I will be posting less often in future as I have said most of what I wished to say and don't want to start repeating myself. The original intention of this blog (other than to support the book after which it is named) was to publicise the fact of the Masters. It has sometimes wandered away from that into other avenues, such as the recent debate on the limitations of non-duality, and, if opportunities for discussion of any matters relating to the broader field of spirituality arise, I'll be happy to take them up. But the main theme has always been the reality of the Masters because that is something I can talk about from my own experience, limited as it may be. I have tried to confirm that reality without falling into the sensationalism, sentimentality and, dare I say it, vulgarity of some other presentations, many of which, in my view, trivialise a sacred subject, very possibly because they are not dealing with the reality but a reflection or image of it.
The Masters stand as living evidence of what I have been saying in recent posts, namely that the enlightened or saved soul is not absorbed into an undifferentiated oneness but, in ceasing to be bound by form, actually becomes more fully individual. Transcending identification with the separate self and becoming one with God does not make such a person less human because the greater always includes the lesser which is not denied or destroyed but transformed and made part of the higher state rather as sugar imparts its sweetness to tea when dissolved. I don't subscribe to the view that the impersonal Godhead is a state beyond the personal God, which is, as it were, a step down from the absolute into the relative, hence I don’t believe that spiritual realization entails loss of individuality. If there were no element of the personal in the so-called impersonal how could it come about at all? Perhaps the Christian idea of the Trinity existing at the highest state of unity points to this same truth. And this, I think, gives the clue as to what our spiritual goal should be, for it tells us that knowledge, which is the key to liberation for the non-dualist, is actually forever incomplete without love. And love can only exist when persons exist. This is what the Masters told me, it is what they demonstrated in themselves, and thirty five years' experience of the spiritual path has made the truth of it clearer to me than ever. For me non-duality as a spiritual doctrine can only be seen as a halfway house on the way to a full and proper spiritual understanding. If true in the way it is presented in Buddhism and advaita, if the fundamental ground of all were pure impersonal consciousness, then ultimate reality would be a sterile absolute without the possibility of growth. But luckily it is not true. There is no finished world of the absolute for the absolute is meaningless without the relative (and vice versa, of course). God is constantly adding to Himself, through us and the expansion of our individual selves into the all. In His essence He is unchanging but through His expression He becomes ever more. He is the One in the Many and the Many in the One and He moves on, and us with Him, to ever greater levels of perfection. Do you think that the Buddha has the same consciousness today he had 2,500 years ago? This is the big weakness of non-duality, that there's nowhere to go after enlightenment. One might say that it makes an idol out of the idea of the absolute.
Those who have read my book will know that when the Masters first came to me they spoke and I listened passively to what was said. After a while they changed this method of teaching and asked me if I had any questions almost as soon as they arrived. In other words, it was up to me to set the agenda and to instigate any discussion. If I could not think of a question they departed with only a brief blessing. (So I tried to make sure I did have something to ask!). My participation became much more active though I was still a recipient, of course. Henceforth I will largely follow that example so please, if you do have a question on which you think I might be able to shed some light, do contact me either through the comments section here or by email at email@example.com. I shall still post occasional articles but they will be less frequent than before.