Arnold Toynbee has clearly delineated the prevailing attitudes and convictions about the nature of “spirituality.” This opinion however is a gross distortion, the consequences of which are fraught with dangers for those who legitimately seek out the “higher” things in life. Our Psychies, which include not only our subconscious drives, but also our egos and our thinking processes are notoriously unstable in the sense that what we think or feel at any given time can easily shift and change. Moreover, they fail to embrace the totality of what we are as human beings. That spirituality should have its foundation on such “shifting sands” belies its intrinsic nature, for
Spirituality, if it be True and Real,
must be established on more solid ground .
At the same time, it ignores what is most central to our nature as human beings made in the image of God. It almost inevitably follows that Spirituality has become divorced from religion, from true intellectuality, from reason, and even from common sense; and that some of the most bazaar cults get characterized as religion.4One of the reasons for this is that currently there is considerable confusion between “religion” and “belief systems.” Indeed,
there is an attempt on the part of certain academics to reduce all religions to “belief systems” that have somehow “caught on” and become accepted by large numbers of people. But there is a distinction to be made between them, for genuine religions are based on Revelation which provide them with a fixed creed, code and cult that is independent of any individual thought or feeling, while belief systems not based on revelation are inevitably subject to human opinion One recognizes of course that many founders of sects base themselves partially on revelation - accepting what they like and rejecting what they find offensive - and that almost all of them claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. But the fact remains that all of them are based in part, if not completely, on the thinking and understanding of a human person.
The problem is that such thinking and feeling resides in the psyche and is subject to illusion, a problem that can only be avoided by adhering to a fixed external source. Unfortunately, many religions representatives currently attack the revealed basis of their faith in an attempt to accommodate them to the values of the modern world which in effect reduces them to the same level as other belief systems.
Many people like to describe themselves as “non-believers.” I have never met a “nonbeliever.” Most people believe in evolution and that they themselves are the product of an ongoing evolution which makes them more intelligent than their ancestors. They believe in the inevitable progress of mankind towards a united humanity which will be socialist in its organization (without however reducing their personal holdings). They admit that things aren’t perfect yet, but with the help of science such defects can be corrected. In essence they are sincerely convinced in the perfectability of the world, and above all of man. This evolutionary secular “vision” was well described by H. G. Wells’ Outline of History in the 20's which clearly replaced the Glory of God with the principle of Homo Mensura - man as the measure of all things. Many of these ideas may not be clearly thought out or formulated, but then the same can be said of the belief system of many Catholics - it is simply accepted without much thought.Behind all this confusion is a certain “self image” of what we are as human beings. It is easy for philosophers to specify the origin of this self image, but most people don’t read philosophy or even think in terms of the nature of man. However, it is useful to have some idea of the philosophical background involved. Now in some ways one can trace this back to the fall of Adam, but more immediately, we can start with Descartes. Descartes taught that all reality could be encompassed by and was limited by what he called res extensa (basically what had extension and therefore could be measured, and res cogitans, or what we could think about. Such ideas took some time to permeate society, but from the middle of the 1800s this Decartian dualism has been the philosophical bedrock of scientific endeavor, as well as a great influence on all branches of academia, as well as the political and social order.
This Cartesian self image is vastly different from that which virtually all of mankind held prior to relatively modern times. Because of our convictions about progress and evolution we have blinded ourselves to other possibilities. How could we even consider examining the opinions of our forefathers prior to the time of Descartes? We might study them as part of a historical survey - usually in slightly distorted form - but to take seriously what they said and apply it in our own lives, that would be foolish, like attempting to reverse the hands of the clock. And so it is that we stuck with our self image and refuse to consider any alternative. It may surprise us to know that our self image is not exactly new. Boethius in the fifth century commented that those who think man is only an animal who reasons have forgotten who and what they are. Be this as it may, let us for a moment consider the more traditional (traditional in the sense of “handed down”) view of man. If one agrees that most of our belief systems are based on feelings and thoughts - all properties that, as will be shown, lie within the realm of the psyche - it follows that it becomes impossible to criticize any given belief system.
As everyone’s psyche and thoughts are of equal value, it follows that all religions and belief systems are of equal value because everyone’s truth or beliefs - providing they do not create a problem for others - become acceptable. For one to say that any given cult or religion is false is an act of presumption which no one dares to express. Moreover, it is thought that it this kind of exclusive outlook that has led to conflict and war - all in the name of God - and hence such attitudes must be eschewed .(It should be noted however that it is, as St,. Paul said, “our lusts and our greeds” that are the cause of war, and however much we like to indulge these in the name of Gods or Democracy, they remain the root cause of conflicts.) In the practical order, whatever works for an individual is considered acceptable. And indeed, psychiatrists are now recognizing that “religion” has its use in that it helps people face problems in life, and a belief in the afterlife makes death easier to deal with.5
This Traditional view sees man as consisting of three parts, Spirit, Psyche (which includes our usual thinking processes) and Body. The following table outlines this in various cultures:
One should add that the Spirit in Hindu and Buddhist terminology is referred to as the Atman; in Egyptian as Amon, in the Jewish tradition as Ruah6 and in the Chinese as Ch’i (Tai Ch’i or Wu Ch’i to avoid the limited meaning of Ch’i in martial arts ). Again, the mediaeval theologians and physicians distinguished between Animus vel Intellectus and Anima which referred to the psyche and which included the mind or mental processes. It is perhaps unfortunate that the term “soul” is currently used for both Animus and Anima, but such is inevitable in so far as many
contemporary theologians, while giving lip service to the Spirit, are in the practical order Cartesians.7
Even though traditional psychologies often speak of a tripartite anthropology, The Psyche and Body are frequently classified together as the lesser “self” or “ego.” Thus it is that we have St. Thomas Aquinas teaching “duo sunt in homine,” (There are two in man) and St. Paul speaking about the Law of his members being opposed to the law of his mind (Rom. 7:23)8
The Body and the psyche are conceptually merged for two reasons. 1) the Body in se has no directive force. It needs some higher “power” like the psyche to tell it what to do, or at least to go along with it; and
2) both the body and the psyche lack permanence or consistency in so far as hey are always in flux, or in a state of what the theologians call “becoming.” Note that I, or rather, traditional psychologies, have equated the lesser self with the ego. Theologians use the term ego in a slightly different sense than Freudian psychologists do. They both agree that self-centeredness - what, when excessive is called by psychologists malignant narcissism resides in the ego, but while the psychologist speaks in terms of “ego strengths,” the theologian sees egoity as equivalent to pride and seeks to control or convert this lesser self by having it accept the direction of the Spirit. Its refusal to do so renders the individual as “self-ish.”In such a state the lesser self or ego is in conflict with the Spirit, and thus many individuals are “at war with themselves.” Now the ego resides in the realm of the psyche (for it clearly is neither in the body nor the Spirit), and is in itself a very nebulous entity. As n said, “our ego is nothing but a name for what is really only a sequence of observed behaviors.” Or again, Albert Ellis: “this ‘I’ is an ongoing ever changing process.” Yet the psyche (including our thoughts) and how we see ourselves is to a great extent organized around our egos. It is its very potential for change which makes this lesser self the subject of psychiatric endeavor.
As opposed to this lesser and inconsistent “self” - the self or “selves” that psychiatrists and psychologists deal with and attempt to modify,9 the traditional psychologies hold that Man also has a higher or inner Self.
This inner Self, often distinguished by the use of a capital S, goes by many names, some of which have been lis ted above. It is seen as “divine,” is often described as the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit,” the scholastic “Synteresis,” the Hindu “source of the breaths” or Atman, the Arabic “Ruh,” Philo’s “Soul of the soul, “ and Plato’s “Inner Man” etc. etc. Such a metaphysical outlook further presumes that the average person is “at war with himself” precisely because these two selves are in conflict and that true sanity or wholeness is ultimately to found only in the saint whose two selves are at one - the essential nature of “at-onement” or “atonement,” a state in which the “lamb and the lion” can be said to lie down together. As Socrates prayed: “may my outer and my inner man be one.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that tranquility and happiness can only result from the ordered life, by which he means that Spirit, Psyche and Body must be ordered or “lined up” properly - any departure from the order to end being sinful. It is in this sense that we speak of someone being in control of him-self and admonish the distraught to “get hold of your self” or “pull yourself together.” It is also in this sense that one can speak of some forms of mental illness as a “dis -order.”10
On the practical level it is clear that one can center one’s life in the Body, in the Psyche or in the Spirit. The latter of course demands that we not do “as we like,” but “as we should.” From a metaphysical viewpoint, to chose to center our lives in our psyches is to ascribe to ourselves the property of discerning what is true and false - and as the Jewish Fathers state, to make oneself the source of truth is the greatest form of idolatry. It is to declare that “we will not serve,” that we are gods unto ourselves, a condition which in the last analysis is nothing other than pride.
Many new age belief systems declare that we are in fact gods unto ourselves..11 And even those who declare that they will decide for themselves what is true are unwittingly playing the same game. It is important for us to understand in just what sense traditional religions envision the indwelling of God in man. Turning to St. Teresa of Avila’s explanation, we are told: "It is often of the greatest importance, that you should understand this truth, namely that God dwells within you and that there we should dwell with Him... Let us not imagine that the interior of our hearts is empty... And to understand how God is always present in our soul, let us listen to St. John of the Cross, another distinguished master of the science of the saints: 'In order to know how to find this Bridegroom, we must bear in mind that the Word, the Son of God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is hidden in essence and is present in the inmost being of the soul... And this is why St. Augustine, speaking to God, said: 'I do not find Thee without, O Lord, because I had no right to seek Thee there, for Thou are within.' God is therefore hidden within the soul." (A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza I).12
St. John of the Cross continues later on to explain this more at length, remarking that God may be present in the soul in three different ways: "To explain this," he says, "
it must be observed that there are three ways in which God is present in the soul. The first is His presence in essence, and in this respect He dwells not only in souls that are good and holy, but likewise in those that are bad and sinful, and indeed, in all creatures; for it is this presence that gives them life and being, and if it were once withdrawn they would cease to exist and would return to their original nothing. Now this kind of presence never fails in the soul. The second manner of god's presence is by grace, when He dwells in the soul pleased and satisfied with it. This presence of God is not in all souls, because those who commit a mortal sin lose it. The third kind of presence of God is by means of spiritual affection; for God is want to show His presence in many devout souls in divers ways of refreshment, joy and gladness." St. Theresa continues:"Of the first kind of divine presence we can never be deprived. The second we must procure for ourselves with all the powers of the soul, and we must guard it at any cost. The third isn't within our power. God gives to whom He pleases."
To say that God dwells within each and everyone of us is not Pantheism. Indeed Pantheism is a fairly modernist concept, for other societies who give God’s many manifestations a variety of names, have, to my knowledge, never denied the unity of God. What then of Pantheism? It is the idea that God is in everything and everything is in God - as such, no demands are made on us to either worship Him or conform to His commands. It is one thing to proclaim the immanence of God in all creation_ for clearly He is immanent in all things_and quite another to deny His transcendence. Both are realities. Transcendence without immanence cuts us off from the Divine, Immanence without transcendence cuts the Divine off from us. Both the Transcendent and the Immanent must go together because of the duality “Principle and Manifestation.” While the Supreme Principle in itself is neither transcendent nor immanent, but “that which it is,” on the plane of manifestation one needs a transcendent Creator and the resulting creation needs immanence for its very existence. And both are united in the theophany, in the Logos, the Man-God. From our human point of view one can say that transcendence annihilates the manifestation, while immanence ennobles it. In accord with religious expression, on the one hand, transcendence reduces man to “sinner” and “slave”, and on the other hand, thanks to. immanence, he is also is a “child of God” and His “Representative” on earth. These two can be said to meet in the Man-God: for if on the one hand “God alone is Good”, on the other, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. This brings us back to the issue of prayer, one cannot pray to oneself, but only to a transcendent God.13Those that recognize the indwelling of the Holy Spirit immediately recognize that Truth. Justice and a host of other values, cannot depend upon our feelings or even our personal thoughts. There has to be some “outside” source or criteria to which one can appeal, or to which one’s thoughts can conform. This may be as a result of that immanence we have referred to above, or based on transcendent principles. Despite all the theories about the super-ego, patients, like the rest of us, often “know” when they are doing something wrong. As mentioned earlier,
we have an “intellectus vel spiritus (not to be confused with the commonly understood meaning of intellect which is just clever thinking) that can direct our thoughts and will. The problem is that when one relies on “immanence,” one runs the risk of error, for the Intellectus can be distorted, or as St. Paul said, “we see through a glass darkly.”
Adam before the fall “walked and talked with God.” His intellect had a clear vision and understanding of Truth and Reality. After the fall his disobedience and self-will clouded his intellect, leading to his expulsion from Paradise.
Adam, originally made in the “image and likeness” of God, lost that likeness which it is our task to regain. Our intellects, while capable of apprehending Truth and Reality, are distorted by our passions and personal opinions. Hence it follows that,
unlike Adam who before the fall “walked and talked with God,”we have need of a Revelation which provides us with a clear cut source of Truth and direction.Freud found that patients did in fact have a sense of right and wrong. Being a convinced Decartian which precluded the possibility of a “superconsciousness,” he had to find the source for this in what he called the “super-ego” which he related to the subconscious and the ego which were formed by both society and parental pressures. Granted our morality is greatly influenced by family and society; it is also based on external principles, but this, which Freud philosophically denied, forced him to develop his theory of the super-ego. Jung threw the public a bone in accepting God, but then went on to show that God and the various “archtypes” all had their source in the subconscious. We are in many ways stuck with a psychology based on Decartian principles, and while at times we may use the Intellectus, in the practical order we deny its existence.
We have made a distinction between a “religion” and a “belief system” in that a religion is based on Revelation, on a code, cult and creed that is fixed and external to the individual. Indeed, Webster’s Dictionary defines
a religion as an “adoration of God... as expressed in formal worship in obedience to divine commands...” A “belief system” is based upon what some individual has thought was worthy of belief, and frequently is accepted because the “collective unconscious” of the prevailing society finds it acceptable. As mentioned above, t
here is a tendency of scholars to describe true religions as “belief systems” that somehow caught on, but such fails to recognize the nature of true religions.1415Immediately one hears the protest of those who declare that nobody is going to tell them how to think or behave. They insist on the freedom to decide these things for themselves. And this is quite understandable in one whose whole outlook is based on the Decartian principle that we consist of Body and Mind. If that is all we are, then indeed, they have a right to such a stand, for your mind and body has no more authority than mine.16 .
This tendency to place not only good, but also evil within the realm of the psyche has increasingly been accepted in the public arena. As a result one rarely hears evil spoken of, for evil implies a choice which evolutionary reductionism to a great extent denies..Evil is seen as the end result of childhood traumas or societal pressures. The fact that man is endowed with an Intellect (to know the Truth and what is right and wrong) and a Will, by which he can choose is almost forgotten. Belief systems based on the psyche rarely have a fixed morality with which to face such realities. Indeed, our moral codes are to a great extent based on public opinion which of course can be easily manipulated. We shall be examining Spiritism as a belief system, more as a case in point, but before doing so let us consider some of the problems that result from the Decartian outlook which places values and spirituality in the realm of the psyche..One direct result of all this is that we no longer have a basis for morality. Serving on ethics committees at hospitals it is clear to one that decisions are
made by vote, never on principle. This is not to deny that those involved do their best and vote according to their conscience, but only to say that any person’s conscience is only as good or as bad as his neighbor’s. More recently Princeton University has hired a Dr. Singer who has developed new criteria for deciding about the life and death of children, namely determining if they are “sentient.” If not, they can be sacrificed in the name of - I don’t know what “god.” It is forgotten that these were the criteria used by the Nazi regime to slaughter schizophrenics and others in mental hospitals.
Another major problem that results is a false spirituality, a spirituality based more on feeling than on principle, a spirituality grounded in the psyche rather than the Spirit. . Many people, aware of the fact that crass materialism - in one sense the level of the body - is insufficient to satisfy a certain inner hunger, seek for something “spiritual” in their lives. Where to look? The answer is in the Psyche, and not in the Spirit the existence of which they deny.17 They turn to music, art, or a host of other interests such as ecology, ecumenism and world government, many of which they label as having their source in the “spirit,” but which in the long run doesn’t feed their hunger for something real. And those who guide them - often for a hefty price - are happy to keep them in the psyche.
Religion has become a discouraging collection of cliches and sentimentalities, more concerned with social issues than with Truth. Our religious spokesmen are no longer trusted or respected, for they too, despite lip service, are Descartians.