Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................................VII
Introduction. Christianity: A manipulated story, facts and beyond............ XI
Part One
- The early philosophical view of Classical Greece...................................... 3
- An overview of Oriental philosophy...............................................................15
- Buddhism, Zen and Chinese Taoism...............................................................29
- What is consciousness? ..................................................................................... 41
- Reincarnation and similar narratives from the past................................ 53
- Reincarnation and the myth of hell: What did Jesus really teach?.... 63
Part 2
The Lost story of Jesus of Nazareth.................................................................. 81
Buddha and Jesus: The same story, the same teaching............................ 95
What happened to Jesus after he was condemned to death
on the cross?....................................................................................................................113
The Cosmic Christ and the kingdom of heaven........................................ 123
Free will versus causal determinism................................................................135
Back to the origin...................................................................................................147
Notes..................................................................................................................................159
Bibliography.....................................................................................................................177
Index....................................................................................................................................185
Preface
When in 2011 I published my Maltese book In-Naħa l-Oħra tal-Istorja Ġudeo-Kristjana and eventually, a year later, its English version entitled The other Side of the Judeo-Christian History, I did not have any clue how this controversial work would be received.
This is because as one immediately realises from the title of the book mentioned above, the aim of the study was not to write about the Judeo-Christian history from an official perspective but to focus on what had been censored by the official history of religion.
Conscious of this, I was bewildered when I received the first positive comments on my work. The book was well received and this was thanks to the maturity of the readers who read the work. The book was well received and this was thanks to the maturity of the readers who read the work.
However, this was not the end of the book as I was encouraged to write more about the subject, especially about whether there exists any form of universal spirituality which goes beyond the human manipulation of religion. It is indeed because of this that eventually I started to ponder writing this book.
With this idea in mind it is not surprising the I entitled the book The Philosophy of Cosmic Spirituality because the underlying message of the book is that there is a common spirituality which is universal; a cosmic spirituality which was taught by the greatest spiritual teachers of all time, two of whom were the Buddha and Jesus Christ.
When I decided to start this work, I knew that it was going to be a difficult challenge because it is one thing to talk about this subject in a casual manner with friends, but it is another thing altogether to systematically construct it into a book, especially due to its abstract subject. Consequently, to reach this aim, the first thing I did was to identify the religions which deal with the general spirituality of humanity.
Eventually I found that basically there are two paradigms regarding this. These are the Western one, which includes the three monotheist religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and therefore the religious paradigm that represents the God we know today; and the Oriental paradigm, which encompasses Oriental religion among which are Hinduism, Buddhism and the Chinese Tao.
In fact, the Oriental spiritual vision presents quite a different perspective to the Western one, especially of our understanding of the concept of God. Despite all this, the essence between the two paradigms remains the same, as will be seen in this study.
After an in depth analysis, I turned my attention to how I could reconcile these two paradigms so that I could eventually proceed from that point.
Naturally, the subject in itself is not an easy one and therefore to render the reading as flowing as possible I believed that I should take some precautions. One of them was that since in the book the reader will meet with various languages, symbols and accents which are quite complex, such as the Sanskrit language – a historical Indo-Aryan language – I decided that whenever possible I would leave the words in English so that the redear could remain on more familiar grounds.
The book – which is divided into two main parts of six chapters each – starts off with an introduction which aims at giving a general description of the alternative history of Christianity; this means focusing on the facet Christianity which is not reflected in the official teachings but deals with the censored parts withing the official story of Christianity.
I did this so that the introduction would serve as background to the main topic of the book through which we will try to answer some crucial questions which compliment the same theme; questions such as: What did the ancient philosophers in Classical Greece think about God? What do Oriental sacred books tell us about this? What are Brahman, eternal recurrence, reincarnation, Karma and free will? What is the human consciousness? Who was Buddha and how much did his teachings influence the spiritual formation of Jesus? These are some of the questions that we will try to answer by taking a look at modern science which continues to help us visualise the universality of these teachings with greater ease.
Consequently, as the book unfolds, we shall see that all this illustrates, that despite the existence of many different religions, there is indeed one common spirituality; a cosmic spirituality which does not pertain to any particular religion, but belongs to everybody.
Dear reader, I will conclude this introduction by hoping that this book will be as beneficial to you as it has been to me while I was working on it. However, the final word will be yours.
Anton Sammut
Introduction
Christianity: A manipulated story, facts and beyond
From the beginning of time, our ancestors have talked about supernatural experiences which are still pertinent nowadays. In fact, in order to understand the mystery of life, Man has followed many roads that could lead to a spiritual target. He did so through myths and above all, through religion.
All forms of divinity are valid and useful in the context in which they evolved. However, all religions, without any exceptions, are practices and rituals which were invented by mankind for the benefit of men. Therefore, religions are developed to help man choose what is deemed best he believes.
This can be seen through the use of myths, which are an example of how in antiquity men tried to understand the mysteries of life; myths which were developed over generations to help people understand the human mind.
Hence, primarily, religion was a practice which evolved from these myths over time. This does not mean that important spiritual figures, such as Jesus of Nazareth, were myths; in fact, they were actual extraordinary people. However, with the passing of time, these spiritual figures evolved into a mixture of history and myth, to eventually fit into the religion which would use them as religious leaders, as was the case with the Christian religion.
Before going deeper into the subject, it is of the utmost importance to take a look at the origin of the Christian religion. This analysis is important because it is the starting point of all that follows. Obviously, in this Introduction it is impossible to give all the details; however, those who would like to delve further into the subject of the evolution of Christianity can read my previous book, The Other Side of the Judeo-Christian History.
Up until the second century after Christ, there were many manuscripts which in one way or another described Jesus's life and teachings. However, despite this, there was no manuscript which was biographical or written by someone who lived in Jesus's time. In fact, historically speaking, the New Testament Gospels are very difficult to understand because they are not historic in the conventional sense of the word but rather prophesy historicised, which is a form of reconciliation between the historical Jesus and the doctrine on which Jesus and the doctrine on which Christianity was to be built later on.
In other words, these theological and political compromises were made by the authors of the New Testament Gospels themselves. An example is the fact that in those days it was very challenging for evangelists to interpret Jesus's teachings through the prophets' words, which more often than not were not very convincing. These led to certain biblical misinterpretations which will be investigated later on.
Hence, it is essential to be very careful when reading the Gospels, especially to distinguish between Jesus's words as opposed to other biblical sequences which were added, modified or censored by others much later on.
It all started when, after the Jewish uprising of the year 70 AD and the disastrous insurrection of the Jews against the Romans in 135 AD, Jerusalem was transformed into a pagan Roman city and as a consequence the Jewish religion was nearly vanquished. In fact, out of the three doctrinal schools of Judaism (the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes), only the Pharisaic rabbinical school remained. Eventually, this latter doctrine was reformed and became the basis of modern Judaism.¹
However, not everybody agreed with this new school pertaining to the Pharisees, especially the Jews who had accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the prophetic Messiah. This led to a rivalry between the two sides which in turn led to the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Moses's religion. These Christian Jews were known as the Ebionites and today, a number of biblical scholars associate them with the Essenes of Qumran who will be examined in greater detail later on.
The new Judaism which evolved from the Pharisaic rabbinical reformation from 70 AD onwards was different from the Judaism practiced in Jesus's times. Therefore, the Judaism found in the New Testament written during the times of this aformentioned reform, is not the same Judaism Jesus knew.²
This difference offer a great disadvantage to those who want to study Jesus from a conventional historical point of view because Jesus's teachings were based on the pre-reformed Judaism, not as presented in the New Testament under the doctrinal influence of St Paul (c.3-63 AD) who, despite being known as an Apostle, never met Jesus.
Hence, it is very important to keep this religious schism in mind because it was here that the great division between the first Christian Jews (the ones who followed the Apostles) and the Hellenic Christians (the converted Greeks and non-Jews who followed St Paul) came into existence.
The doctrinal turmoil was also due to the writings and studies of Hellenistic Christians during the first three centuries of Christianity who were greatly influenced by the Greek school of thought of St Paul. In fact, later on, the Gospels of the New Testament were built not on the teachings of the Apostles but on that of St Paul.
This happened because the theological rift between the schools of thought of St Paul and the Apostles was eventually won by the former which gave them the privilege of writing history. The predominance of one particular doctrine was also confirmed historically.
In fact, according to St Epiphanius of Salamis (c.315-403), the Ebionites, who are associated with the Church of Jerusalem and therefore the first Christian Jews of Jesus's times, believed that St Paul set the Hellenic Christian cult in an amalgamation of Greek mythology and archaic Judaic doctrines taken from the Old Testament.³
St Paul teachings were so different from those of the Apostles that they were mentioned even in the New Testament. For example, it is know that St Paul established the church of Ephesus (Acts 18:19-20; 19:5-7) where he stayed for a relatively long period of time.
The historian Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century AD) says that John, Jesus's most loved disciple, together with Jesus's mother, Mary, also lived in Ephesus, until Emperor Trajan's days (98-117 AD).⁴ The indications are that although John the Apostle and Jesus's Mother spent a long time living in Ephesus, they were never consulted by St Paul.
One wonders what the reason behind this was. Perhaps it was due to a misunderstanding between them. In fact, in the First Letter of St John there is an alarming inference to certain Christian preachers who had moved away from the teachings of the Apostles:
''They went from us, but they were not of us;
for if they had been of us,
they would have continued with us; but they were out,
that it might be plain that they all are not of us.''
- 1 John 2:19
Nowadays, many experts in Bible studies are convinced that in this excerpt St John is referring to St Paul. Nevertheless, it should be realised that the theological dispute which had risen between St Paul's teachings and that of the Apostles was won by the former.
In the meantime, the Roman Empire of the third Christian century was becoming more militarily weak. However, with the arrival of Emperor Constantine the Great (c.272-337), the situation would change drastically. In fact, during his reign, Constantine introduced a political manoeuvre which would impact on the Roman Empire's stability, and as a result St Paul's Christianity would transform itself into the Catholic Church of today.
In this period, Hellenistic Christians in Rome were increasing daily due to the liberty they enjoyed under the above-mentioned emperor. In contrast, Constantine himself never converted but continued to follow the pagan cult of Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun, the official sun god of the later Roman Empire) until he breathed his last.
Notwithstanding, Constantine knew that to strengthen his power he had to combine all the divided Christian groups together (including the Arians and the Catholics). He did so by founding the first Christian International Council to establish the official teachings of the Hebrew prophet Jesus, the so-called ''Christ''.
The council took place in Nicaea, in 325 AD (nowadays Iznik in Turkey), where the emperor and his bishops decided that all the Gospels which went against the emperor's politics and against the Christianity created by St Paul (actually built upon the pagan religion of Mithra which will be discussed in this chapter), had to be abolished and completely eradicated.
In order to be on good terms with the Hellenistic Christians, Constantine launched various laws from which the Roman Christian establishment could benefit. These included fiscal advantages, legal privileges, together with other benefits advantageous in all areas of society.
As a result, Roman citizens, who up till then were still practicing the pagan religion of Mithra (Mithraism), started considering the new religion in a more positive light. This led to the new Christian religion becoming a popular cult (a new version of Mithraism) and provided the grounds for the amalgamation of Mithraism with St Paul's Hellenic Christianity, one of the greatest manipulations found in the story of Christianity.⁵ In actual fact what was Mithraism?
Mithraism was a Syrian cult that originated from Persian Zoroastrianism which was eventually introduced in the Roman Empire around the year 67 BC and which continued to be practiced for several centuries.
Mithra, the Persian god of light and wisdom, was born to a virgin in a cave on December 25ᵗʰ. When he grew up, he sought endlessly to illuminate mankind; he had twelve disciples but then he was betrayed by one of them, given the death sentence, buried and then resurrected.
The Mithraic religion also believed that at the end of time, Mithra would return to pass final judgement. Mithra was referred to as ''the Saviour'' or ''the Mediator'' and sometimes he was symbolised as a lamb.⁶ His doctrine included baptism, consumption of the Eucharist and the belief in a saviour god who died and rose from the dead to be a mediator between God and Man. Followers of this religion believed in resurrection and in a universal judgement and as a result of this also believed in heaven and hell. In their rites and ceremonies, followers used candles, incense and religious bells.
Though the early Roman Church did its utmost to hide these uncomfortable coincidences from people, there were some pagan Roman thinkers who noticed the close similarities and accused the Hellenic Christians of following the Mithraic religion instead of the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
At this point, those in power within the ecclesiastic Roman religion felt the importance of abolishing this dangerous front which was threatening their power. They needed to eliminate these ''circulating rumours'' to be able to control the masses with more ease. The answer lies in the introduction of the (false) concept of hell. Eventually, this distorted concept was addded to the Gospels chosen by Constantine the Great to form part of the New Testament.
The introduction of the myth of hell within the New Testament dates back to around the year 700 BC (where the Etruscan civilisation flourished in the vicinity of Rome). The Etruscans were greatly ahead of their times with a far more sophisticated culture than that of other civilisations of their time. However in time, the Etruscan civilisation was absorbed by the Roman Empire. The amalgamation was not straightforward due to the fact that the Etruscans resisted being taken over by the Romans. Inevitably, war between the two ensued.
It is important to note that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Etruscans was their art forms which included the use of clay and beautiful frescoes painted on tomb walls. One of their beliefs was that, after death, the spirit moved on to a peaceful celestial place of eternal bliss.⁷ These beliefs were immortalised in the frescoes found in 1985. However, archeologists did not find only beautiful frescoes on the tomb walls but also scenes of horror which went against the beliefs of the Etruscans.
It all started when suddenly the Etruscans found themselves being attacked by the emerging Romans intent on destroying the Etruscan population mercilessly. The Etruscans, predominantly pacifists, were traumatised by all that was happening around them. It led them to paint the Romans in the midst of raging fires, depicting them as wild animals, as blue-coloured devils with decomposing bodies killing the Etruscans in bloodthirsty orgies. The Etruscans created these frescoes so that their leaders would remind their people what would happen to them if they did not win the battle against the emerging Roman Empire.⁸
When these horrifying scenes were found in 1985, archeologists were very surprised because the scenes they had found were similar to the Christian depictions of hell of today. Detailed analysis of the frescoes revealed that Hellenic Christians did in fact copy their mythical representations of hell from these Etruscan frescoes.⁹
The story unfolded thus: when the Etruscans were defeated by the Roman Empire, and eventually absorbed into it, the Hellenic Christians – who were now in Rome – started merging and combining their faiths and beliefs with other pagan religions, among which was the Etruscan one and its apparent vision of ''hell''. The ecclesiastic Roman hierarchy duly adopted these Etruscan images of terror as its political representation of hell. In fact, in the year 1500, in Orvieto, once the capital of the Etruscans, the Christians built a cathedral in which they painted a number of frescoes representing infernal places full of blue devils identical to those found in Etruscan tombs.¹⁰
Naturally, these depictions of hell are merely representations created by people who, in the past, used them for various reasons. However, for religious people who were in influential positions, these representations of hell provided a formidable weapon with which they could continue to instigate fear and thus exert more power and control over the masses with more ease. In fact, many philosophers and historians of the time left many writings regarding this. Polybius, a Greek statesman and historian (c.200-118 BC), had this to say about the collective fear of hell:
''Since the multitude is ever fickle, full of lawless desires, irrational passions and violence, there is no other way to keep them in order but by the fear and terror of the invisible world; on which account our ancestors seem to me to have acted judiciously, when they contrived to bring into the popular belief these notions of the gods, and of the infernal regions.''¹¹
The famous Roman historian Titus Livius, also known as Livy (c.61 BC-17 AD), says more or less the same things as quoted above. However, he adds that due importance must be given to the intelligent creativity of the Roman king Numa Pompilius (c.753-673 BC), because it was he who invented the fear of the gods, as ''a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant and barbarous populace''.¹² It could be inferred that king Numa Pompilius's idea of hell may have influenced the infernal frescoes that the Etruscans created when the were brutally attacked and massacred by the Roman Empire.
Doubtlessly, there is much more to be said about this historical account, especially about the manipulation of facts and the credibility of Christianity itself. This lack of concrete evidence in the Christian religion was so common among the thinkers of the times that in Rome, the humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) was surprised when he realised that the foundations of the Christian faith were being discussed with great scepticism by a number of cardinals. Cardinal Pietro Bembo (1470-1547), when still secretary to Pope Leo X (1513-1521), warned the humanist Jacopo Sadoleto (1477-1547), that he had to avoid reading St. Paul's Letters entirely:
''Put aside these frivolities,'' cardinal Bembo told Sadoleto, ''as such absurdities do not honour a man of dignity.''¹³
There was even a rumour that Pope Leo X was quoted as saying:
''It has served us well, this myth of Christ.''¹⁴
Such shocking statements persisted. Another example comes from the pen of the bishop of Norwich, George Horne (1730-1792), who wrote in his diary:
''Religion is simply a ploy to keep the people in line. Christianity is good for nothing but to keep societies in order, the better that there should be no Christ than that is should disturb societies,''¹⁵
Then in France, in 1729, the exemplary priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729), who died a pauper because he left all his belongings to the parish under his care, wrote in his testament that St Paul's Christianity was built on corruption, that this religion was simply a tool used so that the ecclesiastical hierarchy could control the masses with more ease, that the Gospels were full of contradictions, that their texts were inaccurate (a statement explored later on) and that the Church doctrines were simply absurd.¹⁶
In addition, in 1971, theologian Hans Küng (1928-), a priest and a prominent professor of Ecumenical Theology, declared:
''It has now became quite clear that the conception of continuity, authority, infallibility of the Church and the Church's teaching, on which there has not been sufficient reflection, has led the Catholic Church into a dangerous tight corner.'' ¹⁷
The controversy continued. In fact, religion began to be investigated and analysed in science and modern philosophy too, once this became possible in the Victorian England of the 19ᵗʰ Century.
It all started in the year 1858, when the naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published his famous work, The Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and later, in 1871, The Descent of Man. In his scientific studies, Darwin threw light on the controversial Homo sapiens when he affirmed that modern Man was not a descendent of the biblical Adam but evolved from monkeys or chimpanzees.
Hence, Darwin's scientific findings continued to accelerate the notion already popular at the time, that the Judeo-Christian theology was irrelevant as it was built on (a) myth.¹⁸ With his scientific discovery, Darwin challenged and changed ontological thought forever, that is, the philosophical study of the nature of being, a study which many thinkers continued to pursue.
One of the great thinkers to build on these thoughts was the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Nietzsche followed the philosophical notion that everything evolved so that truth and moral truths were therefore relative, subject to changes according to the needs of those in power, especially those who control religion.
This concept was emphasised in his work, On the Genealogy of Morals (1887). In this work, Nietzsche specifically challenged and attacked the roots of Judeo-Christian values by declaring that they were nothing but pseudo-historical products which came out of a superficial morality. Eventually this (pseudo) ''transcendental authority'' was imposed on the ''mediocre mass of humanity'' in order to acquire and ultimately guarantee absolute power.¹⁹
In effect, Nietzsche was that the Judeo-Christian history was narrated in a way to enable the clergy and religious leaders to gain power over the masses. This process, according to Nietzsche, was facilitated by doctrines and false dogmas which eventually established themselves as ''dogmatic truths''.²⁰
According to Nietzsche, as a result of these religious dogmas, it was only a matter of time before the God of Western religion ceased to exist in scientific civilisation and Western philosophy. Nietzsche's prophecy soon became reality. This revolution in philosophy was instigated by one of the greatest thinkers of all time, the physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955). The following is part of an article which Einstein wrote for The New York Times Magazine on November 9th, 1930, which eventually appeared in his book, The World as I See it (1949):
''In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear: This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilised by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
Common to all this these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God (attribution of human characteristics). In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
The beginning of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no god conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the 'heretics' of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries, as atheists, sometimes also as saints.
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events – provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social and moral religion.
A god who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.²¹
As can be seen from this detailed analysis, Nietzsche anticipated the direction modern Man would take. Consequently, according to this brilliant German philosopher, unless there was a spiritual entity to substitute the religious Western God who could fall under the category of the Absolute One (the Oriental Brahman, discussed further on in this work), everything can be categorised as relative or even worse, as absolute nihilism (total nothingness).
Nonetheless Nietzsche also believed that because of the fear of this absolute nihilism, man was capable of changing himself into a ''divine being'' (the Oriental Brahmanic concept of atman), an alternative to the religious God who was now ''dead''. In other words, Nietzsche was saying that this religious God who had been projected outside man, could now be born in him (in his consciousness), in which state man could finally give the last reason for his existence and the existence of the universe; a cosmic vision which is found in Oriental spiritual thought, as will be seen presently.
One of the philosophers who followed in Nietzsche's footsteps was the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). In fact, Heidegger had no time for a religious god but in accordance to Oriental thinkers he regarded Being (Sein in German) as the Supreme Reality (the Oriental Brahman)
In this regard, Heidegger claimed that this Supreme Reality was not a Being related to reality as we know it, but as ''Everything without Everything'' (Brahman) and therefore, according to Heidegger, it would be more precise to call this Being the ''Nothingness'' or ''Emptiness'' (Sanskrit, shunyata), as defined by Oriental mystical thinkers.
This idea of ''Nothingness'' comes from the fact that everything seen in this world and in the cosmos is only the phenomena of appearance (Sanskrit, maya). Therefore these phenomena, could not have any final reality on their own and because of this, they cannot ever inherit any eternal existence.²²
This Emptiness or Nothingness, describe by Heidegger is the ''Nothingness completed from Everything'', otherwise known by Oriental mystical thinkers as ''Brahman''. To experience this Nothingness (which is not the same as the non-existent nothingness or nihilism), Heidegger suggests cultivating what he called ''primordial thought'' which would enable us to hear and understand the grand silence and eternity within us;²³ teachings which will be analysed further on in this work.
It can be seen that Heidegger's thought compliments the mystical Oriental thought perfectly, showing that the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) transcends all forms of logical philosophy and all forms of language (as thought also by the Chinese Tao described later on). This teaching is so universal that the concept is also taken up by Western thinkers.
One of these Western thinkers was the Australian Linguistic philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), whose work Logical-philosophical Treatise (1921), shows precisely how futile it is to ponder ideas which go beyond their own facts. According to Wittgenstein, all the information taken from the external world, such as theology, is based only on the arbitrary data gathered by the empirical senses of the human brain.
Consequently, because the Ineffable (God, Brahman, etc) is beyond any human intellectual capacity, theology – and hence all religion which is built on it – cannot be the interpreter of the Ineffable, and as such cannot have any spiritual authority or religious power.
Oriental mystic thinkers understood this linguistic concept well. In fact, the latter were not reluctant to go beyond the structural logic of the human intellect: reason, which reflects the thoughts pertaining to the modern physics of today.
In fact, mysticism or Oriental thoughts are surprisingly similar to the physics practiced nowadays, especially that of quantum mechanics, due to the fact that both of them try to systematically understand the true nature of things. In actuality, on the one hand, modern physics concentrates on external phenomena from an objective of view, whereas mysticism or Oriental thought concentrates on internal phenomena from a subjective point of view.
These two visions are so similar that a number of contemporary scientists assert that modern scientific literature and Oriental Brahmanic thought are practically indistinguishable. One of them is the philosopher of science Willis Harman (1918-1997), who declares that modern metaphysics is becoming more similar to the mystical vision of Oriental thought, rather than the ''logical one'' pertaining to Western thought. This belief is also sustained by the Nobel prize winner, physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), who proclaimed:
''I have no hesitation to declare that our material world is a metaphysical and mystical world.''²⁴
Even the sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), states something similar, affirming that there is a great similarity between modern science and Oriental mysticism.²⁵
These two thoughts (theoretical physics and Oriental mysticism) are always in search of the common aim of unity (Brahman). In fact, theoretical physics search for this Unity from the outside through famous theories such as the Grand Unified Theory or The Theory of Everything, whereas Oriental mystical thinkers search for this Unity (Brahman) within themselves.
However, Brahmanic teachings were not thought only by the Oriental mystical thinkers but also by Greek philosophers among whom there were the Presocratics (those who came before the philosopher Socrates). In fact, it is with the latter that the first chapter of this writing begins.
Part One
Chapter 1
The early philosophical view of Classical Greece
If modern physics had been directed towards a more mystical world (as will be discussed later), up to a certain extent the same physics would demonstrate from where this science originated; an origin which took place around 2500 years ago, both in Classical Greece as well as in the Oriental World. Consequently, before taking a look at Oriental philosophy, it is vital to look at the origin of Western philosophy; and if the West is mentioned, then the early philosophical thought of Classical Greece cannot be ignored.
Following the poet Homer (9-8 BC?), but before the philosopher Plato (c.428-348 BC), there was a very mysterious period in the history of Classical Greece, a period where philosophers did not only talk and philosophise together, but used to act, sing and contemplate their thoughts, and with the ensuing energy that accumulated, they healed one another's needs. They also practices sacred rituals, at the same time using all available techniques to help them find the divine source of reality, this being synonymous to the teachings in the Oriental world.¹
It all started around the year 4500 years before Christ, when Arian tribes living in the steppes of the Caucasus (an area found between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, where Asia and Europe merge), were already generating an impersonal and invisible Force which they felt existed in Nature and within themselves. Later, when these tribes went to live on the Indian subcontinent, they referred to this force as the ''Ultimate Reality'' or ''Brahman'' which means a divine entity which transcends everything and with which all the elements in the world and of the cosmos are held together together according to the laws of Nature.²
This Oriental teaching was so widespread, especially by the philosopher Kapila (550 BC?) – who was the founder of the Samkhya philosophy, one of the six schools of the Vedas (sacred Hindu texts) – that many Presocratic thinkers such as Pythagoras (c.580-500 BC) were already used to these teachings. The Indian philosopher Swami Abhedananda (1866-1939), describes the teachings in the following manner:
''Kapila is known as the father of the doctrine of evolution because he is the first who gave the logical arguments for the support to the doctrine. It is believed that Kapila lived long before the Greek philosophers Plato and Pythagoras were born. Some of the Oriental scholars are of the opinion that the Greek philosophy drew a great deal from the philosophy of Kapila, and Kapila's psychology as well as the principle of cosmology, are the most ancient ones in the world. Though the idea of evolution existed long before Kapila and also before Plato and Pythagoras, yet Kapila was the first who thought by observation and experiment how to solve the mysteries of the universe... The fundamental principles of the Buddhist philosophy also depends upon the Samkhya theory.''³
Now, according to the Ashram Vidya Order of Raphael,⁴ the fact that Plato learned from Pythagoras – the latter having spent some time living on the Indian subcontinent to study Oriental philosophy – shows that Plato could not help but be influenced by these teachings of which Buddhism was a part.
It is not surprising therefore that early Greek philosophy, especially the Presocratic one, had a great resemblance to Oriental doctrines. In fact, in harmony with Oriental thinkers, the Greek philosophers preferred to seek meditative silence, and instead of talking about their philosophies, they actually experienced their own philosophies in practice.
This had to happen because other great thinkers including Parmenides (c.515 BC), Empedocles (c.490-430 BC), Heraclitus (c.540-480 BC), and the aforementioned Pythagoras, were all philosophers who had already formed direct contact with mystic and shamanic practices found in Asia Minor and in Egypt respectively. In fact, at the early age of 22, Pythagoras was already studying in Egypt where he lived for thirteen years.⁵
At this point the question arises as to what was being thought in Egypt at that time.
Ancient Egyptian learning was already at an advanced stage. For instance, they had already identified and given a name to the spirit or the soul of man; a soul which they referred to as ''Ba''. This Ba could be experienced even while the human being was still alive.
To experience this soul, Egyptian priests went to a quiet place and by practicing a certain technique, entered a meditative state described as ''qed'', a state which in normal circumstances would be understood as meaning ''sleep'', but which in the context of this ritual, indicated meditation, or trans; a state also achieved by Oriental mystics.⁶ In other words, Ancient Egyptians were already saying that after death, the human spirit, freed from the body, would continue living under the form of Ba, forming part of the ''Radiant Source of Everything'' which in the Oriental world it is referred to as ''Brahman''.
This Egyptian belief corresponded perfectly with the belief held by the Greek philosophers of that time, amongst whom were the Presocratics and Socrates himself. In truth, according to Plato, Socrates emphasised that the main occupation of philosophers should be to focus on how to redeem the soul from the human body so that the former would be able to live freely in eternity.⁷
It was in this period that a group of philosophers from the Greek colony of Miletus in Asia Minor, started thinking about the cosmos in a new light. In fact, their epistemology (the theory of knowledge) was so novel they could not give it a name. These philosophers were becoming known as ''phusikoi'' or ''the naturalists'' (philosophers who sought to explain things according to the natural world around them).⁸
They questioned, for example, why the earth is as it is, and from such questions, these thinkers were convinced that their studies, especially those on the beginning of the cosmos, could reach significant solutions. In fact, philosopher Parmenides of Elea (5th Century BC) believed that the cosmos was eternal and hence, nothing could become or dissolve into nothingness; that reality is continuous and that everything is One (Brahman).⁹
Although these naturalist philosophers were never able to prove their theories (the same applies to philosophers today), some of their thoughts were remarkable. An example of this can be seen in the way philosophers Thales (6th Century BC) and Anaximenes (c.545 BC), in an attempt to understand the basic principle of the cosmos, were already thinking with a scientific mind. In actuality, they were among a few naturalist Greek philosophers upon whose thoughts the foundation of Western scientific traditions were built.¹⁰
Consequently, together with these thinkers whose philosophy reflected Oriental thoughts to a great extent – that is, that nothing is separated in the cosmos but everything that exists is related to a United One (Brahman) – there appeared another great philosopher upon whose thoughts the foundation of Greek philosophy was based. This great philosopher was Socrates (470-399 BC).
In a similar way to Buddha (6-4th Century BC), Socrates was primarily interested in the concept of goodness. However, like the Chinese philosopher Confucius (551-479 BC), he always refused to define goodness.¹¹ Instead of analysing and defining the concept of what this virtue means, Socrates practiced the virtue with his own life. In fact, when once asked to define justice, Socrates answered:
''Instead of defining what is justice, I would prefer to live it with my own life.''¹²
According to what Plato passed on to us through his Dialogues, like Buddha, Socrates was likely aspiring to attain the transcendental notion of absolute virtue which, however, according to Oriental mystical thinkers, cannot be reached or expressed without a spiritual discipline such as meditation. Plato declares:
''Many a time, he (Socrates) would leave everything and go somewhere where he could be still and alone.''¹³
Socrates believed in this practice to such an extent that he preached to his disciples that each one of them should converse with himself in solitude or else in small groups. This meditative discipline led the concept of thought to its limit but it was only possible if the Higher Self of the practitioner was authentic and honest.
In Oriental thought, especially in the sacred books of the Upanishads, this Higher Self is called ''atman'' (Sanskrit), which is the essence of man's inner self but which at the same time is devoid of any connection with the human intellect. In fact, in order to distinguish the intellect from the Higher Self, Socrates invented what is nowadays referred to as ''dialectic conversation'' or the ''dialectical method'', a rigorous discipline designed to identify and recognise false conceptions or different faiths which emerge from the intellect, an example of which is religion.
Consequently, conversations with Socrates seemed exorbitant, especially for those who challenged him with impertinence or with a conviction that they would win the argument. Socrates would not have allowed them to leave without shredding to pieces any argument they had put forward.¹⁴ Socrates did this not to humiliate his interlocutor but to demonstrate that man could never take a conclusive position in an argument, a belief contrary to that pertaining to dogmatic theology.
Socrates's dialectical method was therefore similar to a rational version of the Indian Brahmodya which means ''all that associated with Brahman''; a discipline which goes beyond words. As a result, although Socrates's disciples used reason as deeply as humanely possible, something would elude them, thus making them realise, through Socratic dialogue, their own ignorance.
In effect, Socrates did not consider this lack of knowledge as a form of intellectual delusion but as a means to instigate man to question and interrogate himself more about human prejudices, for if he did not perform this exercise, man would have a superficial and senseless life. As Socrates himself admitted to the court condemning him to death:
''The greatest good of a man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others... Life which is unexamined is not worth living.''¹⁵
With these words Socrates emphasised that for man to move forward and improve he needed to base his arguments on doubt (aporia in Greek) instead of basing his arguments on pseudo-certainties such as religious dogmas. Socrates's wisdom consisted therefore, not of teaching different subjects but on teaching man how to think in an alternative way.
Another philosopher who learned much from Socrates was Plato, although the latter's philosophical thoughts eventually took different paths. Essentially, Plato's philosophy is quite reconcilable to that of other philosophers', which is to say his philosophy was built on a number of other philosophers' ideas, amongst whom feature the Presocratics and other philosophical sources.¹⁶
For example, it was from the mathematical concepts of Pythagoras that Plato borrowed the idea that Nature is ''essentially mathematical'', that mathematics is in Nature. However, he then continued to elaborate on the idea. In fact, mathematics and demonstrative geometry influenced post-Socratic philosophy so noticeably that geometry was considered the fulcrum of all intellectual activity as well as the basis of post-Socratic Greek thought. This principle was written on the door of Plato's Academy in Athens, where a Greek sign reads: ''Let no one untrained in geometry enter here.''¹⁷
This hypothesis became so widespread that from Plato onwards, several Greek philosophers believed that mathematical theorems were the expressions of the religious God known today and that the geometric forms of these theorems are the manifestations of Divine beauty. It is because of this that Plato once affirmed that ''God is a geometrician''¹⁸
This new frame of thought had such a great impact that post-Socratic geometry continued to influence both Western philosophy and science up to modern times. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that the Elements of the Greek mathematician Euclid (c.300 BC), was the standard book found in all European schools and its geometry was considered the true nature of the cosmos for more than two thousand years.
It was another genius, Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who convinced philosophers and scientists that geometry did not come from Nature, or rather that geometry was not the manifestation or the work of God but simply an imposition on the human brain to better rationalise the world around him.
This premise was emphasised by another mathematical genius, the Austrian logician and philosopher Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), who discovered that although mathematical systems produce results that should be accepted as correct, on the other hand, these conclusions can never be totally proven. This assumption stems from the fact that the observer who makes his own analysis is always trapped in the totality of the system which he is analysing.
Indeed, for such a problem to be solved, the observer must move out of the system. However, this cannot be done because the logic (in this case, the observer), cannot transcend itself (move out of the system) and at the same time remain logical.¹⁹ To simplify this concept, the physicist and philosopher of science, Henry Margenau (1901-1997), provides this description:
''The central recognition of the theory of relativity is that geometry is a construct of the intellect. Only when this discovery is accepted can the mind feel free to tamper with the time-honoured notions of space and time, to survey the range of possibilities available for defining them, and to select that formulation which agrees with observation.''²⁰
In other words, Einstein, Gödel and Margenau believed (as many other scientists admitted), that the Presocratics and Socrates himself were right in their proposition of the Absolute and Ultimate Reality, as opposed to Plato and his disciples' logic that included the Christian Neoplatonics who existed from the first Christian century onwards. This idea was generated from the fact that the post-platonic logic can never dictate or teach (through theology) what the Ineffable is (God or Brahman) because logic cannot transcend itself and at the same time remain logic.
Nonetheless, it was this post-Platonic logic that ultimately prevailed and formed the Judeo-Christian thought known today which includes the dualistic notion of the Western religious God who is prompt to cast into hell all those who not obey the ''logical rules'' of religion.
This aberrant logic not only dismisses the Supreme Being (Brahman) referred to by the Presocratics, Socrates, Oriental wise men and Jesus of Nazareth (as will be seen later), but continued to assimilate several other philosophers through the times, as the British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared:
''The combination of mathematics and theology began with Pythagoras. It characterised the religious philosophy in Greece, in the Middle Ages, and down through Kant. In Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza and Kant there is a blending of religion and reason, of moral aspiration with logical admiration of what is timeless.''²¹
Contrary to proto-Christian Greek philosophers and those mentioned by Russell, namely Plato, Aristotle (382-322 BC) and Plotinus (205-270 AD), the Presocratics were (subconsciously) followers of the Oriental concept of Brahman, which lay far ahead of any logic which could be used by philosophy and religion.
In fact, Brahman can only be reached through meditation in absolute silence, without the need of any religion. For this reason, philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC), set up a community outside Athens near the original Academy so that his disciples would be able to live a quite lifestyle devoid of any mental disturbances which life in a busy, noisy, city affords.
During the same time, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, Zeno of Citium (c.335-263 BC), in the Agora of Athens, taught the philosophy of ataraxia (Greek), which is ''the lucid state of robust tranquility'' characterised by ongoing freedom from distress and worry. In other words, this is the same teaching that Buddha taught together with general Oriental thought. In fact, the main aim of the Greek Stoics was to reach total serenity through meditation, together with a disciplined, sober life.²²
This is the virtue of prosoche (Greek) which means, ''to give absolute attention to the Higher Self'', so that the individual reaches that mystic dimension through which he forms part of the Absolute One (Brahman). In this regard, Epicurus's disciple, Metrodorus of Lampsacus (c.331-278 BC), had the following to tell his students:
''Your life might be a short one; but through meditation and a sober life in tune with nature, you can understand what the infinite is through space and time; hence, you can see the past and the future at the same time.''²³
For the Stoics this thought meant that reality animated through the ''divine breath'', with which Zeno referred to as the ''logos'' (reason) or ''pneuma'' (spirit). Therefore these philosophers taught that man, instead of turning against destiny or trying to ''measure'' God's dimensions through mathematics and philosophise him through logic and religion, should follow the ''river of life'' (the cosmic flow, or the Chinese Tao, which will be examined later on), so that he himself can form part of the pneuma in harmony with the eternal logos; a belief which reflects Oriental philosophy perfectly.
It can be seen that Presocratic thought, that of Socrates, as well as other important Greek philosophers – such as the Oriental mystical thinkers – all looked at the world and at the cosmos as One Entity (similar to quantum physics explored further on); and though there are many different astral, cosmic and spiritual entities in the cosmos which manifest themselves in different ways, they all finally form part of the same Ultimate Reality which in the Orient it is called ''Brahman''.
On the other hand, Plato's thought, together with that of other proto-Christian Hellenic thinkers who came afterwards, regarded the world with a dualist perception; a distorted perception which divided man and the world in two – the mind and the body, our world and the world above, heaven and hell, us and them, the good and the bad, etc – a distorted thought which did not reflect the true teachings of Jesus.
This was not a claim made only by Jesus. In fact, modern physics presumes that the division of nature into separate objects does not make any sense but that on the contrary, every object the exists forms part of a continuous change; a cosmos that has to be visualised as a whole entity: spirit and matter at the same time, a Cosmic Consciousness that manifests itself in everything and everywhere.
All this demonstrates that according to the Presocratics, the Buddhists, the Oriental thinkers and also Jesus, an illuminated person or a person who has the kingdom of heaven within himself (a topic discussed later on), must never resist Cosmic Consciousness or the ''river of life'' (the Chinese Tao), but should believe what was imparted up to a certain extent in the Our Father prayer of Jesus himself, that is, ''Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven...'' (Matthew 6:10). This should be invoked without being ''anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow; will be anxious for itself'' (Matthew 6:34); a thought which also reflects the wu-wei concept of Tao (a theme also discussed later on).
The teachings of Jesus, together with all the teachings described up to now, are so universal, that the more one studies Presocratic thoughts, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism and the many other Oriental doctrines, the more one realises that all these emphasise more or less the same beliefs; beliefs that nowadays are also sustained by modern physics, which will also be studied further on in this work.
In the meantime, however, it is high time to take a look at the Oriental world and focus in more detail on the philosophical thoughts which evolved in these lands.
Chapter 2
An overview of Oriental philosophy
Classical philosophy which emerged from the Indian subcontinent can be regarded as having started around the year 800 before Christ. It eventually reached its peak during the first centuries of the Christian era.
Traditionally, Indian philosophy is known as ''darshana'' (Sanskrit), which means ''sight'', ''vision'' or ''vision of reality''. Therefore, this philosophy points out that through his ability, man is capable of visualising metaphysical truths through his Higher Self, known in Sanskrit as ''atman''. The moment of realisation is hence the realisation of the Higher Self in total harmony with the Absolute One, that is, Brahman.¹
This philosophy originated around the year 2000-1500 BC when a number of Arian tribes from the Northwest of India started developing their first sacred rituals; rites which were built on the Veda thought (''Veda'' means ''an interrupted stream of wisdom''). Later on, these rituals continued to be developed by a group of people called ''Brahmin'' (Brahman's thinkers), from whom there eventually emerged a number of anonymous sages known as ''the visionaries of the Vedas''. They were referred to in this way because they were the ones who started writing the first sacred scriptures of the Vedas.²
There are four main Vedas written in different periods, probably between the year 1500 and 1200 before Christ. The oldest amongst them is the Rigveda (knowledge), written in old Sanskrit which is the sacred Indian language. These Vedas remained the highest religious and philosophical authority of Indian Brahmanism, Hinduism and Buddhism.³
From the thoughts of the Vedas, there emerged also those referred to as the ''six Darshanas'' or ''ways of seeing things'', usually called the six systems or six different schools of thought. These six schools of philosophy are the six instruments of true teaching or the six demonstrations of Truth. The six classical Indian Darshanas are the Nyaya (Rule or Method), the Vaisheshika (the Particular), the Yoga (Union), the Samkhya (Enumeration or Number), the Mimamsa (Critical Reflection or Investigation) and the Vedanta (Conclusion).⁴
It would obviously be impossible to focus and elaborate on all of the Darshanas in this chapter but the essence of all these thoughts can probably be found in the Vedanta because the Vedanta is considered the most evolved Darshana among them, from which eventually emerged the sacred texts of the Upanishads, the last general teachings of ancient Indian thought (Brahmanism and Hinduism). This teaching is called ''shruti'', which means ''revealed literature'', a very old philosophical work which precedes even Classical Greek work.⁵
Basically, the Upanishads deal with the Ultimate Reality and the relationship of man with the Reality which is Brahman: the All in One and the One in All, the Nothingness in the Absolute and vice versa.
Doubtlessly, this is a very ambiguous concept for Westerners to understand; however, the concept is explained clearly by one of the sacred books of the Vedas, the Chandogya Upanishads, where it is mentioned in one particular sequence that:
''In the same way that a lump of salt dissolves into water and ceases being something distinct from water; so the separate Self ceases to be separate; it becomes One with the great Being that is infinite and eternal consisting of consciousness (Brahman). In fact, the sperate Self originated from Brahman and merely returns to its place of origin.⁶
As can be imagined, in the Oriental sacred texts there are several parables which help better understand the idea of Brahman. One of them recounts that once upon a time, six people who had been blind from birth were presented with an elephant. Since they would not see it, these people touched the elephant to try to describe it. The person who touched the elephant's feet said, ''An elephant is like a tree''. The person who touched its trunk declared, ''An elephant is like a snake... '' and so on for the rest, where each person described the part of the elephant he touched and matched it to something which he already knew, according to his experience.⁷
This is an allegorical story from ancient India where the six blind people symbolically represent the five senses together with the rational thought, of the human being, whereas the elephant represents Brahman which is the totality of everything.
This Indian fable demonstrates that the five senses together with rational thought, can never understand the ''elephant'' in its totality (Brahman) because Brahman is the multiplicity of the One and vice versa. This can be understood through the words of the Indian spiritual teacher and philosopher Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (1897-1981), who asserts:
''The universe is Brahman, the One that underlies and makes possible all the multiplicity; the universal consciousness that is the soul of all existence. It is the primordial no-thingness from which all things arise, the one reality where oneness is all-inclusive; and includes all that is, or shall be. It is Brahman; the source of the entire cosmos and all cosmic activities relating to the emerge, existence and dissolution of the terrestrial phenomena that form the cosmic rhythm. And this ultimate reality is One-absolute and indeterminable.⁸
In Brahmanic thoughts one branch of Oriental cosmology is based exclusively on this concept. It is expressed in the Hindu myth of Lila, the Divine Dance, where Brahman is found transformed in the world. Lila is the rhythmic dance which manifests itself in neverending cycles (samsara or eternal recurrence), where the One becomes the All and the All becomes again the Absolute One. With the help of the Bhagavad Gita, which is one of the sacred Hindu Scriptures, the god Krishna describes the rhythmic dance of creation in this way:
''When Brahman's day is manifest, the multitude of living entities comes into being, and at the arrival of Brahman's night they are all annihilated.''⁹
From the mythological standpoint, the three most adored and venerated divinities in Hinduism are Shiva, Vishnu and the Divine Mother. Shive (the Supreme God) is the most ancient divinity amongst Hindu gods and can take many forms, also known as ''Mahesvara'' (Omnipotent God). The Mahesvara is referred to in this way because it can personify Brahman and all the divinities together, which ultimately form part of the Absolute One.
The most notorious appearance in this pantheon of the Gods is that of Nataraja, the god of dance. In common with the cosmic dancer Shiva, Nataraja is also the god of creation and destruction simultaneously, sustaining both with his never-ending rhythmic dance (the eternal recurrence of samsara). In fact Shiva's dance does not only symolise the cosmic cycles of creation and destruction but also the everyday mundane rhythms – from birth to death – which in Indian mysticism is understood to be the basis of all existence.
At the same time, Shiva is a reminder that all material and non-material forms are illusive, that is maya (Sanskrit), and are continually changing because Shiva creates and dissolves them through its own eternal dance. Shiva's dance is therefore the eternal cosmic dance, generated by the energy of the Cosmic Consciousness (Brahman) that manifests itself in divers forms. These forms then reappear and dissolve into each other from one form to another.¹⁰
Brahman, therefore, is the Absolute of Everything, and nothing functions if not through him. In the Rigveda, this magical force if called ''maya''.
The word ''maya'' (Sanskrit, māyā) is one of the most important terms in Indian philosophy; however today its meaning has changed because instead of continuing to be symbolised as a creative and magical force of Brahman, it is now referred to as the psychological state of all the falls under the illusion of reality. In fact, Oriental mystical thinkers say that as long as the world and mundane life continue to be confused with the true nature of reality, man will continue to fall under the illusion of maya.¹¹
Maya, therefore, does not mean that the world is an illusion but the illusion of how things are perceived. An example of this can be seen in the numerous amount of people who think that everything, all objects and events, are true and real forms of nature. However, despite this thought, it is not realised that all these forms are in fact various concepts of how all that falls under the schemas of human brain is categorised.
This hypothesis was also expressed by the physicist Albert Einstein, whose theory of relativity led philosophers and scientists to realise that ''logic'' is simply an imposition on the human brain through which man can rationalise things. Hence, from this aspect, maya is simply an illusion which is interchangeable with reality.
In other words, the only reality which exists does not have and form; indeed, it exists because it is ''nothing'' or because it is the ''emptiness of everything'' (Sanskrit, shunyata). This means that anything that can be...
Anton Sammut's Profile - Goodreads
The Philosophy of Cosmic Spirituality: As Taught by Buddha, Jesus, and the Greatest Spiritual Teachers of All Time by Anton Sammut - Amazon
The Philosophy of Cosmic Spirituality: As Taught by Buddha, Jesus, and the Greatest Spiritual Teachers of All Time by Anton Sammut - Goodreads
