The Atma Jyoti Blog

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

How humans are not physically created/evolved to eat meat

[We found this useful article and would like to share it with our readers. The author is unknown.]

Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment ­ teeth, jaws, and digestive system ­ favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets.”

And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man’s body hasn’t adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, “Man’s structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food.”

Comparison between carnivores, herbivores and humans

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

• Meat-eaters: have claws
  Herbivores: no claws
  Humans: no claws

• Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
  Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
  Humans: perspire through skin pores

• Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
  Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
  Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

• Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
  Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
  Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

• Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
  Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
  Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

• Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
  Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
  Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

• Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
  Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
  Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

Clearly if humans were meant to eat meat we wouldn’t have so many crucial ingestive/digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.

Why do people eat meat?

Many people ask me, “If we weren’t supposed to eat meat than why do we?”. It is because we are conditioned to eat meat. Also, the ADA (American Dietetic Association) tells us that “most of mankind for most of human history has lived on a vegetarian or Lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.

A popular statement that meat eaters say is; “In the wild, animals kill other animals for food. It’s nature.” First of all, we are not in the wild. Secondly, we can easily live without eating meat and killing, not to mention we’d be healthier. And finally, as I have already shown, we weren’t meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.

The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this. All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.

If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and bloody. The thought of eating such meat makes one’s stomach turn. This is my point on how we as humans are conditioned to believe that animal flesh is good for us and that we were meant to consume it for survival and health purposes. If we are true carnivores or omnivores, cooking our meat and seasoning it with salt, ketchup, or tabasco sauce would disguise and we as humans would refuse to eat our meat in this form.

Next: The overall Advantages of Vegetarianism

Keep spiritually informed. Subscribe to the Atma Jyoti Blog.

A continuation of Choosing Between the Good and the Pleasant

One of the problems with prevailing religion of all kinds is its incredible small-sightedness. Like the pleasant-oriented and pleasant-obsessed ego which it supports and feeds, it is concerned with only the moment at hand or with goals that are utterly irrelevant to the real nature of the human being. When we understand who/what we really are, then alone can we comprehend what is the sole purpose of our existence: conscious union with the Absolute. In light of this the upanishad concludes: “Blessed are they that choose the good; they that choose the pleasant miss the goal.” So the discrimination between the good and the pleasant is no light matter.

A genuine test of character

In the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew we find a parable about foolish and wise souls. Most of us do not really care if we are foolish, just as long as no one labels us so. But we should care, and so the upanishad continues its teaching, saying:

“Both the good and the pleasant present themselves to men. The wise, having examined both, distinguish the one from the other. The wise prefer the good to the pleasant; the foolish, driven by fleshly desires, prefer the pleasant to the good.” (Katha Upanishad 1:2:2)

There is a lot of truth in these few lines, some of it embarrassing, but nevertheless beneficial for us. (The good is not the pleasant, even in philosophy.)

• “Both the good and the pleasant present themselves to men.”

Whatever may be the excuses we may make for ourselves, even portraying ourselves as weak or victims, no one, NO ONE, forces anything upon us in life, however much it may seem otherwise. Rather, the good and the pleasant simply “present themselves” to us. We are totally responsible for our response to them, although, like Adam and Eve back in Genesis, [“And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.…And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” (Genesis 3:12,13)] we try to put the blame on someone else, on some external factor.

It is really essential to us as we move through life (hopefully forward) that although our deluded experience seems just the opposite, in reality all “things” are completely neutral–it is our response to them that really gives them any character such as good, bad, destructive, positive, etc. A little thought will show this. The deadliest poison is harmless if we do not make contact with it. Conversely, the best medicine is worthless if we do not consume it. Or think of this: garbage seems heavenly food to a starving person, but not to someone who is well fed; a child’s toy means nothing to a mature adult. Nothing has an innate ability to draw or force us–all the drawing and forcing is in our own mind as it responds to the object. We can blame no one at any time. It is all in us. If there are no grass seeds in the soil no grass will grow. The seeds have to be in us to sprout and grow and bear fruit as thinking, willing, and acting.

• “The wise, having examined both, distinguish the one from the other.”

Viveka, the ability to distinguish between the real and the unreal, between the true and the false, between the transient and the permanent, is indispensable for the serious spiritual aspirant. The wise possess and exercise this faculty, the eye of wisdom, by deeply examining whatever is presented to them and discerning whether it is the good or the merely pleasant they are being confronted with. Intelligence comes into the foreground, feeling and emotion being banished from the mental field altogether. Human beings operate either rationally or instinctually-emotionally. The wise are rational at all times. At all times. For example, real love is clearsighted–never blind–whereas infatuation masquerading as love is both blinding and blindness.

Preferring and driven

If two people are walking, one toward the north and the other toward the south, the difference between them is very little–just the direction they are facing. But in the matter of the wise and the foolish the differences are profound, for they are rooted in their very being, especially the mind and intellect. Even as a child I always thought that the statement of Abraham to Lazarus that “between us and you there is a great gulf fixed,” (Luke 16:26) was spiritually symbolic, that a great gulf did indeed lie between the Godwards and the earthwards. The upanishad is outlining this nature of this gulf for us by describing its effects on both.

The wise prefer the good–they are not enticed, coerced, or “somehow drawn” to the good. They intelligently–yes, intellectually–prefer it because they know its nature and its effects. This is true of everything in their life, mundane, mental, and spiritual. This is markedly true in the matter of religion. The religious expression of the wise is always, peaceful, clear, intelligent, informed, and practical–it works.

The foolish, however are not so. They truly are a “troubled sea” (Isaiah 57:20) “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind” (Ephesians 4:14) as Isaiah and Saint Paul observed. “Driven by fleshly desires,” it only follows that they prefer the pleasant to the good, for the “flesh” cannot even perceive the good to any appreciable degree; but they create a lot of illusions about it–all negative and self-assuring. Their religion is subhuman, of course, catering to their emotions and their demands for the indulgence of their whims and vices. However educated they may be, or how boring and dry their church services, still animality reigns and all manner of subhuman behavior is sanctioned and even elevated and “spiritualized.”

Wallowing in the sty of their comforting and indulgent religion, they cast many a contemptuous (and secretly guilty) glance at those who are not so, and create many a bon mot about their “unnatural denial and repressions” hinting of sinister implications for those who “run away from life” and “refuse to face themselves,” and “expect too much from themselves and others.” But they are still only talking pigs. Even though they like to say they are “only human” and that God understands they are.

Driven by pleasure/pain, their humanity becomes submerged in the animality impressed in their subconscious by millions of incarnations in subhuman forms. Merely possessing a human body is no guarantee of humanity. The redoubtable Dr. Bronner in a conversation with one of the monks of our ashram referred to some people as “not yet HUMAN!” He was right. A house does not make a home and a human body does not make a human. Humanity only dawns when intelligence dominates and wisdom is gained. We need not be intellectual in the academic sense, but we must be intelligent. Then if we use our intelligence there is a chance we may become wise and thereby cross the great gulf.

Subscribe to the Atma Jyoti Blog and get frequent spiritual sustenance with valuable writings on practical spiritual life.

“The good is one thing; the pleasant is another. These two, differing in their ends, both prompt to action. Blessed are they that choose the good; they that choose the pleasant miss the goal.”
–Katha Upanishad 1:2:1

“The good is one thing; the pleasant is another.” This does not have to be the situation–the problem is in us. Since the good dissolves the ego and frees us from its seemingly eternal domination and bondage, it is only natural that those who are inured, even addicted, to its rule will find the good bitter in the extreme. In the closing chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna speaks of the one who chooses the good: “Deep his delight after strict self-schooling: sour toil at first but at last what sweetness, the end of sorrow.” (Bhagavad Gita 18:37)

Who would not choose this? Just about everybody. Why? Because it requires “strict self-schooling.” We have to educate and deliver ourselves. Neither God nor any holy being can do it for us. Therefore those who cling to their ego-addiction avidly “take refuge” in and “surrender” to and “place all my trust” in God, gods, gurus, saints, teachers, a religion, and whatever, knowing at least subconsciously that it will not work, for they alone can do the needful. The Holy Ones have already done all they could do for them. They have given the message and pointed out the way. Now it is their turn to get to work. Otherwise nothing will happen. And in their perversity this satisfies them completely, though they cover it up with religiosity and “devotion.” Those who do wish to achieve the good must shake off their self-hypnosis and begin the labor. They will be surprised at how pleasant it really is, and in time will come to realize that they were enjoying pain and avoiding the real pleasure that is found only in spiritual life.

The poison of pleasure

Krishna describes the pleasant as essentially “sweet at first but at last how bitter: that pleasure is poison.” (Bhagavad Gita 18:38) It is not just harmful–it is deadly. Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of Saint John the Evangelist, wrote of those who, drinking a sweet drink that contains poison, “sweetly drink in their death.” (Epistle to the Trallians) “Aren’t we having fun?” “Come on–live!” “What are you afraid of?” “Why don’t you find out what it is all about?” “What do you know about life?” These are the desperate appeals of those whose consciousness is awakened enough for them to be tormented by the example of those who have more fully awakened and who “touch not the cup–it is death to the soul.”

The wise know that the good and the pleasant utterly differ in their ends. The pleasant leads to ever more addiction, a craving for ever-increasing intoxication, and finally complete collapse and destruction.

“When senses touch objects, the pleasures therefrom are like wombs that bear sorrow.They begin, they are ended. They bring no delight to the wise.” (Bhagavad Gita 5:22)

On the other hand:

“Self-controlled, cut free from desire, curbing the heart, and knowing the Atman, man finds Nirvana that is in Brahman, here and hereafter.” (Bhagavad Gita 5:26)

“For when a man’s heart has reached fulfillment through knowledge and personal experience of the truth of Brahman, he is never again moved by the things of the senses. Earth, stone and gold seem all alike to one who has mastered his senses. Such a yogi is said to have achieved union with Brahman. Then he knows that infinite happiness which can be realized by the purified heart but is beyond the grasp of the senses. He stands firm in this realization. Because of it, he can never again wander from the inmost truth of his being.” (Bhagavad Gita 6:8, 21)

The good also leads to complete collapse and destruction–the collapse and disintegration of the ego and its attendants, ignorance and desire. Then:

He knows bliss in the Atman, and wants nothing else. Cravings torment the heart: he renounces cravings. I call him illumined. (Bhagavad Gita 2:55)

The man of faith, whose heart is devoted, whose senses are mastered: he finds Brahman. Enlightened, he passes at once to the highest, the peace beyond passion. (Bhagavad Gita 4:39)

His mind is dead to the touch of the external: it is alive to the bliss of the Atman. Because his heart knows Brahman his happiness is for ever. (Bhagavad Gita 5:21)

Already, here on earth, before his departure, let man be the master of every impulse
Lust-begotten or fathered by anger: thus he finds Brahman, thus he is happy. (Bhagavad Gita 5:23)

Motivating forces

“These two, differing in their ends, both prompt to action.” Both the good and the pleasant impel us to actions, but they do so in completely different ways.

The good points us to the way of benefit in a completely intelligent and non-emotional way. For example, the good never motivates us by selfish means such as promising reward or threatening punishment–this is the way of evil, including much of religion. The good motivates us toward itself simply by revealing its inherent value.

The pleasant is altogether different. It only shows us its external appearance. It does not reason with us, but entices or even compels us to seize it. The pleasant only shows us its immediate or short-term effect, but completely hides from us its long-term effects and blinds us to its inherent defects. The archetypal example of this is found in the Bible. There we are told that “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” (Genesis 3:6) Here we see all the problems with the pleasant: only the external is considered, emotion and instinct come to dominate and eclipse reason, and the ultimate effect is completely unapparent.

In sum, the good reveals but the pleasant conceals. It is necessary that we see the good as truly good and the pleasant as harmful and even evil. This is not easy.

Next: Are We Wise or Foolish?

Subscribe to the Atma Jyoti Blog to read the latest posts as they are published.

Q: When I listen to people on TV that talk to spirits that have passed on, they say that we chose to come back as who we are in this life, so that almost sounds like it was a script we chose to live out. That seems to be that it was all written and what happens is predisposed.

We do indeed determine what each life is going to be in a general way. For reincarnation does not stand alone. In fact, it is not an entity unto itself, but is the result of karma, the law that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7). So every time we are about to reincarnate we look at our karmic balance sheet and decide just what karmas-good and bad-shall be reaped in the next life.

It is rather like plotting a drama in which we are going to be the star. Having outlined the play, we then work on our costume-the kind of body we are going to have-and the sets-the kind of place we are going to live in, who our families are going to be, and what kind of people will surround us. But all this is just the framework. Within that framework our free will, and that of those involved in our life, determines most of what goes on with us-especially inside us. And since even the framework is of our own construction, that too is completely a matter of free will, actually. Destiny is simply the free will we have already set in motion.

The famous French playwright, Moliere, did not write out the dialogue of his plays. Instead he wrote the plot-divided into scenes and acts-on a big blackboard which the actors read and then went out and improvised. After each performance they discussed how it had gone and made changes in the plot outline and refined the dialogue. When they felt it was as good as it could be, it was all written down with stage directions and printed for others to act from. This is very much like our life as we live out performance after performance through reincarnation.

Examples of Karma

Let me give some examples of karma. If we are meant to be the renowned leader of a great army, it is a pretty safe bet that we will have to choose to be a man. And our male body will have to be healthy. If we are meant to fight on the side of good, then we will have to be born in a country whose policies are for the right things. And we will have to be born in a country that has a large army. And it have to be that country’s karma to engage in warfare. We will have to find the place to be born that can supply us with all this.

Now where does free will come in? Everywhere. Because what I have outlined is just the skeleton of a life. Each person has to fill in the spaces, and they usually are far more than the simple karmic bones.

We choose how we go

Another thing about free will and destiny. We may be destined to go to Chicago, but we will choose how we go: bus, train, plane, car, or hitchhike, and if we hitchhike or drive we will decide what route we want to take. The road of karma has many (very many) branches, and we decide when we come to them which one to take. So we move freely within a predetermined framework. If we want to build a fence it can only be within the boundaries of the land we own. If we live on an island we can only travel within its boundaries. So we do have freedom, but it is not unlimited.

It also happens very often that our karma is not to do something, but to have the chance to do it. In some lives we may have the possibility to take up several professions, and we are completely free to choose from those. So we do a lot of “I will” and “I won’t” within the framework of our karma. Those choices in their own turn create karma which will manifest in the future. When we look at it, we see ourselves as both caught in the machine of karma and at the same time as the free owner and operator of the karma. Ultimately, it is freedom that is the truth of the whole thing.

Yes, it is all predisposed-by us. Yet, as I have said, the predisposition is only a general outline. At every moment we fill in the details, choosing right then.

Keep up-to-date with the latest posts. Subscribe to the Atma Jyoti Blog.

A Continuation of “Worship and Discipline and the Gunas”

Tamas (dullness, inertia, and ignorance)

“When the givers of the sacrifice are inspired by tamas, they disregard the scriptural instructions: there is no food-offering, no prayer of dedication, no gift to the chief priest, and no faith at all.”
–Bhagavad Gita 17:13

Sometimes we have to pay attention to ignorance to figure out the ways of wisdom. And that is the case here regarding tamasic religion. This is a very full picture of deluded and confused “spirituality.” and we need to look at it so we can avoid it.

• Disregard of scriptural instructions

The word used here is very interesting: vidhihinam–which means both “lacking scriptures” and “discarding scriptures.” Krishna is implying here that scriptures are necessary for real spiritual life. However, in the East any book that contains wisdom is considered a scripture, even if it was written this morning. So Krishna is speaking of the wisdom of enlightened teachers that have been put into words and set down for our help in pursuing spiritual life. He is also referring to a spiritual tradition–not narrow and sectarian, but a tradition, nonetheless. In the West we tend wisely to shy away from “tradition” because of the deadly ignorance of those who boast of being “traditional.” But in the East tradition is always subject to intelligent scrutiny and is never a matter of “the book says it, so I believe it.”

Most important, authentic spiritual tradition is understood to be verifiable by each seeker for himself. In the West many are satisfied with intellectual jugglerly and argumentation, but in the East it is practical experience that is sought. Whenever I quote a scripture in my writings I certainly think of it as lending authority to what I have to say, but I usually use quotations simply because the scriptures say it much better than I can.

So tamasic religion is that which has no authentic scripture(s), no viable tradition(s). It may either be the shallow and flimsy “make up my own” whimsical kind, or a religion burdened with fantasy and lies claiming to be God’s latest revelation to the world. Either way, its characteristic is the darkness, confusion, and delusion of tamas.

On the other hand, some tamasic religion may have a great deal of scriptures in which true wisdom is to be found, but the leaders and adherents prefer to ignore the wisdom and subvert the teaching to suit their own fancy. So, while adulating the scriptures they really cast them aside. Consider the way every religion manages to condone spiritually poisonous behavior and thought, wresting the scriptures to not only approve, but often to advocate them. No religion is free from this, as anyone with open-eyed experience and observation will know. Often the divine light of holy wisdom is completely covered by the evil and untruth of a religion’s popular form.

Finally, vidhihinam can also simply mean “without knowledge (vidya)” or “discarding (ignoring) knowledge.” In other words, ignorant and ineffectual religion that boasts of its “faith” since it has no substance or reality. Today we find many religious currents in the world that were born in ignorance, and went on from there to greater ignorance. There are also religions that started out with authentic spiritual knowledge, with true spiritual revelation, but turned away from it in order to gain power and wealth. This is especially the case with state religions, or those that used to be state religions. Having remodeled their spiritual structure to suit their patrons, they lost their original value, and often the patronage, as well. Christianity is the latest and most blatant example of this.

• No food-offering

Asrishtannam means food that is either not offered, or is not shared out after the offering. This is an important part in Eastern religion of whatever kind. There is always offering of food which is then distributed to those present–usually in the form of an abundant feast. But the selfish refuse to do so, and their religion becomes one of taking but not giving. This is the mark of any cult–old or new.

No prayer of dedication. I think that Swami Prabhavananda had in mind the mantra known as the sankalpa which is recited at the beginning of any ritual, stating its purpose and dedication. Its absence would indicate religion that is vague, even purposeless, performed in a rote way simply for the doing of it, or religion whose real purpose is not at all grasped, and is therefore meaningless. But mantrahinam is like vidhihinam; it has the dual meaning of “without mantra” or “disregarding mantra.” This indicates religion that is without order or legitimacy, and especially religion that is without power, for power (effectiveness) is the fundamental characteristic of mantra. So we are looking at a religion that never had any spiritual power, or has come to discard–and even deny–that power. It can also be applied to the adherents of a religion that does have power and knowledge, but regarding which they are either ignorant or indifferent.

• No gift to the chief priest

Adakshinam simply means “without fee” or voluntary offering. This means a religion in which the members engage in take-but-no-give policy–the obverse side of the type where the religion only demands and takes. Such religion is proud of the fact that it expects nothing of its adherents, and they are proud of that, too. “Our religion is democratic ,” they boast. “You don’t need to do anything you don’t want to.” They confuse democracy with anarchy. It is certainly true that in worthy religion the members are not coerced or cajoled in any way. But people that want to avoid all involvment, commitment, or investment of time and thought are unworthy of such a religion and will never benefit from it until they change their outlook.

Such religion often denies the fact of priesthood or hierachial realities, refusing to recognize that some people may be more spiritually skilled or knowledgous than others. Such religion revels in a kind of egalitarianism that suppresses anything but lock-step standardization and mediocrity. “The priesthood of all believers” sounds nice, but it often masks ineffectiveness and repression.

Adakshinam also indicates a kind of selfish materialism that hates expenditure of time, effort, or even money on religion. My great-aunt Lou Maxey not only never put anything in the collection plate, she would grimly shake her head No whenever it came by her! But she was one of the first to head to the back of the church to get a free copy of the weekly church magazine. Deadbeat religion is nothing new.

At the opposite pole are the saints–that is why they are saints. As Mirabai, the great poet/musician saint of India wrote: “I have sold everything in the marketplace of this world and bought my Khanaia (Krishna). Some laugh at me and say the price was too great, and some say that the price was too small. But Mira only knows that it was everything she had.”

• No faith at all

The last quality of tamasic religion listed is shraddhavirahitam–devoid of faith or having abandoned faith. To really understand this, we must remember that shraddha is not mere intellectual belief, but an interior, intuitive conviction that arises as an enlivening of the inner intelligence of an individual. In other words, a religion of shraddha is a religion that is spiritually alive, and therefore inwardly perceptive. In the sixth chapter of the Gita we have this description of one who has this divine shraddha: “The mind of the yogi knows that Brahman:…the way is easy, Brahman has touched him.…He never loses sight of me, nor I of him.” (Bhagavad Gita 6:27, 28, 30) This is the religion we should seek, realizing that it can be hinted at outwardly, but can only be achieved inwardly. As Jesus said (Luke 17:21): “The kingdom of God is within you”–actually is you.

Tamasic religion really has no genuine perception at all–it is only obscurity and confusion. However, there are degrees of tamas (as with the other gunas, as well), and we can encounter people who have no faith in their religion because they dimly intuit that it is nonsense. But, being tamasic–one quality of which is inertia–they stay with it and go through the motions knowing it means nothing. Here, too, we find religions that once had a mystical aspect but jettisoned it for material gain or from spiritual blindness resulting from impurity and dulness of heart. There are individuals that are the same. For whatever reason they blind themselves to the insights they once had and become wanderers in the fog along with so many others. I have seen people do this for various reasons, but result was always the same: inner death. And I have never seen one regain what they willfully cast aside. Rebirth alone will restore it to them, and after how long a struggle?

The whole subject of tamasic religion is certainly gloomy, but spiritual adults know they have to acknowledge a lot of facts that are not pretty or pleasant, just as in material life unpleasant realities much be faced. The up side of the whole thing is that having given careful consideration to the matter we can avoid slipping into its ways and ourselves losing our inner vision.

The wise traveller knows both the right and the wrong roads.

Related post: How to Misuse Your Power of Thought

Keep up to date with the latest posts. Subscribe to the Atma Jyoti Blog.

Whenever the word “sacrifice” is used in the Gita it covers the entire range of spiritual practice and spiritual life in general. In the following verses ritualistic worship–and no doubt the fire sacrifice–is certainly referred to, but it applies in the wider sense just mentioned.

For those not familiar with the terms used in this article, here are some definitions from A Brief Sanskrit Glossary:

Guna: Quality, attribute, or characteristic arising from nature (Prakriti) itself; a mode of energy behavior. As a rule, when “guna” is used it is in reference to the three qualities of Prakriti, the three modes of energy behavior that are the basic qualities of nature, and which determine the inherent characteristics of all created things. They are: 1) sattwa–purity, light, harmony; 2) rajas–activity, passion; and 3) tamas–dullness, inertia, and ignorance.

Sattwa

“When men offer sacrifice in accordance with scriptural instructions, and do not desire any advantage for themselves, they are inspired by sattwa. Their hearts are set upon the sacrifice, for its own sake. An inner sense of duty impels them.”
–Bhagavad Gita 17:11
Sargeant’s translation: “Sacrifice which is offered, observing the scriptures, by those who do not desire the fruit, concentrating the mind only on the thought, “This is to be sacrificed;” that sacrifice is sattwic.”

Sattwa alone leads to liberation, so it is wise to order our spiritual life according to its traits as listed here.

First, we are told that sattwic life is lived according to the principles of the scriptures. This includes the teachings and counsels of those who have attained higher consciousness. It is necessary for us who have not traveled the path to consider the advice of those who have successfully traversed it. We need not be slavish or idolatrous about any scripture or teaching, but we need to seriously consider the words of those who have been inspired from within to lead humanity toward higher life. Mary Baker Eddy very aptly called such persons Way-Showers. This implies a very practical attitude toward them: they are not gods or absolute authorities, but they show the way to succeed in spiritual life. They are not interested in imparting a philosophy, but in showing us how to attain the Highest.

Just as a person experienced and skilled in something can teach others, so do they. It is always a clear matter of cause and effect. It either works or it doesn’t. Belief, obedience, or “surrender” have absolutely nothing to do with it. At all times it is according to the judgment of the seeker. Sometimes we have to follow a path to find out for ourself if it works. And nothing is sadder than those who spend years getting nowhere, yet clinging to a worthless discipline because they have “committed” themselves to it or–even worse–have entered into some pathological personal compact that enslaves them and blinds them to the evident valueless character of that path or association. Most unfortunate of all are those who are bound and blinded by “love” for the teacher or group that is stagnating and devastating their lives and hearts. “Loyalty” is the slave-collar about their neck.

Next we are told that spiritual life is not engaged in for personal gain in the external sense, but rather as an offering to the Divine both within and without. Such a way of life is not engaged in for any other motive than being in harmony with the cosmic order the ancient sages of India called Ritam. Truly spiritual people live a spiritual life because it is according to their true nature. They are expressing their inmost being. They are not trying to become something, but are moving out of darkness into the light so they can know what they really are–to behold their eternal Self, that which Buddhists call the Original Nature. Real spiritual life is not loading ourselves with an array of spiritual paraphernalia, but divesting ourselves of all that is not us.

Rajas

“But you may be sure that the performance of sacrifice for outward show, and in the hope of divine reward, is inspired by rajas.”
–Bhagavad Gita 17:12

This pretty well describes nearly all the religious or spiritual life of human beings! Those who are interested in the good will or admiration of man and God and hope to receive whatever they desire in return for their religiosity are in the grip of the rajasic ego. Ultimately it leads nowhere but back to more rebirth and confusion.

Next: Paying Attention to Ignorance to Learn the Ways of Wisdom. An article describing the influence of tamas on worship and discipline.

Keep up to date with the latest posts. Subscribe to the Atma Jyoti Blog.