CURRENT ARTICLE

HOME    GANIEDA SANCTUARY    INTEGRAL MEDICINE    GANIEDA COLLEGE    GANIEDA PRESS    BIOGRAPHY    CURRENT ARTICLE    WHAT'S NEW    CONTACT US

SPIRITUAL CONFUSION

In the post-modern era we have inherited some awkward terminology with respect to the spiritual realms. Even the term “Spirituality” is subject to this and is in danger of becoming literalised and stripped of deeper import in the way terms such as mythology and imagination have become. We live in a world that where the dominance of scientific materialism has seen the literal to be seen as our exclusive view of our world and the life it contains, leaving them in a sorry state of affairs. Should any term that has deeper import be used, it will tend to be stripped of its deeper metaphoric and symbolic meaning.

This has happened with mythology already and is evident when the term “myth” is used colloquially as something not real, even false. It has almost become synonymous with the term “lie”. That such an inversion of the deeper, richer and more authentic meaning is now the predominant state of affairs indicates not only something sad, but also deeply concerning about our current position.

To begin this exploration, it may be worth trying to gain some appreciation of spiritual terminology in the modern scientific era, as what we have inherited is in danger of being formalised and defined in the post-modern era to our collective detriment. My deeper argument is that we are sorely in need of these terms in their authentic meaning to inform the transitions we are currently involved in.

Here’s a comment I made in an earlier work, “Medicine at the Crossroads”, which sets the tone for what is to follow:

I received more than one comment about the confusion in this passage: Small wonder! It was deliberately left somewhat vague in that work, to illustrate the confusion we currently have about such terminology. So maybe it would be worth providing a little further clarification to these terms from a modern perspective before looking more deeply and traditionally at their definition and meaning.

The term Perennial Philosophy was most recently used by Aldous Huxley in his book of the same name. One modern philosopher, Ken Wilber, has sought to give it further currency with his criticism of the “flatland” perspective of the modern world. For “flatland” we could read materialistic or literalistic, but it is a clear and strong metaphor for the difficulty we are in.

This philosophy could be expanded to body, mind and spirit (a “New Age” view) or body, soul and spirit (a more “Traditional” view, somewhat misinterpreted in the modern era – points to which we will come). My concern is that that the modern view of mind tends to be over-inclusive and not to recognise other features, possibly because of their feminine associations in the patriarchal modern era, such as the role and place of emotion. Mind also needs distinguishing from intellect, which also tends to reduce its dominance (indeed, it has been “identified” with the brain; a grave mistake). So, from the modern perspective maybe the perennial philosophy, also called the “Great Chain of Being” (for self-evident reasons), may be better seen as body, emotion, mind and spirit.

Further issues arise from this. We tend to equate the term “Psyche” with the mind and it is featured in this manner in modern disciplines such as psychology and psychiatry. This gives the term a somewhat rational and masculine image, whereas traditionally and in mythologically psyche is feminine and equated with “Soul”; a somewhat lost term in the modern era. Maybe it is too late to retrieve psyche from the clutches of the patriarchy and its masculine dominance – but I intend to have a go.

The way to do this is not to challenge the term psyche itself; a war I would surely lose. Maybe it is better to do this for the present by acknowledging the equation mind=psyche and go about the reconstruction process another way, via emotion. The emotions are relegated to an area of the brain (the Limbic System) that is seen as being inferior and more primitive that the Cerebral Cortex, the supposed home of the rational mind. Irrespective of these somewhat arbitrary and artificial divisions, they rest on the notion that mind=brain (can you see now how the term “mind” has become over-inclusive?). Philosophy has long discarded this association; it just hasn’t hit medicine and the sciences yet and so has not been demonstrated to the populace at large, thus perpetuating these errors and distortions.

Emotion also reintroduces the feminine and connects to body, yet also transcends it. This is a powerful feature of the Great Chain of Being, that each level includes the one below, yet also supersedes it. However, I would then add a little twist: emotion and mind (in its more restricted sense) could be considered equivalent and thus provide a two-dimensionality to the one-dimensional Great Chain. Together they may represent a more true perspective of psyche (in its true terminology as soul); that is inclusive of the body.

Try and stay away from a predominantly mental and conditioned perspective to where we are now positioned. The terms have been deliberately “loosened up” and are moving around in a more fluid manner; maybe taking differing configurations in your mind, challenging you emotionally and engaging the imaginative process.

If emotion is the “vehicle of the soul” (Paracelsus), then maybe imagination is its activity. Certainly a modern pioneer of the reinstatement of the position and importance of the term “Soul” in the (Western) psychic economy, James Hillman, would consider it so. In his pioneering work “Emotion”, Hillman uses Aristotle's four ways (“causes”) in which the term “why” can be understood and applies them to emotion. The outcome:

1. Formal cause = psyche or soul
2. Efficient cause = symbol
3. Final cause = transformation
4. Material cause = energy

It would take us too far away from the thrust of this work to go into this in any further detail (after all, it takes Hillman some 300 pages to do so), but it does illustrate the potential richness and complexity of the term soul and its manifestation in associated terms like emotion, imagination and symbol. As symbol and metaphor indicate the depth perspective (beyond the material body as the metaphor for our “flatland” world-view) and associate it with soul, it indicates that we need to wrestle with this term in the post-modern era if we are not to follow the material, mechanistic, reductionistic and patriarchal path to spiritual nihilism. In this respect soul may be the necessary bridge and possibly no accident that it requires someone from a more traditional era to provide the tools to map its cartography.

In a parallel manner it may be necessary to deal with the concept of “mind”, but maybe in reverse, to reduce its dominance and bring it into equivalence with (and in?) soul. This has deeper implications about gender and masculine/feminine relationships than can be explored here, yet are relevant and it is appropriate to do so. In this context mind as masculine and soul as feminine (from the modern perspective, at least) attain a balance somewhat below the vexed spiritual.

A perceptive eye will note that imagination connects to vision and hence a mystical perspective. Is there an equivalent with mind? I would suggest so, as mundane mind is very mechanical and rational (the Buddhist sees this dimension of mind as simply another of the senses). Maybe it is “idea” points us toward the intellect that, with imagination, forms a connection with the spiritual world.

Yet what exactly is this “spiritual world”? Unfortunately the term “Spiritual” has taken a strong hold on the public imagination, assisted maybe by the (re)connection with Eastern Spiritual Traditions. There are some inherent difficulties with this, particularly when neither the equivalent Western Traditions (which represent our own heritage, after all) nor the term soul have been adequately explored and reintegrated.

The soul aspect has been explored in the modern perspective immediately above, although we will have cause to revisit it. The term spirit has not suffered the same neglect, one reason being the view to the East. But, maybe more significantly, is the heritage of the Christian Church. That I hold this to be exoteric and somewhat literal (explaining much of its current malaise) will become apparent, as we seek to develop a more esoteric and symbolic perspective; in this I follow the example of Carl Jung.

The theological perspective is another reason the term spirit has not lost currency, as it is deeply embedded in the Trinity as the Holy Ghost. We are maybe finally shedding the fetters of the “Father” (the patriarchy) and more properly integrating that of the “Son” (not just Jesus, but our own “Christos”) in the age of spirit, which the Aquarian Age may well exemplify. In this more psychologically balanced era and the discovery of many Gnostic texts from the early Christian era, we are also having to negotiate that the Holy Ghost may well have a feminine image and reflect “Wisdom” (the New Age, at least, would love this) and even the Holy Grail.

Also from a theological perspective we may well be finally shedding the dominance of the crucifixion in our religious outlook and the resurrection making a necessary resurgence. The more esoteric and mystical perspective would have it this way. I incline to the term “Mysticism” in contrast to spirituality. One reason for this being that spirituality can be viewed as simply opposite to and in conflict with formal religion. I feel that the term mysticism more correctly reflects what we now see as the spiritual reality. Without mystery, the modern view of spirituality can become somewhat mechanical (particularly if account isn’t taken of soul) and start to look like the religion it is supposed to supersede (a danger of the New Age).

I might have some criticism with this view, methinks, but I’ll keep to it anyway in the course of this essay.

Another reason for the difficulty is that the terms soul and spirit had altogether different meanings “traditionally” prior to the modern era. To illustrate this I will take a perspective extracted from Alchemy (the art of personal transformation). This may close this piece of work in altogether more confusion, but if this perspective can be embraced it may shed a lot of clarity onto a vexed area and provide seeds for a more complete and creative integration.

In many ways in alchemy the terms soul and spirit become turned on their heads. Spirit is more correctly the animating or vital principle, effectively the “life-force”, the psychobiological energies that exist somewhere between the body whatever is beyond. In this view and as reflected in alchemy, the spirit has a more feminine (lunar) image as quicksilver (mercury, “liquid silver”), and is seen as dynamic and active. (Maybe this is reflected in the colloquial term “spirited”?) In this it readily accords with the Eastern Tantric world-view that sees the serpent as sexuality, active and feminine. In the West we presently see the feminine as receptive and submissive, the male as active and dominant. Alchemy turns this view on its head and, from this mystical and symbolic perspective, accords well with other mystical disciplines (not to neglect the broad hints about the place and role of sexuality – and women – in the mystical world).

This view of spirit increasingly takes on a more masculine, fiery and still perspective as it evolves; maybe reflecting the emotion and mind dyad we explored earlier. So where does this leave soul in alchemy? Soul is the supernatural element of the personality and has an image that is more solar. Soul represents our individual and “resurrected” position (born-again, enlightened… whatever metaphor works for you). In many ways this perspective of soul is more compatible with the emerging image of spirit in the post-modern era that we explored earlier.

In the pre-modern traditional perspective these views of spirit and soul are strangely and paradoxically opposite to the way they are now commonly viewed. Which leaves us with a dimension beyond all these terms, which supersedes yet includes them all. This is the place of mystery and what we may be referring to in our time with the term spirit.

Maybe a simplistic unification would be to term the traditional usage of spirit as life-force, which, combined with the similar traditional usage of soul, would comprise a modern vision of Soul. Such an image would be seen as initially animating, energetic and active, then progressively more settled and still as it evolved. This evolution could be seen in sexual terms as a unification of feminine and masculine, which, interestingly, begins with feminine imagery.

In our earlier images this could be seen in the modern context as emotion unifying with mind or, more correctly, intellect. Alternatively where images and ideas come together and why intellect can be seen often as the bridge to the beyond, which, in our era we have termed spirit.

Or maybe this traditional perspective is but a stage back to the primordial patterns from which these terms derive. If so, then tradition, as seen in alchemy, helps restore the balance of masculine and feminine that modern times has torn asunder in the maze of dualism. It also helps restore the importance and activity of the feminine in the psychic economy.

In the more distant perspective there is a strange circular reconnection of the modern and view from antiquity. Here soul includes aspects of body, emotions and mind. This view of soul lies between the physical and the spiritual, the highest point of which is closest to spirit. Ancient maps, such as the Jewish Kabbalah, contain all these perspectives in a woven continuum. It is for us to reconnect with them in our modern culture, revitalise and re-establish this wisdom.

It is just that I find the modern usage of spirit limited (it is only one aspect of the Trinity, after all) and why that I prefer the term mystical, with the individual practitioner a mystic or magician; a term that finishes this enquiry on a controversial note and to which I shall return…