Assagioli’s 1948 paper on religious renewal, the irruption of the new spirit, and the call to young people to build a new world
By Roberto Assagioli
Paper given at the First Congress for Religious Reform, Rome, October 13–15, 1948
Republished with slight modifications in 1965 and 1970
Assagioli Archives, Florence, Doc. #23692 [i]
Original title: Le Religioni, I Nuovi Tempi e I Giovani
Translated and edited with notes by Jan Kuniholm [ii]
Editorial Note
The abstract and contextual subtitle in this online edition have been added by the editor, Kenneth Sorensen, to support readability, navigation, and archival consistency. The original wording has not been altered.
Abstract
In this lecture, Roberto Assagioli addresses the perennial tension between past and future in the religious field at a moment of acute planetary crisis, articulating the question of religious renewal in four parts. He begins with the necessity of liberation from outdated forms, drawing on Martin Buber’s distinction between religion as preservation and religiosity as renewal. He then turns to the rediscovery of essential truths and to a “spiritual polyglotism” that recognises the same truth across different traditions. The third and central part examines what is truly new: the modalities, clues, and characteristics of a new revelation that may be discerned in the psychology of the younger generation, and the synthesis of prayer, meditation, contemplation, and affirmation that culminates in a total act of invocation. He closes by asking whether the regeneration of churches is possible, concluding that with or without their cooperation the spirit of the New Age will assert itself, and calling on young people to take up the great task of building a new world.
This paper was given at the First Congress for Religious Reform, held in Rome October 13-15, 1948.
I call readers’ attention to the plural of the first words of the title: Religions . In fact, what has been expounded — in a necessarily concise and schematic manner given the vastness of the theme, indeed of the themes, and the limitations of time — is not addressed to any particular religion or church, but concerns each and every one of them. It is up to each institution and each believer to take it into account and to make any particular applications of it.
The treatment has been kept, as far as, possible, in a universal, objective and one might perhaps say scientific plane. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, much of what has been expounded, however bold and revolutionary it may seem to those accustomed to traditional frameworks, actually consists of a series of findings which I do not feel can be easily opposed.
— Author’s Preliminary Notes in the First Edition (1948)
In the grand, unceasing progression of the life of humanity along the dimension of time, there is a perennial tension, a continuous struggle between past and future, between form and spirit, between stillness and dynamism.
Such tension and struggle are renewed with each generation. As I have said on another occasion, “The conflict between old and young is very old but always young. There are, however, young old ones and old young ones.” [iii] A French author then said in a more. . . radical way, “He who is not a revolutionary at twenty is an imbecile at thirty!” [iv]
But there is more: that conflict becomes more intense and dramatic in certain periods of collective crisis, when one civilization with all its external structures and cultural formations declines or disintegrates, while another is rising. This has happened repeatedly throughout history; recall for example what happened at the beginning of the Christian Era.
Now — as is well known — we are again in such a period, and this time the crisis has taken on a magnitude, intensity and speed that is unique in history. For the first time the crisis is not limited to a particular field: religious, political, social or artistic; nor to a people or even to a continent. It is planetary in extent; it is total, since it affects all forms of life, internal and external, individual and collective; it is of a severity never before imagined, since, with the present means of destruction, the very existence of humanity is at stake.
We are currently in a period of transition, and perhaps at the time of the most acute conflict. Humanity is now caught in a whirlwind of conflicting energies and is pulled in opposite directions. On the one hand there are the forms of the past, rigid and crystallized, with obvious signs of decay, already partly in ruins. These forms are still imposing and grand, and they captivate many people, especially adults and the old, with their physical power, with the emotional appeal of the traditions they represent, with the nostalgic memories “of the good times” that are easier and more comfortable. They have the power of the collective unconscious, which is permeated with ancient symbols and myths.
On the other hand, there are the energies of the Coming Age, which are growing rapidly in intensity, emerging forcefully, and are fascinating and attracting, especially for the younger generation. These are new ideas, new conceptions of the world and of reality; ideals of new kinds of human relationships, of new ways of individual and social life, of new forms and styles in all fields of culture. For now they are mostly still only intuitions, hunches, aspirations, or initial experiments and attempts that are incomplete, naive, or excessive; but they are “seeds” endowed with irresistible potential, vital germs of what is to manifest itself, to triumph.
What are the consequences of this situation in the religious field? What positions can and should we take? I will articulate what I am about to say in four parts:
- Liberation from the past. The elimination of what is outdated.
- The rediscovery of essential truths, of eternal values.
- The revelation and recognition of what is truly “new.”
- Is the renewal of the old forms possible — and [if so,] in what ways?
Liberation from the past. The elimination of what is outdated.
The perennial struggle between spirit and form, between new and old in the religious field, was clearly, warmly and effectively expounded by the great religious thinker, Martin Buber, in one of his Discourses on Judaism , and I think it appropriate to quote the most significant and universal passage from it, applicable to every time and every religion:
I say and mean: religiosity . I don’t say and don’t mean: religion . Religiosity is man’s sense of wonder and adoration, an ever anew becoming, an ever anew articulation and formulation of his feeling that, transcending his conditioned being yet bursting from its very core, there is something that is unconditioned. Religiosity is his longing to establish a living communion with the unconditioned, his will to realize the unconditioned through his action, transposing it into the world of man. Religion is the sum total of the customs and teachings articulated and formulated by the religiosity of a certain epoch in a people’s life; its prescriptions and dogmas are rigidly determined and handed down as unalterably binding to all future generations, without regard for their newly developed religiosity, which seeks new forms. Religion is true as long as it is creative; but it is creative only as long as religiosity, accepting the yoke of the laws and doctrines, is able (often without even noticing it) to imbue them with new and incandescent meaning, so that they will seem to have been revealed to every generation anew, revealed today, thus answering men’s very own needs, needs alien to their fathers. But once religious rites and dogmas have become so rigid that religiosity cannot move them or no longer wants to comply with them, religion becomes uncreative and therefore untrue. Thus religiosity is the creative, religion the organizing, principle. Religiosity starts anew with every young person, shaken to his very core by the mystery; religion wants to force him into a system stabilized for all time. Religiosity means activity — the elemental entering-into-relation with the absolute; religion means passivity — an acceptance of the handed-down command. Religiosity has only one goal; religion several. Religiosity induces sons, who want to find their own God, to rebel against their fathers; religion induces fathers to reject their sons, who will not let their fathers’ God be forced upon them. Religion means preservation; religiosity, renewal. [v]
One may discuss the terminology Buber uses, but one cannot deny the existence of this ever-renewing conflict that takes place within every church, within every religious movement or group, within each of us . Certainly to live “religiously” in the dynamic way proclaimed by Buber requires courage, fire, a total commitment. And many people do not dare, do not know, or do not want to commit themselves in this way, while the past flatters them into a comfortable settling down and offers them plausible justifications by means of all that is beautiful and good it has produced. We certainly do not want to deny the value of that “good;” it must be admitted, appreciated, honoured; but we must at the same time recognize that it has a serious, irremediable drawback: that precisely of belonging to the past , and therefore of not being current . Its place, actual or symbolic, is in museums. There it can, indeed must, be admired; there it can give us an instructive historical perspective, and be a useful term of comparison. But if it claims to remain in current life, to encroach upon it, to occupy the place to which the new is entitled, then it is harmful; it is an obstacle, indeed a danger. And — without paradox — it is all the more so, the more intrinsically valuable it is!
Leaving the religious field for a moment, just think how many Italians are still taken, I would say hypnotized, by the glories of ancient literature and ancient art. And in politics, how dearly the fascination with the ancient Roman Empire has cost us, arousing the mad dream of recreating it!
And we ourselves, who are sincerely convinced of this, who believe we are all leaning towards the future — if we carry out a careful and courageous psychoanalysis, how many remnants of the past do we discover in our unconscious! Old mental habits and practices, old ways of reacting, attachments, interests, fatigues! Indeed, a wise teacher did not exaggerate by calling the past a poison ! Let us listen to his strong warning:
There are many pillars of salt scattered over the face of the earth. It was not only Lot’s wife [we] who turned back to the past; there are countless others who did. What did they expect to see in the burning city? Perhaps they wanted to say goodbye to the old temple? Perhaps they were looking for their comfortable hearth, or longed to see the house of their hated enemy collapse? Certainly the past has kept them captivated for a long time. Instead you must move forward towards the light, health and strength of the future. This should always be done, but when “cosmic knots or conjunctions” come, it is urgent to move forward with impetuous motion.
Let us not take with us anything useless from the past; let us not oppress our consciences, but think only of the future. [viii]
The rediscovery of essential truths, of eternal values.
It is clear from what I have said how the often harsh rebellion and bitter and severe judgments of young people towards or against the past are understandable, and dialectically and polemically justified. [viii]
On the other hand, I believe that there is something excessive, unjust, unenlightened in the “total rejection” made by some people. In that way they commit the error indicated by the joking admonition, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater!”
That is, it is a matter of not identifying worn-out forms with the principles, truths, and values of which they were expressions, and which they still cover and veil. Indeed, this confusion could be regarded as a subtle form of materialism; that is, an inability to perceive or to recognize a principle apart from a given form, or from any form. But since this internal perception of a principle or value in its purity, nakedness, essentiality, is arduous and very few are capable of it, there is a less difficult and yet excellent way to avoid the aforementioned confusion. It is to recognize the same truth under different formulations, under different symbolic representations. This is helped, in our field, by a living (not merely informative) study of comparative religions.
This is the principle and method of esotericism : the assertion that there is one truth, that there is one universal and essential religion, and that the various historical religions are partial expressions and manifestations of it, adapted and limited to the capacities and conditions of the peoples in whom they arose, developed … and were exhausted.
The development of this “esoteric sense” requires pure, individual, “first-hand” religious experience on the one hand, and breadth of vision and mental flexibility on the other. It could be called a “spiritual polyglotism,” but (of course ) not in the sense of a superficial eclecticism or even an outward syncretism, but in the sense in which a French writer said that “a man possesses as many souls as he knows languages.” [ix]
The revelation and recognition of what is truly “new.”
It might be thought — and indeed there are those who think so — that a religious reform or renewal should consist in finding new and more appropriate expressions of the truth and spiritual values that are already known. This indeed needs to be done and is urgently needed, and it is certainly no small undertaking. There are those, however, who are convinced, as is being asserted by various individuals and groups and in various parts of the world, that something more important and revolutionary is being prepared, indeed is already underway: the revelation of something substantially “new.”
To better clarify this fundamental point, let us briefly examine the four different meanings the word “new” can have.
- The first indicates “reliving” individually, a truth or a value that is already known and originally experienced by others. This is a correct and genuine meaning, since it distinguishes a direct experience from a mediated, “second-hand” acceptance. An inner achievement, an enlightenment, a vital communion with the divine is new to the subject who experiences it, however similar it may be in every way to those had by countless other people. It is the difference between knowing and believing .
- The second kind of “newness” consists in the special emphasis, theoretical and practical, in the special prominence given to a given quality or “note,” so that something different results, and which in a pragmatic sense can legitimately be called “new,” because it produces different effects.
Examples of this result from comparative examination of religions. Let us take Buddhism and Christianity as an example: It has been noted that in Buddhism (contrary to current opinion) the note of love, fraternity, which manifests itself above all as compassion and the prohibition of killing (harmlessness – ahimsa ), is not lacking at all. It is well known that the Buddha, after attaining enlightenment, liberation from rebirths, nirvana, at the age of about 30, wanted to remain on earth and for more than 50 years traveled through India, teaching the masses the “four noble truths” and training disciples and monks — moved to this only by a deep compassion for the blindness and suffering of men. On the other hand, it has been said, with equal reason, that Christ did not neglect the “note” of wisdom at all. His parables are permeated with it and no doubt He bestowed even greater treasures of wisdom in His teachings reserved for His own disciples.
But, fully conceding this, the fact remains that the Buddha particularly accentuated the aspect of enlightenment and wisdom, and the Christ emphasized that of love, and that from such different “emphases” have come doctrines, forms and ways of religious life that are profoundly different, and therefore “new” in relation to each other and to others.
- The third meaning is that of new expressions, new forms, new symbols to communicate the great principles and values common to the various religions, which has already been mentioned.
- But there is a fourth and more essential meaning; it is that which designates the emergence or irruption of something essentially and totally new — incommensurable with what is already known. In that case it is (speaking symbolically, as one can only do) the “vertical” descent, so to speak, of something that breaks into the horizontal flow of the course of historical becoming, and transmutes it. It is, in short, a new revelation in the precise and full sense of the word.
It is precisely here that the recurring contrast, between the prophetic and mystical position on the one hand and the priestly and theological position on the other, becomes particularly evident.
Priests and theologians speak of unique, definitive revelation; of bibles in which all truth is contained; they consider themselves its repositories and authorized exegetes; they build doctrinal edifices upon it and they constrain and crystallize it into dogmatic formulations.
Prophets and mystics know that God continually speaks to souls; as Father Gratry [x] put it well, “the Holy Spirit is a spirit of eternal newness that renews us every day at every hour.” As Giuseppe Mazzini [xi] strongly stated,
The book of God is not closed. . . From era to era, the pages of that Eternal Gospel. . . unfold under the breath of the Spirit, forever spreading renewal from God to His Creation, and each page points to a period of progress on the path marked out for us by providential design. Each page in History corresponds to a religion. Each religion offers people, as a “purpose,” an educating idea, a limited fragment of the eternal Truth, shrouded among symbols. When that idea, conquered by the intellect and identified with the soul, is made an inseparable part of the universal tradition, a new “idea,” a new “purpose” comes to mind, just like a traveler who, having passed a peak, sees another peak appearing. A new faith, a new concept of life arises to consecrate that idea, and our forces and our deeds gather around the achievement of that “purpose.” Having accomplished its mission, the inner religion fades away, but leaving the part of truth it contained, forever freed from symbols and forms, like a star in the sky of immortal, indelible, “unknown” Humanity. Just as science will add the discoveries of star to star until the knowledge of the Celestial System, of which the Milky Way and the Earth are part, is accomplished; so the religious faculty of Humanity will add belief to belief, until the discovery of all the Truth of which we are capable is accomplished. Generations of people raise the columns of the Temple to God, and Religions rise and succeed each other, each holy and beneficent, but each value and destination portrays only a part of the Temple which they are called to support. [xii]
Of course, we cannot say now what the new revelation will be. But something can perhaps be inferred about its modalities, the hints and glimmers that may have reached the most awake and attentive souls or that can be discerned in the “signs of the times;” about the corresponding new methods of religious practice; that is, of training, development, communion, realization and religious action.
I must limit myself more and more to fleeting hints.
- Modalities of the new revelation . These could be of three kinds:
- Collective , that is, such as a “breath,” a current that sweeps over, pervades, arouses the human masses, or at least large groups, simultaneously.
- By inspiration or anticipation of awakened souls.
- By the work of a direct Messenger, an Instructor or Prophet, a “Son of God.” This is the way in which the great historical religions have been revealed.
As it is said in the Bhagavad Gita :
Whenever there is a withering of the Law
and an uprising of lawlessness on all sides,
then I manifest Myself.
For the salvation of the righteous
and the destruction of such as do evil,
for the firm establishing of the Law,
I come to birth in age after age. [xiii]
Indeed, if there is a moment in history that corresponds to the situation indicated here, it is certainly the present! And indeed there is now in humanity a great messianic expectation – much broader and deeper than is generally known.
For Judaism this is not surprising, both as a reaction to the terrible persecution recently suffered, and because, as Buber says, “Messianism is the deepest and most original idea of Judaism,” and as early as the 12th century Maimonides, in the eleventh of the Thirteen Principles of Faith he formulated, said, “I believe with full faith in the coming of the Messiah, and, however much he delays, I will await his coming every day.” [xiv]
Among Christians, not only in particular groups, such as Adventists, but among believers in all churches, including the Catholic, there is a growing sense not only of expectation but an active invocation of Christ’s return.
Less well known among us is that many Muslims await the coming of a prophet, the Imam Madhi. [xv] Hindus await a new “avatar” [xvi] or return of Vishnu, the Kalki Avatar (symbolized by a white horse bearing a flame on its back, as depicted in a painting by Nicholas Roerich). [xvii] Buddhists await the coming of the Buddha Maitreya , [xviii] to whom they have already erected statues in Tibet (See: Roerich, The Heart of Asia ). [xix]
If it is true that such an advent is approaching — or even if it is only possible (and who can prove that it is impossible?) — there are two important tasks to be implemented:
- What can be called “preparing the ways of the Lord,” to use an evangelical phrase.
- Making us able to recognize the One who will come.
2) Clues and glimmers. These can be inferred by observing the psychology of the new generation — especially of the very young (ie under 22-23 years of age) and the “lines of progress” in the various human fields; by noting the insights and predictions of the most awakened souls and minds — and among them I place Hermann Keyserling [xx] in the forefront.
One can summarize these clues in the following “key words” — each of which would merit extensive commentary:
Universality — Wholeness — Totality (of which “totalitarianism” is nothing but an excess, a degeneration).
Synthesis — Community — Sharing — Understanding — Spiritual Psychology —
Dynamism — Positivity — Virility — Ethos — Joy — “Descending” Direction , that is,
not a retreat from the world to “Heaven,” but the irruption and triumphant conquest of the Spirit in and over the world, in and over matter — the coming of the Kingdom of God on Earth.
- New methods of training, development, communion, and spiritual realization — They must and will correspond to the above-mentioned new “qualities.”
I mentioned this in my paper, Internal Action, at the Florence Convention of the Religion Movement. [xx]
New symbols are needed that are appropriate for the sensibility and experience of people, and especially the youth of our time. New types of spiritual exercises are needed. Internal spiritual action , which should prepare people to integrate external action, should aim at a synthesis of [inner] methods or means, which have so far been used mostly disjointedly and in a unilateral way, thus employing only a partial aspect of our being. That is, such [an internal spiritual action] would be a synthesis of prayer (affective) – meditation (intellectual) – contemplation (intuitive) – and affirmation (volitional).
All these internal acts should converge and culminate in a total act of invocation , which opens the way, attracts, and calls for the irruption of God’s Spirit into humanity and the world.
Is renewal from the old forms possible — and in what ways?
This is the problem of “reform” in its full, etymological sense, but which I would prefer to call, in a more “vital” term, regeneration . It is not for us to answer this question. But it can be said that — in a general sense — such regeneration is not impossible . This is precisely the decisive ” test ” by which the churches and all religious institutions and doctrines are confronted by history and by Providence, by humanity and by God.
Will they be able to live up to the difficult but great task? — Will responsible leaders understand that it is a matter of life and death for the churches, that for them it is truly a matter of “renew or perish?” Perish either of natural death by “petrification” in a gradual exhaustion of life after an inglorious decrepitude, or be swept away by the irresistible current of the new wave of spiritual life that has already begun to pervade humanity.
It is desirable that the churches want to accomplish their regeneration and succeed in it . This would avoid serious internal crises and bitter unnecessary external struggles. It would greatly facilitate the spiritual development and entry into the New Age of millions of people who more or less confusingly aspire to something better and more fulfilling, but who do not have within themselves — or have in too small a measure — the light, the fervor, or the spiritual strength needed to free themselves from the attachments of the past, or to do without teachings and help from institutions and persons invested with authority.
There can be — as paradoxical as this may seem — education in nondependence, in freedom. This is precisely what churches should do, and not hinder or suppress the spontaneous process of liberation, as they too often do.
Indeed, not only are we not against the Churches on principle, but we even consider ourselves — modestly — their best friends, if true friends are those who have the courage to speak unpleasant but salutary truths!
Therefore we take the liberty, indeed we feel the duty, to say to the Churches, “Consider well whether it is not your integral interest (ie interest in all senses and at all levels, from the highest one of your true spiritual mission to the earthly one of your preservation) to understand the signs of the times, to follow them before it is too late — what it means: to proceed to your reformation, to your regeneration. [xxii]
However — with and in the regenerated churches, or without the churches and, if necessary, against the churches — the spirit of the New Age will assert itself irresistibly.
This is the great adventure to which human beings are now called; this is the great task of the young. Let us not complain — especially not you young people — if the present times are uncomfortable, are “hard.” Right now the internal choice and commitment, and the external action and dedication of every individual, every group, every institution, are important and decisive for one’s own and everyone’s fate.
Let adults, having passed through the trial by fire, and therefore being tempered and aware, have their say; affirm their bright faith, their intimate certainty. Let young people, in turn, light their torches, open themselves to welcome the new Spirit and, animated and pervaded by it, joyfully prepare to build the new world.
[in] Doc. 23695 is the original published pamphlet whose text was taken from Taken from ALI , The Magazine of Women’s Problems , No. 11-12 1948. This was published under then byline of Roberto Assagioli. The identical article was re-published in the monthly magazine L’Attesa del Regno [ The Wait for the Kingdom ], Feb.-March, 1965 (Archive Doc.#23693), and also as a separate pamphlet in 1970 (Doc. #23692) both under the byline of “Considerator.” The latest version (Doc. #23692), used for this translation, contains this note: “This writing, published in 1948, is reprinted, with slight modifications, without updating it, since many events that have taken place between then and now (1970) give significant confirmation of what had been said.” -Oath.
[ii] Editor’s interpolations are indicated by text in [brackets]. -Oath.
[iii] Reference is unknown by this editor. -Oath.
[iv] Reference is unknown by this editor. -Oath.
[v] Martin Buber – Sette Discorsi sull’Ebraismo [Seven Discourses on Judaism, Italian edition, 1923], pp. 92-93. —Author’s Note. The English version given here is taken from p. 53 of Chapter V. “Jewish Religiosity,” (from The Early Addresses, 1909-1918) in On Judaism, (1967) , Retrieved on 2nd May 2021 from libgen.rs. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer; foreword by Rodger Kamenetz. “The Early Addresses” translated by Eva Jospe. -Oath.
[vi] see Genesis Chapter 19, referring to Lot and his wife and daughters fleeing from the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The angels forbade them to turn back even to look after they left, but Lot’s wife did turn to look, and became a pillar of salt .—Ed.
[vii] from Hierarchy , pp. 177-178. —Author’s Note. This editor/translator has been unable to locate the source of this quotation, so it is translated from Assagioli’s Italian text. -Oath.
[viii] A possible meaning of the author’s phrase, “dialectically and polemically justified” may be “supported by an examination of contrasting and conflicting ideas.” -Oath.
[ix] The preceding two paragraphs shown in italics, appeared in the original 1948 address and essay, but were omitted from the later editions. They are included here for the reader’s reference and indicate perhaps most fully Dr. Assagioli’s own original orientation to the subject. -Oath.
[x] Auguste Joseph Alphonse Gratry (1805-1872) was a French Catholic priest, author and theologian, whom Assagioli quoted and cited several times. The source of this particular quote is unknown. -Oath.
[xi] Guiseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) was an Italian politician, journalist, and activist for Italian unification whose thoughts influenced many people worldwide. -Oath.
[xii] G. Mazzini, From the Pope to the Council, From the Council to God , pp. 46-47. —Author’s note.
[xiii] Words of Sri Krishna in Bhagavad Gita , Chapter 4, verses 7-8. Translation found at www.LucisTrust.org has been used because of Assagioli’s connection with the esoteric work of Alice Bailey. -Oath.
[xiv] Many sources indicate that the 12 th of Maimonides’ principles is “The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.” (This version is from www.chabad.org .) —Ed.
[xv] al Mahdi, (literally the Guided One) is not mentioned in the Koran, but is mentioned in several canonical compilations of Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet. The Mahdi is expected by some Muslims to appear at the end of time to rid the world of evil and injustice. The painting by Roerich (1874-1947) was created in 1932 . -Oath.
[xvi] In Hinduism an avatar is a deity which comes down to earth, incarnated in human or animal form. -Oath.
[xvii] Kalki is the final avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu , coming to earth to destroy bad things and bad people, after which people will change and become good. This is depicted in the Bhagavad Purana. —Ed .
[xviii] Maitreya Buddha is regarded as the future Buddha, the fifth and final Buddha of the current eon, and his teachings will be focused on re-establishing the dharma. -Oath.
[xix] Artist, philosopher, theosophist and archaeologist Nicholas Roerich (born in Russia, died in India) wrote The Heart of Asia in 1929. Current editions are available in English. -Oath.
[xx] Count Hermann Keyserling (1880-1946) was a Baltic German philosopher and author of many books in German, French and English, which all had a common aspect in emphasizing the spiritual element of human existence while exploring specific topics of very broad scope. Assagioli quoted Keyserling more than any other author in his writings and notes. The two men met in person only in the late 1930s, before the outbreak of the war. They each wrote highly of the other’s work. -Oath.
[xxi] Internal Action was the author’s address to the Fourth Conference of the Religion Movement , Florence, July 26-28, 1947. It is Assagioli Archive Doc. #23107. -Oath.
[xxii] The preceding two paragraphs, shown in italics, appeared in the original 1948 address and essay, but were omitted from the later editions. They are included here for the reader’s reference and indicate perhaps most fully Dr. Assagioli’s own original orientation to the subject. -Oath.
