Advaita

It has been a while. Let’s just make a brief report.

The last 1.5 years were more fruitful than the previous ten years regarding spiritual theory and practice.

Met a new friend from India, told him how wise I am, and he showed me things that cured that delusion. He introduced the works of Swami Vivekananda and many pieces from the vedic literature.

Encountered the works of Eckhart Tolle.

Some of the previous posts might have become invalid in the light of new understanding, however, they can also be considered as truth.

Without giving deeper explanation, let’s see what has been met since the last post:

Osho: Tantra – the supreme understanding: it is still valid and might give you a fairly digestable head start if you do not have 10 years to waste for basic understanding of many other things that are nowadays called “religion”.

Tolle: The power of Now: A very straightforward book on how to achieve inner peace and happiness, using only one principle: awareness for the moment. Involved dogma is minimal.

Tolle: A new Earth: Another book on the same topic, with slightly different approach. Some examples and advices on how to transform the mindset of the individual. Useful read.

Thomas Byrom: The heart of Awareness: Deep waters of the non-dualistic world view. The Astavakra Gita is a life-changing read. It goes well beyond the words, however, it has to use words in order to push the limits of human understanding. Gita has been translated by many, I recommend this poetic one by Byrom.

Feel free to read anything from Tolle or Vivekananda, though. Am pretty sure about all their works are appropriate. And, if you already have the heart of the lion, jump into Upanishad, the ultimate truth conveyed by the vedic literature.

Evam Astu! Hail, Satan.

Joy

There is no darkness. There is no fear. No sadness. No negativity.

Of course, you can feel sad, or afraid. However, those feelings are only indicate absence. There is matter, there is light. There is no such thing as darkness, it is only the absence of light. If you are whole, there is no place for indicators of absence. No matter how long the darkness has been there, it instantly disappears as you switch on the light.

For me, there is joy. Extasy. Mahamudra. For me, everything is just absence of my joy. Joy is life.

2014-12-20_103257

Tantra: the supreme understanding

It has been a while. Not much people have visited this blog since last month. It’s okay, I guess. Why would I preach when I can listen, anyway. I don’t wish to teach anything to people any more. I don’t wish to heal any of you. I don’t wish to comfort you. I don’t wish for understanding, advancement, skills, or happiness. I just…am. Why I’m still blogging then? It happens.

Found a book of Osho recently. Probably the final book I’ll read on spiritual development. It gave me a message. I live according to tantra now. I don’t know how long it will last, neither I care. I don’t need to think, to say, to do, only to let things happen. That’s not happy. That’s tantric.

I wished for a world that works as I will. It didn’t come.
Then I wished for strength with a shattered heart. Satanism gave me strength.
I wished for hope. Books and practices gave me hope.
I wished for peace. Buddhism gave me peace.
I wished for knowledge about systems. Theosophy has taught me about systems.
Then I wished to free my existence from the hell I’ve built. Funny that freedom was there all along.

I might have started this blog motivated by the wish of controlling the world, the thoughts of people. To share my view to others. To change others to my image. To feel like a god, in a world that works as I will. It’s time to let it go.

Do whatever you want. Be ethical if that’s your will. Be good, be evil. Be a dualist, a non-dualist, or none of them. Save the bengal tigers if you wish. Believe in God if you wish. Breed if you wish. Laugh on me if you wish. Cry for your dead. Pray. Meditate. Do nothing. I wished for a revelation, and I got one. Nothing is revelant any more. And of course, read that book of Osho, if you wish.

I don’t fuck with your minds any more. I fuck with the universe now.

Tantra_Lovers

Our Father, part II

Originally I intended to finish my post about the “Our father” prayer, which, at first sight, can seem to be only a bunch of things asked from an omnipotent, antropomorph guardian, God, by some weak human. However, if you don’t take the words literally, they can be a somewhat wise couple of sentences aiming to help us. Since this is also a topic that theosophy discusses, and it does it in a far sophisticated way that I could, instead of talking about prayers by myself, I decided to quote this from The key to theosophy.

IS IT NECESSARY TO PRAY?

ENQUIRER. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray?

THEOSOPHIST. We do not. We act, instead of talking.

ENQUIRER. You do not offer prayers even to the Absolute Principle?

THEOSOPHIST. Why should we? Being well-occupied people, we can hardly afford to lose time in addressing verbal prayers to a pure abstraction. The Unknowable is capable of relations only in its parts to each other, but is non-existent as regards any finite relations. The visible universe depends for its existence and phenomena on its mutually acting forms and their laws, not on prayer or prayers.

ENQUIRER. Do you not believe at all in the efficacy of prayer?

THEOSOPHIST. Not in prayer taught in so many words and repeated externally, if by prayer you mean the outward petition to an unknown God as the addressee, which was inaugurated by the Jews and popularised by the Pharisees.

ENQUIRER. Is there any other kind of prayer?

THEOSOPHIST. Most decidedly; we call it WILL-PRAYER, and it is rather an internal command than a petition.

ENQUIRER. To whom, then, do you pray when you do so?

THEOSOPHIST. To “our Father in heaven” — in its esoteric meaning.

ENQUIRER. Is that different from the one given to it in theology?

THEOSOPHIST. Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer to his Father which is in secret (read, and try to understand, ch. vi. v. 6, Matthew), not to an extra-cosmic and therefore finite God; and that “Father” is in man himself.

ENQUIRER. Then you make of man a God?

THEOSOPHIST. Please say “God” and not a God. In our sense, the inner man is the only God we can have cognizance of. And how can this be otherwise? Grant us our postulate that God is a universally diffused, infinite principle, and how can man alone escape from being soaked through by, andin, the Deity? We call our “Father in heaven” that deific essence of which we are cognizant within us, in our heart and spiritual consciousness, and which has nothing to do with the anthropomorphic conception we may form of it in our physical brain or its fancy: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of (the absolute) God dwelleth in you?” (3) Yet, let no man anthropomorphise that essence in us. Let no Theosophist, if he would hold to divine, not human truth, say that this “God in secret” listens to, or is distinct from, either finite man or the infinite essence — for all are one. Nor, as just remarked, that a prayer is a petition. It is a mystery rather; an occult process by which finite and conditioned thoughts and desires, unable to be assimilated by the absolute spirit which is unconditioned, are translated into spiritual wills and the will; such process being called “spiritual transmutation.” The intensity of our ardent aspirations changes prayer into the “philosopher’s stone,” or that which transmutes lead into pure gold. The only homogeneous essence, our “will-prayer” becomes the active or creative force, producing effects according to our desire.

ENQUIRER. Do you mean to say that prayer is an occult process bringing about physical results?

THEOSOPHIST. I do. Will-Power becomes a living power. But woe unto those Occultists and Theosophists, who, instead of crushing out the desires of the lower personal ego or physical man, and saying, addressing their Higher Spiritual EGO immersed in Atma-Buddhic light, “Thy will be done, not mine,” etc., send up waves of will-power for selfish or unholy purposes! For this is black magic, abomination, and spiritual sorcery. Unfortunately, all this is the favourite occupation of our Christian statesmen and generals, especially when the latter are sending two armies to murder each other. Both indulge before action in a bit of such sorcery, by offering respectively prayers to the same God of Hosts, each entreating his help to cut its enemies’ throats.

ENQUIRER. David prayed to the Lord of Hosts to help him smite the Philistines and slay the Syrians and the Moabites, and “the Lord preserved David whithersoever he went.” In that we only follow what we find in the Bible.

THEOSOPHIST. Of course you do. But since you delight in calling yourselves Christians, not Israelites or Jews, as far as we know, why do you not rather follow that which Christ says? And he distinctly commands you not to follow “them of old times,” or the Mosaic law, but bids you do as he tells you, and warns those who would kill by the sword, that they, too, will perish by the sword. Christ has given you one prayer of which you have made a lip prayer and a boast, and which none but the true Occultist understands, In it you say, in your dead-sense meaning: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” which you never do. Again, he told you to love your enemies and do good to them that hate you. It is surely not the “meek prophet of Nazareth” who taught you to pray to your “Father” to slay, and give you victory over your enemies! This is why we reject what you call “prayers.”

ENQUIRER. But how do you explain the universal fact that all nations and peoples have prayed to, and worshipped a God or Gods? Some have adored and propitiated devils and harmful spirits, but this only proves the universality of the belief in the efficacy of prayer.

THEOSOPHIST. It is explained by that other fact that prayer has several other meanings besides that given it by the Christians. It means not only a pleading or petition, but meant, in days of old, far more an invocation and incantation. The mantra, or the rhythmically chanted prayer of the Hindus, has precisely such a meaning, as the Brahmins hold themselves higher than the common devas or “Gods.” A prayer may be an appeal or an incantation for malediction, and a curse (as in the case of two armies praying simultaneously for mutual destruction) as much as for blessing. And as the great majority of people are intensely selfish, and pray only for themselves, asking to be given their “daily bread” instead of working for it, and begging God not to lead them “into temptation” but to deliver them (the memorialists only) from evil, the result is, that prayer, as now understood, is doubly pernicious: (a) It kills in man self-reliance; (b) It develops in him a still more ferocious selfishness and egotism than he is already endowed with by nature. I repeat, that we believe in “communion” and simultaneous action in unison with our “Father in secret”; and in rare moments of ecstatic bliss, in the mingling of our higher soul with the universal essence, attracted as it is towards its origin and centre, a state, called during life Samadhi, and after death, Nirvana. We refuse to pray to created finite beings — i. e., gods, saints, angels, etc., because we regard it as idolatry. We cannot pray to the ABSOLUTE for reasons explained before; therefore, we try to replace fruitless and useless prayer by meritorious and good-producing actions.

ENQUIRER. Christians would call it pride and blasphemy. Are they wrong?

THEOSOPHIST. Entirely so. It is they, on the contrary, who show Satanic pride in their belief that the Absolute or the Infinite, even if there was such a thing as the possibility of any relation between the unconditioned and the conditioned — will stoop to listen to every foolish or egotistical prayer. And it is they again, who virtually blaspheme, in teaching that an Omniscient and Omnipotent God needs uttered prayers to know what he has to do! This — understood esoterically — is corroborated by both Buddha and Jesus. The one says “seek nought from the helpless Gods — pray not! but rather act; for darkness will not brighten. Ask nought from silence, for it can neither speak nor hear.” And the other — Jesus — recommends: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name (that of Christos) that will I do.” Of course, this quotation, if taken in its literal sense, goes against our argument. But if we accept it esoterically, with the full knowledge of the meaning of the term, “Christos,” which to us represents Atma-Buddhi-Manas, the “SELF,” it comes to this: the only God we must recognise and pray to, or rather act in unison with, is that spirit of God of which our body is the temple, and in which it dwelleth.

A detour before the ocean

I have planned to sink myself in theosophy, which I already started this week. However, I’ve encountered a book in the “reading with priority” folder, namely, the Five world religions written by Helmuth von Glasenapp. The book gives an introduction for the most wide-spread recent religions, with additional comments to each one by the others. The book exactly gave me what I was expecting, well-estabilished descriptions, and more or less a dissatisfaction about each religion with respect to its principles. Thanks to the book though, I was given more insight on hinduism, taoism and islam, which I appreciate, and I also got some reinforcements of my thoughts about buddhism and christianity. It also pointed out the similarities, pilgrim principles and the relation of a religion and its creators. Without further critics, I recommend that book to everyone who is interested in getting to know religions other than its own. It can be an eye-opener for those who are looking for more than offering themselves to a single religion.

And now back to theosophy. I just started the first book I intended to read, The Ocean of Theosophy by William Q. Judge, and yet it seems promising. I close this post with a quote from it.

How man has come to be the complex being that he is and why, are questions that neither Science nor Religion makes conclusive answer to. This immortal thinker having such vast powers and possibilities, all his because of his intimate connection with every secret part of Nature from which he has been built up, stands at the top of an immense and silent evolution. He asks why Nature exists, what the drama of life has for its aim, how that aim may be attained. But Science and Religion both fail to give a reasonable reply. Science does not pretend to be able to give the solution, saying that the examination of things as they are is enough of a task; religion offers an explanation both illogical and unmeaning and acceptable but to the bigot, as it requires us to consider the whole of Nature as a mystery and to seek for the meaning and purpose of life with all its sorrow in the pleasure of a God who cannot be found out. The educated and enquiring mind knows that dogmatic religion can only give an answer invented by man while it pretends to be from God.

The return of Madame Blavatsky

About 10 years ago, I got a CD full of books from a friend. He was the one who has introduced me to satanism, and some philosophy as well. Many books could be found in that collection, many of them have been left unappreciated by me. The same happened with the works of H.P. Blavatsky, the mother of Theosophy. I simply found those somewhat difficult to understand and impractical, useless.

Years have passed, and I got familiar with a couple of philosophical schools of thought, and some religions as well. A deep, latent need developed in me, to search for something more complete. An ideology that unifies common sense with philosophy. The one that looks religion through the looking glass of science.

I have tried to re-invent something many times until I learned to look for that something if someone else has already invented it. That’s how I found theosophy, a system that contains most principles I was looking for lately. A system that I could have get in touch with 10 years ago. Well, better late than never.

However, I’m new to the subject and I need to get to know it before forming more specific thoughts. After the brief introduction of the site http://blavatskytheosophy.com/, I take its advice and follow my studies with the following books:

  • The Ocean of Theosophy by William Quan Judge
  • Answers to Questions on The Ocean of Theosophy by Robert Crosbie
  • The Key to Theosophy by H.P. Blavatsky
  • Studies in “The Secret Doctrine” by B.P. Wadia
  • HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky by Sylvia Cranston

So, in later posts I probably will write some ideas and remarks about theosophy. Its beauty lies in the fact that it lets us to decide what to accept, and examine each thought for usefulness and validity. And lastly, from what I already know, it seems refreshing and thoughtful.

Alone in the Universe?

I just met this pile of gold: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html

That article is a pretty good summary of theories about the place of ours in the Universe, and other species as well. Most of those are still just wild guesses, meanwhile being very entertaining ones.

I don’t believe there are such events that wipe out every alien race that we could have ever heard of, thus rendering our known universe empty, but I can agree with most people in Group II that claims there are logical explanation for empty space.  As I mentioned in a previous post about Transcendence, technological transformation and leaving the biological body behind seems like a perfect utopia to me. Of course it’s scary, all changes are.

None of those pieces of art and science discuss one option, though. It would be about the discovery of existence being pointless and therefore humanity would plan and execute its own extinction. A couple of philosophers already had numerous arguments on that topic, one of my favorites is the book of Better never to have been by David Benatar. While I don’t totally agree with his arguments, it’s a very convincing book in the topic of not to procreate, which I embrace on many levels. What if our life is just happened randomly, as Stephen Hawking claims? What if we are just ants of Equilibrium, living our lives in order to continue the life itself, without any further, reasonable goals? I agree that for most of us, this life form we are being in is not negligible, but that doesn’t make it more important looking it from cosmic view. I think to this concept as a realistic one, not sad or pessimistic at all. Like buddhists claim that this phase of existence is temporary and has suffering in some level, while they are mostly not sad about it at all. Have you ever seen a buddhist being sad? I haven’t. And I think a sad buddhist misinterprets something serious of that philosophy.

So, I think biological life will change at some point. I’m not sure how and why, but am looking forward to it. Someday we might get an exact answer for existence and the selection of optimal future, or just vanish in a blink. Until then, I do my best to live happily, and wish the same for you.