Section III.
The Royal Art.
It has been mentioned that the work of perfecting mankind might be realized in different degrees of intensity, which might extend from complete living realization to mere sympathy without any clear comprehension. The psychic types in which the realization is achieved are, it may be said, identical.
These typical groups of symbols that the mystic [I draw a certain distinction between the mystes and the mystic. The latter is a mystes who makes a system of what he has realized.] produces as a functional expression of his subjective transformation, can be thought of as an educational method applied to arouse the same reactions in other men. In the group of symbols are contained more or less clearly the already mentioned elementary types as they are common to all men; they strike the same chords in all men. Symbolism is for this very reason the most universal language that can be conceived. It is also the only language that is adapted to the various degrees of intensity as well as to the different levels of the intro-determination of living experience without requiring therefore a different means of expression; for what it contains and works with are the elementary types themselves [or symbols which are [pg 374] as adequate as possible to them] which, as we have seen, represent a permanent element in the stream of change. This series of symbols is quite as useful to the neophyte as to the one who is near to perfection; every one will find in the symbols something that touches him closely; and what must be particularly emphasized is that the individual at every spiritual advance that he makes, will always find something new in the symbols already familiar to him, and therefore something to learn. To be sure, this new revelation is founded in himself; but there results for the uncritical mind (mythological level) the illusion that the symbols (e.g., those of the holy scripture) are endowed with a miraculous power which implies a divine revelation. [Cf. the concept of the origin of the symbol in my essay, Phant. u. Myth.] Because of a similar illusion, e.g., Jamblichus posits demons between gods and men, who make comprehensible to the latter the utterances of the gods; the demons, he thinks, are servants of the gods and execute their will. They make visible to men in works and words the invisible and inexpressible things of the gods; the formless they reveal in forms and they reveal in concepts what transcends all concepts. From the gods they receive all the good of which they are capable, partially or according to their nature, and share it again with the races that stand below them.
I said above, every one will find something appropriate to himself in the symbols, and I emphasized the great constancy of the types fast rooted in the [pg 375] unconscious, types which impart to them a universal validity. The divine is revealed “only objectively different according to the disposition of the vessel into which it falls, to one one way, another to another. To the rich poetical genius it is revealed preeminently in the activity of his imagination; to the philosophical understanding as the scheme of a harmonious system. It sinks into the depths of the soul of the religious, and exalts the strong constructive will like a divine power. And so the divine is honored differently by each one.” (Ennemoser, Gesch. d. M., p. 109.) “The spiritual element of the inheritance handed down by our fathers works out vigorously in the once for all established style.... On the dark background of the soul stand, as it were, the magic symbols in definite types, and it requires but an inner or outer touch [E.g., by religious observances.] to make them kindle and become active.” (Ib., p. 274.) “The unconscious is common to all mankind in an infinitely greater degree than the content of the individual consciousness, for it is the condensation of the historically average and oft-repeated.” (Jung, Jb. ps. F., III, pp. 169 ff.)
Whoever allows the educative symbols to work upon him, whether he sees only darkly the ethical applications typified in them, or clearly perceives them, or completely realizes them in himself, in any case he will be able to enjoy a satisfying sense of purification for his earnest endeavor in an ethical direction. The just mentioned dim perception (probably the most frequent case), does not exclude [pg 376] the existence of very clear ideas in consciousness; the person in question generally considers his ideas, although they are only masks in front of the absolute ideal, as the ultimate sense of the symbol, thus accepting one degree of significance for the complete meaning. Every one approximates the ideal as he can; the absolute ideal through his ephemeral, but attainable ideal. The highest being speaks in the inexhaustible Bhagavad-Gita:
“More trouble have they who devote themselves to the invisible;
By physical beings the invisible goal is attained only with difficulty.
[XII, 5.]