The Atma Jyoti Blog

In material life we are often promised great benefits if we will only do what the promisers want us to do, the implication being that if we do not obey we will lose or be denied the benefits. But Krishna has a very different thing to say. Happiness in both this world and the next are guaranteed to the yogi.

“Die, and you win heaven. Conquer, and you enjoy the earth. Stand up now, son of Kunti, and resolve to fight.” (Bhagavad Gita 2:37) In the sixth chapter Arjuna is going to present to Krishna the usual manipulative and resentful view of religionists: are not those who “fail” in or “abandon” spiritual life “lost” and hopeless? “No, my son,” replies Krishna. “That man is not lost, either in this world or the next. No one who seeks Brahman ever comes to an evil end.” (Bhagavad Gita 6:40) And this is true in the inner struggle. If we literally die before winning the battle or are overcome in the battle and “slain” by the enemy, we shall still reap profound benefit. The intensely positive karma generated by meditation will result in our rising to high spiritual realms after death and enjoying it fruits there. Then, when we are once more reborn we will reap the good karma in the form of once again coming into the orbit of meditational knowledge and resume our practice. If on the other hand we persevere and win the ultimate victory we shall find life here on earth totally transfigured to a glory presently unimagined by us. The great Master Sivananda of Rishikesh expressed it this way:

When I surveyed from Ananda Kutir, Rishikesh,
By the side of the Tehri Hills, only God I saw.
In the Ganges and the Kailas peak,
In the famous Chakra Tirtha of Naimisar also, only God I saw.

In tribulation and in grief, in joy and in glee,
In sickness and in sorrow, only God I saw.
In birds and dogs, in stones and trees,
In flowers and fruits, in the sun, moon and stars, only God I saw.

Like camphor I was melting in His fire of knowledge,
Amidst the flames outflashing, only God I saw.
My Prana entered the Brahmarandhra at the Moordha,
Then I looked with God’s eyes, only God I saw.

I passed away into nothingness, I vanished,
And lo, I was the all-living, only God I saw.
I enjoyed the Divine Aisvarya, all God’s Vibhutis,
I had Visvaroopa Darshan, the Cosmic Consciousness, only God I saw.
[From Practice of Karma Yoga by Sri Swami Sivananda. This is only a partial quotation.]

Sri Ramakrishna said that to the enlightened yogi the whole world that now is a sea of suffering becomes “a mart of joy.” A Buddhist mystic wrote: “I walk through this world and no one guesses that Paradise is within [me].” Is it any wonder then that Krishna concludes: “Stand up now, son of Kunti, and resolve to fight”?

Read more commentary on the Bhagavad Gita in “The Battlefield of the Mind.”

The real meaning of a much misunderstood term

Because the monsters who marched under the Nazi banner (which bore a sacred symbol which was thereby dishonored and made to bear an odious connotation in the West) plagiarized the Sanskrit word arya, it has become usual for us outside India to use the expressions “Vedic religion” or “Sanatana [Eternal] Dharma” in reference to the spiritual tradition of primeval India. These are accurate and bona fide expressions, of course, but “Arya Dharma” is the oldest expression and has a unique value. So important was arya in the vocabulary of the ancient Indian sages that India itself was known as Aryavarta, the Land of the Aryas, for the people living there were commonly known as Aryas. Buddha used the term a great deal. Although his teachings are referred to as “The Noble Eightfold Path” or “The Four Noble Truths,” what he really said was “The Aryan Eightfold Path” and “The Four Aryan Truths.” This is not without real significance.

At the beginning of this second chapter of the Gita, Krishna chides Arjuna, saying: “Whence has this un-Aryan faint-heartedness of yours arisen?” So we cannot avoid looking at the word, no matter how distasteful its use in twentieth-century racial bigotry and genocide has made it for contemporary sensitivities. Hitler liked to toss around “holy” and “God” in his rants–as well as “justice” and “freedom”–but that in no way invalidates them. Evil as he was, he did not have the power to corrupt or degrade such an ancient term of honor–only to condition our response to it. And we should not let his madness prevail in our reactions.

Arya comes from the root word ri, which means “to rise upward.” A legitimate translation is: “one who strives upward.” This gives us the whole idea about wherever it is used.

An arya is one who puts forth real effort to rise in any area of life. Someone who goes to night school or a researcher who labors to improve a device is an arya. Naturally arya was most fittingly applied by the philosophers of India to spiritual and personal life. The word “noble” is too inactive, besides it can be interpreted passively, such as in thinking that a person is born noble or made noble by the declaration of another. An arya is one who labors to rise, exemplifying the humorous but wise saying that a diamond is a piece of coal that never gave up. Truly a saint is a sinner that never gave up. In other words, an arya.

In very ancient Indian texts humanity is divided into two classes: the aryas and the vritras, or dasyus. Vritra means “one who covers up” in the sense of burrowing into the darkness of the earth, of material consciousness and involvement. Dasyus are slaves–slaves of materiality living in willing servitude to lower life and consciousness.

Arya Dharma is the course of action an arya follows to become a perfected being. Specifically, it is the mode of life and thought outlined in the upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. An arya is one who responds to the inner and upward call without hesitation. For there is nothing nobler than the struggle for higher degrees of life and awareness.

Next: The Great Secret of Spiritual Warfare

This is Part 9 of a serialized commentary on “A Method Of Enlightening A Disciple” from Shankara’s Upadeshasahasri–A Thousand Teachings

15) “In the beginning all this was non-existent. From it was born what exists. “That created Itself by Itself; therefore It is called the self-made.

That which is Self-made is delight [rasa]; for truly, on obtaining delight one becomes blissful.

“Who could direct the prana and the apana if this Bliss did not exist in the akasha?

“Brahman verily exists because It alone bestows bliss.

“When a man finds fearless support in That which is invisible, incorporeal, indefinable and supportless, he has then obtained fearlessness.

“If he makes the slightest differentiation in It, there is fear for him.

“That becomes fear for him who does not reflect.” (Taittiriya Upanishad 2:7)

In the beginning all this was non-existent. From it was born what exists. Here we have an example of the frequent ambiguity of Sanskrit–an ambiguity based on the fact that a Sanskrit word can have so many meanings, some of them contradictory. There are upanishadic passages that speak of the absurdity of the idea that something can come from nothing, but here we have what seems an assertion of that very idea. The words used here are Sat and Asat. Normally they mean Real and Unreal, or True and Untrue. But they can also mean manifest and unmanifest–a temporary existence or non-existence. These two sentences mean that at first there was nothing in relative existence, but from that Unmanifest Itself all things came into manifestation. That is, Brahman alone was, but everything was potentially within Brahman and eventually came into being.

That created Itself by Itself; therefore It is called the self-made. This has two meanings, internal and external. The external meaning, based on the previous statement is that Brahman the manifest “made” Itself by projecting Itself from Its unmanifest being. The internal meaning is that from its transcendent being Brahman expanded and became immanent within creation as its guiding intelligence. This is the “begetting” of the “only-begotten Son of God” which causes such turmoil (and in the past, bloodshed) in the minds of Christians who bother to think about it. My gratitude was inexpressible when after years of confusion the scriptures of India made clear to me what in the Bible was a complete muddle I was supposed to accept “on faith.” There was a question I had asked many ministers, who all shuffled and sputtered and said they had never studied it “in seminary.” They could not even refer me to a theological book on the subject! Then one blessed day, after having awakened to the reality of Sanatana Dharma, I wrote that question to a sadhu whose answer came back right away. It was a single sentence that answered my question completely. As Shankara says in one of his writings, the philosophical concepts that are common in India have never been dreamed of outside India. Why settle for a second-rate religion?

That which is Self-made is delight [rasa]; for truly, on obtaining delight one becomes blissful. Brahman as Absolute is bliss, and so is Brahman as Relative, but whereas the bliss of the Absolute is exclusively internal, a matter of Brahman rejoicing in Itself, the bliss of the manifest or Saguna Brahman can be “tasted” by the individual spirits evolving within creation. Whereas the bliss of the Transcendent is known only to Itself, the bliss of the Immanent can be experienced by others, by the individual beings. First we savor the bliss-delight of God, and then we rise higher to our own transcendent nature and experience of own inner, eternal bliss, just as does Brahman.

Who could direct the prana and the apana if this Bliss did not exist in the akasha? If the bliss of Brahman (Brahmananda) did not arise in the ether, in the Chidakasha how could anything “breathe”–alternate in polarity–and thus enter into relative existence? The dual movements of prana and apana are the basis of relative existence, and manifest in all sentient beings as the inhaling and exhaling breaths. We could not breathe, could not live, if Brahmananda was not perpetually welling up from the heart of the Absolute. It exists in the ether, the abode of subtle sound. For this reason we join the mental sound of our repetition of Om to our inhalations and exhalations and return our consciousness to its Origin.

Brahman verily exists because It alone bestows bliss. Bliss is the manifestation of Brahman, the indication of Its existence. Bliss (ananda) is not the mere happiness of ego gratification or the thrill of the senses. It is much more, and these lesser things should not be mistaken for it. The truth is, it takes a marked degree of evolution for a human being to experience bliss, for such experience indicates nearness to God. Watch an infant who is still in touch with its Source and see how suddenly it will smile and radiate joy, bliss sweeping through and moving its entire body. It is aware of nothing but that overwhelming bliss.

When a man finds fearless support in That which is invisible, incorporeal, indefinable and supportless, he has then obtained fearlessness. Swami Gambhirananda renders it: “This unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupporting Brahman.” Sanskrit can often be interpreted in different ways, and sometimes in opposite ways. This is intentional, so we should consider both these translations as equally accurate.

Brahman–and therefore the Self–is imperceptible to any relative entity. To “see” either of them we must divest ourselves of relative consciousness and see with the “single eye” of the atman. As Jesus said: “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” (Matthew 6:22) Interestingly, the Greek word in the Gospels is aplous, which means something that has been unified–made one. So to enable us to “see” Brahman we need to cultivate the consciousness of Unity.

Perhaps even more interesting is the statement that Brahman and atman are without a body. Usually we think of the universe as God’s “body,” and the five koshas as the bodies of the Self. In the cosmic dream, that is so, but in awakened reality, Brahman and the Self relate to absolutely nothing but each other. Nothing “covers” them, nor are they capable of being “inside” anything–or “outside” anything, either. Their mode of being prevents this. Nothing that can be said about the body can be applied to the Self, nor can what is said about the Self be applied to the body.

Both Brahman and the Self are beyond any form of expression, which is why point nine says that “not this, not this” is the only possible description for them.

Finally we come to an interesting “contradiction” that is an important exposition of truth. Nikhilananda translates that Brahman and the Self are “supportless,” whereas Gambhirananda translates it as “unsupporting.” Both concepts are intended. Brahman is not “supported” by anything, being totally self-existent, depending on nothing else for Its existence. At the same time, Brahman does not support anything because Brahman never touches or enters into relation with anything. Yes, through the illusion of Maya it seems that Brahman is the source and maintainer of all, the controller of all. But Maya is a dream. If we dream that we tame and ride an elephant, can we boast about it? It was just an image without substance.

Actually, Brahman and the Self are antithetical to any “other.” Brahmajnana (knowledge of Brahman) and atmajnana (knowledge of the Self) cause the experience of all “else” to cease. So they not only do not support anything, they dispel them as illusions.

If he makes the slightest differentiation in It, there is fear for him. That becomes fear for him who does not reflect. Belief in duality is productive of fear. Fearlessness is possible only in the consciousness (not mere belief) of unity–of Brahman. To the ignorant–including those that have no knowledge of the upanishads–the very idea of Brahman is fearful because Brahman is antithetical to what they cherish: the ego and its “diversity.” I have heard radio preachers foaming at the mouth about “becoming one with a Cosmic Nothing” when faced with Advaitic truth. The concept of union with Brahman terrifies the ego and those in its grip. No matter how much they fawn on Mighty Gawd they are thrown into a panic at the idea that Mighty Gawd might be all there is! Frankly, all religions that focus obsessively on an avatar (divine incarnation) or prophet are doing so in hope that by focusing on a little personality they can avoid the truth of Infinity and the possibility of total union with It–leaving behind their little sandbuckets and shovels on the shores of the sea of samsara.

Read previous installments of A Catechism of Enlightenment.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
–Matthew 5:7

With this Beatitude we are turning a corner. The previous Beatitudes deal with the attributes peculiar to us as human beings who aspire to Christhood. But beginning with this Beatitude, we are challenged to take up the attributes of God Himself. This is quite reasonable, considering that in the same sermon in which He gave the Beatitudes, the Lord Jesus said: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

The Meaning Of Mercy

“Blessed are the merciful.” What does it mean to be merciful? Eleimon means to have real compassion, to actually feel and suffer with another person, to be intensely aware of another’s pain, and to feel a yearning for their healing. This is the nature of real mercy which is rooted in divine love resulting from the experiential consciousness of the unity of all existence as the manifest Being of God Who is love. “Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.” (Romans 12:15)

Receiving To Give

“For they shall obtain mercy.” This divine mercy is not a mere feeling sorry for those who are suffering (or who are too unaware of their actual condition to experience suffering). Nor is it only a feeling or a caring. Rather, eleithesontai has a dual meaning: to receive mercy and to give mercy. This is the clue to realization of this Beatitude. First we must receive the mercy of God in its plenitude–which is something far more than getting a little temporal health, wealth, or happiness from the divine treasury.

To receive mercy is to be fully restored into the divine image, to be consciously reassumed into the Life that is God–and then, as god with God, to be able to impart the same healing and restoration to others, or at least to awaken them to the possibility of their healing and direct them to the Source of healing.

“He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” (John 7:38) This will be the experience of those who embody this Beatitude.

The Two Follies

There are two great follies in spiritual life. The first is to believe that continual, external involvement with others on either the intellectual or material plane is being “spiritual.” The second is to become completely self-centered and self-absorbed, turning in on oneself and ignoring–or even denying–the reality of anyone else. This Beatitude shows the correct sequence in spiritual life. We must first attend to our own healing before we can impart healing to others.

Read more of the inner meaning of the Beatitudes.

Meditation is not an end in itself, but rather the means to an end–to the daily living out of the illumined consciousness produced by meditation. We go into meditation so we can come out of meditation more conscious and better equipped to live our life. The change will not be instant, but after a reasonable time we should see a definite effect in how we live. If the meditator does not find that his state of mind during daily activities has been affected by his meditation, then his meditation is without value. This is especially important for us in the West since meditation is continually being touted as a “natural high” or a producer of profound and cataclysmic experiences. Such experiences may sound good on paper or in a metaphysical bragfest, but in time they are seen to be empty of worth on any level–ephemeral dreams without substance.

Success in meditation is manifested outside meditation–by the states of mind and depth of insight that become habitual. The proof of its viability is the meditator’s continual state of mind and his apprehension of both reality and Reality.

Many things lighten and purify the mind, but nothing clarifies the mind like the prolonged and profound practice of meditation. The state of mental clarity produced by meditation should continue outside meditation. Meditation should by its nature prepare us for living. At the same time, meditation should establish us in interior life, making us increasingly aware both inwardly and outwardly. This is because reality consists of two aspects: the unmoving consciousness of spirit and the moving, dynamic activity of evolutionary energy. Reality embraces both, and to be without the awareness of one or the other is to be incomplete.

Meditation enables us to see deeply into things outside meditation. Through meditation we cultivate the ability to be objective–separate from objects but keenly aware of them and thus able to intelligently and effectively function in relation to them. Meditation, then, is the most effective school for living open to us. And it manifests in the simplest of ways: a more compassionate outlook, a deeper self-understanding, an awareness of changelessness amidst change, a taste for spiritual conversation and reading, and experience of inmost peace. One man who had been practicing meditation for a while remarked to another meditator, “I can’t figure out what is happening to me. Last night for the first time in my married life I helped my wife do the dishes.”

In the practice of the japa and meditation of Om we are putting ourselves into a totally–even sublimely–different sphere of consciousness and experience from that in which so much phenomena arise. Meditation is done for the development of consciousness–truly pure and simple–whereas it is our active life that is meant for both seeing and experiencing. It is all a matter of consciousness–of consciousness that pervades our entire life–not just a “wonderful feeling” in meditation. It is the fundamental state of consciousness and mind outside of meditation that matters.