A materiális világ esszenciálisan szellemi világ. Mit jelent az, hogy »szellemi«? Azt, hogy szubtilisebb, mint az anyagi? Ezt is, de nem ez a lényeg. A világ akkor szellemi, ha tudati természete az átélésben nyilvánvalóvá válik.

László András



„A lég, a fellegek, az erdő,
Mikéntha minden zengene…
A föld, a csillagok, a tenger,
Minden szívemmel van tele.

És mintha mind lobogna, égne;
Rajongna, élne szikla, rög…
Állat, virág, fa, sőt az ember
Érezne tégedet, Örök!…


És mintha mind belém ömölne,
Az óceán s a csillagok,
Szín és sugár, dal, illat, éter:
Úgy érzem, én minden vagyok."

Komjáthy Jenő: Az örök dal (részlet)



„A Rig-véda azt tanítja, hogy Isten az egész természetben felismerhető – a hegyekben, dombokban, folyókban. »Az egyetlen szellem rajtam keresztül áramlik.« Amikor egy hegyen állva nem tudod, hol végződik a hegy, s hol kezdődik a tested, az az igazi imádság. Amint lélegzel, az egész természet lélegzik. Mikor kiengeded a levegőt, az egész hegy minden völgyével együtt a fuvallatokban lélegzik ki. Amint belélegzel, az univerzális életerő pránájának teljessége járja át a tested, csakúgy, mint a völgyeket, a folyókat, a hegyeket. Ez az egyedüli helyes kapcsolat a természettel.”

Szvámí Véda Bháratí





Róbert Horváth


The platform principles of consciousness-ecology



Consciousness-ecology is not one school among the several schools of ecology, and not a branch of ecology, either. Rather – at variance with the most superficial meanings of the word ‘school’ – it is an orientation, applicable in every school and discipline of ecology that takes it seriously. For the so-called superficial forms of ecology and for “deep ecology” alike. The representatives of biological ecology may apply its platform principles in essentially the same way as the scholars of socioecology or ecophilosophy. The only important is that they understand its main principles, they acknowledge their importance, and then they consistently apply the principles in their own practice, without their being altered or their emphasis dulled by expertise.

The platform principles read as follows:

(1) The starting point of consciousness-ecology is that recognition of fundamental import, according to which for all the present and future forms of ecological crisis, the individual is the primary responsible. The experience it proposes as starting point is actually that the ecological crisis is “my” fault.

(2) Inasmuch as I experience the environment as within my own consciousness, I contribute less to the generation or further development of the ecological crisis. What belongs to man, nay, what is part of himself, that harms he the least. No relation is more responsible, no method more efficient to avoid the ecological crisis than that I experience the oikos as within my consciousness, as the latter’s inalienable part.

(3) The experience of any – geological, animal, human, objective, cultural, etc. – form of the environment as within my own consciousness not only prevents the ecological crisis, but offers resolutions thereto. Than this, there cannot be a more intimate efficient cause and way of responsible care for the environment. If oriented towards the “other”, not even love is more successful.

(4) As regards the resolution of various aspects of the ecological crisis, labour for a harmonic, exalted, and complete state of the own consciousness is an indispensable prerequisite. The harassed, low-standard, and restricted consciousness results in like environmental attitude. On the whole, the “outward” environment corresponds to the “inward” environment.

(5) The experience of the environment as within my own consciousness does not exempt anyone from experiencing crises and even catastrophes. In this way, however, they demand resolutions more efficiently than environmental crisis regarded merely as outward.

(6) The question whether the consciousness abides in the world or the world in the consciousness, consciousness-ecology answers unequivocally in the latter way: the world abides in the consciousness – and not vice versa. If we presume or experience such “consciousness” as abides in the world, this diminished consciousness is experienced by the total consciousness, which embraces the whole world.

(7) From the previous principle it follows that consciousness-ecology acknowledges the existence of lower levels and forms of consciousness and awareness. It does not deny for instance the role of the brain as a carrier, but it rejects the identity of consciousness – in an exclusive way – with the brain, the nervous system, or even the mental activity.

(8) The postulate of own consciousness beyond the brain, the mind, and the psyche is the most important principle of consciousness-ecology.

(9) Whoever accepts all the principles and applies them in an apparent way, without distortions in his ecological work, can be considered a scholar of consciousness-ecology. A requirement hereof is that he practice the principles in his own life and outlook.

From these nine platform principles there follows an indefinite number of practical consequences as part of the applications, theories, and strategies of consciousness-ecology.



Like to the platform of the so-called deep-ecology school – published in 1985 –, we append explanations to the foregoing, which refine the platform principles, and may serve as a basis for future expositions.

Ad (1): The idea that “others” are also responsible for the environmental crisis, means nothing from the viewpoint of a veritably ethical attitude that acknowledges the own responsibility. Consciousness-ecology does accept the chain of causes, it does recognise non-idividual causes (as for instance the biological ones, the group interests, or deliberate destruction), but it recommends the above attitude. It believes that even for the past precursors of the environmental crisis, “I” am responsible, in the sense that if the present responsibility we push into and project upon the past, we abandon the stance from the experience of which we could do the most.

Ad (2): The use of the word “own” is important. Consciousness, experienced directly, is always own consciousness. In fact, the environment does not ever, in any of its forms leave the own consciousness. Therein exist the mountains, the rivers, the trees, the people, the animals – with their same physical extension and reality. (This is why we are able to observe them in their full detail, down to the “last” clump of moss.) The environment, even in the case of the most diverse theories thereabout, always arises in the own consciousness, which is however not experienced. The being-in-the-consciousness, when experienced, is realised as an inalienable “part”. And one is the least irresponsible for that which one experiences as a part of one’s self.

Ad (3): The environmental crisis is always a consequence of the crisic relation to the environment. All erroneous relations arise – primarily – from that the environment, be it the biological or the more strictly human, is not experienced as within the own consciousness. The ecological crises may not only be prevented, but also resolved through that we regard everything as part of our own consciousness. (This point we will support with further essays.) To experience something as inalienable part of the own consciousness means also to start to resolve the crisis connected thereto. This is more than loving something “other”, because it constitutes the veritable, deliberate love’s essence.

Ad (4): According to the consciousness-ecology stance, the greatest problem of ecology is that it does not make man cultivate his own consciousness enough – while this is the first, directly accessible environment, where he could enter upon the ecological work. The influenced consciousness is harassed and restricted, the self-governed one is placid and complete. Above, “low-standard” means that it is not of quality, not autonomous, and not directed onto itself.  Ibidem, the distinction between the “inward” (mental) and “outward” (physical) environment is approximate, illustrative, and not definitive. It does not mean that the so-called outward environment would not be of consciousness, since a state of consciousness perceived as environment and the oikos in the conventional sense are equally of consciousness.

In accordance with the fourth platform principle, consciousness-ecology gives special attention to auspicious thoughts, to entities of exalted ambience and atmosphere – to that man abide always in “good company” in the sense of consciousness. (Despite the auspicious, the exalted, and the good not being exact notions, we must tend towards them. Incidentally, the difficulty in their definition stems from that they mean different things in different concrete situations, from which, however, their invalidity does not follow.)

Ad (5): The actual environmental crises – those that are not merely purported out of some peculiar interests – sooner or later lead to environmental catastrophes. Every crisis stems from my negligence towards all that I regard not as within my consciousness. Such relations – as is manifested also in the case of personal relations – deteriorate and then collapse. Consciousness-ecology’s striving for harmonic states of consciousness and its self-defence attitude, however, does not mean exemption from negative experiences. Consciousness-ecology is no harmonicism, no forced pacifism, or bourgeois-conventional-popular aestheticism. Not some kind of eugenics of consciousness, but a simultaneously subjective and objective orientation.

Ad (6): The “consciousness” within the world is always restricted and downgraded. Not really consciousness, since with regard to this relation, the consciousness is in fact the one which sees that factor abiding in the world which is merely called consciousness. The vision of the world and the thereby incorporated erroneously-so-called consciousness occurs simultaneously, that is, the real consciousness incorporates both, and hence also the world. As regards the sixth platform principle, the greatest conceptual concession we can make is that we acknowledge: in certain cases, consciousness does get restricted to the world and its some segment – then, however, it is no longer the complete consciousness.

Ad (7): Consciousness-ecology does not contest that the human brain be in the world, and that the mind operate in the world and together with the world. “Someone else’s consciousness” and “several consciousnesses” are similarly mere within-the-world “consciousnesses”. All these, together with the world, are only carriers and parts of the own, actual consciousness. (Such metaphysical questions are of special importance for consciousness-ecology.) The foregoing word “only” in no way signifies belittlement or neglect.

Ad (8): The acceptance of this platform principle does not require special proficiency in metaphysics. Consciousness-ecology does not accept the consciousness-conception of psychology, of the philosophy of mind, and of the so-called cultural creatives’ “global consciousness”. It is sufficent to reject these, or more precisely, to accept the total own consciousness, because all these postulate a diminished “consciousness” that abides within the world, and constitutes an appendix thereof. The consciousness of the philosophy of mind is materialistic even in those cases when the body and the mind are better separated. And the so-called global consciousness (or awareness) of “cultural creatives” harbours grave dangers concerning the future: it may deviate the consciousness-centred normal view towards a merely objective and collective, science-fiction-like central “consciousness” determined by someone.

Ad (9): Consciousness-ecology came forward not with the claim to be separated from all ecological schools and disciplines. Nor to be pigeonholed among them. It labours on the more profound, more responsible experience of the environment, because it believes thereby to contribute to man’s more superior and happier self-experience.

Based on the above platform principles and explanations does it elaborate its practical strategies.