The symbiotic ecology of the psychedelic realm

[Cleric K]

Cleric,

The book, "Pharmakia" by Robert Orem (http://pharmakia.org) created somewhat of a stir in evangelical circles. I think you can get the gist of the book from the website - the main concerns being about demonic influence and participating in divination practices condemned by the bible.

Could you comment on your "etheric/astral leakage into an ill-equipped sensory slots" problem vs Orem's concerns?

Yes, as I wrote above to Federica, the dangers are real. There certainly are people who develop interest out of genuine need for the supersensible and it is exactly those people who need to understand about evolution of consciousness. As said, the ego is too easily rigidified when it ventures in such ways. Most people are not that evil and even though they get stuck at certain stage, they still may extract some moral intuition. The usage of substances for the dark arts is quite real danger too. BTW when speaking of drugs, let's not forget also about alcohol, which because of social conditioning is not seen as a drug. Yet many dark schools in the past had their rituals performed with the central role of alcohol. It can be said that when these substances are used in ritual setting quite real forces and beings of the lower astral can be unleashed. But it's not the place in this forum to speak of that.

But as said to Federica, we need to understand these things (not by experimenting with them but through proper spiritual development) and not simply anathemize them while waving the bible. Of course such a book can be written also against any attempt to enter the deeper strata of reality through healthy spiritual development. The evangelists would say that we're already saved by Jesus and it's not our job to venture into the higher worlds (this could be inspired only by the devil). So we should simply not sin and wait for death.

[AshvinP]

Briefly, it may help to remember, the psychedelics are simply an expression of your spirit's desire to remain attached to the familiar sensory-conceptual spectrum while pursuing the spiritual. It is the same thing humanity has been doing to itself ever since the Fall. As soon as the ancient Hebrews were delivered from slavery in Egypt, they started worshipping the golden calf. The 'why' of it is a huge topic, and perhaps Cleric will elaborate on that, but there is no mistaking the fact that this is actually what has been happening throughout human history and continues to happen today, as we see with modern 'naive realism' across all philosophies. The secular scientist looks through the microscope or telescope and feels immense power from the molecules and galaxies he beholds, which are otherwise supra-sensory without the technology, thereby making it a 'thing-itself'. The spiritualist with his psycho-technology does something very similar.

Ashvin,

You unusually say “psychedelics are simply an expression of your spirit's desire”. Psychedelics are not and have never been an expression of desires of mine. Are you granting me a fully embodied Christ impulse here or is this simply a typo?

The "your" was meant in a plural sense. It's better stated, "psychedelics, if we decide to use them, are an expression of our spirit's desire". And this is self-evident, if we remain connected to first-person perspective, not trying to view 'from the side'. If we decide to use alcohol to blur out the sensory spectrum and inhibit our discerning reason, that is also an expression of our desire. Or maybe we desire to do this by abstractly philosophizing with mystical concepts. The general point was that our astral body and ego-spirit is implicated in all of these things, so it's not like the physical substance/body is completely overriding the higher members of our organism. We are allowing these forces in through our own willing spirit and desire body and, conversely, a strengthened Spirit, through the Christ impulse, can ward off such regressive influences encountered in the higher worlds.

“It is the same thing humanity has been doing to itself ever since the Fall.” No it’s not the same thing. When naive realists (≅ 99 % of the world population content) stop at the level of appearances and declare the world content existing in itself, they are simply succumbing to the limits brought forward by the human organization itself. They're in a temporary passive understanding inducted by the interplay of social conditioning and characteristics of the waking state. We can accuse naive realists of many crimes, but the fact is, reality presents itself to us as separate, and many are not equipped well enough to holistically encompass it within the scope of their thinking agency. Until we grow out of that naive understanding, we are fully and naturally working within the given of our human organization, and that's the full characterization of the crime. Later we possibly come to question our understanding of reality, be it by personal interest and quest, by epiphany, or by other means.

From my perspective, there is ‘no mistaking’ that this is not at all the case with psychedelic desire. This desire seems to me very different from the condition of naive realism where one is not yet fully awakened to the nature of reality, by reason of being operating at a very natural less-than-full scope of human understanding. Similarly, the scientist excited about extending the reach of sensory perceptions through instrumentation is not tripping, but only expressing at a more structured and extended level what we all naturally express in the act of mapping and verifying our understanding of the physical plane. Those endeavors and that sense of power you refer to is in essence not different from what a baby does and how a baby feels when crawling around, grabbing and tasting all sorts of objects. Conversely, psychedelic desire is not continuous with the desire of growing our knowledge and awareness, in whatever planes it may manifest. It is instead a desire of signing off of a continuous progress, by introducing a fragment of discontinuity on our path. As I tried to convey in the post above, to me it is an abdication of our potential and a distrust in the endogenous evolving capacity with a starting point in the me-now. And in this sense it is harmful to the self.

I disagree with the first part. All of these idolizing tendencies can be located within the sphere of our own life of interest/desire. The 'view from the side' finds it convenient to say, "this is simply how reality presents to us in the waking state". For the average Westerner today, of course this is valid. But this is no different from an illiterate person who is presented every opportunity to learn how to read, yet continually procrastinates and puts it off, saying, "my only crime is being born into a condition where I can't read and it keeps getting more difficult for me to learn." At the end of the day, there is a secret desire not to learn reading because it adds responsibility - now all of a sudden I must pay attention to the writings in school and can't excuse myself by claiming illiteracy. The naive [scientific] realist today does the same thing - using direct experience and simple reasoning to understand that there are invisible forces constituting the appearances which come through our own thinking consciousness, means that our own thinking consciousness becomes responsible for seeking them out in ever-greater measure.

Is it any different with psychedelics? As Cleric mentioned, the conditions of human evolution are such that now the spiritual must be sought in one way or another, unless one is to succumb to complete nihilism. The materialist is also seeking the spiritual in the forces of nature and ever-more exotic perceptions/theories, only he is quite unconscious of what he is doing. The intellectual idealist, mysticist, or theist seeks the spiritual semi-consciously, smearing it all out in abstract models and religious systems/dogma. The spiritualist using psychoactive substances seeks it out even more consciously, yet, for all the reasons Cleric outlined, fails to realize just how little conscious progress he is actually making into the higher worlds. This is most dangerous. It can be considered the last phase of materialism, because he will hit that 'brick wall', confuse it for the highest possible spiritual achievements, and then devolve into black magic, which eventually leads to more and more unconsciousness, leading exactly where the materialist will go if he continues to completely ignore the spiritual beings behind Nature.

The common factor here is subconscious forces of desire towards the sensuous and physicalized conceptual which have been intermingled with human evolution for many ages now (and the technical scientific details of this can be discerned quite precisely). You are correct that it is a selfish desire, a 'me-now' desire, an abdication of spiritual responsibility, etc. But these are all our desires. We should guard against the "we are not them" sentiment again. We are all seeking the spiritual in various way yet also want to remain with the convenience, the comfort, the ease, the familiarity, the immediacy, etc. of various approaches. Nothing could really have become more clear for me when getting deeper into imaginative meditation. One big obstacle could be our expectations - we will go into meditations expecting certain results to manifest, especially if they have manifested before. This can thwart our efforts for quite some time. The expectations can also steer our meditations towards certain experiences with pre-formatted concepts of what we think they should be, not too much unlike what I imagine results from habitual psychedelic use but to a much greater degree (I have never used them and feel very fortunate for that).

Generally, I think we (you, Cleric, I) all agree it is the one of the most dangerous ways to seek the spiritual. I simply wouldn't characterize it as 'unnatural', but clinging to the natural ingrained habits of desire/thinking at the most inopportune time.

[Federica]

...

Ok : ) I said I am deductive, but actually my mistake is due to induction : )
For me the flow of what I write here doesn’t come as universal meaning, but in a chaotic mix of language forms, so I can't finely paint the words, I have to streamline them with a heavy rake, and I remain well absorbed in the character of languages...

It's clear that you are not advocating for psychedelics, I understand your points clearly, thank you. For my part, I know there is more left to realize about myself in this connection. In the meantime, I can surely start with understanding.

[Anthony66]

Cleric,

The book, "Pharmakia" by Robert Orem (http://pharmakia.org) created somewhat of a stir in evangelical circles. I think you can get the gist of the book from the website - the main concerns being about demonic influence and participating in divination practices condemned by the bible.

Could you comment on your "etheric/astral leakage into an ill-equipped sensory slots" problem vs Orem's concerns?

Yes, as I wrote above to Federica, the dangers are real. There certainly are people who develop interest out of genuine need for the supersensible and it is exactly those people who need to understand about evolution of consciousness. As said, the ego is too easily rigidified when it ventures in such ways. Most people are not that evil and even though they get stuck at certain stage, they still may extract some moral intuition. The usage of substances for the dark arts is quite real danger too. BTW when speaking of drugs, let's not forget also about alcohol, which because of social conditioning is not seen as a drug. Yet many dark schools in the past had their rituals performed with the central role of alcohol. It can be said that when these substances are used in ritual setting quite real forces and beings of the lower astral can be unleashed. But it's not the place in this forum to speak of that.

But as said to Federica, we need to understand these things (not by experimenting with them but through proper spiritual development) and not simply anathemize them while waving the bible. Of course such a book can be written also against any attempt to enter the deeper strata of reality through healthy spiritual development. The evangelists would say that we're already saved by Jesus and it's not our job to venture into the higher worlds (this could be inspired only by the devil). So we should simply not sin and wait for death.

Like BK has mused on a number of occasions, life as a materialist has many comforts. There is no afterlife to be concerned with. There are are no unleashing of "beings of the lower astral". But what you write of here throws me back into a dangerous world which I had largely dispensed with a decade or so ago. Moreover, you write of many higher beings, while for the evangelical there is but one higher being to contend with. And to add to the liminal menagerie, we now have the beings of the lower astral to navigate clear of. I'm not sure why this forum is not the place to speak about such things. What about certain ritual settings that awaken the nasties from their slumber? What gives you confidence to bypass the received wisdom not to venture into higher worlds but rest on the blood of Jesus?

[Cleric K]

Like BK has mused on a number of occasions, life as a materialist has many comforts. There is no afterlife to be concerned with. There are are no unleashing of "beings of the lower astral". But what you write of here throws me back into a dangerous world which I had largely dispensed with a decade or so ago. Moreover, you write of many higher beings, while for the evangelical there is but one higher being to contend with. And to add to the liminal menagerie, we now have the beings of the lower astral to navigate clear of.

Well, we should make a distinction between what we can find in the scriptures and what the modern tele evangelists preach. There's a whole chapter of Christian wisdom called demonology.

It's not the goal of course to throw these things around for people to be scared. That's why I wouldn't go into these things here as it will be seen as a kind of superstition by most.

We should be aware what we're dispensing with. Declaring fear from electric shock to be an owie story to scare the children doesn't remove the dangers for the adults. It's simply that animalistic fear, which has been appropriate for its time, should turn into a clear understanding.

What about certain ritual settings that awaken the nasties from their slumber?

If we stop naively imagining the nasties as little horned figures (even through there have been Imaginative reasons behind these forms) and instead realize that they live in us as hunger for feasting on the satisfaction of certain desires, we'll be able to see things in another way. Rituals? Maybe we simply don't recognize them in their modern forms. Sexual rituals have dispersed in unrestrained sexual life and consumption of pornography. Sacrificial rituals and the lust for blood can be found in MMA rituals and so on. People simply don't stop to analyze what are the sources of their appetites and desires. In our superficial age the only thing of significance is whether it stimulates the senses and basic emotions.

What gives you confidence to bypass the received wisdom not to venture into higher worlds but rest on the blood of Jesus?

Once again - where do you receive that wisdom from? From the scriptures or the tele evangelist? It is hard to read, for example, the gospel of John and remain with the impression that the human being is supposed to stay quietly in his physical shell and patiently wait for death. Everything in this text leads us towards the mystical union of the human "I" with the Divine "I" - no tele evangelists in between!

And this is not something new:

Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.

[Anthony66]

What I'm trying to provoke you with in terms of received wisdom is not that of the tele evangelist but rather the post-reformation, broadly Protestant evangelical Christianity that I'm familiar with. But the broader church, particularly the Western church has generally viewed with suspicion those mystics, occultists, and esotericists who have sought mystical union this side of heaven.

[AshvinP]

What I'm trying to provoke you with in terms of received wisdom is not that of the tele evangelist but rather the post-reformation, broadly Protestant evangelical Christianity that I'm familiar with. But the broader church, particularly the Western church has generally viewed with suspicion those mystics, occultists, and esotericists who have sought mystical union this side of heaven.

What is the difference?

If I may say, I am confused how much you like to focus on this topic, because the reason you are focusing on it - the possibilities of meaningful development which could be gained from this focus - doesn't even seem to clear to you. It sounds more like an annoying song which got stuck in your head and now you just feel forced to keep singing it.

Do you agree that scripture cannot be equated with "post-reformation, broadly Protestant evangelical Christianity that I'm familiar with", and that even the English translations of scripture you are familiar with cannot be equated to their full depth of meaning, which can only be revealed through our own evolving consciousness?

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and [a]behaving like mere men? 4For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
...
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

There are countless similar passages to this, which the post-reformation etc. crowd completely ignores or reduces to its most physicalized, 'metaphorical' meaning, i.e. they make no connection whatsoever to our own evolving, thinking consciousness. What do you think is going on here - why is there such a discrepancy?

[Federica]

The "your" was meant in a plural sense. It's better stated, "psychedelics, if we decide to use them, are an expression of our spirit's desire". And this is self-evident, if we remain connected to first-person perspective, not trying to view 'from the side'. If we decide to use alcohol to blur out the sensory spectrum and inhibit our discerning reason, that is also an expression of our desire. Or maybe we desire to do this by abstractly philosophizing with mystical concepts. The general point was that our astral body and ego-spirit is implicated in all of these things, so it's not like the physical substance/body is completely overriding the higher members of our organism. We are allowing these forces in through our own willing spirit and desire body and, conversely, a strengthened Spirit, through the Christ impulse, can ward off such regressive influences encountered in the higher worlds.

Yes, I understand that drugs are an expression of such a desire for the spiritual while keeping ties with standard perceptions. As I wrote to Cleric, I didn’t mean that the physical is completely overriding the higher members of our organism, but only that the grinder metaphor suggested that, which seemed to me as an inconsistency. It was a rhetorical way to say that, when the higher self endorses that, which is what must be happening, it’s an act of self-harm.

I disagree with the first part. All of these idolizing tendencies can be located within the sphere of our own life of interest/desire. The 'view from the side' finds it convenient to say, "this is simply how reality presents to us in the waking state". For the average Westerner today, of course this is valid. But this is no different from an illiterate person who is presented every opportunity to learn how to read, yet continually procrastinates and puts it off, saying, "my only crime is being born into a condition where I can't read and it keeps getting more difficult for me to learn." At the end of the day, there is a secret desire not to learn reading because it adds responsibility - now all of a sudden I must pay attention to the writings in school and can't excuse myself by claiming illiteracy. The naive [scientific] realist today does the same thing - using direct experience and simple reasoning to understand that there are invisible forces constituting the appearances which come through our own thinking consciousness, means that our own thinking consciousness becomes responsible for seeking them out in ever-greater measure.

Is it any different with psychedelics? As Cleric mentioned, the conditions of human evolution are such that now the spiritual must be sought in one way or another, unless one is to succumb to complete nihilism. The materialist is also seeking the spiritual in the forces of nature and ever-more exotic perceptions/theories, only he is quite unconscious of what he is doing. The intellectual idealist, mysticist, or theist seeks the spiritual semi-consciously, smearing it all out in abstract models and religious systems/dogma. The spiritualist using psychoactive substances seeks it out even more consciously, yet, for all the reasons Cleric outlined, fails to realize just how little conscious progress he is actually making into the higher worlds. This is most dangerous. It can be considered the last phase of materialism, because he will hit that 'brick wall', confuse it for the highest possible spiritual achievements, and then devolve into black magic, which eventually leads to more and more unconsciousness, leading exactly where the materialist will go if he continues to completely ignore the spiritual beings behind Nature.

The common factor here is subconscious forces of desire towards the sensuous and physicalized conceptual which have been intermingled with human evolution for many ages now (and the technical scientific details of this can be discerned quite precisely). You are correct that it is a selfish desire, a 'me-now' desire, an abdication of spiritual responsibility, etc. But these are all our desires. We should guard against the "we are not them" sentiment again. We are all seeking the spiritual in various way yet also want to remain with the convenience, the comfort, the ease, the familiarity, the immediacy, etc. of various approaches. Nothing could really have become more clear for me when getting deeper into imaginative meditation. One big obstacle could be our expectations - we will go into meditations expecting certain results to manifest, especially if they have manifested before. This can thwart our efforts for quite some time. The expectations can also steer our meditations towards certain experiences with pre-formatted concepts of what we think they should be, not too much unlike what I imagine results from habitual psychedelic use but to a much greater degree (I have never used them and feel very fortunate for that).

Generally, I think we (you, Cleric, I) all agree it is the one of the most dangerous ways to seek the spiritual. I simply wouldn't characterize it as 'unnatural', but clinging to the natural ingrained habits of desire/thinking at the most inopportune time.

Right, it's about finding the unifying principle, or desire, in the full range of current attitudes toward spirituality. It’s the same mistake again on my part, as if I had forgotten the recent debate about written and spoken language, as well as the slightly older one "we are not them".
I would maybe put it this way: if we compare a naive realist, passively entrenched in mainstream views, with a spiritual seeker using psychedelics, the former - unlike the illiterate taking advantage of their ignorance - is simply going with the flow, often lacking any chance to be exposed to alternative worldviews, while the latter has an active stance of declaring oneself spiritually inept, and sealing that declaration with an appeal to external means (drugs). So the ‘how’ is different, but I agree that the ‘what’ is essentially the same. I guess my antipathy for abdicating our own potential through drugs pushed me to focus on the difference, rather than on the common underlying logic. In the big scheme of things, exploring the spiritual through drugs is just another failed attempts to attain the spiritual. Which brings me back to my initial question about my personal weakness expressed the question, i.e. lack of interactive approach, and more. Thanks for helping me bring things into focus!

[Anthony66]

What I'm trying to provoke you with in terms of received wisdom is not that of the tele evangelist but rather the post-reformation, broadly Protestant evangelical Christianity that I'm familiar with. But the broader church, particularly the Western church has generally viewed with suspicion those mystics, occultists, and esotericists who have sought mystical union this side of heaven.

What is the difference?

If I may say, I am confused how much you like to focus on this topic, because the reason you are focusing on it - the possibilities of meaningful development which could be gained from this focus - doesn't even seem to clear to you. It sounds more like an annoying song which got stuck in your head and now you just feel forced to keep singing it.

Do you agree that scripture cannot be equated with "post-reformation, broadly Protestant evangelical Christianity that I'm familiar with", and that even the English translations of scripture you are familiar with cannot be equated to their full depth of meaning, which can only be revealed through our own evolving consciousness?

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and [a]behaving like mere men? 4For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
...
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

There are countless similar passages to this, which the post-reformation etc. crowd completely ignores or reduces to its most physicalized, 'metaphorical' meaning, i.e. they make no connection whatsoever to our own evolving, thinking consciousness. What do you think is going on here - why is there such a discrepancy?

The difference between the tele evangelist and the evangelical Christianity I refer to is the latter does have a depth of associated scholarship albeit as you have repeatedly highlighted, at a level of abstraction.

Indeed evangelical Christianity is an annoying song in my head. I thought I had banished it, but now the last line of the banal chorus is playing again. Hopefully the sounds of Bach will drive it out as I obtain to higher forms of thinking.

There is therapy out there for ex-evangelicals One may know the limitations and shortfalls of the former ways but the grip is hard to break.

[AshvinP]

What I'm trying to provoke you with in terms of received wisdom is not that of the tele evangelist but rather the post-reformation, broadly Protestant evangelical Christianity that I'm familiar with. But the broader church, particularly the Western church has generally viewed with suspicion those mystics, occultists, and esotericists who have sought mystical union this side of heaven.

What is the difference?

If I may say, I am confused how much you like to focus on this topic, because the reason you are focusing on it - the possibilities of meaningful development which could be gained from this focus - doesn't even seem to clear to you. It sounds more like an annoying song which got stuck in your head and now you just feel forced to keep singing it.

Do you agree that scripture cannot be equated with "post-reformation, broadly Protestant evangelical Christianity that I'm familiar with", and that even the English translations of scripture you are familiar with cannot be equated to their full depth of meaning, which can only be revealed through our own evolving consciousness?

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and [a]behaving like mere men? 4For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
...
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

There are countless similar passages to this, which the post-reformation etc. crowd completely ignores or reduces to its most physicalized, 'metaphorical' meaning, i.e. they make no connection whatsoever to our own evolving, thinking consciousness. What do you think is going on here - why is there such a discrepancy?

The difference between the tele evangelist and the evangelical Christianity I refer to is the latter does have a depth of associated scholarship albeit as you have repeatedly highlighted, at a level of abstraction.

Indeed evangelical Christianity is an annoying song in my head. I thought I had banished it, but now the last line of the banal chorus is playing again. Hopefully the sounds of Bach will drive it out as I obtain to higher forms of thinking.

There is therapy out there for ex-evangelicals One may know the limitations and shortfalls of the former ways but the grip is hard to break.

It's interesting that these scholars will readily accept the fact that the qualitative experience of Love cannot be defined or 'proven' with intellectual arguments, yet when it comes to nature of God, Consciousness, etc., the intellectuals are armed and ready with reams of apologetic arguments which are supposed to 'prove' their existence to us. Take the arguments for the historical reality of the Resurrection, for ex. Of course there is always some limited value with investigating the events of history, but to jump from that to the idea that one can "prove" that God condescended himself into flesh, an act of supreme Love, and died for humanity, another act of supreme Love, to be spiritually raised and make possible the raising up of all other humans, is quite the leap in logic. It refuses to consider that understanding of God and what they have done for us, just like understanding of Love, must be sought within the sphere of our own living experience.

As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he declared. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few leading women.

The Jews, however, became jealous. So they brought in some troublemakers from the marketplace, formed a mob, and sent the city into an uproar.
...
As soon as night had fallen, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

We should appreciate the forces really at work in these purely intellectual spheres, whether fundamentalist Chritians or anti-Christian skeptics. It's very much the topic of our interests/desires that we were also discussing in re: psychedelics. What one makes group a ravenous mob against esoteric spiritual understanding, and another a noble-minded and eager brotherhood, is not the logic of the arguments made from the scripture, but the soul disposition of the hearers/readers, their various ingrained habits, desires and antipathies. It's also the asymmetry of understanding at work. As Cleric mentioned to Jim on the forum thread, the esoteric vantage can understand the objections of the exoteric perspective very well, but not vice versa. The esoteric can show compassion for the exoteric, because it can see where the latter fits into the holistic tapestry of spiritual evolution, but the exoteric, lacking such discernment, reacts to the esoteric with confusion and fear and hatred.

As we often say, the real value in studying the intellectual philosophy, religion, and science is found in understanding the mode of thinking - the degrees of freedom - which evolved within us to make these questions, such as those about the 'historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection', and the arguments in favor or against it, possible. During not too distant past epochs of our evolution, such questions and arguments would not even have been possible for us to cognize and express and investigate. If we turn our focus to this inner activity in its living transformations, then we are truly investigating the Divine within - the very activity which is constantly sacrificing itself so that our consciousness may be raised to ever-higher levels of existential meaning and become a selflessly creative force in the Cosmos.