The Arcane Teaching · 5 of 21

Lesson V. The Cosmic Will

This is The Arcane Teaching regarding the World‑Spirit; the One‑Life; the Life‑Principle; the Logos; the Demiurge, or that Something which men have called by still other names, but which in Truth is but the Cosmic Will from which arises all life, and action, and shape and form, and change, and appearance, and variety, and manifestation—in fact, all that we include in the term “The Cosmos.” Listen to the Aphorism.

Aphorism vii. “From the bosom of the Unmanifest, arises that which men call the World‑Spirit; the One‑Life; the Universal Being; the Life‑Principle; the Logos; the Demiurge; but which in Truth is but the Cosmic Will from which arises all life, and action, and shape and form, and change, and appearance, and variety, and manifestation. The Cosmic Will is the One which becomes Many—the Unity in which is Diversity—the First‑Born from the Womb of Infinity,—the Cosmic Egg from which hatches the Universe. But this too, is under The Law.”

By the term “The Cosmic Will” the Arcane Teaching designates the One Universal Living Creative Principle which has been recognized in all the great philosophies of all times and places. From the earliest dawn of philosophical thought, the great thinkers of the race have postulated the existence of a One Great Universal Living Creative Principle from which proceeded the Many. In some cases the One was held to be an Universal Being—even a Personal Being or Deity—while in others it was regarded simply as a Principle. But the underlying conception was the same—a One Living Creative Something from which the Many emerged—a Unity from which proceeded Diversity. This Universal Living Creative Principle was often confounded with The Absolute, although others held that it was subordinate. The Atlantean traditions show that those ancient people held to this fundamental idea; the Egyptians held to the existence of an Universal Life‑Principle; the Chaldeans likewise; the Hindus held to the existence of the principle of Brahman, or the Universal‑Life‑Being, and the ancient Greek philosophers held firmly to the existence of the One Life Principle.

The Atlanteans, Chaldeans, and Egyptians held that this Universal Life Principle subdivided itself into the many forms of life and things, in obedience to an inner law of its being. The ancient Hindus held that the One manifested as the Many, the various schools giving different “reasons” for the manifestation as follows: one school held that Brahman manifested as the Many, in order to enjoy objective existence; another school held that Prakriti, the Universal Principle of Substance, was acted upon by the Purushas, or Soul‑Principles, which it had attracted to itself, and manifestations arose by reason thereof; another school held that Brahman was merely a subordinate creative principle, which was caused to create universes by the power of Para‑Brahm; another school held that all manifestation was merely an illusory dream of Maya (the Creative Principle), in the mind of The Supreme Being; the Buddhists held that manifestation was caused by tanha or “thirst,” in the Universal Will‑to‑Live which arose from the Void of Nothingness; other schools held ideas akin to those mentioned, or variations or combinations of them.

The Greeks always held to the existence of the Universal Life Principle, calling it by various names. The very term, “The Cosmos,” was used by the Stoics and others to represent the idea of the anima mundi or “world‑soul.” Heraclitus held to the “world‑spirit” which he symbolized as flame. Pythagoras, in his exoteric or popular teachings taught the doctrine of the Life Principle, symbolizing it as light or flame. Other schools recognized the existence of this One Life Principle calling it “Being,” a term which has persisted in modern philosohy.

By some schools, notably the Platonian, the Universal Life Principle was called “The Demiurge,” the term literally meaning the “universal worker.” The Demiurge was held to be an exalted and mysterious agent, by and through whom The Absolute was supposed to have created the Universe—the life of the Demiurge flowed out into manifold forms, and became the Many. This idea was adhered to by the Gnostics of the early Christian church.

The term “The Logos” was also applied by some of the schools to this Universal Life Principle. The Logos was held to be the Creative Principle of Nature, objective in the world, giving order and regularity to the universe of shapes and forms which it had manifested. This idea of The Logos was inherent in many ancient religions, and permeated even early Christianity. Ueberweg, in his History of Philosophy, says: “The Logos was a being intermediate between God and the world.…The Logos does not exist from eternity like God, and yet its genesis is not like our own and that of all other created beings; it is the first begotten son of God, and is for us, who are imperfect, a god.…Through the agency of The Logos, God created the world, and has revealed Himself to it.”

In the early Christian Church there was much dispute about The Logos, but the revolution in the Church, effected by Constantine, drove it from its place of importance in the Christian theology. But, nevertheless, the idea has persisted, as witness Cudworth, the eminent English theologian and philosopher (1617–1688) who held to the existence of a “Plastic Nature,” of which he claimed: “It may well be concluded that there is a Plastic Nature, under God, which, as an inferior and subordinate instrument, doth grudgingly execute that part of his providence which consists in the orderly and regular motion of matter;” Cudworth held that this idea of Plastic Nature was reasonable in view of the fact that “the slow and gradual process in the generation of things would be a vain and idle pomp, or a trifling formality, if the moving power were omnipotent; as also may be noted those errors and bungles which are committed where the matter is inept and contumacious; which argues that the moving power is not irresistible, and that Nature is not altogether incapable of being sometimes frustrated and disappointed by the indisposition of matter. An Omnipotent Moving Power, being able to dispatch its work in a moment, would always act infallibly and irresistibly, as no ineptitude and stubbornness of matter would be able to hinder such a one, or to make Him fumble or bungle in anything.” The Plastic Nature of Cudworth, and his followers, was but the old Demiurge, or Logos, of the Gnostics—but another name for the Universal Living Creative Principle, subordinate to the Higher Law.

Modern philosophers and thinkers have held to this idea of the Creative Principle, regarding it rather as a Life Principle than as a Being, however. Bruno held the existence of an anima mundi, or world‑soul‑principle; others have held to the Principle of “Nature”; Schopenhauer held to the existence of an Universal Will‑to‑Live, which manifested its life the universe of shape and form and variety; von Hartman held that there existed an “Unconscious,” or Creative Principle, similar to that of Schopenhauer’s “Will”; Wundt held to the existence of an “Universal Will”; Crusius held to an Universal Dominating Will; Balzac held to a “Universal Something, akin to Will”; Nietsche held to a “World‑Will”; Maeterlinck holds to a Life Principle; Bernard Shaw postulates the existence of a Universal Creative Energy which he calls, “The Life Forces.”

The Naturalistic school of philosophy postulates the existence of a composite something which it calls “Nature,” which acts as the Universal Creative Energy; other thinkers speak of “Nature” in its metonymic sense, as “The agent, producer, or creator of things; the powers which carry on the processes of creation; the powers concerned to produce existing phenomena, whether in sum or in detail; the personified sum and order of cause and effect.” Spencer postulates the existence of an “infinite and eternal energy, from which all things proceed,…which transcends our reason and even our imagination.” In short, this Universal Living Creative Principle or Life‑Principle, is found, under one name or another, in nearly all of the leading philosophies or schools of thought, ancient or modern. The highest reports of the human reason agree in this conception and postulate.

But the true philosophic conception must be distinguished from that of Pantheism, which at first thought seems to be the same. Pantheism claims that this Creative Principle is Deity; God; or The Absolute—that Deity and Nature are identical—that the Universe is God, and God is the Universe. Herein lies a great error, which true philosophers and true occultists vigorously oppose. The idea of an Absolute—of an Omnipotent, Omniscient (all‑powerful; all‑wise) Being—being compelled to work Its way up gradually, haltingly, with mistakes and stumbles, is absurd. Cudworth (quoted a moment ago) makes this point clear. And to claim that an Absolute Being is trying to “gain experience” in this way, is ridiculous. The idea that the Absolute is “trying to accomplish something” by the universal manifestation, is illogical—for if It has not been able to reach its goal in all the past of Eternity, It can not reach it in all the future of Eternity, for the one is equal to the other. Moreover, the Absolute must of necessity be self‑sufficient, and can want nothing to perfect Itself. In short any attempt to postulate The Absolute; God; Deity or other Supreme Thing as being the struggling, striving, evolving Creative Energy, must end in failure or an illogical conclusion. It is only when it is assumed that this Creative Energy is subordinate to and ruled by an Absolute Sovereign Power, that it becomes logically thinkable. Pantheism, actual or implied, is illogical—even the idea of a Personal Deity is far more logical than is pure Pantheism. The Absolute and Nature can never be the same, try as men may to make it appear possible. Nature must always be relative, and subordinate to a superior and sovereign Power or Law, and the latter must be The Absolute.

Pantheism wears many masks and disguises, and is the underlying idea of many modern systems bearing high‑sounding names. Any system which is based upon the idea of an Absolute which manifests as a relative—or of a Supreme Being which manifests as Nature, and natural things, is but Pantheism, though perhaps subtly disguised. Beware of this insidious error of thought. Apply these test‑questions to any system, to puncture the bubble of Pantheism, if such is contained within it: (1) Why does your Absolute Being depart from Its absolute nature, and become relative, manifold, and divisible? (2) How can The Absolute lose its absolute nature and become relative? (3) What becomes of the absolute nature of The Absolute, when the latter transforms Itself into the relative? ( 4) How can the Unconditioned take on conditions and limitations? (5) How can the Immutable and Changeless manifest change? (6) How can the Indivisible divide and separate itself into parts? And if the teaching in question postulates in Absolute Being, the quality of Omniscience or Absolute Wisdom, ask also this question: (7) How can the Omniscient All‑Wise Absolute Being lose Its wisdom, and display the comparative ignorance of the relative forms?

There are but two possible logical explanations of the Absolute and Relative, as follows: (I) That the Cosmos has no existence except in the imagination of The Absolute Being—either as a dream, meditation, reverie, or deliberate dramatic representation, lacking all reality; or (II) that the Universal Creative Principle or Energy is not Absolute, but is subordinate to a Sovereign Law. The first is the answer of certain Idealistic schools of Philosophy—the second is the answer of the Arcane Teachers of Atlantis, Chaldea, Egypt and Ancient Greece. Take your choice! But if you choose the former, then you must admit that The Absolute deliberately and wilfully creates the illusion for no reason except its own pleasure (for no real result or gain is thinkable in such case), for it is ridiculous to hold that The Absolute could be subject to Illusion, Ignorance, or Maya, for if such were so it would no longer be the Absolute. In either case Pantheism is “escorted to the frontier.” Do not be deluded by Pantheistic subtleties, or casuistic false reasoning. Pantheism at best is but a half‑truth—the other half lies in the recognition of the Absolute Law.

The Arcane Teaching holds that the Cosmic Will—the first‑born of the Womb of Infinity—the Cosmic Egg from which hatches the Universe—is in its last analysis, Spirit. By “Spirit” is meant “Essence”—remember this definition. “Essence” is a term derived from the Latin word, “esse,” meaning “to be.” Therefore Essence (or Spirit) means the “beingness” of Being. Spirit is the essence of the Cosmos. Spirit is that which is the first‑born of the Infinity of Nothingness—the first thing to be. And from Spirit all the Cosmos proceeds—and at the last the Cosmos is all Spirit. Back of Spirit there is naught by the Infinity of Nothingness. And over and above Spirit there is naught but The Law. Spirit is Being; and Being is Spirit.

The Arcane Teaching uses the term “Cosmic Will” to indicate the creative activities of Spirit. Spirit is the essence of the Cosmic Will—the Cosmic Will is the outward activities of Spirit. But Spirit and the Cosmic Will are the same thing—in its the inner and outer aspects. By “Will” is not meant that human quality called “will”—this latter is but the mental quality which calls forth Will. Will is the principle of all activity—it is activity in itself. Life is one of the manifestations of the Cosmic Will. Will is the “lifeness” of Life. Will is the outward aspect of Spirit.

In the Cosmic Will are inherent the “Three Principles,” viz., Substance; Motion; and Consciousness. In the infinitude of manifestation of these Three Principles by the Cosmic Will is found the explanation of the Cosmos or Universe. In their play, and interplay, is found the secret of shape, form, variety and degrees of Substance, Motion, and Consciousness. And from these arise Life. Therefore, in considering the Cosmos, in its activities and manifestations, we may now forget the deeper and more subtle metaphysical and philosophical terms which we have been compelled to consider—and, instead, let us see in universal operation and manifestation, a Living Universe or Cosmic Life Principle, ever moving, changing, flowing, evolving, proceeding, desiring, attaining, seeking, accomplishing. This is The Cosmic Will of the Arcane Teaching—possessing all the attributes and qualities of the Universal Being of the Pantheists, except that of Absoluteness; for greater than the human imagination can conceive it though it be, yet it is subordinate to, and ever under, The Law.

In this teaching regarding the Cosmic Will, the Arcane Teaching gives us an intelligible explanation of that most perplexing idea of the One Life, or Universal Life, which has appeared in various guises and under various names in the philosophies of all times and peoples. That all Life, in the end, is One—that the individual lives are but manifestations of, and centres in, One Universal Life, has been the Truth taught by some of the greatest teachers of the race—the illumined of all ages. The majority of the schools make the fatal error of ascribing to the One Life the nature of The Absolute. The moment this is done the thinker is confronted with the paradox of the Absolute becoming Relative—a logical impossibility. The best modern thought is fast coming to an agreement with the original Arcane principle that the Universal Life is not Absolute—not Independent and Self Governed—not Sovereign Power—not God, in the highest sense of the word; but instead is Relative, Subordinate, and under The Law. The Arcane Teaching that the Universal Life is not its own law, but is under Law and governed by Laws, is the only explanation consistent with the highest report of the reason—the highest form of Logic—and the experience of science, based upon observed facts.

One of the greatest and most glaring of the fallacies of Pantheism or allied systems of thought, is that which assumes that The Absolute or Deity is “trying to” accomplish something—either in the direction of “gaining experience,” or “building up” some great universe by continual progression. The idea of an Absolute, which must be Perfect, desiring anything other than it has is illogical. The idea of an Absolute Pantheistic Deity who must be All‑Wise, trying to “gain experience” or learn something by playing the game of Many Parts, is childlike and ridiculous—surely an unworthy role to attribute to an Omniscient Deity. The idea of an Absolute or Omnipotent Deity “trying to,” or endeavoring to build up universes by slow and arduous labor belongs to the category of child‑thought. To think of such a Being doing “day work” is ridiculous—and then what could He gain by it, this Perfect and Self‑Sufficient Being? And the fact remains that if all past Time has not been sufficient to accomplish perfect results, then all future Time will fail to accomplish them—for just as future Time has no ending, past Time has no beginning, and existed forever. And then, what did this Creative Being do in all the Eternity before Creation, if it be held that Creation had its beginning in time?

At the last analysis, the report of the illumined of the race will be found to agree with the highest report of the human reason—the report that the Universal Life can be but Relative; governed by a Sovereign Absolute Law; and subject to the Laws of Rhythm and Cyclicity—having its Ebb and Flow; its Action and Reaction; its Rise and Fall; its Days and Nights; its Periods of Creative Activity, and Creative Rest. And the Arcane Teaching squares fully with these requirements—for it is founded on Cosmic Truth.