Karma, cause and effect and liberation from the sense of separation - Karma, causa ed effetto e liberazione dal senso di separazione

When we talk about the law of cause and effect, or karma, and its consequences, some "religious" people believe that there is an underlying injustice on the part of the divinity, which allows the formation of an evil that must then be taken for granted by the souls, on this earth or in another world, through a "cruel destiny", personal and collective.

In truth it happens that precisely because of the exploitation of this alleged cruelty all forms of extremist ideology are born, which aim to prove the "reality" of the dream of manifestation. These ideologies can be religious or atheistic, it does not matter, they can be turned to modify the quality of the dream or tout court to ignore the aspects turning their attention to a hypothetical "afterlife". So in one way or another it is taken for granted that what we live or "live" (in this world or the other) is the only possible reality ... and that is how karma, the destiny of man, is perpetuated and all that surrounds him.

The trouble with the concept of "God" is that we think of it as an alien entity, separate from us, for this reason, looking with the eyes of lay spirituality, I do not much appreciate the theistic religions. In turning round verse what we are, in the "path" of the return to our fullness, which we have never lost but only forgotten, we seem to touch the "stages".

Sometimes we like to stand in the concept of ethics but the concept of good and evil is a counter-altar to be skipped. Yin and Yang are aspects related to the event, as the positive and negative pole of the electric energy that moves the world.

Let's leave aside any moral explanation that would do nothing but create further confusion because it lies within the illusion, in the dual mirror of the mind, we leave aside any conceptualization, let's see if there is anything left?

Something remains for sure, it is the Consciousness that allows every visualization and perception, which is the "perception" itself.

In each of us it is the only real presence that illuminates the sense of the I (and of the you). Without such conscience nothing could exist. You are - I am - that conscience is enough.

... Consciousness is not what appears in the conscience, it is not - by intuition - feeling, thought, emotion, intuition, vision, but it is that light that makes every perception possible. Therefore even this explanation made of words can not qualify or indicate consciousness. And even this mine is a futile attempt to define the indefinable ... every definition is contained and can never be a container.

Pursuing the concept of Consciousness we can not follow a solid path, but we can at least establish what "not" is consciousness, we deny every construct, axiom, assumption, claim to describe and embody the conscience. And it is precisely in these terms that my opposition to religions and ideologies is configured. But there is no obligation to remain bogged down in a "creed" (the moment you understand the consequences). Only the one who insists on wanting to believe is co-participant of the good and evil of that belief.

Yet, is not it also a belief? And did not we say a little while ago that consciousness can never be "represented" by a thought, by an image?

So, why remain clinging to something that is mere illusion, a dual symbol of "good and evil"? And besides, is it not even said in the Bible that man was turned away from the earthly paradise for wanting to feel the fruit of good and evil? And it is not said, again, this time in the gospel, 'blessed are the poor in spirit because of them is the kingdom of heaven?' And in this case it is perhaps not the spirit of stubbornness and illusion to consider themselves separate that prevents access to that kingdom?

The only thing to do is abandon the separative arrogance and fearlessly return to our true home (which we never left) ...

Paolo D'Arpini





Testo Italiano

Quando si parla della legge di causa ed effetto, ovvero di karma e sue conseguenze,  alcune persone “religiose” ritengono che ci sia una ingiustizia di fondo, da parte della divinità,  che consente la formazione di un male  che poi deve essere scontato dalle anime, su questa terra o in un altro mondo, attraverso un “destino crudele”, personale e collettivo.

In verità succede che proprio per la strumentalizzazione di questa presunta crudeltà nascono tutte quelle forme di ideologia estremistica che  si prefiggono di comprovare la “realtà” del sogno. Queste ideologie possono essere religiose od atee, non ha importanza, possono essere rivolte a modificare la qualità del sogno oppure tout court ad ignorarne gli aspetti rivolgendo la propria attenzione al un ipotetico “aldilà”. Insomma in un modo o nell’altro si da per scontato che quello che viviamo o “vivremo” (in questo mondo o nell’altro) sia l’unica realtà possibile… ed è così che si perpetua il karma, il destino dell’uomo e di tutto ciò che lo circonda.

Il guaio del concetto di “Dio” è che noi lo riteniamo  un ente alieno, separato da noi, per questo, guardando con gli occhi della spiritualità laica, io non apprezzo molto le religioni teiste. Nel girare in tondo versò ciò che siamo, nel “percorso” del ritorno alla nostra pienezza, che non abbiamo mai perso ma solo dimenticato, ci sembra di toccare delle “tappe”.

Talvolta ci piace sostare nel concetto dell’etica ma il concetto di bene e di male è un contro-altare da saltare a piè pari. Yin e Yang sono aspetti relativi alla manifestazione, come il polo positivo e negativo dell’energia elettrica che fa muovere il mondo.

Lasciamo da parte ogni spiegazione morale che non farebbe altro che creare ulteriore confusione poiché sta all’interno dell’illusione, nello specchio duale della mente, lasciamo da parte ogni concettualizzazione, vediamo se resta qualcosa?

Qualcosa resta di sicuro, è la Coscienza che consente ogni visualizzazione e percezione, che è la “percezione” stessa.

In ognuno di noi è la sola presenza reale  che illumina il senso dell’io (e del tu). Senza detta coscienza non potrebbe esistere alcunché. Tu sei -io sono- quella coscienza e basta.

….La coscienza non è ciò che appare nella coscienza, non è -per intenderci- sensazione, pensiero, emozione, intuizione, visione ma è quella luce che rende possibile ogni percepire. Perciò anche questa spiegazione fatta di parole non può qualificare o indicare la coscienza. E perfino questo mio è un futile tentativo di definire l’indefinibile… ogni definizione è contenuto e mai può essere contenitore.

Inseguendo il concetto di Coscienza non possiamo seguire un tracciato solido, ma possiamo almeno stabilire ciò che “non” è coscienza, neghiamo ogni costrutto, assioma, assunzione, pretesa di  descrivere ed incarnare la coscienza. Ed è proprio in questi termini che si configura la mia opposizione nei confronti delle religioni e delle ideologie. Ma non vi è alcun obbligo a restare impantanati in un “credo” (il momento che ne hai capito le conseguenze). Solo colui che insiste nel voler credere è compartecipe del bene e del male di quel credo.

Eppure, non è il credere anch’esso un pensiero? E non dicevamo poco fa che la coscienza  non può mai essere “rappresentata” da un pensiero, da una immagine?

Quindi, perché restare avvinghiati a qualcosa che è mera illusione, un simbolo duale del “bene e male”? Ed inoltre, non è forse detto persino nella bibbia che l’uomo fu allontanato dal paradiso terrestre per aver voluto tastare il frutto del bene e del male? E non è detto, ancora, stavolta nel vangelo, ‘beati i poveri di spirito perché di essi è il regno dei cieli?’ Ed in questo caso non è forse lo spirito della caparbietà e dell’illusione di considerarsi separati che impedisce l’accesso a quel regno?
La sola cosa da fare è abbandonare l’arroganza separativa e senza paura tornare alla nostra vera  casa (che non abbiamo mai lasciato)…

Paolo D’Arpini

The original meaning of lay spirituality

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 …! A century and a half ago, in 1859, Charles Darwin published his still controversial but revolutionary “Origin of Species”. The controversy is not yet stilled, but what sounds odd – I think – is the opposite virulent opposition to the theory of evolution by so-called “creationists” (or believers) of religious nature. I will explain later the reasons of my astonishment. I must point out that strictly speaking I don’t consider myself a follower of the Darwinian theory in the sense that at the most I see it as an explanation of the demonstration of the so-called empirical reality … or causality.

The assumption of evolution is based on the observation of the process of transformation of matter and life resulting from the alteration or expansion of space / time. In a sense, this theory must always allow for a “beginning” and thus is close to another theory, the gradual creation of the world, however, based on the presence of a creator God of the universe. According to the speculation of the Big Bang, the beginning of the creative moment is set in the explosion of the primordial nucleus of matter, after which the process of manifestations of life slowly begins.

As a matter of fact, the religious appreciate the Big Bang theory as “proof” of the creative will of God but to be consistent with their beliefs they should also accept the evolutionary process of the various forms of life envisioned by Darwin and his successors. Moreover, if Creation were true “ad personam” made by God for each living organism, separate from any other (a fish is a fish, a donkey is a donkey, a man is a man, etc..). One might accuse the Most High of being partial, not only for the hierarchy among the various species but also because some forms of life have even disappeared from the face of the earth as if they were “unpopular” or “neglected” by the creator himself, which doesn’t seem like a sign of justice towards all creatures …. “If one, after running around all day gets to the evening, he should be pleased … Well, now I’ve made it, the twilight of my life has become the dawn of my fame” (Schopenhauer, Senilia, p.. 84 of the original manuscript of 1856).

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.”

Hence we can deduce that Darwin’s description of evolution is “relative” as much as the religious vision of creation. So much for the philosopher Schopenhauer. I imagined a sort of equation to visualise this point. If we take everything as a whole, in which everything is and is manifested, and we define this as 1 (One) whether we add or subtract to it, one always remains. Example: 1 + 1 = 1

Moreover, this concept has been expressed very clearly in the Upanishads where it is says: “If you take Everything away from Everything, Everything still remains.”

Paolo D’Arpini - spiritolaico@gmail.com