'Shall shine the traffic of Jacob's ladder
Pitched between heaven and Charing Cross'

EVER since mankind became articulate it has believed in supernatural powers, in 'psychism', in witches, warlocks, in magic, white, grey and black. Sybils and oracles, prophets and wizards existed and indeed still exist in all communities, including the fringes of our own, Western, largely materialistic civilization — such as it is. One does not need to go more than fifty miles from one of our great cities, to where simple countrymen live to find superstition, perhaps even strange practices arising straight out of paganism. And if we know where to look even within the canyons of streets in our towns we could find similar things happening.

These are as old as man, but in the last century there arose what was then called the Age of Reason, the term first used by the French Revolutionaries for what they proposed to do; and within the Age of Reason came both materialism and science, a critical attitude which set out to dethrone many of our old and often unfounded beliefs in the 'supernatural'.

So there was a period when no intelligent person could let himself believe in the old traditions: people who claimed to have 'the sight', as the Irish called and still call it, must be frauds, the practitioners of magic, giving blessings or curses, healing or throwing diseases, likewise.

Then the wheel turned, the cycle reversed itself, and we come to the present day when, once again, belief in many of the outlawed things is returning to the fold of acceptable belief. It is interesting to see the process by which this took place.

First we must understand that belief in 'Supernature' — another form of Nature — is innate in the human being. It is as deep as the religious impulse with which it is, in some ways, allied. No amount of dialectic materialism, of communism, of science, will ever succeed in making man into the mechanical dummy some people would like him to be. He will always [Page 109] manage somehow to escape from the stereotype set up for him.

It is axiomatic that such a deep feeling will try and find an outlet, and this happened. In the later half of last century, when everything seemed to be orienting itself to rationality of the materialistic kind, there was a great outburst of what has since become spiritualism. Mediums, genuine or fraudulent, sprang up like mushrooms, sensational reports of unaccountable events were rife — and, indeed, it was at a center where some of them took place that the meeting of H. P. Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott occurred, and out of this the Theosophical Movement grew.

We need not concern ourselves here with this. The history of both the Theosophical Society and of Theosophy itself is well enough known and has been written about in a number of books. There was, however, another offshoot from the same impulse as brought people to spiritualism; it derived from the development of the scientific attitude which was becoming so important in the mental climate of the time, and has been ever since. This was first psychical research, and then parapsychology. The dividing line between spiritualism, psychical research and parapsychology is hard to find, the one fading into the other; yet they represent different approaches to the whole matter of the phenomena with which they all three deal, that is, the realm of the occult, the magical, already mentioned.

If one asks what use all this was, the answer is that it at once 'debunked' many claims and confirmed the truth of others. It is worth noting that though the Society made a generous offer to mediums prepared to produce physical phenomena such as materializations and apports of objects, the challenge was never taken up, or at least, had not been until lately: I have not the latest information.

So ghosts, poltergeists and phenomena like telepathy and clairvoyance came to be accepted as facts, virtually undeniable in view of the mass of evidence and reports of experiments accumulated over several decades.

Materialistic science rescued our cherished beliefs and set the seal of objectivity on many of them, while, at the same time, it sifted out much that was unsound and based on false beliefs and superstition.

Parapsychology, as it came to be called, made a different approach, but one equally scientific. It grew out of ordinary psychology in about the 1920's. Here the name of J. B. Rhine, of Duke University, stands out as the pioneer. He set to work coldly with experiments in 'guessing' what figures were printed on a set of cards to which the name of Zener was applied, from the originator of the designs. There were five cards having simple, clear figures on them. The subject of the experiment worked in various ways, the simplest being for him to write a list on a piece of paper of the order of these figures in a pack of cards lying face downward in front of him. This was varied by having an operator in one room trying to project the image of a card he was looking at to the percipient some distance away or [Page 111] in another room or even building. Gradually many things were tried, including the effect of fatigue, drugs, emotional rapport between the operators (such as an engaged couple) and great geographical distances, such as between Europe and America.

The work itself seems incredibly tedious and the results such as can only be assessed statistically, using the theory of probability. Indeed, at first there was some criticism as to the mathematics used, and so, as to whether the results obtained showed anything more than chance. Dr. Soal, an English mathematician was, at first, scathing about Rhine's results, but eventually he became a prime experimenter in the field.

Some strange things were discovered, such as the fact that it seemed sometimes as if the mind of the subject of an experiment went on strike, and yielded results less than pure chance would give. At other times, there was 'displacement', a subject giving results not of the experiment in train but perhaps of the one he was going to do next but with which he was not then outlined. Details of many of these strange things can be found in the vast amount of literature now available from the Societies for Psychical Research, from the Parapsychology Foundation in New York, from many other sources where serious work is constantly being done. Suffice it for our purposes that we realize what curious insights even this dullest of work offers into the perceptive side of man.

I must mention also another aspect of things, where the mind is used as an active agent in trying to affect physical objects. The results here are still much less conclusive than are those about perception. But it is fairly well established now that if dice are allowed to drop out of a machine where the hand of the operator cannot possibly influence them, the mind can so affect their fall that there are more sixes, or ones, or combinations of ones and sixes, for instance, than chance would allow.

Out of all this a certain terminology has arisen. When I myself first heard of Rhine's work, Professor William McDougal, famous in psychology, said that he thought — though 'he did not believe anything absolutely' — that Rhine had proved what was then called paranormal cognition 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The term extra-sensory perception, E.S.P. for short, had not yet replaced this older one. Then the active power of the mind was called psycho-kinesis, or P.K. Both aspects were [Page 112] then spoken of as representing a mental function to which the word 'Psi' was applied; and some workers, to mention only Thouless of Cambridge, and Wiesener, felt, in common with others, that there must be behind the psyche — the mind — itself a further factor which they labeled 'Shin', after a letter in the Hebrew alphabet and which, in so far as one can equate one thing with another, might equally be called spirit as distinct from psyche or soul. Out of the work a philosophy has grown, as represented by the writings of people like Price, Broad, Eileen Garrett, Ira Progoff and others.

It is not going too far to assert that materialistic, rationalistic science has effectively destroyed the purely materialistic framework of its own philosophy, by using its own methods.

The foregoing is in some ways now ancient history. As early as 1943 I myself was able to write a thesis for the M.D. degree of Cambridge University — this being not a qualifying but a 'higher' degree — on the basis that the existence of paranormal cognition was proved, and that I proposed to consider its place in psychotherapeutic work with patients. The thesis was accepted and I got my degree — to my own surprise, as this was probably the first time such an outlandish subject had been received as a piece of serious research, and especially by such a reputable University. This shows the change of attitude towards the whole subject of what might be called the 'occult'. Moreover, there is a subtle difference between the word 'paranormal' — i.e., abnormal, or 'alongside-normal' — cognition and the present term E.S.P., which seems to allow 'psychism' to come within the fold of normality and acceptability.

The change showed as long as twenty-five years ago at least. But things have moved a long way since then. The much, and largely unjustifiably, derided psychology of Freud has been transcended, not only by neo-Freudians. Jungian and neo-Jungian ideas have nowadays, and however much modernized, become part of the armament of every competent psychiatrist — and of others less competent.

Meanwhile, however, spiritualism as a flourishing cult for the uncritical and credulous, while it sometimes calls itself 'parapsychology' has, at its lowest points, sunk into a morass of shoddy sentimentality. And even orthodox parapsychology nowadays seems to have lost its vitality. It continues on a scale [Page 113] which is still growing, but those workers who tie themselves too rigidly to scientific methodology and especially to statistics seem to be going round in circles. It was interesting once to listen to a distinguished pioneer in the field arguing that what we call clairvoyance might in effect be precognition, and this in turn might be some form of telepathy, which, itself, might really be clairvoyance in disguise. He ran full circle and left simply the one fact, that E.S.P. existed, but that we did not know just how it worked. At a later date he wrote about the failure of his attempts to prove survival of physical death; and when I wrote suggesting that he would find the difficulties insurmountable until he revised his philosophical background so as to include spirit as distinct from soul, he replied that one could not bring spirit into a scientific discussion. Like some other scientists, he put blinkers on himself, then complained that he could not see, but said it would be unscientific to take the blinkers off.

In the meantime, the field of depth psychology has gone on a long way, taking parapsychology in its stride. The latest movement within the movement, as shown in the new Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, is concerned with the mystical, the 'peak' experience, with, in short, the aspect of man which lies beyond the personal (psychological) mind. It has entered the field of Religion, something bigger and deeper than the religious, besides being more individual.

Thus we can see a convergence between the two main branches of study of the superphysical, psychical research-parapsychology on the one hand, depth psychology on the other, so that one now supplements the other. Indeed, were it not for its convenience, the term 'parapsychology' might well have followed that of paranormal cognition: it is no longer 'alongside-psychology' but an aspect of the field of psychology itself, of the normal, not of the abnormal and unusual. And both together grow increasingly towards the realm of the religious: which is as it should be.

Spiritualism, though in one sense it has been the mother of the movements to study psychical phenomena, has itself changed only slightly in the past century. Yet its more intelligent branches have had to take into account the scientific investigation of claims which satisfy the less critical and the more [Page 114] credulous. It need not be counted among the scientific aspects of the whole movement. Yet this is not to deny its value. For a surprising number of people who later become serious students it serves as a first step, an introduction to the less obvious and more mysterious aspects of life. It also supplies first aid to people shocked by what they feel to be the loss of a loved person — but it is only first aid.

What then of the other branch which seemed to grow from the same root, the Theosophical Movement? This took a special turn in which, at first, revelation seems to have predominated. H. P. Blavatsky's copious writings, though interlarded with largely obsolete polemic material, tell us something of the ancient and true doctrines behind many natural phenomena. The books are strangely inchoate, and can be best understood by letting them as it were sink into the mind without being intellectually analyzed — when many flaws appear — and letting their ferment work there. (We should always remind ourselves that H.P.B. herself not only disclaimed infallibility, she even stated positively that there were many errors in her works.) Then came the exegesis coupled with direct research, of what I like to call the 'Meso-Theosophical period', in which not only were some of the doctrines simplified, but oversimplified and sometimes distorted: again, the exegesists state categorically that they did not claim omniscience or infallibility, though many refuse to face this statement. Some have even attempted to formulate a theosophical creed and catechism. The real Theosophist, however, does not believe or disbelieve? he listens, accepts or rejects, tries to find the truth behind ideas and formulae. He has an attitude of seeking and trying to gain experience, not beliefs. Moreover, he keeps abreast of the times and their mental climate, so he takes into account what he can glean from parapsychology and psychology itself.

This raises the question of what these other disciplines have for us as students of Theosophy, and it is very considerable. Not only have they confirmed much that was hitherto dependent on the 'revelatory' material and on the reports of others; it has tended to take us back, in some ways, to the 'Paleotheosophy' of H. P. Blavatsky, as well as forward into the modern or 'Neo'-Theosophy which is needed today. It tends [Page 115] more and more to show the validity of religious experience and belief, it also corrects some errors such as the notion (not to be found in the Blavatskian scheme) that we have two psychic 'bodies', one 'astral' or emotional, one 'mental' or intellectual. We know that, to use an analogy I have often used, feeling (emotion) and thought are as inseparable as color and form in a picture, though one may predominate. It is well known that psychiatrists treat the mind in the same terms as it was defined by Blavatsky, as a single thinking-feeling-perceiving-intuiting-acting entity: parapsychology shows us the same.

Scientific disciplines serve the student of the occult as a corrective, taking nothing away but making much clearer than it was before.

Further, and this is important to the theosophical student, depth psychology shows us a practical method of self-discovery, hence of how to find our own experience around the teachings of such things as psychic planes and bodies; which are now found, however much they may have become distorted, to have reasonable and factual roots.

In other words, the tendency today, whether we call it theosophical, or psychological, or parapsychological, is towards a convergence of the various threads and the weaving of them into a strong cord in which the principal strand is that of Religion in its deepest sense.

Further, the present tendency is to support the idea that there are things more important than trying to develop E.S.P. It is often difficult to persuade people that to try and see visions, to have psychic experiences, may be exciting, but that it leads nowhere. Indeed, people with half-baked psychic perception tend to become more than ever confused as well, probably, as preening themselves and increasing their egoism. What does matter is the deepening of self-knowledge and self-awareness, as through this both real understanding and the right kind of humility develop; and alongside of this, a non-dogmatic and satisfying sense of certainty.

To be clairvoyant is not a mark of spirituality. E.S.P. has nothing to offer in the quest for Truth except perhaps in the same way as a telescope or a microscope may extend our vision of a thing without giving us any understanding of that thing: and it is understanding which we should seek and not merely [Page 116] the excitement of playing with a toy, however useful it might be.

This is the lesson we can learn from our present blending of these various streams of research and discovery: which discovery seems to lie ever before us without end in sight, and so gives us the real savor of life. [Page 117]

IN what follows I shall say several times, 'We are told'. This does not imply of necessity that the tellers are trying to impose dogmas on us, asserting that they are correct, or in any other way exerting authority. Indeed, in all cases they specifically disclaim authority, admit the possibility of error, of personal bias or any other thing which may distort the truth of what they attempt to share with us of their own knowledge. They do ask of us, as serious students, to think for ourselves and, if our own experience differs from theirs, to modify their material in accordance with our own views. In particular they assert the fallibility of revelation or the results of clairvoyant research, into which the personal element obviously enters very easily.

Further, we need to understand that the authors of many of the older books, from those of H. P. Blavatsky on, were written in a particular mental climate, and had to use what was known at the time for their deductions. It was the best they could do; and the fact that human thought, and science in particular, has made giant strides in the last decades often changes the emphasis of certain aspects of their philosophies. Yet, in a joyful number of cases, it shows how what they said rested on a firm foundation of principle, even when the manifestations of those principles need to be revised in the light of modern knowledge.

In this essay I want to concentrate on the old idea of the sevenfold system of globes, rounds, chains and in particular of races and root-races. I do not propose to expound this in any detail. This has been already admirably done in several books and perhaps less systematically in The Secret Doctrine and other Blavatskian writings.

I am doing this because, where the races and sub-races of this our earth are concerned, certain points of high relevance and of practical value seem to emerge. This is especially so [Page 118] when we link modern knowledge about man with the original basic plan set out in earlier writings.

We are told in this plan that we stand today a little beyond the middle of the fourth (or middle) round of the occupation of the seven globes of the chain to which earth belongs: earth itself being the fourth or middle globe of the septenary system. We need not worry ourselves about this, but it has to be mentioned. What concerns us, however, is that if the system is true, we are today a little beyond the middle point of the fifth sub-race of the fifth root-race of the seven sub- and root-races of earth man.

These last figures are important because if we divide seven into thirds, the first third gives us 2⅓ — a little less than 2½; while the second third takes us to 4⅔ — a little way beyond 4½. If, then, we consider the ranges, without allowing for the overlap between them, of each race, the arithmetical portion of each will be one seventh of the whole. Thus the first race will predominate during the first seventh, the second during the second, the third will cover the third. But 3/7 is more than ⅓ of 7, 5/7 is more than ⅔ of 7. We appear now to be ⅔ of the way through the seven races of earth humanity. If the 'Fall' occurred as is suggested at the end of the first third of the seven, we may well look to the present as an equally critical moment in evolutionary history.

This admittedly tiresome play with figures leads up to something telling. For we are told that Man became properly Man during the course of the Third Root-Race, i.e., in the third seventh of the total seven divisions. It was then that 'the Fall" of the Genesis myth took place; or, in terms of Blavatskian Theosophy, when leaders came from the more evolved planet Venus and kindled in Man the central principle from which, in the Germanic group of languages, he derives his name, Manas, or Mind. With this came both incarnation in 'coats of skin' or bodies 'borrowed' from the animal kingdom, dense, physical bodies; and the vital spark of self-consciousness with all the vast potential which self-hood gives. Man became truly Man at this point.

I am tempted to speculate what might have happened had the mythological Eve remained under the divine 'Super-ego', to use the Freudian term for morality derived from outside [Page 119] oneself — in this case from God in the Garden — and refused to listen to the Serpent — symbol of the Wisdom of the Venusian 'Lords of the Flame'. The reply to this question would probably be, 'Nothing'. Earth would have had no humanity, Nature would have plodded slowly on, undisturbed by its turbulent child. Then, maybe, when the batteries of sub-mental energies ran down, there would be an end to biological evolution with no significant progress to speak of: Nature would have run her course and no development of new aspects of life would have been made because of the absence of disobedient, 'sinful' man: for man is the only creature who is capable of the great achievement of being able to 'sin'. The result: a cosmic failure. But because Eve's intuition drove her to disobey the mandate of Nature, things on earth moved on — up to the present.

So, if the presentation of principles is correct, we come to the highly critical phase at the end of the first third of the total 'world occupation'. But we are now, in similar terms, at the beginning of the third and last 'third' of seven; and, if only through theory, we would be wise to expect another climacteric moment for mankind. To think this is so would be in tune with what we see around us already today, which is widely thought of as the end of an old culture and the potential dawn of a new one, under whatever name we give it. Some talk of the Aquarian Age succeeding the Piscean. Others see it as the beginning of both the sixth sub-race and root-race of earth Man. The name does not matter. What does matter is that we consider the signs and portents already in sight.

Here I must refer again to the older presentation, this time made by Annie Besant, of the emergence of the new type, in physical terms. She once spoke (maybe as early as 1910), of an anthropologist never since then prominent who, by the usual method of measurements, primarily of the proportions of the skull, forecast the coming of American Man' as a new physical type differing from the Caucasian (then called Aryan) as much as the latter does from the Mongolians.

This highly dubious notion does not seem to have gained acceptance: and how could it, if we think of the enormous influx into the North and South American continents of people of all kinds from both Europe and Asia? It would seem that in this older presentation the mistake was made of linking ‘race [Page 120] type' with physical features, and exaggerating their importance. I say 'exaggerating' because, clearly, the conditions which have given some people dark, highly pigmented skins, coincide with other factors which have developed as the culture of large geographical regions such as Africa, India or China; and this culture, mental as it is, is linked with the locality and hence with the hot sun or cold climates where groups of humanity have evolved.

But if we pin our analysis of race and sub-race type to the physical features of the inhabitants of certain places, we shall find ourselves in endless difficulties, at any rate as regards the later races. As an example, it is said that the Latins or the British represent a particular sub-race of the Fifth-Root Race; the inhabitants of India belong to the Fifth Root-Race, the Mongolians to the Fourth. But in Britain there is a vast admixture of Celts, Romans, many Anglo-Saxons (Germans), Norse, Norman French, Modern French, and, especially of late decades, of endless Central Europeans and Semitic Jews, not to mention Indians and Negroes still to some extent un-assimilated. These constitute the British 'sub-race'. But what have they in common today? Certainly not heredity at the physical level. What they do share is a psychological or mental heredity: a cultural background, itself an aggregate of many other cultures, yet having its own distinctively British flavor. If we consider America, the same mixture of 'blood' — i.e., genetic material — appears on an even greater scale. 'Fifth Race' India has a heavy Dravidian ingredient in the south, whereas in the north and in outlying parts there are people of decidedly Mongolian origin, all of whom make up 'India'.

The reason for what seems a distortion of a valid principle, that of race and sub-race lies in a fact which has only lately become widely accepted in science, which is that for millions of years the body of man has not substantially changed. No new organs or bodily functions have been created. The only noticeable physical change in an overall picture of Man has been in the growth of the brain tissue; and this is not very marked. What has changed enormously, especially of late, is the mind which functions at the physical level through that brain. The mental evolution seems able to use almost the same amount of nerve cells whether an individual be a most primitive [Page 121] aboriginal or a leader in intellectual spheres in a sophisticated community.

There is another interesting fact which came to light some years ago. Statistics — i.e., generalizations with many individual exceptions — have shown that kraal-dwelling, tribal Africans, if they suffer from mental illness, get a predominance of certain syndromes (collectivized symptoms). But the same Africans brought up, in America or the Caribbean, in a Western cultural background, tend — again statistically — to develop the same pattern of symptoms as the Europeans in whose culture they live. Physical race hence, seems to matter much less than the mental atmosphere.

This means that to say that X belongs to a certain race — and sub-race — is a false way to make the assessment. Only study of the mental attributes of X can tell us much, even if his outer behavior follows a certain local pattern. I mean by this, that 'Latins' generally show their emotions more freely than 'Anglo-Saxons', probably, if one studies long-standing expatriates, because of the customs of those among whom they have lived for any length of time. The expatriate, and more so his children, becomes assimilated to the ambient culture of the place he lives in.

Thus it may be that a black-skinned, flat-nosed, kinky-haired Negro may be — and sometimes shows himself to be — of a higher race-type than a blue-blooded, thoroughbred American 'WASP' (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant) or the member of an ancient aristocratic titled family.

What this means, in short, is that the personality of each individual is a conglomerate of physical heredity, cultural 'heredity' and the indwelling, reincarnating Self. Maybe the order in which I have written these down is the reverse of their importance, Self manifesting through the 'skandhas' which it carries through from life to life, as the major influence.

At this point let us take a look at the present day and note the enormous changes which have taken place already, and are still developing in many spheres of life.

Science which at one time tended to be dogmatic, certain, to draw sharp lines between itself and the non-scientific domain, is today no longer certain. Words like 'probability', 'indeterminacy', 'randomness', 'relativity' are in frequent use. Moreover,[Page 122] something is often worked out as a postulate — relativity was one of these — only to be proved or confirmed after the postulate was formulated. Often, moreover, something thought of or, more accurately, intuited by the mind, was then found to be true by experiment. This is the reverse of the brick-by-brick building up of a mass of facts before any deduction was made from these facts. L. L. Whyte has written various essays on this theme which are worth reading, from the scientists' point of view.

Psychology has moved a very long way from Freud and, while a growing number of people see Jung as the main bridge-builder between the old and the new, a new 'force' is said to be emerging, to which the name 'transpersonal psychology' is applied. Names like Maslow, Buhler, Assagioli, Frankl, Koestler, Progoff and Watts are among those associated with this movement. Anybody up-to-date with current literature will know how wide a field they cover; and these are only a few.

Religion. Taking only Christianity, we think of Tillich, Robinson, Wren-Lewis as challenging the old order of Church-Christianity and seeking for a new set of values and attitudes towards 'Ultimates'. In a wider context we have the interest in Zen, Taoism, Yoga (mainly, however, its lowest levels, known as 'hatha'). It is interesting to note that two Roman Catholic priests, Teilhard de Chardin, who remained obedient to the authority of his disciplines, and Fr. Thomas Merton, stand out among the progressives. Merton in particular seems to have a most profound grasp of Taoism which he seems to be able to accept in toto despite being still in the orthodox Church of Rome.

Sociology. Enormous change is felt in this sphere. And, moreover, it often sees the disorderly movement among the young and, however mistakenly they are seeking, as a search for a new order to replace the old. (It should, of course, be allowed to grow out of the Establishment in the manner expressed in the cliché', 'Evolution, not revolution' — and if it needs revolution to bring it out, it will be the fault of the conservative element with its desire to keep things as they are.)

One could find many other headings, including Art of all kinds, to illustrate what is happening. The point is, however, that whether we like it or not, consciousness is changing among [Page 123] what Maslow piquantly calls the 'growing tip' of mankind. By that he means those most excellent in all or any sphere, intellectual, athletic, commercial and the rest, which he takes as foreshadowing human potential in the immediate future. It makes a fascinating study once one has got the basic idea, to watch and observe these changes; and we who 'happen' to be incarnate today have the joyous opportunity of seeing the beginning of new-race consciousness. (I am not distinguishing between root-race and sub-race, because the latter in effect is a prototype of the former, a less developed model of what is to come.) To separate out manifestations of Fifth-race and of Sixth-race activity is, however, not so easy. It is, as yet, so much a matter of nuances, of subtleties of approach to a question that it is something which can be more felt than measured with the intellect. Moreover, it is doubtful whether, unless one has some sense of the new development, it can be intelligently appreciated. Many years ago I once described a certain book, very good of its kind, to Professor Marcault, as 'Very Fifth-race'. He understood what I was fumbling to say. It seems an adequate concept that much excellent material is expressed in 'Fifth-race' form, while others say what they have to say with another key signature which one tentatively labels 'Sixth-race'. It should be added that the best of the Fifth-race material is often far superior to some of the 'Sixth-race' expressions. The first mentioned culture is now at its zenith, adult, confident; the second is still largely in the nursery. And, moreover, what one might be tempted to call 'Sixth-race' may in many cases, especially in the arts and humanities, belong in reality to a decadent and inferior aspect of the day's finest culture. To watch and assess, endeavoring to make a true valuation can become something of an interesting game with oneself, in which on one side stands the convention in which we have all today been brought up and on the other the aspect of our minds which is — if we are Theosophists in more than name — trying to penetrate deeper than worldly valuation of life.

This game can be roughly to try and see on which side of an imaginary line anything lies: and — lightly, without feeling dogmatic (a Fifth-race trait) to class people's minds and the products of those minds as belonging to the past or to the future cultures. [Page 124] I started this essay with picking up some ideas put out in the older days of the Theosophical Movement. I pointed out how what seem to be sound principles might need to be reassessed in the light of today's knowledge. I shall make bold to say that the older material, with perhaps the exception of the writings of H. P. Blavatsky, which are so individual in their presentation as to defy classification, is presented in a Fifth-race idiom. It was subject to the Fifth-race pressures of the day, and so tended to become stereotyped, crystallized into a form which seemed to tell the truth in final form. Fact was fact and could never be changed. The result, useful at the time, nearly a century ago, was that many were attracted by what was said because of its challenge to so many accepted ideas. But the clarity of the system propounded, and today popularly misnamed 'Theosophy', despite the wider meaning of that word as used by the Neo-Platonists, and others after them, brought with it a serious danger. We find this expressed in a document received by Dr. Besant as early in the history of the Movement as 1900. We are told that it came from a Master known as K.H.': and so direct, terse and commonsensical is it that, without being dogmatic about it, it seems to carry authority such as might come from one of the sages among men. I shall quote parts relevant to my argument.

The letter begins as follows: 'The T. S. and its members are slowly manufacturing a creed.' It goes on, a little later, to say, 'The T. S. must safely be ushered into the new century ... no one has a right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. Ask him not what he believes. . . . The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into Spirituality. It cannot be forced into beliefs and emotional worship. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T. S. . . . We show no favors. .. . The cant about "Masters" must be silently but firmly put down . . . the continual reference, to ourselves and the repetition of our names raises up a confused aura that hinders our work. . . . The T. S. was meant to be the corner stone of the future religions of humanity. . . .'

What does this imply? That, even three-quarters of a century ago, the very movement which should have kept abreast of the times and even been ahead of them in ushering in the new form of consciousness and mentality, that which in this article I have called 'Sixth-race', was already falling behind. It tended to remain at the point where the Movement began, instead of moving forward in its interpretation of the valuable material with which it was supplied in such abundance.

In other words, we can, again, rather arbitrarily, and for purposes of clarity, divide those who label themselves Theosophists into the Fifth-race type and the Sixth-race type. The former are the ones who accept 'teachings' as if they were factual rather than suggestions to be worked on and continually reassessed and re-examined. They seek a comfortable creed and are content neither to scrutinize it, nor even more important, themselves. They are those who rush endlessly from meeting to meeting and are only quiet when they are asleep or physically dead. There are devotees seeking preferment from a Master, possibly from pure devotion, often with a more or less marked degree of desire for self-aggrandizement. They have evolved a theosophical cult, and called it occultism, not realizing that dynamic Theosophy can never become a cult. The two words 'cult' and 'occult' sound alike, but they have no common derivation. A 'cult' is a set of observances or beliefs; 'occultism' in the real sense means constant delving into the hidden or unknown: the two are incompatible. Theosophy is true occultism, the theosophical cult is not.

What then is 'Sixth-race' Theosophy? It is difficult to define, save that on one side it means being in touch with the world, and knowing what the 'growing tip' of mankind, in Maslow's terminology, is doing and thinking, and combining this on the inner side with a live mentality which is not caught [Page 126] up in fixed patterns, any more than the modern real scientist, humanist or artist is today. On the other hand, it does not mean repudiation of the older teachings. It means this positive process of applying the mind to them and so bringing about the kind of catalysis which is brought about in the physical body by enzymes so that material which might become dead acquires a new form of life derived from the old. It creates the new out of the old, and is not merely content with erudite commentary on the old, adding nothing new or original to it. For one can be what is known as a 'good student' yet fail to add the desired quality which goes with the kind of mind which mankind is, whether we like it or not, developing today: that which, in the words of the letter, needs to be taken hold of and 'guided into Spirituality'.

To earn the right to be called a Theosophist it is essential to try always to understand the meaning of everything about us. It may be difficult enough to endeavor to grasp the theoretical scheme of the worlds, the rounds, chains, planes and what not — intellectual matters. But when our emotions are touched, the matter becomes much more arduous and demands of us a depth of vision and understanding which will help us to overcome our prejudices, habits of mind, our 'conditioning'.

While, as we look about us, we shall always find much of beauty in our surroundings, we must also admit that there is much, especially today, which we see as ugly, evil, apparently opposed to all that we think we stand for in terms of human evolution. Yet if we are able to delve sufficiently deep beneath the surface appearance of these things, we may learn to see them as necessary aspects of the stage in which we, as human beings, stand collectively today: phases of the larger evolution of humanity. For the ugliness in the world is not produced by the subhuman kingdoms, especially that of the one immediately preceding our own, that of the animals. It is man who spoils natural beauty, distorts what in the animal is natural, instinctive and makes it hideous.

Especially does this seem so today. Not only do we despoil the earth, upset the ecological balance of nature, but we find violence and cruelty and hatred spread over many areas, or breaking out where civilization has put a veneer over primitive savage behavior; where all reticence over intimate matters such as sex is being eroded in a manner which suggests the defiant daringness of a child cocking a snook at his elders, the 'Establishment' — thereby often spoiling the art of a writer, a painter, a dramatist, by dragging in matters where aesthetic necessity does not require them. And we have the matter of escape through drugs or false forms of quasi-yoga — though here, we must add, the negative desire to escape from unbearable realities is also sometimes coupled with the positive [Page 128] desire to discover more than one can usually see about the deeper aspects of self and the universe: sometimes with excellent, if indirect results on the individual.

But why today ? And how does this concern us ? For concern us it does: we are part of the contemporary scene. If we were not, we should not be in incarnation now. But what can we do about it? No campaign or demonstration will stop these things: cruelty to man and beast, lasciviousness, pacifism (especially the aggressive pacifism so obvious among so-called 'peace crusaders'). On the other hand, if we can learn to see the meaning of the things we tend to hate, we are making a positive contribution, in depth, to bringing the race to which we belong towards a new phase of existence and future evolution.

But we need to understand before, even in thought, we can act. We say, to use a current phrase, that this is a mad world. And so it is. But, to use other cliché", we have to see that there is method behind the madness and, conversely, that madness is essential for the success of the method.

This seemingly odd statement is, however, in line with modern advanced psychiatric philosophy. For, while it has been felt by a number of doctors that physical illness was at least at times a crisis in the bodily health of an individual, a state of elimination of certain toxic conditions, it is only relatively lately that such people as R. D. Laing have seen that the same may apply to mental states: that a toxic period of severe insanity may be in reality a crisis of a therapeutic nature in the spiritual life of an individual. Just as one who recovers from a physical disease, perhaps the stronger and the more healthy for what he has undergone, so may the temporary madman emerge from his ordeal a better and more integrated person, though one may have to look upon him from the wider point of view which may have to include more than one incarnation. (True, people die of physical illness, while many a lunatic tends to deteriorate and go to pieces as a personality. But, especially under modern and sympathetic, or rather, 'empathetic' treatment, more and more tend to recover and become more 'whole'.)

What we are inclined to forget is that man is a complex being, with not only a complex body inherited from or, if we accept the 'Secret Doctrine' philosophy, borrowed from the [Page 129] animal kingdom; that his mind overlaps with the field of the animal, instinctive, mind; and that only a minute fraction of what that mind contains is at any moment apparent in what we call waking or physical consciousness. Behind consciousness there is not only a personal unconscious mind, but behind this, the vast ocean of what Jung call the collective unconscious, first of the human species, but, beyond that, of still older mass mind, recording the experiences of all the evolutionary levels which lead up to Man.

In the collective mind sweep enormous currents of psychic energy, which carry the individual with them and directly influence the tiny personal unconscious mind, and, less directly, the still smaller field of conscious physical life. We are now face to face with the effect of a particularly powerful and all-embracing tide in this inner realm, where, it appears, the force of a minor cycle of ebb and flow coincides with one of the major, more universal tides. Hence, the more or less normal tendencies of evolution become exaggerated beyond reasonable proportions. What is happening today is nothing new: it is merely on a larger scale. And physicians and psychiatrists will tell us that both physical and mental illness are no more than exaggerated normal reactions, not entirely new arrivals on the scene.

The next question is, 'Why now?' Which brings us down to the time level, within which we, our particular humanity, work and live in terms of sequential history and evolution. (Other humanities may have quite a different picture of the world: but it does not concern us if this is so.)

In these terms, world madness represents a critical moment in our time-history. It is due to, or at least coincides with, one of the major climacterics of human evolution. I have already argued, elsewhere, that this age is comparable with that when, if the age-old tradition is correct, man became man: a self, with a mind capable of far more than any animal mind can accomplish. But, as always, there is resistance to new birth, and the greater the resistance, the greater the conflict. So great, indeed, that it can become explosive in its violence. This seems to be the case at this moment in our history as a race.

If, however, we consider what are perhaps the three main headings under which the 'madness' is manifest today, we shall [Page 130] see that they can be called violence, sex, and escape through drugs and false 'yogic' practices.

Violence is found both between members of any social group, and also between groups and nations. Its causes have been the subject of endless discussion, but it is probably true to say that it is the end result of personal or collective insecurity. Where there are ample amenities, food, space — i.e. the kind of world envisaged by all supposedly idealistic ideologies — violence fades out. It is quite clear that the animal is not violent except where his survival is concerned. No beast kills except for food or self-defense, save for one or two, usually decadent canines: the dingo of Australia, or a domestic dog spoiled by his domestication running wild among sheep. It is man who is aggressive against others, and this aggressiveness rises from feeling threatened in body or in mind: the immediate cause of such fear, in an animal, vanishes at the same time as the killing impulse, but man's mind prolongs this fear at the mental if not the physical level, and goes on hating and being aggressive even when there is no immediate reason for reacting in this way. I recommend Konrad Lorenz's book on the subject.

At the same time, we may well ask ourselves whether violence is actually greater now than it has always been now that the world is being drawn into a smaller compass — perhaps 'squeezed' would be a better word — by rapid communications. Maybe we are simply more aware of it in a short time or even while it is taking place. In olden days, the sack of Rome, if it became known in the next country, probably had already become back history, while people did not know about Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes, or of the Vandals and Huns unless they happened to be in their path. Murder was commonplace a few centuries ago even in the most civilized cities; there were gangs and mobs, Montagues and Capulets, Guelphs and Ghibellines, where today we have had Hells' Angels and Mods and Rockers. In the same way, the modern torturer, much spoken of, simply follows the customs of Torquemada and the Inquisition, and of feudal barons.

In the matter of sex and nakedness: here there is little new. Without sex there would be no humanity incarnate. And can one seriously believe that exposure of the body is indecent? The word 'decent' derives from a Latin meaning 'suitability'. Is it [Page 131] 'unsuitable' to bathe naked in the sea? Or is it simply a matter of custom arising from complex guilt-cum-desire-to-attract, and the sex relation ?

And when it comes to drugs and more or less hypnotic practices, we see there what may be, even in one individual, a dual urge. The negative one is to escape from the harshness of physical life: man has used alcohol almost universally from time immemorial, while hashish and opium were also much in vogue. The positive aspect, however, and one much to be found among the more thoughtful drug users today is the realization that new states of consciousness are experienced under drugs; and so the misguided feel that this is a way of discovery of self and of the deeper meaning of the universe. That these experiences are usually meretricious and misleading, and the method dangerous, is no denial of the aim; and, further, it has to be admitted that in some cases, the view obtained under drug has stimulated them to endeavor to find the real thing, and brought about a 'conversion' in their lives.

If we look at things in this way, we shall see that the 'method in the madness' is the purpose of evolution, of moving into a new and more realistic, freer discipline of life. It is present in what looks like chaos. Conversely, we can realize that the 'madness in the method' is needed in order to break free. True, there is the kind of exaggeration which is the same as the exaggeration of normal behavior in the lunatic, but this exaggeration in itself represents an actual need of the evolutionary process which can be compared with the stress and strain involved in the birth of a child. It then becomes clear that we, partakers in the contemporary scene, rather than withdraw in horror and condemnation of things we dislike (with reason) can, if only by our understanding of them, be active, if only by our mental attitude, in bringing sanity back to our species: the species of which we ourselves are elements.

What is happening in the world today is a necessity, not an accident. It is for us to understand that necessity and to discover our role in carrying through to success what it implies in the long term of human evolution and perfectibility.[Page 132]

PROBABLY the most constantly used noun or pronoun (this single letter can be used as either) is 'I', meaning 'myself. Our lives are governed by what ‘I’ want, do not want, like, dislike, think, feel, know and so on. But rarely do we, even if we are introspective, pause to think what this 'I-ness', this identity signifies: ‘id-ens’ 'being the same', or perhaps, 'remaining the same', a permanence, something which endures. But does the ‘I’ remain the same? Some schools, such as that of Gurdjieff, suggest that it does not, that in man are many ‘I’s’, such as that which thinks, that which feels, that which seeks gratification, etc. To the psychologist, on the other hand, the 'ego', to use his term, is a central part of the personality, though in disease it can become split or fragmented. In occultism we are often told about a higher and a lower self, with moralistic overtones.

But if we study both modern Blavatskian Theosophy and the older theosophies, particularly of the East, we can obtain a view of selfhood which is different from that of the West. For Western knowledge about the ego derives largely from subjective experience, while in the Eastern esoteric doctrines we are. told of the mechanics by which what we call 'I' comes into manifestation.

In this last sentence I have deliberately chosen my words: 'comes into manifestation'; not 'is created'. This is because, it seems, Selfhood (and here I use a capital) belongs to the realm of the transcendental and the timeless; it is intrinsic to man's inner Being, and when it becomes manifest, it does so as the outward expression of what has always been there and, in a certain sense, will always be there.

Putting it more simply, and in terms of modern theosophical literature, we have the idea that the line of demarcation is when an animal reaches a certain stage of evolution, has developed a mind and the ability to think up to a certain point, and becomes 'individualized'. He enters the human kingdom. This doctrine seems acceptable, but only if we take it that at [Page 143] this critical moment something happens which foreshadows a future as yet not by a long way fulfilled. The fertilization of an egg is not the emergence of a fully formed chick, yet that fertilization tells us that, if the conditions are right, an embryo will be formed and eventually a young bird will be born. So it seems that we must look upon the Gestalt which has been called individualization as a new potential, and not yet an achievement.

Yet something has happened, without which nothing further can take place. But to understand this we need to go further into the principles perhaps most clearly stated in Vedantic philosophy. Here we are told that an 'inner instrument' — antahkarana — in the depths of man comes into play. This 'instrument' has four parts: the thinking mind (manas); the evaluating mind (buddhi), which might be called true intuition; chitta, the mind concerned with outer objects, or kama-manas, desire-mind, the organ of consciousness; and ahamkara, or the ego-maker (not, however, the Self-maker), 'ego' in this case being used in much the same sense as it is in psychology.

In this essay it is this last which concerns us most, though it is clear that the other three are also involved in the total process by which self-identity develops.

Taking this thought farther, it is evident that antahkarana, in whatever form we may envisage it, as a thread equivalent to the sutratma, a channel, etc., is the link between the deeper man — call this Spirit, Essence, the Causal Body, the Augoeides, etc. — and the personal man. The first two 'parts' or functions, Buddhi and Manas (i.e., pure Mind) lie as it were 'above' the personal, while the ego-making aspect, that aspect of mind which is involved with outer objects and with desire, belongs to the personality, and hence overlaps very largely the realm of the animal kingdom, with its own form of mentality.

We can thus conceive of the moment of 'individualization' as one where a seed is planted in the more material, 'denser' or 'lower' worlds, very much as a seed is placed in the ground in order that it may grow. Its first job is to push roots downward into the soil; its second, and later function, is to grow up into the air and sunlight. But it can only do this successfully when its roots are strong and well nourished. Hence, on the 'path of outgoing', the first stage of selfhood demands that a man should [Page 144] become materially successful, well established, strong, individual. This is perhaps why in primitive communities (and much of the primitive still persists even in so-called civilized society), the rich, the powerful, the self-assertive person becomes the ruler, the king, the more-or-less-robber nobleman: in short, the hero of his community. His personal ego, extended to cover his family, his clan, his nation, his race, is at the center of his life.

This seems a highly 'unspiritual' picture of human selfhood. Yet at a certain stage, it represents the increasing expression of man's higher Self, of which more in a moment. It is right for child-man — as for man-child when young — to be assertive, selfish and all the things we hope will be transcended as experience grows. It is only later that, gradually, man begins to listen to the still small voice of his deeper being and, however blindly, he fumbles to try and discover a different set of values. These are the ones which the wise of all ages have held before us and which, to use an omnibus term, we call Religion, out of which, in more or less debased forms, the religions arise. In terms of what we have said, antahkarana begins to function increasingly from 'above' 'down', from the spiritual towards the material.

It is now that talk about a 'Higher Self attracts us. It is a phrase to which I, as a psychiatrist, object because it suggests and emphasizes a basic pattern which, where mankind stands today, is already much in evidence: that is, it brings out the duality of mind which is basic to man at this intermediate stage of our race. Instinctive urges derived from our animal ancestry pull in one direction, and spiritual or teleological forces pull in the opposite one. In other words, it emphasizes what in exaggerated form becomes straight schizophrenia, split-mindedness. (Indeed, we may say that the blue-print of man-in-evolution is schizoid.) This conflict should not be added to and, indeed, the soundest depth psychologists, as well as the ancient sages, each in their own way decry anything which does so.

For we need to see Self as one. We have no higher and lower selves, we have only selfhood, self-identity. But this selfhood needs also to be seen as operating at many levels, running from the deepest, passional physical desires up to levels which, normally, we rarely experience as imperfect human beings.[Page 145]

For imperfect we are. This is very obvious to the discriminating student, however optimistic he may be, especially about himself; and, moreover, the tenets of occultism point out to us in various terms the fact that, as a human race collectively, we are only a little way beyond the half-way stage between animal and god — to be more exact, we seem to be about two thirds of the way between the beginning of the First Race and the end of the Seventh.

This means in practice that our self-identity, what we call 'I, myself is also in a half-way state between its original implantation in the animal mind and the end state of anything we can know as 'Selfhood'. But, having developed a form, however limited, of detachment and freedom from the patterns of animal instinctive behavior, we can learn to look at ourselves as selves in a manner which is of great practical value and use both in daily life and in our more abstract inner studies.

The first thing which becomes apparent is how, at different times, 'I' am concerned with physical matters, with my body. Then 'I' becomes concerned with desire and passion. 'I' also sets to and thinks about abstract matters not immediately related to instinctive or practical affairs. And sometimes we experience what seems like a total change in our sense of ourselves as separate, discrete beings, and find ourselves in a state where we are still ourselves, but where, in a paradoxical sense, the sphere which encloses separate selfhood has been removed. Only a center remains, which is no longer only individual to ourselves as personalities, but also belongs to every other individual, man or particle in the whole universe as far as we can reach. So different is this experience from the daily one, that we may feel justified in thinking that this new Self is a 'higher' one from the ‘I’ we use every day. So we 'invoke our Higher Self to 'drive away all evil from our hearts'; a very much mistaken practice. For 'evil' driven away from ourselves is set loose in the world and not in any way resolved.

If, on the other hand, we listen to the deeper and, to my mind, truer esoteric and psychological teachings, we shall see that, as human beings, we cannot and must not try to cut ourselves off from our earthy roots, and from the instinctive, passional nature which has been the early nutriment of what we have now become. We need, however, to learn to integrate [Page 146] the material derived from these levels into a greater wholeness, which will include the whole of ourselves: the whole of the Monad which is 'I myself, and which, while its nucleus is in the realm of Being and transcendence, includes also the daily mind — kama-manas — and the physical body, or at least its counterpart in the realm of energy — what we call the 'etheric' or the 'astral' (H.P.B.) or the linga-sarira of the Vedantist.

The basis of all methods of achieving this unity lies in self-awareness: the goal of all true yoga. For through self-knowledge and self-awareness not only do we get to know ourselves, but we automatically become aware of the world or worlds in which we live.

For long we have been afraid of the effects of turning in on ourselves, fearing that this might lead to self-centeredness; but as we travel, we come to see that we are already deeply self-centered, without knowing it. Our lives and actions rest upon what 'I' want, at all levels of our personalities, whether physical or psychic. To see this, however, changes matters: the little, selfish ego, becomes demoted by the forces which flow through consciousness, but which do not flow through unconsciousness. Conscious awareness is the crucible in which alchemical change takes place, so that, by knowing myself I change myself and refine my personality.

No doubt practices, meditations and observances may help to accelerate the process. But only too often they stand in its way, become drugs and habits, fixed patterns of thought and feelings. That is why, whether in Delphi, in Tantric Buddhism, in Raja-Yoga, and in every valid school of thought, emphasis is placed on the ancient and universal maxim, 'Know thyself; for, eventually, we shall find that what begins as a little, automatic, limited sense of 'me' becomes that which includes the whole vast cosmos of what we call God, the Supreme ‘I’ of our universe.[Page 147]

Further, he will know the value of doubt, the legitimacy of asking questions about everything, and of ruthlessly rejecting what he feels to be the dross accumulated around a principle which he feels — or rather, undogmatically, knows — to be true. (Jung, asked whether he believed in God said, quietly, 'I do not believe, I know'.)

Coming back now to the third object of the Theosophical Society, it may be useful to point out that man's greatest power is to become what he is.

This strange statement is, when considered from the angle of spiritual lore, not so strange as it seems. I once said to a young man, a student of these matters, 'How are you ?' 'I'm perfect", he replied. 'The only difficulty is in making this perfection manifest.' It was the right answer to my casual question; for, basically, we are perfect in our deepest Being, but this perfection needs to be expanded from the world of Essence into that of material and manifest existence: that is, to be 'actualized' through the personality, right into the physical body. The oak within the traditional acorn is perfect: but it needs to germinate and grow.[Page 153]

This way of seeing ourselves is much more useful than to think of 'the powers latent in man' in terms of clairvoyance, magical ability, even healing power or the setting loose of kundalini. These are incidental, siddhis, side-issues compared with the fact that man is the only, or at least the first creature on our own evolutionary ladder (there are doubtless other ladders with which we are not concerned) to be capable of self-transformation. He has to develop him-Self out of the seed of individuality planted in the animal soul, and to do this by using the latency of that very Self to bring him-Self to fruition. As he becomes aware, then self-aware (which includes as a corollary, aware also of others) the basic individuality expands until it eventually embraces the whole universe and he 'knows the Self as One'; when separate self-hood is seen as only a pragmatically useful illusion, and disappears into nirvana.

The modern psychologist may not go so far, but as he looks to the future of man he is on the way to it. 'Self-actualization' or 'individuation' is the process of becoming what one already is, and knowing that one is doing so. The methods or techniques, whether one calls them those of Yoga or of depth psychology, are comparatively irrelevant, as are the words and jargon used. For what matters is the success of the process. And, as Lao Tze says, if a person is determined to find Truth he will do so even if he starts by using the wrong method; but a person who is not in the right frame of mind to undertake the Quest may use entirely right methods and get nowhere: it all depends on himself and his deep sincerity, not on what he professes to be his goal.

This picture — admittedly biased by my own ideas — could be endlessly expanded. But my purpose has been not only to give some account of the progress of modern thought of man about man, but also to try to suggest what the man of the coming age is likely to develop into, and to move through into a still further stage in the more or less distant future. Many people reach a state of what we feel to be health. But the progressive 'self-actualizer' today is not content with this, he is seeking what for the mass of mankind is super-health. The Third Force in psychology is working towards bringing this new society into actual existence in every sphere, from the most material to the most highly spiritual. [Page 154]

In short, what it means is that psychology today is coming to recognize that there are a number of individuals who have already touched the new level of consciousness — Teilhard's 'noosphere' — and that many more are more or less blindly trying to do so. We can equate the 'self-actualizer' if we wish with the new race type spoken of in some theosophical books, with this difference, that these people will not be bound by doctrines and creeds. They want to know for themselves, and, in seeking to do so, they give a sense of freedom and of life which is often lacking in the 'orthodox' idealist.

In conclusion, I append a free translation of a 'philosophical sonnet' attributed to the Sage known as the Comte de Saint-Germain, and which is to be found in Cooper Oakley's book on him. It seems to illustrate the point about the value of open doubt and scepticism which is that of the seeker of which we have been speaking.

In my constant exploring of Nature's deep secrets
I have seen of the All both beginning and end.
I have known gold in travail in the deep of the mind,
And been seized of its substance and learned of its life.

I can tell by what arts in the womb of the mother
The soul builds its house, thrusts it forth; how a seed
Placed next to a wheat-corn in the tomb of the soil
The one herb, the one vine, bring forth rich bread and Wine.

Nothing was. God willed. Nothing something became.
Unbelieving I questioned on what the world rests:
There was nothing to balance and hold it in poise.

Then, risking all, whether high praise or blame,
I challenged the Eternal. He called me by name.
I worshiped, I died, I was lost in his Flame.