![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYTIC Before I may write more of that supernature which
rises, a tower of heaven,
above the depths where we move, I know I must try to solve some of the doubts
and perplexities which come to most who hear of things they have not heard or
seen for their own part. They will say, "You are an artist and have painted
such things. We know you have imagination which creates images vividly. You are
a poet, and it is the art of your tribe to gild for us the thoughts you have,
the emotions you feel, so that what moods are common with us you attire richly
till they walk like kings. But what certainty have you that it is not all fancy,
and the visions you speak of were not born in the cloudy hollows of your brain,
and are not glorified memories of things you have first seen with the sensual
eye, and which were afterwards refashioned in memory? What certitude have you
that these things you speak of are in any way related to a real world invisible to
our eyes?" To solve these doubts I must not fall back on authority, or
appeal for trust. It will avail nothing to say that others have seen such things
and have with me looked upon them, we speaking of them together as people who
see the same scene, who refer as they speak to rocks, waters and trees, knowing
these are a common vision. It would be true if I said this, but it would avail
me nothing in my desire that you should go hopefully on the way I would have you
journey. On that path, as an ancient scripture says, to whatsoever place one
would travel that place one's own self becomes, and I must try first to uproot
false ideas about memory, imagination and vision so that by pure reason people
may be led out of error and be able to distinguish between that which arises in
themselves and that which comes otherwise and which we surmise is a visitor from
a far country. I too in boyhood had the idea so commonly held that the pictures
of imagination are old memories refashioned. I first doubted this as a child
when, lying on my bed, there came a sudden illumination of my brain, and
pictures moved before my inner eyes like the coloured moving pictures
we see in the theatre. I saw, I remember, a sunlit hillside
which seemed close to me. There were huge grey boulders strewn about. Beyond
this hill-slope I could see far distant mountains, pale blue through the
sparkling air. While I looked, giants in brazen armour clambered swiftly up the
hillside, swinging clubs which had spiked balls of brass held by a chain at the
end. They glittered in the sun as they ran up and past me. Motion, light,
shadow, colour were perfect as things seen passing before the physical eyes.
Then the illumination in my brain ceased, the picture vanished, and I was
startled, for I had seen no hillside like that, no distant mountains, no giants
in brazen armour in picture or theatre, and I began a speculation which soon
ended because childhood keeps no prolonged meditation. I may take this as a type
of vision common to most people. Either when they sit in darkness, or with
closed eyes, or as they drift into sleep or awaken from sleep, they pass through
strange cities, float in the air, roam through woods, have adventures with
people who are not the people they meet every day. There is nothing uncommon
about such visions. It is in the interpretation of them that error arises.
People pass them by too easily saying, "It is imagination,"
as if imagination were as easily explained as a problem in Euclid, and was not a
mystery, and as if every moving picture in the brain did not need such minute
investigation as Darwin gave to earthworms. I was asked to believe that giants,
armour, hillside and sunny distance so appeared in my brain because I had seen
men who might be enlarged to giants, pictures of armour with which they could be
clothed by fancy, brass with which the armour could be coloured. Any rocks might
be multiplied and enlarged from memory by imagination to form a hillside, and
any sky of sunny blue would make my distance. How plausible for a second! How
unthinkable after a momentary consideration! I know I could hardly, if you gave
me a hundred thousand pictures of heads, by cutting them up and pasting them
together, make a fresh face which would appear authentic in its tints and
shadows, and it would be a work of infinite labour. But these faces of vision
are not still. They move. They have life and expression. The sunlight casts
authentic moving shadows on the ground. What is it combines with such miraculous
skill the things seen, taking a tint here, a fragment of form there, which
uses the colours and forms of memory as a palette to paint
such masterpieces? It has been said, "Every man is a Shakespeare in his
dreams." The dreamer of landscape is more than a Turner, because he makes
his trees to bend before the wind and his clouds to fleet across the sky. The
waking brain does not do this. It is unconscious of creation. To say we
refashion memories is to surmise in the subconscious nature a marvellous artist,
to whom all that we have ever seen with the physical eyes is present at once,
and as clay in the hands of a divine potter, and it is such swift creation too
that it rivals the works of the Lord. Well, I am not one of those who deny that
the Kingdom of Heaven is within us or that the King is also in His Heaven. We
need not deny that and yet hold that vision comes otherwise. Nor can be it
denied that vision is often so radiant and precise, for experience affirms that
it is, and hundreds of artists, and indeed people who are not artists at all,
will tell you how clearly they see in their dreams. But for those who hold that
visions such as I and many others have had are only the refashioning of memory,
and there is nothing mysterious about them, I say try to think out tint by
tint, form by form, how these could be recombined, and, for whatever marvel I
would have you believe, you will have substituted something just as marvellous
but not so credible. Not that it is incredible to think that the spirit in man
is Creator, for all the prophets and seers of the world have told us that, but
the common psychological explanation is not acceptable, because we know that
forms can appear in the brain which were transferred by will from one person to
another. When we know that, when we know this inner eye can see the form in
another's mind, we must regard it as indicating an immense possibility of vision
on that plane. We then ask ourselves concerning all these strange cities and
landscapes of dream, all these impish faces which flout at us when we are
drowsy, all these visions living and moving in our minds, whether they too came,
not by way of the physical senses transformed in memory, but came like the image
thought transferred, or by obscure ways reflected from spheres above us, from
the lives of others and the visions of others. If we brood on this we will come
to think the old explanation is untenable and will address ourselves with wonder
and hope to the exploration of this strange country within ourselves, and
will try to find out its limits, and whether
from image or vision long pondered over we may not reach to their original
being. |
|