The term “spiritual” has been mired in ambiguity, leading to confusion. This article avoids strict definition, opting for a scientific approach grounded in observed facts and experiences.
By Roberto Assagioli, (Doc. #24085 – Assagioli Archives – Florence). Original Title: Il Risveglio e lo Sviluppo della Coscienza Spirituale. Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm[i]
Abstract: The term “spiritual” has been mired in ambiguity, leading to confusion. This article avoids strict definition, opting for a scientific approach grounded in observed facts and experiences. It explores the phenomenon of spiritual consciousness, where individuals claim encounters with realities beyond conventional perception. These experiences, often dismissed as illusions, hold profound implications. Examining diverse narratives reveals the richness and complexity of spiritual reality. Recognizing the diversity of interpretations, the study emphasizes the importance of distinguishing spiritual consciousness from religious dogma. It addresses the growing disenchantment with traditional religion among modern seekers, advocating for a scientific exploration of spiritual realms to satisfy the hunger for profound truths.
The superficial and indefinite way in which the word “spiritual” has been and is often used has generated much confusion and misunderstanding. We purposely want to avoid a definition, and will follow the most scientific method: starting with facts and experiences, and interpreting what has been observed and experienced. At the same time, the precise meaning in which the word “spiritual” is used here will become clear in the course of this article.
The basic fact with which we are concerned is the fact of spiritual experience and spiritual consciousness, and it may be expressed as follows: from the earliest times to the present there have been human beings who have claimed to have experienced states of consciousness that differed greatly in quality, intensity and affect from those that normally cast their lights or shadows on the screens of human awareness.
But they make another and more far-reaching assertion: they claim that the states of consciousness they have experienced are the result of becoming or involuntarily being brought into contact with a plane or sphere of Reality that is “above,” or “beyond,” those generally regarded as “real.” This Reality has often been called transcendental, but we will not use this term to mean anything abstract or remote. Those who have had even fleeting perceptions of it attest that it is perceived as something more real, lasting and substantial than the everyday world. It is indeed felt as the true root and essence of being, as “more abundant life.”
The grandeur of the “cloud of witnesses” to such experiences and contacts with a higher, higher and fuller Reality can take one’s breath away. We find such beings in all times and in every country, and among their ranks is the flowering of humanity. [ii]
Therefore, the attempts that have been made to deny such experiences, the assertions that they are mere illusions, or at best sublimations of sexual instincts are entirely arbitrary and demonstrate a lack of true scientific spirit. William James, whose book The Varieties of Religious Experience is a model of impartial and scientific examination of this subject, vigorously demonstrated the reality and value of the transcendental realm.
The further limits of our being plunge, it seems to me, into an altogether other dimension of existence from the sensible and merely “understandable” world. Name it the mystical region, or the supernatural region, whichever you choose. So far as our ideal impulses originate in this region (and most of them do originate in it, for we find them possessing us in a way for which we cannot articulately account), we belong to it in a more intimate sense than that in which we belong to the visible world, for we belong in the most intimate sense wherever our ideals belong. Yet the unseen region in question is not merely ideal, for it produces effects in this world. When we commune with it, work is actually done upon our finite personality, for we are turned into new men, and consequences in the way of conduct follow in the natural world upon our regenerative change. But that which produces effects within another reality must be termed a reality itself, so I feel as if we had no philosophic excuse for calling the unseen or mystical world unreal.
The importance of this higher realm of experience and reality cannot be overestimated, and the mere possibility of its existence should stimulate scientists to devote to its investigation (inquiry) a degree of energy, time and zeal commensurate with its human value.[iii]
James’ statement is such as to make it possible for any open-minded individual to accept it and encourage him to adopt it as a trustworthy basis for further research. That being the case, what should be our attitude toward this higher realm? Common sense tells us that it should be regarded with the same seriousness with which one is ready to consider the claim of a group of explorers that they have discovered, say, a previously unknown territory rich in oil or precious metals. To ignore such a claim would be folly, because we would run the risk of depriving ourselves of the opportunity to acquire immense new sources of wealth. But a disorganized rush into the new region, without proper equipment, adequate weapons or paraphernalia, would surely expose those who venture there to the dangers of local climate conditions and even vicious beasts. At best, such ill-advised attempts would have some chance of success only after overcoming great difficulties and would be compensated only by a superficial amount of the treasures awaiting the more skilled and better prepared and more circumspect.
Reason and experience advise, of course, that the reasonable approach to the problem should be:
- Carefully study all possible reports about the territory.
- Organize a suitable expedition and equip it in the best possible way.
Let us therefore follow the same method and examine and compare what the explorers have to tell us about this little-known “territory” with which we are concerned.
At first we are faced with substantial difficulties. In the first place: the central fact and point of agreement to which we have already referred has been overburdened with a flood of descriptive words that differ according to each observer’s point of view. That is to say, each has clothed his narrative with words that present important discrepancies; his experience elicited different emotional reactions in him that he interpreted in various partially contradictory ways. Using James’ appropriate expression, each individual mixes the original experience with a series of inexact personal expressions, to which he often becomes strongly attached, mentally and emotionally.
It is from this diversity that the confusion arises, and to which we owe the misconceptions and doubts that blight this subject.
The existence of such differences is not surprising and should not invalidate the fundamental reality of the experiences. It is perfectly natural and up to a point, unavoidably so, for two important reasons: The first is that no sphere of reality is anything homogeneous and simple, but rather it is a real “world:” manifold, varied, rich in fullness of life. Little wonder, then, that the many aspects of that Reality have produced such different notions about what was seen. The second reason may be attributed to the wide dissimilarities existing in the different psycho-physical constitutions, mental development and historical and cultural preparation of the observers. One and the same aspect of Reality is learned, interpreted and narrated in the most diverse ways. [iv]
The first conclusion to be drawn from what has been said is that spiritual consciousness should in no way be limited by or identified with the type of religious or mystical experience and beliefs [of those who have experienced them]. The importance of this distinction is illustrated by the many misunderstandings and the many conflicts, confusion and bewilderment that result when this distinction is not made. There is today a growing number of individuals who are in desperate need and anxiously — though often unconsciously — search for something more satisfying, more real than the “normal” life they know. Many of them have sharp minds and realistic vision and cannot find what they need in mainstream religion. Violent opposition arises in some, simple indifference in others. The creeds, theology, hymns, ceremonies, prayers and emotional appeals to a personal God and even to the Churches themselves belong, as far as these people are concerned, to a bygone age, almost to a different world.
Regrettable as this may seem, it is nevertheless an undeniable fact and is most evident in the attitude of the younger generation. They desire to discover things for themselves, to have direct experience of every aspect of life, and they accept only what is offered to them objectively, well proven and understandable — in other words scientifically, in the best sense of the term.
[i] Editor’s interpolations are indicated by the used of [brackets]. —Ed.
[ii] For a Bibliography, see works by M. Bucke, W. James, W. Hall, P.D. Ouspensky and E. Underhill.—Author’s Note.
[iii] James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience, original English version taken from the online edition at http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/varieties/complete.html p.390. —Tr.
[iv] Studies on the psychology of testimony indicate the surprising diversity possible in reporting some simple event by different individuals who have witnessed it. To this kind of errors of observation are due serious travesty of justice involving even the condemnation of innocent people.—Author’s Note.
Leave a Reply