|
Correspondence from Gerald Yorke to Charles Stansfeld Jones
3 May 1948
Dear Jones,
Your 26/4/48. You ask for an honest straightforward opinion of this letter. Right, here are my first reactions. You are attempting a religio-scientific explanation of the universe. First however you need a revelation based on science—that is, a religion expressed in scientific language—before you get to the next stage which synthesized this scientific explanation with the old religious and apocalyptic terms. Until you have scientific terms with equate with religious experience, you will satisfy neither scientists nor the religious minded. In other words you want the 'scientific illuminism' of the old G∴D∴ [Golden Dawn] and A∴A∴ worked out by competent experiments in sufficient quantity to interest scientists. Then as a result of competent study of these experiments you need a new phraseology acceptable to scientists to express religious, mystical, yogic, occult experience and phenomena. Until this has been done, to talk of a 'religio-scientific aspect' is wishful thinking.
I dislike expressions such as spermatic logoi. Logos is a philosophic concept, while spermatic is scientific, so that the expression mixes the planes. Spermatic logoi moreover could never have been planted in the aethyr. Spermatazoa to survive need planting in a womb or a suitable prepared test tube to survive, and they need a female ovum before they can produce fresh life. Even 'ideal' spermatazoa need a female receptacle and that cannot be the aethyr or akasha, which has never been female.
You start with a Plenum, meaning Full. You oppose it with a bottomless Void. But a true void needs no adjectives. You then limit this Void, but a Void cannot be limited, it can only be filled. A limited void, which is meaningless anyway, could never become or be an aethyr or akasha. You then plant male ideas (spermatic logoi) in this aethyr; but this could never lead to creation, only to the destruction of the spermatazoa. The Spirit brooded over the face of the waters, both in Christian and Oriental cosmogony; it did not float in the aethyr to produce a cosmos.
Granted that we receive certain characteristics from the anthropoid apes via the Missing Link called by you Alalus; but we also receive characteristics from the vegetable and mineral worlds, from which primarily we evolved. Read up Bose [Jagdish Chandra Bose], who proved scientifically that the Hindu conception of the Atman or Spirit being present in the vegetable and mineral worlds, which also grow and have life, but are retrogressively modified as to expression.
Just as the Catholic Church postulates an exact time at which the soul enters the human foetus after conception, you are postulating an exact time for the soul's or spirit's descent into this world, i.e. when the first man spoke and took the A out of Alalus. I prefer the Hindu conception of the soul or jiva being in all creation instead of being restricted to humanity, though only the latter can be aware of it and give partial expression to it.
According to you, until Alalus spoke his soul was merely bestial. When he spoke it was logos-bestial seed. Nonsense. The logos was inherent from the start. With however the development of the brain it became possible to express it. Logos-bestial is also a contradiction in terms and is also bad English.
Jesus was not the first fruit of them that slept, in that He was the first to realise God as His Father. Some of the Hindu avatars with virgin births antedated him.
If you want to put over a religio-scientific interpretation of the word, you need more science and less mumbo-jumbo. Forget for a time the Apocalypse and A.C.'s Neo-Egyptian revival and get a scientific evaluation of mystical phenomena. Read up the oriental side of the question, and then you will be less inclined to stress the Book of Revelations. Liber Legis pours new wine into very old bottles by using outdated Egyptian phraseology. To be scientific you need a world outlook. Think in terms of the world as a whole. You need to equate and transcend science. Christianity, Liber Legis and the Hindu and Chinese concepts. You overstress the Apocalyptic and qabalistic literature.
Your fundamental idea may be sound, but many of the terms in which you express it are more mumbo-jumbo. What were Handel's [Albert H. Handel] reactions?
Yours,
|