Based on a lecture delivered by Dr. Andras Laszlo in 1988. – own translation
The concept of existence and consciousness being one has emerged even in the course of the Western history of philosophy, from various aspects. From the Greeks till today there have always been philosophical schools that emphasized this existential and conscious unity (following different approaches), but they have never dared to draw final conclusions. Even the philosophical currents that went the farthest in subjective idealism stopped, according to the platitudes of philosophical lexicons, when faced with epistemological or ontological solipsism. Solipsism means “only myself”, “based only on myself”; explained in first case singular: only I exist myself, nothing and nobody exists besides me. Naturally, this “nothing and nobody exists besides me” is not meant from the point of view of a human individual: it is obvious that there are many people, many persons; but there is only one subject. The multitude of human individuals and the singleness of the subject must be understood correctly, since considering the human person to be single would lead to the most vulgar theoretical deviations. The subject precedes man and the world. The subject is the center of consciousness which means it is the ruler of consciousness; the “ruler of consciousness” means: the Ruler of Existence.
The subject rules existence but not as an ontological or some other sort of abstraction. I may only posit the subject in first case singular: it’s always I. If I speak, I speak as a human person and through this human person I speak as a subject. We can only look for the subject in tthe first case singular, otherwise we can’t find it. Eastern thought expresses this more pronouncedly since this is constantly the foundation, the centre and the purpose of its world-view, manifesting it either quite directly or indirectly (like for example in the case of cosmology).
All spiritual currents that aimed at self-transformation (for example yoga or other paths that are equivalent to yoga) would make no sense without solipsism. The currently popular views according to which these paths of realization transform the various acts, tuning or orientation of the human soul, are false. These paths touch the human person only in as much as they detach him from the subjectiveness that manifests itself though the personality, by the personality but is also paralyzed, reduced and constrained by the personality.
If the powers emanating from the subject become weaker, they result in defects and weaknesses that cause man to assume an objective reality that exists independently of himself. When one suspects, feels and experiences the world as independent of himself, this only means that one is subjectively weak: a sign of one’s own weakness, one’s own mental weakness. Why? Because the subject, (auton in Greek, ātmā in Sanskrit) creates existence. The creation of existence hides so deep behind the personality, in the sphere of powers of the subject right by the centre, that man, who almost completely lost himself in his own personality, can’t discover it in himself. Thus the creation process in which it creates the totality of existence is constrained to mere recognition in personal perception; what’s left of creation is only what the person perceives. One doesn’t experience himself as creator. This, by itself, may be acceptable, but one doesn’t even recognize it intuitively that in his current state, reduced to being a mere creature, he contains the potential creator; thus what’s left from creation is mere perception, experience, recognition, acceptance.
If one studied his own mental functions, he could recognize that if there’s some creativity left, it is in thinking; however thinking is also the weakest, the most volatile and the most subtle mental function. The willful creation of mental images is somewhat stronger, but the creative power that’s active in it, is weaker. The spontaneous creation of images is even stronger but the subjective existence in it is weaker. What this proves is that the farther we get toward empirical experiences and perceptions, the clearer shape the existent takes and the less the subject participates in it, the less it experiences itself as creator. The fact that the willful creation of mental images is more difficult, more fragmentary and more uncertain to achieve than for example in half-dreams or spontaneously, well describers the current state of man. In other words the powers of the “other”, the heteron powers that oppose the auton, are greater than the auton powers. This is inseparable from the reverse view concerning the intensity of reality. The Sanskrit language describes this view with „viparyayá”, meaning turned-around. The goal is vipari-viparyaya, i.e. turning around the turned-around. The Greek language in its older form used “metagnoiá”, later “metanoiá” which, as conversion, always referred to a conscious awakening, finding my way back to myself. We may say that this is when we turn towards the source of the light, away from the world lit up by it.
Thus one of the fundamental and grave consequences of this inverse view is that man considers real all that he is powerless against and the more powerless he is, the more real he’ll consider these; in other words, he’ll consider the 200 kg bag that falls on his head incomparably more real than his own thoughts and thinking functions. What crushes him , what he’s powerless against, what he can’t affect exists, and the less he can affect it, the more it exists. This degeneration of views must be turned around on spiritual paths. But if man changes all this only as content of his awareness, he made but a small step: he redefined something in himself. But this redefinition doesn’t mean that from now on he’ll be experiencing the world like this; he won’t be, but in a certain sense he has opened himself up. At this stage realization is still far away: realization means that I realize myself but not in a psychological sense; in a psychological sense man realizes himself when he reaches his goals, executes his plans and similar. Metaphysical self-realization is not about all this. To realize means to create. From this point of view it’s absolutely not important that I am already created, that I find myself cast into this world as a given (this is what Heidegger’s Geworfenheit means), if I don’t experience myself creating myself in the world, if I experience myself as if I was not created by myself. And if it wasn’t I who created me, than it was another: the heteron. Heteron is unrecognized auton: the other, my unrecognized self. Recognizing the auton in heteron leads to the elimination of heteron, but for this it is necessary to develop a world-view, a view of existence that is more than just a view: a world view, a view of existence that functions. It is not enough for the static aspect to be valid, which is implied by “view”; a dynamic aspect is also indispensable: when I am viewing, I am constant and I am consciously viewing. So we are dealing with more than a view, we are dealing with viewing; with more than a world-view, with viewing the world; with more than a structure and frame, with an organic process.
The interpretations of certain doctrines may of course help significantly in viewing myself and the world differently, in intuitively seeking out the points where the acts of creation are perceivable – especially Eastern doctrines. In fact, Western teachings and the dogmas of Christian denominations also provide significant help in this respect, since within Catholicism for example the dogmas are much deeper than what the Church usually presents from these. There are esoteric depth in these teachings even though these are usually not explored. Patristic literature or Greek philosophy get much deeper than is usually taught or assumed. The reason why Eastern doctrines receive more emphasis here is not theoretical but didactic, namely that they are more suitable for illustration. Realization as a path and as a goal was sustained longer in the East than in the West. Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön in Tibet, Taoism in China and the various form of shamanism from the point of view of direct activities, all considered realization to be crucial. Behind all these, considered as religions, there stood a spiritual-metaphysical tradition focused on realization.
Realization of course was always present in the West, as well. It was alive in Christian gnosis, in the Order of the Templars, in the Order of the Gral, in true Rosicrucianism. In terms of this latter one we must emphatically state that it no longer has representatives; there are more than thirty rosicrucian organizations active world wide, each declaring themselves to be the original, authentic and competent organization. Not one of these are authentic. Nobody could ever “enter” into the original rosicrucian order; spiritually one could grow into it, but never enter it. All authentic spiritual schools represents a rank – a spiritual rank that can’t spread, can’t grow in numbers in an ordinary, profane setting.
The power of consciousness is absolute. The power of consciousness is the power of the center: the power of the subject. The term “subjective” or “subjectum” is rather unfortunate since it means being “cast below”, being “subjected” while “objectum” means being “cast against”, “cast to the fore”. The Sanskrit language on the other hand deducts the word for the subject from its actionality; kartr means “subject”, i.e. the one acting, doing. The process is kartum while the objectified act is karma. Thus the views that were expounded first in Sanskrit, namely the views of Hinduism and Buddhism, approached subjectivity from actionality.
A few spiritual schools, like theosophy (although this term meant something different) or anthroposophy can’t be viewed as metaphysical in the strict sense since their focus and orientation don’t transcend existence. Occult and hidden goals only cover a minuscule segment of metaphysics. Metaphysical always means two things: first, it refers to that which is beyond natural phenomena (meta ta physika), second, to that which is beyond everything that exists. Even that which is “beyond nature” is beyond the scope of physics. Physicality also includes different space and time structures, although this is not the range of physicality physics deals with. It’s not only about having to transcend that which is beyond space and time, but also that which exists at all. Occult schools don’t even reach the first meaning of metaphysics, but get stuck in a different space and time structure and being stuck in time and space makes these schools delusional.
If we look at the most important statements of a true spiritual-metaphysical orientation, we’ll find expressions to which a sentimental orientation relates with antipathy. Such expressions are “strength”, “power”, “ruling”, “freedom”. How a supra-human, supra-personal subjectivity transcends the earthly mode of existence and the multifaceted nature of this transcendence are much more strongly connected with powers of consciousness, with conscious presence, with rulership over personality and over factors that support consciousness (as its carriers), than with what a life led according to moral categories may entail. Thus the traditional view on morality has always been quite peculiar. For superior man moral rules are warnings and reminders that in the specific areas addressed by the directives, where the chance of failure is high, he needs increased prudence, presence and awareness. For people that are not highly spiritual, the directives are unequivocally just directives; they need to be ordered and they need to follow the orders. Superior man also follows these orders, but from a different aspect, from the point of view that following them belongs to the conditions of his transcendence. They warn him that he has to be highly alert. Religions that appear in the form of sects (which by itself doesn’t mean anything besides being “cut off”) always focus on the secondary, consequential aspect of things, instead of on their essence. They hypertrophy some of these residues and represent them with immeasurable aggressiveness. Overemphasizing these even in a much milder way would be still rather dangerous, but when they do this aggressively and in an overly forceful way, it always leads to psycho-spiritual deformations. This by the way, although in a completely different sense, is also characteristic of pseudo-spiritual and contra-initiation paths. We will deal with the difficulties that arise here in subsequent lectures. For now let’s note that the process of gradually leading myself back to myself may also lead to a different direction. For example consciousness may be led into a world, i.e. into a state of consciousness (since worlds are states of consciousness!) in a way that consciousness and through it its own perspectives get poisoned and become impossible. Poisoning existence and consciousness is the method of certain dark, contra-spiritual and anti-initiation schools; they do this by performing a ritual, an ontological operation: for example they introduce death-forces into states where these forces are originally not present. Death-forces may also be transported into the appropriate states of existence in a positive sense- but these schools don’t perform these operations in a positive sense. All deviation may be recognized by their position to subjectivity. There is room for mistakes here, but with appropriate attention this may be eliminated. Schools that focus on the person may be confused with schools the foundation of which is the subject. On a basic level the possibility of confusion is great, but if somebody familiarizes himself with certain doctrines, if he can immerse himself in them, then the possibility of confusion is reduced almost to zero.
To illustrate this we can use an example from the Old Testament. When Christ says “I am the way and the truth and the life”, first we should understand this in a way that this is what He says about himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life”. So He is the way, the truth and the life. But this can really sink in only if I perceive it like this: “I am the way, the truth and the life”. How to understand this? That I already am all this? No. Not in my personal self, that currently manifests itself to me. So in my personal self I am not all this, but I could be. In the sense of the goal, in the sense of the potentiality of the goal, I want to be all this. This is why I’ve emphasized many times that we can’t talk about God in terms of whether or not he exists. The question that aims at the existence of God is a question of a weakened judgement that’s just about to deviate and all pro and contra answers belong to this same category. God is the summit of all ontological goals and this is precisely how his ontological nature is recognizable. Usually, if somebody’s crushed by life or experiences fundamental impressions, be they even natural phenomena, he may easily draw conclusions concerning his own smallness. No long ago I heard that somebody had to see the Niagara Falls to realize how small he is. Others even consider the recognition of their smallness as something especially significant. Certain phenomena may be much bigger than I am but I am the one who notices these phenomena and they only exists in as much as I am aware of them, I see them and experience them. They don’t exist in any other sense. I am always more than what I see. I am also always more than what I assume. The goal is not somewhere. This is the fundamental difference between latentia and potentia. The goal is not hidden somewhere that I will reach sometimes. The goal becomes real by the very fact that I reach it. There is no goal that is waiting to be reached. I must create the goal; my own goal. No goals are waiting, especially not those with the most fundamental significance. The other world is not latent but potential. It becomes real by my realizing it. The same applies to the ordinary world: it exists by my constantly constituting it, although I don’t recognize my own power of constitution in the act of constituting it.
Studying religions and their teachings – besides finding orientation for myself- is actually worthless by itself. It’s not a professional question. Religions and teachings can’t be really studied from a professional aspect. If somebody doesn’t understand existence and doesn’t understand consciousness he will not understand Buddhism – even if he professionally does so; from the professional perspective he may, but he’s constantly in a state of non-understanding. If somebody doesn’t understand himself, if he doesn’t consider his own processes, what can he really understand at all? This is the reason why the translations of almost all sacred scriptures are to a very large degree incorrect even though they are translated by experts who know the given language and the words’ meanings correspond with that in the dictionary. When it comes to Western languages, where there’s constant connection and control, this is not so sharply observable. But when it comes to Eastern and especially to archaic languages, each translation reveals a position; each translation reflects a view or perhaps the view is detectable by that it’s missing, by the lack of adequate reflection on itself. For example Helmut von Glasenapp’s book of the Five World Religions [Die Fünf Weltreligionen] is available in Hungary. This man has spent his life dealing with the history of religions. His expertise is indisputable. His discerning ability however is so weak, it makes you wonder. He hardly understands anything. Such books may have some fragmented value of course, in that they may turn attention to something which helps one draw conclusions. There are of course other currents that lead to continuous deviations. There a disciplines that seem like they were created specifically to lead to deviations. For example almost all current schools of psychology are like this; if somebody starts dealing with them, over the years he will know less and less about the soul. This is how they are constructed. All disciplines could be different, they could all contain life, spirit, discernment, there could be elements and powers that could help evoking additional powers. But this is not so.
What I represent is – as a perspective- is practical. This practicality should be the actual goal; not the direct goal but an indirect one on several levels. It’s not about the dissemination of knowledge. There are lectures, books, courses, etc. specifically for the purpose of education. To help one viewing the world differently: this is the goal. Viewing differently in an auto-reflective sense, viewing that is directed towards the world; to provide help, points of view, certain inspirations. To give more in the current era, especially directly, is not possible; in fact nothing should be accepted from those who say otherwise. The poisoning in this department has reached stupendous magnitudes. True spiritual currents only vegetate in a couple of minuscule streams. Pseudo-spiritual currents on the other hand are operational by the thousands. Europe has been flooded by a dangerous type: the Indian pseudo-yogi. Since Sanskrit is taught in high schools in India and the original language is also somewhat similar to Sanskrit and since they teach asanas and similar in gym class, anybody from India with a somewhat higher intelligence may present himself as an expert, as a yogi, even as a guru. If this was done purely for profit, it could be viewed simply as a series of base practices. The danger however is much greater since the goal, beyond profit, is much more damaging. The Indians- and recently even Tibetans – wracking havoc in the world nowadays are making the last, already minimal, chance of realization impossible. If there was absolutely no darkness in these currents, they would still be incredibly dangerous, considering that they concern things that are by orders of magnitude beyond people of this era. There is for example a Buddhist monastery near Zurich that occasionally admits Europeans (still making it real difficult for them). An important aspect of learning is memorizing and reciting the Tibetan sacred scriptures. The more diligent somebody may be, the worst he’ll fare. Those who are less diligent may leave and realize later that the whole thing doesn’t make any sense. And currently it truly doesn’t. There was a time when reading meant understanding. The writer could not only write and read but also knew the essence of writing, since writing or reading unessential things was unnecessary. This means that in earlier eras reciting a text meant understanding the text and understanding the text almost meant the realization of the teaching. Even for Tibetans, there is nothing left from this by today – and for Europeans even less so. So what they do in this Buddhist monastery is fitting for Easterners of an era hundreds and thousands of years ago; and they make people do this today as step one, and whoever is doing this, is thinking that he’s practicing Zen, or Tibetan Buddhism, or yoga, or something similar – but nothing is farther from the truth. It seems like it is true, but it has nothing to do with the truth. What awakes in him is not the light of consciousness; he sets in motion instead vital forces and all vital forces void of the spirit and all life forces will turn into death forces that damage consciousness first and then the “carrier” of consciousness. Vital forces that are awaken inadequately, in other words, when they are not awaken by an act of the spirit, function as death forces. This is an anti-alchemical process that is performed by the heteron; by my unrecognized self. There is no greater enemy than my unrecognized self. This is the prototype of all enemies. The satanic principle is also related to this one. “Satan” means accuser, enemy, opponent. From God’s aspect there is no Satan, only from the side of the human mode of existence. Thus from the point of view of my own goal there is no Satan, but from the point of view of my starting position there is.
In the Sanskrit language the name of existence is the same as the name of the essence: sat. Sat condenses both of them simultaneously. Non-existence and non-essence is asat. The name of truth in Greek is alētheia. Alētheia is connected to not-forgetting. What could it be that has metaphysical weight if we don’t forget it? Obviously the decisive thing is the forgetting or not forgetting of the metaphysical origin of myself from myself. To live in non-forgetfulness, in forgetting forgetfulness, means living in truth. The name of truth in Sanskrit is satya. Satya is recognition, teaching and life according to existence and the essence. Thus, from this point of view, whatever is non-essential or not essential is not true. The question of truth – non-truth in a material-content sense in traditional cultures is actually of secondary importance; not that such truth wasn’t present to a very large degree – but the emphasis was not on that; there, always something more was meant by what manifested itself in Latin in relation to spiritual truths as veritās, or in relation to legal truths as iustitia. The Greek equivalent of iustitia is dikē, that of veritās is alētheia. Such proverb and platitude-like residues as “the light of the truth” even in such a worn-out form express the connection between the truth and the light; that truth, alētheia, satya, and veritas are related to the light and light is related to the essential nature of consciousness. Light is the nature of consciousness. “The light of consciousness” is almost a pleonasm, i.e. using a single expression serially. The spirit is the light of consciousness and so is darkness the darkness of consciousness. Consciousness is broader than the spirit and the light. Spirit always means the center of consciousness, i.e. that the subject is in action. The subject is in action, it is in the culmination of actions. Subiectum in āctū – this is my definition of the spirit. The spirit being in action. The conscious act of the subject is the spirit, i.e. the light; not physical light. It was not the physical, natural light that, by analogy, served as the name for the spiritual light. What we physically experience as light is the lost, gross, exteriorized light. The spiritual light is the cause of the external light. The Sun was not compared to God because they saw it; they didn’t associate to God from the Sun. The Sun exists because there is a a SunGod. Auton is the self-generating light – existence; consequently there must be an imprint of it in the physical world and this is the celestial body. But neither the name nor -especially- its existence is what originates from here. It’s rather pathetic when they try to trace religions and the spirit from natural phenomena while forgetting to consider why there exists anything in the first place. They never raise questions about this either in terms of assuming an answer or in terms of refusing an answer. Nothing was ever derived from any natural phenomena. It’s always the spiritual and the superior that’s primal both essentially and – if it has connected to temporality- time-wise.
To posit the unconscious, especially in the exaggerated sense deep psychology does, is an offensive against the powers of human understanding on the one hand, and an explicit error, on the other. Some recognize an actual spirituality in Jung’s school for example, even though it is an especially anti-spiritual school. Anti-spiritual because it derives consciousness from the unconscious as if the it was the unconscious that is primordial and not the conscious. Obviously, in Jung’s school this is not as strongly and grossly evident as in Freudism, but without doubt, it is there. Fundamentally, there is no such thing as “unconscious” or “subconscious”. Consciousness has actuality and potentiality; a potentiality that is infinitely open. Thus this potentiality has strictly individual, collective, familiar and cosmic aspects. In such sense, when we speak about the layers of consciousness we are using simple similes; there is potentiality, there are higher and lower potentialities. There are potentialities that once actualized, destroy consciousness; and there are potentialities that once actualized, trigger the elevation of consciousness. The whole question should be raised only from the point of view of actuality and potentiality, otherwise we’d get a view on consciousness that postulates some kind of original but hidden nature somewhere in the background. If that which psychology calls unconscious has any kind of effect, it is not because the unconscious performs some kind of occult function, but because it is not conscious, it is heteron, it is different. The unconscious is actually not I and whatever is not I works against me in some sense. We must discern the subtleties of this otherwise we may immediately misunderstand the whole thing. What this means is not that everybody and the whole world is against me but that if everything stays on the level where it is, then they truly bring death not just as a biological occurrence but in a much broader sense.
The world exists so I can take it back to myself or, which means the same thing from a different point of view, it exists so I can detach it from myself: to detach the world as world, as heteron from myself, so I can take it as potential auton back to myself.
The goal is unity. Unity is the unity of the auton. What seems to fall out of unity is the heteron. I don’t want to take back that which seems to be falling out of unity to myself as heteron, but as auton; in other words I must recognize the auton before I take it back.
According to the tantrik doctrines everything in the world may be perceived and experienced as yoga. This especially applies to the individual human being. Thus if the necessary powers of recognition have already developed, then each individual may be viewed like they manifest something: with their life they symbolize something. The closer I know somebody, the more exponentially this is true. Some people seem to be connected to symbols that represent specifically powers of destruction. This should be understood with an appropriate degree of differentiation since this is not black and white; even in one single individual we can find an incredible richness of qualities. This applies not only to people but also to species of animals – even individual animal specimen may represent something. Considering that most human relations are insignificant, we should view at least the more important people like this: what does he represent, what manifests itself in him? And here we must really probe deeper since the role of superficial impressions from this point of view is quite small.
There is only conscious existence and there is conscious objectivity. I can’t say that something exist if I don’t have any kind of relation to it, and I can’t say that something actually doesn’t exist if I have a relation to it. No doubt, there is objectivity. But in what sense? There is no objective reality that’s independent of my consciousness – this is senseless. I must say there is nothing more senseless in the history of philosophy because this actually doesn’t fit into the history of philosophy. There is a grave inner contradiction here, namely that I am aware that something exists because I know about it, because it is in my consciousness, and yet I declare that it also exists, when it is not in my consciousness; I even declare that it exists even if it has never even been in my consciousness. This by the way doesn’t apply only to the totality of objective reality and to the spheres of the “other world” but also to something much more concrete. If man is sufficiently alert he may realize that an entity that’s present in his consciousness has quite a special ontological position. If somebody believes that he’s returning home because he finds his house there, is a naive realist. What does it mean that it’s “there”? It means that various modes of existence of the house defined by thoughts and images may emerge. Otherwise it has no modes of existence at all. How is it possible that something may be found with such regularity? It’s because the constituting power of man is rooted so deep, so far away from the sphere of power that man can control ordinarily, and its inertness is so great – this is why we can find things. This is why we know what we’ll find if we go somewhere. Not something fundamentally different, since even if the house is in ruins, we don’t find something fundamentally different. Fundamentally different would be if we possessed constant magical powers in relation to everything and everybody that exists. Although not in the sphere of direct accessibility, this magical power is available as a potentiality, since power itself is potential. If this power potential is actualized it’s no longer about demon-magic whereby various powers manifest themselves as beings, because the magus (magician) hasn’t taken possession of the power over himself. The appearance of magical powers in the form of beings, due to the incomplete control over them, in other words the merely partial realization of dominance, may be dangerous since these powers that manifest themselves as beings are, to a large degree, real. The demon-magus dominates these powers, but not through controlling himself. As opposed to goetik and demonomagic, the nature of theurgo-magic is such that the power of the auton begins to expand towards the unlimited in it; this means first of all power over himself, which means that the magus exercises his power over beings and forces, i.e. over the heteron, as his power over himself. Having completed this operation perfectly, the magus becomes the creator, the sustainer and the transmuter of the world, recognizing that the world exists because he has created it and because he is sustaining it, in the sense of the Hindi Īśvara-Trimūrti: as Brahman, as Vișņu and as Śiva. And he’ll recognize that it was always he who created, sustained and transmuted the world. However, this is not only a question of recognition but also a question of realization: the question of supra-personal realization. Having reached his goal, the magus not only realizes his own person, his own personality, he also actualizes his whole being. If there was one single element in existence that’s left out of realization, what we call metaphysical awakening would become impossible.
Omnipotency in the absolute sense, without any limitations, is not a result but a pre-requisite of metaphysical realization. And this is not only omnipotentia, but also omniagentia. Not only omnipotency but also universal activity. There is nothing in the world that would not be performed by the magus who reached his goal. Who is the magus who has reached his goal? I myself, if I reach my goal. Is there a world other than a conscious one? There isn’t. Is there another center of conscious existence besides myself as subject? We can’t say there is. Thus the whole world originates from myself. If, however I don’t experience the world as originating from myself that means that I am not fully in the center of myself. In other words, I am not fully myself. If I was fully myself, I would actualize myself as creator, sustainer and transmuter. The significance of this is tremendous – at least for those who don’t resign themselves to their current state; those who do resign themselves to their current state will also leave this behind, but not in an upward, but a downward direction. If one is not striving upward, one is declining since one needs extraordinary elevation powers even to slow down the decline, not to mention to stop it and to turn the process around.
If we look at an ordinary human life we see the teleological greatness of providence on the one hand, and its complete denial and destruction on the other. All these are a question powers. While man occupies an earthly-human mode of existence, he finds himself in a process of unfolding – not evolution. To see this process as an analogy to evolution is flawed. It’s about conquering a mode of existence. Naturally, the powers of death get immediately activated already at the beginning of such a conquest, but they can gain an overwhelming position only if man doesn’t resist. Spiritual man immediately resists the powers of death. What does this all mean? It means (and it must mean) that man – not even in sense of high-realizations, but simply in terms of his own personality -, however long he should live, must stand on the highest degree of realization in the last phase, in the last moment of his life. Thus if he lives 120 years, naturally he stands on a much higher level than when he was hundred and nineteen and on a much higher level than when he was fifty. Generally speaking, this is not the case; we can’t see people reaching a high age being ‘in floribus’ in their last months. This means that a foreign power begins to operate, a power that essentially isn’t foreign but for now it is experienced as such; an effect is generated.
We know that an illness is never caused by what seemingly causes it. The decline of mental faculties is not caused by cerebral sclerosis, death in cholera is not caused by the cholera virus and in general, nothing is triggered by what man thinks. These are all side-effects accompanying something else, and they play a role in the periphery of the triggering event. We obviously can’t say that an agent, a bacteria has nothing to do with the illness, but fundamentally, it has nothing to do with it; it’s not the fundamental cause of the disease.
All diseases reflect the changes of fate. On a high level we are talking about heteron and auton; fate is actually my differentiated acts of gaining and losing power as auton over the differentiated and infinite multitude of powers that manifest themselves as heteron-beings. These are the ones creating so called fate-situations in order to launch attacks from them against the current form of existence. The actual attack takes place in deep-metaphysicality and it is accompanied by the triggering causes on the periphery. The actual causes are thus somewhere else (not on the periphery) and from this point of view the perceived cause of a disease is more of a consequence; it has causality but it is not primal and not secondary, not even tertiary, but an exponentially indirect causality. This is why the fight against them can’t result in fundamental convalescence. On the periphery even full recovery is possible, but not in the depths. A healing process in the multitude of levels and aspects was hardly possible even in much more distant and pure epochs.
Finding my way back to myself is not treated as a goal by spiritual views – and this is especially emphasized by Eastern views- but as an operation related to the beginnings, not forgetting that such operations at this stage may appear as a goal. Nonetheless such operations of realizations can’t be made mandatory for anybody; we can’t even say that they may be specifically recommended to everybody. One of the main characteristics of the paths of deviation of our times is precisely that they put a great emphasis on that everybody should follow some definitive path. This is not surprising, considering that they purposefully offer deviative paths and their interest is that people start out on these. There are also more serious and well-meaning approaches, yet these propagate similar things. Although it is ultimately -but only ultimately- open to everybody, metaphysical realization is not suitable for everybody. In a strict sense, for the majority it is open to a very small degree. It is only open to those who represent the upward orientation, the elevating aspect of the only Man, the spiritual and universal Man in themselves as a possibility that’s much stronger than a mere potentiality. It is only a doctrine that metaphysical realization is ultimately open to everybody and that I can attain awakening by experiencing myself in everything, and according to this doctrine everybody is capable of this. From this to come to the conclusion that I also have a chance -especially if I am not even trying- is, in my opinion, something that people do who, although not striving to attain metaphysical awakening, are under the impression that it is an intelligent thing to nominally identify such goals. Such people think that it is good and intelligent to strive toward such goals, and that I have a chance, even if I only do anything toward this end, when I happen to have some time.
If somebody recognizes the law he is representing, then he recognizes what Hinduism and Buddhism calls svadharma in Sanskrit. Svadharma is the being’s own law and dominion. Not only does it mean the mission and what one must do, but much more how one can find the path that leads him back to himself. Once one completely returns to himself, dharma and svadharma is transcended and thus eliminated since he who achieves the goal becomes the ruler of dharma; this is why there is no dharma that applies to him: he no longer has a svadharma. Nonetheless, the path is determined by svadharma.
Finally, we must say a few words about karma, a term that suffers much abuse. Karma means “act”. Karma-vāda, or karma-doctrine means that all acts are connected. Naturally, my own acts or whatever I experience as such, are even more tightly connected to my personal self. The principle of action-reaction is embedded in the karma doctrine just like the concept of karma as bondage, although the two are not the same. Karma in general is often confused with karma- bandha , with the karmic bond. Karma-bandha is a bond. Why this bond? Is it because the poor bastard is doing something? Not in the least. It is a bond because the act was not performed fully by himself. The heteron makes it a bond, because the heteron influences all acts and it is the heteron that turns karma into a karmic bond, vinculum karmicum, a burden, a web; because it is not him, who performs the acts, because he is only a co-performer. Even in thinking one is only a co-performer and heteron plays the smallest role precisely in thinking. This is why all paths of realization can and must begin with thinking – not because it is the strongest and the most elemental, but because in thinking is man the most himself. Even if one starts out on totally different and wrong tracks in his thinking, the thinking function itself has such characteristics that it may serve as the starting point of a metamorphosis. Otherwise even the smallest feeling is stronger than thinking but the heteron-function is so strong in feelings that no path may begin with them; no realization may be based exclusively on feelings. Naturally, a certain stage of realization deals with feelings, too, since they belong to the most significant elements of life.
I can only reach- and this is one of the basic tenets of Eastern metaphysics- that I have actually never left. “Actually” I have never left it, because “actually” I have left and I have distanced myself from what I have never left. I may only reach what I have never left.