In the spirituality, there is a
difference between the learned knowledge and the Knowledge (with a
capital K). The Knowledge (or shruti) is an obviousness coming by the
practice, inspired, revealed by the experiment of the deepest of your
true being: the soul and the Holy-Name.
Summary:
The Knowledge about which it is question on the path of Freedom, the original-yoga, is not one of the knowledge (known as “with-seeds”) learned at school, in books. The Knowledge is not the learned knowledge.
The Knowledge about which it is question on the path of Freedom, the original-yoga, is not one of the knowledge (known as “with-seeds”) learned at school, in books. The Knowledge is not the learned knowledge.
The spiritual Knowledge about
which it is question on the path is a revealed Knowledge, the Shruti
of the Vedic school Sâmkhya. It is a Knowledge like an obviousness
coming from the deepth by plunging in the bliss, the contemplation
through the Observance of the Agya (three joined together practices
forming the original-yoga).
What
is the Knowledge, spiritually?
Is
it the sum of the learned things?
Is
it the instruction ? Obviously not.
The
true Knowledge is not
the
one you find in the books, as holy as they can be,
not
more as the one of the temples.
Take, for example, a very
honourable spiritual way like the Buddhism. There is not one Buddhism
but a multitude according to whether they are Indian, Tibetans,
Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, American, French etc. In any case the
Buddhism denies the existence of the soul, preferring to it an
aggregate of seven impermanent and interdependent elements forming
the being. However it believes that the Spirit, which is usually
bound to the physical body, can be detached in some in Dhyàna and go
until the nirvàna [the nirvikalpa-samadhi, for yoga] being thus
established in the awakening.
Various
Buddhisms Tibetan, Japanese, Indian, Western
''Samadhi
is Satçitananda, the Kingdom the Christ spoke about ''
[Bhaktimàrga
2-5-14]
Here is an inconsistency,
or at least a paradox. How, without believing in the existence of the
soul transcending the existence of the physical body, it is possible,
at the same time to say that one of the seven elements forming the
being is detached from the others and knows the nirvàna, on the road
of the awakening?
A
paradox
This apparent paradox is explained by a simple matter of vocabulary: the word soul is replaced by that of Spirit. The Buddhists believe that the Spirit, or the mind, is a sixth sens [manas] independent of the brain so that if two brains of a person would be transplanted to another each one would remain himself. The Dalai Lama says that: '' The highest level (of conscience) escapes the material support. The conscience is independent of the physical particles ''.
This description looks like the
one we could give of the soul. How can we explain the samsàra, the
multiple incarnations, by denying the transcendence of a part of the
human being’s seven components ? If these seven aggregates are,
like Buddhism says, impermanent, indissociable and interdependent,
how can we justify that the Spirit can leave the body; alone, in
order to incarnate itself elsewhere and to carry on its way towards
the Liberation ?
The Buddhism is a spiritual school attached to the theories and written things in books. It is however simpler to realise the full Conscience with this Juste-sight, so loved by the Buddhism, given by the frequentation of the center of oneself ! The Buddhism makes use of concepts, fixed on pages and pages, to explain everything and frame a practice whose the goal is not very readable because of all its paradoxes and inconsistencies.
The Writings speak to us about
two types of knowledge: “para and apara”. This Vedic concept
indicates the knowledge of the phenomenal world, of the things which
one sees, that one touches, that our senses perceive under the name
of apara, that of the subtle field of the spirituality is named para.
The word “learned knowledge” indicates apara and the word
Knowledge, with a capital “K”, indicates the “things” of the
true spirituality. It is only para who can lead to the realization of
oneself on the spiritual level.
The Knowledge about which it is
question on the path of Freedom
(the original-yoga) is the Shruti of
the Sâmkhya’s school:
revealed Knowledge, coming from the deepest
thanks to the Observance of the Agya.
(Agya: a set of the three
practices constituting the original-yoga).
The
reading does not give the experiment
of
the inner Peace
You can spend all your life
reading all the Buddhist writings of all the various Buddhist schools
without advancing on the road of the Realization. The lessons rotate
on themselves and you lose youself with these games worthy of the
Torah and the Cabal. The writings are not enough.
The Buddhism is founded on the
base of the awakening lived by sri Gautama
which did not know the
awakening while spending his life with reading:
he sat down under his
fig tree
and he entered in deep Meditation [Dhyàna]
until the
nirvikalpa-samadhi and the awakening,
moved by a great desire to merge himself in the Unit.
''The meditation is
contemplation ''
[Bhaktimàrga 2-5-3]
Several hundred years [450] later, some descendants of descendants of descendants of disciples who had known the living Buddha and had listened to his sermons [Satsang] put into black and white the distant memories of the missing Master’s teaching. This teaching, in the course of time, had changed into concepts.
What would think sri Gautama,
in your opinion, if he came back
If you look for a way of life, that you like to let tinkle the cymbals, turn the prayer wheels, let burn the incenses, then the Buddhism gives you what you seek. It is a noble and beautiful way, but the Truth can be met there only when the studies cease, when the Conscience deepens. The Truth is in oneself and he who finds it in a religion does not find it thanks to the religion but in spite of it; because he already had it inside himself.
The answers and the answer
If you are really thirsty for Truth, then do not place your hope in the studies. You can read books in connection with spirituality, as hobby, a source of inspiration but no writing ever replaced the practice.
It is not in any book. Even the Bhaktimàrga,
which sings the praises of the Truth, does not give any answer.
The
only answer which is worth is the one who allows a person
to put
her/his Conscience at the good place, inside
and to keep it there as
far as he/she want it.
To dissipate the darkness of the ignorance you
need the Light of Knowledge.
The word Knowledge
(connaissance in french), at the origin, did not indicate
intellectuals knowledges. The root of the word (connaissance) is
sanskrit and it is the same one as that of the word jnana, of the
jnana-yoga, the yoga of the Knowledge. From the Sanskrit this word
passed to Persian, then to Greek and, finally, to French via the
Latin. The word Knowledge (connaissance) meant, in the sanskrite
origin, to know, and implied: the gnosis of Shiva [or Shiva-jnana],
i.e. to live what Shiva revealed.
This Knowledge has nothing to
do with the bookish, theoretical one. This Knowledge is the fact of
seeing and of understanding [to take with oneself, to realize]. The
spiritual path needs realization, doing.
The true Knowledge is not
learned, it is received and lived. The Revelation and the Agya carry
this Knowledge in germ. The practice, the Observance lets grow this
seed. This same seed that it is necessary to sow by paying attention
to the birds and brambles, that about which spoke Christ in the New
Testament, this seed which gives a tree whose fruits are
recognizable.
Do men get
grapes from thorns or figs from thistles?
Even so, every good tree
gives good fruit; but the bad tree gives evil fruit.''
[Matthew 7/16/17]
