Short Quotes
Editorial
New on Katinka Hesselink Net
Keeping Elementals out of the
Way, Katinka Hesselink
There's Enlightenment, and then
there's Enlightenment (2) (various perspectives)
Honest
Clairvoyants, Katinka Hesselink
Joke (Ken Wilber)
Letter Received
The earth doesn't belong to anyone. It is the land upon which
all of
us are to live for many years, ploughing, reaping and destroying.
You are always a guest on this earth and have the austerity of a guest.
Austerity is far deeper than owning only a few things. The very word
austerity has been spoilt by the monks, by the sannyasis, by the
hermits. Sitting on that high hill alone in the solitude of many
things, many rocks and
little animals and ants, that word has no meaning.
Countless sentient beings, I vow to
help to cross the ocean of existence.
Eternal Sufferings, I
vow to end.
Innumerable spiritual methods, I vow to study and
comprehend.
The buddha's unsurpassable supreme dharma, I vow
to realize.
[Adapted from Kim Dieu's
translation from the Vietnamese]
When talking about enlightenment, most people like to focus on
what it looks like, what the experience is like. This is true
especially where
belief in the existence of something like enlightenment is absent. When
one first hears of enlightenment the question 'what is it like?' is
logical,
because in the description of the state one can try and judge whether
it is likely or not, whether it is worth fighting for, or not. The fact
is though, there seems to be very little evidence that enlightenment is
a state. What is it like to be a mathematician, one might ask my
father. It must be remarkable to be able to understand so much. Having
lived with my father all through my childhood I can tell you, it is not
about what
one knows, it is a lot of hard work and the satisfaction is in the
work,
in the search, in understanding more and more. A good mathematician
will
stop being a good mathematician almost as soon as he stops practising
his
craft, for the simple reason that though the talent is still there, and
the knowledge is still there, the fire of investigation is gone. My
guess
is, enlightenment is also like that. This explains why the Dalai Lama
in
the fragment I publish here, focuses not so much on what enlightenment
is
like, but on the road to enlightenment. Krishnamurti does the same.
Both
talk not about how nice it is to experience oneness with the all, or
how
frightening it is. They don't talk about initiation, ritual, glowing
lights and clairvoyant experiences. What they do talk about is much
nearer to
home: what is consciousness and how can one learn to keep it clear.
They
each approach the subject differently, but the thing they have in
common
is a focus on what there is here and now, and how we can deal with that
which is.
John T. Houseman
does talk about what an enlightened being is like.
I guess we need to pay attention to that as well, not because it is
important, but because it shows what isn't important in our daily
lives. It shows
which aspects of our lives will change and which will not.
In this issue of Lucifer7 I've submitted two articles of my
own; both on what one may call 'occult' matters. This wasn't planned;
it just worked out that way. The first is my interpretation of some
basic advice H.P.
Blavatsky gave to her esoteric students. This particular advice was
never
kept secret, so I guess I can write about it as well. The subject is
basic
protection against elementals. It's a bit like writing an article on
how
to keep your bike from being stolen in
As always,
contributions to this newsletter are invited.
Katinka
Hesselink, Keeping Elementals out of the Way
Jiddu
Krishnamurti, International
Self-preparation Group - Manual (1925, 1926)
Golden
Rules of Buddhism, Colonel H.S. Olcott
The
Cauldren of Caridwen, Kenneth Morris
Fable
for the New Year, John A. Royle
Once
upon a time..., anonymous
Providence,
L. Ram
The
River of Becoming, Christman Humphreys
A
Study of Two, C.L.D.
How
much land does a man need?, Leo Tolstoy
Wadia,
B.P. The
Inner Ruler
The
People of the Blue Mountains, H.P. Blavatsky
Two articles by Charles Danten have been
added to my web site. They are too long for this e-zine, but I consider
them important enough to give a fragment here, with a link to the full
article.
[More on
obstacles to change in relation to how we deal with animals]
One of the main obstacles is that animals
themselves willingly seek and appreciate our company. For many people
this seemingly natural attraction is the proof that animals and humans
have a noble,
natural inclination to love each other. It's all a con.
What we are confusing with a voluntary human-animal attraction can be
explained by the imprint phenomena: a vital biological function
discovered by Konrad Lorenz which makes any new born animal including
humans automatically identify with the first moving object in his
surroundings.
[The
rest of this frankly shocking article. It will change the way
you look
at pets]
For
the purposes of this essay elementals are the beings that swarm
the astral, emotional and mental planes. Blavatsky tells us they are
linked to planetary influences, thought, emotion and motive. They can
also be
described as semi-conscious forces in nature. Elementals are in essence
neutral forces. Their moral colouring stems from mankind. Some take on
positive
form and become a positive influence in people's lives, because of
loving
thoughts, feelings and insights that some people 'breath out' as it
were. Others, and these are more common, reflect humanities weaknesses:
fear, a thirst for money, a hunger for alcohol or drugs, general
selfishness, cruelty, envy, jealousy etc. Common human failings and
faults that get
reflected in the astral light. Unfortunately this reflection in the
astral
light isn't just a picture on a wall that most people don't notice.
Many
sensitive people do notice by getting a feel about a place: this is a
good place; this is a bad place. Most other people get influenced by
these things without even noticing the changes they make in their
systems. The influence
is deceptive because elementals only strengthen that which we already
have
in the germ. That may mean, as some say, that the only defence is a
pure
life. True, a pure life is the most fail-safemethod of protecting your
aura. Still it is a bit hard to keep your aura clean if, living in a
city, elementals keep coming in. Say there is a germ of envy in you.
Left to your
own devices (no elementals to mess things up) you would face it, see
the
foolishness of it and leave it. In short: you've cleaned up and grown a
bit, spiritually. Now with elementals to strengthen the envy, facing it
will be more necessary. This is the good part, you get to see the
quality
the elementals bring out. So you face it, but this costs more energy
than
in the previous example, while most of the envy isn't even your own
responsibility. This means, whether you are able to conquer it or not,
that energy gets
wasted that might otherwise be used to help you grow in other ways. I
have
to remind you all that the elementals pray on our weak spots so in
theory
the person without weak spots won't have any problems. Still, H.P.
Blavatsky
said any initiate living in the hustle and bustle of normal life had
the
trouble of having to face all these elementals. It cost them their most
spiritual of ‘powers’, she said. My personal interpretation of this is
that
even a waterproof raincoat won't keep the water out completely. In the
same
way, a high initiate will get his or her aura damp from the 'moist' of
the
elementals swarming our cities and malls.
On what to do, the rest of this
article
"Consciousness"
or "mind" has cognitive ability - there is something through which we
know. Usually, we say: "I see, I learn, I know, I remember." There is
one single element that acts as a medium for viewing all objects. At
our level, the power or ability to know is very limited, but we have
the potential to increase this ability to know. "Buddhahood" or
"Buddhahood enlightenment" is when the potential of this ability to
know has been
fully developed. Merely increasing that capacity of knowing is also a
level of enlightenment. So, the term "enlightenment" could refer to
knowing
something that you did not know or realizing something that you had not
realized. But when we speak about enlightenment at the state of
Buddhahood,
we are speaking about a fully awakened state.
That is why, according to Buddhism, all our efforts ultimately
should go to training or shaping our minds. Emotions such as hatred or
strong
attachment are destructive and harmful we call them "negative
emotions."
So how can we reduce these negative emotions? Not through prayer, not
through
physical exercise, but through training of mind. Through training of
mind
we try to increase the opposite qualities. When genuine compassion,
infinite
compassion, or unbiased compassion is increased, hatred is reduced.
When
equanimity is increased, attachment is reduced. All of these
destructive
emotions are based on ignorance, and the opposite, or antidote, of
ignorance
is enlightenment. This is why it is very important to analyse the world
of the mind and find out what its basic nature is. What are the
different
categories of mind? Which minds are destructive? Which minds are
constructive?
and so on. Once we have analysed all these questions, then we should
try
to control our minds by adding more good and removing the bad. Some
modern
scholars describe Buddhism as a "science of mind" for this very reason.
http://www.enlightenment.com/b_archives/000364.html
Enlightenment ... is a whole new way of being. It is the way
of unity, the way of oneness. It is the release of the illusion of
separateness.
It is the knowing that who we are is not limited by our physical body,
but extends out infinitely in all directions. The separation of you vs.
not you is gone. Instead, we experience ourselves as a beacon of
consciousness,
reaching out to the farthest edges of the universe. Enlightenment is a
deep attunement to the ways of being, to the ways of the primordial
elements
– earth, water, fire, and air - that stand now as guides to our
fulfilment
rather than obstructions of it.
...
An
enlightened being knows with the absolute certainty of all their
senses, with a knowing that floods their awareness, that all is light,
all is love, all is truth, and all is bliss. And the knowing of this
most wonderful
of all truths purifies their being, releasing them from their fears,
their
ego desires, and their delusions of limitation. They know they are one
with
the
Nothing is lost
in enlightenment except the illusion of separateness. An enlightened
being is fully engaged in the passions of life, full of
errors, heroism, fury, humour, wonder, compassion, disgust, fear, and
tranquility, singing songs and playing musical instruments, doing what
brings them the most joy. And yet they are different. Their attunement
to Source is so deep that it brings them eternal fulfilment regardless
of the outer consequences of their actions. They are ever open, ever
unattached, and ever free.
Meditation is not for the immature.
The immature can play with it as they do now, sitting cross-legged,
breathing in a certain way, standing on their heads, taking drugs, in
order to experience something original. Through drugs, through fasting,
through any system, you can
never find or come upon that which is eternal, timeless. There is no
short
cut to all this. One has to work hard; one has to become very aware of
what one is doing, what one is thinking, without any distortion. And
all
that requires great maturity, not of age but maturity of the mind to be
capable of observation, seeing the false as the false, the true in the
false, and truth as truth. That is maturity, whether in the political
scene, in the business world, or in your relationship.
Some
months ago a bewildered questioner on one of the e-mailgroups asked:
how does one distinguish between fantasy, clairvoyant perception and
ones own thoughts. I answered her that this question was asked by any
honest
clairvoyant. Blavatsky has written about this in various ways. Based on
that I will here put the dilemma in my own words.
Most of my readers will admit the possibility of clairvoyant
perception. Still, it is also recognized (though perhaps not loudly
enough proclaimed) that there are severe limits to the clairvoyance
that is most common.
Clairvoyance of the normal type is based on a larger than average
sensitivity
to the emotions, physical feelings and sometimes thoughts of others. We
are aware of the limitations of our 'ordinary' senses. My eyes are
pretty
decent, yet I can't see through a wall. Self evident maybe, but the
point
is that psychic vision has similar limitations. The practice of
clairvoyants
being paid has unfortunately not stimulated them in informing the
public
of the limitations of their extra senses.
I'll just give an example that should make the issue clear.
Blavatsky stated that there are two types of reading someone's mind.
The first is seeing the thoughts of that person in their aura. The
second is reading the impression those thoughts made on one's own
brain. The first method
is more reliable than the second, according to Blavatsky. In the second
method the thoughts of the other person would get mixed in with one's
own
thoughts and therefore make the whole perception blurred. The first
method
was more reliable, still even there it would take concentration,
honesty
and a lack of prejudice to not only read correctly, but also interpret
another's thought correctly. This can be illustrated by having a look
at
our own thought. When is our thought orderly enough to pass inspection
from
an outside viewer? Do we habitually finish thought sentences, or do we
jump
from one line of thought to the next? Are our thoughts even significant
to an outsider at all? What would a clairvoyant have to do to get a
consistent
and interesting read out of most of our heads? They would have to do,
what
I suspect many do: not just observe, but dig into our brains to find
some
interesting titbit we weren't conscious of before. Which is what they
usually
get paid for in the first place: to help us clarify our present
situation,
or simply satisfy our curiosity. In this process interpretation becomes
necessary and therefore preconceptions about how life works are going
to
play a large part.
Both
clairvoyants and their clients need to watch out that they don't over
estimate that which is being 'read' by a clairvoyant. It will be
very rare that a clairvoyant taps into her inner wisdom to an extent
that
actually puts things in a new perspective, instead of the socially
acceptable
one. More often than not, a so-called clairvoyant will simply interpret
what she sees in the same way the client would already have interpreted
it. This doesn't mean going to a clairvoyant is always a bad thing. It
may just help to put a new perspective on things. It may just be good
to talk to somebody neutral about your problems.
The other point I want to make is that the clarity of vision
of the
usual clairvoyant isn't all that much clearer than that of most other
people. In the end your own judgement is more important than anything
anybody
else can say. Listen to what others have to say, but decide for
yourself
what the value of that is. A good psychic will say: trust your
intuition.
So do that, even with regard to the psychic herself.
A man goes to an enlightened sage and
asks, of course, for the meaning of life. The sage gives a brief
summary of the Vedanta
view, namely, that this entire world is nothing but the supreme Brahman
or Godhead, and further, your own witnessing awareness is one with
Brahman.
Your very self is in a supreme identity with God. Since Brahman creates
all, and since your highest Self is one with Brahman, then your highest
Self creates all. So far, this definitely looks like New Age city.
Off goes the gentleman, convinced that he has understood the ultimate
meaning of life, which is that his own deepest Self is actually God and
creates all reality. On the way home, he decides to test this amazing
notion. Heading right toward him is a man riding an elephant. The
gentleman stands in the middle of the road, convinced that, if he's
God, the elephant can't hurt him. The fellow riding the elephant keeps
yelling, "Get out of the way! Get out of the way!" But the gentleman
doesn't move - and gets perfectly flattened by the elephant.
Limping back to the sage, the gentleman explains that, since Brahman or
God is everything, and since his Self is one with God, then the
elephant should not have hurt him. "Oh yes, everything is indeed God,"
said the sage, "so why didn't you listen when God told you to get out
of the way?"
Katinka,
I got
mailed a copy of your "Lucifer" and see that you are treating the
subjects of Anatman vs. Atman, and also enlightenment, so take the
liberty to send some material which might be of interest. The paper by
Merrill-Wolff has an excellent treatment of the Anatman doctrine I
think
(it has some theosophical technical errors in it, which probably got
there
by some previous transcriber, I think...).
Good
wishes with your high-quality zine!
- Jake Jaqua
Jake sent me four excellent articles. Part of the above mentioned article by Franklin Merrell-Wolff will be published in the January issue of Lucifer7. A Richard Rose quote will be available in the February issue. The rest will be put on my web site somewhere in the coming months. A large percentage of the new material on my website listed above is also thanks to Jake's work.