A Conversation on Energy, Inspiration, Religion, and Reincarnation
Dr. Roberto Assagioli
(Doc. #23896 – Assagioli Archives – Florence)
Conversation with friends following Dr. Assagioli’s lecture
“The Use and Transformation of Energies”
June 23, 1973[1]
Original Title: Idee – Religioni Positive – Evoluzione
Translated and edited with notes by Jan Kuniholm
Editorial note
This text is a transcript of a conversation following Dr. Roberto Assagioli’s lecture “The Use and Transformation of Energies” on June 23, 1973. The abstract and cross-sections have been added by the editor, Kenneth Sørensen, to support readability and navigation. The original spoken format, including questions and responses, has been preserved. The text has not been altered.
Abstract
In this 1973 conversation, Roberto Assagioli responds to questions concerning the transformation of energies, aggression, spiritual guidance, the nature of inspiration, reincarnation, collective consciousness, and the distinction between psychology and metaphysics. He explains the descent of higher energies, the attenuation of separateness at the superconscious level, and the pragmatic limits of psychosynthesis. Addressing positive religions, mystical inspiration, and philosophical hypotheses about survival after death, Assagioli emphasizes discernment, humility, and practical psychological work over speculative doctrine. The conversation illustrates his characteristic balance between spiritual openness and scientific agnosticism.
The Release and Transformation of Aggressive Energy
Q: I have a striking example that confirms what the Professor has said, of an individual who became what he became by converging his energies in one direction rather than another. When he returned after the First World War, disoriented — as were so many individuals returning from the war — living in near Via Toscanella [in Florence], he was a hoodlum, and he became more and more of a hoodlum, and he himself confessed this. Once he tried painting, because he felt some inclination within himself, and he began to paint. He often said, “If I hadn’t found painting, I’d be in jail.” He felt this great tendency towards aggression, towards a way of being — something that led him to rebel against certain social laws, which could have ended very badly. “Painting is what saved me, otherwise I would have become a criminal.”
Making Room for Higher Energies
Dr. Assagioli: Thank you for confirming this. All means of expression lend themselves to releasing excess energy; and after releasing that excess energy, I would say that, on a personal level, you open up a channel for the higher energies. But first, it is necessary to eliminate the excess energy from the lower or middle levels that block the descent of the higher energies.
Q: Could this be related to the decrease in aggression, the descent into the personal self?
Dr. Assagioli: By decreasing inner aggression, space is made, according to a religious expression, “making room for God.” We would say, “making room in the field of consciousness for the energies of the Self that descend.”
Guidance, the Superconscious, and Personification
Q: May I, Professor? Has Ms. Lucia ever wondered if there was a spiritual entity above her, guiding her?
Dr. Assagioli: No, actually she was also guided by me to some extent; she left this a mystery; she did not specify the source because (and this is important) at the superconscious level, the distinctions and separations between individuals, between individuals and their environment, and what can be called the universal superconscious, are attenuated to the point of almost disappearing. Not disappearing completely, but they are attenuated. So [the energy] flows from the collective and from the mystery of some entity can converge into the individual superconscious. It is best not to specify too much, especially since “personifications” often occur; that is, the Self or the superconscious personifies itself for the purposes, I would say, of easier communication, but [that personification] is not an autonomous entity. This does not exclude the possibility that an autonomous entity may exert an influence, but it is very difficult to ascertain, for the reason I have mentioned. So it is best to be very diagnostic, in a good sense, about the true nature of the center that transmits. The important thing is the quality of the message, not so much its origin.
Q: I find a correspondence between the drawings, your personality, and your guide.
Dr. Assagioli: Thank you for the compliment. It’s nothing special of mine; on a certain level, they are universal truths that each of us grasps. Thank you for pointing that out.
Agnosticism and Religious Faith
Q: You said that it is better, in essence, to maintain an agnostic position regarding the higher origin. Now, at this point, I see a religious problem arising, in this sense: is a person who identifies God as the origin and source of their good inspirations and higher aspirations at an advantage or disadvantage compared to someone who maintains this rather agnostic attitude? It’s a very subtle question, in my opinion.
Dr. Assagioli: You see, we need to distinguish. In psychological and scientific terms, an agnostic attitude is appropriate, but this does not prevent anyone from having their own convictions, a faith in the nature of the force that inspires them. It can be said that in a general sense it is always God, because God is everything, and therefore in a generative sense everything comes from God; it is just that God uses numerous instruments and intermediaries. So a simple and religious spirit can very well say that it is an inspiration that comes from God, is grateful for it, and responds with love. And this is true in a general sense. As for the means God uses, the intermediaries — let’s call them the “spokespersons of God” — here things get complicated. But this goes beyond the field of psychosynthesis and psychology: it enters the field of philosophies, religions, and metaphysics. This is why I say that psychosynthesis leads to the threshold of mystery, but stops there. The important thing is not to get carried away, not to consider oneself a messenger of God, a prophet, or a universal missionary, as many do. There is a tendency to get carried away. The fact that we can all be messengers of God, in a general sense, and often are without realizing it, puts things into perspective.
The Origin of Ideas and the Superconscious
Q: I wanted to ask how ideas are formed, what analogy there is between the evolution of the universe and the idea of reincarnation.
Dr. Assagioli: That’s not an easy question. You can’t say that ideas are formed. There are a lot of ideas existing at various levels of the unconscious, the superconscious: all the Platonic ideas and all the great concepts. It’s up to us to perceive them or not, to accept them or not, so you can’t say how they are formed. In a certain sense, great ideas are already formed; new ideas are a mystery, like everything that comes from the superconscious. How was Mozart’s music formed? No one knows, least of all him. He heard it and wrote it down. And so it is with ideas and intuitions; we don’t know. It is good to leave room for mystery.
Reincarnation as Philosophical Hypothesis
Q: With regard to the idea of reincarnation, one could also refer to the collective consciousness, which in certain religions, in certain religious traditions — perhaps limited mainly to the East, but not only to the East — has expressed this idea since ancient times and repeatedly thereafter. So the idea is not so much something that comes and arises in the mind of a single individual, but is like a current that runs through all of humanity at times, and finds greater expression in some individuals.
Dr. Assagioli: You could say that too. Faced with the mystery of death and survival, the number of hypotheses is limited: there are heavens and hells in the various positive religions; there are more or less vague presences, survival in subtle bodies that are not well defined; and finally there is the hypothesis of reincarnation; that is, that a human being, after losing his body, returns to life in another body after a certain period of time. Here one can really ask oneself — even in a philosophical sense — which of these three hypotheses seems more plausible, more probable?
a) That of eternal heaven or hell, angels playing the harp or singing; no one seriously believes this anymore, and even believers try to get there as late as possible.
b) Survival in a psychic and subtle world, as supported by parapsychology with evidence of survival, but this is vague; we do not know what happens next. It is already comforting that everything does not end, but there would be no point to it. Philosophical hypotheses: therefore, not belief, not doctrine, but in my personal opinion, this is not psychosynthesis. I will give my personal opinion, as the French say, “without any authority,” just as a friendly conversation. It is worth mentioning first the many difficulties that many people have with the disparity of fates: some are reborn into a favorable environment, others into an unfavorable one, some suffer apparent injustices, others enjoy apparent favors in life. This difference in human fate is difficult to explain; it is the inscrutable will of God and there is nothing more to say: it is simply a mystery.
c) Or we can hypothesize that it is all a series of causes and effects that follow one another from life to life, considering a life as a short day in the life of the soul. And this seems, in fact, a plausible hypothesis. As a hypothesis, it seems the most plausible to me. But this is a purely personal opinion. Of course, I share it with several hundred million living human beings and billions if we consider all those who have held it in the past. So I am in good company!
Q: So, with regard to ideas about life, it would be like experiencing what already exists. That is to say: all the ideas that can arise in a mind, all the circumstances that exist in life, are related to one’s degree of evolution. Ideas, everything that a mind can imagine, already exist; human beings do nothing more than experience them at a more or less evolved level.
Pragmatism in Psychosynthesis
Dr. Assagioli: Ideas, I would say, are almost all pre-existing; how, why, or whether they are brought from another life, whether the collective unconscious works, whether there is some higher being that puts them there, is difficult to say: but it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether the idea is right or wrong, and what use we make of it; that is what counts. This reaffirms the pragmatic nature, in a good sense, of science in general, and of psychosynthesis in particular. Do not argue about hypotheses and doctrines that divide and are difficult to be certain about, when there are so many urgent humanitarian and humanistic tasks to be carried out, with knowledge of the facts and laws of psychology. This is the point I always insist on. Then there are many other forums where these issues can be discussed. I am not saying not to do so, but to do so in other intellectual forums. If we enjoy it, that’s fine, we can do worse, as the French say — but not here. The exception I have made confirms the rule.
Positive Religions and Their Historical Development
Q: What are positive religions?
Dr. Assagioli: Positive religions are churches with their doctrines, institutions, and ceremonies. This has been clearly highlighted by Bergson on the true sources of morality and inspiration.[2] A distinction must be made between the original inspiration and enlightenment of the founder of a religion and the historical evolutionary process that took place afterwards. This evolutionary process is fully justified because the human masses need forms and well-defined teachings. There is nothing artificial about it, as it corresponds to certain needs of human nature, but of normal human nature, not transpersonal nature. The origin, that is, through the great founder of a religion, is transpersonal; but then its introduction into normal life takes place as an expression of human understanding. There is nothing to criticize, only to distinguish. And remember that there are many latent faculties and energies in the human psyche, and that they are ignored and are not given the necessary conditions to manifest themselves.
Good, thank you!
Notes:
[1] I have not been able to locate the transcript of this original lecture, so the personal references in it are unknown. —Ed.
[2] There was a misprint in the original manuscript which reads “Berenson.” This is clearly a reference to The Two Sources of Morality and Religion by French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941), whose work was frequently cited by Assagioli. —Ed.
