IN SEARCH OF THE UNITIVE VISION

Is it possible to take Theosophy seriously? Is it possible to take seriously someone who does take it seriously? An Indian theosophist, Mrs Chakravarti, became a mendicant monk and took the name Sri Yashoda Mai, and gave her English disciple, Ronald Nixon, the name Sri Krishna Prem. Together they founded a Hindu Ashram at Mirtola, near Almora, in the foothills of the Himalayas, and after the death of Yashoda Mai, Krishna Prem became its head. He had a Scots disciple, Alexander Phipps, named Sri Madhava Ashish, who in turn became head of the Ashram. Those who got to know Ashish very much respected him and held him in great affection, as the author obviously did. Ginsburg, an American businessman, having reached a stage of disenchantment with life, came through a New Age magazine to a meeting of a Theosophical Society in Florida, and so heard of H P Blavatsky. He was especially interested in her psychic powers. Finding her book "The Secret Doctrine" incomprehensible, he was advised to read the commentaries by Sri Krishna Prem and Sri Madhava Ashish. Impressed by these (though he does not tell us why, or what he thought he then understood), he wrote to Ashish. Ginsburg was about to go to India to visit Sai Baba, as he was fascinated by the stories of his materialisations, and then went to see Ashish in Mirtola. On that first visit, Ginsburg told Ashish that he had recently heard of Gurdjieff. Ashish recognised him as a Master and it is obvious that he had read his books attentively and had received much from them. He advised Ginsburg to make contact with the teaching, which he felt would be suitable for a westerner like him. But he also advised him, though surely knowing that it was not part of Gurdjieff's teaching, to take a great interest in his dreams, as he could be guided by symbolic dreams arising from the higher self. Ginsburg joined a Gurdjieff group in Florida, was soon critical of it, and after a short time, left, because he wanted analysis of dreams to be included in the teaching. Together with a friend, who also left, he set up his own group, but left that group also, for the same reason. Despite his wealth, Ginsburg never seems to have attempted to approach a group closer to the source, in New York for example, to say nothing of London or Paris. He did meet Gurdjieff's principal disciple, Jeanne de Salzmann, but seems not to have recognised her. One question that arises as one reads this book is whether the advice Ashish gave to Ginsburg over a period of almost twenty years is in harmony with Gurdjieff's teaching, of which Ashish had no direct experience. When he was in a Gurdjieff group, Ginsburg first heard of the importance of sensation. Ashish wrote: "I have never found it useful to substitute awareness of sensation for awareness of thought", and on another occasion: "Recognise first that there is the body. Experience the body. Then experience what experiences the body. Then forget the body". Forget the body. Very Indian, that, but Gurdjieff taught that man has two natures and that he needs to be aware of both, to live both. Another question which arises is whether the advice given to the author by Ashish was effective. Ginsburg, over the years, asks Ashish: about dreams; whether to study the Cabala and alchemy; about "beings of higher worlds clandestinely embodied on this plane"; about being connected to an esoteric centre"; he wonders "if you were guided by a discarnate Master, would that really work?"; becomes fascinated by channelling and Alice Bailey, and wants to be initiated by Ashish. Interestingly, Ashish never formally accepted him as a disciple. To all the author's questions, Ashish always answers with great patience, very reasonably, and at length. Again and again one admires his patience, but then wonders at the length of these replies. What is really happening in the exchanges between these two? Mind speaking to mind? Ginsburg is never stopped; he comes up with yet another question… about externals, though repeatedly Ashish asks him to pursue awareness within, to stop the chattering mind. One longs for something direct, such as "Stop philosophising! Practise, practise!", but it does not come, it seems that was not Ashish's way. This book contains not only excerpts from Ashish's letters, but also some articles he wrote which appeared in obscure magazines. His writings all have the same character; they are interesting, reasonable, and rather long; they are not arresting, one is not brought back with a shock to oneself. Ashish's formulation "unitive vision" is rather philosophical, feeble, it does not call, as "Vision of oneness" or "Vision of the One" call. Yet those who knew Ashish undoubtedly were impressed by the quality of the man. To be fair to Ashish one should really quote him but, because he is so discursive, this is very difficult in a review. His essay "The Value of Uncertainty", included in this volume, is perhaps the best; any searcher would gain from reading it. However, let us hear some of the things he says about psychology, which so many of us find confusing, and let him have the last word: "Modern psychology in general adopts the materialist standpoint, especially in its psychiatric form, and so denies the real existence of all that is represented by the word soul. Ancient psychology is the science of the soul. Buddhism is known as the first psychological religion, because Buddha taught the causes of sorrow and their removal in terms of states of mind and feeling. Thus, every teacher of the inner work has been a psychologist…. Modern psychology has achieved remarkable insights into the working of the subconscious mind-feeling complex and the effects it has on the thoughts and feelings we are conscious of, and all this is of immense usefulness to anyone struggling to control his mind, to deal with negative emotions, to distinguish between his essential awareness and the sort of awareness that is present in what Gurdjieff calls sleep. But we cannot afford to use this knowledge without distinguishing it from the uses to which modern psychology puts it. "There are many fields in which this distinction has constantly to be made: interpretations of history, interpretations of archaeological discoveries, interpretations of scientific discoveries etc etc. Established facts have to be distinguished from theories built on those facts…..The prestige of the modern psychologists is such that they are thought so profoundly wise that we must either believe them totally or not at all… we want to use their perceptions but reject their conclusions. "We have also to guard against the mistaken assumption that psychoanalysis can be equated with the Work* But the Work itself is something quite different…It also seems to be a fact that modern psychology suits the psyche of modern man… however, it is also plain that men have followed this path throughout the ages without the help of this particular set of insights we call modern psychology…. The emphasis of psychology has gone into "curing" disturbed people. We are concerned with the higher sanity." * Work in the alchemical sense i.e. the transformation of man.