This website contains used to contain hundreds of pages of information for people who want to become enlightened.
Reading can be a hindrance.
Email editor@realization.org
We do not accept paid editorial content.
Copyright © 1999‒2025 Realization.org
Merrell-Wolff wrote this glossary for his book Pathways through to Space. Some of the definitions are different from standard ones, and the glossary contains several misstatements of fact, so we don’t recommend it as a general reference. We’ve reprinted it here only to help readers understand Merrell-Wolff’s writings.
‘Sk’ means Sanskrit.
—Editor, Realization.org
A term applied to a Vedantist sect founded by Shankara. The literal meaning is ‘non-dual.’ Generally, the system of thought developed by Shankara is regarded as the most thoroughly monistic of all philosophies. However, in the strict sense, the inner core of this philosophy is neither monistic nor non-monistic. Hence, to call it non-dualistic is more correct.
In the Greek mythology, a celestial substance capable of imparting immortality. (The word means ’immortal, undying.’) Often thought of as food or a drink. The Sanskrit equivalent is ’Amrita.’ In the most common usage, this term is employed in a figurative sense. Such, however, is not the case as the term is used in this book. The Ambrosia is an actual Substance and at the same time a Force and a Transcendent Consciousness wherein the subject and the object are blended. Any real depth of penetration into the Transcendent Consciousness will bring the individual into an immediate blending with this Ambrosia. It has a quality which is recognizably substantial and at the same time fluidic. But It is fluidic in somewhat the sense that electricity is fluidic, more than in the sense that an ordinary gas or liquid is fluidic. It is quite easy to see how the experience of the Ambrosia should have suggested ‘wine,’ and then, the ‘cup,’ the ‘chalice,’ the ‘caldron,’ and the ‘Holy Grail,’ as symbols representing It. Thus the search for the Holy Grail is the search for Immortal Life. The Blood’ or the ‘Royal Blood’ is another symbol carrying the same meaning. Here the meaning indicated is ‘Life’ which, in the sense of the Royal Blood, is dearly Immortal Life. The symbolism of the Lord’s Supper refers directly to the Ambrosia. The ‘Bread’ represents the substantiality and the Wine’ or ‘Blood,’ the fluidic, life-giving quality. To enter Cosmic Consciousness is to partake of the Ambrosia, and this bestows Immortality, though this is by no means all of Its significance. Further, this is not simply the primary immortality in which all things share, but a self-conscious and therefore individual immortality. This immortality is achieved by man and not merely inherited automatically. In this book, the Ambrosia is often referred to as the ‘Current.’
In the “Analytic Psychology” of Dr. C. G. Jung, the term ‘Libido’ acquires, in its most refined development, a meaning that comes close to that of the Ambrosia. Thus it becomes possible to speak of the Libido as Divine.
The literal meaning is ‘Bliss,’ ‘Joy,’ ‘Felicity,’ ‘Happiness.’ It is an aspect of the Ambrosia. Hence, the expressions, ‘Current of Joy,’ ‘Current of Bliss,’ etc. One of the outstanding characteristics of the Higher Consciousness lies in the fact that the different qualities under which It manifests to subject-object consciousness are not definitely separated but are blended. Bliss, Immortal Life, and Knowledge, in the higher sense, are not three separate facts but, rather, three aspects of one fact, or Reality. Ananda, however, lies closer to the affections than to cognition. Hence, Transcendence attained primarily through the affections manifests more as Bliss than as Knowledge, but the division here is not absolute.
The ‘Self,’ the ‘I,’ the ‘I AM’ and the ‘subjective moment of consciousness.’ In the highest sense this is the Universal Spirit or the Supreme Soul of the Universe. When this higher meaning is emphasized the term ‘Paramatman’ is commonly employed. The Atman is sometimes used in the sense of the ‘Divine Monad’ and the seventh or highest principle in man. There is, however, a lower usage in which this term is applied to the personal ego. The anatman doctrine of Gautama Buddha, in the more comprehensible sense, refers to the personal ego, and amounts to a denial of the self-existence of this ego. However, there is a higher and more metaphysical application of the doctrine of anatman which constitutes one of the most difficult and profound ideas in all metaphysical thought. Superficially, it would seem that the anatman of Buddha and the Atmavidya, or Knowledge of the Self, of Shankara involve a contradiction. However, such is not the case as it is a matter of difference of emphasis and also of approach to the same Transcendent Reality. The Atman of Shankara is here spelled with a capital ‘A’ while that of Buddha is spelled with a small ‘a.’ This affords a key to the reconciliation of the two doctrines. However, the inner Core of Buddha’s Teaching is more profound even than that of Shankara, but it is more difficult to understand.
Ignorance or the opposite of Real Knowledge. This is not ‘ignorance’ in the familiar sense of ‘lack of information.’ All consciousness or knowledge, however highly developed, so long as it is restricted to the subject-object manifold is Avidya. Only Those who have Awakened to the Higher Consciousness have transcended Avidya or Ignorance. Avidya is the real cause of human suffering, bondage, and evil. Likewise these are destroyed when Ignorance is destroyed.
One of the best known of the Hindu religious scriptures. It is almost wholly in the form of a dialogue between Krishna, who represents the SELF, the Atman, or Cosmic Consciousness, and Arjuna, who symbolizes the egoistic man of action. It gives a brief resume of the Roads by which Union or Yoga may be attained. This is one of the most important manuals that point the Way to Cosmic Consciousness.
Lit., “The Enlightened”. This enlightenment is Transcendental Knowledge in the highest sense. It is the State of Knowledge wherein the Real Self is known for what it is. It is the Consciousness that is detached from all that is evanescent and finite or merely phenomenal. The State of Buddhahood is the Supreme State of Holiness.
It is a custom within the Buddhist community to call a man who has attained Enlightenment a Buddha. Most commonly, Gautama, a Prince of Kapilavastu, is known as the Buddha, after His attainment, but there were Buddhas before Him, and others have attained Enlightenment since His time. But He who was born Gautama is the greatest of the Buddhas who have appeared within historic times.
Buddhism” is the name given to the religious movement that had its origin in the life and teachings of the great Buddha. But, more strictly, “Buddhism” means the unchanging Doctrine or Dharma which underlies all that is evanescent.
In the microcosmic sense this is the Spiritual Soul of man and the vehicle of Arman or the Spiritual Self. Buddhi may also be thought of as disembodied Intelligence, the Basis of Discernment, discrimination, and the apprehension of pure Meaning. It is also Compassion, in the highest sense, the very Soul of the Law of Harmony or Equilibrium. In the macrocosmic sense It is the Universal Soul.
A disciple. The relationship of a Chela to his Guru is far closer than that of a pupil to his teacher. In fact, this relationship is the closest of all human relationships. While a Chela generally receives more or less instruction, the essential function of a Guru is to effect a Transformation in the consciousness of the Chela so that what we have called ‘Cosmic Consciousness’ may awaken in the latter.
Abstract Consciousness; pure Consciousness which is not consciousness of an object.
In its most immediate sense the state of ‘being aware.’ In the broad, though common, sense, consciousness is the state we are in when not in the state of dreamless sleep. Quite often this term is used in the sense that should be restricted to self-consciousness, or the consciousness of being conscious. Consciousness that is not self-conscious is very often regarded as unconsciousness. The whole question of what consciousness is becomes a very subtle matter, once an individual goes beneath the surface of meaning.
This is consciousness of the subject to all consciousness, but, in the highest sense, this is not consciousness of the subject regarded as an object. It may be called “consciousness turned toward its source or the positive pole of consciousness.” It is extremely difficult to attain this consciousness, for very easily it reduces to consciousness of a subtle object. To attain consciousness of the Self in its purity is to Awaken to Cosmic or Transcendent Consciousness. Sometimes the foregoing is the meaning implied when the term ‘self-consciousness’ is used, but more commonly the latter means ‘consciousness of being conscious.’
In the strict sense, this is Consciousness on the level of some Cosmic Plane of Being and so is not a consciousness of form or phenomena. However, the term is employed in this work in a somewhat looser sense, more closely approximating that given by Dr. Bucke in “Cosmic Consciousness.” In the latter sense, any consciousness attained by awakening out of crystallized subject-object consciousness is called ‘Cosmic Consciousness.’ It thus covers a zone intermediate between subject-object consciousness and Cosmic Consciousness in the strictest sense. See “Transcendent Consciousness.”
See “Ambrosia.”
The Sacred Law or Doctrine; often used in a sense somewhat analogous to that of ‘duty.’ But this latter interpretation is deceptive. It rather carries the meaning of true alignment with Essential Being or Reality in thought, feeling, and action.
The Door to, or Vehicle of Prajna or Transcendental Wisdom. It may be thought of as a higher function of consciousness, not within the range of study of current western psychologic methodology. Often translated ‘meditation,’ but this is deceptive as most meditation deals with a content, while Dhyana is a Way of Consciousness that transcends content.
This is the consciousness of one’s self as distinct from other selves. The feeling of ‘I’ am I and none other.’ It is opposed to the State of Consciousness known as Buddhahood, wherein the sense of self as distinct from other selves is destroyed. Egoistic consciousness is a fundamental barrier to Liberation or Enlightenment.
See “Ambrosia.’’
Transcendent Consciousness appears as though It were emptiness from the standpoint of subject-object consciousness, but when transcendentally Realized is Known to be utter Fullness.
The sacerdotal name of the family of the great Buddha. See “Buddha.”
A Spiritual Teacher. Essentially not a teacher of information but one who guides and nurtures the Awakening of the Chela or Disciple.
Used in the sense of a general spiritual influence or force which tends toward the Awakening of Spiritual Consciousness in the aspirant.
A philosopher who is the leading representative of the German Idealists. His school is also known as Absolute Idealism.
See “Avidya.”
The leading German philosopher and considered by many as the greatest philosopher of the West. He is the chief representative of the critical spirit in philosophy. By this is meant the recognition that before a valid construction in terms of knowledge is possible it is necessary to study critically the nature and limits of knowledge as such.
In the general sense, the principal of Law in action. More specifically, it is the idea of moral causality carrying a meaning which, in part, overlaps the western idea of causality and, in part, the idea of destiny.
An Indian Saviour of about 5,000 years ago. This name appears in the Bhagavad-gita as a symbol for the Higher Self. In the latter sense, ‘Krishna’ is a principle somewhat analogous to the mystical ‘Christ’ of St. Paul.
Consciousness in the State of Freedom from bondage to form. It is the same as Nirvanic Consciousness.
A field or sphere of consciousness, force and substance subject to some principle of modification. Thus, the form of consciousness defined by Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” would be a particular Loka of consciousness. Consciousness cast under another form would be another Loka, etc. The Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise of Dante are three Lokas of consciousness. In the ultimate sense, we must regard the consciousness of every individual as a Loka. The term has both broad and narrow meanings. Liberated or Nirvanic Consciousness is not a Loka, however, as such is a pure Consciousness freed from the imposition of form.
Very commonly translated as the ‘mind,’ since this is its literal meaning. However, ‘mind’ in western usage, particularly in philosophy, has come to have a much broader meaning than Manas,’ so this translation is confusing. Sec the discussion in Sec. LXXVII. Manas’ also has the meaning of ‘Higher Ego,’ or the sentient reincarnating principle in man. It is Manas that makes man an intelligent and moral being. It is the prime distinguishing characteristic of man when he is contrasted to the animals and certain orders of unintelligent spiritual beings.
The personified force of evil or temptation. It is the adversary of him who seeks to enter the Path that leads to Freedom from bondage to embodied consciousness. In other words, Mara is the great barrier to Cosmic or Transcendent Consciousness.
Illusion. It is the power which renders phenomenal existence possible and, hence, is lord over the flux of becoming. The counter principle is Reality,’ predicated only of that which is eternal and changeless.
See “Ambrosia.”
A mysterious form of embodiment which may be assumed by One who has attained Enlightenment and still retains correlation with relative consciousness. This is the most objective phase of the Trikaya, the other two phases being the Sambhogakaya and the Dharmakaya.
The doctrine of the Trikaya is quite involved and simply cannot be understood by the unillumined relative consciousness. In one sense these may be viewed as the three Bodies of a Buddha, but, in another sense, they are impersonal metaphysical concepts. On this Level there is not the sharp division between principles and entities that is characteristic of relative thinking. One view, quite current among western students, regards the three Kayas as alternative states of consciousness which may be chosen in an exclusive sense. Thus the Dharma-kayas are regarded as distinct from the Nirmanakayas. But the pro-founder reality is, that a full Buddha is conscious on the level of all three Kayas and thus is, at once, a Dharmakaya, a Sambhogakaya, and a Nirmanakaya. An Entity who has won this triple Crown unites in himself the possibilities of the Non-Relative and relative worlds. We may conceive of an incomplete Enlightenment which reaches only to the level of the Nirmanakaya, or of another form of Enlightenment which attains the central Core of Shunyata combined with a refusal to accept any correlation with relative consciousness. In this case we would have an exclusively Dharmakayic State. In such an instance we do have a contrast between the Dharmakayas and the Nirmanakayas. Such Dharma-kayas are incapable of affecting the destiny of relative consciousness, save through Those who have won the Triple Crown. But the latter are as much Dharmakayas as they are Nirmanakayas. Thus, in principle there is not an exclusive division between the three Kayas.
The Dharmakayic State is spiritually the highest of all but, in the humanistic sense, the Nirmanakaya is especially honored because it is through the Nirmanakaya, and only through It, that the redemption of mankind is possible. However, the Light of the Nirmanakaya is derived from the Dharmakaya and thus it is not the contrast between Dharmakaya and Nirmanakaya that is important but rather the contrast between the pure Dharmakaya and the combined Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, and Nirmanakaya. It is this combination that links the Transcendent with the relative.
While the meaning of this term is not unambiguous as used in literature, sometimes referring to pure subjectivity and at others including Shunyata, it seems the better practice to restrict it to the former meaning. Nirvana thus stands as the opposite of objective consciousness but is comprehended by Shunyata which comprehends objective as well as subjective possibilities. Nirvana may be regarded as Consciousness-without-an-object-but-with-the-Subject while Shunyata is Consciousness-without-an-object-and-without-a-subject. Both are formless as to content. This latter fact affords a basis for uniting the two States under the notion of “blown-out,” the literal meaning of Nirvana. But this leads to confusion, as the difference between pure subjectivity and Shunyata is as great as the difference between pure subjectivity and objective consciousness. To be sure, neither State can be imagined by relative consciousness, but considerable clarification is achieved by building a thinkable logical model.
We may regard Nirvana as Liberation, Shunyata as Enlightenment. Not Nirvana, but Shunyata is the summum bonum. There is reason to believe that the West may find Enlightenment more acceptable than Liberation. While pure subjective Liberation is peculiarly close to the religious feeling of the Hindu, it fails of being vital to the more active consciousness of the Occidental. But Enlightenment occupies a neutral position between these two. Since the central emphasis of Buddha was not Liberation so much as Enlightenment,’He stands as the one genuine spiritual World Teacher that has been known in historic times. Shankara spoke to the Hindu and more especially to the Brahmin community, while Jesus was oriented to the more objective occidental spirit. Thus neither of these two are synthetic World Teachers. They stand rather as specialists. Hinduism can never be effectively transplanted into the West, nor will Christianity ever be a really effective force in India or China. But in Buddha and the Dharma of Buddha there is a common uniting ground for both the subjective and objective geniuses. Thus it is that while the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara is only slightly different from Buddhism on one side, on the other the western scientist finds much in Buddhism that sounds like his own thought. Yet, all the while there is a marked contrast between the Vedanta and the western scientific spirit. I repeat, Buddha is the only known World Teacher.
One who has attained Nirvana, hence, an Emancipated Soul. In general, the perfected individual becomes a Nirvani only after death of the physical body, but there are some, of whom Gautama Buddha is the great example, who attained this State while still living.
The highest form of ecstatic Consciousness possible to man. It may be regarded as a kind of Nirvanic Consciousness, modified by reason of the individual retaining correlation with a physical body. It is a State of Formless Consciousness. It seems to be the rule that this State is only attained in deep trance, but it is possible to attain It without trance, though in this case there is a decided dimming of the outer consciousness. While Buddha did not condemn the trance state, he did not regard it as necessary and advocated Realization without trance.
That principle by which the base nature is transmuted into the Spiritual and Divine. Other usage of this term exists, but the above is the profounder meaning and is the sense employed in the text.
The Awakening to the Transcendent or Cosmic Consciousness. As used in the text when this word is given this meaning it is spelled with a capital R.’ Realization is not a development of consciousness in the subject-object sense. It implies a radical event involving a shifting of the level of consciousness.
Used in the text with essentially the same meaning as ‘Realization,’ this term emphasizes the implication that Awakening is a return to that which had been known’ but which had been forgotten, perhaps for ages. The use of this word in this sense does imply a theory of knowledge that diverges in important respects from the more current theories. It implies that Real Knowledge is not derived from experience, but rather that experience is the occasion or the catalytic agent which arouses the Recognition of inherent Knowledge.
The ordinary kind of human consciousness involving the relationship of a knower to a known, the perceiver to a perceived, etc. It also involves knowledge of objective terms in relation to each other. It stands in radical contrast to Cosmic or Transcendental Consciousness.
The ecstatic state wherein the individual awakes to some more or less transcendent level. It may or may not involve the trance state. There are several degrees of Samadhi of which Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the highest. It is the means of cross-correlation between various levels of consciousness, in no two of which does consciousness manifest under the same form. The meaning of Samadhi is not sharply differentiated from that of Dhyana, save that Dhyana is the Door to Prajna or Transcendental Wisdom, while there are lesser forms of Samadhi that open doors to levels of consciousness substantially less than Transcendental Wisdom.
A Buddhist term including the same meaning as the ‘world-field,’ used in the text. It has, however, a wider connotation as it includes all levels of consciousness in which there is an awareness of an object, combined with the delusion that the object has an existence independent of the observer. Thus, the dream-state, while not a part of the world-field in the narrower sense, is part of Sangsara. The relatively subjective realms such as the various heavenly worlds, the purgatories and the hells are also part of Sangsara. Even relatively high orders of Seership, like that of Swedenborg, penetrate no further than superior aspects of Sangsara. However, Enlightened Consciousness includes the possibility of awareness of objects, but the difference in this case lies in the fact that the dependent existence of the object is Realized. Such awareness of objects is not Sangsaric, as it does not imply bondage to the object.
So long as the independence of objects is believed in—a state that implies bondage to objects— Sangsara appears as the Adversary, i.e., Mara, Satan, etc. But just so soon as this delusion is destroyed, Sangsara in this sense vanishes. This vanishing of Sangsara applies to the past as well as to the present and future, for it ceases, not only to be, but as well ever to have been. This is a mystery to relative consciousness which is rendered intelligible only by the transformation of consciousness-base known as the Awakening.
In psychological terms, Sangsara is a detached psychical complex and thus constitutes a threat to psychical integration. Left to itself, the Sangsaric state leads to exhaustion of the life-stream and real unconsciousness. The practical function of the various racial and world-Saviours is the effecting of pragmatic interlocking of the detached complex with the Root-Source of Life and Consciousness. In the case of the Disciple this function is a more or less conscious correlation, but with the mass of men it operates through the psychologic unconsciousness. Without the function of the Saviours the state of most men would be quite hopeless. The Saviour-Function may be viewed as religious, philosophical, or psychological. The form of interpretation is a matter of indifference, provided it is such as to render the function acceptable to men.
One of the six Indian schools of philosophy; originated by Kapila. It teaches a dualistic system in which spirit and matter are regarded as co-eternal and not simply aspects of a common and absolute base.
This term represents Absoluteness rather than the Absolute. It is the ever-present, eternal, and unchanging Reality, THAT which is neither Being nor not-Being, but the Base of all that is. It has the same reference as Shunyata, Tao, Dharmakaya or Consciousness-without-an-object-and-without-a-subject.
In the highest sense this is “consciousness of the Self.” More commonly, it is the consciousness of being conscious, implying the recognition that there is a perceiving subject but not, necessarily, the Recognition of the pure Consciousness of the Self. Self-consciousness distinguishes human from animal consciousness.
This is the name of a Brahmin philosopher who is generally regarded as the greatest of the Vedantic Sages. He is the founder of the Advaita (non-dual) philosophy. His philosophy, together with that of Buddha, is regarded as the most thoroughly monistic of any ever promulgated. At the Core there is no difference between Buddha and Shankara, but the latter supplied a more comprehensible philosophic statement. However, Shankara attained superior comprehensibility at the price of a partial veiling of the pure Dharma. Buddha represents the superior synthesis while Shankara attained a superior expression of one wing of the Buddhist Enlightenment.
Literally Voidness. It is the same as the Dharmakaya. The Voidness is such only to relative consciousness. Actually It is the one substantial Reality. The question is often raised as to the wisdom of speaking of ultimate Fullness as Voidness, since psychologically the latter term often produces difficulties. Bur there is a still greater psychological difficulty, which grows out of the fact that any image of fullness which can be presented to relative consciousness suggests objective content. The result is the substitution of one Sangsaric state for another and this is not Enlightenment. Real Enlightenment implies the radical dissolution of all anchorage to the object and hence the aspiration of the student must be directed to THAT which is never an object in any sense. To relative consciousness this can only mean polarization to seeming Voidness.
The same as relative consciousness. In this term the subject-object character of ordinary human consciousness is emphasized.
The quality of indifference in the inferior sense. It is thus the polar opposite of the High Indifference, which is a State of perfect affective Fullness or Balance. The quality of Tamas tends toward real death or unconsciousness.
In the present work this is a very important term and requires special discussion. In the broadest sense, the Transcendent stands in radical contrast to the empirical. It is that which lies beyond experience. Hence Transcendent Consciousness is non-experiential consciousness; and, since experience may be regarded as consciousness in the stream of becoming or under time, the form is of necessity a timeless Consciousness. The actuality of such Consciousness can never be proved directly from experience when the latter term is taken in this restricted sense. Thus It is either a philosophic abstraction or a direct mystical Recognition. In this work Its actuality is asserted on the basis of a direct mystical Recognition. This term is not here used as a synonym of ‘Cosmic Consciousness,’ but is reserved for pure, formless, mystic Consciousness. On the other hand, mystic Consciousness which gives a content in terms of subtle form or in terms involving any kind of multiplicity, I call ‘Cosmic Consciousness.’
Since the appearance of the “Critique of Pure Reason,” many philosophic students have maintained that Kant has definitely shown the impossibility of any Transcendent Consciousness or Knowledge. (The transcendental element in the apperceiving power of the Self is distinguished by Kant from the ‘Transcendent.’) If we were to assume that the Kantian analysis comprehended all possible functions of consciousness, apparently the foregoing conclusion would be unavoidable. But the whole problem rests upon the actuality of the function of Dhyana, which was outside the Kantian analysis as well as beyond the reach of western psychologic methodology. Since my whole case rests upon the affirmation of the actuality of the function of Dhyana it is not answered by a simple reference to the older criticism. On the contrary, a valid criticism, in this respect, would first have to establish the point that there is no such function as Dhyana. This could only be done by one who was in a position to prove that he was familiar with every possibility of consciousness and found no Dhyana function. Negative proof is possible only when every possibility is delimited; and, while this method is often successful in mathematics, there is always presupposed an explicit definition of the whole field of discourse under discussion. But from the standpoint of the present epistemology, this is arbitrary. A possibility is proved either by experience or Realization, but a theoretical delimitation of all possibilities is quite another matter.
I am quite well aware that the scientific imagination has shown great capacity in inventing objective interpretations of all observable phenomena. It is also an extra-logical canon of science that the presumption of truth is to be given hypotheses that do not violate established forms of interpretation. But, logically considered, this is no more than a reference to the authority of style or custom. For my part. I do not share in this superstitious reverence for style and custom and offer respect only to the logical spirit of science. But all this applies only to observable phenomena. When we consider the meaningful content of consciousness we are definitely outside the reach of western scientific methodology, though not, therefore, beyond the range of all possible science. Now, it is only when dealing with meaningful content that it is possible to reach the realm of Dhyana.
This term implies the assertion of a Knowledge the actuality of which modern empiric philosophers would deny. It is true that there is no such thing as a transcendent subject-object knowledge. But it is not in this sense that the term is used here, but rather as “Knowledge through Identity ” The following question then arises: What is the difference between Transcendent Consciousness and Transcendent Knowledge? The distinction is admittedly subtle. We might say that It is the Transcendent Consciousness as reflected through the knowledge quale. Thus a Transcendent Consciousness manifested through an affective quale would not be Transcendent Knowledge. The assertion of the Reality of this Knowledge implies that Knowledge may descend from the Transcendent to the relative domain. It does not imply that all knowledge necessarily has that source, as certainly in some sense some knowledge comes from experience. Following the Indian usage, the descending Knowledge would be Vidya, while mere empiric knowledge would be avidya.
This is the group of systems that form a philosophic interpretation of the Upanishads. The earliest Vedantic system originates with Vyasa, and is at least 3,300 years old. Its most systematic and philosophically adequate formulation was given by Shankara, about 2,500 years ago. The latter is known as the Advaita Vedanta, the most consistently monistic philosophy in existence. It is in the latter sense the Vedanta is referred to in this work.
The Vedanta, like the Theosophia and the Gnosis, implies descent of Real Knowledge from a Transcendent Level.
From Pathways through to Space by Franklin Merrell-Wolff first published in 1944. See the website of the Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship for its publishing history.
By Franklin Merrell-Wolff
I saw that genuine Recognition is simply a realization of Nothing, but a Nothing that is absolutely substantial and identical with the SELF. This was the final turn of the Key which opened the Door.
By Franklin Merrell-Wolff
Recognition and Liberation are attained by turning the attention toward the subjective pole and away from the objective content of consciousness. The effort must be to attain a consciousness without objective content. Such a consciousness may be likened to a light in a space that contains no objects.
By Franklin Merrell-Wolff
Franklin Merrell-Wolff describes how he performed the crucial step that led to his enlightenment.
By Franklin Merrell-Wolff
A mystic experiment by the least mystical of realizers.
This page was first published on July 30, 2025 and last revised on July 30, 2025.
This website contains used to contain hundreds of pages of information for people who want to become enlightened.
Reading can be a hindrance.
Email editor@realization.org
We do not accept paid editorial content.
Copyright © 1999‒2025 Realization.org