Transpersonal Activity versus Mediumship

*

TRANSPERSONAL ACTIVITY VERSUS MEDIUMSHIP

Dane Rudhyar

Because of the several meanings of the Latin prefix trans, the word transpersonal is ambiguous. For contemporary psychologists and participants in the "consciousness movement," the word applies to a state of being or consciousness beyond the personal level and to any direct or indirect attempt to experience or better understand such states. However, I have used the term since 1930 to represent action which takes place through a person, but which originates in a center of activity existing beyond the level of personhood. Such action makes use of human individuals to bring to focus currents of spiritual energy, supramental ideas, or realizations for the purpose of bringing about, assisting, or guiding transformative processes.(1)

1. To my knowledge I was the first to use the term — though C. G. Jung may already have used it in German without my being aware of it — in an article in the magazine The Glass Hive (1930) edited by Will Levington Comfort. The word came into wider use in 1968 when Abraham Maslow, Anthony Sutich, and other psychologists started the Association for Transpersonal Psychology in Palo Alto, California.

The word through also has several shades of meanings. It can mean across in a strictly spatial sense (as for instance a transatlantic line), or by the intermediary of — as something done "through" a person's influence. When one speaks of diffuse sunlight being focused through a lens, both of these meanings are implied; the light rays pass across the specially shaped piece of glass, but the special form given to the glass condenses the rays making them more effective in producing certain results, such as the production of heat.

A "transpersonal action" can refer to the release through a person of either a stream of transformative energy, perhaps able to produce seemingly miraculous results, or of information not normally available to the present-day mind. Nevertheless, the person through whom the power or the information is released cannot be merely anyone, any more than a lens can be any piece of glass. The personhood of the human being must have a special kind of form as well as unimpaired translucency. It must be sensitive to transpersonal impressions and attuned to the quality of being of the active source of what is conveyed, transmitted, or "transduced."

Any transpersonal action or communication implies, first of all, the existence of beings, or sources of power and information, beyond the level of personhood and culture, which is always intellectually and emotionally limited and to some degree exclusivistic. Such an implication, however, presents problems to the average intellectual person of our science-worshipping civilization. Intellectuals may be willing to peep through cracks in the walls of their rationalistic castles and to accept the possibility of discovering exalting vistas suggesting the wondrous nature of the country beyond the walls; they may be willing to learn techniques to pierce windows through the walls, perhaps even to make doors so that they can step outside. But if they do step out, they tend to see a blinding light under which everything seems to be a vast, all-encompassing oneness of being. If forms appear, they are given much the same separated, personalized character which familiar entities within the castle have always been understood to have.

This situation is bound to remain essentially unchanged and transpersonal activity will remain misunderstood in spite of everything psychologists and New Age devotees may say until certain concepts are understood. First, a clear picture of a hierarchy of levels and of modes of structural organization must be accepted and its full implications consciously grasped. Also the nature of and motivation for communication or transmission of power from the higher to the lower level must be interpreted on the basis of operative principles based on fundamental values, instead of being analyzed in quasi-intellectual and technical terms. Above all the distinction between mediumistic "communications" and transpersonal transmission (or, symbolically speaking, between a plain piece of glass and a carefully formed lens) must be made clear. If this distinction is not made, the ideal of transpersonal living may become negative and potentially dangerous. Indeed this is a possibility against which one must constantly guard. This requires that one must develop the capacity for discrimination, which in turn can be based only on fundamental principles, such as the principle of operative wholeness through hierarchical structures, - that is, holarchy.

When fully reliable, discrimination implies the activity of a mind both free from cultural fashions and aware of archetypal principles of organization and of an intuition able to resonate to the particular quality being exteriorized (consciously or not) by whatever has called for discriminatory evaluation. An inner feeling for value has to be associated with an objective perception of the place and function anything occupies within the evolving situation (the cycle of activity) to which it belongs. Its proper place is the central factor in assessing the emotional character, significance, and value of anything, anyone, or any act. Where one belongs colors and often determines the quality of the relationships constituting any particular situation. This is especially true in situations claiming or implicitly believed to be transpersonal and thus to be the result of a relationship between two different levels of activity and/or consciousness.

What are these levels? What motivates the relationship? What is the mode of operation of the relationship and of the interaction between the related factors? Answers to these questions depend on the determination of the nature of the levels to which the related factors belong — thus on the ability to use discrimination. Such an ability requires not merely "feeling," but a mind capable of objectively perceiving the place, function, and motivation of the perhaps multiple elements of the situation as a whole.

Wholeness demands that any situation be approached as a whole. Analysis of a particular situation or experience may seem to reveal only horizontal relationships at work between entities existing at the same level of being; but this may be so only in relation to the surface actions and reactions of the participants. Vertical relationships also may be implied, and they may even be the basic factors if one or more of the participants in the situation is deeply dissatisfied with, or only superficially belongs to, the level at which the situation apparently develops. Unfortunately, a truly holistic approach is often difficult to take and sustain, especially by human beings involved in the situation or when the situation includes persons used as transmitters by superior beings or who have become unconscious channels for the operation of catabolic forces.

An example is the traditional case of an Avatar through whom a divine being — or in more modern terms, the values and ideals of a new step in human evolution — "manifests" or reveals transformative ideas. The vertical character of the relationship between the physical person and the power or entity active through him or her should be clear to a perceptive, open-minded, and sensitive witness; but history dramatically proves that this is not so in the great majority of the cases. Today "reductionist" philosophers and psychologists insist that strictly personal factors and horizontal conflicts can explain everything about the Avatar's life. The same type of explanation may seem even more relevant concerning the creative activities — and some noncreative and seemingly strictly personal actions and reactions — in the lives of great artists or in the behavior and inner motives of statesmen and inventors whose actions have profoundly affected the way of life and the thinking of large collectivities.

From the holarchic point of view, this reductionist interpretation is superficial and essentially incomplete, even if welcomed by devotees of an egalitarian and nonhierarchical philosophy of life. Such an approach in music would reject the possibility of a polyphonic interplay of melodic lines, because music can only mean unison singing — as was the case in most ancient cultures. On the other hand, a great many people today — whether they consider themselves Spiritualists or refuse to accept such a label — are reductionists in reverse. They see their actions merely as a passive, guitar-like accompaniment to melodies that have little meaning and even less transformative impact — melodies believed to be played by a transcendent "spirit," a discarnate "soul," a "Master" whose name has come to public notice, or even "the Christ."

While the materialistic reductionist cannot see farther than his senses and analytical intellectual processes allow, the Spiritualist has not yet left the stage of subservience to forces belonging to the level of collective psychism and emotional mass-vibrations — collective hopes, fears, or expectations, which take control of the all-too-open "medium." In the past these forces may have been associated with the thought-forms, psychological tensions, or emotions of a once living, now deceased personality; but they also may be direct or inverted projections of inner confusion and longing with which the passive, undeveloped mind is unable to deal frontally and to integrate within an individualized structure of selfhood.

Once the process of individualization is definitely under way, the vertical interaction of ascending and descending movements should be discernible in any situation which can be called ever so slightly creative, transformative, or revelatory. The two levels may not be ready for full interpenetration yet, but one should speak of interaction rather than action and reaction; for evolution is essentially a two-way process.

Several levels of activity can be distinguished in a present-day, developed human being; and all interact in various ways according to the particular person's stage of development. The two extreme levels may be succinctly called "spirit" and "matter," but the whole situation involves a definite spiritual Quality seeking precise and concrete actualization in a differentiated form (a person) of the material substance of our planet, according to a fundamental archetypal structure. To human beings with limited senses, the earthly substance is "physical"; but senses capable of responding to more subtle and differentiated vibrations would perceive finer substances, material formations, and vibratory energies. Theoretically, these exist in everyone already but are mostly latent; eventually the entire planet may experience a transmutation resulting in their concrete actualization. Thus the matter referred to in statements about the concluding omega stage of a great planetary cycle, when spirit and matter are to be integrated in a perfect form of being, is not the kind of substance that can be perceived or touched by today's gross senses or coarse hands. It will have to be a materiality so sensitive and attuned to the vibrations of spiritual Qualities that a process of total harmonization and interpenetration can be consummated at least partially.

This consummation can occur only within and through an adequate form or structure; otherwise, however valuable the results may be, one can speak only of mediumship. Thus a process of form-building is required. It is a process that unfolds in two phases: first, in terms of collective structuring (a culture and systems of social organization), then in terms of the individualization of persons from the collective cultural matrices. The building of the form (or alchemical vessel) required for the harmonization and interpenetration of a spiritual Quality and a particular type of earth-materials is the work of mind. The human mind operates at two levels: the level of archetypes (formulas of organization, which are not concrete entities until human beings imagine them that way), and the level of collective cultural and personal (or egocentric) structuring.

Initially, personhood is merely a particularization of a culture-whole's collective structures (symbols, myths, traditional beliefs, modes of thinking, feeling, behaving, and relating). Persons are differentiated cultural structures adequate for performing communal functions. They are what they do, and the nature of the doing is determined primarily by biological particularities (physique, temperament, ancestral lineage). Yet individual selfhood is a potentiality present in every specimen of homo sapiens; what at first was only an "overtone" contained in the inclusive "fundamental tone" of a culture can become itself a fundamental tone — a creative origin. But with rare, super-normal exceptions, this potentiality can develop only through an arduous process of individualization involving personal experiences of cathartic dissatisfaction (or "divine discontent"), reorientation, and self-induced mental and emotional repolarization. It is analogous to the musical operation of "modulating" to another level of structural organization (a new "key"). Psychologically speaking, the individual-in-the-making must modulate to the level of a centralized will and a truly autonomous selfhood. Only at that level can spirit and matter be harmonized and a spiritual Quality be able to irradiate and radiate through a physical human organism. The individual having his or her biological roots in that body then can "per-form" transpersonal actions or think transpersonal thoughts. In addition, such an individual can experience transpersonal inner movements registering in the consciousness as a certain kind of nonpersonal "feeling" and emotion — for example, what Buddhists call compassion and presumably was meant by the Greek word attributed to Jesus, agape (which has been mistranslated as charity in English).

Any activity that can be called transpersonal (in the sense in which I use this term) has to occur through and by the intermediary of an adequately structured individualized person. Nevertheless, the person may not necessarily be conscious, or fully conscious, of what is occurring through him or her. When consciousness is still pervaded with the residual characteristics of both the culture's collective mind and the person's ego-mind, the transpersonal movement has to bypass the brain consciousness and operate by controlling nerve pathways in the body of the apparent performer of the action. On the other hand, generally speaking the Avatar type of human being (whatever his or her level of consciousness may be at the time) is conscious in the action — thus, as he or she performs it. For a brief moment, activity and consciousness are fused in a transpersonal "movement," through and during which spirit penetrates the matter of the performing material system — the human body.

This, however, does not imply that the person through whom the spirit-induced action is performed is "nothing but" what is now popularly acclaimed as a "channel" for communications from a superior Being or "Master." Channeling usually implies an almost entirely passive or mechanical operation in which the structure and quality of being of the self-proclaimed channel are negligible factors, Whenever such an interpretation is correct, the process is mediumistic, not transpersonal.

Transpersonal activity implies a definite interaction between the performer of the transpersonal act and its spiritual source transcending the strictly human level of consciousness; the quality of the interaction conditions the form of the communication or the release of transhuman power. The Bible was not "dictated" by the God of the Hebrew people, nor the Koran by the Angel Gabriel. Relatively exact transpersonal communications from a Pleroma being to a "disciple" occur only to the extent the receiving human personality has made himself or herself steadily attuned to the vibration and power of the spiritual Source, and also to the extent the motive for accepting the role as intermediary has been entirely free from ego, pride, and subtle self- glorification. In any case, the mind of the human pole in such a polarized interaction provides at least the formulation (the words and forms of speech) of whatever the vertical communication or transmission intends to convey.

More specifically, the human receiver acts as a focalizing agent for the need of his people and his culture. Though he or she may be unaware of it, the entire inner being of such an agent takes the form of a "prayer" to the Pleroma — the greater planetary whole operating at a higher level of the hierarchy of being. In the case of a potential "genius" in the arts, in literature, or even in science, the creative person becomes at least to some extent, even if perhaps not obviously, a "representative" man or woman of his or her culture and of the people molded by the culture. As such, the "representative" man or woman is at the same time the problem and the solution the spirit offers. The transpersonal action or communication answers not only a personal need, but, even more, the need of the community.

Unfortunately, in a great many instances the creative person is so stirred and exalted by the experience of creativity (and perhaps by fame) that the ego pounces on the experience and makes it a pedestal for self-glorification. This is to be expected of many great creative persons, for often even they do not realize that the source of their inspiration and power transcends their personhood; they can consider creative work only as "self-expression" — or in Nietzschean Romantic terms, as the "release of the torment of plenitude." More disturbing and misleading is the "spiritual teacher" whose ego colors or even alters a transpersonal transmission or act. Such a situation almost inevitably leads disciples or the general public to vulgarize or disparage their image of spiritual realities.

Who is the "Self" in "Self-expression"?

It is difficult to define the nature of both the creative process (in terms of cultural products) and the "spiritual" transfer of knowledge, healing energies, or transformative power able to produce basic changes in consciousness and the quality of the will. This is largely due to the fundamental ambiguity inherent in the word self. What does the prefix self refer to in the word self-expression? What does the word form mean in any process inducing transformation?

Most students of Oriental philosophy, theosophy, mysticism, or even of today's popular psychology and "metaphysics" believe in the existence of a "higher" and a "lower" self. Some psychologists and philosophers nevertheless point out the incongruity of a person having two selves; for the term self implies identity or individuality, the latter literally meaning not-divided or indivisible and refers to the exclusivistic feeling of being "I" and no one else. Philosophically, the problem posed by the concept of two selves results from confusing the inner feeling-realization of wholeness with the nature and quality of the contents of the realizing whole. These contents may originate from two different sources and also may be interpreted in relation to two different frames of reference; yet this does not mean that one can legitimately speak of two "selves." The word self should have no plural, no more than one should speak of two "wholenesses."

A human being is a whole, the contents of which (energies, impulses and unself-conscious realizations) initially belong to the level of "life." These contents are progressively modified and partially transformed; they are also interpreted in terms of a new frame of reference — the level at which cultures and societies operate. Only when the societal stage of evolution is reached do philosophers and psychologists usually begin to speak of "self." Culture-man is said to be "self-conscious," a term which often is defined as "conscious of being conscious" or objectively conscious (implying a separation between subject and object). Still, a large portion of the contents of self-conscious personhood (in either a primitive tribe or a complex modern society) remains the product of biological functions and drives and continues to be influenced by health and disease, vitality or weakness.

Another portion of the contents of personality nevertheless results from the interpersonal relationships and functional (or dysfunctional) activities of a social community. A sociocultural frame of reference tends to be at least partially substituted for the basic pattern of biological drives, including the will to survival. In some cases of extreme religious asceticism or patriotic fervor, the sociocultural frame of reference may even overpower the biological drives. The experience of selfhood — that is, the centralizing feeling-realization of being "I" — and the quality of the human being's actions and "radiations" change with alterations of the balance of forces in his or her personhood and the nature of the contents of personhood. The consciousness and will may be divided from time to time, driven now by the power of life, then by culture and religion. Nevertheless, one should not speak of a biological self and a cultural self. Self remains self until the human whole fragments at death.(2)

2. After biological death the body obviously decays, but a less obvious psychic death also can occur when culture-built contents in the personality become sufficiently disassociated, fragmented, and even forgotten, even though the biological functions of the body may still operate. In the latter case it often would be far better, for society as well as for the person, if the body were not artificially kept "alive."

However, the totality of a human being includes not only a biological organism and a self-conscious, culturally, and mentally developed personality but also a higher trinity of archetypal and spiritual factors. From the holarchic point of view, "self" refers to all these factors, and more specifically to a power eventually able to integrate the whole combination of constituents in body, personhood, and spiritual entity. This integrative power is the "highest" principle of the spiritual trinity, and it is a power that penetrates all there is, including the body.

As a conscious ego, a human being is not aware of this all-pervasive power, any more than inhabitants of the earth are aware of existing within the solar system, indeed within galactic space. Similarly, the atoms and cells of our physical body probably are not aware of operating within a higher (because more inclusive) field of organic activity and self-consciousness (a human body and psyche). Nevertheless, all self-conscious persons operate within a higher field of spiritual selfhood, although the present stage of human evolution precludes an awareness of it; the physical and mental instrumentalities required for conscious perception of this field are still (normally) under- developed.(3) Nevertheless they exist in a latent condition, and the experience of a few extraordinarily evolved spiritual pioneers testifies to the possibility of their development. Indeed human evolution can be interpreted as the process of developing these capacities for perception. The basic purpose of the long series of cultures and religious practices is the development of these higher means of consciousness, which are implied from the beginning in the archetype of human selfhood, Man.

3.This field presumably is what in Theosophy is called the "monadic" auric egg. In the human microcosm it is what ancient traditions of Indian occultism call hiranyagharba (the "cosmic egg"). See T. Subba Row, Essays on the Gita.

A definite contact between Pleroma beings and creative or transformative persons or groups is a vertical relationship, but so is the relationship between the spiritual trinity within the total field of selfhood and the physical brain, nerves, and muscles of a particular individual. The latter is the case, however, only if (a very important "if") the person's higher mind is adequately formed. Only then can it act as an instrumentality for transmission — as a symbolic lens condensing and transmitting the intentional activity of the spiritual constituents of the total human being.

Such a total human being, however, is not merely a "person." Personhood is only one aspect of total selfhood. So is the sexual polarity of the body. Personhood refers to culture, gender to biological sexual differentiation. Therefore, a creative human being should be called neither "he" nor "she," neither English nor Russian. Yet the current of creative, transformative, or healing activity emanating from the spiritual trinity has to flow "down," as it were, through the culture-conditioned mind and the sexually differentiated physical body. During the passage, the creative current acquires secondary characteristics. In many instances, these conflict with, deviate, or impair the integrity of the archetypal purpose giving form to whatever the creative- transformative current was to convey, exteriorize, and express.

When this happens — and it presumably always happens to some degree — self-expression is ambiguous or ambivalent. Indeed the prefix self may refer only to the level of personhood, to the culturally determined contents of the person's feelings and mind. In this case the character of creativity is only personal, and even healing (though perhaps called "spiritual") may only release some of the healer's own vitality. Then the relationship between the healer, creative artist, or performer and the people he or she affects is horizontal. It is a cultural exchange, occurring only at the cultural level — the exchange of a product and perhaps money.

Indeed, today most works of art, music, and literature are cultural products, not true creations. When many people seek "creative self-expression," they do so to compensate for their unsatisfying, disharmonic, nonfunctional and embittering social, business and cultural lives; so also in many instances are their biological-sexual experiences traumatized by unnatural family relationships and waves of fashion. This, however, always occurs during the period of a culture's disintegration. It is particularly disturbing and dysfunctional today because the panhuman evolutionary drive demands a transference of biological energies to the personal level — or at least gives biological (especially sexual) impulses an ambiguous character which is both "personal" and determined by collective fashions.

For an activity to be transpersonal in any meaningful sense, its source must be beyond the level of personhood. The creative current is transpersonal, because it flows through the person, using the materials made available by the culture. A spiritual power acts as carrier of an archetypal idea seeking adequate form through the mental processes of a creative, individualized person, whose physical body can accurately, effectively, and convincingly exteriorize what the mind has formed or formulated. Thus four factors are involved, and none can be omitted from a truly transpersonal process or vertical relationship.

A transpersonal activity usually requires the ability to act positively and effectively as a person amidst other persons, thus in terms of horizontal relationships. Such an ability demonstrates the existence of adequately formed instrumentalities of mind and will and a relatively autonomous approach to life. Nevertheless, the person's activity, thinking, and feeling is transpersonal only when these instrumentalities are placed at the service of processes operating at a higher, more inclusive level of being.

At the service — this is the essential key to the true meaning of hierarchical order and transpersonal action. Yet in our self-consciously and indiscriminately egalitarian society, the word service has negative connotations unless applied to the maintenance and repair of machines or to "self-service." No one wants to be a servant any longer, because service implies a difference of levels, a vertical relationship between two classes of people, and some kind of hierarchical structure. But if all persons are equal to all others, without any legitimate distinctions, interpersonal relationships are always horizontal.

Several interrelated persons constitute a group or community in which the persons are expected to act positively and responsibly to further the group's decisions and aims. Yet even a wholehearted devotion to the group's purpose is not considered "service," because each member is supposed to have actively and equally participated in the generation and formulation of this purpose which — it is believed — did not exist prior to the deliberation of the group. If the purpose is believed to have existed before-hand, it was only as an unformulated answer to a collective need or desire, probably one of several possible answers.

From a holarchic point of view, any meaningful and valid collective need already has an archetypal answer. The answer is not only potential but based on planetary or cosmic principles of organization which need only (a big "only"!) to be brought to a particular focus to fit an existing situation or one soon to develop. The focalizing process requires a transpersonal agent who is self-established, self-reliant, and mentally, emotionally, and dynamically effective at the level of culture and personhood. A group can act as such an agent, but one individual in the group usually is the "inspirited" focus for the transpersonal transmission of the archetypal ideal. Nevertheless, the interaction of two, three, or more minds may be needed to clarify the need of the larger community (or of mankind as a whole) and to formulate the words (even initially the collective "feeling") of the answer to it.

The performer of any truly transpersonal act should be aware (at least during or immediately after the performance) that a superior reality beyond his or her normal personal self is seeking an "actor" to play a part required in a larger system of activities. Thus a religiously conditioned person aspiring to transpersonal agenthood may say to the God of his or her inner life, 'Thy will be done, not mine." But this God may well be only a word or image needed to condense, unify, and personalize everything transcending the everyday realities of personhood, matter, and life. This all-purpose condensation may obscure the existence of levels of being which actually can be reached by human efforts or (I must add) from which a person may fall if the pull of negative cultural or personal forces proves overwhelming.

It seems particularly difficult for intellectuals and scientists, but also for most other persons, to accept the idea that planetary beings might exist and operate at a level of consciousness and activity as superior to our present-day sociocultural modes of living and thinking-feeling as a person like Goethe or Edison is superior to a primitive biological organism. Most human beings lack a cosmic kind of imagination. They reduce the cosmos — the greatest whole of existence we can speak of — to a mass of matter and modes of energy similar to those their senses perceive. What a pathetically narrow reductionism! Yet minds still close to the compulsive level of instincts ruled by the requirements of biological functions seem to need such a reductionism to feel secure. This need for biological security and personal comfort and happiness still dominates the consciousness and relationships of the immense majority of human beings, even those claiming the status and privilege of individualized and autonomous selfhood.

Thus, before the majority of human beings can even barely begin to adequately understand and assent to being components of the planetary greater whole in which we all "live, move and have our being," many intermediate steps — transitional phases — are required.

Persons determined to free themselves from the binding pressures of biological drives often avail themselves of "occult" religious disciplines such as asceticism and certain yogic practices. Other modes of yoga and meditation are used in attempts to control the unsteady protean activity of the mind; but the context in which they are used often retains the socio-cultural and religious limitations of the mother-culture and the language that had formed the mind. A still more radical process of transformation eventually has to be experienced if the Pleroma level of being — which includes not only consciousness but also activity — is to be reached. This process has been symbolized as "the Path." It is often called "the Path of discipleship" to indicate that successful completion of the process requires the interaction of the individual person "walking" on the Path and a Pleroma being — thus a linking of two fundamentally different levels. The divine must "descend" to meet the "ascending" human being. There must be interrelationship, nay more, an interpenetration of minds, as well as exact attunement of the centralizing powers operating as "selfhood" — individual selfhood and pleromatic selfhood.

The process inevitably is arduous and long. At any step along the way it may backfire or abort, even up to the last moment before the consummation of the "divine Marriage." This consummation implies Crucifixion: the transmutation of root-power into seed-power. The seed is set free and falls to the ground filled with the humus of the decaying failures of past subcycles — a "three-day" descent into hell. Then the resurrection.

Symbols, of course; but all that transcends personhood and the individualized experience of a culture-built mind must be evoked by symbols that are the harvest of collective human experiences at the levels of culture, personhood, and life. Every step a human being takes on his or her evolutionary journey has to be illumined by symbols, which at the level of culture take the form of myths and rites of passage.

Our society, alas, has largely forgotten the use, or at least the deeper meanings, of rites of passage even during normal processes of the growth, maturation, and disintegration of the biological and sociocultural human being. Organic growth always implies phases of transition — passages from one state to another. An end becomes a new beginning, and to begin without any understanding of what is being initiated condemns the opening phases of the new process to spiritual barrenness and mental confusion. Because modern individualistic and materialistic society has lost the sense of the importance of biological and cultural rites of passage, it cannot easily grasp the meaning of a transcendent Path of total metamorphosis which involves a series of graded steps and difficult, often crucial, transitions. Indeed this society operates in conditions of spiritual barrenness and mental confusion, even though powerful ferments of transformation and metamorphic pressures are increasingly active.

To assist such an activity ever so little by trying to elucidate what is today at stake and the deeper meaning of the impending transitions — this is the purpose this book is meant to serve. The future alone will reveal to what extent the writing of it can be interpreted as transpersonal service.

Rhythm of Wholeness