*

Tibor Imre Baranyi

 

The non-existence of nothingness 

and the reality of the right intention

 

" […] why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 

I face death every day […]"

  (1 Cor 15:30-31)

 

The modern world, permeated with the fallacy of progress and evolution as well as with practical materialism, has created the existence of "something" that has named nothing. The "nothing" is such a superstitious concept (entity) —a friend of ours suggests— that is able to terrorise big masses of people, being an entity of consciousness that breeds only in the uncontrolled thoughts let in from the outside and of whose existence, in our time, almost everybody is convinced. Maybe it is not surprising that the concept of nothing has had such a suggestive career only in the modern world. The traditional world, up until about the time of the advance of modernity, did not know the concept of nothing, nor the obscurely dramatic feeling of the annihilation when exiting it. It was not afraid of annihilation because "annihilation" did not exist for it, viz. experienced everything —every departed being included— as living onward, though in a different form. The modern man, on the contrary, dreads annihilation, thinks of his dead as annihilated because in his superstitious thoughts maintained by suggestion and from the "outside", so to say, he connects annihilation with the destruction of an object, i.e., the body.

By today, nothing and annihilation have become the "radical mantras" (anti-mantras) of modern-day blindness. What is more, the becoming reality of these concepts is connected to such anti-asanas — 'positions (of consciousness)' held in the direction of annihilation— that, with the help of forces of suggestion, provide to the sustaining of the feeling of annihilation, conceived in an anti-asanic sense. Thus, the present day or modern obscurity can be said to have created a "diabolic" thing, the nothing, by which it can almost unrestrictedly terrorise almost everybody. This being kept in terror can be interpreted in such a way that, in the end, the dread of the nothing, of annihilation is that which stands in the background of the suggestive manipulations that weave the net of the modern world, as an anti-magical pseudo-creation of an anti-god that creates all the manipulations. In other words, by manufacturing the concept of nothing —, modern blindness has created something that has no basis in fact, namely the annihilation of the nothing, devoid of any idea.

In the traditional understanding, a total postmortal annihilation practically does not exist, and this is true even in the cases of an efficient anti-initiation and anti-realisation (although there were and can be obscure anti-realisational directions that aim exactly at attaining it). Postmortal annihilation does not exist. The postmortal plunge into the mass-like substratum of aformal hell does not mean annihilation, it only represents one of the most inferior modalities of the infernal possibilities.

Enunciating the impossibility of our own annihilation does not correspond to any unjustified eschatological optimism. He who, in life, cannot recognise himself as an absolute Subject or, to say it with a religious terming, who cannot realise a vicinity to God, will not be able to do it even in death or after death. Today, postmortal actions fall within the area of extremely exceptional possibilities on which modern man cannot practically count, neither can he count on voluntary annihilation. Not even such little things work voluntarily as moving an object without touching it, let alone total annihilation which, thus, is practically a nonsense. In some understandings, the quasi-"threatening" with the annihilation appears in respect to the modern man, but it has didactical reasons, so to say. But if one believes it referring to himself, this will have unforeseeable negative antispiritual consequences. The imaginary externalising ('projecting', making it 'outward') of the postmortal world is made by the same that makes that of the present world and the quality of this depends on the forces of consciousness possessed. In an existential order, the postmortal ('after death') situation will not be better than the premortal ('before death') one — verily, it will not be worse, either. This is why all the traditions speak of the possibilities of the other world corresponding to and depending on the life lived: of "heaven" or of "hell", symbolically. These are not places to be found somewhere but states of consciousness, experienceable chiefly after death but, in a certain sense, even in life. It goes without saying that it would be a naiveté expecting the higher possibility —"grabbing oneself as Self"— in death, described e.g., in the Bardo Throsgrol (the so-called Tibetan Book of the Dead), if  this is not practically realised before death at least at the level of a quasi-actuality. Descending a little but still remaining very high, analogically we can state that if one is not already in "heaven" and we suppose dies in this moment, how could he think that in the other world (which is just another name for a state of consciousness, although with different basic conditions) he would get in "heaven"? In this essential regard, it is worth raising an introspective question, especially respect to the occidental man who declares to be "religious": how many times a day does he think of God? How many times, during one day, is he aware of the principle of principles? The realistic answer will be disastrous, most of the time even in the case of the committed or the "practising". And for what reason would this suddenly become better after the death?

Annihilation does not exist, despite unthinkably intensive forces are trying to make the whole earthly-human world believe it; and the efficiency of this make-believe by suggestion constitutes the basis of modern obscurity.

The fight against antitraditional suggestions —among which, the "diabolic" tenet of annihilation— is part of a sacrality-based heroic activity. Putting aside any petit-bourgeois moralisms, one may think about the reason of so many war, adventure and crime films, in which almost every minute someone gets killed and the killed person is almost always a "loser". This invading suggestion, besides being "exciting" and thus profitable for the producers, participates in diffusing the same fallacy of annihilation.

This believing —in the "possibility" of the annihilation of oneself— as fear and terror is itself a proper descent into hell. A man who is Subject-bearing or having an immortal spiritual soul can really reach this belief only as a final negative result of a multi-gradual series of a metaphysical non-knowledge (avidya). In the plethora of suggestions fo this kind, it is really difficult to acknowledge and realise the opposite, that which results in a complete fearlessness, even respect to death. Besides, this fear and this terror is the soul substance of the liberal, opportunist, conformist, conflict-avoiding modern type of man.

*

In relation to Baphomet, the main mystery of the Templars, by this (or by its symbolism), the knight to be initiated was brought to such a »horror, beyond which there is nothing further downwards«. If the knight really believed and afterwards understood that beyond that state there is not, there cannot be, another more downwards, this endowed him with a consciousness of invulnerability, owing to which the Templars were militarily effective and had combatant aspirations. The »nothing« that is discovered to be not nothing, and the »nothing« that is discovered to be not possible in an absolute sense, in itself, well, this nothing can, together with all dramatic »experiences of annihilation«, fulfill exactly a »Baphometic function« (not to mention its purifying effects on the general life order). In order that the nothing not be possible, however, it is necessary to make recognitions of Dante level. With the help of his Master, in relation to the bottom of the »circles« of Hell, Dante recognised that Hell does not have a bottom, that he had already passed it. He writes about this in that Comedy that, according to some, is a Templar initiatic work:

 

"'Ere from th' abyss

I sep'rate,' thus when risen I began,

'My guide! vouchsafe few words to set me free

From error's thralldom. Where is now the ice?

How standeth he in posture thus revers'd?

And how from eve to morn in space so brief

Hath the sun made his transit?' He in few

Thus answering spake: 'Thou deemest thou art still

On th' other side the centre [= the centre of the Earth which, according to Dante, is the bottom of Hell], where I grasp'd

Th' abhorred worm [= Satan], that boreth through the world.

Thou wast on th' other side, so long as I

Descended; when I turn'd, thou didst o'erpass

That point, to which from ev'ry part is dragg'd

All heavy substance.'"

 

(Hell, XXXIV, 100-111)

And Parmenides says:

»For there is being, whereas nothing is not.« (Fragment 6, 1-2); and »For things that are not can never be forced to be« (Fragment 7, 1)."

 *

 There is a near-death experience in which one is internally absorbed, together with the whole world, by a dark bottomless mass-like space. It is important to emphasise, as the reason of this quasi-absorbing by the dark "mass", side by side or inside of the metaphysical non-knowledge (avidya), the outwardness of consciousness. The outwardness that is ontologically "pathological" or, to say it in Christian language, realised in the original sin —and descending in time, become totally general by today—, and that is decisively not of theoretical but of existential nature, so to say.

When the "mass" presents itself at last in the moment of death, this ontological outwardness is what makes its experience indescribably terrific and panicky horroristic and what probably produces the fear of death that means the terror accompanying the belief in annihilation itself.

It is terrible to imagine what this all means for the present-day common man, what "perspectives" he has in facing it — and probably this fundamentally catastrophic unsolvedness and the panicky flight from it, is what stands at the basis of the whole modern world and is its mysterious generator lurking in obscurity. It is difficult to become aware of all this while living it in its elementary form, where enormous forces of consciousness and of the soul are in action, as also of the fact that the "thing" that is here called, rightly or wrongly, or rather, for lack of a better word, "mass", is not the ultimate reality that absorbs everything, even "me". With the right acumen, I can gain awareness of the fact that there can exist a cosmic-metacosmic "mass" —the mass that swallows the whole universe; the one that is the final state of the world that is dissolving and being reabsorbed in the centre of consciousness; the subformal, gruesome caput mortuum ('death's head') of the alchimists— and there I am, who lives-experiences this being reabsorbed, extended to the total-everything. This is a recognition of the Self, not a theoretical one any more but based on concrete verification on a practical-tried out level and on experience. Like an inundation that swallows and sucks up man in death, like a precipitation and a matte black vortex pulling down towards something bottomless, the "mass" —that fenomenologically and in its intensity is an indescribable quasi-nothing and "annihilation"— is probably the least transferred form of that force or being which is traditionally called "Satan". But yet it is not simply "Satan" or if it is, then it does not function at all as "ultimate reality". In a certain sense, here culminates the process of "suction through of forces" that is in act across worlds, from the "mass" to the metaphysical I or Self.

Perspectives after death depend on the spiritual forces of which one takes possession during life. Naturally, on the line of interior knowledge, all this also refers to the whole course of knowledge, spiritual realisation or religious life. Of scientistic or "scientific" outlook are those who always keep knowledge "in the head", who "reflect", are "clever" and coldly rational. This ability is enough to make the whole technical apparatus work. All that they have in their heads about the characteristics and laws of the outside world, do not have almost any positive transformative effect on their existence. In this way, today, hundreds of millions of people are involved in religion or even "esoterism" and "spirituality", "doing yoga", "sitting zen" and "meditating". In the same time, however, they are faithful servants of the existential corruption and of the modern world, which constitute the antithesis of the original essence of the abovementioned things. They delude themselves saying that during and besides work they really "dedicate themselves to other things", that they are "different" and that the job is necessary for them only as a livelihood, secondarily, so to say. In theory. In the head. And then, 10-20 years later, they wonder why they have not arrived anywhere. That which they build in their hidden life, in their hobby —during the Sunday mass or the "yoga" course—, they themselves destroy "professionally", in the daytime. Because they do not risk. Because they do not give up anything.

They do not desist from a false existential basis and do not place themselves by truth, regardless of the consequences of it.

The same applies to the case of those practitioners of martial arts that practise only in body: no matter how diligent and fanatical they are, they do not arrive anywhere. They can kick, hit, shoot and know the forms, but as they are not men of truth, they cannot reach a deeper comprehension. They seek the opponent in the outside and want to overcome him by their strength and the form and thus they go astray.

In the teachings of the Far East, and more precisely, in the Japanese ones, we find the concept of "hara", commonly translated as "belly" — which indeed can be found in the consciousness, not in the body—; knowledge descends into the hara if one eliminates his own false base of existence, as if practising a "kata" ('form exercise'). He dissolves and makes die (mortificatio) that which he has brought along with his incarnation, thus eliminating the obstacles preceding the starting point (this is expressed, in some grade systems, the decreasing order of kyus) and he recreates his own existence from a pure materia prima. He undertakes the community of destiny with the intuitively recognised truth. This is not a question of reasoning. Metanoia. Conversio. 'Reversal'. This, in addition to the supraintellectual permeation, is a heroic volitional act for which the light is provided by the perfect recognition of essence. Knowledge that remains merely in the head leads nowhere except to an arid philologism or an errant experimentalism. Certainly, skipping over the obtaining of theoretical knowledge is even more hopeless. An example of a great martial artist, Don Quixote, shows very well what is to be done. For a certain period, it is necessary to read (gnosiological asceticism), "study the literature", understand things and correlations. Thereafter, it is necessary to saddle the horses and to endorse the truth, to join battle with the world —in which the battlefields, from a small village up to international diplomacy, are handed on a silver platter—, to try out the things one has learnt. Sancho Panza, the prototype of modern man —today's consumerist idiot and shopping zombie—, instead, does not understand why it is needed to be done when one could stay at home in the cosiness, vegetating with a full belly and without conflicts….

Obviously, not everything that stays in the modern world is necessarily modern (meant as a synonym of metaphysical obscurity). The abovementioned faithful servant of the modern world is referred to they who, willingly or not, serve the modern world, independently of what they do or on what they live; more or less, of their own choice or willy-nilly, they cooperate with the forces of modernity. Most of the public personages, politicians, scientists and masters cooperate most efficiently with the forces of existential corruption but there can be and there are counterexamples. Most of the publishers, with their books, contribute intensely to the increase of the darkness of consciousness, but there can be and there are counterexamples.

Most of the musicians, librarians, soldiers, teachers or even workmen are collaborators —mainly as dupes—, but there can be and there are counterexamples (although the case of soldiers obeying direct orders is the most problematic of all). Finally, all this is also referred to family life. Chronic basenesses and existential lies can sneakily hide behind the excuse of "but I have a family".

If something can be done in the interest of traditional values and traditional men, then it can be done and, in a certain sense, it must be done; if it cannot be done in this way, one must stop doing it. Reasoning and knowledge contained in the head are insufficient to this. Weltanschauung ('view/conceit of the world/existence') is not a hobby and religion is not a cultural pastime. Judas Iscariot was a clever, learned man, today we would call him a scientist. Nevertheless, he betrayed the divine. One must ask himself the simple question: "what do I live on?", "what serves that which I live on?". Or to cite a better wording: "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24). Why not? Because if you do, you will fail in the life opposing death and in the fight against death.

A usually uncomprehended point is that even today's subversion or corruption of existence is wanted by God ("for it must needs be that scandals come" /Matthew 18:7/), as also the purification of the existential order, the ascension and sacralisation. Saying that everybody participates in both, is cheap sophistry. Certainly, as long as the body and the world "exist", the corruptio ('deterioration') also exists; man as man is practically born into it (the idea of the "original sin", peccatum originale, refers to this). The essential point is: where the focal point of existence and consciousness lies and, first of all, where it is being positioned continuously and voluntarily. This is a question that cannot be avoided. The task is the sacralisation of my existence and not only changing my wrong thoughts for right ones (right weltanschauung), a change that is nonetheless indispensable. The functional basis of this is the vitalisation of the functions of consciousness (thought, feeling, volition).

*

A life set against death is a fundamental element of a heroic existence. Outside, in the end, there is nothing to vanquish. The Master of Aiki-do, Ueshiba Morihei, says: "indeed, you are one with your opponent", which —in this case, as an illustrative example— means that the opponent exists in a certain sense, but not independently of me, because he appears in the space of consciousness, in my space of consciousness, through an illusorily realistic projection ("yet he does not really exist"). On the way of the warrior, this happens (i.e., is to be conceived this way) so that he can assume the power —in the sign of a victory of existential order— over his own world of consciousness.

The phrase "indeed, you are one with your opponent" means that the apparently real opponent is an objectivity of my consciousness or, if you will, he is one of my modalities, which/who is moved by me, once I have assumed the power over the functions of consciousness ("the »opponent« moves together with you").

In this field, moderns and Europeans do not reach the level of one-time real Oriental masters mainly because they do not place the necessary emphasis on the knowledge of the spiritual essence —going beside and beyond the techniques— of the practised martial art. This is because they do not really have any idea of what it consists of or if they do, it happens —as a New Age variant extrapolated to this field— on a pseudo- and antitraditional basis. The great majority, however, conceives a martial art as something in which results are achieved by much much physical training to which, at most, some moralisation or "ethics" are further added (of the "we do not fight in the street" kind). With this, though, they touch only the outmost layer of the issue. The essence of budo or bushi-do is not moral or ethical but metaphysical and theurgico-magical in which, thus, the organic unity of the heroic act (praxis heroiké) and knowledge (gnosis) is realised. (Moreover, aiki-do is especially intrinsically capable of a practice based on a modern deviated weltanschauung, not completely incidentally due to the fact that Orientals —who should oversee this all in a  corrective-critical way— somehow lack the sense of antitraditionality.) All in all, modern man as such is incapable of walking the way of a traditional martial art, on the one hand because, due to the massively antitraditional social environment, an entire life —and even lived intensely in the sign of knowledge— is needed to re-traditionalise the weltanschauung; on the other because a whole life is (would be) needed to learn the given spiritual form at overall skill level. These add up to two lives. Thus, it is inevitable that one practises either with an inappropriate weltanschauung (and consequently is able to grab only the outer layer) or,  if he regains the right traditional weltanschauung and thus able to penetrate the essential sphere, then it is mostly late to begin to practise (due to the brevity of life).

"Talent" is strictly connected to that which is the Orient is called svadharma ('own proper modality of existence', 'own proper way'). In the rare cases of taking possession of the metaphysical principles, one becomes somewhat universally or spherically, so to say, "talented" in every aspect. Finding and realising his own proper modality of existence, however, he will be eminently "talented" in the formal area defined by it. This is a kind of feedback confirming that the being is in his own proper modality of existence and on his own proper way. The own proper modality of existence is the concrete formal representation, to a given human level, of the universal truth. The prerequisite of its discovery is to eliminate, in the own life, the inner modernity and the spirit of existential corruption.

But truly, the essential piece is not that which one does (although it is not completely negligible, since certain functions are linked to the main social modalities of existence or castes, and vice versa) but aiming at what, in the sign of what, he does it. By means of the metanoia or conversio ('existential reversal'), one turns from the periphery to the centre, aspires to it.

In the present case, it means that the man (and mutatis mutandis the public personage, politician, manager and employee, scientist and master, publisher and musician, librarian, soldier, teacher or workman) orientated towards metaphysical values must be diametrically different from his modern contemporaries and primarily not in the form (although somewhat even in that) but in the essence.

Today's European so-called religious man is, in almost every essential aspect, identical to any of his most irreligious contemporaries. In this, diversity has to shine out; in truth, one must be different by one hundred-eighty degrees, so to say, because what we are talking about, here, is not someone doing the same things as his profane, irreligious and antitaditionally permeated contemporaries and "colleagues" while being "a man of truth" in his head or "soul" and different from the others, by the reason that, in the afternoon or weekend, he goes to church, "does yoga", shoots a bow, sits zen and reads serious things. These are not hobbies. Taking in hand the postmortal possibilities is not a cultural pastime. There is no such thing that I "realise" in the afternoon and at the weekend but —due to unpleasant circumstances— I antirealise during work. There is no such thing that I am a hobby-traditionalist as a private citizen, but moved by modern tendencies and a populist democrat as a politician. Or rather, there is such thing but the total sum of all that is rigorously zero. Stagnation. But stagnation does not exist because those who are not rising, under a deeper examination can realise that they actually sink, independently of what they achieve in the outside world. In a way or another, it is necessary to assert knowledge, the traditional or ideological truth, in a way or another, possibly everywhere; first, "in my head", then in my narrower environment, then in the larger one and then, after having assimilated (hara) this all, in the totality of existence. Knowledge descends from the head to the hara only through the gate of the purified existence, only this way it "becomes living blood". I must continuously and gradually put to the test that which I know, that of which I suppose that I know, and if I find that something does not work, I must reexamine it theoretically and put it to the test again in ever larger circles and in ever more possible relations. In accordance with my constitution (svadharma) and possibilities, I must open, nay, create fields of existence, battlefields, while operating with real forces. This is how theory becomes self-transformation and self-transcendence.

 *

 The quality of postmortal existence becomes real in function of the quality of the life lived. All the exertions of life that are really valuable according to a value-theory, are positive consequences of a live lived counterposed to death.

It is true almost with the force of a natural law, that there is no automatic salvation nor reaching the heavenly existence without effort. The range of postmortal possibilities depend on the grade of realisation of the forces of consciousness acquired in life and on that of self-Subjectivity, in religious words, on the proximity to God. Its realisation is the achievement of a traditionally intelligible way or of a religious (not merely confessional but properly re-ligional) life. The consequence of a life in which nothing was done in this direction, i.e., which is squandered, is that which is traditionally called "hell".

Any spiritual or perchance heroic effort, or even just an aspiration to a life of a higher order, is meaningless and unintelligible on the part of those who believe in annihilation. All their intentions are proposed only for shaping the conditions of the existence between conception-birth and biological death, and along the hedonistic and conformist enhancement of the grade of pleasure of life. Herd mentality: they graze, evacuate and copulate, the latter one with the most possible conspecifics of the opposite sex — or of the same one, according to what is suggested by the spirit of the time. The ideological-theoretical basis of the antitraditional view or, if you will, the three main dogmas of modernity —man is an animal, the world and the society develop automatically, man is annihilated at death— are the deepest beliefs of today's "civilisation"; naturally, everyone is entitled, as they say, to profess them or to reject them, and to bear the consequences of the decision.

 *

 Although, undoubtedly, in today's Western-type liberal democracies almost any kind of view can be exposed, the ideas not compatible with the erroneous ideology lurking in the background of the system cannot (or only by overcoming the system completely) pass from a marginalised position to a determining one. In this regard, liberal democratism is practically equivalent to the other aggressive form of modernism, i.e., totalitarian dictatorship: both of them guard the inviolability of their ideological basis with dictatorial aggressiveness, although by different means. Totalitarian dictatorship does not tolerate other views at all and, in its brutal primitiveness, it responds with physical destruction to any appearance of such views. Liberal democratism, instead, being more devious, while permits other views to appear and to be exposed —in strictly insignificant places—, does everything in order to stigmatise and to ridicule, in a word, to disable them by an uninhibited use of mainstream and power instruments: it deploys, coordinately as if they were a battery of weapons, different types and degrees of everyday suggestions and, more importantly, of instruments of discipline-coercion-power of opinion. In consideration of this, in today's artificially manufactured world, any "success" of a larger scale in the social or public life is the result of a more or less efficient and diligent cooperation with these forces, of the willingness to be moved by them. Without taking back the world of consciousness into myself, success loses its connection with the real intelligible Value, they have nothing to do with each other. Success is not even wedded to mediocrity any more but to baseness turned into trend or, in case of a man with higher abilities, to betrayals of existential order. Success, however, is insufficient against death….