Thursday, November 18, 2004
Brahman is indivisible, and Atman is Brahman. Atman is not separated from Brahman to become a "drop," it is the whole Brahman known to an individual life.
There was never any separation. There is only apparent separation. It's a mirage, not a difference in location.
Seeing ourselves as these "drops" puts a layer of symbolic thinking between personal and impersonal awareness, keeping personal from opening up to see what's always been present, the impersonal truth.
Breaking the bonds and opening awareness would be the trick. I guess that's what spiritual practice is about. However, even with those bonds we think need breaking, we are always right here, in front of our noses, as Brahman.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
I'm saddened, but not surprised by your decision to censor my writing on OriginalMind.
In my life as a devotee and a jnani, I've found that a great deal of spiritual culture only exists to perpetuate itself, its usefulness long gone by in the march of time and cultural evolution.
Holding on to this dead wood has the effect of stunting the spiritual growth of literally millions of souls on this earth.
As a result, these millions wait for an understanding that will not come, as their minds are infected with a template that it just cannot fit into.
You are serving to perpetuate this set of occluding expectations about self-realization, and so I would submit to you that you are doing much more harm than the good works you may believe yourself to be doing.
But, it's not unusual to expect your devotees to abandon their capacity for critical thinking in order to get into line behind your own beliefs. These are the beginnings of the socio-dynamics of a religious cult.
I'm sorry that you apparently feel your authority called into question by my questioning, rather than deciding to engage in a public discussion of the issues that were raised.
That would be the sign of a true spiritual leader in my eyes. You must know that Swamiji himself would have faced me down and gone round after round with me until a synthesis was arrived at.
It's too bad his spirit does not preside on your list.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
It occurred to me that thinking of who as a quantity is a measure of realization's effect on a life.
Before awakening, we are our who exclusively. When we decide to embark on a spiritual journey to find ourselves, we start out by adding to this who, sometimes greatly adding to it, with the materials we come across while being spiritual people.
As far as I can tell, much of spirituality seems to only add to who levels. Sure, it may turn you into a bliss bunny, and that's certainly good consolation for some. But being a bliss bunny is only a different color of who. Many, many people get stuck right here. If they can feel bliss around their guru, they think they're getting "it". These folk spend their lives chasing experience, never really seeing the truth that lay just beyond, in plain view, the whole time they were looking for it.
There was just too much spiritual who in the way.
In order to reduce your who, you've got to turn your mind back on itself, and attempt to learn as much about your process as possible, and do so fearlessly. You've got to become an eater of who, processing the landscape of emotional complexes through your awareness of them. You've got to dive into your most fearsome nightmares. That is the only way to truly know yourself and get access to your deepest who.
And perhaps after a few decades or so, you'll suddenly see that you are not this who at all. You'll understand in a very clear and very real way, that you are 'this'.
But, that doesn't suddenly drain the who out of the mind. The who which was still there sticks around, and changes gradually in the awareness of 'this'. This is what I mean about levels of who indicating the effect that realization has had on a life.
So start eating your who, slowly at first. A therapist can be really helpful here, but you should probably make an effort to find a good one. I'd recommend one trained at a transpersonal psych college. That's no guarantee of quality, but at least they'll be able to get their heads around your spiritual trip.
Draining yourself of your who can be a tricky business, so an advisor of some sorts can be a real blessing. But those who are sincere in their who eating would seem to have a better shot at seeing through the who to the truth which lies directly underneath, the truth of our being only 'this'.
Saturday, January 17, 2004
I've been wrestling with a question this morning: Who is the one who likes to have a good time?
We are truly, as we are, uninvolved in anything that happens in the 'real world.' It's a scary thought to that part of our programming that operates under an assumption of control.
It's that assumption of control, the idea that we are 'doers' doing things, that seems the crux of the route. That idea of being a doer doesn't occlude the truth as much as distract from it.
We are so fascinated with being ourselves that we can't look around the "me" to see the truth of our own being which has always been right there, all along the way.
The "me" show keeps playing, whether or not 'this' is known. But I'm not writing the script anymore. In fact, I never did, despite the memories which seem to suggest otherwise.
Monday, January 12, 2004
Theosophical nonsense is a term which describes spiritual ideology which resorts to any of the following:
•Life after death
Whether or not any of these things happen, all of them are not one bit closer to the truth than you are right now. Not one little bit.
Even if it were all true exactly as Bailey described it, it would still be not one eeny, tiny little bit closer to the truth.
All the hulabaloo about life after death, angels who guide us, gurus who enlighten with a look, or one's burgeoning 'spiritual' abilities only distract from the immediate truth of your own being.
It's like we need to walk around the world to find out what we were looking for was right under our own bed. The transdimensional stuff just makes this walk that much longer, whether or not any of it is actually true.