Sams-karma-s

Image taken from Google Image search

 

So… the title of this post is a real botch job, don’t hate me. I was combining the word karma into the word samskara. The terms are very different and yet intimately related. Karma, in its most dummied down translation, is “action” and samskara, in like form, means impression – a subtle impression that is carried with us. Have you ever reacted in a certain way and almost felt you had no choice? That was probably the influence of some kind of impression / samskara. Obviously, something like that would influence your actions (reactions) and so you can see the two are a closely knitted pair.

The Heartfulness path (aka Sahaj Marg) deals heavily with both of these concepts, although quite extensively with samskaras. The “magic” of this path and our practice is that the samskaras are “scrubbed” away through the diligent employment of our practice.

Recently, through a couple Daily Reflections delivered into my inbox, I received a nice lesson. Everyone thinks about karma and samskara in regard to thing you have done or might do. But our guru, Kamlesh D. Patel, helps us understand that there’s another side of the coin: Inaction. I guess this might mean those could’as, would’as, and should’as. The things you didn’t do or say that you should have or really needed to (not for your benefit but for the benefit of others). Many times when people speak of regret they speak of something they wish they’d said or done or somewhere they’d gone. Sometimes this feeling of regret really sticks to a person – like a subtle impression. And obviously, the application of all this is not limited to regret. After all, we’re talking about very subtle components of life. Many people wander through life practically oblivious to really blatant and mundane things, so it’s no wonder at all to consider that these impressions formed from inaction wouldn’t necessarily be on one’s radar.

In the second edition of Designing Destiny (2015), Shri Kamlesh-bhai said of inaction, “It is not only our actions that promote samskaras. Our inactions can create lethal samskaras that are worse than those created by our actions.” In the same chapter of that book, he also states, “Samskaras created by inactions, deliberate inactions, amount to the heaviest of the samskaras in our system. They can be removed, no doubt, but then a commitment of very high order is required. Your cooperation at every level is required.”

I think these quotes communicate some very serious and helpful information. Kamlesh-bhai uses the word lethal. That’s a heavy word. Means deadly, right? Without further research I won’t guess at what Kamlesh-bhai fully meant in the usage of that word, but from where I sit I see a connection to the usage of that word within the context of samskaras. For as long as we carry these impressions / samskaras, we’ll be saddled with karma. And as long as either applies to our existence, our existence will be tied directly to the wheel of samsara – which is the cycle of death and rebirth. Because death is not the opposite of life, but rather the opposite of birth, Kamlesh-bhai’s use of “lethal” seems to point directly to that connection between death and rebirth.

There are a number of things to take from our guru-ji’s words but this one implication – inaction being lethal – is really enough to give everyone pause and serious consideration to why you sometimes don’t do the things you don’t do.

Aum Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha | Aum Shanti

Advertisement

Three Green Balloons

Yesterday (I think) was the birthday of a little boy who left far too early in life. His mother, Betsy Baker, is someone I went to high school with and have stayed in touch with through Facebook. A short time ago she invited myself and others to partake in an event she called, “Dexter’s Celebration.” She said we could take this entire weekend to celebrate wherever we are and she encouraged us to release balloons in his memory and to celebrate his life and his one year birthday.

Just left PartyCity with 3 Green Balloons for Dexter’s Celebration!

The weather cleared up a bit just for Dexter!

3 Green Balloons: Wholeness, Love, Release, Renunciation, Anahata Chakra, & Completion.

Up, Up, & Away!

The video in this post is my very amateur attempt at communicating some of my thoughts and feelings regarding parenting and how important I think it is to be a parent whenever you’re presented with the opportunity.

For some of you this will be the first time you’ve heard my voice. As an aside, there was just a chat on Facebook about whether I sound feminine enough to be mistakenly called ma’am, or not. I’ll allow you to be the judge. The critical nature of my mind is telling me to tell you that you’ll notice that I do strange things with my lips/face and say “Umm” something like 60 times throughout the video. Neither are super typical of me, however both are occasionally symptomatic of me struggling to find the right words – something I could have spared you had I written out what I intended to say. I didn’t do that because I didn’t want it all to feel scripted. And now you’ll just have to do your best to not be distracted by these things. Sorry.

So here you have it: In honor of parent/child relationships everywhere and in all their forms, and in Dexter’s sweet memory.

Twameva mata cha pita twameva, (You are truly my mother and truly my father)
Twameva bandhush-cha sakha twameva, (you are truly my relative and truly my friend)
Twameva vidya dravinam twameva, (You are truly my knowledge and truly my wealth)
Twameva sarvam mama deva deva! (You are truly my all, my God of gods)

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

Soboleski-ji, or How Algebra Might Point to the Infinite

Recently in a college algebra class I’m in, the (handsome) faculty said something… well, quite handsome.

“Algebra is the art of manipulation without change,” he said entirely poetically.

Truth be told, I’m not sure if he was quoting someone else or if his words here are original. And, more truth be told, I suspect algebra to be more of a science than an art. Mostly, neither of those matter. What matters a little more to me is that in the middle of a class that normally would cause me break out in hives I had a vaguely religious experience, reminding me that The One truly is to be found and experienced in all places and areas of life…even the maths.

Regardless of where within Hinduism one sits, none debates that the highest concept of anything and everything is That known as Brahman. For those outside of Hinduism, Brahman is otherly known as The Dao (Daoism), The Father (Christianity), Allah (Islam), The Great Spirit (Native American spirituality), and The Force (Star Wars), to name only a few. Some Hindu sects refer to their own ishtadevata as the Highest, but really what’s happening there is that they’re projecting what they know and adore onto something that is nearly impossible to know through the human senses, and as impossible to adore. I’m guilty of this, myself, although I’m fully aware that I’m doing it when I do. But that’s neither here nor there.

So in (very, very basic) algebra, you’re essentially shifting the same from here to there and back again until you reach the goal. This doesn’t even begin to come close to what algebra fully is, but this is Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism.

Forgive my incredibly limited understanding of all things number-related. While I enjoy numbers, words are usually more my thing… In algebra, you’re basically starting with an expression/equation and, as my teacher from the North pointed out, it’s merely a matter of manipulating your way to the end result. Nothing actually changes during this process, it’s just that along the way things become clearer and clearer until the goal is reached. When all the work that can be done is finished, your answer is “simplified,” and a clarity is achieved, which is free from all the phases and steps that are sometimes confusing along the way. Can you see where I’m going with this?

In the same way that an algebraic expression/equation essentially starts with what it needs to reach its conclusion, all things come from the Source and, suchly, are complete from their beginning. And in the same way that the art of algebra expresses itself in the various steps required to reach its answer, shaping through “manipulation without change,” and finishing no more or less complete than when it started, just clearer; the same can be said about the individual working throughout their lifetime (after lifetime, after lifetime), never any more or less complete than ever, but hopefully with things becoming clearer than they were. The clarity being, of course, the realization that we were whole/complete all along.

Now before anyone thinks they’re clever, allow me to clarify that in the context of personal evolution, the idea of “manipulation without change” is applied in a strictly algebraic sense. Algebraically speaking, manipulation means simple shuffling of terms and values, in a systematic and symmetrical manner, ensuring a balanced progression until finally reaching the end. This, clearly, is different from the manipulation most folks are more familiar with which often involves exploitation to some degree or another until a desire is attained.

It’s because of this that I found myself sitting in college algebra, slightly hopped up on Starbucks, with a new respect for fanciness like:

I think most people don’t recognize their dharma in a class they might not even take were it not required of them-which in itself  is pretty dharmically algebraic. Or would that be algebraically dharmic? Maybe I’m reading too much into things. That’s happened before. Either way, for now, in a really remote sort of way going to class isn’t entirely different from going to temple. Should make the next eight weeks a little less painful.

Om Shanti

Ascites of the Prkrti

I’m seeking advice. Maybe.

I’ve heard before that when lessons aren’t learned as they present, they’re due to repeat until they sink in. Given that I believe in the concepts of karma and reincarnation, I can only assume as much is true. And since what I’m about to write about is something that visits and revisits me, I’ll go ahead and assume there’s a lesson I’m not learning as I should. Dear reader, please advise.

So… Where to begin? Allow me to set the backdrop for what’s in my head.

A characteristic of life is change, right? It’s been said that, in life, change is the only constant. People, being part of the cycles of life, are naturally creatures who’re inseparable from this. Further, being as much a part of these cycles as anyone else, it’s reasonable to assume that change will also occur within my own existence, too. Fine. Additionally, I think it’s safe to assume that in my early days I was rather typical. Don’t get me wrong: I was atypical in most ways. But in plenty ways enough, I was like any other guy of my age group. The point I’d like to make is that who I might once have been isn’t who I am currently, and the same can be said of who I am currently in regard to who I will be.

Here’s the catch: Whether you understand this phenomenon or not, if you’ve known me for as long some people have (I’m talking like 15years and 8years), you should understand that who I might have been isn’t entirely who I am. Better yet, whether you knew who I was, or not, after 8-15 years you should definitely know who I am. Ideally, you should also be changing in your own way, as necessitated by your own karmas and life circumstances-the implication being that you also are developing along the way and learning lessons.

Pause.

With all of this stuff in mind, especially all the factors mentioned immediately above as “catches,” how is it possible that folks who have known me for 15 years and for 8 years can be so mistaken on their understanding of why I do one thing or another.

 A recent example of this has to do with a dear friend of mine planning a vacation which involved a multi-day visit to out of state friends and a round-trip ticket there and back. When this friend mentioned these plans to me, my initial response was to ask why and whether this is possible or even smart right now. Truthfully, my response was such because not two weeks prior, the same friend was having a real crisis in his living room, which centered around a number of things –most of which could be traced back to money problems.  Apparently, when my response was anything other than jumping up and down squealing in delight, he was disappointed and brought this disappointment to a mutual friend who advised him that I wasn’t enthusiastic because I had no control over any of it. Nice.

Later on, when the first friend mentioned this response to me, I tried reminding him of the reasoning which applied all along: In one breath I was told there’s not even money enough for daily living, and in the next breath I’m told of a round-trip flight to the shore. As a caretaker sort of personality (NOT the same as parental), and having been the one doing the consoling during the recent crisis, of course I’d question this. Further, it makes no sense to suspect me of desiring control over whether someone else’s vacation takes place or not because my life remains entirely unaffected either way. I neither lose nor gain anything, regardless.

And so you have it… One person who, next to my own family, should know me better than anyone else on this planet and another who’s not only a parent but also has had enough life experiences to be able to tell up from down. Still, neither of them seems to understand someone they’ve each known well for 15 years and 8 years, respectively.

Being misunderstood isn’t the end of the world. In fact, it’s been a minor theme in my life and it’s been partial impetus for why I enjoy writing and wordsmith-er-ing and studying languages, cultures, and religions. It’s all about communication and understanding and personal development.

While it isn’t the end of the world, it’s painful. But maybe that’s because I expect more from the ones I love? Is that the lesson I’ve repeatedly failed to learn? Maybe I’ll abandon any value found in challenging others to grow and develop. I’ve actually mentioned this notion before and the answer I met with was something to the effect of, “Don’t withdrawal! Some of us need you to do and say what you do!” I remain unconvinced of this, however, and the whole thing is proving quite painful for me. What lesson am I missing that calls for this repeat?