All Considering » Spiritual Teachers

Gratitude meditation – thanking our teachers

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:33:51 +0000

I’ve written about gratitude before, but I think the topic merits a revisit.

For one thing: in our culture we’re taught, by psychologists, to face up to the negative things our parents and teachers did to us as we grew up. Facing up to our emotions, including the negative, is a good thing no doubt. However, it does leave one with a bad taste in the mouth.

Gratitude meditation counters this. After all, for most of us, however much we may have quarreled with them, our parents were a positive in our lives. Like our teacher reminded us during the Lam Rim: babies are very difficult creatures to take care of. They wake you all hours of the night, they require constant care and attention.

We were such a baby once upon a time, and our parents took care of us. The least we can do in return is be grateful.

Similarly our teachers had to put up with a lot. Having been a high school teacher myself for a few years has given me a whole new appreciation of this fact. Teachers are jugglers of teenage emotion, trying to impart information while also managing the social processes in the class room. Anyone who survives that (never mind doing it well) is a champion in my book.

I don’t think our culture appreciates teachers enough.

Our own teachers deserve even more gratitude: they were there during our tantrums, when we refused to learn, when the material just could not get in, when we did learn, when we did make progress… They were there day after day, feeding us tidbits to absorb, showing us how to live…

Part of the daily Lam Rim meditation is a visualization of all our teachers. It starts with Buddha in the center and all our other teachers around him. If you’re a Christian you can of course put Jesus in the center. I don’t think I’ll be able to do that meditation in full just yet, but I did find it wholesome – just now, in the middle of the night – to contemplate all my teachers (or the ones I can recall) and thank them for their trouble.

In the Lam Rim instructions it says that to forget even one teacher in this meditation is a major hindrance on the path. Be that as it may, as a spiritual purification it’s probably most important to at least remember the teachers we may have meditated negatively on: the teachers we had issues with.

For instance, my second grade teacher, her name is etched in my memory though I’ll keep her anonymous here… She taught us multiplication tables, as second grade teachers do. Unfortunately, though I was generally not one of her worst students, memorizing those multiplication tables didn’t come easy to me at all. And instead of accepting that as it was, she kept on harping me about it. I’m sure she thought I was lazy. The result was that we quarreled all that year. It left me with a frustration about not being able to memorize things well for the rest of my learning life. We all have a weakest point in our learning process and mine is my memory.

That’s just the way it is and I won’t bore you with how it affected me. After all, I did finish two college degrees and there really isn’t much to complain of when it comes to my brain power. I mean, objectively, compared to other people. Subjectively is another matter, as it often is.

I was again faced with my memory limitations trying to memorize the Tibetan Buddhist rituals that were part of our Lam Rim course. The fact is that the people there didn’t make an issue of whether I was able to follow along with every chant. But for me, with that teacher still in my system, it was a confrontation. I was reminded of her again, and I do think I worked through it deeply this time.

You can imagine that bringing myself to feel grateful to this teacher is a step. But I can: she must have taught me loads that year. Reading, the basics of multiplication, geography, history… Having to deal with the feisty stubborn girl I was can’t have been easy.

As a teacher myself I know just how impossible it can be to try to be fair to every individual student. Sure – it’s a duty, but unfortunately it’s also impossible. Or rather: it was impossible for me. How can I blame her for something I couldn’t manage when I tried?

Of course I also have good teachers to recall. In fact, in general, school was a pleasant experience for me.

In the Lam Rim it’s said that the teacher (the guru) is the basis for all good qualities. Rationally I think that is going a bit too far. However, it is true when I think about it, that a LOT of my good qualities go back to good teachers. Whether it’s my parents (professional teachers themselves), scouting leaders or teachers proper: there is a lot I learned from people who cared. In fact, I can’t think of one positive quality of mine that does NOT trace back to someone whose words or attitude made sense to me at some point.

On the other side of the coin is of course the ability to listen and hear such words of wisdom, but while the Lam Rim reminds us of that, it makes a less inspiring topic for meditation. And contemplating just how well we were able to learn, doesn’t help one develop either humbleness or gratitude. Remembering the trouble others went to, so we were able to learn those things DOES help one develop these spiritual qualities.

I’m going through the Lam Rim not in the very specific order in which it is taught, but in the order in which I’m processing all I’ve learned over those two weeks. You’ll have to forgive me and find a real lam rim teacher to get the whole thing from start to finish if you are inspired by this series.

Sticking to one spiritual path, vs New Age shopping…

Katinka - Spirituality — Thu, 12 May 2011 13:34:59 +0000

Spiritual teachers have traditionally advised people to stick to whatever spiritual tradition it is they grew up in. In Zen Buddhism this is true to the point where one teacher who became the head of a tradition not his own was seen as not quite at his ease. (source)

It’s true of course: switching traditions is an emotional rolarcoaster. It’s like changing jobs, getting a divorce, moving to a different city. All things that used to be rare and not done, or even warned against by religious authority. And all things that in todays world just can’t be avoided.

In todays world, sticking to one spiritual path is perhaps more an expression of fear than a positive tendency to commit. What should be clear, but in practice isn’t, that when it’s time to go, one should go. That’s what I’m doing. I felt I needed to make this clear publicly, perhaps as some personal catharsis, but also because I’ve been an online PR machine for theosophy for years.

I’m looking forward to doing some new age shopping. I never felt the inclination, but I do think it’s time. I don’t think I’ll find anything to replace the TS in my life: can’t expect any one organisation to fit my criteria. What I can expect however is more food for growth, a widening of perspectives, and perhaps…. health.

When spiritual teachers advise sticking to one path they have a few things to say for it:

One never gets to know the nuances of any tradition without commitment
It takes safety to grow: a known social structure can help

However, what they leave out is:

One can get stuck in one view on the path. What if that perspective just doesn’t suit you?
The safety of the social structure can turn into a self made prison

In a world as fast changing as ours, expecting one organisation to have all the answers is simply naive. I don’t think I ever fell for that trap. I did however fall in the trap of wanting to shape that organisation (the Theosophical Society in my case) in my image. Living MY best life is work enough. I think for now I’ll stick to it. Organisations like the TS will simply have to deal with people like me. That is: with shoppers.

Jiddu Krishnamurti as a man of his time

Katinka - Spirituality — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:14:10 +0000

Let met start this by saying that as I’ve had more experience meditating, I have gained in respect for Jiddu Krishnamurti, because he describes the experience so well. However, it’s not thanks to Krishnamurti that I did start meditating, nor is he any help in doing so. And that is precisely the limit to his teachings: he was not a meditation teacher.

Someone recently, privately, mailed me about how he respected Krishnamurti’s anti-teacher sentiment. That is: he was personally always annoyed at people who told other people what to do and think. Krishnamurti was very pure in that respect.
Granted. He did not get involved in the world enough to make that kind of mistake. And yes, that is a criticism on my part. It takes involvement to really help people, and yes – that means running the risk of overdoing it. But overdoing it is better than not caring at all.

However I say that all in the context of my end of the 20th century, beginning 21st century life.

Let’s look at Krishnamurti in HIS context and I think you’ll agree that he did just what was needed to become as popular as he did. In other words: consciously or unconsciously he knew just what needed to be taught to make him as big a teacher as he became.

First off: the Theosophical Society gave him world-wide prominence by declaring him to be the coming world teacher. Not quite the arrived world teacher, but that nuance was probably lost on most of the audience.
Then, just when a maximum amount of people was converted, and the rest were sniggering at the situation, he disbanded the Order of the Star. Gaining him in respect from those who had been sniggering, and not loosing much of the awe of those who had been devoted to him.

It was a masterful PR stroke.
And of course he went on to really become a world teacher in the literal sense of the word: teaching till his death all over the world.

As was recently convincingly shown, he didn’t stop selling ‘At the Feet of the Master‘ till he no longer needed it. The only incentive that makes sense to do it like that is financial, because the teachings in that booklet are implicitly contrary to the teachings he was giving at the time. Don’t get me wrong: I’d probably do the same thing. However, the fact has been ignored because people bought into his ‘I don’t remember if I wrote it’ bull.

Let’s go back to the 1930s in our mind, shall we. It was a time of financial crisis. Deep poverty all over the world, rich people losing fortunes. Authority tumbling left and right. The first world war was still in people’s minds, and the second was coming. Nietzsche was popular, because his enigmatic nihilism struck a core.

It was a time for spirituality, but for spirituality in a shape that no longer took organisation all that seriously any more. Organisations as the basis of all that was healthy was a 19th century concept. People no longer bought it as much, though the full collapse of ‘isms’ would have to wait till the 1980s.

Krishnamurti was perhaps ahead of his time in this sense. But he did, of course, end up getting his teachings organised. Sure, the Krishnamurti foundations aren’t as closely knitted together as the Theosophical Society was (and is), but they’re still organisations. There’s no escaping having organisations. In that sense he turned out to be simply wrong.

My main criticism of Krishnamurti is that while he asked great questions, and made many insightful comments, ultimately he was not enough of a teacher.

But could he have become more of a meditation teacher without losing his popularity? I don’t think so. The great popular meditation teachers started in the 1960s. Anyone teaching meditation before that didn’t become popular. Was that Krishnamurti’s motive? Probably not consciously. I do think however he was very much in touch with what people were open to and worked within that framework. Sure: he taught what he felt needed to be taught. I do think he was honest in that sense. However, there’s no telling what he would have taught if he’d have lived right now.

Meditation doesn’t just happen, it needs to be practiced. And once you’re onto actually practicing it, sure THEN it makes sense to go beyond what has been taught. But most people do need that basic instruction into the nitty gritty of meditation. By just sitting, and having a book or a teacher to walk you through what happens IN meditation.

But people weren’t ready for that in Krishnamurti’s formative years. While he meditated all his life, he didn’t seriously teach it at all. Sure, in some of his conversations with students in his schools the subject came up. What he taught would probably be called ‘mindfulness meditation‘ these days. But since we’re not supposed to compare anything Krishnamurti did to anybody else, few people will say so.

Perhaps my main issue with Krishnamurti is his lack of commitment. Does that make any sense?

Can you feel the quality of a spiritual teacher?

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:46:57 +0000

I got a book for review recently that I put down within a few minutes because it made me all jittery. A few days ago we had a spiritual teacher do a lecture at our local theosophical lodge, and he turned the room quiet. We didn’t even have questions to last the full time set for that stuff…

While as to metaphysics I don’t completely agree with that teacher (which is why I won’t put his name up here), it was clear that he had a certain something that put us all in a meditative state. I even meditated a bit when I came home. Something I do very rarely. In fact, he reminded me of the meditative state I used to go into quite frequently without effort when I was younger.

This is what the Indian people call ‘darshan’ – merely the seeing of a spiritual teacher is thought to be a blessing. The ‘higher’ the teacher, the stronger the effect.

Someone asked my opinion recently about various theosophically relevant teachers: Alice Bailey, Benjamin Creme… I responded that they weren’t my thing. That Alice Bailey though, based on her autobiography, did seem authentic. Still, her books don’t ring much of a bell with me. With Benjamin Creme it’s worse: I have no idea what he’s talking about. What’s the message? What’s he trying to teach?

The feel of teachings is, I think, very often what makes us stick with one teacher instead of another. This is no doubt partly personal preference. Some teachers and authors fit us, others don’t.

On the flip side, a popular teacher in The Netherlands had me invited to one of his lectures recently. I guess he, or his followers, wanted to enlist me. I didn’t go, because the last time I went he’d tried to hypnotize the crowd. I’m sensitive to that sort of thing, so I could hardly walk afterwards. However, that same effect, in a lighter form I’m sure, is what makes him so popular.

So, there are two issues here: the genuine feel of a great teacher, and the misleading feel of a not so good one. Still, what else is there to judge a teacher by?

Spiritual teachings best fresh?

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:08:45 +0000

I dreamt of fruit going bad last night, so I wonder… are spiritual teachings best ‘consumed’ fresh? What do you all think… are classic spiritual books for instance of the same value as say the fresh teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, Eckhart Tolle and the Dalai Lama?

Comment Zen:

I’m not asking for dream analysis here. I’m just asking you all a question and wondering at your answers.

Michael Mirdad interview

Katinka - Spirituality — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:35:59 +0000

As promised, here’s some questions I had for Michael Mirdad, author of ‘You’re Not Going Crazy…You’re Just Waking Up! The Five Stages of Soul Transformation Process’, and his answers.

1. You say that nearly every process of learning is ultimately about understanding and experiencing greater levels of unconditional love (p. 14). What do you mean by ‘unconditional love’ and how would you describe it?

Unconditional love means to love everyone and everything unconditionally. This means loving all without a hesitation of whether or not they are worthy of this love. It also means having respect for everyone and everything. It isn’t the same as the love we often feel as human beings, including romantically. When we love unconditionally, we are expressing the highest form of love that a human being can experience. It’s a Divine expression that exists in the heart and soul of every being–although not yet developed in every being.

2. You say there are three states of mind or levels of consciousness. Can you explain the difference? And how does one avoid over estimating the ‘level’ one is at?

There are basically three levels of consciousness that you will reside in as you go through the soul transformation process: Victims, Students and Masters. Victims allow crisis to destroy them and fail to see any lessons to learn from the ordeal nor do they allow themselves to heal whatever brought the crisis to them. Such behavior of denial usually keeps attracting similar lessons to the Victim–again and again.

Students do their best to participate in the changes life throws at them to improve their lives. This allows them to learn their lessons, as all good Students do, which in turn more likely allows them to move across the bridge to the new, re-building phases.

Masters are individuals who have developed enough spirituality within themselves that they have graduated, more or less, from being mere Students on the path. Masters can be so courageous that they actually don’t wait around for the next change that life throws at them. Instead, they know how to recognize what exactly it is in their life that needs to be dismantled and brought to a new level of experience. Masters choose to initiate changes of anything that would hinder their greater good.

3. You quote a variety of spiritual teachers from East and West, but your main inspiration is ‘A Course in Miracles‘. What’s the most important thing the Course has taught you?

Well, ACIM is certainly one of the most powerful books available and is referenced in the “Crazy” book, I generally don’t associate with it more than other similar materials. Nevertheless, a couple things that the Course shares that almost nothing else has effectively done, is the difference between the ego and the soul, as well as the difference between reality and illusion.

To understand more completely the difference between our Spirit, our soul, and our ego, let’s use the human body as a roadmap of sorts. Our Spirit then resides in the upper three chakras (located in the head and neck); Our humanness resides in the lowest three chakras (located in the root, navel, and solar plexus chakras); and our soul is then located in the remaining center (heart chakra) that sits directly in between our Spirit and our humanness. Our Spirit is the Divine spark or I Am Presence that resides in us all, untouched by our wounds or limiting belief systems.

This is why, how, and where we can literally say that God is within us and yet is also in Heaven. Heaven in this case is high up in the heavens–the heavens that float up above our body and soul–in the upper chakras.

Our soul, on the other hand, is the part of us that believes it can separate from Spirit and is therefore off on some journey down into the “Garden of Eden” (within our hearts) and has begun a journey into the universe. Having then bought into the idea that we have separated from Spirit, gone into the universe on a journey of learning and experience, we fell (from the Eden-like state within our hearts) into an even great state of separation and created the world of our humanness, wherein our newly densified identity (ego) was given the reins to rule and control who we believe we are and chooses for us what is real and valuable and what is not.

So, where we are now is as follows: Spirit is forever sending a loving call for us to return to our True Identity. Our heart and soul hears the call and is always doing all that it can to speak to our fear-based humanness and convince it to release its beliefs and attachments and to rise up and go Home. The ego part of our humanness resists at all costs, knowing that when we rise into love, fear (and its source–the ego) ceases to exist.

Nevertheless, every time we allow ourselves to listen to the higher calling of our Spirit and soul, making healthy choices in our lives and doing all that we can to be loving and forgiving, we dismantle the ego’s hold on us and rise into a higher level of consciousness–closer and closer to our True Nature–God.

4. The three early stages (dismantling, emptiness and disorientation) all sound very painful. Can one speed up the process?

Yes, we can usually speed up the process by practicing responsibility and by learning the lessons that got us into the crisis in the first place. In other words, since we are there to learn, the sooner we do it, and with humility, the sooner we will get to the other side. One of the dangers though, is in our refusing to let go of control. This is certainly the issue that slows us down the most.

5. You describe the goal of the five stages as ‘waking up’. What do you mean by that?

The term “waking up” is meant on a few levels. First of all, it is referring to our need to wake up on a personal level and become more active, conscious participants on our spiritual path. Second, it refers to our need to wake up from the hypnotic control that this illusionary world has over us. In other words, the crisis’ in our lives are literally “wake up” calls to help birth us into becoming spiritual beings and not just human beings.

6. You use the word ‘God’ a lot, but from your occasional references to It, I gather that you’re not talking about a personal God. What’s the meaning of the word ‘God’ here?

As you’ll find in my books and teachings, I often say that God is more likely to be experienced by humans as a feeling–such as love, peace, and joy, rather than seen–such as an actual Being. So in some ways, it’s not personal at all, in the sense that God is not personified or made into a limited being with form. And yet, God is indeed personalized in that it is literally brought into your very heart and soul as a feeling that is tangible and indeed very personal.

7. What’s the relationship between us and God?

Simply stated, God is the part within each of us that remembers our Divine Nature. This Divine Nature is sometimes referred to as our I Am Presence but, by any name, it is all that really exists and is constantly knocking at the door, meaning calling to us from the center of our mind, asking us to wake up and rediscover who we really are.

8. Surrender plays an important part in your book. What does one surrender to? Why is surrender important?

Surrender is crucial in so many ways. Surrender demonstrates that we are open to learning and are willing to release our ego nature. Surrender means that we are open to being guided from a Source that is higher than our limited selves. Surrender is an essential ingredient to get us over the bridge between our old, limited lives to the new life that awaits us when we learn to follow Spirit as our Guide.

PS. I noticed in Katinka’s blog that the Re-Building Stage is not totally understood. The main point here is not that we will now move on the new lessons and problems. The point of making it over that bridge into a new level of love and trust is that when we learn to function from this new level, we tend to attract less problems. Also, if indeed we do have a crisis, we tend to be able to move through them far more quickly and with greater ease. Love & Light, Michael Mirdad

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.

Osel Hita Torres – aka Lama Osel goes on to make movies

Katinka - Spirituality — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:32:06 +0000

This is a true story that someone emailed me because it reminded them of Jiddu Krishnamurti’s story. That is: someone raised to be a teacher, steps outside the tradition that he was brought up in to do something totally different. Lama Osel was born to Spanish parents, but brought up as the reincarnation of Thubten Yeshe. In keeping with traditional Tibetan Buddhist teachings he only met his teachers and other children who were thought to be reincarnations of important lamas. Kept away from TV, movies and modern music.

His first disco experience was a shock. “I was amazed to watch everyone dance. What were all those people doing, bouncing, stuck to one another, enclosed in a box full of smoke?” [The Guardian]

Lama Osel then studied film and went back to using his Spanish name: Osel Hita Torres.

He’s facing the very issue Tibetan Buddhism is facing: how to combine tradition with modernity. This dillemma is wider than that: any and all religions are facing this problem. Islam fundamentalism is one response and Christians too are having to battle with this. What makes Osel’s story all the more poignant is that he was born into a modern western family. If his parents had chosen to raise him Buddhist, but not as a lama, things would have turned out very differently. Or so we can guess.

In Krishnamurti’s upbringing Besant and Leadbeater decided very quickly to make him aquanted with Western mores and habits. To give him a Western education, aside from his spiritual training. That did not prevent him from defecting, but perhaps it’s not too much to say that it helped him in his path.

Osel’s teachers on the other hand decided to keep modernity away from him. As Robert Thurman notes in the Time article about Osel:

Robert Thurman, a Buddhist scholar, former monk and friend of the Dalai Lama, recounts that when told years ago that Hita was to receive a traditional Buddhist education in India he expressed concern. Thurman’s argument: “If he wanted Tibetan traditional [education] he could have reincarnated in a Tibetan family in exile.” The result of the misplacement, he says, is that Hita “has broken away in a full-blown identity crisis.” Thurman thinks that after some time in our “busy postmodern world,” Hita may see the value of the Tibetan tradition, “which he will then be able to approach or not, of his own free choice.” And, he adds, “More power to him!”

The FMPT, the organisation that Osel was selected to be the leader of, is a curious mix of traditional Gelugpa Buddhism (a branch of Tibetan Buddhism) and modernity. It has taken on the conservation of Tibetan Buddhist scholarship by teaching lay people what in earlier times monks learned. It’s therefore a very scholarly tradition. Students (that is the proper word) are expected to not only meditate and take what vows they feel able to take, but also learn Tibetan, learn Gelugpa philosophy and the traditional ways of discussing Buddhist philosophy.

Fate has made sure I know several people active in this foundation in The Netherlands. The following is based on what they told me: while it’s clear that the FMPT is instrumental in keeping a knowledge of the scholarly tradition of Gelugpa Buddhism alive, it is not very successful at bridging the gap to Western people. That is: Westerners, especially Dutch Westerners, aren’t averse to discussing what they learn. In fact, they’re predisposed to do so. BUT to expect them to discuss in the regimental ritualistic way of the Tibetan Lama’s is too much. It’s attempted, but never very successfully. From the perspective of Buddhist history this is only natural. The Tibetan debating tradition started out as just that: people debating Buddhist philosophy. But with the isolation of Tibet, the debates cristalized – and they became memorized.

Now that Tibetan Buddhism has been liberated from Tibet (forgive the expression, will you?), it needs to face the world and reinvent debate. Perhaps, when Lama Osel is finished making films and documentaries, he can come back to the FMPT and help them modernize the forms while retaining the essence? But, from what’s published on the FMPT website, perhaps we may expect even more radical attempts from him. He says there:

Personally, my job is to find new ways in which to discover the true nature of our being. There is no separation between myself and FPMT – we are all working together in so many aspects and terrains. Humanity is our office. Besides, I don’t really qualify very much in Buddhist studies, because I didn’t finish them, so working together is the clue.

So I’m trying to find a different way for this future generation. One of the ways is through music, movies and audio-visual techniques. In a movie you can condense so many different stories. You can put in music, you can put in different situations and messages. Even just the sunset can be enough to give you peace to find a moment of meditation in yourself. There are so many different millions of possibilities in movies.And not just movies, but documentaries actually going somewhere and interviewing people who may have reached a level on their path where they are at peace with themselves, and so much more….!!!

That first sentence does remind me of Krishnamurti’s radical perspective. So let’s repeat it: Personally, my job is to find new ways in which to discover the true nature of our being.

Osel , I’m very curious to see where you’re headed and wonder if you’ll ever step into the shoes of ‘Lama Tenzin Osel Rinpoche‘ again. But let’s close off with two quotes from the original article in a Spanish magazine that got the whole thing going:

“Osel gets emotional when he sees the Dalai Lama take the floor. If Buddhas really exist. He would be one of them. He is an enlightened one.”

“The responsibility of teaching has always weighed on him. His heart tells him that for the moment he should learn. The literal translation of lama is teacher, and I’m no teacher. A good lama is a person for whom it doesn’t matter what others think about him, and who thinks about others before thinking about himself. That, to me, is being a lama, a good person.”

[Update September 2011]I have now been to an FPMT retreat, took refuge there (aka became a Buddhist) and know a bit more about the organisation. It is organised in a variation on the traditional Tibetan style of studious Gelugpa Buddhism. But it does leave people free to find their own way IN that tradition: studying as much or as little as they want, and meditation plays a huge part in the practice of most people who become serious about it, just like in any other Western Buddhist tradition.

Having read a few of Lama Yeshe’s works, I am torn: on the one hand I feel that if Osel can come back to becoming a teacher and continue his predecessor’s work it would be great. Lama Yeshe really was a very inspiring teacher who was already able to translate Tibetan Buddhism for Westerners very well, despite his Tibetan upbringing.

Is it really possible to teach through music and film, or is that merely the temptation of the modern world? I have a tendency to think it’s a temptation, but as is true for all of us, Osel must make his own choices. [/update]

Limits to quantum mechanics and spiritual freedom

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:41:14 +0000

I’ve been reading Creative Evolution: A Physicist’s Resolution Between Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by Amit Goswami. I’m impressed, the chemist in me (I was taught some quantum physics in college) doesn’t find fault. Nor does the biologist or the philosopher (I took biology and philosophy of religion classes in college too).

But I do have some reservations with the implications of Amit Goswami’s quantum spirituality for our every day lives. And I have quantum physical reasons to back them up too. I hope you all don’t mind a little chemistry lesson today.

Electron orbits

Above you’ll find an image of a carbon atom – as chemists think of it. What you see – the big red balloons – represent the four ‘free’ electrons that carbon has. The other electrons are so close to the carbon core they can’t be shown here.

The electrons shown have some freedom of movement. They have a space of probability where they can be – for each represented by a specific red balloon and a smaller white balloon opposite it.

These four electrons are called ‘free’ because they can pair up with electrons from other particles, other carbon atoms, or oxygen, nitrogen or something else entirely. Carbon is so good at uniting with other elements to form molecules that make up – ultimately – life.

But while those electrons are called free, they still have only limited freedom. It’s precisely their place in the atom that makes the whole thing work. They can combine with other electrons (indeed have to) to form molecules or something, but they are not free to go out of their orbit. The balloon shown here is there space. In quantum terms it’s not clear whether the electron has a place somewhere specific within the balloon, or whether it’s spread out. Indeed, the answer to that question depends on how you measure it (sound familiar?). But for today the main point is something else: that electron has a space to dwell in, and that’s all the freedom it has. Most of its fellow electrons are even more limited: closer to the core they are limited to orbits as circular as most of you have been taught in school, though even in their case it’s a probability orbit, not an ordinary one.

But probability doesn’t mean complete freedom.It’s a freedom within the laws of physics. Freedom within those balloons in my picture.

My point for today is that we’re similarly constrained.

I’ve looked up some videos from Goswami and he sort of agrees. Let’s look at what he says about separateness:

Goswami says here that the dictum is true that we create our own destiny. But in the seventies it became clear that merely creating cadilacs was a bit hard. It became clear that the place from which we CAN create our own destiny is not an ordinary state: it’s in fact satori or moksha or however you want to call it. There is no free lunch. We have to meditate BEFORE we can create our own reality.

I’m saying – even in satori this freedom isn’t total – we still are constrained by the laws of nature.

This of course doesn’t deny the other things Goswami says here: that in the process of reaching Satori or Enlightenment a person becomes much more loving, much more creative, transformed, capable of experiencing reality at a much more subtle level.

Jiddu Krishnamurti and theosophy (and occultism)

Katinka - Spirituality — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:40:24 +0000

In response to a question by Gino…

Jiddu Krishnamurti is best known for having left the Theosophical Society early in his career. What’s less well known, though described in the biography by Pupul Jayakar is that at the end of his life, in private conversation, he talked about his life in a way that confirms much in the theosophical way of looking at life. For instance on page 382 he talks about having a couple of angels – it sounds like he’s talking about guardian angels. He is telling Radha Burnier to become president of the TS, and that India is still the land of the sacred, though it’s being polluted. In effect it sounds like he wants Radha Burnier (now still president of the Theosophical Society) to help regenerate India’s wisdom, by her becoming president of the Theosophical Society. And he’s saying: want two of my (guardian) angels?

This explains why, at the last election, Radha Burnier insisted on running again – when it became clear that the other candidate would not be living in India if he was elected.

To be clear, here’s what he says about clairvoyance:

Extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, occult powers, cannot free thought from confusion and misery; sensitive awareness of our thoughts and motives, from which spring our speech and action, is the beginning of lasting understanding and love. Mere self-control, discipline, self-punishment, or renunciation, cannot liberate thought; but constant awareness and pliability give clarity and strength. Only in becoming aware of the cause of ignorance, in understanding the process of craving and its dual opposing values, is there freedom from suffering. This discerning awareness must begin in our life of relationship with things, people, and ideas, with our own hidden thoughts and daily action.

But in the context of this biography it is clear that while he doesn’t think clairvoyance is very important, he does NOT deny it’s existence. Or even that it is part of his own life. Just not worth talking about publicly.

All Considering » Spiritual Teachers

Gratitude meditation – thanking our teachers

Related Posts

Sticking to one spiritual path, vs New Age shopping…

Related Posts

Jiddu Krishnamurti as a man of his time

Related Posts

Can you feel the quality of a spiritual teacher?

Related Posts

Spiritual teachings best fresh?

Comment Zen:

Related Posts

Michael Mirdad interview

Related Posts

When yoga increases stress: about the teacher

Related Posts

Osel Hita Torres – aka Lama Osel goes on to make movies

Related Posts

Limits to quantum mechanics and spiritual freedom

Related Posts

Jiddu Krishnamurti and theosophy (and occultism)

Related Posts