share

The Heart of Franklin

Merrell-Wolff's Philosophy
Thomas J. McFarlane
December 2003
www.integralscience.org
Published in Sangha: The Newsletter of the Franklin Merrell-Wolf
Fellowship, Fall 2003 (part I) and Winter 2004 (part II). This article is
based on a keynote address delivered at the Franklin Merrell-Wolf
Reunion and Gathering in Lone Pine, California on 31 May 2003.
The
web
address
of
is http://www.integralscience.org/wolfsheart.htm
Copyright 2003 Thomas J McFarlane.

this

article

Introduction
The heart of Franklin Merrell-Wolf's philosophy is that which gives his
philosophy its life. Without this heart at its core, Wolf's philosophy
would be deada mere collection of speculative concepts. This heart
is, of course, Fundamental Realization. It grounds the philosophy in
Reality and ensouls it with a deeper Meaning.
The Fundamental Realization which is at the heart of Wolf's
philosophy transcends conceptual understanding. Conception is a
mode of cognition that involves objectification. When we know
conceptually, we are creating an object of knowledge. Fundamental
Realization, in contrast, involves the turning of the Light of
Consciousness back upon Itself toward Its Source, a mode of cognition
in which outward objectification is surrendered and Consciousness
prior to objectification spontaneously Recognizes Itself. This
Recognition is a Knowledge Through Identity wherein the knower,
known, and act of knowing are identical. In this identity of subject,
object, and knowing, Consciousness is the knower, Consciousness is
the known, and Consciousness is the knowing. In other words,
Consciousness is the knowingness that, in Fundamental Realization,
Knows Itself through Identity with Itself, prior to any division of subject
and object. This knowingness is inherent in the essential nature of

Consciousness. It is, was, and always will be, right here and now, in
the pure and simple immediacy of this very awareness.
Because this Root Consciousness is prior to any act of objectification,
Wolf calls it Consciousness Without An Object. It is the fundamental
Source of all objects, and is the ultimate Substance of which all things
are constituted. Indeed, the first fundamental of Wolf's philosophy
states that Consciousness is original, self-existent, and constitutive of
all things. So, in Reality, everything is ultimately identical to
Consciousness Itself, everything is essentially the pure quality of
knowingness that is the inherent nature of Consciousness. Although
we may imagine ourselves and other things to exist apart from
Consciousness, in reality there is nothing but this Consciousness with
its power to project, or imagine, that objects exist outside of, or apart
from Itself. Wolf sums this up beautifully as follows:
In conclusion, we may say that the final knowledge of the mystic takes the following
form:
1. Negatively, it is a denial of all substantial reality to all worlds, physical
or metaphysical, and an equal denial of all selfhood in the same sense.
2. Positively, it affirms the indubitable reality of consciousness, and of all
its immediately realizable states.
In the 'as if' sense, there may be all kinds of worlds, objective and metaphysical, with
their corresponding kinds of beings and selves. This supplies everything that is
necessary for all kinds of possibilities. (Transformations, p. 291)

We must, however, add a caveat: All the above descriptions of

Realization or Transcendental Knowledge are distortions that fall short
of actually defining this Knowledge in any definitive way. Any time we
think or conceive of Realization in language or words, we objectify it,
we form a conceptual image of a something to be known by a mind
that will know it. By conceiving non-dual Consciousness in these
dualistic, relative, subject-object terms, we necessarily misrepresent
it. As Wolf puts it,
The kind of consciousness that falls outside the subject-object field is more than
difficult to express in relative terms. It is absolutely impossible to do so. It is not
simply a question of our not yet having developed sufficient skill. The impossibility
inheres in the fact that the subject-object form, essential to language as such, can
only distort the Transcendent. (Experience, p. 141)

The Consciousness at heart of Wolf's philosophy is therefore

indescribable. It transcends, in principle, all language and conception.
It is beyond all definition and description. There is no way to capture it
or comprehend it with thought. Fundamental Realization is, in a word,
inefable. And even this is saying too much.

This inefability of Transcendental Consciousness gives rise to an

apparent problem. Insofar as teachings such as Wolf's philosophy are
limited to definitions, concepts, thought, and conceptualization, they
are cut of from this Consciousness. Whatever is known conceptually
is known dualistically, and thus falls short of Realization, which is by
nature non-dual. So, it seems that philosophy can never take us to
That which is beyond philosophical understanding. In other words, it
appears that the dualistic nature of thought and conception severs
Wolf's philosophy from Fundamental Realization and that we can
never arrive at the heart of the philosophy through the philosophy.
Wolf, however, denies that this is the case. In fact, he unequivocally
affirms the value of philosophy as a means to Realization:
The office of great philosophy is to be a Way of Realization, and not solely a monitor
of doing. For the eternal function of the Divine Sophia is to supply the knowing that
serves being first of all anddoing only in so far as action is instrumental to that being.
(Experience, p. 241)

We are thus faced with the problem of reconciling the inefability of

Realization with the efficacy of philosophy as a means of Realization.
How can philosophy be a Way of Realization if concepts only obscure
Consciousness with their distinctions? How can a philosophical system
of dualistic concepts serve as a vehicle for awakening us to a non-dual
Reality beyond words and concepts? How, in short, is Wolf's
philosophy connected to its heart? These are the questions we will
explore in the subsequent sections of this article.

The Nature of Concepts

In the Introduction we arrived at an apparent incompatibility between
the inefability of Realization, on the one hand, and the conceptual
nature of philosophy, on the other. Put simply, because Realization is
non-dual and conception is dual, it is not obvious how the two can be
connected, how philosophy can be a Way of Realization. To dissolve
this paradox, we will begin by examining the nature of concepts and
conception.
In essence, a concept is an indication of some definite object or type
of object. For example, the concept rock indicates a kind of object
with certain properties. A rock is a hard, dense physical object that
often has an irregular shape. It is larger than a grain of sand or pebble
and smaller than a boulder or mountain. We learn the meaning
of rock by learning these properties, or distinctions. We distinguish
hard and soft, big and small, heavy and light. The concept rock is just
a particular collection of such distinctions that we have learned to
make in our experience. We then use these distinctions to identify

whether or not a particular object is a rock. Implicit in the

concept rock are all these distinctions. In addition to physical objects
like rocks, concepts can also refer to mental objects. For example, a
circle is a particular type of geometrical object that is distinguished
from other objects by a set of properties, or distinctions. The
word circle evokes these distinctions. Normally, we make the
distinctions so quickly and automatically that the process is
unconscious to us. Nevertheless, whether we are aware of it or not, at
the root of every concept is at least one distinction that is used to
define the concept through contrast with what it is not. Thus, every
concept is inherently dualistic, and this is exactly what gives the
concept a definite meaning.
If we examine our own experience of the act of conception, we find
that it not only involves making distinctions, but also involves
directing attention to the contents of those distinctions. To give a
concrete example, consider this particular circle: O. For an instant,
your attention was just focused in a small part of your visual field of
awareness where the circle appears. In perceiving this circle, a
distinction was drawn between that circle and everything else in your
visual field of awareness. Attention was limited to that region of visual
awareness within the distinction, and you momentarily ignored
everything else. That act of ignoring a region of consciousness is what
actually gives rise to the object and makes it stand out in
consciousness. So, conception acts to create a distinction in
consciousness and to limit attention to the contents of the distinction,
ignoring the rest of awareness.
It is important to recognize that this ignorance of the rest of
awareness does not destroy it or even alter it. When you look at that
mark, it does not alter the rest of the visual field of awareness or
make part of it literally disappear. The direction of attention to that
mark is merely an ignoring of the rest of visual awareness, so that the
mark is brought into contrast and made to stand out, or exist. The
mark then appears as an object with a seeming existence distinct
from Consciousness Itself. The world of objects, in other words, arises
through a process of negation or ignorance, and its existence is a
relative absence of Consciousness. As Wolf puts it:
Thus the active, concrete, and perceptual consciousness is to be viewed as an
arousal of specific awareness through a partial blanking out of the full and perfectly
balanced consciousness of the Primordial State. As a result, the world of things,
apparently given through the senses, is actually a domain of relative emptiness.
(Experience, p. 261)

Thus, insofar as you are conscious of a world of objects, the

conceptual process of ignoring part of consciousness is active. Even if

you are not thinking, your very experience of the world is inherently
conceptual since it is the conceptual process of making a distinction
and ignoring the awareness outside the distinction that makes objects
of experience appear.
Now, there is nothing inherently problematic about this partial
blanking. It is a natural activity of Consciousness. As the Hindus say, it
is the play of Lila, the dance of Shiva. However, if we are unconscious
of this process, if we do not recognize our own activity of ignoring,
then we will experience the objects as if they had their own objective
reality, independent of consciousness. This is similar to psychological
projection, where we experience our own unconscious psychological
contents as objectively existing in other people. This is much more
radical, though, since we are projecting onto the world the delusion
that it is objectively real. Not only do objects arise as appearances in
consciousness, but they also seem to be self-existent things, having
their own inherent existence. This delusion is a kind of secondary
overlay upon the primary universe. The primary universe is created
through the process of conception, while the secondary overlay
results from an unconsciousness of that creative process, making it
appear as if the created objects were real. Because we are
unconscious of our own process of conception, which by nature blanks
out part of Reality, we think that the limited world defined and created
by these concepts is the whole of Reality. We ignore the fact that
conception is only an ignoring of part of Reality, and the result of this
double ignorance is a kind of conceptual reductionism that makes us
believe that the objective world is real and is all there is. We dream up
a world, forget that we have dreamt it up, then are bound to live in it
as if it were real. Naturally, we then sufer.
There are also theoretical problems that arise when we fall into the
delusion that what is real is what can be conceptually defined, and no
more. When we fall into this conceptual reductionism, we inevitably
encounter paradoxes and contradictions. Naturally, these problems
arise when we attempt to use concepts, which are limited, to describe
all of Reality, which is not. For example, if we say Reality is inefable,
then we have used the word inefable to describe it. But if it is truly
inefable, we can not describe it with any word, including inefable.
Similarly, if we say Reality is non-dual, then we have used the
word non-dual to distinguish Reality from that which is dual. But if
Reality is truly non-dual, then it is not distinct from anything, including
the
dual.
Similar
paradoxes
arise
with
concepts
like infinite, unconditioned, and Consciousness Without An Object.
These paradoxes and contradictions all arise when we strictly limit
concepts to their explicit definitions, then forget this limitation and try

to apply them to all of reality. This kind of conception, which is strictly

limited to definition in terms of other concepts, creates a closed
system. So there is no way for concepts to take us beyond conceptual
understanding. This does not mean that there is nothing beyond
conceptual understanding. It only means that concepts can not
capture all of Reality. As Wolf puts it,
The direct value of that Recognition is inexpressible and inconceivable in the sense of
concepts meaning just what they are defined to mean and no more. (Experience, p.
315)

Thus, because concepts are strictly limited to their definitions, they

can not be applied to the indefinable, unlimited Reality without
contradiction. The misguided attempt to apply concepts to Reality is a
result of conceptual reductionism, a confusion of reality with what is
conceivable. Similarly, our delusion of an objective world is a result of
confusing reality with objects appearing through the process of
conception.
The problem, however, is not with concepts themselves, or the fact
that they are limited to strict definitions. The beauty of mathematics,
for example, is due in part to the discipline of clearly and explicitly
defining concepts, and rigorously adhering to those limited
definitions. The source of the problem is with our attempt to apply
these limited concepts to Reality, as if Reality were reducible to
strictly defined concepts.
The above examination has been an attempt to clarify the nature of
concepts and conception. Having seen exactly how the problems with
concepts arise, we are now prepared to investigate how it is possible
to transcend the limitations of concepts, and see how philosophy can
be a door to Recognition.

Notions and Symbols

In the first part of this article, we began with an apparent paradox:
although the Heart of Wolf's philosophy is a Transcendental
Realization beyond the reach of any concept or thought, nevertheless
Wolf maintains that philosophy can be a Way of Realization. To
dissolve this paradox we began by examining the nature of
conception. In its ordinary sense, conception draws distinctions
between classes or types of objects. In its most primordial sense,
however, conception is a power to imagine objects in consciousness.
It creates an object by restricting our attention to just one part of
awareness and ignoring the rest. Thus, the primary universe of
objects exists through the power of conception.

Now, if we ignore the fact that objects are carved out of

consciousness by conception and are ultimately identical with
consciousness, then we are in efect positing or projecting upon
objects a reality that they do not actually have. This ignorance thus
gives rise to a secondary universe of apparently real things to which
our experience and understanding become bound. Perplexity and
sufering result. As Wolf puts it,
It is not the field of subject-object consciousness, as such, that is an Illusion or
Maya in the invidious sense, but the secondary universe. (Experience and Philosophy,
p. 179)

To dispel the illusion of the secondary universe of real things, it is

necessary to recognize how conception gives rise to the primary
universe of seeming objects. When we recognize the process by which
the world of objects is literally conceived into existence, appearances
are no longer misperceived as a collection of independently existing
things. Instead, with the arising of every object there is a
simultaneous recognition of its objectless complement in
consciousness. With the creation of the Universe there is the
concomitant recognition of Nirvana. In other words, there is a
realization of Wolf's Aphorism 8:
When consciousness of objects is born, then, likewise, consciousness of absence of
objects arises. (Experience, p. 310.)

When this Nirvanic consciousness is awakened and complements the

consciousness of the Universe, the nature of conception is likewise
transformed. Conception bound to the universe of objects now opens
up to include a complementary, inverse mode of cognition. Before,
concepts were limited to their explicit definitions and referred only to
objects. Now, a trans-conceptual mode of cognition gives concepts
another dimension, transforming them into more than mere concepts,
so they have the capacity to carry Transcendental Meaning. As Wolf
describes it,
One finds this inherent meaning, not by the appropriate kind of action, but by the
correct kind of meditation, that is, by a process of introceptiona movement of
consciousness such that a successful outcome implies a transcendence of both
thinking and perception, so that consciousness enters something like another
dimension. (Transformations in Consciousness, p. 169)

This new dimension of cognition fills concepts with a Meaning that

escapes
the
limits
of
their
definitions.
We
then
call
them Thoughts, symbols, or notions to distinguish them from ordinary
concepts restricted to objective content alone. Notions or Thoughts,
like concepts, have a conceptual definition, but they are much more
than that. A notion is to its conceptual definition what a threedimensional object is to its projection into two-dimensional space. The

concept is thus a mere shadow of the notion, leaving out an entire

dimension. Consequently, if we reduce Transcendental Thought to
objectively formulated concepts then its deeper Meaning will be lost.
So how do we open ourselves up to this deeper Meaning carried by
the mystical Thought? How can we hear more than the surface
concepts as they are defined? This is a crucial question, for it is only
by opening up to this Meaning beyond the concepts that philosophy
can begin to serve us as a genuine Way to Realization.

Opening to Nirvanic Thought

When the activity of conception creates the primary universe of
thinkable objects, the inefable Nirvanic complement is implicitly
present. It is this non-objective complement to the objective concept
that carries the Transcendental Meaning. Wolf provides us with
several pointers to help us open up to this Meaning behind mystical
Thought. When reading mystic writers, for example, Wolf tells us:
The reading should be done without strained efort in the intellectual sense. The
reader should let a sort of current flow into and through him, and not feel troubled as
to whether he has understood anything or not, at the time. He may feel, or deeply
cognize, something though he may be unable to say what it is. He will return to the
same Fount again and again, and presently, from out of Inner Meaning,
understanding will begin to blossom in him. He will enter into Communion on the
level of a new kind of Language. (Experience, p. 50)

Thus, opening up to the noetic Meaning beyond concepts is analogous

to opening up to the aesthetic Beauty beyond poetry, music, or art.
Just as the Beauty of music or poetry can evoke a directly experienced
meaning that escapes any kind of definitive analysis, Transcendental
Thought can evoke a noetic response that goes beyond the mere
conceptual definitions of words. And, just as a strained efort to
analyze a poem will veil its Beauty, so also a strained efort to
intellectually grasp mystical writings will hide the Inner Meaning.
Instead, we should read the words of the mystics as we listen to a
symphony, behold a sunset, or read poetry. Relax, let go of the efort
to know the meaning, and instead simply allow the implicit Meaning
to be intuitively felt. Although at first we may have only the faintest
whif, if we return again and again, the understanding will blossom.
Wolf also ofers the following advice on the proper attitude to
cultivate to help us access these deeper dimensions:
The step from the symbol to that which is symbolized, though this does aford a
peculiarly exacting demand upon acuity of thought, yet requires much more. Here,
feeling, in the best sense, must fuse with the thought. Thus the thinker must learn
also to feel his thought, so that, in the highest degree, he thinks devotedly. The

thinker arrives by surrendering himself to Truth. Then Truth possesses him, not he,
Truth. (Experience, p. 354)

Thus, opening up to the Nirvanic Thought is facilitated by a self-giving

attitude that surrenders possessiveness. The devoted thinker is a
lover who surrenders all possessiveness of the beloved and gives up
any attempt to reduce the mystery of the beloved to a limited image
or conceptual understanding. At the same time, however, conceptual
understanding is not entirely dismissed. For just as the experience of
a symphony's beauty is enhanced by cultivating and refining our
aesthetic sensibilities, so also our capacity for receiving noetic
Meaning is increased by training the intellect. As with any art, the
master is one who submits to discipline and training in order to make
themselves a more perfect channel for inspiration to flow through.
So, if we open ourselves up to the Nirvanic dimensions of ensouled
concepts, then their Meaning will grow up from within us and provide
a bridge to their Transcendent Source. It is thus in our own capacity to
think devotedly without attachment or possessiveness to knowledge
that philosophy can serve as a Way of Realization.

Illustrations and Exercises

To illustrate in more detail how we might awaken cognition of the
Nirvanic dimension beyond concepts, consider a simple circle: O. This
circle acts as an instruction to imagine a distinction in the space of
consciousness between the circle and the rest of awareness.
Furthermore, it also acts as an instruction to direct attention to the
circle and ignore everything else, thereby making the circle stand out
as an object. Now notice that, as a mark in the space of this page, the
circle is itself a distinction between the space inside the circle and the
space outside the circle. Thus, the circle is a symbol for the distinction
in consciousness between any object and its non-objective
complement, where the space inside the circle represents the object
and the space outside the circle represents its Nirvanic complement.
Now direct your attention to the inside of the circle and recognize that
the outside space does not literally disappear from awareness, even
though it is ignored when you focus on the inside space. Thus, the
outside of the circle can still be recognized as present even though it
is being ignored and is not cognized as an object. Thus, from the point
of view of objective consciousness, the inside space exists and the
outside space does not exist. Yet, the outside space is still recognized
as being there. This illustrates how an objective consciousness can

coexist with a recognition of its non-objective complement. As Wolf

writes,
I realized that pure subjective consciousness without an object must appear to the
relative consciousness to have objects. Hence Recognition did not, of itself, imply a
new experiential content of consciousness. (Experience, p. 263)

Thus, Recognition of the non-objective space outside the circle is not

a shift in attention or a new content in consciousness. It is simply
recognizing the space that is already present as the complement of
the circle. Just as the inside of the circle cannot exist without the
outside, every object that appears in consciousness implies its own
non-objective complement in consciousness. And just as the circle not
only divides the inside space from the outside space but also joins
them together, the power of conception not only draws a distinction in
consciousness between an object and the rest of awareness, but also
unites them. When conception operates with a recognition of both
these aspects, it involves both the objective meaning and the nonobjective Meaning. Thus, depending on how we regard them,
concepts can carry the thickness of Substance or a thinness of an
empty abstraction. As Wolf explains,
When a concept enrobes an inner Significance, it possesses thickness or depth. In
other relations, the same formal concept may point, directly or indirectly, to a
perceptual experience. In this case, it has the value of thinness. Thus the thinness of
a concept, when viewed from the extroverted perspective, may be transformed into
thickness when the same concept is take in an introceptive relation.
(Transformations, p. 170)

For example, consider the concept rock. This concept directs our
attention to a limited part of awareness where a rock appears. Insofar
as this is a very concrete, ponderable, objective experience, it is thin
and lacking in Substantiality. Now, to transform this thinness into a
thickness, we need only take this same concept from an introceptive
rather than extroverted perspective. In other words, we need only to
retain the recognition of the space of awareness complementing the
rock.
You can try this right now with any object at hand. First, shift the focus
of attention to the object. Now, without shifting attention away from
the object, simply notice that the rest of awareness is still present
even though it is being ignored and is not an object in awareness.
Now relax and rest in this awareness without trying to find it or know
it. Open yourself to it, and allow it to just be. Do not grasp at an inner
Meaning, but open up to it as you would to the beloved and allow it to
flow through you. Now simply behold the object as a mere
appearance in consciousness. Then continue to rest in this recognition
of the objectless complement of whatever object arises.

This exercise may provide a taste of what it might mean to open up to

the introceptive dimensions concepts. For substantial nourishment,
however, it is often best to contemplate not just any object, but
concepts ensouled with Meaning. Wolf explicitly points out several
such symbols in his philosophy, e.g., Space, Infinity, the Continuum,
and the Aphorisms. If we struggle to conceptually grasp the meaning
of these symbols, we will end up in paradox and confusion. But if we
relax and contemplate them, opening up to their non-objective, transconceptual dimensions, then their Meaning will begin to fill us.

Conclusion
Although philosophy normally begins with objective concepts which
can never capture the inefable Meaning at the Heart of Mystical
Philosophy, the practice of philosophy can become a Way of
Realization for us if we open ourselves to experiencing the
introceptive dimension of conception. At first, we may experience just
hints of these deeper dimensions, but with the proper attitude and
persistent practice, the insight will deepen.
It is important to emphasize again that it is not necessary to get rid of
concepts or the primary universe of objective appearances. The
illusion is not the primary universe but the secondary universe in
which these objects in consciousness are mistaken for apparently real
things that exist independent of consciousness. As Wolf explains,
That in some sense the Object exists cannot be denied, for it is unquestionably a
datum for immediate experience. But to affirm further that the Thing exists is to add
an overbelief that is not necessary for either experience or reason. The Thing is
that which is supposed to exist, quite independently of any relationship to or within
consciousness. (Experience, p. 332)

In addition, Wolf writes,

While realization of the Nirvanic State is dependent upon detachment from the
Object, it is not dependent upon noncognition of the Object. Thus realization of
Nirvana is, in principle, compatible with continued cognition of the World, provided
there is nonattachment to it. (Experience, p. 404)

Similarly, introceptive cognition is compatible with continued

conception, provided there is not attachment to the objective phase of
the conception. Thus, it is not objective conception per se that is
incompatible with the inefable Transcendental Heart of Wolf's
philosophy, but rather our attachment to the exclusively objective
phase of conception. Provided we have some degree of detachment
from the objective phase of conception, it remains united with its non-

objective phase, and provides us with a lifeline to the Transcendent

Meaning. Philosophy, then, can be a Way of Realization for us.
Ultimately, however, we must keep in mind that philosophy as a Way
of Realization does not involve a development of concepts
culminating in a conclusion, but is a transformation in consciousness
wherein we Recognize a dimension of consciousness that was present
already from the beginning. Conception, therefore, can not awaken us
to introception because introception is actually already implicitly
present in conception. Similarly, we can not attain a Consciousness
that we have never been separated from in the first place. Thus,
Wolf's
philosophy
is
not
a
Way to Realization,
but
a
Way of Realization. The Heart of the Philosophy is here, now, fully
present in this very consciousness, even conceptual consciousness.
May we all Awaken to the Heart of every thought and concept that
arises.

References
Merrell-Wolf, Franklin (1994). Franklin Merrell-Wolf's Experience and
Philosophy: a personal record of transformation and a discussion of
transcendental
consciousness,
containing
hisPhilosophy
of
Consciousness Without An Object and his Pathways Through To
Space (Albany : SUNY Press ).
Merrell-Wolf, Franklin (1995). Transformations in Consciousness: The
Metaphysics and Epistemology, containing Franklin MerrellWolf's Introceptualism, and a forward by the editor, Ron Leonard
(Albany : SUNY Press ).
1