Theosophy - As above, So below by G.R.S.Mead
Adyar
Pamphlet No 106 - October 1919
As Above, So Below
by
G R S Mead
Theosophical
Publishing House Adyar, Chennai (Madras) India
Stray
Thoughts on Theosophy
[Reprinted
from The Theosophical Review, Vol XXXIV
Heaven
above, heaven below; stars above, stars below;
all
that is above, thus also below; understand this and
be
blessed.
—Kircher,
Prodrom. Copt., pp 193 and 275.
“As
above, so below" -- a "great word,” a sacramental phrase, a
saying of wisdom, an aphorism, a mystic formula, a fundamental law - or a two-edged
sword of word-fence, that will probably do the wielder serious damage if he
is not previously put through careful training in its handling?
Whether
this famous “word” is of Hermetic origin or no, we will not stay
formally to enquire. In essence it is probably as old as human thought itself.
And as probably, the idea lying underneath it has been turned topsy-turvy more
frequently than any other of the immortal company.
“As
above, so below” doubtless enshrines some vast idea of analogical law,
some basis of true reason, which would sum up the manifold appearances of things
into one single verity; but the understanding of the nature of this mystery
of manifoldness from the one - all one and one in all—is not to be attained
by careless thinking, or by some lucky guess, or by the pastime of artificial
correspondencing. Indeed, if the truth must out, in ninety-nine cases of a hundred,
when one uses this phrase to clinch an argument, we find that we have begged
the question from the start, ended where we began, and asserted the opposite
of our logion. Instead of illumining, not only the subject we have in hand,
but all subjects, by a grasp of the eternal verity concealed within our saying,
we have reversed it into the ephemeral and false proposition: “As below,
so above,” Deus, verily, inversus est demon; and there’s
the devil to pay. But fortunately there is some compensation even in this in
an illogical age; for, as all the mystic world knows, Demon is nothing
else but deus inversus.
Yes, even along our most modern lines of thought, even in propositions and principles that
are, with every day, coming more and more into favour in the domain of practical
philosophizing, we find our ageless aphorism stood upon its head with scantiest ceremony.
In
the newest theology, in the latest philosophy, we find a strong tendency to
revive the ancient idea that man is the measure of the universe - whether we
call this concept pragmatism or by any other name that sounds “as sweet”.
“As below,” then, “so above.” In fact we do not seem
to be able to get away from this inversion. We like it thus turned upside down;
and I am not altogether sure that, even for the keenest-minded of us, it is
not an excellent exercise thus to anthropomorphize [In the sense of Anthropos
of course, and not of his carcase.] the universe, and to fling the shadow of
his best within on to the infinite screen of the appearance of the things without.
For is not man kin really with all these - worlds, systems, elements, and spaces,
infinitudes, and times and timelessness?
But
this way of looking at the thing does not as a rule bother the beginner in mystic
speculation. Fascinated with some little-known fact of the below, marveling
at some striking incident that has come under his notice - striking, fascinating
for him, of course - he usually puts a weight upon it that it cannot bear, exaggerates
a particular into a universal, and with a desperate plunge of joy images that
he has finally arrived at truth - taking his topsy-turvy “as below”
for the eternal “as above”. He does not yet realize that, had he
truly reached to that “above,” he would know not only the solitary
below that has come dazzlingly into his cosmos, but every other “below”
of the same class.
But
again from this height of “philosophizing” let us come down to mystic
commonplace. Of things physical we have certain definite knowledge, summed up
in the accurate measurement and observations, and general mechanical art of
modern science. Beyond this domain, for mechanical science there is 'x'; for
the ‘seeing” mystic there is not 'x', but an indefinite series of
phases of subtler and subtler sensations. Now, as every intelligent reader knows,
it is just the nature of these extra normal impressions that is beginning to
be critically investigated on the lines of the impersonal method and justly
belauded by all scientific workers.
In
this domain, of such intense interest to many students of Theosophy, how shall
we say our “as above” applies? And here let us start at the beginning;
that is to say, the first discrete degree beyond the physical - the psychic
or so-called “astral”. What constitutes this a discrete degree?
Is it in reality a discrete degree? And by discrete I mean: is it discontinuous
with the physical? That is to say, is there some fundamental change of kind
between the two? “East is east, and West is west”; Astral is astral,
and Physical is physical. But how? Sensationally only, or is it also rationally
to be distinguished?
The
first difficulty that confronts us is this: that, however keen a man’s
subtler senses may be, no matter how highly “clear-seeing” he may
have become - I speak, of course, only of what has come under my own personal
observation and from the general literature of the subject, [Of vision and apocalyptic
proper, of course, and not of the subjective seeing or recalling of physical
scenes.] he seems unable to convey his own immediate experience clearly
to a second person, unless, of course that second person can “see”
with the first. Try how he may, he is apparently compelled to fall back on physical
terms in which to explain; nay, it is highly probable that all that has been
written on the “astral” has produced no other impression on non-psychic
readers than that it is a subtler phase of the physical. And this presumably,
because the very seer himself, in explaining the impressions he registers to
himself, that is, to his physical consciousness, has to translate them into
the only forms that consciousness can supply, namely physical forms. Indeed,
there seems to be a gulf fixed between psychic and physical, so that those impressions
which would pass from thence to us, cannot. In other words, they cannot, in
the very nature of things, come naked into this world; they must be clothed.
Now if this is true, if this is an unavoidable fact in nature, then the very nature of the astral
is removed from the nature of the physical by an unbridgeable gulf: “East is east, and West
is west.” But is it really true? Is it only that, so far, no one is known who can bridge the gulf
perfectly? Or supposing even that there be those who can so bridge it, is it that they are
unable to make their knowledge known to others simply because these others cannot
bridge the gulf in their own personal consciousness, and therefore cannot follow the
continuum of their more gifted brethren?
But even supposing there is a continuity from physical to astral, it would seem that we
must, so to speak, go there, and that it cannot come here. In other words, the astral cannot
be precisely registered in the physical, the image cannot exactly reproduce the prototype;
for if it could, the one would be the other. What then is the nature of the difference of
quality or of degree? How, again, we ask, does astral really differ from physical? Can we
in this derive any satisfaction from speculations concerning the so-called “fourth dimension”
of matter?
This
is a subject of immense difficulty, and I do not propose to enter into anything
but its outermost court; in fact, I am incapable of doing so. All that I desire
to note for the present is that all analogies between “flatland”
and our three-dimensional space, and between the latter and the presupposed
fourth-dimensional stage, are based upon the most flagrant petitio principii.
It is a case of “As below, so above,” in excelsis. “Flatland
- space of two dimensions, plus the further gratuitous assumption of
two-dimensional beings who have their being and their moving therein - is inconceivable
as matter of any kind. A superficies is - an idea; it is not a thing
of the sensible world. We can conceive a superficies in our minds; it is a mental
concept, it is not a sensible reality. We can’t see it, nor taste it,
nor hear it, nor smell it, nor touch it. Our two-dimensional beings are not
only figments of the imagination, they are absolutely inconceivable as entities;
they can’t be conscious of one another, for in the abstract concept
called a surface, there can be no position from the standpoint of itself and
things like it, but only from the standpoint of another. Even the most primitive
sense of touch would be non-existent for our “flatlanders,” for
there would be nothing to touch. And so on, and so forth.
Therefore,
to imagine how three-dimensional things would appear to the consciousness of
a flatlander, and from this by analogy to try to construct four-dimensional
things from a series of three-dimensional phenomena, is apparently a very vicious
circle indeed. We can’t get at it that way; we have to seek another way,
a very different “other way,” apparently, by means of which we may
get out of three dimensions into - what? Into - two, either way or every way?
Who knows?
Anyway,
the later Platonic School curiously enough called the “astral” the
“plane”; basing themselves on one of the so-called Chaldean Oracles:
“Do not soil the spirit nor turn the plane into the solid”; where
the “spirit” corresponds apparently to what modern Theosophical
terminology calls the “etheric,” and the “plane” to
the “astral”. As Psellus
says, in commenting on this logion: “The Chaldeans clothed the soul in
two vestures: the one they called the spirituous, which is woven for it (as
it were) out of the sensible body; the other the radiant, subtle and impalpable,
which they call the plane.” [See my Orpheus p 283 London 1896)
Higher than this were the “lines’ and “points,” all of which pertained presumably to the
region of mind.
What,
then, again we ask, is the “astral” proper as compared with the
physical? How do things appear to themselves on the astral proper; for so far;
in the very nature of things, whenever we talk “down here” of the
astral we have to talk of it in terms of the physical? In what, to use a famous
term of ancient philosophizing, consists its otherness”? Is “otherness”
in this to be thought of and distinguished by a gulf in matter; a gap - which
seems to be an absurdity, for “nature does not leap”; she also “abhors
a vacuum,’ und so weiter, along this line of aphorism. Here again
we are confronted with the other side of the shield, with the unavoidable intuition
that there is a continuum in matter; that if it were possible magically
to propel a human entity into space, he would successively leave his various
“vehicles” [Or rather, to speculate more precisely, the molecules
of some, the atoms of others, the electrons of others, and so on and so forth.]
in the spheres of the atmosphere and elements, while, as in the case of John
Brown, his soul would “go marching on” until it arrived at the last
limit - whenever or wherever that may be, in a universe that ever at every point
enters into itself.
However
this may be, there is no doubt that the idea of a cosmic “stuff”
or “matter " - whatever such terms may mean - rolled up continuously
into itself, as in the diagram of the atom so familiar to students of Modern
Theosophy - is exceedingly illuminative, if thought of as a symbol of
force-systems. All things, then, would appear to be solidified down here by
the “sky's being rolled up carpet-wise,” to paraphrase the Upanishat.
The “above” has thus been “involved” into the “below”;
and if we could only follow the process, perchance we should then be able faintly
to understand the truth underlying our aphorism. Then, and then only, in the
most serious and literal meaning of it, and not in the sarcastic sense of the
writer, or rather singer, of the shvetâshvataropanishat:"when,
carpet-wise, the sky, men shall roll up; then (only, not till then) shall end
of sorrow be, without men knowing God,” [Shvetâshvataropanisht,
vi, 20. See The Upanishats (Mead and Chatterji’s Trans) II, 97]
for then, perchance, they would be God.
Now
as a matter of fact this continuum of matter is the ground on which all
scientific thinking is based; perpetual and continuous transformation, but no
sudden leaps - orderly evolution, no miraculous or uncaused, spontaneous surprises.
And if this be true, it follows that some day the direct line of “descent”
from astral to physical will be controlled mechanically by human invention,
and the astral would be made visible to even the most hopelessly profane from
a psychic standpoint; and not only so, but the errors of human observation,
which vitiate all present psychic investigation, will be obviated, in as marvelous
a fashion as the errors of physical observation are now eliminated by the wonderfully
delicate instruments already devised by human ingenuity.
This seems immediately to follow from the major premise of our present speculation; but
somehow or other I am by no means satisfied that this will be the case. Is our salvation to
be dependent upon machines? Dei ex mchinis indeed!
But
what has all this to do with “As above, so below”? Why, this: If
the sensible world rises by stages - from this gross state, familiar to us by
our normal senses, through ever finer and finer grades of matter, we finally
reach - ay, there is the rub; what do we reach? Where do we start? The truth
of the matter is - be it whispered lowly - you can’t think it out
in terms of matter. But take the “ever so thin” idea for the moment
as sufficiently indefinite for any mystic who is not a metaphysician, using
the latter term in the old, old way, where physis included all nature
that is natura, the field of becoming.
“As
above, so below”— how many stages above? Let us say seven, to be
in the fashion. The “above” will then be very nebulous presumably,
a sort of “spherical” “primitive streak,” from the within
without - but a “primitive streak” in its own mode and fashion,
and differing presumably toto coelo from the primitive streak that first
appears in physical embryology. There may be “correspondence,” but
that correspondence must be traced through numerous orders of “matter”;
the very next succeeding order to the physical already acting as force, or energy,
to the matter which falls beneath our normal senses. Here we are again, at the
very outset, face to face with the “astral” 'x' — which,
compared with the physical, should perhaps be regarded as a “system of
forces,” rather than as a mould of the same fashion and form as the physical.
And if this view is, at any rate, one stage nearer the reality than the interpretation
of the astral by purely physical imagery and symbolism - what can possibly
be the nature of our spherical “primitive streak” stage; when already
at the first remove we beggar all our possibilities of description?
For we certainly do not get much “forrarder” by simply flinging the picture of the physical,
as it were, on to a series of mirrors which differ from one another only in the distance they
are removed one from another. At any rate, it seems so to the reflecting mind of man;
though maybe it seems quite as natural to his subtler senses so to speak of their
experience when he converses physically about them.
Let
it be understood once for all that I have not the slightest pretension in any
way to decide between these apparently eternal oppositions - the sense and the
reason; indeed, I have a private belief that it would be most unseemly and disastrous
to attempt to separate the eternal spouses of this sacred marriage; not only
unseemly but sacrilegious to do so - perchance even the sin against the Holy
Ghost. Hand in hand, nay, in the most intimate of all unions, must they ever
go together, for ever giving birth to the true Man - who is their common source.
Still,
it is ever of advantage continuously to keep before our minds the question:
What is a prototype; what is a paradigm; what a logos — a reason;
what an idea? What, for instance, is the autozôon, the animal itself,
as compared with all animals; what the ever the “same,” as compared
with all the “others”?
Here,
to help us, the intuition of things that underlay the philosophizing of the
Western world at its birth in conscious reasoning - from the time of Pythagoras
onwards - comes forward with its setting of the noumenal over against the sensible
or phenomenal - the mind over against the soul. The characteristic of the pure
mind is that it “sees,” not another, but itself, and knows it ever
“sees” itself. It is the “plane of truth” — wherever
are the paradigms, and ideas, and reasons of all things — and when we
say "where"” we do not mean that it is a place or space, for
it is the everlasting causation of these, and is not conditioned by them, but
self-conditions itself.
It would be too long, it would be too difficult, for me to attempt to write on such a sublime
theme in these stray thoughts. One thing alone I have desired to call attention to; it is the
careless translation of terms into consciousness, and the danger of falling too deeply into
the habit of what Stallo calls the “reification of ideas”. For when you have “reified” your
ideas, be it gravity, or atomicity, or vibration, you have only got the shadow and not the
substance; the appearance, the phenomenon, and not the underlying truth, the noumenon.
It will be already seen that even in this short paper I have used the same words in totally
different senses; for when I speak of the sacred marriage of mind and sense, I am using
“mind” in a different sense from “the mind” of which I have just been speaking, which in this
sense stands for the Self, the âtman of Hindu philosophy.
But
no matter how we use our words - and who that loves wisdom is so foolish as
to quarrel about words?—it seems to be an inexpugnable position in right
reason, that that “sight” which reveals to man the “reasons”
of things is a higher and more divine possession than that “sight”
which sees the sensible forms of things, no matter how exquisitely beautiful
and grandiose such forms may be. And when I say “sees” the “reasons”
of things, do I mean the intellectual grasping of some single explanation, some
formula, some abstraction? By no means; I mean by “reason” logos
— I mean that when we “see” the “reasons” of things,
we see our “selves” in all things; for our true selves are the true
ground of our being, the that in us which constitutes us “Sons of God"
- logoi as He is Logos, kin to Him.
“As
above, so below.” What, then, is the “above” where there is
no place, no direction, no dimension and no time? And is the “above”
superior to the “below”? Ah, that is where the mind breaks down,
unable to grasp it. Is Eternity greater than Time? Is the Same mightier than
the Other? Of course it is, we say, as so many in so many schools have said
before. But is it really so? Are we not still in the region of the opposites;
neither of which can exist without the other, and each of which is co-equal
with the other? We are still in the region of words — words in this case,
not reasons; though the same word does duty for both in Greek — logos;
showing yet once again that in verity demon est deus inversus.
No
words indeed can tell of Him, or of That if you so prefer, though the neuter
gender is as little appropriate as the masculine. “Thou that art to be
worshiped in silence alone!” As Thou art above, so art Thou below; as
Thou art in Thyself, so art Thou in Man; as Thyself is in Thee, so is Thy Man
in Thyself - now and for ever.
|