Secrets and Practices of the Freemasons: Sacred Mysteries, Rituals and Symbols Revealed - Jean-Louis de Biasi 2011

Noetic Science & Hidden Abilities
Principles of Practice

The Interview

Dan Brown’s The Lost Symboldescribes an interesting connection between the Ancient Mysteries and the modern field of noetic science. As the author noted, both the mysteries and this new science have brought under consideration the untapped potential of the human mind as mentioned in several Masonic texts. Of course this is not an “official”science; it reallysounds more like magick than science. The interesting thing is to see the emergence of a new scientific expression that might have enormous ramifications across every discipline: physics, history, philosophy, religion, etc.

This idea is very powerful and can open our future to aradically different perspective. Asevery initiate of the past has repeatedly said, if we are really the masters of our own universe, we will be able to participate in it. These investigations may be a real key to a markedly different future for all of us. It may allow us to analyze reality differently than we have in the past, which may further allow us to demonstrate the reality of many ancient theories.

In order to continue with these considerations, in order to determine which parts of Dan Brown’s novel are real and which are fiction, I met with Dr. Jaden Francis Ward, a scientist who is wellversed innoetic science, and who is also well aware of the mysteries,since he ishimself an initiate in two initiatic orders of the Hermetic Tradition. The following chapter is the transcribed interview that took place.

Q: Can you introduce yourself?

In short, I am a scientist with an interest in spirituality. After obtaining a Ph.D. in neuroscience, I started to work as a researcher in brain science. I study brain imaging using electro-encephalographic recordings (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imagery (FMRI). These brain imaging techniques have revolutionized the theories of the mind—neuroscience is sometimes called the “new alchemy” because of the wide range of the unknown this new field of science deals with. I am also a Master Mason, and an initiate of the Ordo Aurum Solis.

Q: Dan Brown’s novel The Lost Symbol speaks about noetic science. Can you

explain exactly what is this new field?

Noetic science is a neologism that was inspired by the original definition of noetic, a branch of metaphysical philosophy. The word noetic comes from the Greek word noetikos (“mental”), itself a combinations of the words noein (“to think”) and noûs (for which there is no exact equivalent in English). The original noetic was only concerned with the philosophical study of mind and intuition (a philosophy of mind).

My own definition of noetic science may help the reader to understand the context: noetic science is grossly the combination of new models in neuroscience and quantum physics, with a refined definition of parapsychology. Despite the fact that the former are well accepted in the scientific community, the latter is not—parapsychology is not scientific (yet). This is said without judging the quality of research performed in noetic science, or the integrity of scientists involved in this field—but just to stress that noetic science is still considered as a fringe science. In other words, contrary to what may be understood from the book of Dan Brown, noetic science is not accepted as a new academic field of research in what some would describe as “mainstream science.” You will not find Chairs in noetic science, neither in universities, nor in scientific academies. The scientific community tends to react conservatively to new ideas infringing on its established paradigms—for good reasons; we could not speak of science at all if its paradigms were changing every now and then. I am nevertheless often shocked to see eminent scientists defend, publicly or privately, preconceived, narrow-minded, and outdated materialist opinions. With the leaders of the scientific community having such a perception of reality, I cannot imagine how science could one day integrate noetic science. However, this does not mean that noetic science is not of interest, and I believe that such researches are necessary—and hopefully, I am not the only scientist with this opinion!

Nowadays, the most emblematic group involved in noetic science is probably the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), which was created in 1973. IONS defines noetic science in its own terms, as the explorations into the nature and potentials of consciousness using multiple ways of knowing—including intuition, feeling, reason, and the senses. Noetic science explores the “inner cosmos” of the mind (consciousness, soul, spirit) and how it relates to the “outer cosmos” of the physical world. In other words, the concept does not only include consciousness, but also all aspects of spirituality. Cassandra Vieten, director of research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, recently defined noetic science as a multidisciplinary field that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the full range of human experience. A very spiritually oriented definition!

Another definition comes from the popular science writer George Zarkadakis. In 2001, he presented some radical novel ideas about a scientific approach of noetics during an academic conference in Sweden. His ideas can be found in the paper he presented, called “Noetics: A proposal for a theoretical approach to consciousness.” In this paper, he defined noetic science, mainly based on the recent progress in neuroscience about consciousness. He defended the idea that the mechanism of consciousness may be described by a finite set of quantifiable laws, which may be called “noetic laws.” These laws could be verified as the fundamental causes of mental phenomena.

The definition of Zarkadakis goes in the direction of the Australian philosopher David Chalmers. Chalmers states that all forms of physicalism (what laypersons usually call “materialism”) have dominated modern philosophy, and science fails to account for the existence of consciousness. Chalmers defended this opinion in a famous book, The Conscious Mind (1996), which is still hotly debated in academic circles.

As a scientist, I know that spirituality is far from being well understood. Science just came out of the positivist period, when astrology, parapsychology, and spiritualism were severely attacked by public scientific figures. Consequently, spirituality kept an aura of taboo in many laboratories, and in the minds of most scientists I met. As I explained above, noetic science is labeled as a fringe science. What is accepted, instead, is the field of neurotheology. Neurotheology tries to approach religious experiences with the means of modern neuroscience and brain imagery; and contrary to noetic science, professors of neurotheology exist in universities. Despite the philosophical concept of neurotheology being mentioned before, in a book written by Aldous Huxley (in his novel Island), real scientific investigations in this field were later on shaped by the studies of Dr. Michael Persinger in the 1980s. Persinger tried to provoke religious experiences with a magnetic stimulation of the temporal lobes of the brain of his subjects (the magnetic stimulation induces an electrical stimulation inside the brain). When the field of neurotheology was developed, it followed a dominating materialist interpretation—where consciousnesses, and especially spiritual experiences, would be delusions generated by material mechanisms inside the brain. Persinger even claimed that spiritual visions were the outcome of epileptic seizures, and a few scientists tried in vain to demonstrate that the practice of meditation could induce epilepsy! However, an emblematic scientist of this field, Dr. Mario Beauregard, defends a nonmaterialist approach of neurotheology (I would direct the interested reader to his book The Spiritual Brain). This field of science is however still making its first steps, and we are far from having a thorough knowledge of the human spiritual experience.

Why are the latest researches in neurotheology of interest for us? Because it can bring a clear answer to the question of the status of spirituality. In psychiatry, a patient with an interest in spirituality and who reports a mystic experience may be labeled with a “mystical delirium.” But in traditional societies, he would become a spiritual leader. The fine distinction between wisdom and madness is not easy in our modern world, but neurotheology could help us see through our preconceived ideas. For instance, it was believed for years by some psychiatrists that the well-known phenomenon of out-of-the-body experience (OBE, sometimes referred as astral travel) was a hallucination created by a diseased psyche, most probably due to schizophrenia. OBE was however shown by Professor Olaf Blanke to have no causal relationship with schizophrenia or any other brain disorder. Similarly, it was shown by Dr. Sara W. Lazar that meditation reinforces the brain’s cortical thickness. In her own words: “Meditation might offset age-related cortical thinning.”

What was shown by neurotheology researches (especially those of Beauregard) is that meditation and spiritual experiences are to be distinguished from relaxation and hallucinations. In other words, spirituality is a valid human experience, not a symptom of madness (spirituality is not a delusion). What science has not shown yet is an interaction between mind and matter—in other words, one cannot prove if spirituality is only psychological, or has instead some effects such as those claimed by classical parapsychology (moving objects with the sole power of your mind, etc.). In my opinion, science is lacking the epistemological tools to study such effects, because it remains stuck in a strict causal-materialist model of reality (despite it having already evolved away from the traps of positivism).

Modern epistemology excludes the concept of teleology. In this model, what happens in the world has to be induced by a cause (causal explanation). In simple words, the world is seen as an assemblage of Lego blocks (the atoms), which interact through physical forces. This generally accepted view was not considered as dogma in antiquity. It was once believed that the visible effects in reality could instead happen not because of, but for, a purpose (teleology). In addition, models of physics other than the Lego block atoms exist: string theory, ondulatory representation of matter, etc. These models could be used to explain spiritual phenomenology—with the condition that we reform scientific epistemology. As a matter of fact, what modern science tries to prove is a system of causal effects applied to Lego blocks. If instead we try to prove effects based on their meaning, then the experimental conditions should be reversed. To prove causality, one needs to restrain the number of possible causes (to keep only the cause under study). But if one wants instead to study teleology, it will be necessary to explore an array of causes matched against one constrained outcome (the experimental thinking should be upside down, and this would be a conceptual revolution). This unusual experimental concept is not philosophically accepted in scientific circles—actually I never met a scientist who dared to question the concept of causal experimentation. Until such a new paradigm is accepted, I believe that experimental proofs will always fail to ascertain the existence of spirituality.

As a conclusion on this point, let us cite the beginning of the book of Beauregard: “The fact is materialism is stalled. It neither has any useful hypotheses for the human mind or spiritual experiences nor comes close to developing any. Just beyond lies a great realm that cannot even be entered via materialism, let alone explored.”[1]

Q: Do you really believe that we have inner and hidden abilities or powers?

Yes, I am convinced that we have inner abilities—but with the limit that I do not believe in “Hollywoodian spiritual powers.” I am convinced that the world is more than an assemblage of Lego blocks—I am definitively not a materialist. In my opinion, nothing “supernatural” exists in the classical definition of this term; the material and spiritual aspects of reality are intricate, and are organized in complex schemes (embedded, like fractal dimensions) rather than pyramidal, top-down simplistic systems. My vision of reality is closer to Proclus’ hylemorphism. Hylemorphisms are metaphysical views of reality according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential (namely, primary matter) and one actual (namely, substantial form). This idea was first developed by Aristotle, and later Neoplatonist philosophers (especially Plotinus and Proclus) discussed different models of reality where they tried to define the interaction of the spiritual and material aspects of nature.

In the model described by Proclus, reality is maintained through the dynamic interaction of the material and spiritual aspects of reality (in other words, nature is not a passive receptacle). With this kind of model of reality, inner powers or abilities are natural—in opposition with Hollywoodian supernatural powers. Indeed, if nature is interacting with the spiritual planes, then there is no reason for an “invisible barrier” separating nature from the spiritual planes: there is a continuum between material and spiritual aspects of reality. This means that, in my opinion, such inner abilities are to be found in interactions similar to what C. G. Jung described as synchronicities: they do not contradict the general organization of reality. Synchronicity is an orthogonal force, which does not oppose causality, but complements it. In the theories of Jung, reality is the outcome of the interaction of two forces: the material organizing force (causality) and the spiritual one (synchronicity).

Jung came up with this theory when he observed that the deep psychic content of the dreams of his patients could interact with random events in reality. These random interactions could easily be explained in term of causality—they did not contradict the law of causality. Yet, they had a numinous spiritual signification, which could change the life of a person. As an example, let me describe a typical synchronicity. Let us imagine a young man who is questioning himself about his future. He is walking in his high-school library, wondering about which university he should apply to. While he is lost in his thoughts, he accidentally bumps into another student who lets go of the novel he was holding, which falls down and opens up. As our student picks up the book, he reads on the open page, “Being a lawyer was always his dream.” Of course, the sentence refers to the hero of the novel. But our student suddenly understands that he wants to become a lawyer. Without the interaction with this piece of paper, our student will not take the proper decision. Obviously, the presence of the paper is objectively not supernatural. But from the student’s subjective point of view, this is a revelation. Something inside of him was, at that moment of time, connecting his mind and the material world. Something that classical epistemology (such as positivism) cannot study, because it would only have an interest in causal relationships.

Now, imagine if you could trigger such events in your life. Imagine if it was possible for you to master the inner mechanisms of synchronicity and use them for your own advantage. This, in my opinion, would be an incredibly useful inner ability, leading to impressive abilities (yet unnoticeable by an external eye).

Q: Do you think the ancient initiates from the schools of mysteries knew that?

Modern science was built upon the premise that causality is the only structural law of reality. Our ancients accepted the concept of teleology, and consequently explored some broader horizons. Furthermore, modern science (with the notable exception of neuroscience) has divorced with philosophy. A kind of administrative “Berlin Wall” has been built to separate experimental disciplines from philosophy. Consequently, academic philosophy became a degraded philology, and science becomes progressively technology. When I read the writings of Neoplatonic philosophers for instance, such as the Enneads of Plotinus, or Proclus’ commentaries on the Timaeus of Plato, I am struck by the depth and complexity of their metaphysical models of reality. Modern philosophy seems sometimes astonishingly poor in comparison. Actually, modern academic philosophy is (unfortunately) pretty much concerned with commenting on previous authors, rather than the development of new theories. When one considers that we only have fragmentary traces of Neoplatonic knowledge (the oral tradition is absent in these texts), the comparison becomes scary: how can these fragments of the past seem so deep in comparison with the full power of our modern academies? Science exists in a dynamic system, where questions are supposed to be asked by philosophy, and answered by experimental trials. Modern science made some tremendous progress regarding experiments, but at the same time regressed regarding philosophy. Consequently, the general image of antique knowledge is profoundly distorted and generally mocked in scientific circles. Nevertheless, the ancient initiates from the schools of mysteries certainly had access to much more than Lego builders (read: materialists) would ever dream to understand.

Q: Do you think they knew ways to use these abilities?

Science obviously leads to technology. The ancients had complex philosophical systems, as well as spiritual training methods. This is only speculation of course, but it seems logical that they knew at least some (if not all) possible applications of these abilities.

Q: The scientific method seems impossible to associate to a mystical or initiatic process. Is noetic science a contradiction in terms?

As I already mentioned, a science intending to study the spiritual aspect of reality cannot be confined in a “causalist-materialist objective” epistemology. Consequently, I am worried that any effort put into a classical investigation of mystical or initiatic processes may be condemned. At the beginning of last century, parapsychology was rejected by mainstream science because it could not integrate the, at that time dominant, positivist epistemology. Why would noetic science be more lucky? Mentalities have evolved, and laypersons are probably less sensitive to positivist theories—this does not mean however that the scientific community is not. Despite the recent discoveries in neurotheology, the dominant philosophy of almost all scientists I have met is still a combination of atheism and materialist monism (in other words, a total negation of the reality of any kind of spirituality). The problem is that most scientists apply epistemology without any second thoughts (with a technician mentality). And how could they accept spirituality as an object of study, when epistemology defines spirituality as a nonevent (spirituality being essentially subjective and acausalist)? In other words, the scientific community will not easily accept any demonstration concerning spirituality, unless epistemology is redefined. And this situation will probably not evolve before long.

Publishing a scientific paper defending spiritual opinions is a professional suicide: scientific careers depend on reputation, and spirituality has a pretty bad reputation. If a young scientist openly professes opinions in favor of spirituality, he might not be able to secure a permanent job. And the situation is not any better for tenured professors: they will lose their reputation, and consequently the possibility to apply for research grants (with the exception of creationism). In this system, those with strong spiritual beliefs are not encouraged to remain in the scientific community (unless they agree to study all but spirituality). Consequently, they usually leave mainstream science or learn to be silent. There is not a frightening plot against spirituality in the scientific community, just the consequence of human fears (fear of new ideas on one side, and fear of losing a job on the other side) with a pretty bureaucratic system of selection. Consequently, in the scientific community, being materialist (or professing to be) became almost a survival skill. If you want a job, you shall respect the omerta!

One of my fears is that, in the end, our too-conservative scientific paradigms might give birth to a strong aggressive opponent, which would try to annihilate science once and for all. This is apparently already starting: the U.S., the creationist movement (Christian Science) agrees generally to defend spirituality, but from the perspective of conservative and extremist Christian beliefs rather than attempting unbiased scientific investigations of spirituality. Creationism is growing strong because there is no other sustainable professional option for scientists who refuse materialism. The conservatism of mainstream science gave birth to this behemoth. Do we really need a rebirth of extremist Christians in order to understand our errors? The reaction of public figures of science regarding creationism is too often an aggressive rebuttal—read for instance The God Delusion, a book by Richard Dawkins against creationism, but also against any form of religion or spirituality. Such monolithic rebuttals in turn reinforce creationism. Let us hope that the scientific community will find a third, balanced path before it is too late. We need a new science of spirituality; otherwise one of the most precious aspects of human life will be diverted by extremists or charlatans.

Q: Can we imagine soon the birth of a “secret society” of official scientists working in secret to give such orientation?

Actually, science at its inception probably started with an organization very close to a “secret society.” Science had to be developed against the dogmas of the medieval Catholic church (ask Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno!). For centuries, scientists communicated discreetly through the use of annotations in the margins of books that were communicated from hands to hands through networks of scientific libraries. For instance, in the seventeenth century, Fermat wrote considerably in the margin of the book Arithmetica. One of his comments became later famous under the name “grand theorem of Fermat,” and was only proved true in 1994! Apparently, Fermat already knew the solution, but lacked space to write in the margin. . . . Many speculations can also be read here and there about the so-called Invisible College, which might have been the origin of the Royal Society in the U.K.—the birth of a scientific academy from a secret society! Taking history into account, this idea seems relevant.

However, in order to achieve our purpose, a society of scientists (in the modern acceptation of this term) would not be enough. Originally, scientists were also philosophers (Descartes and Pascal did contribute as much to philosophy as to science). But science and philosophy divorced, and became techno-science and philology. A secret society of enlightened scientists and philosophers will, in my opinion, certainly be the only solution to this problem. In other words, we need the union of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. Interestingly, this union already exists in philosophy, in the writings of Neoplatonic philosophers. The experimental application is missing; a Neoplatonic epistemology? As a final remark, keep in mind that as we speculate here on the birth of a secret society, it may actually already exist . . .

Q: Is the gap between science and spirituality impossible to cross?

Actually, modern neuroscience and quantum physics have developed new epistemological systems during the past few years. Quantum physics has demonstrated noncausal behavior of particles, and the new scheme of neurophenomenology seeks to integrate subjective perceptions into scientific data. This means that, if a new epistemological system was designed, mystical processes could be studied. Neither noetic science nor neurotheology have achieved the construction of such a system. Consequently, the scientific study of mystical processes is not yet fully possible.

However, nothing prevents a new epistemological system from being developed. For instance, noetic scientists such as Dr. Vieten apparently have the intention to integrate teleology in their scientific approach. If noetic science is successful, a new scientific system could be born, allowing science to undergo a true revolution. In order to develop such an epistemology, scientists should however focus on “how” and “why” spiritual interactions are manifested, rather than on “if” they exist. Reintegrating teleology in modern epistemology is easier said than done!

Q: Will this new science be able to speak about the “why” too?

Yes, and this is actually the revolution I have in mind. Science is rickety, as it stands on one leg only: the “how” (causality). If we successfully restored the second leg—the “why” (teleology)—human knowledge would be changed forever.

Q: Do you think the mind can affect matter as the novel The Lost Symbol says? Are the random event generators a solution to verify this theory?

Dan Brown’s novel is just that, a novel. It should not be interpreted as a scientific publication. Until now, random event generators (REG) did not provide reproducible results (the experimental results vary from one laboratory to another), and it would be dishonest to present this paradigm as a solution to our problem.

Actually, mind affecting matter has yet to be proved, and will certainly not be by REG. This paradigm could at best show that an interaction exists, but does not allow any understanding of how such a process could occur (as I explained above, the problem is not to understand “if,” but “how” and “why”). The reader interested in parapsychology can track for instance the recent publications of the journals Explore and Journal of Science and Healing, where many new results are regularly published. Rather than the outdated REG, I am much more interested in the recent study of Radin and Borges (from IONS), which was published this year, where the physiological constants of subjects are measured while they perform psychic tasks. The subjective state of a subject was, for centuries, impossible to assess, and consequently science had given up hopes to understand subjectivity. Nowadays however, brain imaging, cardiac rhythms, psychological tests, and other measurements allow a pretty good picture of the subjective state. Consequently, the subjective state becomes data that can be exploited by science. Such experimental data can be exploited with phenomenology: an epistemological system where the subjective experience is placed at the center of experience—neurophenomenology is its recent application in neuroscience. Subjective data, in this new epistemology, have the potential to solve one of the two hard problems of psychic studies: subjectivity.

The other problem, teleology, will not be solved unless a new epistemology is developed—which will not be achieved, in my opinion, if a strong interaction between science and philosophy is not restored. REG is not a solution to this problem.[2]

Q: If we can find a scientific way or a technical solution to interact with mind powers and abilities, is it possible to say that we will have the most dangerous weapon?

Yes, and this is a real concern to me. Actually, new discoveries in science remain confined within two entities for ten to twenty years before becoming accessible to the public: the scientific community and the military community. This confinement has several reasons, but is mainly due to the vast quantity of scientific communications (the public cannot read everything) and the lack of competent science reporters (the quality of scientific vulgarization has decreased during the past few years). Consequently, even if the science is here, the public will not be informed for a long time. If science was to undergo a spiritual Copernican revolution, the first applications of the new technologies would most probably be military. Let us hope it would not fall into the wrong hands!

Q: Is it possible to disconnect mind abilities from the development of virtue?

First of all, one thing is sure: it is possible to disconnect intelligence from the development of virtue. In other words, a good chess player can be a monster. Actually, serial killers are usually very intelligent persons. In addition, lesion studies in neuroscience have shown that damage to the limbic system can profoundly affect the aptitudes of judgment and empathy, without impairing at all intellectual aptitudes. Similarly, autistic syndromes affect social interaction, but not necessarily the intellectual abilities—Asperger syndrome, for instance, is often associated with a highly developed intelligence.

The question is to know if inner spiritual abilities would be based on a mechanical cerebral skill, like mundane intelligence, or if it requires some higher level of consciousness. The traditional methods used to wake such abilities are usually strongly tied with the development of virtue and the use of alternate states of consciousness. The alternate state of consciousness gives access to abilities, which are controlled thanks to existing virtues. However, if one learns to induce alternate states of consciousness without the development of virtues, the same abilities would be uncontrolled. For instance, like mundane intelligence (set aside the debate about innate and acquired intelligence), meditation is a mental skill. You can be trained with this skill, or even bypass the training using brain-damaging drugs. Of course, this would lead to unbalance, and ultimately to mental alienation. This is maybe the explanation of this classical sentence: wise men and mad men are alike.

Q: Do you see a real connection between Freemasonry and noetic science?

Freemasonry teaches traditional esoteric philosophy and a system to develop virtue. Noetic science seeks to understand some aspects of reality. One could say that noetic science found its inspiration in the traditional esoteric philosophy, but this does not make any real connection between them. Other societies than Freemasonry also show some interest in traditional esoteric philosophy. In addition, noetic science has no interest in moral virtue. Apart from some common interest, I do not see any connection. And if a connection existed, in my opinion it would probably be tenuous.

Q: Any last comments about Dan Brown’s novel The Lost Symbol?

As usual with this author, there is a lot of controversial material in his book, and some well-documented but somehow distorted ideas. Dan Brown wrote a novel; this book is fiction. Would anyone believe that pigs can build houses after reading the book The Three Little Pigs? Certainly not! Why then should anyone believe that the story of Professor Langdon has any more reality? If one keeps in mind that this book is a fiction, then one can enjoy the plot and the nice ambiance of conspiracy and suspense.

This being said, Dan Brown’s book contains numerous keys and directions for research. Even if inexact, this book can be a very nice introduction to the mysteries of Freemasonry for laypersons. When reading this book, if a reader becomes interested in learning about Freemasonry, noetic science, and spirituality, then I hope he or she will endeavor to read some additional, more reliable sources—such as this book.

Hidden Abilities & Wisdom

As traditional mysteries taught, special abilities are deeply hidden inside us. In the last interview, we learned that there is more in our brains and invisible bodies than might be expected. Science is developing its investigations and theories. Parapsychology, as well as the new sciences described by Dr. Jaden Francis Ward may be the first to develop in a theoretical way these dimensions of our being. But for centuries, initiates already worked with these inner powers as a real part of our demiurgic inheritance. For them, there was no doubt and no necessity to know exactly the inner process, and nor to prove it. Always looking first to prove what is not physical (and being able to use it) is a scientific and modern approach. For initiates, this step is not necessary, because the success will be a proof of this reality. In this case, why lose time? For students in the initiatic Western Tradition, the first questions regarding these inner powers are how to use them, and why. Are they totally essential for an initiate, even in Freemasonry?

In the case of Freemasonry, these questions seem not to be the main concern of an initiate. But if you want to work on your inner stone (soul) in order to know yourself better, you can’t place limits. If a Freemason believes in the existence of a supreme being, it would be strange to refuse the existence of invisible parts in his being, and to reject inner abilities. It is the same regarding his development. To become a better man is also to use what we received as creatures: body and spirit.

At the same time, we recognize that we are very often under the control of unconscious desires and passions. Freedom is often reduced, and in many cases we feel like we can choose based on free will, even if it’s not the case. To be able to choose freely, we must reduce outward and inner influences. Thus it is important to use the keys given by the Tradition, such as visualization, the pronunciation of words of power or sacred words, relaxation, and Masonic meditation. As you will see, a traditional ritual combines all these aspects. With these aids, the traditional practices and initiations will be more efficient and able to really have an inner effect on the initiate. In the same way, the initiate will be able to continue the initiatic work, increasing his capacity to understand his inner being, and increasing his own freedom. His choices, work, and philanthropic actions will be more efficient.

However, we must remember the connection between the initiatic way and the development of virtue. It is the same here. An inner work like this one must always be connected to moral considerations. Knowledge (science) without conscience (awareness) is the ruin of the soul. So the development of inner abilities without awareness and virtue would be the ruin of the soul. It is important to keep this in mind as all Masonic rituals do.

In fact, there is often a preconception connected to the inner abilities: interest in or use of them in esoteric rituals, or inner practices will be dangerous or even diabolical. Speaking about abilities will be quite acceptable, but about powers will be too much. Even more, some morally condemn any interest on this subject as a too-dangerous matter. But a risk of car accident is not enough to forbid cars. It is better to teach the use of cars correctly and to develop self-consciousness connected to respect for other drivers. We can imagine a similar consideration given to inner powers bestowed by the Great Architect of the Universe. These divine gifts must be cherished as carefully as the other aspects of one’s body. The ability of the mind you are using all day long is a good example of this. It’s worth learning how to increase your mental potential in order to express better and better what you have. It is important to not reject your ability to progress and develop. The goal would be to become better and more efficient in order to help mankind. Of course, we must support the idea that anything that is able to harm someone or weaken him physically or mentally must be condemned. Principles and laws are necessary for people who have not enough wisdom to understand their limits. It is necessary to teach and explain the necessity of a virtuous life. Wisdom and virtue must be the main goals to be able to work in goodwill for the betterment of all.

With these principles as our foundation and rule, the question of one’s inner abilities becomes minor. It becomes a question of use. It would be strange to forbid any considerations and use. It will be a bad appreciation of the divine gifts and God’s wisdom. As you know, the knife is not forbidden to cooks, or the hammer to masons, simply because these tools can kill! We must be focused more on the use of the tools we have as human beings.

In the Neoplatonic Tradition, the development of inner “paranormal” abilities is never understood as a goal in itself. The desire to return to the higher spiritual level is the main aspect of this quest. Freemasonry as an authentic modern philosophical school understood well this inheritance. It’s not by chance that moral virtues and philanthropy are major preoccupations of American Freemasonry. Work to be a better man in all aspects, and all else will follow. This inner progression will provide a better understanding of what you are, and what really motivates you. You will feel the importance of a spiritual development connected not to a specific faith, but to a goal shared by every religion: to be closer to the divine in order to be better, more divine. The ancient initiates explained that a spiritual evolution like this one can, at the same time, increase one’s inner abilities. Intuitions and a sense of receiving spiritual help, can be some of these manifestations. As the symbols of alchemy demonstrated, any spiritual progression must be associated with an inner purification of the soul. This is the only way to progress in a good balance. So you can begin to work directly on inner abilities when you already have begun the moral work.

But Freemasonry is not only a philosophical and spiritual school. From its origins the Craft received initiatic rituals and esoteric practices. Some are well-known, like the lodge’s rituals; others are less familiar, as you will see for the individual rituals. The point is not to reject or destroy these rituals. Every candidate, every Freemason ascends the Masonic degrees through rituals. They are performed by initiates who believe that symbols are important and can have an impact on the candidate. I will develop this very important dimension in the next part of this chapter. Of course, this not theurgy. But it is important that Masonic officers who are dealing with the initiatic process, with powerful rituals, become aware of the processes. If they are well trained, their actions will be clear and more efficient.

It is important to avoid self-pride and always to remember your situation as a fragile and imperfect human. Every scientific discovery reminds us how small we are before the mysteries of the universe. But at the same time, every discovery reminds us how powerful we are in the good as well as in the bad. We must use all the tools given by the Grand Architect of the Universe according to the morality that every man has in common: for the best of humanity.