Full Circle: 'Thou', It, I, 'Thou'

When I was a child it was common in the UK, where I live, to have Christian assemblies at school each morning, with the singing of hymns, and the saying of prayers. I also went to Sunday School and then Church. So I was very familiar from the start with the practice of addressing God in the second person, albeit in archaic language, using Thou and Thine, instead of You and Yours. The God I grew up with was personal, to everyone. The word for that, I know now, is immanent.

Then of course I became a teenager, questioning and querying, and came across the point of view that whatever 'being' had created such a vast universe, in which our planet is a tiny, tiny speck, there was absolutely no reason why that entity should be the least bit interested in us, let alone in whether we allowed women to be priests, or banned people from having sex with some-one of the same gender. God became something it would be daft to address as 'you'. God, if it existed, was 'it', in the third person. For a while for me God became a remote and transcendent entity, which left the question, debated by humanists, agnostics and aetheists for centuries, how do we decide what 'good' or a moral life is, if God has nothing to do with it? The universe also suddenly seemed a very cold and meaningless place. Reading the French existentialists (one of them in the actual French, thanks to it being in my A-level French curriculum.) intensified that feeling. Not really a good thing if you're prone to depression anyway.

But then I came across mysticism and panentheism (the latter being the belief that God is everything in the material universe, and a lot more besides.) This made it clear why so many mystics down the ages have insisted that they were God - some being put to death for it. I've already gone into more detail about this in a post called 'A Spiritual Cosmology'. As I say there, God is the origin of everything, including you and me. We are made out of God. You and I are God. So God moved into the 'first person' grammatically

As regards getting our moral code from God, if we are God, then can we decide our own morality? (Is this where Aleister Crowley's suggestion "Do whatever thou wilt" comes from?)   In our post-modern society, where all values are equal, we are having a particular problem with this one.

Also referring to God in the first person made praying difficult. In praying to God I was praying to myself,  which felt extremely wrong. So I prayed to my 'Higher Self',- my more authentic self, beyond my everyday self which is mired in my ego, and pushed around by my id and superego. There was quite a debate on this in the Integral community, a lot of whose members are Buddhists so, being agnostic -because it's unimportant whether there is a God or not- don't have this problem (though a lot of them pray to Buddha, and other Buddhist saints.) You can see part of this debate at http://integrallife.com/member/david-sunfellow/blog/2nd-person-god-active-force-our-lives though it helps if you know something about 'spiral dynamics' to understand the significance of the colours being referred to. See http://integrallife.com/integral-post/overview-integral-theory

Basically the argument for a 'second person view of God' i.e. referring to God as 'you', is that while we are centred in our egos, and most of us are most of the time, it is more appropriate to envisage God as 'other', though it's not actually true. This helps to keep the ego in check, which  paradoxically helps us to remember who we really are.(God.)

This doesn't solve the morality problem immediately, but down the millenia mystics have reassured us time and time again that one can define as good anything that brings us closer to 'God', i.e. to the spiritual and Divine aspects of existence, and experience suggests that the golden rule is the absolute foundation of that.

While talking about prayer, I remember reading somewhere that many prayers don't 'get heard' anyway, because angels are the relay transmitters, boosting the signal so that prayers can reach the spiritual and Divine worlds (which of course is the spiritual and Divine aspects of ourselves) from which they can be answered. Angels originate and exist in the psychological/mental zone (and archangels originate and exist in the spiritual realm) so they simply don't hear prayers that are purely about materialistic things!!! I am intrigued by this concept, seemingly made up of a mixture of metaphor, allegory and metaphysics- and am still pondering its inner meaning; but basically the mystics are agreed that you don't need to pray for anything because God already knows what you need. I've said a bit more about this in my post on this blog entitled 'Daily Practice'.

I've also decided to continue referring to God as 'Thou' in my prayers, as a way of acknowledging that the 'second person' to whom I am praying is not any old person.

I'd be intrigued to know others' experience of these first person, second person, and third person views of God.

On Suffering

At the end of my last posting, David Birkett commented “I'm interested in your view of creation and the universe as regards those people born or cast into desperate circumstances.” Actually he and I discussed this question in bed that night, because he’s my husband, (we certainly know how to have fun). I thought that I would put the essence of what we discussed in this post, and invite others’ views.

Firstly, on a practical note, the exercises I described in my last post, done regularly, are designed to make it less likely that you generate more self- imposed suffering. Furthermore, when suffering occurs, you will be better able to deal with it. Fewer things will be interpreted by you as ‘suffering’, and are more likely to be interpreted as a learning experience instead. You also become psychologically and spiritually more resilient. I can vouch for that, personally.

But why should there be suffering in existence in the first place? And why does it seem to be doled out so unfairly? Why couldn’t an omnipotent God create a suffering-free world in the first place?

To begin with, I would like to refer readers to my second post of 10 October 2012 ("A spiritual cosmology and the problem of evil"). This is my own working hypothesis, but who am I to know the mind of God?? I’m reminded of God’s answer to Job, in the book of the Old Testament Bible of the same name. Job is a good man, and yet God stands by while he loses everything, including his family, and suffers horrible illnesses, while his previous neighbours and friends come to the conclusion that he could not have been the good man that they had thought, to be suffering like this. In the end Job turns on God and demands “WHY?” God yells back “WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION ME? Where you there when I created the world?” 

There are a number of eastern religions that are no more puzzled by the existence of suffering in a world where there is also joy, than they are at the fact there is dark as well as light. A single glance at the apparently infinite variety of creation might assure one that this is a universe which is exploring every conceivable possibility. The Buddha famously declared, as his ‘first truth’, that life IS suffering, and he searched hard to find a way to avoid being reborn into existence. Sufis (Muslim mystics) have been known to refer to this world as a ‘vale of suffering’, and both Kaballah and Sufi mystics tell tales of souls begging God not to be sent down to Earth to incarnate. But go they must.

Whatever’s going on, suffering seems to be essential to the process.  A few years ago there was a programme shown on TV called ‘Where was God during the Tsunami?’ which interviewed the priests, rabbis, imans etc. of various religions about why they thought God allowed suffering. I remember a Catholic priest saying that ‘God must have cried as he pushed the button to bring about creation’ because he knew the suffering that would ensue.

As well as there being stories within mystical traditions about less courageous souls not wanting to incarnate on Earth, there are also stories of souls who actually volunteer to enter into lives that will be full of suffering. There seems to be two reasons why they do this; firstly, to learn more quickly, and so make their way back up involution more quickly (again, see my second post on 10^th October) and, secondly, to ‘work off’ other people’s negative ‘karma’. 

The theory behind karma is that every action we take out of free will has consequences for the state of our soul. Some actions will make it lighter, so it advances back up the ladder to the Divine. Others will make it heavier, pulling it down into purgatory, and maybe even into a self- inflicted hell.  (Nobody gets sent to hell. We send ourselves there.) My husband particularly likes the theory about volunteering to undergo suffering in order to help others. Not only does it give his suffering meaning, but allows him to feel quite noble as well.

I desist from reminding him that his suffering might also be the result of misdeeds in past lives, which now need to be balanced up! Seriously, this particular theory is used in some societies as an excuse not to feel sorry for or even to help people who are suffering, or coping with desperate circumstances, and even to add to their suffering. I hardly need point out that this is not compassionate behaviour.

Christianity has a particularly interesting and rewarding take on suffering. Not only do Christians know that God experiences suffering, through becoming human Himself and suffering one of those most agonising deaths that can happen to a creature; but also that an inestimable amount of everyone’s karma was paid off as a result of His doing so, so we can all avoid hell if we so choose.

I hope I do not appear to be taking this subject too lightly to anyone undergoing suffering at the moment. To put it even more personally: as an endogenous depressive (I don’t need things outside of myself to make me depressed, I just don’t have enough serotonin to cope with everyday life) I have had prolonged episodes when I am terrified every time my husband or son leaves the house, in case they have an accident, and I never see them alive again.

You may consider this an unreasonable terror, but for me it was real, and almost unliveable with. I can appreciate the suffering of people who have good reason to fear they will never see a loved one again. Susan Jeffers wrote a book called ‘Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway’ in which she proposed that it’s not fear of actual suffering that frightens us, it’s the fear of not being able to cope with that suffering. Her book underlines the need for courage to live this life fully. In another of her books ‘End the Struggle and Dance with Life’ (where do they get these titles???) she suggests the following prayer that I have now incorporated into my everyday practice:

“Dear God, I trust that no matter what happens in my life, it is for my highest good. And no matter what happens in the lives of those I love, it is for their highest good. From all things that are put before us, we shall become stronger and more loving people. I am grateful for all the opportunity and beauty you put into my life. And in all that I do, I shall seek to be a channel for your love.”

Sources for further exploration

If anybody is interested in anything I've written so far, there is a wealth of further information out there. I tend to go for the type that turns up in books,- real material books,- so that I can write all over them.

I would most strongly recommend reading "What We May Be" by Piero Ferrucci. In fact, if I were in government, every household would receive a free copy of this book. Half an hour at the beginning of each school day would be given over to reading it and trying some of the exercises it recommends. In fact, if there's only one book you read in the rest of your life, make sure it's this one. Not that I've any strong feelings one way or another.

If you then want to go on, and read up further, try Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God". This woman is brilliant, and very readable (though not as readable as "What We May Be")

I would also recommend Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi's "The Way of Kabbalah", He has written several books with very similar titles, but I think that this is definitely the best one to start with.

Another favourite - the book that started me off down this track to begin with- is Kenneth Walker's "Gurdjieff, A Study of His Teachings".

After that, Christians would probably appreciate Father Thomas Keating's "Open Mind, Open Heart"
and Muslims might like Idries Shah's "The Sufis" though you don't have to be a Christian or Muslim to appreciate either or both..

For the intellectually adventurous (and possibly masochistic) I would recommend Jenny Wade's "Changes of Mind", as well as Ken Wilber's "No Boundary" and "Integral Spirituality"

Some websites which might lead you to interesting discoveries are as follows:

http://integrallife.com/

http://www.kabbalahsociety.org/

http://www.sophian.org/index.html

What books and websites would others recommend?

A spiritual cosmology, and the problem of evil

[Advance postscript: Some people have told me that they found the following post confusing. If that applies to you, I've tried to clarify it further in my posts on 28 October 'The Four Universes' and 29 October 'The Human Being'.]

I intend to be a little bolder, and considerably more provocative in this post, and tackle the question that has been thrown up for millennia by the critics of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God, which can be formulated as follows:

Why is there evil in a universe created by an omnipotent, loving God? Either God is omnipotent, or loving. The existence of evil suggests God cannot be both.

In order to respond to this perfectly rational question, we must think the practically unthinkable, for human brains anyway. This is that the entity/ground of all being/”absolute” responsible for anything existing (–and I’m talking about all levels of existence here: Divine, spiritual, psychological and physical-) in other words, the prime cause that needs no cause itself- is nothing, i.e. no- thing that we could possibly imagine. We can only describe it by what it is not, and that includes any adjective we can think of. Those adjectives/labels include ‘omnipotent’ and ‘loving’. It is impossible to describe the entity that is responsible for existence in any way, let alone apply words like ‘loving’ or ‘omnipotent’.

However, as I have already suggested, there are several levels of existence between the material/physical universe that most of us are familiar with, and the ‘ground of all being/”Absolute”’, and all of those levels the original entity gave birth to (parthenogenetically!), or rather, is continually giving birth to.

You can envisage it like this:

         Or like this:                                        

Several mystical traditions have it that the first universe to emerge from this “Absolute”, which is referred to as the ’Divine universe’, is beyond ordinary human comprehension. However, this Divine universe in turn produced out of itself the ‘spiritual universe’. At the head of this spiritual universe is the Being we can think of as the Creator God. So, to clarify, the ’Creator God’, referred to in the first verses of Genesis, is an aspect of the original “Absolute” and the original ‘Divine universe’.

In western Kabbalah and Gnostic Christian Kabbalah, the “Absolute” that calls forth from itself the Divine universe is referred to as ‘Ayin En Sof’ (‘endless nothing-ness’) and in at least one version of eastern Vedanta the concept is referred to as ‘Brahman’. The Creator God on the other hand is the ‘Keter of Beriyah’ and the ‘Tiferet of Azilut’ (the Crown of spirituality and the Truth of the Divine’) in Kabbalah; and as Brahma -without the final ‘n’- in Vedanta.  

    

Those who have had direct experience of this Creator God do report feelings of absolute bliss, peace, understanding, wisdom, compassion belonging-ness and one-ness with It in Its presence. (Not all of them are able to bring these attributes back with them.) (In fact not all of them come back and some, who are not sufficiently prepared, go happily mad.)

So, in answer to the original question set out above, my own thoughts on this is that the Creator God had to work within the ‘rules’ already set out by the ‘“Absolute” nothing-ness’ when it initiated all existence out of itself. The Creator God could not make 2 plus 2 equal 5, for example. Similarly it could not make an edible omelette without breaking eggs, just as you can’t build a comfortable, civilised town without having sewers in place. Thus the Creator God could not ‘choose’ to create a universe without what we think of as evil and suffering.

There is also the question of balancing ‘force’ and ‘form’, both of which are needed to make a multi- dimensional universe. On the side of force you have: expansive tendencies, creative impulses, revelation and wisdom. On the side of form you have: tendencies to contract and pull in, limitation and definition (e.g. structure), contemplation of what has been revealed, and understanding. (‘Understanding’ balances and channels ‘wisdom ‘ – this is a huge area that I’ll return to in future blogs.)

 As is the nature of any dynamic process, these two sides, force and form, can go out of balance, even before humankind started running around acting out of free will and often in opposition to God’s will. As I said in my last blog, too much force and the universe will go spiralling outwards and out of existence; too much form, and the universe would be too uncomfortable to be lived in (possibly disappearing up its own fundament). Between these two sides runs a ‘pillar’ holding the balance. In this strand of creation are will, grace, compassion and truth.

So, to re-cap: The Creator God not only brought the spiritual universe into existence out of itself (the exact process being described allegorically in the first chapter of Genesis), it also formed, out of the spiritual universe, the psychological universe (sometimes referred to as the astral or mental universe), from which the spiritual universe can be accessed; and from there (the psychological universe) made the physical universe, from which the psychological world can be accessed. It’s what brains were made for….

So Darwin was right, but only gave part of the picture. We are evolving back up our original involution.  The brain might act as a vehicle for the mind in evolution, but the whole body came about as a vehicle for the mind in involution.

Every human being has a physical, psychological, spiritual and divine aspect, because we are ultimately made out of the stuff the Divine universe. (What a lovely thought:  our bodies are made of stardust, literally, and both our bodies and inner selves are made of stuff that is, in its essence, Divine.) We all have immediate access to the physical and psychological worlds on being born. We have access to our spiritual and Divine selves by making our way up that central pillar of truth, compassion, grace and will. We do this through meditation, contemplation, prayer and appropriate action. [There is more about this in a later post called 'The Human Being'.]

There. I hope I’ve now put a stop to over 4,000 years of people asking such a pesky question…

[As mentioned earlier, if this isn't clear, have a look at the posts of 28 and 29 October.]

More on Why

In my first post on 4 Oct 2012, I said a little about why and how I got interested in mysticism in the first place, but little about why potential spiritual development has become such a priority with me now.

It's because, though I know I'm swimming against the tide in everyday society, I think IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ANYBODY CAN DO. And anybody can do it.

In the increasingly available material comforts that science and modernism have given us, in the heady rush of “getting and spending” we “ lay waste our powers” (thanks, Wordsworth.) Our attention is all directed outward, and we are at the mercy of the physical world which, however pleasant we have made it, is neither designed nor able to fulfil a good many of us. Some of us are born with, or find we have developed, urges that the materialist world cannot satisfy. 

We may throw ourselves into our jobs, seek new relationships, engage in literature, art and music, drown ourselves in acquisition, or in drink (my personal favourite, though I enjoy them all); some of us will tell ourselves that there’s no point in asking ‘what’s the meaning’ because there is no meaning; and when we find ourselves wondering if this is it, we go out and buy something, or wait until our mood picks up. This does suit many people; probably most of the world’s population actually, which is quite sensible once you start to look into the perils of spiritual development. But many of us find we don’t have the choice. It nags away at us.

More importantly, even if there isn't such an urge, nagging away at you, there is a logic in spiritual development, (I've realised I don't like the expression spiritual development - could somebody suggest something else please?) The point of the spiritual quest is to try to align yourself, your everyday ego, with the will of an entity much wiser and more compassionate. 

Goodness knows the world could do with a lot more wisdom and compassion (compassion being the balancing point between 'mercy/tolerance/expansion' and 'discernment/judgement/contraction'. If there was an imbalance of too much of the first in the universe it would simply fly apart, and too much of the latter condition would make the universe unbearable to live in.)

Giving what one thinks is one's own will over to what appears to be some-one or something else is frightening in at least two ways: 1) your ego, who thinks it IS you, will fight like mad against this and 2) the spiritual quest involves rummaging around in your unconscious, and there's some very scary things in there (well, there is in mine.) Everything comes from the Absolute/Ground of all Being/Transcendent God, including evil, and there are entities out there (or, more rightly, in there) that are very unpleasant indeed. They don't always appear so, but look at what's going on around them ("By their fruits you will know them" as one great mystic said). It is necessary to affirm everyday that you are seeking the positive, the integrating, the true, the decent, the unselfish, the trusting, the hopeful and the loving.

Am I beginning to sound like a saint in my intentions??? Those who know me personally will know of course that I'm very far from it. This is all in the pursuit of self interest - what benefits the world benefits me, because I am part of that world. (I do wish some politicians would learn that.) Also, one has to take the long view. For reasons that I'll probably talk about in later posts, I believe in reincarnation, and life between lives. You can't take anything material with you from one to the other, but your mental, emotional and spiritual state will determine where you end up - like seeks to like. So it's win-win all round really.....

It's not easy being a non materialist....

In my last blog I explained how I came to be presently devoting so much time to mysticism. But it’s not easy being a non-materialist in a materialist world. I’m not derided for my beliefs, just mainly ignored by most people when I’m talking about those beliefs,-  even polite people who like me. (I’m relieved to say I think some people do, i.e. like me, even some close relations.)

I think this is because, to use my brother’s word, most people (in which he includes himself) are just plain baffled. Often the only language available for me to talk about my main interests in life is unintelligible. One of the reasons I am writing this blog is to experiment with mystical language; to find ways of expressing spiritual concepts that most people would understand, and perhaps find useful, without actually degrading those concepts. When teaching I had a lot of practice trying to explain some quite high flown academic and intellectual theories and models in a way that allowed students who were unfamiliar with such concepts to apply them immediately to their everyday work.  I don’t know if I succeeded, but I still seem to have the urge to try, albeit in a different realm of study.

Mystical language is obtuse, apparently, for a reason. Although it takes a lot of work, it is possible for a human to access other worlds with the result that such people acquire ‘unnatural’ powers in the physical world. The use of these could cause havoc (indeed, have caused havoc.) So the teaching was mainly oral down the centuries, and only to people who had proved themselves stable and of good intent. When something was written down, it was put into language which is not easily decipherable.

In addition of course, a lot of what I'm repeating in this blog would be considered heretical by many people, and in past centuries, and still in some countries, there could be dire consequences for the authors if their writings were understood by the community at large.

But I think the main reason the language is obscure is that in modern society we just don’t have much idea of the concepts to which the language refers, or have a rather corrupted and vague view of them. For example, how often do you think of angels (the non-human ones) and in what context? What is your Soul, and how does if differ from the metaphorical way in which we use the word ‘heart’ (e.g. “her heart wasn’t in it any more”)? What is the relationship between your ego/superego, your Higher Self and your Soul, and how do you benefit from knowing? When I assure you that both you and me are ‘God’ do you want to run screaming from the room, or are you reassured? If I mention that your Soul doesn't take much interest in you until you show some interest in it, do you have any idea what I'm talking about?

Modernism, which we tend to date back to the Enlightenment at the end of the 18^th century, is wonderful. Its rationality has freed us from life-draining superstition and all sorts of unfair and unjust practices previously maintained as ‘tradition’. But in throwing out the bath water of superstition and religion, (many religions having drawn far away from the impulses which created them), we threw out the baby of access to our interior selves. The precise meaning of words like ‘heaven’ ‘paradise’  ‘soul’ ‘divine’ ‘prayer’ ’spirit’ are as baffling to most people nowadays as are the words used in quantum mechanics to most non-scientists. I suppose the majority of people think that understanding the concepts involved in either area is irrelevant to their everyday lives. Tomorrow or Thursday I intend to blog about that in more detail. In the meantime, I’d be very interested in others’ views.

So What Now?

Yesterday I wrote about the mundane way in which my interest in spirituality may have been generated. That was only a quick sketch of course and I will, at some later date, come back to various aspects of it, so that others might share their own experiences as well.

Today, I hope to describe how I’ve reached my present point, where I am now spending several hours a day not only reading up on and memorising everything I can find on Gnostic Christianity and Kabbalah, but also contemplating those readings, meditating, praying and carrying out various spiritual exercises. What am I hoping to achieve? And why is it happening now?

At a practical level, I have the time to do this because I am unemployed. I am not seeking work because firstly, my unemployment was the result of voluntary redundancy, and the subsequent redundancy payment is large enough, if I’m careful, to live on until I can claim my pension. Secondly, I am suffering quite badly now from fibromyalgia, and would not at the moment make a reliable employee.

 I have no mortgage, because 12 years ago I decided to downsize from a huge detached four-bedroomed house to a two-bedroomed cottage. I have no expensive hobbies, my life revolves around books, the internet, the TV, visits to and from friends and long outings to coffee houses with my husband to talk (we sometimes forget to do so at home.) My surroundings are becoming shabby, but not unliveable in nor yet  unaesthetic or displeasing.

That’s one way of looking at it. I have constructed another perspective; that in the light of what my studies have taught me, makes considerably more sense.

After a varied career, I became a lecturer in organisational management in a university, a job I loved. A few years back however, the job began to pall, and it was also at that time that my fibromyalgia attacks (involving pain, depression and chronic fatigue) began to become more frequent. I think these two changes were ascribable to a number of reasons. I continued to enjoy the teaching - most of my students were postgraduate and working fulltime, and taught me as much, if not more, than I taught them- and I enjoyed doing research. I had some lovely colleagues.

But I was disillusioned with where this country was going with higher education, and at odds with various aspects of the culture that my own institution had developed. Although now happily married, I kept finding myself dreaming of the life of a contemplative nun! (Perhaps one who was allowed home to her husband in the evenings an weekends.) The 20 minute walk to the station at the beginning of each day’s commute became increasingly difficult, and it was taking me longer to recover from each of the three hour lectures I gave. My own prime intellectual interest had shifted back from organisational psychology to mysticism, and I kept trying to introduce this into my own Doctoral level research on management in organisations, which really annoyed at least one of my supervisors, a committed Marxist materialist. (I’m using the word ‘materialist’ here to describe some-one who believes that nothing exists beyond the material world).

 I began to feel restless, but it never occurred to me to give up or change my job. I couldn’t think of anything else that I wanted to do, other than pursue my mystical studies, and it never occurred to me to give up work voluntarily – that would have seemed too irresponsible. But I remember saying to my son one morning that I needed more help with the housework, or I wasn’t going to make it through the last few years that I had before retirement.

And then the University abolished my post. Over fifty posts were abolished and replaced with 29 new ones, for which the displaced post-holders were invited to apply. I went to bed one Tuesday night wondering how best to present myself to get one of those new jobs, and woke up the following morning knowing it was time to walk. I cannot tell you how overjoyed I was at this decision, even before I had calculated what redundancy money I would get. The prayers I didn’t know I’d been praying were answered, I think, because not only had my need become so great, but because the change suited the purposes of my soul. Kabbalah and Gnostic Christianity (well, most schools of mysticism) would say that my interest in the spiritual had sparked the interest in turn of Providence in me. Working from a place where time and cause and effect operate differently, the money to leave turned up as and when needed. Any earlier, and I wouldn’t have dared take the opportunity. Any later, and I would have been too ill, and perhaps already left.

Materialists can point to happy but meaningless coincidences if they wish, but this has happened to me one too many times too often now for me to be that glib about it. Again, this is something I might write about in future blogs, and I would be interested in others’ experiences.

Why?

I’m really not clear why, or how, my interest in the existence of unseen worlds beyond the one I live in everyday came about, but it is reassuring that there are so many others like me. Most of us, when introducing ourselves to a physical or virtual group of fellow seekers simply say something like: “I have always been interested in/drawn to/ aware of spiritual matters”.

In my own case I suspect that it was the often painful difficulties of everyday life, interspersed with long periods of the simple dullness and monotony of the daily round that sparked my interest in anything ‘other,’ from the possibility of extra-terrestrial life, through magic, extra-sensory perception, ghosts, fairies and mysterious ancient religions. I didn’t put modern day religions into this ‘exciting’ category – I could see nothing mysterious at all in most of them. Maybe Christianity, present nearly every day at school or Sunday school, was just too much part of the mundane world I was trying to escape because, looking at it now, there isn’t anything much more mysterious than getting born to a virgin, and resurrecting from death in the flesh. Perhaps that stretched even my own credulity too far.

In my teens, my interest in all matters ‘other’ led me to an interest in psychology, and to Jung. Jung’s writings led to an interest in mysticism, and the possibility of enlightenment, i.e. fulfilling one’s ultimate potential as a human being. As an unsuccessful over-achiever (having a good part of what many psychotherapeutic  disciplines would call a ‘striver’ mentality in the make-up of my personality) I found this quite irresistible. To my great delight, I found that most schools of mysticism had underlying cosmologies that were considerably more detailed, logical and interesting than could be found in the opening chapters of the bible or in cosmological science. Starting with Gurdjieff, whose work can be linked to the esoteric school of Islam, i.e. Sufism, I went on to find out as much as I could about (among others) Vedanta, Plotinus, Plato, Zen Buddhism, Shamanism, the Tao, the Western mystery traditions, Kabbalah and, finally, Christian mysticism.

My most profound discovery was how similar are the practices and belief systems of all these different schools. However, the symbolism of each is rooted in a particular culture, and therefore symbolism varies from school to school. I think that I might be getting the most from Gnostic Christian Kabbalah because the symbols were rooted in my consciousness at a very early age.

But despite my interest and my considerable reading on the subject, taking it any further has been difficult. I have consciously made increasing efforts (not always successful) to live according to the golden rule of most traditions – be kind to all other creatures, but the demands of work, child-rearing, keeping house, and coping with myriad non-fatal but considerably debilitating illnesses have been paramount. My personality’s need for worldly success, a certain degree of power (more about that in later blogs) and a level of material comfort and aestheticism combined to keep my spiritual aspirations in the background – an intellectual hobby, rather than a way of life.

This has all recently changed, and that is what has prompted this daily blog – the desire to make contact with others in the same position as myself. Please join me, with your responses.