Superficiality

I'm slowly delving deeper into superficiality. Concepts I've absorbed from various knowledge systems like the Vedas, Agamas, and Shastras are slowly merging. I see rough root systems. For example, how the 5 elements (water, fire, earth, ether, and air) as a starting point in Vedic teachings evolve into Vastu or Ayurveda, thus into space and the body. I see how different knowledge systems intertwine in the temple and how this is still reflected in contemporary art practice today. And it becomes clear how the interpretation and appropriation of these knowledge systems are highly political. This knowledge was colonized and is now critically questioned at universities regarding its colonization. However, it is also still active in many ashrams and gurukuls, often with great pride and the reference to reviving tradition.

Following Deleuze's ideas, I have rhizomatically connected various concepts, visited plateaus, left my home, and allowed parts of myself to deterritorialize. A ‚body without organs‘ has emerged, and lines of flight have formed. The plane of Immanence has opened, folded, its inclusions have opened up new worlds for me, which are now slowly aligning with reality and everyday life.

This is a painful process. The naive world of wonder and mild fascination, the honeymoon of spiritual exploration comes to a first caesura. This superficiality, i.e. the linking in immanence, is an active exploration, a thinking in the sense of expansion. I have combined it with an internalization, a tracing in meditation, spiritual practice, temple visits, exhibitions, 'folklore', study groups and conversations.

So, I was in an intensive course on Vastu (architecture) for 4 days. The didactics were well-constructed: slowly introducing the way of thinking derived from the Vedas, moving towards fundamental concepts of space, vibration, geometry, cosmology, and energy. The Upanishads shone through again and again. We practiced puja and a temple visit – and finally arrived at practical applications in architectural plans.

The tasks are now much more difficult. The pure resonance and association needs to be checked for legitimacy. And this is where the question of the criterion arises. How should knowledge be measured? I discuss this with my teacher on the basis of Hegel and the Taittiriya Upanishad, but also in postmodern reflection. However, this oscillating thinking escapes systematic access. So how should it express itself? In the last few months, a lot has been condensed for me through personal experience. I have written letters that have followed the inner movement that feels drawn to 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.