Collin The Theory of Celestial Influence

1. Auflage 2017
ISBN: 978-1-5439-0960-9
Verlag: BookBaby
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: PC/MAC/eReader/Tablet/DL/kein Kopierschutz

E-Book, Englisch, 503 Seiten

'... As above, so below...' Hermes Trismegistus, The Emerald Tablet Rodney Collin explores in this text, man's 'relation to the universe' as experienced by a 'different kind of mind, in a different state of consciousness.' Influenced by P.D. Ouspensky and G.I. Gurdjieff, promulgators of the esoteric doctrine the Fourth Way, Collin examines how modern scientific discoveries in diverse fields such as physics, human physiology, chemistry and astronomy can be united and reconciled with traditional esoteric teachings. The way we see ourselves and our place in the universe can only be realized 'by a mind which had itself become unified;' harmonizing the conflict between our rational and imaginative minds.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Collin, Rodney

Leseproben

INTRODUCTION
IN EVERY AGE MEN HAVE TRIED TO ASSEMBLE ALL THE KNOWLEDGE and experience of their day into a single whole which would explain their relation to the universe and their possibilities in it. In the ordinary way they could never succeed. For the unity of things is not realisable by the ordinary mind, in an ordinary state of consciousness. The ordinary mind, refracted by the countless and contradictory promptings of different sides of human nature, must reflect the world as manifold and confused as is man himself. A unity a pattern, an all-embracing meaning —if it exists— could only be discerned or experienced by a different kind of mind, in a different state of consciousness. It would only be realisable by a mind which had itself become unified. What unity, for example, could be perceived by even the most brilliant physicist, philosopher or theologian, while he still trips absent-mindedly over a stool, becomes angry at being short-changed, fails to notice when he irritates his wife, and in general remains subject to the daily trivial blindness of the ordinary mind, working with its customary absence of awareness? Any unity he reaches in such a state can exist only in his imagination. Thus the attempt to gather all knowledge into a whole has always been connected with the search for a new state of consciousness. And it is meaningless and futile apart from such a search. Perhaps it may even be said that the few successful attempts that have come down to us show signs of being only the by-products of such a search, when it has proved successful. The only convincing ‘models of the universe’ in existence are those left by men who evidently achieved a completely different relation to the world and consciousness of it from that belonging to ordinary experience. For such true ‘models of the universe’ must not only display the inner form and structure of this universe, but must also reveal man’s relation to it and his present and possible fates within it. In this sense, certain of the Gothic cathedrals are complete models of the universe, whereas a modem planetarium, for all its beauty, knowledge and accuracy, is not. For the latter model completely omits man. The difference, of course, lies in the fact that the cathedrals, directly or indirectly, were designed by men who belonged to schools for the achievement of higher states of consciousness, and had the advantage of experience gained in such schools; whereas the designers of the planetarium are scientists and technicians, clever and qualified enough in their field, but claiming no particular knowledge of the potentialities of the human machine with which they have to work. In fact, if we are in possession of certain keys for their interpretation, the most astonishing thing about these ancient ‘models of the universe’ arising in widely separated ages, continents and cultures, is precisely their similarity. So much so that a good case might be made out for the idea that higher consciousness always reveals the same truth, solely on the basis of a comparative study of certain existing models of the universe which seem to derive there from —for example, the Cathedral of Chartres, the Great Sphinx, the New Testament, the Divine Comedy, or certain cosmic diagrams left by the 17th century alchemists, the designers of the Tarot pack, and the painters of some Russian ikons and Tibetan banners. Of course, one of the chief difficulties in the way of such comparative study lies in the fact that all these models are expressed in different languages, and that to the ordinary unprepared mind different language implies different truth. This is in fact a characteristic illusion of man’s ordinary state. Even a small improvement in his perception reveals, on the contrary, that the same language, the same formulation may cover diametrically opposed understandings, whereas languages and formulations which at first sight have nothing in common may in fact refer to the same thing. For instance, while the words ‘honour’, ‘love’, ‘democracy’ are universally used, it is almost impossible to find two people who attach the same meaning to them. That is to say, different uses of the same word may be quite incomparable. On the other hand —strange though it may seem— the Cathedral of Chartres, a pack of Tarot cards, and certain many-armed and many-headed bronzes of Tibetan deities, are in fact formulations of exactly the same ideas, that is, they are directly comparable. It thus becomes necessary at this point to consider the question of language in relation to the construction of a model of the universe, the delineation of a pattern of unity. Fundamentally, language or form of expression is divided according as it appeals to one or another of man’s functions, familiar or potential. For example, a certain idea may be expressed in philosophical or in scientific language, to appeal to man’s intellectual function; it may be expressed in religious or poetic language to appeal to his emotional function; it may be expressed in ritual or in dances to appeal to his motor function; it may even be expressed in scents or in physical postures to appeal to his instinctive physiology Of course, the more complete ‘models of the universe’ created by schools in the past aimed at combining formulations of what they wished to express in many languages, so as to appeal to several or all functions at once, and thus partly offset the contradiction between different sides of man’s nature already referred to. In the cathedral, for example, the languages of poetry, posture, ritual, music, scent, art and architecture were successfully combined; and something similar appears to have been done in the dramatic representations of the Eleusinian mysteries. Again in certain cases, for instance in the Great Pyramid, the language of architecture seems to have been used not only for the symbolism of its form, but in order to create in a person passing through the building in a certain way a quite definite series of emotional impressions and shocks, which had a definite meaning in themselves, and which were calculated to reveal the very nature of the person exposed to them. All this refers to objective use of language - that is, the use of a definite language to convey a definite idea with previous knowledge of the effect which will be created, the function which will be affected, and the type of person who will respond. Again we have to admit that such objective use of language is not ordinarily known —except perhaps in an elementary form in advertising— and that its higher use can only derive, directly or indirectly, from knowledge gained in higher states of consciousness. Besides these languages recognisable by man through his ordinary functions, there are other forms of language arising from and appealing to supernormal functions, that is, functions which can be developed in man, but which he does not ordinarily enjoy. For instance, there is the language of higher emotional function, where one formulation has the power of conveying an enormous number of meanings - either simultaneously or in succession. Some of the finest poetry, which can never be exhausted, and which, though it always yields something fresh, can never be fully understood, may belong to this category. More evidently, the Gospels are written in such language, and for this reason their every verse can convey to a hundred men a hundred different but never contradictory meanings. In the language of higher emotional function, and particularly of higher intellectual function, symbols play a very large part. For symbols are based on an understanding of true analogies between a greater cosmos and a smaller, a form or function or law in one cosmos being used to hint at the corresponding forms, functions and laws in other cosmoses. This understanding belongs exclusively to higher or potential functions in man, and must always produce a sense of bafflement and even frustration when approached by ordinary functions, such as that of logical thought. Still higher degrees of emotional language need no external expression whatsoever, and therefore cannot be misunderstood. This digression about language is necessary in order to explain in part the form of the present book. For this too, it must be admitted, purports to be a ‘model of the universe’ —that is, an assembly or outline of available knowledge, arranged in order to demonstrate a cosmic whole or unity. It is, indeed, couched in scientific language, and is thus primarily directed to the intellectual function, and to people in whom this function predominates. Certainly, the writer is well aware that this language is the slowest, most tedious, and in some ways the most difficult to follow of all languages. The language of good poetry, of myths or fairy-tales, for example, would be much more penetrating, and might carry the ideas with much greater force and swiftness into the reader’s emotional understanding. Perhaps later an attempt in this direction may be possible. At the same time, the reader accustomed to scientific language and thought will also encounter difficulties here. The free use of analogy throughout the book will seem to him an inconsistency. And for his benefit it were better to make a fuller explanation and a frank acknowledgment of the defects of this method in advance. One of the main characteristics of modem thought is a contradiction between the way man regards the external world, outside himself, and the way he regards the internal world, inside himself. As regards the external world, he has never been more objective, more convinced of the...