Dear Richard

 

I saw the synopsis of your book Human Awakening and it looked very interesting to me. I also have an integrative-transpersonal approach and I have followed the Sufi traditions in my personal retreats.

 

From my personal experience (but not only) I understand that manifestation as a whole, the divine being, God, the cosmos, or however you would like to call it, is ever-unfolding. With that understanding I can see that there are important stages one can reach on the path but definitely not one state is the ultimate without further development. The nature of everything is ever evolving as far as I can see it. Now for me that doesn’t mean that someone needs a guide, a shaman, or a therapist for all his life, since therapy for me is also giving tools and developing qualities that one can use by themselves at some point in their journey. So I don't consider that because we always unfold we always need a therapist, but rather the will to do the work, which we can also learn to do by ourselves. However, I do acknowledge that in times of great difficulty, we might need support from an expert for a period of time.

 

Even from reading the summary of your book I feel it is an amazing, comprehensive work of the process of transformation.

 

Thank you for responding to me and please know that my inquiry is with great respect for your beautiful work.

 

In gratitude

Thomas

 

 

Dear Thomas

 

Thank you for your kind remarks and interest in my book Human Awakening.

 

It is important to understand that seeking, searching of any kind fulfills a need for the searcher. It is only when the seeker has let go that he "finds" what he has been looking for. What he has been looking for turns out to be himself, as I think we all know by now. But that self is transcendent and not characterized by searching. To look at it another way: like all external and internal phenomena we arise in Consciousness. We are adapted and derived forms, or reflections, of Consciousness as the Absolute. Ultimately everything is Unity. So the trick is how do we live in the relative world of space and time and remain true to our Divine Nature and individual, psycho-physical form. When we are deep enough into Consciousness prior to form there is no evolution as such. Evolution and change of that kind are the appearance of the Divine from the perspective of the relative world only. So I would not deny it, simply say it is not how it is, but merely how it looks from the limited view of the separated individual. Deep within the sphere of self-sourcing Consciousness, beyond causality, is a peace the Hindus call satchitananda. It is the Source of Being, the Truth, beyond causality, evolution and change.

 

You really put what I am saying very well yourself when you say: “The nature of everything is ever evolving as far as I can see it.” Only when the “I” in that sentence is surrendered and disappears can you and I see it as it really is. In the meantime, it appears to be evolving. But if you think about it, how or why would or could the Absolute evolve?…. into what?… for what?… It is already all possibilities, all variations and adaptations. In fact, these variants themselves appear out of the Eternal, self-abiding Absolute.

 

Also I would point out that when you say, “that manifestation as a whole, the divine being, God, the cosmos or however you would like to call it, is ever unfolding”, please remember that “manifestation as a whole” and the “cosmos” are distinct from “the divine being, God” -- one is the Living Presence; the other the modified appearance of that Presence in time and space. 

 

When you say “The nature of everything is ever evolving” you are referring I think to the Truth applied to the relative world of things, phenomena, time, space, thoughts and feelings, actions and consequences. It is a common mistake to think of the divine and transcendent realities in this way too. But that is not how it is. The spiritual world is not the world of experience; it is the world that pertains to the Absolute. It can be thought of as being closer to the world of intuition for example, where we don’t tend to know where our insight has come from, because for intuition to occur we must connect to the timeless realms.

 

Finally, I would like to say how inspiring this dialog is for me. You are one of the most enquiring voices I have heard responding to my work for a long time. I am most grateful to you for this stimulating exchange.

 

Warmly

Richard

 

 

Dear Richard,

 

My heart is ignited with this conversation. Thank you for your kind words.

 

What I was talking about is that what you call “the absolute” is what I saw as ever-evolving (not static). This was a direct experience I had in long retreats, and I have no way to prove it. I am not talking about the seeker, except if you consider an individuated or enlightened person a seeker.

 

So I wonder, if everything in the known universe is in movement and constantly expands there is a good chance that even “the absolute” expands, evolves and that is its perfection. Now both your view and mine are supported by different traditions. I asked a good friend of mine and a wonderful Sanskrit professor and tantric scholar (Dr. Douglas Brooks) and he told me that your understanding is closer to the Advaita Vedanta school, whereas mine is to the Tantric Rajanaka school.

 

Here is what he wrote when I asked him when I quoted from your email:

 

“Deep within the sphere of self-sourcing Consciousness, beyond causality, is a peace the Hindus call satchitananda. It is the Source of Being, the Truth, beyond causality, evolution and change.”

 

I wanted to understand what tradition reflects those teachings

 

His reply:

 

‘This quotation sounds rather like the school of Advaita Vedanta. In this teaching, the original state of our being is without any action or process since any unfoldment would compromise the changeless nature of the Absolute. Once one re-arrives at this place of original realization there is a "beyond causality" and neither "evolution" nor "change" since such qualities are contrary to their view that the One (which is our true nature) is without any change by definition.

 

In contrast, most Tantric non-dualism sees the One as the agent of awareness that can (as you put it) be part of an unfolding without compromising the fullness of its state. Now in my own Rajanaka school, there is no final state of realization anymore than there is a beginning, there is only a continuous process, one where we talk about participation in the unfoldment (and re-enfoldment, back and forth) as an on-going reality. For the majority, be it like the static view of Advaita (here in the quotation) or in the realization of a knower, there is a conclusion that is the same as the origin. In Rajanaka, all beginnings, like all endings, are always movements and processes. Helpful? '

 

Blessings

Thomas

 

 

Dear Thomas

 

What we have to consider here, I suggest, first, is how we will respond to religio-spiritual traditions and what function they serve now. Second, what is the role and limitation of words to express the ineffable?

 

Considering the great traditions of religious and spiritual philosophy, one part of me stands in awe of the body of work – oral tradition, recorded tradition and spiritual practices – that has been created from the mind of man. But, on the down side, I notice that humankind as a whole has ignored, denied, and misunderstood largely the great insights that stem from these traditions. Bearing in mind that the great avatars – for example, Jesus and Buddha – were clearly invested in communicating their wisdom and enlightenment to others, we can only conclude that they failed mostly to convey their messages. Obviously the function of spiritual teacher is a hazardous one and should we be called to teach, comment on, or even observe what is truly going on we would do well to be clear at the outset. While respecting religious traditions I feel strongly that the only significant move we can make now is to go beyond them, using them perhaps as a stepping-stone, but also not being afraid to criticize them constructively, particularly when they don’t make sense of our own direct experience or findings.

 

There are in my model five levels of truth (or Truth). The first involves the personality, which is essentially defensive and concerned with personal survival. The second involves the core of an individual and reflects the deep inner truth of a person as a limited individual form of consciousness. The third is the spiritual realm of truth which may be considered relative but aiming towards the Absolute. The comparison of such paths is a distraction to the serious spiritual student. He or she should get on one and persist. This is why spiritual paths often conflict in advice and even philosophy. It is not necessary that they agree any more than if you and I are on different roads to the same destination that the scenery should be the same. The fourth level then is the level of Truth in which there is finally no opposites, and last, the fifth level is beyond awareness itself and we are no longer concerned with concepts at all.

 

This is merely a brief summary of my observations which I am currently putting into print in a more detailed form.

 

Your remark, “'the absolute'  is what I saw as ever evolving (not a static)...this was a direct experience I had in long retreats…”, is typical of many of us who have had some spiritual insight during retreats or simply in ordinary life. My measure of such experiences is whether or not the observer remains, i.e. is the “I” still present and when it is then it is a transitive spiritual experience rather than a full one, an invitation to surrender, rather than the invitation accepted. I would add to this the fact that, strictly speaking, there is no spiritual experience, since what is truly spiritual is beyond experience (something that St John of the Cross writes about well).

 

Which brings me to my final point: you write “… if everything in the known universe is in movement and constantly expands there is a good chance that even the 'absolute' expands, evolves and that is its perfection.” Well, no, for the reason that you rightly point out, albeit unknowingly I think – “everything in the known universe” and here you unwittingly define the spiritual, transcendent, Divine Truth by stating what it is not. Clearly the Divine Unity or Consciousness is beyond the separation of things or everything or anything, all of which are merely temporary modifications arising and subsiding and therefore not in themselves the Absolute, the Truth, or God.

 

With love

Richard

 

BLOG entry #51