| |
February 25th 2010
NDM : How and when did you first
come across the writings of Sri
Aurobindo?
M. Alan Kazlev: It was when I was
fourteen or fifteen. My uncle,
Rubin Levin, was interested in all
sorts of alternative things, such as
naturopathy - this was long before
the New Age holistic healing
movement – Rudolf Steiner, and so
on. Anyway, he had written a letter
to my mother, which she read out to
me. In it he said that he felt it
was very important he tell me about
Sri Aurobindo. He also mentioned a
“French lady” - this being Mirra,
the Mother - who had taken over the
leadership of the Sri Aurobindo
Ashram. This was in 1972 or maybe
early '73 (the Mother left her
physical body later in '73), I don't
remember the exact date. He seemed
to think I should travel there and
stay at the ashram. In any case, I
was still a total materialist at
that time, and remained so for the
next five years or so.
I suppose Sri Aurobindo was now and
then mentioned in our household,
because when I later went to La
Trobe University, I discovered in
their library an impressive hard
cover set of the Collected Works of
Sri Aurobindo, and I was quite
excited about that.
When I first spontaneously awakened
to spiritual realities, I studied
comparative religion, Buddhism,
Vedanta, Hermetic occultism,
transpersonal psychology, New Age
topics, and so on. But I didn't
read anything by Sri Aurobindo for
over a year. I suppose I
subconsciously knew that once I
acquainted myself with his thought,
I would never be able to look at any
other spiritual philosophy in the
same light again, because his ideas
would affect me so powerfully. And
as it turned out that is what
happened.
|
|
|
NDM:
Can you tell me about your
spontaneous awakening, what
exactly happened?
M.
Alan Kazlev: Well it is sort of
funny, because up until then I
was on the one hand a total
scientific materialist and
skeptic, but on the other I was
frightened of things like tarot
cards, the Christian Devil, and
so on. I remember a girl I had
been writing to at the time had
warned me not to get involved
with occultism, because she said
she had previously done so, and
once she was having a shower and
this entity picked her up and
threw her across the room.
Reading stuff like that scared
me. So there were these two
totally contradictory sides to
my nature, the superstitious and
the materialistic.
Anyway, By 1978 I was
gradually began becoming interested
in spirituality, and had met a group
of young non-fundamentalist
Christians who would talk to people
in the street. Anyway at the time
of my experience I had been renting
a room in the bay-side suburb of St
Kilda, Melbourne. One day, this was
in late 1978, as I remember I was
20, not quite 21, I was walking down
the street, and suddenly I had an
experience, which I like to compare
to the Biblical metaphor of the
scales falling from my eyes, because
in an instant I was able to think
clearly about all these things like
occultism, spirituality, and so on.
It's a shame I wasn't keeping a
journal, because things change with
memory, all I have now is a memory
of a memory of a memory, which is
obviously unreliable. But the
effect in the following days, weeks
and months is that I suddenly became
very interested in spiritual
Philosophy, especially Eastern
philosophy - that's when I started
buying books and reading up on all
this stuff - lost all my
superstitious fears, and for the
first time understood God as within.
From that moment on I could no
longer ever again be a materialist.
And this state has been stable ever
since, except that my insight has
gradually deepened.
It wasn't any sort of cosmic
awakening like people often
write about in New Age books.
It is just that one moment I
didn't know, I was
materialistic, and I was
superstitious, and the next
moment I did know. From that
moment on, if I read books on
these subjects, I would
recognize truths in them, they
would resonate with me in a
familiar sort of way, along the
lines of ah-hah, of course, so
obvious! It's like Plato's
concept that all learning is
simply remembering what we
originally knew in the spiritual
world (anamnesis).
|
NDM:
When you began reading Sri
Aurobindo, what was it about his
ideas that had this powerful effect
on you?
M. Alan Kazlev: Well, in the period
after I had that awakening, and
before I started reading Sri
Aurobindo, I read and immediately
understood and appreciated Eastern
spiritual philosophies like Advaita
Vedanta, Mahayana Buddhism, and so
on. Insights like Atman is Brahman
and Original Mind made perfect
sense. But one thing I felt
uncomfortable about, and couldn't
understand, is why they all taught
the aim of existence is the
rejection of the world of phenomena,
of reincarnation, and individuality.
Because I approached these subjects
from a Western theosophical and
esoteric point of view. For me,
reincarnation isn't something
horrible, it's a means to grow and
develop through countless lifetimes.
Also from the perspective of my
lower self I was quite narcissistic
at the time, and attached to the
world, and didn't like the idea of
ceasing to exist. So Sri Aurobindo's
rejection of conventional Liberation
in favor of a Yoga of descent, of
further evolution beyond even
conventional Realisation, of drawing
the Divine down into this world,
rather than leaving this world
forever for a static nirvana,
greatly appealed to me.
In the following years, I became
more attuned to the injustices and
suffering of the world, I developed
an interest in replacing the present
social system and attitude of
exploitation and destruction of the
environment, with one more
compassionate and sustainable. For
some years I was involved in the
hippy-alternative movement and
activist causes. But it was and
still is very clear to me that to
try to change the world politically
without changing the self is just as
one-sided as to change the self and
attain personal salvation while
leaving the rest of the world
unchanged. So even more so this is
where Sri Aurobindo's teachings make
perfect common sense to me; the need
for a transformation that includes
both the individual, society, and
the Earth (he calls it the
terrestrial evolution) as a whole.
Also, over the past few years I
have developed a very strong
sensitivity to the suffering of
animals, so for me the need for an
integral transformation of both self
and world is even more urgent. So
basically Sri Aurobindo and the
Mother have shown me the way to, and
the yoga of, the perfection in the
world, and the salvation and healing
of all beings.
Also there is the clearness of his
concepts. I find the ideas he
presents, his description of the
various planes and parts of being,
and the stages of transformation,
are just so obvious and
all-encompassing, that ever since
reading him, it has become the
baseline and orientating framework
by which I approach all other
esoteric and spiritual teachings.
The Mother is just as inspiring
too, but in a different way, she
teaches in a more immediate fashion,
whereas Sri Aurobindo is more
intellectual or higher mental in
presentation. So the two complement
each other.
|
|
|
NDM:
I have noticed that there
seems to be a sort of trend around his
ideas, particularity in the US, with
some philosophers and American gurus
talking about an evolution of
consciousness.
Do you feel that the
human race is presently going through
some kind of a evolutionary
consciousness shift of some sort?
M. Alan
Kazlev:
For
me it is not so much the human race
as such, as the planet as a whole
with the human race as one of its
elements. So it isn't about human
beings becoming more conscious or
more spiritual - although hopefully
they will! - it's that the laws of
nature itself may be different.
This makes sense if you think of
the laws of nature not as unchanging
absolutes but as cosmic habits or
morphogentic fields. For example,
in the future there may not be
entropy as we know it now, but
nature itself may work in a
different way, in a way that does
not cause suffering, and in which
everything is harmonious and perfect
in its action. The Mother in her
talks with a disciple, Satprem,
speaks of the difficulties and
struggles in establishing and
grounding this new Consciousness,
the Supramental Consciousness that
she and Sri Aurobindo described, in
her own physical body and in the
world as a whole.
But yes I do definitely do see
people starting to become more aware
of things, opening to new
possibilities, such as the New Age
movement, awareness of things like
Climate Change and so on. But this
is really just a tiny part of a much
larger transformation.
|
NDM: When you say "in the future",
what kind of time span are you talking
about?
M. Alan
Kazlev:I
don't think of it in terms of time
spans. I certainly don't believe the
2012 hype; i.e. it isn't going to happen
in 2 years! ;-) I suppose in the
coming decades there would have to be
some sort of gradual changes in the lead
up, more people having amazing
experiences, or just becoming more
spiritually aware, more good will,
progress to a sustainable future.
Certainly if the biosphere is to remain
a viable home for life, there would have
to be some sort of radical
counter-balance to the current majority
attitude, so on a smaller scale (smaller
relative to the overall supramental
process) something would have to happen
quickly, but as for the radical
transformation, that is obviously
further in the future. I remember
reading something that Sri Aurobindo or
the Mother mentioned something about
three hundred years or so for the first
supramental beings (not yet the global
transformation), but I wouldn't put a
definite date on it.
NDM: How is this new
consciousness manifested in the physical
body?
M. Alan
Kazlev:
Well
there is a lot on this in the
Mother's Agenda - thirteen volumes
of talks compiled by Satprem, a
disciple. She talks about the body
becoming more supple, more conscious (so
even the individual cells are conscious
and surrendered to the Divine), more
universal, and that the metabolism,
physiology, and whole way of functioning
would be different, there would no
longer be the need for food or sex, the
body would be immortal (not in the sense
of living forever but in not being
subject to injury, old age, or disease.
But really no-one knows, it is all
speculation on the Mother's experiences,
or on Sri Aurobindo's words. Although
once a few years ago I was musing on all
this, reading up on it and getting
really intensely into the Mother's
words, and I had an extraordinary
experience, it was just a momentarily
flash, the realization of what would be
expected of me and what my physical body
would experience were I to follow this
path. I can't really put into words, it
was very much an instantaneous preview.
It was so awesome, but in an instant
ego and neurotic fear and resistance
rose up, and the experience was gone.
But I know from that it is real.
|
|
|
NDM : Why do you think this fear arose.
Has this anything to do with what Sri Aurobindo referred to as the
intermediate zone?
M. Alan
Kazlev: Nothing
like that. It's just a neurotic
fear. I suppose it's the ego wanted
to preserve itself. Like once
some time ago I had been meditating
on my heart chakra, and I was
outside when suddenly my heart
chakra opened and I felt total love
for all beings and all things around
me, an incredible radiance of love.
And it was so confronting that
there was a very similar recoil
or resistance and the experience
likewise ended. But even that brief
experience of overwhelming love
showed me what a Realized Being,
like Jesus or Ramana, must feel
constantly.
The Intermediate Zone is
different. The Intermediate
Zone would include experiences
like universal love,
transcendental insight, etc, but
with the people having those
experiences getting puffed up
and thinking they have attained
the goal. Whereas the authentic
Realizer, who has already
traversed the intermediate zone,
and gone through all those
transformations, would simply
have the experience or be in
that state, accept it, go with
it, act accordingly ("skillful
means"), and not think they are
anybody special because of it.
And because of their total
selflessness they attain and
embody even greater realizations
then those had by the
intermediate zone guru.
|
NDM : Do
you see this intermediate zone as having
stages?
M. Alan
Kazlev:
I
suppose it does. At one time I
tried to write about this on my
website, but it felt stilted. I
would still distinguish between an
"early" Intermediate zone, full of
experiences and temptations, and a
"later" stage in which one has gone
beyond ego and is much closer to
complete Realization (and is no
doubt considered fully Enlightened
by many).
This is probably a rich field of
research for anyone who wants to make a
comparative study of the experiences of
various mystics and realizers
NDM : What are the signs, indications that
one is still trapped in this
intermediate zone?
M. Alan
Kazlev:
I
suppose basically it is the paradox
or juxtaposition. On the one hand
there would be the most profound
experiences of Realization, the most
amazing insights, and powers and
siddhis, on the other there is also
some sense, no matter how small, of
the relative self. When these two
go together, that is the
Intermediate Zone.
At
least from my study of gurus and
spiritual teachers, the most obvious
way you can tell the so-called guru
is trapped there is that there is a
sense of ego they display, shown by frequent
use of the first person pronoun. Da
Free John / Adi Da for example did
this a lot. In contrast, authentic
Realizers, and "late" Intermediate
zoners, tend to avoid reference
to themselves, and when they have to
refer to themselves it is in third
person (Sri Aurobindo did this), or
they use synonyms (Nityananda of
Ganeshpuri would say "this place"
instead of "me") or even
self-deprecatory labels (Yogi
Ramsuratkumar called himself a
"sinner" or a "filthy begger"
|
| |
American Guru "Adi Da" (Franklin
Jones) |
|
See
"Adi Da and His
Voracious, Abusive Personality Cult"
|
I am sure there are also
many "early" Intermediate
zone
individuals who are humble,
who don't make a big deal
about themselves. So only
considering public figures
does not give a very
representative sample.
The biggest danger
of the Intermediate
Zone of course
is inflation, which
is evident by claims
of unique personal
revelation or
Godhood. So anyone
who
who confers amazing
experiences (such as
shaktipat and so on)
on disciples, and
whose words and
teachings in all
other respects very
profound and
insightful, yet who
also, because
of the juxtaposition of
ego
and realization -
sincerely and
genuinely claim to
be God or the
Supreme Revelation
or whatever, is an
example of this.
The authentic
Realizer also gives
out profound
teachings,
transmission of
enlightenment and so
on, but there is no
sense of self there,
no demands or
putting themselves
first.
Of
course,
disciples
and
devotees
of even
authentic
Realizers
will
often
say that
their
guru or
master
is the
highest
avatar,
sadguru,
etc.
But the
difference
is that
the guru
or adept
themself
does not
make
this
claim.
NDM : Yes, as
far as using the first person
pronoun, it seems that many in
the non duality circles have
caught on to this and employ
this as a form of non-duality
speak. Talking in the third
person and so on. Using "this
one" or "it" or their own name,
instead of I and so forth. Do
you feel this can also be an
indication of an ego trying to
hard too appear an ego isn't
there?
M. Alan Kazlev: Surprisingly,
this doesn't seem to be the
case, at least not in the gurus
I've looked at, although you may
know of some who are like that.
I'm only interested in
genuine gurus, authentic
realizers, and that is one
thing I notice with them.
But I agree there is no
reason why really fake ones
could use this as a device
to fool people and appear
more spiritual then they
are.
Of course a sure-fire way to
know is to consider the
degree of their
selflessness. If a supposed
guru says "this one" instead
of "me" but still plays
emotional games with
devotees, or asks for sexual
or financial favors, you can
be sure they are fake!
NDM: So do you
see that some one in this
intermediate zone is being
deliberately deceiving, or
is simply delusional. Has
some kind of a blind spot.
In essence is unaware that
there ego is still there,
(shadow self) possessing
them and still pulling the
strings so to speak.
Claiming the enlightenment ?
M. Alan Kazlev:
My feeling, and this is what
Sri Aurobindo says too
obviously, is that they
genuinely believe they have
attained this state. And
obviously they do (assuming
this is authentic
intermediate zone) have very
powerful experiences and
insights that cause them to
believe this. But either
they are not aware that
there is this transitional
state, or if they are, their
ego defense mechanisms step
in and they think "this
doesn't apply to me because
I really am Enlightened."
|
|
NDM: What do you
think of gurus who use ridicule,
intimidation, so called "crazy
wisdom" fear, mind games in
order to bust peoples egos?
M. Alan Kazlev:
These are
false gurus who are clearly
deluding themselves as well
as their unfortunate
followers. Maybe they had a
bit of experience, or a
little realization, which
gave them charisma and
caused them to attract
followers, so they found
themselves in position of
power, and their lower self
runs rampant. In fact the
whole idea about "breaking
down the ego" is a story
invented, or adopted, to
justify
their abusive behavior.
In contrast, with Realizers
like Ramana Maharshi,
Nityananda, Anandamayi Ma,
Sri Aurobindo, The Mother,
etc, there is never any hint
of emotional
games, humiliation,
statements that it is
necessary to kill the ego
etc. All these things come
from Westerners, most of
whom would not even be at
the level of the
Intermediate zone.
Likewise if we consider
authentic representatives of
Crazy Wisdom teaching, like
Yogi Ramsuratkumar of South
India, there is again never
any trace of abusive
behavior. They are just as
self-sacrificing and
endlessly giving of
themselves as more
conventional Realizers.
There is
an essay on Sarlo's Guru
Website if I recall, by
Timothy Conway, which
distinguishes between
authentic Crazy Wisdom
adepts and the current crop
of fakes.
www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yconway2.htm
|
| |
NDM: If someone came to you and asked for your advice on what to look for in a guru, as well as what do avoid. What would you say to them?
M. Alan Kazlev:
Well, you may
have guessed from my replies
to your previous questions
:-)
The
first thing I would tell
them to do is check the
internet, the blogosphere,
websites, Rick Ross, Sarlo,
etc for any trace of abusive
behavior. it may be
emotional abuse, mental,
financial, sexual, whatever.
Abusive gurus inevitably
leave a trail of disaffected
and traumatized ex-devotees
behind, and thanks to the
internet these people are
given the opportunity to
tell their experiences. Of
course, the same gurus will
also have many supporters
too, some of whom were also
abused but rationalize it,
and others who never were.
But that doesn't matter.
What matters is that there
are at least some
ex-devotees who were abused,
and that proves that the
guru in question is not
authentically Realized.
They may or may not be at
the level of the
intermediate zone, but they
are certainly not someone
you want to sign your life
over to.
Even
assuming there is no abuse,
another thing to watch out
for is too much of a show of
miracles. Unfortunately
people tend to be attracted
to these things. I was the
same when I was younger.
I
actually believed everything
that was said about Sathya
Sai Baba.
If
there is an over-emphasis on
siddhis, on shaktipat, on
conferring instant
enlightenment and so on,
then either we are dealing
with a powerful astral plane
or intermediate zone force,
which may not be the best
thing to get involved with
(it depends), or else the
so-called guru in question
is a fake resorting to
legerdemain and gimmicks.
Generally also if there is
sensationalism then there is
likely to be abuse somewhere
down the track as well.
Assuming the guru checks out
okay on both these points,
then I would ask them to
look at the guru's life.
Does the guru devote more
time to themselves or to
their disciples? Is their
life one of constant
self-sacrifice and
giving? Of course there are
also adepts and renunciates
who live a very private and
solitary life, but I mean
here Gurus who are teaching
and have a following
So if all that checks out,
and there is still a feeling
of strong attraction to the
Guru, a resonance with their
teachings and a sense of
Light or Presence in their
pictures, then they are
probably fine.
But in all matters like
this, it is important to
listen to one's own inner
voice, not imagination or
rationalization, but the
very quiet, still, inner
voice.
For more info visit about M.
Alan Kazlev
www.kheper.net/aboutme/bio.html
For more info about abusive
gurus and dangerous cults
visi t
www.rickross.com
and for Guru ratings visit
www.globalserve.net/~Sarlo/RatingsA.htm
|
|
|
|
|