AH Almaas: To be an instrument of the absolute is to be its absolute servant


To be an instrument of the absolute is to be its absolute servant, which is the same as being a complete, thoroughly ripened, and mature human adult. This is human happiness and fulfillment. This is the station of realization of the freedom vehicle, which is the reason we frequently refer to it as the body of service. We develop a new subtle body, which inherently recognizes its function as servicing the truth of Reality. It is a precise, clear, totally objective wisdom, completely free from subjective bias or reaction. This functioning may appear as a limitation when compared with the station of abiding in the absolute, and students tend to react to it in this manner, yet it is actually a deeper and higher realization. For in this station there is no preference at all; there is no need at all for any state or condition, not even for that of the absolute.

A.H. Almaas from The Inner Journey Home: Soul’s Realization of the Unity of Reality, ch. 23, p. 458

I agree with the general gist of it, from my own experience and understanding. (Which is limited, as it is for all of us.) And I hesitate when I see people using absolutist language.

He uses words such as “totally objective wisdom”, and “no preference at all”. On the surface of it, it seems suspect. Is it really that black and white?

Is there anything that’s totally objective? Are we even in a position to know?

Aren’t we all programmed by our culture and traditions? Even if all identifications were gone, I assume there would still be this filter.

A.H. Almaas may say that something is objective. It may indeed appear that way, to him and perhaps others. And a person in another culture or 200 years from now would perhaps see how it’s not objective at all, but reflects the age and culture he lives in, and the limitations inherent in any culture and tradition. I imagine that for a (hypothetical) being from another solar system or galaxy, with an entirely different biology, psychology, culture, and traditions, and embedded in a very different ecology, that may be even more clear. (Those categories may not even apply to such a being.)

Also, isn’t there a difference between preferences and identifications? It seems that preferences are just part of our human self. I like strawberry ice cream more than chocolate ice cream. I like Baroque music over rap. There is no problem there. And if there is little or no identification with it (velcro), I am free to follow what seems wise and kind in the moment, whether it follows or goes against my personal and very human preferences. There is no need for the preferences to be gone.

And similar to above, can we really know if there are absolutely no preferences? Are we ever in a position to know for certain?

Of course, it may be that A.H. Almaas is aware of something I am not here. That is very possible.

It’s also possible that he went a bit overboard in his language use. That he let excitement take his language further than what’s warranted.

Just to be clear: I admire AH Almaas very much, and feel a great deal of resonance with his descriptions and pointers. This is just nit-picking. And yet, it’s important to be aware of and question these things.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *