| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Next | Part 6 |
| Table of Contents |

Tammy Winthrop spoke next. She began with: "Ben, the way in which you make the meaning or significance of the qualities of matriarchy and patriarchy a function of the activities of the false and true selves, seems to shed some light on an aspect of Campbell's theoretical framework with which I have disagreed for a long time.

"The point I have in mind is related to something Campbell said in the Occidental Mythology volume of The Masks of God. During one section of that work, he makes reference to the Biblical passage concerning God's creation of males and females in the image of Divinity.

"Campbell deduces from these verses that God is both male and female. Furthermore, in what may be another instance of Campbell's tendency, sometimes, to rely on the kind of forced logic Andrea mentioned earlier, Campbell maintains in this part of Occidental Mythology androgyny is actually an alternative form of matriarchy.

"One of the difficulties I have with Campbell's interpretation of things at this point is that he never seems to consider the possibility there may be a difference between Divinity and the image of Divinity. For example, just as one would not consider the image in a mirror to be the same as the reality that is being reflected, so, too, one cannot suppose Divinity and the image of Divinity are necessarily the same, although, obviously, in each case there is a relationship between image or reflection and reality.

"Some mystical traditions distinguish between Divine Essence and Divine manifestations such that although the former makes the latter possible, one cannot use the structural character of the manifestations as a basis for drawing conclusions about the nature of Essence, except in a very limited sense. According to this perspective, manifestations don't say anything about Essence, per se, except that the latter has the capacity to bring these sorts of manifestation forth.

"Therefore, for example, from the fact there are male and female forms in the realm of manifestation, one may not conclude, automatically, that the nature of Divine Essence also is male and female in character. All one really can say is Divine Essence has the capacity to generate such forms.

"The precise nature of the relationship between manifestation and Essence remains a mystery even though, quite clearly, the two are related since manifestation would not be if not for Essence. Nevertheless, Essence could continue to be Essence even if manifestation never saw the light of day.

"We know about Divinity only by means of what is revealed through the relationships of manifestation. In other words we attribute certain qualities to Divinity on the basis of the kinds of relationship which seem to be given expression through manifestation.

"We say, for instance, Divinity is compassionate, loving, aware, forgiving, kind, merciful, patient, just, wrathful, generous, independent, imminent, transcendent, knowing, rich, and so on, because we believe we have experienced these relationships ourselves, or we are told about them through the experiences of others. If we speak collectively, then these attributions constitute a conceptual image we have of Divinity.

"On the other hand, through various books of sacred scriptures or revelation, God also is said to speak about a spectrum of attributive qualities of Divinity that describe different dimensions of the relationship between, on the one hand, creation in general, and human beings in particular, and, on the other hand, Divinity. This time, however, the perspective concerning the nature of the Divine image is that of Divinity not humanity.

"If one accepts these books as Divinely given, then Divinity is describing Divinity for the purposes of disclosing to human beings certain dimensions of the relationship between manifestation and Divinity. Among other things, Divinity is pointing to the nature of the Source as That which is responsible for, among other things, the creating, originating, and generating of the manifestations that assume variable forms or modalities of expression in the realm of phenomenal Being.

"As such, the connection between Divine Essence and creation is described in terms of the context of the Divine attributes that establish the parameters of human existence and which have been made possible by Essence. In other words, Divinity is not describing Essence per se, so much as Divinity is describing what Essence can do, and has done, in the realm of created manifestations.

"In Divinely revealed scriptures, when God is said to speak of creating human beings in the image of Divinity, this means human beings came forth as a function of the attributes or capacities that God has exercised in order to relate Essence and manifestation. Just as the conceptual image that human beings have of Divinity is based on their interpretation of the character of the complex network of attributive relationships which they believe links Divinity and humanity, in a similar fashion, one might say some of the images that Divinity has of Essence is given expression through what God discloses about Divinity by means of books of revelation, prophetic missions, the teachings of saints, veridical dreams, together with certain kinds of mystical or spiritual experience, that concern the spectrum of qualitative attributes through which Essence links creation to Divinity.

"Consequently, there actually is, at a minimum, a double sense to the notion of human beings having been created in the image of Divinity. On the one hand, our created origins arise out of, by means of, and through the expression of, such Divine attributes or capacities.

"Here the emphasis is being given to 'in'. Our origins are in the Divine image formed by the dynamic of the attributes that God uses to bring forth the cosmic manifestation.

"On the other hand, and in conjunction with the nature of our created origins, we have within us, all the Divine attributes that Essence uses to link manifestation to Essence. Here, the emphasis is being given to the structural character of human nature as an image that reflects the Divine attributes being used to give expression to the manifested nature of a human being.

"Furthermore, when the image which human beings have of Divine attributes matches or reflects the actual character of the image of 'attributive-Divinity' that the Divine Essence has disclosed through revelation, prophets, saints, dreams and spiritual experiences, then the two images reflect one another. Mystics have said that when one understands the reality of these reflective images, one comes to realize the nature of the human being.

"Maleness and femaleness are qualities rooted in the attributive relationships God uses to link Essence and human beings. As such, these qualities reflect properties of the realm of Divine attributes or capacities rather than properties of Essence.

"There are males and females because Essence has the capacity of establishing these qualities within the context of the Divine exercise of attributive capacities through which manifestation makes its appearance. Therefore, in point of fact, on the basis of manifested qualities, one can say nothing about the actual nature of Essence except that Essence gives evidence in the realm of created being of having the capacity to bring forth manifestation with the variable qualitative forms, properties, attributes and so on which are characteristic, in the present case, of females and males."

"Tammy, if you are saying what I think you are saying, then I tend to agree pretty much with everything you have said," stated Melanie Teasdale, "but there is one concern that I have with the perspective you are delineating - although, perhaps, you did not wish to create this impression. More specifically, when you first began to talk about the notion of image, you seemed to suggest that as far as human beings are concerned the Divine image is limited to a conceptual realm.

"Later, you spoke about the manner in which the image of Divinity within the human being may come to reflect the Divine image that Essence is, in a sense, projecting through the total set of attributive relationships linking manifested creation to Essence. Moreover, you seemed to indicate that if, or when, this occurs, then the individual will come to understand the real nature of the human being by realizing the character of the Divine attributes that form who, why and what we are.

"My concern is this. There are a lot of people today who wish to reduce mysticism to being some sort of emergent property of brain or mental functioning.

"In other words, techniques involving chanting, meditation, breathing, contemplation, fasting, focusing, various methods of mind control, self-hypnosis, use of imagery, different kinds of body-energy systems, sensory deprivation, and so on, are often recommended, or undertaken, for the purposes of altering brain chemistry; and/or, brain electrical activity; and/or, alleged right brain/left brain lateralization capabilities; and/or the flow of certain kinds of energy through the brain. Unfortunately, in the process, some, if not many, of these people - both among the ones who recommended, as well as the ones who do the undertaking - confuse the notions of correlation and causation.

"They tend to assume that whatever changes may come about on various levels of brain activity means that such changes are necessarily the primary target of the techniques which are being used. Furthermore, such people tend to assume that any altered states of consciousness which arise in conjunction with these techniques serve as evidence that altered states of consciousness are a function of altered brain activity.

"Apparently, many people never stop to consider the following possibility. Whatever changes in brain activity that occur, subsequent to implementation of one, or more, of the foregoing kinds of technique, not only may be just a residual, peripheral, or secondary effect of those techniques, but that, as well, these changes in brain activity do not cause those altered states but, at best, only can be correlated with such changes.

"A further problem here is due to a failure, on the part of some people, to differentiate between techniques whose effects may be limited to the realm of the brain or the mind and techniques that concern dimensions of the individual extending beyond, or transcending the spheres of influence of either the body, the brain or the mind. Unfortunately, as we discussed this afternoon in conjunction with Jung, just as many people want to attribute everything to the unconscious without any appreciation of the nature of either the unconscious or the reality of that which is being attributed to the realm of the unconscious, so, too, many people want to restrict mysticism to the realm of the brain or the mind, despite the absence of any real understanding of what either the mind or mysticism are actually about.

"In my opinion, this tendency to psychologize mysticism has led to a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion concerning the nature not only of the mystical path but of the nature of the human being as well. Although the discipline of trans-personal psychology may have broadened the horizons of the traditional approaches to psychology, at the same time, this discipline is trying to appropriate or incorporate a reality - namely, mysticism - which, at least, according to my understanding of the teachings of the mystics has very little to do with psychology, brain, or mind,- however these may be construed, except to the extent there may be a trickle-down effect ensuing from mystical practices and realization that help orient various aspects of brain or mind functioning.

"I suppose one of the reasons for conflating the mystical and the psychological concerns modern ideas about the source and character of consciousness or awareness. For example, many people want to make consciousness a function of, or expression of, the activities of the brain or mind and, therefore, these individuals tend to believe any change in awareness is necessarily tied to brain or mental activity.

"Apparently, these people have not considered the possibility that awareness or consciousness is something quite apart from mental or brain activity and that the latter kinds of activity participate in consciousness according to the nature of their capacity or modality for doing so. Altered states of consciousness or consciousness-raising are not so much a matter of a change in consciousness as they are transformations in the manner through which we engage consciousness.

"When we come under the sphere of influence of different modalities for accessing various dimensions of the quality or attribute of consciousness, the nature of our phenomenology changes. Consciousness, nevertheless, remains what it always was and is.

"Considered from the foregoing perspective, the idea of mindfulness is really a misnomer. The appropriate term would be 'aware-fulness', and focusing the capacities of the mind provides only one modality of aware-fulness.

"The mystical path really consists, among other things, of a journey to, and through, various realms of aware-fulness. Each kind of aware-fulness gives expression to a qualitatively different kind of engagement of, and understanding of, the nature of the relationship between Divinity and the human being.

"In this regard, one of the places where I do agree with Campbell is when he said, at least in his earlier works, that modern people have nothing to teach the ancient sages with respect to having knowledge of, or understanding, the mystical nature of existence, in general, and the human being, in particular. I don't consider mysticism or spirituality to be something that evolves over time and which we are only now on the verge of truly coming to understand for the first time of history due to either a Divinely 'intended', or fortuitous, but chance, acceleration in the rate of evolution in our mental capacities, brains, consciousness or so-called spiritual technologies.

"Consequently, I worry about people getting the idea into their heads that mysticism is merely a function of brain or conceptual activity. So, I guess, the question which I'm asking, Tammy, is whether you are saying the nature of the image that needs to be understood, if human beings are to realize the nature of their own spiritual identity and essential capacity, is purely a matter of the brain or the mind or concepts?"

| Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Next | Part 6 |
| Table of Contents |