Saturday, 9 May 2015

A Point of Despair

          Haiku; the particular implying the general. It seems that the acorn implies the oak tree, because the acorn has all the potential within it to create an oak tree. But that is not the end of the story, because the acorn could not exist without a prior oak tree, and it could not grow without a supportive medium in which its needs are met. If the oak is the macro to the micro implied by the acorn, to what is the acorn an equivalent macro? The oak tree's DNA perhaps that is present within the tree and the seed. But of what is DNA constructed? How many steps are implied by any manifestation of creation?
          I, like many others I suspect, are accustomed to talking about the Higher and the lower selves. The lower self seems to be small in comparison with the Higher Self, unless the lower self or ego is viewed solely against the psycho/material background of consciousness. Yet I am aware of an inner observing role with which I become involved, which is neither 'lower' nor 'Higher'. It is that same observing function that becomes involved in the Great Work of becoming aware of my ego and all its traits: it is that same observing function that becomes aware of far more than psycho/materiality. That observing Self can be involved in both activity and observation, yet it is neither the doer nor the observer. It is that which lies behind both functions. It is analogous to the One who was reportedly involved in the creation of the universe, as well as observing 'that it was good' on the seventh day.
          From this particular perspective, I see that the lower self does not exist independently but as part of a system of possibilities. As with Alistair Crowley, it seems to me that the Higher Self also does not have an independent existence either, because it is inextricably linked to a non-independent entity called the ego. There is only "I", and I am that I am. Everywhere I 'look' I see only possibilities for change that can be, to a greater or lesser extent, effective and efficient. In that context, morality becomes a system of guidelines towards greater efficiency without any overtones of judgementalism.
          Somewhere within, what for the want of a better word I will call the Self, lies a very great deal of unconscious information. Growing experience makes conscious an increasing number of examples of both efficient and inefficient ways of being. But how much experience do I need to acquire? Is it enough to see that in all important effects, I - that is the Self - is a copy (at the very least) of the One? I create within myself the totality of the universe that I can sense, and I can also observe and draw the conclusion 'It is that It is.' Is it possible that I can conclude that I am now at a stepping-off point into a greater inner universe? Or should I conclude that the universe now inevitably falls in on itself on the one hand, or expands to a state of virtual nothingness, at an ever-increasing rate, on the other hand? Either way, isn't the universe ultimately a pointless exercise in acorn production?

Saturday, 2 May 2015

Unblocking the Pathways

          In a recent pathworking, in which I entered the secret garden and attempted to take a shower in the gazebo (the details of this pathworking are not important here), I discovered that I would not come clean. The problem of being covered in something unclean, whether in the material world or the world of the spirit, is that more of the same tends to attach itself to that skin of impurity. This is particularly true when one is dealing with psycho-spiritual denial. One could say that one acquires 'attachments.' Meister Eckhart once said,

"The more God is in all things, the more He is outside them. The more He is within, the more without."

          It is taught that God is both totally transcendent and totally immanent. If I could skirt around the God word here, it is not unreasonable to say that if I am genuinely to enter into the necessary process of "knowing oneself", then I need to take on the mantle of divinity, in other words to reach out far beyond what has been called the higher Self. Only then can I enter the realm of the ego, and truly know it, without becoming in any way attached to it, thus freeing myself from its dominion. When I talk about the ego here, I am referring not only to my conscious personality; its traits negative and positive; its thoughts, emotions and senses, but also to its natural tendency to form attachments. Thus, if I am 'unclean' I do not know myself; if I cannot come clean, I can never know myself.
          To achieve the ultimate state of spiritual cleanliness, or to become totally transcendent, does not seem to me to require a single, giant step. The work that needs to be done is a process of step-taking, each step raising myself to ever 'higher' levels. The higher I am able to go, the more deeply I can immerse myself in the process of "knowing myself" without risking attachment. The more transcendent the Self becomes, the more immanent it becomes. It may well follow that the more I know my lower self, and unblock the inner, lower pathways, the more I can consciously experience my higher Self.