Spiritual Power: The Infinite Fount

I. THE QUEST FOR TRUTH

Man is a questioning creature. From the early days of the history of the human race, through all the intermediate stages of human evolution, up to and including the present time, man has been questioning himself, his companions, even Nature itself, concerning the fundamental facts regarding the World, himself, and that which constitutes and moves both. His mental evolution has always been accompanied by, indeed, has been largely caused by, his constant questioning and his discoveries of at least partial answers to his everlasting “Why?”

Man’s intellectual life is represented by the term “Quest.” He has expressed the spirit of his intellectual craving in and through his questions. Man’s Quest has ever been for the fundamental facts concerning the World and himself. His Questions have ever been based upon that Quest. He has always demanded the answer to his questions: “What? Why? How? What of it?”

In the earlier stage of his intellectual life he contented himself with asking merely the questions concerning the needs of his physical life. Then, in turn, he began to inquire concerning the laws which govern the activities manifest in the world of things around and about him. Then he began to inquire concerning the fundamental nature and substance of the things of the physical world, and of the fundamental causes which produce their appearance, their changes, their disappearance.

Professor Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, says: “An important step, far reaching in its consequences was taken when men first sought the cause of change and decay in themselves and in the laws which appear to govern things, rather than in powers and forces outside of and beyond them. When the question was first asked.

‘What is it that persists amidst all changes and that underlies every change?’ a new era was about to dawn in the history of man’s wonder and his desire to know…… When the World is viewed as Totality, there is obviously nothing to which it can be related, nothing upon which it can be dependent, no external source from which its energy can be derived. We pass, therefore, at this stage of knowing, from the plane of interdependence, relativity, to the plane of self-dependence, self-relation, self-activity. Self-Active Totality is the source and origin of all the forces, energies and motions which in one manifestation or another are observed in their interrelations and interdependencies.”

The Quest pursued in the present book is that leading to the discovery of the nature and character of this Self-Activity of that Totality which we know as the Universe or the Cosmos—or that which, in still more familiar thought, is known as Nature. We shall confine ourselves strictly to the plane of Nature. We shall not attempt to invade the plane of the Supernatural. We shall limit our inquiry to the field of advanced scientific philosophical thought; we shall carefully refrain from encroaching upon the field of Theology or that of abstract Metaphysics. This does not mean that we are opposed to theology or its teachings, nor to abstract Metaphysics and its manifold theories: it means simply that we prefer to leave these respective fields to those who specialize in the subjects belonging to them. We shall from time to time refer to certain theological or metaphysical teachings, but this only for the purpose of illustration.

* * *

We are frequently reminded by certain schools of thought that Reason (conceived as Intellect) is unable to peer behind the veil of phenomenal appearance which conceals, but yet reveals, the presence and activity of the Infinite Power which abides in the Secret Place of Eternity. They quote approvingly the ancient inscription carved on the old Temple of Isis, in Egypt, which announced to all readers: “Isis I Am; All that is, that has been, thatwill be; No man hath yet lifted my veil.”

They likewise bid us to recall the celebrated statement of the ancient Buddhists: “The imagination, the understanding, and abstract thinking will always strive in vain to represent the Eternal Infinity. For no form of finiteness (to which thought and speech belong) can express Infinity; nor can that which is Timed express Eternity; nor can thought resultant from the Chain of Causation grasp the Causeless and Self-Existent. Therefore, we set aside all such speculations and vain disputes, and do not busy ourselves with them.”

In Sir Edwin Arnold’s poem, “The Light of Asia,” the Buddha says:

“Om Amataya! Measure not with words the Immeasurable;

Nor sink the string of thought into the Fathomless.

Who asks, doth err; who answers, errs; say naught!

Shall any gazer see with mortal eyes?

Or any searcher know with mortal mind?

Veil after veil will lift—but there must be

Veil upon veil behind.”

But both the ancient Egyptians, and the ancient Buddhists as well, knew and taught that there are other ways of “knowing’” than those of the sense-limited Intellect. Both held that man may and does unfold higher faculties of cognition—higher mechanism of knowledge—whereby “the unknowable becomes known.” The ancient Egyptians taught that certain advanced souls had acquired transcendental powers of cognition whereby they were able to perceive that which is beyond the powers of ordinary perception, and to “know” that which remains “unknowable” to the ordinary powers of the mind.

The Buddhists, likewise, taught that the Buddhas, and other illumined minds of the race, were able to think about and know that which the lower-level Intellect is unable to grasp. In fact the Buddhists’ supreme claim is that their basic teachings are the result of Thought—the thought of the illumined Gautama, the Buddha of that period. One of the hymns of the old Buddhist monks has as its chorus the reiterated lines: “He thought it out; he thought it out!” The pride of Buddhism is that its system is based upon Thought, and not on Faith alone; but by “thought” they mean the Higher Reason in which the reports of Intuition are blended with those of Intellect.

These ancient schools of philosophic thought, as well as many much later schools, teach that while it is true that Intellect, of itself, depending as it must upon the interpreted reports of the senses for its basic material, and being thus necessarily limited in its field and scope, is indeed unable to “ree the riddle”—to report truthfully that which lies behind the Veil of Materiality— it is equally true that Reason is able to transcend the limitations of unaided Intellect when she calls to her aid that twin-sister of Intellect known as Intuition, and thus secures the materials upon which the Higher Reason may work, and which it may spin and weave into glorious fabrics of Truth.

Modern philosophy is displaying much interest in certain forms of mental activity which are grouped under the category of “Intuition.” In this usage of the old term, “Intuition,” however, these philosophers do not refer to the ordinary conscious or subconscious activities of which the source remains hidden, and which, therefore, are frequently referred to as “intuitive.” Neither do they refer to those acquired habits of action, once performed consciously but now manifested subconsciously, which are known as “instinctive.”

Instead, they employ the term to indicate that higher form of Reason made possible by the reports of the superconscious faculties concerning their perception of certain higher truths, which reports are then passed down to the Intellect for reasoning based upon induction or deduction, or similar forms of thought. They hold that these reports of Intuition are not contrary to those of Intellect, but merely are more direct and convincing in “feeling,” and serve rather to support the reports of the trained Intellect than to oppose or contradict them.

Reason, being furnished the combined reports of both Intellect and Intuition, is possessed of material far surpassing in both quantity and quality those arising from sense-reports alone; consequently, the Higher Reason is able to produce materials of a quality and beauty far excelling those turned out by it when it is limited to the comparatively scanty and imperfect materials of the senses. Or, employing another figure of speech, we may say that the Higher Reason, in which Intellect is reinforced by Intuition, acts like the skilled geometer who being given certain “sighted points” is then able to measure, chart and map great regions of land or of space over which his feet have never trod, his airplane wings never flown, nor his eyes ever scanned. The Higher Reason, thus given these “sighted points” furnished by Intuition, is able to measure, chart and map great areas of thought and knowledge over which his senses have not traveled, and which they cannot perceive.

Bergson holds that Intellect is properly employed with the outer appearances of life; Intuition, with the inner facts of life. Intellect, he says, is a narrowing or focusing of consciousness, confined to a limited field by its very nature; outside of that narrow field lies the region of Intuition. In its own field, says Bergson, Intellect is held to be supreme; Intuition does not begin to reach the efficiency of Intellect in that field. In its own field, in turn, Intuition is supreme; it goes far beyond Intellect in that region, and gives us knowledge impossible to unaided Intellect. But such higher knowledge, it should be noted, does not contradict the report of Intellect extended to its full limits along the lines of trained logical thought; it merely transcends and goes beyond the limits of Intellect.

When Intellect, throwing aside its prejudices and false pride, asks questions of Intuition concerning matters which lie in the field of intuitional activity, and then takes over the report of Intuition and employs it as the basis of rational induction and deduction, a wonderful result is thus obtained. A wondrous blending is thus secured, and an entirely new field of thought spreads itself out to the Reason of the individual thinker. The correlated and coordinated activities of Intellect and Intuition produce what may be called the report of the Higher Reason, or the Completed Reason. Here the individual secures “the faith that knows, and not merely believes.”

There is a tremendous truth expressed in the celebrated statement of Bergson: “There are things that the Intellect alone is able to seek, but which by itself it will never find. Those things, Intuition alone can find; but it will never seek them of itself.” Intuition never is moved of itself to explore its depth for Truth—it has no need for effort of that kind; it knows and takes for granted that the answer is known to all; it is not aware of the existence of the problem involved, nor of the need of answering it, nor has it the desire to have it answered.

As Bergson has told us, Intuition, though alone capable of finding the answer to certain questions concerning important facts, will of itself never seek that answer. Only when Intellect (which alone is able to seek the answer but which is unable by itself to find it), deigns to ask Intuition to look within itself for the needed answer, does Intuition make the inquiry and furnish the required report. The question once made clear to Intuition by Intellect, the former proceeds with ease to answer it. The facts thus presented to Intellect are then subjected to the processes of logical reasoning—being employed as the premises of such reasoning—and the Higher Reason finally hands down its logical judgment and conclusions.

The correlation and coordination of Intellect and Intuition in the work of Higher Reason, or Completed Reason, frequently results in what is called “intellectual illumination,” or the “lighting up” of the Intellect as if “from above.” Intuition, superimposing its reports upon Intellect, kindles the flame of illumination—that “intellectual illumination” of which flashes have been obtained by many great men and women, and accounts of which are frequently found in their biographies or autobiographies. Some of the greatest discoveries and other mental accomplishments have been performed under the influence of this “intellectual illumination” so produced by the action and reaction between Intellect and Intuition.

Intellect constitutes the “seeing” aspect of knowledge; Intuition, the “feeling” aspect. When you apprehend a truth by means of your Intellect, you say that you “see” it: when you apprehend it by means of your Intuition, you say that you “feel” it. The “feeling” is quite as valid as is the “seeing,” when rightly understood and interpreted. In fact, the “feeling” seems, if anything, to be rather deeper than the “seeing”—it has to do with the “inside,” rather than with the “outside” of experience. It seems to belong essentially to the individual, while the “seeing” seems rather to be bound up with the outside world.

There are certain fundamental laws, principles and truths which Intellect and Intuition, combined and correlated as Higher Reason or Completed Reason, must inevitably, invariably and infallibly report to be necessary truth, the necessities of thought, by the very nature of their respective characters and essential facts. To “see” this intellectually, and to “feel” this intuitively, is to know the Truth. And what is quite as important (many think it still more important), this intellectual perception and intuitive realization is equivalent to being able to manifest and express that Truth in your world of experience, in the form or phase of Personal Power of the highest order. Such has always been the report, the promise, the prophecy of the great spiritual teachers of the race.

Here follows the report, promise and prophecy of some of the great spiritual giants of mankind, based upon the experience of such illumined souls gleaned in the many centuries of philosophical and transcendental thought:

The Prophecy Concerning Truth “When you are able to perceive intellectually, and to realize intuitively, Truth, as such is inevitably, invariably and infallibly reported to you through the proper exercise of your Higher Reason or Completed Reason, then will you be able to manifest the Truth in and through your thought, your actions, your work, in the measure of your perception and realization of the Truth.”

Asking you to accept this report, promise and prophecy concerning Truth as made in good faith and in sincerity, according to the light possessed by those making it, we shall now invite you to ascend with us the Path of Attainment which winds up along the sides of the Mountain of Truth.

The attainment of the mountain-top will amply repay you for the rigors of the ascent, the fatigue of the journey. Of this an inspired writer says:

“The mountain summit typifies the highest point on which a climber may stand and think in terms of consciousness drawn from a material world. But we may look beyond it, though it is a sublime elevation where many a pilgrim is content to pause. Below him are the kingdoms; above him are the stars; the kingdom and the stars are alike his. But it is not the end. Deeper than the kingdoms, and higher than the stars, is the sky that holds them all. And there alone is Peace; that peace which the material world cannot give; the peace which passeth understanding trained on material things; Infinite and Eternal Peace— the peace of Limitless Consciousness unified with Limitless Will.”

* * *

The thinking individual, when he begins to contemplate the world which he perceives to exist and to manifest activity around and about himself, soon discovers three great classes of things in that world; then he begins at once to generalize and classify these three great kinds of things into three fundamental categories. These three great categories are as follows: (1) the Substance, Stuff, or Body of Things in general—that which gives them body, form, shape and substance—their outer aspect as reported to him by his senses; (2) the Powers, Energies and Forces which cause the movements and actions of things, the changes in things—the inner aspect of things, imperceptible to his senses yet manifesting their effects so as to be apprehended by the senses; (3) the Livingness of Things—that Something Within which manifests in vital activities, voluntary actions, and in feeling, thinking, willing—this he experiences in himself, and judges that other things also possess it by reason of their actions which he perceives.

As man’s intellectual evolution proceeds, he discovers certain laws governing each of these three great classes of things or facts. He perceives certain laws governing the physical or material aspect of things; certain laws governing the forces producing activities in these physical or material things; certain laws governing the operations and activities of the vital processes, the mental processes. He groups these laws, and upon their bases he erects his structure of Science. So far, the thinking man has had an easy time in his thinking upon the subject of “things.” Like the young bear, he has all his troubles ahead of him. It is only when he indulges in Philosophy or Metaphysics that his real troubles along these lines really begin. We shall now show you why this is.

The man of Science is concerned merely with “the way things work”—the principles governing their actions and behavior.

He asks merely “How,” and is satisfied with an answer to such questions. The Metaphysical Philosopher, however, pursues the inquiry further: he is not satisfied with the “How” stage of questioning—he asks for an answer to his new question “Why?” He pursues his inquiries until, finally, he demands an answer to his Ultimate “Why,” which may be expressed as follows: “What is that which is the Ultimate Principle of All Things, and of which all things are manifestations?”

He is not content with the scientific classification of natural things into the three great categories of (1) Substance, (2) Energy, (3) Life or Spirit: he holds that some one of these three must be the Ultimate Principle, the other two being subordinate aspects or manifestations of that Ultimate Reality.

He does not explain clearly “just why” all things must be manifestations of but One Principle: he takes this for granted, and asks you to do the same. Ask him how and why this is, and he will answer, with great dignity of manner and tone: “All philosophy worthy of the name holds that at the last everything must be reduced to One Ultimate Principle; the discovery of that One Ultimate Principle is the aim and end of all true philosophical thought.”

Pressed for a further answer he dismisses the subject with the remark: “Plato settled that matter, once and for all, many centuries ago,” and pronounces you an impudent ignoramus if you venture to demand to be shown or told “just how Plato knew this.” There are, it seems, certain limits beyond which you may not go in your inquiries of certain Metaphysical Philosophers. It is a case of “Thus saith the Lord!” with them— with Plato playing the part of the Lord. The thinkers who, in this matter, are “from Missouri,” and who demand to “be shown,” are dubbed unphilosophical—but they are increasing in number, and their ranks now contain some of the brightest minds of the race. The abstract Metaphysicians are wedded to their idols, it would seem.

This demand for the reduction of all things to One Ultimate Principle long ago divided the army of Metaphysical Philosophy into two great camps, each of which is in turn divided into minor groups. These two great philosophical divisions are known, respectively, as (1) Materialism, and (2) Idealism. Both of these great camps, while engaged in continuous warfare against each other, nevertheless hold firmly to the same fundamental idea that there exists some One Ultimate Principle—one camp holds that this One Ultimate Principle is Matter, the other camp holds that it is Spirit or Mind. While engaged in a bitter fight between themselves, these two camps are united against a third camp, the one known as Realism, which holds that there are two Universal Principles instead of one—one of which is Material Substance, the other being Spiritual Essence. Let us see what are the fundamental and basic ideas of these three several schools.

Professor Thomas Case, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford University, in his great article upon “Metaphysics,” in the Encyclopedia Britannica (Eleventh Edition) says: “Metaphysical Materialism is the view that everything known is body or matter; but while according to ancient Materialists soul is only another body, according to modern Materialists mind without soul is only an attribute or function of body. Metaphysical Idealism is the view that everything known is mind, or some mental state or other, which some Idealists suppose to require a substantial soul, others not; while all agree that body has no different being apart from mind. Metaphysical Realism is the intermediate view that everything known is either body or soul, neither of which alone exhausts the universe of being. Aristotle, the founder of Metaphysics as a distinct science, was also the founder of Metaphysical Realism, and still remains its main authority. * * *

“The strength of Materialism consists in recognizing Nature without explaining it away; its weakness consists in its utter inability to explain consciousness either in its nature or in its origin. On the other hand, it is the virtue of Idealism to emphasize the fact of consciousness; but it is its vice to exaggerate it, with the consequence of resorting to every kind of paradox to deny the obvious and to get rid of bodies. * * * But it is unfair to argue as if the whole case were between materialistic or idealistic monism, leaving Realism out of court. There are in reality two species of substances, or entirely different things.”

Each of the two respective philosophic schools holding to the basic theory of One Ultimate Principle is found to have its strong points and its weak points. The third school, that of Realism, seeks to combine these respective strong points, and to eliminate these respective weak points, by means of a new synthesis in which Material Substance and Spiritual Essence are regarded as dual-principles or twin-aspects of Ultimate Reality. Such a synthesis is found to include and retain the strong points of each of the other two schools, while rendering unnecessary the extreme hypotheses which constitute the weak points of each of these schools. If you will follow the analysis presented to you in the remaining pages of this section of the book, you will be able to recognize and realize the advantages held by the Realistic School of Philosophy, and the disadvantages attached to each of the other two schools.

The strong point of Materialism has ever been that it satisfies the demand of Intuition for a substantial, firm, constant, material basis to support and sustain the world of material things. This substantial basis is denied by Idealism, in its insistence that “All is Mind; Mind is All.” To this fact is due the regular reaction and “swing back” to Materialism which has always followed an extreme and uncompromising presentation of the doctrines of Idealism. If Materialism would content itself with the basic postulate that “Material Substance is Real,” it would receive the full approval of Intuition, and of Intellect as well. But it does not and will not so content itself; instead it adds the damning clause: “and Material Substance is the ONLY Reality.”

The weak point of Materialism, the point which is absolutely repugnant to Intuition, is that in which it asserts that “Life, Mind, Spirit are the properties, attributes, aspects, phases, modes of Matter; or else its creation, manifestation, or expression.” Materialism has even gone so far as (at one time) to claim that “Matter secretes Life and Mind, just as the liver secretes bile.” Intuition, realizing fully, as it does, that it, itself, is Spirit, absolutely refuses to admit this contention of Materialism. It recognizes Matter in its own place, on its own plane, but always regards it as the “other” to Spirit—the antithetical opposite of Spirit. It recognizes its essential identity with Spirit, and knows that Spirit is Ultimate and not a derivative or byproduct of Matter or of anything else.

The strong point of Idealism has ever been that it posits Spirit, Life, Mind, as ultimate facts of existence, and not as derivatives or by-products of Matter or Material Force. Intuition meets it with open arms when it approaches bearing this message. The message is soul-satisfying and produces a spiritual content. For that matter, it is very probable that no Materialist, “deep down in his soul,” ever really feels that Life, Mind, Spirit, are the by-products of Matter: the Materialist may think that he sees the truth of his contention, but he really never succeeds in feeling that it is true. Within him, Spirit itself cries to him, “I AM Spirit and not Matter nor a product of Matter!” His Intuition ever protests against his extreme Materialism.

The weak point of Idealism has ever been its claim that “All is Mind, Mind is All; Matter is an Illusion, and has no real existence; the Material World is a Dream or an Error of Mortal Mind.” Intuition revolts at this, though Intellect is frequently seduced by its plausible sophistry and fallacy. It is probable that no Idealist ever really feels that “there is no reality in Matter.” Even when he is uttering the words, he continues to act “as if” Matter is a reality. His every action is based upon the tacit recognition of the presence and reality of Matter. Intellect, it is true, is often dazed and bewildered by the juggling of words so often employed in the philosophy of Idealism, under its many different names and forms. Idealism is “Ingrown Metaphysics”; of such schools of thought a writer has said, “Of such teachings, those who listen understand nothing, and those who teach do not really understand.”

That actual material objects really exist is the verdict of Common Sense and of the Intuition of any person who will listen to its voice. Professor Ladd says: “Common Sense must be trusted, and virtually is trusted, for the inviolable and undiminished confidence in the existence of a real world, full of actual events, some of which are known to be causally connected; and, as well, in its confident belief that, while human knowledge does not create that world and knows it at best only imperfectly and partially, yet it does know it truly, so to say,—that is, as it really exists and actually behaves.” Reid says: “I do perceive matter objectively—that is, something that is the intermediate object of my touch and sight. And this object I take to be matter, and not an idea. And though I have been taught by philosophers that what I immediately touch is an idea, and not matter, yet I have never been able to discover this by the most accurate attention to my own perceptions.” Benjamin Paul Blood says: “A modern man must indeed be tainted with one of Mr. Spencer’s ‘insanities of Idealism’ to doubt that even if the earth were stripped of all living things and left barren as our moon appears—man and his philosophies and histories and religions vanished into less than air—the glorious stars, among which by analogical reckoning his earth is but a speck, would still revolve as, theoretically at least, they have ever revolved, regardless of all impertinent sensitiveness to time or times.”

This report of Common Sense and Intuition is practically accepted by all men (even the extreme Idealists) in their everyday life and activities. They may “talk one thing and act another,” it is true; but the best test of a man’s real intuitive truths is found in his actions rather than in his words—the highest test of Truth is one’s willingness to trust his life and well-being to it.

As Blood says: “The profoundest Idealist confesses to the integrity of Matter. A rap on the head gives a conviction of reality that no idea that can come out of that head can refute. Criticism of Common Sense comes back in its own face; like the wasp and the hornet, it leaves its sting in the wound and is fatal to itself. *** A critic might say to the average perfunctory Idealist, ‘You are up in the tree of life, indeed, but you are sawing off the limb that supports you’.” And, as Ladd says; “One might admit that he would be willing to dispense with the reality of all the physical world, if only the idea of eating bread were but regularly followed by the idea of being no longer hungry and of being invigorated.”

Between the extremes of Materialism and Idealism is found the position of the Golden Mean—the Point of Balance— represented by the philosophic school of Realism. Realism recognizes the real and actual existence of both Spiritual Essence and Material Substance: the former constituting the “soul” of things, the latter the “body” of things. The World is accounted for and explained as the result of the action and reaction of Spirit and Matter. It holds that some things are material things, and that other things are spiritual things. The history of Realism in the Western world runs back to Aristotle; in the Eastern world it runs back to still older Oriental philosophers. Both of these ancient schools held that Spirit and Matter are ultimate universal principles, distinct and different from each other, yet ever acting and reacting to and from the other. They held that Spirit is the Inner Essence, and Matter the Outer Substance, of the Cosmos.

Spirit, it is true, can never know Matter “in itself”; it can know only the sensations arising from its contact with Matter. But, equally true, Spirit is compelled to depend upon these sensations arising from contact with Matter for its “raw materials” of thought, feeling, and other mental processes. We know Matter only through Mind; but Mind must depend upon Matter for its crude, objects of knowledge. There is a universal interdependence and coordination between Mind and Matter, and Matter and Mind—the action and reaction between Spiritual Essence and Material Substance.

Such is the teaching of true philosophic Realism. Upon this basic teaching the instruction contained in the present book is grounded. In the course of this instruction you will discover for yourself that these foundations are solid; and that the structure is well supported by them. If you have been repelled by the crude, crass doctrines of extreme Materialism, on the one hand, and made dizzy by the visionary, impractical doctrines of extreme Idealism, on the other hand, you will find in the teaching of rational Realism a satisfactory position between the two extremes where the reconciliation and explanation of the two opposing doctrines is not only made possible, but is actually rendered certain.