Gnosis-ery

I subscribe to a blog here at WordPress called Isma’ili Gnosis. I don’t read all of the posts that are published because I prefer to spend my already terribly limited time doing other things that are a little more applicable to my personal path.

Isma’ilism seems to be Sufism. And in many ways, on a number of levels, Sufism is closely related to my path with the Sahaj Marg / Heartfulness…. “path of the Heart” and all that. Honestly, I think it’s because of having spent a couple of years studying Islam intensely and now walking a path that carries its own “flavor” of Sufism that I can stomach Islam really almost more than I can Christianity.

There’s a post on the Isma’ili Gnosis site that I want to draw your attention to. It’s a post meant to explain the “strongest argument for the existence of God” and as you would expect it’s a long and kinda meaty post. You can find it here. I’m not sure I stand by every word of the post itself, but a lot of it is legit from where I sit. The second full paragraph was something that struck me. It reads,

“Two major reasons for the growing popularity of atheism and agnosticism among people today are that a) most people are not exposed to the classical concept of God within their own religious tradition and instead are made to believe in an anthropomorphic image of God and  b) the positive arguments for God’s existence are poorly understood and misrepresented by both atheists and people of faith.”

To be clear, I really don’t take issue with “the growing popularity of atheism and agnosticism.” It’s my firm belief that those paths are no less valid than any other and I also firmly believe that anyone walking either or both of those paths will absolutely and undoubtedly arrive at whatever my own final destination is. There can be no other option.

Beyond that, I agree with the two other points in the paragraph. As far as “a” is concerned, a huge problem of today – in all kinds of contexts – is that no one really knows what they’re talking about. We settle for snips-n-clips from lots of different places, half of which oughtn’t be trusted – and we assume those tidbits of info are the sole and whole truth. This, dear readers, is wholly dangerous. It’s because of this that, for example, Christians, are almost universally ignorant of the real depth of their own holy texts. (I’ll generalize here because in this case it’s pretty well safe to.) The texts that now make up what is known as the Christian Bible are quite varied in regard to original intent, original content, original language, etc… And much more than just those things, never mind additional factors like cultural norms of the time and other such things that really should be taken into consideration. Christians today – generally – have very little recognition that their own cherished path originally amounted to what we now would absolutely label as a Middle Eastern cult… which even today are problematic. And Christians aren’t alone in this systemic ignorance. All that to say … Point “a” is correct. Too many of us known too little about the things we cling to.

A side effect of this terrible ignorance is the mention of an anthropomorphic image of God. I’ve written here probably more than once about what a terrible idea it is to humanize God and how faulty any conception of God is that exhibits traits that too closely resemble human behavior. It. Is Dangerous. And it is dangerous whether you revere Christ or Krishna.

Point “b” from the paragraph quoted here is also important. On Facebook, I follow a variety of groups from all walks of life. There’s a “godless and irreligious” group whose posts I see. And really, even outside of Facebook posts this remains true – I’ve visited atheist websites and I own a number of atheistic books. Something I have noticed is that Atheists mostly only have stones to throw at the Abrahamic religions. Seriously, I’ve viewed A LOT of atheist material and I don’t think it’s too inaccurate to say that not more than 3% of all I’ve ever seen has been directed toward Dharmic religions. Almost always their “targets” are Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I think this is indicative in its own way but this also seems to be the other side of the coin of what’s mentioned in regard to positive arguments simply not being known by either side.

Anyway, read the post. Because I said. It’s for your own good.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Advertisement

lärm

 

It’s been a minute since I was last here on Sthapati and I have plenty to catch up on. Something that comes to mind, that I think I’ve been meaning to write about is religious noise.

A long time ago I saw a quote of Mata Amrtanandamayi Ma (Amma, the Hugging Saint) wherein she was to have said something along the lines of, “Those who are busy crying out to the Lord, are likely never to hear Him.” Those aren’t her words, but are some kind of approximation. The exact wording escapes me but the lesson she was communicating touches on something that is central and foundational to Hindu spirituality.

I was reading recently on a blog called the Vaishnava Voice and in a post there the author kind of touched on this in a round-about way. Kind of.

Most people who are familiar with Hindu philosophy or religion or spirituality are also likely familiar with the concept of bhakti. And I think it’s fairly safe to say that the image of bhakti that often comes to peoples’ minds is along the lines of the Hare Krishna movement. They’re well-recognized for their public kirtan events. A number of other instances of the expression of bhakti have involved components of religion that many in the western world recognize as very charismatic. In order to best express our devotion to The One we should dance, and holler, and bang or mrdangas. Right?

Too, many Christian circles are fond of this approach. Some seem very closely related to the Kraishnavs – they enjoy their guitars and drum sets in church and getting people to whoop and holler and roll around on the floor speaking in angelic tongues is a sure sign that you and they are surely saved. And in other Christian circles, like the Westboro Baptist Church, being vocal and very loud about the ills that plague modern humanity is the preferred expression of devotion to the Lord. As an aside, but not entirely, I’ve not known of any bhakti tradition (Hindu or otherwise) that wasn’t in some manner, to some degree, focused on one’s merit before the Lord Almighty. Everyone wants brownie points with the Most High.

I think, though, that something is perhaps “wrong” here. I use that word very hesitantly because as a Hindu I believe everyone has a place at the table, I sincerely do, but I’m not sure what better English word fits there. If you pay attention to virtually every Hindu approach to spirituality, you’ll see that the real direction bhakti is intended to be pointed toward is INWARD.

I’ve been surprised, as I dive deeper and deeper into Sahaj Marg literature and practice, to learn how very pro- bhakti it really is. To be clear, our path is more appropriately categorized as something “Raja” or “Jnana,” but still. Our last guru was a Vaishnav and our practice is an anahata chakra-centered blend of Sufism and Hinduism. It’s probably fair to say that until really dedicating myself to the Sahaj Marg, I made efforts to steer myself away from much of bhaktidom. While respecting and allowing space for paths like the Hare Krishnas, I certainly had no inclination to be even remotely associated with them. And I even kept a healthy distance from most Vaishnav-related things because of how many parallels there are between that chunk of Hinduism and Christianity as a whole.

I dare to say, though, that true bhakti makes your heart and soul dance – not your body, that’s like playing in the shallow end of a pool.  And in my experience, when truly intense and electrifying devotion arises within oneself, the result has been stillness, peace, wisdom, and even some transcendental happenings that have very little to do with the outer world except for losing awareness of it.

I think whether one is an Islamic jihadist, a Kraishnav, or a conservative Christian (all of which are far more alike than not), you might be missing the real benefit and purpose of your path if “making a joyful noise” (or whatever your own version of that is) takes center stage. How can one benefit from the “still small Voice” (biblical reference) within if you’re too busy crying out to the Lord to hear It?

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Inimical Brotherhood

Image taken from Google Image search

There have been a lot of posts on Facebook recently about the goings-on in the Middle East. A tiny Muslim sect (Ahmadi) made the spotlight recently when the homes of its believers were attacked and some of the adherents killed. Then there’s the whole Israel / Gaza business. It’s really enough to make one sick to his stomach. Something else that could definitely induce vomiting would be antics of some Christians who are not only faux-fasting to get the Lord’s attention regarding marriage equality, but also are terribly convinced that homosexuals are literally about to round up the Body of Christ and begin a concentration camp-style extermination of said believers.

Naturally, when events like this are brought to light (For the Middle East these violent days seem unending, and for Christians these idiocies seem similarly perpetual.) it can be very challenging not to lump the few and the many together in one ridiculous, ignorant, hateful pile.

Certainly, in everything – and I do mean EVERYTHING – there are exceptions. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, chefs, politicians, police, and newspaper delivery folk all are groups, like any other, that contain an assortment of individuals both saints and sinners. And it should go without saying (although I’m saying it now) that generalizing and judging according to stereotypes is also an act of immense ignorance which leads to prejudice and all manner of human ugliness.

All of this is fine. Dandy, even. But in my mind, a question begs to be answered: Where are all the good ___________ ? (pick the name of any human group you’d like, and insert) I do believe that the nasties of any group are usually a very small percentage of its population. And I believe said nasties typically seem to have the loudest voice. But that’s not really any kind of excuse or accounting for why the good’uns don’t stand up to be counted. If I were a Christian (and I once was) and it became apparent to me that a segment of Christianity was ruining our “reputation” (for lack of a better word), you bet your butt I’d be speaking up. And I’d like to think that if I were in an Islamic country being tormented by a relatively small group of extremists, that myself and my brothers would stand up together and stomp them into the ground. But I don’t see those things happening as one would expect, or at least hope.

When a section of Christianity shows its ass, you might see a tiny group stand up and say something to refute the ass-showers, but even then it’s almost invariably done in a way that itself is more accusatory toward the ass-showers than it is redeeming for Christianity as a whole – which, to me, comes off more as a type of irresponsible avoidance than a valid and redemptive counter argument. Never mind the unfortunate fact that those who do speak against the ass-showers are themselves invariably a very tiny percentage of the overall group – so even if one can come to the conclusion that most Christians aren’t ass-showers, the conclusion that most Christians are of the “good” kind feels still out of reach. And what about our Muslim brethren? There’s no way in the world I believe that most Muslims are hijack-prone bomb fanatics. I studied Islam intensely for over a year and I know for a fact the path contains Truth. But where are all the “good” Muslims when some of these atrocities are happening? Why don’t Islamic attempts to stop suicide bombers ever succeed or even make the news?

I’ll never purposely make a case for someone to maintain discrimination against another group, but I sometimes feel like all I can do is passively shrug my shoulders when I hear some buffoon ignorantly spout off a host of stereotypical things. I could easily speak up (anyone who knows me, knows this is way true) and have spoken up in the past, but I never seem to have much ground to stand on. Where’s the proof that “most” active Christians aren’t ridiculous and hateful? There’s definitely abundant proof of the contrary. And what should I cite when speaking up for seekers within the religion of Islam? Tens of thousands of Muslims will take to the streets and practically riot when a mere picture of Mohammad is drawn and published (and not even one meant to be taken too seriously), but the masses are silent when Muslim extremists hunt down Hindus and slaughter them after destroying their houses of worship. (Before anyone skewers me too badly here, I do recognize what a nightmare it must be to live in such areas and I know that when someone arrives at your door and puts a gun to your face, you don’t argue, you submit. But the bulk of the world’s Muslim population are 1) not Arab and 2) do not reside in these harsh areas. These non-Arab Muslims make up the Islamic majority, not the civilians of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, and these Muslims could speak up quiet easily and quite comfortably AND with the added boon of the money of their western lifestyles to back them up.)

Please believe me, keeping your mouth shut when you need to open it the widest is not just cowardly, but it’s also gross. If what’s in your heart and mind don’t manifest in your words and actions, especially when it counts, then you might as well call yourself indifferent to the misery and sorrow of other beings because you’re being about as helpful. Naturally, there’s a time and place for everything and no one should abandon common sense or safety when taking a stance, but for most of my readers there has never been a time when you should keep silent and not stand for those who are weaker. Avoiding this kind of selfless duty because of timidity or a lack of confidence has got to be one of the most offensive forms of adharma I can bring to mind.

It’s all a huge tragic (and unnecessary) mess, obviously. The optimist in me brings new hope to the table each day. The realist in me, though, calls a spade a spade and continues to wait for the actualization of the optimist’s hope. I mostly tell the pessimist in me to shut its pie hole. It mostly listens.

At the end of the day, I don’t really care if all Christians are bigots or just a few. It doesn’t matter to me if all Muslims are terrorists or just a few. What matters to me is how I use my own voice and that I resist being too passive or indifferent when I see bullshit. In this spirit, I’ll close with my current guru’s words which, in this context, will be my governance, and I’ll point out that love is not passive. Ever.

“In life it is always possible that the people whom we consider as friends turn against us and similarly those whom we treat as enemies help us. So do not worry about others’ activities. Continue to show your love to all irrespective of whether they are friendly or inimical. You should understand that love begets love.” – Chariji, from Spiders Web Volume 2

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

My Rejected Soul

Self-Immolation

Many walks in life (namely many of the world religions) have views on why things happen. Why do bad things happen? Why do good things happen? Why do some people have easier lives than others? This could easily fall into a rant about karma, getting what you give, and all that jazz. I don’t want this post to go that direction really, although karma is an underlying factor in all of this. I do, however, want to discuss giving (I think). Karma deals primarily with getting what you have given. I want to focus on giving what you have gotten (I think), and the most disgusting hypocrisy I think I’ve ever known.

Back story: I’ve written about the best and how we have our adventures and how much these adventures mean to me. Well, my best occasionally has adventures that are entirely his own. Some of those adventures are best not had at all and unfortunately because my best choses to be just about the slowest learner EVER, some of those adventures are repeated. It’s because of this irresponsibility and his history of making really dumb decisions that my best is (for) now a felon. A few years ago he landed his self in the klink. It was tragic, truly. He didn’t know my number and so from jail he had to contact his ex who lived along the United States eastern shore – who in turn contacted my beloved through Facebook, who then told me the news. That year, I spent my entire Christmas budget meant for family and friends all on him just to bail is brilliant butt out. Not quite a week ago about the same thing happened, only this time he was able to call me directly – and this time the bail was 40% higher. Now he’s considered a repeat offender and our fear is that he’ll do hard time. That much remains to be seen. Without going into all the details, many of which can probably be assumed, his life will be very different going forward and so will mine and my beloved’s.

Something I find particularly disturbing in all this, though, is the reaction a mutual friend of ours has had toward my best’s predicament.

A little back story on her: She’s a recovering alcoholic, 12-steppin’ her way to a more wholesome life. This has been an on-going journey of hers for a few years already and she often speaks about responsibility and facing the consequences of one’s actions – doctrine she’s surely picked up from her 12-Step studies. She a wonderful person – one of my favorites, in fact. She’s been life-long Christian, and if I can be honest, of all the Christians I have known in my life (and living in the Midwest I’ve known too many!) she’s one of a very small group who doesn’t consistently make me cringe with her behavior. That is, until recently.

Whether it makes sense to you or not, the crux of Christianity is forgiveness. You pray to Jesus asking him for forgiveness of your sins (and the sins of your fathers, which you inherited at birth) and in that prayerful process of “getting saved” and becoming a born-again believer you promise that you’ll do your best to do your best as you move forward in life as a Christian. This is the starting point for Christian believers, and everything grows from there. I find the whole bit to be a rather large pill to swallow because it goes against most forms of reason (which faith shouldn’t necessarily do) as well as natural laws, but since it doesn’t actually apply to me I’m not terribly concerned. To be clear, I’m not writing this post to disparage Christianity. There’s somewhere in the range of 900 million reasons for why I could, but that’s not my goal.

What has been in my head since last Monday / Tuesday is what I intend to really focus on here and now. You see, if you have spent your entire life adhering to a belief system that has a core of, “Just tell Jesus you’re sorry and that he’s your savior and then live the best you can and you’ll avoid Hell” (aka almost ALL of Christianity), then you’re in no position to add to the grief of someone who’s fucked his own life up big-time and is now trying to work through it to a better life condition. Your entire life has been spent hoping to avoid a supposedly eternal punishment that you, by your own standards, “deserve” because of your own actions as well as the consequences you supposedly inherited from your forefathers’ sins – all by simply telling Jesus “I’m sorry.”

I’m here to tell you that if you can avoid eternal hellfire by doing little more than saying you’re sorry, then surely someone else who’s actively trying to make up for shortcomings has a chance at redemption, too. Get over yourself.

Aside from most of Christianity not making any real sense to me, something else baffles me: Apparently, I’m one of the best Christians I know. This is particularly interesting to me since I haven’t considered myself a Christian since my teens and early adult life. Fancy that!

When the best was briefly jailed I posted his bail. Shortly, I’ll be giving my entire temple room and main bathroom in my home to him as his new living quarters. The beloved and I will quite possibly purchase a moped for him, too, because it’s likely he’ll never be allowed to drive again. And because of things like this I’m accused of enabling – of helping him shirk the consequences of his actions.

Let me tell you something about enabling. A true enabler is someone who allows the person with a problem to continue in the path of the problem and to avoid any repercussions associated with walking that path. An enabler could be considered an eliminator because, for all their own misguided reasons, they do their best to eliminate the pain of the one they’re enabling.

That’s not what I’m doing.

I can bail him out of jail. I can open my home to him. I can buy him scooters to help keep him mobile. I can do all those things and so much more and none of it matters as much as haters say. All the power and generosity I can throw at this situation will still not allow him to escape the consequences of his actions. He will still have a miserable police record that will likely affect many aspects of his life for years and years to come. He will still be sentenced to some degree by the courts. He will still have to pay exorbitant legal fees. And he will still be forced into bankruptcy. Someone, please tell me – aside from cold weather exactly what hell am I sheltering him from? I’ll tell you what I definitely am doing. I’m loving him as I love myself.

Of all the rules in the Christian Bible that are followed so strictly, the TWO that Jesus actually says people should do (and which are echoed throughout the Bible starting with the books of Jewish law) are ignored! I can cite places in three of the Gospels where Jesus tells believers that they should 1) Love God with everything they have and 2) Love their neighbor as their own self. I promise these supreme imperatives, these maha-commandments, given by the Jagadguru of the Christians are entirely lost on them. I’m not enabling. I’m giving to him, in his hour of need, what I would hope to receive in mine. I’m not helping him avoid consequences. I’m just showing him the love I would want to be shown. I’m literally loving him as I love my Self – interestingly this is a point where Hinduism succeeds in combining the two because we know God to be the same as our Self. When I love my God with everything I have the natural result is to love my neighbor as my Self because my Self and My God are nondifferent.

Self-Immolation

I hate to say it, but at this point I’m about sick of this hypocrisy. Lazy Christian devotees, remaining as rigid as ever within their hearts, clearly are asleep behind the wheel. This religion very rarely encourages self-realization, and I guess because of that these believers are bound to have little understanding of what it means to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Perhaps if my Christian brothers, sisters, and dear friends would invest the effort to know even a taste of the Self at their own core and subsequently realize that the very same is sitting as the core essence of others, then this vomit-inducing hypocrisy would lessen in our world and we would all do a little better in this life.

I reposted something to Facebook today that was actually about rape, but the sentiment is applicable here no less. The repost said, “My strength is not for hurting.” I’m given so very much in this life. And I hope to receive about as much, also – at least when I’m in need. And I have tasted the Self within me enough to know clearly that my neighbor is indeed my Self. Miserably, I’m about the best Christian I know.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

A Seat At The Table

Image taken from Google Image search

In the disclaimer I offered back on May 25th of this year (which can be read here), I mentioned that there are many kinds of Hindus, and thus many expressions of Hinduism. The kind of Hindu I want to write about is the carnivorous kind. I hope you brought your big mind to class today. I also hope you have your reading glasses and ample time to not only read what is likely to become a rather lengthy post, but ample time to mentally masticate the suchery about to be included. Aum Ganesha!

Before I dive deeply into what I’m planning here, please allow me to be clear: I’m not condoning carnivorous practices among humans. It’s my opinion that our current methodology for farming meat products is not only wasteful and inefficient, but also immensely cruel. I also believe there’s more than enough scientific evidence to support the theory that humans are anatomically and physiologically designed to consume primarily plant material for our nutrition needs. Lastly, I do think, for various reasons which I may end up not going into very much, that humans – as spiritual and intellectual organisms – function optimally when abstaining from eating meat. Beyond that, I’m not mad at folks who chomp beasts.

From where I’m sitting, this topic is a source of contention and too many misguided, skewed intentions. In the middle ages, Christians hunted other groups of people who they perceived to be a threat of some sort. Mind you, those Christians didn’t simply decided against a group and then plot its extermination. There was something about one group or another that was perceived to be a detractor to the process of “saving” the world, or was seen as a roadblock of sorts for those attempting to gain entrance into eternal heavenly paradise. Everyone wants paradise and some people want it for others, too. This was the goal of Christians then, but what ended up happening instead were things like the Crusades where folks were literally hunted and killed for not being Christian. Interestingly, during these times even Christian priests were tested – by vegetarianism. If they refused to eat meat, they were accused of having been influenced by the religion of Manacheanism and would be killed. Some could read this as indicative of the violence inherent in Christian doctrine. I’ll let you take those thoughts where you will.

I find that something along these lines, although not to the same extreme degree, happens in Hindu/Buddhist circles. There are many many scriptural texts in the Hindu religion. Many of those texts strongly advise that eating sentient beings isn’t too far removed from eating another human and at times those same texts precisely detail the karmic and spiritual repercussions – sometimes with an amount of detail that causes me to question the validity of that kind of precision. What’s often overlooked, though, are the parts of the Hindu family that either say nothing about abstaining from meat, encourage killing in some contexts (perhaps for sacrifice or beacuse of so-called duty), or advise that being too against meat eating is no different from actually consuming flesh yourself.

That last bit is important. I personally know a numerous number of vegetarians and vegans who believe that abstaining from fleshy chews will save their souls all the while completely ignoring the inner landscape they’ve cultivated around the subject and all the resultant karma they’re incurring because of it. All of our external actions have seeds which are subtle, many being as subtle as our own thoughts and emotions.

Please understand that aversion is ultimately, qualitatively, no different than desire – both are dangerous traps! This is affirmed/confirmed in the Gita by Shri Krishna, himself. Ultimately, perception of “goodness” is meant to be avoided as much as perception of “evil.” The only possible benefit of cultivating an abundance of “good” is pleasantry of experience. Be sure – the two are essentially the same. Hating or despising the consumption of meat will put you in the same samsaric/karmic boat as those who actually eat meat. Karma is karma, after all, and even the smallest amount of the most subtle karmic expression is still enough to imprison one on the wheel of death and rebirth – preventing moksha from being yours.

I want to show that, while there may be plenty of Hindu Scriptures or accepted concepts that strongly encourage a meat-free life, there are also scriptures that proclaim the more ultimate benefit of transcending such preferences. I’ll write more about that later. One should also note that there’s a key difference between encouraging someone in a behavior and simply not condemning them for it.

I also want to briefly visit what is probably the most common reason for abstaining from meat: Ahimsa. Most understand the term to simply and broadly mean nonviolence. This is true, but at best this definition only half covers abstention from meat. That’s because, at best, “nonviolence” only half defines ahimsa. Taking the definition of a word like ahimsa to be fully encompassed by something like “nonviolence” is like saying Brahman is as simple as “God.” It’s simply not (completely) true. This form of simplicity is at work in other forms of fundamentalism where something important is whittled down to chewable bites, and then those bits are said to contain every flavor of the original. As with any other Sanskrit word, there are numerous layers of meaning, and saying ahimsa means nonviolence is like saying you are your skin. It should also be pointed out that true nonviolence is not possible in ANY life. This is something else that is key to remember and is a prime example of how fundamentalism works, even within Hinduism. You end up throwing out practicality and reason. Other layers of ahimsa are possible in life, with effort, and when ahimsa is applied to a spiritual context those deeper layers are what’s being pointed to, not simply nonviolence. With that said, ahimsa alone makes a great case for better living, but not specifically a vegetarian diet.

Karma is another word that’s quite often tossed around when arguing whether meat eating is massively detrimental within the perennial context. Everyone seems to be under the assumption that all killing is “bad” and that all “bad” actions create undesirable results. If this were really the case, the warrior caste would be lower than the Shudras and would certainly be doomed to hellish places lifetime after lifetime, and Krishna wouldn’t have advised Arjuna that to kill humans (humans he loved!) is the dharmic thing to do. This is further support that the concept of non-violence isn’t meant to be so encompassing. Surely, with God represented equally in all sentient beings, if there are times when it’s literally righteous to kill other humans, there must also be times when it’s okay to kill “lesser” beings – although not necessarily for food. Still, I have a hard time believing that someone who enjoys a hamburger is automatically somehow karmically worse off than a soldier… at least here in the Kali Yuga.

Three Hindu scriptures do sufficiently well at illustrating all of this – not that consuming flesh is ok, but that it’s worse (or just as bad) to have an aversion to it. Due to the current length of this post, I’ll save the actual meat of what I’m getting at for another post, which is just as likely to be as broad as it is long. Stay tuned if you care.

Jai Shri Ganesha!

Aum Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

Not A Popularity Contest

Acharya Kedar

Last night while I was writing a paper for school and contemplating making some rakhis for a holiday coming up, my beloved was doing He-Man stuff and watching some show on some television channel. He’s always watching some kind of alien or ghost show.

This show was no exception, except that it seemed to be a continuation of another show I’d once been familiar with. Some time ago, images on our television screen were frequently from some kind of “Celebrity Ghost Stories” show. Invariably throughout the show you were either seeing some celebrity, or former celebrity, sitting in an entirely black room telling a story from their past wherein they encountered a ghost of demon or something, or you were seeing recreations of the ghost story being told by that celebrity at that moment. This show still pertained to celebs and their ghost stories, but now a well-known psychic travels with them (to them?) to some place that they’re connected to or once were connected to, and gives them one helluva psychic assessment.

Last night’s episode detailed the ghostly adventure of a middle-aged black male celebrity, who I did not recognize. The two were walking around a home he once had to leave – the site of his ghostly encounter. While this psychic gal was speaking, she referenced his brother and asked if he could call his brother and have him come over. He did, and his brother did.

When his brother arrived, he came to where they were on some stairs and instantly I was like, “Whoa. That dude’s a Hindu monk!” This man was black and also middle-aged, but was wearing the standard orange/saffron colored garb typical of Hindu monkery, including the hunting toboggan. At first his face wasn’t visible, but soon enough he turned. Low-and-behold, a “dot” of kum-kum at least the size of an American quarter rested right between his brows and slightly above.

I’ll be damned.

As it turns out, his name is Kedar and he’s officially known as Acharya Kedar. He practices Kashmiri Shaivism, of the Siddha lineage, and is himself apparently now a Siddha Master.

As would be expected, the paper I’d been working on suddenly was pushed to another screen and I began a Google search for Acharya Kedar, which turned up a number of results. One of them – this one – is about him specifically. Like any other living teacher, he has that tell-tale shanti written across his face and exuding from his eyeballs.

I found this group’s approach to liberation (moksha, mukti) interesting and immensely traditional and specialized. Apparently, the lineage traces itself back to Lord Shiva, Himself, who is the Guru of all Siddhas. I haven’t looked much into their website, to be honest, but they’re clear that in the 20th century, the Siddha Yoga dharma was led by a Siddha saint named Bhagavan Nityananda and from his guidance a number of other successful and powerful Siddha gurus emerged and led others. This denomination of Hindus now has a specialized practice of yoga known as Supreme Meditation. The website most of my recent education on this group centered around can be accessed by clicking here. Overall, they prescribe a daily sadhana as any sect would, however they also focus muchly on the practice of Shaktipat.

Shaktipat has long fascinated me. I can’t consider it very long without also thinking about charismatic Christians becoming “filled” with the Holy Ghost, gettin’ all dance-y and twitchy, and then getting bonked on the head by the pastor – which naturally lays them out flat before the congregation. Truly, I think Shaktipat is less… unbelievable? Shaktipat can take the form of a physical touch, a glance, within a dream, or in a number of other contexts. Generally, as far as I understand, the purpose is to awaken one’s inherent Kundalini, and thereafter induces a journey of spiritual growth. In all my Hindu journeys, I’ve seen far less said of Kundalini from the Vaishnav sects than I have of Smartas and definitely this talk is found mostly within Shaiva and Shakta sects. I think as Kali Yuga progresses, Skatipat will increasingly become a thing of the past – and future.

Something I found endearing about this little education field trip regarding the Siddha Yoga dharma, is that siddhas (supernatural) are not being sought. A number of Hindu texts warn of potential dangers of siddhas achieved. I think that’s mostly because of the influence of Kali Yuga and how people generally are today – so many would misuse them, if they weren’t already too lazy to do the work necessary to achieve one siddha or another. Beyond that, there’s nothing inherently bad about obtaining one siddha or another, and these are even signs of progression.

I view them as a kind of reward though, as well as a tool. You bust your ass working on yourself and you may well achieve one siddha or another. This then might draw people to you, not so that you can put on a show, but so that you can share the wisdom you’ve realized. Also, depending on the siddha, you will hopefully have developed enough to recognize a way in which usage of said siddha can further your own progress. They’re like signposts and instruments. Surely, performing austerities or doing sadhana JUST to get a siddha is bad – just as bad as taking a job JUST because of the money involved. It usually results in undesirable consequences.

At any rate, this group seems to specialize in developing siddha gurus, which in turn, have demonstrated a history of using Shaktipat to help awaken others. In my opinion, it’s rather authenticating that they aren’t broadcasting everywhere and their site indicates people don’t even have to change their religion to partake and benefit.

And there you have it.

Om Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Om Shanti

Sweet Satan

Taken from Ek Akshara/Facebook

After a recent post here, a friend (who’s been inspiration for a number of posts on Sthapati) suggested that other people aren’t actually extensions of one’s ego. I think he’s right, but in the rarest sense.

Most of the time, for most humans, others are an extension of the ego. Parents live vicariously through their children. Spouses develop codependencies, sometimes because their sense of self is so deeply reliant upon another. People often identify politically because of how they feel they relate to the politician representing certain views or goals. Quite often in life actually, and in many other arenas, people are an extension of one’s ego. Sometimes that means relative dysfunction, but far more often it’s a simple part of operating in this world – and it begins before we even cognitively recognize that we’re here.

For me Eckhart Tolle is a modern yogi. The man is shanti-incarnate and is one heck of a Jnanaguru. It doesn’t matter what he’s saying or talking about, for me, it’s impossible to listen to his voice and not be nearly blissed out. Please trust me, any person looking to change his own life would do well to study A New Earth. It’s not an enormous book, only about 310 pages, but the content is immense and makes wonderful protein for your brain and soul. I’m currently on my second time reading A New Earth, (the first time took me nearly a year!) and I find it even more valuable than the first time. To be sure, it was groundshaking the first time, but the content requires so much mental mastication (for me, to get the actual value), that unless you read it more than once you’re almost certain not to fathom fully all that you should from it.

At any rate, among the many jewels found within A New Earth, an excellent explanation of ego, its foundation, formation, perpetuation is laid out. If I were ever again to admit the valid existence of any notion like Satan or The Devil, which I do not on any serious level, I could only do so within the context of the ego. But, surprisingly for anything associated with The Devil, things aren’t all doom and gloom.

In the upcoming posts, please allow me to share more than a little in regard to all of this. I’ll be pulling from Tolle, my personal experience, and another source of spiritual guidance which I’ve found to be indespensible through the years: Hinduism Today magazine, specifically the current issue which places an oddly but sweetly graceful spin on the idea of ego & its purpose.

Stay with me here, and as always, your input or observances are welcome.

Om Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Om Shanti

WICKED Li’l Old Me

Taken from Google Images

Everyone seems to have the understanding that holy people, or spiritually advanced people are only humble. After all, the meek shall inherit the Earth, no? (Bible, Matthew 5:5)

However, I’d like to convince you that humility can be a problem in a way identical to that of arrogance or pride. Some posts ago I mentioned that I believe many carnivorous humans are better off from a karmic standpoint, and spiritually, simply because of the ignorant, emotional, and often irrational aversion so many vegetarians have regarding the subject. The post seemed to go virtually unnoticed, which doesn’t bother me in the least, but based on my understanding of how thoughts, emotions, actions, and karma in general work, I really do feel that many who are vegetarian are at times hurting their own progress more than those who bite sentient beings for sustenance – not because of the vegetarianism, but because of the samsaras they build up around the choice. All of that hinges on something good and virtuous (non-violence, non-aggression, vegetarianism) being taken to an extreme.

Religions and spiritual traditions throughout time and around the globe are guilty of this in one context or another, to one degree or another. Of course, some religions are inherently more inclined toward the live-and-let-live model and so there are those who are perhaps “less” guilty of this imbalance. Still, guilty is guilty and people who live in glass houses ought not to throw rocks.

To a lesser degree I think this same principle is sometimes also at work when it comes to humility. Too many people are timid when it comes to displaying a warrior spirit in their own lives. A hymn from the Vedas, in part, says, “Ati Vinayam Dhoortha Lakshanam…” which translates as, “Too much of humbleness is an attribute of a wicked person.”

But how can this be? How can a virtue like humility lead one to wickedness?

Umm… how about by being emphasized or implemented in such a way or to such a degree that it becomes detrimental. Initially, the detriment would be applicable only to the immediate life state of the one exhibiting this imbalance. That person would end up essentially being walked on or abused throughout his or her existence, and while that saddens my heart, I can see, that on that level, it’s still only a localized misery – again pertaining to individualized samsara. If allowed to go further, however, the localization ceases and others begin to suffer, too – others who might need a so-called warrior, Vira, to help maintain or restore balance. The absence of this assertive warrior spirit is adharma, and this is why the Vedas tell us that “too much of humbleness” makes someone wicked. Too much humbleness is an imbalance and is adharmic. So much of the Hindu dharma points to the at-least-occasional need for exhibiting warrior-ness: everything from yogasanas to the Bhagavad Gita hint at this.

If someone tells you you’re going to hell for eating cows, tell them to mind their own damned business and worry about themselves not going to hell. If someone tells you your friend or guru is corrupt or fraudulent, hold them accountable for those accusations – if they refuse, they need to fuck off and you need to make them aware of as much, and if they can offer proof your life has been made better. If someone repeatedly and directly badgers you about your own ishtadevata or chosen scriptures, I do hope you have spine enough (and bhakti enough) to adhere to your spiritual home AND tell them to do the same.

So many people think that if one is humble they’re “good” and if they’re not, they’re not. But the truth is, humility is much like aggression in that it possesses degrees of expression. Ideally, humility is best expressed through patience, understanding and compassion – not necessarily meekness. If one keenly develops these traits, humility will manifest without compromising other areas and without leading to adharma/wickedness.

In posts like this, I eventually begin wondering if my point is lost. Like the vegetarian samsara post, it’s such a broad and deep subject that can be taken in so many directions. It’s actually a challenge to write about effectively without composing an entire book on the subject. If nothing else I’d like to leave you with just two recommendations:

1) Cultivate a keen inner awareness. Progress without this is infinitely more difficult.

2) Follow Krishna’s advice to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. Sometimes we’re called to be warriors. Sometimes dharma, whether localized or general, depends on us being loud, assertive and even bossy. History has shown as much.

Om Jai Shri Ganeshaya Namaha
Om Shanti

Another Seat at the Table

Image taken from Google Image search

In the last post I struggled a bit, I feel. This topic of the human diet and what is supreme in regard to it is actually a big thing to consider and try to explain. Before continuing, allow me to offer apologies here for any confusion I might cause or miscommunition that might be my responsibility. I wrote about many things inherent to the diversity of Hinduism, and maybe a few other things. It was a lot and I feel like I mostly only touched on each of those things, which leads me to think it might be inappropriate to continue without going deeper into those topics.

I mentioned that, like so many other aspects of our religion, for every yes there is a no and every up corresponds to at least one down. Most people, especially Westerners, are not terribly aware of how truly immense and diverse Hinduism is. As Westerners not born into the religion or culture, our beginning stages often amount to somewhat of a scramble to understand as much as possible as quickly a possible, the result of which usually is that our minds only grasp part of the whole and then clings to that part because that’s all we feel we can understand. In Hinduism, literally everyone has a seat at the table. None are excluded on the path to liberation – that’s important to remember regardless of your sect. Hindus adhere to many different scriptural authorities. It’s important to remember that these authorities dont always agree.

One possible authority is probably the most-read of all Hindu scriptures – The Bhagavad Gita. In the last post, I mentioned that violence isn’t inherently bad and is even natural in life – and that the Gita supports this. A key factor pertaining to that concept, is equipoise. Krishna explains to Arjuna that the yogi (one who achieves union, aka moksha) is one who remains ultimately unaffected by life’s roller coaster-like happenings. This is the Yoga of Equanimity and is a key to vairagya and renouncing karmaphala. Do you see how it’s all connected?

Some might incorrectly interpret this to imply indifference or apathy. I don’t agree with that. It requires much work to govern both personal inclinations and aversions – a work that actually implies anything but indifference or apathy. It is a quite passionate endeavor indeed to consistenly remain equipoised. On a superficial level, what we eat doesn’t affect our soul, which remains untouched by anything happening within Maya. Multiple world religions affirm this.

Another text belonging to Advaita Vedanta, and which many Hindus revere whole-heartedly is The Yogavasishta, which states, “It is the actions of the mind that are truly termed Karmas…True liberation results from the disenthralment of the mind…Those who have freed themselves from the fluctuation of their mind come into possession of the supreme Nishta…Should the mind be purged of all its impurities, then it will become as still as the milky ocean undisturbed by the churning of Mandara hills; and all our samsaric delusion attendant with its birth and deaths will be destroyed…Those who without longing for objects avoid them can be termed as subjugators of their mind.” This may not say much about avoiding meat as food, but it does add additional support to my point that whether one eats meat or not shouldn’t be too key. Our mind’s actions are the bijas of all external karmas. Certainly, “outside” stuff can have an influence on the mind’s actions, but ultimately all possible outcomes related to that “outside” stuff are dependent upon what’s in the mind to begin with. This can also relate back to the Gita where we’re encouraged to follow our own dharma over someone else’s. For some, in this current life, the menu will only include plant material.

For others it’s simply not so – and I must insist, for the sake of your own karmas, that that’s alright.

Don’t worry – there’s more.

Aum Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Aum Shanti

Bad Breth(ren)?

Taken from Google Images

Recently, someone came back into my life who had disappeared. This person is surely sweet and kind, and while I haven’t been able to spend much time with him, as another non-Indian Hindu I felt an almost-instant connection to him. We first met at my local temple. He’s a servant of Krishna through the ISKCON organization. Our time together was brief, to say the least. I’d no sooner learned a little about him, hoping to learn much more, when he disappeared. After he vanished, we reconnected on Facebook although soon enough he’d vanished from there too. Then he reappeared by means of a friend request. I naturally obliged, glad to see that he seemed happy and well. The last I knew he was somewhere in Appalachia, but he’s resurfaced in sunny Florida.

Just yesterday, only a week or so after reconnecting, he messaged me on Facebook. We’d had prior “comment discussions” wherein I’d persisted with the indication that I’m devoted to The Mother/Amma and Her Son, Ganesha. Our comments to each other felt a little awkward because he seemed convinced that I’d not given Krishna a chance, but generally these comments were innocent and superficial – then came the Facebook message.

“I wish you would study Srila Prabhupada. Pravin is such a bad influence. He is a very bad man.” Short & sweet.

The Gita tells us that one’s individual path (swadharma), even with all its potential flaws, is better than another’s. Krishna was telling Arjuna that he should always follow the advice of the Guru in his own heart. I’ve read through more than a few versions of the Gita more than a few times and I’ve yet to notice a single shloka, with purport or commentary (or nothing), that instructs a devotee to “share the good news of Krishna with everyone possessing two ears. Encourage all to follow Krishna.” (In fact, I’d point out that the opposite is the implication of Krishna’s words.) And yet, many times the case is one of proselytizing – which I find to be unHindu. In my response message I mentioned that this “typical” characteristic of the bhakti marg (bhakti is a part of all paths, but seems to prevail primarily among Vaishnavs) makes it something that’s not suited for me -although I do find both bhakti and Vaishnavism beautiful and worthy of my respect. I generally hate to generalize, but if a generalization happens to be generally true, from time to time I’ll generalize. I realize this means an unfair and sweeping application to some Vaishnav bhaktas, but for ease of communicating my thoughts – which are already tedious enough – I will sometimes generalize. I will also point out that no other sect of Hinduism has ever approached me or otherwise interacted with me in the manner specifically typical of vaishnav bhaktas. In all other experiences of mine – literally ALL other experiences – with various Hindu sects and denominations, I’ve never been badgered at all about my path like I have with vaishnav bhaktas. If you find this bothersome, do forgive me.

Superficially speaking, the message sent by my friend is innocent enough. It’s also a common occurance and typical. We all encourage others to go after what we see is the best – in any situation, right? Even better is when we KNOW something is “working” for us and we want others to experience the same. I think this is potentially noble and compassionate and is something virtually everyone does to some degree or another. However, herein lies an ugly trap. It’s one thing to broadcast one’s inclinations, in fact Hare Krishnas are pros at it. I do it frequently on my own Facebook page, and have even received remarks that for a Hindu I’m awfully evangelical. Still, I find distinction between broadcasting one’s inclinations and directly trying to persuade others to buy into them, too. If it’s not clear to you, this distinction I’m making, imagine the difference between having tattoos & choosing to wear clothing that shows them, and actively trying to convince others to get tattoos, too.

In subsequent messages, this friend has pointed out that “worship of all gods and demigods factually goes to Sri Krsna.” (There are other parts of this conversation that also bothered me, but I don’t feel they’d add much more to what I’m trying to communicate here, so I choose to leave them off.) As I’ve already pointed out, I’m familiar with the Gita and Krishna’s words. I know exactly what’s being referenced, and while I’m recognizing where this friend is coming from and the influences he’s under that are causing him to point this out, I’m struggling to not be offended – partially because I think his interpretation of this passage is skewed and partially because even before now I’ve made clear that I plan to stick to my own swadharma and not someone else’s.

Ultimately, this is inconsequential. I know where I stand and I’ve invested huge efforts into knowing exactly why I stand where I do – which is more than most people can say about their own journey. If that ever changes it’ll be because of my own personal growth, not because someone quotes the scripture of another sect to me. I understand wanting to share with others what you perceive to be valuable and beneficial knowledge, but I feel like a Muslim who’s listening to a Christian thump him with Bible verses. For one, it’s not pleasant. For another, Muslims have their own scripture, and even if a Muslim affords respect to the Christian Bible, it’s still not authoritative to that Muslim’s swadharma, even if it’s applicable. Like telling an Atheist they’re going to Hell – it’s pointless because “Hell” has virtually zero value to the Athiest.

So where to go from here? The part of my genetic makeup coming from my mother’s side (German, Native American, Catholic, Alcoholic) provides ample impulse to tell this “bhai” to go get fucked and how to do it. Some, however, would see that as mean. The rest of me, and thankfully the larger portion of my current self, is more inclined toward patience and a progressive insistence – simple reiteration – that I’m neither Vaishnav or bhakta. My patience, like my father’s, is typically miles long – but I’m not into repeating myself like this. Am I wrong in perceiving this pal’s messages the way I have? Is this just a matter of the best intentions gone awray? And if we say that, aren’t we just making excuses?

Dear reader, advise if you feel so inclined.

Om Shanti