The Arcane Teaching · 12 of 21

Lesson XII. Dominant Desire; Sovereign Will

Aphorism xvii informs us that “The Three Principles—Substance, Motion and Consciousness—are equally under Law.” The leading scientific minds of the day hold that the Reign of Law is operative not only over matter and motion, but also over mind. There are but few psychologists who hold otherwise, although a few are reluctant to admit that the operations of human volition are caused, and such therefore hold on to the old dogma of “causelessness” although candidly admitting that the only other alternative is the theory of Chance. This reluctance may be explained by the influence of the old theology which held that the admission of cause in volition would annul the doctrine of “free will” (in the sense of free choice), and would destroy man’s moral responsibility. The theologians, however, do not accept the alternative of Chance, but murmur something about “special provisions of Providence,” without explaining what they mean by this. But all denials of the operation of universal law on the mental plane are in direct defiance of the modern scientific knowledge of the laws of psychology, and the common experience of the race which informs us that people act and choose because of motives and reasons. And all human education is based upon this understanding and principle.

The trouble with the theologians is that they confuse Law, Order, and Sequence, with the old fetish of Fate, Destiny, and Predestination. They recognize the logical absurdity of holding one morally responsible for doing what for all eternity it has been predestined, predetermined, or fated one should do. When Determination is divorced from Pre‑determination, a new light is seen. Notwithstanding the theological reluctance, its advocates nevertheless act as if psychological laws were true, in advocating the “training” of the mind, and in offering the “motives” of rewards and punishments for actions. If the volition is free, how could these “motives” influence or affect it. All education and training of the mind implies the existence of mental laws of choice and action. The “Law of Association” is but the Law of Sequence. Without Law in the mental realm, there is but the alternative of Chance— theology to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Aphorism xix. Man on the personal plane always acts and chooses strictly in accordance with the nature of his personal character. His personal character is determined by the nature of his psychical organism resulting from heredity, environment, and experience, and consists of a collection of mental states the motive principle in which is Desire (including Fear, which is but a form of Desire). The personal man, like the lower forms of life, always acts and chooses: according to the sum or average of his desires and fears, the strongest motives always dominating and determining the choice and action.

Each man has a personal character—just as each actor in a play assumes a “character.” Each character, as the Aphorism states, is “a collection of mental states.” These mental states are manifest as traits, tendencies, temperament, nature, disposition, personality—what we know as “the nature of the person,” in fact. Different persons are attracted by different things, in different degrees, and respond in different ways and in different degrees. No two persons are exactly alike. Each person has his own nature, disposition and character. The dictionaries say that Character is: “The personal qualities or attributes of a person.” Each character has its personal collection of feelings, desires, wants, inclinations, likes and dislikes, habits of thought, capacity for thought, degree and character of will, etc. Each has its sub‑conscious collection of stored up impressions, memories, inherited traits, etc., as well as its conscious mental faculties—in fact, nine‑tenths of the mental activities arise from this subconscious region. Each character has its collection of seed‑thoughts which constitute its share of the race experience—the experiences of its ancestors. And each has its store of impressions and experiences which have modified it accordingly. The result of heredity, environment and experience creates a personality and character according to which one acts and chooses. This character, at any particular moment, is just what a man is at that particular moment. And as he is, so will he act and choose. He always acts and chooses by reason of what he is. On the personal plane, he cannot act differently. And what he is—his character at the moment—always has as its motive power the sum or average of his desires and fears.

This is the point at which we must consider the objections of the “free will” theologians who will not admit that man acts and chooses according to the sum and average of his desires and fears. These people put forward the three leading “proofs” that man does not so act and choose. Let us consider them, briefly, in detail. They are as follows: I. That one may refuse to act on a desire or fear, however strong. He may oppose his will to the desire or fear and defeat its power. This statement is unquestionably true, but the explanation is that in so willing not to act upon the desire, he is really acting upon other and stronger desires or fears which urge him not to do the thing in question. Each desire is a motive—and the strongest motive dominates and decides. Before he may will not to act, he must first desire or “want to” refrain from the act, or else fear to act. In short he must want not to more than he wants to. Instead of disproving the action of Desire, it affords a very good proof. He chooses to do that which he “wants to” most strongly.

II. That one may choose to act upon a higher desire rather than upon a lower one—to act from a higher motive than from a lower one. This also is unquestionably true—but what is the “higher desire” and the “higher motive” but another form of Desire. If the “higher” is stronger, it conquers— if the “lower” is stronger, it conquers. Whichever is felt by the man to be the most desirable according to his reason, experience and feelings is the strongest motive. Sometimes the scales are very evenly balanced, and it requires but a mental speck of dust to tip it one way or the other. But this does not disprove the rule—it only emphasizes it.

III. That one has the evidence of his consciousness that he is free to act as he pleases—or to choose between two or more different courses of action. One feels most strongly that he has the freedom of choice and action. This is the “proof” considered unanswerable by the theologians. It is undoubtedly true, so far as it goes, but a moment’s consideration will show one that it adds but another proof to the truth of the power of Desire, and the Law of Cause and Effect. Waiving entirely the obvious rejoinder that the feeling or consciousness of freedom has no causal relation to the act, we see that the man merely feels and is conscious of the fact that he may act and choose as he pleases. Certainly he may, no one disputes that—but why does he “please”? Why does he want to do one thing in preference to another? And why does he finally choose to do one thing instead of the other? Is it merely Chance? Is there no reason or cause? Is it not true that he finds it more desirable, or more satisfactory, to do the one thing? Does he not weigh the motives, reasons, feelings, and desires, by the light of his own reason, experience, nature and character, and then decide in favor of the most desirable course? His will is free, of course—but his desires, feelings, “please to,” and “choose to” depend upon elements of his character—and the strongest motive, conscious or subconscious, wins the day. Between two things or objects, one chooses that which appeals to him as the “most desirable”—that which he “wants” most, or fears least.

Many will object that if this be true, it is unjust to punish one for doing what he must do according to his character. This objection arises from the old conception of Fate and Predestination, which held that a man must do a certain thing, in spite of all that might tend to prevent. This of course would make all “punishment” a rank injustice, and an absurd proceeding. But the doctrine of Cause and Effect does not so hold. On the contrary it holds that one’s character may be, and is, changed, modified and altered by the restraints placed upon certain actions. These afford new motives for action or non‑action. The theory of human Law, at least, is not that one shall be “punished” for wrongdoing in the spirit of wrath or vengeance, but that the “punishment” shall act as a deterrent, warning, and restraining motive to prevent the recurrence of the act on the part of the criminal, and to prevent others from making the same mistake. It is society’s method of protecting itself—not a system of revenge. The very fact that the penalties of the law serve to deter some from wrongdoing is but a proof that the strongest motive dominates. The birch prevents the schoolboy from misbehaving, though he so desires very much. He fears to incur punishment, more than he desires to misbehave. We may blame people for acting wrongly, because we regret that their characters were not better developed, or that their judgment was not more perfect. We often make the mistake of blaming effects, instead of causes. Would it be just to “blame” or “punish” if our acts resulted from Chance? In the same way, remorse and regret mean that we realize that what we did or chose was not wise or desirable, as seen in the light of subsequent events—we regret that the higher, nobler, or wiser motives were not dominant; or feel sorrow at the results of our actions. These latter feelings are often cited by those who deny Cause and Effect on the mental plane. But what, indeed, would be the reason for regret and remorse if our actions had been decided by Chance instead of by causes? If we remove Causes, we are in the hands of Chance—would that be a desirable exchange? If we deny Law, we must attribute all actions to Chance!

Summing up the fact of Dominant Desire, it may be said that people act in accordance with the line of the Greatest Satisfaction. This Greatest Satisfaction depends entirely upon the nature of the person—his character—which is regulated by his tendencies, disposition, inherited qualities, results of his experience, environment, education, training, history, etc., all of which, of course, have other causes behind them. Whatever gives to the person the Greatest Satisfaction evident at the moment of action or choice, that will he do or choose. This is the rule—test it most rigidly by applying it to your own acts and decisions, and those of others. But in so testing, do not overlook the effect of Habit as crystallized Desire; nor the effect of Fear as negative Desire. When two desires are otherwise equal, the one most habitual will win the day. The element of Fear, or Aversion, is but a Desire “not to,” or “to avoid, or get away from.” Compulsion by others may result in action through Fear. And one often refrains from manifesting a desire because he fears to “pay the price.”

Did you ever make a choice, or perform an act which gave you the Least Satisfaction, or which you knew to be the most undesirable under all the circumstances of the case? If you did so—Why did you do it? If you yield to the suggestions, desires, reason or will of another person, against your own inclination and judgment—what is this but the “line of the least resistance,” which gave you the least trouble or dissatisfaction at the moment, and in which the negative Desire of Fear had its effect?

In the case of hypnotic influence, or the domination of one’s will by another by any means, the rule is not broken, for the stronger person’s will influences and arouses the Desire of the weaker person. Even in this case, desire or fear is the motive of action or choice.

In considering this subject, remember that the Aphorism says “the sum and average of his desires—the strongest motives always dominating and deciding the choice and action.” We often are forced to “strike an average” between our conflicting desires. And then again, wisdom, experience and intelligence enable us to discriminate between the desirability of objects and acts, and thus play an important part in the choice. And imagination gives us a wider range of choice, by presenting a greater number of objects before us for choice. But wisdom, experience, intelligence and imagination result from Causes.

A Dominant Desire always has for its motive the attainment of something which will bring the Greatest Satisfaction, immediate or remote, or the prevention of something which will bring dissatisfaction, immediate or remote—either to the person himself, or to others in whom he is interested. Aversion, fear, or the tendency away from persons or things, are merely the negative phases of Desire, and come under the same rule. The “most desirable” thing, according to the judgment of the moment, is always chosen—the “most undesirable” thing of the moment is always avoided. Sometimes this necessitates “striking an average.” So in the end we do that which we “like to”—we do what we “want to” do most. The “want to” and “like to” arise from Cause, and are under the Law of Sequence—links in the Cosmic Chain of Eventuality.

And so, the nature of one’s character determines his acts. This explains many actions in a strange way. For instance, one man is kind because it gives his nature the greatest satisfaction; just as another gains the greatest satisfaction by being otherwise. One finds satisfaction in doing his “duty”; while another finds satisfaction in escaping it. One finds satisfaction in virtue; another in vice. One finds it in selfishness; another in doing for and giving to others. One finds more satisfaction in giving his life for his country; another finds it in running away and hiding. One finds the greatest satisfaction in giving; another, in getting. One finds the greatest satisfaction in being moral; another in the reverse. One takes the greatest pleasure in being a good citizen; another finds his satisfaction in the opposite. Each acts according to his nature and character—just as a cat and dog acts according to its nature. But man can change his nature, if he so desires. And he often so desires, while the lower animal does not—that is the main point of difference.

We have laid much stress upon this subject of Dominant Desire, because we wish to awaken you to a realization, perhaps for the first time, of what an important part Desire plays in the choice and actions of the man on the personal plane of life—how much in thrall to it is the race. When one realizes his bonds, he is in a position to work to rid himself of them. It is only when the slave realizes that he is a slave, that thoughts of freedom come to him. There is a plane above that of Personality—a plane in which Positive Will takes the place of Desire. Sovereign Will is above Dominant Desire. Listen to the Aphorism: Aphorism xx. When man attains Individuality—Egohood—he enters upon the plane of Will, and rises above the plane of Desire. Desire and Will are the opposite poles of the same Principle—the Centre of Balance being Reason. On the plane of Will, though one still remains under Law, yet he may learn to use Law instead of remaining passive to it. He may learn to oppose Law to laws. He may learn to create Desire by Will, as well as to restrain and master Desire by Will. Furthermore—and this the greatest of all—he may learn to Will to Will. He may learn to complete the Circle of Will. He may learn the Secret of the Excluded Middle. When this last Secret is learned, man is well on the road to Mastery.

By rising to the plane of Will, over and above the plane of Desire, we rise above the lower laws, and acknowledge supremacy only to the higher laws. We may then oppose Law to laws, and counteract and use them. Desire and Will are but the opposing poles of the same principle—Reason being the Centre of Balance, as the Aphorism states. The majority of the race remain centred in the negative pole—few reach the centre—and still fewer learn the secret of swinging the centre over to the positive side. He on the negative plane can do no more than to Desire to Will. He of the positive plane may learn to Will to Will. He who has learned the secret may transmute his desires, and transform his inclinations, tendencies, and tastes. Such a one is the Master of Desire, instead of its slave. The art of Willing to Will is one of the great feats of occultism—one of the great attainments of the Arcane Teachings. In it lies also the secret of Will Power in its outward manifestations, for he who can change, and create desires in himself, can produce similar results in the desire‑mind of others. In attaining the plane of Positive Will, one enters into the field of all Occult Power and Attainment—the rest is all a matter of progress, practice, exercise and mastery. When one grasps the Secret of Will, he has laid hands upon the Sword of Power.

Running back from cause to prior cause, and to still more remote precedent causes of his desires, the Individual finds himself at last confronting the Cosmic Will. Retracing his path back to the present, he finds himself confronting his Personal Will, which is moved by Desire. In other words, he finds a Chain of Desire extending from the Cosmic Will to the Personal Will—a chain of countless links, but having a beginning in Will, and an ending in Will—an Endless Chain, because it is a Circle. Thereupon he learns the first lessons of the Arcane Secret of the Excluded Middle, and thenceforth strives to realize the union of the two ends of Will. From the realization of this Union arises the Individual Will—the Positive Will of the Ego. In this process the law of Cause and Effect is not violated, but Will is made the Cause of Will—the Cause and Effect merge. When this is attained—then does Man indeed become the Master! Part V. The Astral Plane. Lesson XIII. Lower Astral Planes. Lesson XIV. Astral “Black Keys.” Lesson XV. Higher Astral Planes.