Entries Tagged as 'Q & A'
January 25th, 2012
Q: In Gaudiya and other Vaishnava traditions, the view seems to be that the devoted bhakta eventually goes to Vaikuntha to be eternally with the Lord, whereas they believe the lesser, advaita way of doing things will leave the advaitin to merge with “the void/Brahman” instead of enjoying Vaikuntha.
On the other hand, Advaita Vedanta seems to advocate that all will essentially merge with Brahman, regardless of the path. Could you help explain your views on all this? I am feeling somewhat lost in the big city that Hinduism can be.
You are right, Hinduism is “the big city,” but that is because it is all-embracing. Every possible truth and view of that truth was long ago set forth by the sages of India. However in contemporary India we can find a lot of errant nonsense, for some parts of the big city have become slums and others are really outside the city limits even if they appear to be inside.
The truth as set forth in the upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita is the same: the goal of the individual is to unite with Brahman the Absolute. Then, like Brahman they can do/be whatever they like. Just as Brahman is both with and without qualities and both with and without form, so they can be. To say that one is superior or more ultimate than the other is to miss the point: Brahman is beyond such distinctions, for Brahman is absolutely ONE. In fact, Brahman transcends anything that can be said about It. The wise seek the Goal and leave the talk to others. As they say in the American South: “The empty wagon rattles the most.”
The upanishads and Gita affirm the eternal, divine nature of the atman-self. It, too, is part of Brahman. This perspective is essential to right understanding of any philosophical point.
You mention both the personal, and impersonal aspects of God in an article. You say that since Brahman can manifest as the transient universe, then obviously he can manifest as a deity (according to the particular devotee) as well. I certainly agree with you. My only thing is, the existence of the personal god in that way seems dependent upon an individual to perceive and need such a thing.
Again, remember that Brahman and the jiva are really one and inseparable and in a sense interdependent. Consequently as the jiva moves toward the Goal, whatever it needs will come to it or arise in its consciousness.
Are paths like bhakti and the impersonal advaitic path of yoga and meditation, equal? Do they all lead to the same thing?
Certainly, because there is only the One to realize. The Bhagavad Gita affirms this unequivocally.
Are a personal god and the impersonal brahman on the same level, or is one more ultimate than the other?
There is only The One. Our distinctions rise from our limited, unenlightened consciousness.
“Therefore, become a yogi” (Bhagavad Gita 6:46).
More Hidden Gems:
[Note: We have been working with our email service, Benchmark, on the problem where the day after a blog post goes out, an empty email is sent. Hopefully this issue is a thing of the past. Thanks for your patience.]
Tags: India · Practical Wisdom · Q & A
December 28th, 2011
Q: You have written: “All spiritual life is self-initiated from within; we are both guru and disciple as Krishna and Arjuna symbolize in the Bhagavad Gita.” Do you believe Krishna to be a real person who came to earth, and spoke the Bhagavad Gita, or do you hold that the Gita is purely symbolical? I feel confused on the idea of what the avatars of Vishnu/Krishna really stand for. (Answer below photo.)
Certainly Yadava Krishna was a historical person as was Arjuna, and they were involved in the Mahabharata war–also a historical reality. But it is stretching it to believe that Krishna and Arjuna spoke to each other in poetic meter and that the several hundred verses of the Gita are a continuous conversation just before the battle.
We can be sure that Krishna spoke to Arjuna regarding the war and his obligations in relation to it, but it seems a bit silly to think that at that time he discoursed at length on such subjects as diet being a reflection of the predominant guna of a person, the constituents of Maya/Prakriti, and other technicalities of the sankhya philosophy.
Someone once remarked to Paramhansa Nityananda of Ganeshpuri: “In the Gita Krishna said…,” and Nityananda interrupted him, saying: “No. Vyasa said that Krishna said….” Although the Mahabharata war actually took place, Vyasa used it as a symbol of the battle that faces all serious sadhakas, and Krishna and Arjuna are symbols of the internal dialogue that takes place between the higher and lower “selves” of the individual.
The Bhagavad Gita is the supreme scripture; none are equal to it. Even the upanishads that are extensively cited in the Gita are not its equal, because they are only philosophical and the Gita is the perfect synthesis of philosophy, practical dharmic life, and yoga.
The Gita should be the daily study of the aspirant to liberation, because it not only presents the principles of truth, it also reveals the attitude, the entire psychology, of the person who is going to attain liberation. Many of the deluded and fraudulent yogis, masters, and avatars that abound in India and throughout the yoga world would not succeed if people looked at them with the perspective of the Gita on what is the real nature of enlightenment.
The rajor’s-edge path to the Supreme is extremely difficult to traverse because of the many ways in which our clouded and deluded mind can lead us astray or spoil our needed focus. The Gita alone keeps correcting us and holding us on the right path–provided that we do not approach it with preconceived, sectarian ideas.
There are two views on avatars:
- That the Absolute manifests a body through Its yogamaya power and only appears to be born and live as a human being and eventually die.
- A totally liberated jiva has attained such perfect union with Brahman that all differences (but not distinctions) have been erased between its consciousness and that of Brahman. When such a one is born–not by karmic compulsion but through its liberated will–practically speaking that jiva is an avatar. And since Krishna says in the Gita (9:15): “The countless god are only my million faces,” when a liberated being is seen to predominately reflect the traits of a “deity” he is often said to be an avatar of that god. But that should be understood psychologically, not literally.
Fortunately, authentic Sanatana Dharma is not dogmatic, so everyone is free to decide which of these two views they feel is correct. Since the real question is “Who am I?” it is a waste of time to go round and round as to who Krishna or anyone else might be.
Further Reading:
Tags: Q & A · Teachings of Krishna
November 22nd, 2011
Q: What is the purpose or mission of Sanatana Dharma?
Let us consider the basics of growth as it takes place on this earth. The sun shines and warms the earth and the seeds in the earth. This stimulates the life principle in the seeds and they grow upward into the light. It is a very natural thing. Here, too, we would think someone crazy who would sit out in a field and yell at the plants to grow, promising rewards if they do and threatening punishments if they do not.
When we are dealing with human beings we are dealing with potentially infinite consciousnesses, with gods in embryo. We consider that we are dealing with a spark of God’s own life, because we do not believe God created the spirit. We believe that each individual spirit has existed eternally within God. So we consider that we are dealing with a potential god, and act accordingly. Gods should not be poked, pinched, and pulled.
Maria Montessori came to see that children should not be coerced to learn any subject. She proved that a subject need only be presented to them and when they are ready for it they will respond–until then they will not, and should not. Our present system of education fails because it assumes that chronological age determines readiness for learning. Maria Montessori, being a believer in reincarnation (though a Roman Catholic) understood that this was a matter of evolution, and that everything would come to pass in its own good and right time. This is why no child goes through the Montessori system and comes out having not learned. It is successful because it is based on the evolutionary nature of things.
We follow the same procedure. We present. The response is up to the individual. And any response, Yes, No, or Maybe, is fine. Certainly there are those who at their present stage of evolution need what we offer. But they have to recognize that themselves; it is not for us to tell them. It is definitely our duty to be there for those who need us, and we should let ourselves be visible. Beyond that it is their hands.
I learned something very early in my first visit to India. The fake teachers were more than volunteering their “wisdom,” they were cornering people and forcing it on them. But the real teachers had to be asked for instruction. Otherwise they just conversed affably on unimportant matters. Their insight was that only when the question arises in the mind of the seeker is he ready for the answer. Until then the teacher can do nothing worthwhile
Consider the material on our website: it is a matter of simple presentation, of visibility. If someone reads the material and says that they believe what is in them because they “convinced” them, we are not satisfied. That means they are simply spinning in the realm of the intellect and not in touch with their real inner self–something that has to be for conscious spiritual growth. Also, they should not be accepting our ideas. It should be a matter of their own conviction that arises from deep within. We cannot eat or digest for other people, and neither can we reveal wisdom to them. What we can do is present wisdom, and they can recognize it through their own inner response.
So what do we want people to say about the web material? We want them to say the truth. It they think it is nonsense, that is perfectly all right. For them it IS nonsense. We do like someone to say: “I had never thought of it before, but when I read what you wrote I realized that it was the truth and that I had always believed it somewhere in the back of my mind.” In other words, we did not convince them of the truth, they recognized it as already being part of their inner intuition that had not heretofore been verbalized. The word “education” comes from the Latin, its literal meaning is “to lead out” That is, real education is the process of evoking the student’s innate knowledge, of bringing it out so he can consciously work with it. It is a reminding him of what he really already knows. Not many people are educated, then, nor are many people authentically religious or spiritual. And we cannot make them so. They have to grow into it. Then we can help further their growth by showing them how to pass from natural automatic evolution into intentional evolution.
From the lowest form of life up to and including a great deal of the human experience, evolution happens automatically with no intention or effort on our part. We just live and it happens. But a time must come–the real time of “conversion” or being “born again”–when the individual must take control of his own evolution and consciously direct and produce it. For at that point it will no longer come automatically. It is somewhat like a child who at a certain age must learn to dress himself and in time make his own living. He must finally do on his own, for himself, what others had heretofore done for him.
The earlier “child” evolution is natural or automatic. The “adult” evolution is completely in the purview of the individual. A religion that cannot show a person how to do this is not of much use to an awakening person. The wandering spirit has forgotten itself and its attendant realities. It does not need to be taught, it need only be reminded, profound as that experience is. That is the sole purpose of Sanatana Dharma.
Hidden Gems from the Atma Jyoti Blog:
Tags: Q & A
April 10th, 2011
Q: What is the point in worshiping the Divine forms as God? Do they have any existence apart from the imagination? Since the reality and goal is pure consciousness, does it distract our attention from the truth? Is the Saguna worship meant for developing concentration?
In the Gita we find these two very important verses:
- “Others worship me, knowing Brahman in all things: some see me one with themselves, or separate: some bow to the countless gods that are only my million faces” (Bhagavad Gita 9:15).
- “Whatever wish men bring me in worship, that wish I grant them. Whatever path men travel is my path: no matter where they walk it leads to me” (Bhagavad Gita 4:11).
From these verses we see that God is merciful and takes into account our weakness and lack of understanding. However, it is certainly more correct to worship God in a formless manner. Here is something I recently wrote on the subject:
“Now this is very important: When we want to swim in the ocean, we do not dive into a particular wave, but into the ocean itself–though we may pass through a wave. Also, the wave, being only a manifestation on the surface of the ocean must be left behind if we are to sound the depths of the ocean. If we stay with the wave, we will remain as separated as the wave is from the ocean. If we ‘ride’ the wave like a surfer we will find ourselves being thrown onto the shore and out of the ocean. It is the same with meditation on names and forms–whether of ‘gods’ or liberated ‘masters’–rather than diving down where name and form cannot go. This is the only way to get beyond unreality, darkness, and mortality.
We must meditate on the Self–not on external deities or symbolic forms of psychic states. As Sri Ma Sarada Devi said: ‘After attaining wisdom one sees that gods and deities are all maya’ (Precepts For Perfection 672). The major upanishads, Gita, and Yoga Sutras know nothing of meditating on ‘gods’ or ‘ishta devatas’–only on Om, for only Om is our Self. Here are a few upanishadic statements on the subject:
“The Self is of the nature of the Syllable Om. Thus the Syllable Om is the very Self (Mandukya Upanishad 1.8.12).
“Directly realize the self by meditating on Om (Vedantasara Upanishad 1).
“Meditate on Om as the Self (Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.3-6).
“Om is the atman himself (Narasingha Uttara-Tapiniya Upanishad).
“Om is a single syllable that is of the nature of the Self.…Om is the true form of the Self (Tarasara Upanishad).”
The usual excuse for saguna worship is that it enables the devotee to concentrate his mind and prepare him for meditation. But in fifty years I have never found this to be true for anyone. You must start out with what you want to end up with. Right meditation alone concentrates the mind in a meaningful manner.
That is why Sri Gajanana Maharaj of Nasik said: “Some people say that meditating upon Nirakara [the Formless Reality] is difficult. But in my opinion it is very easy and in addition it is natural. A man easily gets into the state of Samadhi by meditating upon Nirakara. The path of doing so is, however, concealed and secret. Once you get it you can be in that state although outwardly you may be talking, laughing, playing, or sleeping. This power is concealed like the river Saraswati. As some people have not understood this secret path, therefore, they say that it is difficult, and that it would require the passing of various lives to obtain success in it.”
More Questions and Answers:
Tags: Meditation · Q & A
March 4th, 2011
From time to time we receive questions on a wide range of spiritual topics. Here are answers to just a few. We invite your questions by email on spiritual and philosophical matters. More Questions and Answers can be found at the Atma Jyoti Website. [Readers of the monthly Atma Jyoti Newsletter will have already seen this, but we wanted to share it with our Blog readers also]
- Q: Does God pay personal attention to our needs as most people think? If our sole purpose is to reunite with God, I get the idea that it is kind of one-sided. We do all the work and He sits there waiting for us to figure it out.
The sum of it all is this: God is everything. There is a single, unitary field of conscious (intelligent) Being. It is One. Yet in this Unity there is an eternal diversity–that is where “we” come in. God (Brahman) being Pure Awareness, It cannot but be aware of us in totality. The cosmos is also Divine–whether we see it as real or as a “dream” of God. And remember: we are thoroughly one with Creation and Creator. There is no point at which we leave off and That begins. So we are also the universe and the God of the Universe which responds to us. Separation is completely impossible. Therefore, when we decide to evolve everything begins to move toward that–even the things that seem to oppose it. God is in the mix right there with us. The Gita explains this, saying that God is in the heart of all beings. And since Brahman is the sole power, It is working right along with us. Is God “He” or “It”? Both, since He embraces all modes of being. Let me tell you, God is no simplistic bore!
- Do I have this right? The Atman is the part of God that is within each of us (like a drop of water in the ocean) and Brahman is the entire ocean?
That is correct. We are in God and God is in us. He is the Whole and we are the parts. But this is only the way we have to speak about it. In reality there is only the Divine Unity which we see variously–and not necessarily erroneously. Few things are more tiresome than those who seek to tell God and us what He and we cannot do. It is beyond all thought and concept, but not beyond experiencing. “Therefore, Arjuna, become a yogi.” (Bhagavad Gita 6:46)
- Sometimes I am overwhelmed by how little I know and how much I have to learn.
Don’t worry. You have an infinite capacity for knowing (which is much better than “knowledge”) and eternity in which to gain it.
- Can we really pray for another and affect their life or health? Is it right to try to intervene in another’s life through prayer?
Actually, when we pray for another person we are simply supplying them with the positive energies needed to help them. If their inner mind is receptive and agreeable, they are benefited. If not, the blessing energy comes back to the senders and we are helped! This is why prayers are not “answered” for a long time and then suddenly it seems to work. The decisive factor was the inner will of the one prayed for. Keep in mind that karma is both absolute and flexible–however our inner minds are reacting to or projecting it.
- What is your opinion of suicide?
As you can imagine, Sanatana Dharma views suicide differently from other religions, since its fundamental principle is the divinity of the individual. Here is how they see it:
Suicide is the most destructive thing a person can do because it takes such a tremendous act of will, and in future lives this can cause the person to be born wanting to die and–even worse–create the habit of suicide. For the situation that “drove” him to suicide will come up again and again until he works through it–in the sense of understanding and dealing with it.
In India it is commonly believed that a suicide goes into a kind of void, an astral version of solitary confinement. As a consequence, no prayers are offered for the suicide until a year has gone by. Many feel that a person stays “in solitary” until their normal lifespan has gone by, that a twenty-year-old destined to live for eighty will pass sixty years in that terrible condition.
I expect this is right as far as the immediate consequences, but since there are no cookie-cutter “divine legislative” rules about anyone’s life (or death) it only makes sense to pray for and send healing vibrations to the person from the time of their death. For after all, they may have sometime before the final moment realized their folly and wished that they had not made that mistake. That alone could turn them back from experiencing the void and enable them to have the astral experiences of someone who died because of foolish self-neglect. As Jesus said: “Blessed are the merciful.”
- Can others really help us, or do we have to do it all ourselves?
Each of us in eternally perfect by nature. Therefore any improvement occurs only because that perfection is being uncovered–never is it a matter of being “made better.” This is so important to realize, because we tend to think of needing to become something or have someone else (including God) change us. Rather, external factors (including books and teachers) are catalysts for the revelation of our inner perfection. They are valuable and in many instances necessary, but it is erroneous to attribute to them any power to make us something we are not already. They are worthy of respect, but our Self is worthy of reverence! As my beloved friend, Swami Sivananda used to sing: “Know your Self and be free.”
We must “give permission” for improvement to take place on any level of our existence. No external factors really “do it”–they only trigger our own realization. Sri Ramakrishna often said: “The mind is everything.”
And we never really affect others–they respond to us. That is why if we wrong an ordinary person they will hate us and if we wrong a saint they will forgive us. We “affect” them according to their nature. “Even a wise man acts according to the tendencies of his own nature. All living creatures follow their tendencies.” (Bhagavad Gita 3:33)
There are many ideas about what constitutes a Master. I will give you mine so you will know what I mean by it in my writings.
Essentially, a Master is a liberated being. Such a one is a master of himself–not of others. And a real Master wants others to become Masters–not his disciples. As the great Master, Neem Karoli Baba, would say: “I do not make disciples–I make devotees of God.”
There are three major benefits of being with a Master: 1) His presence awakens spiritual consciousness. 2) His presence arouses inner spiritual energy (shaktipat). 3) He can teach you the way to attain what he has attained and advise you as you apply what he has taught you.
Beside these three benefits is a fourth and wonderful benefit: A Master does virtually nothing but the three things I have listed. He will not “guide your thoughts,” direct your life, claim to be taking on your karma, or tell you he knows a “shortcut” to God realization. (Whether a yogi runs or walks he still has to go through the full length of the path. There are faster and slower ways of travelling the path, but no short ways.) Often he will answer philosophical questions, but will let you know that only practice matters–not philosophizing. Furthermore, he will not manipulate or blackmail you with talk of “unconditional love” or pretend to either offer or demand it. You do not need “love.” You need God Who is love. That a Master wants you to have. No true Master will create or cultivate a “relationship” with you, because it cannot be done. You can only relate to the One. And when you do, then you will be one with everyone and everything. You will yourself be a Master. A Master will never ask you to make promises or commitments, knowing that you will do what you will do–and not a bit more. A Master never makes, accepts, or demands a vow. In fact, a Master will reject such things.
Do you get the idea? A Master will help you to become free; an adult, not a child; independent, not dependent. If your childish ego demands anything less a Master will truthfully tell you to look elsewhere. (There is a lot of “elsewhere” for you to find what you want.)
Here is what you CAN do: Listen; Learn; Practice; Experience; Know. That is it. Anything more is impossible, and anything less is worthless.
You can be with a Master, though your bodies are not in the same place. The Master Yogi Shyama Charan Lahiri (known in Autobiography of a Yogi as “Lahiri Mahasaya”) would tell his students: “Why come to view my bones and flesh, when I am ever within range of your kutastha (spiritual sight)?” Those who do what I have outlined above will ever be in contact with the Master every step of their life. The worthy student is never alone.
Tags: Practical Wisdom · Q & A
January 21st, 2011
Q: I recently read the article posted on your site called “The Yogi’s Inner Life.” My question regards the yogi’s seat as described in the Bhagavad Gita that you comment on. You mention that the kusha grass mat and deer skin insulate against the earth’s subtle energies. Can you tell what these subtle energies are? Also, it has been found that connecting to the earth with bare feet or hands has a healthy, healing effect so I was wondering why it would be detrimental to meditate connected to the earth.
T he earth has many energies circulating in it, and they are all necessary. However, they are very material oriented and produce strong body consciousness. The base chakra, the muladhara, is a repository of these “earth currents,” so when we sit for meditation it is good for that time to minimize their flow into us. (At other times they are, as I say, necessary for health of our body, which is why it is detrimental to wear leather or any other hindrances to bioenergetic flow.)
In meditation we need to become temporarily disconnected from all the magnetic forces that pull our awareness either downward or outward. For this reason the Gita instructs us to sit upright with a straight spine so the subtle life force (prana) will begin to flow upward into the head, into the thousand-petalled lotus (sahasrara chakra) and enliven the various centers of higher awareness located in the physical, astral, and causal brains.
At the end of meditation those subtle energies return to their usual places in the body, but now they are purified and have a much higher rate of vibration, so they benefit the entire body. In yoga, as in other endeavors, there is a time and place for everything–but in their right order.
Further reading:
Tags: Meditation · Q & A · Teachings of Krishna
Subscribe via RSS to the Atma Jyoti Blog 
What Is RSS?