Sunday, May 10, 2009


Well, I really cannot create as coherent a narrative around my thoughts over what the two of us have said so far as I would have liked, but a spontaneous response does seem to suggest a few things. Terms are inherently vague and merely pointing symbols to the ever-elusive reality. 'Spirituality' too can easily be reduced to a term and a concept colored by individual desires and understanding. For me, that is spiritual which transcends my empirical self and thus produces an authentic experience of the pure space of consciousness which lies beyond such divisions as 'me' and 'other'. In practice, I have often failed to achieve this ideal but I am confident that the way my self is developing is inherently right and hurdles are only temporary. That I see the world as my projection is not a position that I would blatantly discard because at certain epochs of my psychic evolution, I have had that naive but phenomenologically real feeling but its not an expression of mature contemplation or the correct reading of the experiential domain that informs my baby steps on the domain of the transcendental. An assertion closer to the truth would be that the force which projects the empirical self also projects the empirical world and the empirical world is projected through the lens of the empirical self in such a fashion that the empirical self takes himself to be the master of the realm which exists only because of its ability to perceive when the initial flowering of expanded consciousness enfolds. In simpler terms, the immense power and sway of the Self as its glory is revealed through the initial mystical experiences easily leads the seeker to suppose that creation emanates from him and him alone. This too must have experiential roots to have a real effect on thought and behaviour. However a maturer experience is that All is Conscious Bliss while aman and ghazal are the elaborations of that consciousness in two of its infinite hues. The Absolute is true in every manifestation as the particular and yet is limited of defined by none. Thus, the essence is elaborated in you, me and everyone while being free from all idioms of its elaboration and in no way limited by them. I do not project others or the world but am projected by conscious bliss just as others and the universe is projected by it. Better still, we all are elaborations rather than projections of consciousness. I would mail you later to say more ont his and also to relate it to my experiential reality.
Now, I see myself and the human individual in general as a 'conscious space' which is an aesthetic form informing a thickening in space and time. Mysticism is the immersion of the temporal thickening into the vast freedom from which it has emanated. Now, this space which the individual ultimately is, is either receptive or elaborative. Receptive space receives life while elaborative space adds varients to its essential beauty. When I write this or express myself at large, I am in the elaborative space of my being and when I receive life, I am in the receptive space. My receptive space is filled by an experiece of mystic joy through the vibration of consciousness. This creates a love for solitude and less space for relational elaboration. This is a failing when juxtaposed against my relational needs, which are due to an unresolved and conflicting desire structure. My need for a relation which creates a nurturant understanding to help me transcend the relational paradigm altogether or to make it the expression of a synthesis of receptive and elaborative spaces is indeed a peculiar and ambitious demand, but life has been generous to me wherver it has really mattered and I owe my confidence to the experience of this very generosity. Mysticism through 'relational idiom' is something that I have had an experience of only as a launching pad for pure mysticism which transcends all relational constraints. Personally, I can say with full conviction that mysticism always and necessarily transcends relational paradigms and is never a social endeavour. It is neither intra-personal nor inter-personal. Transpersonal is a slightly better term but here again I am not necessarily referring to the subfield of psychology which exists by this name. Fruitful engagement with others is a possibility only when no Other remains in any real sense and that requires unconstrained existence which can become the receptive space for the enfoldment of the sustaining bliss. The rarest of a relation becomes a symphony of a rhythm of love which seeks the Root.