I am slowly penetrating a little deeper into superficiality. Concepts I have taken in from various systems of knowledge, such as the Vedas, Agamas, Shastras, are slowly connecting. I see rough root systems. For example, how the 5 elements (water, fire, earth, ether and air), as a starting point in the teachings of the Vedas, develop further in Vastu or Ayurveda, that is, into space and the body. I see how various systems of knowledge intertwine in the temple and how this is still reflected in contemporary artistic practice today. And it becomes clear how highly political the interpretation and appropriation of these systems of knowledge is. This knowledge was colonized and is now being critically questioned at universities with regard to its colonization. But it is also still active in many Ashrams and Gurukuls, often with great pride and the stated aim of reviving the tradition.
Following Deleuze’s ideas, I have connected various concepts rhizomatically, visited plateaus, left my home and let parts of my Self deterritorialize. A ‘body without organs’ has appeared, lines of flight of the mind have taken shape. The plane of immanence has opened, folded, its inclusions have opened new worlds for me, which are now slowly being brought into alignment with reality and everyday life.
This is a painful process. The naive world of wonder and easy fascination, the honeymoon of spiritual exploration, reaches a first caesura. This superficiality, then, the connecting within immanence, is an active exploration, a thinking in the sense of expansion. I have connected it with an inward assimilation, a feeling my way in meditation, spiritual practice, temple visits, exhibitions, “folklore,” study groups and conversations.
Now I have spent 4 days in an intensive course on Vastu (architecture). In terms of teaching it was well structured: slowly introducing the world of thought derived from the Vedas, moving on to basic concepts of space, vibration, geometry, cosmology, energy. Again and again the Upanishads shone through. We practiced Puja and made a temple visit—and finally moved on to practical applications in architectural plans.
The tasks are now much more difficult. Pure resonance and association want to have their legitimacy examined. And here the question of the criterion now arises. Against what should knowledge be measured. I discuss this with my teacher through Hegel and the Taittiriya Upanishad, but also in postmodern reflection. Yet this oscillating thinking eludes a systematic grasp. How, then, should it express itself? In recent months, much has condensed for me through personal experience. I have written letters that followed the inner movement that feels drawn toward something. And I have visualized and exhibited knowledge as a starting point for questions: a diagram of a temple exhibited in a Gurukul that practices tantric rituals.