PARADOX OF EMANCIPATION

[written 1980 when I was 28

VI.B First attempt a description of a model for spiritual development (based on Jes Bertelsen)

Personal development is about reliving past double-binds, traumas, etc. in order to come to a total understanding of the neurotic behavior. The understanding itself, which is associated with an 'aha-experience', is the ability to see the connection and the link between, for example, the original double-bind and the current double-bind, in the middle of which one constantly finds oneself. Only then is one able to drop the neurotic behaviour.

One must direct and increase attention to both the unconscious in the past and in the present in order to see the connection. If one is intelligent enough to see the unconscious in one's present behaviour and is then able to change it, one does not need to go back to the past, but my practice has shown that this is very difficult. In meditation, for example, it often turns out that by looking at a present problem I am often taken back to the past, where there turns out to be an energetic connection.

I will now describe a model of development, that can describe the movement from un-conscious to conscious. The three levels of consciousness are analytical. I have borrowed this model from Jes Bertelsen, who has borrowed it from the Tibetan death book.

Polarity psychology: denotes a level of consciousness or awareness level, where one is identified with one pole in eg good/evil, honest/dishonest, moral/immoral etc. You see yourself and the outside world as divided into dualities, in black and white, and there is no other connection between these, than that I am the one and all the others are either the same or the opposite of each duality. 'Smith is a gossip guy, I am not ','Jack is stupid, I'm wise' etc. Because of the lack of contact with your own unconscious, where the counterpart is located, the counterpart is projected into the exterior physical reality and thus avoid seeing it in themselves.

The following two stages or levels of development are permanent states of consciousness. I myself am not in either of these, but have had only momentary perceptions of the state of consciousness which belongs to the stage of development. And whether this is true - that my momentary perceptions have really been in the state of consciousness belonging to these stages of development - I cannot say with certainty or scientifically 'prove;'. I feel that it is true, and here I rely on the statements of enlightened persons in language. Their statements and descriptions of the perceptions correspond to my perceptions, that's all I can say. And as with my perceptions and descriptions, I assume that, for example, Buddha, Jesus and Bhagwan speak the truth.

There is not yet - and probably never will be - any measuring device constructed that could possibly verify this. The next best criterion of truth or scientific evidence is to be open and without a single bias in the presence of, say, Bhagwan. This may give a perception of the possibility that he is telling the truth. And the best and for me the only criterion of truth and therefore the only scientific method is by trying for yourself!

And this requires abandoning scientific reason. This is the most fundamental reason why - as I describe later - traditional sciences cannot understand the new growth movement or some of the so-called 'neo-religious' movements. To categorically deny the possibility in advance is as unscientific as denying the existence of Australia simply because you have not been there - I borrowed the argument from Grof and I use it so often because it is so good.

The following descriptions rely both on what I have read and heard about the developmental stage, and on the momentary perceptions I have had from this stage's state of consciousness. They are therefore my interpretations of the words said or written.

Characteristic of both of the following steps is that once they are attained as a step - not as a state of consciousness - one is free to choose whether to stay at it or to go one or two steps 'down.' The first step after the polarity-psychology step is:

Yin-Yang Psychology: this step is a very high ideal, and it is 'far' from the polarity step, but 'near' the third step, Oneness. At this stage one sees that one is both dualities or polarities in all dualities: good/evil, honest/honest etc. One does not project out the other and therefore one does not judge others. One is in a meditative state, not only in relation to one's inner reality, but also in relation to the outer reality. So you can be in a meditative state 'with your eyes open'.

I described earlier 'falling into a stupor' also as a meditative state. The difference now is that one is meditative with open eyes and at the same time fully aware. I have had several such perceptions, but two I remember most. In the first I experienced that my self was not present, I was totally in the now, I was able to sense my surroundings, but my attention was intense.

There was no tension between me and the outside world, and paradoxically, within the realm of non-thinking, I was able to think, just not in the normal way. The experience itself was so paradoxical that I laughed continuously for half a minute as the experience lasted. It was just as if before the experience I was outside reality (as when watching a movie = reality) and in the experience itself I was consciously moved 'into' the 'real' reality ( in the example of the movie this would be equivalent to consciously going 'into' the movie on the screen and thus no longer being just an outside (ego) spectator separate from the movie).

The second perception was in the middle of a cry, which I totally gave in to. When I did, not only did I feel good, but I sort of disappeared into space at the same time that space disappeared into me. And otherwise the experience was the same as the first description.

This stage is not only developmentally but usually also temporally very close to the third stage, the Oneness or Enlightened Consciousness. As far as I have heard, it is probably in practice only a short stage before enlightenment breaks through. Bhagwan mentions that if one is able to remain in the meditative state with full awareness for a long time, enlightenment will spontaneously occur. This step is included anyway because it facilitates the description theoretically of the analytic movement in a spiritual or psychic development. And finally the third step:

Oneness: This stage is called Christ consciousness, Buddha consciousness, God consciousness or enlightened consciousness. On the Yin-Yang step, the 'observer is the observed.' Here on the Unity plane, the witness is left alone. That it is called 'enlightened' consciousness is due to the light one 'sees' or rather is in the other satori. Having reached this stage, one can choose (how this is done I have no answer, but one will probably find out when one is there !) what stage of development and plane of consciousness one wants to be on. Bhagwan mentions that not everyone - or rather very few - are able to make this choice to go back and forth to the mind. He often cites Gurdjieff, who made every effort to get Ouspensky to write down his thoughts, as he himself found this difficult. An enlightened person who 'masters' this going back and forth is called a Master.

In the following quotation Bhagwan speaks of the Master, just as he often refers to him as a Buddha or a Christ.

'In witnessing mind remains only as a biocomputer, a mechanism, but separate from you. You are no more identified with it. When you want any memory, you can use the mind, just as you can put on your taperecorder. It is really a taperecorder. But it is not continuosly on, not 24 hours on.

When needed the witnesser, the man of meditation, the man of awareness is capable of putting the mind on or off Fle puts it on, when Mere is some need. If I am talking to you, I have to put the mind on, otherwise language wild not be possible. No-mind is silent, there is no language. Only mind can supply the language. I have to use the mind to relate with your mind. That's the only way to relate with your mind, so I put it on. When d go back and sit in the car' I put it off. ...

In my room I don't need my mind. When Sheela comes with the letters or some work, I say to her: 'Hello, Sheela' and inside I say: 'Hello, mind !' (27.10.1980).

People like Buddha, Mahavir, Krishna, Lao-Tzu, Jesus, Socrates, Eckehart, Abraham, Mohammed, Krishnamurti and Bhagwan are in this state. Note that I write in the present tense and not in the past tense for certain persons.

The fact that they are physically 'dead' is secondary, since one of the characteristics of the state is that they have transcended time. They are only in the present in this state, and that means in eternity. This is what Jesus means when he says: 'I am before Abraham was', even if it sounds paradoxical and incomprehensible to us. It is possible, therefore, that on one's inner path one may encounter the Buddha or Jesus, even though they are no longer in their physical bodies.

The fact that the mind can play tricks on you many times, i.e. you see a hallucination of e.g. Jesus, is something else, but it does not change the fact that it is possible to meet e.g. Jesus or Buddha. This encounter may be the last encounter before transcending the mind, which is why some say: 'If you meet Buddha on your way, kill him!'

Enlightened consciousness is one with existence, is pure being, pure love, pure meditation, etc., and some call it a pure channel for the spiritual energy of the spirit world. The enlightened person is thus what philosophers have sought for millennia in thought (Kierkegaard: 'Truth is subjectivity', Hegel's 'Geist', etc.).

It is on purpose that I make so much of the description of various concepts, models, etc. Not only to create a possibility for at least an intellectual or theoretical understanding - which is probably quite difficult if one does not have one's own perceptionr to connect to - but also to create a somewhat adequate common agreement about the meaning of the words and concepts, i.e. their relation to real life or perceptionr.

I am well aware that through words I cannot convey perception of meditation, egoless state, samadhi, etc., but I try through perceptionr, which I assume to be familiar to the reader, to create a sense or idea of what I am describing. To put it simply and extremely, it would be impossible to explain to a blind person what light is.

Significantly, for the one who has had perceptionr of the inner reality that many others have not, he has to use words, concepts, signs, symbols and perceptionr that refer to the common consensus of reality - and this is often the physical reality to create an image or conception in the minds of others.

And so the description must necessarily be long and often convoluted and sometimes paradoxical, since human psychology unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately ! - (For interested readers, see, for example, Watzlawick, who has dealt with the paradoxes of life.) This morning I had an idea to describe the shock one gets in samadhi: Imagine that you are about to walk out your front door. You're already thinking about what you're going to do and where you're going, you know the floor and the door, so you don't have to pay much attention to your movements to open the door and walk out. With an almost sleepy awareness, you open the door and take the first step over the threshold, looking down towards the floor of the stairs you expect to find.

And now PLUDSELIG . . . . . in the blink of an eye it's as if your whole house or apartment had been moved out into the middle of space. It's like stepping out of a spaceship and at the same time both you and the spaceship disappear. Your body and what you normally understand about yourself are simply no more. The only thing is the experience of an infinite empty space. This is the first samadhi.

This is similar to the shock you encounter in samadhi. If we now go one step further - and now we must leave the physical reality of space - and imagine that space and time also disappear: the only thing left is the enlightened witness, then this is the second samadhi.

If this and much else that I have tried to describe sounds crazy, insane, nonsense, etc., then I completely agree. But it is true nonetheless! It is crazy and mind-numbing etc. because it is at variance with our usual agreement about reality. And this agreement is made by the majority, not by the individual or the few.

It's no coincidence that I spontaneously got the idea of outer space, and it's no coincidence that so many people are - albeit unconsciously - attracted to science fiction movies. From my descriptions it is hopefully clear that psychologically it is basically the desire to leave ego, time and space.

The beautiful and shocking samadhi was what, in my development about a year before the breakthrough of the experience, I defended myself against with all the energy I had. Only when I gave up everything did it break through, and though it may have lasted only a fraction of a second, it was enough to give me a glimpse that there is something on the other side of what we call death. The reader can probably imagine from my description why it is difficult to remain in this state, if this is even possible.

(Commentary on samadhi ends) From this model of development we can describe psychic development as a movement from the level of polarity to the level of oneness. There are many different methods for this, but I have limited myself to those that I have tried, i.e. psychotherapy, meditation and working with dreams - I have left out massage, as firstly it is almost impossible to write about, and secondly it can theoretically be equated with meditation. A bit of a pity, as massage is both beautiful and evolving in many ways.

Comment on 'method' (for 'chapter logicians') The following comment may be unimportant. In practice, at least, it is unimportant and may well be skipped by those unfamiliar with the scientific-theoretical discussion of Marx's works. But there are some things that strike me as I now slowly move forward in the research process. Before describing my reflections, it is essential to note that one cannot use a method of thought to get to know oneself, i.e. one's own inner reality. All methods that open to the unconscious try to disconnect the thoughts.

I don't know whether Marx had the dialectical method before he began his research, or rather whether in the course of his research he 'suddenly' saw that it was all over the place. In any case, that is what struck me when I came to think about the movement from the 'pseudo-concrete' via the 'abstract' and back again to the concrete, which is now determined more precisely in its concrete form.

To me there are many parallels between the research that Marx thoughtfully undertook into external reality and the research that the individuator undertakes into his unconscious. The methods are similar in many respects. If one looks at the illustrations drawn by Lundkvist in his 'Introduction to the Method of THE CAPITAL' (p. 12 and p. 43), where the abstract (the unconscious or wisdom, the Self) is drawn under the pseudo-concrete (which is also referred to as the surface!), this is remarkably similar to when the individuate 'travels' from his pseudo-concrete incomprehensible surface (the self) down (!) to the Self to find the being and then travels back again with a greater understanding.

The difference is that Marx travelled thoughtfully in external reality, whereas the individuator travels emotionally and eventually ends up in his partial understanding with an expanded consciousness. And finally in the enlightened consciousness he or she is finished.

Marx travelled up and down several times during his life to finally be able to represent the entire capitalist mode of production in its concrete totality. Many similar parallels can be found: Lundkvist distinguishes me

This morning I had an idea to describe the shock one gets in samadhi:

Imagine that you are about to walk out your front door. You're already thinking about what you're going to do and where you're going, you know the floor and the door, so you don't have to pay much attention to your movements to open the door and walk out. With an almost sleepy awareness, you open the door and take the first step over the threshold, looking down towards the floor of the stairs you expect to find.

And now SUDDENLY . . . . . in the blink of an eye it's as if your whole house or apartment had been moved out into the middle of space. It's like stepping out of a spaceship and at the same time both you and the spaceship disappear. Your body and what you normally understand about yourself are simply no more. The only thing is the experience of an infinite empty space. This is the first samadhi.

(Commentary on samadhi ends)

From this model of development we can describe psychic development as a movement from the level of polarity to the level of oneness. There are many different methods for this, but I have limited myself to those that I have tried, i.e. psychotherapy, meditation and working with dreams - I have left out massage, as firstly it is almost impossible to write about, and secondly it can theoretically be equated with meditation. A bit of a pity, as massage is both beautiful and evolving in many ways.

Comment on 'method' (for 'Kapital logicians')

The following comment may be unimportant. In practice, at least, it is unimportant and may well be skipped by those unfamiliar with the scientific-theoretical discussion of Marx's works. But there are some things that strike me as I now slowly move forward in the research process. Before describing my reflections, it is essential to note that one cannot use a method of thought to get to know oneself, i.e. one's own inner reality. All methods that open to the unconscious try to disconnect the thoughts.

Just as bourgeois economics cannot accept value (abstract labour), empirical science cannot accept non-physical parapsychological phenomena, even though a change is taking place in this field. The parallel is not quite good, for value is a mental abstraction and thus cannot be measured or seen, even with the best measuring devices. Telepathy, clairvoyance, the but-human aura, etc. can now be 'measured' or seen, but the point is that these are non-physical forms of energy (Kirlian photography, for example, can measure or photograph the aura).

I will return to the fetish nature of the commodity. And finally, it must be stressed again that one cannot think ones way to one's unconscious, and that human psychology does not operate according to even a dialectical logic, but is paradoxical. Why Marxist psychology and astrology, for example, apply to most people but not to all, I also return to.

(Comment on 'method' end)

But this movement from the level of polarity will only happen if one is aware, and if one increases one's awareness. So far I have used the common meaning of the word 'awareness', but also mentioned that it is the same as meditation or meditative state. Attention is directed to the unconscious, and this I have also used in the common sense, i.e. those areas of the Self which are not conscious or integrated into the Self.

Freud used the term 'the unconscious' to refer to only a subset of the total unconscious content of the psyche. Jung referred to the Freudian unconscious as 'the personal unconscious', i.e. the psychic content that is repressed from the moment of conception to the 'now' for the person in question, because it did not concern the 'collective unconscious', with which Jung was in contact through the study of dreams. Before going on to describe in a little more detail what is meant by 'awareness', I will set out, with the help of a longer quotation from Bhagwan, a further model to make clear what I am talking about in what follows.

Next page: VI.B.1 Model for the complete consciousness