All Considering

I get this question all the time. People compare our biology to wolves, bears, horses, cows… Biologically we are most like pigs actually. Pigs are omnivores, but can live off a purely vegetable diet. So can we.

Cows have several stumachs so they can eat grass. Humans can only digest the grass we eat (wheat and other grains) when cooked, which is something humans have been doing for thousands of years.

Wolves and other pure meat eating species have special types of teeth we don’t have. Similarly, we don’t have the types of teeth and the intestinal tracks of species that eat only raw vegetable matter. Like cows and horses. The biological argument can go both ways.

As omnivores our biological make up is between that of vegetarian animals like cows and that of purely meat eating species like cats and dogs. In other words: we get to choose.

Human beings are quite adaptable. Our teeth, like those of other omnivores, are adapted to both meat (cooked usually though) and vegetable matter. A diet purely based on health considerations would include very little, but some meat or fish products. There has hardly been a time in history when people ate meat daily. Meat was simply too expensive to eat daily. Food like chips and fries have little resemblance to what our ancestors ate.

Similarly there have been very few people in history to be purely vegetarian. Those Brahmans who were, would resort to Ayur Vedic medicine when things went wrong. Some of the things that went wrong were solved by medicines which would include meat.

On the other hand: our modern hygiene makes it harder for some of the nutrients we need to develop naturally in our foods. I’m talking about vitamin B12 which we usually get through animal products (yogurt will do, though meat and fish have it as well). It is one of the most difficult nutrients to get for a vegan, but it is present in rice that has gone off a bit.

Ultimately humans have been known throughout history to have all kinds of diets. In the days before the grand migrations of the 20th century it was found that what was most healthy for people was the local diet. That is: for people used to living off blood and milk for generations - that was the most healthy. Similarly people used to living off rice, fruit and vegetables for generations, that is what they will thrive off.

Most of us come from mixed stock however. We have to find our way in our modern world. This includes options our ancestors never had. A vegetarian diet is possible these days with the full use of modernity. I can get meat substitutes in the supermarket that make it easy to turn out a dinner in 20 minutes or less. I can get fruits and vegetables from all over the world into my refrigerator, which means that the various nutrients present in them are at my disposal. When I worry about the few nutrients that may not be present in my diet automatically, I can take pills to supplement. [See also my collection of health tips for vegetarians for details on vegetarian health issues]. However, I recently had my blood checked out, and there were no abnormalities. That is without taking any pills whatsoever for months and living on a purely vegetarian (not vegan) diet.

Taking pills or eating meat substitutes based on soy may not be ‘natural’, but then neither is typing at this computer, or riding a bike, or flushing the toilet. For humans it is natural to have a culture that makes us eat differently all over the world and do things our ape like ancestors would never have done. Our time is unique in that we have more freedom than ever before in determining our diet.

As biological omnivores we have a choice to be vegetarian or not. There are several reasons why I’m a  vegetarian (ethical, environmental and spiritual). Each person has to make their own choices in that regard. But the ‘nature’ argument is just not a good one. It’s our nature to be responsible. It’s our nature to be flexible. It’s in our nature to make choices.

I don’t have a problem with people eating meat. But please don’t rationalize eating meat daily by saying ‘it’s natural’. It’s not. It is very unlikely your ancestors even three generations ago could afford to do that.

An anonymous reader asks my opinion on the Trans-Himalayan teachings, as they’ve been called, going from H.P. Blavatsky to Mabel Collins Cook to the Temple of the People to Agni Yoga to Alice Bailey etc.

First of all: Mabel Collins wrote during Blavatsky’s life, so it isn’t so much that she replaced Blavatsky as that there were different people channeling* the masters during Blavatsky’s life. Blavatsky being the main channel and Mabel Collins writing two or three pieces that also reflected the same source. (generally her Light on the Path is seen as directly inspired by an Egyptian master. Her piece on karma as well. Her story The Blossom and the Fruit is seen as inspired by the masters, but her original ending was claimed by HPB to be inspired by black magic, so the latter took it upon herself to change the ending. Through the gates of Gold is a not so well known story that also has Blavatsky’s approval.)

As for the others you mention. I think of the white brotherhood as a very informal affair. I don’t think there is a line or anything like that. Any person who speaks on behalf of universal truth and peace and love between all beings speaks on behalf of the universal brotherhood or the white brotherhood, or whatever you want to call it. This is true exactly to the extent that their teachings are true and the wisdom they preach is practiced. Central values should be personal responsibility and independent thought as well as brotherhood regardless of faith, sex, color, etc. Read the rest of this entry »

I find myself writing posts in reverse order: starting with the complicated stuff and ending with the basics. Today’s post is the basics, but it is in some ways also the hardest part of the doctrine of karma.

The doctrine of karma is in Biblical words ‘as you sow, so you will reap’. Contrary to what many people suggest it is a long term doctrine. It means in simple terms that if you want to have lives upon lives of living well off - be nice, generous, good and honest consistently throughout your lives.

Specifically Buddhism tells us that there are three ways to be a good person. The first is right thought. Right thought includes not dwelling on ill done to you as well as thinking positively where one can. This can be practiced by making sure that you keep trying to see the good even in people you dislike. This is also quite practical. It is not unusual for people who try that to find that it transforms relationships for the better.

Right thought should be followed by right speech. In other words: only speak the truth as you know it. Don’t spread negative rumors. Watch other people’s reputation as you would your own. This ties in with my earlier post about gossip.

Right speech should be followed by right action. Right action means at the very least to ‘put our money where our mouth is’.

Getting back to karma: right thought, right speech and right action all have karmic consequences. Practicing those consistently means setting up habits that will last throughout the rest of our lives and which will bring at least peace of mind and likely also financial security (not necessarily wealth, because who really needs wealth?).

[Note: after publishing this I got an outraged e-mail from an Indian reader. He clearly feels the pain of the millions suffering on this planet. He refers to poverty, people lacking clean drinking water, people lacking computers. I might add war, disease, girls in forced marriages at a young age etc. Indeed: for many this world is hell as my correspondent notes. He asks the age-old Indian question: why would anybody want to return here at all? However: if the doctrine of reincarnation is true: we do return here. I was just explaining some of the mechanics of that.]

Comments on my posts about group karma have made it clear that not all of my readers are aware of the basics of the doctrine of karma.

The law of karma (a law of nature just like the law of physics) basicly states that all action will have consequences for the person acting. In everyday life the word karma is often loosely used in a way that reminds one of the word fate. Something bad happens and we might say “that’s your karma”. In other words: apparently you deserved that, based on past action.

In my explanations of group karma I mainly focused on the present and the future however. I stressed that current actions have future consequences.

Generally speaking I think group karma is something that works within one lifetime. That is: part of each individuals karma is the group they were born into. This aspect of karma is the response of the impartial law to actions in past lives. Similarly - I am a member of certain groups as a result of actions in this life. I will have to deal with the consequences of the group karma of those groups in this life. For instance, were I to join a racist group - I would be subject to the negative stigma attached to that group. All of that is short term karma.

Long term however I’m responsible for my own actions. The actions of groups are only relevant to the extent that I personally contributed to them. Still, joining a racist group would make me actively co-responsible for the continuation of racism in the world. Karmic consequences might include being born into such a group in a future life. There would be, in that case, good reason for me to have to face the group karma of black people. I hope it is obvious that the only way to break a cycle like that is to not be racist and to oppose racism. Saying ‘they deserve it, it’s their karma’ is almost as bad as actively contributing to the stigma.

These examples show, I hope, that the law of karma is about cause AND effect. It is about how we act today, taking the responsibilities life makes us take TODAY. Because not taking responsibility, means having to face up to them another day. Taking responsibility, acting kindly, wisely, independently today - means growing in wisdom and avoiding the future bad karma associated with indifference, hate, ignorance and group thought.

The law of karma does not distinguish between sociological, psychological, economical or other ways to look at human action. Sociological theory focuses on how humans interact on a large scale. It’s a useful science that shows just how much we are dependent on each other. Just how important culture is. That sort of thing. To explain human nature we need sociological theory. But sociological theory does not address the question of the individual. Why did I end up where I ended up? What is my responsibility in this situation? What is right action? The law of karma does say something about each of these questions. The answer to the question ‘why did I end up here?’ is - this is exactly where you deserve and need to be right now. This is where your life’s lessons are. This is where your potential for growth is. This is where you need to clean up a mess that you helped create in a past life.

The answer to the other two questions ‘what is right action’ and ‘what is my responsibility’ is more simple to put into words, but harder as well. The answer is simple: your responsibility is to do the best you can in your circumstances. The hard part is of course acting on that. Luckily for me, that’s beyond the subject of today’s post.

Group Karma is but the specific working out of a more general aspect of karma that gets ignored or forgotten too easily. In the words of H.P. Blavatsky:

Nor would the ways of Karma be inscrutable were men to work in union and harmony, instead of disunion and strife.

and Read the rest of this entry »

The concept of group karma was introduced into theosophical literature when an Anglican Priest (C.W. Leadbeater) was asked to go to India to support Blavatsky when she was under attack from missionaries there. The main issue then was perception. It was good for the public perception of Blavatsky to be supported by a minister.

Recent events however have made it clear to me that group karma is also at play in the economic field. What follows is my laypersons summary of what’s going on: Read the rest of this entry »

Yes, I’m talking about a black president being elected, the economic downturn and even the war in Iraq.

Karma is usually explained from an individual perspective. It’s mainly about personal responsibility. Karma is both a message of: make sure you act right! and a call for justice in general. From the passive perspective karma is also about the circumstances one is in.

Group karma takes both points a step further. Let’s start with me. I’m Caucasian (to use the pc phrase). I live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I am a woman. I am single. I am well educated and in many ways talented. I’m reasonably good looking. I’m a webdesigner. I’m a webpublisher and I guess I’m a writer.

About half of those things were given to me by fate, or karma or what ever. The other half are things I worked for or chose at some point. Each of those things is also a label. Each of those things makes me a member of a group. The things I was born into make me privileged. Except for the part of being female. Recent news has it that women are still over represented among the poorest in the world.

Those labels are not just part of my identity as a Caucasian woman for instance - but they are also part of how I am perceived. That is group karma. I am perceived to have things in common with other white women from Western Europe. I found that out the hard way when teaching kids in the Rotterdam inner city. There were a lot of kids from immigrant background in that school and it was around that time that Theo van Gogh was murdered. For those who haven’t followed the story: Theo van Gogh was a controversial film maker who dared tackle subjects others would not touch. He ticked off Muslims by making a film about abuse of women in the Quran with another controversial figure on the Dutch scene: Hirsi Ali. He paid for that with his life.

I’m not going to go into the questions of whether that movie should have been made that way. Or the question how women’s rights in Muslim countries should be fought for - it is clear that Theo van Gogh should not have been murdered. But he was and the whole school had to deal with the consequences. The group karma of Dutch Muslims at that time was that the rest of the population felt they were to blame. Even though most had not even heard of van Gogh before it happened. In response Dutch Muslim women wore head scarfs more (continuing a trend after 9-11) and Muslims generally were on the defensive about their background.

I understood all that. Being a theosophist had perhaps prepared me for this kind of difficulty. However, since I was not actually a very good teacher, the students did not appreciate or realize that. I had not yet proved myself and my background put me at a disadvantage with them. They were angry at Dutch society for putting them in a corner and I, with a very main stream accent and look, got the fallout in class one day.
I tried telling them that to me they were Dutch - didn’t they have a Dutch passport? But they told me that they didn’t feel all that welcome at the moment. I did understand, but I could hardly confirm them in their sense of not being at home in the country most of them had lived in all their life.

I may not have been a great teacher. In fact I think I was terrible in many ways. But I did face up to my Dutch group karma that day.

The link to my title is this: perception is karma too. Specifically - the USA electing a black president is good for the group karma of that nation. It shows the world that the USA is not just Caucasian. It is not just Western. The USA has people from all kinds of backgrounds, and a qualified man with a father from Kenya can be elected president. (Hollywood: isn’t it time for a movie about a woman president?).

Tomorrow I’ll go into another aspect of group karma: the economy.

Every once in a while, when I least expect it, everything seems new. Whether it’s the way the leaves change their color for autumn, or the shades of gray, white and blue that make up the sky. Whether it’s the faces of people passing by or details in the architecture. The flight of a bird. The sun shining in a street window. The grass that grows between the stones that make up the sidewalk. Read the rest of this entry »

What is love?”

“The total absence of fear,” said the Master.

“What is it we fear?”

“Love,” said the Master. (Anthony de Mello)

Do you all agree? Is Love is the opposite of fear?

Dozens of blogs and articles online say this. Personally I don’t think it’s that simple though. I think various emotions can exist inside us at the same time. But since the people who write this do have at least part of a point, I’m going to go into this subject by quoting a few.

Love is the total absence of fear. Love asks no questions. It’s natural state is one of extension and expansion, not comparison and measurement.
Jampolsky, Gerald G.

The underlying assumption is that love and fear are the basis of all other emotions. In the words of
Frank Sant’Agata

Love and fear are the only emotions we as human entities are able to express. All the others are just sub-categorical emotions. For example, on love’s side there is joy, peacefulness, happiness, forgiveness, and a host of others. On the other hand, fear reflects: hate, depression, guilt, inadequacy, discontentment, prejudice, anger, attack, and so on.

Biologically this is true to some extent. Fear and anger are both biologically expressed with only one hormone: adrenaline. The response to adrenaline is either fight (anger) or flight (fear). This duality is pretty basic. It is in fact so basic that it has been used in the enneagram as the motivating power in six out of the nine personality types. Three have fear as the main motivating power and three have anger as the motivating power. In the enneagram the three personality types left have sadness or sorrow as the motivating power.

I’m bringing the enneagram into this because it is a way of talking about the personality that has more dimensions and is therefor closer to the truth of our lives as we experience it.

Back to the theme of today: love is the opposite of fear. Looked at biologically this would mean that love is the absence of adrenaline. This makes some sense. Fear certainly makes a lot of spiritual practice harder. Breathing for instance becomes hard when fear takes over. Focusing on the needs of someone else is harder when we are scared for our own lives, livelihood or whatever. In other words: fear makes love harder.

As JD says:

Fear is wired into the biochemistry of our bodies. Fear has been a necessary part of physical survival. Fear provided that extra amount of strength, speed, and agility to save our pre-history ancestor from being eaten by a sabre-toothed tiger. (The Fight or Flight Syndrome). Those same physiological reactions are present in our modern-day bodies which respond just as strongly to psychological fears as they do to physical fears.

The tiger was real - our psychological fears are not. Our bodies, not knowing the difference, treat them as one and the same. Thus, if we are to change our relationship with psychological fear, it is necessary to find the source of our fear and heal it.

I agree to some extent: our psychological fears are only partly realistic. The tiger was concrete. But since he could often be neither heard nor seen - fear was probably often there even when the tiger wasn’t. Similarly for ordinary healthy people fears are usually based on something. For instance, with the present economic difficulties many people are afraid for their jobs or their business. The foundation is real. However the outcome on the stock market is by now overdone I think. Most of the underlying uncertainties have been dealt with reasonably well by governments (in Europe especially). Once people become afraid - they infect each other.

I don’t think that kind of fear has anything to do with love. It’s not the opposite of love, but rather on a different level or something.

There are all kinds of things more related to fear than love. For instance Jiddu Krishnamurti explored the iidea that thought and time are the root of fear. For Sogyal Rinpoche “the ultimate fear” is “the fear of looking into ourselves.”

About once a month I want to share with you all inspiring or just plain great posts on blogs I’ve been reading.

Let’s get right to it:

Ariel writes on his new blog A Few Words on Blissing Out. He exemplifies a traditional approach to enlightenment which seems to be more about withdrawing from the world than it is about blessing the world. But maybe I’m mistaking his intention.

Takuin Minamoto stresses briefly that thinking about a person isn’t the same as meeting them. The latter is better. Seeing is not believing.

In the Jungle of life there is a post about Fear: Does It Hold You Back? Great topic.

The Stupid Way (about Zen Buddhism) writes a post about money, donations and spirituality. This topic is close to my heart - but I have mixed feelings about it. Peter doesn’t: The Eternal Mirror

Daphne writes a post about Accepting Those Who Are Different, which I think is one of the most important types of spiritual practice any person can do. It is sort of the point of my ‘universal spirituality’ posts - but I think for most readers Daphne probably explains it better.

I recently found out there is a new theosophical blog: ‘theosophy watch’. One of it’s best posts so far is on a topic that unfortunately theosophists need a lot of reminding on: Choosing Civility

That’s it for this month. If there are any spiritual blogs I’m not yet reading I should be keeping up to date on, please let me know.

[I apologize for not writing my usual Friday Blavatsky post - I ran into technical problems with my blog which had to be solved first. The above post is what I wrote for Thursday, but only got published today as I had my bugs fixed.]