Spiritual Practice School

● Elements of the spirit. To maintain adequacy between experience and space, the True Ego formed the causal body – an external causal object identical to itself – and merged with, identified itself with, this external object. The True Ego began to think: “This is not an external object – this is I myself”. With repeated occurrence of this experience, the True Ego became bound by this obscuration. This moment can be regarded as the emergence of the spirit. The spirit can also be understood as the totality of the True Ego, anti-mystical force, accumulated experience, motivation, and causal body. The spirit, as a causal body, appears as a concentrated cluster of light.

● Elements of the soul. In order to understand more deeply, see more clearly, distinguish more precisely, and firmly retain what was seen and understood, the spirit formed the astral body (in some sources: the “subtle body”, “etheric body”, or a particular variant of “form” or “external appearance”) – an external astral object identical to the spirit – and merged with, identified itself with, this external object. The True Ego began to think: “This is not an external object – this is I myself”. With repeated occurrence of this experience, the True Ego became bound by this obscuration. This moment can be regarded as the emergence of the soul. The soul, as an astral body, appears as a blurred reflection in a mirror – without a physical form.

● Elements of sensations. To perceive all other external objects, the soul formed primary, elementary sense organs: the capacity to see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and sense motion.

● Consciousness. To better understand what the sense organs perceive, and to synthesize various sensations into a unified whole, the soul acquired the ability to form images and to think in terms of these images.

● Touch. Contact. The meeting of sense organs with external objects. These external objects were created by the same soul, as well as by other souls. The three gunas serve as the building material for forming external objects.

● Sensation. As a result of contact between sense organs and external objects, the soul receives sensations. Sensations may vary in intensity (strong or weak) and valence (pleasant or unpleasant).

● Perception. The integration of individual sensations into a unified image.

● Feeling. The evaluation of the image formed through perception. The criterion for evaluation is what was established at the stage of motivation. Thus, when details of past and new experience coincide, an illusion arises of approaching the original absolute state of the True Ego – and the new experience, new sensations, and new images are also evaluated as pleasant.

● Thirst. Craving. Pleasant experience inevitably leads to a strong desire to repeat it – to passion.

● Attachment. "Clinging". Strong attachment both to objects of pleasant feelings and to one’s own internal factors associated with them. For example, clinging to memories of a beloved person.

● Appropriation. Possession. Holding onto objects of craving, objects of pleasant feelings and thoughts, close to oneself.

● Formation of existence. Becoming. The creation of a physical body.

● Internalization. An external object (object of attachment) crosses the boundary between outer and inner, becoming part of the physical body and forming internal metabolism – thus becoming part of metabolism. This creates an inner need for the external, the similar. For example, internal alcohol present in the blood creates a need for more external alcohol.

● Birth. If internalization is not interrupted, the further development of the process leads the soul to form increasingly coarser, more inert bodies. Eventually, the soul finds itself in a human body within this phenomenal world. At the moment of birth, the True Ego forgets what occurred before – and due to this, a mistaken view arises: “This body is I”. Repeated cycles of birth reinforce this obscuration. Understanding this stage as a single event is erroneous. It must be understood as the soul’s descent into a state of continuous birth and death, continuous rebirth – an experience of infinite previous births.

● Suffering. If a person is born, death is inevitable. If the soul, through will and correct thinking, interrupts any element of this chain, the process of conditionally forming existence ceases.

The Buddhist teaching on the Twelve Stages (links, conditions) of the arising of samsara (the Twelve-Nidana Chain, or the Twelvefold Formula of Existence) and the above described procedure of the soul's arising are one and the same. The assertion that the process of forming the conditions of arising exists permanently and immanently is correct. The claim that the last link in the process of forming the conditions of arising leads back to the first link is a misconception, an error, a confusion. In reality, the last link of arising leads to the first link of liberation: to faith.

Atman

Atman translates from Sanskrit as 'self', or simply 'I'. The word Atman is typically used in other languages to denote the Wise True Ego, which returns to the state of the Absolute, as an alternative to the ignorant True Ego, which, conversely, falls away from the state of the Absolute. Atman is an analog to one of the understandings of the Holy Ghost.

The belief widely held among Buddhist scholars that Buddhism denies the existence of the soul is mistaken. Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul itself, but merely the Christian approach to understanding its properties and meanings. Buddhism teaches that one should discard any sense of 'I'. However, this does not mean that this sense of 'I' itself supposedly does not exist, or that this 'I' itself supposedly does not exist. Yes, Buddha says in one place: "If, Ananda, when asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self? I had answered, 'There is a self,' would that have been consistent with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself'?" Yes, this text indicates that the Buddha possesses a spiritual level at which all his internal phenomena are detached from his personality. However, on the other hand, it is unacceptable to interpret this text as meaning that the Buddha is thereby inwardly, tacitly, and specifically for his disciple Ananda, giving a flatly negative answer about the existence of the 'I'. This was not stated in the text. Structurally, it is impermissible to stretch this text to imply such a meaning.

Nowhere in the Buddhist sutras is it stated that Atman does not exist. Yes, in one of the sutras, the Buddha gives an admonition that the affirmation "Atman exists eternally" is not recommended for monks to practice. But a discussion about an affirmation cannot be interpreted as a discussion about ontology.

The Buddha set a direction–"everything that is changeable is not the 'I'; liberation lies through the erasing of egocentrism". Based on this, some followers who call themselves supposedly true Buddhists, or supposedly true Theravada Buddhists, simply took this direction to its absolute logical and practical conclusion: since Atman is nowhere to be found in experience, it is most effective for practice to assume that it does not exist at all.

Buddhism does not recognize the Absolute as a Creator God (Ishvara or Brahman). Yet, Buddhism has its own Absolute–Nirvana (the unconditioned state of freedom) and Vajrakaya (the Absolute Body of Truth). This is not a "supersoul", but the very nature of reality, purified of all illusions. The "spark of the Buddha" (Tathagatagarbha / Buddha-nature) is a foundational concept in Mahayana Buddhism. It is crucial to understand: this is NOT an individual soul living within the body. Buddha-nature is the fundamental potential of every living being to become enlightened. It is not an "eternal spark" that belongs to you personally. It is a metaphor for the purity of the mind. Like gold hidden in the mud, or the sun behind the clouds–the clouds (ego, thoughts, passions) are temporary, while the clear sky (Buddha-nature) is always present.

In later Mahayana texts (such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra), Buddhist masters took an even bolder step. To explain Buddha-nature to ordinary people, they used the word "Atman", but in a completely new sense: "Buddha-nature is the True Atman (Mahatman) because it is changeless. But this Atman has nothing in common with the egoistic 'I' of a person." At the most fundamental level, the 'I' and Buddha-nature are one and the same. There is nothing "else" inside us. There is no separate "dirty ego" that needs to be physically destroyed, and there is no separate "holy Buddha" that must be brought in from the outside. That very living spark that is reading this text right now and perceives itself as 'I'–that is the starting point. The entire fabric of reality is woven from this single "yarn"–pure awareness. Aside from this living presence, nothing else exists for all beings. The difference lies not in substance, but in state. Mahayana Buddhism explains this through the metaphor of a gold statue covered in mud: The ordinary 'I' is gold that is completely entangled in its own mud. It has identified itself with thoughts, fears, a name, social status, and the body. It has shrunk to the size of a tiny, frightened ego that is forced to defend itself against the outside world. Buddha-nature is that exact same gold, but purified and aware of its true, boundless nature. When the ordinary 'I' says, "I am the Buddha-nature!", a dangerous mental substitution often occurs. A person begins to think that their usual whims, their egoistic desires, and their limited personality are the Absolute. But the catch is that Buddha-nature is not our personality, but our pure, unconditioned Consciousness, which exists PRIOR to any thoughts of personality.

Nowhere in the Buddhist sutras is it stated that at the moment of physical death, the 'I', the personality, or the soul is discarded or disappears. Phrases like, "The logic of the sutras dictates that for a certain entity (a soul or an 'I') to be able to 'disappear' or 'be discarded' at the moment of death, it must first exist during life..." are precisely a classic commentary argument (in the style of the Abhidharma or Nagarjuna) that attempts to retrospectively and logically justify what the Buddha himself remained silent about in the sutras. In the earliest sutras themselves (the Pali Canon), there is no text that says: "The soul cannot disappear at death because it did not exist during life". If we return to the strict letter of the sutras and strip away all later philosophical superstructures, we discover an astonishing thing. The Buddha fundamentally refused to answer the question of what happens to the 'I' or the personality at the moment of death altogether.

When you look into your most ordinary 'I' as deeply as possible, if you concentrate on your 'I' and try to observe it carefully, you will indeed, in accordance with the Buddhas insight, discover the following. Your 'I' appears as a point on the internal plane that has no dimension and no modality. Yet, this point is the center of the entire universe, both internal and external. And at the same time, it is indeed possible to anchor the body to this point, or choose not to. It is possible to anchor consciousness, or choose not to. It is possible to anchor desires, or choose not to. It is possible to anchor emotions, or choose not to. It is possible to anchor thoughts, or choose not to. And yet, unequivocally, the liberation of this point from any or all possible attachments does not result in this point supposedly disappearing. The most crucial modality of this point is that it is catastrophically afraid of ceasing to exist. It is afraid to die, and it does everything to avoid dying. It is ready to go to any length just to survive. For this very reason, the reasoning of Buddhist scholars that "absence implies nonexistence" is mistaken. The absence of a geometric point's dimension does not result, as a consequence, in its nonexistence.

In reality, the most ordinary 'I' and the spark of the Buddha are one and the same. Nothing else exists besides the 'I', which absolutely every soul possesses, and which is absolutely identical in every soul.

Refutation of the Social Theory of the Origin of the "I"

In modern academic science–psychology, sociology, and linguistics–the dogma that the human "I" is exclusively a product of socialization has become deeply entrenched. Positivist scientists have naively equated the moment a child masters the personal pronoun "I" with the moment of inception of this "I" itself. From the standpoint of materialism, until society provides a human being with language, culture, and the mirror of social relations, no "I" exists within the human entity.

This is a fundamental misconception. Science commits a gross methodological error by confusing the instrument used to perceive an object with the factual existence of the object itself.

The sun does not come into being the moment humanity invents the concept of "the sun". The sun exists as an objective reality prior to any sign or name. In exactly the same way, the deep human "I"–the True Subject, the Witness, the Center of Presence–is innately predetermined for a human being. It is ontologically primary.

Substitution of Concepts: The Real "I" Versus the Social Biography

To preserve its materialistic worldview, official science resorts to a trick. It divides the psyche into a "biological proto-I" (proprioception, body schema, animal instincts) and a "real, higher I" (social, narrative). And it declares: that which is given by nature is merely physiology, while only society makes you a person and a human being.

The main spiritual deception lies at this very point. Science uses the word "I" to describe the Autobiographical I (Narrative Self)–that is, the social mask, the story about oneself, the conglomerate of habits, roles, titles, and externally imposed values. But none of this is the "I". This is the Personality.

The Personality is indeed constructed by society (including the society of past lives). It is changeable, plural, and conditioned. But the Personality is merely the clothing worn by the True Subject, or the cargo carried by the Ship. Equating the Observer with that which he observes (his social roles) is a sign of spiritual blindness.

Three Arguments Against the Theories of the Dictate of Socialization

For a spiritual practitioner, it is crucial to clearly see the invalidity of scientific dogmas. Our True "I" does not owe its existence to society for three reasons:

1. Essence precedes the sign. Even materialistic science itself recognizes the presence of a pre-verbal "I" in infants (the sense of agency, body boundaries). The fact that a hypothetical feral child raised outside of society cannot speak about themselves in human language does not mean that there is no center of perception inside them. Their "I" is present as a pure fact of being, as a point where the signals of the senses converge. Society does not create this center out of nothing; it merely provides it with a mirror and a language.

2. Language is a tool of fixation, not a creator of reality. When a child begins to speak of themselves as "I" instead of "Misha wants to play," what occurs is not the birth of the Subject, but its formatting. Language allows the "I" to conceptualize itself for the convenience of social interaction. However, the source of consciousness existed in the body long before the first spoken word. A telescope does not create a planet; it merely makes it visible.

3. Continuity of Consciousness. Social roles (personalities) can shatter, change, or be completely erased during amnesia. A person can forget their name, status, and their entire biography received from society. Yet, despite this, the deep sense of presence–the pure "I AM"–remains unchanged. This proves that the Subject is autonomous and does not depend on social constructs.

Conclusion for the practitioner:

Materialistic science tries to convince a human being that they are merely a consequence of external causes, a product of a factory called "society". This deprives a person of their true anchor. By understanding that your fundamental "I" precedes any socialization, any word, and any opinion about you, you reclaim your status as the True Subject. Society did not create your "I"–it merely gave it a name. But He Who bears this name has always remained, and remains, free.

Conclusion for the scientist:

It is precisely the presence of a proto-I in both animals and humans that proves the existence of the soul. It is precisely the proto-I that explains and demonstrates the introspective mechanism through which any living being exercises self-preservation. This proto-I is, above all, terrified of ceasing to exist. And the organism involuntarily binds the existence of its own self and the existence of the physical body into a single, inseparable experience. This constitutes a scientific discovery, insofar as it serves as proof of the soul's existence.

Materialistic science has always considered the fear of death and the protective reflexes of animals to be blind automatisms–biochemical algorithms developed for the survival of the species. It overlooked the internal, introspective flip side of this process.

1. The mechanism of self-preservation is not chemistry; it is an experience. Any defense (fleeing from a predator, fighting for life, licking wounds) is driven by more than just nerve impulses. At its core lies an introspective mechanism. This means that inside any living being (whether human or animal), there is One Who experiences the threat. This center of experience is precisely the proto-I.

2. This is the metaphysics of existential fear. The primary modality of this dimensionless point (the proto-I) is a catastrophic fear of the cessation of its existence. An animal is not afraid merely of tissue damage. It is terrified by the prospect of the disappearance of its "Presence." This total, absolute fear of non-being proves that within the organism, there is already a predetermined ontological unit–the Soul, which is aware of the fact of its being and desperately clings to it.

3. This is the psychosomatic fusion (the Grand Illusion of the organism). The organism makes an inevitable and involuntary mental error (a fusion): it binds into a single and indivisible experience two absolutely distinct phenomena: the existence of its own self (the pure, changeless, dimensionless point of awareness) and the existence of the physical body (the changing, mortal biological shell). It is because of this fusion that the fear of the body's death is perceived by the proto-I as the fear of the final destruction of the very Source of Consciousness.

Absolute

The Absolute is known by many names across traditions, but only when understood in their most profound sense: Adi-Buddha (the Primordial Buddha), Brahman-Absolute, The Lord (only in the most accurate, non-anthropomorphic understanding), Allah (only when correctly understood – since “Allah” literally means “the Highest God”).

The Absolute is the primordial state of all True Egos. It is absolute freedom, absolute joy, and absolute bliss.

The Absolute exists eternally. Matter exists eternally, just as the Absolute does. Samsara, however, is not eternal. Samsara arises when a large number of True Egos begin to fall out of the Absolute. The building material of samsara is matter – the three gunas.

The Absolute is in a state of absolute potentiality. Before samsara arises, and after it dissolves, matter remains in this state of absolute potentiality.

Samsara means the cycle of existence. Existence and samsara are one and the same.

The Misconception of “First Cause”. In philosophy, when referring to the highest spiritual or divine principle, the term “first cause” is often used – implying the cause of existence. This is an error. And so is the belief held by most religions. Nearly all religions claim that the Highest of the High God created existence. But this is not true. On the contrary, certain schools of Buddhism are correct in asserting that the Highest Principle – the Absolute – created nothing. The emergence of existence and the entire universe was not by design, but by mistake, by misunderstanding – the misunderstanding of fragments of the Absolute. The Absolute itself did not create existence and is absolutely indifferent to it. This world and the Absolute exist in parallel and do not intersect. To be precise. The Absolute is not the absence of existence, but rather exists where existence is absent. The Absolute has no forms, no modifications, and no states – meaning, it has only one unchanging state.

Nirvana and the Absolute are the same. The state of nirvana is the state of the Absolute. It is more accurate to understand nirvana not as a place in space, but simply as a state – the state of liberation, the state of absolute peace. In the sutras, nirvana is described as: the destruction of worldly desires, the eradication of knowledge and experience (as binding). As a result of destroying worldly desires, liberation arises – freedom from suffering.

The True Ego. The True Ego is the very “Buddha-nature” present in every living being – the one spoken of in Buddhism. Originally, the human True Ego is a part of the Absolute. This is why scriptures say: “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven”. Here, the “Holy Spirit” refers precisely to the Absolute. And it is easy to understand why: since the True Ego is the fundamental component of the soul’s structure, blasphemy against the Absolute – and thus against the True Ego – means a person severs themselves from their own True Self, effectively destroying the most essential and highest part within. They turn their own soul away from liberation, directing it against salvation.

The Absolute is indifferent to samsara. Since the Absolute resides in nirvana, and since reaching the state of the Absolute (and nirvana) occurs through: – pratyahara (withdrawal from the senses), – meditation that denies all samsaric worlds, and since nirvana is defined as “not samsara”, and since “not samsara” and “creator of samsara” are mutually exclusive, and since complete indifference to samsara is what allows the disciple to progress, while the belief that the Absolute created samsara blocks all progress – therefore, it can be firmly stated: the Absolute is indifferent to samsara. The claim made by many schools of Hinduism (and Abrahamic religions) that Brahman-Absolute created samsara is false.

This widespread misconception can be explained by samsara’s nature: It actively tries to keep souls trapped within itself, weaving cunning nets – the “bonds of samsara” – from which souls struggle to free themselves. This mistaken view of the Absolute is one such bond. Though, of course, we must never forget: these “bonds of samsara” are ultimately woven by ourselves.

The Bhagavan (in the strictest Hindu sense) does not exist.

The Ishvara (in all variations of this meaning) does not exist.

That is, it is not possible for any being to be both God and the Absolute at the same time.

God – this term we use to denote a conscious being dwelling in the heavens.

The Absolute and God are entirely different. God is an ordinary astral living being. God has only one True Ego. The Absolute is a conglomerate of infinite True Egos.

Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma are not aspects of the Absolute. They are simply gods. Like all of us, they fell from the Absolute state. Each has only one True Ego.