Mamandaram

I’ve been kind of questining things lately. I mean… this is the usual mode of operation for me, to be honest, but I feel like I’m questioning different things these days. Going deeper in some ways, and testing the surface level in other ways.

Some time ago, I asked around about the necessity and importance of Hinduism’s deep foundational orthodoxy. My specific inquiry at the time centered on the dark-n-wondrous knowledge that was revealed and codified in the images worshipped in Hinduism, as well as the intonations and sigils employed in the Sanatana Dharma. The idea is that there are very very specific formulations in place, which are meant to be employed very intentionally and specifically, for very intentional and specific reasons. And so then, what if we “misuse” those formulations. What happens in alchemy when one follows the precise steps to turn lead into gold, but the whole time just wants to turn lead into aluminum? Or what if the formulation is for turning lead into gold but you start off with aluminum and not lead? Do you still end up with gold? Or would you get a form of gold that’s fucked up? That’s what this post is about….still.

Recently, as a treat to myself I made a purchase from the Himalayan Academy. To be clear, I LOVE the Himalayan Academy and the associated Saivite sect, known in the West as Saiva Siddhanta Church. There’s an incredible lineage behind this sect and if I were to formally join, I could do so with almost no hesitation. (More on that in another post.) I’ve ordered from the good monks a number of times and have only once been disappointed – something not worth mentioning further. Their literature can change your life; time and time again it marries modern science with truly ancient spirituality that literally predates what is now known as Sanatana Dharma.

As part of this recent purchase, I managed to get my hands on no less than five rudrakshas. And the questioning begins. You can see three of the rudrakshas below. For the record, while they FEEL like they’re made of a kind of resin, although they certainly smell as one might expect and the box they came in was marked with oil spots – I’m certain they are legit.

Rudraksha

But what if they aren’t legit? What if they’re just decent imposters?

When I asked my other question about letting much of the “realness” of Hinduism slide, and what that might mean, a number of responses indicated that Bhakti would essentially gloss over any glitches and the rest might just be in my head anyway. Would that apply here? Does it matter at all if these are imposters, so long as I BELIEVE they are real and am devoted the the essence of real ones? Surely, whether these are real or not, if I hold them in my hand and close my eyes and do my jaapa/sadhana with love in my heart they can be as plastic as Barbie and I’ll benefit all the same, no? Will I really? Does Bhakti cover all?

I know the Gita indicates that God will accept virtually any offering made with devotion and sincerity. I actually take refuge in that consolation and also that the Gita explains that there is literally no wasted effort in one’s journey toward our Source. You do what you can, with what you can, and keep moving. Baby steps are still steps, yes? To me, this is the power of Bhaktiyoga.

But is this all that’s needed and if so, why not just go to the craft store and grab any old bead and then call it a rudraksha? I think Bhakti is a tremendous path, but I still have this nagging suspicion in the back of my heart. Many would say, and in fact have said, that in the Kali Yuga Bhatki beats all. But surely, if you’re trying to turn lead into gold you really truly must be starting with lead, or you are quite likely not to end up with gold.

What are your thoughts on this?

Om Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Om Shanti

Advertisement

Tryambakam?

I daydream frequently. I’ve always been fairly imaginative. I like to tell stories when the mood hits and while I was in hair school, if we had spare time at the end of the day, grown people would literally gather around me while we looked through the haircut picture books… I’d point to some hair model and would tell their life story. Everyone loved it. One might expect that suchery would captivate children, but it was incredible to see half a room full of adults sitting, fully captivated while I blathered away about the people in the books.

When it comes to seeing what’s not there, or building a picture within my mind’s eye, I’m usually a pro. It’s usually something I’m capable of rather effortlessly. But when it comes to visualizing with intent, with a deeper meaning or purpose, my mind and imagination halt.

According to http://www.definitions.net, visualization is defined as “1) to recall or form mental images or pictures. 2) to form a mental image of. 3) to make perceptible to the mind or imagination. The WordNet website from Princeton defines visualization as “visual image: a mental image that is similar to a visual perception” ( wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). And according to the almighty Wiki, one of the word’s meanings is “to form a mental picture of something that is invisible or abstract.”

This is fine. Dandy even… if you’re trying to simply imagine or be creative or something simply for the same of the visualization. But I immediately begin to struggle when it comes to employing visualization in spiritual practices.
A good ole friend of mine from way back in high school has taken a path in life that is far different from my own in nearly every way –but we’ve always agreed on the scientific basis of spirituality and of the mystic foundations of reality. For some time now, he’s been active in Chios. I’ll admit now, that I’m poorly versed in the ins & outs of the Chios system. I can say that it deals with different energies that make up reality, particularly in the context of humanity and the human experience. I’ve listened in on a number of their Google+ Hangouts and while they are indeed welcoming and interesting and informative, they seem rather… pretend. I don’t know. I can genuinely say that I have no judgements about anyone investing their time and effort in the Chios system. I sense truth there. But much of the system, and indeed much of the exercises done during the Hangouts, seems to hinge on creative visualization involving colors and shapes. Needless to say, I’m having difficulty buying into the idea that if I visualize myself being a green triune, that I’ll be able to manipulate someone else’s aura and help seal tears and leaks.

Recently, I finished a book, “Loving Ganesha,” which is published by the parampara/sampradaya I’m seriously considering becoming a member of. The lineage is pretty sweet, and I may post on it sometime in the future – it seems to be literally the only lineage I know of that maintains the degree of authenticity that it brought with it when it departed the motherland of Bharata, and is also very open to westerners and non-Indians. But this book, while seriously explaining much of anything to do with Shri Ganesha in minute detail, also indicated that Shri Ganesha is the One Hindu deity that is pleased so easily and is the most accessible to all devotees anywhere. I agree with that much. However, part of this easy access is that simply visualizing Ganesha in one’s mind’s eye brings Him near and immediately puts on into His presence – indeed, this practice of visualization is said to be very helpful when forging a relationship with Ganesha.

I hate to be a doubting Thomas, but I’m not sure I buy this either.

I do agree that, depending on the seeker and his baggage, forging a relationship with the Divine and drawing near to the Divine isn’t necessarily a complex feat. But I don’t know that simply picturing God in one’s mind is enough to immediately and powerfully bring one into practical darshan.

I’m clearly going to have to chew on this one for a bit – I don’t feel like letting part of my personal development and progression to be left up to intentional daydreaming, which is what visualization feels like to me. Maybe I just need to practice visualization a little more, and with more sincerity. Until then, I’ll likely trust in what I know works for sure for me: scientific, systematic, regular, and concrete puja/sadhana.

Om Shanti

Cupid Schmupid

A few days ago, on Facebook, a best of mine posted a mostly bitter status update that sounded like a moody teenager. He ranted about Valentine’s Day. He’s single and while he does very well without a “better half,” he would much rather have it. His post, in his own words, amounted to the sum of a very whiney “It’s a stupid holiday.” One person commented with something like, “Agreed! It’s just a stupid commercial holiday anyway.”

Umm… ALL holiday’s are commercial. Literally. Unless there’s a holiday that doesn’t involve you going to any store for any reason, it’s commercial. So, since commercialism is the ruin of all holidays let’s throw them all out, yeah? No. Regardless of the origin of any given holiday, or the degree of commercialism involved, each and every holiday is what you make it – and it’s also what you don’t make it. I see a strange parallel here to karma.

If for you, Christmas is about the birth of your Satguru (Jesus), then that should be your focus during that celebratory time. If, for you, Christmas means shopping … so be it. Although both approaches hold different value, neither approach is less valid. The same can be said about any holiday, including Valentine’s Day. Lamenting the apparent commercialism of a holiday simply implies that you have lost your own sight or that you sense you’re left behind by the progression of the holiday through time and culture – in which case I might suggest you re-evaluate what you actually think the holiday means to you, because something like this likely indicates you’re actual conflict is with yourself. All holidays undergo evolution just like religions and people and life in general.

In the world of phenomena, where we live and operate, anything that hopes to remain must be able to change. Shiva, the god of destruction, doesn’t destroy life, He allows for and encourages its continuance! Anything that is preserved as it was is stagnate and in the process of decline and death, or never possessed life. Change is a primary symptom of life and often indicates growth. Paradoxically, while we often equate change with destruction, nothing can exist if it doesn’t change, and the destruction we perceive is usually that of the subtle attachments we held for something that was never meant to last, or at least wasn’t really ours to be attached to. That which ceases to change – or at least seems to maintain – might seem preserved, and possibly for a short time it is, but there’s no actual power in this, and ultimately it becomes outdated, ineffective, and petrified – much like some people’s views of holidays.