20.03.2013 Views

You Are Not Book.indb - Stephen H. Wolinsky Ph. D.

You Are Not Book.indb - Stephen H. Wolinsky Ph. D.

You Are Not Book.indb - Stephen H. Wolinsky Ph. D.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The Veil of spirituality / 97<br />

dishwater. Therefore, I am in no way concerned with<br />

spirituality.” (Nisargadatta Maharaj, The Nectar of Immortality,<br />

p. 177)<br />

Now, not to throw out the baby (spirituality) with the bathwater<br />

(spiritual paths), we can begin to understand that attempts<br />

at “spirituality” through a “spiritual path” to attain<br />

or get something are ego driven or better said, driven by the<br />

illusionary body’s nervous system and its desire to survive.<br />

It is, therefore, suggested that to understand this could be<br />

enough. This “I” do not know, however, the survival need of<br />

the I am is so strong and deep that to “get” this understanding,<br />

a little enquiry might be helpful. Regarding meditation,<br />

Nisargadatta Maharaj said this:<br />

“A little daily housecleaning might be helpful.”<br />

But, for all, including the enquirer, negator and seeker,<br />

I-dentity, too, ultimately must be discarded. When asked what<br />

is the most difficult to discard, Yogananda Paramahansa said<br />

it is the spiritual ego.<br />

<strong>Not</strong> only does “spirituality” and the “spiritual path” contain<br />

this illusion of an “I” getting something, but psychology, too,<br />

which has now been sanctified and is often followed with the<br />

fervor of a religion also imagines and believes so much in its<br />

theories, conclusions, diagnoses, treatment, and unquestioned<br />

slogans and rhetoric that analysts and therapists do not realize<br />

that these theories and abstractions are manufactured<br />

through the I am by a chemical reaction. Moreover, they<br />

are inferences; abstractions of abstractions of abstractions<br />

with so much more omitted than “seen,” so that naturally,<br />

the theories would have to be limited, inaccurate, and in a<br />

word, unreal.<br />

When asked about analyzing psychological material for<br />

meaning, Ramana Maharishi replied this way:

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!