Freedom is "to be free IN all conditions..."
It is NOT "to be free FROM any of them!"

"The Integrated Yawning and Stretching Technique" or "AuraPuri"

If you came here to read about The Chakras and the Integrated Yawning & Stretching Technique, please click HERE.
If you came here to follow the exercise videos of The Chakras and the Integrated Yawning & Stretching Technique, please click HERE.
To view this website with a new viewing feature please click Classic In that view the site is fully searchable.

About innate freedom, soul, awareness, consciousness and conscience

and whether the Soul is an Evolving Type of Entity?

Wim: Mario, could you consider that you are actually as free and authentic as you were before you were made to feel that you were not?

Mario: I don't much like what you are asking me to do... or... maybe... eh...
Humm…, maybe I don't fully understand what you mean.

Wim: Well, it is not for nothing that I'm suggesting that you consider seriously what you seem to have such a difficulty with. Of course I understand the usual objections to 'innate freedom', the ones that might support your reluctance to agree with my suggestion. I have heard those objections before; they are quite predictable and are widely supported by many. But my view is quite distinct from the view that produces the objections to this 'innate freedom'. It is easily resisted or objected to, but that very resistance could also mean that there might be a good reason to at least consider the notion of 'innate freedom'.

Mario: I feel that innate freedom for the individual has to do with the development of that individual's soul. I feel that in that respect that in the evolution-development of the soul, in the soul's manifestation there is inadequacy. Being is being is being, pure untouched, but the soul is an organism that grows through experiences and through the manifestation of some of its infinite potential.

Wim: In the first place, that last sentence of yours, 'Being is being is being, etc.' and especially your 'but' could easily lead to a flawed dualistic view and treatment of reality.
There simply is no 'being' possible that is separate from - fully abstracted from – 'manifestation'. Just like any type of manifestation has to be, any type of being is manifested. Being and manifestation can only conceptually - in the mind - be separated out in the unique entities that exist in whatever all this is. (I usually call all that is 'the whole shebang'). If the manifested would be separate of being, it would collapse, just like being would not be if it were not manifested.
The idea that 'being' can be the way you suggest comes from a mental dysfunction in which our mental faculty to abstract (surely a handy and potentially effective tool when used to sort out the artificially conceived ambiguities in this whole shebang) eventually overestimated its own power, megalomanically thinking that it could conceive of something so abstract that it transcends that what it initially and factually perceived - an abstract conception in the human mind that would take on a more sublime reality than the sensorially perceived reality of all existence.
Not only can the dysfunctional mind create its own mental delusions it can also concoct mental illusions which it eventually thinks that it perceives them... abstract notions which it only concoctingly and abstractly conceived in the first place.
Examples of this would be: 'pure being', 'pure energy', that 'only God is and all else is illusion', etc.

Secondly, about your 'evolution-development of the soul'...
Although evolution always goes forward, at least that is how we humans tend to see it in this cycle of our expanding universe - we don't know what will happen in a contracting universe, it could very well be devolution! - but alright, the fact that there is evolution - or growth for that matter - has not much to do with inadequacy.

To give a simple example: although bulbs (e.g. tulip bulbs) that have not been planted yet, have no roots or stems, that does not mean that they are therefore inadequate. They may be incomplete when keeping their whole life-cycle in mind, but in-completeness is not the same as falling short or being inadequate.
The same counts for those bulbs after they have developed roots, are showing leaves or even a flower bud – but even when they have not flowered yet, that is still not a sign of inadequacy.
Adequacy and inadequacy have a different set of connotations than incompleteness.

A baby who has not yet moved into the phase of 'toddlery' or a toddler who has not grown into a 'kind' yet ('kind' as in 'kindergarten'), etc., etc. such a being is not inadequate just because it has not passed onto its next stage of development yet. It just has not completed a cycle of growth, which at its completion will set the stage for a further cycle of growth.
It can actually be said that when any one stage of development has come to wholeness, when 'per-fected', (from the Latin for 'made it through', compare to the Greek 'teleios' when reached its goal or mark) that only then a new phase can set in. page
If there were inadequacy at play, let's say the cycle of growth was interrupted, hampered or disturbed, then the next stage might not even happen. That is especially the case in plant life, in human life we get to see stunted unfinished life cycle behavior, the unfinished set of behavior persists even beyond its usual expected duration; there can actually be multiple personality overlaps, each single personality from the many being evidence of an incomplete interrupted or traumatized remnant of a past growth cycle... each one still waiting to be completed. (But let's leave that for a later investigation, maybe when we consider how such multiplicity of personalities can be remedied.)

So, one could say that evolution goes from perfection to perfection, in a sort of spiral sequence, every spiral somewhat parallel to the previous one but in a more advanced manifestation of expressing a human being's individuality.

Come to think of it, inadequacy will hardly ever be a natural lead-in to a next stage of growth or shift-up in evolution.
Anyway what I just said about evolution to do with physical growth, the same could be said for the soul... that is, if we assume that the soul indeed experiences developmental phases - which I actually don't assume - I see it otherwise... you'll see.
There may be developmental stages in the tools or the kind of tools that the soul has influence on when it participates in its human manifestation (or as some say 'incarnation'), but that I also see differently.

Let's compare what I said above to Einstein's E=Mc2 and the Sanskrit mantra 'Om Tat Sat'.

Mario: Are you going to apply that to 'Evolution-development of the manifesting soul?'

Wim: Yes, I see soul in terms of E and its changeable manifestations or incarnations in term of Mc2.

E is simultaneously and reciprocally there in essence (Sanskrit 'Sat') with its manifestation(s) in existence (Sanskrit 'Tat').

Let's also compare E=Mc2 to the Sanskrit mantra 'Tat Tuam Asi' 2.

E is 'Asi', while Mc2 (manifestation or incarnation) is 'Tat'... the way you (Tuam) are (Tat).
The commutative relationship between the two sides of the above Einsteinian equation takes place in and across that equal sign! Within that equal sign it may go through stages... the relationship may change, but not the soul per sé.

Mario: That's hard; you may have to go through that again.
So far I still feel that I want to hold on to my 'evolution-development of the soul when it is manifesting itself,' that it has to do with inadequacy, and that awareness or consciousness has to do with dealing with the soul's possible inadequacies.
Wim: The soul's awareness may glean information about the developing relationship between essence (soul) and existence (manifestation), but that awareness is more like a tool of the soul, this awareness has to do with the commutative relationship regarding body/soul.

By the way, we have to be careful not to get into dualistic discrepancy-based descriptions and just stay with distinctions that bear witness to relating and relationships.

Mario: I feel (and this I feel is true for me, for my very soul) that if the soul is not developing and manifesting some of its potential, but only just realizing its true nature, that that is not enough. I believe that we are embodied to become a mature form of transcendent awareness not just plain awareness.

Wim: That may or may not be so, but again inadequacy is not the driving impetus, inadequacy would be a limiting one, that would be the cork that would prevent the genie from emerging from the bottle.

Mario: OK yes. So there can be someone who is not as he was supposed to be, if he would have gone through life experiences that would have made his soul more mature, and a more direct (not veiled) manifestation of the truth that we always are.
Discovering oneself doesn't erase the need to go through the richness of life's experiences and doesn't erase in one stroke all the 'conditionments' that affect the manifestation of the inner nature; in this respect relating to others becomes almost a must.

Wim: Absolutely, if there is no relating... there ain't a thing... relating is fundamental to life, a sine qua non. We can only pretend not to relate, deny it, avoid it, deflect it, etc. but all those are attempts. Even if we deny relating, it gets nevertheless evidenced in some form of relating.
Seemingly non-relating dynamics are only attempts at hiding actual relating dynamics, they are only illusive and only appear to be effective to the one attempting the hiding-maneuver.

Mario: Humm, OK that makes much sense, but still about being inadequate. We don't need to be told what our inadequacy is by other people, the 'experts'. We know already deep down in our soul what is not flowing, but as far as removing whatever blockage there is, other people's help may be helpful.

Wim: My point too, but in the end other people can only help, the realization, the restoration to unadulterated reality is a reclamation that one can only do  oneself...
Interesting though... as that is realized, the nature of other is suddenly discovered to be the nature of self as well)

Mario: For sure, Being, Essence, is always free and pure and untouched, but the evolving soul, the organ of manifestation of consciousness, the embodiment of Being, once is not free any more for whatever reason, it will have to become able to remove whatever veil thwarts the expression of its potential.

Wim: You may remember that I have come to see consciousness as a tool of awareness and awareness as a tool of 'soul'. I do not see awareness or consciousness as an a priori.
There is enough on that elsewhere in these chapters and undoubtedly they can be viewpoints that may incite resistance or disagreement...
As you know I always go to first meanings of words: 'consciousness' being a word consisting of two parts (The Latin 'con' - with and 'scio' - to know) it cannot be an a priori as it connects two somethings prior to it... whatever those 'priors' are.

Mario: OK Wim, that for now makes sense, but what is still not totally clear to me is what your vision is about the soul and soul evolution... can you reiterate?

Wim: There simply is no soul evolution...
The human soul... (by the way this counts not only for the human soul, also consider that miraculous myriad of other entities) ...simply divides itself from  the divine whole, emanating it from it without losing integral oneness, and incarnates as the human body's divine particularities..
Mind you, again this (the soul-body nomenclature) is too dualist a way of putting it, but it will have to do.
There is a primary soul awareness of the incarnating and manifestation processes and those processes go by means of evolutionary dynamics. From the soul's primary awareness of these dynamics and parallel to them, emerges a twofold tool: witnessing of which the two aspects are:

  •        consciousness (a tool for outward viewing to gain insight),
  •        conscience (a tool for inward viewing also to gain insight).

Mario: If there is anything (but not tooo long) on your web site or your blog, that you can point me to, I will read it.

Wim: Ah Mario, if I point you there, or if I now get into this topic with more extensive explanations, what would follow would likely be another lengthy episode of back and forth deliberations, maybe even arguing and that... that would take away from direct unconditional enjoyment that

we are as we are, who we are, right now
and that
per omnia saecula saeculorum 1
tat tuam asi 2

Although I tend to explain lengthily the Buddha advised against lengthy deliberations about god and afterlife and soul and such, as he saw that discussing and arguing those topics would keep those who argue away from simple unquestioned being, hence he just addressed the whole subject containing these topics as Dharma.
Maybe you are asking me for a short way into this Dharma as you query me about how I see the soul.
Dharma! Yes! Because that is what any question about 'soulness' is about.

You know, the shortest way is actually as follows: Plato's 'gnothi seauton', know yourself by finding out for yourself, see for yourself that whatever is, is as it is (Tat Sat).

Now, surprisingly enough, the only way to do that is by casting away anything that comes up in you from your mental, emotional and physical sources (koshas) that try to convince you that it isn't so.

All the things one usually brings up are secondarily acquired mental, verbal, emotional and physical resistances that actually come - not from you, not from soul - but from the very moment that you, your 'presence as is' (being who you were at and upon your embodiment) was originally resisted or questioned by others than yourself,.
Those initial objections to one's simple and actual presence (
being who you were at and upon your embodiment) then just gets repeated and elaborated upon. And subsequently it happens all too often that you are then constantly identified as 'not being as you are supposed to be'. Eventually one gets cajoled into identifying with that what one is identified as... and in the end one even thinks that one is that what one is not: a set of dubious, doubt-marinated identifications.

The problem is that simple!
And the solution is simple too!

None of what is brought up against 'who you are' or 'that you are', is actually believable (sometimes one only has to consider the source(s) where the resistances and objections to one's being came from), but 'insistence' eventually may have gotten you quite convinced that you had to be/become other than what you already were.

So anything that arises when you consider the unconditionality of your soul... can be safely discarded...

Mario: Wim, I will try that out, how did you put it...? 'The shortest way to the soul... that the soul has no evolution...
Right, that's how you said it, 'To cast everything aside that comes up in me that objects to it.'
Does that also mean that the soul has no conditions? Hmm, of course not, I can see that  now.
Humm... I'll try it
... I like Plato's 'Know yourself" and your 'by finding out for yourself'...'

But still, let me get back to what I was gonna say. What I was thinking, my ideas - because now I know they are just ideas, though seemingly supported by experiences, they are in fact an interpretation of those experiences – the ideas that I am expounding actually come mostly from Almaas' book 'The inner journey home. Soul's realization of the Unity of Reality'.
I resonate with Almaas' views that come from his deep experiences of his Self and work with his students, I feel Almaas is an author really worth reading,

Wim: Actually, :-))) in the context here, nothing and nobody is worth reading if it is for gleaning something one doesn't seem to know...
Read your soul, accept its divine unconditionality and then when one reads other resources one simply recognizes...
Reading for learning is good for math, biology, etc, travel plans. Reading for learning about soul, self and oneself is only good when the writer says that there is nothing to be learned but everything to be 'recognized' and thus through conscious and conscientious insight understood and enjoyed...

Mario: Well, yes, but I still feel that Almaas' ability to analyze through direct perception the deepest part of the soul is for me unparalleled, maybe only Aurobindo was so deep, although much more complex in its expression, but without the articulation of our western psychology that Almaas knows quite well. But, his book is quite challenging as for reading time, as it is more than 600 pages.

Wim: This here is also lengthy... but the few words above - about that casting away - that says it all...

Mario: Maybe Wim, first of all, I think we should agree on what we call soul: Almaas discriminates between Essence and soul (page 136). Essence is the innermost nature of the soul, the unchanging, always pure, the potential to be, what is always free and authentic. Essence is immutable while soul is always changing.

Wim: Well, alright, it is just that I myself don't know it that way... (smiling)
But, what do you know, Mario, apart from Almaas?
That there are a myriad souls does not mean that evolvement is part of soulness; the arising of souls may vary over time within eternity, but that variability and variedness has nothing to do with evolution. To get back to E=Mc2, if one could say that variation and variability is exemplified by Mc2 as I mentioned before, one could say that, 'Soul in Unity and Union' is exemplified by E...

Mario: The soul is what manifests in form the potential that is in essence... So if you have a different concept of what is essence and soul, maybe we should first clear that...

Wim: I kinda like your: 'The soul is what manifests in form the potential that is in essence.' But it is actually not important to compare what I'm saying with what you understand from Almaas. If we did compare, we would also easily get lost in an episode of argumentation. I'd rather just be with you, Mario, without Almaas or even Aurobindo in between, but they can be with us, amongst us... that is Sangha 2.
(By the way Aurobindo said only one thing: 'sat chit ananda' and repeated it over thousands of pages in a myriad ways.)

Mario: I appreciate that Wim, but for now, can we get back to something you said, that inadequacy is not a driving impetus, that it would be a limiting one.
I feel that one could say that inadequacy and its companion dissatisfaction can constitute a driving force, but I myself prefer to say that the driving force is in the nature of the soul itself: the soul has inbuilt a force to manifest its own potential...

Wim: Somehow I have never associated soul with potential... Soul being the unconditional divine participation in all divine existential particularities... eh... usually called creations...
Humm, it is those 'creations' that have power, potency and potential (Kali and Shakti).
The creations are on the right side of the Einsteinian equation:

  •        the cc playing out in the potency or potential over time.
  •        'Soul' would be 'M' on the left side, as I suggested before.
Mario: I don't know yet, maybe you are convincing me... but... Humm...
No, actually not, I'm not convinced yet, for now it still feels to me that if the soul cannot manifest its potential that it creates an accumulation of energy that pushes - energy to be used like a sprout through the ground -maybe it can be called dissatisfaction at an energy level.

Wim: Ah no, no no. Dissatisfaction is only a projected experience from outsiders put upon you, as I talked about before, possibly being forced upon you to identify with, which you in turn are now transferring to something it does not apply to and which it actually has nothing to do with...
The Buddha's understanding of 'dukkha' (dissatisfaction, discomfort) which is usually translated as 'suffering', differs very much from how it was explained and commented upon in writings after his passing.
Ah, that notion of 'dissatisfaction'!
One still encounters that in current commentaries on Buddhist themes, they even treat it as applicable in the dynamics of evolution (even Aurobindo may have hinted at it that way.) But that is all plain projection from human suffering, projection onto something of which the dynamics are fundamentally different. No, this is a 'no go'!
But hey Mario, your question about consciousness still hangs out there somewhere. You may remember that I have come to see consciousness as a tool, not as an a priori...

Mario: Yeah, maybe you need to say it again, what is for you consciousness and/or awareness and how they differ from soul.
Different teachers use different meanings: for some awareness is the source prior to manifestation and consciousness is in manifestation the 'I am,' some use the two interchangeably.

Wim: I believe that I outlined it clearly, but here it is again:
'There is a primary soul awareness of the incarnating and manifestation processes and those processes go by means of evolutionary dynamics. From the soul's primary awareness of these dynamics and parallel to them, emerges a twofold tool: witnessing of which the two aspects are:

  •              consciousness (a tool for outward viewing to gain insight),
  •              conscience (a tool for inward viewing also to gain insight).
You might remember (as indicated in a previous chapter) that what I come up with, that I also base it on what I found (so far) to be the earliest discovered etymological language roots.
As I've said 'a-ware-ness' has to do with ver-acity or dharma. The Sanskrit root DHA became VAR, which later became 'wahr' in German and ended up as 'ware' in awareness.
'Consciousness' I have already talked about, and 'being' as well, but let me repeat what I said about being. 'Being' derives from the Aryan Sanskrit root BHU which meant both 'being and becoming'.  I'm repeating this here as I want to stress that soul is before being/becoming.

Mario: So far, Wim, I'm still thinking soul is awareness manifested, it is consciousness individuated...

Wim: I know, Mario, the way I said it before, you might recall, I say that awareness is how the soul acknowledges the manifestations it has carnated in.
And again as I put it before, consciousness and conscience come from the twofold tool of awareness.

Mario: OK Wim, I get what you mean, it actually makes sense, but I have to get used to the reversed order... but anyway, no matter what, however we see that, it is all in a specific localization of space/time

Wim: Yes!! That's for sure the case here now... that we are... as we are!

Mario: Yeah!

Wim: So, Mario, are you still planning to try it out, 'The shortest way to the soul...? 'To cast everything aside that comes up in you that resists the idea of the soul having conditions or being conditional...'? 

Mario: Yes, I will!


1 per omnia saecula saeculorum (Latin) – 'throughout all ages.'

2 Tat tuam asi (Sanskrit) - 'Thou art That.'

3 Sangha (Sanskrit) - community, togetherness.

No comments: