There's a generally accepted difference between spiritual masters and philosophers. Could you say what the difference is?

Barry Long The philosopher is always asking questions. The spiritual master never asks the question: What is truth? What is love? What is death? What is life? He has the answer in the whole that he has realised. Only the spiritual master who has realised God-consciousness, the whole, has the solution for every person who asks: What is God? Why am I here?

That's the end of philosophy, the end of everything – but not for the human mind of reason. The basis of philosophy is reason. But you can't try to reason out the truth.

So, having dismissed the whole of philosophy, let's look at some particular bits of it. Then you can dismiss it in other ways . . . Everybody looks to Socrates for the start of it all. He questioned any assumption that he thought people had and would reduce it to the point of unintelligibility. He didn't really put forward a positive philosophy. What he did was show people that they didn't really know what they thought they knew. Would you say that served a purpose?

It seems he was a man who always went towards negation. And negation is the truth. Negate everything you think you know – every opinion, every thought. It has no value whatever. Everybody thinks their thoughts and their opinions have value; that their reasoned conclusions and theories have value. They have no value whatsoever in respect of the truth. Why? Because everybody dies. Only the spiritual master would say that.

Taking this to the next stage: It appears that Socrates was successful in his lifetime at quietening people down in their beliefs, but what followed him was a person called Plato. And then Aristotle. Plato held true to a lot of what Socrates said, in the beginning, but later on was impelled to say things he thought had never been said before. He came up with Platonic ideas . . .

There are Ideas. Where I come from, Plato was absolutely right. There are Ideas that are beyond the concepts of the mind.

What role do those ideas play in our existence?

Our entire existence is due to the light of intelligence within – the divine intelligence – projecting existence through Ideas. This existence is an Idea projected through the brain by the great, indescribable divine intelligence behind the brain. But when it gets to the human mind, the mind of reason breaks the Idea down into concepts. And there's a continuous degradation, a corruption, of the Idea. That is the human experience, living through the mind and the reason.

Do ideas exist in a particular realm? Apparently one of the things Aristotle didn't like about Plato's philosophy was the need to resort to some sort of metaphysical realm, which he couldn't test.

Then Aristotle couldn't access divine knowledge, which is the area of pure Ideas. Every Idea is pure; it doesn't have the corruption of existence in it. In the Idea of Tree, there's no 'green trees'. There's no 'brown dogs'. There’s only Dog and Brown and Green and Tree. Only here, in this corrupted, degraded, physical, sensory, materialistic existence do these Ideas become combined. That's the miracle of this existence – it's a complete and utter miracle – how things are combined. It's due to the human brain, the great synthesiser of existence.

So can we talk in terms of ideas that are either synthetic or 'a priori'?

No. Ideas are not synthetic. Synthesised, they are concepts. We form concepts of Tree. When Ideas come into existence, they become blended due to the brain, which informs the mind, so then you have 'green trees'. The divine light is projected down through something we have nothing to do with – the psyche behind the brain – and is broken down, through a gradual degradation, and divided into more and more forms in the brain, which is the father of form. The divine light is broken down by seven states, or heavens, in the psyche and the brain forms its form and projects the whole thing. It projects the body – with the light behind.

Everything happens in the brain. This is why it's difficult to conceive of 'realms'. Even the seven heavens are realised in an aspect inside the brain. There's division: Seven, six, five, four, three, two, one – down to this place, the lowest heaven, which could possibly be called hell, where everybody suffers, dies, loses their children and loved ones.

I can talk at every level of the brain because I have realised what is beyond the brain. That's where my knowledge comes from – the divine light. Not that I'm the divine light, but I have the knowledge of it, by grace. So I have the knowledge of the whole. And the fact that I have realised the whole means that I don't have any questions. Not one single question about the mystery of life. The philosophers have their questions, trying to find it. The Christian religion bends over backwards, making a Trinity of God, which is a ridiculous division because God is the whole. And the whole is beyond concept. It is not particular. The whole is a complete Idea. That’s what I have realised.

If we go on to someone like Descartes . . . I think he championed the way that people now see their own existence, inasmuch as he came up with Cartesian Dualism, although what he was looking for was certainty.

What was the dualism?

Mind and body. The only thing he could be certain of was that he was aware of things: I perceive or I think, therefore I am. In his argument, he started by saying, 'What if some sort of cosmic devil is making me dream all of this external world? I can't be sure any of it is real.'


The only way he could get the external world back was to say, 'It must have all been created by God. God is an idea I can't be without.' So he set up the problem: 'How can something immaterial, such as the mind, interact with matter?'

That's the fundamental confusion of everybody. The fact is that the divine light of intelligence, which embodies life and death and everything else – the mystery of it all – is absolutely one and whole. It has to come through to us, but we couldn't stand the divine light in all its purity because we were animal creatures to begin with, and then psychological, mental and emotional creatures. So its wonder and mystery has had to be introduced gradually into the psyche through degradation and division – the corruption of the original light into a lesser intelligence. The intelligence of a child, running around throwing a ball, is relative to the philosopher's reason, questioning, 'What is God?' And that intelligence is relative to the way of mysticism. In divine realisation, the way back to the whole, you give up your opinions and dissolve the value of thought and reason. To have knowledge of the whole, everything men and women treasure with their minds and emotions has to be completely and utterly transformed.

Is it a genuine question: How does the mind interact with matter?

No. First of all, nobody knows what matter is. It's an invention. All you see is form. If you cut the body open, looking for matter, you will never find it. What you find will be form. If you dig into the earth, what you will find will not be matter. It will be form. If you're a scientist, and you dig into the atom, what you will find is form and force. The disintegration of form gives rise to force. So there's no such thing as matter. It is form or force.

The body is a sort of battery. That is 'the mind'. The mind is the body and the body is the mind. There's no distinction between the body and the mind – none at all. And that's demonstrable.

But I think in inner space, which appears to be different to the space out here . . . Is that true?

The space out here is a space projected by the brain. There is an 'inner space' but it is abstracted from existence. It is only abstract. I mean, you can't show it to me. You can think and imagine in there, but it's not like space out here. You can show me this space. Your 'inner space' is nonsense. It's where we think and what we think is a lot of old nonsense. Inner space cannot exist unless there's something in it. You create an inner space so that each separate thought can go somewhere. That's how you know you're thinking.

So if I'm not thinking, there's no inner space. There's just this.


And when I am thinking, the space it's occurring in is abstracted from existence?

Your 'inner space' is abstracted from existence. Yes. And the thought is extracted from existence – not abstracted. It's extracted by the mind and emotions – by your emotional self.

Due to having an existence, we have built up an emotional self – the thing that's discontented. The body is not discontent. It's this emotional self inside every body that causes the problems, the unhappiness. The body is not unhappy. It might be made to cry by the self, but it is not unhappy.

Doesn't that create another kind of dualism? Now you have the self as a different entity.

No, because the self is a phantom, made by the unhappy mind that can't get its own way and doesn't understand life.

It comes down to this: Everything is God being God. In other words, everything is the whole being the whole. The tree is the whole being the whole, and only particularised by my brain as separate from the whole. To me, in my knowledge, it is not separate from the whole. Everything in our purview is part of the whole. But the mind sticks to particularisations and extracts something from the whole. The particularisation then becomes extracted from existence, as it is, into a phantom image of it. It's a phantom because we emotionally synthesise all events that happen to us. And that's because of all the unhappiness in our life.

We build up the idea, for instance, that if I love a man or a woman and they die, then that is bad. It is only bad for my selfishness. In 'the whole' the person had to die.

There's a greater intelligence behind the whole of existence than you and I, or anyone, can possibly conceptualise or imagine. But the realisation of God informs me implicitly that everything must die. I am selfish when I weep because someone has died. It was only right that they should die. I know that . . . But if you said it, you wouldn't get elected President of the United States, would you?

Everything is God being God. The whole purpose of existence – this whole thing out here – was to create a human brain out of all the brains of everything that had ever been: a human, self-conscious, self-reflective brain. And that was done a long, long time ago. But then, instead of reflecting on the whole, that self-conscious brain reflected on its own unhappiness. The intelligence given to man and woman corrupted its facility by reflecting on 'what I am interested in'; on what I think I'm here for; reflecting on why I'm unhappy – on all those things instead of reflecting on the whole of the intelligence. And so we get a relative or conditioned intelligence in every single body on earth. That is God being ignorant of God, the whole, isn't it?

I am not ignorant of God. I am utterly and completely in union with God, meaning I have realised God and therefore can speak from that place. No one who has not realised God can stand in front of my intelligence. Someone who has realised God . . . We have nothing to say to each other except 'Hello'. We might not agree with each other's teachings, because they are particularisations coming out of the person, from the various levels of the person inside the body. But in those of us who have realised Supreme Being, in essence there is no question, no problem between us.

'God realised' knows there is no death; that there's only glory awaiting everyone. But the part of us where God is unrealised will cry when someone dies, because the human brain has its self-consciousness. It reflects on self. The person crying is reflecting on a self that is thwarted. Every self is trying to do what is not the divine will; that is, to have a happy life. You cannot have a happy life. The secret is not to be unhappy. End of story.

So, the human mind is self-conscious or self-reflective. And what is the intelligence of philosophers? It reflects on a question, on a perceived problem that is not a problem at all.

You're saying that by separating myself, I've created division. So now the problem I've got is that I am trying to get rid of it?

Your self will continue to divide, because it is a copy of the ignorant human brain which is the divider of existence. It is the brain that’s particularising all of existence into form.

If the brain projects everything to make it what it is, does that mean that everything is completely dependent on the brain?

Absolutely. Everything is completely dependent on the brain. But that doesn't mean the brain is creating it. It might be making it, but what is causing it all? The philosophers, mathematicians and scientists never address the cause of it all. There's only one cause and that is God, the whole, the divine intelligence behind the brain. And it cannot be conceptualised – only realised. That is what it's all about – for each brain (not just the individual's such as my own) to realise this God. You can see by the state of humanity how far the human brain is from doing it. But that is the purpose.

If everything out here is dependent on the brain, is anything here when I'm not perceiving it? This is one of the great problems of the philosophers. We behave every day as if everything out here exists when we go away from it. And we expect it to be there when we come back, believing it continued to exist in our absence.

We have to live that way. That's how the divine intelligence has organised the brain. It made the brain and it is part of our brainy existence to see objects outside of us. We are brainy people. And we have to live in this existence like that. But there is an intelligence inside of every body that knows the truth.

You said earlier that Descartes seems to have realised that there is a thing called God. Well, that's what is behind the brain; that's what made the brain. And I have no trouble with it because I know the whole – that there's an intelligence within me that is not dependent on the brain; that there is a vast, vast intelligence behind it all.

In your book 'The Origins of Man and the Universe' you talk about what we were before we came into existence and say that at a particular moment in time our consciousness entered physical existence from the psyche.

Yes, a body was developed for humans. The human brain was developed and at a certain point Man realised a light . . . He suddenly saw the sun and reflected that he'd seen something. Really, the sun is a symbol of an inner light. Physical existence all happened in one moment. But the scientists can't possibly accept that because we have a divided brain that puts time or succession into things. We've got fossils and geology which suggest that there was a period thousands of years ago when this happened and that happened . . . The explanation, that nobody can really grasp, is in the demonstration I give of our fax machine: There's no paper in it but it goes on receiving messages and then as soon as you bang in the paper it starts printing out. That is analogous to the creation of existence – as best as I can describe it.

Intelligence had the idea of all the species, and the natural kingdoms: the geological, the animal, the plant world and the starry heavens. I'm the only man to add that fourth cosmic one to the mineral, plant and animal worlds. It is the cosmic that has allowed intelligence to come into our bodies, which are the product of the mineral, plant and animal. The magnificence of the starry heavens is a symbol of the intelligence that we have. It's only a reflected intelligence, because we can't be the heavens; we can only reflect on them.

Article continues here