Franklin Merrell-Wolff addresses a group of university students on the subject of integrating the philosophies of “universal illusionism” and “universal realism.” He begins by describing what is meant by “Realization,” and then goes on to affirm that the West need not repudiate its own psyche in order to follow the yogic path. He emphasizes the role Pythagoras had in striking the keynote of the West, namely, mathematical proof. He goes on to give several examples of how an integrating concept may reconcile an apparent incompatibility in our fundamental conceptions. He then makes a distinction between “speculative” and “transcriptive” thinking, and describes the effects that transcriptive thinking may have on relative consciousness. He outlines the apparent contradiction between Shankara’s philosophy of universal illusionism and Aurobindo’s universal realism and presents his realization of “reality is inversely proportional to appearance” as an integrating conception that resolves this seeming contradiction.

Franklin Merrell-Wolff briefly discusses the notion of “voidness” as found in The Tibetan Book of the Dead, and his dissatisfaction with this term; he then suggests that his own conception of “consciousness-with-an-object-and-without-a-subject” is an equivalent notion. He notes that philosophical and psychological approaches to consciousness generally treat it as a relation between a knower and the known, and that the question then becomes which of these terms is given primacy over the other. Wolff changes this picture, and regards consciousness itself as primary—that is, more fundamental then either the knower or the known. He states that this view is based on a “luminous” state of consciousness, but suggests that others entertain it as a hypothesis and consider how one’s orientation to the world changes.

To be transcribed.

To be transcribed.>

In this “extemporaneous discussion on the subject of yoga,” Franklin Merrell-Wolff distinguishes between two types of yoga and their various forms: tantric yoga and the <em>trimarga</em>, which refers to the three forms of yoga given in the <em>Bhagavad Gita</em> (jnana yoga, karma yoga, and bhakti yoga). After discussing the dangers of the tantric forms of yoga, he discusses jnana yoga, which is the path that he chose to follow. He then notes that Aurobindo and Shankara differ as to their evaluation of the three forms of yoga delineated in the <em>Gita</em>, and considers Aurodindo’s suggestion that one should aim to pass through each of these yogas. He concludes with some Theosophical reflections, as well several personal anecdotes.

Franklin Merrell-Wolff distinguishes his orientation to the yoga of knowledge from that of Brugh Joy's orientation to Zen Buddhism. He also points out that Dr. Joy's orientation is more to the heart chakra whereas his is to the sahasrara above the head. He then makes a distinction between the Vedantic position regarding the nature of the Self and Brahman in contrast to the non-theistic doctrine of Buddhism. Wolff goes on to differentiate between the derivative reality of the subject to consciousness and the object of consciousness and the permanent reality of the Consciousness itself. He asserts that the capstone of his work is that he arrived at the same logical pattern found in Buddhism and in the Advaita Vedanta and that his philosophy occupies a position intermediate between the two. He then outlines his Realization that appearance is inversely proportional to ponderability, and suggests how this relates to the integration of Shankara's Vedantic orientation to Brahman, Ashvaghosha's Buddhistic orientation to Suchness, and his own orientation to Consciousness-without-an-object-and-without-a-subject.

Franklin Merrell-Wolff distinguishes his orientation to the yoga of knowledge from that of Brugh Joy's orientation to Zen Buddhism. He also points out that Dr. Joy's orientation is more to the heart chakra whereas his is to the sahasrara above the head. He then makes a distinction between the Vedantic position regarding the nature of the Self and Brahman in contrast to the non-theistic doctrine of Buddhism. Wolff goes on to differentiate between the derivative reality of the subject to consciousness and the object of consciousness and the permanent reality of the Consciousness itself. He asserts that the capstone of his work is that he arrived at the same logical pattern found in Buddhism and in the Advaita Vedanta and that his philosophy occupies a position intermediate between the two. He then outlines his Realization that appearance is inversely proportional to ponderability, and suggests how this relates to the integration of Shankara's Vedantic orientation to Brahman, Ashvaghosha's Buddhistic orientation to Suchness, and his own orientation to Consciousness-without-an-object-and-without-a-subject. Note: because of the poor quality of this recording, Wolff re-recorded it using a transcript of this talk; the second recording is dated 15 February 1980.

This is a recording of Franklin Merrell-Wolff making an extemporaneous talk to a group of Dr. Richard Moss’s students; the subject of the talk is the meaning and purpose of yoga. After a short presentation, the session is opened up to questions, which range from the difference between unconditional love and compassion; the necessity of knowledge as well compassion, as well as the necessity for (and the need to take the responsibility for) power; humor, and a passage in Jung’s Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

Franklin Merrell-Wolff presents an extended preliminary statement in preparation for the continuation of a discourse delivered earlier on the subject of the Buddhist stupas (see parts 8 and 9 of “Purpose, Method, and Policy of this Work”). He reviews the significance of the cube and the sphere as symbols of the religious problem and goes on to explore the meaning of the cone on top of the sphere. He then analyzes the realization that took the form “substantiality is inversely proportional to ponderability,” converts it into a mathematical formula, and discusses the implications of the equilateral hyperbola as a mathematical symbol derived from the geometric structure of the stupa.