All Considering » Hinduism and India

Karma in the Bhagavad Gita

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:26:51 +0000

Vijay Kumar commented on my post about karma and free will with the remark that the Bhagavad Gita has something to say about the topic. He stresses the freedom of the Soul, or Atma, and it’s joy in finding itself in life, doing something.

He has a point, but how does that relate to freedom of action here and now? Let’s start at the beginning:

The central theme in the Bhagavad Gita’s is Arjuna’s struggle: should he abstain from violence, or should he fight with his brothers for the rightful rule?

The armies are all set up to fight each other, facing each other, but Arjuna lays down his weapons and has his charioteer (Krishna) draw the chariot between the two armies. Arjuna looks at both sides and wonders: why should I kill my nephews (his enemies)? Why should I fight?

This is an eternal question, and probably the reason the Bhagavad Gita has remained so popular throughout history. After all – the question is easily transplanted into our own time. Should the US fight for peace in Afghanistan? Should one interfere in a quarrel? Should one fight for what one believes in, or let it go? Both sides of the question have a point: it’s not clear whether fighting for what’s right always has a good effect. Perhaps the fighting itself does more harm than the original wrong (or what you thought was wrong) might have done.

In ordinary life, it’s often wise to pick your battles. However, as the Bhagavad Gita makes clear, it’s not always best to avoid battle altogether.

Krishna convinces Arjuna to ACT, to FIGHT. Krishna does that by showing Arjuna a few basic Hindu truths:

Krishna, the Divine, is in everything and everyone. Arjuna is overwhelmed by this vision of the Divine.
The souls of the people who will be killed won’t be hurt by being killed.
Arjuna should act according to his nature, and his nature is to fight.
He should fight though as best as he can, but WITHOUT being attached to the result.

So how does that relate to karma? Karma literally means action. It is Arjuna’s nature to fight, so he will fight. But it’s also clear it’s his choice to either go along with his inner nature, or to withdraw from the world altogether. Mascaro translates Karma with ‘work’. Here are some quotes about how to work:

The man who in his work finds silence, and who sees that silence is work, this man in truth sees the Light and in all his works finds peace (p. 24; chapter 4: 18)

Offer all thy works to God, throw off selfish bonds, and do thy work. No sin can then stain thee, even as waters do not stain the leaf of the lotus. (p. 28; chapter 5: 10)

This man of harmony surrenders the rewards of his work and thus attains final peace: the man of disharmony, urged by desire, is attached to his reward and remains in bondage (p. 28; chapter 5: 12)

The Lord of the world is beyond the works of the world and their working, and beyond the results of these works; but the work of Nature rolls on. (p. 28, chapter 5: 14)

This implicit freedom is also present in the attitude towards death and release that the Gita teaches. God Krishna says to Arjuna (Bhagavad Gita 8:5)

And he who at the end of his time leaves his body thinking of me, he in truth comes to my being: he in truth comes unto me.

In the introduction to the Penguin translation of the Bhagavad Gita, Juan Mascaro says the following about karma (or action) in that work:

All life is action, but every little finite action should be a surrender to the Infinite, even as breathing in seems to be receiving of the gift of life, and the breathing out a surrender into the infinite Life. Every little work in life, however humble, can become an act of creation and therefore a means of salvation, because in all true creation we reconcile the finite with the Infinite, hence the joy of creation.

In that light freedom is not such a big deal – duty however is: right action in the right loving attitude of devotion to the Divine. Perhaps free will and lack of it are joined as breathing in and breathing out are: with the one hand we give, with the other we take of life.

And then again, perhaps this question is so difficult only a poetic answer can really catch the paradox of it.

© admin for All Considering, 2010. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Hinduism and India, Karma and Reincarnation

When yoga increases stress: about the teacher

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:28:15 +0000

Yoga is generally sold online and off as a great stress reliever. I can vouch for that: with the right teacher, yoga can be very healthy emotionally. I’ve often come away from a yoga class with a great big smile on my face that was certainly not there before.

However, last week when I was preparing for be my first serious theosophical lecture, and stressing out – and managing my stress – I decided NOT to go to yoga class. Instead I stayed at home, made what physical preparations were to be made and read a book. I avoided yoga class because my teacher is, aside from very good at guiding us through our bodies, a bit emotionally needy.

She makes a big deal about people not coming, about people not drinking tea afterwards, about students not showing up without telling her in advance that they’re not showing up. Paradoxically that was the very reason why I did not come, and I decided so late not to go that I also didn’t phone to let her know.

I did not go because I knew that her emotional neediness, her lack of detachment, was going to increase my stress level if I did go.

I guess that’s why detachment is so important in a spiritual teacher.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Hinduism and India, Spiritual Teachers

Remembering Blavatsky – White Lotusday

Katinka - Spirituality — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:47:53 +0000

On May 8th theosophists all over the world, whatever theosophical organization they belong to, commemorate Blavatsky’s passing on May 8th 1891. This day is called White Lotusday. Traditionally quotes from three texts are read: The Bhagavad Gita, The Voice of the Silence and Light of Asia. So here goes from chapter ten of the Bhagavad Gita, on the nature of God (or Krishna) (translated by by Dr. Ramanada Prasad)

The Supreme Lord said: O Arjun, listen once again to My supreme word that I shall speak to you, who are very dear to Me, for your welfare. (10.01)
Neither the celestial controllers (Devas), nor the great sages know My origin, because I am the origin of all Devas and great sages also. (10.02) One who knows Me as the unborn, the beginningless, and the Supreme Lord of the universe, is considered wise among the mortals and becomes liberated from the bondage of Karm. (10.03) Discrimination, Self-knowledge, non-delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control over the mind and senses, tranquillity, pleasure, pain, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, calmness, contentment, austerity, charity, fame, ill fame — these diverse qualities in human beings arise from Me alone. (10.04-05) The seven great sages, four Sanakas, and fourteen Manus from whom all the creatures of the world were born, originated from My potential energy. (10.06)

One who truly understands My manifestations and yogic powers, is united with Me by unswerving devotion. There is no doubt about it. (10.07) I am the origin of all. Everything emanates from Me. Understanding this, the wise adore Me with love and devotion (10.08), remaining ever content and delighted. Their minds remain absorbed in Me and their lives surrendered unto Me. They always enlighten each other by talking about Me. (10.09)

This is possibly the most famous quote in the whole text, because it makes it clear that God or The Divine is beyond knowing, beyond description. As this translator is an Indian, he spells the name of the main character of the Gita as ‘Arjun’, when in the West his name is usually pronounced and written as Arjuna (which is closer to the Sanskrit, but less close to the Indian languages of today).

From the Voice of the Silence by H.P. Blavatsky

Before thou canst approach the foremost gate thou hast to learn to part thy body from thy mind, to dissipate the shadow, and to live in the eternal. For this, thou hast to live and breathe in all, as all that thou perceivest breathes in thee; to feel thyself abiding in all things, all things in SELF.

Thou shalt not let thy senses make a playground of thy mind.

Thou shalt not separate thy being from BEING, and the rest, but merge the Ocean in the drop, the drop within the Ocean.

So shalt thou be in full accord with all that lives; bear love to men as though they were thy brother-pupils, disciples of one Teacher, the sons of one sweet mother.

The word ‘SELF’ (note the capital letters) stands here for the Divine, the unity between Atma and Brahman in Vedantic terms. The theme is that a sense of seperation is the ultimate enemy of spiritual development and ultimate liberation. And this unity with all means Love for all that lives as well.

The Light of Asia, by Edwin Arnold, was a very popular 19th century rendition of the life of Buddha. It did much to acquaint the West with Buddhism. Unfortunately the style is that of those long 19th century poems for which I have no patience. But at the end there’s a poem which comes to the point much more quickly:

The Books say well, my Brothers! each man’s life
The outcome of his former living is;
The bygone wrongs bring forth sorrows and woes
The bygone right breeds bliss.

That which ye sow ye reap. See yonder fields!
The sesamum was sesamum, the corn
Was corn. The Silence and the Darkness knew!
So is a man’s fate born.

He cometh, reaper of the things he sowed,
Sesamum, corn, so much cast in past birth;
And so much weed and poison-stuff, which mar
Him and the aching earth.

If he shall labor rightly, rooting these,
And planting wholesome seedlings where they grew,
Fruitful and fair and clean the ground shall be,
And rich the harvest due.

All of this obviously the message of the law of karma.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Buddhism, Hinduism and India, Theosophy

Work as those who are ambitious…

Katinka - Spirituality — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:55:59 +0000

Work as those work who are ambitious. Respect life as those do who desire it.
Be happy as those are who live for happiness.

Mabel Collins, Light on the path, part 1 (4)

This quote must be a bit puzzling for those who think ambition itself is a spiritual virtue. Light on the Path is one of the Theosophical Classics. Like the Indian religions originally, classic theosophy is, in it’s deeper aspects, not all that interested in the world. It would be nice to change the world for the better and one should try. But ultimately the world will go as it will – and though each should do their duty to keep humanity from worse evils than it sees at present, one should not be attached to results. Or interested in succes. Or even desire life or happiness.

This quote puts all that in as short a phrase as is possible: Work as those work who are ambitious. In other words: Do what you have to do and do it well. Go above and beyond the call of duty. But don’t do it for yourself. Don’t do it for fame. Don’t do it for financial security or the supposed effect on mankind even… Do it because you see a duty and it needs to be done by you.

Yes – I’m including the desire to help mankind in the word ‘ambitious’. Isn’t it ambitious to want to ’save humanity’ or to ‘alleviate poverty’ or ‘to bring world peace’ and ‘an end to child labor’? Surely those are ambitious goals. Would Mabel Collins really say there’s anything wrong with that kind of ambition? The problem with ambition is that it takes us away from the here and now. Awareness is ‘in’ right now – and for a reason. We have a culture based on looking ahead. Part of the trouble on the stock market is that so many people acted on prophecy (based on math and all that, but still prophecy) that the only basis for their actions was the expectation of succes. Not whether their action was the right one right now. Not whether the risks taken outweighed the cost. Not what the consequence for society would be if the whole castle of bets came tumbling down.

Similarly: ambition takes us away from the simple human facts. It makes our mind ignore the day to day drudgery in pursue of something grander. That works to an extent – it’s needed to keep something like that in mind to get out of trouble and into a more rewarding life. This fact is most of the truth in ‘The Secret’.

But the theosophical disciple isn’t in it for the money, or the succes, or the comfortable home. Or should not be anyhow. The ideal in Light on the Path as in At the Feet of the Master and The Voice of the Silence is ultimate enlightenment, nirvana, moksha. That is: release from the cycles of rebirth. And in order for us to not be reincarnated at all anymore, we have to not WANT to be reincarnated anymore. There has to be left in us no desire for life, no desire for love, no desire for anything. Not that that is all that’s required – karma also has to be worked out. But when the desire for rebirth is gone, when the mind is set only on gaining release from the cycle of rebirth and the blessing of humanity while one still can – then right action will follow, right thought will follow and at some point karma itself will no longer be an obstacle. Or so it is said.

But in the meanwhile we are cautioned to work as though we WERE ambitious. Because it is not yet our karma to be outside of this world, and living in the world we had better do our duty as well as we are able.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Buddhism, Hinduism and India, Theosophy

Desire & spiritual development, some thoughts

Katinka - Spirituality — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:11:21 +0000

Desire has a bad name in certain spiritual circles – but in others it’s hailed as the fundamental source of all spiritual growth. In that debate I’ve always stood in the first group, but from reading I.K. Taimni’s ‘The Science of Yoga’ (a commentary on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali), I see that it’s really all about the level on starts from.

Taimni’s style is not easy to read – but I can hardly do better than quote him in this case – so bear with me (pp. 394,395):

The forces set in motion by our thoughts, desires and actions are of a complex nature and produce all kinds of effects which it is difficult to classify completely. But all these leave some kind of Samskara or impression which binds one in one way or another for the future. Thus our desires produce potential energy which draws us irresistibly to the environment or conditions in which they can be satisfied. Actions produce tendencies which make it easier for us to repeat similar actions in future and if they are repeated a sufficient number of times may form fixed habits. In addition, if our actions affect other people in some way they bind us to those people by Karmic ties and bringing pleasant or unpleasant experiences to ourselves. Our thoughts also produce Samskaras and result in desires and actions in accordance with their nature.

If, however, we analyze these different kinds of mental and physical activities we shall find that at their base there are always desires of one kind of another which drive the mind and result in these thoughts and actions. Desire in its most comprehensive sense is thus a more fundamental factor than in our life than our thoughts and and actions because it is the hidden power which drives the mind and body in all kinds of ways for the satisfaction of its own purposes.

… of course, ‘desire’ is not an apt word for the subtle power which drives the mind at its higher levels and which binds consciousness to the glorious realities of the spiritual planes. The word used in Sanskrit for this power which works at all levels of the mind is Vasana. … Vasana is the universal power which drives the mind and produces the continuous series of its transformations which imprison consciousness.

To understand this quote, we first have to remind ourselves of the basic levels of consciousness most spiritual traditions, including theosophy, take into account. We usually assume that desire is an emotion. Perhaps it is – but the levels of consciousness aren’t nicely separated from each other as though they are the different ingredients to a meal in the fridge. Our desires shape our thoughts and actions as Taimni rightly notes. Similarly our thoughts influence our actions and emotions.

What Taimni is basically saying is that the most primary force in this dynamic isn’t our thoughts, but our desires. He’s also saying that there are desires which are selfish, animal, worldly etc. But there are also desires that work at the higher levels – he notes that although these can hardly be called desires in the usual sense – but he doesn’t use another English word, instead he turns to Sanskrit to explain it. The implication is that in English there isn’t a word to differentiate between lower and higher desires.

However, in psychology there is such a thing: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This hierarchy starts with the most basic of needs: physical comfort, food, sex etc. It moves up to safety, love, esteem (by ourselves and others) to end with the top part: self actualization – morality, problem solving etc. For our purposes it is useful to note that at the end of his life Maslow added a level even beyond that. Beyond self actualization is self-transcendence.

Psychologists assume that for any level to be reached, the levels below have to be satisfied. A person cannot be truly creative if they don’t have food, for instance. But a person who functions at a higher level who doesn’t have food for a time, will only temporarily prioritize that. They will return to the higher level as soon as they can.

So what does that mean for us: following our desire is what we will do regardless. It is useful to become conscious of those desires, so we can purify and steer them.

The basic question is: does this hierarchy really exist? That is: are these needs really dependent on each other? Poverty is an ideal in many spiritual traditions, which puts the people who practice it at the lowest level. Does that mean they are no longer spiritually growing?

I think Taimni might answer that as long as the body subsists and is healthy, the higher levels can function.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Hinduism and India, Spiritual Growth, Theosophy

The difference between spiritual growth and personal development?

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:05:18 +0000

Michael asked me on my Dutch blog:

What’s the difference between personal and spiritual growth anyhow? I think self knowledge is perhaps the only spiritual or personal growth there is, isn’t it?

It’s a very good question. Depending on ones spiritual background, one can go into this very deeply, or just skimp the surface. Ken Wilber has tried to chart levels of spiritual development in people very precisely. He ended up with eight levels (or colors), if I understand him correctly.

In the yoga tradition Enlightenment itself (Samadhi that is) has levels. There are different kinds of Samadhi and one is better than the other.

But in our day to day talk about this spiritual growth and personal development do tend to mix. There’s a lot that is called spiritual, that I’d personally categorize as personal development. And yes, in both self knowledge is an important aspect of it. But to be complete a third stage has to be added, which leads me to three forms of growth or development:

Personal Development
Spiritual Growth
Quest for Enlightenment (Moksha, Samadhi, Nirvana, Redemption)

Personal development does not have to be spiritual. People who follow a course in pottery making or gardening are personally developing themselves. Personal growth can take the form of keeping up to date in your profession. Psychotherapy too is a way to do personal growth. In short: anything that helps you to function better in your day to day life – personally or professionally – is a form of personal development.

Personal development does not have to be spiritual. None of the examples I gave above are spiritual in any sense. But those who take a management course will in some cases be given meditation exercises. This means that personal growth seminars use spiritual techniques. Does this mean it’s spiritual what they’re doing there? I’m not sure. I think it can only be called spiritual if people transcend themselves, or there is reference to a higher power, god or inspiration. But even if God is called upon, if the goal is material success or riches – is that very spiritual?

For me it’s spiritual development only when people learn to be more ethical in their day to day life and business and learn to contribute (more) to society. Old fashioned or new ‘values’ should play a part – for it to be called spiritual growth. I personally also use the words ’spiritual growth’ when I talk about how spiritual insights can help us live more peaceful lives, improve our relationships and prevent problems.

But that could also be called personal growth. The words ‘personal growth’ do sound more selfish. Things like learning to be more productive, dealing with stress and becoming successful fall under personal development. Nothing wrong with it, but it is focused on ME. This transforms into spiritual growth, I think, when the effect of our actions on others is taken into account.

Spiritual growth also includes the support people can feel from being part of something Larger. For instance: people who convert to Christianity, because they find in Jesus the strength to overcome Alcoholism. I’d personally label that experience differently, but the personal transformation involved certainly has a spiritual component.

There is a gliding scale between developing hidden aspects of oneself (personal development) and transforming yourself and reintegrating yourself (spiritual growth). In the latter case spiritual experiences will play a part in more cases.

Buddhism and Hinduism go a step further. Their basic assumption is that human beings can be liberated from the maelstrom of daily struggles. This liberation does not involve suppressing emotions, but not being touched by them. Nirvana and Moksha are states of consciousness that go beyond the ordinary. Those who follow one of these paths are on the quest to Enlightenment or Awakening. There is more to this path than merely living an ethical life and a sense that ‘there is more’. This path asks in addition dedication and perseverance. It’s also a revolutionary path in the sense that it can get rid of all material and social wealth – because ultimately money and status don’t matter.

Personal and spiritual growth too can result in drastic changes in one’s day to day life – change of job, new relationships, new friends etc. The search for Awakening or Awareness (if I may translate Nirvana like that) ultimately goes a step further: the environment we live in becomes less important. This does not necessarily involve retreat into a convent. The implication is that the goal no longer has anything to do with the environment, only with our inner state. Ultimately, so they say, the very idea of a ‘goal’ drops away as well.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and India, Spiritual Growth

Bliss, Atman, Brahman – Jnana Yoga Q&A

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:08:51 +0000

Today I got a Jnana Yoga question from Roy:

“How can Bliss be part of the essence of Brahman? The ego seeks bliss, i.e. to feel good (at minimum a feeling of well being), even at the expense of truth. Doesn’t the concept of Bliss being part of the essence of Brahman ultimately fulfill the ego? Also, if Bliss is part of the essence of Brahman, isn’t it incongruous for an individual who has become one with Brahman to feel compassion for individuals who have not? Whence comes the desire to help them? If the essence of Brahman is purely Truth, the ego is not fulfilled and compassion is a natural expression of the unifying nature of Truth.”

This question only makes sense if you don’t get the ultimate oneness of everything. The neighbour you don’t like, is as much a part of Brahman as you are – whether they know it or not. The Divine doesn’t ‘care’ whether someone realizes the oneness – it’s just there. Whether a fish knows it is swimming in water or not – that’s still where it is.

So yes: bliss is part of the Ultimate source of everything, and realizing Oneness means experiencing that bliss. But how can one NOT feel compassion for those who haven’t realize that yet?

And no – this is not about the ego. This is not about the small self, that seeks fulfillment. This is about realizing that fulfillment doesn’t come from gratification, but from just being, and giving.

Perhaps your confusion has something to do with the words used. There is the word ego that’s used generally to talk about pride. He has a large ego means, in normal day to day talk, that someone thinks highly of himself and is likely to be offended if you don’t.

In some spiritual traditions the Western word used for the Higher Self (Atman in Jnana Yoga) is also ‘Ego’ (capitalized). But the Higher Self is not a self in the usual sense of the word. There’s a reason Buddhists refuse to call it a Self at all. The Higher Self is one with Brahman – it is eternal, impersonal, wise, compassionate – and yes: blissful. To realize Brahman is to realize that we are all connected. That there is a universal something that is Me in the most ultimate sense, yet it is Every Other person as well.

As long as the personal in you feels pride as a result of insight, it is not really there yet. Pride is the ultimate spiritual trap: feeling better than others means feeling separate from them.

Another way to put this is as follows: how can the ego that delights in the sorrows of others be the same as the ultimate source of all consciousness? And yet, that ego has it’s roots in that ultimate source. Looking at the Ultimate from the perspective of the small self is hard. From the perspective of unkindness, kindness is hard to understand. But from the perspective of kindness, unkindness simply equals sorrow. And it’s easy to feel compassion for sorrow, isn’t it?

Generosity and detachment – spiritual virtue no. 5

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:30:36 +0000

Generosity is, for once, a classic virtue. In Islam it’s called Zakat: the duty to give a percentage of your possessions to the poor.

Generosity is linked to another classic virtue: detachment. In both Hinduism and Buddhism attachment to stuff, money and status is seen as a problem. Letting go of that in the form of generosity is spiritual work. In Christianity too giving to the poor is a central virtue.

Attachment to status is subtler. A lot of people notice this only when it becomes a problem: the boss that ends up in a retirement home. The socialite (is that still a word?) that can’t keep up anymore because of Alzheimer.

At such moments letting go becomes a necessity. This is the reason that in countries like Japan Buddhism is for old people: that’s when letting go becomes the central life lesson.

In my series on spiritual virtues, norms and values.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and India, Islam and Sufism, Life style

Blavatsky on Yoga

Katinka - Spirituality — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:06:44 +0000

Since we’ve been studying the yoga suttras in the The Hague lodge of the Theosophical Society (inspiring meetings), I thought I’d look up what H.P. Blavatsky has to say about the subject. Unfortunately I find she’s so busy debunking misconceptions rampant in her time, she finds little room to talk about the real thing.

Some of what she does say is still worth repeating, but I think this post will make more sense if I start out with the main message Ronald Engelse had for us on Monday. The yoga people do in yoga classes isn’t really yoga in the religious sense at all (perhaps not even in a spiritual sense): it is yoga gymnastics. Based on the Yoga Suttras, yoga as a spiritual discipline is Raja Yoga. (more about the history and various types of yoga)

Perhaps I should once more define ’spiritual’ in this post. It seems talking about words can’t be avoided. The word spiritual has many levels. Going from the physical to the divine – it starts with things like yoga and tai chi: exercises meant to balance the body and through that the mind as well. Climbing a bit higher on the steps of consciousness: spiritual growth is all about cleansing the emotions and the mind, so that the world is seen as it is and we can act appropriately in it.

But ultimately spirituality is about the Divine. Whether that Something is called Atma or Buddha Nature or The Holy Ghost – a connection with the divine is essential to spiritual experiences.

Blavatsky too tries to hint at this difference between the ordinary practice and the ultimate goal. She uses words like ‘black magic’, ‘becoming a medium’, ‘foolish’ and ‘dangerous’. She’s far less diplomatic than I am (and I don’t think many people would describe me as a diplomat, though I’ve grown in that direction a bit).

But perhaps I should start with the miraculous. After all – Blavatsky’s work has a lot of such examples. She claims feats as the following are simply the result of following natural law. No God or Deva involved in the process:

The well-known peculiarity of the serpent to live for months together without food, and to cast off its skin, or to rejuvenate; and, its extreme longevity having suggested to the ancient naturalists and philosophers the idea that the secret and instinctive habits of the ophidians might be tried upon the human system, they set to watching, and found that invariably before retiring for the cold season into its hole, the serpent rolled itself in the juice of a certain plant which it did by crushing the leaves. This plant—its name being a secret among the Râja-Yogis—brings on without any elaborate preparation or training for the occasion as in the case of the Hatha-Yogis—a dead coma, during which all the vital functions are paralyzed and the processes of life suspended. The Yogis have learned to regulate the duration of this trance. As, while this state lasts, no wear and tear of the organs can possibly take place, and hence they cannot “wear out” as they slowly do even during the natural sleep of the body, every hour of such a state generally produced towards night and to replace the hours of rest, is an hour gained for the duration of human life itself. Thus the Râja-Yogis have been sometimes known to live the double and triple amount of years of an average human life, and occasionally, to have preserved a youthful appearance for an unusual period of time and when they were known to be old men—in years. Such at least is their explanation of the apparent phenomenon. For one who has seen such cases and assured himself that the assertion was an unimpeachable fact, and who, at the same time, utterly disbelieves in the possibility of magic, whether divine or infernal, unless the existence of its wondrous phenomena can be accounted for on the principles of exact science and shown as due to natural forces, cannot well refuse to listen to any such explanation. It may be but little plausible, and the probabilities against the advanced theory seem great. Yet—it is not one utterly impossible; and this, till we have a better reason to reject it, than our simple ignorance of the existence of such a plant—must be considered sufficient. (C.W. vol. 2, p. 460, 461)

She goes on to define Raja Yoga (as opposed to Hatha yoga, from which most Western yoga practices are derived, as follows):

It is not that among the Hatha-Yogins—men who at times had reached through a physical and well-organized system of training the highest powers as “wonder-workers”—there has never been a man worthy of being considered as a true Yogin. What we say, is simply this: the Raja-Yogin trains but his mental and intellectual powers, leaving the physical alone, and making but little of the exercise of phenomena simply of a physical character. Hence it is the rarest thing in the world to find a real Yogi boasting of being one, or willing to exhibit such powers—though he does acquire them as well as the one practicing Hatha Yoga, but through another and far more intellectual system. Generally, they deny these powers point blank, for reasons but too well-grounded. The latter need not even belong to any apparent order of ascetics, and are oftener known as private individuals than members of a religious fraternity, nor need they necessarily be Hindus. (C.W. vol 2, p. 463)

In short: those wondrous powers exist, but aren’t important. She quotes Kapila (p. 467) to show the real object of Yoga:

To a Yogi, in whose mind all things are identified as spirit, what is infatuation? What is grief? He sees all things as one; he is destitute of affections; he neither rejoices in good, nor is offended with evil. A wise man sees so many false things in those which are called true, so much misery in what is called happiness, that he turns away with disgust . . . He who in the body has obtained liberation (from the tyranny of the senses) is of no caste, of no sect, of no order, attends to no duties, adheres to no shastras, to no formulas, to no works of merit; he is beyond the reach of speech; he remains at a distance from all secular concerns; he has renounced the love and the knowledge of sensible objects; he flatters none, he honours none, he is not worshipped, he worships none; whether he practices and follows the customs of his fellow men or not, this is his character.

She notes that taken literally this is quite a selfish persuit. Which of course is the most vile thing in Blavatsky’s eyes, so she goes on to explain that the real adept does not really have this as his goal. Which is where she leaves off – encouraging us as usual to find her hidden masters to find out for ourselves… (but those masters will only come to those who are ready)

It’s probably useful to conclude with the explanation by Ronald Engelse on this point: This highest yoga, the yoga that helps people reach the divine, is one which requires a lot of the disciple. It’s not something that every person can just try out. It never was. This is as realistic as it is for the London Philharmonic to not just let anybody play in it. It requires talent and training to even start playing in an orchestra like that. Similarly a future yogi should train humbleness and devotion. But since those virtues are suspect in Western eyes, few of us are likely to pass muster.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Hinduism and India, Spiritual Growth, Theosophy

Looking at the body spiritually

Katinka - Spirituality — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:17:46 +0000

Last week I explained how theosophists look at consciousness: how it is mapped. In doing so I almost completely ignored the biological basis of life. The phenomena I want to map today are considered by the sciences of biology and medicine as aspects of the body – to the extent that is that these phenomena are recognized at all.

There are three core concepts theosophists use to talk about these things (from Blavatsky’s Key to Theosophy). I’ll just enumerate them and let the explanation follow:

Physical body (Rupa or Sthula Sharira)
Life principle (Prana or Chi)
Astral body (Linga Sharira)

Biologically speaking of course prana is not a separate principle. I’ve had all kinds of lessons in biology and never did a teacher point to a specific ‘life principle’. Oh well, the same teachers would have talked about healing as ’suggestion’. I’m pretty sure if one were to ask one of them why yoga or tai chi work, they would point to a combination of the physical exercise and the inpact on the central nervous system (my interpretation).

For those who have experienced these things it DOES make sense to refer to prana or chi. That biologists don’t agree, who cares?

It helps to label it prana, because that explains why this energy can go from one person to the next, as in healing practices like reiki.

The concept of an astral body is particularly helpful in describing clairvoyant experiences. For instance: it is said that our bodies grow to fill in as it were the shape of the astral body. The shape of the body is predetermined by the shape of the astral body. This explains why clairvoyants are able to see how a child will look grown up.

© admin for All Considering, 2009. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Posted in : Hinduism and India, Theosophy

All Considering » Hinduism and India

Karma in the Bhagavad Gita

Related Posts

When yoga increases stress: about the teacher

Related Posts

Remembering Blavatsky – White Lotusday

Related Posts

Work as those who are ambitious…

Related Posts

Desire & spiritual development, some thoughts

Related Posts

The difference between spiritual growth and personal development?

Related Posts

Bliss, Atman, Brahman – Jnana Yoga Q&A

Related Posts

Generosity and detachment – spiritual virtue no. 5

Related Posts

Blavatsky on Yoga

Related Posts

Looking at the body spiritually

Related Posts