate boundary making? Well to explain this, I think I probably need to discuss “judgment” and “discrimination.” They are not the same thing. And this will lead us directly to the woman’s question at the beginning, “Is it spiritual to set a boundary?”

Quite simply, discrimination is assessing the apparent truth of a situation while judgment is placing a value upon the situation as “good” or “bad.” For instance, back to the young woman and her quandary about her “two-timing” boyfriend. His actions hurt her, or to be “psycho-politically correct,” she allowed herself to be hurt by his actions.

That he did this twice and might do it again is discrimination. It is logic, simple logic. This is discrimination, the act of discriminating apparent truth from bullshit. There is no judgment in this, just observation. She has observed his behavior and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that he might (probably will) do it again. If she wishes to avoid getting hurt again, she would do well to set up an emotional boundary and to become detached from his advances. This is discrimination in action.

This is different from judgment. If she were to decide that he was a “shiftless and worthless bastard,” for instance, she would be placing a value judgment on him. Discrimination, by nature, is neutral; it is not emotionally charged. It is simply a mental recognition about a reality. There is no blame or judgment in this, simply observation.

Compassionate Boundary Making first requires a discriminating look at the situation. One must clearly see the situation the way it is without romanticizing and without trying to make it into something it isn’t. If the person or situation is not healthy for you, you remove yourself. Period. End of sentence.

In the process of removing yourself from the situation you resist the temptation to judge the person or situation, as “good” or “bad.” Even though you might not understand his or her motives, and even though you might feel hurt by the situation, you give yourself and the “offender” the gift of spaciousness to do what they need to do — with one clear limitation, so long as it does not impinge on you.

I love what a southern grandmother once told a friend of mine, “Your rights end where my nose begins.” How beautifully direct and pragmatic that statement is!

One psychological task facing all of us is to distinguish between what is healthy and unhealthy. Psychological maturity requires that we act on our own behalf to separate ourselves from that which damages us. How we separate ourselves from those things that are toxic is a matter of personal style more than anything else.

As Paul Simon said in one of his songs, “Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover,” there are many ways to separate ourselves from toxic situations and people.


For those of us striving to be more conscious in our actions, and perhaps, more spiritual, the task requires compassion as well. But compassion does not mean becoming a “door mat” for someone to walk all over you. Rather compassion means creating a mental and emotional space in yourself to allow other people to be themselves, even if you don’t understand or agree with them. Compassion does not, however, mean that we let others intrude into our emotional space. That is submission, which is not the same thing.

As we grow in psychological and spiritual strength, we may find that we are no longer comfortable with certain persons or situations. What seemed to be nourishing or at least neutral, is now perceived as toxic. This sometimes happens with family members, spouses and friends. I am noticing that, for many of us, this phenomenon looks like it is increasing. Perhaps it is because things are speeding up and more seems to be happening in less time. Perhaps it is simply the price of self-evolution.

As we pass over a line in ourselves from unconscious to conscious (I should probably say semi-conscious, to be more exact), we may find ourselves having to set boundaries with past relationships. This can be very challenging to say the least. For those of us caught in this dilemma, I suggest the Way of the White Cloud.

The Way of the White Cloud is to see all things and all situations as essentially devoid of substance. What appears to be very real at the moment becomes only a memory. The apparent solidity of things and the gravity of a situation is actually a mirage, an illusion. Buddhists call this samsara. And we are caught up in it by virtue of having an embodiment. The art of living, from this viewpoint, is to live and take action without getting caught up in the snares of the illusion.

When clients get stuck in interpersonal conflict, I sometimes have them imagine going into the future, maybe a hundred years and look back at the situation. In almost every case the charge is dissolved. The hostility gives way to a recognition of impermanence. Why, the “wisdom mind” asks, should we get caught up in this when it is so insignificant from the vantage of expanded vision? In the realms of samsara, nothing is permanent. All is transient, like white clouds. By becoming aware of this truth, we see that we are all in the same boat, so to speak, the boat of samsara, or illusion.

It may look like someone or something has “the upper hand” at the moment, but that is true, only from one perspective. We all suffer, both the dominators and dominated, because we are, all of us, time-locked into time and space. We are also free and open, for a part of us is both unbounded pure consciousness and luminous light. This pure consciousness and luminous light may or may not be directly experienced by us, but it is there, nonetheless, like the clear sky hidden by clouds. Our clouds of obscuration, those thoughts, feelings and patterns of behavior that hold us in the samsaric lies of limitation come and go, like the clouds. But the clear sky is always there.

The spiritual task, for those of us desiring to live with more compassion, regardless of the lineages or traditions we follow, is to penetrate this level of ourselves, the place of pure mind and unbounded light. For the gift of this is that we become suffused with a direct knowledge of the relativity of all things. We can afford to be gracious in our dealings with ourselves and others because we recognize that things are not what they appear to be. The act of compassionate boundary making comes out of our luminous and unbounded nature.

Even though we may have been “hurt” by a particular situation or person, from the view of the transpersonal, all of this is like clouds, in one moment vividly real and in the next moment, gone. This spaciousness allows us to let others be without the need to judge, defile, or seek revenge.

For the young woman mentioned earlier, making a compassionate boundary with her boyfriend might look like her telling him three things: first, that based on his past behavior she has concluded that she cannot trust him; second, she is leaving him; and three, she holds him no ill-will. She goes on with her life and he goes on with his.

Now, this does not mean that the desire for judgment, defilement or revenge doesn’t arise in our minds especially when we perceive being hurt by another. But the spiritual discipline of not indulging these thoughts, feelings, and fantasies is a powerful niyama, (Sanskrit, meaning constraint or control). Niyamas, such as the attempt to remain harmless to oneself and others, strengthen both the soul and personal will. Besides reducing interpersonal stress, compassionate boundary making affords us real insight into the state of our own psychology.

What I mean by this is that for some of us, it may be a challenge to let someone “off the hook” who has harmed us in some way. But if it is anyone who is let “off the hook” it is ourselves, since the desire for revenge or retribution on another is an emotional and spiritual poison.

And so, to the woman I mentioned at the beginning, I would say “yes.” To set a boundary between ourselves and another can be spiritual. How it is done makes it “spiritual” or not. If the “spiritual life” is an attempt to live with an awareness of the sacredness of life, then compassionate boundary making is, in fact, aspiritual act. To set an appropriate boundary is necessary for all biological life. It is also a requirement for mental and emotional health, and I would venture to say for the “spiritual life” as well.

To say “no” to ourselves or another can sometimes be the most courageous and powerful act imaginable. And sometimes, saying “no” to someone is more “loving”(i.e., caring) than saying “yes.”

There is another piece in relation to boundary making: detachment. Finding your truth and acting on it regardless of how others might react is the benchmark of personal sovereignty. Such action requires the ability to create and hold boundaries. I am reminded in this of a story.

One day the immortal yogi, Babaji, was meditating in a forest with his chelas (disciples) up in the Himalayas. A man stumbled upon them and recognizing the great yogi, he begged to become a disciple.

Babaji refused and told the man to leave. Instead, the man followed the group wherever they went. Finally, Babaji threw rocks at him and told him to go way.

The man, distraught, told Babaji that if he, a great yogi, did not accept him as a disciple, he would cast himself off the nearby cliffs. Calmly, Babaji told him he didn’t care what he did. With these words, the man threw himself to his death on the rocks below.

Babaji went down the side of the mountain and brought the man back to life. Having dissolved immense negative karma, the man was accepted as a disciple.

Gurus are notoriously irascible. They follow impulses that we can hardly even imagine. At the very least, this is a story about spiritual boundaries. Hopefully in our journey to wholeness none of us will have to jump off a cliff; but all of us will, no doubt, have to set boundaries from time to time.

May all of us find ways to be more compassionate in our boundary making. And may we find the strength to open and say yes, when we mean yes, and the courage to say no, when we mean no. End. . . .


www.tomkenyon.com
© 2006 Tom Kenyon. All rights reserved.
You make copies of this message and distribute in any media as long as you change nothing.

Ah, wise counsel–Parzifal agrees!

Sheldrake gives a new focus on Jung!

Mind, Memory and Archetype, Part I

by Rupert Sheldrake

Morphic Fields: The Collective Unconscious

In this essay, I am going to discuss the concept of collective memory as a background for understanding Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious only makes sense in the context of some notion of collective memory. This then takes us into a very wide-ranging examination of the nature and principle of memory-not just in human beings and not just in the animal kingdom; not even just in the realm of life-but in the universe as a whole. Such an encompassing perspective is part of a very profound paradigm shift that is taking place in science: the shift from the mechanistic to an evolutionary and wholistic world view.

The Cartesian mechanistic view is, in many ways, still the predominant paradigm today, especially in biology and medicine. Ninety percent of biologists would be proud to tell you that they are mechanistic biologists. Although physics has moved beyond the mechanistic view, much of our thinking about physical reality is still shaped by it-even in those of us who would like to believe that we have moved beyond this frame of thought. Therefore, I will briefly examine some of the fundamental assumptions of the mechanistic world view in order to show how it is still deeply embedded in the way that most of us think.

MECHANISM’S ROOTS IN NEO-PLATONIC MYSTICISM

It is interesting that the roots of the 17th-century mechanistic world view can be found in ancient mystical religion. Indeed, the mechanistic view was a synthesis of two traditions of thought, both of which were based on the mystical insight that reality is timeless and changeless. One of these traditions stems from Pythagoras and Plato, who were both fascinated by the eternal truths of mathematics. In the 17th century, this evolved into a view that nature was governed by timeless ideas, proportions, principles, or laws that existed within the mind of God. This world view became dominant and, through philosophers and scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Galileo and Newton, it was incorporated into the foundations of modern physics.

Basically, they expressed the idea that numbers, proportions, equations, and mathematical principles are more real than the physical world we experience. Even today, many mathematicians incline toward this kind of Pythagorean or Platonic mysticism. They think of the physical world as a reification of mathematical principles, as a reflection of eternal numerical mathematical laws. This view is alien to the thinking of most of us, who the physical world as the “real” world and consider mathematical equations a man-made, and possibly inaccurate, description of that “real” world. Nevertheless, this mystical view has evolved into the currently predominant scientific viewpoint that nature is governed by eternal, changeless, immutable, omnipresent laws. The laws of nature are everywhere and always.

MATERIALISM’S ROOTS IN ATOMISM

The second view of changelessness which emerged in the 17th century stemmed from the atomistic tradition of materialism, which addressed an issue which, even then, was already deep-rooted in Greek thought: namely, the concept of a changeless reality. Parmenides, a pre-Socratic philosopher, had the idea that only being is; not-being is not. If something is, it can’t change because, in order to change, it would have to combine being and not-being, which was impossible. Therefore,. he concluded that reality is a homogenous, changeless sphere. Unfortunately for Parmenides, the world we experience is not homogenous, changeless, or spherical. In order to preserve his theory, Parmenides claimed that the world we experience is a delusion. This wasn’t a very satisfactory solution, and thinkers of the time tried to find a way to resolve this dilemma.

The atomists’ solution was to claim that reality consists of a large number of homogenous, changeless spheres (or particles): the atoms. Instead of one big changeless sphere, there are a great many small, changeless spheres moving in the void. The changing appearances of the world could then be explained in terms of the movements, permutations, and combinations of the atoms. This is the original insight of materialism: that reality consisted of eternal atomic matter and the movement of matter.

The combination of this materialistic tradition with the Platonic tradition finally gave rise to the mechanical philosophy which emerged in the 17th century and produced a cosmic dualism that has been with us ever since. On the one hand we have eternal atoms of inert matter; and on the other hand, we have changeless, non-material laws which are more like ideas than physical, material things. In this kind of dualism, both sides are changeless-a belief that does not readily suggest the idea of an evolutionary universe. In fact, physicists have been very adverse to accepting the idea of evolution precisely because it fits so poorly with the notion of eternal matter and changeless laws. In modern physics, matter is now seen as a form of energy; eternal energy has replaced eternal matter, but little else has changed.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM

Nevertheless, the evolutionary paradigm has been gaining ground steadily for the past two centuries. In the 18th century, social, artistic, and scientific developments were generally viewed as a progressive and evolutionary process. The Industrial Revolution made this viewpoint an economic reality in parts of Europe and America. By the early 19th century there were a number of evolutionary philosophies and, by the 1840’s, the evolutionary social theory of Marxism had been publicized. In this context of social and cultural evolutionary theory, Darwin proposed his biological theory of evolution which extended the evolutionary vision to the whole of life. Yet this vision was not extended to the entire universe: Darwin and the neo-Darwinians ironically tried to fit the evolution of life on earth into a static universe, or even worse, a universe which was actually thought to be “running down” thermodynamically, heading toward a “heat death.”

Everything changed in 1966 when physics finally accepted an evolutionary cosmology in which the universe was no longer eternal. Instead, the universe originated in a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago and has evolved ever since. So we now have an evolutionary physics. But we have to remember that this evolutionary physics is only just over 20 years old, and the implications and consequences of the Big Bang discovery are not yet fully known.

Physics is only just beginning to adapt itself to this new view, which, as we have seen, challenges the most fundamental assumption of physics since the time of Pythagoras: the idea of eternal laws. As soon as we have an evolving universe, we are confronted with the question: what about the eternal laws of nature? Where were the laws of nature before the Big Bang? If the laws of nature existed before the Big Bang, then it’s clear that they are nonphysical; in fact, they are metaphysical. This forces out into the open the metaphysical assumption that underlay the idea of eternal laws all along.

LAWS OF NATURE, OR JUST HABITS?

There is an alternative, however. The alternative is that the universe is more like an organism than a machine. The Big Bang recalls the mythic stories of the hatching of the cosmic egg: it grows, and as it grows it undergoes an internal differentiation that is more like a gigantic cosmic embryo than the huge eternal machine of mechanistic theory. With this organic alternative, it might make sense to think of the laws of nature as more like habits; perhaps the laws of nature are habits of the universe, and perhaps the universe has an in-built memory.

About 100 years ago the American philosopher, C. S. Pierce, said that if we took evolution seriously, if we thought of the entire universe as evolving, then we would have to think of the laws of nature as somehow likened to habits. This idea was actually quite common, especially in America; it was espoused by William James and other American philosophers, and was quite widely discussed at the end of the last century. In Germany, Nietzsche went so far as to suggest that the laws of nature underwent natural selection: perhaps there were many laws of nature at the beginning, but only the successful laws survived; therefore, the universe we see has laws which have evolved through natural selection.

Biologists also moved toward interpreting phenomena in terms of habit. The most interesting such theorist was English writer Samuel Butler, whose most important books on this theme were Life and Habit (1878) and Unconscious Memory (1881). Butler contended that the whole of life involved inherent unconscious memory; habits, the instincts of animals, the way in which embryos develop, all reflected a basic principle of inherent memory within life. He even proposed that there must be an inherent memory in atoms, molecules, and crystals. Thus, there was this period of time at the end of the last century when biology was viewed in evolutionary terms. It is only since the 1920’s that mechanistic thinking has come to have a stranglehold upon biological thought.

HOW DOES FORM ARISE?

The hypothesis of formative causation, which is the basis of my own work, starts from the problem of biological form. Within biology, there has been a long-standing discussion of how to understand the way embryos and organisms develop. How do plants grow from seeds? How do embryos develop from fertilized eggs? This is a problem for biologists; it’s not really a problem for embryos and trees, which just do it! However, biologists rind it difficult to find a causal explanation for form. In physics, in some sense the cause equals the effect. The amount of energy, matter, and momentum before a given change equals the amount afterwards. The cause is contained in the effect and the effect in the cause. However, when we are considering the growth of an oak tree from an acorn, there seems to be no such equivalence of cause and effect in any obvious way.

In the 17th century, the main mechanistic theory of embryology was simply that the oak tree was contained within the acorn: inside each acorn there was a miniature oak tree which inflated as the oak tree grew. This theory was quite widely accepted, and it was the one most consistent with the mechanistic approach, as understood at that time. However, as critics rapidly pointed out, if the oak tree is inflated and that oak tree itself produces acorns, the inflatable oak tree must contain inflatable acorns which contain inflatable oak trees, ad infinitum.

If, on the other hand, more form came from less form (the technical name for which is epigenesis), then where does the more form come from?

How did structures appear that weren’t there before? Neither Platonists nor Aristotelians had any problem with this question. The Platonists said that the form comes from the Platonic archetype: if there is an oak tree, then there is an archetypal form of an oak tree, and all actual oak trees are simply reflections of this archetype. Since this archetype is beyond space and time, there is no need to have it embedded in the physical form of the acorn. The Aristotelians said that every species has its own kind of soul, and the soul is the form of the body. The body is in the soul, not the soul in the body. The soul is the form of the body and is around the body and contains the goal of development (which is formally called entelechy). An oak tree soul contains the eventual oak tree.

IS DNA A GENETIC PROGRAM?

However, a mechanistic world view denies animism in all its forms; it denies the existence of the soul and of any non-material organizing principles. Therefore, mechanists have to have some kind of preformationism. At the end of the 19th century, German biologist August Weismann’s theory of the germ-plasm revived the idea of preformationism; Weissman’s theory placed “determinants,” which supposedly gave rise to the organism, inside the embryo. This is the ancestor of the present idea of genetic programming, which constitutes another resurgence of preformationism in a modern guise.

As we will see, this model does not work very well. The genetic program is assumed to be identical with DNA, the genetic chemical. The genetic information is coded in DNA and this code forms the genetic program. But such a leap requires projecting onto DNA properties that it does not actually possess. We know what, DNA does: it codes for proteins; it codes for the sequence of amino acids which form proteins. However, there is a big difference between coding for the structure of a protein-a chemical constituent of the organism-and programming the development of an entire organism. It is the difference between making bricks and building a house out of the bricks. You need the bricks to build the house. If you have defective bricks, the house will be defective. But the plan of the house is not contained in the bricks, or the wires, or the beams, or cement.

Analogously, DNA only codes for the materials from which the body is constructed: the enzymes, the structural proteins, and so forth. There is no evidence that it also codes for the plan, the form, the morphology of the body. To see this more clearly, think of your arms and legs. The form of the arms and legs is different; it’s obvious that they have a different shape from each other. Yet the chemicals in the arms and legs are identical. The muscles are the same, the nerve cells are the same, the skin cells are the same, and the DNA is the same in all the cells of the arms and legs. In fact, the DNA is the same in all the cells of the body. DNA alone cannot explain the difference inform; something else is necessary to explain form.

In current mechanistic biology, this is usually assumed to depend on what are called “complex patterns of physio-chemical interaction not yet fully understood.” Thus the current mechanistic theory is not an explanation but merely the promise of an explanation. It is what Sir Karl Popper has called a “promissory mechanism”; it involves issuing promissory notes against future explanations that do not yet exist. As such, it is not really an objective argument; it is merely a statement of faith.

WHAT ARE MORPHIC FIELDS?

The question of biological development, of morphogenesis, is actually quite open and is the subject of much debate within biology itself. An alternative to the mechanist/reductionist approach, which has been around since the 1920s, is the idea of morphogenetic (form-shaping) fields. In this model, growing organisms are shaped by fields which are both within and around them, fields which contain, as it were, the form of the organism. This is closer to the Aristotelian tradition than to any of the other traditional approaches. As an oak tree develops, the acorn is associated with an oak tree field, an invisible organizing structure which organizes the oak tree’s development; it is like an oak tree mold, within which the developing organism grows.

One fact which led to the development of this theory is the remarkable ability organisms have to repair damage. If you cut an oak tree into little pieces, each little piece, properly treated, can grow into a new tree. So from a tiny fragment, you can get a whole. Machines do not do that; they do not have this power of remaining whole if you remove parts of them. Chop a computer up into small pieces and all you get is a broken computer. It does not regenerate into lots of little computers. But if you chop a flatworm into small pieces, each piece can grow into a new flatworm. Another analogy is a magnet. If you chop a magnet into small pieces, you do have lots of small magnets, each with a complete magnetic field. This is a wholistic property that fields have that mechanical systems do not have unless they are associated with fields. Still another example is the hologram, any part of which contains the whole. A hologram is based on interference patterns within the electromagnetic field. Fields thus have a wholistic property which was very attractive to the biologists who developed this concept of morphogenetic fields.

Each species has its own fields, and within each organism there are fields within fields. Within each of us is the field of the whole body; fields for arms and legs and fields for kidneys and livers; within are fields for the different tissues inside these organs, and then fields for the cells, and fields for the sub-cellular structures, and fields for the molecules, and so on. There is a whole series of fields within fields. The essence of the hypothesis I am proposing is that these fields, which are already accepted quite widely within biology, have a kind of in-built memory derived from previous forms of a similar kind. The liver field is shaped by the forms of previous livers and the oak tree field by the forms and organization of previous oak trees. Through the fields, by a process called morphic resonance, the influence of like upon like, there is a connection among similar fields. That means that the field’s structure has a cumulative memory, based on what has happened to the species in the past. This idea applies not only to living organisms but also to protein molecules, crystals, even to atoms. In the realm of crystals, for example, the theory would say that the form a crystal takes depends on its characteristic morphic field. Morphic field is a broader term which includes the fields of both form and behavior; hereafter, I shall use the word morphic field rather than morphogenetic.

MIGRANT BEARDED CHEMISTS

If you make a new compound and crystallize it, there won’t be a morphic field for it the first time. Therefore, it may be very difficult to crystallize; you have to wait for a morphic field to emerge. The second time, however, even if you do this somewhere else in the world, there will be an influence from the first crystallization, and it should crystallize a bit more easily. The third time there will be an influence from the first and second, and so on. There will be a cumulative influence from previous crystals, so it should get easier and easier to crystallize the more often you crystallize it. And, in fact, this is exactly what does happen. Synthetic chemists find that new compounds are generally very difficult to crystallize. As time goes on, they generally get easier to crystallize all over the world. The conventional explanation is that this occurs because fragments of previous crystals are carried from laboratory to laboratory on beards of migrant chemists. When there have not been any migrant chemists, it is assumed that the fragments wafted through the atmosphere as microscopic dust particles.

Perhaps migrant chemists do carry fragments on their beards and perhaps dust particles do get blown around in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, if one measures the rate of crystallization under rigorously controlled conditions in sealed vessels in different parts of the world, one should still observe an accelerated rate of crystallization. This experiment has not yet been done. But a related experiment involving chemical reaction rates of new synthetic processes is at present being considered by a major chemical company in Britain because, if these things happen, they have quite important implications for the chemical industry.

A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE

There are quite a number of experiments that can be done in the realm of biological form and the development of form. Correspondingly, the same principles apply to behavior, forms of behavior and patterns of behavior. Consider the hypothesis that if you train rats to learn a new trick in Santa Barbara, then rats all over the world should be able to learn to do the same trick more quickly, just because the rats in Santa Barbara have learned it. This new pattern of learning will be, as it were, in the rat collective memory-in the morphic fields of rats, to which other rats can tune in, just because they are rats and just because they are in similar circumstances, by morphic resonance. This may seem a bit improbable, but either this sort of thing happens or it doesn’t.

Among the vast number of papers in the archives of experiments on rat psychology, there are a number of examples of experiments in which people have actually monitored rates of learning over time and discovered mysterious increases. In my book, A New Science of Life, I describe one such series of experiments which extended over a 50-year period. Begun at Harvard and then carried on in Scotland and Australia, the experiment demonstrated that rats increased their rate of learning more than tenfold. This was a huge effect-not some marginal statistically significant result. This improved rate of learning in identical learning situations occurred in these three separate locations and in all rats of the breed, not just in rats descended from trained parents.

There are other examples of the spontaneous spread of new habits in animals and birds which provide at least circumstantial evidence for the theory of morphic resonance. The best documented of these is the behavior of bluetits, a rather small bird with a blue head, that is common throughout Britain. Fresh milk is still delivered to the door each morning in Britain. Until about the 1950s, the caps on the milk bottles were made of cardboard. In 1921 in Southampton, a strange phenomenon was observed. When people came out in the morning to get their milk bottles, they found little shreds of cardboard all around the bottom of the bottle, and the cream from the top of the bottle had disappeared. Close observation revealed that this was being done by bluetits, who sat on top of the bottle, pulled off the cardboard with their beaks, and then drank the cream. Several tragic cases were found in which bluetits were discovered drowned head first in the milk!

This incident caused considerable interest; then the event turned up somewhere else in Britain, about 50 miles away, and then somewhere about 100 miles away. Whenever the bluetit phenomenon turned up, it started spreading locally, presumably by imitation. However, bluetits are very home-loving creatures, and they don’t normally travel more than four or five miles. Therefore, the dissemination of the behavior over large distances could only be accounted for in terms of an independent discovery of the habit. The bluetit habit was mapped throughout Britain until 1947, by which time it had become more or less universal. The people who did the study came to the conclusion that it must have been “invented” independently at least 50 times. Moreover, the rate of spread of the habit accelerated as time went on. In other parts of Europe where milk bottles are delivered to doorsteps, such as Scandinavia and Holland, the habit also cropped up during the 1930s and spread in a similar manner. Here is an example of a pattern of behavior which was spread in a way which seemed to speed up with time, and which might provide an example of morphic resonance.

But there is still stronger evidence for morphic resonance. Because of the German occupation of Holland, milk delivery ceased during 1939-40. Milk deliveries did not resume until 1948. Since bluetits usually live only two to three years, there probably were no bluetits alive in 1948 who had been alive when milk was last delivered. Yet when milk deliveries resumed in 1948, the opening of milk bottles by bluetits sprang up rapidly in quite separate places in Holland and spread extremely rapidly until, within a year or two, it was once again universal. The behavior spread much more rapidly and cropped up independently much more frequently the second time round than the first time. This example demonstrates the evolutionary spread of a new habit which is probably not genetic but rather depends on a kind of collective memory due to morphic resonance.

I am suggesting that heredity depends not only on DNA, which enables organisms to build the right chemical building blocks-the proteins-but also on morphic resonance. Heredity thus has two aspects: one a genetic heredity, which accounts for the inheritance of proteins through DNA’s control of protein synthesis; the second a form of heredity based on morphic fields and morphic resonance, which is nongenetic and which is inherited directly from past members of the species. This latter form of heredity deals with the organization of form and behavior.

New Theory of Evolution

THE ALLEGORY OF THE TELEVISION SET

The differences and connections between these two forms of heredity become easier to understand if we consider an analogy to television. Think of the pictures on the screen as the form that we are interested in.

If you didn’t know how the form arose, the most obvious explanation would be that there were little people inside the set whose shadows you were seeing on the screen. Children sometimes think in this manner. If you take the back off the set, however, and look inside, you find that there are no little people. Then you might get more subtle and speculate that the little people are microscopic and are actually inside the wires of the TV set. But if you look at the wires through a microscope, you can’t find any little people there either.

You might get still more subtle and propose that the little people on the screen actually arise through “complex interactions among the parts of the set which are not yet fully understood.” You might think this theory was proved if you chopped out a few transistors from the set. The people would disappear. If you put the transistors back, they would reappear. This might provide convincing evidence that they arose from within the set entirely on the basis of internal interaction.

Suppose that someone suggested that the pictures of little people come from outside the set, and the set picks up the pictures as a result of invisible vibrations to which the set is attuned. This would probably sound like a very occult and mystical explanation. You might deny that anything is coming into the set. You could even “prove it” by weighing the set switched off and switched on; it would weigh the same. Therefore, you could conclude that nothing is coming into the set.

I think that is the position of modern biology, trying to explain everything in terms of what happens inside. The more explanations for form are looked for inside, the more elusive the explanations prove to be, and the more they are ascribed to ever more subtle and complex interactions, which always elude investigation. As I am suggesting, the forms and patterns of behavior are actually being tuned into by invisible connections arising outside the organism. The development of form is a result of both the internal organization of the organism and the interaction of the morphic fields to which it is tuned.

Genetic mutations can affect this development. Again think of the TV set. If we mutate a transistor or a condenser inside the set, you may get distorted pictures or sound. But this does not prove that the pictures and sound are programmed by these components. Nor does it prove that form and behavior are programmed by genes, if we find there are alterations in form and behavior as a result of genetic mutation.

There is another kind of mutation which is particularly interesting. Imagine a mutation in the tuning circuit of your set, such that it alters the resonant frequency of the tuning circuit. Tuning your TV depends on a resonant phenomenon; the tuner resonates at the same frequency as the frequency of the signal transmitted by the different stations. Thus tuning dials are measured in hertz, which is a measure of frequency. Imagine a mutation in the tuning system such that you tune to one channel and a different channel actually appears. You might trace this back to a single condenser or a single resistor which had undergone a mutation. But it would not be valid to conclude that the new programs you are seeing, the different people, the different films and advertisements, are programmed inside the component that has changed. Nor does it prove that form and behavior are programmed in the DNA when genetic mutations lead to changes in form and behavior. The usual assumption is that if you can show something alters as a result of a mutation, then that must be programmed by, or controlled by, or determined by, the gene. I hope this TV analogy makes it clear that that is not the only conclusion. It could be that it is simply affecting the tuning system.

A NEW THEORY OF EVOLUTION

A great deal of work is being done in contemporary biological research on such “tuning” mutations (formally called homoeotic mutations). The animal most used in the investigations is Drosophila, the fruitfly. A whole range of these mutations have been found which produce various monstrosities. One kind, called antennapedia, leads to the antennae being transformed into legs. The unfortunate flies, which contain just one altered gene, produce legs instead of antennae growing out of their heads. There is another mutation which leads to the second of the three pairs of legs in the Drosophila being transformed into antennae. Normally flies have one pair of wings and, on the segment behind the wings, are small balancing organs called halteres. Still another mutation leads to the transformation of the segment normally bearing the halteres into a duplicate of the first segment, so that these flies have four wings instead of two. These are called bithorax mutants.

All of these mutations depend on single genes. I propose that somehow these single gene mutations are changing the tuning of a part of the embryonic tissue, such that it tunes into a different morphic field than it normally does, and so a different set of structures arise, just like tuning into a different channel on TV.

One can see from these analogies how both genetics and morphic resonance are involved in heredity. Of course, a new theory of heredity leads to a new theory of evolution. Present-day evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that virtually all heredity is genetic. Sociobiology and neo-Darwinism in all their various forms are based on gene selection, gene frequencies, and so forth. The theory of morphic resonance leads to a much broader view which allows one of the great heresies of biology once more to be taken seriously: namely, the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Behaviors which organisms learn, or forms which they develop, can be inherited by others even if they are not descended from the original organisms-by morphic resonance.

A NEW CONCEPT OF MEMORY

When we consider memory, this hypothesis leads to a very different approach from the traditional one. The key concept of morphic resonance is that similar things influence similar things across both space and time. The amount of influence depends on the degree of similarity. Most organisms are more similar to themselves in the past than they are to any other organism. I am more like me five minutes ago than I am like any of you; all of us are more like ourselves in the past than like anyone else. The same is true of any organism. This self-resonance with past states of the same organism in the realm of form helps to stabilize the morphogenetic fields, to stabilize the form of the organism, even though the chemical constituents in the cells are turning over and changing.

Habitual patterns of behavior are also tuned into by the self-resonance process. If I start riding a bicycle, for example, the pattern of activity of my nervous system and my muscles, in response to balancing on the bicycle, immediately tunes me in by similarity to all the previous occasions on which I have ridden a bicycle. The experience of bicycle riding is given by cumulative morphic resonance to all those past occasions. It is not a verbal or intellectual memory; it is a body memory of riding a bicycle.

This would also apply to my memory of actual events: what I did yesterday in Los Angeles or last year in England. When, I think of these particular events, I am tuning into the occasions on which these events happened. There is a direct causal connection through a tuning process. If this hypothesis is correct, it is not necessary to assume that memories are stored inside the brain.

THE MYSTERY OF MIND

All of us have been brought up on the idea that memories are stored in the brain; we use the word brain interchangeably with mind or memory. I am suggesting that the brain is more like a tuning system than a memory storage device. One of the main arguments for the localization of memory in the brain is the fact that certain kinds of brain damage can lead to loss of memory. If the brain is damaged in a car accident and someone loses memory, then the obvious assumption is that memory tissue must have been destroyed. But this is not necessarily so.

Consider the TV analogy again. If I damaged your TV set so that you were unable to receive certain channels, or if I made the TV set aphasic by destroying the part of it concerned with the production of sound so that you could still get the pictures but could not get the sound, this would not prove that the sound or the pictures were stored inside the TV set. It would merely show that I had affected the tuning system so you could not pick up the correct signal any longer. No more does memory loss due to brain damage prove that memory is stored inside the brain. In fact, most memory loss is temporary: amnesia following concussion, for example, is often temporary. This recovery of memory is very difficult to explain in terms of conventional theories: if the memories have been destroyed because the memory tissue has been destroyed, they ought not to come back again; yet they often do.

Another argument for the localization of memory inside the brain is suggested by the experiments on electrical stimulation of the brain by Wilder Penfield and others. Penfield stimulated the temporal lobes of the brains of epileptic patients and found that some of these stimuli could elicit vivid responses, which the patients interpreted as memories of things they had done in the past. Penfield assumed that he was actually stimulating memories which were stored in the cortex. Again returning to the TV analogy, if I stimulated the tuning circuit of your TV set and it jumped onto another channel, this wouldn’t prove the information was stored inside the tuning circuit. It is interesting that, in his last book, The Mystery of the Mind, Penfield himself abandoned the idea that the experiments proved that memory was inside the brain. He came to the conclusion that memory was not stored inside the cortex at all.

There have been many attempts to locate memory traces within the brain, the best known of which were by Karl Lashley, the great American neurophysiologist. He trained rats to learn tricks, then chopped bits of their brains out to determine whether the rats could still do the tricks. To his amazement, he found that he could remove over fifty percent of the brain-any 50%-and there would be virtually no effect on the retention of this learning. When he removed all the brain, the rats could no longer perform the tricks, so he concluded that the brain was necessary in some way to the performance of the task-which is hardly a very surprising conclusion. What was surprising was how much of the brain he could remove without affecting the memory.

Similar results have been found by other investigators, even with invertebrates such as the octopus. This led one experimenter to speculate that memory was both everywhere and nowhere in particular. Lashley himself concluded that memories are stored in a distributed manner throughout the brain, since he could not find the memory traces which classical theory required. His student, Karl Pribram, extended this idea with the holographic theory of memory storage: memory is like a holographic image, stored as an interference pattern throughout the brain.

What Lashley and Pribram (at least in some of his writing) do not seem to have considered is the possibility that memories may not be stored inside the brain at all. The idea that they are not stored inside the brain is more consistent with the available data than either the conventional theories or the holographic theory. Many difficulties have arisen in trying to localize memory storage in the brain, in part because the brain is much more dynamic than previously thought. If the brain is to serve as a memory storehouse, then the storage system would have to remain stable; yet it is now known that nerve cells turn over much more rapidly than was previously thought. All the chemicals in synapses and nerve structures and molecules are turning over and changing all the time. With a very dynamic brain, it is difficult to see how memories are stored.

There is also a logical problem about conventional theories of memory storage, which various philosophers have pointed out. All conventional theories assume that memories are somehow coded and located in a memory store in the brain. When they are needed they are recovered by a retrieval system. This is called the coding, storage, and retrieval model. However, for a retrieval system to retrieve anything, it has to know what it wants to retrieve; a memory retrieval system has to know what memory it is looking for. It thus must be able to recognize the memory that it is trying to retrieve. In order to recognize it, the retrieval system itself must have some kind of memory. Therefore, the retrieval system must have a sub-retrieval system to retrieve its memories from its store. This leads to an infinite regress. Several philosophers argue that this is a fatal, logical flaw in any conventional theory of memory storage. However, on the whole, memory theoreticians are not very interested in what philosophers say, so they do not bother to reply to this argument. But it does seem to me quite a powerful one.

In considering the morphic resonance theory of memory, we might ask: if we tune into our own memories, then why don’t we tune into other people’s as well? I think we do, and the whole basis of the approach I am suggesting is that there is a collective memory to which we are all tuned which forms a background against which our own experience develops and against which our own individual memories develop. This concept is very similar to the notion of the collective unconscious.

Jung thought of the collective unconscious as a collective memory, the collective memory of humanity. He thought that people would be more tuned into members of their own family and race and social and cultural group, but that nevertheless there would be a background resonance from all humanity: a pooled or averaged experience of basic things that all people experience (e.g., maternal behavior and various social patterns and structures of experience and thought). It would not be a memory from particular persons in the past so much as an average of the basic forms of memory structures; these are the archetypes. Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious makes extremely good sense in the context of the general approach that I am putting forward. Morphic resonance theory would lead to a radical reaffirmation of Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious.

It needs reaffirmation because the current mechanistic context of conventional biology, medicine, and psychology denies that there can be any such thing as the collective unconscious; the concept of a collective memory of a race or species has been excluded as even a theoretical possibility. You cannot have any inheritance of acquired characteristics according to conventional theory; you can only have an inheritance of genetic mutations.

Under the premises of conventional biology, there would be no way that the experiences and myths of, for example, African tribes, would have any influence on the dreams of someone in Switzerland of non-African descent, which is the sort of thing Jung thought did happen. That is quite impossible from the conventional point of view, which is why most biologists and others within mainstream science do not take the idea of the collective unconscious seriously. It is considered a flaky, fringe idea that may have some poetic value as a kind of metaphor, but has no relevance to proper science because it is a completely untenable concept from the point of view of normal biology.

The approach I am putting forward is very similar to Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious. The main difference is that Jung’s idea was applied primarily to human experience and human collective memory. What I am suggesting is that a very similar principle operates throughout the entire universe, not just in human beings. If the kind of radical paradigm shift I am talking about goes on within biology-if the hypothesis of morphic resonance is even approximately correct-then Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious would become a mainstream idea: Morphogenic fields and the concept of the collective unconscious would completely change the context of modern psychology.
Mind, Memory and Archetype Part II

Mind, Memory and Archetype Part III

© 1995 – 2003 Rupert Sheldrake. All rights reserved.

Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (1999), a sequel to his best-selling Seven Experiments that Could Change the World (1994).

His most recent book is The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (Hutchinson 2003).

He lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in South India, where he wrote A New Science of Life (Blond and Briggs, 1981). He is also the author of The Presence of the Past (Collins 1988), The Rebirth of Nature (Century, 1990),Trialogues at the Edge of the West with Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna, (Bear and Co., 1992) and The Evolutionary Mind (Trialogue Press, 1998). His book Seven Experiments that Could Change the World (Fourth Estate, 1994) was voted Book of the Year by the British Institute for Social Inventions.

With Matthew Fox, he is the author of Natural Grace: Dialogues on Science and Spirituality (Bloomsbury, 1996) and The Physics of Angels (Harper Collins, 1996). His book Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (Hutchinson) was published in September 1999, and won the British Scientific and Medical Network Book of the Year Award. In July 2000 he was the H. Burr Steinbach visiting scholar at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts.  His most recent book is The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (Hutchinson 2003). He is currently a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, San Francisco. Rupert lives in Hampstead, London, England with his wife, Jill Purce and their two sons. Jill is the pioneer of the international sound healing movement. Website: Jill Purce.

Rupert’s website includes articles, research and ongoing research the public can participate in, a free e-newsletter, a cool glossary with definitions of such terms as: dialectical materialism, entelechy, evolution and teleonomy and much

Mind, Memory & Archetype, Part II

by Rupert Sheldrake

Society As Superorganism

Rupert Sheldrake is a theoretical biologist whose book, “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation”, continues to evoke a storm of controversy.

Following is the second in a series of articles wherein Sheldrake presents his ideas for amplifying Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious and archetypal psychology. He concluded his first article with these words:

The approach I am putting forward is very similar to Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious. The main difference is that Jung’s idea was applied primarily to human experience and human collective memory. What I am suggesting is that a very similar principle operates throughout the entire universe, not just in human beings. If the kind of radical paradigm shift I am talking about goes on within biology, if the hypothesis of morphic resonance is even approximately correct, then Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious would become a mainstream idea: Morphogenic fields and the concept of the collective unconscious would completely change the context of modern psychology.

In Part II of this essay, I want to explore some ideas about the social and cultural aspects of morphic fields and morphic resonance. A familiar comparison might be that of a hive of bees or a nest of termites: each is like a giant organism, and the insects within it are like cells in a superorganism. Although comprised of hundreds and hundreds of individual insect cells, the hive or nest functions and responds as a unified whole.

My hypothesis is that societies have social and cultural morphic fields which embrace and organize all that resides within them. Although comprised of thousands and thousands of individual human beings, the society can function and respond as a unified whole via the characteristics of its morphic field. To visualize this, it is helpful to remember that fields by their very nature are both within and around the things to which they refer. A magnetic field is both within a magnet and around it; a gravitational field is both within the earth and around it. Field theories thus take us beyond the traditional rigid definition of “inside” and “outside.”

A superorganism concept of animal societies dominated behavioral biology until about the early 1960s. Then, as Edward O. Wilson, the founder of sociobiology, notes in his book, “The Insect Societies” (1971). there was a general shift in paradigm in favor of mechanistic reductionism, which explained animal societies purely in terms of interactions among genetically programmed individuals. The superorganism concept has not been forgotten, however, and forces itself again and again upon people who think about animal societies.

There is an inherent problem in the concept: if one says that the animal society is a kind of organism, then what kind of organism is it? What is it that can possibly organize all the individual animals within it? I am suggesting that there is a morphic field which embraces all the animals, a field which literally extends around all the animals within it. This field coordinates their movements just as the morphic field of the human body coordinates the activities and movements of the cells and tissues and organs. This concept better describes the characteristic phenomena of animal societies than the idea that they are all individually interacting yet separate things.

MARAIS AND THE WHITE ANTS

For example, it explains how termites building columns which are adjacent yet separate know how to build arches so that the two sides meet at exactly the right place in the middle. Termites are blind, and the inside of the nest is dark, so they can’t do it by vision. Edward O. Wilson considers it unlikely that they do it by hearing or acoustic methods, because of the constant background of sound caused by the movement of termites within the mound. The only hypothesis that Wilson, who represents the most hard-nosed reductionist school of thought, considers likely is that they do it by smell. And even he agrees that that seems farfetched.

If, in fact, the column construction is going on within a social morphic field which embraces the whole nest and which contains a “mold” of the future arch, then the termites’ movements are coordinated by this field and it’s much easier to understand how the columns can meet. If that is the case, it should be possible to investigate it experimentally.

In the 1920s, South African biologist Eugene Marais wrote “The Soul of The White Ant”, in which he described experiments investigating the effect of damaging South African termite mounds. Marais took a large steel plate several feet across and several feet deep and hammered it into the center of a termite mound.

The termites repaired the mound on both sides of the steel plate, building columns and arches. Their movements were coordinated even though they approached the wall from different sides.

Amazingly, the termites on opposite sides of the steel plate built arches that met at the steel plate at exactly the right position to join if the plate had not blocked their way. This seemed to demonstrate that there was some kind of coordinating influence which was not blocked by a steel plate. Obviously, this would be impossible to do by smell, as Wilson suggests, since even termites can’t smell subtle odors through a steel plate.

Unfortunately, no one has ever repeated these experiments, even though it would not be difficult to repeat them in a country where termites are common. If Marais’ result was replicated, it would strongly suggest that there was a field coordinating the actions of the individuals.

WAYNE POTTS AND THE MANEUVER WAVES OF BIRDS

As another familiar example of the superorganism concept, consider schools of fish: when predators swim into a school, the fish dart quickly to the side in a coordinated way in order to clear a path through the middle. They move very fast in response to quite unexpected stimuli, yet they do not bump into each other. The same is true of flocks of birds. A whole flock can bank as one without the birds bumping into each other.

Recently, studies investigating the banking of large flocks of dunlins by American researcher Wayne Potts have been conducted. He filmed their maneuvers at a very rapid rate of exposure, so that he could later slow the process down and examine it frame by frame. When he did so, he found that the rate of propagation of what he calls the “maneuver wave” is extremely fast: about 20 milliseconds from bird to bird. This is much faster than the birds’ minimum reaction time to stimuli. He measured their startle reaction time using dunlins in the laboratory in dark or dim light. He set off photographic flashbulbs and measured how long it took the birds to react. He found that it took the individual birds about 80-100 milliseconds; that is, they reacted as individuals four to five times more slowly than the rate at which the maneuver wave moved from bird to bird. The banking maneuver could begin anywhere within the flock –at the front or back or at the side. It was usually initiated by a single bird or a small group of birds, and then propagated outwards much faster than could be explained by any simple system of visual cuing and response to stimuli.

THE COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR OF HUMAN GROUPS

If one thinks of the flock as being coordinated by a morphic field and the “maneuver wave” as a wave in the morphic field, then this phenomenon is much easier to understand than it is when explained in terms of ordinary sensory physiology. The above examples illustrate a few of the areas in which actual empirical studies are possible — areas which suggest the existence of group minds or group fields in the coordination of collective animal behavior. It has often been suggested that a similar phenomenon may be at work in human groups, especially in the behavior of crowds. A number of studies has been conducted by social psychologists on what they call “collective behavior,” which includes the behavior of crowds, football hooligans, rioting mobs, and lynching mobs, as well as rapidly spreading social phenomena such as fashions, fads, rumors, crazes, and jokes. All such phenomenon would fit readily into the concept of group morphic fields.

In interviews, athletes on successful teams commonly compare their teams to a composite organism where everybody fits in and knows where their teammates are going to be. The team behaves more like a single organism than like a composite of separate individuals. Through practice together, teams build up this response to each other; words such as empathy or sixth sense are often used to describe the feeling they share.

If we think of societies and social groups as being coordinated by morphic fields, then we realize that the groups themselves come together and dissolve as teams do, but their fields are more enduring. We are in these fields virtually all the time: family fields, or national fields, or local fields, the fields of various groups to which we belong. We are contained within these larger collective patterns of organization much of the time but because they are always present, we cease to be aware of them. We take them for granted, just as we take the air we breathe for granted, because the air is also always present. However, if we are held under water for a while, we no longer take the air for granted; we quickly become conscious of our need for it! Similarly, people placed in solitary confinement quickly become aware of the importance of social interaction.

Many anthropologists have commented on an almost indefinable “something” which holds the members of the society together. French sociologist Emile Durkheim spoke of this as the “conscience collective” (in French, the word conscience means both conscience and consciousness). He believed that one of the major functions of the “conscience collective” was to maintain the cohesion of the social group. It behaved similarly to a group field, and many of the activities of the group consciousness were concerned with maintaining and stabilizing the continued existence of the group field itself.

MCDOUGALL’S GROUP MIND AND THE SHADOW

In the 1930s William McDougall, who wrote “The Group Mind” (1920/ 1972) and several other books on social psychology, theorized that a group mind existed which included all members of a society and which had its own thoughts, its own traditions, and its own memories. If we think of such a group mind as an aspect of the morphic field of the society, it would indeed have its own memory since all morphic fields have in-built memory through morphic resonance.

The problem with ideas like this one is that it is not possible yet to define what the group mind is or how it could be measured. Given the positivistic mood of sociology which prevailed then (and now), McDougal’s concept of the group mind was not developed further. Traumatic social conditions then dampened any remaining receptivity to notions involving group forces. By the 1930s, the shadow side of collective consciousness had taken tangible form in Nazi Germany. Because this shadow side was all too real, most people were frightened of any concept suggesting group minds or group consciousness. Certainly we have all seen the shadow side of group consciousness only too clearly in the last few decades. What we need to realize, however, is that there is much to be learned from thinking about the more positive side of group fields or group consciousness.

In more recent sociological and anthropological theory, a holistic approach to society has become quite common. In fact, compared with the biological and physical sciences which have been based on reductionist principles, a great deal of sociological and anthropological theory has taken a consistently holistic perspective. It was within this broader intellectual environment, characterized by Durkheim’s “conscience collective” and McDougall’s “group mind”, that Jung formulated his concept of the collective unconscious.

IS SOCIETY AN ORGANISM?

The idea that human society is an organism is extremely widespread; it is perhaps one of the most common metaphors extending throughout the history of Western thought. It exists in our language in phrases such as the body politic, head of state, arm of the law. These are organic metaphors which imply the unified, organic nature of society. The same notion is also common in religious metaphors, and is expressed in such descriptions of the Christian church as the mystical body of Christ. More specifically, Christ compared himself to the vine of which the people were the branches, again connoting an organic unity. Even in 17th century political thought, which was far more atomistic in tone, philosopher Thomas Hobbes compared society to a leviathan, a great monster, using still another organic metaphor.

Although many of us still think of society as a form of collective, living organism, the earth is now considered to be dead. This wasn’t always so; in Latin, mater means mother and materia means matter. Thus, in the Indo-European languages, matter comes from the same root as mother. Unfortunately, since the 17th century, Mother Nature in Western consciousness has been turned into dead matter; the mother has become unconscious, only preserved as a dim memory in the word matter. Instead, it is the economy that has become alive. We speak of a growing economy which can be sick or healthy, and which goes through cycles. Economies have all the attributes of giant living organisms, with an autonomy which even politicians, businessmen and bankers cannot control. The economy has become a self-regulating, self organizing system, very much alive in a supposedly dead world. Thus the economy has come to life at the expense of the earth, and that is one of the problems with which many people are currently grappling.

The concept of morphic fields containing in-built memory helps to explain many features of society: for example, there are traditions, customs, and manners which enable societies to retain their organizing principles — their autonomy, pattern, structure, and organization — even though there is a continuous turnover of individuals through the cycles of birth and death. This is similar to the way in which the morphogenetic field of the human being coordinates the entire body even though the cells and tissues within the body are continuously changing.
RITUALS: SPIRITUAL AND SECULAR

There are certain contexts in which social memory not only becomes conscious but is actually invoked in all societies; this is through ritual. Rituals are found in all societies all over the world, both in cultural and religious contexts.

For example, in our own society the Jewish feast of Passover recalls the dreadful visitation of death throughout Egypt when all the first-born were killed, except the first born of the Jews who were protected by the ritual blood of sacrificial lambs smeared on the doorways of Jewish houses. In the Christian Mass, the ritual of Holy Communion, in which Christians drink the blood and eat the body of Jesus, refers back to the primal Last Supper when the Passover feast was transformed and Jesus himself became the sacrificial victim.

In every society there are also hundreds of social and cultural rituals. In America, there is the national custom of the Thanksgiving dinner, which commemorates the first Thanksgiving dinner offered by Pilgrims upon their safe settlement in New England. We also have many minor rituals of everyday life, such as the rituals of greeting and parting. Saying good-bye, for example, originally meant “God be with you.” When we say good-bye, we give a ritualized blessing which retains some of the power of the original ritual, even though most people are no longer conscious of its original meaning. Similar ritual acts on large and small scales permeate even our modern “enlightened” societies.

What do people think they’re doing in rituals? In major rituals, the ritual is usually associated with a story, which refers back to a frequently forgotten primal event. For example, Guy Fawkes night is a secular ritual in England: every November 5th, bonfires are lit all over England, fireworks are set off, and effigies are burned over the bonfires. In this case, the ostensible story concerns a man named Guy Fawkes, one of the Roman Catholic conspirators in the so-called “Gunpowder Plot” who tried to blow up the House of Parliament in the 17th century.

However, lying behind that supposed explanation is a much older ritual: the Celtic festival of the dead. On November 1st, the ancient Celtic pre-Christian festival of the dead was celebrated whereby the old year was burned in effigy, as effigies are burned on Guy Fawkes day. During this period, it was believed that there was a “crack in time” when the living and the dead, the past, the present, and the future all came together. The eve of the festival of the dead was Halloween, when the spirits and ghosts came out and the dead walked again. Similarly, in the Christian calendar, November 1st is “All Saints Day” and November 2nd is “All Souls Day,” when the souls of the departed are commemorated and requiem masses are said in churches even today. So, behind our present-day celebrations lay a much older ritual background: a pattern behind a pattern. Many of these ancient rituals are alive and well in the modern world.

RITUALS AS MORPHIC RESONANCE WITH ANCESTORS

In general, rituals are highly conservative in nature and must be performed in the right way, which is the same way they have been performed in their past. If rituals involve language, the most important of them use sacred languages.

For example, Brahmanic rituals in India use Sanskrit, a language which is no longer spoken except by Brahmins, and the Sanskrit phrases must be pronounced the correct way in order for the rituals to be effective. We find a similar practice in a Christian context. The Coptic church in Egypt dates back to ancient times when Coptic was the spoken language; so in modern Cairo, you can attend a Coptic service and the language you hear is the otherwise dead language of ancient Egypt. The survival of ancient Egyptian in the Coptic liturgy was one of the important clues that enabled the unraveling of the language of ancient Egypt with the help of the Rosetta Stone. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox church uses Old Slavic, and, until recently, the Roman Catholic church used Latin. There are hundreds of such examples.

Ritual acts must be performed with the correct movements, gestures, words, and music throughout the world. The same pattern is found from one country to another as participants perform the ritual in the same way it has been performed countless times in the past. When people are asked why they do this, they frequently say that this enables them to participate with their ancestors or predecessors. So rituals have a kind of deliberate and conscious evocation of memory, right back to the first act. If morphic resonance occurs as I think it does, this conservatism of ritual would create exactly the right conditions for morphic resonance to occur between those performing the ritual now and all those who performed it previously. The ritualized commemorations and participatory re-linking with the ancestors of all cultures might involve just that; it might, in fact, be literally true that these rituals enable the current participants to reconnect with their ancestors (in some sense) through morphic resonance.

MANTRAS AS SPIRITUAL TRANSMISSION

In light of this idea, various aspects of religious ritual can be viewed with a new significance. For example, consider the use of mantras in the Eastern traditions. Mantras are sacred sounds or words which often have no explicit meaning. The best known of the Indian mantras is OM. A Christian mantra (and, in fact, it is also a Jewish and Muslim mantra) is AMEN. Although it translates literally as, “So be it,” it has a much deeper significance as a mantric phrase. When chanted in its original form of AMEN, it was an extremely powerful mantra. It survives at the end of Christian prayers and hymns even though most people are unaware of why it is there.

In Tibetan and Hindu tradition, the mantra is communicated to the disciple by the guru (or master) as part of an initiation. Using the mantra, the disciple is able to connect with the guru as well as with the entire tradition that transmitted the mantra through the guru. In Tibetan Buddhism there is often an actual visualization during the chanting of the mantra. The acolytes visualize the guru who has given it to them floating above their heads, and then visualize the entire lineage of masters and gurus behind him, right back to the Buddha himself. There are Tibetan pictures of people sitting and meditating with a tree growing out of their heads — a tree filled with faces and figures. These are called “lineage trees,” and they represent the spiritual lineage through which the transmission comes to the disciple.

Just as morphic resonance provides a more comprehensible explanation of the power of mantras, it also helps explain certain prohibitions that might not otherwise make sense. All religions have prohibitions on blasphemy (the wrong use of sacred words), such as the Judeo-Christian admonition not to take the Lord’s name in vain. People are often instructed to use mantras only in the appropriate context and not to bandy the word around in casual conversation. I myself have heard Hindu gurus caution that inappropriate use will weaken the mantra. This makes impressive sense when explained in terms of morphic resonance: Instead of acting as a key tuning one into the meditative states of one’s own past and of the past of the guru or lineage of gurus, the mantra would also tune one into all the casual conversations at which the word had been bandied around. Thus, extraneous influences which would dilute or weaken the intended effect of the mantra would be brought in via the phenomenon of morphic resonance.

RELIGIOUS “PATHS” AND ARTISTIC “SCHOOLS”

Other aspects and characteristics of religious traditions become clear when viewed in terms of morphic fields. Many religious teachers compare their way to a path, as in Christianity when Jesus says, “I am the Way,” or as in Buddhism where there is the eight-fold path of the Buddha. The notion is that through a religious initiation, the individual is set on a path which the initiator of the path — Buddha or Christ — has trod before them, and on which many other people since then have also trod. The people who have gone along that path create a morphic field, and not only those who established the initial path, such as Buddha or Christ, but all those who followed after them contribute to the morphic field, making the pathway easier to traverse. In Christianity the concept is explicitly stated in the Apostles’ Creed through the doctrine of the “Communion of Saints.” Those who follow the path of Jesus are not only aided by Jesus himself but also by the communion of saints — all those who have trodden the path before.

If we take the notion of “schools of thought” or “schools of art,” we have another area of traditions in which groups of people share in a common ideal and a common pattern of activity. Here again, artistic and philosophical traditions make more sense when considered in terms of organizing and enduring morphic fields. Art historians write about the flow of influence from the Venetian school to the Flemish school, for example. This mysterious flow of influence could be understood as the result of the process of successive schools of art tuning into the morphic fields of the earlier schools. (I am indebted to Susan Gablik, 1977, for this idea.) If we think of paintings as having morphic fields for their actual structures, we can then see how a kind of “building up” occurs through morphic resonance. A painting in a given school is created; other people see it. Every time a new painting in that school is made, it alters the field of the school. There is a kind of cumulative effect. Just as an animal within a species draws upon the morphic fields of the species and, in turn, contributes to those same fields, a work of art produced within a school draws upon the morphic field of the style of the school and contributes to it, so that the style evolves.

KUHN’S SCIENTIFIC “PARADIGMS” AS MORPHIC FIELDS

A very similar analysis applies to the history of science. We can think of different schools of thought and different areas of inquiry in science as having their own morphic fields. In fact, we speak about the field of physics, the field of biology, the field of geophysics, the field of metallurgy, and so on. It is my opinion that we could take literally the very use of the word field in this context. Within each field of science there are sub-groups: in physics, for example, there are astrophysicists, quantum theorists, and so on, and sub-schools within those sub-groups. Entrants to each must go through the proper initiations; they must study and pass the right exams; and all have their own folklore, mythology, and founding fathers. This is essentially the insight of Thomas S. Kuhn in his great book, “The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions” (1970). He says that science is a social activity, and that scientists are initiated into the professional group by the practicing group of scientists. These social groups are self-regulating and self-organizing, just like any other field structure. Scientists strongly resent it if outsiders come along and tell them how to run their outfit. Physicists, for example, feel that they are the best people to judge what should go on in physics. Even if governments want to regulate the science of physics to their own ends, then they do it with the help of physicists. They have to set up committees and grant-giving agencies on which physicists sit for peer group reviews.

We see the same pattern in other professional groups: in trade unions, in the American Medical Association, in groups of engineers, and so on. Kuhn pointed out that at any given time, there is a consensus within each group about the way reality operates and the way that problems should be solved. This is what he called a paradigm. In his book, Kuhn uses the word paradigm in two senses, as he makes clear in his second edition. The paradigm is not just a conceptual way of looking at things, a model; rather, it is a shared consensual view of reality upon which the professional group depends. In each group, the members recognize those they consider proper co-members of the professional group, and those whom they recognize as outsiders — as not being within their group. This is the social aspect of paradigm.

But a paradigm also includes a model of the way problems can and should be solved. The Newtonian paradigm has a model of the way to solve physical problems; Newton’s gravitational equations are an example of such a model. As students progress through the stages undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral work, they are given increasingly difficult problems to solve. But they are always given examples of how these problems should be solved — a “style” of doing the solving — which is acceptable within the paradigm.

A shift in paradigm involves both a new way of solving problems (because there is a new way of thinking about the problems involved), and also the building up of a new social consensus among practitioners. Both Gablik and Kuhn have pointed out that the concept of paradigm in the sciences is similar to the notion of style in art: paradigms have the kind of cumulative, developmental, evolutionary quality that characterizes styles in artistic traditions. Indeed, Kuhn went so far as to model his theory of scientific development on art history. Previously, science had been treated as if it were a purely rational activity based on the cumulative building-up of knowledge, completely independent of the social and professional dimensions taking place within the scientific process. Kuhn demonstrated that the same kind of patterns which were accepted by many historians of art were also at work within the sciences.

A view of paradigms as morphic fields helps us to understand why they are so strongly conservative in nature, for once the paradigms are established, there is a large social group contributing to the consensual reality of the paradigm. A very powerful morphic resonance is evolved by this way of doing things; and that is why paradigm changes tend to be rather rare, and why they meet with strong resistance.

REFERENCES

Gablik, S. (1977) Progress in Art. New York: Rizzoli.

Kuhn, Thomas (1970). The Structure of Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McDougall, William. (I 920/ I 972). The Group Mind. (2nd Edition). Salem, New Hampshire: Ayer Publications.

Wilson, Edward. (1971). The Insect Societies. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Mind, Memory and Archetype Part I

Mind,Memory and Archetype Part III

© 1995 – 2003 Rupert Sheldrake. All rights reserved.

Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (1999), a sequel to his best-selling Seven Experiments that Could Change the World (1994).

His most recent book is The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (Hutchinson 2003).

He lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in South India, where he wrote A New Science of Life (Blond and Briggs, 1981). He is also the author of The Presence of the Past (Collins 1988), The Rebirth of Nature (Century, 1990),Trialogues at the Edge of the West with Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna, (Bear and Co., 1992) and The Evolutionary Mind (Trialogue Press, 1998). His book Seven Experiments that Could Change the World (Fourth Estate, 1994) was voted Book of the Year by the British Institute for Social Inventions.

With Matthew Fox, he is the author of Natural Grace: Dialogues on Science and Spirituality (Bloomsbury, 1996) and The Physics of Angels (Harper Collins, 1996). His book Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (Hutchinson) was published in September 1999, and won the British Scientific and Medical Network Book of the Year Award. In July 2000 he was the H. Burr Steinbach visiting scholar at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts.  His most recent book is The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (Hutchinson 2003). He is currently a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, San Francisco. Rupert lives in Hampstead, London, England with his wife, Jill Purce and their two sons. Jill is the pioneer of the international sound healing movement. Website: Jill Purce.

Rupert’s website includes articles, research and ongoing research the public can participate in, a free e-newsletter, a cool glossary with definitions of such terms as: dialectical materialism, entelechy, evolution and teleonomy and much more.

Mind Memory & Archetype, Part III

by Rupert Sheldrake

The Mind as Field Phenomenon

This is the third in our series of essays by Rupert Sheldrake on the implications of his hypothesis of Formative Causation for the psychology of C. G. Jung. The intense controversy this hypothesis generated with the publication of his first book, “A New Science of Life” (1981), has stimulated a number of international competitions for evaluating his ideas via experimental investigations. The results of these experimental tests are reported in his book, “The Presence of the Past” (1988) wherein he writes:

In this book, which is less technical in style, I place the hypothesis of formative causation in its broad historical, philosophical, and scientific contexts, summarize its main chemical and biological implications, and explore its consequences in the realms of psychology, society, and culture. I show how it points towards a new and radically evolutionary understanding of ourselves and the world we live in, an understanding which I believe is in harmony with the modern idea that all nature is evolutionary.

The hypothesis of formative causation proposes that memory is inherent in nature. In doing so, it conflicts with a number of orthodox scientific theories. These theories grew up in the context of the pre-evolutionary cosmology, predominant until the 1960s, in which both nature and the laws of nature were believed to be eternal. Throughout this book, I contrast the interpretations provided by the hypothesis of formative causation with the conventional scientific interpretations, and show how these approaches can be tested against each other by a wide variety of experiments.

Sheldrake begins this essay with an interesting insight regarding the evolution of Jung’s and Freud’s conceptions of the unconscious out of the previous world view of Soul. He then explores a number of provocative ideas about “mind extended in time and space” that give us fresh perspectives on power, prayer, and consciousness.

We’ve all been brought up with the 17th century Cartesian view that our minds are located inside our brains. In this view, our minds are completely portable and can be carried around wherever we go, packaged as they are inside our skulls. Our minds, therefore, are essentially private entities associated with the physiology of each of our nervous tissues. This idea of the contracted mind, a mind which is not only rooted in the brain but actually located in the brain, is an idea that is so pervasive in our culture that most of us acquire it at an early age. It is not just a philosophical theory (although, of course, it is that); it is an integral part of the materialistic view of reality.

Our understanding of the concepts of mind and soul is actually a question of how we define the word consciousness. I prefer to view the attribute of consciousness as being restricted to human beings and, perhaps, some of the higher order of animals in which one could say there was some kind of self-consciousness. Much of the behavior which we consider to be mentally organized, however, actually arises out of unconscious processes. Riding bicycles with great skill, for example, does not involve conscious memory; it does not involve conscious thought. Bike riding utilizes a body memory that involves a great deal of unconscious action and doing. We acquire many complex skills on an unconscious level skiing, swimming, piano playing, and so on.

Such learning is notoriously difficult to describe in words because it does not involve conscious thought in the normal pattern of thought as a directed intellectual activity. A more useful concept that is difficult for us to use nowadays because its meaning is obscure to most people is the concept of the soul.

In Aristotle’s system, animals and plants had their own kind of soul, as did nature as a whole. This was the animistic view: the idea that there was an “anima” or soul in all living things. (Inanimate matter did not have a soul.) The very word animal, of course, comes from the word anima, meaning soul: animals are beings with soul. Actually, prior to the 17th century, it was believed that all of nature, and the earth as a whole, had a soul; the planets all had a soul. But the concept of soul was banished by 17th century mechanistic science.

The older view of soul is, I think, a better concept than that of consciousness. The word closest to it in modern usage is mind. The modern usage of mind, however, is almost identical with the word consciousness; mind incorrectly implies consciousness. We then have to use the term, unconscious mind, as Jung and Freud did. This usage has appeared to be a contradiction in terms to the academic world, so they have tended to reject it (and Jung’s and Freud’s conceptions of it, as well). The concept of soul, however, does not necessarily imply consciousness. The vegetative soul, which is the kind of soul that organizes the embryo and the growth of plants, was not viewed as functioning on a conscious level. When we grow as embryos, we don’t have any memory of the process. We don’t consciously think out, “the heart comes here, and I know I’ll develop a limb out there, teeth here,” and so forth. These things just seem to happen in a way that is tacit, implicit, or unconscious but yet soul like in the way they are organized.

Until the time of Descartes, three levels of soul were conceived. The vegetative soul contained the form of the body and governed embryology and growth; all animals and plants were viewed as having it. Then there was the animal soul, which concerned movement, behavior, instincts, and so on; all animals as well as humans were seen as having this level soul. Over and above the vegetative and animal soul in human beings was the rational soul, which was experienced as the more intellectual, conscious mind.

Descartes contended that there was no such thing as vegetative or animal souls. All animals and plants were dead, inanimate machines. The body itself was viewed as nothing more than a machine. It did not have an animal soul governing unconscious instincts and patterns. Those processes were entirely mechanical in nature. The only kind of soul human beings had, on the other hand, was the rational, conscious soul: “I think; therefore I am.” Thinking thus became the very model of conscious activity or mental activity, and in this way, Descartes restricted the concept of soul or spirit to the conscious, thinking, rational portion of the mind, which reached its highest pinnacle in the proofs of mathematics.

Descartes’ perspective left us with the idea that the only kind of consciousness worthy of the name was “rational consciousness” especially mathematical, scientific consciousness. In a sense, Descartes created the problem of the unconscious, for within 50 years of his work, people started saying, “Wait a minute, there’s more to us than just this conscious mind, because there are things that influence us that we are not conscious of.” Thus the idea of the unconscious mind, which we generally regard as having been invented by Freud, was actually invented again and again and again after Descartes. By defining the mind as solely the conscious part and defining everything else as dead or mechanical, Descartes created a kind of void that demanded the reinvention of the idea of the unconscious side of the mind (which everyone before Descartes had simply taken for granted in the soul concept). There is an excellent book on this subject by L.L. Whyte called “The Unconscious before Freud”, published by Julian Friedman, London, 1979.

The problem we are encountering now is that, having eliminated the concept of soul in the 17th century, we are left with concepts such as mind which are not really adequate for what we mean. If we want to get closest to what people meant by soul in the past, the modern concept of field is the most accurate approximation. Prior to Isaac Newton’s elucidation of the laws of gravity, gravitational phenomena were explained in terms of the “anima mundi”, the soul of the world or universe. The soul of the world supposedly coordinated the movements of the planets and stars and did all the things that gravitation did for Newton. Now from Einstein, we have the idea of space-time gravitational fields that organize the universe. In this concept of fields one can see aspects of the anima mundi (soul) as the being of the universe. Souls were invisible, nonmaterial, organizing principles. Fields, especially morphic fields, are invisible, nonmaterial, organizing principles that do most of the things that souls were believed to do.

MIND EXTENDED IN TIME AND SPACE

In Jean Piaget’s book, “The Child’s Conception of the World”, he describes how by the age of about ten or eleven, children learn what he calls the “correct view” that thoughts, images, and dreams are invisible “things” located inside the brain. Before that age they have the “incorrect view” (as do so-called primitive people) that thoughts, images, and dreams happen outside the brain.

The Cartesian view of the mind as being located in the brain is so pervasive that all of us are inclined to speak of our minds and brains as if they were interchangeable, synonymous: “It’s in my brain,” rather than “it’s in my mind.” In the 20’s and 30’s, various philosophers and psychologists, particularly Koffka, Uhler, and Wertheimer of the Gestalt school challenged this view.

I want to argue that our minds are extended in several senses. In previous articles, we discussed how our minds are extended in both space and time with other people’s minds, and with the group mind or cultural mind by way of their connection to the collective unconscious. Insofar as we tune into archetypal fields or patterns which other people have had, which other social groups have had, and which our own social group has had in the past, our minds are much broader than the “things” inside our brains. They extend out into the past and into social groupings to which we are linked, either by ancestry or by cultural transmissions. Thus, our minds are extended in time, and I believe they are also extended in space.

Throughout this article, I want to make a simple point that is a very radical departure from traditional theory. The traditional theory of perception is that light rays reflected from objects travel through electromagnetic fields, are focused by the lens of the retina, and thereby produce an image on the retina. This triggers off electrical changes in the receptor cells of the retina leading to nerve impulses going up the optic nerve into the cerebral cortex. An image of an object somehow springs into being inside my cerebral cortex, and something or someone inside sees it. A “little man in my brain” somehow sees this image in the cerebral cortex and falsely imagines that the image is “out there,” when, in fact, it is “in here.”

Personally, I find this explanation extremely implausible. In my experience, my image of an object is right where it seems to be: outside of me. If I look out the window, my perceptual field is not inside me but outside me. That is, the objects are indeed outside me, and my perception of them is also outside me. I’m suggesting that in our perceptual experience, the perceptual fields extend all around us. While, as the traditional view holds, there is an inward flow of light impulses which eventually lead up to the brain, I also experience an outward projection of the images from my mind. The images are projected out, and in normal perception, the projection out and the flow in coincide, so that I see an image of an object where the object really is located.

In hallucinatory types of perception, I can see images whether they are there, in fact, or not. Consider “psychic blindness”: people can be hypnotized so that they no longer see objects which are actually in their view. In such a case of “psychic blindness,” the inward flow is present but not the outward projection. More normally, the movement out and the movement in coincide with each other as part of a coordinated process, creating a perceptual field that embraces both the observer and the object.

This idea of the extended mind is a matter of common belief in ancient and traditional societies. If this concept were true, it would mean that we could influence things or people just by looking at them. In India, for example, it is believed that a person who either looks on a holy man, or is himself looked on by the holy man, receives a great blessing. In many parts of the world, including India, Greece, and the Middle East, it is believed that if you look upon something with the eye of envy – the “evil eye” – you therefore blight it. People in many cultures still take great precautions against this so-called evil eye. In India, it is considered to be extremely unlucky for a childless woman to admire a baby who belongs to another woman (whereas in our society, this is merely good manners). This is because she is assumed to be envious of the baby. Once a childless woman breaks this taboo, rituals must be performed (such as making a circle of salt around the baby and reciting various mantras) to exorcise the harmful influence.

When new buildings go up in India, scarecrows are fixed on the buildings; similarly, when there is a good crop of wheat or rice, scarecrows are placed in the field. These scarecrows are not intended to “scare away crows” literally, but rather to attract the evil eye of people who might otherwise blight the crop by looking upon it with envy. The scarecrows act as “lightning conductors” because anything with a human figure attracts the eye. The Indian people also put out round pots with huge white spots stuck on sticks; the eyes are drawn to the pots because the white spots look like eyes. For similar reasons, people throughout the Middle East wear talismans which contain eyes; in Egypt, the eye of Horus serves a similar function. All this is done to protect against the evil eye.

Mind-Field Experiments


If we do affect things or people by looking at them, then can people perceive when they are being looked at, even when they cannot actually see some one looking at them?

In both realms of fictional literature and real-life experience, many people claim to have had the experience of knowing they were being watched and then turning round and seeing someone staring at them. As undergraduates at Cambridge, some of us had read a Rosicrucian advertisement about the power of the mind. It said something about, “Try this simple experiment: look at the back of someone’s neck and see if they will turn round after a few minutes.” During boring lectures we acted as suggested, and it often worked; we found that we could fix our attention on the back of someone’s neck and after a minute or two, the person often looked uncomfortable and turned round.

Although there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that people sense when they are being watched, there is almost no scientific investigation of this phenomenon. The entire world literature on the subject that I’ve been able to find consists of three papers: one written in 1896, the next one in 1910, and a final paper in 1953. Two of the papers show positive effects, although they were both done on very small subject populations.

I’ve done some simple preliminary experiments over the last few months in workshops. The way we conducted the experiment was very simple. Four people volunteered and sat at one end of the room, with their backs turned toward the audience. We put each person’s name on his or her back by way of identifying them. Then, in a series of trials, I would hold up cards in a random sequence containing the name of the person the audience was to watch. For example, if I had selected “Tom,” I would hold up a card reading, “Trial 1, Tom,” and everyone in the audience would stare at the back of Tom’s neck for fifteen seconds. At the end of each trial, all four subjects would write down whether or not they thought they were being looked at during that time period. At the end of the series of trials, we compared when the volunteers thought they were being looked at, with whether or not they really were being observed.

My results so far indicate that people vary tremendously in their degree of sensitivity to being watched. In one workshop I conducted in Amsterdam, there was a woman who was 100 percent accurate; she knew each time she was being watched. She was the best subject I’ve encountered. When I asked if she knew why she had done so well, she said that as a child she used to play this game with her brothers and sisters. They practiced and she got very good at it; she had volunteered because she was sure she’d still be able to do it, even though she hadn’t done it for 20 or 30 years.

A friend of mine has been conducting this experiment in one-on-one trials with friends and colleagues. In over 600 trials subjects reported accurately when they were being observed 65 – 70% of the time, which is statistically significant. These results indicate that there is an outgoing influence from the eyes or from the mind; perhaps mental influence does extend beyond the boundaries of the physical body. It has been suggested that this might be a telepathic rather than a visual influence.

There is a simple method of checking that out. In some trials, the people doing the looking could turn around so that they are facing away from the volunteers and just think about the designated volunteer rather than look at him or her. If there was greater effect when the volunteers were actually being looked at than when they were being thought about, then one could hypothesize which type of influence was functioning.

A variation of this experiment is to examine the effect of distance on the perception of the subjects. Have the person being looked at located at a considerable distance from those looking at him (binoculars could be used) and then see if the effect still works. If it does, then set up trials using video or closed circuit television. Imagine an experiment in which there were four people in a studio (or even in different studios), with cameras running continuously, and a randomized switching device so that the person being looked at in each trial is randomly determined. Imagine a typical television audience of millions of viewers. Now, what if the subjects could distinguish when they were being looked at by other people over television. There one would have a massive, large-scale demonstration of extended mind in a way that could be conclusive.

This format, too, could be extended. You could have people looking at subjects in the Soviet Union via satellite linkups; one could elaborate this pattern indefinitely. What happens to actresses and actors, to prominent political figures, when they are looked at by millions of people? Are they affected by being in people’s minds?

Large-scale experiments to test hypotheses could do more to bring about a paradigm shift than any amount of lecturing about the limitations of the mechanistic theory. Our perceptual fields may reach far beyond our physical brains; when we look at the stars, our minds may literally reach to the stars. There may be almost no limit on how far this process can extend.


Mind, Memory and Archetype Part I

Mind, Memory and Archetype Part II

© 1995 – 2003 Rupert Sheldrake. All rights reserved.

Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (1999), a sequel to his best-selling Seven Experiments that Could Change the World (1994).

His most recent book is The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (Hutchinson 2003).

He lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in South India, where he wrote A New Science of Life (Blond and Briggs, 1981). He is also the author of The Presence of the Past (Collins 1988), The Rebirth of Nature (Century, 1990),Trialogues at the Edge of the West with Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna, (Bear and Co., 1992) and The Evolutionary Mind (Trialogue Press, 1998). His book Seven Experiments that Could Change the World (Fourth Estate, 1994) was voted Book of the Year by the British Institute for Social Inventions.

With Matthew Fox, he is the author of Natural Grace: Dialogues on Science and Spirituality (Bloomsbury, 1996) and The Physics of Angels (Harper Collins, 1996). His book Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals (Hutchinson) was published in September 1999, and won the British Scientific and Medical Network Book of the Year Award. In July 2000 he was the H. Burr Steinbach visiting scholar at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts.  His most recent book is The Sense of Being Stared At, And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind (Hutchinson 2003). He is currently a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, San Francisco. Rupert lives in Hampstead, London, England with his wife, Jill Purce and their two sons. Jill is the pioneer of the international sound healing movement. Website: Jill Purce.

Rupert’s website includes articles, research and ongoing research the public can participate in, a free e-newsletter, a cool glossary with definitions of such terms as: dialectical materialism, entelechy, evolution and teleonomy and much more.

Check out more of Rupert’s articles here at Satya Center in the Rupert Sheldrake Archive.

(All photos in this article are clip art except for the picture of the ”Girl in Sky Skirt” by Jane Sherry and Rupert Sheldrake’s photo, which came to us courtesy of the author.)

 

Cheerfully,  Parzifal

 Dr. Pagels suggests in this article regarding Gnostic and Authority–”“The purpose of accepting authority is to learn to outgrow it.”  Parzifal says, YES!

The Gnostic Gospel
Elaine Pagels
Vintage Books, 1979

      1) “Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self- knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.

      Second, the “living Jesus” of these texts speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead of coming to save us from sin, he comes as a guide who opens access to spiritual understanding. But when the disciples attains enlightenment, Jesus no longer serves as his spiritual master: the two have become equal – even identical.

      Third, orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is Lord and Son of God in a unique way: he remains forever distinct from the rest of humanity whom he came to save. Yet the gnostic Gospel of Thomas relates that as soon as Thomas recognizes him, Jesus says to Thomas that they have both received their being from the same source.” page xx

      2) “Contemporary Christianity, diverse and complex as we find it, actually may show more unanimity than the Christians churches of the first and second centuries. For nearly all Christians since that time, Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox, have shared three basic premises. First. they accept the canon of the New Testament; second, they confess the apostolic creed; and third, they affirm specific forms of church institutions. But every one of these – the canon of Scripture, the creed, and the institutional structure – emerged in its present form only toward the end of the second century. Before that time, as Irenaeus and others attest, numerous gospels circulated among various Christian groups, ranging from those of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, to such writings as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth, as well as many other secret teachings, myths, and poems attributed to Jesus or his disciples. Some of these, apparently, were discovered at Nag Hammadi; many others are lost to us. Those who identified themselves as Christians – entertained many – and radically differing – religious beliefs and practices. ” page xxii – xxiii

      3) “The efforts of the majority to destroy every trace of heretical “blasphemy” proved so successful that, until the discoveries at Nag Hammadi, nearly all our information concerning alternative forms of early Christianity came from the massive orthodox attacks upon them.” page xxiv

      4) “Gnostic Christians undoubtedly expressed ideas that the orthodox abhorred. For example, some of these gnostic texts question whether all suffering, labor, and death derive from human sin, which, in the orthodox version, marred an originally perfect creation. Others speak of the feminine element in the divine, celebration God as Father and Mother. Still others suggest that Christ’s resurrection is to be understood symbolically, not literally. A few radical texts even denounce catholic Christians themselves as heretics, who, although they “do not understand mystery . . .boast that the mystery of truth belongs to them alone.” ” page xxxv

      5) “But when we examine its practical effect on the Christian movement, we can see, paradoxically, that the doctrine of bodily resurrection also serves an essential political function: it legitimizes the authority of certain men who claim to exercise exclusive leadership over the churches as the successors of the apostle Peter. From the second century, the doctrine has served to validate the apostolic succession of bishops, the basis of papal authority to this day. Gnostic Christians who interpret resurrection in other ways have a lesser claim to authority: when they claim priority over the orthodox, they are denounced as heretics.” page6

      6) “Whatever we think of the historicity of the orthodox account, we can admire its ingenuity. For this theory – that all authority derives from certain apostle’s experience of the resurrected Christ, an experience now closed forever – bears enormous implications for the political structure of the community. First, . . . it restricts the circle of leadership to a small band of persons whose members stand in a position of incontestable authority. Second, it suggest that only the apostles had the right to ordain future leaders as their successors. . . . Any potential leader of the community would have to derive, or claim to derive, authority from the same apostles. Yet, according to the orthodox view, none can ever claim to equal their authority – much less challenge it. What the apostles experienced and attested their successors cannot verify for themselves; instead, they must only believe, protect, and hand down to future generations the apostles’ testimony.

      This theory gained extraordinary success: for nearly 2,000 years, orthodox Christians have accepted the view that the apostles alone held definitive religious authority, and that their only legitimate heirs are priests and bishops, who trace their ordination back to that same apostolic succession. . . .

      But the gnostic Christians rejected Luke’s theory. Some gnostics called the literal view of resurrection the “faith of fools.” ” pages 10 – 11

      7) “The orthodox Christian believes “the one and only truth from the apostles, which is handed down by the church.” And he accepts no gospels but the four in the New Testament which serve as the canon (literally, “guideline”) to measure all future doctrine and practice.

      But the gnostic Christians, whom Irenaeus opposed, assumed that they had gone far beyond the apostles’ original teaching. Just as many people today assume that the most recent experiments in science or psychology will surpass earlier ones, so the gnostics anticipated that the present and future would yield a continual increase in knowledge.” page 21

      8) “But what the gnostics celebrated as proof of spiritual maturity, the orthodox denounced as “deviation” from apostolic tradition. Tertullian finds it outrageous that

“every one of them, just as it suits his own temperament, modifies the traditions he has received, just as the one who handed them down modified them, when he shaped them according to his own will. ” ”       page 23

      9) “The controversy over resurrection, then, proved critical in shaping the Christian movement into an institutional religion. All Christians agreed in principle that only Christ himself – or God – can be the ultimate source of spiritual authority. But the immediate question, of course, was the practical one: Who, in the present, administers that authority?

      Valentinus and his followers answered: “Whoever comes into direct, personal contact with the “living One.” They argued that only one’s own experience offers the ultimate criterion of truth, taking precedence over all secondhand testimony and all traditions – even gnostic tradition! They celebrated every form of creative invention as evidence that a person has become spiritually alive. On this theory, the structure of authority can never be fixed into an institutional framework: it must remain spontaneous, charismatic, and open.

      Those who rejected this theory argued that all future generations of Christians must trust the apostles’ testimony – even more than their own experience. For, as Tertullian admitted, whoever judges in terms of ordinary historical experience would find the claim that a man physically returned from the grave to be incredible. Whatever can never be proven or verified in the present, Tertullian says, “must be believed, because it is absurd.” Since the death of the apostles, believers must accept the word of the priests and bishops, who have claimed, from the second century, to be their only legitimate heirs.” pages 25 -26

      10) “When these same sources tell the story of the Garden of Eden, they characterize this God as the jealous master, whose tyranny the serpent (often, in ancient times, a symbol of divine wisdom) taught Adam and Eve to resist:

. . . God gave [a command] to Adam, “From every [tree] you may eat, [but] from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise do not eat, form on the day you eat from it you will surely die.” But the serpent was wiser than all the animals that were in Paradise, and he persuaded Eve, saying, “On the day when you eat from the tree which is in the midst of Paradise, the eyes of your mind will be opened.” And Eve obeyed. . . she ate, she also gave to her husband.

      Observing that the serpent’s promise came true – their eyes were opened – but that God’s threat of immediate death did not, the gnostic author goes on to quote God’s words from Genesis 3:22, adding editorial comment:

. . . “Behold, Adam has become like one of us, knowing evil and good. Then he said, “Let us cast him out of Paradise, lest he take from the tree of life, and live forever.” But of what sort is this God? First [he] envied Adam that he should eat from the tree of knowledge. . . . Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious envier.

      As the American scholar Birger Pearson points out, the author uses an Aramaic pun to equate the serpent with the Instructor. . . . Other gnostic accounts add a four-way pun that includes Eve: instead of tempting Adam, she gives life to him and instructs him:

After the day of rest, Sophia [literally, "wisdom"] sent Zoe [literally, "life"], her daughter, who is called Eve, as an instructor to raise up Adam. . . When Eve saw Adam cast down, she pitied him, and she said, “Adam, live! Rise up upon the earth!” Immediately her word became deed. For when Adam rose up, immediately he opened his eyes. When he saw her, he said, “You will be called ‘the mother of the living,’ because you are the one who gave me life.”

      The Hypostasis of the Archons describes Eve as the spiritual principle in humanity who raises Adam from his merely material condition:

And the spirit-endowed Woman came to [Adam] and spoke with him, saying, “Arise, Adam.” And when he saw her, he said, “It is you who have given me life; you shall be called “Mother of all the living” – for it is she who is my mother. It is she who is the Physician, and the Woman, and She Who Has Given Birth.” . . . Then the Female Spiritual Principle came in the Snake, the Instructor, and it taught them, saying, “. . . you shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said this to you. Rather, your eyes shall be open, and you shall become like gods, recognizing evil and good.” . . . And the arrogant Ruler cursed the Woman . . . [and] . . . the Snake.”       pages 29 – 31

      11) “Clement argues that God, the God of Israel, alone rules all things: he is the lord and master whom all must obey; he is the judge who lays down the law, punishing rebels and rewarding the obedient. But how is God’s rule actually administered? Here Clement’s theology becomes practical: God, he says, delegates his “authority of reign” to “rulers and leaders on earth.” Who are these designated rulers” Clement answers that they are bishops, priests, and deacons. Whoever refuses to “bow the neck” and obey the church leaders is guilty of insubordination against the divine master himself. Carried away with his argument, Clement warns that whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities “receives the death penalty!”

      This letter marks a dramatic moment in the history of Christianity. For the first time, we find here an argument for dividing the Christian community between “the clergy” and “the laity.” The church is to be organized in terms of a strict order of superiors and subordinates. Even within the clergy, Clement insists on ranking each member, whether bishop, priest, or deacon, “in his own order”: each must observe “the rules and commandments” of his position at all times.

      Many historians are puzzled by this letter. What, they ask, was the basis for the dispute in Corinth? What religious issues were at stake? The letter does not tell us that directly. But this does not mean that the author ignores such issues. I suggest that he makes his own point – his religious point – entirely clear” he intended to establish the Corinthian church on the model of the divine authority. Ad God reigns in heaven as master, lord, commander, judge, and king, so on earth he delegates his rule to members of the church hierarchy, who serve as generals who command an army of subordinates; kings who rule over “the people”, judges who preside in God’s place.” pages 34 – 35

      12) “The Tripartite Tractate, written by a follower of Valentinus, contrasts those who are gnostics, “children of the Father,” with those who are uninitiates, offspring of the demiurge. The Father’s children, he says, join together as equals, enjoying mutual love, spontaneously helping one another. But the demiurge’s offspring – the ordinary Christians – “wanted to command one another, outrivalling one another in their empty ambition”; they are inflated with “lust for power,” “each one imagining that he is superior to the others.” pages 40 – 41

      13) “How did members of this circle of “pneumatics” (literally, “those who are spiritual”) conduct their meetings? Irenaeus tells us that when they met, all the members first participated in drawing lots. Whoever received a certain lot apparently was designated to take the role of priest, another was to offer the sacrament, as bishop; another would read the Scriptures for worship, and others would address the group as a prophet, offering extemporaneous spiritual instruction. The next time the group met, they would throw lots again so that the persons taking each role changed continually.

      This practice effectively created a very different structure of authority. At a time when the orthodox Christians increasingly discriminated between clergy and laity, this group of gnostic Christians demonstrated that, among themselves, they refused to acknowledge such distinctions. Instead of ranking their members into superiors and inferior “orders” within a hierarchy, they followed the principle of strict equality. All initiates, men and women alike, participated equally in the drawing; anyone might be selected to serve as priest, bishop, or prophet. Furthermore, because they cast lots at each meeting, even the distinctions established by lot could never become permanent “ranks.” Finally, – most important – they intended, through this practice, to remove the element of human choice. A twentieth-century observer might assume that the gnostics left these matters to random chance, but the gnostics saw it differently. They believed that since God directs everything in the universe, the way the lots fell expressed his choice.: pages 41 – 42

      14) “Tertullian also objected to the fact that

Their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious, and changeable. At one time they put novices in office; at another, persons bound by secular employment. . . Nowhere is promotion easier in the camp of rebels, where even the mere fact of being there is a foremost service. So today one man is bishop and tomorrow another; the person who is a deacon today, tomorrow is a reader; the one who is priest today is a layman tomorrow; for even on the laity they impose the functions of priesthood!”

      This remarkable passage reveals what distinctions Tertullian considered essential to church order – distinctions between newcomers and experienced Christians; between women and men; between a professional clergy and people occupied with secular employment; between readers, deacons, priests, and bishops – and above all, between the clergy and the laity. ” pages 42 – 43

      15) According to Irenaeus: “If God is One, then there can only be one true church, and only one representative of God in the community – the bishop.” page 44

      “Unlike many of his contemporaries among the deities of the ancient Near East, the God of Israel shared his power with no female divinity, nor was he the divine Husband or Lover of any. He can scarcely be characterized in any but masculine epithets: king, lord, master, judge, and father. Indeed, the absence of feminine symbolism for God marks Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in striking contrast to the world’s other religious traditions, whether in Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, and Rome, or in Africa, India, and North America, which abound in feminine symbolism. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theologians today are quick to point out that God is not to be considered in sexual terms at all. Yet the actual language they use daily in worship and prayer conveys a different message. . .” page 48

      16) “Another newly discovered text from Nag Hammadi, Trimorphic Protennoai (literally, the “Triple-formed Primal Thought”), celebrates the feminine powers of Thought, Intelligence, and Foresight. The text opens as a divine figure speaks:

[I] am [Protennoia the] Thought that [dwells] in [the Light] . . . [she who exists] before the All . . .I move in every creature . . . I am the Invisible One within the All. “

She continues:

“I am perception and knowledge, uttering a Voice by means of Thought. [I] am the real Voice. I cry out in everyone, and they know that a seed dwells within.”

The second section, spoken by a second divine figure, opens with the words

I am the Voice. . . [It is} I [who] speak within every creature. . . Now I have come a second time in the likeness of a female, and have spoken with them. . . . I have revealed myself in the Thought of the likeness of my masculinity.

Later the voice explains:

I am androgynous. [I am both Mother and] Father, since [I copulate] with myself. . . . [and with those who love] me . . . I am the Womb [that gives shape] to the All . . . I am Me[iroth]ea, the glory of the Mother.

      Even more remarkable is the gnostic poem call the Thunder, Perfect Mind. This text contains a revelation spoken by a feminine power:

I am the first and the last, I am the honored one and the scorned one. I am the whore, and the holy one. I am the wife and the virgin. I am (the mother) and the daughter. . . . I am she whose wedding is great, and I have not taken a husband. . . I am knowledge, and ignorance. . . I am shameless; I am ashamed. I am strength, and I am fear. . . I am foolish, and I am wise. . . I am godless, and I am one whose God is great. ”       pages 55 – 56

      17) “Some gnostics adopted this idea, teaching that Genesis 1:26-27 narrates an androgynous creation. Marcus . . . not only concludes from this account that God is dyadic (“Let us make humanity”) but also that “humanity, which was formed according to the image and likeness of God (Father and Mother) was masculo-feminine.” His contemporary, the gnostic Theodotus (c. 160) explains that the saying “according to the image of God he made them, male and female he made the,” means that “the male and female elements together constitute the finest production of the Mother, Wisdom.” Gnostic sources which describe God as a dyad whose nature includes both masculine and feminine elements often give a similar description of human nature.” pages 56- 57

      18) “Our evidence, then, clearly indicates a correlation between religious theory and social practice. Among such gnostic groups as the Valentinians, women were considered equal to men; some were revered as prophets; others acted as teachers, traveling evangelists, healers, priests, perhaps even bishops. This general observation is not, however, universally applicable. At least three heretical circles that retained a masculine image of God included women who took positions of leadership – the Marcionites, the Montanists, and the Carpocratians. But from the year 200, we have no evidence for women taking prophetic, priestly, and episcopal riles among orthodox churches.

      This is an extraordinary development, considering that in its earliest years the Christian movement showed a remarkable openness toward women. Jesus himself violated Jewish convention by talking openly with women, and he included them among his companions. Even the gospel of Luke in the New Testament tells his reply when Martha, his hostess, complains to him that she is doing housework alone while her sister Mary sits listening to him: “Do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her, then, to help me.” But instead of supporting her, Jesus chides Martha for taking upon herself so many anxieties, declaring that “one thing is needful: Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.” Some ten to twenty years after Jesus’ death, certain women held positions of leadership in local Christian groups, women acted as prophets, teachers, and evangelists.” page 61

      19) After discussing Biblical passages in which Paul both “claims that their is neither male nor female” and that women should be subordinated to men, Pagels writes:

      “Such contradictory attitudes toward women reflect a time of social transition, as well as the diversity of cultural influences on churches scattered throughout the known world. In Greece and Asia Minor, women participated with men in religious cults, especially the cults of the Great Mothers and of the Egyptian goddess Isis. While the leading roles were reserved for men, women took part in the services and professions. Some women took up education, the arts, and professions such as medicine. In Egypt, women had attained, by the first century AD, a relatively advanced state of emancipation, socially, politically, and legally. In Rome, forms of education had changed, around 200 BC, to offer to some children from the aristocracy the same curriculum for girls and boys. Two hundred years later, at the beginning of the Christian era, the archaic, patriarchal forms of Roman marriage were increasingly giving way to a new legal form in which the man and woman bound themselves to each other with voluntary and mutual vows. The French scholar Jerome Carcopino, in a discussion entitled “Feminism and Demoralization,” explains that by the second century AD, upper-class women often insisted upon “living their own life.” Male satirists complained of their aggressiveness in discussions of literature, mathematics, and philosophy, and ridiculed their enthusiasm for writing poems, plays, and music. Under the Empire,

women were everywhere involved in business, social life, such as theaters, sports events, concerts, parties, traveling – with or without their husbands. They took part in a whole range of athletics, even bore arms and went to battle . . . and made major inroads into professional life. Women of the Jewish communities, on the other hand, were excluded from actively participating in public worship, in education, and in social and political life outside the family.” pages 62 – 63

      20) According to the Gnostics “The purpose of accepting authority is to learn to outgrow it.” page 131

 

Parzifal, says, Hey Ken Wilbur–Why NOT????

Integral Spiritual Intelligence: 21 Skills in 4 quadrants

By Cindy Wigglesworth

Why do we need to understand Spiritual Intelligence?

The world’s religions generally advocate loving behaviors, yet religious beliefs have often divided our planet and caused war. We have been trapped in a world that tends to confuse the doctrine with the destination. What we need is a way to talk about the skills that religions are trying to help us attain. I have three goals in trying to more clearly define Spiritual Intelligence (SQ):

To create a language that enables us to discuss these concepts without being limited to the language of any one faith tradition. I hope to create an SQ language – with clear definitions (showing synonyms from many belief systems) -that helps to create understanding among the peoples of our planet.

To create a competency-based language that helps people assess where they are and where they want to go in their own spiritual development. Based on our beta pilot of 549 people it seems clear the CPI SQ assessment instrument does in fact accomplish this second goal.

That the faith-neutral language of competencies will make Spiritual Intelligence acceptable for discussion in the workplace…the place where most of us spend most of our time. This will hopefully lead to support for individual and group Spiritual Intelligence growth – creating more meaningful work, improved products and services, and ensuring responsible corporate behavior.

When I began to try to describe Spiritual Intelligence the questions I asked myself were these:

What do people who are generally considered “spiritually admirable” have in common?

What are the behaviors or skills that these people demonstrate?

Can we list and explain these skills in a way that is comprehensive and faith-neutral?

Can we describe each skill developmentally from “novice” to “expert”?

I begin many of my workshops by asking people – typically working in teams – to complete two simple tasks.

1. Write down the spiritual leaders/teachers you admire (can be alive, dead or fictional)

2. List the character traits that cause you to admire these people

I have done this now with thousands of people. What I find both reassuring and fascinating is that the lists look so similar from group to group. The list of spiritual leaders typically includes major religious figures from many traditions, global peace activists, local religious leaders, teachers, guidance counselors, family members and spiritual writers. A sampling of typical well-known names include: Jesus, Buddha, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Martin Luther King, Lord Krishna, Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter and Deepak Chopra.

The traits that caused these people to be considered “spiritual leaders” typically includes descriptors such as: loving, compassionate, kind, forgiving, peaceful, courageous, honest, generous, persistent, faithful, honest, seeing the potential in other people, wise, and inspiring.

What the consistency of the responses tells me is that we already have a general perception of what makes someone “spiritually intelligent.” What we do not yet have is a way of describing Spiritual Intelligence that is faith-neutral and specifically focused on the skills and abilities we are trying to attain when we seek spiritual growth. In my study of world religions, psychology and philosophy, I have found recurring themes. They demonstrate that spiritual growth occurs on the inner dimensions and the outer behaviors. The failure to reflect inner growth in the outer world demonstrates incompleteness. Fully non-dual realization, by whatever language it is described (Christ-consciousness, Buddha Nature, etc) seems to require manifesting behaviors of love and service. A high SQ person would therefore be functional IN the world while also not being solely OF the world.

To explain where my model of Spiritual Intelligence or “SQ” fits within Ken’s Integral framework there are few points of Integral Theory to recall.

STATES

There are a minimum of four states of consciousness to keep in mind as we talk about Spirituality: awake (awareness of gross physical reality), dreaming (aware of subtle reality but not gross), deep sleep (causal or formless awareness) and non-dual awareness – the Ever-present Witnessing consciousness. You can only be in one state of consciousness at a time. For example: you cannot be awake and dreaming simultaneously. The state of non-dual awareness is the state of peak spiritual experiences.

LINES

There are multiple lines of human development which include four to be addressed in this article: cognitive, moral, emotional (here I include what Ken calls the interpersonal and affective lines) and spiritual.

STAGES

Stages of development unfold in waves. And not every line develops at the same speed. The simplest description is to use three stages: pre-rational; rational and trans-rational. We do not want to confuse the pre-rational with the trans-rational stages. Thus pre-rational spirituality (young children) is not the same as the trans-rational spirituality of experienced spiritual practitioners. All stages of development are spiritual in that they are capable of spiritual states. Stages are not equal in their ability to access, hold, and translate states into behaviors.

QUADRANTS

In the four-quadrant model the upper-left (“I” or interior consciousness) is often the focus of spiritual development models. A four-quadrant approach is necessary if we are to describe Spiritual Intelligence in an Integral manner.

TYPE

Typologies like Myers Briggs are horizontal descriptors of innate personal preferences which stay with a person regardless of the state or stage that person is in. Typologies are not important for this discussion of the 21 skills of Spiritual Intelligence. They do merit discussion in terms of helping people to develop their skills – but that is not the focus for this article.

ASCENDING AND DESCENDING APPROACHES TO THE DIVINE

There are 3 basic ideas about what is “Divine”:

What is “descended” or material is Divine. God is Nature or pantheism. This is the phase of early nature-based religions frequently associated with the “purple” stage in Spiral Dynamics.

What is “ascended” is Divine. The material world is “not-God” and the goal of spiritual work is to “get out of here!” These approaches are afterlife (heaven) or emptiness (nirvana) focused. This is most conventional religion or “blue” in Spiral Dynamics.

The Divine is above and below. In ascending we are released from our contracted ego-self and then, from compassion and wisdom, we feel compelled like a force of nature to re-engage with the “descended” world in a life of service. This is the approach of the CPI SQ model. Thus high SQ demands an orientation of service to others.

With this reminder of the basics of Integral Theory we can now move into getting clear operational definitions of 2 terms: Intelligence and Spirituality.

Defining Intelligence:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines intelligence as “the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.”

Our “Intelligence Quotient” or “IQ” is generally thought of as our analytical or mathematical intelligence and our linguistic intelligence (think of college entrance exams – verbal and math components).  Initially it was expected that IQ would be a strong predictor of success in careers.  In fact it has turned out to be a weak predictor of success.  IQ appears to be related to minimum standards to enter a given a profession.  Once you have chosen your career, what actually leads to success is far more complicated.

Howard Gardner opened the door to discussion of “multiple intelligences” with his book Frames of Mind in 1983.  He listed seven different types of intelligences in that book:

1.      Linguistic

2.      Logical-mathematical

3.      Musical

4.      Bodily-kinesthetic

5.      Spatial

6.      Interpersonal

7.      Intrapersonal

Gardner’s 6th and 7th intelligences would later be combined into the study of “emotional intelligence” by Daniel Goleman and others.

In Intelligence Reframed, 1999, Gardner offers that one might add a “philosophical intelligence” which would combine spiritual, moral, emotional, transcendental, cosmic and religious intelligences. Gardner lists eight criteria for an “intelligence.”  One criterion is particularly relevant for this discussion is that “an intelligence should show a developmental history with a definable set of expert ‘end-state’ performances” (p.39).

One way of substantiating the developmental history is to show that an intelligence (or a skill related to it) has a high correlation between increasing competency and increasing age.  As will be explained, “SQ” can be shown to have a developmental history and definable “end-state” performances with a strong positive correlation to age.

A Simplified View of “Multiple Intelligences”

While this model is over-simplified from a scientific standpoint, I find it very useful when introducing multiple intelligences in a short time.  This model describes only four intelligences (see Figure 1).  I show them as a pyramid to demonstrate the simplest sequence of development.  I always acknowledge that this is too simple   a model.  Yet it is a helpful visual aide.                      

The idea of this model is that as babies we first focus on controlling our bodies.  Then our linguistic and conceptual skills develop (“IQ”)…and are a key focus of our school work.  We do some early development of relationship skills, but for many of us “EQ” or emotional intelligence becomes a focus area only later when we realize we need to improve – usually based on feedback in romantic and work relationships.  Brain studies also show that we are not fully “wired” to do more complex “EQ” work until we are approximately 22 years of age.   “SQ” or spiritual intelligence typically becomes a significant focus of energy and effort later – as we begin to search for meaning and ask “is this all there is?”

The arrows show that SQ and EQ development are related to each other.  We need some basics of EQ to even successfully start our spiritual growth.  Some degree of emotional self-awareness and empathy is an important foundation.  Then, as our spiritual growth unfolds, there would be a strengthening of EQ skills – which would further reinforce and assist the growth of SQ skills.

Emotional Intelligence

Daniel Goleman popularized the phrase “Emotional Intelligence” with the publication of his book by the same title in 1995.  In his book, Goleman cites research at Bell Labs that examined star performers, and tried to determine what distinguished them from more average performers.  It appeared that star performers had significantly stronger relationship skills and personal networks than average performers.  Harvard Business Review published the results of the Bell Labs study in 1993.   Business interest in the study of “Emotional Intelligence” or “EQ” began in earnest.

EQ is actually a large collection of skills.  Goleman and Richard Boyatzis[1] have recently grouped these skills into 4 quadrants as shown in Figure 2.  If you reverse the Other Awareness and Self Management quadrants then the model lines up with the Integral model.

There is a sequence to these skills.  The research done by Goleman and Boyatzis shows that Self-Awareness skills must be developed before the skills in the other three quadrants can develop.  This makes sense if you consider Emotional Self-Awareness.  If I don’t know when I am angry how can I have Emotional Self Control?  How can I have Empathy for your anger?  How can I handle conflict appropriately?  The last quadrant to develop is Relationship Skills – it is dependent upon at least a minimum number of skills being developed in the other three quadrants.

The abundant research on EQ has left no doubt that these skills are vital for personal and business success.

 

 

SELF AWARENESS

·        Emotional self-awareness

·        Accurate self-assessment

·        Self-confidence

 

OTHER AWARENESS

·        Empathy

·        Organizational Awareness

·        Service Orientation

 

SELF MANAGEMENT

·        Emotional Self-Control

·        Transparency  (honest/trustworthy)

·        Adaptability

·        Achievement Orientation

·        Initiative

·        Optimism

 

RELATIONSHIP SKILLS

·        Developing Others

·        Inspirational Leadership

·        Influence

·        Change Catalyst

·        Conflict Management

·        Teamwork & Collaboration

Defining Spirituality:

Generally use of the word “Spirituality” is poorly defined.   In Integral Psychology Ken Wilber outlines five definitions people frequently use for the word “Spirituality” (pages 126-134).  They are:

1.      Spirituality involves the highest levels of any of the developmental lines

2.      Spirituality is the sum total of the highest levels of the developmental lines

3.      Spirituality is itself a separate developmental line

4.      Spirituality is an attitude (such as openness or love) that you have at whatever stage you are at

5.      Spirituality basically involves peak experiences

Beginning with definition number five – Ken has said, a “peak experience” gives us a “peek” into the non-dual realm.  It can leave “stretch marks on our minds” but it does not translate into character traits unless we have the overall stage development to hold that consciousness.  Peak experiences can increase our appetite for growth and perhaps accelerate it.  Yet people can be skillful at obtaining peak experiences and NOT be able to consistently translate those moments into what we might call spiritually admirable behaviors.  Non-dual moments cannot in and of themselves create loving, peaceful, ethical people.  So if the line of development called “spiritual” is deemed to be how skillful are you in achieving meditative and transcendent states (moments of non-dual awareness, moments outside of contracted ego self) – then some level of development of that “line” (I prefer to think of it as a list of skills) is a critical piece of becoming spiritually intelligent – but it is not sufficient.

I define Spirituality as a modified combination of definitions 2 and 3.  Spirituality is a separate line AND it represents interdependency of multiple lines – specifically what I will call the emotional, cognitive and moral.  Furthermore, Spirituality must be developed and demonstrated in all four quadrants and in both ascending and descending form.

For simplification, my definition of Spirituality is distinct from Spiritual Intelligence.  I define Spirituality as “an innate human need to be in relationship with the sacred.”  I believe the need to transcend the limited self is just part of who we are as a species – it is “innate.”  Not everyone “wakes up” to this facet of human nature and acts on it.  But we tend to be miserably unhappy when we do not address this need.  We need an active process – a relationship – with whatever we call the Divine.

My embedded assumption, which is made explicit in the Spiritual Intelligence model, is that the goal is to be both ascending and descending in the experience of our Spirituality.  That is – to be in the world while also not being limited to this three dimensional dualistic experience.  What is “sacred” is what is above, below, beside and all around us.  Thus relationships with the sacred have a focus of service to the separated individuals we encounter (still in contracted consciousness – including ourselves) and to the planet and to the transcended whole.

The skills associated with successfully managing relationships among humans have been defined by Daniel Goleman as the skills (competencies) of “Emotional Intelligence.”  In exactly the same way as relationships with humans, a well-developed relationship with the sacred requires skills -  the skills of “Spiritual Intelligence.”

I define Spiritual Intelligence as “The ability to behave with Wisdom and Compassion while maintaining inner and outer peace (equanimity) regardless of the circumstances.”  The word “behave” is important because it reflects the outer demonstration of inner development.  Wisdom and Compassion are capitalized to emphasize the connection with the Divine.  In the east, love is often defined as a bird with two wings:  wisdom and compassion.  Without either wing the “bird” cannot fly.  So SQ is the ability to behave with divinely inspired Love.  Peace is demonstrated both by the inner state (upper left quadrant) of the person and their outer behaviors and presence (right quadrants).  “Regardless of the circumstances” reflects what we most admire in our spiritual exemplars – they stayed true to their highest selves even in trying times.  In other words their stage development is advanced and stable.

So what are the 21 skills of Spiritual Intelligence? The 21 skills fall into 4 quadrants which parallel both Daniel Goleman’s and Ken Wilber’s work.  Here I display the quadrants in the sequence which parallel’s the Integral model.  Quadrant 1 is Individual Interior and focuses on awareness and complexity of inner thought (showing interdependency with the cognitive line).  Quadrant 2 is a combination of Collective Interior and Universal “interior” or “nonmaterial” reality.  Quadrant 3 is demonstrated individual behaviors relating to managing self (exterior).  Quadrant 4 is demonstrated effectiveness in group interactions.

 

1. Higher Self / Ego self Awareness

1.      Awareness of own worldview

2.      Awareness of Life Purpose (Mission)

3.      Awareness of Values Hierarchy

4.      Complexity of inner thought

5.      Awareness of Ego self/Higher Self

 

 

3. Higher Self/ Ego self Mastery

12.  Commitment to spiritual growth

13.  Keeping Spirit Self in charge

14.  Living your purpose and values

15.  Sustaining faith

16.  Seeking guidance from Spirit

 

2. Universal Awareness

6.      Awareness of interconnectedness of life

7.      Awareness of worldviews of others

8.      Breadth of time/space perception

9.      Awareness of limitations / power of human perception

10.  Awareness of spiritual principles

11.  Experience of transcendent oneness

 

4. Social Mastery/Spiritual Presence

17.  Wise and effective teacher of spiritual principles

18.  Wise and effective leader / change agent

19.  Makes Compassionate AND Wise decisions

20.  A calming, healing presence

21.  Being aligned with the ebb and flow of life

 

 

As with the Goleman/Boyatzis model of EQ skills, our hypothesis is that Quadrant 1 will be critical for the development of Quadrants 3 and 4.  However, it is possible that some people, especially those in eastern traditions, may first develop some of the skills of Quadrant 2 and then move into Quadrant 1 before moving on to Quadrants 3 and 4.  Thus Quadrants 1 and 2 are both needed but where you start is not critical.

Each of the 21 skills is scaled from “zero” (meaning no skill development is measurable yet) to five which is the highest level we measure.  Clients taking the Conscious Pursuits, Inc. SQ self- assessment receive a report for all 21 skills which gives both a numeric score and description of what that skill attainment looks like.  An optional “next step” is then provided for every skill – including for skills where the client scores a “five.”  This is based on the belief that we are never “finished.”

Here is an overview of the five levels of skill development for Quadrant 1, Skill 5:  Awareness of Ego self/Higher self.

 

Skill 5:  Awareness of Higher Self/ Ego self

Level 1 (novice)

Can communicate understanding of the nature of Ego self- including its origin and the purpose it serves in spiritual development. (Cognitive theoretical awareness)

2

Demonstrates ability to observe personal Ego in operation and comment on what seems to trigger Ego eruptions. (personal awareness of own Ego)

3

Demonstrates awareness of and ability to periodically “listen to” Spirit or Higher Self as a separate voice from Ego self  (personal awareness of voice of Higher Self)

4

Hears the voice of Spirit or Higher Self clearly and understands the “multiple voices” that Ego self can have.  Gives authority to voice of Higher Self in important decisions. (Ego voice less strident, Higher Self voice strengthening)

Highest Level 5

Spirit or Higher Self voice is clear and consistent.  Ego self is present and is a joyful advisor to Higher Self.  There is no longer a struggle between the two voices. Rather there is a sense of only “one voice” …the Higher Self (Authentic Self, Spirit) voice and the Ego in service to that.

 

Here is a sample of the feedback you would receive if you scored a “3” on this skill:

You are aware of the influences of your childhood on the development of your personality and beliefs.  You understand that there is a difference between the desires of your Ego and the desires of your Higher Self.  You can observe the Ego part of your nature and can usually recognize what has caused your Ego to get agitated.  You are aware of how your body feels when Ego is agitated.  This is great…your body can be your ally in alerting you to when your Ego is upset.  Next step:   Learn to have a conversation with yourself when your Ego is upset (or better yet in a quiet moment later on).  Ask your Ego self “What are you afraid of?”  “What are you angry about?”  “What would you like me to do about this situation?”  This dialogue helps you to create a little bit of distance through awareness so that you are OBSERVING your Ego self rather than just automatically acting based on its prompting.  Write down the answers you get from Ego.   Then ask yourself “What might be a more Wise and Compassionate response to this situation?” (or more simply, “What would Love do?”)  Breathe deeply to calm your body and then ask the question again.  Listen for the inner wisdom that arises from Higher Self.  Notice the differences in how each part of us interprets a situation.  When you have reflected on these different interpretations, look closely at the Ego’s interpretation.  Fear is the underlying feeling beyond anger.  Ask it “What are you afraid of?” and then “why are you afraid of that?”  When it answers, ask again, “and why are you afraid of that?”  and again “Why are you afraid of that?”  Keep going as long as you can until you get to the deepest fear you can reach.  Notice what beliefs and thoughts are behind the fear your Ego feels.  Write these beliefs and thoughts down.  Then write their antidotes – the truth as Higher Self sees it.

This model defines the “expert” level of skill attainment and 4 preceding levels for all 21 skills.

What the beta pilot of this instrument showed

In the 2003 to 2004 beta pilot of 549 people from around the world we found only one strong demographic predictor of performance and that was age.  A strong positive correlation between age and skill attainment was found for all 21 skills.  This does not mean that aging automatically brings skill development.  Anyone can choose not to grow.  It does show that it seems to take time – reflected in years of age – to increase skills levels on these 21 skills.  This means there is a high probability that the CPI SQ model depicts a legitimate “intelligence.”

The beta pilot showed that women seemed to score higher on 3 of the 21 skills.  Protestant Christians tended to score higher than Catholics and all others on 2 skills.  Caucasians scored better on 3 skills when compared to all other races.  Only one skill showed any significant variation based on region of the world.

Since the beta pilot we have revised the questions and the pop-up glossary to make everything easier to understand for people of all faith backgrounds and cultures.  We are hopeful that over time we will see even less difference in SQ results based on any demographic other than age.

Relationships between “Lines” of Development

You can see from looking at the simplified model of four intelligences (Figure 1) that EQ and SQ are believed to be mutually reinforcing.  However our assumption (not yet tested) is that an individual with no emotional self-awareness and/or no empathy skills will have a very difficult time beginning to develop SQ Skills in Quadrant 1 and Skill 7 in Quadrant 2.

Exclusively “spiritual” skills would include Skills 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and most of Quadrant 4.  Skills linked to Moral Development would include Skills 3 and 14.  Skills linked to Cognitive development would include (depending on how finely you break down the lines) Skills 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9.  The SQ skills in Quadrant 4 are developed last and are dependent on those in the preceding 3 quadrants (our beta pilot results seem to substantiate this assumption).  Body awareness (Physical Intelligence or PQ) is connected to these lines as well since body awareness enhances self-awareness in EQ and SQ skills.  – which can enhance self-awareness in SQ and EQ), and moral development (one of the skills of EQ is “transparency” which means authenticity, trustworthiness and honesty).  SQ assumes a link with moral development since as SQ grows the sense of “self” expands to include other people and animals.  Pain inflicted on others becomes pain inflicted on the self.  A high attunement to others leads naturally to higher morality.  In this model of SQ is not possible to have low moral behavior and high overall SQ.

Conclusion

It is possible to create clear operational definitions of Spirituality and Spiritual Intelligence.  Furthermore we can define and assess the specific skills and the levels of skill development for the 21 skills of SQ.  This should lead to wonderful opportunities to use the SQ Assessment for research in several areas:

·        impact of SQ skills development on people’s sense of meaning, peace and happiness

·        impact of team SQ development on workplace productivity, employee loyalty, customer satisfaction

·        impact of the use of SQ language in bridging interfaith discussions

In the end, we are alike in our suffering, our hopes and our joys.  We are all striving to reach the same goals:  peace and love.  Perhaps with a clear, concrete and faith-neutral language for SQ we can see our commonality and work together towards getting there.

—————————-

For further information on the CPI SQ Assessment please go to the Conscious PursuitsÒ website at www.consciouspursuits.com or email Cindy at cswigglesworth@aol.com

Cindy Graves Wigglesworth
President, Conscious Pursuits, Inc. www.consciouspursuits.com “Bringing Spiritual Intelligence to Life”
Creator: the first faith-neutral skills-based Spiritual Intelligence Assessment Instrument
Co-Author: Grown-Up Children Who Won’t Grow Up (with Dr. Larry Stockman) – as seen on Oprah.
Board Member: Association for Spirit at Work
Home/Office: 713-667-9824 Fax: 713-218-6069

 

[1] Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis, with Hay-McBrer, 2002

 

Some time back on the PalmTreeGarden a vote was taken and this selections of key Gnostic Texts came up as the most useful.

========================

Palm Tree Garden Gnostic Cannon

 

 

I propose that we use the following seven texts as the Palm Tree Garden Gnostic Cannon:

 

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Philip

Gospel of Truth

Exegesis on the Soul

Apocryphon of John

The Hymn of the Pearl

The Treatise on the Resurrection

 

The Gospel of Thomas

Translated by Stephen Patterson and Marvin Meyer

(Visit the Gospel of Thomas Collection for additional information)

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

1. And he said, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.”

2. Jesus said, “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]“

3. Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”

4. Jesus said, “The person old in days won’t hesitate to ask a little child seven days old about the place of life, and that person will live.

For many of the first will be last, and will become a single one.”

5. Jesus said, “Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.

For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised.]“

6. His disciples asked him and said to him, “Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?”

Jesus said, “Don’t lie, and don’t do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”

7. Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”

8. And he said, “The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!”

9. Jesus said, “Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they didn’t take root in the soil and didn’t produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them. And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.”

10. Jesus said, “I have cast fire upon the world, and look, I’m guarding it until it blazes.”

11. Jesus said, “This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?”

12. The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?”

Jesus said to them, “No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

13. Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to something and tell me what I am like.”

Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a just messenger.”

Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.”

Thomas said to him, “Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.”

Jesus said, “I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.”

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?”

Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you.”

14. Jesus said to them, “If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them.

After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”

15. Jesus said, “When you see one who was not born of woman, fall on your faces and worship. That one is your Father.”

16. Jesus said, “Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

For there will be five in a house: there’ll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.”

17. Jesus said, “I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart.”

18. The disciples said to Jesus, “Tell us, how will our end come?”

Jesus said, “Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.

Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death.”

19. Jesus said, “Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being.

If you become my disciples and pay attention to my sayings, these stones will serve you.

For there are five trees in Paradise for you; they do not change, summer or winter, and their leaves do not fall. Whoever knows them will not taste death.”

20. The disciples said to Jesus, “Tell us what Heaven’s kingdom is like.”

He said to them, “It’s like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky.”

21. Mary said to Jesus, “What are your disciples like?”

He said, “They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, ‘Give us back our field.’ They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them.

For this reason I say, if the owners of a house know that a thief is coming, they will be on guard before the thief arrives and will not let the thief break into their house (their domain) and steal their possessions.

As for you, then, be on guard against the world. Prepare yourselves with great strength, so the robbers can’t find a way to get to you, for the trouble you expect will come.

Let there be among you a person who understands.

When the crop ripened, he came quickly carrying a sickle and harvested it. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!”

22. Jesus saw some babies nursing. He said to his disciples, “These nursing babies are like those who enter the (Father’s) kingdom.”

They said to him, “Then shall we enter the (Father’s) kingdom as babies?”

Jesus said to them, “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom].”

23. Jesus said, “I shall choose you, one from a thousand and two from ten thousand, and they will stand as a single one.”

24. His disciples said, “Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it.”

He said to them, “Anyone here with two ears had better listen! There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark.”

25. Jesus said, “Love your friends like your own soul, protect them like the pupil of your eye.”

26. Jesus said, “You see the sliver in your friend’s eye, but you don’t see the timber in your own eye. When you take the timber out of your own eye, then you will see well enough to remove the sliver from your friend’s eye.”

27. “If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the (Father’s) kingdom. If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath you will not see the Father.”

28. Jesus said, “I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty.

But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways.”

29. Jesus said, “If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.”

30. Jesus said, “Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one.”

31. Jesus said, “No prophet is welcome on his home turf; doctors don’t cure those who know them.”

32. Jesus said, “A city built on a high hill and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden.”

33. Jesus said, “What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops.

After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light.”

34. Jesus said, “If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole.”

35. Jesus said, “One can’t enter a strong person’s house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house.”

36. Jesus said, “Do not fret, from morning to evening and from evening to morning, [about your food--what you're going to eat, or about your clothing--] what you are going to wear. [You're much better than the lilies, which neither card nor spin.

As for you, when you have no garment, what will you put on? Who might add to your stature? That very one will give you your garment.]“

37. His disciples said, “When will you appear to us, and when will we see you?”

Jesus said, “When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then [you] will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.”

38. Jesus said, “Often you have desired to hear these sayings that I am speaking to you, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. There will be days when you will seek me and you will not find me.”

39. Jesus said, “The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so.

As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves.”

40. Jesus said, “A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father. Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish.”

41. Jesus said, “Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little they have.”

42. Jesus said, “Be passersby.”

43. His disciples said to him, “Who are you to say these things to us?”

“You don’t understand who I am from what I say to you.

Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree.”

44. Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.”

45. Jesus said, “Grapes are not harvested from thorn trees, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they yield no fruit.

Good persons produce good from what they’ve stored up; bad persons produce evil from the wickedness they’ve stored up in their hearts, and say evil things. For from the overflow of the heart they produce evil.”

46. Jesus said, “From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted.

But I have said that whoever among you becomes a child will recognize the (Father’s) kingdom and will become greater than John.”

47. Jesus said, “A person cannot mount two horses or bend two bows.

And a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise that slave will honor the one and offend the other.

Nobody drinks aged wine and immediately wants to drink young wine. Young wine is not poured into old wineskins, or they might break, and aged wine is not poured into a new wineskin, or it might spoil.

An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, since it would create a tear.”

48. Jesus said, “If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, ‘Move from here!’ and it will move.”

49. Jesus said, “Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again.”

50. Jesus said, “If they say to you, ‘Where have you come from?’ say to them, ‘We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.’

If they say to you, ‘Is it you?’ say, ‘We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.’

If they ask you, ‘What is the evidence of your Father in you?’ say to them, ‘It is motion and rest.’”

51. His disciples said to him, “When will the rest for the dead take place, and when will the new world come?”

He said to them, “What you are looking forward to has come, but you don’t know it.”

52. His disciples said to him, “Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you.”

He said to them, “You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead.”

53. His disciples said to him, “Is circumcision useful or not?”

He said to them, “If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect.”

54. Jesus said, “Congratulations to the poor, for to you belongs Heaven’s kingdom.”

55. Jesus said, “Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me.”

56. Jesus said, “Whoever has come to know the world has discovered a carcass, and whoever has discovered a carcass, of that person the world is not worthy.”

57 Jesus said, “The Father’s kingdom is like a person who has [good] seed. His enemy came during the night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The person did not let the workers pull up the weeds, but said to them, ‘No, otherwise you might go to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.’ For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be conspicuous, and will be pulled up and burned.”

58. Jesus said, “Congratulations to the person who has toiled and has found life.”

59. Jesus said, “Look to the living one as long as you live, otherwise you might die and then try to see the living one, and you will be unable to see.”

60. He saw a Samaritan carrying a lamb and going to Judea. He said to his disciples, “that person … around the lamb.” They said to him, “So that he may kill it and eat it.” He said to them, “He will not eat it while it is alive, but only after he has killed it and it has become a carcass.”

They said, “Otherwise he can’t do it.”

He said to them, “So also with you, seek for yourselves a place for rest, or you might become a carcass and be eaten.”

61. Jesus said, “Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live.”

Salome said, “Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone.”

Jesus said to her, “I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was granted from the things of my Father.”

“I am your disciple.”

“For this reason I say, if one is whole, one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness.”

62. Jesus said, “I disclose my mysteries to those [who are worthy] of [my] mysteries.

63 Jesus said, “There was a rich person who had a great deal of money. He said, ‘I shall invest my money so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouses with produce, that I may lack nothing.’ These were the things he was thinking in his heart, but that very night he died. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!”

64. Jesus said, “A person was receiving guests. When he had prepared the dinner, he sent his slave to invite the guests.

The slave went to the first and said to that one, ‘My master invites you.’ That one said, ‘Some merchants owe me money; they are coming to me tonight. I have to go and give them instructions. Please excuse me from dinner.’

The slave went to another and said to that one, ‘My master has invited you.’ That one said to the slave, ‘I have bought a house, and I have been called away for a day. I shall have no time.’

The slave went to another and said to that one, ‘My master invites you.’ That one said to the slave, ‘My friend is to be married, and I am to arrange the banquet. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me from dinner.’

The slave went to another and said to that one, ‘My master invites you.’ That one said to the slave, ‘I have bought an estate, and I am going to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me.’

The slave returned and said to his master, ‘Those whom you invited to dinner have asked to be excused.’ The master said to his slave, ‘Go out on the streets and bring back whomever you find to have dinner.’

Buyers and merchants [will] not enter the places of my Father.”

65. He said, “A [...] person owned a vineyard and rented it to some farmers, so they could work it and he could collect its crop from them. He sent his slave so the farmers would give him the vineyard’s crop. They grabbed him, beat him, and almost killed him, and the slave returned and told his master. His master said, ‘Perhaps he didn’t know them.’ He sent another slave, and the farmers beat that one as well. Then the master sent his son and said, ‘Perhaps they’ll show my son some respect.’ Because the farmers knew that he was the heir to the vineyard, they grabbed him and killed him. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!”

66. Jesus said, “Show me the stone that the builders rejected: that is the keystone.”

67. Jesus said, “Those who know all, but are lacking in themselves, are utterly lacking.”

68. Jesus said, “Congratulations to you when you are hated and persecuted; and no place will be found, wherever you have been persecuted.”

69. Jesus said, “Congratulations to those who have been persecuted in their hearts: they are the ones who have truly come to know the Father.

Congratulations to those who go hungry, so the stomach of the one in want may be filled.”

70. Jesus said, “If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you.”

71. Jesus said, “I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it [...].”

72. A [person said] to him, “Tell my brothers to divide my father’s possessions with me.”

He said to the person, “Mister, who made me a divider?”

He turned to his disciples and said to them, “I’m not a divider, am I?”

73. Jesus said, “The crop is huge but the workers are few, so beg the harvest boss to dispatch workers to the fields.”

74. He said, “Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the well.”

75. Jesus said, “There are many standing at the door, but those who are alone will enter the bridal suite.”

76. Jesus said, “The Father’s kingdom is like a merchant who had a supply of merchandise and found a pearl. That merchant was prudent; he sold the merchandise and bought the single pearl for himself.

So also with you, seek his treasure that is unfailing, that is enduring, where no moth comes to eat and no worm destroys.”

77. Jesus said, “I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”

78. Jesus said, “Why have you come out to the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in soft clothes, [like your] rulers and your powerful ones? They are dressed in soft clothes, and they cannot understand truth.”

79. A woman in the crowd said to him, “Lucky are the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you.”

He said to [her], “Lucky are those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, ‘Lucky are the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk.’”

80. Jesus said, “Whoever has come to know the world has discovered the body, and whoever has discovered the body, of that one the world is not worthy.”

81. Jesus said, “Let one who has become wealthy reign, and let one who has power renounce <it>.”

82. Jesus said, “Whoever is near me is near the fire, and whoever is far from me is far from the (Father’s) kingdom.”

83. Jesus said, “Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light.”

84. Jesus said, “When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!”

85. Jesus said, “Adam came from great power and great wealth, but he was not worthy of you. For had he been worthy, [he would] not [have tasted] death.”

86. Jesus said, “[Foxes have] their dens and birds have their nests, but human beings have no place to lay down and rest.”

87. Jesus said, “How miserable is the body that depends on a body, and how miserable is the soul that depends on these two.”

88. Jesus said, “The messengers and the prophets will come to you and give you what belongs to you. You, in turn, give them what you have, and say to yourselves, ‘When will they come and take what belongs to them?’”

89. Jesus said, “Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Don’t you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?”

90. Jesus said, “Come to me, for my yoke is comfortable and my lordship is gentle, and you will find rest for yourselves.”

91. They said to him, “Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you.”

He said to them, “You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment.”

92. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find.

In the past, however, I did not tell you the things about which you asked me then. Now I am willing to tell them, but you are not seeking them.”

93. “Don’t give what is holy to dogs, for they might throw them upon the manure pile. Don’t throw pearls [to] pigs, or they might … it [...].”

94. Jesus [said], “One who seeks will find, and for [one who knocks] it will be opened.”

95. [Jesus said], “If you have money, don’t lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won’t get it back.”

96. Jesus [said], “The Father’s kingdom is like [a] woman. She took a little leaven, [hid] it in dough, and made it into large loaves of bread. Anyone here with two ears had better listen!”

97. Jesus said, “The [Father's] kingdom is like a woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking along [a] distant road, the handle of the jar broke and the meal spilled behind her [along] the road. She didn’t know it; she hadn’t noticed a problem. When she reached her house, she put the jar down and discovered that it was empty.”

98. Jesus said, “The Father’s kingdom is like a person who wanted to kill someone powerful. While still at home he drew his sword and thrust it into the wall to find out whether his hand would go in. Then he killed the powerful one.”

99. The disciples said to him, “Your brothers and your mother are standing outside.”

He said to them, “Those here who do what my Father wants are my brothers and my mother. They are the ones who will enter my Father’s kingdom.”

100. They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, “The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.”

He said to them, “Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.”

101. “Whoever does not hate [father] and mother as I do cannot be my [disciple], and whoever does [not] love [father and] mother as I do cannot be my [disciple]. For my mother [...], but my true [mother] gave me life.”

102. Jesus said, “Damn the Pharisees! They are like a dog sleeping in the cattle manger: the dog neither eats nor [lets] the cattle eat.”

103. Jesus said, “Congratulations to those who know where the rebels are going to attack. [They] can get going, collect their imperial resources, and be prepared before the rebels arrive.”

104. They said to Jesus, “Come, let us pray today, and let us fast.”

Jesus said, “What sin have I committed, or how have I been undone? Rather, when the groom leaves the bridal suite, then let people fast and pray.”

105. Jesus said, “Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore.”

106. Jesus said, “When you make the two into one, you will become children of Adam, and when you say, ‘Mountain, move from here!’ it will move.”

107. Jesus said, “The (Father’s) kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for the one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, ‘I love you more than the ninety-nine.’”

108. Jesus said, “Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.”

109. Jesus said, “The (Father’s) kingdom is like a person who had a treasure hidden in his field but did not know it. And [when] he died he left it to his [son]. The son [did] not know about it either. He took over the field and sold it. The buyer went plowing, [discovered] the treasure, and began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished.”

110. Jesus said, “Let one who has found the world, and has become wealthy, renounce the world.”

111. Jesus said, “The heavens and the earth will roll up in your presence, and whoever is living from the living one will not see death.”

Does not Jesus say, “Those who have found themselves, of them the world is not worthy”?

112. Jesus said, “Damn the flesh that depends on the soul. Damn the soul that depends on the flesh.”

113. His disciples said to him, “When will the kingdom come?”

“It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, ‘Look, here!’ or ‘Look, there!’ Rather, the Father’s kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don’t see it.”

[Saying probably added to the original collection at a later date:]
114. Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.”

Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

 

Selection from Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. (Polebridge Press, 1992, 1994).

The Gospel of Philip

Translated by Wesley W. Isenberg

A Hebrew makes another Hebrew, and such a person is called “proselyte”. But a proselyte does not make another proselyte. [...] just as they [...] and make others like themselves, while others simply exist.

The slave seeks only to be free, but he does not hope to acquire the estate of his master. But the son is not only a son but lays claim to the inheritance of the father. Those who are heirs to the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who are heirs to what is living are alive, and they are heirs to both what is living and the dead. The dead are heirs to nothing. For how can he who is dead inherit? If he who is dead inherits what is living he will not die, but he who is dead will live even more.

A Gentile does not die, for he has never lived in order that he may die. He who has believed in the truth has found life, and this one is in danger of dying, for he is alive. Since Christ came, the world has been created, the cities adorned, the dead carried out. When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Christians, we had both father and mother.

Those who sow in winter reap in summer. The winter is the world, the summer the other Aeon (eternal realm). Let us sow in the world that we may reap in the summer. Because of this, it is fitting for us not to pray in the winter. Summer follows winter. But if any man reap in winter he will not actually reap but only pluck out, since it will not provide a harvest for such a person. It is not only [...] that it will [...] come forth, but also on the Sabbath [...] is barren.

Christ came to ransom some, to save others, to redeem others. He ransomed those who were strangers and made them his own. And he set his own apart, those whom he gave as a pledge according to his plan. It was not only when he appeared that he voluntarily laid down his life, but he voluntarily laid down his life from the very day the world came into being. Then he came first in order to take it, since it had been given as a pledge. It fell into the hands of robbers and was taken captive, but he saved it. He redeemed the good people in the world as well as the evil.

Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word “God” does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with “the Father” and “the Son” and “the Holy Spirit” and “life” and “light” and “resurrection” and “the Church (Ekklesia)” and all the rest – people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.

One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wore the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.

But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things. The rulers (archons) wanted to deceive man, since they saw that he had a kinship with those that are truly good. They took the name of those that are good and gave it to those that are not good, so that through the names they might deceive him and bind them to those that are not good. And afterward, what a favor they do for them! They make them be removed from those that are not good and place them among those that are good. These things they knew, for they wanted to take the free man and make him a slave to them forever.

These are powers which [...] man, not wishing him to be saved, in order that they may [...]. For if man is saved, there will not be any sacrifices [...] and animals will not be offered to the powers. Indeed, the animals were the ones to whom they sacrificed. They were indeed offering them up alive, but when they offered them up, they died. As for man, they offered him up to God dead, and he lived.

Before Christ came, there was no bread in the world, just as Paradise, the place were Adam was, had many trees to nourish the animals but no wheat to sustain man. Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven in order that man might be nourished with the food of man. The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing everything through them as it wished. Truth, which existed since the beginning, is sown everywhere. And many see it being sown, but few are they who see it being reaped.

Some said, “Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.” They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said “My Father who is in Heaven” (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply “My father”.

The Lord said to the disciples, “[...] from every house. Bring into the house of the Father. But do not take (anything) in the house of the Father nor carry it off.”

“Jesus” is a hidden name, “Christ” is a revealed name. For this reason “Jesus” is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name “Jesus”. While as for “Christ”, in Syriac it is “Messiah”, in Greek it is “Christ”. Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. “The Nazarene” is he who reveals what is hidden. Christ has everything in himself, whether man, or angel, or mystery, and the Father.

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die. As God lives, he would [...].

No one will hide a large valuable object in something large, but many a time one has tossed countless thousands into a thing worth a penny. Compare the soul. It is a precious thing and it came to be in a contemptible body.

Some are afraid lest they rise naked. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh, and they do not know that it is those who wear the flesh who are naked. It is those who [...] to unclothe themselves who are not naked. “Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Co 15:50). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said “He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him” (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing. I find fault with the others who say that it will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you. You say the Spirit in the flesh, and it is also this light in the flesh. (But) this too is a matter which is in the flesh, for whatever you shall say, you say nothing outside the flesh. It is necessary to rise in this flesh, since everything exists in it. In this world, those who put on garments are better than the garments. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the garments are better than those that put them on.

It is through water and fire that the whole place is purified – the visible by the visible, the hidden by the hidden. There are some things hidden through those visible. There is water in water, there is fire in chrism.

Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this, his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount, he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his greatness.

He said on that day in the thanksgiving, “You who have joined the perfect light with the Holy Spirit, unite the angels with us also, as being the images.” Do not despise the lamb, for without it, it is not possible to see the king. No one will be able to go in to the king if he is naked.

The heavenly man has many more sons than the earthly man. If the sons of Adam are many, although they die, how much more the sons of the perfect man, they who do not die but are always begotten. The father makes a son, and the son has not the power to make a son. For he who has been begotten has not the power to beget, but the son gets brothers for himself, not sons. All who are begotten in the world are begotten in a natural way, and the others are nourished from the place whence they have been born. It is from being promised to the heavenly place that man receives nourishment. [...] him from the mouth. And had the word gone out from that place, it would be nourished from the mouth and it would become perfect. For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another. We receive conception from the grace which is in one another.

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

“The Father” and “the Son” are single names; “the Holy Spirit” is a double name. For they are everywhere: they are above, they are below; they are in the concealed, they are in the revealed. The Holy Spirit is in the revealed: it is below. It is in the concealed: it is above.

The saints are served by evil powers, for they are blinded by the Holy Spirit into thinking that they are serving an (ordinary) man whenever they do so for the saints. Because of this, a disciple asked the Lord one day for something of this world. He said to him, “Ask your mother, and she will give you of the things which are another’s.”

The apostles said to the disciples, “May our entire offering obtain salt.” They called Sophia “salt”. Without it, no offering is acceptable. But Sophia is barren, without child. For this reason, she is called “a trace of salt”. Wherever they will [...] in their own way, the Holy Spirit [...], and her children are many.

What the father possesses belongs to the son, and the son himself, so long as he is small, is not entrusted with what is his. But when he becomes a man, his father gives him all that he possesses.

Those who have gone astray, whom the spirit begets, usually go astray also because of the Spirit. Thus, by one and the same breath, the fire blazes and is put out.

Echamoth is one thing and Echmoth, another. Echamoth is Wisdom simply, but Echmoth is the Wisdom of death, which is the one who knows death, which is called “the little Wisdom”.

There are domestic animals, like the bull and the ass and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man ploughs the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he is nourished, he and the animals, whether tame or wild. Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he ploughs, preparing for everything to come into being. For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, the right and the left. The Holy Spirit shepherds everyone and rules all the powers, the “tame” ones and the “wild” ones, as well as those which are unique. For indeed he [...] shuts them in, in order that [...] wish, they will not be able to escape.

He who has been created is beautiful, but you would <not> find his sons noble creations. If he were not created, but begotten, you would find that his seed was noble. But now he was created (and) he begot. What nobility is this? First, adultery came into being, afterward murder. And he was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the Serpent. So he became a murderer, just like his father, and he killed his brother. Indeed, every act of sexual intercourse which has occurred between those unlike one another is adultery.

God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called “true”, dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water.

It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them. This is not the way with man in the world: he sees the sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven and the earth and all other things, but he is not these things. This is quite in keeping with the truth. But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself – and what you see you shall become.

Faith receives, love gives. No one will be able to receive without faith. No one will be able to give without love. Because of this, in order that we may indeed receive, we believe, and in order that we may love, we give, since if one gives without love, he has no profit from what he has given. He who has received something other than the Lord is still a Hebrew.

The apostles who were before us had these names for him: “Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah”, that is, “Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ”. The last name is “Christ”, the first is “Jesus”, that in the middle is “the Nazarene”. “Messiah” has two meanings, both “the Christ” and “the measured”. “Jesus” in Hebrew is “the redemption”. “Nazara” is “the Truth”. “The Nazarene” then, is “the Truth”. “Christ” [...] has been measured. “The Nazarene” and “Jesus” are they who have been measured.

When the pearl is cast down into the mud, it becomes greatly despised, nor if it is anointed with balsam oil will it become more precious. But it always has value in the eyes of its owner. Compare the Sons of God: wherever they may be, they still have value in the eyes of their Father.

If you say, “I am a Jew,” no one will be moved. If you say, “I am a Roman,” no one will be disturbed. If you say, “I am a Greek, a barbarian, a slave, a free man,” no one will be troubled. If you say, “I am a Christian,” the [...] will tremble. Would that I might [...] like that – the person whose name [...] will not be able to endure hearing.

God is a man-eater. For this reason, men are sacrificed to him. Before men were sacrificed, animals were being sacrificed, since those to whom they were sacrificed were not gods.

Glass decanters and earthenware jugs are both made by means of fire. But if glass decanters break, they are done over, for they came into being through a breath. If earthenware jugs break, however, they are destroyed, for they came into being without breath.

An ass which turns a millstone did a hundred miles walking. When it was loosed, it found that it was still at the same place. There are men who make many journeys, but make no progress towards any destination. When evening came upon them, they saw neither city nor village, neither human artifact nor natural phenomenon, power nor angel. In vain have the wretches labored.

The eucharist is Jesus. For he is called in Syriac “Pharisatha,” which is “the one who is spread out,” for Jesus came to crucify the world.

The Lord went into the dye works of Levi. He took seventy-two different colors and threw them into the vat. He took them out all white. And he said, “Even so has the Son of Man come as a dyer.”

As for the Wisdom who is called “the barren,” she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them,”Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”

The Lord said, “Blessed is he who is before he came into being. For he who is, has been and shall be.”

The superiority of man is not obvious to the eye, but lies in what is hidden from view. Consequently, he has mastery over the animals which are stronger than he is and great in terms of the obvious and the hidden. This enables them to survive. But if man is separated from them, they slay one another and bite one another. They ate one another because they did not find any food. But now they have found food because man tilled the soil.

If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says “I am a Christian,” he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy Spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back, but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded. This is the way it happens to one when he experiences a mystery.

Great is the mystery of marriage! For without it, the world would not exist. Now the existence of the world [...], and the existence of [...] marriage. Think of the [...] relationship, for it possesses [...] power. Its image consists of a defilement.

The forms of evil spirit include male ones and female ones. The males are they which unite with the souls which inhabit a female form, but the females are they which are mingled with those in a male form, though one who was disobedient. And none shall be able to escape them, since they detain him if he does not receive a male power or a female power, the bridegroom and the bride. One receives them from the mirrored bridal chamber. When the wanton women see a male sitting alone, they leap down on him and play with him and defile him. So also the lecherous men, when they see a beautiful woman sitting alone, they persuade her and compel her, wishing to defile her. But if they see the man and his wife sitting beside one another, the female cannot come into the man, nor can the male come into the woman. So if the image and the angel are united with one another, neither can any venture to go into the man or the woman.

He who comes out of the world, and so can no longer be detained on the grounds that he was in the world, evidently is above the desire of the [...] and fear. He is master over [...]. He is superior to envy. If [...] comes, they seize him and throttle him. And how will this one be able to escape the great [...] powers? How will he be able to [...]? There are some who say, “We are faithful” in order that [...] the unclean spirits and the demons. For if they had the Holy Spirit, no unclean spirit would cleave to them. Fear not the flesh nor love it. If you fear it, it will gain mastery over you. If you love it, it will swallow and paralyze you.

And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there! In this world, there is good and evil. Its good things are not good, and its evil things not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil – what is called “the middle”. It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle. For many go astray on the way. For it is good to come forth from the world before one has sinned.

There are some who neither will nor have the power to; and others who, if they will, do not profit; for they did not act since [...] makes them sinners. And if they do not will, justice will elude them in both cases: and it is always a matter of the will, not the act.

An apostolic man in a vision saw some people shut up in a house of fire and bound with fiery [...], lying [...] flaming [...], them in [...] faith [...]. And he said to them, “[...] able to be saved?” [...], “They did not desire it. They received [...] punishment, what is called ‘the [...] darkness’, because he [...].”

It is from water and fire that the soul and the spirit came into being. It is from water and fire and light that the son of the bridal chamber (came into being). The fire is the chrism, the light is the fire. I am not referring to that fire which has no form, but to the other fire whose form is white, which is bright and beautiful, and which gives beauty.

Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name (“Christian”) will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the [...] of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called “the right and the left.” For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ.

The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber. [...] he said, “I came to make the things below like the things above, and the things outside like those inside. I came to unite them in the place.” [...] here through types [...]and images.

Those who say, “There is a heavenly man and there is one above him” are wrong. For it is the first of these two heavenly men, the one who is revealed, that they call “the one who is below”; and he to whom the hidden belongs is that one who is above him. For it would be better for them to say, “The inner and outer, and what is outside the outer”. Because of this, the Lord called destruction the “the outer darkness”: there is not another outside of it. He said, “My Father who is in secret”. He said, “Go into your chamber and shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father who is in secret” (Mt 6:6), the one who is within them all. But that which is within them all is the fullness. Beyond it, there is nothing else within it. This is that of which they say, “That which is above them”.

Before Christ, some came from a place they were no longer able to enter, and they went where they were no longer able to come out. Then Christ came. Those who went in, he brought out, and those who went out, he brought in.

When Eve was still with Adam, death did not exist. When she was separated from him, death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more.

“My God, my God, why, O Lord, have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34). It was on the cross that he said these words, for he had departed from that place.

[...] who has been begotten through him who [...] from God.

The [...] from the dead. [...] to be, but now [...] perfect. [...] flesh, but this [...] is true flesh. [...] is not true, but [...] only possess an image of the true.

A bridal chamber is not for the animals, nor is it for the slaves, nor for defiled women; but it is for free men and virgins.

Through the Holy Spirit we are indeed begotten again, but we are begotten through Christ in the two. We are anointed through the Spirit. When we were begotten, we were united. None can see himself either in water or in a mirror without light. Nor again can you see in light without mirror or water. For this reason, it is fitting to baptize in the two, in the light and the water. Now the light is the chrism.

There were three buildings specifically for sacrifice in Jerusalem. The one facing the west was called “The Holy”. Another, facing south, was called “The Holy of the Holy”. The third, facing east, was called “The Holy of the Holies”, the place where only the high priest enters. Baptism is “the Holy” building. Redemption is the “Holy of the Holy”. “The Holy of the Holies” is the bridal chamber. Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption; the redemption (takes place) in the bridal chamber. But the bridal chamber is in that which is superior to [...] you will not find [...] are those who pray [...] Jerusalem who [...] Jerusalem, [...] those called the “Holy of the Holies” [...] the veil was rent, [...] bridal chamber except the image [...] above. Because of this, its veil was rent from top to bottom. For it was fitting for some from below to go upward.

The powers do not see those who are clothed in the perfect light, and consequently are not able to detain them. One will clothe himself in this light sacramentally in the union.

If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber that she united with him.

The soul of Adam came into being by means of a breath. The partner of his soul is the spirit. His mother is the thing that was given to him. His soul was taken from him and replaced by a spirit. When he was united (to the spirit), he spoke words incomprehensible to the powers. They envied him [...] spiritual partner [...] hidden [...] opportunity [...] for themselves alone [...] bridal chamber, so that [...].

Jesus appeared [...] Jordan – the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven. He who was begotten before everything, was begotten anew. He who was once anointed, was anointed anew. He who was redeemed, in turn redeemed (others).

Indeed, one must utter a mystery. The Father of everything united with the virgin who came down, and a fire shone for him on that day. He appeared in the great bridal chamber. Therefore his body came into being on that very day. It left the bridal chamber as one who came into being from the bridegroom and the bride. So Jesus established everything in it through these. It is fitting for each of the disciples to enter into his rest.

Adam came into being from two virgins, from the Spirit and from the virgin earth. Christ therefore, was born from a virgin to rectify the Fall which occurred in the beginning.

There are two trees growing in Paradise. The one bears animals, the other bears men. Adam ate from the tree which bore animals. He became an animal and he brought forth animals. For this reason the children of Adam worship animals. The tree [...] fruit is [...] increased. [...] ate the [...] fruit of the [...] bears men, [...] man. [...] God created man. [...] men create God. That is the way it is in the world – men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!

Surely what a man accomplishes depends on his abilities. For this reason, we refer to one`s accomplishments as “abilities”. Among his accomplishments are his children. They originate in a moment of ease. Thus his abilities determine what he may accomplish, but this ease is clearly evident in the children. You will find that this applies directly to the image. Here is the man made after the image accomplishing things with his physical strength, but producing his children with ease.

In this world, the slaves serve the free. In the Kingdom of Heaven, the free will minister to the slaves: the children of the bridal chamber will minister to the children of the marriage. The children of the bridal chamber have just one name: rest. Altogether, they need take no other form, because they have contemplation, [...]. They are numerous [...] in the things [...] the glories [...].

Those [...] go down into the water. [...] out (of the water), will consecrate it, [...] they who have [...] in his name. For he said, “Thus we should fulfill all righteousness.” (Mt 3:15)

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, “Baptism is a great thing,” because if people receive it they will live.

Philip the apostle said, “Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross.” But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.

This world is a corpse-eater. All the things eaten in it themselves die also. Truth is a life-eater. Therefore no one nourished by truth will die. It was from that place that Jesus came and brought food. To those who so desired, he gave life, that they might not die.

God [...] garden. Man [...] garden. There are [...] and [...] of God. [...] The things which are in [...] I wish. This garden is the place where they will say to me, “[...] eat this or do not eat that, just as you wish.” In the place where I will eat all things is the Tree of Knowledge. That one killed Adam, but here the Tree of Knowledge made men alive. The law was the tree. It has power to give the knowledge of good and evil. It neither removed him from evil, nor did it set him in the good, but it created death for those who ate of it. For when he said, “Eat this, do not eat that”, it became the beginning of death.

The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word “Chrism” that we have been called “Christians,” certainly not because of the word “baptism”. And it is because of the chrism that “the Christ” has his name. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possesses everything. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit. The Father gave him this in the bridal chamber; he merely accepted (the gift). The Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. This is the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Lord said it well: “Some have entered the Kingdom of Heaven laughing, and they have come out [...] because [...] a Christian, [...]. And as soon as [...] went down into the water, he came [...] everything (of this world), [...] because he [...] a trifle, but [...] full of contempt for this [...] the Kingdom of Heaven [...] If he despises [...], and scorns it as a trifle, [...] out laughing. So it is also with the bread and the cup and the oil, even though there is another one superior to these.

The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give?

The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks is given. And it is full of the Holy Spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When we drink this, we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man. The living water is a body. It is necessary that we put on the living man. Therefore, when he is about to go down into the water, he unclothes himself, in order that he may put on the living man.

A horse sires a horse, a man begets man, a god brings forth a god. Compare the bridegroom and the bride. They have come from the [...]. No Jew [...] has existed. And [...] from the Jews. [...] Christians [...] these [...] are referred to as “The chosen people of [...],” and “The true man” and “Son of Man” and “the seed of the Son of Man”. This true race is renowned in the world [...] that the sons of the bridal chamber dwell.

Whereas in this world the union is one of husband with wife – a case of strength complemented by weakness(?) – in the Aeon (eternal realm), the form of the union is different, although we refer to them by the same names. There are other names, however; they are superior to every other name that is named and are stronger than the strong. For where there is a show of strength, there those who excel in strength appear. These are not separate things, but both of them are this one single thing. This is the one which will not be able to rise above the heart of flesh.

Is it not necessary for all those who possess everything to know themselves? Some indeed, if they do not know themselves, will not enjoy what they possess. But those who have come to know themselves will enjoy their possessions.

Not only will they be unable to detain the perfect man, but they will not be able to see him, for if they see him, they will detain him. There is no other way for a person to acquire this quality except by putting on the perfect light and he too becoming perfect light. He who has put it on will enter [...]. This is the perfect [...] that we [...] become [...] before we leave [...]. Whoever receives everything [...] hither [...] be able [...] that place, but will [...] the Middle as imperfect. Only Jesus knows the end of this person.

The priest is completely holy, down to his very body. For if he has taken the bread, he will consecrate it. Or the cup or anything else that he gets, he will consecrate. Then how will he not consecrate the body also?

By perfecting the water of baptism, Jesus emptied it of death. Thus we do go down into the water, but we do not go down into death, in order that we may not be poured out into the spirit of the world. When that spirit blows, it brings the winter. When the Holy Spirit breathes, the summer comes.

He who has knowledge of the truth is a free man, but the free man does not sin, for “He who sins is the slave of sin” (Jn 8:34). Truth is the mother, knowledge the father. Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called “free” by the world. Knowledge of the truth merely makes such people arrogant, which is what the words, “it makes them free” mean. It even gives them a sense of superiority over the whole world. But “Love builds up” (1 Co 8:1). In fact, he who is really free, through knowledge, is a slave, because of love for those who have not yet been able to attain to the freedom of knowledge. Knowledge makes them capable of becoming free. Love never calls something its own, [...] it [...] possess [...]. It never says,”This is yours” or “This is mine,” but “All these are yours”. Spiritual love is wine and fragrance. All those who anoint themselves with it take pleasure in it. While those who are anointed are present, those nearby also profit (from the fragrance). If those anointed with ointment withdraw from them and leave, then those not anointed, who merely stand nearby, still remain in their bad odor. The Samaritan gave nothing but wine and oil to the wounded man. It is nothing other than the ointment. It healed the wounds, for “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 P 4:8).

The children a woman bears resemble the man who loves her. If her husband loves her, then they resemble her husband. If it is an adulterer, then they resemble the adulterer. Frequently, if a woman sleeps with her husband out of necessity, while her heart is with the adulterer with whim she usually has intercourse, the child she will bear is born resembling the adulterer. Now you who live together with the Son of God, love not the world, but love the Lord, in order that those you will bring forth may not resemble the world, but may resemble the Lord.

The human being has intercourse with the human being. The horse has intercourse with the horse, the ass with the ass. Members of a race usually have associated with those of like race. So spirit mingles with spirit, and thought consorts with thought, and light shares with light. If you are born a human being, it is the human being who will love you. If you become a spirit, it is the spirit which will be joined to you. If you become thought, it is thought which will mingle with you. If you become light, it is the light which will share with you. If you become one of those who belong above, it is those who belong above who will rest upon you. If you become horse or ass or bull or dog or sheep, or another of the animals which are outside or below, then neither human being nor spirit nor thought nor light will be able to love you. Neither those who belong above nor those who belong within will be able to rest in you, and you have no part in them.

He who is a slave against his will, will be able to become free. He who has become free by favor of his master, and has sold himself into slavery, will no longer be able to be free.

Farming in the world requires the cooperation of four essential elements. A harvest is gathered into the barn only as a result of the natural action of water, earth, wind and light. God’s farming likewise has four elements – faith, hope, love, and knowledge. Faith is our earth, that in which we take root. And hope is the water through which we are nourished. Love is the wind through which we grow. Knowledge, then, is the light through which we ripen. Grace exists in four ways: it is earthborn; it is heavenly; [...] the highest heaven; [...] in [...].

Blessed is the one who on no occasion caused a soul [...]. That person is Jesus Christ. He came to the whole place and did not burden anyone. Therefore, blessed is the one who is like this, because he is a perfect man. For the Word tells us that this kind is difficult to define. How shall we be able to accomplish such a great thing? How will he give everyone comfort? Above all, it is not proper to cause anyone distress – whether the person is great or small, unbeliever or believer – and then give comfort only to those who take satisfaction in good deeds. Some find it advantageous to give comfort to the one who has fared well. He who does good deeds cannot give comfort to such people, for he does not seize whatever he likes. He is unable to cause distress, however, since he does not afflict them. To be sure, the one who fares well sometimes causes people distress – not that he intends to do so; rather, it is their own wickedness which is responsible for their distress. He who possesses the qualities (of the perfect man) bestows joy upon the good. Some, however, are terribly distressed by all this.

There was a householder who had every conceivable thing, be it son or slave or cattle or dog or pig or corn or barley or chaff or grass or [...] or meat and acorn. Now he was a sensible fellow, and he knew what the food of each one was. He served the children bread [...]. He served the slaves [...] and meal. And he threw barley and chaff and grass to the cattle. He threw bones to the dogs, and to the pigs he threw acorns and slop. Compare the disciple of God: if he is a sensible fellow, he understands what discipleship is all about. The bodily forms will not deceive him, but he will look at the condition of the soul of each one and speak with him. There are many animals in the world which are in a human form. When he identifies them, to the swine he will throw acorns, to the cattle he will throw barley and chaff and grass, to the dogs he will throw bones. To the slaves he will give only the elementary lessons, to the children he will give the complete instruction.

There is the Son of Man and there is the son of the Son of Man. The Lord is the Son of Man, and the son of the Son of Man is he who creates through the Son of Man. The Son of Man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget. He who has received the ability to create is a creature. He who has received the ability to beget is an offspring. He who creates cannot beget. He who begets also has power to create. Now they say, “He who creates begets”. But his so-called “offspring” is merely a creature. Because of [...] of birth, they are not his offspring but [...]. He who creates works openly, and he himself is visible. He who begets, begets in private, and he himself is hidden, since [...] image. Also, he who creates, creates openly. But one who begets, begets children in private.

No one can know when the husband and the wife have intercourse with one another, except the two of them. Indeed, marriage in the world is a mystery for those who have taken a wife. If there is a hidden quality to the marriage of defilement, how much more is the undefiled marriage a true mystery! It is not fleshly, but pure. It belongs not to desire, but to the will. It belongs not to the darkness or the night, but to the day and the light. If a marriage is open to the public, it has become prostitution, and the bride plays the harlot not only when she is impregnated by another man, but even if she slips out of her bedroom and is seen. Let her show herself only to her father and her mother, and to the friend of the bridegroom and the sons of the bridegroom. These are permitted to enter every day into the bridal chamber. But let the others yearn just to listen to her voice and to enjoy her ointment, and let them feed from the crumbs that fall from the table, like the dogs. Bridegrooms and brides belong to the bridal chamber. No one shall be able to see the bridegroom with the bride unless he become such a one.

When Abraham [...] that he was to see what he was to see, he circumcised the flesh of the foreskin, teaching us that it is proper to destroy the flesh.

Most things in the world, as long as their inner parts are hidden, stand upright and live. If they are revealed, they die, as is illustrated by the visible man: as long as the intestines of the man are hidden, the man is alive; when his intestines are exposed and come out of him, the man will die. So also with the tree: while its root is hidden, it sprouts and grows. If its root is exposed, the tree dries up. So it is with every birth that is in the world, not only with the revealed but with the hidden. For so long as the root of wickedness is hidden, it is strong. But when it is recognized, it is dissolved. When it is revealed, it perishes. That is why the Word says, “Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees” (Mt 3:10). It will not merely cut – what is cut sprouts again – but the ax penetrates deeply, until it brings up the root. Jesus pulled out the root of the whole place, while others did it only partially. As for ourselves, let each one of us dig down after the root of evil which is within one, and let one pluck it out of one’s heart from the root. It will be plucked out if we recognize it. But if we are ignorant of it, it takes root in us and produces its fruit in our heart. It masters us. We are its slaves. It takes us captive, to make us do what we do not want; and what we do want, we do not do. It is powerful because we have not recognized it. While it exists it is active. Ignorance is the mother of all evil. Ignorance will result in death, because those who come from ignorance neither were nor are nor shall be. [...] will be perfect when all the truth is revealed. For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, “If you know the truth, the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:32). Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment.

At the present time, we have the manifest things of creation. We say, “The strong who are held in high regard are great people. And the weak who are despised are the obscure.” Contrast the manifest things of truth: they are weak and despised, while the hidden things are strong and held in high regard. The mysteries of truth are revealed, though in type and image. The bridal chamber, however, remains hidden. It is the Holy in the Holy. The veil at first concealed how God controlled the creation, but when the veil is rent and the things inside are revealed, this house will be left desolate, or rather will be destroyed. And the whole (inferior) godhead will flee from here, but not into the holies of the holies, for it will not be able to mix with the unmixed light and the flawless fullness, but will be under the wings of the cross and under its arms. This ark will be their salvation when the flood of water surges over them. If some belong to the order of the priesthood, they will be able to go within the veil with the high priest. For this reason, the veil was not rent at the top only, since it would have been open only to those above; nor was it rent at the bottom only, since it would have been revealed only to those below. But it was rent from the top to bottom. Those above opened to us the things below, in order that we may go in to the secret of the truth. This truly is what is held in high regard, (and) what is strong! But we shall go in there by means of lowly types and forms of weakness. They are lowly indeed when compared with the perfect glory. There is glory which surpasses glory. There is power which surpasses power. Therefore, the perfect things have opened to us, together with the hidden things of truth. The holies of the holies were revealed, and the bridal chamber invited us in.

As long as it is hidden, wickedness is indeed ineffectual, but it has not been removed from the midst of the seed of the Holy Spirit. They are slaves of evil. But when it is revealed, then the perfect light will flow out on every one. And all those who are in it will receive the chrism. Then the slaves will be free and the captives ransomed. “Every plant which my father who is in heaven has not planted will be plucked out.” (Mt 15:13) Those who are separated will unite [...] and will be filled. Every one who will enter the bridal chamber will kindle the light, for [...] just as in the marriages which are [...] happen at night. That fire [...] only at night, and is put out. But the mysteries of that marriage are perfected rather in the day and the light. Neither that day nor its light ever sets. If anyone becomes a son of the bridal chamber, he will receive the light. If anyone does not receive it while he is here, he will not be able to receive it in the other place. He who will receive that light will not be seen, nor can he be detained. And none shall be able to torment a person like this, even while he dwells in the world. And again when he leaves the world, he has already received the truth in the images. The world has become the Aeon (eternal realm), for the Aeon is fullness for him. This is the way it is: it is revealed to him alone, not hidden in the darkness and the night, but hidden in a perfect day and a holy light.

 

The Gospel According to Philip

Selection made from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990.

The Gospel of Truth

Translated by Robert M. Grant

The gospel of truth is joy to those who have received from the Father of truth the gift of knowing him by the power of the Logos, who has come from the Pleroma and who is in the thought and the mind of the Father; he it is who is called “the Savior,” since that is the name of the work which he must do for the redemption of those who have not known the Father. For the name of the gospel is the manifestation of hope, since that is the discovery of those who seek him, because the All sought him from whom it had come forth. You see, the All had been inside of him, that illimitable, inconceivable one, who is better than every thought.

This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable, inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful.

For this reason, do not take error too seriously. Thus, since it had no root, it was in a fog as regards the Father, engaged in preparing works and forgetfulnesses and fears in order, by these means, to beguile those of the middle and to make them captive. The forgetfulness of error was not revealed. It did not become light beside the Father. Forgetfulness did not exist with the Father, although it existed because of him. What exists in him is knowledge, which was revealed so that forgetfulness might be destroyed and that they might know the Father, Since forgetfulness existed because they did not know the Father, if they then come to know the Father, from that moment on forgetfulness will cease to exist.

That is the gospel of him whom they seek, which he has revealed to the perfect through the mercies of the Father as the hidden mystery, Jesus the Christ. Through him he enlightened those who were in darkness because of forgetfulness. He enlightened them and gave them a path. And that path is the truth which he taught them. For this reason error was angry with him, so it persecuted him. It was distressed by him, so it made him powerless. He was nailed to a cross. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. He did not, however, destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of it to be joyful because of this discovery.

And as for him, them he found in himself, and him they found in themselves, that illimitable, inconceivable one, that perfect Father who made the all, in whom the All is, and whom the All lacks, since he retained in himself their perfection, which he had not given to the all. The Father was not jealous. What jealousy, indeed, is there between him and his members? For, even if the Aeon had received their perfection, they would not have been able to approach the perfection of the Father, because he retained their perfection in himself, giving it to them as a way to return to him and as a knowledge unique in perfection. He is the one who set the All in order and in whom the All existed and whom the All lacked. As one of whom some have no knowledge, he desires that they know him and that they love him. For what is it that the All lacked, if not the knowledge of the Father?

He became a guide, quiet and in leisure. In the middle of a school he came and spoke the Word, as a teacher. Those who were wise in their own estimation came to put him to the test. But he discredited them as empty-headed people. They hated him because they really were not wise men. After all these came also the little children, those who possess the knowledge of the Father. When they became strong they were taught the aspects of the Father’s face. They came to know and they were known. They were glorified and they gave glory. In their heart, the living book of the Living was manifest, the book which was written in the thought and in the mind of the Father and, from before the foundation of the All, is in that incomprehensible part of him.

This is the book which no one found possible to take, since it was reserved for him who will take it and be slain. No one was able to be manifest from those who believed in salvation as long as that book had not appeared. For this reason, the compassionate, faithful Jesus was patient in his sufferings until he took that book, since he knew that his death meant life for many. Just as in the case of a will which has not yet been opened, for the fortune of the deceased master of the house is hidden, so also in the case of the All which had been hidden as long as the Father of the All was invisible and unique in himself, in whom every space has its source. For this reason Jesus appeared. He took that book as his own. He was nailed to a cross. He affixed the edict of the Father to the cross.

Oh, such great teaching! He abases himself even unto death, though he is clothed in eternal life. Having divested himself of these perishable rags, he clothed himself in incorruptibility, which no one could possibly take from him. Having entered into the empty territory of fears, he passed before those who were stripped by forgetfulness, being both knowledge and perfection, proclaiming the things that are in the heart of the Father, so that he became the wisdom of those who have received instruction. But those who are to be taught, the living who are inscribed in the book of the living, learn for themselves, receiving instructions from the Father, turning to him again.

Since the perfection of the All is in the Father, it is necessary for the All to ascend to him. Therefore, if one has knowledge, he gets what belongs to him and draws it to himself. For he who is ignorant, is deficient, and it is a great deficiency, since he lacks that which will make him perfect. Since the perfection of the All is in the Father, it is necessary for the All to ascend to him and for each one to get the things which are his. He registered them first, having prepared them to be given to those who came from him.

Those whose name he knew first were called last, so that the one who has knowledge is he whose name the Father has pronounced. For he whose name has not been spoken is ignorant. Indeed, how shall one hear if his name has not been uttered? For he who remains ignorant until the end is a creature of forgetfulness and will perish with it. If this is not so, why have these wretches no name, why do they have no sound? Hence, if one has knowledge, he is from above. If he is called, he hears, he replies, and he turns toward him who called him and he ascends to him and he knows what he is called. Since he has knowledge, he does the will of him who called him. He desires to please him and he finds rest. He receives a certain name. He who thus is going to have knowledge knows whence he came and whither he is going. He knows it as a person who, having become intoxicated, has turned from his drunkenness and having come to himself, has restored what is his own.

He has turned many from error. He went before them to their own places, from which they departed when they erred because of the depth of him who surrounds every place, whereas there is nothing which surrounds him. It was a great wonder that they were in the Father without knowing him and that they were able to leave on their own, since they were not able to contain him and know him in whom they were, for indeed his will had not come forth from him. For he revealed it as a knowledge with which all its emanations agree, namely, the knowledge of the living book which he revealed to the Aeons at last as his letters, displaying to them that these are not merely vowels nor consonants, so that one may read them and think of something void of meaning; on the contrary, they are letters which convey the truth. They are pronounced only when they are known. Each letter is a perfect truth like a perfect book, for they are letters written by the hand of the unity, since the Father wrote them for the Aeons, so that they by means of his letters might come to know the Father.

While his wisdom mediates on the logos, and since his teaching expresses it, his knowledge has been revealed. His honor is a crown upon it. Since his joy agrees with it, his glory exalted it. It has revealed his image. It has obtained his rest. His love took bodily form around it. His trust embraced it. Thus the logos of the Father goes forth into the All, being the fruit of his heart and expression of his will. It supports the All. It chooses and also takes the form of the All, purifying it, and causing it to return to the Father and to the Mother, Jesus of the utmost sweetness. The Father opens his bosom, but his bosom is the Holy Spirit. He reveals his hidden self which is his son, so that through the compassion of the Father the Aeons may know him, end their wearying search for the Father and rest themselves in him, knowing that this is rest. After he had filled what was incomplete, he did away with form. The form of it is the world, that which it served. For where there is envy and strife, there is an incompleteness; but where there is unity, there is completeness. Since this incompleteness came about because they did not know the Father, so when they know the Father, incompleteness, from that moment on, will cease to exist. As one’s ignorance disappears when he gains knowledge, and as darkness disappears when light appears, so also incompleteness is eliminated by completeness. Certainly, from that moment on, form is no longer manifest, but will be dissolved in fusion with unity. For now their works lie scattered. In time unity will make the spaces complete. By means of unity each one will understand itself. By means of knowledge it will purify itself of diversity with a view towards unity, devouring matter within itself like fire and darkness by light, death by life.

Certainly, if these things have happened to each one of us, it is fitting for us, surely, to think about the All so that the house may be holy and silent for unity. Like people who have moved from a neighborhood, if they have some dishes around which are not good, they usually break them. Nevertheless the householder does not suffer a loss, but rejoices, for in the place of these defective dishes there are those which are completely perfect. For this is the judgement which has come from above and which has judged every person, a drawn two-edged sword cutting on this side and that. When it appeared, I mean, the Logos, who is in the heart of those who pronounce it – it was not merely a sound but it has become a body – a great disturbance occurred among the dishes, for some were emptied, others filled: some were provided for, others were removed; some were purified, still others were broken. All the spaces were shaken and disturbed for they had no composure nor stability. Error was disturbed not knowing what it should do. It was troubled; it lamented, it was beside itself because it did not know anything. When knowledge, which is its abolishment, approached it with all its emanations, error is empty, since there is nothing in it. Truth appeared; all its emanations recognized it. They actually greeted the Father with a power which is complete and which joins them with the Father. For each one loves truth because truth is the mouth of the Father. His tongue is the Holy Spirit, who joins him to truth attaching him to the mouth of the Father by his tongue at the time he shall receive the Holy Spirit.

This is the manifestation of the Father and his revelation to his Aeons. He revealed his hidden self and explained it. For who is it who exists if it is not the Father himself? All the spaces are his emanations. They knew that they stem from him as children from a perfect man. They knew that they had not yet received form nor had they yet received a name, every one of which the Father produces. If they at that time receive form of his knowledge, though they are truly in him, they do not know him. But the Father is perfect. He knows every space which is within him. If he pleases, he reveals anyone whom he desires by giving him a form and by giving him a name; and he does give him a name and cause him to come into being. Those who do not yet exist are ignorant of him who created them. I do not say, then, that those who do not yet exist are nothing. But they are in him who will desire that they exist when he pleases, like the event which is going to happen. On the one hand, he knows, before anything is revealed, what he will produce. On the other hand, the fruit which has not yet been revealed does not know anything, nor is it anything either. Thus each space which, on its part, is in the Father comes from the existent one, who, on his part, has established it from the nonexistent. [...] he who does not exist at all, will never exist.

What, then, is that which he wants him to think? “I am like the shadows and phantoms of the night.” When morning comes, this one knows that the fear which he had experienced was nothing. Thus they were ignorant of the Father; he is the one whom they did not see. Since there had been fear and confusion and a lack of confidence and doublemindness and division, there were many illusions which were conceived by him, the foregoing, as well as empty ignorance – as if they were fast asleep and found themselves a prey to troubled dreams. Either there is a place to which they flee, or they lack strength as they come, having pursued unspecified things. Either they are involved in inflicting blows, or they themselves receive bruises. Either they are falling from high places, or they fly off through the air, though they have no wings at all. Other times, it is as if certain people were trying to kill them, even though there is no one pursuing them; or, they themselves are killing those beside them, for they are stained by their blood. Until the moment when they who are passing through all these things – I mean they who have experienced all these confusions – awake, they see nothing because the dreams were nothing. It is thus that they who cast ignorance from them as sheep do not consider it to be anything, nor regard its properties to be something real, but they renounce them like a dream in the night and they consider the knowledge of the Father to be the dawn. It is thus that each one has acted, as if he were asleep, during the time when he was ignorant and thus he comes to understand, as if he were awakening. And happy is the man who comes to himself and awakens. Indeed, blessed is he who has opened the eyes of the blind.

And the Spirit came to him in haste when it raised him. Having given its hand to the one lying prone on the ground, it placed him firmly on his feet, for he had not yet stood up. He gave them the means of knowing the knowledge of the Father and the revelation of his son. For when they saw it and listened to it, he permitted them to take a taste of and to smell and to grasp the beloved son.

He appeared, informing them of the Father, the illimitable one. He inspired them with that which is in the mind, while doing his will. Many received the light and turned towards him. But material men were alien to him and did not discern his appearance nor recognize him. For he came in the likeness of flesh and nothing blocked his way because it was incorruptible and unrestrainable. Moreover, while saying new things, speaking about what is in the heart of the Father, he proclaimed the faultless word. Light spoke through his mouth, and his voice brought forth life. He gave them thought and understanding and mercy and salvation and the Spirit of strength derived from the limitlessness of the Father and sweetness. He caused punishments and scourgings to cease, for it was they which caused many in need of mercy to astray from him in error and in chains – and he mightily destroyed them and derided them with knowledge. He became a path for those who went astray and knowledge to those who were ignorant, a discovery for those who sought, and a support for those who tremble, a purity for those who were defiled.

He is the shepherd who left behind the ninety-nine sheep which had not strayed and went in search of that one which was lost. He rejoiced when he had found it. For ninety-nine is a number of the left hand, which holds it. The moment he finds the one, however, the whole number is transferred to the right hand. Thus it is with him who lacks the one, that is, the entire right hand which attracts that in which it is deficient, seizes it from the left side and transfers it to the right. In this way, then, the number becomes one hundred. This number signifies the Father.

He labored even on the Sabbath for the sheep which he found fallen into the pit. He saved the life of that sheep, bringing it up from the pit in order that you may understand fully what that Sabbath is, you who possess full understanding. It is a day in which it is not fitting that salvation be idle, so that you may speak of that heavenly day which has no night and of the sun which does not set because it is perfect. Say then in your heart that you are this perfect day and that in you the light which does not fail dwells.

Speak concerning the truth to those who seek it and of knowledge to those who, in their error, have committed sin. Make sure-footed those who stumble and stretch forth your hands to the sick. Nourish the hungry and set at ease those who are troubled. Foster men who love. Raise up and awaken those who sleep. For you are this understanding which encourages. If the strong follow this course, they are even stronger. Turn your attention to yourselves. Do not be concerned with other things, namely, that which you have cast forth from yourselves, that which you have dismissed. Do not return to them to eat them. Do not be moth-eaten. Do not be worm-eaten, for you have already shaken it off. Do not be a place of the devil, for you have already destroyed him. Do not strengthen your last obstacles, because that is reprehensible. For the lawless one is nothing. He harms himself more than the law. For that one does his works because he is a lawless person. But this one, because he is a righteous person, does his works among others. Do the will of the Father, then, for you are from him.

For the Father is sweet and his will is good. He knows the things that are yours, so that you may rest yourselves in them. For by the fruits one knows the things that are yours, that they are the children of the Father, and one knows his aroma, that you originate from the grace of his countenance. For this reason, the Father loved his aroma; and it manifests itself in every place; and when it is mixed with matter, he gives his aroma to the light; and into his rest he causes it to ascend in every form and in every sound. For there are no nostrils which smell the aroma, but it is the Spirit which possesses the sense of smell and it draws it for itself to itself and sinks into the aroma of the Father. He is, indeed, the place for it, and he takes it to the place from which it has come, in the first aroma which is cold. It is something in a psychic form, resembling cold water which is [...] since it is in soil which is not hard, of which those who see it think, “It is earth.” Afterwards, it becomes soft again. If a breath is taken, it is usually hot. The cold aromas, then, are from the division. For this reason, God came and destroyed the division and he brought the hot Pleroma of love, so that the cold may not return, but the unity of the Perfect Thought prevail.

This is the word of the Gospel of the finding of the Pleroma for those who wait for the salvation which comes from above. When their hope, for which they are waiting, is waiting – they whose likeness is the light in which there is no shadow, then at that time the Pleroma is about to come. The deficiency of matter, however, is not because of the limitlessness of the Father who comes at the time of the deficiency. And yet no one is able to say that the incorruptible One will come in this manner. But the depth of the Father is increasing, and the thought of error is not with him. It is a matter of falling down and a matter of being readily set upright at the finding of that one who has come to him who will turn back.

For this turning back is called “repentance”. For this reason, incorruption has breathed. It followed him who has sinned in order that he may find rest. For forgiveness is that which remains for the light in the deficiency, the word of the pleroma. For the physician hurries to the place in which there is sickness, because that is the desire which he has. The sick man is in a deficient condition, but he does not hide himself because the physician possesses that which he lacks. In this manner the deficiency is filled by the Pleroma, which has no deficiency, which has given itself out in order to fill the one who is deficient, so that grace may take him, then, from the area which is deficient and has no grace. Because of this a diminishing occurred in the place which there is no grace, the area where the one who is small, who is deficient, is taken hold of.

He revealed himself as a Pleroma, i.e., the finding of the light of truth which has shined towards him, because he is unchangeable. For this reason, they who have been troubled speak about Christ in their midst so that they may receive a return and he may anoint them with the ointment. The ointment is the pity of the Father, who will have mercy on them. But those whom he has anointed are those who are perfect. For the filled vessels are those which are customarily used for anointing. But when an anointing is finished, the vessel is usually empty, and the cause of its deficiency is the consumption of its ointment. For then a breath is drawn only through the power which he has. But the one who is without deficiency – one does not trust anyone beside him nor does one pour anything out. But that which is the deficient is filled again by the perfect Father. He is good. He knows his plantings because he is the one who has planted them in his Paradise. And his Paradise is his place of rest.

This is the perfection in the thought of the Father and these are the words of his reflection. Each one of his words is the work of his will alone, in the revelation of his Logos. Since they were in the depth of his mind, the Logos, who was the first to come forth, caused them to appear, along with an intellect which speaks the unique word by means of a silent grace. It was called “thought,” since they were in it before becoming manifest. It happened, then, that it was the first to come forth – at the moment pleasing to the will of him who desired it; and it is in the will that the Father is at rest and with which he is pleased. Nothing happens without him, nor does anything occur without the will of the Father. But his will is incomprehensible. His will is his mark, but no one can know it, nor is it possible for them to concentrate on it in order to possess it. But that which he wishes takes place at the moment he wishes it – even if the view does not please anyone: it is God`s will. For the Father knows the beginning of them all as well as their end. For when their end arrives, he will question them to their faces. The end, you see, is the recognition of him who is hidden, that is, the Father, from whom the beginning came forth and to whom will return all who have come from him. For they were made manifest for the glory and the joy of his name.

And the name of the Father is the Son. It is he who, in the beginning, gave a name to him who came forth from him – he is the same one – and he begat him for a son. He gave him his name which belonged to him – he, the Father, who possesses everything which exists around him. He possess the name; he has the son. It is possible for them to see him. The name, however, is invisible, for it alone is the mystery of the invisible about to come to ears completely filled with it through the Father`s agency. Moreover, as for the Father, his name is not pronounced, but it is revealed through a son. Thus, then, the name is great.

Who, then, has been able to pronounce a name for him, this great name, except him alone to whom the name belongs and the sons of the name in whom the name of the Father is at rest, and who themselves in turn are at rest in his name, since the Father has no beginning? It is he alone who engendered it for himself as a name in the beginning before he had created the Aeons, that the name of the Father should be over their heads as a lord – that is, the real name, which is secure by his authority and by his perfect power. For the name is not drawn from lexicons nor is his name derived from common name-giving, But it is invisible. He gave a name to himself alone, because he alone saw it and because he alone was capable of giving himself a name. For he who does not exist has no name. For what name would one give him who did not exist? Nevertheless, he who exists also with his name and he alone knows it, and to him alone the Father gave a name. The Son is his name. He did not, therefore, keep it secretly hidden, but the son came into existence. He himself gave a name to him. The name, then, is that of the Father, just as the name of the Father is the Son. For otherwise, where would compassion find a name – outside of the Father? But someone will probably say to his companion, “Who would give a name to someone who existed before himself, as if, indeed, children did not receive their name from one of those who gave them birth?”

Above all, then, it is fitting for us to think this point over: What is the name? It is the real name. It is, indeed, the name which came from the Father, for it is he who owns the name. He did not, you see, get the name on loan, as in the case of others because of the form in which each one of them is going to be created. This, then, is the authoritative name. There is no one else to whom he has given it. But it remained unnamed, unuttered, `till the moment when he, who is perfect, pronounced it himself; and it was he alone who was able to pronounce his name and to see it. When it pleased him, then, that his son should be his pronounced name and when he gave this name to him, he who has come from the depth spoke of his secrets, because he knew that the Father was absolute goodness. For this reason, indeed, he sent this particular one in order that he might speak concerning the place and his place of rest from which he had come forth, and that he might glorify the Pleroma, the greatness of his name and the sweetness of his Father.

Each one will speak concerning the place from which he has come forth, and to the region from which he received his essential being, he will hasten to return once again. And he want from that place – the place where he was – because he tasted of that place, as he was nourished and grew. And his own place of rest is his Pleroma. All the emanations from the Father, therefore, are Pleromas, and all his emanations have their roots in the one who caused them all to grow from himself. He appointed a limit. They, then, became manifest individually in order that they might be in their own thought, for that place to which they extend their thoughts is their root, which lifts them upward through all heights to the Father. They reach his head, which is rest for them, and they remain there near to it so that they say that they have participated in his face by means of embraces. But these of this kind were not manifest, because they have not risen above themselves. Neither have they been deprived of the glory of the Father nor have they thought of him as small, nor bitter, nor angry, but as absolutely good, unperturbed, sweet, knowing all the spaces before they came into existence and having no need of instruction. Such are they who possess from above something of this immeasurable greatness, as they strain towards that unique and perfect one who exists there for them. And they do not go down to Hades. They have neither envy nor moaning, nor is death in them. But they rest in him who rests, without wearying themselves or becoming involved in the search for truth. But, they, indeed, are the truth, and the Father is in them, and they are in the Father, since they are perfect, inseparable from him who is truly good. They lack nothing in any way, but they are given rest and are refreshed by the Spirit. And they listen to their root; they have leisure for themselves, they in whom he will find his root, and he will suffer no loss to his soul.

Such is the place of the blessed; this is their place. As for the rest, then, may they know, in their place, that it does not suit me, after having been in the place of rest to say anything more. But he is the one in whom I shall be in order to devote myself, at all times, to the Father of the All and the true brothers, those upon whom the love of the Father is lavished, and in whose midst nothing of him is lacking. It is they who manifest themselves truly since they are in that true and eternal life and speak of the perfect light filled with the seed of the Father, and which is in his heart and in the Pleroma, while his Spirit rejoices in it and glorifies him in whom it was, because the Father is good. And his children are perfect and worthy of his name, because he is the Father. Children of this kind are those whom he loves.

 

From Robert M. Grant, Gnosticism (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1961),
as quoted in Willis Barnstone, The Other Bible (Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984).

The Exegesis on the Soul

Translated by William C. Robinson Jr.

Wise men of old gave the soul a feminine name. Indeed she is female in her nature as well. She even has her womb.

As long as she was alone with the father, she was virgin and in form androgynous. But when she fell down into a body and came to this life, then she fell into the hands of many robbers. And the wanton creatures passed her from one to another and [...] her. Some made use of her by force, while others did so by seducing her with a gift. In short, they defiled her, and she [...] her virginity.

And in her body she prostituted herself and gave herself to one and all, considering each one she was about to embrace to be her husband. When she had given herself to wanton, unfaithful adulterers, so that they might make use of her, then she sighed deeply and repented. But even when she turns her face from those adulterers, she runs to others and they compel her to live with them and render service to them upon their bed, as if they were her masters. Out of shame she no longer dares to leave them, whereas they deceive her for a long time, pretending to be faithful, true husbands, as if they greatly respected her. And after all this they abandon her and go.

She then becomes a poor desolate widow, without help; not even a measure of food was left her from the time of her affliction. For from them she gained nothing except the defilements they gave her while they had sexual intercourse with her. And her offspring by the adulterers are dumb, blind and sickly. They are feebleminded.

But when the father who is above visits her and looks down upon her and sees her sighing – with her sufferings and disgrace – and repenting of the prostitution in which she engaged, and when she begins to call upon his name so that he might help her, [...] all her heart, saying “Save me, my father, for behold I will render an account to thee, for I abandoned my house and fled from my maiden`s quarters. Restore me to thyself again.” When he sees her in such a state, then he will count her worthy of his mercy upon her, for many are the afflictions that have come upon her because she abandoned her house.

Now concerning the prostitution on the soul, the Holy Spirit prophesies in many places. For he said in the prophet Jeremiah (3:1-4),

If the husband divorces his wife and she goes and takes another man, can she return to him after that? Has not that woman utterly defiled herself? “And you prostituted yourself to many shepherds and you returned to me!” said the lord. “Take an honest look and see where you prostituted yourself. Were you not sitting in the streets defiling the land with your acts of prostitution and your vices? And you took many shepherds for a stumbling block for yourself. You became shameless with everyone. You did not call on me as kinsman or as father or author of your virginity”.

Again it is written in the prophet Hosea (2:2-7),

Come, go to law with your mother, for she is not to be a wife to me nor I a husband to her. I shall remove her prostitution from my presence, and I shall remove her adultery from between her breasts. I shall make her naked as on the day she was born, and I shall make her desolate like a land without water, and I shall make her longingly childless. I shall show her children no pity, for they are children of prostitution, since their mother prostituted herself and put her children to shame. For she said, “I shall prostitute myself to my lovers. It was they who gave me my bread and my water and my garments and my clothes and my wine and my oil and everything I needed.” Therefore behold I shall shut them up so that she shall not be able to run after her adulterers. And when she seeks them and does not find them, she will say, ‘I shall return to my former husband, in those days I was better off than now.”

Again he said in Ezekiel (16:23-26),

It came to pass after much depravity, said the lord, you built yourself a brothel and you made yourself a beautiful place in the streets. And you built yourself brothels on every lane, and you wasted your beauty, and you spread your legs in every alley, and you multiplied your acts of prostitution. You prostituted yourself to the sons of Egypt, those who are your neighbors, men great of flesh.

But what does “the sons of Egypt, men great of flesh” mean, if not the domain of the flesh and the perceptible realm and the affairs of the earth, by which the soul has become defiled here, receiving bread from them, as well as wine, oil, clothing, and the other external nonsense surrounding the body – the things she thinks she needs.

But as to this prostitution, the apostles of the savior commanded (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1Th 4:3; 1 Co 6:18; 2 Co 7:1): “Guard yourselves against it, purify yourselves from it,” speaking not just of the prostitution of the body but especially that of the soul. For this reason the apostles write to the churches of God, that such prostitution might not occur among us.

Yet the greatest struggle has to do with the prostitution of the soul. From it arises the prostitution of the body as well. Therefore Paul, writing to the Corinthians (1Co 5:9-10), said, “I wrote you in the letter, ‘Do not associate with prostitutes,’ not at all (meaning) the prostitutes of this world or the greedy or the thieves or the idolaters, since then you would have to go out from the world.” – here it is speaking spiritually – “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood – as he said (Ep 6:12) – but against the world rulers of this darkness and the spirits of wickedness.”

As long as the soul keeps running about everywhere copulating with whomever she meets and defiling herself, she exists suffering her just deserts. But when she perceives the straits she is in and weeps before the father and repents, then the father will have mercy on her and he will make her womb turn from the external domain and will turn it again inward, so that the soul will regain her proper character. For it is not so with a woman. For the womb of the body is inside the body like the other internal organs, but the womb of the soul is around the outside like the male genitalia which is external.

So when the womb of the soul, by the will of the father, turns itself inward, it is baptized and is immediately cleansed of the external pollution which was pressed upon it, just as garments, when dirty, are put into the water and turned about until their dirt is removed and they become clean. And so the cleansing of the soul is to regain the newness of her former nature and to turn herself back again. That is her baptism.

Then she will begin to rage at herself like a woman in labor, who writhes and rages in the hour of delivery. But since she is female, by herself she is powerless to beget a child. From heaven the father sent her her man, who is her brother, the firstborn. Then the bridegroom came down to the bride. She gave up her former prostitution and cleansed herself of the pollutions of the adulterers, and she was renewed so as to be a bride. She cleansed herself in the bridal chamber; she filled it with perfume; she sat in it waiting for the true bridegroom. No longer does she run about the market place, copulating with whomever she desires, but she continued to wait for him – (saying) “When will he come?” – and to fear him, for she did not know what he looked like: she no longer remembers since the time she fell from her father’s house. But by the will of the father <…> And she dreamed of him like a woman in love with a man.

But then the bridegroom, according to the father’s will, came down to her into the bridal chamber, which was prepared. And he decorated the bridal chamber.

For since that marriage is not like the carnal marriage, those who are to have intercourse with one another will be satisfied with that intercourse. And as if it were a burden, they leave behind them the annoyance of physical desire and they turn their faces from each other. But this marriage [...]. But once they unite with one another, they become a single life. Wherefore the prophet said (Gn 2:24) concerning the first man and the first woman, “They will become a single flesh.” For they were originally joined one to another when they were with the father before the woman led astray the man, who is her brother. This marriage has brought them back together again and the soul has been joined to her true love, her real master, as it is written (cf. Gn 3:16; 1 Co 11;1; Ep 5:23), “For the master of the woman is her husband.”

Then gradually she recognized him, and she rejoiced once more, weeping before him as she remembered the disgrace of her former widowhood. And she adorned herself still more so that he might be pleased to stay with her.

And the prophet said in the Psalms (Ps 45:10-11): “Hear, my daughter, and see and incline your ear and forget your people and your father’s house, for the king has desired your beauty, for he is your lord.”

For he requires her to turn her face from her people and the multitude of her adulterers, in whose midst she once was, to devote herself only to her king, her real lord, and to forget the house of the earthly father, with whom things went badly for her, but to remember her father who is in heaven. Thus also it was said (Gn 12:1) to Abraham: “Come out from your country and your kinsfolk and from your father`s house”

Thus when the soul had adorned herself again in her beauty [...] enjoyed her beloved, and he also loved her. And when she had intercourse with him, she got from him the seed that is the life-giving spirit, so that by him she bears good children and rears them. For this is the great, perfect marvel of birth. And so this marriage is made perfect by the will of the father.

Now it is fitting that the soul regenerates herself and become again as she formerly was. The soul then moves of her own accord. And she received the divine nature from the father for her rejuvenation, so that she might be restored to the place where originally she had been. This is the resurrection that is from the dead. This is the ransom from captivity. This is the upward journey of ascent to heaven. This is the way of ascent to the father. Therefore the prophet said (Ps 103:1-5):

“Praise the lord, O my soul, and, all that is within me, (praise) his holy name. My soul, praise God, who forgave all your sins, who healed all your sicknesses, who ransomed your life from death, who crowned you with mercy, who satisfies your longing with good things. Your youth will be renewed like an eagle’s.”

Then when she becomes young again, she will ascend, praising the father and her brother, by whom she was rescued. Thus it is by being born again that the soul will be saved. And this is due not to rote phrases or to professional skills or to book learning. Rather it is the grace of the [...], it is the gift of the [...]. For such is this heavenly thing. Therefore the savior cries out (Jn 6:44), “No one can come to me unless my Father draws him and brings him to me; and I myself will raise him up on the last day.”

It is therefore fitting to pray to the father and to call on him with all our soul – not externally with the lips, but with the spirit, which is inward, which came forth from the depth – sighing; repenting for the life we lived; confessing our sins; perceiving the empty deception we were in, and the empty zeal; weeping over how we were in darkness and in the wave; mourning for ourselves, that he might have pity on us; hating ourselves for how we are now.

Again the savior said (cf Mt 5:4, Lk 6:12): “Blessed are those who mourn, for it is they who will be pitied; blessed, those who are hungry, for it is they who will be filled.”

Again he said (cf. Lk 14:26), “If one does not hate his soul he cannot follow me.” For the beginning of salvation is repentance. Therefore (cf. Acts 13:24), “Before Christ`s appearance came John, preaching the baptism of repentance.”

And repentance takes place in distress and grief. But the father is good and loves humanity, and he hears the soul that calls upon him and sends it the light of salvation. Therefore he said through the spirit to the prophet (cf. 1 Cl 8:3), “Say to the children of my people, ‘If your sins extend from earth to heaven, and if they become red like scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, and if you return to me with all your soul and say to me ‘my Father!’, I will heed you as a holy people.’”

Again another place (Is 30:15), “Thus says the lord, the holy one of Israel: “If you return and sigh, then you will be saved and will know where you were when you trusted in what is empty.”

Again he said in another place (Is 30:19-20), “Jerusalem wept much, saying, ‘Have pity on me.’ He will have pity on the sound of your weeping. And when he saw, he heeded you. And the lord will give you bread of affliction and water of oppression. From now on, those who deceive will not approach you again. Your eyes will see those who are deceiving you.”

Therefore it is fitting to pray to God night and day, spreading out our hands towards him as do people sailing in the middle of the sea: they pray to God with all their heart without hypocrisy. For those who pray hypocritically deceive only themselves. Indeed, it is in order that he might know who is worthy of salvation that God examines the inward parts and searches the bottom of the heart. For no one is worthy of salvation who still loves the place of deception.

Therefore it is written in the poet (Homer, Odyssey 1.48-1.59), “Odysseus sat on the island weeping and grieving and turning his face from the words of Calypso and from her tricks, longing to see his village and smoke coming forth from it. And had he not received help from heaven, he would not have been able to return to his village.”

Again Helen <…> saying (Odyssey 4.260-261), “My heart turned itself from me. It is to my house that I want to return.”

For she sighed, saying (Odyssey 4.261-4.264), “It is Aphrodite who deceived me and brought me out of my village. My only daughter I left behind me, and my good, understanding, handsome husband.”

 

Yeah, Parzifal suggests that this NonDual approach is kinda Gnostic.

===================================

Design for Nondualistic Experiences

Environmental & Architectural
Phenomenology Newsletter

Design for Nondualistic Experiences

Eric Angell

Eric Angell completed a M.A. in Landscape Design at the Conway School of Landscape Design in Conway, Massachusetts. When he wrote this essay, he was an open-space and environmental planner for the Delaware County Planning Department, just outside of Phila­delphia.

 

Dualistic thought is one aspect of Western epistemol­ogy that must change before there can be truly constructive changes in human behavior. The per­ceived dualism of human beings and nature, in some ways an extension of subject-object dualism, has led to an alienation and loss of context that threatens life. But how can epistemologies be changed?

Rational information is often thought to be an effective method of changing people’s world views, with scientific ecological information especially relevant to understanding the people-nature relation­ship. Often, however, there is a gap between infor­mation presented and the way a person’s perceptions and values filter that information. A more powerful method to internalize the primary ecological lesson of interrelationships is through direct experience of our natural surroundings.

Are there ways designers could facilitate experi­ences that transcend the people-nature dualism to impress a revelation of our interrelationships on the experiencer? Such an experience of nature could be nondualistic in two complementary ways. First, it could illustrate a relation of people to nature. Second, and more fundamentally, if one “loses oneself,” the experience could get around the subject-object filter of consciousness and become transfor­mative.

From my own environmental experiences and from frustrations with the design fields, I offer four design suggestions for potentially facilitating transfor­mative nondualistic experiences.

1. EVERYDAY CONTACT WITH THE WILD

For many individuals, protected wilderness areas provide spaces for rare connections to nature, but most people feel that genuine wilderness largely excludes human residence. To visit wilderness, therefore, is to leave everyday life. The result is that many people strive to protect wilderness while not changing daily habits of thought and action that are destructive, such as commuting long distances to work by private automobile or buying a five-acre lot in sprawling suburbia.

To be most effective in changing perceptions and behaviors, a transformative experience is better connected to everyday life. The need, therefore, is to have these experiences take place in daily life or, at least, in proximity to home on an ongoing basis.

This possibility points to the designer’s role. The focus is not the nature preserve of several-million acres (although such places are critically important for other reasons) but, rather, the numerous small spaces near people’s homes and work places. These are the transition spaces: not completely “tamed” like lawns or modern buildings, but not entirely “sepa­rate” like wilderness either.

It seems to me that there is a fine line between too ordinary a place and one too removed from daily life. A transformative place might be one able to be experienced often, not requiring a long trip or special preparations, but one also just different enough to help people break out of a rut of obliviousness.

Researchers are increasingly aware of children’s psychological need for an ongoing connection with nature. Here also the proximity of wild spaces is important, for children have limited mobility.

In suburbia and cities, the best spots for children’s exploration are often some out-of-the-way place down the block, if a child is lucky enough to have such a place. Clare Cooper Marcus writes that eighty to ninety percent of her university students’ favorite childhood spaces were “wild or leftover places…that were never specifically designed…. If they grew up in a developing suburb they remember the one lot at the end of the street that wasn’t yet built on, where they constructed caps and dug tunnels and lit fires” (cited in Arendt, 1994, p.5).

2. RELINQUISHING CONTROL

The degree of complexity is often a telling differ­ence between designed and wild landscapes. Even if we had the knowledge to mimic functioning ecosys­tems, the cost would be prohibitive. The best way to accomplish complexity is to relinquish control. Let natural processes alter the landscape. Let the land­scape evolve. We can work subtly to push a land­scape in the desired direction and, then, with humili­ty, let it go. Allow enough complexity to encourage people’s curiosity, so that they may return time and again to see the seasonal and long-term changes.

The wild that we need to connect with is not controlled and includes wild animals moving into a designed landscape. Many people know the fascina­tion of seeing wild animals, and children are usually especially mesmerized. In animals, we see something of ourselves and some­thing of the Other. In a direct, visceral way, we realize we are not alone. The writer Annie Dillard (1982), for example, describes an unexpected en­counter with a weasel at a suburban pond as “a clearing blow to the gut” and a “bright blow to the brain” (p. 14).

3. ENGAGING ALL THE SENSES

Too often, environmental designers concern themselves primarily with the visual. The other senses can also be wonderful avenues to involve people in their surroundings. One way to conceptual­ize a nondualistic experience is to think of a time when your attention was completely focused outside yourself. As with Annie Dillard and the weasel, you lose your sense of self and are fully involved.

In Dillard’s case, the primary contact seems to have been visual, but would she have had the same experience if she hadn’t been sitting silently on a “lap of lichen” with her back against a tree? What if she had been sitting in a lawn chair? Or looking out the window of a car?

Children have a kinesthetic experience of their surroundings and value being able to interact physi­cally with the world. Why do we lose this richness of environmental experience as we get older? Perhaps there are experiences that designers could plan to help adults get back in touch with more sensual relations with their surroundings.

One possibility is to provide edible plants in the environment. Wilderness backpackers often rely solely on “imported” food and would starve without it. This situation lends an air of non-belong­ing. Obviously, heavily-travelled national parks cannot allow everyone to eat the plants, but there are design opportunities near home and work where low- or no-maintenance fruit and nut trees or other edible plants could be included.

On a trip to some of the national parks of the Southwest, I stopped at Capitol Reef where the Park Service maintains an historic orchard. There were no guards or rangers‑-only a sign telling me to help myself but only pick as much as I could eat on site. I happily spent an hour up in the cherry trees (and climbing trees is another excellent way to get in­volved in the landscape), eating my way around the limbs. Looking back, I realize that this experience sticks in my memory more than does most of the magnificent scenery I saw.

Capitol Reef was a wonderful exception to an unwritten but pervasive rule of public space manage­ment: keep people from interacting with the land. Clare Cooper Marcus’ research cited above did not point to official “preserved” spaces. Children loved best the places where human control on human beings as well as non-humans was relaxed, as in unbuilt suburban lots, which allowed the freedom to interact with and change the surroundings.

Unfortunately, in the sprawling suburbs or cities where most people live, such undesigned places are becoming more rare. This is one reason why we need to be more aware of the types of experiences that designed spaces can, but often do not, provide.

Walking is another important way to engage people more deeply in the landscape. The rhythm, pace, and physical connection with the ground bring awareness of one’s surroundings. Obviously, people need to get out of their cars, but also, I believe, they need to get off their bikes and in-line skates.

Bikes are wonderful for longer distances but, to experience the landscape at the level of detail and interaction desirable, walking is best. Bruce Chatwin (1987), who believed ances­tral nomadism to be a potent force still in our bodies, has collected frag­ments from many sources on the importance of

walking and travelling. He describes an experiment demonstrating that normal babies scream if left alone but stop crying at once if rocked to the movement and pace of a walking mother (p. 229).

In the realm of walking, too, we need to relin­quish control. Walking on trucked-in gravel is not the same experience as walking on an earthen trail, and walking on a path is not the same experience as wandering where one will. Designers could develop some rudimentary trails and also design areas that subtly invite people in without trails.

One of the times I felt most alive was when a friend and I, on a drizzly March afternoon, walked down a path near to town along a stream. When we turned around to go back, we decided to cross the stream and return by way of the path on the other side. We took off our shoes and carefully waded across the cold water and smooth, hard rocks.

Though the path on the other side was nothing special, (I had walked it many times before), the feeling of being fully alive and engaged with the world lasted much longer than the cold feet. Years later, when I walk the path and pass the spot of our crossing, I still think of that afternoon.

4. REVELATION, NOT EXPECTATION

Feeling a systemic relationship with the living world is at least partly a sacred experience. Scientist Gregory Bateson (1972) writes in regard to this type of connection to the larger natural system, “A certain humility becomes appro­priate, tempered by the dignity or joy of being part of something much bigger. A part‑-if you will‑-of God (p. 462).

When approaching the sacred, expectations can be stultifying. If people expect a spiritual experience, their attitude will be grasping rather than receptive. In this sense, signs, publicity, or other direct declara­tions of intent are antithetical to an experience of interrelationship with the non-human. Self-conscious­ness can also lead to defensive joking or over-analysis and rob the sacred of its revelatory power.

The sudden nature of insight is one of the most powerful teaching tools and can generate strong perceptual shifts. As humanistic geographer Yi-Fu Tuan (1974) explains, “The most intense aesthetic experiences of nature are likely to catch one by surprise. Beauty is felt as the sudden contact with an aspect of reality that one has not known before” (p. 94).

Revelatory experiences gather some of their power from their prereflective nature, thereby avoid­ing the dualistic subject-object filter. Because of this bypass quality, revelatory experiences are ideal methods for facilitating a sense of interrelationship between people and the natural world. The importance of revelation suggests that secre­cy, spontaneity, and human silence are all aspects of a sacred/nondualistic experience of environment.

TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCES

Dualisms can be useful cognitive tools, but our culture has gotten lost in taking them literally. Environmental designers are concerned with modify­ing the environment to suit human needs and desires, thus sitting on the fence between culture and nature. Perhaps some designed places can help people to realize that the fence is only a metaphor.

Ecology can show us evidence of our intimate interrelationships with the world, but experience can go further in teaching people of interrelationships due to the inherent nonduality of revelatory experience. Such experiences often occur in non-designed wild places, but these places near our homes are being paved over and pushed back. Designers can try to step into the breach and learn how to create desirable spaces to facilitate extra-ordinary experiences. We have forgotten how to live in the world, but there is hope if we can now “forget ourselves.”

REFERENCES

Arendt, R. 1994. Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. Chicago: APA Planners Press.

Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. NY: Ballantine.

Chatwin, B. 1987. The Songlines. NY: Penguin.

Dillard, A. 1982. Teaching A Stone To Talk. NY: Harper & Row.

Tuan, Y. 1974. Topophilia. NY: Columbia Universi­ty Press.

Parzifal says, “let me mess with your mind.”

Within This Darkness:Incarnation, Theophany and the Primordial Revelation
by Tom Cheetham

Contents

I. Faces of Darkness, Faces of Light: Mystical Poverty and the Silent Clamor of Beings
II. In Vagabondage & Perdition: The Battle for the Soul of the World Failures of Initiation, Failures of Imagination

   The Emptying God in Christian Theology
Kenosis and the Destiny of the West
Silence & Communion: A Power Made Perfect in Weakness
A Hermeneutics of Absence: Adrift in the Sea of Technics
The Word Made Flesh: I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds

III. For Love of the World: Imagination, Language and the Primordial Revelation

   The Dome is Built Upon the Rock
Psychocosmology: Alchemies of the Word and of the World
Reading the Wilderness

Works Cited

-62-

“The black color, if you follow me, is light of pure Ipseity;
within this Darkness is the Water of Life.”

                            Shams al-Din Lahiji’s Commentary on
Shabestari’s Rose Garden of the Mystery

I. Faces of Darkness, Faces of Light: Mystical Poverty and the Silent Clamor of Beings

Listen to this haunting meditation, written by Henry Corbin in 1932 at the edge of Lake Siljan in Sweden when he was 29 years old. He called it Theology by the Lakeside:

Everything is but revelation; there can only be re-velation. But revelation comes from the Spirit, and there is no knowledge of the Spirit.

It will soon be dusk, but for now the clouds are still clear, the pines are not yet darkened, for the lake brightens them into transparency. And everything is green with a green that would be richer than if pulling all the organ stops in recital. It must be heard seated, very close to the Earth, arms crossed, eyes closed, pretending to sleep.

For it is not necessary to strut about like a conqueror and want to give a name to things, to everything; it is they who will tell you who they are, if you listen, yielding like a lover; for suddenly for you, in the untroubled peace of this forest of the North, the Earth has come to Thou, visible as an Angel that would perhaps be a woman, and in this apparition, this greatly green and thronging solitude, yes, the Angel too is robed in green, the green of dusk, of silence and of truth. Then there is in you all the sweetness that is present in the surrender to an embrace that triumphs over you.

Earth, Angel, Woman, all of this is a single thing that I adore and that is in this forest. Dusk on the lake, my Annunciation. The mountain: a line. Listen! Something is happening! The anticipation is immense, the air is quivering under a fine and barely visible rain; the houses that stretch out along the ground, their wood red and rustic, their roofs of thatch, are there, there on the other side of the lake.

Something will begin this evening, something promised, in that I believe. Ah! This evening? When, then, this evening? If it were truly in a few hours, it would never be, because it would be necessary to finish and then begin again, and that would always end and never begin. Do you know what it means to wait, and do you know what it means to have faith?

The Mystery of Holy Communion where you will be ushered in, where all the beings will be present, yes, you can only say it in the future. Because at each moment where you read in truth as now what is there before you, where you hear the Angel, and the Earth and Woman, then you receive Everything, Everything, in your absolute poverty. But as soon as you have read and have received, as soon as you consider, as you want to understand, as you want to possess, to give a name and restrain, to explain and recover, ah! there is only a cipher, and your judgment is pronounced.

For at every instant you are judged, and someday you will die. So you die, when your existence is decided and realized, for then its is over: what was is not, you want without renouncing, renounce without wanting.

No, you are the poor one, you are man; and he is God, and you cannot know God, or the Angel, or the Earth, or Woman. You must be encountered, taken, known, that they may speak, otherwise you are alone, and perhaps it is better thus, and will be always thus, always, that is, there would be no eternity for you. Because you were born in a sin that was sinned before you, and Thou you have had fear, great fear, and you have cried, cried because the Earth is immense, cried because the Woman was too beautiful, cried because the Angel was invisible, and because Thou you were Adam, and Adam would want to live.

Adam established Love, poetry, religion, for he wanted life, he wanted that is, to be God, and then to speak as he would want to three beings. To Question; Alas! and he alone responded. To listen; Alas! to give a concert to himself alone.

But then, surely comes surging suddenly from this lake a cortege of beautiful beings. They sing the funeral chant of Adam; and because Adam is dead, it will be sung in a chorale where more voices will be raised than there is anguish in all its guises: “Christ is born! Christ is Risen!”[1]

-63-

With these words Corbin presents the vision that ruled his life. They were written when he was in Sweden to visit the philologist and historian of religions Georges Dumézil and the orientalist H.S. Nyberg. Earlier that year he’d traveled to Germany to meet Karl Barth. The previous year he had gone to Freiburg to speak with Martin Heidegger whose “What is Metaphysics?” he was translating. Three years before, in Paris, Louis Massignon had given him a copy of The Philosophy of Illumination by the 12th century Persian mystic and philosopher Suhrawardi. Corbin wrote many years later, “through my meeting with Suhrawardi, my spiritual destiny for the passage through this world was sealed. Platonism, expressed in terms of the Zoroastrian angelology of ancient Persia, illuminated the path that I was seeking.”[2]

In the imagination of this remarkable man, just beginning his long life’s work, we find an astonishing variety of influences: Christian theology, Heideggerian phenomenology and Islamic mysticism fused with Zoroastrian angelology; all united by a deep reverence for what in Islam is called the Primordial Revelation: the book of nature.

As participants in the catastrophically destructive modern world we need to understand what makes possible this vision of the earth and its creatures. In the attempt, we will find ourselves at the heart of difficult questions regarding Gods, both hidden and revealed, language, imagination, sensation and matter. We begin with an outline of Corbin’s understanding of the gnostic quest and the cosmology underlying it. Then we turn to an examination of the dominant tradition in Christian theology to see why he saw it as the result of a failed initiation that has had disastrous consequences for Western culture. Finally I will take some liberties with Corbin’s vision and with the Islamic perspective that he so ably represents to suggest a view of the place of humanity in the natural world that is, I hope, in keeping with the spirit of Corbin’s passionate personal quest.

We begin with the phenomenology of the Earth of the Primordial Revelation, an earth where beings announce themselves and tell us who they are in the twilight of the setting sun. In accordance with Corbin’s vision, we look to Heaven as it was conceived in the imagination of the Zoroastrians of ancient Persia.

In the cosmology of the Avesta the supreme being Ohrmazd is surrounded by six celestial Persons of Light whose holiness takes the form of “an activating Energy that communicates being, establishes it, and causes it to superabound in all beings.”[3] These seven Presences provide for the existence and the salvation of the world of creatures, and by cooperating with them all creatures can participate in the ascent towards the heaven from which they originally descended. There is reason to struggle for this return because the world of creation is a world of mixture and conflict, where the powers of Darkness ruled by Ahriman, battle with the powers of Light. But in this battle the creatures are not abandoned. Between them and the Archangels of Light there are arrayed countless intermediary celestial beings. Among them is the feminine Angel of the Earth whose image is Sophia, the feminine figure of Wisdom. And there are the Fravartis, whose name means “those who have chosen,” chosen that is to fight against the powers of Darkness. Every being belonging to the world of Light has a Fravarti, a celestial counterpart, in the world of Light. And so every being has a dual structure that defines its orientation in the struggle towards the Light. The quest to unveil this heavenly twin defines the moral and spiritual destiny of the soul of every human being, and of the soul of the world itself. The task is to actualize, on this earth, the “Energy of sacral Light” that transforms, transfigures and glorifies the souls of all beings. This transformation is an alchemical process: the very substance of things is the locus of the work, both container and content, and the goal is the transmutation of each being into a more subtle, more definite, more real state.

Corbin discovered this ancient cosmology imagined anew in a context fundamentally in harmony with it, in the work of the 12th century Persian mystic and Master of Illumination, Shihab al-Din Yahya al-Suhrawardi. Suhrawardi’s project was to fuse Zoroastrian angelology with Platonic and Neoplatonic cosmology and with the prophetic revelation of Islam. It was Suhrawardi who first articulated a clear grasp of the world of the Imagination, the world intermediary between sensation and intellect that Corbin was to call the imaginal world. It is by means of imaginal perception that the Zoroastrian Light of Glory can be perceived. It is in the imaginal world that the alchemical transformation takes place. It is the place of the visions of the prophets. The Presence of God in the Burning Bush, the apparitions of Gabriel to Mary and to Mohammad, all the events of sacred history are perceived by means of organs of perception that open onto this world and its myriad beings of light.

-64-

In order to experience the Earth as an Angel, to hear the voices of beings calling to us in the twilight, to encounter another person in any sense at all, we have to be able to perceive at least the vestiges of the light of Glory, of the Presence at the summit from which they all descend. All of us, however dimly, perceive events in the imaginal world, and the task of transformation requires the development of the senses that open us into that world.

In order to understand the critique of Western civilization that Corbin proposes, we have to outline the process of approach to the Light of Glory that illuminates the Earth. Our being derives from the Light of Heaven. In Zoroastrianism this is Xvarnah. In Islam it is the light of Allah, who is “light upon light.” The supreme human science is the physiology of the “body of light” that derives from Him. And it is this physiology that is the chief concern of the Central Asian Sufism of the order known as the Kubrawiyyah.[4] Suhrawardi himself refers to the lights that a mystic sees in the imaginal world, but it is in the work of Najm al-Kubra[5] that a detailed phenomenology of lights and colors is first developed. Among his followers two stand out, Najim Dayeh Razi[6] and ‘Ala al-Dawlah al-Semnani.[7]

The details of this physiology of light are complex and beautiful. We can barely present its skeleton here. It describes a process of transformation in the body and soul of the gnostic during the journey towards God. The fundamental doctrine is that “like can only be known by like.” What is known corresponds to the mode of being of the knower. You can only know what you are. There are different modes of being for both the soul and the worlds it inhabits. These worlds are arranged in a hierarchical series ascending towards the divine. But to speak of the soul and the world as if they were two things can be misleading because it emphasizes a sharp distinction between them. But this is just what must be discarded. We never have knowledge of an “objective” reality. The soul can only know what it is. Corbin writes,

“[U]ltimately what we call physis and the physical is but the reflection of the world of the Soul; there is no pure physics, but always the physics of some definite psychic activity.”[8]

It only seems to us that the soul and the world are distinct. That is because we are not sufficiently conscious. Najm Kubra says:

“Know that the soul, the devil, the angel are not realities outside you: you are they. Likewise Heaven, Earth and the Throne are not outside you, nor paradise nor hell, nor death nor life. They exist in you; when you have accomplished the mystical journey and have become pure you will become conscious of that.”[9]

The gnostic journey is a process of becoming conscious. It accomplishes the interiorization of the world. This does not mean swallowing it, taking it into the ego. That is what modern culture is trying to do. It is instead a “coming out towards oneself,” an exodus out of the narrow and constricting world of literal, public materiality and a resurrection of the psychocosmic unity that is the soul and its world.

This epistemology is founded on a doctrine of participation. We can only know by virtue of our participation in the being of the thing known. In Najm Kubra’s words,

“You can only see or witness an object by means of some part of that same object it is only the mine whence it came which a precious stone sees, desires, and yearns for. So when you have vision of a sky, an earth, a sun, stars or a moon, you should know that the particle in you which has its origin in that same mine has become pure. The more pure you become, the purer and more radiant will be the sky that appears to you, until in the last stages of the journey you travel within the Divine Purity. But Divine Purity is limitless, so never think that there is not something more exalted still ahead.”[10]

-65-

The principle that like can only be known by like is the fundamental principle of alchemy. Coming to consciousness, coming to know is an alchemical procedure because it can only occur by means of a transformation of the body and of the world. It requires the development of a subtle, imaginal body, a resurrection body, as a refinement, not a rejection, of the literal, material body perceptible by the common senses. This can only take place in and through the imaginal world. For Najm Kubra and his followers the achievement of the subtle body can be recognized and accomplished by means of the imaginal perception of “photisms,” of colored lights. They mark the stages on the path. They originate in the public world. They occur in and to the traveler and are realizations of the mode of being attained. They are interior, but not subjective. They occur in the mundus imaginalis and are perfectly real, just as the Burning Bush is real, but are not thereby visible to all: they are too real to be visible to everyone. What we call objective reality isn’t precisely false, but it is the lowest form of reality.

Alchemy requires a method.[11] The method par excellence in Sufism is the dhikr, the “remembrance” of God. Dhikr is “meditative recitation of the Qur’an, ritual prayer, the names of God.”[12] Islam is based upon the Revelation of the Word of God. The Qur’an was and is experienced first and foremost an oral phenomenon.[13] It is the spoken word that is primordial, and the written text spoken and memorized for recitation. The embodiment of the Word of God is fundamental to Islamic spirituality. God has spoken through the prophets, but He also sings, speaks and bodies forth his signs in the Heavens and in the souls of the believers. Thus the meditative, interiorizing recitation of the Word can bring forth tremendous energies for drawing creation towards the divine. But this is too abstract. The energies released by dhikr don’t just raise the soul: they transform it by enabling it to attain a new mode of being. And this includes the transformation of the organs of perception that give form and body to the soul and its world, and the growth of a subtle body in harmony with the attributes that characterize the state of the soul and the world it now inhabits. Among the Kubrawiyyah the dhikr embraces an array of techniques of posture and breathing that serve to emphasize that this remembrance is grounded in the body.

The gnostic journey is not without risk: it is easy to get lost in an infinite world. It is no sojourn into a vague Paradise of disembodied forms. The closer to divinity, the more infinite, the more real and more individual the soul becomes. Infinite because God is the All-Encompassing. More definite because God is the Unifier, and it is His Oneness that grounds the uniqueness of every being. As William Blake knew well, things in the world of imagination are more detailed, more definite than anything in the public world. The ascent through the modes of being is the ascent of the self towards the Angel that defines its individuality. The status of personhood is not given: it must be won. We are born with the freedom to become demons or angels or anything in between. Our task is to travel toward the Light that emanates from our celestial counterpart, our Fravarti, our Angel, through whom the Light of the Divine is transmitted to us.

The stakes are very high and the opportunities for losing one’s way are great. That is why a guide is required. You cannot raise yourself: that is the reason for Revelation. That is why there are prophets. Islam is not a religion of salvation as is Christianity. It is a religion of guidance. There is no doctrine of original sin in Islam. Though we are surely free to descend to the level of demons, and are prey to the temptations of Iblis (Satan), our fundamental trouble is ignorance, and we need constant reminders of who we are and where we should be heading. The Qur’an says that for every people there have been sent messengers. The lineage of their followers provides for guidance after they are gone. For the Peoples of the Book, there is of course the sacred text. For everyone there is the Primordial Revelation of Nature, though we forget, and lose sight of the signs placed there. Corbin was himself suspicious of human masters. He gave pre-eminence in his writings to the role of the Paraclete in both Christian and Islamic eschatology as the Figure who ushers in the Reign of the Spirit, the True Religion of the Eternal Gospel. The goal for Corbin is to be able to seek freely the teachings of all the masters, but to be bound as no one’s slave. Nonetheless the gravity of the work must be acknowledged. One does not trifle with the alchemy of the soul. Corbin says:

“The seriousness of the role of the Imagination is stressed by our philosophers when they state that it can be ‘the Tree of Blessedness’ or on the contrary ‘the Accursed Tree’ of which the Qur’an speaks, that which means Angel or Demon in power. The imaginary can be innocuous, the imaginal can never be so.”[14]

-66-

The pilgrim must trust in the Guide, the Word and the method. Suhrawardi has said “only the heart that holds fast to the cable of the Qur’an and the train of the robe of the dhikr” can escape from the snares of darkness and evil.[15]

For an account of the stages of the quest we turn to the doctrines of ‘Ala al-Dawlah al-Semnani. It is in his work that the correspondences between prophetic religion and luminous physiology is most clearly outlined, and it is his insight into the significance of Christ that provides a pivot point for Corbin’s critique of Christian civilization.

For Semnani the stages correspond to the modes of being of the major prophets in the lineage of Abraham as it is known in Islamic tradition. To each prophet, each stage, there corresponds a light of a characteristic color that appears to the mystic, as well as specific moral and psychological attributes. The correspondences occur because the soul’s mode of being is its mode of understanding and its mode of perception. The soul’s self knowledge is its knowledge of its world. But since the Word of God takes the form of the signs in the world and in the soul as well as the Revealed Text, the soul “reads” itself and the world in accordance with its stage in the process of coming to consciousness. This means that the depths of meaning that can be discerned in the exegesis of the Qur’an must correspond to the spiritual hermeneutics that the soul is able to perform upon itself and on the world of Nature. Recall Corbin’s meditation. He says there that one may “read in truth what is there before you.” When we read Nature in this way we perceive her as a person, an Angel. There are profound correspondences among spiritual alchemy, the hermeneutics of the Sacred Text and of the Book of Nature, and the structure of prophetic religion as it takes form in the physiology of the body of light. There is a perfect correspondence between the birth, initiation and growth of the soul on its journey to God and the cycle of prophecy in the Abrahamic tradition. It is because of this that the Imam Jafar could say: “Alchemy is the sister of prophecy.”[16]

In Semnani’s mystical physiology there are seven levels on the path towards the divine and they are homologous to the seven “prophets of your being.”[17] First there is Adam. The color that dominates this stage is a smoky grey-black. The physical organ or center with which this resonates is the “subtle bodily organ” or the “mold.” This derives directly from the anima mundi and is “the embryonic mold” providing the basis for the growth of the resurrection body.

The second level is that of Noah – the Noah of your being. Its color is blue, and to it corresponds the nafs ammara, the extravagant lower soul or ego of the natural human. It is passionate and prone to evil, and must be overcome through self-consciousness.

The third level is that of Abraham. The organ is the heart (qalb). This is the embryonic form of the celestial Self, the eternal Individual. Its color is red. This is the “pacified soul” and is the organ of perception of the imaginal world.

Fourth is the Moses of your being. The organ is the mystery, secret, or threshold of supraconsciousness (sirr). It is the place of intimate conversation between Persons. The color is white.

Fifth is the noble spirit (ruh). Yellow is the color of the David of your being.

The sixth level marks the stage of Jesus. It is what in Latin west was called the Arcanum, through which help and inspiration from the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, may come. Its color is black.

The final level is of course that of Mohammad. It is the stage of the truth, the reality of your being, the true Self whose embryo is found at the origin, at the stage of Abraham. The journey, Corbin writes,

“ends by actualizing, in the human microcosm, the truth of the meaning according to which the religion of Mohammad originates in the religion of Abraham, for ‘Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian, but a pure believer, a Moslem(Qur’an 3:60)”[18]

-67-

In accordance with Islamic iconography, the color of the final stage is emerald green. For Corbin this stage marks the meeting with the heaven Guide, the perfectly individuated and individual Angel of Humanity and Angel of Knowledge that is the biblical Angel of the Face. This is the Figure of whom Mohammad could say: “I have seen my Lord in the most beautiful of forms.” It announces the truth that beauty is the supreme theophany. The Qur’anic source for this Person is Sura XVIII. The figure that came to be interpreted as Khidr in Islamic tradition appears in an enigmatic episode. Moses and his servant travel to “the meeting place of the two seas.” There they meet an unnamed messenger, a personal guide who initiates Moses into “the science of predestination He reveals to Moses the secret mystic truth…that transcends the shari’a, and this explains why the spirituality inaugurated by Khidr is free from the servitude of literal religion.”[19] The seeker is born into his true self through the encounter with Khidr, the interpreter of a law beyond the Law, the divine hermeneut.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. The penultimate stage, that of Jesus being, the herald of the Paraclete, is known by the appearance of the color Black. The experience of this Darkness is common to all the Sufis of the Central Asian school and to others as well.[20] To understand the significance of this “darkness at the approach to the pole” we must be oriented in the scheme of a tripartite psychocosmology. There is first of all the realm of consciousness, the daylight of the normal human being and the world of common, public and objective things. This is the clear and distinct world of literalists of all kinds: scientists, religious dogmatists, anyone who relies on the “plain and simple facts” that all can see. But this world is in reality a world of mixture, of chiaroscuro, of colors shading off into the shadows. Pervading all things, penetrating every truth, every ego, every “object” there is a shifting infinitude of half-known or unknown powers, presences and correspondences that prevent our knowing anything with precision and certainty. But notice! There are two kinds of darkness, two sources of bewilderment. There is the Darkness that is only Darkness, a darkness that refuses Light and is demonic, thick and heavy in the extremity of its distance from the Light. This is the darkness of un-consciousness emanating from the counterpower, the darkness of Ahriman, of Iblis, of Satan. It is easy to confuse this active Darkness that is evil, with the passive and unconscious darkness of matter as unformed potential. The material state per se is neither evil nor even inherently dark.[21] The active darkness of evil is the darkness and confusion to which the nafs ammara, the lower soul, is susceptible. It is a realm marked by contamination and confusion and lack of discrimination of qualities and of one thing from another; it is the task of the alchemical hermeneutic to put each thing in its proper place. We are filled with the undiscriminated darknesses of Earth, Air, Water and Fire, and we are thus buried underneath them. Najm Kubra says:

“The only way to separate yourself from [these darknesses] is to act in such a way that every rightful part in you comes together with that to which it rightfully belongs, that is, by acting in such a way that each part comes together with its counterpart: Earth receives the earthly part, Water the watery part, Air the etheric part, Fire the fiery part. When each has received its share, you will finally be delivered of these burdens.”[22]

And then the soul and its world, this psychocosmos, is freed not merely from the Darkness, but for the Darkness. Because there is another Darkness, one that is not merely black, but is a luminous Night, a dazzling Blackness, a Darkness at the approach to the Pole. This is the Black Light of what Corbin calls supraconsciousness. If we do not recognize the existence of this second Darkness pervading all things, this Black Light of Divine Night, we will be forever disoriented among the shadows, unable to distinguish one darkness from another, incapable of that transmutation of the soul that has as its goal the meeting with the celestial Self and the genesis of the celestial Earth.

The appearance of Black Light marks a moment of supreme danger. We are surrounded by dangers: God and the Devil both. This dazzling Black Light heralds the annihilation of the ego in the Divine Presence. It reveals the unknowable origin of the divine power, glory and beauty. It announces the Nothing that exists beyond all being, beyond all the subtle matter that mirrors it uncanny light. The Black Light marks the region of the Absolute, the Deus absconditus, the unknown and unknowable God.

Corbin tells us that one of the paramount differences between the philosopher and the gnostic lies in the way this absent God is encountered and experienced. He writes, “what to a philosopher is doubt, the impossibility of proof, is to [the gnostics] absence and trial.”[23] The experience of emptiness and of human abandonment in a meaningless universe is conceived entirely differently by the philosophers and the gnostics. He continues,

“What we experience as an obsession with nothingness or as acquiescence in a nonbeing over which we have no power, was to them a manifestation of divine anger, the anger of the mystic Beloved. But even that was a real Presence, the presence of that Image which never forsook our Sufis.”[24]

-68-

One of the ways in which Divinity appears is by withdrawing, even into nothingness.

Najm Razi relates the supersensory lights of the mystical journey to one of the most fundamental doctrines of Islamic theology, the doctrine of the Names of God. The Names or Attributes of God fall into two great categories: the Names of Majesty and the Names of Beauty. The Names of Majesty express God’s wrath, rigor, inaccessibility and sublimity, the Names of Beauty His gentleness, mercy and nearness. For Najm Razi the theophanies of the divine lights are also so divided: Lights of Beauty and Lights of Majesty. The colored lights are the Lights of Beauty. The Black Light is the Light of Majesty. Unlike the Ahrimanian Darkness that can be conquered and banished by the spiritual pilgrim, the Black Light of Majesty is inseparable from the Lights of Beauty. Corbin writes that Majesty and Beauty

“are the two great categories of attributes which refer respectively to the divine Being as Deus absconditus and as Deus revelatus, Beauty being the supreme theophany, divine self-revelation. In fact they are inseparable and there is a constant interplay between the inaccessible Majesty of Beauty and the fascinating Beauty of inaccessible Majesty.”[25]

This duality is the central feature of all Creation: “without the blossoming of Beauty as theophany man could not approach the sublimity of the Deus absconditus.”[26] And without the Deus absconditus there would be no world at all. This hidden deity is the beyond-being of negative or apophatic theology. Corbin writes

“Any metaphysical doctrine which attempts a total explanation of the universe, finds it necessary to make something out about nothing, or rather, to make everything out about nothing, since the initial principle from which the world derived, and which it must explain, must never be something contained in this world, and simultaneously it is necessary for this initial principle to posses all that is necessary to explain at once the being and the essence of the world and that which it contains It is necessarythat this initial principle be at once ‘all’ and ‘nothing’ [This] is a nihil a quo omnia fiunt, a nothing from which all things are derived. This is the Nothing of the Absolute Divine, superior to being and thought.”[27]

The absolute Divine from which everything proceeds provides the energy for the existence of all Creation. It is the source from which everything emanates, and corresponds for Corbin to the Light of Glory, the Xvarnah of Zoroastrianism, the power that brings all things into being. The Divinity beyond-being is absolute and absolutely annihilating. Come too close and the human subject disappears: the Black Light “sets the mystic’s being on fire; it is not contemplated; it attacks, invades, annihilates, then annihilates annihilation. It shatters the ’supreme theurgy,’ that is, the apparatus of the human organism.”[28]

The archetype of the mystic journey in Islam is the miraj of Mohammad, his ascent to the Absolute, mediated by Gabriel, the Angel of Humanity, Knowledge, and of Revelation. In this miraj the moment of greatest danger is the penetration beyond what the Qur’an calls the “Lotus of the Limit” where there occurs the fana fi’llah, the annihilation of the soul and its resorption into God. This ordeal is the experience of death to which the Prophet refers in the saying “You must die before you die!” Corbin writes of this moment of the mystic’s greatest challenge, “Either he will be swallowed up in dementia or he will rise again from it, initiated in the meaning of theophanies and revelations.” This resurrection in life is the annihilation of annihilation.[29] It signifies the recognition of the Unknowable in “a supreme act of metaphysical renunciation.” This is the real meaning of poverty, of the Persian word darwish.

Metaphysical poverty is the true state of all beings: everything in creation has nothing in itself, is nothing in itself. The 17th century Shi’ite mystic Mir Damad heard “the great occult clamor of beings,” the “silent clamor of their metaphysical distress” that appeared to him as a music of cosmic anguish and as a sudden black light invading the entire universe.[30] This is a direct perception of what rational philosophy calls the contingency of being. It is the experience behind the great question of metaphysics “Why is there something rather than nothing?” For the gnostic it takes the form of a shattering experience of annihilation and terror, undoing all the solid foundations upon which the ego and the literal world is built. In Corbin’s words,

“The black light reveals the very secret of being, which can only be as made-to-be; all beings have a twofold face, a face of light and a black face. The luminous face, the face of day, is the only one thatthe common run of men perceive Their black face, the one the mystic perceives, is their poverty The totality of their being is their daylight face and their night face”[31]

-69-

And at the same time, this Absolute beyond-being is also, in the Abrahamic tradition, the Absolute Subject. This giver of being can never be an object, a thing, a being. In its infinite fecundity and mystery, its forever-receding depth and absolute Unity, it is the unifier and archetype of the Person, and of that personhood and interiority that infuses all the beings of the Earth perceived and experienced as an Angel.

The dual face of every being explains the necessity for two kinds of theology: affirmative (kataphatic) and negative (apophatic). Both are indispensible. They interpenetrate in the same way as the attributes of Majesty and Beauty. Positive theology in isolation becomes Positivism. Dogmas and idols spring up everywhere. Negative theology unaided can disclose no beauties, no Treasures longing to be known. Without the balancing perceptions provided by the Names of Beauty, apophatic theology cannot distinguish between the Deus absconditum and the abyss of nihilism. It must collapse into blindness, denial and bitterness and end as nihilism pure and simple. Only through the perception of the indissoluble unity of the two faces of being in creation, the poverty of the soul of humanity and of the world, can we perceive the beauty and the animation and the personification of the things of the world. It is only by the continual perception of this beauty-in-poverty that our certainties, our graspings, our hardnesses of heart can be perpetually undone.

II. In Vagabondage & Perdition: The Battle for the Soul of the World

Failures of Initiation, Failures of Imagination

Corbin said that the philosophical tradition of the Christian West has been the theater for the “battle for the Soul of the World.”[32] It is a battle that we have largely lost. For Corbin the pivotal events in this history concern the interpretation of the doctrine of the Incarnation, what theologians call Christology: the attempt to answer the question “Who was Jesus?” On this crucial question he accepts Semnani’s reading of Christianity. Corbin says:

“It is worth our while to listen attentively to this evaluation of Christianity as formulated by a Sufi Semnani’s critique is made in the name of spiritual experience; everything takes place as though this Sufi Master’s aim were to perfect the Christian ta’wil [hermeneutic], that is, to ‘lead it back,’ to open the way at last to its ultimate truth.”[33]

We have seen that for Semnani the Black Light erupts at the level of the “Jesus of your being,” and that this is the most perilous stage on the initiatic path. The pilgrim is threatened here most of all with madness and with metaphysical and moral nihilism.[34] Corbin follows Semnani in affirming a homology between the ecstatic cry of Sufis such as al-Hallaj “I am God!” and the proclamation that Jesus is God Incarnate. He writes,

“These dangers are symmetrical. On the one hand the Sufi, on experiencing the fana fi’llah, mistakes it for the actual and material reabsorption of human reality in the Godhead; on the other, the Christian sees a fana of God into human reality.”[35]

This is the result of a failed initiation. It signals a failure to avoid the abyss which opens up at just that precarious point where the ego gives way to the higher Self. If the divine center is not attained, if the poverty of the soul is not complete, then the lower modes of perception remain operative, the higher realities cannot be attained and the lower soul is subject to dementia, intoxication and a compensating inflation which grows Promethean and unbounded in response to the vision of the Abyss. Corbin writes, “In a fatal moment of looking back the newborn higher [Self]perishes in the moment of triumph.” On the one hand the ego mistakes itself for God. On the other, God collapses into history. And seeing all of Western history encapsulated in this momentous event, Corbin says that this “is the very same situation with which the West came face to face when Nietzsche cried out: ‘God is dead.’”[36]

-70-

The encounter of the unprepared ego with the Deus absconditum results in the experience of the Abyss, the nihil of radical nihilism. If God is dead then man is master. The human subject claims the vertiginous freedom to be the source of all values. At the same time this marks the violent violation of the Hidden Treasure who created the world out of the depths of an eternal loneliness and longing to be known. It signals the end of mystery, the rending of the veils, the destruction of the cosmic Temple, the death of the Soul. What is an experience of the Abyss from the point of view of the human soul, is, from the point of view of the Divinity, so to speak, the collapse of God into history. To say that Christ is God incarnate, is equivalent to saying that God is dead. The entry of God materially, wholly and substantially into historical, material and public time and space is the archetypal act of secularization. A fana of the divine into human reality can only result in the secularization, historicization and socialization of all religious phenomena, which must then be defined in terms that are public, general, universal and abstract. If the Incarnation is an historical event that has occurred once and for all, then sacred history is closed and access of the individual soul to God is made problematic at best and impossible at worst, since it must rely on the common dogmas of the Church as the bearer of the collective memory of this unique, definitive Event. A God who is only Public, a God who is only Visible, a God in History, is no God at all. A God not balanced by the overwhelming absconditum is an Idol and a Holy Terror.

It is vital for orthodox Christian dogma that God became human in the flesh and was both fully God and fully human, since it is only through this union that a sinful humanity can be saved. Christianity is a religion of salvation, and doctrines of how that salvation or Atonement can come about are central to its teachings. We cannot save ourselves, but must be saved through the descent of Christ. For Corbin it is in this idea that God must descend and live here among the fallen creatures in order for salvation to be possible that is the root of the problem. His contention is that because of an emphasis on sin and human helplessness with respect to salvation, Christian theologians have felt the need to unite the divine and the human at the level of fallen humanity. But this shattering violation of the Mystery turns the world inside out. It collapses the celestial hierarchies, and reduces being to a single level. God is de-mythologized, the world is abandoned to secular history, and the possibility of a personal relation to the Divine is eliminated.

The connection between the Violation of the Hidden Treasure, and the terrible Void of the Abyss is intimated in the Gospel’s narration of that most horrible moment in Christian history:

“there was darkness over the whole landand at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”[37]

“and behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split”[38]

Truly this is the hour of darkness. The encounter with the Hidden God is the moment of greatest danger. All of Creation teeters on the brink: “Either he will be swallowed up in dementia or he will rise again from it, initiated in the meaning of theophanies and revelations.”

Two paths lead out from this pivotal moment. On one there is the Death of God and the birth of a Promethean, rapacious and monstrous Humanity. On the other, Resurrection and the poverty of a life in sympathy with beings.

Note these words from the Qur’an:

“They did not kill him, they did not crucify him, they were taken in by the appearance; God carried him off towards Himself.”[39]

They did not kill him. They could never kill him, because the meaning of Christ does not lie in a body or in a moment in time. Christ was never a man. From a Corbinian perspective, Christ was, Christ is and Christ will ever be a theophany, “a forever inexhaustible event of the soul.”[40] Everything is at stake here. The whole cosmos depends upon the interpretation of this moment. In Corbin’s words: “There is only Revelation.” There are only theophanies. This is the truth that we are called to see. Our knowledge, our vision, our hearing, all of this is worth what we are. Our world is a measure of our being. The event of the Transfiguration as told in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas makes this quite clear. The form of the Lord was visible only to some, and among these each saw something different, some a boy, some a youth, some an old man. But each could say: “I saw him as I was able to receive him.”[41]

-71-

The alternative to the catastrophe of the death of God is the theophanic cosmology of the gnostics in the Abrahamic tradition. Corbin devoted his life to articulating this vision of the essential harmony at the root of all of the religions of the Book, the vision of what he was to call in his late work the Harmonia Abrahamica.[42] It is based on a Christology radically different from the one that became dogma. It requires a return to the Christology of the Ebionites, who had no doctrine of the Trinity, or of the substantial union of the divine and human in Jesus. For these Jewish-Christians, Jesus was a manifestation of the celestial Son of Man, the Christos Angelos, who was consecrated as Christ at his baptism. Jesus then takes his place in the lineage of the True Prophets. Corbin writes

for Ebionite Christianity – sacred history, the hierology of humanity, is constituted by the successive manifestationsof the celestial Anthropos, of the eternal Adam-Christos who is the prophet of Truth, the True Prophet. We count seven of these manifestations, eight if we include the terrestrial person of Adam himself. They are Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus The fundamental basis of this prophetology is therefore the idea of the True Prophet who is the celestial Anthropos, the Christus aeternus, hastening from christophany to christophany ‘toward the place of his repose.’ Now, this is the same structure that Islamic prophetology presents, with this difference, that the succession of christophanies is no longer completed with the prophet Jesus of Nazareth, but with the prophet of Islam, the ‘Seal of the Prophets’ whose coming Jesus himself announced, and who is the ‘recapitulation’ of all the prophets[43]

Thus Mohammad is identified with the figure of the Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Among the Shi’ites, the Twelfth Imam, the Hidden Imam, is sometimes identified with this final manifestation of the True Prophet, the central figure of the Eternal Gospel.

The death of Christ signifies something utterly different from what we have come to accept. Corbin relates with evident approval the story of Christ’s death told in the Medieval Gospel of Barnabas. Jesus is taken up by the Angels, before Good Friday. Judas Iscariot, transformed to resemble Jesus, is arrested and killed upon the Cross. And so His followers believe that He has died. It must be this way, since as Corbin writes,

“in making of him the ‘Son of God’ it is Man himself that humanity has equated with God, and it was only possible to expiate this blasphemy through succumbing to the belief that his God was dead. Everything occurs as if the Ebionite-Islamic prophetology here went ahead to denounce and refute the false news of the ‘death of God.’

It is undeniable that this vision overturns from top to bottom some eighteen centuries of the Christian theology of History.”[44]

Without any illusions about the magnitude of the transformation he is suggesting, this vision is Corbin’s answer to those who wonder whether Christianity itself is capable of surviving. It is only by being open to a radically reformed Christianity in harmony with the mystical traditions of the rest of the Abrahamic tradition, that the religion of Christ can find its fulfillment. Only a Christianity based on theophany can survive.

There is a balance, an “essential community being visible and invisible things”[45] and it is the function of theophanic perception to reveal this community as it is within the power of each being to perceive. To train our senses to perceive this community even dimly, is to begin to realize the “cognitive function of sympathy”[46] and to sense in the presence of the beings of this world the harmonies that resonate through all the worlds beyond. To live in sensate sympathy with the beings of the world requires that we experience the spaces that stretch singing between the Terrible Majesty of the Unattainable Deus absconditus and the Beauty and Glory of the Deus revelatus. It is the dissolving power of the Hidden God that guarantees the freedom from dogma and from idolatry. Idolatry “immobilizes us before an object without transcendence.” A theophanic perception knows that there are no such objects. Likewise, since the Face of Darkness must have a Face of Light, a Face of Beauty that reveals it, there is no unbridgeable chasm between the Absolute Subject who is the Thou of the soul’s love and longing and the soul itself. And so there is no gulf between love of a creature and love of the divine – their union is achieved through theophanic perception. We are saved not just from idolatry, but from the “furies and rejections” of world-denying asceticisms.[47] The identity of being and perceiving that theophanic vision implies is beautifully expressed by Corbin when he refers to “a God unknown and unknowable, God of Gods, of whom all the universes and all the galaxies are the sensorium.”[48]

-72-

On the Islamic view the reason we do not understand any of this, that we don’t experience ourselves as organs in this grand sensorium is not because of an Original Sin, “sinned before us.” We are not so much inherently sinful as we are forgetful. We need more or less constant reminders. And the word for remembrance is dhikr.

Corbin’s passionate vision derives not only from Islamic theosophy. The doctrine of the power of the Hidden God is central to the apophatic tradition both in the Abrahamic religions, and in the history of Neoplatonism that is so intimately connected with them. Michael Sells has shown that the Neoplatonic hierarchy in Plotinus, Dionysius the Areopagite, John Scotus Eriugena and others in the Christian tradition was never the static system that its detractors have scorned. It can only be read that way if the apophatic component is ignored, if the power of the Dark Face of the deity is not understood.[49] Speaking of the element of negative theology in Plotinus, Sells writes, “Apophasis demands a moment of nothingness.”[50] And yet it is this nothingness that is the fount of all being. Corbin has told us that for the gnostics the encounter with nothingness is seen as only withdrawal, absence and trial. He writes elsewhere of the numinosity of Sophia, the Angel of Wisdom, Angel of the Earth and theophany of Beauty:

“In her pure numinosity, Sophia is forbidding Because she is a guide who always leads [the gnostic] towards the beyond, preserving him from metaphysical idolatry, Sophia appears to him sometimes as compassionate and comforting, sometimes as severe and silent, because only Silence can ’speak’, can indicate transcendences.”[51]

Voice and Silence, Beauty and Majesty, All and Nothing, Presence and Absence: these opposites coincide in the unknowable deity.

That Corbin’s vision is rooted in Christian as well as Islamic mysticism is made abundantly clear in this description of the theophanic concept of creation given by John Scotus Eriugena:

For everything that is understood and sensed is nothing other than the apparition of the non-apparent, the manifestation of the hidden, the affirmation of the negated, the comprehension of the incomprehensible, the utterance of the unutterable, the access to the inaccessible, the intellection of the unintelligible, the body of the bodiless, the essence of the beyond-essence, the form of the formless, the measure of the immeasurable, the number of the unnumbered, the weight of the weightless, the materialization of the spiritual, the visibility of the invisible, the place of the placeless, the time of the timeless, the definition of the infinite, the circumscription of the uncircumscribed, and the other things which are both conceived and perceived by the intellect alone and cannot be retained within the recesses of memory and which escape the blade of the mind.[52]

Everything proceeds from this God in whom the opposites coincide. The Deus absconditus is the coincidentia oppositorum. Out of the God beyond-being in whom the opposites coincide comes everything. Dionysius speaks of the divine Word as “undiminished even as superceding and overflowing all things in itself in a single and incessant bounty that is overfull and cannot be diminished.”[53]

One way of understanding this view of the world and the forms of life that it entails is to see that what makes it different from modern materialism is the experience of the relation between the thing and the thought of the thing. If I look at a rock, there is the object, the rock, and the subject, me. Just what it is about me that is the subjective part is a bit problematic, and increasingly over the course of the history of modern science there is the sense that there really is no subject at all. But at least for several hundred years we’ve been able to assume that there is something like a subject. This subject perceives the object and has ideas about it, that exist somewhere, and they either apply to, map onto, or are true of the thing, or are not. It doesn’t matter how I’m feeling or what mood the rock is in. There is no question of sympathy. No questions arise about whether I am more intensely myself today than I was yesterday when I looked at this rock – there are no “modes of being” involved: there’s just me and the rock. Well, you see, there’s the trouble: only one mode of being. If your cosmology doesn’t include a plurality of modes of being, then there can be only one. Then everything “flattens out” as Heidegger and Corbin both say, and pretty soon you can’t tell the difference between me and the rock – we’re both just quantifiable “standing reserve” (Heidegger’s term), equally subject to commodification in the universal economy of objects. Just two bits of matter present in a uni-modal world. But of course if you lose the subject, if you lose hold of the notion of a Person, then the rock can no more be present to me than I can be to the rock and what you have is really Absence and everything falls away into the Abyss, the darkness from which nothing comes. We will have more to say about this Absence later.

-73-

The theophanic experience is not this. As we have seen, there is ample precedent for the theophanic vision in Christianity, but is has not been in the mainstream. It is linked to a doctrine that has all but disappeared in Christian theology, the heresy of Docetism. This is the belief that Christ was not God Incarnate but was instead an Image.[ 54] There is a tradition of angel Christology in the early Church that is perfectly consistent with the theophanic vision.[55] Corbin says that the figure of the Christus juvenis, the Christos Angelos, “translates the idea that God can only come into contact with humanity by transfiguring the latter.”[56] Theophanic psychocosmology is based upon this transfiguration. In it ontology and epistemology are united in a cosmogenesis of the individual.

We have to look carefully at what docetism means, for on it hinges the entire epistemology of the theophanic consciousness. Corbin says that the dogmas of positivist theology are “propositions demonstrated, established one time for all and consequently imposing a uniform authority on each and every one.”[57] What the theophanic vision manifests is

the relation, each time unique, between God manifested as a person (biblically the Angel of the Face) and the person that he promotes to the rank of person in revealing himself to him, this relation is fundamentally an existential relation, never a dogmatic one. It cannot be expressed as a dogma but as a dokhema. The two terms derive from the same Greek word dokeo, signifying all at once to appear, to show itself as, and also, believe, think, admit. The dokhema marks the line of interdependence between the form of that which manifests itself, and that to whom it manifests. It is this same correlation that can be called dokesis. Unfortunately it is from this that the routine accumulated over the centuries of history of Occidental dogmas has derived the term docetism, synonym of the phantasmic, the irreal, the apparent. So it is necessary to reinvigorate the primary sense: that which is called docetism is in fact the theological critique, or rather the theosophical critique, of religious consciousness.[58]

The dokhema expresses a relation between the knower and the known that is not sundered into object and subject because it is based on an experience of participation. The figure of Christ is the Heavenly Twin, who is the source of personhood, the figure who in other guises is the very Soul of the World and the source of all Presence, all personifications in all the worlds. The Christos Angelos is the transfiguring presence visible by means of the Light of Glory that is the soul itself. The Imago animae is the Image that “the soul projects into beings and things, raising them to the incandescence of that victorial Fire with which the Mazdean soul has set the whole of creation ablaze”[59] The transfiguration of the anima mundi and of the body of light are inseparable. This dual eschatology achieved in the present is the centerpiece of the theophanic vision.

With the dokhema we enter the strange imaginal interworld where thought and thing mingle, where bodies give up their literal heaviness and where thoughts have body. It is the realm of subtle bodies and of embodied thoughts. Here we experience what Jung once called the “thing-like-ness of thought.”[60] It represents what to a rationalist consciousness seems confusion and nonsense, but it is the foundation of theophanic consciousness. And it is not foreign to the ancient Greeks. Even Aristotle assumed a kind of relation between thought and being which is nearly incomprehensible to the modern mind. He says “the soul is somehow all beings.”[61] And Plotinus says: “When we know (the intelligibles) we do not have images or impressions of thembut we are them.”[62]

As we have seen, the apophatic dynamic in Plotinus makes possible the continual undoing of definitive, “dogmatic” statements and perceptions. Access to this boundary breaking experience requires a special kind of “in-sight” that he calls theoria. This seeing, or theasthai requires the ability to “let go of being” in the moment of nothingness that the coincidentia oppositorum entails. Such letting go results in wonderment, thauma, and the transformation of discursive reason into an open-ended process.[63] The Greek thauma means ‘a wonder, a thing compelling to the gaze.”[64] The gaze that is turned upon this wonder is the theoria, an inward-turning contemplation of the theophanic apparition. We again are in the interworld where thought and thing mingle. It is the meeting place of the two seas, of the divine and the earthly, where Moses meets Khidr. Dokeo unites thought and being by bringing together appearance, thought and belief. Likewise thauma is the source of both theory and theater; both speculation and spectacle, seeing with the mind and seeing with the eye. John Deck writes, “‘Theoria,‘ with its cognate verb seems to have evolved in meaning from ’sending an official see-er to the games,’ to ‘being a spectator at the games,’ to ‘being a spectator generally,’ (i.e., simply ’seeing, viewing’), to ‘contemplating, contemplation.”[65]

-74-

In his essay Emblematic Cities Corbin discusses Proclus’s Commentary on the Parmenides of Plato. The philosophers have come to Athens for the festival of the Goddess of Wisdom whose splendidly embroidered robe “was carried like the sail of a galley”[66] in the procession, or theoria “in celebration of victory over the Titans who unloose chaos.”[67] For Proclus the colorful, spectacular Athenian theoria is symbolic of the return of the soul to the One. Corbin compares this procession with the pilgrimage to another symbolic center. Compostella too is an emblematic city, and the goal of pilgrims for hundreds of years. Among them was Nicolas Flamel the great alchemist, “because,” Corbin writes, “in reality the pilgrimage to Compostella is the symbolic description of the preparation of the Stone.”[68]

The alchemists too, you see, have their theoria. The endless profusion of symbolic images is central to the method of alchemy. It is the amplificatio, which is, as Jung writes, “understood by the alchemist as theoria,” and is “a theoria in the true sense of a visio (spectacle, watching scenes in a theater).”[69] The opus itself consists in “the extraction of thought from matter,” [70] the extractio animae[71] by means of Imagination which is the “star in man”, the spark that is the “concentrated extract of life, both psychic and physical” that gives rise to the subtle body in the intermediate, imaginal world where the physika and the mystika unite.[72]

For Najm Cobra the seeker himself is a particle of light imprisoned in the darkness, and the alchemical opus frees him to perceive the figures and the lights that “shine in the Skies of the soul, the Sky of the Earth of Light.” These lights reveal the Figure “dominating the Imago mundi: the Imam who is the pole, just as in terms of spiritual alchemy he is the ‘Stone’ or “Elixer.’”[73] In the West, Christ is the miraculous Stone,[74] and the halo, the aura surrounding the subtle body of the transfigured Christ is that same Xvaranah and Light of Glory that flies upward as particles of light reclaiming their home in Byzantine, Manichean and Persian painting.[75]

The whole difference between dogmatic, literal consciousness, and theophanic, imaginal consciousness lies in the mode of perception. The soul that can perceive these lights can do so because it is able to open to the spectacle which the theoria presents. Corbin writes,

Dogma corresponds to dogmatic perception, simple and unidimensional, to a rational evidence, demonstrated, established and stabilized. The dokêma corresponds to a theophanic mode of perception, to a multiple and multiform vision of figures manifesting themselves on many levels Dogma is formulated and formulable ne varietur. Theophanic perception remains open to all metamorphoses, and perceives the forms through their very metamorphoses Theophanic perception presupposes that the soul that perceives the theophany – or all hierophany – is entirely a mirror, a speculum It was necessarily a complete a degradation for the word ’speculative’ to end by signifying the contrary of what the visionary realism intended to announce in the etymology of the word: speculum, mirror. A degradation concomitant to that of the status of the Imagination.[76]

The imaginal world is the realm of the symbolic, the alchemical, the visionary, the wonder-ful. The imagination is a mediating function, an organ of the subtle body. Through the theoria that “pours forth a vast power,” it overflows the limited discursive meaning of words, and dissolves the idolatry inherent in the experience of beings without transcendence. We have lost touch with this imagination and with the concrete reality of beings, with their openness, their animation. We stand disoriented in a world of distant objects. Because of the literal way in which the Incarnation has been interpreted we have become so far removed from reality that it seems paradoxical to say that it is the realities of the objective, public world that that are abstract and the subtle realities of the imaginatio vera that are concrete. The nihilism and the death of God that is the heritage of the West is for Corbin a direct result of the destruction of the functions of the imagination, of the shattering of the speculum. It is this that made it possible for Christ to be seen by the eyes of dogma as God Incarnate. It is to an examination of the doctrine of the Incarnation that we now turn.

The Emptying God in Christian Theology

In the Christian West, docetism all but disappeared as an official doctrine in the face of the doctrine of the Incarnation: God and Man in one substance, Christ in time on earth. Singular, unique, factual. This, Corbin and Semnani say, marks a failure of initiation, the fana of God into the world. As Corbin notes, the descent of God into the world is the subject of the Christian doctrine of kenosis, the self-emptying, or self-limiting of God. The idea has its source in Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians:

-75-

Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, tasking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.[77]

Exaltation through emptying lies at the heart of Incarnationist doctrine. How is such an emptying possible and what does it mean?

In a footnote to The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism Corbin suggests a comparative study of the kenosis of God into human reality and the fana of the erring mystic who claims “I am God!”[78] This leads into a dense thicket of historical and theological complexity. Such an effort would require the work of years. For our purposes it will be enough to provide a brief review of the manifold meanings of kenosis in Christian theology. We are indebted to Sarah Coakley for introducing some order in to the massa confusa of the theological controversies.[79]

At issue in the debate is the nature of the relation between the man Jesus and God, the Father. The passage in Paul’s Epistle was probably a hymn already in use before Paul appropriated it in his exhortation to his audience to “have the mind among yourselves which you have in Christ Jesus.” The first question is how this “mind of Christ” was understood in the early Christian community. Corbin points out that there has been a docetic strain in Christianity from the very beginning, that continues to the present day. As we will see, the discussion of kenosis and incarnation always wavers between one extreme, arguably docetic, emphasizing Christ’s divinity, and another that emphasizes his humanity.

There is a wide range of views on how Paul and his predecessors and contemporaries would have understood the “emptying.” At one end of the spectrum are those who argue that Paul modified pre-Christian gnostic doctrines of the descent of the Anthropos who delivers a salvational gnosis to his disciples. The emptying then refers simply to his appearance on earth.[80] This gnostic mythology is docetic in the sense that Christ only appeared to take on ‘the form of man’ in order to accomplish his mission of salvation.[81] This is of course the kind of position that Corbin is defending. On the other hand, a purely ethical reading asserts that the emptying refers to the example of humility set by Jesus, whose earthly life provides the standard for humanity.[82] New Testament scholars nearly all agree that Paul is focused on the ritual enactment of the salvational story of Christ’s example, not on theological claims about the relation of Father and Son that were to arise later on. The nature of Jesus’ relation to God before the Incarnation was not at issue. In the earliest history of the religion kenosis meant either relinquishing or pretending to relinquish divine powers while acting as redeemer, or choosing never to have worldly powers that are wrongly assumed by erring humans to be the ends of ethical action.[83] Neither of these options is the Incarnationist doctrine attacked by Corbin.

The period between the composition of Paul’s Epistle in the first century and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was rife with theological controversy, but by its end the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity had been given their dogmatic form. The encounter between Christian faith and Greek philosophy made the following question inevitable: Is the Supreme Being, the One of the Platonists, the same as the God of the Christians? And if so, Who is Jesus Christ? That is: How can this Supreme Being have a personal relation to his creatures? The doctrine of the Logos as presaged in the Gospel of John developed in response. There is the Immutable Father, to be sure, but there is another component in the divinity, the Logos, the Word who became flesh. This incarnate Word is the human face of God. Then the theological issue is the relation between the Father and the Word. This came to a head in the Arian Controversy, resolved as far as official doctrine is concerned, at the Council of Nicea in 325. Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, argued that the Word, though divine and existing with God before the Incarnation, was not coeternal with the Father, but was rather first among creatures. He tried in this way to maintain a strict monotheism, rather than claim a duality in the One God. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, argued that the Word was divine and therefore coeternal with the Father, and sought to defend the total divinity of Jesus who could only thereby be worthy of worship. The Council of Nicea agreed on a formula rejecting Arius and affirming that Father and Son are of one substance, homoousios.

-76-

Between Paul’s time and the Council of Nicea and during the ensuing debates leading up to the Council of Chalcedon a significant change occurred. Coakley writes: “the formative christological discussion of the fourth and fifth centuriestake Christ’s substantial pre-existence and divinity for granted.”[84] The contrast between the human and the divine aspects of Jesus has been sharpened. For a docetic doctrine there is no problem of incarnation since only an appearance is at issue. Neither is there a problem for a purely ethical reading since there is no true divinity at stake. But when Jesus must be thought as both man and God, the paradoxes force themselves forward. The discussion of kenosis becomes far more problematic. What can “emptying” mean if it is assumed to be essential for the incarnation and if divine attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience are understood to be unchanging elements of God?[85] How can the perfections and powers associated with the Father as immutable divinity be in any way compatible with the human frailties and sufferings of the man Jesus? On the one hand he must be fully God to be worthy of worship and yet to be Savior he must share our fallen humanity. The paradoxes were brought into sharp relief by Cyril of Alexandria.[86] In his Christology the eternal divine Logos was also paradoxically the personal subject of Christ’s human states but in some incomprehensible way such that there is no change or impairment in the perfections of the divinity. This leads to another meaning of kenosis, one that incorporates the idea that Christ must be actually God and actually human, for here kenosis refers to the taking on of human flesh by the divine Logos, without diminishing the divine powers in any way.[87]

In order to resolve these tensions, a statement of orthodoxy was agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 that affirmed again that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, but is at the same time “of two natures in one person” in such a way that the divine and the human are united and yet distinct. This formulation leaves the issue as difficult as ever. Coakley notes that the paradoxes of the Council hardly resolved questions about the form of Christ’s earthly life “and certainly left many points of christological detail unanswered.”[88] As Jung says, “Even the most tortuous explanations of theology have never improved upon the lapidary paradox of St. Hilary: ‘Deus homo, immortalis mortuus, aeternus sepultus’ (God-man, immortal-dead, eternal-buried).”[89]

The argument continues today, between those who tend to emphasize Christ’s divinity (the “Alexandrian school”) and those who emphasize his humanity (the “Antiochenes”). Cyril’s solution is in some sense docetic since he said that Christ at times “permitted his own flesh to experience its proper affection” and this suggests that Christ’s humanity was in truth an appearance.[90] In the Eastern Church an even more one-sided view was developed by John of Damascus in the 8th century. For John the communication of the two natures ran “only one way (from the divine to the human), the divine fully permeated the human nature of Christ by an act of ‘coinherence’” or perichoresis.[91] This leaves no room for human weakness, and kenosis is hardly an emptying at all, but is more like an obliteration of the human by the divine. If this is a kind of docetism it is not that defended by Corbin where the human must be raised to meet the divine. Here it is merely crushed.

These issues were stirred to life again during the Reformation. Luther’s Christology was based simultaneously on Christ’s extreme vulnerability on the cross and on his “real presence” in the Eucharist. But how is it possible for Christ’s divinity to be active in his cry of despair at death?[92] In 1577 the Lutherans sided with John of Damascus in saying that the divine attributes fully permeated Christ. But this denied the human helplessness with which Luther began. In the 17th century a group of Lutherans from Giessen proposed a novel resolution: the kenosis operated only on Christ’s human nature, not on his divine. This is a post-Chalcedonian version, that is, one that recognizes the two-nature doctrine, of one of the early possible interpretations, Christ’s “choosing never to have certain forms of power in his incarnate life.”[93]

In the late 19th century another Lutheran, Gottfried Thomasius, proposed the radical idea that the Logos itself is “emptied” in the incarnation. He says “The Logos reserved to Himself neither a special existence nor a special knowledge outside his humanity. He truly became man.”[94] Thus the incarnation marks the abandonment of all attributes of divinity and a Christology based upon human attributes alone is entirely justified.[95]

-77-

There is yet one more important part to this story, involving a development of the ethical reading of kenosis. Among twentieth-century theologians, there are those who see Jesus’ “emptying” “not just as a blueprint for a perfect human moral response, but as revelatory of the humility of the divine nature.”[96] In this view kenosis reveals divine power to be intrinsically “humble” rather than “grasping.”[97] For John Robinson there is “a radical seepage of the human characteristics into the divine, such, indeed, as to collapse the apparatus of the two natures doctrine altogether.”[98] John MacQuarrie says that Christ “has made known to us the final reality as likewise self-emptying, self-giving and self-limiting.”[99] To what extent these ideas are compatible with the traditional Christian doctrines of the nature of God is open to question. Surely for Corbin they would represent at best a rear-guard action against the nihilism of the contemporary world.

Based on this review of the idea of kenosis we can make two observations. First, the paradoxes involved are insoluble. This may not be a criticism, since theology is not necessarily bounded by the rules of human logic. There is a dynamism in Christology that perhaps mitigates the rigidity of dogma that would disappear if the contradictions were not right on the surface as they clearly are. Second, it is clear that all but the most “docetic” of these doctrinal options are deeply suspect from Corbin’s point of view. Any direct contact, any substantial union of the divine and the human taking place in the time of history and in the material, public world has the same effect in the end, however subtly one tries to arrange it. There can be no kenosis of any sort in the Christology that Corbin is defending. He is hostile to any historicizing of the Christian message that would compromise the universality of the figure of Christ, or a figure “like Christ” available to anyone, anywhere at any time, in accordance with the individual’s capacity to “see.” He defends with passion the Harmonia Abrahamica wherein the lineage of the prophets since Adam represents successive appearances of the one True Prophet. There can be no real incompatibilities among the religions of the Book. He defends a viewpoint that is extremely ecumenical and cross-cultural as is the case with traditional Islam.[100] In this, Corbin is in the camp of Justin Martyr who, in the 2nd century saw the Logos as the common source of all human knowledge, and too, of Origen’s “illuminationism” that accepts both truth and salvation outside of Christianity.[101]

We have seen some of the ways in which the descent of God into the world has been understood within the theological tradition. We are now in a position to see how the results of the descent have been judged by a few of those who, like Corbin, see it as the definitive event in Christian consciousness.

Kenosis and the Destiny of the West

Amidst all the complexities of the Christian theological debate there is a common theme: that the birth, life and death of Jesus as a man among us represents a descent of God into creation and so in one degree or another an ‘incarnation’ and ‘enfleshment’ of God and in some sense an ‘emptying’ of God into this world. Christ’s life is the central fact of Christianity, and Christianity is the religion of the Western tradition. So incarnation and kenosis are part of the basic fabric of our history, and of the culture that is coming to dominate the world. There are others besides Henry Corbin who see these doctrines as essential components of our history, of our psychology and of contemporary culture. A review of their positions may help clarify Corbin’s perspective and the critique of the West that he offers.

Silence & Communion: A Power Made Perfect in Weakness

A central part of the attack on the assumptions of modernism is the critical examination of gender issues in every area of life. Theology is no exception.[102] That the Abrahamic religions have been dominated by male power structures is undeniable. Whether this is integral to the doctrines of these faiths is an open question. The relevance of the kenotic moral example of Christ for women has been vigorously debated in Christian feminist literature. At issue is whether Christ’s example of humility and self-sacrifice, however necessary for men, is not for women merely another means of oppression and domination. Elizabeth Cady Stanton famously said that after so many years of depersonalization and repression “self development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice.”[103]

-78-

Daphne Hampson has pointed out that Luther’s theological anthropology, to take one characteristic example, is based essentially on masculine psychology. It depends for its force on an experience of the self as isolated and insecure, as incurvare in se, “curved in upon itself,” not at-home-in-the-world, and able to find freedom finally only in a binding relation to God or to the devil.[104] Women, Hampson argues, tend to experience the self in terms of connectedness, open-ness and community, that is, as a relational entity. Whereas for men the problem is finding a way out of isolation and into community, and whose sin is therefore hubris, for women the problem is lack of center, and the “sin,” so to speak, lies in having no autonomy. If this is generally true, then kenosis as self-denial can be no moral guide for women. And if that is true then it is hard to see how there can be a feminist Christianity, and there would be, in Coakley’s words “little point in continuing the tortured battle to bring feminism and Christianity together.”[105]

Coakley argues that there is one meaning of kenosis that holds promise for feminist Christians. Recall that the Lutherans of Geissen saw kenosis applying only to Christ’s human nature. In this way human vulnerability and weakness can be united with divine power so that a special form of self-effacement can occur “which is not a negation of the self, but the place of the self’s transformation and expansion into God.”[106] She finds this special form of making space for waiting on and responding to the divine in the ascesis of wordless prayer or contemplation. This opening to the divine is both perilous and subversive. The self is in a posture of truly Christ-like vulnerability and doubt. She writes

engaging in any such regular and repeated ‘waiting on the divine’ will involve great personal commitment and great personal risk; to put it in psychological terms, the dangers of a too-sudden uprush of material from the unconscious, too immediate a contact of the thus-disarmed self with God, are not inconsiderable. To this extent the careful driving of wedges – which began to appear in the western church from the twelfth century on – between ‘meditation’ (discursive reflection on Scripture) and ‘contemplation’ (this more vulnerable activity of space-making), were not all cynical in their attempts to keep contemplation ’special.’[107]

Her appeal is to just that apophatic moment beyond speech we have already encountered:

The ‘mystics’ of the church have often been from surprising backgrounds, and their messages rightly construed as subversive; their insights have regularly chafed at the edges of doctrinal ‘orthodoxy’, and they have rejoiced in the coining of startling (sometimes erotically startling) new metaphors to describe their experiences of God. Those who have appealed to a ‘dark’ knowing beyond speech have thus challenged the smugness of accepted anthropomorphisms for God, have probedto the subversive place of the ’semiotic.’[108]

For Coakley this vulnerability is required by both men and women, and is not incompatible with the development of a centered self. It is only by this special kind of vulnerability that the self can both find its true center and be able to connect with others in an authentic way.

However “mystical” the contemplation of wordess prayer may be, Coakley says that she must “avoid the lurking ‘docetism’ of the Alexandrian tradition.” This can be done she feels, by recognizing that what Christ “instantiates is the very ‘mind’ that we ourselves enact, or enter into, in prayer: the unique intersection of vulnerable, ‘non-grasping’ humanity and authentic divine power.” In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians Christ says “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”[109] Here is something that surely is akin to the mystical poverty of Sufism. And whether this is “docetic” or not, it suggests a relation of the individual to the divinity in Christ that Corbin would have found congenial.

-79-

The idea that such a power in vulnerability is the fundamental meaning of kenosis is common to Coakley and the Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar.[110] In Balthasar’s theology there is an explicit attempt to present kenosis and the Incarnation as linked to a conception of relational personhood and to a theology of Beauty that in some respects parallels some of Corbin’s key themes.

Balthasar’s theology is Trinitarian. And this for a reason that echoes Corbin’s warnings. O’Hanlon puts it succinctly: “If God were simply one he would become ensnared in the world process through the incarnation and the cross.”[111]Any simple monism is incompatible with the fact of divine-human interaction. In order to explain any such communion there must be a dynamic within the divinity that makes it possible. In other words, God must be both immanent and transcendent. The incarnation must signal a real event in God, and this real dynamic is “the eternal event of the divine processions.” The trinity is “an event of the communion of persons,” and is an event of kenotic self-giving love.[112] This self-giving love of the Father, out of whose “abyss-like” depths the love arises, is returned eternally by the reciprocal self-giving of the Son. The movement of this love requires otherness and distance and is the archetype of all love of the other whether human or divine. We know the divine kenotic love only through the incarnate Christ who “is the Person, in an absolute sense, because in him self-consciousnesscoincides with the mission he has received from God.”[113] Papanikolaou writes “One becomes a true person, for Balthasar, when one is able to relate to the Father in the way the incarnate Son relates to the Father, and that relation takes the form of obedient response to the Father’s call to a unique, personal mission.”[114]

It is far beyond our purpose here to contrast Balthsar and Corbin, although it would be worth the effort. But it is clear that there are revealing commonalities. Balthsar’s Trinitarian procession serves a function similar to the Neoplatonic emanation for Corbin, and his insistence that God is both immanent and transcendent is the basis for Corbin’s theophanic theology. The abyss of God’s giving expresses that same apophatic moment we have encountered before. And Balthasar’s account of the accession to true personality, that Christ is the exemplar for a unique and personal mission, recalls Corbin’s concern with individuation.

Balthasar’s Trinitarian theology is in some ways in fundamental resonance with Corbin’s vision despite, indeed because of the absolute centrality of the Incarnation. This is because at root the doctrine of kenosis as love presupposes the ever-present availability of the spirit of Christ, and so avoids the historicism that Corbin rejects. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit permits Balthasar to provide a transformational doctrine of perception that is in some respects strikingly like that Corbin outlines. Nichols writes,

“Balthasar has made it clear that, in all authentic perception of the divine glory of Jesus Christ, seeing goes hand in hand with transformation[H]e sees that here perceiving is impossible without a being caught up in love. A theory of perception cannot be had in this context without a doctrine of conversion, and so ultimately of sanctification.”[115]

This account could easily have been written about Corbin himself. In Balthasar’s vision, kenosis signifies the Glory and Beauty of the Lord made manifest. Significantly, he shares Corbin’s respect for Jakob Georg Hamann’s theology of Beauty.[116] It is perhaps true that Balthasar and Corbin share a common Catholic sacramental attitude towards the beauty of the earth. David Tracy has suggested that Catholic theologians and artists “tend to emphasize the presence of God in the world, while the classic works of Protestant theologians tend to emphasize the absence of God from the world.”[117] If something like this is true, then we might say that Corbin, while vehemently rejecting the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as an institution, in favor of a more “Protestant,” indeed Lutheran emphasis on the freedom of the individual, nonetheless displays a deep and pervasive sacramental sensibility that perceives the world as “haunted by a sense that the objects, events and persons of daily life are revelations of grace.”[118] Now as Greeley suggests, the danger in this is idolatry – but Balthasar guards against this in a way similar to Corbin’s: The Father is the Abyss of Giving, He is the Unknown and Unknowable Gift – the very fullness of Being of apophasis. Father and Son are correlative: Beauty and Majesty.

-80-

Balthasar is also not unaware of the dangers inherent in the doctrine of the Incarnation that Corbin warns against. Nichols writes: “Balthasar is keenly aware of how easily an incarnational attitude to livingcan collapse into either a dualism of matter and spirit as only incidentally related or a mere materialism where spirit is but an epiphenomenona of matter.”[119] His solution to this tension rests upon metaphors which are strikingly reminiscent of those Corbin depends upon throughout his own work. Balthasar says: “As a totality of spirit and body, man must make himself into God’s mirror and seek to attain to that transcendence and radiance that must be found in the world’s substance if it is indeed God’s image and likeness – his word and gesture, action and drama.”[120]

That being said, there is at least one central issue where Balthasar and Corbin must part company, and it involves, as one might expect, issues of authority, personal freedom and the meaning of the Incarnation. For Balthasar Christ is the absolute guarantor of objectivity. Upon Him rests the indestructibly solid support for supernatural revelation. Nichols writes,

Even the scholastic axiom that ‘whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver’ is to be brushed aside in this context. Here hermeneutics, whether cultural or philosophical, are sent packing, on the grounds that One who is both God and man cannot but draw what is universally valid in human life and thought to himself In the last analysis, Christ is the all-important form because he is the all-sufficient content, the only Son of the Father.[121]

The critique of individual hermeneutics distinguishes Balthasar’s position from Corbin’s irrevocably, and illustrates quite clearly the reason Corbin was so vehement in his attacks on the incarnational attitude. It is because of his unwavering emphasis on the freedom of the individual that docetism and hermenutics must be linked for Corbin.

In the end it seems clear that there are ways of interpreting kenosis that are compatible with a “theophanic cosmology” of some kind. An incarnational Christology can be articulated that is not a result of a failure of initiation, and does not end in nihilism and catastrophe, but it must be one that addresses Corbin’s central worries about the secularizing effects of historicism and about ambiguities concerning the relation of matter and spirit. For a very different analysis we will step outside the confines of theology to encounter another reading of what the weakness of kenosis entails. We begin by returning to that crucial moment when according to Corbin, the West came face to face with its failed initiation.

A Hermeneutics of Absence: Adrift in the Sea of Technics

The Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo works in the tradition defined by Nietzsche, Heidegger and Derrida.[122] He can be counted among those who are, often unhelpfully, labeled “postmodernists.” In our context, what is important and “postmodern” about Vattimo is his attack on dogma, on any attempt to impose a single truth on the plurality and variety of human lives.

For Vattimo, Nietzsche’s radical nihilism, expressed in Zarathustra’s cry “God is dead!”[123] is the prelude to a freedom that is only now coming within our reach, and that is in fact the culmination and final destiny of the Christian tradition. It is significant that both Nietzsche and Corbin look back to the Zoroastrian roots of the eschatological religions of the West. Norman Cohn has argued that it was Zoroaster who shattered the vision of a cyclic, timeless cosmos, and initiated a view of a world moving inexorably forward towards a final consummation in history. The origins of the eschatological worldview can be traced back to Zoroaster’s proclamation of the Final Battle at the end of time that will usher in the paradise that is the goal of history.[124] Nietzsche reaches back to the Avesta and reads there the desperate, ultimate fate of this history in the death of the God who promised so much and gave, in the end, Nothing. For Corbin, the mythic, the transhistorical has never in truth been fully suppressed. We still live in that mythic present; our insertion in history is only partial. The timelessness of the eternal present is always available, and eschatological hopes apply here and now.

-81-

For Nietzsche himself this “greatest recent event,”[125] the death of God, was an occasion for joy and freedom:

our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, anticipation, expectation. At last the horizon appears free again to us, even granted that it is not bright; at last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an ‘open sea.’[126]

Nietzsche’s sensation of looking out over a horizon, free if not “bright,” is a fair description of Vattimo’s assessment of our situation. We live at the end of the era of metaphysics, of grand architectonics of thought claiming to uncover the final truth. For Vattimo as for Nietzsche “there are no facts, only interpretations.” That is the meaning of the death of God. The idea of Truth has collapsed in upon itself. There is no Reality behind the appearance; there is only the appearance. This is what the process of secularization comes to in the end: there is no other, higher, transcendent world that can justify or ground our thoughts and actions. There is only this secular realm of things, reduced, as Heidegger has said, to the calculable, the manipulable, where everything is reduced to “exchange value” and treated as “standing reserve.” This is the technological worldview.[127]

Technology is generally understood as the triumph of positivism, as the triumph of fact over interpretation. But if everything is subject to interpretation, then the dominance of scientific objectivity is itself subverted.[128] Natural scientists have no sympathy with the claims of postmodernists who claim “there is nothing outside the text.”[129] But one does not have to understand “text” in a literal way to hold that there is nothing but interpretation, and the attempt to understand the contextual aspects of natural science is a major feature of modern epistemologies. But even this less obviously “literary” position is nonsensical, or at best entirely irrelevant, to most practicing scientists who are very happy to ignore hermeneutics and get on with discovering facts. Yet Vattimo’s point, and Heidegger’s too is, I think, that when everything has become “objective,” when all things are reduced to objects for manipulation, then anything goes. There are no more natural boundaries to be respected, nothing has an inside or an outside, no individual can have more than an evanescent coherence, every thing is understood as cobbled together from parts that are subject to recombination by nature or by technology. Permanence and stability have been replaced by perpetual metamorphosis. The radical position of the feminist thinker Donna Harraway gives a hint of the possibilities here. For Harraway modern technology merely makes obvious what has been true all along: the boundaries between our tools and ourselves are really not boundaries at all. We are already cyborgs, amalgamations of machine and organism. Modern medicine will only continue to make this clear. What this suggests is that all boundaries are in some sense arbitrary, capable of dissolution and restructuring. This includes gender boundaries, racial boundaries, as well as boundaries between species, between animal and human, as Darwin and Wallace clearly saw. This situation, says Harraway, provides the possibility for envisioning the ultimate liberation from social constructions of class, race and gender, from the dominations of all essentialisms, all social and political powers.[130]

Nihilism as the ungrounding of all facts and the dissolution of all boundaries is expressed through the corrosive dissolving power of technology and of modern economics as its inevitable extension. It cannot be avoided, overcome or denied. Nihilism is, says Vattimo, “our sole opportunity.” Any attempt to institute something new in reaction to it, either a return to some prior primordial “foundations” or a leap into a new order, would only be a re-enactment of old violence, the same sad old story of repression and domination. Our only option is to abandon ourselves to this fluid, rootless, insecure position – to a radical acceptance of “not knowing” that Vattimo calls “weak thought.”

-82-

Vattimo argues that we are able to see the truth of nihilism only when we have been engulfed by the contemporary “society of generalized communication.” It is only by living in the fluid and ever-changing flux of modern secular technology where nothing is sacred and nothing secure that we have been finally freed to enact the truth of Nietzsche’s vision. And this, as Frascati-Lochhead points out, recalls to us again the words of Christ: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” But the dissolving power of nihilism has to be turned upon the claims of the very technology that gives rise to it. Even the domination of technology must be dis-located in a continuous process of undoing. This is an active, “accomplished” nihilism, one that recognizes the implausibility of any dominating structures in thought or society.

For Vattimo it is paradoxically this secularization and the dissolution of certainty that is the destiny of Christianity. Just the situation that seems to have resulted in the eclipse and repudiation of the Christian tradition is the only authentic outcome of that tradition itself. The way that Vattimo understands this strange twist is full of striking echoes of Corbin’s work. On Vattimo’s account what the flux of the modern world reveals is that facts must give way to interpretation. And what is the science of these interpretations? Hermeneutics. Here Vattimo turns directly to the Incarnation and kenosis as the central doctrines of the Christian tradition, and so therefore vital for the destiny of the West. Vattimo says that the Incarnation has mostly been read in a “Hegelian” way, so that

God and Jesus Christ are thought, in the light of an idea of truth, as the objective articulation of evidence that, as it becomes definitive, renders interpretation superfluous [T]he revelation somehow concluded with the coming of Jesus, the scriptural canon was fulfilled, and the interpretation of the sacred texts became ultimately the concern only of the Pope and the cardinals.[131]

This is of course precisely Corbin’s point. That is how the Incarnation has in fact been read by the official Church. The doctrine of God’s entry into human history freezes the mystery of Christ into time and into the hierarchical structures of those in power. We have seen Balthasar reject any application of hermeneutics to the revelation of Christ. Corbin vehemently rejects a “Hegelian” reading in favor of individual hermeneutics, of gnosis. But Vattimo rejects it because he says the metaphysics of Truth is no longer an option for us. We have, thanks to Nietzsche and Heidegger, finally been freed from the violence that is the inevitable outcome of metaphysical thought.

What dissolves the dogmatic vision of the Incarnation for Vattimo is a hermeneutic philosophy that gives equal rights to story, myth and philosophy – to all the forms of thought and meaning, and so explodes the single vision that dogma imposes. Hermeneutics in the modern sense began, Vattimo notes, with the Enlightenment project of biblical exegesis, and represents the culmination of Christianity in a post-Christian form as a secular philosophy. This extends its power far beyond the analysis of readings of the sacred text. And because hermeneutics “ungrounds” all claims to Truth and Transcendence, it is the heart of that nihilism in which we live.

This “freedom” that nihilism imposes is where the true meaning of kenosis lies. The emptying of God into the world results in “secularization” and the irreducible plurality of interpretations, of visions, of forms of life that this entails. Vattimo writes,

modern philosophical hermeneutics is born in Europe not only because here there is a religion of the book that focuses attention on the phenomenon of interpretation, but because this religion has at its base the idea of the incarnation of God, which its conceives as kenosis, as abasement, and, in our translation, as weakening.[132]

This weakening in the form of the rejection of dogma and the celebration of a plurality of voices has precursors in the Christian tradition. He points to Joachim of Fiore’s doctrine of the Third Age of the Holy Spirit, in which the inner, spiritual sense of the scriptures takes precedence over the legal, disciplinarian interpretation. It is, he says, a matter of taking the doctrine of kenosis seriously. We can look to those pages where Schliermacher

“dreams of a religion in which everyone can be the author of their own Bible; or those of Novalis, in which a re-evaluation of the ‘aesthetic’ aspects of religiosity (the images, the Madonna, the rituals) runs alongside the same dream of a Christianity that is no longer dogmatic or disciplinarian.” [133]

-83-

Everyone the author of their own Bible. This is the culmination of the general philosophy of hermeneutics born from of Biblical interpretation. As Frascati-Lochhead points out,

If one discovers that hermeneutics is closely related to dogmatic Christianity, neither the meaning of hermeneutics nor that of dogmatics will be left intact. As regards the latter, the relation with hermeneutics produces a critical rethinking of its disciplinary character: the nihilistic ‘dissolution’ that hermeneutics reads in the ‘myth’ of the incarnation and crucifixion does not cease with the conclusion of Jesus’ time on earth, but continues with the descent of the Holy Spirit and with the interpretation of revelation by the community of believers. According to the line that I propose to call Joachimist, the meaning of Scripture, in the age opened by the descent of the Holy Spirit, becomes increasingly ’spiritual,’ and thereby less bound to the rigor of dogmatic definitions and of strict disciplinarian observance.[134]

Joachim of Fiore is for Corbin too a representative of the religion of the Spirit, of the Paraclete, the Figure who alone can inaugurate the True Church. Corbin compares Joachim and his disciples in the 12th and 13th centuries with the Shi’ite theosophers who:

speak of the ‘eternal religion’ and of the ‘Paraclete.’ The Joachimites, centered in the tradition of prophetic Christianity, invoke the ‘Eternal Gospel’ and the ‘reign of the Paraclete.’ For the Shi’ites the coming of the Imam-Paraclete will inaugurate the reign of the pure spiritual meaning of the divine revelations: it is this that they mean by ‘Eternal Religion’ For the Joachimites, the reign of the Holy Spirit, of the Paraclete, will be the time where the spiritual comprehension (intelligentia spiritualis) of the Scriptures will dominate; and this is what they mean by ‘Eternal Gospel.’ The consonance is striking. It is possible to speak of a common ‘hermeneutical situation,’ that is to say, of a ‘mode of comprehension’ common to one side and the other, notwithstanding the difference issuing from the Qur’anic Revelation and all the more rich in its instruction.[135]

But in a complete reversal of Corbin’s view, the appearance and triumph of the spiritual Church beyond all dogma is for Vattimo only possible through the secularization that the kenosis of the Incarnation brings about. Vattimo writes,

The idea of secularization, if considered in relation to hermeneutics, seems to be less univocally definable than is generally believed: rather paradoxically, in fact, hermeneutics which, in its Enlightenment origins, shows a demythologizing and rationalist trend, leads in contemporary thought to the dissolution of the same myth of objectivityand to the rehabilitation of myth and of religion. This is a paradox thatfocuses on the intrinsic relation of hermeneutics to the Christian tradition: nihilism “resembles” kenosis too much for this similarity to be but a coincidence, an association of ideas. The hypothesis to which we are led is that hermeneutics itselfis the outcome of secularization as an ‘application,’ an interpretation of the contents of Christian revelation, first of all of the dogma of the incarnation of God.[136]

This, from Corbin’s perspective is precisely right: kenosis and nihilism are connected in just this way. But for him as for Semnani they represent a metaphysical failure, the catastrophe that is destroying the West, and making the Spiritual Church an impossibility. Hermeneutics, far from being the culmination of secularization, is the royal road to the sacred.

The active “accomplished nihilism” that Vattimo describes is not completely without content. It is not merely a dissolving power, but carries with it the central core of the Christian tradition: Love. For kenosis is God’s self-emptying love. Frascati-Lochhead writes,

The principle of caritas, love, knows no limitation. This is Vattimo’s answer to the criticism that secularization, instead of developing the Christian tradition, often places itself explicitly outside of it. The core of Christianity is love, kenosis, and hence, no doctrinal conclusion, no ‘truth,’ is guaranteed as ultimately and eternally valid. Augustine’s word, “Love God and do as you please!” is as applicable to the interpretation of Scripture and dogma as to anything else.[137]

Here again, as with Coakley and Balthasar, we find a point of contact with Corbin’s theology. Vattimo’s ethics includes an almost sacramental sense of attention to the particulars of the world that he calls pietas.[138] Vattimo says that he uses the term,

“in the modern sense of piety as devoted attention to that which, however, has only a limited value and that deserves attention because this value, even though limited is the only one we know. Pietas is love for the living and its traces – those lived and those carried insofar as they are received from the past.”[139]

-84-

But for Corbin this love finds its source in the transcendent figure of the Beloved who is infinitely renewed and renewable through that very transcendence and so can never become an idol. As we have heard, “Theophanic perception remains open to all metamorphoses, and perceives the forms through their very metamorphoses” But the metamorphoses of which Corbin speaks presuppose the vertical hierarchies of being implicit in all Islamic thought. For Vattimo and the modern world, all metamorphoses can only be horizontal, Darwinian, temporal. All that prevents idolatry and dogma for Vattimo is the knowledge that one’s idols will always melt away into another, merely different form. There can be no orientation in a world with no boundaries and our sole opportunity is acceptance of the transience of this mortal world of ceaseless flux.

Vattimo’s work is part of the project of post-Nietzschean philosophy to destroy what Derrida calls the metaphysics of Presence. That is, metaphysics understood as the attempt to get a grip on the structure and eternal Truth of Being. If we follow Nietzsche, Heidegger and Derrida we realize that having come to the end of metaphysics we no longer have the option of believing in structures of permanence and domination, whether metaphysical or moral or scientific. We are left with the play of signifiers, the play of interpretations, or the flux of boundary-less entities that modern technology and economics provides. Being must be understood as event. We are freed for an active nihilism that holds itself open in self-giving love and pietas and can acknowledge the rights of no powers of violence or violation, because no dogmas, no interpretations are true, all stories, all myths, all religions, all powers and authorities are evanescent and groundless and infirm.

Everything becomes hermeneutics. No facts. Only interpretations. The hidden god that is the abyss of nihilism is dominant, but is given a positive twist: if there is no truth, there can at least be no rationale for domination and control. Though there may of course be such domination without any rationale. Corbin indeed himself argues for what he calls a “permanent hermeneutics.”[140] But there are subtle, significant differences. The “open sea” that Nietzsche celebrates is not the “ocean without a shore” that Ibn ‘Arabi finds at the end of the mystic quest. There is a world of difference between hubris and mystical poverty, between the übermensch and the darwish. For Nietzsche and Vattimo there is nothing underlying the individual. Nothing gives structure or direction to the metamorphoses of personality. Nothing prevents the plurality of Bibles from becoming a Babel of chaos. And for Nietzsche, for Vattimo, there can be no ascent. Corbin’s freedom from dogma always moves upwards towards the Angel of your being. Corbin’s vision is based upon a primary orientation that precedes all human acts. It is founded upon a metaphysics that Vattimo must reject: the perception that like can only be known by like, and that, as for Balthasar, being, that is, moral existence, is intimately connected with perception. Speculative thought can only approach the truth when it serves to polish the mirror, the speculum in which the images of transcendence can be apprehended. Corbin’s hermeneutic is always gnostic, it is always an uncovering, a revelation of something given as presence and as Gift. And it can never be the world of Promethean man, of technology, that frees us for this uncovering: the Revelation has always been there in the more-than-human world, and there it remains.

On Vattimo’s account God’s descent into history dissolves the world, unmakes its structures and reveals Being as event. The fana of God into the world annihilates God Himself. The Incarnation removes the Reality behind the appearances and plunges us all into the endless world of story telling and interpretation. The metaphysics of Presence devolves into a metaphysics of Absence, of continual undoing, in a cosmos where there are no Names. Positive knowledge is vaporized into a perpetual unknowing through the encounter with the Absent God. We are left with weak thought, pietas, and love.

Vattimo’s account allows an uncompromising stand against tyranny and oppression. It privileges freedom over domination by removing any possible grounds for the justification of any Master. But clearly from a viewpoint such a Corbin’s or that of the Sufi masters he presents we are on very dangerous ground indeed – truly standing on the edge of the Abyss. Where is the individual in all this? Where does the human person stand? And how are we to understand the primordial facts of nature? and the miracle of language itself? It is not clear that this “accomplished nihilism” can give an account of the world that can do justice to the body, and to the place of humans in the natural world. And practically speaking we must ask what the consequences may be of trying to make openness to the nihil a public program. How far can people live without Presence to balance Absence? We have seen already that the Great Chain of Being was not the static structure of Presence that its critics claim. Surely it is true that when Being is regarded as Presence alone, not balanced by that moment of nothingness that the Deus absconditum initiates, then idolatry and violence and violation are ensured. But it is far from clear that we can live with Absence alone. The encounter with the Darkness is the most perilous stage, but Semnani tells us that it must result in dementia, or in Resurrection. The encounter cannot be maintained forever.

-85-

Finally, it is not at all clear that science and technology are in any real sense subverted by hermeneutics as Vattimo hopes. Technicians and scientists don’t behave as if they are: for the scientific worldview, facts are real, interpretations are only means to an end, and therein lies their power and their drive to domination.

But technology can be interpreted in a radically different way and still be understood as the final destiny of the Incarnation and kenosis at the heart of the Christian myth.

The Word Made Flesh: I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds

Like Vattimo, Wolfgang Giegerich regards modern technology as the logical culmination of Christianity.[141] His perspective is that of a practicing psychologist and he presents his case as a description of the psychological and mythical dominants of our time – as the unconscious working out of Christian history. But for all that he borrows his terminology from the philosophers and presents a story that he says reveals the essence and the underlying truth of the modern world. Like Vattimo, he sees the global reach of technology as the defining characteristic of modern Western culture. Yet listening to his description of that technology is like hearing a voice from a world radically different from the one Vattimo inhabits. If Vattimo attempts to read technology in the manner of Joachim of Fiore, then Giegerich provides an account of the “Hegelian” way that technology has, he argues, in fact developed, now matter how much we may wish that it hadn’t. Giegerich focuses his attention on that most horrific display of technological domination, the nuclear bomb. His question is: How is it that only in the West such an instrument of annihilation has become possible? While other civilizations have had the means to develop a scientific technology, only the West has done so, and we have done it without regard to any limits whatsoever[.142 ]He writes:

“since the Middle Ages, the mind of the West has lifted off like a rocket, starting slowly to raise itself above the ground, then picking up speed exponentially. No other civilization shows this self-propelling explosive development. Seen in this light, the atom bombs and missiles of this century do not look like accidental by-products of our culturebut more like the symbol of the West as a whole”[143]

That science and technology are pursued with such single-minded devotion can only be understood if we realize that they are not secular activities at all. What he says of the bomb can be applied to the universal scope of technology as a whole:

“The nuclear bomb in its phenomenology is so immense and so inhuman that, although a man-made object, it nevertheless extends far beyond the merely human into the dimension of the ontological and theological, into the dimension of Being and of the Gods.”[144]

Where do we look for the origins of this huge dynamic that threatens to overwhelm us all? There are two key events in Judeo-Christian history that are decisive. They are to be found in the Old Testament story of Moses and the Golden Calf, and in the New Testament narratives of the Incarnation.

Throughout his account, Giegerich contrasts what he regards as a characteristically Judeo-Christian experience of reality with an interpretation of that of the ancient Greeks. The story of the clash between them begins with Moses’ destruction of the idol:

This story is, so to speak, a story of the collision of two worlds. One is situated in the lowlands and is characterized by an animal-shaped image of God cast from metal to whom the worshipping people bring offerings and in whose honor they celebrate a holiday, releasing themselves playfully to the celebration. The other world is a mountain peak and is characterized by an invisible, transcendent God in the heights, by a code of moral laws engraved on stone tables, and, on the part of God as well as on the part of Moses, by a fierce wrath against the celebrating people.[145]

Moses comes down from the mountain with the tablets of the Law, and in a rage pulverizes the golden calf around which the people have celebrated and danced in his absence. He forces a decision: “Who is on the side of the Lord?” and commands those siding with him to “slay every man his brother, every man his companion, every man his neighbor”[146] and so they ordained themselves for the service of the Lord. This story, Giegerich says, has penetrated deeply into the soul of Western humanity for 2000 years, causing a permanent rift in our souls between the pagan dancer and the warrior in service to the transcendent God. It signals the birth of both the sin of idolatry and of the One God. For there can be no True God without false gods, and no idols without that Lord.

-86-

This story describes a schism in the experience of reality. The pagan, mythical, ritualistic, experience of the world is dominated by the self-evident radiance of phenomena. The word phenomenon has its roots in the Greek phainesthai: to appear, to shine. For Giegerich, a psychologist in the Jungian tradition, this “shining” of things is what Jung has meant by the “image.”[147] Avens says, “Phenomena have no backs: they are what they mean and they mean what they are. What manifests itself and impresses the soul with a numinous effect is true by virtue of its shining.” As Jung discovered in conversation with a Pueblo Indian Chief, the Sun that is God has nothing “behind ” it. The Chief said “The Sun is God, everyone can see that.” “This is the Father, there is no Father behind it.”[148] This “pagan” god is a theos, and does not refer to a Supreme Being – it expresses a quality of existence, something “unheard of”, “extraordinary”, “wonderful.”[149] In the case of the Golden Calf, “anybody could immediately see from the bull’s radiating imaginal quality that this is God. The essence of God was in the pagan world to be sought in the radiation and in the numinosity of this metaphoric shine.”[150]There is no question as the existence of such deities – they are the self-evident fullness of sensuous reality.

But when Moses pulverizes the idol, God “pushes off from his animal base and takes off for the mountain.”[151] This unprecedented, entirely unique event has enormous consequences. The meaning of divinity and the meaning of the world have changed utterly. Though it takes centuries for the effects to work themselves out, the die is cast. God becomes invisible, present only in faith and in the preaching of his word. God becomes wholly transcendent, his immanent shine now gone – he disappears even from the winds. God becomes One: no longer visible, but pure spirit, his particularity and plurality disappear. God’s animal nature and concrete reality vaporize and we are left with an idealized Being. With no presence in the world, with no sensate epiphanies to speak for Him, there must be an unbroken string of Witnesses to keep the faith alive. Lastly, by pushing off any image, God becomes literal: the One, True, Positivist God. Only the literal can be believed in. Images show themselves – they are what they reveal, and as an essential part of this showing, they have their being in relation to other such images, and thus their boundaries are labile, indistinct and sensuous. Only an ideal, abstract reality can be perfect, stable and simple enough to be literal. In short:

“God was only able to acquire his literal existence by paying the price of his substantiality, self-evidence, and worldly embodiment. Only by abandoning his sensate reality, only through his mystification, was he able to become absolute spirit and true God.”[152]

The effects on the world He leaves behind are just as radical. Idols and the True God are born simultaneously. Both are equally distant from the mythical, imaginal reality from which they emerge with the stroke of Moses’ sword. Giegerich writes:

Moses’ pulverizing and melting down the Golden Calf is an assault on the imaginal quality of reality as such Moses reduces the reality of God to ‘mere matter’: dust instead of divine image. Just as God becomes a literal God, so does matter in a positivistic sense originate here It is this act which gives rise for the first time to the idea of something earthly that is ‘nothing but’ earthly, for it is deprived of its imaginal shine. As God becomes worldless by obtaining his ab-soluteness, so earthly reality becomes God-less.[153]

We are witnessing here the birth of positivism: literal, monotheistic religion, and literalist, monomaniacal secular scientism. It took centuries for this divine image of reality to be completely destroyed, and yet the seeds of the destruction are clear. In this biblical tale we are present at the birth of the literal and the “elimination altogether of the imaginal from the prevailing ontology.”[154] For Giegerich the catastrophic event that leads to the modern world lies at the very heart of the Judeo-Christian experience of transcendence.

There are three new elements that appear at this birth: God as a transcendent, purely spiritual intensity, matter as a literalized, secular “dust,” and, born out of the psychic energy released by this “first fission” of the West, the Will to Power, in the form of the ego.[155] This will to power is what drives modern scientific technology and has produced most emblematically the horror that is the Bomb.

-87-

There is a good deal more to Giegerich’s story, but our focus is on the Incarnation. Given the radical split between God and the world, what is the meaning of the Incarnation for Giegerich? He stresses that Christianity alone of all the world’s religions professes such a doctrine, and it is out of the Christian Middle Ages that the modern view of nature arises. What this uniquely Christian doctrine adds to the schism is the paradoxical union of its members. Speaking in psychological terms, Giegerich says that God must somehow compensate for his lack of Being, his disappearance into the empyrean. But given the gulf separating God from matter, the only way to effect a contact is through the necessarily paradoxical union, the perichoresis or reciprocal interpenetration of the divine and the human. Giegerich calls the burial of the Logos in earthly flesh the “somatization of Being” and says that it provides the only possible mythical basis for our modern sense of the objective reality of the world of things and facts.[156] It is significant that Giegerich should choose perichoresis from among all the various ways of understanding the doctrine of kenosis. As we have seen, this term was used by John of Damascus, and in his hands the doctrine threatened the full permeation of the human by the divine. It threatened the obliteration of human weakness “by the invasive leakage of divine power.”[157] This understanding of kenosis raises the specter of a divine force destroying and controlling the human nature of Christ, and so His essential weakness. This is indeed the point that Giegerich is making. This is the kind of kenosis that is really at work in the Western psyche, in spite of all the disputations of the theologians.

When the Logos becomes flesh, the flesh is “logolized.” The embodiment of the transcendent, abstract spirit, in compensation for its loss of reality and immanence, has three results. Avens summarizes:

First, God’s essence ceases to be only image-like, mythical. God wants to be positively ’someone,’ a substantial being, a being in flesh. Second, the fact that this Godmust become flesh, shows that from the very outset he lacks something – that he is incorporeal, insubstantial, unreal. The natural gods never need to become flesh because they carry their corporeality in their image-like or imaginal nature. Third, in the event of the incarnation a twofold change takes place: a change in the essence of flesh and a simultaneous change in the essence of nature [W]e are witnessing here an event of awesome proportions: the flesh – in its oneness with the Logos – acquires a radically different nature. The very idea of flesh, earth, reality, is changed. The flesh is no longer natural, but flesh from above; indeed it is not flesh at all but, so to speak, a ‘logolized’ abstract flesh.[158]

The world is forever changed. What counts as real is no longer the phenomenal real of the mythical, ritual world, but the abstract, manufactured “second nature” of what will become technology. Technology is Logos, and technology is flesh – and it is what defines what is really real: “the flesh, after the Incarnation, has acquired a new meaning: it is ‘made,’ technological flesh, a second nature.”[159]

Christianity attains to its truth only through the death of nature, through the dominion of the abstract and yet intensely, literally real world of technological devices whose actual purpose is to build God here on earth, in the flesh. This is what transcendence means for us: it is “a quality within reality, another style of reality” where the abstract, invisible “spiritual” laws of nature, the generalized abstractions of science, are given body through technique. The global domination of Western technology is also a fulfillment of Christian monotheism in its relentless attempt to unify, control and dominate the various viewpoints of the plural, human world. The God’s-eye view of the satellite in space, the all-encompassing reach of global capitalism and the pervasive tentacles of consumer culture, TV and the Internet: all of this points to the dominance of “one absolute, total, all-encompassing God – the God of technology.” Giegerich says “The event of technology as a whole means the end of eachness, the end of cosmos and the victory of universe Concrete objects, tables, cars, shoes, tin cans, plastic now have their nature in being throwaway objects, and only abstract Technology as a whole has divine value.”[160] The aim of technology is a total obliteration of the human and of the natural. Avens comments, “Everything is a fusion of heaven and earth in one point In a word, the very being of the artificial (the technological) is power and violence-violation.”[161]

The movement into the literal world of second nature is also an exteriorization of everything inner, interior. This is a turning inside out into a world of objects and history, a world of human-made devices that have undone the natural realm in its entirety – where we have given all the names. The Incarnation is the truth of the West, and can only be fulfilled by a total exteriorization of our inwardness – by a total immersion in earthly reality. We must learn to see, Giegerich says, that humanism, freedom, individuality and interiority are the “untruth of the West.” We are bound by destiny, by the new truth of Being which technology inaugurates, and our only redemption lies in giving ourselves over wholly to this new ontology, this more-than-human power that will sweep us along in its wake whether we will it or not. We have viewed the world of technology as a secular realm only because we have tried to deny its sacred power – the power of the one God among us – and we can be saved only by accepting the fact that for us, technology is God. “The nuclear Bomb is God.”[162]

-88-

One can imagine Corbin’s horror, were he to hear this account. This is just the catastrophe he feared, just what the failed initiation could produce, just what one could expect from a fana of God into the world. The perils of the Incarnation include just this divinization of the human. Corbin saw that the doctrine of the God-Man can go wrong in precisely this way, so that the two natures of Christ collapse together, and in a monstrous inversion of the monophysite doctrine, Man sets himself up as God on Earth.[163] Corbin would say that Giegerich has read the Judeo-Christian story from the point of view of the dominant tradition. By doing so, he has been able to show us what this tradition has done. But it has also lead him into the errors of that tradition. Importantly, he misunderstands the imaginal. His interpretation of the “image” as well as his use of imaginal, differ essentially from Corbin’s. In Corbin’s theophanic cosmology, “image” always implies an interplay between immanence and transcendence; that is what guarantees the angelic function of beings and prevents idolatry. Giegerich views the origins of monotheism through the lens ground by the very technicians whose worldview is the result of the failed initiation. So he cannot understand the true meaning of theophany and of the imaginal. Thus Giegerich reads a modern disaster back into the rift between the Greek and the Hebrew.

But it is not the Abrahamic tradition that is at fault, only the literal, dogmatic, “Hegelian” versions of it. What Giegerich has done is to reveal to us clearly what these interpretations of the Incarnation and kenosis have produced. Surely Corbin would say that Giegerich reads the Incarnation aright – this is what has happened, we do live under the dominion of the Will to Power, in the shadow of the domination of the individual, and the violation of the world of the anima mundi given in the primordial Revelation. It is a rape of Nature and of humanity as well. Giegerich’s view of the Incarnation expresses precisely what Corbin was most worried about – Faustian science, demonic inflation and the disappearance of the interiority of the individual. But for Giegerich this reality forces us to accept that Pan is in fact dead, Nature is violated, the air is fouled and the forests will not regrow. This is our fate, we have all contributed to its development, and we are the very enemy we pretend to loath. He says that we have no choice. In an echo of Vattimo, he thinks this is our destiny and we have no other option. We must accept the world of technology. It is, he says, the place where our being truly is. He writes “for us technology is ‘our place of soul-making’ our form of alchemical opus and our place of theophany.”[164] But where Vattimo’s theophanies appear in the ephemeral being of transient things, Giegerich’s appear in warheads and thermonuclear detonations.

There is sense in his “realism,” for we cannot bury our heads in the sand in escapism. And yet to believe that technology is the inevitable embodiment of the Will to Power invites the darkest visions of a technological world run amok. Harraway, who as we have heard writes of the promise that may be found in the image of the cyborg, sees the demonic side quite clearly. In her words, the cyborg is

the awful apocalyptic telos of the West’s escalating dominations of abstract individuation, an ultimate self untied at last from all dependency, a man in space From one perspective a cyborg world is about the final imposition of a grid of control on the planet, about the final abstraction embodied in a Star Wars apocalypse waged in the name of defense, about the final appropriation of women’s bodies in a masculinist orgy of war.[165]

We can envision a technological future as Vattimo does, and as Harraway hopes we may, as the birthplace of multiple interpretations that dissolve all global powers in a happy chaotic welter of local powers and local rationalities. There is a good deal of such theorizing within the scientific community itself.[166] Then technology can perhaps represent the culmination of kenosis as love. In that case there are some points of agreement with Corbin’s theology. There are then ways of understanding the kenotic foundations of normative Christianity in line with Corbin’s views. But co-existing with these tendencies are those that Giegerich describes. If, as I suspect, it is the latter that are likely to prevail, then Corbin’s prediction of catastrophe has come true with a vengeance.

There are clearly truths in both of these accounts of the modern world. But whichever way we read technology, Corbin would stand firm against both Vattimo and Giegerich on one key issue: that there is no other option. Both Vattimo and Giegerich affirm our helplessness in the face of the Truth of Being. We are doomed either to accept “accomplished nihilism” or the inhuman powers of Second Nature. But to interpret this as the unalterable destiny of the West, as somehow the new Truth of Being[167] which we must accept in order to be in tune with our times – this invites the ultimate catastrophe, the ultimate Idolatry: worship of the Promethean human in the form of Technology and the complete and final occultation of even the memory of both the human being and of God. For Corbin the proclamation that our current sorry state is our destiny and in fact the truth of Being, is the greatest domination, the most dangerous dogmatism. Corbin stands for the freedom of the individual against the tides of the times. It is a stand against a world made by men, or a world, if so it be, made by the Fallen God, the absolute literalist, a God who is no longer hidden at all, whose body is the bomb, whose meaningless images now flood our lives. Corbin stands for the individual soul, in that community of beings accessible to us in the numinous shine and radiance of the Primordial Revelation.

-89-

III. For Love of the World: Imagination, Language and the Primordial Revelation

I want to sketch out the rudiments of a response to these analyses of the history of the West, of technology and of our sense of who we are. Surely we have been shaped by the prophetic tradition out of which Christianity was born, but I share Corbin’s belief that we are not trapped within the confines of history as it has developed. The direction I want to pursue owes a great deal to Corbin’s vision of the Religions of Abraham, the Religions of the Book, and to those elements within those traditions that he so passionately defended. But I find it difficult embrace any of them. Their official forms have been too violent, too oppressive, too destructive. And the God of Abraham has been absent too long and too hideously in the century’s genocides and catastrophes. And yet, I am profoundly stirred by Corbin’s work, and want to count myself among “those who have chosen,” I want to join in his battle against the forces of Ahriman, and in the search for glimmers of light in these dark times. Corbin’s work on the roots of the Abrahamic tradition points the way towards an understanding of the relation between transcendence and immanence, thought and being, the spiritual and the ethical, that can perhaps allow us to begin formulate a response adequate to the conditions of humanity and the world in our time. We must pay close attention to what he has to tell us of the Imagination, the world, and the Word. Because the central question to be asked about the Religions of the Book is: After the unspeakable catastrophes of the 20th century, what can we say?

The Dome is Built Upon the Rock

We are in danger of becoming defined and dominated by our tools. Our powers and techniques are truly titanic: monstrous and divine at once. We are caught in a multitude of contradictions established by the powers we have unleashed. We are indeed made weak by what we have thought, for our tools are our thoughts “made flesh.” We are overcome by these literally real abstractions in a global society of a generalized communication and the unfettered flow of things. This world without boundaries is wracked with violence, madness and despair – for overhanging it all is that final abstraction made real, that infinite counterweight to any physicist’s Theory of Everything, the nuclear bomb. We find ourselves caught between the abyss of a horrible “freedom” and the finality of an annihilating constraint, amidst the wreckage of nature and of human hopes.

It is time for each of us to make a choice. If we are not to perish in the flux of history we must follow Corbin’s lead and take a stand against it. His entire work constitutes an invitation to choose, not for ourselves, but for our Angel and for the Angel of the Earth. In order to gain access to the experience of soul of the world upon which our own souls depend we need a method, a theoria. To take a stand against the powers that threaten to engulf us we need a counter-technology. We need techniques to oppose the immense powers that threaten to annihilate all the rich diversities of the world, both cultural and natural. And we need the means to resist the perils of nihilism that threaten to weaken our determination, undermine our sense of the ultimate worth of the human soul, and that give support to the insidious darknesses that dissolve us from within.

Among the lovers of the world, among the ecologists, among the “greens,” there has long been recognition that our species has overstepped its bounds, that our actions are disrupting the physical and biological systems upon which our lives depend. We see the need to reinvent human political economies, to move beyond the economic systems of the developed nations. Not in order to revert to an idealized non-technological past, but to move towards a world where the human connection to the earth is understood, and given its due. We have to envision a post-technological world, a post-modern world where human culture is no longer conceived in separation from the natural world.

The attempt to establish humility, respect and reverence for the matrix of life as the guiding principles for a new conception of human culture has been called “posthistoric primitivism.”[168] Posthistoric because our vision of the enormous diversity of human cultures over vast expanses of time and space means that we can stand now outside the limits of a narrowly human conception of history. We can see ourselves as embedded in non-human nature, and our present lives as extensions of a pre-historic, Paleolithic past. Primitive, because we can recognize the primordial bases of human communal and individual life. As the anthropologist Stanley Diamond has said, “the sickness of civilization consistsin it’s failure to incorporate (and only then to move beyond the limits of) the primitive.”[169] Even Giegerich suggests that our situation would not perhaps have become so desperate had we been able from the outset to see our technologies not as part of the secular realm, and so merely utilitarian and unconnected to the life of the soul or the spirit, but as a living part of the psyche of the world. We might then have given them the attention due to any expression of the anima mundi. We might have taken the care to develop humane and appropriate technologies that could have helped to usher in a new kind of primitivism.[170]

The situation is very different from the perspective of traditional Islam. In Islam Nature itself is the primordial Revelation. Thus as Corbin often repeats, God can say “I was a Hidden Treasure and I longed to be known, so I created the world.” The world itself is the original manifestation of the Face of Beauty. The Qur’an says “Whithersoever you turn, there is the Face of God.”[171] The revealed Book is replete with cosmic imagery, more so perhaps than any other sacred text, and everything in that cosmos is a sign of God. As the last Revelation, part of the message of Islam is to restore the first Revelation, the miracle of creation, to center stage, since over time it has more and more come to be taken for granted.[172]

-90-

But the return to the primordial in Islam does not signify what in the modern West is sometimes disparagingly termed “a return to nature.” The Islamic Revelation is a laying bare of the Face of God, by means of the “reminder” that is the Book. As Norman O. Brown has argued, the Qur’an, by means of its pulverization of human language, is more avant-garde, more post-modern than Finnegan’s Wake. In its structure, its language, its allusiveness, its ambiguities, its imagery and its poetry “the Qur’an reveals human language crushed by the power of the divine.”[173] God’s Word unmakes all human meanings, all the proud constructions of civilization, of high culture, and returns all the luxuriant cosmic imagery back to the lowly and the oppressed, so that in their imaginations it can be made anew. Brown says “The Islamic imagination, [as] Massignon has written, should be seen as the product of a desperate regression back to the primitive, the eternal pagan substrate of all religions – that proteiform cubehouse, the Ka’ba – as well as to a primitive pre-Mosaic monotheism of Abraham. The Dome is built upon the Rock.” The way to start a new civilization, Brown says, “is not to introduce some new refinement in high culture but to change the imagination of the masses”[174]

To effect this transformation, to liberate the imagination from the control of the powerful who would manipulate all our thoughts and desires requires the moment of nothingness that is the result of the encounter with the Deus absconditus. It requires the destruction of human meaning that Joyce called the “abnihilisation of the etym.”[175] This is part of the task of hermeneutics. In Corbin’s vision, the soul and the world are not divisible, and hermeneutics is their simultaneous development. Speech and song are the primordial technologies of the soul. A counter-technology based on this insight would consist in an attempt to reclaim the roots of language, of the soul and of the world from their domination by the powers of abstraction and universalization, whether these are technological, economic or political. These roots are to be sought not in the universal, abstract and general, but in the individual, the oral, the local and the particular.[176] This provides the answer to the question that may be the central question of the Abrahamic prophetic tradition: Who is Khidr?[177] There is a hint of the answer in his name: Khidr is the “Verdant One.”[ 178] He is the Green Man. He is the Angel of the Face and the Angel of the Earth as hermeneut: the Verus Propheta revealed to each soul in the form in which each is able to receive it.

It is to this hermeneutics that we now turn.

Psychocosmology: Alchemies of the Word and of the World

If we recognize the realm of the imaginal as the mediating world between the purely physical and the purely spiritual then the schism between them can begin to heal. Matter need no longer be confused with the demonic. Indeed everything becomes material.[179] What had been conceived as spiritual reality becomes the realm of subtle bodies, and there is a continuum from the dense to the subtle that corresponds to an intensification of being. It is possible for any of the beings belonging to the world of Light to become more real, more themselves, more individual and intense in their very being. We begin to suspect then that the true meaning of the word substance is fading from our consciousness. We tend to think of the spiritual as disembodied, diaphanous, even abstract. We set spirit on one side, and matter on the other, and increasingly only the material, the manipulable, has any real importance, any “substance.” But when priority is given to the imaginal, the dichotomy between substance and spirit collapses. The spiritual is substantial. It is not disembodied. It is here, it is now. This is how we can reclaim a sense of the substantial presence and the concrete significance of human life.[180] The “real work” for us is simultaneously a spiritual, ethical and physical struggle. Like can only be known by like: this means that thought and being are inseparable, that ethics and perception are complementary. The form of the soul is the form of your world. This fundamental unity of the faculties of human cognition and the world to which they give access is that eternal pagan substrate of all religion. As we saw earlier, Corbin speaks of the “cognitive function of sympathy” as basic to the revelation of correspondences, the “balances” between the worlds visible to the eyes of flesh and the worlds visible to the eyes of fire. This sympathy is at once perceptual and cognitive and requires an attitude towards reality that the modern world has nearly completely forgotten. It is a stance towards reality that gives weight to the display of the image, denying the schism between the inner and the outer, the subjective and the objective. All the prophets have been sent to remind us of it. And in the Islamic view there have been no people to whom there have not been sent messengers. We can trace this substrate right back to the Paleolithic. In recalling the poetic or cognitive function of sympathy, Corbin is calling us to recover what the poet Gary Snyder calls the “mythological pr