By the term "The Cosmic Will" the Arcane Teaching designates the One Universal Living Creative Principle which has been recognized in all the great philosophies of all times and places. From the earliest dawn of philosophical thought, the great thinkers of the race have postulated the existence of a One Great Universal Living Creative Principle from which proceeded the Many. In some cases the One was held to be an Universal Being—even a Personal Being or Deity—while in others it was regarded simply as a Principle. But the underlying conception was the same—a One Living Creative Something from which the Many emerged—a Unity from which proceeded Diversity. This Universal Living Creative Principle was often confounded with The Absolute, although others held that it was subordinate. The Atlantean traditions show that those ancient people held to this fundamental idea; the Egyptians held to the existence of an Universal Life-Principle; the Chaldeans likewise; the Hindus held to the existence of the principle of Brahman, or the Universal-Life-Being, and the ancient Greek philosophers held firmly to the existence of the One Life Principle.
The Atlanteans, Chaldeans, and Egyptians held that this Universal Life Principle subdivided itself into the many forms of life and things, in obedience to an inner law of its being. The ancient Hindus held that the One manifested as the Many, the various schools giving different "reasons" for the manifestation as follows: one school held that Brahman manifested as the Many, in order to enjoy objective existence; another school held that Prakriti, the Universal Principle of Substance, was acted upon by the Purushas, or Soul-Principles, which it had attracted to itself, and manifestations arose by reason thereof; another school held that Brahman was merely a subordinate creative principle, which was caused to create universes by the power of Para-Brahm; another school held that all manifestation was merely an illusory dream of Maya (the Creative Principle), in the mind of The Supreme Being; the Buddhists held that manifestation was caused by tanha or "thirst," in the Universal Will-to-Live which arose from the Void of Nothingness; other schools held ideas akin to those mentioned, or variations or combinations of them.
The Greeks always held to the existence of the Universal Life Principle, calling it by various names. The very term, "The Cosmos," was used by the Stoics and others to represent the idea of the anima mundi or "world-soul." Heraclitus held to the "world-spirit" which he symbolized as flame. Pythagoras, in his exoteric or popular teachings taught the doctrine of the Life Principle, symbolizing it as light or flame. Other schools recognized the existence of this One Life Principle calling it "Being," a term which has persisted in modern philosohy.
By some schools, notably the Platonian, the Universal Life Principle was called "The Demiurge," the term literally meaning the "universal worker." The Demiurge was held to be an exalted and mysterious agent, by and through whom The Absolute was supposed to have created the Universe—the life of the Demiurge flowed out into manifold forms, and became the Many. This idea was adhered to by the Gnostics of the early Christian church.
The term "The Logos" was also applied by some of the schools to this Universal Life Principle. The Logos was held to be the Creative Principle of Nature, objective in the world, giving order and regularity to the universe of shapes and forms which it had manifested. This idea of The Logos was inherent in many ancient religions, and permeated even early Christianity. Ueberweg, in his History of Philosophy, says: "The Logos was a being intermediate between God and the world.…The Logos does not exist from eternity like God, and yet its genesis is not like our own and that of all other created beings; it is the first begotten son of God, and is for us, who are imperfect, a god.…Through the agency of The Logos, God created the world, and has revealed Himself to it."
In the early Christian Church there was much dispute about The Logos, but the revolution in the Church, effected by Constantine, drove it from its place of importance in the Christian theology. But, nevertheless, the idea has persisted, as witness Cudworth, the eminent English theologian and philosopher (1617–1688) who held to the existence of a "Plastic Nature," of which he claimed: "It may well be concluded that there is a Plastic Nature, under God, which, as an inferior and subordinate instrument, doth grudgingly execute that part of his providence which consists in the orderly and regular motion of matter;" Cudworth held that this idea of Plastic Nature was reasonable in view of the fact that "the slow and gradual process in the generation of things would be a vain and idle pomp, or a trifling formality, if the moving power were omnipotent; as also may be noted those errors and bungles which are committed where the matter is inept and contumacious; which argues that the moving power is not irresistible, and that Nature is not altogether incapable of being sometimes frustrated and disappointed by the indisposition of matter. An Omnipotent Moving Power, being able to dispatch its work in a moment, would always act infallibly and irresistibly, as no ineptitude and stubbornness of matter would be able to hinder such a one, or to make Him fumble or bungle in anything." The Plastic Nature of Cudworth, and his followers, was but the old Demiurge, or Logos, of the Gnostics—but another name for the Universal Living Creative Principle, subordinate to the Higher Law.
Modern philosophers and thinkers have held to this idea of the Creative Principle, regarding it rather as a Life Principle than as a Being, however. Bruno held the existence of an anima mundi, or world-soul-principle; others have held to the Principle of "Nature"; Schopenhauer held to the existence of an Universal Will-to-Live, which manifested its life the universe of shape and form and variety; von Hartman held that there existed an "Unconscious," or Creative Principle, similar to that of Schopenhauer's "Will"; Wundt held to the existence of an "Universal Will"; Crusius held to an Universal Dominating Will; Balzac held to a "Universal Something, akin to Will"; Nietsche held to a "World-Will"; Maeterlinck holds to a Life Principle; Bernard Shaw postulates the existence of a Universal Creative Energy which he calls, "The Life Forces."
The Naturalistic school of philosophy postulates the existence of a composite something which it calls "Nature," which acts as the Universal Creative Energy; other thinkers speak of "Nature" in its metonymic sense, as "The agent, producer, or creator of things; the powers which carry on the processes of creation; the powers concerned to produce existing phenomena, whether in sum or in detail; the personified sum and order of cause and effect." Spencer postulates the existence of an "infinite and eternal energy, from which all things proceed,…which transcends our reason and even our imagination." In short, this Universal Living Creative Principle or Life-Principle, is found, under one name or another, in nearly all of the leading philosophies or schools of thought, ancient or modern. The highest reports of the human reason agree in this conception and postulate.
But the true philosophic conception must be distinguished from that of Pantheism, which at first thought seems to be the same. Pantheism claims that this Creative Principle is Deity; God; or The Absolute—that Deity and Nature are identical—that the Universe is God, and God is the Universe. Herein lies a great error, which true philosophers and true occultists vigorously oppose. The idea of an Absolute—of an Omnipotent, Omniscient (all-powerful; all-wise) Being—being compelled to work Its way up gradually, haltingly, with mistakes and stumbles, is absurd. Cudworth (quoted a moment ago) makes this point clear. And to claim that an Absolute Being is trying to "gain experience" in this way, is ridiculous. The idea that the Absolute is "trying to accomplish something" by the universal manifestation, is illogical—for if It has not been able to reach its goal in all the past of Eternity, It can not reach it in all the future of Eternity, for the one is equal to the other. Moreover, the Absolute must of necessity be self-sufficient, and can want nothing to perfect Itself. In short any attempt to postulate The Absolute; God; Deity or other Supreme Thing as being the struggling, striving, evolving Creative Energy, must end in failure or an illogical conclusion. It is only when it is assumed that this Creative Energy is subordinate to and ruled by an Absolute Sovereign Power, that it becomes logically thinkable. Pantheism, actual or implied, is illogical—even the idea of a Personal Deity is far more logical than is pure Pantheism. The Absolute and Nature can never be the same, try as men