Is the astral realm the spirit world

Karl Bleibtreu
The rise of the west
Karl Bleibtreu

 << zurück weiter >> 

IV

In the essay on "Compensation", Emerson is indignant about the pulpit sermon that the good suffers in this life and the evil is well, for which the hereafter turns the tables. This very widespread conception is evidence of baseness and false attention. For this is supposed to mean that the material well-being of the bad is afterwards balanced out by the material well-being of the good in "heaven", a raw-worldly realism which overlooks the fact that the good cannot desire a "happiness" acquired mostly through bad actions but he is doing well in an ideal way. Emerson does not address the irreligiousness that God would uselessly perform tragedies in this world and senselessly torment the good man so that he would deserve a "heaven" that would be secure for him anyway. And for good reasons. Because world evil can never be combined with the arbitrary rule of a personal God to whom the frivolous saying would fit: "The only thing that excuses him is that he does not exist", but finds a reasonable justification solely through the karma system. Persistent sufferings and failures embitter and embitter, so they rarely serve for purification and in real life the patient Job does not receive any more camels and cattle from Jehovah afterwards. Schopenhauer's eccentricity, that life makes itself unbearable so that one can see that it shouldn't be, contradicts every law of nature; by the way, those spoiled by happiness find it quite pleasant. If he takes into account the suffering of animals, which are mostly happy to be alive, a skeptic will mock whether they too will participate in rebirth, concluding a church blank: The suffering animal has no soul, so no immortality, but the materialist: Man is an animal, so has as little continuation as the animal. Answer: Of course, the animal has a soul, perhaps a purer one, since the ego pushes itself less in front of it. Anyone who denies dogs, cats, elephants or even horses and parrots a psyche is a fool. Buddhism was never guilty of such human megalomania. They just go into the astral, just as much find a rebirth, although the Egyptian doctrine that vertebrate humans return in animal bodies does not deserve much faith. Why should a noble horse who tolerates much not be promoted to a higher level? The law of karma applies to everything created, including the planets recognized by the Indians as living beings. The sin of the European Church to reason avenges itself by the impossibility of presenting any decent solution to the evil = dilemma to the skeptic, while compensatory rebirth satisfies the so keen and sober thinking Asians. It was the fate of the Christian Church that it was only allowed to vaguely include the "resurrection of the flesh" in its catechism, because the real resurrection of the dead through rebirth did not fit into the rest of the superstition that for the baptized a redemption of lazy sinners through a one-off crucifixion of a one-off Son of God presupposed. This unsound company Gott & Co. without credit to reason cannot withdraw its limited liability from the impatient creditors of modern skepticism and would therefore have to go bankrupt, about which the universal god, whose holy name it illegally transferred to a church business unrelated to him, just like to be happy. Unfortunately, Emerson's eloquent tirades try to trick us into believing that mere right action compensates enough for the outward victory of the bad. Few of them act so right that they can justify it in front of a delicate conscience, it is almost always only a question of relatively good things and that is where the ethical law of nature comes true. Because it is mostly wrong that the just suffer especially, mostly he deserves to suffer, because he only seems just to our inadequate knowledge, and that the unjust always flourishes. It only seems particularly unjust from a wrong perspective, the difference is usually relative: do not lead us into temptation! Only a few need to throw the ring of polycrates, for material prosperity is seldom paired with other good fortunes such as health, cheerfulness, love, honor, fame, each of which is worth more than banknotes. Accumulating all "happiness" in a person would lead to arrogance or smugness, that is, ruin. Since karma strives to illustrate causal justice, one is, of course, all the more amazed at individual cases where one searches for compensation in vain, e.g. the agonizing death of a benign youth to mourn for many. Does he atone for a pre-existent bad for which there was no evidence? Is the suffering inflicted on others by his death just, e.g. if a widow's only son and breadwinner dies? Why does karma compromise itself in front of human comprehension, since reference to preexistence hardly seems valid in certain cases?

That every deed (including the bad one?) Is self-rewarding and that one cannot do injustice without suffering injustice is Emersonian paradoxical gayness, not without a final truth, which, however, does not make oracles understandable as long as one looks at things as a moralizing Yankee , with dollar optimism and solvent morals, extols adversity as an incentive to manly "virtue". That blame is healthier than praise and malicious criticism is better than benevolent respect, are talkings of a person who was rather overrated and who was not lacking in the "insanity of vain imagination" himself, as his dictator lecturing as a preceptor mundi sounds. "The soul does not want to know ugliness and suffering"? (Essay "Spiritual Laws.") But they are there whether she wants to or not. Love always create love? Even sex love is not always mutual when it crosses with other stimuli, and the mob tears up the loving one who wants to enlighten him. If nature only loves active movement and "values ​​our charity and learning no more than our deceptions and wars", this would be ethical nihilism. Then why bother with legal action! It is also a paradox that no person is ever deceived unless he deceives himself. One can deceive oneself and yet have no ability to be deceived. Emerson's dazzling, though often confused, eloquence is sometimes right, but so aphoristic that it often contradicts itself. Immediately afterwards the ridiculous assertion "the impression of every writing on the public is mathematically measured according to the depth of their thinking" is that not a dozen read Plato, never enough to pay for an edition, and that should be enough for Plato's influence? “A person is valued exactly as he is worth. If he knows that he can do something great, is he sure that all people will recognize it ”? This hideous falsification, refuted every day, needs such Yankee aivism to conjure up an optimism that Schopenhauer called criminal and that we laugh at with Buddha: "Foolish man!" The sweet metaphorical chapters about love and friendship are also amusing as an artificial cosmopolitanism that pretends to be childish and pretends to see so many beautiful things. The essay "Wisdom" ends with the conclusion that truth, openness, courage, love, and modesty are all worldly wisdom, and virtue an entrance fee for personal well-being. In the intended sense, this is again maddening enthusiasm. Every villain and every connoisseur of the world delights the idea that truth and openness are the smartest trick in life. The happiest place to write about "heroism" is in the study. Almost all of the war heroes are guided by power motives or intoxication by fixed ideas of "duty", "loyal to the king" and "freedom". Only the courage to confess the truth is moral. Anyone who did that in America during the World War was molested, imprisoned, and lynched. The Americans are therefore a cowardly people who let off steam in their heroism in Phrasentrara and lying to the armed sentry of Wall Street as maratonists. Is it anywhere else? Selfless heroism completely contradicts human nature. We doubt whether Emerson would have raised his voice and not just shrugged his shoulders in silence to incite Germans.

The "upper soul" is a scheme of phrases without any tangible substance, because Emerson does not mean a transcendental ego, but a world soul that connects with an ego. We have nothing against it, but not in such a wording. The treatise "Circle" emphasizes the eternal becoming that is in always continue Circling around the inner point God vibrates. (Not so sharply expressed with him and buried in rhetoric.) But Buddha could smile that these circles are just his round wheel, which, as it were, turns around a blind spot, we for our part can only accept the image with the opposite oscillation, namely always narrower Circles. In Emerson's essays on intellect, nature, art, experience, character, and good manners, we only discover Truisms or individual sensible sentences such as: "We expect a new era of new locomotives and balloons, but encounter the old barriers." A long outpouring of "the poet" creates a scholarly ideal that is alien to art, according to which Goethe is praised as the maker of the Helenaakt, senile allegory. It marks the depression of the Europeans that Emerson, Carlyles and Ruskin's columnist rhetoric was celebrated as a revelation of thought. Even here, measured against the past, decadence is also a sad fall away from Herbert Spencer. These utterances about the Yankee prophets, disgraced by German idioms, do not mean a digression, but rather emphasize that when the ego spirit and ego will spread, only reprehensible, easily refutable optimism of unclear thinking emerges. Buddha, a pessimist in relation to life, an optimist in relation to the Dhamma, is right as soon as one restricts his soul negation to the ego and leaves a residue of the concept of soul open in the unconscious for the feuding Vedanta doctrine, which went one-sidedly too far. This is where Myer's "human personality" comes in as a necessary complement, the subliminal self, and the Buddha becomes a strange adversary in the latest expansion of spiritism. It even looks as if his karma teaching is collapsing.

The world war-born movement in England, see Lodges “Raymond”, Wynn's “Ruppert Lives”, Hills “Psychic Examinations”, Balfour's “Ear of Dyonisus”, Berett's “Threshold of the Invisible”, Crawford's “Reality of Psychic Phenomena”, Connan Doyle's "new revelation" surprisingly brings the spirit realm closer. The chain of evidence is so strong that one believes for better or for worse what the ghosts say about their condition. Afterwards they live on as astral bodies, at will in their own sphere or in the earth's sphere in the vicinity of relatives and friends whom they strive to help. That they otherwise continue to exist as certain persons with the loss of all raw material (sexual, mammon, differences of rank) just like before as certain persons, actually seems as plausible as Dante's otherworldly inmates, because one cannot imagine how an unenlightened self suddenly in completely different spheres detached from everything earthly should fit in. On the one hand, if correctly understood, this seems to be a devastating blow to the Vedanta deification of the soul, and on the other hand, a debilitation of the ego's nonexistence. How can something be an illusion that survives death as a personality? Of course one can think of a metaphysical explanation for this, and since the Indians have known all the phenomena of spiritualism and telepathy since prehistoric times, one must not judge before European spiritualists have put themselves in precise contact with Asiatic ones and are instructed by the latter, what brahmanists or Buddhists or shamanists know about the spirit world. As soon as the fact that the departed continue their previous existence, it is no longer repulsive that the Spirit-English speak only of Christ and never of reincarnation, since they are not asked about the latter at all. These spirits remain under the spell of their previous Christian view, just as, conversely, the Indian would speak of Buddha and reincarnation. Indian teaching also assumes an interregnum between rebirths. If an English spirit now announces that one moves up from this brief intermediate status into a higher sphere, this can at most be understood in such a way that it applies to a fraction, while the others have to reincarnate. Because how would they have the authority and ability to withdraw from earthly bonds so soon, by the way, does their ego continue to merrily in a higher sphere? There is no need to assure that there is no hell, but it would be purgatory enough for the mass of materialists who have died if they see themselves stripped of all sensual and physical elements into such an alien world, where nothing of earthly folly and meanness is left remembered and where they can't get along with their subordinate minds. Meanwhile, the sudden death of otherwise dominant instincts does not seem unnatural, for the sexual is in the organs, as eunuchs and most old people know, greed for rank and money in social conditions, and where this all ceases, "hunger and love" no longer rule. It seems compensation enough that the higher-leveled subconsciously trained themselves better for their future home and immediately became happily naturalized there, while the lower-level initially found himself banished to an unfamiliar foreign country and can only adjust painfully. His limited ability to dwell in the immaterial certainly does not prepare him for even higher spheres. He will, as it were, only get a foretaste of the truth and perhaps in this intermediate state he will be able to choose how he wants to appear again as an earth citizen afterwards at atonement. With the outstanding this is probably less a matter of choice, but they have to play their earth role again because they are used there for certain purposes. That is roughly how one can lay it out if one becomes friends with the fact that both the preliminary spiritual state and the later reincarnation correspond to world reason. However, we need many more examples than spirit research has provided up to now. It is noticeable that nowhere do we find stories of spirits who suffered excessively on earth. The assertion that suffering is repentance for past guilt or original sin can only be made by closing your eyes to the suffering of relatively good people, whose nature makes it incredible that their pre-existence loaded them with appreciable guilt. Should the Buddha have made this solution a little comfortable? In no case is suffering always in exact relation to guilt; a sense of justice can be comforted by the fact that material displeasure is considered insignificant for immaterials and that the "delight of suffering" often prescribes mental pleasure in the terminally ill. There is also the possible explanation: excessive suffering leading to death, as the world war generation experienced in various forms, removes such sacrifices from much greater suffering, which would otherwise be causally inevitable, and quickly transfers them to a better afterlife. As a French war report said so beautifully: "The best tactical solution seemed to be withdrawal," so here, withdrawal from this world seems to be the best solution. As long as mankind does not accept such conceptions, which Christianity tries only illogically and Buddhism does not completely fulfill, the despair of the dying and bereaved must turn this world into hell. As much as we disapprove of Schopenhauer's unnerving poisoning of existence, we are justified in revolting against the outrageous glossing over of Emerson and comrades who consider their personal, comfortable life to be normal and inflate the average endearingly with a misunderstanding of reality that scorns every experience. Seen from the outside as well as from the inside, the moral world order is always in the large, but not always in the small so recognizable as Buddha's Dhamma requires, and honest thinkers must not hand embittered glittering stones as bread. Only a few can walk the hay path, even Christian saints like Francis of Assisi found it more difficult to settle in than in the far more favorable Indian environment. The thesis that suffering is the best preparation for the immaterial hereafter often does not fail, but conversely, misery often demonizes earthly weakness even more. Also, the presupposed absolute justice must not demand more from the average person than his Sansara entanglement can accomplish. One can expect even less inwardness from the modern European than from any previous person - subjectively, the wickedness of his milieu excuses him. Tolstoy had no trouble talking, his early Christianity, equally hating art and sensuality, only grew as possible under barbaric Muschiks.Aren't weaknesses sometimes conditions of forces, like sensuality in the artist, who could not create sensual without them? Anyone who, like Tolstoy, demands morality from the work of art is working into the hands of the Philistine; it is untrue that art presupposes an ethical ideal. This applies to the highest appearances, but it would be ridiculous to always take only the highest as a standard. Such narrowness leads to the confusion of the creative with the moral, so that Dante and Milton are counted among the great creators because of their moral tendencies. Even as an allegorist, Milton stands among the pagans Shelley and Keats as well as the simple Bible Christian Bunyan, the little moral Bums as a poet above all of them, and when the morally sour Carlyle places him above Byron because he does not understand his ethics, he can be laughed at. Byron's Cain, in its wonderful youthful freshness, is as religious as a hymn of prehistoric times, Milton's Paradise is just a dry pulpit sermon. Titian and Mozart, in whom cheerful sensuality predominates, are just as ingenious as Buonarotti and Beethoven, and d'Annuzzio's virtuoso immorality does not change his poetry. Well, how does Buddha deal with the aesthetic, which every philosopher from Plato to Schopenhauer (although Plato wanted to banish the artist from his model state) as Kalon-Agathon considered a root of ideality because of the desireless gaze that we see in primitive man recognize it as a primal instinct, should be regarded as a preliminary stage of nirvana? If Christian asceticism (Savonarola) condemned art as the lascivious work of the devil, its sterile "lust of suffering" has thereby been self-directed. But it is thought-provoking that Buddhism and Christianity nevertheless allowed art to develop in a strange way. The creator is far closer to the natural law of eternal creation than the moralist, still in a wild aberration, inspiration and intuition are more at his command than others. How can one approach it with ordinary ethics, since, according to Lamartine's Napoleonic assessment, "Genius before God is perhaps the highest virtue?" highest reality ceiling. One will not regard the genius as a mission from "Dewachan" above human ethics, but his essence does not fit in with Dhamma ethics, otherwise he would have to give up his work, which is impossible for him. Which category falls under be Evil and be Suffering? and since he has to develop his personality like no other, one would have to detest in him the worst representative of the ego, which only a silly mendicant monk and certainly not Buddha or Christ would teach. Why have so far only subordinate spirit persons, not secluded geniuses, from whom we could hear important things?

We cannot get over the subliminal self in contrast to the ego, this loan fee of matter, and now even spiritism introduces the vulgar forest and meadow ego into the circle of the hereafter. For up to now this cult of the soul has only offered evidence of the continuation of the ordinary average self, which we consider to be even more natural than its sudden elevation into the subliminal, which could only become completely free in nirvana. The redemption of the ego illusion from oneself would not proceed as smoothly as on the path of healing recommended by the Buddha. But spiritism as a new religious foundation - is it new, did not the antiquities demonstrably already know it and, according to Doyle's evidence, also the early Christians? - Requires careful philosophical sifting in order to protect against disastrous overestimation and disappointment. Paul warns of evil, cunning spirits who deceive us in the guise of good spirits, apparently with an eye on the spiritualistic seances of the time. Experience has shown that this strange phenomenon of deceit is recognized by today's spiritualists. Is such a thing possible, what then protects against errors? Conversely, who knows whether alleged false spirits always tell untruths, even if they sometimes send us in April? The English spirits, convinced Christians, confess that they have never seen Christ before, and when other spirits mockingly express themselves about Christianity, an English pastor may of course see this as an unmistakable sign of deceitful spirits, a Buddhist may disagree! Things cannot be so simple that everything man presupposes proves to be objectively correct in the spirit world. Certainly Doyle would be authorized as a sworn detective to provide circumstantial evidence for spirits, but the dubious thing escaped his instinct that he only finds spirit of his spirit there. All those killed in World War I have so far taken the same childish point of view as the jingo imperialist Doyle himself. Not that they dared to present us with cheerful confessions of the spirits that they fell for freedom and justice. But they are conspicuously silent on this subject, which should be so close to them, no conjurer asks them whether England fought for ideals. The duty of good spirits would be to open the eyes of the living. If they are intentionally silent, it will not do well with being liberated from earth lies. If they and their followers are silent, then it will be bad with the ethical influence that one claims to have felt. Raymond Lodge would have to say to his father, “We over here view the world war differently than you do down here. We English hang out here with German brothers and sigh together at the lies with which we were baited. Warn our government strikers that they cannot lie to God. "Then all the jingos would denounce the spirit or its agents of high treason, but we will find the moral order of the spirit world proven. But after rehearsals so far, we suspect that German soldiers who were killed in action would also sing "God punish England". As long as such eternal ones have the same obduracy as earthly relatives, their ethical status does not seem suitable to arouse religious feelings. Raymond thinks that unearthly industry can produce tobacco and alcohol from ether substances, which made press idiots laugh, but this is entirely in keeping with the human-like milieu of the spirit realm. Without denying subjective truthfulness, we leave it up to us whether one can trust so little advanced spirits with transcendental truth. Before pacifists they profess to be pacifists, staunch warriors will certainly call out to the fallen: Celebrations for king and fatherland! Isn't there the possibility that there is a thought-transmitting reciprocal relationship between an outwardly purified hereafter and a world here, the improved copy of which such astral realm only represents? "Prayer" and "love" are theological muddle of phrases that we do not need spirits to serve up; no otherworldly person has spoken a meaningful word so far. The fact that the Caesars and Shakespeare cited by the media speak like stupid boys is interpreted as cunning of masked elementals. But if, according to the latest ghost reports, people who have long since died cannot speak to us at all because they have already ascended to a higher sphere, we gain little by intercourse with nothing but mediocre "souls". Why don't the "prominent" World War II dead Kitchener, Wilson, the Tsar appear and remorsefully say what is necessary about themselves? The "new revelation" can only be important for those whose cultured blindness denied the naturalness of continuity. These would oppose to the end, but the believers would be recruited from the circles that otherwise clung to every church nonsense. The thinker is bored of tangible coarsening of what is intuitively much better known. Jesus, in whose age people believed in it and yet persisted in folly, already knew that spirit intercourse is of no avail. We will first wait to see what Indian spirit seers have to report from their higher vantage point and whether a spirit reports that has something decisive to report to a thinker. Until then, the astral ones are only a reflection of human poltergeists. If a Greek sage unabashedly called the universe "a statue of the human intellect", ghosts could also introduce similar statues. This hereafter flows too much into this world for us to owe a higher revelation to it. At the same time we have to come to terms with it, the pressing mass of phenomena leaves us no other choice. After dropping the vertigo theory, which is only believable for the ignorant, one could declare the whole thing to be self-hypnosis, which of course all converted physicists and skeptics originally guarded against by taking precautionary measures. The thought transfer experiment, from which every knower received unambiguous samples, is carried out without any concrete hypnosis by working at a distance and nevertheless not only instills real resolutions and actions, but even visible hallucinations. Every self-hypnosis or every telepathy as the cause of spiritism would, if one excludes a spirit world, plunge us into even deeper mysteries. Only the Vedanta deification of the soul could claim that neither materialism nor church Christianity gain anything through such an interpretation and we advise them to stick to the vertigo theory, rather than children who always teach the same learned saying. Lodge and his like-minded physiologists, like Crookes and Wallace, naturally suffer from brain softening, and Doyle's master detective Sherlok Holmes is also an uncritical victim of imaginations, because otherwise the business of science and the church would be disrupted and that would be the end of the world, wouldn't it? Certainly everyone only speaks of color like blind people who close their eyes to telepathic vision, this is also the case with spiritualism. But whether its subjectively illuminating appearances can be understood as objective reality? Persistence of the ordinary ego violates certain basic rules of the critique of knowledge too much. Rather, other "spirits", not deceased, could personify the I in contact with the human unconscious's ability to present itself. Isn't there an analogy for this with genius, who creates a visible something out of what appears to be nothing? Of course, that would hit materialism even more fatally, because it would simply do everything illusion, visible and invisible, as a true thing-in-itself there would only be an autocratic psyche whose imagination knows no limits and which in organic life as an anonymous silent partner actual principal would be. There we are again with that unnamable, the discussion of which Buddha forbade, because our practical reason covers everything that is incomprehensible with a benevolent veil, otherwise the business of human life functions necessary in the world process would have to declare itself insolvent. Ultimately, Vedanta and Buddhism coincide, since nirvana is based on self-liberation. Later illumination, when we turn to the European system, is saved from linking both Indian circles of thought and assigning spiritualism the right place within them. How this has appeared so far, he can only a Side of the transcendental mean only a Step of Jacob's ladder that leads to the most holy place. Basically, Buddha only meant that the concept of soul is unsuitable for the illusory ego and that all speculation is pointless, because everything beyond consciousness must remain inexplicable. This was his office as a practical salvation teacher. But did he not at the same time teach how a person can discover his real self through self-hypnosis, i.e. how he can find his real soul? By dissolving ego and existence in a strictly rationalistic way in alternation and becoming, his nirvana nonetheless leads precisely into Vedanta. There is full agreement of the statement between the Upanishads and the Buddhist creeds. Last but not least, Buddha really cannot avoid the objection that he denies an independent psyche entirely in the sense of materialistic psychology and yet assigns the fleeting ego independent liberating power to find its way back to the permanent and positive. Only the criticism overlooks the fact that he understands this as purely natural law as soon as the ego has been instructed on the correct path of salvation. But why can it be led on this path? For this, Buddha uses the preparation of rebirths, but this causal law also confirms the self-determination of a secret self and does not affect the constant "existence" of a soul, since "becoming" only belongs to the ego. Every doctrine, frozen as a fixed cult of religion, falls under the curse that put an end to Christian churchism from adhering to the word without will, a unique revelation of a truth. For his age and Indian milieu, Buddha was all the more entitled to teach apodictically and canonically, as the practice still proves him right, i.e. billions of people have found salvation through him to this day. But the correctness of his means does not prove the absolute of their philosophical foundation. If he came back today, even as a European, he would probably express himself differently. Later esoteric Buddhism of the Secret Doctrine (Blavatzky) took up the Vedanta again and it must be emphasized that Spiritism is more compatible with Vedanta and most of all with the Christian view of the church, since the latter presupposes the continuation of the ego. But it is precisely this that makes the Christian spiritism suspect, not in terms of its own honesty and the apparent correctness of its revelations, but in terms of its subjective nature. The reciprocal relationship between question and answer, spirit statement and human acceptance remains too conspicuous here. Who practices transferring thoughts here, spirit or human, or are both inseparable, so that the spirit world of the English would be different from that of the French? That would not be unnatural in itself, but it would prove at least half the subjectivity of the phenomenon.

Moltke's trusted niece assured me that she had been in daily contact with the deceased for a long time, who himself often believed he felt the closeness of his deceased wife. Before the world war he suddenly said: "I'm not coming any more, I have to go on." There is also a legend that two officers saw him step out of the General Staff building at the hour of his death, the guard was presenting him. So an astral walk from Emmaus ?! This coincides with other traditions, according to which people were visibly noticed at the point of their work in the hour of their death or loved ones, whom they thought of when they died, appeared tangible. What can I say? Where does the subjective end and the objective begin or are both one, the astral reflection and the one who sees or hears?

In the extremely witty, and therefore little-known, humorist book "The Professor at the Breakfast Table" by Bostonian O. W. Holmes, we come across the occasional idea that thoughts are as innumerable as blood cells. From this we could deduce for our part that every thought presents itself as a blood body, every blood body as a thought and that they are in alternation. The materialist concludes: because thoughts stop as soon as blood cells stop rolling, death destroys the psychic with the physical. With exactly the same right we say: because the thoughts no longer move, the blood circulation stops. Because it is absurd that blood circulation creates a spiritual world which blood mysticism would again only lead into the incomprehensible, physiologically wrong on top of that, but conversely correct that psychic movement from the brain sets the blood machine in motion. The blood only has the function of nourishing something that exists outside of it, namely the invisible life of the brain. The organic nervous system feeds itself with self-generated blood at the command of the psyche, the term mechanics is not enough even here. Every fuel-frenzy stands on such weak feet, the only thing left is that an a priori psyche of blood, i.e., materialization, is required in order to form self-consciousness. The simplest empiricism teaches that cranial nerves move the blood: Emotional movement increases or inhibits the activity of the heart, which, conversely, only affects physical well-being, not in the least the state of the psyche. It is impossible for a body to live without psychic movement, but it is quite conceivable that a psyche lives without a body. But at least their ego-consciousness undoubtedly seems tied to the physical, so how can it continue in spirit without blood circulation? Is it perhaps a matter of a law of accommodation in which nature or the all-soul present a symbol of continuity that is understandable to the ego? This need by no means coincide with reality beyond the self. The theory of relativity will also be in place here, every manifestation of spirit corresponds to the receiving ego, to which the unconscious temporarily comes to the aid of an incomplete. The world empire of illusions does not seem to separate from reality, everything is illusion and everything is reality, everything subjective and everything objective, spirit and I are equally real, both illusory adapted to the consciousness.But the volatility of the ego as a symbol of the self and of spirit as a symbol of the hereafter does not affect the fact that behind symbols there is something, under “becoming” there is “existence”.


 << zurück weiter >>