“Finally there is nature, the physical world proper. Here esotericism differs radically from modern science, which regards consciousness as an epiphenomenon, a kind of side effect, of neurological processes. For the esotericist, consciousness is primary; matter comes after.” –Richard Smoley, Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition

I’ve been reading Richard Smoley’s book, Inner Christianity, in my book group. It’s a good book. I’m definitely not an expert in Western Esotericism but I have generally liked the writers I’ve read who are associated with the tradition (Rudolph Steiner comes to mind). And as a special kind of panpsychist I can appreciate a lot of what the esoteric tradition wants to do; I particularly appreciate that esotericists aim to posit and preserve a spiritual/psychic dimension of reality, as opposed to solely clinging to the external (exoteric) dimension of reality we’re all too intimately familiar with.

I do have a few problems with Christian gnostic esotericism though (the sort Smoley is presenting in this book anyway…).

1. As Smoley admits in the book, much of esoteric thought borders on hardcore dualism (or at least a mitigated dualism) and/or monistic idealism when it comes to philosophy of mind. Granted, some of the writers Smoley mentions in the book (like Jakob Böhme for instance) sort of seem to have a pantheistic or panentheistic orientation, treating nature as perhaps the outer most shell of consciousness or something, but as a panexperientialist and religious naturalist I am severely allergic to doctrines that look to denigrate or reduce EITHER the physical world OR the psychic world. And look, an esoteric view that posits a material world created by an emanation of the highest God where humans posses individual divine sparks that can only be liberated by an elite few who master meditation, receive personal revelation and posses gnosis makes my pluralism alarm tingle a little bit (more on this below)… this embodied, messy, incomplete and tragically beautiful physical world is our home, for better or worse, and the holistic-materialist-naturalistic Jewish part of me wants to cry when I get bombarded too much with overly spiritualistic talk of bodiless light-energy entities that are supposed to be the really real things underneath our meat clothes (I’m thinking of the gnostic interpretation of Jesus’s transfiguration here as I write this…).

2. Williams James’ criticism of monistic idealism applies to Christian gnostic esotericism I believe. It may very well be the case that, as the perennialists and esotericists claim, there is a universal spiritual dimension of reality that encompasses all things. It may also very well be the case that we can access this dimension of reality by fundamentally transforming ourselves, and therefore achieving gnosis, through approved spiritual practices. BUT, as James would say, a person who does not practice gnostic meditation or other approved spiritual activities is in NO WAY bound to treat these theories/doctrines/ideas as anything other than sublime hypotheses. AND, furthermore, in defense of this messy, unfinished physical world we find ourselves in, it may also be the case that reality in fact exists as “a set of eaches, just as it seems to.” In other words, it’s very possible that reality is actually the way it seems to at least appear to most of us: as an unfinished collection of things with their own modes of being/becoming that are somehow connected or related to each other in varying degrees. So there may not be just one monistic Reality but many realities that we co-create, and we may indeed want to call this a Pluralistic Creality (at least this is where I’m putting my money for now…).

3. My last comment on this book and it’s subject matter (Christian gnostic esotericism) has to do with one of the spiritual practices by which one may achieve gnosis: gnostic mediation. The definition of gnostic meditation I’m using (taken from this article) is as follows:

“Meditation is an exact science based on real and tangible energies that are natural to the human being. Meditation is a psychological technology. It is a scientific method to harness and access the most powerful areas of the human psyche. Meditation is a set of tools that provide entry to states of Consciousness that anyone, anywhere, can enter, if they know the steps. The steps cannot be altered or skipped. They cannot be improved upon. They cannot be avoided.”

Aside from the blatant pretentiousness on display here and the reference to meditation as a “science” (which is another criticism of esotericism I have; any worldview/theoretical system I engage with must take modern scientific investigation seriously), the metaphoric versions of meditation I’m familiar with, like guided visualization, transcendental and kundalini, all have something very important in common at their root: imagination. In order for any of these techniques to work the meditator must cultivate the ability to imaginatively visualize things in their “mind’s eye.” The only reason I point this out is because I feel the art of meditation (yes art not science) is not very much different than other arts that require copious amounts of imagination. Essentially (to paraphrase Wallace Stevens) reality is very much the product of imagination, i.e. to make sense of the world is to construct a worldview through an active exercise of the imagination. So from this perspective why would a gnostic adherent not consider, for instance, Brother Lawrence’s (a Catholic and strict adherent to the exoteric religious side of orthodox Christianity) Practice of the Presence of God to also be an approved technique capable of “transforming” the practitioner? Or even The Little Way of Therese of Lisieux or Thomas Merton’s imaginative practice of journaling or writing poetry, or Ade Bethune’s imaginative practice of painting?

I guess my question and point is this: why do gnostic esotericists insist that the imaginative practice of  of meditation, which consists of sitting still with your eyes closed, breathing a certain way and visualizing things silently, is somehow inherently better and more enlightening/fulfilling and important than the creative, exoteric material practices of say feeding the poor, watching a movie, or painting a protest sign? They’re different, certainly. But better? More inherently fulfilling/enlightening in an Ultimate sort of way? I’m not sure about that.

I realize non-dual thinkers (I consider myself to be one btw) don’t have a problem here so I guess I’m directing this question to the more dualistic and subjective idealist flavors of gnostic esotericism. But on the other hand maybe these imaginative and enlightening/fulfilling religiously exoteric practices are approved by the esoteric elite, and maybe I’m over thinking things and making waves where none need be made, who knows…

Anyway, similar to my sentiment above, I DEFINITELY don’t rule out the possibility that meditation provides the meditator with enormously unique benefits (physical and spiritual/psychological, many of which have been confirmed by secular empirical science). I would just insist that we also admit that everyday lived experience is multifaceted and that mystical experiences (the kind associated with gnostic esoteric meditation) are not common; they just aren’t. So in the interest of pluralistic democracy we should not allow one to reduce or minimize everyday lived experience in favor of some hidden truth accessible to only a special few who are like really good at meditation and junk… That’s all.

Tags:dualismesotericismgnosticismgnosticsidealismmonismpluralism