Consciousness as Muse: Meditative Sources of Creativity

The following essay is a re-evaluation of the psychology of artists of Western upbringing in the context of certain schools of knowledge that combine both textual information and experiential knowledge, neither of which may be understood at the most profound levels without oral teaching, initiations by masters, and extensive meditative experience. While the meditational experience is a dormant possibility for all humans there is one particular tradition which has the most complete continuation of knowledge and therefore the information dealt with is cited from a few select authors. However, rather than hinder the credibility of the paper presented by limiting the sources it actually greatly enhances its validity as there are very few people who are at the highest level.

One issue that may be a problem is the vast differences in language making translation from the Sanskrit extremely difficult and the many levels of meaning of the Sanskrit gets lost in translation and is known by few yogic practitioners anyways. The actual psychology is extremely complex, structured and documented, and it is highly recommended that the reader explore the bibliography and the series of audiocassette lectures for greater clarification and background. It is not possible to provide the proper background within this essay. Any mistakes in this work are the result of an author who is not yet a neuroscientist, master meditator, or scholar in Yoga philosophy, and not from mistakes in the actual knowledge. It may also be noted as to the impossibility to fully transmit knowledge through short essays or conversations thus making a commentary such as this seem shallow, pompous and dogmatic.

The intention here is merely to present a different outlook of the nature of the individual and the consequences this may have on artistic endeavors. I hope it doesn't sound like dogma, yet to write an argumentative paper a firm decision must be made which I do not have enough personal knowledge yet to decide, and quite possibly will never. Please take words such as "purity" and "knowledge" with a grain of salt, they have very specific intentions and are not moral chastisement for anyone who doesn't care for the associated ideas-they are meant only for individuals with very specific, difficult to obtain goals and are necessary means for that. The point is not philosophy but creativity. This should not be seen as an attack on writers, as all nations should be measured by their cultural achievements. If these thoughts may stimulate a new era of writing, however, it just may bring about the radical changes that are so obviously needed at this particular time in our history.

MINDLESS MIND

The experience of coming out of meditation

is the experience of God creating the universe.

(Swami Veda Bharati)

The most fundamental urge within an individual is the need to create. This is associated with the constant performing of actions, whether unconsciously or volitionally, whether active or as action in inaction. The words karma, kara (create), and creativity are all derived from the Sanskrit verb root kri, to do or create. There are many levels at which this may be interpreted but is greatly misunderstood by most artists resulting from being unaware of the proper functioning of their mind and the identification of their Self with the ego. Most western writers are trapped within this misunderstanding and reflect it greatly in their writing. They are not experiencing the full psychological potential possible for the individual human and this is reflected in literature that associates the dross of the average individual experience as humanistic and the inspirational source. Not being aware of these possibilities results in many writers expressing their depression through their work as an unchangeable condition of humanity, transmitting this impression to their readers, and thus committing crimes against humanity. There are two sources of creativity: samskaras arising from the unconscious and from purusha, the conscious self, as described in the Sankhya philosophy. Both sources have long been used to produce art, and both in some way require a degree of concentration of the mind. The use of meditation as muse may contain greater creative possibilities and its use is strongly correlated to the psychological advancement of the artist and their culture.

All the great laws of physics have been discovered in the contemplative state, and the unique works of art and literature are products of the contemplative mind. Meditation and contemplation both require a one-pointed mind, but the difference is that during meditation and contemplation, one consciously places himself in a concentrated and undisturbed state (Enlightenment…91).

It has been said that 'art is consciousness of unhappiness'. This pain is because most people remain stuck in a low level of psychological development. Language reflects this as it is very representative of the condition of one's mind in word choice, syntax, tone, and inflection, and the usage of words in identification with the egotistic "I". For instance, one may say, 'I am happy, My mind produced this, My brain hurts', or 'you hurt My ego'. Evidence of the schizophrenia or individual amnesia is in the absence of the phrase "I am a self" in a person's vocabulary, and especially in Western literature and philosophy. By this the "I", or the Self (different from the "self" of ego, a limited portion of mind enabling the physical organism to coordinate its functioning with the surrounding environment) is something other than the brain or mind. While the unconscious and conscious functions of mind are epiphenomenal the consciousness referred to here is regarded within the Sankhya philosophical system as a different, immaterial entity. The organization of words in this manner as well as its ability to function in aforementioned sequences begs the question of what the "I" is that is declaring itself. The answer may not lie within language as words itself but more subtly in the idea of words as vibrations and sounds, and the silence from which these words manifest themselves.

The following chart may illustrate the concept enough for understanding:

Purusha is the superconscious self that is reflected through the buddhi, or highest level of intellect of the mind. The buddhi is an evolute of Prakriti (matter), and ahamkara is "I-am-ness", a going-outward of the mind. In his commentary on the first volume of the Yoga Sutras, the scholar-saint Swami Veda wrote that "When the mind-field is turned inwards in the process of the dissolution of the evolutes and in it a mere reflection of 'presence,' 'existence,' appears, that is called asmita" (237). This is a reflection of purusha in the mind. Most people only operate in an outward-consciousness and identify with the ego, while meditators focus their consciousness inwards and look for their self.

Debussy said that real music is not contained within the notes (also different frequencies of vibration) but in the silence between them. It is only in context of the silence that the sound has meaning, and is also where the sound originates. Similarly words exist in the mind as vibrations emanating from silence. Does an individual exist only in context of language and words, or is there still existence and meaning on a much subtler and greater level in the silence of the mind? The wrong association in the West of self with words is evident in how much everyone talks nonstop like robots, and if there is a lull in conversation the common reaction is insecurity, uncomfortableness, and self-consciousness. Everywhere people have a constant need for verbal input-if not from someone else, then from a television, or radio, or talking to oneself. The recent necessity of cellular phones as a lifeline for most people is particularly disturbing.

Perhaps an extended metaphor may help. The beginning musician has just realized that their instrument, a guitar for example, would by nice to play and understand.. They have heard or seen other people who have mastery over the instrument. Books are written that describe how to control the instrument, yet words themselves will not achieve mastery, only much self-effort with the help of a teacher who is at the highest level of achievement. When the student begins they will not know how to properly tune the guitar or understand how to use it. While they may find pleasure in making a lot of unmusical noise, those who are professional musicians will describe this as racket. This does not make the beginning steps of music meaningless, but are steps that must be transcended to reach a higher goal, where meaning is realized and the musician is in control of creating the greatest beauty. The mind, similarly, is an instrument, and one must understand it and control it before really creating anything beautiful. What is created beforehand may not be meaningless, but if much greater beauty is possible, one should take the necessary steps to achieve it.

When one's mind reaches a level of one-pointed concentration and the phenomenon of thought ceases, one is unable to cognate that "I am", and only a level of awareness is left. This awareness is something that is therefore not a psychophysiological manifestation of brain activity (as the mind in the deepest meditation is suspended) but merely consciousness with neither beginning nor end. It is this consciousness from which all mental activity exists and is the source from which all art becomes manifest. The ability to say "I am a self" thus equals the will of consciousness as self to break the identification of buddhi with the ego and realize itself. All matter is subject to time, space, and causation, and the correlating phenomenon of creation, preservation, and dissolution. The egoistic self is subject to these laws and therefore is one reason many people write-they are afraid of death that they know is coming and want to create something that will last longer than them. In contrast the Conscious Self is not subject to these laws. A self-realization of this thus makes one able to freely create for beauty, instead of for a release of tension and fear.

Religions and many individuals confuse their identity with ego rather than consciousness, a mental ignorance that confuses non-eternal with eternal, impure with pure, and non-self as self. The psychoanalyst C.G. Jung was close to realizing this truth but was a little off in his discussions of anima and animus. These actually correspond much more closely with the masculine and feminine forces of the universe like the positive and negative poles of a magnet functioning as active (masculine) and passively energetic (feminine) forces. The hermetical maxim "As above so below" illustrates the idea that all physical laws and processes outside of the body are also present inside the body, and this is the beginning of where masculine and feminine are involved individually. Unfortunately most members of Western society recognizes a person's identity merely by a persons' sex organ and not the masculine and feminine forces operating within them. This is also an aspect of the cultural amnesia present in the West and the imbalance of these forces is causal to most of the psychological trauma and disorders here, as recognized by most psychoanalytic schools.

The philosophy reflecting the knowledge of the self as that infinite consciousness known by meditative traditions is reflective in the organization of the number system we use today. Although known as the Arabic number system it was actually taken from India, home of the oldest, most comprehensive, and most exact practice of meditation, exposition of philosophy, and knowledge of consciousness.

The concept of zero is drawn as a circle, O, and stands for the infinite and cyclical nature of the universe, which is also a meditative experience when the mind is transcended (the Sanskrit for zero, shunya, means emptiness.) Contained within that infinity is the Unity as Oneness, drawn as a straight line that represents all points as existing somewhere within the whole but not separate from the whole. Just as a mitotic eukaryotic cell creates two from one, unity divides itself into multiplicities. "Geometry attempts to recapture the orderly movement from an infinite formlessness to an endless interconnected array of forms, and in recreating this mysterious passage from One to Two, it renders it symbolically visible" (Lawlor, 23).

The Christian leaders did not have an understanding of this Self but rather were stuck in the dichotomous concept represented by two, resulting in a rejection of a unity consciousness and embracing a separateness of individual and universe. This idea of separateness took hold of the free thinkers who saw through the religious dogmas as well, and the view of oneself as a separate entity from the rest of the universe as ego versus other became established and helped lead to the existentialist writings of the nineteenth century.

Most people operate only at the unconscious, animal level of their being because to question 'why' or 'who am I' would cause too much disorientation, disillusionment, and discontent, crushing their spirit to live. For, when one realizes that all of one's habits, beliefs, practices, and relationships are misguided, self-centered, self-defeating it is very likely that their self will be annihilated without the necessary corresponding positive psychological changes for a smoother transition. It is not enough to completely reject one's false reality, one must replace it, not with more dogmatism and false beliefs but actions emanating from complete experiential understanding of the Conscious Self. Most of the problems and pain in today's society results from association with the ego but one must recognize this and subject oneself to the even more difficult and (initially) much more painful process of transmutation. This may seem contradictory but is a necessary step in one's psychic evolution. The mind of the average person is like a self-destructive habit that one is unaware of. The pain may initially hurt more upon waking up and realizing you are hurting yourself but when you fix the problem life becomes much fuller.

The French philosopher Maurice Blanchot said in The Space of Literature that "The writer never knows whether the work is done. What he has finished in one book, he starts over or destroys in another. . . . That the work is infinite means . . . that the artist, though unable to finish it, can nevertheless make it the delimited site of an endless task whose incompleteness develops the mastery of the mind. . . ." (22-23). He states further, "The infinite nature of the work, seen thus, is just the mind's infiniteness. The mind wants to fulfill itself in a single work, instead of realizing itself in an infinity of works and in history's ongoing movement"

As with most writers Blanchot seems to be under the impression that the sum of words and thoughts in one's mind are equal to the totality of a person, and that by writing he somehow comes to a zen-like state of nothingness of the mind. His ratiocinations here are incorrect. The idea that mastery of mind can be achieved through scribbling words is incredibly ignorant even with the smallest consideration of neuroscience, without venturing into the area of voluntary control of the ANS. The infinite nature of the work does not resemble the infiniteness of mind but rather the millions of worthless thoughts constantly running through a small area of mental functioning, thoughts that are only a small percentage of possible impressions that the mind chooses to receive. These do not make up a person but rather show the inability of language or thought to comprise the actual self.

One may question the idea that they are not what they have attached their identification to-how could one forget something as simple as what you are? Here are a few tests for the willing reader-are you maintaining awareness of the flow of your breath in your nostrils as you read this? It seems simple to remember oneself by that means, yet most people are not aware of themselves at any given time. Are you aware of any tension in your body, or the positioning of your body in space? If still not convinced, consider this scenario. Looking at the paper this essay is written on one is under the impression that one is looking out as though through two holes in a paper bag. However, it is rather light reflecting off the object and running through the optic nerve, undergoing an energy phase change in the brain which produces a conscious image in the mind. Therefore what one is looking at is actually your mind projecting outwards outside of your body. If this truth has never arose within an individual's mind over the course of their entire life, what other aspects of their being are they unaware of?

In the previous example it was shown that what one sees is an expansion of the mind. All of the body is located in the mind, but not all the mind is located within the body. As long as the sense perceptions provide the mental information only an indirect perspective of reality is possible and one's mind exists in an unconcentrated, distorted, and confused condition. Any creation produced in this state will also be distorted and impure.

The barriers created by the mind, senses, and sense objects obscure the vision of the aspirant. As long as the mind continues to interact with the senses, its dissipating nature cannot be brought under control. The mind seems to have a dual nature: either it functions with the help of the senses in the external world, or it recalls the impression stored in the unconscious mind (Enlightenment…99).

This problem of expansion of mind can be quickly solved at the grossest level by simply closing the eyes and concentrating the mind upon a point. Many writers and thinkers do this spontaneously during difficult moments. They are still writing from a shallow level of mind, however-if one took the effort to dissolve all 10 cognitive and active senses, then dissolve the other sheaths to a single point of concentrated awareness deep in the mind as purusha reflects itself through a purified buddhi they could experience an explosion of creativity from which one could write for infinite time. This would be the mental equivalent of the creation of the universe in the big bang. This is a much different level of creativity from the seemingly endless stores of garbage in the unconscious, and deserves exploration.

The concept that these indirect perceptions are a poor way of viewing reality is well known among those who study mind and its modifications and a way to experience reality directly is known in India as yoga-pratyaksha, which determines where specific and general properties are present and occurs in samprajnata samadhi, when a reflection of pure consciousness appears.

When senses present certain information to the mind-field, there occurs in the mind a certain modification (vritti) whose object is the sense data...such an apprehension in the mind-field is possible because the origin of awareness is in purusha (superconsciousness), who transmits to the mind its capacity to perceive. In such an apprehension or perception of a vrtti, the mind-field itself does not distinguish between its experience of the object from the external world and the awarenss imparted by purusha. In other words, the objects, the experience, the vrtti, the mind-field and the awareness of the spiritual self are not distinguishable one from another. Purusha, however, is the cause of buddhi's accurate apprehension (YSI 150).

If this state of direct perception of superconsciousness provides the only undistorted view of reality and is the ultimate source of creativity, how is it possible for the ego-identified artist to create much worthwhile? Things are still being constructed in this incorrect state of mind yet it is at a very different level. Thus the two sources of creativity are the unconscious (for those who operate only at the level of ego) and the superconsciousness as intuitive light. Why is the unconscious source not a good source of creation? Because thoughts lying in the unconscious are things that the ego did not want to resolve, that are merely mental disturbances. If one writes from the unconscious it is like throwing up yesterday's dinner-it may seem interesting, but to swallow it as something of beauty leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Many Western writers seem to operate at this level and it is reflected in the content and quality of their work (as seen by the individual who has seen through this-at every level like attracts like and those of similar infantile mental functioning will inadvertently be attracted to this level of work). An example would be Jack Kerouac, who wrote his book On the Road in two weeks using coffee and other drugs to keep him awake. These served only to activate the autonomic nervous system leaving him out of control, he was writing only through his unconscious mind which, as just discussed, is hardly considered to be creative. As he was only writing what was buried in his mind unconsciously, is he even correct in taking credit for writing his book? The part of him that took credit is his ego, which is a very different part of his mind that the Broca and Wernicke areas where language is processed, the cerebellum where scientists think consciousness arises from, and the unconscious where most people's ideas come from.

Some very simple evidence that good writing comes not from the conscious mind but some source within is the idea of blocks. For the writer a block occurs when he is trying to think out the words, struggling with each line of prose, tensing his forehead as though deepening the wrinkles on his brow will produce the next Hamlet. This never produces good writing, which occurs when the writer is able to let go, to clear his mind of obstacles (blocks and problems within the personality) to let the spontaneous flow of intuitive creativity flow through him. "No external means impel the subtle causes to come flooding forth, but through these means there occurs a break through the impediments, the way a farmer does not push a stream of water but breaks a dike with a tool" (YSI 454).

It may be argued that what one creates is actually nothing new but is already pre-existent on many levels, that they just take shape through certain forces. No one ever invented the wheel, for instance, the circle has always been an archetypal symbol and the wheel came into being as that symbol was transferred towards the concept of motion. The idea then is pre-existent in the mind before becoming manifest and brought to conscious awareness. All that comes into being was lying dormant in its potential before being realized. "By the Sankhya doctrine of pre-existent effect, nothing can be produced that is not already existent. Furthermore, that which brings any condition of a pre-existent object to excellence is considered a cause thereto" (YSI 454). This means that states of greater consciousness and the accompanying creative force are not created or new but are rather already existing and are only there to be realized, attainable in proportion to the perverse cognitions one removes.

Therefore what the artist does is not create anything new but brings into being universal fundamentals operating within him yet unknown to his conscious mind. Just as one must cleanse a mirror before seeing one's face, so must one cleanse the mind before the clear light of consciousness reflects clearly for the greatest creativity. The Western artist does get into touch with inner parts of himself but at a very shallow level…meaning that most of what the west has produced as well as what Western individuals have produced is only a very small percent of their actual potential for creation.

Many people have been accused of having a "false personality." What is a real personality then, if nothing more than external objects one attaches one's identification to? Someone who has painted his whole life thinks "I'm a painter", similarly one could buy a set of brushes and paints and just as easily make the same claim. Is it possible for one's identity to rest solely in the impressions one has taken into the mind, to the title that society and they themselves have imposed (i.e. smart, president, beautiful, creative, community activist, etc.) These are all very mutable things and do not reflect the self that is awareness which remains even after all cells in one's body have been replaced in their seven year cycles. Writers possibly fall into this identification more than anyone and think that their condition is immutable, their writing is their self and not an activity, and that their sorrows, experiences, and thoughts are their persona.

There is a long history of writers who embrace a life of depression. Many artistic people have used pain as inspiration and have created beautiful works, sometimes driving themselves to their death in the process. On the other hand, the intentional arranging of one's life in a poor way or the deliberate intoxication as means to artistic development may also be considered a crutch for an unskilled artisan. While there is no problem with a hard life presented as realism as became very pronounced after WWI and WWII, the purposeful subjection of oneself to pain for creation could be categorized as sadistic romanticism, and lacks a certain amount of credibility. This in turn raises the issue of the motives for writing-does one do it for money, or attention, from boredom, or as a catharsis for the neurotic? It seems as though many writers write as though their work is a diary entry, a means to release thoughts from their mind like a self-help method. What happens, however, is that most of them do not use this as a tool for further development but rather as an end in itself, a recording of an existence that cannot be changed.

Many writers and artists resort to psychoactive drugs to inspire creativity, thinking that the drug is the source of creativity. They may also think that by ingesting substances they gain access to higher levels of mental functioning that they otherwise would be incapable of. To a certain extent this is correct, but those higher levels are attainable without drug use and the drug experience is further affirmation of the amnesia regarding the self. The hallucinatory experience will sometimes temporarily remove one's association with the self as perceptions of space and time are distorted (as time, for example, is only a property of the human mind and has no reality outside of it) and the blocks associated with the ego are removed.

Psychedelic and spontaneous mystical experiences can each radically modify the self/other boundary. Snyder, a world-renowned neuropharmacologist, described how it felt when LSD evaporated this interface between his self and his non-self. First came a 'serene sense of being at one with the universe.'…'All is one, All is one'…But then this feeling gave way to the terrifying loss of awareness of who he was. During this phase he called out, 'Who am I? Where is the world?'' (Austin, 434).

Another way to describe the potential difference in being may be better understood in comparing the ordinary dreams during REM sleep state and lucid dreaming. In the ordinary dream the ego-self is unaware of its dream as being different from any situation in its waking life, though they are vastly different experiences of levels of consciousness as reflected neurologically as alpha vs. beta brain waves. In the lucid dream the dreamer is able to awaken to the fact that they are having a dream, that they are separate from their thought-experience and are merely watching a show. By this they are able to control and change the dream content rather than being attached to and thereby affected by the dream, as happens in a non-lucid dream*. The same difference is evident in the meditator with experiential understanding of consciousness as Self. They are able to control the phenomenon occurring around their mind-field, living in the world while remaining unaffected; while the individual who exists in a psychological state of the ego as self is not in control and subject to severe mental disturbances, living a life of suffering. If freedom and control are only possible through dissolving one's mental identification with the ego, then it follows that freedom of creative expression also can only be achieved through the same means.

*[note: the relevancy of this metaphor to this discussion is significant in light of recent neuroscience research in which practitioners of meditation of an average of twenty years were able to experience lucid dreaming 1-2 times per week versus only 51% of the entire population ever having experienced a lucid dream (Vareda, 108-109).]

Our humanness and ego-identification are not causal to our creativity but rather creativity occurs in spite of our humanness. In our present condition we are essentially automatons living a mechanical life, a life of unhappiness and insanity. Those who develop an artistic bent do so not in celebration of humanity but because they know that it is the creative force that sustains them, keeps them sane, reminds them that there is more to their existence than their job or family or possession or desire for possessions. Artists say that they are usually not in control of this desire to create but are rather a tool of it and just need to channel it. This is similar to how most people describe their sexual urge as not something that they are in control of but is something that merely arises, that controls them. In certain meditative traditions this sexual force results from a small stream of the total spiritual energy residing in the base of the spine, the Kundalini. This is essentially what gives us life yet in our present mental condition to experience it in its fullness would kill us. An unleashing of Kundalini is a result of creativeness of personality through meditative exercises and when unleashed takes control of one's mind and physiology and completely transforms the individual. As the sexual force is also a descendent of this energy they are both sources of activity. When one develops oneself to the state at which the Kundalini is flowing in the sushumna channel of the spine rather than the ida or pingala then true creativity is spontaneous, effortless, never ceasing. People in the West only have this experience of sushumna opening when they achieve orgasm and the male and female principles of the universe are united in oneself and the prana energy is flowing freely through both nostrils*

*[For more information needed to understand this, the reader may consult Swami Rama's The Science of Breath and Yoga and Psychotherapy].

Contrast this freedom with the writer who is constantly struggling, in blocks, needing this or that inspiration, needing to scam ideas from other writers, cultures, or religious groups. What some people would call fusion or a melting pot may also be described as unoriginality. This type of creation is not new and fresh, but stale and of a much lesser quality like movie sequels. With the awakening of Kundalini higher consciousness is achieved and all information becomes known and accessible, as all knowledge is dormant within one's inner awareness, and one loses intellectual dependency on others for creativity. This is intellectual and artistic freedom, not the ability to merely write against conventions and popular ideas as Westerners view it. Similarly one is not personally free until they experientially lose identification with the ego and realize their consciousness as the self, and no longer are dependent emotionally, mentally, or physically on anyone outside themselves. Is not the Western writer completely dependent on what everyone else thinks? How few of them merely create for the joy of creation. Rather, most of them are in search of praise, of company, of income. How shameful to declare one's dependency on others as freedom! The writer's dependency on the reader for audience for mental stability, their inability to function autonomously by realizing the reality of their self is just as repugnant as the religious zealot who in thinking of themselves as detached from the universe (resulting from ego's grasping for mine) and turning to dependency on a God outside of them, that they need for support. In both cases, it is not the entity (reader or divinity) outside of themselves that makes them happy but their mental reaction to those things, meaning that dependency on others is a placebo effect rather than a real cause-effect relationship.

As seen from the Sankhya philosophical system the nature of one's true self is much different from the ego or personality, which most people identify themselves with. Both the unconscious and the superconscious are used as sources of creativity and both require some degree of contemplation and meditation, depending on the ability of the artist. While art is art and Western society has produced its fair share of great works, the use of certain meditative techniques to access the superconsciousness as muse holds great potential and deserves self-exploration, regardless of one's philosophies or beliefs.

Arya, Pandit Usharbudh. Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali With Exposition of Vyasa. Volume 1, Samadhi-pada. Honesdale, Pennsylvania: Himalayan Institute Press, 1986.

Austin, James H. Zen and the Brain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1999.

Barthes, Roland. Writing Degree Zero. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1968.

Bharati, Swami Veda. Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali With Exposition of Vyasa. Volume 2, Sadhana-pada. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2001.

Blanchot, Maurice. The Space of Literature. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1955.

Fehrman, Carl. Poetic Creation: Inspiration or Craft. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1980.

Lawlor, Robert. Sacred Geometry. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1982.

Ouspensky, P.D. Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1974. - - - The Fourth Way. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1957.

Rama, Swami. Creative Use of Emotion. Honesdale, Pennsylvania: Himalayan Institute Press, 1976. - - - Yoga and Psychotherapy: The Evolution of Consciousness. Honesdale, Pennsylvania: Himalayan Institute Press, 1976. - - - Enlightenment Without God. Honesdale, Pennsylvania: Himalayan Institute Press, 1982. - - - Science of Breath. Honesdale, Pennsylvania: Himalayan Institute Press, 1998.

Varela, Francisco J. Sleeping, Dreaming, and Dying: An Exploration of Consciousness with the Dalai Lama. Boston, Massachusetts: Wisdom Publications, 1997.

Wilber, Ken. The Essential Ken Wilber. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambala Publications, Inc., 1998.

Suggested Series of Audio Lectures, by Pandit Usharbudh Arya, Dr. Litt.

Available at www.meaus.com/Swami_Veda_Bharati_-_Lectu.html

Subscribe to EuropeanArt
Powered by www.egroups.com

Copyright 2003 West-Art

PROMETHEUS, Internet Bulletin for Art, Politics and Science. Nr. 88, Summer 2003