The Atma Jyoti Blog

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Q: Are angels and archangels real individual consciousnesses, or are they some kind of energy constructs?

In Oriental cosmological view–including that of Christianity which is an Eastern religion–the individual consciousness evolves from the simplest form of manifested existence, the atom of hydrogen, to the most complex–including angels and archangels. (In India they are known as various kinds of devas–“gods”–gandharvas, asparas, etc.) They are all stages along the way to Infinity. Thus, archangels are “graduated” angels, who are themselves “graduated” human beings.

In truth, there are no human, angelic, archangelic, etc., beings as entities in themselves. Rather, there are spirits (atmas) who are presently evolving through those forms. More simply: there are no beings known as hats, coats, shoes, dresses, and trousers–those are just the clothing assumed by us humans. In the same way there are only individualized consciousnesses that are clothing themselves in various states of embodiment for the purpose of evolution. The angelic/archangelic condition is just that: a condition or state of being which is experienced by the evolving spirit in its upward passage to divinity.

Q: It has been my understanding for years that angels are in a completely different evolutionary stream from that of human beings–that they have not passed through the evolutionary forms that lead up to the human form. I have been taught that angels are of a completely different mode of being than us, and that their evolutionary paths are irrevocably separate. Could you comment on this?

There are throughout the universe–and including our own planet–numberless types of psychic entities that are evolving along lines of their very own–beings that shall indeed never be in the human evolutionary stream. (I use the term “psychic entities” to designate beings that have bodies formed of astral–psychic–energies, rather than material energies. The term “spirit” is properly applied only to the divine spark within all beings, rather than to their relative conditions.) These range from the type of entities we call “elementals” to the guides and guardians of plant and animal life, even up to great entities who look after the welfare of solar systems. Each of these entities may be given a proper name of their own, such as sylphs, undines, pixies, kelpies, devas, gandharvas, kinnaras, etc. Chistians tend to lump them all together under the term “angels.” This certainly does no harm, but is not very accurate.

Although there are indeed many “species” of non-physical entities which dwell within, upon, and above the earth, mostly affecting its mineral, plant, and non-human life, they are not properly called angels. Perhaps to use the Sanskrit term devas, as do the residents of Findhorn, is more appropriate even if not exact. Further, it is true that these residents, though evolving, will never enter into that particular evolutionary current which produces humans and angels. They are nevertheless the moral and spiritual equals of the beings within that current–as are those within all the various evolutionary streams within creation.

Read More Questions and Answers

Satan is the force of cosmic delusion. But since it is to a great extent the collective energies projected by deluded intelligences (souls), it is also a kind of energy being that has a form of independent (though reflected) consciousness. Those who talk about how “if God did not exist, man would invent him” have intuited a fact. Humans can create thoughtform entities that become energy robots with a dim life and consciousness of their own. Many of the “gods” that have been worshipped throughout history were such creations of human will and consciousness. It is fashionable to sneer at the declaration by Judaism and Christianity that many of the “old” gods were demons, nevertheless–they were.

Satan is much more powerful than the thoughtform gods, being drawn from countless beings over a vast span of time. Satan can be thought of as an immense blind shark that swims around and intuits who can be engulfed or eaten and perhaps even assimilated in time. In this way it perpetually increases in power and effect. As Frankenstein’s monster was composed of parts taken from many bodies, so Satan is also a composite of energies or intelligent beings that are yet somewhat individual though submerged in a collective darkness of consciousness. So Satan is not an individual but a collection of both negative forces–and negative trapped souls. This is far more hideous than anything most of us can imagine. This awful conglomerate moves through the universe, both material and psychic, indeed seeking whom it may devour or debase. It both knows what it is doing and does not know, since much of its function is subliminal.

Lucifer is an altogether different matter, being a highly evolved creative being–an archangel or prajapati–that has turned negative while maintaining his definition as an individual entity. Since he is in total harmony with the cosmic Satanic force and has for ages added to its power as its agent, he can also be called Satan–just as Jesus “turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

This is Part 6 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

9) “The form of that person is like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep’s wool, or like the scarlet insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows this–his splendor is like a flash of lightning.

“Now, therefore, the description of Brahman: Not this, not this [Neti, Neti]; for there is no other and more appropriate description than this: ‘Not this.’ Now the designation of Brahman: The Truth of truth. The vital breath is truth and It [Brahman] is the Truth of that.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2:3:6)

It is a fundamental tenet of the upanishadic philosophy that neither the Supreme Self nor the individual Self have any form or quality whatsoever. So what is the first part of this verse talking about? It is saying that any “form” of the Self is really only a kind of symbolic indication of its presence, just like a person is not his voice, but when we hear the voice speaking we know the person is present. To get this idea across several examples are given: 1) A cloth may be dyed yellow, but the yellowness is superficial, having nothing at all to do with “clothness.” 2) Sheep’s wool is the thing, and greyness merely incidental. 3) Being an Indragopa insect has nothing to do with being red. 4) A tongue of fire is just a momentary condition, but the fire persists because that is the reality. 5) Lotuses may be many colors–whiteness is not lotusness. 6) Lightning is a process of purifying the atmosphere, its flash is just happenstance. Those who know these truths about the Self are splendid, but that splendor is just what others perceive–it is not the Self of those enlightened people. They alone “see” their Self.

There is a further lesson here: the Self can take on many attributes or forms, but it never really is any of them–they are appearances only. Yet, the Self’s capacity for assuming form and quality must not be forgotten. The simplistic denial of this is a mark of ignorance, not discrimination, and certainly is not Advaita.

Brahman cannot be described as an object, for It is not separate from us nor does It have attributes or qualities. Yet, the upanishad says that Brahman can be “described” by saying It is “not this, not this.” The idea is that when we negate all that can be said, what remains is a hint of Brahman, the No Thing (not to be confused with Nothing, as Westerners are wont to do). We can say what God is not–and nothing more. It is most interesting to note that early Christian theology made a great point of this truth. Just as it also taught that God alone was real, and that evil did not exist. These three principles reveal the Indian origin of Jesus’ teaching, however far contemporary Christianity has strayed from it.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

In India there is a long-standing disagreement on the nature and purpose of meditation. One school of thought considers that definite–and conscious–evolutionary change is necessary for liberation; consequently meditation must be an actively transforming process. The other view is that the only thing needed for liberation is re-entry into our true, eternal nature. That nothing need be “done” at all except to perceive the truth of ourselves. Obviously their meditation procedures are going to be completely different.

There is, however, a third perspective on the matter which combines both views. It is true that we are ever-free, ever-perfect, but we have forgotten that fact and have wandered in aimless suffering for countless incarnations. No one is so foolish as to suggest to a person suffering from amnesia that he need not regain his memory since he has not ceased to be who he really is.

The “memory block” from which we suffer is the condition of the various levels on which we presently function, especially the buddhi, the intelligence. It is also a matter of the dislocation of our consciousness from its natural center. Obviously, then, something really does have to be “done” to change this condition. A dirty window need not be changed in nature, but it needs to be cleansed of that which is not its nature for us to see through it. It is the same with a dusty or smudgy mirror.

There is an example from nature that can help us understand this. Research has shown that the energy field around a salamander egg, and all through the stages of a young salamander’s growth, is in the shape of an adult salamander. This indicates that the etheric pattern of a full-grown salamander is inherent even in the egg and throughout the salamander’s development. It is as though the egg has only to hatch and grow around this energy matrix, to fill out or grow into the ever-present pattern. Even when there is only the egg visible to the human eye, the adult salamander is there in a very real, potential form. It is the same with us. We are always the atman, potential divinity, but that potential must be realized. And meditation is the means of our realization.

“For ignorance [bondage] to cease, something has to be done, with effort, as in the breaking of a fetter.”

Shankara puts forth the question, “How can there be a means to obtain liberation? Liberation is not a thing which can be obtained, for it is simply cessation of bondage.” He then answers himself: “For ignorance [bondage] to cease, something has to be done, with effort, as in the breaking of a fetter. Though liberation is not a ‘thing,’ inasmuch as it is cessation of ignorance in the presence of right knowledge, it is figuratively spoken of as something to be obtained.” And he concludes: “The purpose of Yoga is the knowledge of Reality.”

Vyasa defines liberation in this way: “Liberation is absence of bondage.” Shankara carries it a bit further, saying: “Nor is liberation something that has to be brought about apart from the absence of bondage, and this is why it is always accepted that liberation is eternal.”

Read more about meditation in Introduction to Om Yoga.

The renowned Swami Sivananda (1887-1963) was the inspiration, example, and joy of his disciples. In the photo above, he and his disciple Swami Venkatesananda at right enjoy a joke together. Swami Sivananda was founder of Sivanandashram in Rishikesh, and the worldwide Divine Life Society. The website of the Divine Life Society is full of resources for spiritual aspirants, including free eBooks, photos, audio talks, and video clips.

“The good renounce everything. The pure don’t babble about sensual desires. Whether touched by pleasure or pain, the wise show no change of temper.”
(Dhammapada 83)

This eighty-third verse is not a simple one, and the translations of even very qualified scholars can vary. Rather than pick what seems to me to be the best, I am going to give the differing translations so you can see what I mean.

The good

Jesus said: “There is none good but one, that is, God.” (Matthew 19:17) At that time in parts of the Mediterranean world the word “good” was never applied to anything or anyone but God. That is why the Eastern Orthodox compendium on mystical life is called Philokalia, “Love of the Good”–that is, Love of God. So the good are the godly. Buddha has something to say about them: “They renounce everything.” So translates John Richardson. Narada Thera has: “The good give up everything. Harischandra Kaviratna: “Good men abandon lusting after things.”

There is no use ignoring the fact that we live in a thing-obsessed society. And it is risky indeed to assume that we have not been influenced by its material philosophy, both consciously and subliminally. So when people hear about “giving up” or “renouncing” they become unsettled–unless at the moment they are unhappy through being let down by something or someone. Then truly only “at the moment” they agree and make noise about “chucking it all away” and suchlike. It will not be long, though, before they are pursuing another form of what made them miserable.

The plain truth is, we cannot live without material things. Even if we could remain forever in samadhi without breathing or eating, we would still be “in the body” and would have to sit or lie upon the earth. So good sense tells us that whether we externally rid ourselves of many things or whether we retain them, Buddha is definitely speaking of our attitude toward them. Perhaps the best explanation of this is to be found in the words of Sri Ramarkrishna.

“If one is sincere one can realize God even in the world. ‘Me and mine’ make ignorance. ‘O God! You and yours.’ This is knowledge! Live in the world like the maid servant of a wealthy man. The maid servant does all household work, brings up children and calls the master’s son, “My Hari,” but she knows very well at heart that neither the house nor the boy belongs to her. She does all the chores but her heart is always in her country home. Likewise do all the work of the household but keep your mind on God. And know that the house, the family, the son and all the rest are not yours but God’s. And that you are only God’s servant.

“I ask people to renounce mentally. I do not ask them to renounce the world. If one lives in the world with detachment and longs for God from the heart one can realize him.” (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Volume 2, Part 15, Chapter 2)

“The tortoise moves about in water but do you know where its mind is? It is on the land where its eggs are. Do all the duties of the world but keep your mind on God.” (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 5)

“I say to those who come to me, ‘Live in the world; there is no harm in that. But keep your mind on God while living in the world. Know that house, home, family are not yours. All these belong to God. Your home is near God.’” (The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Volume 1, Part 10, Chapter 8)

This is possible only to the yogi. For all others this is mere juggling with the mind.

The Venerable Thanisarro Bhikkhu’s translation sums it up very well: “Everywhere, truly, those of integrity stand apart.” “Integrity” means to be self-contained, self-sufficient. This the wise always strive to be–not scattered or diluted or weak and dependent. The worthy find all they need within. By their very nature they “stand apart.”

Read more of The Wisdom of Renunciation.