|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Hinduism
RESPONDENT: I do not find anything radical in Richard’s teachings. I already am aware of most of this stuff thanks mainly to Osho and other eastern philosophies. RICHARD: I am well aware that many people initially get the impression that I am saying the same thing as do those people who are living in an altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment ... as detailed in Eastern spiritual philosophy. However, an actual freedom from the Human Condition is not an altered state of consciousness (ASC) wherein the identity transmogrifies ... it is an on-going pure consciousness experience (PCE) wherein the identity is annihilated in its totality. In an ASC the identity shifts its focus, when ‘I’ as ego undergoes an ‘ego-death’, and ‘me’ as soul realises its ‘True Self’ as epitomised in the phrase: ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’. The next step is the realisation that ‘Me’ and ‘God’ (not the god of the churches, temples, mosques and synagogues) are one and the same thing and, as such, one is ‘Unborn and Undying’. Thus, being now ‘Spaceless and Timeless’ one has achieved ‘Divine Immortality’ and one can confidently say – as Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain did – that one is ‘Never Born, Never Died, Only Visited This Planet’ . Eastern mystical philosophy stipulates that the temporal world – the entire material universe – is but an illusion, and only God is real ... God as ‘Pure Being’ (The Brahman, The Buddha, The Tao, The Void, The Whatever) and not the god of the churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. Whereas in the PCE the identity disappears when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul is expunged, eliminated, extirpated ... as extinct as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. Then one is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware ... what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. With the clarity and purity of apperception, one is aware that this physical universe is actual – not an illusion – and its space is infinite and its time is eternal ... and this boundless expanse and an unlimited time is known as ‘infinitude’. RESPONDENT: I would still insist that this is not the first time I am hearing this. I have read about getting into the minute (I know this is not the right word, but my vocabulary is poor, the Sanskrit word is Sukshma) ego on the spiritual path. RICHARD: Would you be referring to ‘Sukshma Sarira’? Sometimes known as ‘Sukshama Sharira’? RESPONDENT: No I was referring to Sukshma Ahamkara. RICHARD: Oh? May I ask? Just what has ‘ahamkara’ (be it subtle or not) got to do with what you initially stated (top) and what I responded with (second from top)? I was clearly talking of an actual freedom (as in a PCE) from the real-world when ‘me’ as soul becomes extinct – which is ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies. Whereas enlightenment (as in an ASC), which is liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham). This assumption is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on material nature (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman). And in case that paragraph is difficult to follow, I am talking of the soul (atman) being annihilated ... and you are talking about ‘getting into the minute (sukshma) ego on the spiritual path’. * RICHARD: Okay, could you detail these various things that you have been ‘hearing/reading for so many years’? Because I have not come across it in eighteen years of hearing/reading multitudinous various things. RESPONDENT: I will just give an example. The snake and the rope metaphor is well known in Hindu philosophy. It says that a rope lying on a way may look like a snake to somebody. It is explained that the illusion of snake is ‘maya’ which arises because of ‘aham’ (‘I’). When there is no aham, there is no illusion (maya) and therefore rope is rope (the brahma). Aren’t you saying the same thing? Just replace brahma by actual world and maya by real world. RICHARD: No. This actual world is material – as in tangible, corporeal, physical, substantial,
palpable, tactile and sensate – and is evident when ‘I’ as ego (aham) and ‘me’ as soul (atman) become extinct. There is
nothing other than this infinite and eternal actual phenomenal universe. Whereas ‘the brahma’ is the supreme existence or
absolute, the noumenal font of all things – the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the
universe of finiteness and change – and is realised when aham remembers that its true nature (atman) is brahma. And according to
the Advaita (Non-dualist) school of Vedanta, brahma is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of
differentiation are illusively projected on this physical reality. The Bhedabheda (Dualist-Non-dualist) school maintains that
brahma is non-different from the world, which is its product, but different in that phenomenality imposes certain adventitious
conditions (upadhis) on brahma. The Vishistadvaita (Non-duality of the Qualified) school maintains that a relation between brahma
and the world of soul and matter exists that is comparable to the relation between soul and body and that phenomenality is a
glorious manifestation of brahma (as a personal god, Brahma, is both transcendent and immanent). The Dvaita (Dualist) school
refuses to accept the identity of brahma and world, maintaining the ontological separateness of the supreme, which it also
identifies with a personal god. I must ask again: where in all this does it relate to what I speak of? RICHARD: Is Advaita Vedanta really a ‘philosophical system’ ? It is a sect of Hinduism after all ... and Hinduism is a religion. RESPONDENT: Advaita Vedanta as far as I know is a ‘philosophical system’ that could have been relevant to the times and conditions existing at that time. But to me a religion and philosophic system are two different things. They just happened to be linked by coincidence. As in India today, most people who ‘practice’ the ‘iconic’ Hindu religion have no knowledge about Advaita Vedanta. This is not a criticism. Having heard you say so much about Brahman etc, can I infer that you too are conditioned by Hindu/Buddhist beliefs? RICHARD: No, I am not at all conditioned by Hindu/Buddhist beliefs ... I was living it for eleven years, but that all abruptly ended five years ago. I am inordinately pleased to be free of those insidious doctrinal truths that masquerade as actuality ... by both word and deed. You say that ‘a religion and philosophic systems are two different things to me’ . I agree ... up to a point. But that is not what I was referring to. I was pointing to the fact that Advaita Vedanta is a spiritual philosophy – not a secular philosophy – and that it has its origins in the Hindu religion. Central to Advaita Vedanta is Brahman ... and Brahman has its historical beginnings in Brahma, the Hindu God of Creation. Mr. Shankara, inspired by Buddhism’s Sunyata – an attribute free void-that-is-full – accommodated Buddhist thought into Hinduism (Hinduism has been absorbing all religions into its fold since time immemorial) Basically, Mr. Shankara pointed to scriptural texts, stating identity (‘Thou art That’) as declaring the true meaning of a Brahman as Nirguna (without qualities). Human perception of the unitary and infinite Brahman as being the plural and infinite is due to human beings’ innate habit of adhyasa (superimposition), by which a thou is ascribed to the I (I am tired; I am happy; I am perceiving). The habit stems from human ignorance which can be avoided only by the realisation of the identity of Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute or Supreme Existence ... the origin of all things. Brahman is the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change. According to the non-dualist school of Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of differentiation are illusively projected on this reality If that lot is a secular philosophy then I would like to know what is a spiritual philosophy. * RESPONDENT: Different texts provide different meanings and interpretations to [Purusha and Prakriti]. Some texts (e.g. Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 13 and 14) relate them to the ‘field’ and the ‘knower of the field’. Some other texts mentions Purusha as the ‘Holy Ghost’ and Prakriti as the eternal nature of God the Father. Purusha also is a name given to the ‘Shiva Linga’. The nature embodied in that symbol is ‘Prakriti’. And so on. So one needs to be careful in picking up references for the subjects discussed. In common parlance Purusha refers to Man while Prakriti means nature. RICHARD: If I may point out? In the context of the post that I wrote, the word ‘Purusha’ had nothing to do with ‘common parlance’ as I was discussing ‘Gurus and God-Men’ and their sacred and holy antics. Viz.:
Why do you not consider that ‘consciousness’ and ‘nature’ are the most apt translations of ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakriti’ in reference to the particular subject I was presenting? I ask because, while most modern languages are more or less ‘meaning-specific’ in that each word has one meaning – or two or more meanings dependent upon context – and while some of the words of the Indian Sub-Continent do have this meaning-specific quality, others do not. ‘Prakriti’, in Sanskrit, is a compound consisting of the prepositional prefix ‘pra’, meaning ‘forwards’ or ‘progression’ and ‘kriti’, a noun-form from the verbal root ‘kr’, ‘to make’ or ‘to do’. Therefore ‘prakriti’ means literally ‘production’ or ‘bringing forth’ or ‘originating’ and by an extension of meaning it also signifies the primordial or original state or condition or form of anything as being primary or original substance ... in a word: nature. But let us, by all means, look into this further: I have read that ‘Prakriti’ is also to be considered with ‘vikriti’ ... ‘vikriti’ signifying change or an alteration of some kind or a production or evolution from the ‘prakriti’ which precedes it. Is it not in common usage that ‘prakriti’ may be called nature in general, as the ‘great producer’ of entities or things? And through this nature acts the ever-active ‘Brahma’ or ‘Purusha’? (‘Purusha’ also sometimes stands as an interchangeable term with ‘Brahma’, the ‘evolver’ or ‘creator’). Now, ‘Purusha’, in Sanskrit, is a word meaning ‘man’ as the ‘Ideal Man’ (like the Qabbalistic Adam Qadmon) the primordial entity of space containing with and in ‘prakriti’ (as nature) all the scales of manifested being. But more mystically ‘Purusha’ has significance in a number of different forms: in addition to meaning the ‘Heavenly Man’ or ‘Ideal Man’, it is frequently used for the spiritual person in each individual human being ... therefore it is a term for the spiritual self. Consequently, ‘Purusha’ is spirit and ‘prakriti’ is its productive veil or sheath. Essentially and fundamentally the two are one and whatever ‘prakriti’ – through and by the influence of ‘Purusha’ – produces is the multitudinous and multiform ‘vikritis’ which make the immense variety and diversity in the universe around. And in one or more of the Hindu philosophies ‘prakriti’ is the same as ‘sakti’, and therefore ‘prakriti’ and ‘sakti’ are virtually interchangeable with ‘maya’ or ‘maha-maya’ (‘appearance’ or ‘illusion’). ‘Prakriti’ is often spoken of as matter in very common usage but this is considered inexact as matter is rather the ‘productions’ or phases that ‘prakriti’ brings about: the ‘vikritis’. Furthermore, in the Sankhya philosophy, ‘pradhana’ is virtually identical with ‘prakriti’ and both are often used to signify the producing element from which (and out of) all illusory material manifestations or appearances are evolved. Interestingly enough, the quality of not being meaning-specific is common in many ancient languages including
Hebrew and Sanskrit ... and looking up the several meanings of a single word gives not only an understanding of the exoteric and
esoteric meaning of phrases, but also some understanding of the cognitive and affective faculties of peoples some millenniums gone
by. Those ‘Ancient Scriptures’ (Rig Veda I.164.20; Mundaka Upanishad I.III.1; Shvetashvatara
Upanishad IV.6) clearly show that the ‘Gurus and God-Men’ of 3,000 to 5,000 years ago were the same as the current
Gurus and God-Men in that they exhibited the same dichotomous qualities in their ‘Divine Nature’ as the ‘human nature’
they have transcended (because transcended does not mean extinguished). In other words, nothing has changed over the last 3,000 to
5,000 years ... yet they are either revered and worshipped or otherwise looked up to as the font of wisdom. RESPONDENT: If so, then that is karma in action and is my just due. RICHARD: Okay ... speaking personally, I have no need for that hypothesis. RESPONDENT: No, Karma is not a hypothesis. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... or if it be not a hypothesis then it is a metaphysical belief that the force generated by a person’s actions perpetuate transmigration and its ethical consequences determine the nature of the person’s next existence. Karma is the influence of an individual’s past actions on their future lives, or reincarnations and thus what one does in this present life will have its effect in the next life. The doctrine of karma reflects the Hindu conviction that this life is but one in a chain of lives (samsara) and that it is determined by a human’s actions in a previous life. This is accepted as a law of nature and is not open to further discussion. The moral energy of a particular act is preserved and fructifies automatically in the next life, where it shows up in one’s class, nature, disposition, and character. The process is mechanical, and no interference by a god and/or goddess or gods and/or goddesses is admitted, except by some of the later and more extreme theists. Thus the law of karma seeks to explain the inequalities that are observed among creatures. In Hinduism, in the course of the chain of lives, an individual can perfect themselves, until they reach the eminence of the god Brahma himself, or they can degrade themself in such an evil way that they are reborn as an animal. Not only do past acts influence the circumstances of the next life, they also determine one’s happiness or unhappiness in the hereafter between lives, where one will spend a time in either one of the heavens or one of the hells until the fruits of one’s karma have been all but consumed and the remainder creates a new life for one. Buddhism and Jainism incorporated doctrines of karma as part of their common Indian legacy: the Buddhists interpret it strictly in terms of ethical cause and effect and in Jainism, karma is regarded not as a process but as a fine particulate substance that produces the universal chain of cause and effect ... of birth and death and rebirth. Rebirth – also called transmigration or metempsychosis – in both religion and philosophy refers to the rebirth of the soul in one or more successive existences, which may be human, animal, or, in some instances, vegetable. While belief in reincarnation is most characteristic of Asian religions and philosophies, it also appears in the religious and philosophical thought of primitive religions, in some ancient Middle Eastern religions (Orphism, Manichaeism, and Gnosticism) as well as in such modern religious movements as Theosophy. In primitive religions, belief in multiple souls is common. The soul is frequently viewed as capable of leaving the body through the mouth or nostrils and of being reborn, for example, as a bird, butterfly, or insect. The Venda of Southern Africa, for example, believe that when a person dies the soul stays near the grave for a short time and then seeks a new resting place or another body ... be it human, mammalian, or reptilian. Among the ancient Greeks, Orphism held that a pre-existent soul survives bodily death and is later reincarnated in a human or other mammalian body, eventually receiving release from the cycle of birth and death and regaining its former pure state. Mr. Plato believed in an immortal soul that participates in frequent incarnations. The major religions that hold a belief in reincarnation – Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism – all hold in common the doctrine of karma. In Hinduism the process of birth and rebirth – transmigration of souls – is endless until one achieves Moksha (salvation) by realising the truth that liberates ... that the individual soul (Atman) and the absolute soul (Brahman) are one. Thus, one can escape from the wheel of birth and rebirth (samsara). Jainism, reflecting a belief in an absolute soul (‘Siddha’), holds that karma is affected in its density by the deeds that a person does. Thus, the burden of the old karma is added to the new karma that is acquired during the next existence until the soul frees itself by religious disciplines, especially by ahimsa (‘non-violence’), and rises to the place of liberated souls at the top of the universe (‘Siddha-Shila’). Although Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging, substantial soul, it holds to a belief in the transmigration of the karma of what can only be described as souls. A complex of psycho-physical elements and states changing from moment to moment with its five skandhas (‘groups of elements’ as in body, sensations, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness) ceases to exist; but the karma of the deceased survives (the soul by another name) and becomes a vijñana (‘germ of consciousness’) in the womb of a mother. This vijñana is that aspect of the soul reincarnated in a new individual. By gaining a state of complete passiveness through discipline and meditation, one can leave the wheel of birth and rebirth and achieve Nirvana, the state of the extinction of desires. Sikhism teaches a doctrine of reincarnation based on the Hindu view but in addition holds that after the Last Judgment, souls – which have been reincarnated in several existences – will be absorbed in God. Central to the belief in reincarnation is Punna (‘merit’) which is a primary attribute sought by Buddhists, both monks and laymen, in order to build up a better karma (the cumulative consequences of deeds) and thus to achieve a more favourable future rebirth. The concept is particularly stressed in Theravada tradition of South East Asia. Punna can be acquired through dana (‘giving’) such as offering food and robes to monks or donating a temple or monastery; sila (the keeping of the moral precepts); and bhavana (the practice of meditation). Merit can also be transferred from one being to another. This is a central feature of the Mahayana schools, in which the ideal Buddhist is the bodhisattva (‘the Buddha-to-be’), who dedicates himself to the service of others and transfers merit from his own inexhaustible store to benefit others. Until survival after physical death be substantiated and demonstrated ‘karma’ remains a hypothesis ... or belief. RESPONDENT: Our present actions spawn future actions, this is a fact. RICHARD: What you are talking of is known as ‘cause and effect’, and not all ‘present actions’ spawn future actions ... there are literally hundreds of things one does in the daily course of events that have no effect on ‘future actions’ whatsoever. RESPONDENT: If I am hostile in my actions towards others, in all likelihood I will find my hostility returned in the future. This hypothesis is easily verified to be true. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘in all likelihood’ instead ‘without exception’ or ‘inevitably’ or some-such absolute? Is it because you somehow know that if you are hostile in your actions towards a pacifist, for example, they will seize upon it as an opportunity to be ‘loving’ or ‘accepting’ or whatever and not return your hostility? And not only pacifists ... speaking from personal history, the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body in 1965 was hostile – quite self-righteously aggro in fact – towards someone close to ‘him’ (a fellow soldier) and to this day that person has never returned the hostility. And as that person was killed in combat two years later, he is never going to be able to. The belief in ‘karma’ looks pretty silly when viewed sensibly, eh? RESPONDENT No. 45 (List B): By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani
(cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective
realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising
of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’). RESPONDENT: Richard, I’ve been following this discussion with interest and have a couple of questions for you: Which of the 3 ways did you use to achieve spiritual enlightenment in 1981? RICHARD: Well, none of those 3 ways, actually ... I inadvertently ‘discovered’ another way: ignorance. I was aiming for the pure consciousness experience (PCE) and landed short of my goal ... and it took another 11 years to get here. To explain: I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again. By being born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning. I had never heard the words ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘Nirvana’ and so on until 1982 when talking to a man about my breakthrough, into what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ via the death of ‘myself’, in September 1981. He listened – he questioned me rigorously until well after midnight – and then declared me to be ‘Enlightened’. I had to ask him what that was, such was my ignorance of all things spiritual. He – being a nine-year spiritual seeker fresh from his latest trip to India – gave me a book to read by someone called Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. That was to be the beginning of what was to become a long learning curve of all things religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical for me. I studied all this because I sought to understand what other peoples had made of such spontaneous experiences and to find out where human endeavour had been going wrong. I found out where I had been going wrong for eleven years ... self-aggrandisement is so seductive. RESPONDENT: If people can use any of these three techniques, and I’m thinking in particular of the 3rd via raising of the kundalini, doesn’t this verify part of the spiritual theory? RICHARD: The ‘spiritual theory’ needs no further verification than that it is indeed possible to become illuminated or enlightened. Similarly, it is also possible to become angry or sad or loving or compassionate ... and so on. It is also possible to be intuitive, to be telepathic, to be clairvoyant (not accurately though). As well as that it is possible to see fairies or sprites or goblins ... the whole range of psychic phenomena. RESPONDENT: If one can practice to send the kundalini up the sushumna opening chakras along the way – for this to work mustn’t there be a kundalini? RICHARD: Not only the ‘kundalini’ ... there must also be ‘the sushumna’, the ‘chakras’ and ‘prana’ (one cannot practice ‘pranayama’ if there be no ‘prana’). The word ‘prana’ (meaning ‘vital air’, from the root ‘pran’: ‘to breathe’) refers to what is known as the vital energy or vital force or life principle ... and has corollaries in other cultures (‘chi’ in China, pronounced ‘ki’ in Japan) and is also known as ‘vitalism’ (popular in Europe in the early twentieth century) or ‘vital élan’. And, as ‘pranayama’ basically means the practice of breath control (prana=outgoing breath, apana=incoming breath, vyana=retained breath, Udana=ascending breath and samana=equalising breath), it is relevant to remember that the word ‘psyche’ (Greek: ‘psukhe’: breath, soul, life; related to ‘psukhein’: breathe, blow) relates to breath and breathing ... and thus to life and living (as opposed to death and dying as in ‘taking your last breath’). For many early peoples (called ‘primitive people’) what animated the body was breath (air, vital air, vital force, life force, life principle and so on), because when a person stopped breathing they were dead ... their soul had left their body as their last breath. In the animistic religions (called ‘pagan’) of the Bronze Age and earlier, spirit was everywhere, especially in the air (in the ‘ether’) and it is no coincidence that the ‘etheric body’ is considered the ‘vital body’ or ‘essential body’ (the Sanskrit ‘akasha’ means the same as ‘ether’ ... hence ‘akashic’ and ‘etheric’ refer to a similar psychic phenomenon). Lastly, there are some spiritual people who do not seem to ‘get it’ that the word ‘spiritual’ means of or pertaining to the spirit ... and take umbrage at being linked to the spirit-ridden animistic Bronze-Age peoples whence their much-vaunted ‘Ancient Wisdom’ comes from. Facts, of course, are irrelevant to spiritualists ... even though, these days we know that the ‘vital force’ in the air we breath is oxygen and that what we breath out is carbon dioxide (amongst other elements) which is the ‘vital force’ that plants imbibe ... and plants exude the very oxygen we breath in. And, unless science can be proved incorrect about the physical element called oxygen, and the wisdom of the ancients proved right about the non-physical etheric force, called prana or chi and so on, the following has no relationship whatsoever to physical actuality. Viz.:
The sublimated carnal passions (the ecstatically blissful sexual energies in the pleasure centre of the
amygdala), coupled with a fertilised imagination, do have amazingly energetic manifestations. RICHARD: ... the very stuff of this universe is immortal (perpetual) whereas the shape or form that this stuff takes, which is born, grows, ages, and dies, is what is mortal (transitory) .... be it flesh and blood bodies, planets, stars or nebulae (or even houses and cars and so on). I have also referred to this all-pervading perpetuality in earlier posts to you in regards buildings, pixels on computer screens and other examples. Viz.: (snip examples). Therefore a mortal or transitory shape or form, comprised of immortal or perpetual stuff, can indeed ‘know that which is immortal’ ... or, as I have said before, as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. RESPONDENT: Tagore expressed very similar sentiments in the following words (In Gitanjali): ‘I stand under the golden canopy; Of thine evening sky; And life my eager eyes towards thine face ... I have come to the brink of eternity; From which nothing can vanish ...’. Different metaphor, same sentiments. RICHARD: Are you so sure? To whom was Mr. Rabindranath Tagore referring when he penned the words ‘thine
evening sky’ and ‘thine face’ (the word ‘thine’ is synonymous with the word ‘thy’ and with the word ‘your’).
Here is the verse in full: [quote]: ‘In desperate hope I go and search for her in all the corners of my room; I find her not. My
house is small and what once has gone from it can never be regained. But infinite is thy mansion, my lord, and seeking her I have
to come to thy door. I stand under the golden canopy of thine evening sky and I lift my eager eyes to thy face. I have come to the
brink of eternity from which nothing can vanish; no hope, no happiness, no vision of a face seen through tears. Oh, dip my emptied
life into that ocean, plunge it into the deepest fullness. Let me for once feel that lost sweet touch in the allness of the
universe’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). The words ‘...
infinite is thy mansion, my lord’ indicate that he is referring to a god and not the physical universe which I was talking about
further above (the ‘her’ whom he is seeking, and who has gone from his small house, is probably a reference to his dead wife
... presumably now with his god in some after-death abode which he calls ‘thy mansion’). RESPONDENT: What Tagore is talking about is universe that is infinite. His own house (meaning ego) is small (and mortal) as compared to the infinitude and beyond time-ness of the universe. ‘Her’ is an allusion to freedom while still existing as a flesh and blood body. He finds her (freedom) not in the house of his ego but in the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: ‘Tis a simple matter to see what you are saying:
First of all, why would anybody go searching for ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’ in all the corners of their ‘ego’? Secondly, how does it make sense to say that ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’, once gone from [my] ‘ego’, can never be regained? Furthermore, how can this physical universe (comprising of time, space and matter) be ‘beyond time-ness’ anyway? Lastly: who does ‘my lord’ refer to in your metaphor? Shall we look at what I presumed to be the case:
Also, and as Mr. Rabindranath Tagore acknowledged his indebtedness to the Baul poets, ‘her’ can also refer to love or lover. * RESPONDENT: Exactly the same sentiments are expressed by another flesh-and-blood body that frequents this mailing list. :-) RICHARD: Humph ... just for starters I have never said ‘infinite is thy beyond time-ness universe, my lord’ anywhere at all in any of my writing. On the contrary, I have expressly disclaimed both the timeless and any god, by whatever name, who creates and/or is creating and/or is sustaining this physical universe. Try this excerpt on for size and see how it fits:
He also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses:
And there is plenty more quotes where that one came from
I have expressly disclaimed ‘formless’ many, many times. * RESPONDENT: To obstinately refuse to acknowledge what has been expressed by others is a trick of the ego, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Au contraire ... to obstinately persist, again and again, in trying to fit what I am speaking clearly and unambiguously of under the broad umbrella of Hinduism is a trick of the conditioned mind. RESPONDENT: Tagore did not speak under the umbrella of Hinduism ... RICHARD: Goodness me ... Mr. Rabindranath Tagore is well-known for his attempts to combine the best of the Indian tradition and the Western tradition. RESPONDENT: ... he clearly and unambiguously stood under the canopy of the evening sky and looked up ... RICHARD: In the verse you quoted he did, yes ... I was speaking generally. RESPONDENT: ... and it appears to me that he found the same infinitude there that you found betwixt stars. RICHARD: Not so ... he sought for his lord’s eternity (and he only stood on the brink of it at that). * RICHARD: Hinduism strains in vain to be all things to all people. RESPONDENT: If it strains, it can’t be Hinduism. RICHARD: Hinduism only appears to succeed in being all things to all people for a Hindu or a Hindu wannnabe ... nobody else takes any notice of such pretentiousness. In fact ecumenicalism does not even work amongst the various sects of a single religion. RESPONDENT: Realizing that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude is to be a Hindu. RICHARD: This is a classic example of Hinduism attempting to co-opt all under its umbrella ... your juggernaut approach will never, ever convince me that (a) I am a Hindu ... or (b) what I write of is Hinduism ... or (c) that Hinduism has already discovered what I speak of. An actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human history. RICHARD: Mr. Rabindranath Tagore also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses: [quote]: ‘In one salutation to thee, my God, let all my senses spread out and touch this world at thy feet’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: The God is the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: Are you a pantheist? RESPONDENT: No. I never believed in any organized religion. RICHARD: Allow me to refresh your memory:
Have you all-of-a-sudden ceased being a Hindu? RESPONDENT: In 1993 I was dealt a sever, nearly devastating blow. That blow made me question the very basis of life, of justice, morals, and such. Through a near-death experience I realized that life is not what we make it out to be; instead it is infinitely more deep than the shallowness of everyday existence. God, as truth, pervades everything that is there, and once you touch that truth, then all doubts vanish. From that point on, I view things differently. There is no belief in me of any denomination, atheistic, monotheistic or pantheistic. Truth has no such language, but while expressing that truth, different words may come handy. RICHARD: Aye ... and such a handy word is pantheism: for a pantheist their god is immanent (as in the way you expressed it as ‘god is the infinitude of the universe’ and ‘god, as truth, pervades everything that is’) as compared with a theist whose god is transcendent (expressed as not the infinitude of the universe and not all-pervading) ... broadly speaking theism refers to a creator god who is beyond the universe. Whereas in panentheism a god is not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). Is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? * RICHARD: Mr. Rabindranath Tagore also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses: [quote]: ‘In one salutation to thee, my God, let all my senses spread out and touch this world at thy feet’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: The God is the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: Are you a pantheist? RESPONDENT: No. I never believed in any organized religion. RICHARD: Allow me to refresh your memory: (snip quotes). Have you all-of-a-sudden ceased being a Hindu? RESPONDENT: In the narrow sectarian sense of the word, I was never a Hindu. RICHARD: The discussions you and I have had recently have already made this quite clear ... surely it must be obvious that I was not speaking of you being a Hindu in ‘the narrow sectarian sense’ ? RESPONDENT: In the broader sense, no one can cease being a Hindu. RICHARD: I must ask what you mean by ‘no one’ ... do you mean ‘no one’ born a Hindu or do you mean ‘no one’ out of the six billion peoples alive on the planet today? Here are the latest figures I have come across regarding the percentage of the world population regarded as being Hindus:
So as to put my query precisely are you saying that ‘no one’ out of the 800 million-1 billion
peoples who are Hindu by the accident of birth can ‘cease being a Hindu’ ... or are you referring to every man, woman
and child on the planet? RESPONDENT: To insist that one absolute is different than another (and also better) is to be caught in the Web of dualistic Maya, wherefrom all sorrow, violence, domestic and child abuse, etc., emanate. RICHARD: It is this simple: you are speaking of a metaphysical absolute and I am speaking of a physical absolute – two obviously different absolutes – and as all suffering happens in time and space as form then surely any solution must be found in time and space as form ... RESPONDENT: ‘Physical absolute’ is an oxymoron ... RICHARD: Ahh ... this statement throws some light upon what you mean by ‘all existence is relative’ and that ‘only Brahma or Void is absolute’. And, as I am saying that all existence is absolute ... RESPONDENT: This is non-sense. RICHARD: But if you had not snipped off the qualifier it would have made sense. Viz.:
You will see that this is entirely in keeping with the dictionary definition of the word ‘absolute’. Viz.:
Contrary to Hinduism’s ancient wisdom this universe is quite capable of existing by itself ... it needs no
timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Brahma’ to create/maintain it. RESPONDENT: Existence changes all the time. RICHARD: Aye ... and such novelty is what keeps all existence from being boring (as expressed so well in the cliché ‘variety is the spice of life’). RESPONDENT: That which changes can not be absolute. RICHARD: Nevertheless, however much it changes it still remains the universe ... it does not become something else even though it is always new and thus ever fresh. RESPONDENT: Sorry. RICHARD: I am sure I would be ‘sorry’ too if I had given my heart to a ‘truth’ which never changes. Viz.:
Yet for all the years you have been nursing this static ‘truth’ in your heart the perfect purity of this actual world has been right under your nose ... all it requires is that you come to your senses (both literally and metaphorically). And this pristine actuality is coruscating ... scintillating. RESPONDENT: A wise person sits on the shore and watches the ebb and flow of these waves [the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings]. RICHARD: Yet, as ‘a wise person’ is a being residing inside the body, irregardless of whether the being persuades the body to physically act or not, the being involuntarily transmits ‘these waves’ – these emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) – into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore the being is not harmless even when the being refrains from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution. There is nothing that can stop other beings picking up these vibes and/or picking up what are sometimes called psychic currents. This is because there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional beings – all emotional and passional beings are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one being can either seek power over another being or seek communion with another being by affective and/or psychic influence. For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that a charismatic leader rides to power on such ‘energies’. A charismatic leader such as ‘a wise person’ usually is, for example. RESPONDENT: That’s why a true Yogi is beyond all disturbance – physical, psychic, or of any other flavour. RICHARD: So what? Even if they were ‘beyond all disturbance’ (which they are not) what I am pointing out is the effect that ‘a true Yogi’ has on other beings by involuntarily transmitting ‘these waves’ that ‘ebb and flow’ ... and not the effect other beings’ ebbing and flowing waves have on them. And, if I may further point out, that you heedlessly overlook this very relevant factor, with your fixation upon having your scripture-book heroes be beyond absolutely anything that might disrupt their practiced detachment, is a further demonstration of your disregard for your fellow human beings. But, then again, as you see your fellow human beings as being your illusions, instead of being the living people they are, why would you have any regard. RESPONDENT: Such a person is a true ‘Sthitapragya’ – one whose being has become still. RICHARD: It matters not how still the ‘being’ feels it has become: until the ‘being’ ceases to exist (ceases being a presence) the ‘being’ involuntarily transmits ‘these waves’ that ‘ebb and flow’ ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution. And it is the ‘being’ itself I am referring to when I say that the identity is rotten to the core. * RESPONDENT: Great Hindi poet Jai Shankar Prasad in his timeless Kamayani wrote: ‘From the indomitable heights of the Great Himalayas, the Purusha watched the ebb and the flow of Prakriti at his feet’. [endquote]. Purusha is a roughly translated as The Essence; Prakriti is roughly translated as The Manifest (Nature). While Prakriti changes, evolves, transforms, transmutes, turns, twists, and warps ... the Purusha remains still. RICHARD: As the epic poem ‘Kamayani’ is a fictional work about a mythical person called manu, or the first man, who finishes where he began – staring down at the world from a small mountaintop in the Himalayas – you are referencing a fantasy and not a living, breathing, flesh and blood human being. However, as Mr. Shankar Prasad himself insisted that the ‘Kamayani’ was based on various Sanskrit epics such as the Puranas, it may be worth pointing out that a sage or seer displaying anger and anguish – oft-times disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees and/or followers and/or readers – has long been a subject of interest in mystical circles as it is indicative of the fragile and elusive link between ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakriti’ (known by some as ‘Sacred Schizophrenia’). For example: ‘Two birds, inseparable companions, are perched on the same tree; one eats the sweet fruit and
the other looks on without eating’. (Rig Veda I.164.20). This vision, deemed to be meaningful, is duplicated in Mundaka
Upanishad (I.III.1) and in Shvetashvatara Upanishad (IV.6). In the same way as the two birds are inseparable, a human being is not
thought complete and whole without both the aspect of ‘Prakriti’ (which experiences the domain of time and space and form) and
the aspect of ‘Purusha’ (which is timeless and spaceless and formless). Mr. Ishvarakrishna (compiler of ‘Samkhyakarika)
pointed out: ‘Purusha without Prakriti is lame and Prakriti without Purusha is blind’ In other words: a sage’s or seer’s spiritual essence is counter-poised with their human nature. Those ancient scriptures (Rig Veda I.164.20; Mundaka Upanishad I.III.1; Shvetashvatara Upanishad IV.6) clearly show that the sages or seers some thousands of years ago were the same as the current sages or seers in that they exhibited the same dichotomous qualities in their ‘Divine Nature’ as the ‘human nature’ they have transcended (because transcended does not mean extinguished). Which shows that nothing has changed over those thousands of years ... yet they are either revered and venerated or otherwise looked up to as the font of wisdom. A wisdom which, upon close inspection, is as rotten as the core it springs from. RESPONDENT: Hence, O’ Australian Rishi, despite all the murders, tortures, rapes, child abuse, sadness et al, the Essence remains still. RICHARD: Again, it matters not how still the ‘Essence’ (the core of ‘being’) likes to think it remains as the result is still the same ... the involuntary transmission of ‘these waves’ that ‘ebb and flow’. RESPONDENT: Some view that Essence as an azure and verdant planet; others as a timeless now; still others say: ‘not this either’ and quietly fade into an inky darkness. RICHARD: Just in case your allusion to ‘an azure and verdant planet’ is yet another
impotent attempt to subsume my words under the ancient wisdom’s all-embracing umbrella I will take this opportunity to point out
that I do nothing of the sort ... as I know perfectly well what that ‘Essence’ is I have no need to have a view It is nothing other than the rotten core writ large ... narcissism reigning supreme. RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual. RESPONDENT: What is the third ‘I’? RICHARD: The flesh and blood body only. I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. * RICHARD: The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/expand/transmogrify so as to reveal/create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways:
It is also traditionally held that these broad definitions are not exclusive of each other (there are elements of Bhakti and Yoga in Jnani; there are elements of Jnani and Yoga in Bhakti; there are elements of Jnani and Bhakti in Yoga) and that they refer to the main emphasis, of the whole approach, on the part of the practitioner. RESPONDENT: Is thought involved in this process? RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating. RESPONDENT: Is thought the essence of both ‘I’ or is there anything more? RICHARD: Both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are held to be the essence of the first ‘I’ (ego or self) but are, most certainly, not considered to be the essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self). The essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self) is solely affective (neither cognitive nor sensate) and is generally held to be a state of ‘being’ ... which is why I usually write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). * RICHARD: Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego). RESPONDENT: I understand that the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’), and this second ‘I’ can extricating itself from the first ‘I’ or individuality, whereupon there is mystical liberation (Moksha). Is this what you mean? RICHARD: Yes. However, this extrication also includes extrication from both the physical body and the physical world (detachment from both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) inevitably results in dissociation) ... hence the common expression ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ (maya). * RICHARD: This assumption [the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality] is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. RESPONDENT: Why are they reincarnational? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). In Hinduism and Jainism, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self-Consciousness’ – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’). Buddhism regards all existence as being samsara – and therefore ‘dukkha’ because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence – and teaches that salvation is to be found in the place where the sun don’t shine. Viz.:
As to what it is that happens, in the place where the sun don’t shine, that the craving arises in the first place, the explanation you provided to this Mailing List, on Monday, 19 June 2000, is as useful or as useless as any other facile explanation. Viz.:
* RICHARD: These bonds do not cease to exist but no longer have the power to fetter or bind the soul (atman), until its final release at physical death (Mahasamadhi) whereupon atman is Paramatman (or the Brahman) ... oft-times referred to as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘That Thou Art’ or ‘I Am That’). RESPONDENT: I understand that with this releasing at physical death the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’) will be Brahman. If so, what is Brahman’s essence, is it a creation of the mind? RICHARD: Ha ... Brahman’s essence is held to be unknowable, ineffable and inviolable (never to be questioned). * RICHARD: An actual freedom from the real-world (samsara or prakriti) is when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct – which means ‘being’ itself expires – and not what happens when ‘I’ as ego transmogrifies into ‘Being’ (Paramatman or Brahman). I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: If both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, does something remain when physical death comes? RICHARD: Yes, that which always was, already is, and always will be, remains. RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual. RESPONDENT No. 45: What is the third ‘I’? RICHARD: The flesh and blood body only. I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/expand/transmogrify so as to reveal/create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT No. 45: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani (cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’). It is also traditionally held that these broad definitions are not exclusive of each other (there are elements of Bhakti and Yoga in Jnani; there are elements of Jnani and Yoga in Bhakti; there are elements of Jnani and Bhakti in Yoga) and that they refer to the main emphasis, of the whole approach, on the part of the practitioner. RESPONDENT: From what I have heard from a few sources, it is ‘Jnani’ that underlies all the ways. RICHARD: I have also been informed, from a few sources, that ‘Jnani’ underlies all the ways ... so I investigated the sources and found that the sources were ‘Jnani’ sources. The reason why I investigated was because I had also been informed, from a few sources, that ‘Bhakti’ underlies all the ways ... and when I investigated the sources I found that the sources were ‘Bhakti’ sources. As well as that I had been informed, from a few sources, that ‘Yoga’ underlies all the ways ... yet when I investigated the sources I found that the sources were ‘Yoga’ sources. RESPONDENT: I take ‘Jnani’ to be that of self-knowledge. Bhakti and Yoga seems to be conditioned by the apparatus, by the container and can only lead to what is determined by the container. RICHARD: Aye ... and the ‘Bhakti’ sources and the ‘Yoga’ sources would say that ‘Jnani’ ‘seems to be conditioned’ by the ‘self-knowledge’ and can only lead to what is determined by the ‘self-knowledge’ . But enough of that ... would you say that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s latter-day ‘Teachings’ are a ‘Jnani’ form of teaching? I am meaning this as in contrast to the ‘Yoga’ form of ‘Awakening’ (as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’) for three days prior to and under a certain pepper-tree ... followed by more than eight years of a ‘Bhakti’ form of teaching (as epitomised by praise of ‘The Beloved’). * RESPONDENT No. 45: Is thought involved in this process? RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating. RESPONDENT: Is that goal, your goal or is it something said by Mr. Ramana? RICHARD: It is not my goal – I have no goal – but is something that is broadly held by mystics in general. I did qualify my very brief précis of mysticism by saying ‘as a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways ...’. RESPONDENT: Is the goal a projected goal? RICHARD: It is not a part-time hobby for the serious practitioners of ‘Jnani’, ‘Bhakti’ and ‘Yoga’ ... they earnestly aim to achieve the thoughtless and senseless state of being. Therefore, they want the real thing to be happening here and now ... not a ‘projected’ real thing. RESPONDENT: Is that senselessness an aspect of sacredness? RICHARD: Yes ... that which is sacred, holy is formless (non-material). RESPONDENT: One could be in that ‘sacredness’ and yet one could drive a fly squatting on the nose (Mr Krishnamurti’s example in Exploration Into Insights). RICHARD: I am not familiar with the passage you refer to (in ‘Exploration Into Insights’) so I cannot comment on a specific. I was, however, referring to what the Sanskrit word ‘dhyana’ (mistranslated as ‘meditation’) refers to in the East (known as ‘jhana’ in Pali). It could be said that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was, in part at least, somewhat tending towards what is generally known as a ‘Nature Mystic’ ... Mr. Mike King has put together a fairly well-informed web-site on this subject. Viz.: www.jnani.org/natmyst/natmyst_set.html Yet even ‘Nature Mystics’, when fully absorbed in ‘Nirvikalpa Samadhi’, are oblivious to flies. * RESPONDENT No. 45: Is thought the essence of both ‘I’ or is there anything more? RICHARD: Both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are held to be the essence of the first ‘I’ (ego or self) but are, most certainly, not considered to be the essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self). The essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self) is solely affective (neither cognitive nor sensate) and is generally held to be a state of ‘being’ ... which is why I usually write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation). RESPONDENT: Speaking of the first ‘I’ (excuse my use of smart quotes), is not thought itself that essence born of the self (lower case ‘s’) and sensation? RICHARD: No ... it is the ‘thinker’ who is that ‘essence born of the self (lower case ‘s’) and sensation’ and not thought per se. Where there is no ‘thinker’ (and no ‘feeler’) thought, thoughts and thinking are not problematic at all ... they are a delightful episodic occurrence as according to the circumstances. Such freed thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating. RESPONDENT: Where is that ‘I’? RICHARD: The first two ‘I’s exist only in the affective faculty ... physiologically sourced in the ‘lizard brain’ at the top of the brain-stem (at the base of the skull) but felt to be (1) in the head ... and (2) in the heart. RESPONDENT: I do not take that ‘self’ to be that ‘I’. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: Was there an investigation into this ‘I’ (supposedly claimed as false by Mr. Ramana) by you, Mr Richard to come to the above conclusion? RICHARD: Yes ... night and day for eleven years. I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... which led to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings. RESPONDENT: Was there an investigation as suggested by Mr. Ramana into the thoughts, feelings? RICHARD: I never came across the teachings of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer until later ... I acted on my own initiative at the time. * RICHARD: Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego). RESPONDENT: Thank you, for this. Purusha and Atman are different things. RICHARD: Aye ... so too is the specific meaning given to the word ‘soul’ in the West: it does not specifically refer to what either ‘Atman’ or ‘Purusha’ refer to (let alone what ‘atman’ refers to being specifically the same as what ‘purusha’ refers to). The last time I checked, Christianity has something like 2,500 differing sects ... and what is loosely called ‘Hinduism’ has umpteen differing sects. RESPONDENT: Purusha refers to the ‘spirit’ as opposed to matter (‘Prakriti’). RICHARD: Exactly ... and in the West ‘soul’ refers to ‘‘spirit’ as opposed to matter’ just as ‘atman’ refers to ‘‘spirit’ as opposed to matter’ . RESPONDENT: Atman of course, refers to the ‘Higher’ soul. RICHARD: Yes. And the ‘‘Higher soul’ is spirit ... not matter. RESPONDENT: As in soul, there are also levels in Prakriti as ‘Daiva Prakriti’, ‘Mula Prakriti’ etc. And then there is the same I believe with ‘Purusha’. RICHARD: Yes ... and these ‘levels’ are where the words become specific (leading to endless quibbling) and not the broad distinction of ‘‘spirit’ as opposed to matter’. * RESPONDENT No. 45: I understand that the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’), and this second ‘I’ can extricating itself from the first ‘I’ or individuality, whereupon there is mystical liberation (Moksha). Is this what you mean? RICHARD: Yes. However, this extrication also includes extrication from both the physical body and the physical world (detachment from both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) inevitably results in dissociation) ... hence the common expression ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ (maya). RESPONDENT: Is that first ‘I’ the false ‘I’? RICHARD: Both the first ‘I’ (ego or self) and the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (soul or Self) are false ‘I’s ... there are three I’s altogether but only one is actual: I am this flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by expansion? RICHARD: It is where the ‘contracted self’ expands to be the ‘Uncontracted Self’ ... as made popular in the West as ‘Kashmiri Shaivism’. RESPONDENT: How can the false expand to become/merge with the true? RICHARD: Well, I would say through self-aggrandisement ... but the proponents say it is what the ‘Uncontracted Self’ (or ‘True Self’ by Whatever Name) is prior to incarnation or entanglement with the physical. RESPONDENT: Is it expansion or dissolution? RICHARD: It depends upon which specific branch of mysticism one is an adherent of: some say ‘surrender’ of ego; some say ‘dissolution’ of ego; some say ‘death’ of ego; some say ‘expansion’ of ego. RESPONDENT: Why is the first ‘I’ false? RICHARD: Basically because the second ‘I’ it develops out of is false ... but it is traditionally held to be forgetfulness of one’s true nature because of entanglement with the physical (as a generalisation). * RICHARD: This assumption [the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality] is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds. RESPONDENT: Samsara is that interaction among/between Prakriti and Purusha. In the Bhagwad Gita Chapter 13, which delves on the Field and the Knower of the field, the spirit is ‘defined’ as the cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain and matter is defined as the cause of generation of pleasure and pain. Spirit seated in matter uses the qualities of matter (which are termed as ‘gunas’). Attachment to the qualities(gunas) is the cause of re-incarnation. RICHARD: The ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (and its ‘Chapter 13’) is but one of many, many spiritual texts loosely collected under the umbrella term ‘Hinduism’. The word ‘prakriti’, in Sanskrit, is a compound consisting of the prepositional prefix ‘pra’, meaning ‘forwards’ or ‘progression’ and ‘kriti’, a noun-form from the verbal root ‘kr’, ‘to make’ or ‘to do’. Therefore ‘prakriti’ means literally ‘production’ or ‘bringing forth’ or ‘originating’ and by an extension of meaning it also signifies the primordial or original state or condition or form of anything as being primary or original substance. However, in mysticism, ‘prakriti’ is also to be considered with ‘vikriti’ ... ‘vikriti’ signifying change or an alteration of some kind or a production or evolution from the ‘prakriti’ which precedes it. Thus ‘prakriti’ may be called nature (the ‘real-world’), in general, as the ‘great producer’ of entities or things. And through this nature acts the ever-active ‘Brahma’ or ‘Purusha’(‘Purusha’ also sometimes stands as an interchangeable term with ‘Brahma’, the ‘evolver’ or ‘creator’). The word ‘Purusha’, in Sanskrit, is a word meaning ‘man’ (as the ‘Ideal Man’) the primordial entity of space containing with and in ‘prakriti’ (as nature) all the scales of manifested being. But, mystically, ‘Purusha’ has significance in a number of different forms: in addition to meaning the ‘Heavenly Man’ (or ‘Ideal Man’), it is frequently used for the spiritual person in each individual human being ... therefore it is a term for the spiritual self (as is ‘Atman’). Consequently, ‘Purusha’ is spirit and ‘prakriti’ is its productive veil or sheath. Essentially and fundamentally the two are one and whatever ‘prakriti’ produces – through and by the influence of ‘Purusha’ – is the multitudinous and multiform ‘vikritis’ which make the immense variety and diversity in the universe around. And in one or more of the Hindu philosophies ‘prakriti’ is the same as ‘sakti’, and therefore ‘prakriti’ and ‘sakti’ are virtually interchangeable with ‘maya’ or ‘maha-maya’ (‘appearance’ or ‘illusion’). ‘Prakriti’ is often spoken of as matter in very common usage but this is considered inexact as matter is rather the ‘productions’ or phases that ‘prakriti’ brings about: the ‘vikritis’. Furthermore, in the Sankhya philosophy, ‘pradhana’ is virtually identical with ‘prakriti’ and both are often used to signify the producing element from which (and out of) all illusory material manifestations or appearances are evolved. Do you really want to go further into this ... or shall we stick with a very brief précis of mysticism as being sufficient for the purpose of contrast with my discovery? * RESPONDENT No. 45: Why are they reincarnational? RESPONDENT: Answered above according to Mr. Lord Krishna as composed by Mr. Vyasa. RICHARD: Yet, as I have already said as a generalisation, it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). Thus, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self’ (by Whatever Name) – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’). To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘samsara is that interaction among/between Prakriti and Purusha’ is not qualitatively different from my description (that ‘samsara’ describes the vocation of the soul which, once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self’ by Whatever Name, is born as a creature and continues ‘the running around’ through transmigration). To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘the spirit is ‘defined’ as the cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain’ does not address what is being discussed ... other than to offer yet another facile explanation as to why the ‘Self’ (by Whatever Name) would do all this in the first place. To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘matter is defined as the cause of generation of pleasure and pain’ is not qualitatively different from my description (that the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality is because of its focus, in that ‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English, on the real-world, or samsara or prakriti) . To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘spirit seated in matter uses the qualities of matter (which are termed as ‘gunas’) and that ‘attachment to the qualities (gunas) is the cause of re-incarnation’ is not qualitatively different from my description that the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality is because of its focus on the real-world, or samsara or prakriti. What you do seem to be doing is introducing levels of complexity into what is essentially a simple issue: ‘spirit’ as opposed to ‘matter’ ... and the part ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, by whatever names, play in it. * RICHARD: The whole point of this Mailing List is to discuss together each others’ experience so as
to clarify what oneself understands. There is enough written by enough people to find similarities that may be reliably taken as a
prima facie case for investigation without having to believe anyone RESPONDENT: The above text was snipped and so I forgot to respond to that. I feel your last statement somewhat goes against the vein of self-discovery and exploration, very drastically. Cross references give a feeling of similarity and confirmation of one’s beliefs, and may be OK for scholastic purposes. But this has nothing to do with discovery. RICHARD: Then why did you see fit to introduce scholastic levels of complexity into a very brief précis of what is traditionally held ... and not respond to my ‘discovery’? RESPONDENT: This is very responsible for ‘mass beliefs’ where nothing is questioned. For example, in India, very few questions or understands the Vedas. All they do is to sit and chant without self-reflection or meditation. They say that just chanting would be enough as the work was already done by the originator of the Vedas and all we have to do is to just ‘follow’. This is what K questioned intensely. There is thus mass spiritual poverty too, in India. It is the individual that matters, no matter what. RICHARD: Then why did you leave off (let alone not respond to) the latter part of this E-Mail wherein I detailed my ‘discovery’ and wherein I clearly indicate it being the ‘individual’ (this flesh and blood body) which matters and not ‘the mass beliefs’? * RESPONDENT No. 12: To discuss experience so others can get a notion of what is pointed to without having to find out or experience for themselves makes sense in terms of technical knowledge. But seeing is not from thought but rather from silence which is impersonal. Silence can not be shared verbally. There must be direct contact. RESPONDENT: Thank you, excellently stated. I was hunting for the above text, which I wanted to respond to. RICHARD: As neither of you ceased writing to this Mailing List (immediately this wisdom was posted) then apparently both of you are but sharing ‘technical knowledge’ in each and every E-Mail you write ... and un-examined ‘technical knowledge’ at that. This is how this thread started:
Ain’t life grand!
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
