Living “As If” and Presuming Nothing

(We publish these thoughts in order to celebrate the today heliocentric conjunction between Mercury and Jupiter in Virgo – the wise and loving use of Form).

A cornerstone of all vital action for the future is to live as if our positive potentials were actual.

So is true humility, the absence of presumption in thought and consequent action.

In order to progress, each individual and group must apply and balance these two considerations in their own unique way under the relevant universal laws. Hence it is worth reflecting on these complementary factors, in general and specifically with respect to Vital Harmony.

Vital Harmony is really the name of three interrelated things: an abstract reality which animates the meaning of these two conjoined words, a website, and a group with evolving composition on physical and higher planes.

This group is committed, above all, to restoration of the divine Plan on earth, and to this end, presuming nothing and living “as if” are vital.

Since all progress on the path of discarded mistakes, we can clarify the way forward by contrast with established modes of failure.

The medieval church showed an antithesis of true humility, with clerical presumption that licensed much harm through dogma and rhetoric. Erring on the other side were passive masses who failed to activate genuine divinity (destined to defeat the false one) by living as if it had already prevailed in them.

In more subtle ways, these dynamics still dominate our world and apply to most if not all physical and online communities including those called esoteric. This is to be expected on account of human nature (all the way to the fourth initiation), and intelligently taken into account. If it were not so, Maitreya should have reappeared already. The Hierarchy does what it can; only humanity constrains it.

But advancement is always possible, and there are always sufficient indications from the teachings and commonsense, which is all the teachings are to those evolved enough to give them. A true teaching is properly understood when it is known as commonsense. Till then it can be inspirational but is liable to misunderstanding and distortion. So our question is how harmonious cooperation can be possible with many levels of co-workers needing teaching and liable to misunderstand both it and each other.

Success in this was once achieved by secret orders with a hierarchical structure. Everyone knew only as much as they could properly understand and not abuse, in a graded series which kept everything working as smoothly as possible. Since Blavatsky however, the knowledge has been openly published, or at least so much of it as cannot be catastrophically abused. Yet even this much is commonly distorted or mimicked among the few who do not simply ignore it.

It seems that commonsense principles of interpretation, reasoning and interaction have not been sufficiently applied here, or even applied as well as they sometimes are in exoteric domains like science, business or academia. The solution for esotericians is not likely to be transformation of their undertakings into rigid sciences or scholarly forums, let alone business. Yet vast improvements over the current norm are possible.

Hierarchy works only from above, through mental clarity and with the evolution of average humanity as the prime objective. So they are not necessarily interested in the establishment or careers of physical or online esoteric communities. When they are, it is only because that community, however expansive it may be, is not self-absorbed with its own activity or health, but efficiently applying universal laws to restore the Plan on earth.

Right relations are central to this restoration, but there is much confusion about what relations are right. Language is the primary medium of human relation, so communication is worth some attention here, especially near the beginning of a collective endeavour.

Every expression of language has three basic imports: what is articulated, why it is articulated and how it is articulated.

People are delicate and liable to irritation or offence from perceived tone, even if you say the perfect truth with perfect motivation. So the first concern in communication is usually with how things are articulated, even though this promotes superficiality.

The next most important thing in most people’s minds is why something is articulated. They try to deal as directly as possible with the intention, guessing at what lies behind the surface meaning of someone’s words, even though this promotes wrangling.

Misunderstanding is usually necessary to create or sustain wrong relations (in cases of abuse, through deception, and otherwise by mere confusion), and such misunderstanding thrives on superficiality and wrangling of “normal” communication.

This is the downside to common notions that it is sophisticated, moral, inevitable, or even spiritual to be concerned with how or why things are said more than exactly what is said.

(Indeed, some of the deepest the roots of collective and individual presumption lie here. For example, most people don’t clearly examine the content of teachings from Blavatsky or Bailey, because they are “felt” as products of insanity.)

Consider the immortal words, “judge not, that ye be not judged.” What do those simple words mean? In our context, perhaps the broadest and most important of all contexts, they mean at least this:

• Negatively:
  Don’t jump to conclusions when interpreting anyone, especially negative ones. Don’t presume on the basis of perceived tone.
  Don’t presume about objectives or psychology.
• Positively:
  Register the precise, ordinary meaning of the words the person is using. Respond with courtesy and clarity (and all the intuition you can).

Presumption disables cooperation even for very advanced esotericians. Roerich stumbled over Bailey, as she and Blavatsky apparently did over Leadbeater. The resulting problems have proven complex and enduring for esotericians.

Yet worse, presumption blocks application of the teachings by entrenching disdain between esoteric and exoteric parties.

And worst of all, it prevents even commonsense harmony at the exoteric level.

So regardless of their place in the scheme of things, all must be committed to (and preferably well-practiced in) communicating without presumption.

Presumption most often derails communication through what might be called the vanity reflex. This is the tendency to find content or tone inappropriate or erroneous insofar as words imply some deficiency in your outlook.

The cure for it is to be welcoming toward any potential negative implications about your view, or even yourself. These are opportunities to either come to terms with your weaknesses or to better understand how you can be misunderstood. Both are positive outcomes and a measure of each usually graces the open mind.

The closed mind feels only offence from what challenges it, and the threat of only more offence should it ever open.

Yet it should be remembered that no mind is entirely open or closed, and that a degree of defensiveness is never proof (as it is often taken) that what you’ve said has not been heard, or that more assertiveness is required.

Nor is it generally wise to simply give up on being understood, or to assume that you have been.

Perhaps more than any other time in its history, the world today is hostage to the vanity reflex, and strangely proud of it. People imagine that it must be somehow possible to speak only truth without anyone ever getting upset (though apparently it wasn’t possible for Christ), so potentially upsetting words are presumed shameful.

But presumption doesn’t just come from vanity or naïve moralism. Much of it derives from a feeling that all is clear when really only one or two elements are. When you only see a few pieces, it’s easy to imagine that the puzzle has no others, or that each is somehow in place in the background. Life experience gradually wears down this form of presumption, and comparative philosophy does too, but no-one is ever finally free of it.

Sometimes we see clearly enough, in a certain respect, why something is being said. If so, we are seeing only a small aspect of the sum-total motivation, which is as generally hidden to the speaker or writer as to the people hearing or reading. Just as physical science shows that, to a mind-boggling degree, organisms are more complex than they appear, occult science increasingly does the same with psychology. It couldn’t be otherwise given the absolute unity and infinite detail of reality.

As a rule (perhaps even a rigid one), discourse should be impersonal and concerned with abstract generalities and material particulars, as opposed to the irrelevant and elusive idiosyncrasies of individual’s psychology or private life.

If this rule were adhered to, most real personal offence would end and many more useful thoughts would be offered.

If, in addition, the vanity reflex became extinct, most taking of offence would end and many more useful thoughts would be received.

(Realism about human nature does not preclude a sound idealism. However resilient it may be, the vanity reflex can always be diminished in occurrence and especially impacts by increased understanding of its operation and effects.)

When people refer to how something is said, they usually mean perceived tone, gestures, and so on which have an immediate and apparent effect. This is a superficial level compared to the deeper reality which concerns applied causes.

When something is articulated with insight, courage, self-control, innocence of presumption, or wisdom, there is a useful and beautiful effect, irrespective of what immediate reactions occur.

If these things are lacking, however, then there is a deleterious, wasteful effect, irrespective of all charisma in communication, or immediate reactions of appreciation. Many historical instances of oratory testify to this.

We are all and always called to make a better world. Such work cannot bypass the central problems outlined here and ignoring them just makes them worse. Whether we deal with them directly or obliquely, let’s live as if we are starting to turn the tide.