Jean Gebser

THE INVISIBLE ORIGIN

Evolution as a Supplementary Process





The New Consciousness


Although it is presently prohibited to consider, while observing obvious facts, events and things, also those which are as is commonly said behind the things, it will be attempted on these pages to overrule this timid prohibition. Whoever insists on letting the transparency of the whole become evident, must devote himself to this rather painful and uncomfortable but also pleasant task, which is from year to year becoming more urgent and necessary. He has to do it even at the risk that his statements, meant to be a contribution to the explanation of human behaviour, will be discarded in a rationalistic and emotionally negative way, since they are inconvenient to the presently overemphasized security requirement. By practicing a realistic, responsible and well-reasoned presentation, I hope to cause offence only to those who are inclined to an emotional intoxication and demonstrate ever so often their failure to have reached the actual Western consciousness and mental capability. Only if and when we have come to the stage that we not only have reached this Occidental consciousness which is orientated much stronger by space and time than e.g. the Asiatic, but when we begin to appreciate that it is not only the first stage to a new consciousness but can be identified with it, then it is possible to acknowledge that the “Invisible Origin” can be perceived.


In the Origin that engraves on us irrevocably, the course of time may be predetermined but is not yet actual. This will be dealt with later. But it should be stated here already that the acknowledgement of this pristine constellation will put numerous hitherto valid conceptions in question. Even if they retain their validity for the occidental or mental-rational consciousness, for the new consciousness of the global-integral kind they lose value. This new consciousness enables us to perceive the “Invisible Origin,” which causes the validity of certain rationalistic, single-causal and teleological (finalistic) views to be confined and hence to be reduced. (It will become evident during the following presentation that our whole life will be changed by executing the new consciousness which will enable us to perceive the “Invisible Origin”). Here it may suffice to point to the conceptual ideas, whose validity will be essentially affected by the above-mentioned execution of the new consciousness. They are mainly three: the evolution, the freedom of will and the future.



Evolution as a Supplementary Process


It will therefore become evident that evolution can only be equated with progress where our concepts have been proved valid. Seen from the invisible and the Origin it represents itself as a supplementary process. It is however concerned with the efficacy of that which is not so much lying behind things as one inadequately says but of that which is invisibly causing the events without being causally connected to them.


If however evolution, when seen from the Origin, is here a supple mentary process, then it is “there,” in the invisible, already preceded. Supplementary process and precedence imply one another. In other words: Foundation of the evolution is its precedent in the invisible. To translate this precedent subsequently into reality here in the visible, that is our life-task. Evolution is in this view neither progress nor development, but crystallization of the invisible in the visible, that should be achieved by adequate work.


It is easy to talk about visible matters, since they can be materially grasped and comprehended. To talk about the other, i.e. the invisible “things” or better: the invisible realities or processes, is a thankless task, since to do this is not appropriate to present scientific fashion and will irritate all those, who either have not yet reached inner security or lost it through self-dissipation and loss to materialism. For those it is visible things only that counts as conclusive. The visible realm is thus their poor security and their shelter. But it also makes them uneasy and fearful; since otherwise they would not feel threatened merely by the suspicion that there might exist invisible re alities and react accordingly, as it so often happens. Thus conclusiveness is closely connected with visibilities. But it is generally forgotten that the invisible has the quality of being evident, which need not only be based on personal experience but also on the open-mindedness of common sense.


It has presumably become clear that I am going to describe the “Evolution” from a novel and hence for many people irritating point of view. This keeps however other interpretations from being obsolete. It applies especially to the science interpretation which is forced to observe the space-time-bound sequential order, which is inherent in the things and events that are becoming visible here. This terrestrial time-space-bound occurrence will occasionally enhance speculatively into a teleologigal item, i.e. target and purpose bound forward or into a hybrid upwards or into a mighty higher-up. This however represents another problem which might be brought closer to a surprising or at least evident solution by this script.


The presently valid evolutionary theories including that of development and progress are hardly older than 100 years. They deal merely with one part of reality, and that part covers only the most solid, well-in-the-fore aspects, since they limit and have to limit themselves to the visible flow of events according to the current scientific working methods and hypotheses, which are all anthropocentric. In the best case and this is not a criticism but an observation based on the compulsory object orientation and the working methods in science this evolutionary theory covers half the reality, i.e. only the visible and conclusive. The total reality as far as it is accessible to us comprises however also the other half that is invisible to us. Under this aspect our subject becomes clearer: that we have to understand evolution as a space- and time-bound supplementary process that has been preceded in the realm of the non-visible. Evolution as a supplementary process of the precedent should therefore also be understood as complementary to the evolution as a forward movement. Both considerations complement one another, like Yin and Yang or the two sides of a coin or the visible and the invisible join to form the whole. Whoever denies the other half of reality, who even cannot find it evident, which requires none of the existing belief or knowledge forms, he cripples himself. Only resources that are staying unconscious can sometimes prevent the worst and ban the fears, particularly the fear of death. This struggle against death blocks the access to the invisible realms and forces for those people with only half a consciousness. They feel death is like being “there,” since they dare not realize that life and death not only belong together but while complementing one another are inherent in any person. Hence their aversion against dealing with these matters. This is however only one of the barriers and constrictions from those areas which are effective for those people who have neither belief nor knowledge. They have not yet succeeded to translate into reality those forms of belief and knowledge which are more awake and intensive. These have become operative while evidence and transparency have become executed, which imply one another and do not exclude each other like “Belief and Knowledge.” Those half and ultimately separated people slid however into an ever increasing secularization, hence into a mere earthly place and therefore into materialism. The designation “half people” should not be taken as a defamation, it only points to the fact that these people are living with only half their consciousness. Their increasing secularization manifests as the rational exclusivity claim of their scientific belief system since they believe (!) that the pure intellect is strong enough to master life and death.



A Minor Course on Intellect and Reason


“The intellect is a good employee but a poor boss,” said an Indian sage recently whose name I forgot. This however cannot be said of it as long as it does not deny its female, receptive constituent, reason, without whose complementary co-operation the intellect becomes sterile or produces at its best only half measure.


The last sentence needs some comment:

The intellect understands; it is of male gender und its understanding is not a listening but an active grasping and grippingso to speak. It proceeds from its settings or from measurable and seizable magnitudes that it reckons with. It refers mainly to the visible and can be called const ructive as long as it is not used one-sidedly but in accordance with reason. It subordinates itself to the more dividing than clarifying and therefore not harmless alternative of the “either-or.” The results of its thinking process are either right or wrong.


Reason listens (Vernunft-reason-is derived from Vernehmen-listening); it is of female gender as was the goddess Athena thinking swiftly like an arrow and emanating from the head of Zeus. Her listening is a receiving, so-to-speak an enduring hearing which reflects on the messages listened to; so as the ear is not an acting organ but a receiving and quite female organ. It does not calculate, it has its sources i n the basic Origin, and what it perceives originates sometimes from far away, often from the invisible of the heavens but also of the earth. With its tolerant and conciliate basic attitude of the “as-well-as” it is capable to match the polar manifestations of the living thinkable with common sense. The results of its thinking are right, almost right or wrong.


Only where a thinking result is right as well as true it is binding. Only where the constructive intellectual thinking combines with the receiving reasoning, thinking becomes creative. The one without the other causes unilaterally only devastating intellectual instead of reasonable results, or negative chaotic rational instead of sound achievements.


In the West but also in the American and Russian present successor civilization we have cut ourselves off from the living thinking in an almost outrageous manner and this should be stated with emphasis because we accepted, particularly since the period of enlightenment, only the intellect as the male and patriarchical component of thinking and denied reason as the receptive female component. Today reason has become rudimentary in many people due to the fact that generations have not made use of it. The unilateral and hence destructive overemphasis on the male type of thinking was certainly also a reaction to the beginning reduction of the patriarchical thinking like that of the patriarch per se which tried to stand up against the onslaught of the French Revolution which decapitized the Father, the Sun King.


This attempt had to paid for: it was our self-treason to the visible, obvious world, the increasing secularization, the male (if not villainous) act of defiance of dictators (of the degenerately triumphing and degenerately acclaimed imitators of patriarchical dignity and prestige), the destructive extradition of our “thinking and striving” to the material visibilities. The nothing-but-intellectual thinking became sterile calculation, the calculus. Its results have shown to be presently quantifying and hence destructive.


Creative thinking, formerly jointly contributed by a mental intellect and reason up to scholasticism, even up to enlightenment and occasionally still thereafter, accordingly being of a living, clear and binding character, bec ame a unilaterally rational razor-sharp separating thinking. The separating “Iron Curtain” had already been prepared long ago, since the Aristotelian “either-or.” But is is usually overlooked that this curtain started to split also the inner life of the individual: the increasing brutal destruction, tragedy and despair of unrelatedness, the schizoid attitudes of the latest generations, they all have their source in the executed split of intellect and reason.


It has already been mentioned: the unilaterally intellectual (rational) thinking refers only to the visible; the invisible appears to it by mistake always as irrational since it cannot be concluded. But the rationally calculating human fails to see that the irrational transcends and transforms its inconclusiveness into perceptibility.



Reference to Obstructions


Yet let us now look at the predetermination of what is here called evolution. He who is capable to realize and perceive with the inner eye, possibly to listen with the inner ear, will have easier access to the realm that complements the visible than those who have to rely merely on their freedom from prejudice and on their open-mindedness. Since there are hints and entries to that complex constellation which resides in the invisibility of the pre-earthly and prenatal space-timelessness. This constellation contains seminally as well as simultaneously everything that down here is threading, fanning, foliating or expressing itself in such a way that we are inclined to call it evolution, although it is merely the appearance or manifestation of our potentials that are di sposed and latent in us ever since.


There are numerous obstructions, especially for the modern western human being, that refuse him admittance to this realm and blind and deafen him to any indication in this respect. And it should be added that these obstructions show him to be unsuccessful in executing the necessary mutation from the mental-rational consciousness structure, which is characteristic of our ending era, into the novel, the integral consciousness.


After having identified fear of death as the first obstruction, suffice it now to show the efficacy of the invisible by means of a few examples in order to point to obstructions that appear in those people as specific defence reactions of anxiety, of incapability, of flight, of denial and concern, who recoil from the recognition and acceptance of this efficacy previously negated with a bad conscience, because they equate the invisible with nothingness. Let us now look at the examples and the reactions they trigger.



Before the First Day


About twenty years ago science still disagreed about the age of the planet earth. Estimates varied between two billion and a hundred billion years. New measuring methods have only recently lead to a consensus opinion. Today it is generally accepted that the earth and our planetary system have come into being 15 billion years ago at the earliest and 5 to 10 billion years ago at the latest. [1] To mention this is important, since the majority of our contemporaries are still more impressed by so-called quantitative dimensions and neglect almost totally the qualitative intensities. One should avoid this mistake in view of the statements to follow. They refer to an “event” which, when located in time, should be called an event before the first day. How and when was that? In any case before the earth came into being. One could also say: between ever and never. If we dare leave that statement valid we sketch a very complex constellation of a time-independent nature, that may be for many more people inconvenient rather than convenient due to its independence of time. “Before the first day” means before the beginning of the world, of the earth; but this includes that it is before the beginning of any time. Since the two extreme time forms “Ever and Never” cancel each other out as polarizing elements (and project both into the timeless over-temporality) this formulation outlines quite realistically the essential structure of that which was before the first day, if it is at all permitted to indicate a relation to a non-existing spaceousness by using the word “lying” and to use the verb “was” indicating timeliness. Since those statements we are pointing at, refer to the space-timelessness of everything that was before the first day, we have to talk about this spa ce-timelessness which includes also the ever-present Origin. We tried to describe this elsewhere. [2] Before we will deal with these statements some hints to the Origin should be communicated which can be found in the description of the Chinese central theme, the Tao. Also there, space-timelessness plays a certain role, which remains almost inconceivable, as long as it is merely a conception created by the intellect and hence without participation of reason. However, by concluding that the world has a certain age and hence a beginning, this conception becomes thinkable. Carl Friedrich von Weizs?cker states about that time of the worldís beginning: “Before that time the world, even if it existed, must have been in a state that was completely different from the present and almost unimaginable, since even concepts like time were not applicable for it.” [3]


By the way, it may be worth mentioning, as did Pascual Jordan when citing Bernhard Bavink, that already two great Fathers of the Church have “suspected” this fact which has now been made comprehendable by research. St. Augustine (354 - 430) writes in his “Kingdom of God on Earth”: “Without doubt the world has not been created within time but together with time. Before the world no time could have existed since there was no creature with whose change of state in motion time could have originated.” And Isidor of Sevilla (~ 560 - 636) states in his “De Summo Bono”: “Before the world came into being, there was certainly no time since time is a creature of God; therefore it came into being together with the world.” [4]



The Origin and the Tao


Laotzu moved the Tao (Dau) right into the center of Chinese thought when he published his book of sayings, the Taoteking (Dau-de-Djing) around 500 BCE. To explain Tao conceptually, is particularly difficult, since its conceptual definition covers only the meaning it has for the visible realm here. But this is not its full meaning. The conceptual meaning is only the mirror of a far richer one in the invisible realm. In the end is Tao the godlike or divine Spirit or world foundation (of a quite impersonal ki nd) that interweaves everything, the shapeless and the invisible as well as the shaped and the visible, and is simultaneously the void and the plenty. This paradoxical outline expresses its inconceivability by our intellect. After all, everything that goes beyond our space-time co-ordinate system, or acts as i ts basis, evades the conceptua l fixation even where we temporarily must use concepts.


Out of this dilemma the Chinese found an exit. The word “Tao” has four colloquial meanings that are all valid although apparently disparate and unrelated. Depending on the preference for the individual interpretation our sinologists chose the one or the other meaning they translated “Tao” with “right (correct) path,” with “uprightness,” “directedness” or with “head.” It is certainly also that which is defined with these concepts, but at the same time much more than this, not only a valid and defining concept in this realm but a nominating paraphrase for the ultimate principle.


This ultimate principle was since those times (500 BCE) up to recently located on the terrestrial plane (the earth or the world that the Chinese called the “lower heaven” or the “heaven down under”) and consisted of the mental consciousness, which was manifesting itself at that time and caused mental thinking to become the domi nating realization form of the human being. On the supernatural plane (called by the Chinese the “upper heaven” or the “heaven above”) this ultimate principle, which interweaves also the terrestrial plane, has been up to now the “Divine” or the “Godlike” as such, which in the end becomes anonymous and non-mentionable and resides “above the heavens,” which means above the lower and the upper heaven.


One should keep in mind this double-track meaning of the conceptually defined Tao and the evokingly outlined Tao in order to lift its secret. This double-track thinking is symptomatic for the demand of the Chinese to establish always the relations betw een the terrestrial and the extraterrestrial, between earth and heaven or between the lower and the upper heavens and the “realms” above the heavens. This demand helped them to overcome the tension between the conceptually conceivable and the conceptually inconceivable. It solved this dilemma by setting the ultimate i.e. the supernatural as well as the superheavenly principle in parallel to the ultima te principle down here. During the last era this was the mental consciousness, from which the capability of mental thinking originated.


Up to now we have overlooked that the word Tao contains two references, which identify it as the most precise expression for the ultimate principle or potential of the mental consciousness. These are on the one hand its four meanings, on the other it is its hidden and the word-founding root.


The four meanings of this word in Chinese identify the best properties of mental thinking which became ma nifest since the middle of the last millenium BCE in the very advanced civilizations (e.g. Greece, India and China). During that time the mental structure mutated out of the mythical consciousness structure. Thus the mythical thinking, which was pictorial, executed in circles and returned always to itself was superseded by the mental thinking, which executes a conceptual, purposive and straightforward thinking directed to an opposite. This conceptual and no-longer pict orial thinking became the highest human potential, the ultimate earthly human principle. Its first significant representatives were Socrates and Plato, Mahavira and Buddha, Laotzu and Kungfutzu. [5]


It is by no means accidental that around 500 BCE old-age Laotzu wrote on the border to China, in this case a transition from the terrestrial to the extraterrestrial, his book (King, Djing) about the “Tao.” After its completion he went across into the country alien to the others. He left the revelation about the Tao behind as a legacy. Even by choosing the wording he indicated his book of aphorisms to be also of mental character. The four meanings of the word Tao make this evident as mentioned above. Since it is one of the characteristics of mental thinking that, by transcending mythical pictoria l thinking, it takes and pursues the “right way” (leading into a new consciousness) whose characteristics are straightness or purpose orientation and directedness, that turns toward a vis-a-vis instead of permanently returning to itself. Furthermore this thinking is executed no more in the heart within, turning to the inner pictorial world of myths, but this thinking originates like Athene in the head and is direc ted toward the external world to be dominated. Particularly these four characteristics have been identified in “The Ever-present Origin” as forming the basis for the mental consciousness mode [6] , and we find them again as quite relevant while studying the Tao. This mental thinking was-as already mentioned since 500 BCE the ultimate potential of the human being, where his conscious realisations and his kind of world understanding and world domination originated. The terrestrial Tao corresponded to the overheavenly-divine Tao insofar, as the latter c ontains the universal consciousness. On what plane and in which area whatsoever, the Tao always contains the Origin.


Let us now briefly consider the root of the word Tao which makes its basic mental characteristics clear. When describing the mental consciousness structure, I pointed out that the main concepts characterizing the mental thinking contain the prime root “da:di.” The basic meaning of this root is “to divide.” Mental consciousness was a waking consciousness (differing from the dreamlike, mythical consciousness), and hence committed to the day, simultaneously conceptualizing the time and transforming the up to then divine picture into the concept of deus (or Zeus!), thus conceptuall y dividing God from the terrestrial and transforming him into the personal vis-a-vis to the human Ego.


Out of a large number only a few keywords may be mentioned here. They all contain the dividing element, they all go back to the root “da:di” and are closely interrelated: “day” as the divider of “time,” dividing it out of the totality of day and night, “deus” or “Zeus” who divides the human from the heavenly realm. Even as I explained these complex facts for the first time, I indicated that even the word “Tao” is based on the root “da:di,” which characterizes the mental. [7]


Let us now turn to the meaning of Tao after having defined its conceptual aspect. Richard Wilhelm who had the privilege of assistance from a Taoist sage, when translating the Taote King, has translated Tao with & #147;SENSE” (SINN) [8] . With reference to the all-interweaving Tao it is the universal all-sense, the ultimate principle, that irradiates any sense of heaven and earth. But at the same time the word “Sense” contains the multivalent characteristics of mental thinking. This multivalence should always be kept in mind. In German it is less clear than e.g. in the French word “sens.” This word “sens” may be translated with “direction” (as in “sens unique”), with “significance” as well as with “perceptivity” (of the five discriminating senses).


The diversity of the possible translations of Tao corresponds to the universal character of this basic principle.


Apart from the numerous brief and always paradoxical explanations of Tao as found in the Tao te King, the work of Dschuang Dsi (Tschuang Tse), who lived around 350 BCE, contains the attempt to describe its essence. It reads in the German translation by Richard Wilhelm: [9]


“This is the SENSE (the Tao): it is benevolent and faithful but does not express itself in actions and has no outer shape; it can be communicated but not grasped; it can be attained but not seen; uncreated it is root to itself. Before heaven and earth came into being it existed since all eternity; it bestows spirit to demons and deities; it created heaven and earth. It existed before all times and is not high; it is beyond any space and is not deep; it preceded the emergence of heaven and earth and is not old; it is older than the oldest antiquity and is not senile.”


This description contains what has been explained on the previous pages and supports what is still to be said. Since Tao, “the Sense” has no ext ernal shape; one cannot see it; uncreated it is root to itself; it created heaven and earth. It existed before all times . . . it is beyond any ”space.” Therefore: being origin to itself it is the Invisible Origin that existed before all times, before the first day.


Perhaps a remark may be worthwile on a surprising incidence while writing these pages: I discovered the text of the Dschuang Tse only several months after having completed the chapters “Before the First Day” and “An Agraphon.” [10]  I think I owe this remark to the relevance of my description.



An Agraphon


The picture presented so far should suffice to put the statements now to be quoted in their true light. These statements will remain noncommittal only for those who have renounced the spiritual heritage of the occident. I will confine myself to quote, will refrain from any interpretat ion but point to the consequences of the problems in question (those concerning evolution, freedom of will and future).


From the Syrian Ephraem we have been handed down an apocryphal saying, an agraphon (i.e. a saying of Jesus Christ, not written down in the bible) that he spoke to his disciples:


“I selected you before the world came into being.” [11] Another form is contained in an agrapha edition published with ecclesiastical permission to print. It reads: “I selected you before the world was created.” [12] Analogous statements can be found also in the New Testament. Thus St. Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians (1,4): “As he (God) has selected us through the same (Christ) before the world had been founded.” And in his second letter to Timothy he sp eaks (1,9) of the “grace given to us in Jesus Christ before the time of the world.” [13] There are still further hints to this fact in the New Testament, so by St. John (17,5) where Christ states: “And now transfigure me, Father, with yourself, with the clarity I had before the world existed.” And also at the same place (17,24): “You (Father) have loved me before the world has been founded.” “And St. Peter speaks in his first letter (1,20) of Christ ,who was chosen for that before the foundation of the world but at the end of times he revealed himself for your sake.” [14]


There is no need to comment the apocryphal word of Jesus and its confirmation by the disciples. Apart from that, any comment could be understood as an exegesis which to perform as a non-theologian I am not competent. Suffice it to remark that we are dealing with a statement of divine and sober depth and elucidation that cannot be explored intellectually, particularly since also the spiritual origin of humankind, the spiritual anthropogenesis, lights up in it. A frightening majority of Western huma nkind has however lost the memory of this spiritual origin in a disastrous manner and to an almost fatal extent. The agraphon could restore it to the one or the other as a certainty. This would be an enormous improvement. Those people however, who regard Christ after their resignation to believe, only as a legendary appearance since he never became evident to them, cannot use his word. But those who do believe have avoided to speak about it. In the protestant literature it was only Karl Barth (according to authorities of the church), who mentioned these statements in his “Kirchliche Dogmatik” (Ecclesiastical Dogmatics) without comment, only as a hint to the pre-existence of Jesus Christ. These facts are characteristic. Neither for the rational nor the irrational human being it is possible to understand or accept here, let alone to draw consequences.


Apart from this incompetence with regard to consciousness, there might be another reason to be silent about these statements: the fear that freedom of will might break up, even become illusory when consciously acknowledging them. This however is a rational false conclusion. At first the concept ‘fr eedom of will’ is a misconcept, acceptable only if one interprets it as ‘freedom to decide.’ Second, there is no loss of freedom to decide when we practice it in our day-to-day life, since the basic decision has been taken not in the visible but in the invisible, in this case at a pre-earthly “time.” We have no choice but to live according to this pre-determination; to do it or not to do it, remains our freedom or unfreed om. And where remains the evolution? Can the secondary process of the given or predetermined potential to mature be called progress or evolution?


An intelligent contemporary of unknown name remarked recently: “Time is an invention to prevent that everything happens at the same time.” In our case all things happened at “the same time” in the invisible which can here in the visible only occur one after the other, which can also be called “evolution” or, over a longer period, “higher development.”


The restraint to think these statements to the end, expresses itself as the fear to lose the arrogant anthropocentricity and to have to do without the little page of glory for having individually participated in the accomplished but misunderstood evolution. To talk of a renunciation of freedom of will is not only unnecessary but wrong. We will come across this fact in a further example. We live by all means not without freedom to decide, since our entire life consists mainly in the task to remain faithful to the decision that had formerly been taken in the invisible and in all freedom. What is felt as a renunciation, turns out to be m erely a transfer from the visible into the inv isible. The decision taken there became valid for our life here, and that constellation, in which this occurred, is at the same time also our most inner core which rests deeply within us and accompanies us at all times. In contrast to that, the continuously changing and variable little Ego, being proud of so many ephemeral things like freedom of will and being often fairly capricious, contrary to the inner security of the core protecting us, plays its sometimes necessary role which is however indispensable for human encounters.


Selected ten billion years ago: can we speak here of evolution? Certainly the above example deals with humans of a special kind, the disciples of Jesus Christ. But anybody looking back on his life can detect, if he finds at all anything evolutionary, that not he himself was the trigger but his inner voice or the so called accident or something else apparently independent fr om him. Not without reason there is the saying felt as a praise: “He remained faithful to himself.” Where and of what kind of knowledge may this saying come from, to which we cannot find an egocentric undertone?


Going back to the disciples, even there was “Development.” Saulus became St.Paul at the decisive moment. St. John wrote the Apocalypse at old age. Everything was within them from the beginning. Faithful to themselves they decided only according to that pre-decision to which they had agreed in advance with regard to talent and consciousness.


The insight into the true character of what is called “evolution,” also with regard to the human being and to consciousness, appears to me important. The power of acceptance of what is called evolution as seen from the visible, must be reduced to the correct value, since otherweise we risk to lose finally the participation in the invisible origin that constitutes all of us all the time.



Two Examples for the At-Once Structure


The obstacle to our question consists of the fact that we have to attempt today, due to lingustic lack of expression, to cope with constellations alien or non-existent to the visible realm, by using an inadequate terminology. Here belongs among others the simultaneity that is said to be valid for constellations in the invisible. We are dealing here with that simultaneity of all possible tenses that belongs to the Orig in as far as anything “belongs” to the Origin.


Up to recently it was generally understood that the invisible can neither be grasped nor comprehended. The detections of nuclear physics have opened our eyes; there they are working with matters that are “invisible” but at least mathematically very well describable. The invisible simultaneity inherent in the origin and expressed in the basic constellations, cannot be desribed mathematically but for the attentive it may become evident. Here are two examples for that from the area of dream psychology and of nuclear physics.



The Core Dreams


I realized that a particular type of dreams, that does not belong to the so- called high dreams, shows a particular uncertainty. This uncertainty consists of the large difficulty of the dreamer during the reconstruction of the dream after being awake again. Although he recalls very clearly the very complex content of the dream and its meaning, the dreamer cannot bring the dream into its consecutive order which is necessary for its presentation. Again and again he hesitates, while attempting this, because it remains unclear, in what consecutive order this or that dream element occurred. Although such a dream can very well be called significant and meaningful and at the same time pointing to the visible realm and hence being directional and matched to a presentation requiring consecutive order, the rationally reconstructing dreamer does not succeed in putting the individual dream elements into the order of a firm succession. How can this be explained? If I dare give a hint of my own, since I'm not a professional psychologist, this hint may be regarded by psychologists, as far as they know this kind of dream, as a contribution to dream interpretation. And it is less the hint I am giving, but the hint this type of dream itself gives with regard to its origin. Since the meaning of these dreams is significant, they are not at all chaotic. With their resistance to a rational presentation requiring succession, they make their origin known as well as the ir character: they mirror in a certain sense the at-once structure of the invisible origin that appears dream-like in the inner realm of the psyche, but opens itself only with difficulties to the security demand of the mental-rational consciousness. This at-once structure is insofar a salient feature of the origin, since it is “timeless” before all times and hence undivided, but contains potentially the three phases of t he appearing terrestrial time.


In this type of dreams our participation in the impact of the archaical, of the pristine, becomes noticeable; from the structural point of view they are not only deep dreams but, as I would like to call them, core dreams. The concept archaical should not be understood here art-historically or as a synonym for “primitive” but with regard to consciousness and in that sense as it has been defined in “The Ever-present Origin” for the archaical consciousness structure, valid also for the undivided pristine consciousness. [15] From this, all three consciousness structures presently constituti ng ourselves have emanated and are still emanating th at will shortly be mentioned again. Looked at it this way, it turns out that such core dreams contain, or are, a self representation of the simultaneity or, better of the ‘at-once.’ This ‘at-once’ is inherent as a potential in everything that rests archaically in the creative pristine constellation which shares our life in its mostly latent and invisible way, unless it even contains its origin.


Only G. R. Heyer has pointed at this rare type of dream, as I realized later, in his letter of January 15, 1948. Continuing from a brief note in his book “Vom Kraftfeld der Seele” (About the Power Fields of the Soul) where he remarks “that not those dreams are most ‘profound’ which are happening in pictures and scenes. . . but those which are mere states.”he writes “that it is well known to the psychologist from his work on the interpretation of dreams , that there exists an unsolvable problem insofar, as a simultaneous state of one together with the other, possible in the unconscious, can be thought and reported only consecutively as soon as it becomes conscious,” an attempt which proves unfeasible as he demonstrates with a hunting dream of one of his patients. [16]


In the core dreams a track of the invisible or at least a track of the complex constellation inherent in the invisible origin becomes perceivable: its reflection presses, so to speak, into the visible and becomes transparent, which makes it evident to the mental consciousness. Where this execution of becoming transp arent and evident succeeds-in this execution it is no more relevant that it is based on science or belief-our three-membered consciousness structure is integrated within or by the pristine universal consciousness.


The insight into these contexts makes accessible to those, who are capable of opening themselves to them without reservation, immediately and for ever, the life altering experience of sharing the unexplorable seclusion and the all-illuminating clarity of the World Foundation, the Origin, the Tao, the Divine, of God. The Taoist could then claim to have reached Tao, the Hindu to have experienced samadhi, the Zen Buddhist to have received satori, the Christian could confess like St.Paul that God dwells in the “inaccessible light” and the Athos monk could claim to have perceived the uncreated light. [17]


All three consciousness structures as mentioned above, the mental-rational, the mythical-psychic and the magical-vital are becoming transparent with regard to the universal consciousness. But this is equivalent to the mutation into the integral consciousness as executed by us. This may be called ‘integral’ from our point of view because it is capable to integrate itself consciously with the universal.


It may be allowed to consider so-called psychical phenomena like the core dreams, as belonging to the charming, appalling, sometimes also demonic interim realm, where they light up not as flash-like intuitions (originating from the spirit), but as images in the twilight zone between invisibility and visibility. But this enables us to execute the mutation into the integral, which makes it possible to experience the world no longer as only unperspectival-mythical or to grasp the world well-aimed perspectively and hence rationa lly, but to perceive it a-perspectively and a-rationally (i.e. freed from perspectival fixation and rational target directedness) as a whole down to its origin.



The Nuclear Process


Let us now turn to the nuclear physics example. We owe the remark on a constellation in the nuclear physics area, that resembles the timeless constellation of the core dreams, to the brilliant observational gift and expressiveness of Werner Heisenberg. Both contain the prealigning force of simultaneity which is inherent in the invisible. This simultaneity is called “synchronicity” by C.G.Jung, [18] it is however limited to phenomena occurring in the glaring visible and being provable in day-to-day life. His meaning of simultaneity relates to occurrences different from those becoming visible in the nuclear process or in the core dreams. It should be emphasized that the principle of synchronicity is not concerned with the simultaneity of different time sections, but with the simultaneous occurrence of two events of equal content which are however causally not interrelated. I mention this type of occurrence since its evidence offers the potential of a new evaluation of timely processes. Synchronicity is not so much simultaneity but acausal coincidence.


Genuine simultaneity of different time sections may however in its comprehensive meaning be understood as timelessness. Using the term “simultaneity” that contains the concept “time” while having to designate something that eliminates the timely aspect, thus leading to the concept of “timelessness” indicates again the terminological difficulty already mentioned. Since the “simultaneity” contains also the aspect of coincidence, e.g. of two synchronistic events, it may be replaced by the term “timelessness” only in a restricted sense, since it excludes any events which are always tied to specific times. Therefore I suggested the term “at once” that contains the time only in a hidden sense, since the at-once contains the timeless aspect. While becoming conscious of the character and the structure of the at-once that denies the timely aspect, since it expresses a constellation existing before any time, and hence containing the time only as a potential, we understand “at once” that we are not only dealing with a timeless structure, where there is no time, but with a much richer structure. After all, the invisible origin extends its impact from its pretemporary cons tellation into the temporary present. Therefore its “at-once” is timeless only as far as we consider it merely from its presence permanently acting within us. When realizing its presence it becomes more evident, and when we take it into account the timelessness changes into the consciously realized freedom of time: origin and presence are an “at-once,” freed from time and freeing ourselves from it. The realms of origin and presence, rationally separated by mistake, obtain in their ‘at-once’ a wealth, which has up to now never consciously been realized. The consciously realized ‘at-once’ of both realms i s the enrichment, that comes into effect in the achieved freedom of time. [19]


The ultimate degree of this effect consists of our understanding of reality becoming transparent, thanks to the freedom of time (that includes the ego freedom, i.e., being liberated from the ego instead of a regress into egolessness), since it realizes the whole as an interplay of origin and presence and hence of the invisible and the visible. In this transparency that great event may occur, which the Athos monks called seeing the “uncreated light,” which was called by St. Paul (in the first letter to Timothy [6, 16]) the “inaccessible light” in which “God dwells.”


Some of this transparency which, differently described, is also inherent in the “Invisible Origin” irradiates as a remote possibility and potential not only the core dreams but also the nuclear realm.


In his lecture “Nuclear Physics and Causal Law” Werner Heisenberg points out “that within very small space-time-domains, i.e. in ranges of dimensions of elementary particles, space and time are strangely blurred in such a way, that one can no longer define correctly the concepts earlier and later. Macroscopically the space-time-structure would remain unaltered, but when experimenting in very small space-time-domains, one should be aware that processes could run in a timely reverse order as compared to its causal sequence” [20]    (See also p.20)


The “very small space-time-domains” characterizing the nuclear process and situated almost in the invisible, indicate the same constellation as we have met in the core dreams. That in the atomic constellation certain “processes apparently run in a reverse direction as compared to their causal sequence” indicates nothing else, but that cause and effect are not only interchanged but “it is no longer possible to define correctly the concepts earlier and later,” since there is no more earlier or later. This applies also to the core dreams, where the reporter is unable to tell whether this or that element occurred earlier or later, making it impossible for him to deduce a causal sequence, an order of events, out of the constellation. Here and there time is not yet existent, at least not in its present form. Thus simultaneity or the ‘at-once’ dominate also in these high-intensity atomic constellations.


At a higher degree of differentiation in an Aristotelian-Thomistic sense and therefore sometimes overexposed as compared to my remarks on the ‘at-once,’ the phenomenologist Hedwig Conrad-Martius ensues the just quoted statement of Werner Heisenberg and assumes “that it may become necessary to take also the time to be quantized in nuclear processes. There must exist smallest durations of time” quanta are a physics concept for smallest undividable quantities“ during which time does not flow. Within a time element there would be no ‘it will be’ and ‘it was.’ The processes would run in a mode of being of equal actuality.” Hence “an exactly ontological explanation of the nature of empirical time [arrives] equally at a time quantized in its very basis.” With this definition Conrad-Martius is close to what I designated the at-once structure of the invisible origin (she calls it the “the very basis”) which becomes clear in her statement: “A singular quantum of being and time can therefore not be understood as timely or even measured.” [21]  With this she expells the time quantum out of the temporality of this world. But should it not be seen as a first growth into the visible out of the time form called by her the “eonic world time,” “standing between our time and Godís eternity,” ? “In the eonic reality” which is und erstood in the Aristotelian sense as cyclic, “the future already exists and the past remains, since everything is totally present,” to quote from a presentation of her conception by Gebhard Frei. [22] But the total presence without “being” and “remaining” and without the Aristotelian corresponding antinomy calling it cyclic, this is the signature of the pristine at-once which appears psychical in the core dream and physical in the nuclear process and if at all locally bound-is only there present.


Apart from all this one should not forget that these nuclear processes, even when recognizing certain limitations, are the foundations of life and of our entire physical construction. In the core dreams as well as in the physical processes, that pristine ground constellation is represented in its adequate manner, which is also valid for the most inner nature of the human, as long as he is staying in the invisible. Everything there is unblocked by space and time, the keystones of the visible. There the spiritual core of the human is conceived, since also the disciples were-albeit special humans. There the elementary particles of atoms as structural elements of matter are being composed. There the basic constellation of his latent inner nature appears to the human, when carried out of space and time into deep sleep. In all three forms represented so far, there rests the imperishable core and germ of the human, of matter and of-it may be allowed to say-the human soul. There it is determined what later, when passing into the visible, expresses itself as fate and is interpreted as evolution which, when seen in this manner, are only secondary processes of the space-time-free basic constellation in the invisible.



The Present Future


At least the occidental part of humanity is still largely future oriented. It still has not realized that it chases after what is already its own. This chase is in the end a flight, i.e. a flight out of the presence which, apart from the past, contains also the future events. For all those who are sympathetic to the thought that evolution is a secondary process, the above classification of the future should not be difficult.


In earlier works and in other contexts I have frequently drawn attention to various statements of physicists, poets, painters and others who have consciously formulated this new assessment of time including the future.



Premonition and Foresight


Before coming back to those statements I may remind of certain events that everybody has heard of and which have occurred with certainty and may have happened even to some readers personally. They are nonetheless denied to some extent, at best the conclusions a re not drawn from them and the event itself is being plaid down. We are dealing with those cases where the persons concerned have escaped their certain death. They followed a premonition, so to speak, a foresight. A flight already booked is not boarded immediately before take-off, although there are only a few steps to the entrance. Even the expensive ticket price does not keep them from following their inspiration not to fly with that particular airplane. Several hours later the news is broadcast that this airplane is crashed and all passengers dead.


In this context it may be reminded of the well-known foresight the young Goethe had after his farewell from Friederike Brion at Sesenheim. After a brief description of this wrench he reports:

Now I went on horseback on the footpath towards Drusenheim, and there one of the most peculiar foresights overcame me. I saw, not with my bodily eyes, but with the eyes of the mind, me myself coming towards me on the same footpath on horseback and clothed as I never was: it was pike grey with a little gold in it. As soon as I shook myself out of this dream the appearance had vanished. It is however strange that I wore this cloth eight years later not by choice but by accident, when I traveled the same path to visit Friederike again. Whatever the background of these things, the strange phantom gave me some comfort in that instance of separation. [23]

Those cases that irritate the rational human conduce him easily to deny the well-founded premonition, to call preconceptions like those of Goethe hallucinations and to dismiss events like these as accidents, since he still believes that there are only blind accidents. They do exist; but let us be careful, blind accidents are a small minority.


Everybody who has still some connection to the invisible knows that the majority of cases considered to be accidents are acts of providence. These acts of providence may also be called correspondences that exist between the inner constellation of the individual and the outer of his environment. These correspondences may however become effective only if the individual is deeply trustful and unintentionally “in the order”: In that case the events coming naturally to him correspond to his predecision which, innate from the invisible and sprung from the Divine, is the basic chord of his life may this be of a tragical or a blissful kind.


For those separated however, not only the above-mentioned cases of premonition and foresight are enigmas, but also the agraphon of Ephraem and the confirming statements of the disciples. After all, future events must not be predictable. What would happen to the freedom of decision if the future is already predetermined in advance? Humans, who conclude in this way, feel degraded to the puppet of fa te, but they are merely at the mercy of that intellect which has lost the rebonding, the religion, into the evidence of the invisible. They know nothing of the pregiven and by the individual condecided course of life, to which he who was saved from crash remains faithful, since he obeyed his “inner voice,” as it is said. In addition-to remain with this example the waiver of the flight was only obedience and faithfulness to his predetermined course of life. It was his personal freedom to decide to take the flight or to leave it. A renunciation of freedom of will (in the sense of freedom of decision) is therefore out of the question.



Three Types of Statements


The actuality of the future as described so far, is only real as far as this is at all rationally conceivable, as far as we accept the complex constellation in the invisible, which can bring its central at-once into representation only as a succession, i.e. a timely flow of life. Several scientists like philosophers and psychologists, artists and poets have already expressed the knowledge around the fact that the time-phase future of this world may be simultaneously inherent also in the other time phases of this world.


It is quite difficult to coordinate their statements which are different with regard to starting point and terminology. Only the respect for the intellectual integrity and severity of the researcher in question will then guarantee that statements, meant and intended differently, are not carelessly interrelated. This risk can be avoided by paying special attention to the basic structure and the essential reference of those statements, and less to the intellectual and linguistic formulations of the specific science. If this does not happen, the different styles of physics, philosophy, psychology, of the artists and poets form an unsurmountable obstacle for revealing collectively new intellectual approaches which, while visible in their basic stucture, may remain incompatible in their expressions.


Since we deal in these statements with references to the all-inherent basic structure of the invisible origin (references for the first time formulated exoterically and dispassionately), any protest against the diffamation of the readings of these basic common structures as being mere speculation is unnecessary. Each theme has its own dignity or indignity. The dignity of the theme of this script renders any careless proceeding impossible. It is always good to know what one does. This is certainly difficult. But with this theme such a knowledge is necessary.


It is of course not possible to quote all the accessible statements here. There have been far too many in the last millennia. As an example, I have dared to comment the Tao according to our present consciousness structure. I will limit myself to statements of our century, since its wisdom is based in recent sources, ways of thinking and expression. This appears to me decisive as well as relevant and obliging for our present understanding of ourselves and the world. They are all a reference to the presently emerging new i ntegral consciousness. Since they represent a hardly recognized counterbalance to the prevalent destructive instinct with their depth and their recognition of all that the majority appears to discard, a reference to them may certainly be appropriate. This even more so, since those making these statements are personalities of world esteem. There are the physicists Arthur Stanley Eddington, Werner Heisenberg and Pascual Jordan; philosophers like Sri Aurobindo who is much more than a philosopher; psychologists like C. G. Jung and G. R. Heyer; researchers of the future like Aldous Huxley and Robert Jungk; painters like Paul Cézanne, Paul Klee and Pablo Picasso; poets like StÈphane Mallarmé, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Marcel Proust, R. M. Rilke, Robert Musil, T.S. Eliot, Jorge Guillén. With all of them, three types of statements can be distinguished:


With some the insight into the actuality of the future expresses itself unspoken in the fact that in their statements the inner execution can be recognized, which I had called in my writings the “overcoming of time”;

in the statements of others their experience, consciously or not, of the nearness to the origin appears;

and there are those, who either deductively or spontaneously articulate distinctly in brief sentences, which become key sentences, the fact that future is presence.


Additional comments to this disposition:


the overcoming of time is condition for the at-once structure as part of the invisible to become evident:

only this evidence enables obliging statements to be made about presence and effectiveness of the origin, which p rotrudes into and engraves the space-time-world;

only after this overcoming has happened or has been perceived, the realization of the validity of this at-once for presence and future also for this world becomes possible.

This makes it clear that I do not try to give a merely mental-rational explanation of this extremely complex and basic constellation, which is based on belief, knowledge and recognition, but that I endeavour this basic constellation to become evident and transparent to our intensified consciousness in an a-rational, integral way.



The Overcoming of Time


It may be advisable to start with two examples which appear at first sight to be harmless if not irrelevant, but are highly symptomatic. It is about the titles of two books that appeared in 1944 in London and 1952 in Bern. Only thirty to fourty years ago these titles would have let the books pass without notice; quite different twentyfive to seventeen years ago: at that time they were immediately widely discussed and accepted despite all the astonishment and bewilderment.


At first it was the title that Aldous Huxley gave to his novel: “Time Must Have a Stop.” This title is a Shakespeare citation. Unfortunately its German translation: “Zeit mufl enden” gives the wrong impression of the authorís intention. [24] What Aldous Huxley meant, was briefly to show the necessity to reduce the exclusive validity of the measured time to its appropriate measure. Not the time in the sense of the Shakespeare quotation comes to an end, but the three-phase time consideration or handling, i.e. it “must have a stop” in order to make the participation of the more essential “time” acceptable, that contains by means of the at-once potentially also our time and reaches into our day-to-day life. That this was his final intention Aldous Huxley confirmed to me in May 1954 in St. Paul de Vence. These facts, that distinguish his book, are equivalent to the attempt to overcome the sole validitity of the time of this world and to give conscious recognition to the pristine at-once for its effectiveness down here. This recognition of what I call the founded at-once is however also the recognition that future is always presence.


By the way and this must unfortunately be stated here this keen sense of smell of Aldous Huxley's for the genuine values and for the transparency that follows not only from the overcoming of the Shakespearean understanding of time as confirmed by him, but also from his appreciation of Stéphan Mallarmé's stat ement [25] that he proved with “time must have a stop” and his ”Philosophia perennis,” this is only the one side of his nature. Tragically it remained intellectual yearning he apparently was unable to fulfill, since otherwise he had not become the propagandist of the synthetic mescalin (with his book “The Doors of Perception”) and the trigger of the epidemic of drug addiction that contaminates presently mainly the large jouth groups in Europe and America: To the genuine demand of the modern youth which is commendably revolting against the dullness of an excessive material wealth to this demand for extraordinary experiences (only attainable through self-work: through purging towards the invisible origin by means of gradually discerning the more intensive integral consciousness), which are matching the material “wealth,” he had opened the easy evasion to find the desired experiences without self-work through narcotism; but “inspiration” thus gained by trickery is doomed to death.


The other title expresses this constellation of presence and future more clearly although the book itself is more pragmatic than Huxley's. It was Robert Jungk, one of the soundest and fairest contemporary journalists and one of the most significant researchers of the future who gave his book about future questions of the American (as well European) civilization the title: “The Future Has Already Begun.” [26] That the meaning of this title which, one would think, contradicts the general thinking of the time, has been accepted (notwithstanding certain misinterpretations) indicates that this novel concept was subliminally already generally valid. This fact appears to me symptoma tic and justifies mentioning in this context the book titles of these two important authors.


A similarly executed overcoming of time shows in the perception already contained in the statement of Werner Heisenberg above, that the sequence of time and hence the dependence of cause and effect can be reversed. [27] Pascual Jordan who founded quantum biology together with Erwin Schrodinger and Ernst Dessauer, [28] and who also investigated philosophically the “problem of simultaneity” [29] writes:

. . . as a result of the quantum theory and its study of mesons, for example, we have learned something new about time and causality. On occasion, with or inside the explosion of an atomic nucleus under bombardment of a very fast particle of matter, the usual order of events is reversed: the explosion comes first, then followed by its cause. This has enormous implications for psychology and parapsychology, since such reversals of the cause-and-effect sequence are proved possible and philosophically valid. [30]

That these deductions from nuclear processes can presently not only be drawn, but can be shown to be relevant, may well be taken as an overcoming of the prevailing time thinking: the projecting of the pristine at-once structure into our three-dimensional world is thus implicitly accepted. Because in the origin, earlier and later, cause and effect and the three time phases are an at-once. If this at-once lights up in our three-dimensionally limited and observed world, this minimal motion element conveys to us the impression of an open directional tendency that represents to our mental capacity, to our interpretation and to our descriptional capability also a reversed sequence of events.


Before we turn to the statements of some poets we should mention the achievements of C. G. Jung that have by themselves contributed to a newly founded assessment of time.


The synchronicity principle of C. G. Jung, which is limited to the empirical investigation and clarification of non-causal or accidental but meaningfully connected coincidences in every-day events, has already been mentioned. [31] Any coincidence is a form of the at-once in accordance with its simultaneity character, although only a faint reflexion of its genuine invisible primitive form-as long as one may call the at-once structure a form, since it is from our point of view at the same time formless.


Any synchronicity event is characterized by its non-causal structure that C. G. Jung called “acausal”-a terminologically regrettable denotation since, i nstead of the negation “non-,” the Greek “alpha negativum” is being used, which may however also be used as the “alpha privativum” (the liberating “a” ), which expresses no negation but a liberation. I have therefore always distinguished between uncausal (or non-causal), which denotes a state “before” causality and acausal which describes being liberated with regard to consciousness (meaning freedom from causality). The acausality or freedom from causality is effective where we live as ego-free (but not ego-less) in the order, i.e. in accordance with the world total, the origin or whatever these concepts be called. Although some parallelism exists between the non-causality of synchronous events and that of nuclear processes, as already C.G. Jung points out, it appears to me that synchronous events occur within the precausal or not-yet-causal magical structure. Instead of the causal connex it is associated with the vital connex, the pec uliarity and effectiveness of which I showed for the magical structure. [32] In any case, this concept of Jung shows the psychological attempt to overcome the mere running time by recognizing the non-causal or precausal structure.


C. G. Jung came a step closer to the original constellation by researching the “anticipatory dreams.” [33] They are dreams which anticipate future events. The mostly symbolically predreamed events have later come into the life of the dreamer as reality. He as a psychologist locates the source for these phenomena into the mightiness of the better knowledgable unconsciousness-so to speak into the psychical mirroring of the at-once that contains also the future.


As to the statements of poets we will first quote those by Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Marcel Proust and Robert Musil. They contain, each in its way, a mostly unspoken reference to the “overcoming of time” or “overcoming of the time concept” as I named it first in the book “Occidental Transformation” (1942/43). [34]


Wherever we meet with the attempt to overcome the exclusive validity of this world's time, we may classify it as one of the indications for the new consciousness in man beginning to be constellated. The trigger for these attempts is the beginning of “the breaking of time.” I have described it in detail in “The Ever-present Origin.” [35] We are concerned with the “genuine, qualitative time” becoming conscious, which has only temporarily been called time, since our time of this world, quantitatively counted or measured, has followed from it. In the end we are concerned with the “breaking of the at-once” into our consciousness. Our attempt to overcome this worldís time is a reply and consequence to this breaking, which is always lit up by the perception of the always present invisible origin. Where this overcoming is successful, the world becomes transparent down to every-day life and we as well to ourselves. This becoming transparent of what formerly confronted each other dualistically as subject and object, is a further indication for the formation of the integral consciousness. Only transparency enables the consciousness to become integral. And only due to this realization those dualisms become invalid without intoxication or trance or loss of identity being required or caused, and furthermore, ego-freedom becomes possible without being threatened to lapse down into ego-loss. The overcoming of time leads finally into freedom of time and to a conscious participation in the at-once. But the condition for all this is the breaking of the at-once having become conscious to us, this at-once not only being part of the universal consciousness and the origin, but appearing to be identical with them.


This breaking of the at-once had been named “involution” by Sri Aurobindo; we will describe this in the next but one section which is dealing with the manifestations of the actuality of the future.


In the fragmentary novel “Andreas oder die Vereinigten” by Hugo von Hofmannsthal, which had been published out of his unpublished works as late as 1932, the following note, probably written around 1908/12, is worth quoting: “Poetry as presence. The mystical element of poetry: overcoming of time.”


Hugo von Hofmannsthal has thus coined the phrasing “Overcoming of time” thirty years before I did. In the end he had the same in mind as I. But his way was different from mine. He started from the irrational and replaced religious experince by a mystical poetic one, corresponding to his field of life. Even if the ‘breaking of the at-once’ had been also his trigger, he nonetheless placed the path for overcoming the time into the identification of this process with the mythical element of poetry. In the end this path, when consistently followed, means falling back consciously into the “unio mystica” that includes the ego-sacrifice, even the ego-loss: hence a fallback into the mythical consciousness frequency which oscillates fundamentally through the world of poetry. This frequency enables the deeply moved to immerse himself into the all-unity; there the ego expires in the rapture or the trancelike state of all-unification: Hofmannsthal mentions in his notes not accidentally the easte rn path. At present it is no more sufficient, from an occidenal point of view, to make presence stand out against day-to-day life by means of poetry, and to realize the overcoming of unpoetic time by means of its mystical element. The actual path does not lead into loss of ego, thanks to the consciously realized breaking of the at-once but via egocentricity out into the freedom of ego, into freedom from ego and egocentricity. This is no more mystical overwhelming or absorption (the traditional kind of samadhi) but the sober participation in the origin, that happens not in a holy intoxication but in the extreme clarity of transparency, when the intrinsic invisible becomes perceivable in a sudden illumination (satori), [36] irradiating everything.


In a similarly dangerous proximity to the predominantly mythical consciousness frequency works Marcel Proust, however without losing control of it. At the closing of the last volume “Le temps retrouvé” (Time recovered) of his opus magnum “A la recherche du temps perdu”-and by that he did probably not mean childhood, as is commonly assumed, but the lost at-once he writes:


“When a noise or a fragrance, once perceived and smelled long time ago, reappears-at the same time present and past, real and not only actual, ideal and yet not abstract, the permanent being, normally hidden to the things, feels suddenly freed, and our true and occasionally seemingly dead ego reawakens and animates itself through the heavenly nutrition streaming to it. One minute, free from the order of time, has recreated the human within us-in order to sense it-free from the orders of time.” [37]

For him it is the recollection which initiates the streaming of the “heavenly nutrition” which means probably, what has been called here the “breaking of the at-once” which “frees the permanent being, normally hidden to the things,” when given “one minute free from the order of time.” During that minute which recreated (!) him as a human being, a conscious overcoming of this world's order of time is executed: he recovered the “time lost” at the end of his great work.


The intention to overcome time may also be seen in the early unpublished notes of Robert Musil on his novel “Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften” (The Man Without Attributes). He notes: “Don't narrate in time sequence . . . represent time as unreal” [38]


But this is equivalent to stepping out of the “order of time”; this stepping out can however only enable to be creative, where the overcoming of time with its sequential or consecutive order could be executed in such a way, that the at-once could become the saving life force: the at-once, having no attributes, makes also a man or a human being without attributes possible, who is time free by participating in the origin and hence without attributes, i.e. freed from the superficially own, egolike, and also turned ego-free. To him our this-worldís time may well appear unreal in view of the reality of the whole, although this is a big restraint; to represent it in this way helps possibly to overcome it; not to deny it would be the more important an d greater achievement. In any case, and this should be emphasized and repeated: it helps only insofar, as the unreality of time does not mean denial of time. Its denial would be flight into timelessness and hence self-renunciation.



The Nearness to the Origin


These examples for the various types of overcoming of time made already their initiator visible: the breaking of the at-once. An even closer nearness to the origin can be seen from the following examples.


This proximity to the origin appears in the description of atomic nuclear processes by Werner Heisenberg, which have already been cited. As a physicist he refrains from any interpretation. The lucidity of his uncompromising thinking and the excellent clarity of his rep resentation lead however to the assumption, that he knows quite well about the conclusions, that can be drawn from the facts he reports. A suggestion for this we find in the albe it cautious expositions following the quoted description since “one can already now have hardly any doubts that the e volution of the latest nuclear physics will in this context (the laws of cause and effect) have again some impact on the philosophical realm” [39]


Even if we accept and take into consideration all the reservations which indicate that it is not permissible to compare the results from different fields of science and experience with one another, it is yet allowed to point at the parallelism of the most diverse findings. But this must not be the careless identification of research results from different origin. This would be based on a mere and even only apparent similarity, which would however not be appropriate to the dissimilar emergence of the results, and would lack the due respect for the objective and severe mental effort of the individual researchers who are obliged to their branches. But it appears not unjustified to point, wherever a parallelism is evident, at the coincident basic structure that is common to the different findings. Supposed the at-once structure as sketched above has its appropriate effect nature as an inherent attribute in the invisible origin, and whose impact has become at least obvious in our life, we must again emphasize that the basic structure of the atomic constellation as described by Werner Heisenberg as well as of the core dreams, are identical. The other examples as mentioned above should have substantiated this. This at-once structure, common to all the phenomena mentioned, which show it or have it concluded by us, since it mirrors in them physically, psychically or poetically, refer us to the proximity of the mentioned phenomena to the origin. The description of Werner Heisenberg is of an initiating importance. The above cited statements of Pascual Jordan are based on it. That this phenomenon, formerly interpreted as a reversability of time, has since (1955/56) been interpreted differently by utilizing mathematical theoretical tools which were not available in 1952, does in no way constrain the basic constellation of the at-once, which Werner Heisenberg has made visible with his description of the nuclear processes: thanks to him the deepest secret of the origin has become transparent.


The statement of Arthur Stanley Eddington deals with a different matter. It is an interpretation based on the notion of Einstein's space-time-continuum, which can be understood statically, and on the different observer points of view in relativity theory:

Events do not happen; they are just there, and we come across them. “The formality of taking place” is merely the indication that the observer has on his voyage of exploration passed into the absolute future of the event in question; and it has no important significance. [40]

Whatever the attitude towards this statement of A.S.Edd ington's which, by the way, comes pretty clos e to a statement of T.S. Eliot, as we will see later, the impression arises that Eddington, so to speak, walked along the unfathomable at-once, where the events do not arrive because everything has allways been there (as far the at-once owns a location, what may be doubted), so that he meets them on his way-since in this view only he has a way, what seduces many to talk of progress.


Not representation but experience is the basis for the statement of the artist who liberated painting not accidentally from threedimensional perspectival viewing, and disclosed transparency to it. He, Paul Cézanne, coined the word which contains by itself this transparency:

Je me sens coloré par toutes les nuances de l'Infini. Je ne fais plus qu'un avec mon tableau. (I feel colored by all nuances of the infinite. I am merely one with my picture). [41]

This participation in the infinite that contains and irradiates everything like the origin if not identical with it-is genuine nearness to the origin: the harmony of human and universe, the overcoming of the dualism of the creator, the painter, and the created, the picture. “Colored by all nuances of the infinite”-that is the breaking of the at-once, is the liberation from the threedimens ionality down here, from which at his time CÈzanne had liberated the art of painting.


According to his n otion A. S. Eddington sees the “world” of the at-once still as a vis-a-vis since he encounters its events; but Cézanne participates in it. This becomes even clearer by another statement of Cézanne's which we mention later.


In a rather unsuspected manner another painter shares this participation, which many would not have expected: Picasso. There exist numerous references to this respect. Whoever knows his fairly rare pictures, which stand out for their transparency, freed from matter (through them and in them glows the transparency of the world), will not be surprised that there exist also statements beside the picture references which irradiate the same transparency:

“I am amazed at the improper use of the word ‘development.’ I do not develop-I am. In the art there is neither past nor future. The art of the Greeks or the Egypts is not past; it is more alive today than it ever was. Alteration does not mean development.” [42]

And the other statement: “They call me a seeker, I am not seeking, I am finding.” [43]


Whoever lives in the at-once which is all and nothing and refrains from development, he is living; or better: he in whom the at-once lives and is more effective than in the blessed few is present, he is; neither past nor future matter to him, he need not seek, he bears the target within him.


These two statements are in addition distinctly Taoist. I know about Picasso's knowledge and admiration of the Chinese sages. Who does not seek, resembles the messenger “Intentionless,” whom the yellow emperor sent out to find the large magic pearl he lost on the way back from the northern provinces. The first three messengers “Knowledge,” “Clarity,” and “Eloquence” he had sent to search, as Dschuang Dsi narrated in one of his parabels, returned without it. Only “Intentionless,” who did not search but participated in the Tao, found it. [44] He who possesses Tao, who bears the target within him and need not search for it outside, and to whom the things come by themselves, he participates also in the invisible light that dwells within the Tao. At least an inkling of this is contained in Picassoís statement:

“One has the sun inside the body with a thousand rays. All else does not count.” [45]

But then, also that does not count which is presently very important to many:

No la fachada de las cosas, sino su estructura secreta. (Not the façade of things is imp ortant but their hidden structure). [46]

The “hidden structure” which is invisible and knows no development, no past, no searching, no future: it might be the structure of the at-once; it causes the “sun with a thousand rays”; it is his glowing-that dwells in Picasso's eyes. This glowing turns those of his works transparent which were mentioned above. Above all: this sea of glowing radiation that streams through the human and bears him and interweaves him with that “otherworldly ” cheerfulness, with that most inner and protecting kindness which is sober-clear and all-embracing love. This is the most inner transformation or moderation that a human can experience, thanks to the breaking of the at-once into a human: no development; once transformed thereto, a permanent being that cannot be lost. Also Picasso states this:

Basically there is only love. No matter what. [47]

Yes, “basically,” but why give everything its location? Hence: “in the end.” But this is also “in the origin,” like “basically” means also what is in the origin. Or, as G.R.Heyer has named it: “the utmost real (das Letztwirkliche) [48] he who knew about the secret of the at-once, as we already saw.


Also Cézanne speaks of this basis:

Nature is not at the surface but in the depth, the colors are the expression of this depth at the surface, they are rising from the roots of the world. [49]

These roots of the world-what are they if not the basis, the origin?


In a more opaque manner, i.e. translucent rather than determined like Picasso, Paul Klee speaks of them:

Who would not like to dwell where the central organ of all spacial temporal motion initiates all the functions, may this be brain or heart of creation? . . . . . in the origin of creation. . . [50]

And he writes that it be the task of the artist:“to give duration to the genesis (origin)” [51] .

He also hints at the world becoming transparent:

I more and more see behind, or better through the things. [52]

In the end he feels at home close to the origin:

In this world I am not tangible. Since I am dwelling equally with the dead as with the unborn. A bit closer to the heart of creation as usual. But far not close enough. [53]

And also Jorge Guillén, the most significant Spanish poet of our century (much more important than Antonio Machado, Juan Ramón Jiménez or Federico García Lorca), whose poems own transparency, achieved by nobody else with the possible exception of StÈphan Mallarm&ecaute; and T.S.Eliot:

Dónde estan cuándo ocurren? No hay historia.

Hubo un ardor que es este ardor. Un dÌa

Solo, profundizado en la memoria,

A su eterno presente se confía [54]

which reads, translated freely and considering the context: The events : “Where are they, when do they happen? There is no history/There was a glowing and it still glows/A single day deeply intruded into remembering/Entrusts itself to the unperishable presence.”



The Actuality of the Future


When we now put together the statements of T. S. Eliot, Stéphane Mallarmé, Rainer Maria Rilke and Sri Aurobindo (concluding my remarks) under the aspect of the actuality of the f uture, it is mainly for two reasons: it complements our already represented conception of the “actuality of the future” that should have become evident in most of the above statements and is in the end the basic theme of “The Ever-Present Origin.” The second reason: since these two conceptions complement one another they form together a whole: they are the two poles of the invisible origin, as soon as it appears in this world's realm-always remembering that speaking of “this world” and “the other world” in this context and thus presuming a non-existing dualism, is a rational violation of the arational, archaic reality “origin.”


As we can see always only the face or the back of a coin but know, that the other invisible side is present since only the two sides together form the valid coin, in this way we also know, that only the appearance in the presence, of the origin as well as of the future, torn apart by the dominant consecutive order, warrant the whole, the invisible origin.


But here again we see, what was pointed at already at the beginning of this treatise: the complexity of the theme, its protrusion beyond the three-dimensional, on the other hand an intrusion into our world of consecutive order, complicate any mental statement, since this fixes something unfixable and thus disfigures also itself.


Many may disapprove of my statements having terminologically not been formulated sharper; that not everything moves from b to c, as we are not only justified to do so with this worldís phenomena, but have to think and conclude, following the trained consecutive order.


By the way, the descendency and evolution theory as mentioned by G. R. Heyer [55] , is a typical example for the false projection of our way of engraved and causally safeguarding thinking into natureís processes; it is not so, that the natural processes, as far as we are dealing with processes at all, would run linearly according to our way of thinking, only because we had started thinking linearly on a single track. I am certain there are gaps in the line. They are the breaking points for the invisible, for the at-once. All of a sudden a change occurs, a transformation which has nothing to do with development: the sequence of events reverses; on the way from b to c it may go back to a, or it circumvents c and is unforeseen at d , or it sidesteps at c1 or at c2 , or takes a second track at b2. Without these gaps, these breaking points, we were cut off. And would dry out. This threatens us presently and could happen, if there were not those, whose statements are cited on these pages.


The gaps worry the rationalist; there should not be any empty spots as little as there should be a moment of silence in a social gathering-this is misunderstood as stagnation, since all the time something has to happen, “something must go.” Much fear, insec urity and hopelessness are hiding behind this attitude. Unnecessary fears, since the empty spots are not so much empty b ut at the same time open; in them d wells our openness to the unlimited openness of the invisible.


The basic phenomena, the invisible origin and the at-once, are by their very nature, neither compatible with nor describable by our thinking process. They evade the possibility of being described; in the end they cannot be described at all. At best they can be approached. No concept may sketch them, no linearity suits them. They are, as far as they “are” at all, something of more than thousand aspects, full of openness and open plenty. Is the origin identical with the at-once (as far as the origin may be associated with a structure)? Yes and no and neither of both. Such like the invisible is invisible and yet visible: but for what type of eyes? But whether invisible or visible-they are also transparent; transparency irradiates either. This is valid only for those who realize, that the final truth can be perceived, neither represented nor observed but very well perceived. This perceiving (Wahr-Nehmen) is, how the integral consciousness realizes, whereas the magical is bound to events, the mythical to experience and viewing, the mental-rational to concluding and representing. Thanks to the integral consciousness structure, all structures constituting us, the mental, mythical, magical down to the archaic, are becoming transparent to us and hence integratable.


The becoming transparent mainly of the archaical, the univerasl consciousness of the origin, that may be described also as the breaking of the at-once, makes the actuality of the future apparent in our only represented three-dimensional world. Only if rated this way, only out of the perceived and executed participation in the at-once, many of the statements above obt ain a binding truth character. This is particularly valid for a statement of T. S. Eliot:

The things that are going to happen / Have already happened [56]

This is a mere statement. Statement about the perceived structure of the at-once; “there” things are happening this way, and they are happening here as well, since “there” future is equally past and may be perceived from here in this manner because the invisible origin interweaves everything including our visibilities-the poet has at least perceived it. A. S. Eddington formulated it with the same meaning but starting from imagination and not from perception. Would it go too far to say that T. S. Eliot saw it with the eyes of the at-once? It is by no mean s an insinuation. T. S. Eliot attests this himself. It can be concluded from the following verses which he called “dance” since this is not a concept and the context gives no reason for misunderstandings. It should be clear that it deals with the “utmost real,” the at-onc e or the invisible origin, where the utmost divine or deity “stands” or “circles.” The question appearing again and again (terminologically) is the following: is it permitted to distinguish in the immensity, “where” all this happens, “where” it “is” or “is not,” “stands” or “circles.” I think, no. This makes understanding impossible: but it helps perceiving. T. S. Eliot knew very well why he poses a basic phenomenon of life, the dance, about which Léopold Sédar Senghor had written unique statements [57] , into the center:

At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless;
Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is,
But neither arrest nor movement. And do not call it fixity,
Where past and future are gathered. Neither movement from nor towards,
Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point.
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.
I can only say, there we have been: but I cannot say where.
And I cannot say, how long, for that is to place it in time.
[58]

But there, where “past and future are gathered” as Eliot says, where none is cause or effect of the other, both together are pure presence and hence expression of the at-once structure.


The mere actuality of the future, which is only one of the potentially appearing aspects of the basic phenomenon, appears in a word of Stéphane Mallarmé: “The star matures from the to-morrow”; originally: “l'astre merit dés lendemains.” [59]


The plural “lendemains” leaves no doubt that he means the future. He wrote this sentence facing death.


Some sentences from Rainer Maria Rilke have come upon us which announce the actuality of the future. But I am not quite sure how far he wrote them with a clear and perceiving consciousness. He was the great unconscious intuitive who caught, almost mediumistically, similar to Hugo von Hofmannsthal, much of the world mystery into his poetry including his letters. He writes:

The wishes are the memories that come from our future;

and Lou Albert-Lasard, who transmitted this statement [60] to us, comments this statement according to Rilke, who wanted to say:

that the future is so-to-speak already contained in the presence, even if ve iled, but yet effective. What we call future is as effective as what we call past. The two united in us form the full, the eternal presence.

A. S. Eddington and R. M. Rilke had written these statements approximately at the same time and independently from one another at the turning of the years 1923/24. The one presumably based on imagination, the other on intuition. Quite different, more significant and hence much more relevant is the formulation of Sri Aurobindo that can be found on the last pages of one of his main works written in 1920/21. It anticipates Rilkeís statement. There is not the slightest doubt that Sri Aurobindo formulated his statement in full consciousness and in consequence of his genuine perception of the universal consciousness. Therefore it is highly significant and binding. For this reason it shall be extensively cited in its appropriate context. To underline its value his conception of “involution” will briefly be introduced which requires an additional comment.


It should now be pointed at the fact, that all the statements of physicists, psychologists, painters and poets as cited above have been formulated completely independently from each other. They express essentially coinciding conceptions, opinions and insights which are new in this form. We are dealing, as has been shown, with statements, which make evident, in the way they are formulated, the courage and the capability to express conceptions hitherto not possible to be formulated, since they are not only inadequate to the present thinking but are inconceivably alien to it. These statements have been expressed verbally in the first two thirds of this century by at least eighteen of its most significant personalities. What has happened here?


Since 1939 I have tried to give an answer to this in my writings: for a new consciousness is forming in us. I have called it according to the various starting points of my interpretation attempts the aperspectival, the arational and the integral consciousness. This accentuated one of its aspects. It is aperspectival, i.e. freed from the non-perspectival and the perspectival way of seeing and thinking; it is arational, i.e. freed from the prerational, irrational and rational forms of realization; it is integral, since all the earlier consciousness structures down to the archaical have become transparent to us. Only there the perception of the origin becomes possible, where in hindsight and introspectively, neither the darkness of the magical nor the twilight of the mythical nor the present daylight of the mental-rational consciousness are an obstacle. Darkness, twilight and daylight are with regard to the structure of the at-once impenetrable and nontransparent walls; but where the three darkness and brightness grades of the consciuosness structures become tranparent to us, also the walls are fading: a more intensive consciousness, the integral, managing all the prior consciousness structures in a life and spirit conserving way without further violation by them, becomes capable to conceive through darkness, twilight and possible dazzle the pristine consciousness, or, as Sri Aurobindo calls it, the universal consciousness, the origin. Where this happens, our consciousness transforms itself into the integral, thanks to its participation in the pristine and cancels all our “gridlike compulsive ideas.”


Why has this become possible during the last decades? Or better: how was it possible, that this could be formulated in the last decades? To assume the human be capable by himself to initiate and execute such a spiritual and world transforming change is naturally only a belief or rather an anthropocentric hubris. Following the maxim: Who can fabricate the most sophisticated machinery is also capable to make consciousness or at least develop it like machinery (modest people are possibly content to talk about a continuous “development” of consciuosness). This refers the phenomenon of becoming transparent to the fact that we are dealing with a spiritually accentuated event-and the spiritual “stands” outside the development and is at best the initiator (but this is already an almost unpermitted concession). Vital, psychical and mental forces may “develop,” the spiritual force which constellates the new, the integral consciousness, exists outside the consecutive steps of development of this world. This leads us to an obvious answer to the question just asked: How had the forming of the new consciousness become possible?


It became possible, even necessary, since the human consciousness had exhausted the capability of the prior consciousness structures, even the mental-rat ional, to such an extent, that their excessive use threatened and partly already led to negative abuses of the magical, mystical and mental capabilities. But how is it in life when we have exhausted a possibility? To continue life we have to open up new ones, we should be open for novelties and ready. That must have been the case. The human was ready for a new consciousness possibility and hence a new mode of realization. This evolution downward, into exhaustion-looked at it this way also the hectic progress of technology is a downfall into the emptiness of mechanical processes-caused the readiness for the necessary change and transformation. This readiness is the life-saving achievement of the human. That he was able to do this, was already much. But this alone would not have sufficed. There were hardly any reserves in the distinctly exhaustive state for any development. But despite this an evolution occurred? Had the pristine (the archaic or universal) consciousness not answered by itself to the human readiness-or even had it not demanded it by itself?-nothing had happened. But then occurred the “breaking of the (qualitative) time,” as I formerly called the breaking of the at-once. Thanks to the readiness of the human, the at-o nce, sprung from the origin, the more intensive, the universal consciousness became effective in the human.


Sri Aurobindo has already during World War I explained this course of events through a conception with which he complemente d that of the evolution (as a this world's course). He stipulated for this world's “evolution” the complementing course of the “involution.” [61] He described with this formulation the event that our prior consciousness may be raised presently by the impact of the universal consciousness, of which we know that it is located in the invisible (but without any connection to Hegel's Weltgeist!), beyond the merely mental-rational and is enabled to be effective.


This breaking of the universal consciousness (I called it the at-once) wakens within us the supramental consciousness, as Sri Aurobindo named it. I have already thirty years ago and prior to any knowledge of Sri Aurob indo's work, that he had begun more than fifty years ago, called this consciousness, presently becoming effective, the aperspectival, the arational and the integral. That it can be awakened to-day shows, that it is already disposed in us, that the consciousness enhancem ent or mutation-as far as it can be understood as an evolutionary event, which is presently taking place, is a secondary process, permanently fed by the spiritual force and the transparency of the invisible. In addition one should consider that the really novel has already happened, when we start assuming it.


I took the liberty to digress in order to have the phenomenon of the cited key sentences appear in a special light; since the statements in the key sentences may be considered as an answer of our emerging integral consciousness to the “universal” or “supramental,” as Sri Aurobindo calls it, which I had called the archaic-pristine.


It should be kept in mind: my conception of the emerging of a new consciousness, which I realized in winter 1932/33 in a flashlike intuition and started describing since 1939, resembles to a large extent the world conception of Sri Aurobindo, that was at that time unknown to me. [62] Mine is different from his insofar, as it is directed only to the Western world and does not have the depth and the gravidity of origin of the genially represented conception of Sri Aurobindo. An explanation for this apparent phenomenon may be seen in the suggestion, that I was included in some manner within the strong field of force as radiated by Sri Aurobindo, similar to the suggestion that the statement of Rainer Maria Rilke has much in common with the statement of Sri Aurobindo to be cited shortly. Such coincidences of a very relevant kind are explained from the rational point of view with the rather superficial saying “that was in the air,” and one denotes with this rather vile and vexed indication of origin the unrecognized effectiveness of the invisible as well as the realizations become visible.


Sri Aurobindo speaks-coming back to his statement as already mentioned which is now to be cited-of “the memory of the future.”


Before we cite the whole context of this statement the clarity of Sri Aurobindo's formulation about the actuality of the future should be emphasized, which is bound with Rainer Maria Rilke to emotional wishes as being more appropriate to a poet: “The (actual) wishes are memories coming from our future.” A coincidence? What and who triggered it? Because this thought “was in the air”? To mention again this cheeky attempt to explain events that owe their very being to constellations that cannot be perceived by the mere intellect. Georg Picht asks rightly in view of this incapability: “Will the oriflamme of the threatening world catastrophe have the power to break through the blindness of modern thinking?” [63]


Here now, concluding the many most indirect statements about the new consciuosness that makes the invisible origin perceivable to us and which lets us become conscious that we are at home down here and in the whole, the passage from Sri Aurobindo's work. (His concept of the “mental” should be identical with the “mental consciousness structure” according to my wording.) And it should again be emphasized-and I know this for certain beyond any doubt-that his statement and his whole work have been written down in clear consciousness and thanks to a fully conscious perception:

All intuitive knowledge comes more or less directly from the light of the self-aware spirit entering into the mind, the spirit concealed behind mind and conscious of all in itself and in all its selves, omniscient and capable of illumining the ignorant or the self-forgetful mind whether by rare or constant flashes or by a steady instreaming light, out of its omniscience. This all includes all what was, is or will be in time and this omniscience is not limited, impeded or baffled by our mental division of the three times and the idea and experience of a dead and no longer existent and ill-remembered or forgotten past and a not yet existent and therefore unknowable future, which is so imperative for the mind in the ignorance. Accordingly, the growth of the intuitive mind can bring with it the capacity of a time knowledge which comes to it not from outside indices, but from within the universal soul of things, its eternal memory of the past, its unlimited holding of things present and its prevision or, at it has been by [Sri Aurobindo himself] paradoxically but suggestibly called, its memory of the future. But this capacity works at first sporadically and uncertainly and not in an organised manner. As the force of intuitive knowledge grows, it become s more possible to command the use of the capacity and regularise to a certain degree its functioning and various movements. An acquired power can be established of commanding the material on the main or the detailed knowledge of things in the triple time . . . [64]


Whoever reads these forceful and clear sentences carefully, will give account of the fact that Sri Aurobindo means and describes in his English choice of words those phenomena, constellations and the omniscient divine, which all appear, even if only partial, in our cited statements. This realization of our participation in everything, that “was, is, or will be in time” thanks to the flashlike or steadily instreaming light, which is spiritual light, “a sun with a thousand rays” in our body; and also a confirmation that we have command of the three time forms (as the omniscient at-once) thanks to our mental consciousness consciuosly enhanced into the intuitive, through which it gains in a certain sense an integrating consciousness power-these are all authentications of the invisible origin around us. It becomes perceivable with the light streaming into us. This light is called “truth light” and “apersonal light” by Sri Aurobindo in the secti ons following the above passage, by this emphasizing its spiritual quality and invisible origin in the “hidden spirit” in the invisible origin.



The Invisible Origin


The numerous statements above could be confusing, had they not all two things in common: one is their common reference to the “invisible origin,” the other is a common diction in which they speak of it; this novel diction is at the same time evidence for the fact that they, and the new conceptions and the points of view expressed by them, are based on the emerging new consciousness.


Contrary to earlier times, which knew about this origin in their way and were capable to evoke it and tried to become conscious of it in their way symbolically, by mythical pictures, by an attempt of reflection, by mystical devotion, by moving sanctification and many other expressions (initiations, dances, inspiring receptability for the numinous, preaches, instructional conversations)-contrary to these attempts the almost sober and natural manner of the new statements is surprising.


The statements of the physicists and psychologists are based on their results which originate from realms invisible to us: from the micro world of elementary particles, from the unfathomable depth of psychical processes, to which also dreams and particularly core dreams belong.


And the painters: to use just one criterium: their statements are an unquestionable response to the experienced transparency of colour and form and to the flashlike appearance of their origin.


And the poets: their statements occur in factual, declaring sentences which are key sentences to them, whose veracity and binding character do not allow any doubt, not even where th ey appear, due to their superficially mysterious character, as pure and unproved assertions to some people.


All these statements are irradiating a genuine glow that excludes any objection: they bear the sign of the sober truth.


Whoever has the courage or shares the grace to achieve the openness necessary to perceive the invisible, will at first become aware of the at-once and then also of the invisible origin.


But this requires an inner attitude which can disregard oneself; which is capable of unconditional trust and opening; which is unintentional without being passive but which is unstrained and of an overwakeful brightness. The apersonal can only be perceived by an apersonal, egofree human. This is, by the way, not only an Indian or East-Asian wisdom but also a Christian: it is a universal basic condition and necessity of humankind. Whoever complies to them, experi ences a strengthening of his vitality and an improvement of extensive capability of love, which is presently more than ever necessary in our threatened world dissipating the human; but this need not particularly be emphasized.


The force, streaming to everybody from the opened-up invisibility of the origin, and ensuring a coming true, has so much of a bearing and securing character, that everybody participating in it, is sure of the whole and knows to be “in the order”: “in God's hand” as biblical wisdom paraphrased it for the patriarchical and personally accentuated faculty of imagination. Who perceived the invisible origin, has been perceived by the whole. He found back to the sources or up to them.



The Open Possibilities


As concluding remarks, we will be content to understand the justified fear of those who timidly, discouraged and de nyingly refuse to accept consciously what (a trump for them!) is not provable, but is evident from the cited statements and examples, if they only would judge without prejudice. Just this resistance is symptomatic and can be documented to-day in all pla ces and in the most different forms. The impending anarchism, the hybrid fanaticism of technical progress, which is directed not only against man and nature, but also against the impact of the denied invisible, i.e. the spiritual, are examples for the fear of those who sense unconsciously t hat their one-sided and exclusively rational attitude is of no long-term durability. Rationalism, having reached an impasse, fights desperately wi th all thinkable means against the emergence of the new consciousness. It hopes to save itself with this. If it were not successful, what we assume, it will try to tear everything into its own ruin. We have already seen examples for this. Attempts on this behalf do already exist. These are the open posibilities for the final loss of the openness: of our spiritual origin. Holderlin, when he coined the unique wording of the “innerness of the world” (Innerheit der Welt) in one of his later poems, “Aussicht” (Outlook) pre-suspected with his statement this possibility:

The worldís innerness is often clouded, closed,

The human mind is full of doubts, discouraged . . . [65]


(Oft scheint die Innerheit der Welt umw^lkt, verschlossen,

Des Menschen Sinn von Zweifeln voll, verdrossen. . . )

Brutal selfishness, to mention just one example, has already led to the contamination of the most important elements of life, of air, water and soil. Generations to come will curse us downward for this evolution. We cannot fight these devastating forces (and come to grips with them). If we assume the fight against this type of directed evolution, we will only reinforce it. But we can attempt to act retarding and hence impeding. It is tragical enough that the majority of humankind had always to be taught only by disasters. These appear to have been even more horrible than the last two wars, since they resulted in less than they should have done. Seen in this way, the activity of those who try not only to keep a position already lost with all means of power, but to extend it, is a tragical challenge, necessary to help the new consciuosness to emerge, which is probably the only guarantor for the survival of humankind.


Humankind will have to sa crifice enormously over the next three decades: premature death of millions and millions. Let us hope that the atmosphere of our planet earth will not be poisoned for milennia to come by this contamination and killing. This depends to a larg e extent on the minimal percentage of relevant people being able to realize the integral consciousness, which is acting upon the fate of humankind from the invisible, in such a way that it emerges. The quoted sentences show at least, that it starts to manifest. Each of the presently living, who proves himself thanks to inner preparation and through the secondary execution of the pristine preliminary decision, is obliged to strengthen by his life the forces preserving us. That there could be several capable of doing this would be guarantee for the survival of humankind over the deciding next three decades.


The perception of the origin, the fact alone that it is possible, should draw our attention to the effectiveness of the constellating invisible and liberate us from the illusion that the events are mainly controlled by man. The unique statement of the agraphon encourages us; the recognition of the at-once (based on the indicated structure of the core dreams and of the nuclear processes) can cause the origin to become evident in us; the involutionary influence of the universal consciousness, located in the invisible, on the emergence of our new integral (or aperspectival) consciousness may be read from the cited key sentences, that have been formulated over the past two generations in West and East.


All three facts: the agraphon and its testimony by the disciples, the structure of the core dreams and of the nuclear processes and the termination of the three-pase character by including the future into the presence, which are all expressed in the key sentences, they are building blocks for our refusal to join in the choir of decline, of being infected by it. In view of the horrible events occurring all over the world we must not fall into depression and despair. That would strengthen only the position of the representatatives of decline which can only be held in an atmosphere of despair. Every bit of despair or depression helps the always present negative powers. Their incapability to destroy leads them into frenzied rage. But calmness is stronger than loud noises. The soft, the water already Laotsu knew it-is stronger than the hard, the stone. The human with inner security is stronger than he who seeks intentionally material security-even if he is killed by the security seeker. Any genuine strength is superior to any form of power. The apparent fear and concern of the others-in most cases it degenerates into a flight ahead, into progress or belief in progress-whose reactions I tried to sketch when I reported about the obstructions, they are our strength. But we should not “utilize” this fear, as they would do it. We should rather realize or at least become aware that, let's say spiritual forces-particularly those of charity nad love-at first roused in humankind by Jesus Christ, atttempt to protect us. Some of the above statements are a striking example also for this. Perhaps it is possible to accept these statements as facts confirming us. These are the open possibilities to gain the openness, to participate consciously in the invisible origin.


We live, who wouldn't know that, in decisive years. This is a factual statement. We have a force at our side and within us which measures up to the decline, to the closed “innerness of the world.” I have named it, pointed at its effectiveness. It would be indeed good, we would take it to heart.



(translated by THEO RÖTTGERS)


 

This treatise titled “Der unsichtbare Ursprung” was first published by Walter Verlag, Olten in 1970. It is now available in “Vorlesungen und Reden zu Ursprung und Gegenwart,” Jean Gebser Gesamtausgabe, Vol. 5, 2, Novalis Verlag, Schaffhausen, 21999.


 

Notes



[1] See Pascual Jordan, Der Naturwissenschaftler vor der religiosen Frage, Abbruch einer Mauer. Oldenburg 1963, p. 259ff. C.F. von Weizs?cker, Die Tragweite der Wissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1964, Bd. I, S.159ff

[2] See Jean Gebser, In der Bew?hrung, Francke, Bern/München, 1962. Gesamtausgabe, Novalis, Bd. V/1 21999

[3] See Carl Friedrich von Weizs?cker, Die Geschichte der Natur, Hirzel, Z¸rich, 1948, p.117

[4] See Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Vol. XL, Chapter 6; and Isidor von Sevilla, De Summo Bono,Vol. I

[5] See Jean Gebser, The Ever-present Origin, Gesamtausgabe Vol. II, p. 125ff

[6] See Jean Gebser, l.c. p. 125

[7] See Jean Gebser, l.c.Vol. IV, p.200

[8] Laotsu, Tao te Ching, German translation from the Chinese and commented by Richard Wilhelm, Jena 1921

[9] Dschuang Dsi. German translation from the Chinese and commented by Richard Wilhelm, Jena 1940

[10] The statement about the Tao is not contained in Richard Wilhelmís translation of Speechs and Parables of Tschuang-Tse, Leipzig 1922

[11] Die versprengten Worte Jesu , edited by Benedikt Godeschalk, Munich 1922

[12] Unbekannte Worte Jesu, collected and with an introduction by Alfred Rosenberg, Munich-Planegg, 1954

[13] Thanks to Reverend Wolfgang Hammer, St. Moritz for the hints to these statements in the New Testament.

[14] According to a translation of Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, Zollikon, 1950

[15] See e.g. Gesamtausgabe Vol. II, p. 83ff, Vol. III, p.424ff

[16] Letter is unpublished manuscript.

[17] See also Jean Gebser, Asien l?chelt anders, Gesamtausgabe Vol VI, p 156ff

[18] C.G.Jung, in: Eranos XX (1951)

[19] I have often dealt with the conception of freedom of time (associated with the ego-freedom) according to its enormous importance since it expresses the consciously realized timelessness and temporality. See e.g. Jean Gebser, The Ever-present Origin, Vol II, pp. 200 and 278.

[20] Werner Heisenberg, Atomphysik und Kausalgesetz in: Die neue Weltschau, Stuttgart 1953

[21] see Hedwig Conrad-Martius, Die Zeit, Munich, 1954

[22] see Gebhard Frei, Probleme der Parapsychologie, Munich 1969

[23] J. W. von Goethe, Dichtung und Wahrheit, part 3, book 11

[24] Aldous Huxley, Time Mu st Have a Stop, New York and London, 1944; and Zeit mufl enden, Z¸rich 1950

< DIV id=edn25 style="mso-element: endnote">

[25] see p24 and note 59 below

[26] Robert Jungk: Die Zukunft hat schon begonnen Bern 1952

[27] see for this and next page explanation on pp. 17 and 20

[28] Pascual Jordan: Die Physik und das Geheimnis des organischen Lebens, Braunschweig, 61948; Jean Gebser The Ever-Present Origin

[29] Pascual Jordan Verdr?ngung und Komplementaritat, Hamburg-Bergedorf, 1947, p. 23ff

[30] Pascual Jordan: New Trends in Physics, in: Proceedings of Four Conferences of Parapsychology Studies New York, 1957, p. 16

[31] C. G. Jung. Synchronizitat als ein Prinzip akausaler Zusammenhenge. In: Collected Works Vol. 8 (1971)

[32] see notes in Jean Gebser The Ever-present Origin

[33] Examples of anticipatory dreams may be found in C. G. Jung: Wirklichkeit der Seele (Reality of the Soul)

Zürich 41969, p. 59ff

[34 ] See Jean Gebser Ever-Present Origin Chapter XX

[35] See Jean Gebser, l.c. Vol. II, Chapter I

[36] About “samadhi” (the Buddhist-Hinduist form of the “unio mystica”) and “satori” (the Zen-Buddhist form of “illumination”) see Jean Gebser, Asien lichelt anders, Gesamtausgabe Vol. VI, p. 159 and 164f.

[37] Cited after the translation of Paul C. Berger in his article on Marcel Proust i n: “Das Buch” Vol. III, No. 2, Mainz 1951

[38] See Robert Musil, Der Ma nn ohne Eigenschaften, Hamburg, 1952, p. 1636

[39] see Werner Heisenberg, Atomphysik und Kausalgesetz, in Werner Heisenberg: Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik, Hamburg, 1955

[40] A.S. Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, 1935, p. 51

[41] cited after Liliane Guerry, Cézanne et l' expression de l'espace, Paris, 1950, p.180

[42] Pablo Picasso, Wort und Bekenntnis, Berlin, 1957. I have shown some pictures of Picasso's, distinguished by their transparency, in The Ever-Present Origin, Vol. II, p.3 36f

[43] Pablo Picasso, l.c p.19

[44] See Reden und Gleichnisse des Tschuang Tse, Martin Buber, Leipzig 1922

[45] Pablo Picasso, l.c., p.29

[46] see Jean Gebser, The Ever-Present Origin, Vol.II, p. 332

[47] see Pablo Picasso, l.c. p.30

[48] see G.R.Heyer, Vom Kraftfeld der Seele, l.c.1949, p. 85

[49] cited after Werner Hofmann, Paul Klee, M¸nchen 1950, p.87

[50] see Paul Klee, Bern 1945, p. 47

[51] see Paul Klee, l.c. P. 43

[52] cited after Ottomar Dominick, Die schopferischen Krofte in der abstrakten Malerei, Bergen, 1947, p. 14

[53] cited after Georg Schmidt, Paul Klee in “National-Zeitung,” Basel, No. 89, Feb. 23, 1941

[54] Jorge Guillén, Cántico, Buenos Aires, 1950, p. 159

[55] see G. R. Heyerís unpublished works, l.c (Note 16), following his note about those dreams which I called core dreams

[56] T. S. Eliot, The Family Reunion, New York, 1939, p. 98

[57] L. S. Senghor in his Frankfurt speach (1963?); see also Gisela Bonn, Botschaft aus Afrika, in: Christ und Welt, 16, 14, Stuttgart, April 5, 1963, p. 17

[58] see T. S. Eliot, Burnt Norton, London, 1943, p.11 and Four Quartets, London, 1944, p. 9

[59] see Stéphane Mallarmé, Œvres complètes, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Paris, 1945, p.71 in the poem ´ Tombeau ª

[60] see Lou Albert-Lasard, Wege mit Rilke, Frankfurt/Munich, 1952, p. 162

[61] see e.g. Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, (1914), cited from Centenary Edition Vol. 18, (1990), register

[62] Description of this case see in Jean Gebser, The Ever-Present Origin l.c. 21966, Note 4 on p. 42

[63] see G. Picht, Mut zur Utopie, Munich, 1969, p. 142

[64] Sri Aurobindo, The Synthesis of Yoga, Cent. Edition, Vol. 21, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry, 81988, p.865

[65] see Holderlin, S?mtliche Werke, ed. F. Beiflner, Leipzig, p.436




[Edited by Sean Saiter, The Journal of Conscious Evolution, Feb 2005, (html)]