And of course there may in fact be a fair amount of wishful thinking involved. To be “aware” of the companionship of Jesus, one needs to subject the body to that degree of nervous tension which will induce the frame of mind which appreciates his presence. This is so whether the “awareness” of his presence is fact or fantasy. Suppose it is fact; having induced this frame of mind once, of course the mind and body can do it again. So even if the first awareness of Jesus was true, the subsequent ones may be imagination. And the person concerned will find it difficult to distinguish the one from the other. So even a true companionship will have a good deal of imagination and fantasy mixed up with it; and actually it is none the worse for that. If the “awareness” of Jesus’ presence is fantasy, then it is no worse than day-dreaming, and should not prevent a return to reality. The two states to avoid are a degeneration into complete fantasy, especially religious mania, and one party becoming a slave to the other. Particularly where the sense of communion is between a man and a woman, you do not want one party to be wholly dominant, and the other to be wholly subservient. And it is remarkably easy to get into the situation where it is difficult, or even impossible, for one party to reproach the other with harsh or inconsiderate conduct. The same is true of the relationship of God to man, assuming this does truly exist. There is nothing wrong in a man crying out at the bitterness of Providence, “How can God do this to me?”; so long as he does not imitate Louis XIV in the aftermath of the battle of Ramillies and add, “Who have done so much for Him!”
In other walks of life the position is similar. The lawyer who cannot lose face induces into himself the frame of mind which regards losing face as intolerable. The frame of mind is his gyroscopic compass by which he navigates his way through life; “losing face” is merely the label attached to it. If you were to tease someone who had no great regard for appearances with the taunt that he did not want to lose face, he would regard it as good natured banter. Try it with someone whose “compass” was not losing face, and you would have an eruption you would not forget. Most of us have something in the mind that is non-negotiable; and naturally this will express itself as a favourite frame of mind, to which we revert at frequent intervals. It is a bad habit, in my opinion, to get locked into a favourite frame of mind like this. Better by far seek a sense of communion with God or man (or woman), because this is subject only to the danger of degenerating into fantasy; whereas your favourite frame of mind is fantasy. There is nothing permanent about it, apart from the fact that bad habits are difficult to get rid of. And it will always limit your ability to act, in situations where the bad habit is irrelevant.
Nevertheless one of the chief functions of any religion, from primitive forest gods to Jung’s spirit lurking in the depths of the psyche, is to provide a totem, a sheet anchor, a haven of refuge, for the human soul who is lost in the unbelievable complexities of life.