This writer once participated in a most unusual game of chess which had a
surprise ending. It was not the game, itself, that was unusual; it was what
happened around it, that was remarkable. The game took place in an area
where students go, to relax and have fun. When the game started there was
nothing unusual about it. However, when there is a focus of attention, it
tends to attract interest. Soon there were several people surrounding and
watching the game. Behind this writer was a spectator who became as emotionally involved in the game, as if it was his own. As the game went on,
he became progressively more involved. If this writer was about to make a
move, he would make approving or disapproving sounds, sometimes even
saying things. Eventually, when it was this writer’s turn to make a move, a
longer than usual time was put into deliberation. The suspense was too much
for the spectator, he couldn’t contain himself. Suddenly, he reached over and
moved one of the pieces. Instantly, this writer was up and heading for the
exit, with the spectator behind him tugging at his sleeve, begging him to return and promising not to interfere, but all was to no avail.
The spectator did not have sufficient emotional self-control for the situation.
Neither did this writer. Few do in such situations. However, this not an essay
about self-control, desirable though that may be. It is about something else
in play at that time, objective versus subjective perspectives. Kibitzers have a
more objective perspective; they are not subjectively in the game. They have
no personal attachment. The players are subjectively in the game and many
do not have objective detachment. Even some chess masters, who must have
objectivity to reach mastery, will sometimes rise and walk around the board
to see it from the other side for the sake of greater objectivity. This phenomenon is not limited to chess games. We have grandstand quarterbacks and
coaches. It is also not limited to games; we have back seat drivers and critics
of all ilk. It is especially pertinent to spiritual aspirants, in relation to other
spiritual aspirants. Max Heindel tells us several times in his letters, that we
have to be especially aware of this, with regard to other Rosicrucian aspirants. With regard to them we are in an external, objective relationship. We
see things differently than they do and sometimes may even see things that
they do not see, just as kibitzers often do. There is nothing wrong with objectivity. In fact, we are taught to observe ourselves objectively in retrospection. Max Heindel loved to quote Bobby Burns on objectivity: “O wad some Power the gifte gie us, to see ourselves as other see us!” It is one of our goals as spiritual aspirants to attain objectivity, the objectivity of Christ in Life Spirit. What is wrong, is when we use objectivity personally, and subjectively, in
judgment and condemnation.
There is nothing wrong with subjectivity. When we are in our individual personalities, it is inescapable. We may only be able to see what is in front of
us, not a panorama; but our viewpoint, though subjective, is valuable for its
uniqueness. Trying to detach from all subjectivity, is often a sign of mental
illness.
There is nothing to be compared to the joy of being deeply involved in something, to be within something, to be part of something, to belong. There are
things that can only be experienced subjectively from within. We even have
folk maxims on the value of subjectivity. We say things like “…until you have
walked a mile in my shoes, you have no right to judge me.” Subjectivity is as
pervasive in the world as objectivity. A grandstand quarterback may see a
game with external objectivity, but he or she interprets it subjectively. Politics seems to be interpreted with personal subjectivity. It is not the subjectivity that is the problem. It is the personalization, the ego-centric bias.
Objective and subjective perspectives are inescapable. They are inherent in
our experience of reality. We all experience the interplay of objectivity and
subjectivity, but with varying degrees of awareness. When this writer was a
child on the playground and someone lied, they would be taunted: “Liar, liar,
pants on fire, tongue as long as a telephone wire.” Objective observation with
subjective hyperbole. The culprit, not likely to acquiesce to condemnation,
without a fight, would often retort: “It takes one to know one.” In psychology
that retort is called projection. In projection, one projects personal subconscious content onto others. If one is in love, one sees all of one’s dreams and
wishes in the beloved. If one is in hate, one projects all of one’s nastiness
onto the enemy. If we learn to discern in ourselves, what is projected onto
others, be they friend or foe, from what they really are, we grow spiritually in
clear consciousness and self-knowledge.
This also applies to the spiritual growth, through the service that we are urged
to perform. As noted earlier in the chess game, when we give ourselves to
something, it attracts interest in others. New students are enthusiastic about
astrology. It permeates their lives. They eat and sleep astrology. It occupies
their conversation. Soon others around them take interest and then comes
the inevitable request for a horoscope interpretation. The querent usually
says something like, “This is just to satisfy curiosity.” The astrologer soon
learns that it isn’t “just curiosity.” There always seems to be a deeper reason,
a problem of some kind. If it is a maiden horoscope for the astrologer, it might
as well be a blank sheet of paper, for all that is known about a human life,
or of human destiny. Books usually don’t help, because most are impersonal
concentrations distilled from the horoscopes of many people, not the unique
person in front of the astrologer. However, if we ask questions, observe and
ponder in our hearts, intuitions come to us. Then the real work begins --
the work of translating astrological meaning into life meaning. In this it is
important to remember that the horoscope to the astrologer is an outward
objectification, an indirect one at that, because of its symbolic nature. At the
same time, it is also important to remember that the querent is most likely to
experience life subjectively, life happens to him or her. The querent is, therefore, likely to experience the interaction with the astrologer subjectively. To
be effective the astrologer, or any other spiritual helper, must be able to see
the querent as the querent sees self, and the astrologer must be able to bring
the querent to see self as seen by others. Only with this balance of objectivity
and subjectivity, can one progress in soul growth and be fulfilled in helping.
Max Heindel called this ability to appeal to subjectivity “…being many things to many people.”
Self-improvement and self-development are integral to spiritual service. If
we are not working on self-improvement, we will not be successful in helping others to do so. Some would even say that our success in service is proportional to our work in self-improvement. We are not likely to be successful with helping others if we suggest to them to do what we are not doing
ourselves. The reciprocal of this is, that it is in spiritual service that we find
self-development, we must act in order to improve our actions. To succeed,
we too must learn to see ourselves as others see us. We all long to become
conscious Invisible Helpers. That is best done, by learning to leave our bodies and functioning awake in the inner worlds. Leaving the body is more than
a somatic detachment, there is a psychological side to it. To attain to that
ability, we have to also leave the personality of the body, i.e., to clearly see
ourselves at least as clearly as others see us. If we don’t, we will be misled by
the illusions of the desire world, because we are unaware of the desires in our
own being, and that we are responding to them, another reason why retrospection is so important.
Once, when this writer was waiting to meet someone, he was standing in a
relaxed and open state. In that state he saw someone light and take the much
desired first drag off of a cigarette. Inside of himself he could feel everything
the smoker did as if he were the smoker. That was something resembling
a low-grade type of inner vision, or spiritual sight. Spiritual sight is when
an observation occurs simultaneously with inner intuition of its meaning;
subjectivity and objectivity unite. That inner, intuitive component is why
the higher spiritual worlds are sometimes called inner worlds. In the desire
world the inner component is more pronounced, than here in the physical,
but it is still somewhat subjective. There, the outer appearances are closer
to the inner truth. Monstrous forms usually harbor monstrous intents, but
not always. This is why neophytes are taught to hold their vision until they
can see through the form to intuitively see the truth within. As one proceeds
inward and upward, through the spiritual worlds, the inner becomes more
important and objective. In the world of Life Spirit, the inner subsumes the
outer and assumes its objectivity in perfection. This is why Christ can judge
perfectly. This is the path we aspire to follow. Eventually, we hope to get
beyond, even the trace of subjectivity, or point of view, we have in Human
Spirit. We hope to leave the Self, analogously to the way we are now working
to leave our physical bodies. Only then will we see the truth as perfectly as is
humanly possible in both the within and the without. It will be as it is said
in the line from our Temple Service: “Then we shall know even as we are
known.”
This web page has been edited and/or excerpted from reference material, has been modified from it's original version, and is in conformance with the web host's Members Terms & Conditions. This website is offered to the public by students of The Rosicrucian Teachings, and has no official affiliation with any organization.
