|
J
van Rijckenborgh and C de
Petri have often explained that the familiar Bible texts are
‘part’ of a much larger collection of writings, into which many
changes were inserted during the first four hundred years AD. The
book Genesis, J van Rijckenborgh writes1,
originally speaks of one tree only, the tree of life. There is,
therefore, not a tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the latter
was added to the legend at a later stage. In the original text,
according to Van Rijckenborgh, the god of the earthly field of life,
referring to the tree of life, says to the human being: ‘Of
this tree you shall not eat.’ Hence, there was only one tree
in paradise, the tree of life, and God did not allow man to eat of
this tree.
The legend acquires another meaning in this way, and in
addition, it is much simpler and clearer. J van Rijckenborgh
explains that it is the god of the earthly field of life, who wants
to prevent humanity from leaving his field of life. Fortunately,
however, Eve appears, who symbolises the human imagination and
understands the words spoken by the serpent. The serpent is the
symbol of the serpent fire, the original divine ether power. Eve
persuades man to eat of the tree!
If we leave the words referring to the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil out of the book Genesis, the text reads as
follows:
And
the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put
the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made
to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food,
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden. […]
Now
the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the
Lord God had made. He said to the woman: ‘Did God say: You shall
not eat of any tree of the garden?’ And the woman said to the
serpent: ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but
God said: You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the
midst of the garden.’ […]
But
the serpent said to the woman: ‘You will not die. For […] when
you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.’
So
when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, […] she took
of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he
ate. Then the eyes of both were opened. […]
[Genesis
2:8-9 and 3:1-7]
The
meaning of this ancient legend now becomes quite different. Here we
see a consciously sabotaging power that wants to keep the human
being in the earthly field of life and wants to prevent the human
being from eating of the tree of life. If we interpret this in this
way, we understand that the human being, who wants to walk the path
of renewal, will always experience a moment of crisis.
For every seeker the moment arrives in which he wants to
reach for the tree of life, but is thrown back by the god of this
world, who states: ‘You shall not eat of this tree.’ Obviously,
this is not spoken literally; it is a concentration of power
corresponding to the personality of the human being who has
developed from this earthly field. In other words, for every seeking
human being the moment will come in which he becomes his own
adversary. At the moment that we are striving for life renewal, we
are confronted with the formative powers we have assimilated, from
which we have developed, and which keep us alive. It is
understandable that we often do not notice in what manner this
confrontation occurs. Doesn’t it always happen in an unexpected
way?
The
fundamental anchoring
In chapter three of his book The
Nuctemeron of Apollonius of Tyana, J van Rijckenborgh writes
about Cerberus, the dog from Greek mythology, which guards the
entrance to the underworld. Generally, Cerberus is represented as a
monster. However, only a part of this Cerberus is ‘monstrous’,
namely the part that is the reflection of fear. Fear can adopt
monstrous configurations, and then becomes an important adversary.
The other part, the second aspect of Cerberus, is invisible and
hence harder to imagine. We do not see it because it totally
corresponds with our self, with our personality. It is being
anchored in our field of life, which is so natural that we don’t
even experience it as being anchored. It forms the foundation of our
personality. J van Rijckenborgh calls this fundamental anchoring: dogmatism.
Let us imagine that we enter the School of the Rosycross. We
then form an image of the how and why of this school; and in this
context, the how and why of ourselves. We constantly adjust this
image of our own possibilities and impediments on the
path. Experience teaches, however, that we perhaps periodically
adjust our thought images, but that there is a nucleus which we
never adjust. It is a core concept concerning ourselves and about
being human in general; a core concept, a fixed, unassailable point,
around which our other thought images revolve. A short examination
within ourselves will demonstrate that this is indeed the case.
J van Rijckenborgh calls this central thought image dogma.
The idea of who we are and how we should be, prevents our passage.
This image, this dogma, is profoundly symbolised by Cerberus.
After
passing the Cerberus
We call passing the Cerberus: entering into freedom. In other
words, opening ourselves to the divine inspiration. Eve, whom we can
consider the symbol of the soul speaking in us, stimulates us to
turn to the powers of the tree of life, the powers not of this
dialectical world. It is the call to liberate ourselves from them.
It will be self-evident that this does not refer to personal
freedom, the freedom to do as we like. Spiritual freedom can only be
achieved when the inner, original human aspect, the latent
microcosmic human being, is vivified.
We can imagine that a person who begins and continues this
process, and ignores any image imposed on him by the old nature, and
thus passes Cerberus, is faced with a mystery at a certain moment.
We can imagine that a person, when the purification of the serpent
fire has reached a certain stage, receives an impression of the
universal unity in which the primordial image of the original,
microcosmic human being is submerged. This does not happen as a
personal encounter or as a personal possession, but as a very simple
and certain knowledge that in every human being the original temple
is hidden in a totally undamaged state. It is a symbolic temple
which is part of a universal plan of construction, in which we too,
can cooperate.
A
new ether body
The Spiritual School teaches that the astral flame burning in
the spinal column is surrounded by a concentration of ethers. The
nature of these ethers is determined by the nature of the astral
flame. To the extent that these ether forces are purified, the ether
garment will also become ever purer. This will result in a truly new
ether body, a soul body.
The Call of the Brotherhood
of the Rosycross relates how a few brothers discovered a
large nail in the wall. When they wanted to remove it, a large piece
of plasterwork detached from the wall. Next, they discovered the
entrance to the burial vault of Christian Rosycross. We may see this
‘chance’ nail as a point at which the soul body is linked with
the old nature. The story actually relates how at a certain moment
the new soul, the new soul body, is released from the old nature.
The story continues: when the brothers of the Rosycross entered this
burial vault of Christian Rosycross, they saw a round altar,
inscribed with four aphorisms:
There
is no empty space
The
yoke of the law
The
freedom of the gospel
God’s
glory is unassailable
There
is a great, mighty, eternal plan. The Rosicrucians call it: The
freedom of the gospel. It vibrates through the world ether; it
sends its rays to us. We are called to become fellow builders of
this plan, and to put ourselves at its service and then do what is
necessary. He who grows from dogma to freedom, will
demonstrate this in all his comings and goings, and thus perfectly
prove the glory of the divine.
References:
1
The idea behind creation. Publication J van Rijckenborgh,
Haarlem, The Netherlands, undated.
©
Pentagram, 2006.
Article
from Pentagram, 2006, No 1 |