The Temptation of the Esoteric

 Ancient mysteries, hidden secrets, the wisdom of the ancients. Whose imagination isn't stirred by the idea of arcane knowledge preserved from initiates of the distant past? The magic of Egypt, the mysticism of India, the occultism of Tibet can all be powerful drugs to the questing mind seeking to penetrate the veil between this world and the next. It's intoxicating stuff and there undoubtedly is a reality behind it all. It's not just dreams and fantasy. There is a real substance to it. But is it what spirituality is actually about, especially for us here and now in the modern West?

It's just a coincidence but esoteric and exotic do sound very similar. And it's not just the words that are alike. They both conjure up the sense of something fascinating and strange that can open up unsuspected new areas of experience. They can take you beyond the mundane and everyday and give you a feeling of superiority over ordinary people if you explore or even possess them. 

Wise teachers have always warned of the difference between magic and religion. The esoteric, even if it is spiritually focused, has much in common with magic in that it is to do with knowledge and power. It certainly appeals to those who hunger for these things and who may be motivated by that hunger. But I am always reminded of something the Masters said to me. Spiritual truth is simple but it is easy to get lost in philosophical speculations which lead nowhere. And not just philosophical speculations. Anything that is not inspired by the love of God is a spiritual sidetrack, and the esotericist is often a long way from simple faith and worship, using the word worship in what I regard as its proper sense which is loving God.

Everything changed with the advent of Christ. I appreciate this more and more as the world sinks further into spiritual darkness and Christ is neglected not just by the people but often by the churches that preach in his name  Before his time there were many forms of spirituality and they could open doors into the unknown for the qualified initiate. But they did not lead to Heaven. Those who go back to the past without fully accepting Christ are not revivifying ancient teachings that will give them access to the Mysteries. The spirit has departed from them. It was once present but is no longer and though you may be able to recreate a simulacrum of the once living and vital truth embodied by these spiritual forms, you will not find the living truth itself. That is now in Christ.

I don't know much about Freemasonry but I suspect this is why it is condemned by the Catholic Church. No doubt there is a kernel of esoteric wisdom behind its ceremonies and rituals, possibly passed down from ancient Egypt though it will have travelled a long way and perhaps been subject to the Chinese whispers effect. Nevertheless, I expect there is something there. But if Christ is not there, and as far as I can tell he isn't, that renders the whole enterprise suspect. Hidden truth without Christ is not truth. Moreover, in the case of Freemasonry, it has always been too concerned with building a New World Order. There is a definite whiff of the Tower of Babel about it.

I am not condemning the esoteric. We are called to knowledge and we should seek it out. That is our destiny and our spiritual duty. Greater knowledge will enable us to interact with both God and the universe on a deeper level. I myself have explored esoteric teachings for over 40 years as is easy nowadays when so much has been published and made widely available to anyone who can read. But I do say that if we do this we should always do it under the banner of Christ or we risk falling into illusion and worse. 

Enlightenment vs. Holiness

What would you say the spiritual path is all about? What is its intended destination? In the West until recently, apart from within a few esoteric and occult groups, there wasn't much doubt. The purpose of religion was holiness. The saints, who were the religious exemplars, were not enlightened beings whose consciousness had expanded to superhuman levels but figures of purity and sanctity who had given themselves entirely to God. Before I'm reminded that sometimes the saints did indeed experience higher states of consciousness I should point out that this was a by-product. It was not their goal or reason to pursue the spiritual path. Their motive was love of God not self-expansion.

However, over the last hundred years or so a different attitude has crept over the Western mind aspiring to spirituality. The goal of the spiritual path has in many cases become enlightenment. Partly this has arisen because of the influence from Buddhist, Hindu and other Eastern mystical teachings, but it is also because of the more pronounced individualistic strain that Western Man has exhibited since the 19th century. This has its good and its bad side. The good side is greater agency with the potential for creative thought. The bad is egotism and self-concern on a much greater level than before. We say we want to know and experience rather than accept things on authority and this is fine up to a point. We are meant to understand and grow in wisdom. But why do we want to know and experience? Is it to expand our own self (even if that is sought for by negating our own self) or is it because of a deeply felt love for our Creator? This might be expressed as a yearning for truth or aspiration to the highest we can conceive of but it must still be directed to something more than ourself.

As we enter into the period known as the End Times the situation will become more and more black and white. Our choices will narrow though it may not be seen in that way by everyone. Only if you are alert to the situation will you realise this. Neutrality will not be an option. Alternatives that may have existed in the past will disappear. They will break down into being in either one camp or the other. Take, for instance, spirituality  and Christianity. I think it has been legitimate for those in the West to explore other forms of religion and mysticism over the last 100 years but I now believe that those who have wandered away from Christ to pursue alternative spiritual options must start to return to him. They may have a wider perspective having departed and now returned than they would have had if they had never left. But they must now return. As things are moving, it is not enough to reject the material and take up the spiritual. The spiritual will be absorbed by the worldly unless it becomes Christian. I am speaking for the West and to those of traditionally Christian cultures. Those in the East will be confronted with their own test but I imagine it will amount to the same examination of the heart.

For well over a century Westerners have turned to the East for spiritual enlightenment. How many have become enlightened in the sense that the Buddha was enlightened? I am going to chance my arm and say none. Many have claimed enlightenment but this usually just amounts to some mystical insight and experience mistaken for more than it was. And the reason that none have become enlightened is that this is not the intended spiritual goal. We are not called to a supreme state of consciousness in this world. We are here to learn self-sacrifice in love, love meaning love of God. We accept suffering as Christ did because we do the Father's will. It is not his will that we suffer but it is his will that we renounce the ego so that the self may be sanctified and become the phoenix that rises from the ashes of the lower self.

Note: I am aware that various forms of gnosticism had something equivalent to enlightenment as their goal but this was generally not regarded as the correct way. The attempt to be spiritual without God is a perennial temptation, one which leans towards the luciferian rather than the Christian using that word to describe the spirit behind it rather than the actual religion.

The Mind is its Own Place

Perhaps the best known quote from Paradise Lost runs like this. "The mind is its own place and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." I was familiar with this quote, though not in its context, and always assumed it to be a kind of Buddhist-like statement referring to the primacy of consciousness and how the truly spiritual person can be at peace wherever he is and whatever his external circumstances. It seems a wise saying of the sort that any advanced practitioner of meditation might come up with.

Imagine my surprise then when, in my recent reading of Paradise Lost, I found out who actually says these words. It is Satan. He has just landed in hell and it is clear that he speaks from a sense of bravado, not detached wisdom at all. This set me thinking and what I realised was that this statement, at first glance profound, is actually highly dubious. For what it is saying is that we don't need God. We can create heaven all by ourself, wherever we are, just by the power of our own mind. We are supreme. It is essentially a magical rather than a spiritual belief, relying as it does on the action of will and imagination with no moral aspect to it.

This struck me with particular force because so much modern spirituality is all to do with acquiring spiritual gifts by the force of our own will and desire. It is approaching the spiritual from the standpoint of the material personality or fallen self, trying to take from God rather than becoming a humble supplicant before him. But this was not what Christ taught and the notes in my copy of Paradise Lost, which come from an edition of 1898, make the following point. "These lines are always quoted as particularly Miltonic rather than diabolic in their sentiment; but no doctrine is taught more consistently in the poem than that disobedience to God causes misery, and that no stoicism can dispel from the wicked the feeling of wretchedness and despair. The Stoic doctrine, that the wise man is king of circumstances and perfect in himself is shown by Christ (in Paradise Regained book iv verses 300-308) to be the offspring of philosophic pride and delusion."

Here, then, is a classic example of a quote meaning almost the opposite of what it is taken to mean because it is used out of context. The idea that we, by ourselves, can become spiritual is clearly false but it is a deep-rooted one in the human psyche which wishes to acquire all the benefits of spiritual consciousness without fitting itself properly to receive that.

This quote also devalues heaven. If we only have to change our mental attitude in order to enter it then it is not something much better than what we already are. I am not saying we do not have to alter our mental attitude to become worthy of it but that is a different thing. Heaven is not created by our own mind (or consciousness if you prefer the term, it makes no odds). It is of God and he alone can grant right of entry.

None of this means that we should not work on our mind to make it a fit receptacle for heavenly inspiration or that we shouldn't attempt to cultivate the kind of inner detachment that is not affected by outer circumstances. That goes without saying. The mind truly is its own place and can certainly make the best or worst of any given situation. But it cannot make heaven. That is a popular New Age fallacy which derives from the egotistical notion that you can do without God or even are God yourself once you realise the fact. This idea is actually sinful because it replaces God with self. God may be in us but we are not God. No wonder this statement comes from the mouth of the devil.

Jesus Wept

I have often written about what I regard as the spiritual superiority of theistic Christianity over a non-theistic religion of enlightenment and realisation in which the emptiness or unreality of the self is perceived and the pure consciousness of the absolute attained.  Not that I deny or belittle this state in any way.  I have the greatest respect for the achievement of the Buddha as I do for the profound psychological teachings of Buddhism, but I think there is something more. Something that is encapsulated in those two words, Jesus wept.

Let us recall the situation that prompted these tears. Lazarus had died and when his grieving sisters took Jesus to see the body four days later he wept. Jesus had human emotions! I remember reading this ages ago and being taken aback. Why did Jesus weep? Wasn't he a superhuman sage, above all that kind of thing? And didn't he know he could bring Lazarus back to life? To be honest I'm still slightly puzzled about this but what I take from it now, and wish to highlight here, is that Jesus loved.  He was not so detached that he had no humanity. He felt, and he felt deeply. He valued the individual. He loved the person.

And if that is the case it means that the person is real, not just an illusionary state to be transcended and seen through when wisdom dawns, but real, eternally real. Why would Jesus weep for what didn't exist? And, even if he knew he could restore Lazarus to life, he could still shed tears for present suffering, individual suffering. Non-dualistic religion has this similarity to materialism or any ideology in which God is not completely central. Ultimately, when you strip everything down to the bone, the person as a real entity does not exist. Personhood can only exist for us if it exists for God. And if it does not exist for God then nor does it for us, and so, while there may be enlightenment and blissfulness and peace and such like, there is no love (or, for that matter, beauty since beauty depends on the dual reality of the one and the many, and the fact of the hierarchy of existence).

But there is love and it goes right to the very heart of existence for God does have personhood and so do we since he created us in his image and gave us individuated parts of himself as our very being

And that is why Jesus wept.

Is mystical experience the final goal?

This question refers to a point made in the last post and, by implication at least, touches on the important matter of what the self, if it exists, is actually for.

Q. Can you elaborate a bit on why you say that mystical experience is not the goal of the spiritual life. You said that in your book and you also mentioned it in a recent post. Surely once a person has attained full unity consciousness there is nowhere else to go? If enlightenment, which I am taking as the summation of all mystical experience, is not the goal then what is?

A. Let's get our definitions in order first. Can we agree that the basis of mystical experience is usually said to be the withdrawal of attention from all external objects and created things, outer and inner including oneself, and the subsequent focus on pure being? There are other, perhaps lesser, forms of mysticism, such as nature mysticism or one-pointed devotion to a deity, but when one talks of mysticism in the context of the search for enlightenment, this is what we are talking about. The entry into pure being. The advanced mystic (that is, one who has not just touched this state but fully embraced or been embraced by it) might come back into the phenomenal world but henceforth his unique focal point is the undifferentiated oneness of uncreated reality. 

Some call this the experience of God, others the essence of our own true being, and many mystics maintain that there is not much difference at this stage. But is the attaining of this state really the whole object of the spiritual journey? As I have said before, at one time I might have thought it was, and, as far as I can see, it is for Buddhism and advaita Vedanta. But there is a problem. Even if one comes back from this state and preaches its virtues to other spiritual enquirers there is still a whiff of solipsism about it. The enlightened one wants nothing and nobody. He may have a blanket universal compassion for all living beings still caught up in the illusions of this world, but he himself in himself is remote, distant, uninvolved, detached. He resides in eternity and so cannot really relate to anyone else. For some this may imply completion but others might see an inner solitariness like this as a kind of limitation.

What I am feeling my way towards here is that whatever is behind this created world and our created selves (which, for ease of reference, let us call God) did not just send us out into phenomenal existence for us to come back no different from when we started. What would be the point of that? He (and I use that pronoun a) because I believe God to be personal, and b) because I think the masculine pronoun most accurately describes the nature of the Creator, see here for why) had a purpose. That purpose was not for individual units of consciousness to be absorbed back into pure being with their individuality dissolved but for them to become living Sons and Daughters of God themselves. And this, crucially, does not demand a return to original being with all experience gained from this world just thrown away because it is meaningless, but the full integration of being and becoming with the soul made perfect not just, for want of a better word, binned. Not the abandonment of the Many for the One or of difference for sameness but the recognition that both are part of the whole, two sides of the same divine coin, and only through the perfected union of both can the Good, the Beautiful and the True take form and be known. So the spiritual journey, once it leaves the plains of conventional religion and outer worship and begins to climb, may start its ascent with a quest for inner enlightenment and personal oneness with God, or life as the impersonalists would have it, through the emptying or denial of self. But it is not complete until the mystical path becomes the path of holiness and perfection, and self, instead of being regarded as unreal, sinful, the product of ignorance or an impediment, is seen as a gift to be voluntarily offered up in love as the vessel for grace once it is fully purified of all worldly stain and egotism. 

Therefore, in contrast to Buddhism and similar philosophies, in this scheme of things the individual self is not rejected but renewed. To be sure, the old self, the personal or separate self, must die but selfness lives on as the means through which God's grace and glory can be made manifest. For just as abstract reality can only properly be revealed through concrete form so the Universal requires the Individual in order to manifest and to make itself known. God is a combination of the two and so must we be. This melding of absolute and relative is what I mean by the integration of being and becoming, and its necessity in the overall pattern of spiritual unfoldment is why I think of advaita and Buddhism as being but stages on the road to God or godliness not the true goal. Advanced stages, certainly, but not the full destination because they have a one-sided view of ultimate reality.

Through mystical experience we can cure ourselves of the idea that our selves are absolutely real in themselves, and enter into the knowledge of oneness. But we must then use that knowledge or realisation not to dismiss the self but to adorn it and make of it a house fit for the Lord to dwell in. The non-dualist must take his non-duality and, with it, re-enter and re-embrace duality. For self is not an illusion or unreal but the very purpose of existence, and the goal of the spiritual life is not enlightenment but theosis or the divinization of the self which, after full purification, is transformed by grace and made utterly new.

Why Am I Not Enlightened?

Here is a question which expresses a common or even a persistent problem, but one that really comes from looking at things the wrong way round. What I mean by that should become clearer further on.

Q. I have been a seeker of enlightenment for nearly forty years now.  When I first started out on this path I was full of enthusiasm and hope, and genuinely thought that the goal was attainable in this life.  I mastered meditation to the extent that I could enter into deep states of peace, and had several profound spiritual experiences. However after a while my spiritual life seemed to stagnate. I stopped progressing and my attainments seemed to dry up. Now as I approach my seventh decade I feel I am no nearer to the goal than when I started out. What do you think your Masters would advise in my case?

A. To start off with I must make clear that I no longer have any outer contact with the Masters and have not done so since 1999. So I can't say what they would advise. However, based on things they said to me, as well as my own understanding, I would make the following points. 


First of all, I would ask you a question. What has been your motive in following the spiritual path? What were you hoping to gain from it? That's a rhetorical question because the answer is clear from your own words. You were hoping to gain enlightenment. So I would now ask you, why? Why do you seek enlightenment? That may seem a strange thing to ask. After all, assuming enlightenment exists, why would anyone not seek it? But that's the problem. We have been told that if we seek we will find, but we might equally well have been told that if we seek we will not find. It all depends on why we seek because in the spiritual world motive is all, and the only proper motive on the spiritual path is love. That is why Jesus said that we should love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. This is the most important commandment but it is one often forgotten by the modern mystic or contemporary seeker who only looks inside himself for truth. But without this love you will never find what you are looking for because it, and it alone, provides the true self-forgetfulness that takes you beyond egotistical searching. No knowledge or insight can replace it or make up for it if it is not present. The fact is that enlightenment will never be found by one who seeks it. This is the well-known paradox, but the solution is not not to seek it (if you don't seek, you certainly won't find), nor is it to assume that it is already there and you only have to realise it. That will just lead to self-deception with intellectual enlightenment the best you can hope for. The solution is to seek but to seek from love rather than desire. If you ask me how to kindle this love if it doesn't already exist I can only suggest that you try to forget yourself and your goals, and concentrate instead on the good, the beautiful and the true. God is transcendent as well as immanent and will only be found by those who recognise that and all that it implies. Open yourself up to the vertical.

Having said that, I would now suggest that you put aside ideas about enlightenment altogether.  I have often used the word both here and elsewhere but I'm not convinced that the concept is in any way helpful, not in the sense of a spiritually perfected completion. It really only exists in Buddhism, and with the many contemporary false claimants to enlightenment the whole idea has become trivialised and spiritually polluted anyway. Far better just to meditate, pray and work to cleanse yourself of all psychic and psychological impurities and habits formed from faulty identification with the external sheaths of your being, and then let the divine power that rules the universe do the rest in the time that it thinks good not that you do. Otherwise put, simply serve God and do his will as you think it may apply to you at the point you are now. That is a much wiser course than to chase after enlightenment. Spiritual growth will come when you least expect it and in ways you may not anticipate. So don't project yourself into an unknown future but be faithful to and serve your divine source here and now without expectation of reward. This may seem unexciting but it is the best way to make the progress you currently desire.

It's very common to seem to make rapid strides initially but then find that everything, as you put it, dries up. This is partly because of action and reaction. Perhaps you over-reacted to the spiritual highs and so had to suffer the corresponding lows, but it's also a test of your resolve. You were given openings into the higher life but then thrown back into this world and your everyday mind to see what you make of that. To see if you can integrate your spiritual awareness into the fabric of your being. To become it, in fact, and not have it dependent on, let's be honest, spiritual pleasures and rewards. 

The long and short of this is that enlightenment is not the goal of the spiritual life. As I was taught by the Masters the purpose of the spiritual path is to develop love of God and his creation, including mankind, intuitive awareness of 'what is' and self-forgetfulness. It is, furthermore, to become a co-creator with God through service to his will in manifesting the higher realities in this world. In essence, it is to become a pure channel for the light but for the sake of the light not for your own sake. Of course, this brings its own rewards and its own joy because by following such a course you are fulfilling your own true nature and purpose, but that is not a personal thing.

I've already written something about  this here and you might wish to read that post in conjunction with this one.

Another Question on Enlightenment

This question refers to a perennial problem for the spiritual seeker, though it's more of a perceived problem than a real one as I hope to make clear in my response.

Q. How can you tell if someone who claims to be enlightened really is so? The past several decades have shown countless gurus and spiritual teachers to have feet of clay, and even though the myth of the all-wise, God-realized guru has taken a knock in recent times, and spiritual seekers are more cautious than they used to be, there are still many teachers around today who either say or imply that they are enlightened. How can you know if they are genuine or blind leaders of the blind?

A. If you are actually asking how do you know if a teacher is qualified to teach then I would say that you don't need to be enlightened to be a spiritual teacher. If that were the case there would be very few spiritual teachers. But often the best teacher is someone not too far ahead of the student, someone who can share in their difficulties and identify with their problems from his or her own recent experience. You don't need to be enlightened to be a competent spiritual guide and to know the fundamental mechanics of the path.

But if you are asking for some kind of sign which will enable you to recognise full spiritual realization then I must tell you that there is none. Or, at least, there is no infallible test available to an ordinary person using ordinary means. You might think that the peace you feel in a teacher's presence is a good indication that they are the genuine article but being the genuine article does not mean you are enlightened, besides which people can imagine peace because of a pleasant atmosphere, uplifting surroundings or the reverence with which a teacher is treated by his disciples. Feelings, either yours or those of others, cannot be a reliable guide unless you are absolutely clear where they come from and what they are based on.

Ultimately only one enlightened person can truly recognise another. Until then we have to rely on common sense and intuition. If a person does not behave in a way appropriate for a true saint they are not enlightened. You can forget all the crazy wisdom nonsense. Whatever powers they might possess (or appear to), whatever knowledge or wisdom they might have, whatever their apparent authority or oratorical ability, if they do not embody true love and humility they are not enlightened. And even if they do possess such qualities that does not necessarily mean they are enlightened either because real enlightenment is not just a matter of insight or understanding or even love, as these are understood in human terms. It is not just a question of perceiving the non-dual background to life or realizing that all is consciousness. There are many stages on the path that are often imagined to be its conclusion but the fact is that true enlightenment is rare and hard to attain now as much as ever. It is so because it requires the complete transcendence of identification with self which is not a theoretical or even an experiential thing and which does not come about as a result of knowledge or through meditation (even though these are essential), but as a result of purification and sacrifice, and is usually only achieved through suffering which is the one fire that burns out ego though that is not a very popular thing to say nowadays.

Enlightenment means illumination which tells us that light is the key here. An enlightened person is someone in whom the light shines. The light can only shine clearly when all impediments to it have been removed, and the reason for spiritual practice is to remove these blocks which manifest in the form of self-centred feelings, bad habits, attachments, thoughts based on ignorance and the residue of past actions springing from these which have left their mark on us, stamped into our aura as it were. The spiritual path relates to the cleansing of the aura which is why the ennoblement of the imagination is so important. Only a thoroughly purified and completely refined aura can receive the grace that bestows enlightenment. There is no enlightenment without this grace and yet, while we can never achieve enlightenment through our own actions or efforts, nor can we receive grace without making extreme spiritual efforts which are necessary to purify the mind and prepare the vessel.

In truth it doesn't matter too much if someone claims to be enlightened (possibly in good faith because they genuinely believe they are) but isn't. It matters in the sense that they are spreading illusion but the spiritual path is a learning process for all of us and we learn from making mistakes, both the person claiming and those who might believe the claim and take that person as a guide. The fact is that the whole concept of enlightenment and liberation has moved into the public domain, as it were, over the last few decades. There are bound to be many misunderstandings and incomplete understandings (as the Masters said, there are many teaching half-truths at present) as what was esoteric becomes externalised, but these all serve to help us sharpen discrimination and move us on to the next step. What we eventually come to understand is that the search for enlightenment and the concern with it as a goal indicate an attitude to spirituality that has yet to ripen properly. It is far better just to seek to coordinate your being to the truth of the universe and serve that truth in whatever capacity you can. Then wait for the light of grace, the light that brings enlightenment, to descend in God's good time.

You ask about those who claim to be enlightened. Of course, it's a truism that only those who aren't will make such a claim, and because that is now well known all sorts of entertaining word games are played. But I would say this. Don't worry about the enlightenment or otherwise of a teacher. If you are drawn to someone then learn from them. If you have doubts, stay away. Doubts may well mean it's time to move on and go to the next level. Nowadays when all the mystical teachings of the past are available at the click of a mouse there are many dispensing a wisdom that is not their own, not fully integrated anyway, but, as the Masters said, they are doing work at their level. They may well be over-estimating what that level is but those who can benefit from their teachings will do so and those who find nothing for them there can go elsewhere.

I would like to conclude with this thought which might explain some of the mistaken claims to enlightenment. Enlightenment is not just the realization that one is pure, silent awareness beyond all phenomena, as is sometimes taught. This state can be attained without grace but, elevated as it may appear, it must finally be seen as a one-sided view of existence that resembles a retreat to the pre-lapsarian state of oneness with God/the Self, and which negates the whole point of the journey through matter and form. True enlightenment is the full integration of being and becoming in the individual soul at the expense of neither. It is not a rejection of becoming for being alone but the bringing of the two elements of reality into perfect harmony. It is the union of spirit and matter, life and form, and not the denial or negation of the one in order to assert the other though, to be sure, there must be complete recognition of the place of each in the hierarchical  scheme of things. Enlightenment is the realization that one is the Universal Self  but this realization can only take place in the context of a fully individual soul.  The individual and the universal are the two equally necessary sides of the coin of enlightenment.

A Question on Enlightenment

Q. You sometimes use the words enlightenment and liberation which are normally associated with an Eastern worldview, but then you have also used salvation to describe seemingly the same thing though that is a purely Christian concept. My question is, do you understand these words to have an identical meaning?

A. I must admit to being a bit loose with my terminology at times. For better or worse, I don't come at spirituality from a specifically Christian, Hindu or Buddhist position or from the perspective of any particular form of spirituality, though many have guided my thinking and helped me formulate my own intuitions. I was brought up in a Christian culture and have studied (though not that extensively) many other religions and philosophies. I have learnt something from all of them. However I am not a follower of any of them, and the reason for that is that I feel any belief system would impede the flow of my own understanding, and contaminate the purity of my own perception. It would constitute a barrier between me and the truth, or as much of it I can grasp. Obviously I am not saying I know better than those who formulated the doctrines of these systems, but eventually we all need our insights to be our own if they are to be true for us.

Incidentally, I have sometimes been asked why the Masters came to me as they did. I could fall back on assumed past life connections and these may have existed but I don't know. More to the point is this.  I believe that the Masters can come to us (whether in person or, more usually, through the intuition) when we have exhausted all worldly forms of spirituality and are no longer satisfied by any of them, the highest as well as the every day exoteric. This was something like my position at the time I encountered them, and it was also Michael's when he first made contact with the Masters. He had been a Benedictine monk, received initiation from a swami of the Ramakrishna order, explored Buddhism and so on. Nothing answered his inner questions in a way that did not require some kind of compromise with what he felt to be the truth. When there is nothing in the world that truly satisfies your spiritual yearnings then, perhaps, you are ready for instruction by higher beings even if that instruction takes place without you being consciously aware of it.

Be that as it may, the point is that I have taken ideas from various places if they coincide with what I consider to be reality but I don't go along with anything entirely. I imagine that is true for many of us these days when we are exposed to so many different forms of spirituality in a way that would not have been possible until recently. I have used the word enlightenment, even though the Masters never used that word or even discussed a state that might resemble that, because it is the standard word to describe a state of spiritual arrival and/or completion, and it does describe something real which is the transcending of identification with the world of becoming. But, actually, I don't think of spirituality in terms of enlightenment. As you say, it is a specifically Eastern, in fact, Buddhist idea. The same goes for liberation or realization. I use these terms because they are common nowadays and they do mean something which most spiritual aspirants understand.  But in many ways I consider the idea of enlightenment to be potentially spiritually counter-productive because it puts so much focus on the self and its aims, in reality if not in theory. It is also responsible for massive amounts of illusion and self-deception. So for me a more interesting way of looking at the spiritual journey is in terms of initiation though I freely admit this has very similar risks. But at least it recognises that there are stages on this journey, and it is more realistic to aim for the next stage than to think you might be ready for the grand finale straightaway.

So what is initiation? Many traditions include this concept but I am not referring to anything bestowed by an earthly teacher. Nor to any ceremony or rite that forms part of the trappings of a particular religion or cult. Esoterically considered, initiation is said to relate to stages in the process of purification and disidentification from form on the one hand, and an increase in sensitivity plus growth of intuitive awareness on the other. The first three initiations are sometimes linked to the successive mastery by the soul of its physical, emotional and mental vehicles, but I think this is too simplistic as we address all three aspects of our expressed being at the same time when we tread the path, even if the focus may be on one or another at different stages. I would say that initiation can best be thought of as an opening up of spiritual consciousness and detachment from worldly concerns. It entails the transfer of the centre of awareness from the mind to the soul. That is to say, from the thinking, feeling and doing parts of our nature (which, properly considered, are external to our real self and only exist for the purposes of the expression of that self) to the spiritual consciousness that lies behind them. Despite erroneous claims that enlightenment can happen to anyone at any time, this is a long process and the various initiations mark stages in that process, stages during which the disciple becomes progressively detached from the belief that this world is the real world. He doesn't regard it as false or an illusion (that is actually an intellectual position rather than a spiritual one), but sees it as the manifestation in form of a formless reality, and having no purpose other than as a), a school for the development of consciousness (this is its purely functional side), and b), a platform for the expression of spiritual truth which includes goodness and beauty. That is the side relating to creativity. God is creative and so should we be though our creativity, if it is to be worth anything, should reflect eternal realities and not just be a shallow self- expression.

This world, then, might be said to have a threefold purpose. It exists primarily as a training ground for souls, but it is also a canvas on which to paint beauty and an arena in which to demonstrate goodness. That is why those who use the fact of a higher reality to reject this world and dismiss qualitative differences within it are mistaken. The world may not be ultimately real but it is part of reality and should be made to correspond to what is really real as much as possible. Form is not truth but some forms reflect more of truth than others which is why a stone is not the same as a lump of gold even if both are manifestations of the One Life.

An often forgotten point is that it is the soul that receives initiation not the incarnated person so much of initiation relates to the soul on its own plane. However some of that will inevitably make an appearance in the disciple's earthly consciousness. The first initiation marks the point at which one's initial searching and practice has borne some fruit. The prizes of the world having been experienced and lost their allure, the disciple has looked up and seen beyond this world. He has pursued the path and made some headway on it. The spiritual current is now established in his heart and he is no longer just a seeker but a person of some real knowledge and attainment. But he is still on the outside looking in. He is still a personality, albeit one aware of the soul and able to demonstrate something of its light. His task now is to bring that personality more and more into line with the soul, in effect transferring the centre of consciousness from one to the other, so that gradually he becomes not a personality aware of the soul but a soul expressing itself through a personality. This is said to be the point at which the third initiation can be taken. The disciple is henceforth a fully spiritual being in that he has realised and can be the soul in incarnation. This is a high stage of development, one that the majority of spiritual teachers in the world have still not reached.

But it is not enough. Now everything the disciple has achieved must be given up. The perfection of his being must be renounced and placed on the sacrificial pyre. He must be nothing and nobody. Because the same patterns repeat themselves at different turns of the evolutionary spiral, this experience, which is the culminating point of an individual soul's whole spiritual development, will not be entirely new. The disciple will have suffered abandonment, experienced darkness and been required to let go and give up many times before in the cycle of his earthly incarnations. But this is the crucifixion of the soul, the moment when it is required that you give up not something but everything. You hold back nothing for yourself, indeed nothing of yourself. You give up all. And that is the moment of release.

The soul is now identified with its Maker but, because identification does not mean identity, it remains itself, though in a totally transfigured form with individuality henceforth more a circumference than a centre.

This is the scenario of initiation. Whether it is literally the path trodden by every soul or not is of secondary importance. It is symbolically true for everyone. It is the way of the soul, and it culminates, as all initiations do, in death and rebirth, a rebirth which is enlightenment, liberation and salvation all at one and the same time.