“Lay Spirituality” - Clarification of the original meaning...

I wish to clarify the original meaning of “lay spirituality” which has been misinterpreted and has been misused to define spiritual expressions of lay members belonging to any religion….

In reality this lay term comes from the Greek word “laikos” which means “not belonging to any religious, philosophical or even political model whatsoever”. Therefore, “lay” means “away from any socially structured context”, similar to the Sanskrit term “pariah”. Hence it is unconceivable for members of any religion to express spirituality in a lay manner .

Therefore Lay Spirituality expresses “natural spirituality”, man’s spontaneous search for his origin and for the mysterious meaning of life. This longing is brought about by the acknowledgement of self. The meaning of “layman” is “common man” and the closest term to express the concept of Lay Spirituality is “awe”. To begin with, I would like to clarify that to me the word “spirit” means “synthesis between intelligence and consciousness”. All the more I confirm that I am not under any circumstance a believer. What I declare is based on what I have experienced in my existence and in being conscious of it. I need no confirmation from others and this is true for all of us.

There is no need to “believe” in order to say “I am”, we already know that without a shadow of doubt. But, to pass judgement on faith or the lack of it we need to use the term “to believe” or “not to believe”. This brings us to the conclusion that “to be” and being simultaneously conscious of this is natural and undoubtedly true. While to support something which is rooted in our thoughts (in mental speculations) can only be considered a process or a way of conceptualizing

I do not want to be difficult but it is obvious that no one will ever say “I believe to exist and I believe I am aware”. To make any other statements (or abstract/concrete thought forms) we always use the term “believe in this or in religion or in … atheism” or any other thing that we are to believe ….. “I am” is such a pure and simple truth. There is therefore no room to explain the possible reasons for this “being” because this process of explanation (or interpretations) is only a speculation, and is therefore questionable.
Let the sophists say that consciousness is the result of the divine spark or the random path of the material that turns into life.

“I am” is the only reality that does not need any proof or discussion. It is on this basis that I want to stay fixed. It makes no sense then to argue about “modes “….. or ” hypothesis “. I say this to silence (and to avoid) any confrontation on the reality of the contingent fact that I expressed (and we can all be aware of this when our minds are at ease). This is laity of the spirit.”Lay spirituality” is a simple and trivial “recognition” of the spontaneous state of each one of us …. (consciousness or self-knowledge.) To recognize the characteristics which are embodied and to recognize the impulses that characterize our personality is certainly useful for us so as not to fool the mind and not to fall into the trap of false identities. Everything describable cannot be part of “us”, but only the functional structure of the body / mind (in which we recognize ourselves). This psycho-physical apparatus is the result of the merge of natural forces (or elements) and psychic qualities (which are expressions of the elements). With the interconnection of these diverse energies the infinite beings … take shape. Although in reality they are not “forces” or “beings” but a single force and a single being who takes on various aspects during its development in space-time.

But here we need to describe the “capacity to separate” (Mayan – yin and yang) that produces the illusion of diversity. It is the first concept that is formed in the mind (in fact it is the mind itself) together with the appearance of the thought “I”. 

Please note this is not the “I”- the Absolute, the Being, or to be aware beyond any identification. It is instead the first conscious reflexion (by the “ I”) in the mind and allows the objectification and the perception of exteriority through our senses. This is how the mechanism of dissociation is applied in which “I am this” and what is observed “is another.” Thus dualism takes on a semblance of reality and is merged to the sequential causality of the transformations that unroll in space / time. The dual training process is easily detected by the attentive intellect (in the sense of paying attention) but this is still considered within the specular reflection of the mind. So from the standpoint of Absolute Knowledge this explanation (or understanding) is futile, perhaps even unnecessary or misleading … (because of the appropriative tendency of the mirror of thought) and here we return to the necessity of knowing one’s mind to avoid being duped by its empirical fantasies, which aim to demonstrate an objective reality.

You may be wondering at this point: “… So why write this? Why read it? “- But the answer is obvious. Sometimes before throwing away wastes we feel the need to examine them in every detail, as not to have regrets later … Unfortunately, in years and years of flying low, we have all developed a strong attachment to our dead weights …! 

From the standpoint of the Absolute reality (but also in quantum reality) creation can be “progressive” only to become part of time in space. As Einstein also pointed out, this concept (the existence of space-time) is purely figurative, in other words, its events are all constructed and screened by the mind.

Therefore, in view of the Absolute Existence-Consciousness, creation is the outward appearance which occurs simultaneously although the observer may consider it the mere flow of time in space. This idea is really just a reflection in the mind of the perceiver who can perceive it only when he is able to focus it in his conscience. 

A single picture of the total event, which is still present in its entirety, is illuminated by the individual conscience, seen in the mind and unwound in the context of space and time which is called “the process of becoming.”

Paolo D’Arpini

Wu wei. Act without acting - Wu wei. Agire senza agire

"The so-called 'facts' are filtered by our emotions and interpretations and tell our 'history' as we have perceived it." (Saul Arpino)

The angle of judgment on the facts examined in history and in our life depends only on the emotional propensity to see things as we feel them. As happens for example for the different truths told in the film Rashomon...

We know, however, that true  history is never told and not even the one perceived with guts.  History, even in the best of hypotheses, is a mosaic of small details and disjointed events that only appear  connected and subsequent to each other.  As the frames chosen by  an art's  director to display  the plot of his film. 

In our life we perceive the urge to respond "adequately" in the most different occurrences that happen to us but we can not say that the common thread is our desire to achieve the results we have set for ourselves. 

What must  happens happens and then we express our opinion: "I have done this action and I like it", or: "I have done that and I do not like it ...", and with this we believe that what happened is the result of our actions (good or bad).

In reality nobody does anything there is only an intersection and mixture of different forces acting through us. What remains are the simple facts, not the reasons or intentions. However we tend to examine those facts with our personal vision and our sense of judgment.

Life is all a wonderful surprise and wanting to establish its meaning is simple arrogance! This is my opinion ...

Paolo D'Arpini

Rashômon (Rasho-mon) - Un film di Akira Kurosawa.

Testo Italiano 

"I cosiddetti 'fatti' sono filtrati dalle nostre emozioni e interpretazioni e raccontano la 'nostra' storia così come noi l'abbiamo percepita." (Saul Arpino)

L'angolazione del giudizio sui fatti esaminati nella storia e nella nostra vita dipende solo dalla propensione emozionale a vedere le cose per come le sentiamo vere. Come accade ad esempio per le diverse verità narrate nel film Rashomon… 

Sappiamo però che la storia non è mai quella raccontata e nemmeno quella percepita con le budella. 

La storia, anche nella migliore delle ipotesi, è un mosaico di piccoli particolari ed eventi disgiunti che solo all’analisi successiva appaiono consequenziali e collegati gli uni agli altri. Come i fotogrammi scelti dal regista per raccontare la trama del suo film. 

Nella nostra vita percepiamo lo stimolo di rispondere "adeguatamente" nelle evenienze più diverse che ci capitano ma non possiamo dire che il filo conduttore sia la nostra volontà di ottenere i risultati che ci siamo prefissati. Succede quel che succede e poi noi esprimiamo il nostro parere: "ho compiuto questa azione e mi piace", oppure: "ho compiuto quell'azione e non mi piace…", e con ciò riteniamo che quanto avvenuto sia il risultato del nostro agire (buono o cattivo che sia). 

In realtà nessuno fa nulla c’è solo un’intersecazione e commistione di forze diverse che agiscono attraverso di noi. Quel che resta sono i semplici fatti, non le ragioni o le intenzioni. Comunque tendiamo ad esaminare quei fatti con la nostra visione personale ed il nostro senso del giudizio. 

La vita è tutta una meravigliosa sorpresa e voler stabilire il suo significato è semplice arroganza! Questa la mia opinione…

Paolo D’Arpini

Hrdayam, the Heart that I am... - Hrdayam, il Cuore che io sono...

The Heart, in the vision of Ramana Maharshi, does not represent a physical point but the perception of the Self, that reflecting in the individual mind seems to assume a "location". The literal translation of Hrdayam (in Sanskrit), to which the Tiruvannamalai's sage refers, is "I am the Heart", the source from which everything emanates. But from the nondualistic point of view a doubt could arise regarding the possible existence or position of this center. Ramana, on several occasions, had specified that it is not the Lotus of the Heart, the chakra of kundalini yoga (which sometimes makes itself coincide with the physical organ) but a point placed two fingers from the sternum towards the lungs. He specified that it was not a physiological center, which today we would call "psychosomatic", but of a subtle energetic source from which the ego consciousness emerges, the meeting point between being and not being.

This in particular was explained when a devotee asked Ramana how it was possible to determine that point on the right side of the chest through direct experience, to which Ramana explained that it is in the direct experience of everyone to subtly perceive the origin of the ego in that position, to which the devotee pointing to himself asked "Does Bhagawan mean that I can feel it infallibly and naturally from myself?", so speaking he had touched the right side of his chest to which Ramana observed "See, you are spontaneously doing it ...! ". At the same time, on several occasions, Ramana had asserted that the Self, or the Heart, has neither beginning nor end, is situated neither on the surface nor at the center, since he is the All-pervading All.

This apparent incongruity raised some questions, in the minds of some devotees, on the reality of the facts exposed. The clarification came during a dialogue between Ramana and his advanced disciple, Sri Punja, later known as Papaji of Lucknow. He objected, regarding the existence of a psychophysical center called "Heart", having a specific location on the right side of the chest and indicated as the seat of the Self, that this statement was not suited to the absolute truth about the Self.

Ramana confirmed that the Self is formless and beyond any internal or external location but that its speech on the Heart was aimed at people who identified with the physical body and who therefore perceived consciousness as emanating from within and this "place" it can not be the brain, a simple mechanism functional to conceptualization, but that point from which life seems to radiate, on the right side of the chest. This explanation could, according to an elemental analogy (based on the elements), be connected to an ancient text of Ayurveda referring to the Hrdayam (mentioned by Ramana) as a point in which the prana (vital energy) enters and leaves vivifying the organism and establishing here the Focus of existence. In fact, prana, which corresponds to the element Air, is that energetic manifestation that helps to represent the sense of the ego, as consciousness and presence. The latter, however, is my own deduction that arises from a direct intuition based on self-analysis on the source of the ego.

But here I would like to go further and going beyond the "starting point" I wish to reconnect more specifically to the indications contained in the text "Holistic meditation, the direct path", stating the steps and providing advice to make a journey from the self to the Self. However, bearing in mind - as Ramana himself often stated-  that two Self can not exist. Atman is the absolute and only truth while identification with an ego separate and restricted  to a form name is a simple game of mirrors of and in the Consciousness, so it is not true. Although it is not true this mirroring is real, as long as the illusion continues. Therefore the purpose of empirical teaching is to push the conscience to divert the attention from the mirror and direct it to the observer.

Yet even this self-observation is "untrue", since the observer can not observe himself, but serves the mind to abandon his tendency to fixation on objectification. Ramana said: "Know your mind so as not to be cheated by the mind". In fact, the mind is always looking for answers, but such answers are only the mind's own elucubrations, so they are not true, and could mislead the "researcher" by cheating him  on the essence of his true nature, making him believe that  he has reached an understanding and "Realization" that in fact is simply "objective", or conceptual.

But  with this I do not want to deprive of its value the spiritual teaching contained here. The mind is accustomed to thinking, the mind is thought, the mind is a tangle of thoughts and even the "I" is a thought but it is the only thought to which all the others can be traced and on this we must investigate through the inner research  suggested by Ramana. 

In the chasing of the self inside  and around itself one reaches a state of "emptiness" in which the mind stops and that is the true Hrdayam, the Heart!

Paolo D'Arpini

Tiruvannamalai - Arunachala  Sacred Mountain

Testo italiano

Il Cuore, nella visione di Ramana Maharshi, non rappresenta un punto fisico ma la percezione dell'Io sono, che riflettendosi nella mente individuale sembra assumere una “ubicazione”. La traduzione letterale di Hrdayam (in sanscrito), a cui fa riferimento il saggio di Tiruvannamalai, è “Io sono il Cuore”, la sorgente da cui tutto emana. Ma dal punto di vista nondualistico potrebbe sorgere un dubbio riguardo alla eventuale esistenza o posizione di questo centro. Ramana, in diverse occasioni, aveva precisato che non si tratta del Loto del Cuore, il chakra del kundalini yoga (che talvolta si fa coincidere con l'organo fisico) bensì un punto posto a due dita dallo sterno verso i polmoni. Egli specificò che non si trattava di un centro fisiologico, che oggi chiameremmo “psicosomatico”, ma di una sottile fonte energetica da cui emerge la coscienza dell'Io, il punto d'incontro fra essere e non essere. 

Questo in particolare fu spiegato allorché un devoto chiese a Ramana com'era possibile determinare quel punto sul lato destro del petto attraverso un'esperienza diretta, al che Ramana spiegò che è nell'esperienza diretta di ognuno percepire sottilmente l'origine dell'io in quella posizione, al che il devoto indicando se stesso chiese “Bhagawan intende dire che io posso percepirlo infallibilmente e naturalmente da me stesso?”, così parlando egli si era toccato la parte destra del petto al che Ramana osservò “Vedi, spontaneamente lo stai facendo...!”. Allo stesso tempo in più occasioni Ramana aveva asserito che il Sé, ovvero il Cuore, non ha inizio né fine, non è situato né in superficie né al centro, poiché egli è il Tutto onnipervadente. 

Questa apparente incongruenza sollevò alcuni interrogativi, nella mente di alcuni devoti, sulla realtà dei fatti esposti. Il chiarimento giunse durante un dialogo avuto tra Ramana ed il suo avanzato discepolo, Sri Punja, più tardi conosciuto come Papaji di Lucknow. Questi obiettò, riguardo all'esistenza di un centro psicofisico definito “Cuore”, avente una specifica ubicazione sul lato destro del petto ed indicato come sede del Sé, che tale affermazione non risultava confacente con la verità assoluta sul Sé. 

Ramana confermò che il Sé è senza forma ed aldilà di ogni ubicazione interna od esterna ma che il suo discorso sul Cuore era rivolto a persone che si identificavano con il corpo fisico e che quindi percepivano la coscienza come emanante dall'interno e questo “luogo” non può essere il cervello, un semplice meccanismo funzionale alla concettualizzazione, ma quel punto da cui la vita sembra irradiarsi, sul lato destro del petto. Questa spiegazione potrebbe, secondo una analogia elementale (basata sugli elementi), essere ricollegata ad un antico testo di Ayurveda che fa riferimento al Hrdayam (menzionato da Ramana) come punto in cui il prana (energia vitale) entra ed esce vivificando l'organismo e stabilendo qui il Focus dell'esistenza. In effetti il prana, che corrisponde all'elemento Aria, è quella manifestazione energetica che contribuisce a raffigurare il senso dell'io, in quanto coscienza e presenza. Quest'ultima è comunque una mia deduzione che nasce da una intuizione diretta basata sull'autoanalisi sulla sorgente dell'Io.

Ma qui vorrei andare oltre e superando il “punto di partenza” desidero ricollegarmi più specificatamente alle indicazioni contenute nel testo “Meditazione olistica, il percorso diretto”, ove si enunciano delle tappe e si forniscono consigli per compiere un viaggio dal sé al Sé. Tenendo però conto -come sovente affermò lo stesso Ramana, che non possono sussistere due Sé. L'Atman è l'assoluta ed unica verità mentre l'identificazione con un io separato e ristretto ad un nome forma è un semplice gioco di specchi della e nella Coscienza, quindi non è vero. Pur non essendo vero questo specchiarsi è reale, finché perdura l'illusione. Pertanto lo scopo dell'insegnamento empirico è quello di spingere la coscienza a distogliere lo sguardo dallo specchio dirigendolo su colui che osserva. 

Eppure questa auto-osservazione è "falsa", poiché l'osservatore non può osservare se stesso, ma serve alla mente per abbandonare la sua tendenza alla fissità sull'oggettivazione. 

Diceva Ramana: “Conosci la tua mente per non farti imbrogliare dalla mente”. Infatti la mente è alla continua ricerca di risposte ma tali risposte son solo elucubrazioni della mente stessa, quindi non sono vere, e potrebbero trarre in inganno il “ricercatore” imbrogliandolo sull'essenza della sua vera natura, facendogli credere di aver raggiunto una comprensione e “realizzazione” che di fatto è semplicemente “obiettiva”, ovvero concettuale.

Attenzione, con ciò non si vuole deprivare del suo valore l'insegnamento spirituale qui contenuto. La mente è avvezza al pensare, la mente è pensiero, la mente è un groviglio di pensieri e persino l'io sono è un suo pensiero ma è l'unico pensiero a cui tutti gli altri sono riconducibili e su questo dobbiamo indagare attraverso l'auto investigazione suggerita da Ramana. Nel rincorrersi dell'io attorno e su se stesso si raggiunge uno stato di “vuoto” in cui la mente si arresta e quello è il vero Hrdayam, il Cuore!

Paolo D'Arpini