Funniest Buddhism joke ever.

I think I just found the funniest Buddhism joke ever. It's pretty dark, but if you're Buddhist, you should be used to at least a little bit of nihilism. And, you probably shouldn't take offense to it. =P

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cartoons - #769

Escapism

Escapism

An interesting thing about yoga and Buddhism is their inherent escapist stance. Anyone who denies this is either referring to a much later branch of yoga/Buddhism, or has not read any of the original teachings on them. When you look at the popular modern religious notions, people are either very interested in traditional, orthodox, escapist stances or they are very turned off to the idea of religion. They may choose to be agnostic or atheist, take refuge in science, or choose beliefs from non-traditional sources. Either way, there's not much going on the "progress" department.

Let's take an in-depth point of view on the Indic meditative paths. We can adjust them a bit later.

Yoga's basic beliefs are based in dualism, that life is inherently "not good," and that there exists some other, transcendant state which is the goal of practice. Yoga's dualism derives from its sister-school, saaMkhya, or "enumeration." This school establishes the components of the physical world so that one can understand what prakRti, or "matter" is. By understanding this, one can understand what puruSa, or "the underlying Self" is. As stated in the upaniSad's, one can only describe this higher Self by saying "neti neti," "not this, not this." Well, prakRti is what it is not. These two, puruSa and prakRti are two seperate things. puruSa manipulates prakRti, but is not fundamentally changed by it. The traditional metaphor for the interplay of these two are the "viewer" and the "dancer." prakRti is the dancer that captures the attention of puruSa, who sits entranced. Once the viewer realizes what the nature of this divine play is, the viewer can cease to be enraptured and be free. This state of awareness, where the viewer can see beyond the performance, is the transcendant state of mind that is the goal of yoga. Once this state is attained - which, by the way, is composed of many stages, each with its own tricks and hazards - one is freed from the bondage of the cycle of karma and lives to which we are all suffering from. This can all be found right in the yoga sutras of pata~njali. sha~Nkara's monist views diverge from traditional yoga noticeably, but he does a lot of work trying to justify, explain, and defend his point of view in technical terms that are beyond the scope of my post. Suffice it to say, there are both monist and dualist approaches.

Buddhism is even easier. Let's take a look at the Four Noble Truths:

1) Suffering is omnipresent in life.
2) Life's suffering has a cause: desire.
3) The cessation of desire causes the cessation of suffering.
4) The way to cease desire is through the Eightfold Noble Path.

Negative view of life: check.

Next, the Buddha describes in the dharmapada (I prefer saMskRta to paali) that once desire is subdued, then one can experience a happiness that is enduring, limitless, and beyond all other happiness: nirvaaNa. Transcendant state: check.

The last one is a little tougher. Buddhism has many forms of non-dual/monist thought as well as dualist thought. The Buddha himself discouraged theological or philosophical theorizing, at least without a direct reason for it. He refused to comment in depth on the existence of Gods and demons, heavens or hells, insofar as it was for the sake of understanding some sort of afterlife or beyond-human power. The Buddha was a "self-effort" kind of guy, and that was his approach. His definition of nirvaaNa does imply that there is a state of mind or a state of being that is monist in some way, but he does not discount dualism in any physical way. As Buddhism was heavily influenced by yoga, and the Buddha was supposedly taught yoga, it would make sense that dualism was present in some major way, especially considering it was not properly discounted (like the buddhist stance of anaatman, which explicitly states its dissenting stance).


So, when we look at yoga and Buddhism, we can clearly see the roots of escapism in them, or perhaps they take their roots in escapism. I find this to be a little pessimistic and a little misguided.

While I wholeheartedly value the teachings and the paths noted above, I feel that if the goal really is "true" "enlightenment" ("true" meaning final, complete; "enlightenment" meaning mokSa and nirvaaNa for yoga and Buddhism, respectively), then it wouldn't direly avert normal, everyday life. I feel there should be a balance. After all, for most people, the breadth of the human experience is what teaches them. In the sense of pure accessibility, they don't have much, despite tempting us (yes, the irony of my word choice here is not lost on me) with very lofty, yet awe-inspiring, goals.

Sufiism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity provide some very interesting models for us to look at. Eastern Orthodoxy strongly encourages meditation/contemplation among lay followers and provides avenues to guide those who take to that approach. It tries to provide a balanced experience of life. Sufiism goes so far as to say that those who do not have families, take jobs, or contribute to their communities are not only spurning valuable aspects of life, but they are missing out on valuable opportunities for spiritual lessons. It says that those who take an ascetic approach are ultimately at a disadvantage. How's that for some food for thought, eh?

I feel that escapism doesn't quite fit the nobility of these spiritual traditions. It is, perhaps, a slightly ignorant idea of what we should be striving for. It's from an old and drastically different age, and yes, I suppose there ARE certain spiritual "universals," but I definitely think we can improve the model at the very least. Yes, suffering still exists, and yes, desire is still the cause. But, ignoring what's right in front of us isn't exactly a good answer.

There are those who will argue that once you are "enlightened," escapism stops. I suppose that's true, as I don't quite know any better, but who's to say that we can't have a path that gets us there that's not based on escapism? Buddhists, think 'upaaya' here. There are many ways to crack the nut of universal, transcendental truth.

The Sacrifice of the Senses, and controlling desire

The idea of practical sacrifice is apparent throughout the bhagavad giitaa (especially throughout chapter 4; see verses 23-24, and 26-33 for relevance to this rant/entry).

In chapter 4, verse 24, the idea of the vedic sacrifice is related to brahman, or Universal Self.  As Shukavak N. Dasa points out (in his translation and analysis), this is a metaphysical interpretation of the Vedic sacrifice.  Because of this, two important conclusions can be drawn.  First, the Vedic sacrifices and rituals, with the essence of this verse in mind, become acts that pertain to brahman, or the Supreme.  That is to say, they cease to be inadequate materialistic rituals that fulfil contractual obligations to Gods, but instead become actions that are directed to the Supreme.

Secondly, we see a further extension of this.  By keeping this mindset, the nature of the sacrifice (yajn~a) is changed.  Consequently, we can change the nature of all actions we take with this same mindset.  Every action we perform can be considered a sacrifice, and thus we fulfil the description of proper action in the giitaa;  we act out of sacrifice, and so we act without attachment, which means the results of those actions no longer bind us.  We then are performing perfect karma yoga, and we can reach liberation from saMsaara.

From this, the giitaa also mentions that if one performs austerities, it cleanses us and counts as further sacrifice.  Fasting, controlling one's senses, and even breathing all become sacrifices to the Supreme.

So let's take a look at the class of renunciates, such as yogii's, swaamii's, and saadhu's.  As ascetics/monks, they forego many different things for a life of renunciation and penance/sacrifice.  But, let's analyze this a little more closely.

Ascetics are supposed to forego possessions, luxuries, and the like.  This is all well and good, but when things turn awry for others, we have to re-evaluate the process, right?  In the SwaamiinaaraayaNa sect, at least in all instances of common practice that I've seen, there is a rule for ascetics that they are not allowed to view members of the opposite sex.  This is very strict, and includes family (sisters, mothers, aunts, etc.).  From my experience, they do not allow women (though that may be different by sect) to join the ascetic orders, and so we're left with sexist circumstances.  That's not to say they do not respect women, but it's hard to teach gender-equality when you have role-models who follow this practice.  Often, improper conclusions can be drawn by lay people.

My problem with this is that they're taking the easy road.  It's simple to avoid sexual impulses (at least if you're heterosexual in this example) or the desire to buy things if you never see any women or have no money or means.  If you put yourself in a situation where you are not ABLE to give in to desires, then you can in no way give in to them.  This isn't really controlling desire, is it?  If we don't have the free will to desire and act on those desires, can we really say that we're controlling them?  If, however, we do have the ability to act on our desires and we choose not to, then we truly are controlling them, are we not?

There's a practicality, of course, to putting yourself in that kind of a position.  Yes, desire is a massive fire that seems impossible to control.  So, putting yourself in such a position to control it makes sense.  Or does it?  Often, you hear about not relying on external means for spiritual contentment, yet isn't your way of life directly affecting it?  In my opinion, it makes sense to learn to curb desire when you know you can't act on it, at least for a time.  Once you master that, you have to take it to the next level, which is controlling it when you are able to act on it.  That's true discipline.

So my charge to yogii's, svaamii's, and saadhu's alike is to put yourself in the real world.  Escapism is a topic for another day, but while it's on my mind, I'd like to point out that Sufis are strongly encouraged to have families, work at jobs, and contribute to their communities and societies.  What's more interesting is that this isn't considered to hinder them; on the contrary, without those very things, they'd have a much more difficult time reaching their goal.

My charge to everyone is to develop self-discipline.  But, don't be pretentious or arrogant, or act self-glorified when you know that the only difference between you and others is that you're forced to not act on your desires.  If you were voluntarily sacrificing, then perhaps it would mean something to you, and maybe you wouldn't be so self-righteous.  Maybe, just maybe, you'd remember how hard it really is, and maybe you'd harbor some compassion.

Secular extrapolation

The Hindu orthodox schools of thought have always been geared to strict adherents. Back in the day, you had people who studied this stuff for the sake of studying it and they devoted their lives to it. You didn't dabble in it from time to time, and you certainly didn't separate it from its elements. I think it's pretty apparent that things don't work that way, especially now. It's not so practical for people to completely devote themselves to learning yoga, or saaMkhya, or taantra yoga or something. But, that doesn't mean we can't still benefit from it.

In the past century, you have a large influx of "Eastern thought" and most of that has been adapted in some secular form. "yoga" conjures up images of crazy body positions and breathing exercises, not of traditional meditation or the austere ascetic lifestyle. On the one hand, you lose some of the original meaning. This may or may not be a problem for you. On the other hand, you gain a lot of benefits, like healthier life choices. This may or may not be a plus to you. Bottom line is that this secular extrapolation and development provides many avenues for many different people. For those "soccer moms" and "serious atheletes" who love haTha yoga (deva: हठ योग), they can perform their postures. For those "intellectual students" and "introspectives" you can find plenty of meditation centers for raaja yoga (deva: राज योग).

One of the larger problems that occur with this is that many unique concepts lose their distinction. If you look at the migration of Buddhism into the US over the past sixty years or so, you can see that in many cases entire schools of Buddhism are misinterpreted. You have Zen/Chan Buddhism mixed up with Taoism, and Vipassana Buddhism often losing its core methods of meditation. Words and concepts get mixed up and infused with entirely different meanings (partially leading to my four part post on karma). You lose distinctions that are important in the context of specific schools, and while they may not be important to the people who are frequenting the monastery, it is important in the larger scheme of things. This is because as students progress, they reach important teachings which have a context. Having no context, or having the student relearn concepts integral to that context, provides a steep incline for the learning process.

It may be that for this reason, we should think of a tiered system. One tier for concepts common to all schools, and the next diverging into branches based on concepts. Not unlike how high school, college, grad school, etc. form a tiered educational system.

I'll post more on this another day. I just really feel that things need to be reorganized, or at least thought out in a better way. Secularization is not new, and it's fairly inevitable, especially with the way trends are going now. But, if we put some thought into things, we can shape it in a way that makes much more sense. If we can avoid something like this, then why not?

karma, III

karma has a lot of interesting subtleties. It's been expanded upon for a long time, but that doesn't mean we can't find modern metaphors for older concepts.

Credit for the translation of the concepts and the application of the metaphor go to my sanskrit teacher, "Dnyanada" (no last name, and in fact, she had a great story about how she got rid of it years ago, and when she came to the US, no one could comprehend the fact that she chose to not have one. The computers had a field-day with that one!).

My sophomore year at Rutgers was when I took sanskrit, and Dnyanada often went on tangents about certain tidbits of information. She took a stance against "sanskritizing" and recreating etymologies for words in modern Indian languages, for example. While these tangents didn't directly correlate with our lessons, they did provide a useful boost of interest for others in the class, but I loved the trivia.

One day in particular, she talked of karma being misused and happened to mention two interesting types of karma. Now, I don't know her sources, but she was a well-read woman and so I will take her word as a secondary source to this, especially considering just how much she knew of everything we brought up. She described how further developments on the theories of karma led to what we might in this day and age call "credit" karma and "debit" karma.

"Credit" karma is what we face when we act on something, spontaneously or not, and for which we will later reap the fruits of. Whether we're eating dairy and we're lactose-intolerant, or we're gossiping about the coworker two cubicles down, it's all credit karma here. This doesn't mean that we are acting completely originally; when it comes down to it, nearly everything is a reaction. The distinction here, however, is that the real, dominant fruits are forthcoming.

"Debit" karma, on the other hand, describes the karma "used" when we react to something. Here, we're acting from fruits we have come to acquire without having actually acted. Revenge is an excellent example. Let's say actor A does something horrible to actor B. Actor A created credit karma. Some of the fruits of this action have gone to Actor B and motivated him to seek revenge. When he finally acts, it will have been out of debit karma. This situation primarily applies when actor B did not instigate actor A, or if actor B somehow acts out on a third actor, actor C. Otherwise, it really is no different from standard reaction.

To extend the metaphor, we can act from our checking accounts or our savings accounts. If we act from our checking accounts, we are acting on karma that is marked "to spend." This is often recent karma. When we react on things that are more or less direct, then this is from checking. This applies in the above case when actor B happens to be irate from actor A's actions, but takes it out on actor C. We can say that his acting out on actor C was because he was still under the influence of A's actions. He was still angry and so it passed on this way.

For a moment, let's take a look at a completely different example. A husband gets home late from work irritated about his boss. His wife cooks him a meal, but he doesn't like it. They argue. That's from his checking karma. But, let's say his wife takes a cheap shot at him during an argument when she's right. He doesn't argue and goes along with it because, after all, she is right. A week later she argues with him about something else and she's wrong. In his anger, he suddenly remembers the lousy feeling from her comment previously. He's further infuriated by this and now he says something that crosses the line. This action is savings karma. For a week, he was not bothered by her comment, thinking that he had let it go. Then, in a separate event, that comment comes up and helps to propagate whatever he's thinking at that time. Because of the comment's dormant period, we can say that it was put into savings. Later, he remembered it and used it to fuel something else, i.e. he transferred it into his checking account before using his debit card.

Why on earth is this useful to us? Aside from being yet another tool that lets us further analyze and understand our actions, it directly calls into question our motives. Direct karma (credit karma), redirected karma (debit, checking), and forced-direct karma (debit, savings) help to explain why we do things. The danger here is not unfamiliar, however. People have a way of using whatever they can to justify their actions.

karma, however, is a law of the universe. We do not have a choice to participate or withhold in its games. No matter what actions we take, we are most definitely influencing something and that yields reactions. The benefit to us would be to see patterns and tweak our behavior to benefit us. It's fine that things go into our savings accounts. We shouldn't spend on stuff that's frivolous, though. If we're saving for something, like fuel during our workouts, or inspiration for songs, or something else that acts as a positive channel, then we're hacking the system to our benefit. And, we need to know when act and how to make it productive. And, when to let go.

I'll bet this really brings more meaning to the old adage, "Don't write a check your butt can't cash."

karma, IV

One of the more "artistic" interpretations of karma is related to choice-making.

The idea is that karma doesn't doom us to relive things just as they happened before. It makes us relive those moments in which we made a "wrong" choice, or a choice we're bound to by regret or sadness, or habit, or pleasure, and presents itself until we make a choice that frees us from this bondage.

This is definitely a modern concept of karma, and definitely not one I'd mark as "authentic," but it is very thought-provoking. It also raises a good point in that karma is not meant to be so concrete. It's not something that forces us to undergo the reciprocity of an action we previously made. And, it's something we bind ourselves to. It's more like a bias, really.

Let's take some simple: every guy named Larry you've ever met was a jerk. The next time you meet a Larry, you could assume that he's a jerk. Or, you could take a page from David Hume and take this is a separate, unrelated event, and take it as is.

If any of you have ever played Enter the Matrix, you may recall a scene between Niobe and Ghost. The weapons program loads up, they choose their weapons, and Ghost checks the cartridges in his guns. Niobe mentions that the program loads the same way each and every time, yet Ghost never fails to check his guns manually. She asks him why. In response, he says,

Hume teaches us that no matter how many times you drop a stone and it falls to the floor, you never know what'll happen the next time you drop it. It might fall to the floor, but then again it might float to the ceiling. Past experience never proves the future. (source)

Not a bad way to approach things, I might add. Going about things this way allows you to approach things from a fresh perspective each time. While it's quite an exercise, it forces you to shed biases and often makes it easier to peel apart layers from things when you're feeling very overwhelmed.

Bias is very useful. If we touch a hot stove, we get burned. We learn not to do it again. However, things aren't so black and white in every case. I don't think I need to point out how irrational it is to assume the next Larry you meet is going to be a jerk. But, that is how our brains work, sometimes even if it happens sub-/un-consciously.

karma can work in a similar way. If we're faced with one situation over and over, we can very easily take a pitfall and assume things will unfold the same way. We often have to work to realize that we can actively make a different choice, or influence the event in different way.

There's also another choice, one that's "neutral." We can let go. Instead of waiting for a karmic credit card bill or tossing something into our karmic bank accounts, we can choose to just let go. We can accept something as is, react without emotional attachment, and move on. Notice that I said "without emotional attachment," and NOT "without emotion." There's a large difference here that amounts to more than one word. If we bind ourselves to things and have to unbind ourselves from them later, we can also choose to not be bound in the first place.

Personally, I feel that part of life is having these bound experiences, and part of it is learned to act without having to bind yourself. Your mileage may vary, of course.

In nearly all of the various schools on Indic philosophy, orthodox and heterodox, you see that people who have attained their respective goals do no produce karma. That is not to say that there is absolutely no interaction with karma, as they can just be spouting out a balance of zero. I think I previously mentioned that it does not necessarily imply causation, either; by tweaking your karmic output to zero you may not find "liberation," or "enlightenment" or what have you. But, that doesn't mean you can't improve your life.

Giitaa-based philosophy and death

Two more posts on karma and a book review of Palace of Illusions pending, I felt particularly introspective in a different way whilst reading the giitaa tonight.

It occurred to me that in some simplistic way, a great deal of philosophy from the early chapters of the giitaa can be distilled. Once, in a Buddhist Philosophy class, a classmate (who majored in philosophy) asked how something would apply in a life or death situation. While other bemused classmates (myself included) snickered, she raised the point that any philosophy, at its basis, can be tested most easily and pertinently by looking at the ramifications it has in a life or death scenario. While that's not to say that there is no point to living by a philosophy, it does make sense to test its boundaries in such a way.

Thinking along those lines, it's pretty easy to simplify the giitaa's philosophy (at least from the earlier chapters). The idea of knowledge of renunciation of action, meditation (that knowledge's application), and so forth can be applied at the point of death to ease one's passing, karmic accumulation, etc. There are quite a few problems that arise such as remembering that stuff when dying, to say nothing of our ignorance of our deaths. What we practice is what comes to us almost instinctually, and so if we live via those ideas then we will also remember them upon our death. And, if we practice them in life, we can perhaps gain some sort of insight into our elation and suffering alike. Maybe we can make better decisions and learn to live with our mistakes.

While some are inclined to think of rewards of cosmic proportions after death, many of us are just looking to cope with various aspects of life, are we not? For us of the latter persuasion, desires of lofty Heavens and fears of stupifying Hells doesn't help much. We want some sort of elixir that makes it easier to live with the horrible things that we've done (or had happen to us) and helps us to appreciate the finer, subtler pleasures in life. Not fine wines, mind you, but the fine aroma of a summer evening, even if it is just outside the sweatshop/cubicle-farm. And, while some of us search ceaselessly for this magical elixir, I don't think there is one (though if there is, please let me know!).

For me, I'm content to try to figure out some of life's great awe-inspiring, though usually mundanely simple truths one at a time. When things get really rough, it's nice to have some help remembering. aadi sha.nkaraacharya said that our two best friends should be Death and Knowledge, as they never leave our side. Death reminds me to be in a constant appreciation of what's going on. I feel that maybe the knowledge gained from the giitaa's philosophy (Chapters Two and Three particularly speak to me, but I often wonder what doesn't...) can predominate the personality of my friend Knowledge. It's not the worst way to live, and if it gets me by during the trying times in life, then so be it. If not, my innate thirst for more spirituality will more than compensate.

Sure, there's more to it than that. It's never just that simple. But, from all that I learned from Buddhism, the concept of upaaya (deva: उपाय, "method" or "skillful means") burns brightest and most true. Sometimes, in life, a person needs to hear or see something in some particular way and at a specific time and place, maybe from some person in particular. Sometiimes, that's what it takes to learn something. We've all been there, and there's nothing wrong with that. And, maybe my oversimplified moment-of-death-centric view of philosophy will spark something in someone someplace sometime. *BLATANT GENERALIZATION*

I think there's nothing wrong with hoping for that.

Example of the importance of language

A few days ago I came across a great example to illustrate the importance of language, especially with regards to scripture. Granted, this example is not from scripture, but at one point it was not uncommon.

"God executes indifferent justice."

The key word here is "indifferent." Here, we're looking at a meaning of 'impartial,' not 'apathetic,' as pointed out by the source of this example and analysis (my thanks and credit to John Dierdorf). Also, Mr. Dierdorf kindly points out that "executioner" and "executor" have a related etymology and were used interchangeably, both meaning 'one who carries out.'

On a tangent, one would have to say "to execute to death." Again, Mr. Dierdorf kindly points out that due to the original meaning of the word, that phrase was not redundant, as it is now. Similarly, "damn" meant 'harm.' ("Damn" has one of the most interesting etymologies, btw.) So, it was not redundant to say "to damn you to hell."

Linguistic tangent aside, my focus here was to show how language changes, and in today's age, it has the potential to change very quickly. Because of this, we need to remember to take scripture, and whatever we read, in its proper perspective. Words that mean one thing now may mean something entirely different in ten years, let alone hundreds, and that's to say nothing of translation and further extrapolation, interpretation, etc. Remember, context is really important.

karma, II

When people think of "karma," they automatically think of reincarnation. This isn't to say that karma only applies in conjunction with reincarnation; many people believe in reincarnation but reject karma. It works just as well in the Christian paradigm of life in the world and an eternal Heaven or Hell afterward. The thing is, you'd have to explain why some people just don't have a good lot in life from birth very differently. When you believe in reincarnation and karma, you can blame karma for that, as well as for the other good and bad things within your life that don't seem to come from anything you yourself have done.

A major criticism of karma is that it reduces our choices, decisions, and actions to a mechanical input-output equation. It's like how people don't like to believe that emotions are caused by physiological and chemical changes. Not that I'm saying they are (correlation is not causation), but I'm just pointing out how people often don't like to believe that. Behaviorism in psychology is another example. Things become too mechanical. The reality is that while these things do have an effect on things, they don't necessarily cause them, nor are they the sole cause of things. In practice, things are much to complicated to be reduced to a very simplistic definition.

That's exactly what the concept of karma has been reduced to. You can't just say that someone got murdered because they murdered someone else in a past life. You can't just assume that if you do good, you'll get good in return. It's not simple and straightforward like that. Sure, sometimes it presents itself that way, and you'll always hear people say things like that. I think that's a dangerous way to look at things though. You run the risk of reducing a very potent concept to something that you have to either take on faith or throw away. karma is not a catch-all explanation of things, as some may believe.

As we experience things in our lives, we learn how to act and respond, and what kind of responses we can expect. We get biases in our judgements. In this way, we can say that karma lingers on. Things that we've experienced directly in a negative way, for example, often outweigh negative things that we haven't experienced but know to be horrible. In the same way, we strive for things we know to be good instead of things we accept as good but haven't experienced. It takes a lot of effort to rise above and beyond this type of behavior.

It really pisses me off when people call "karma" when something that was bound to happen happens. Yes, it is karma, but no one calls karma when someone gets away with something. karma is so disjointed from its real use (and along with this, one day I'll post why I hate what Buddhism has become), and it's annoying how people say things without ever really knowing what they're talking about, or what they mean. My karma is that my own words get so miscontrued so often that I can't help being annoyed. Some good karma would be to learn to not get annoyed.

But, the idea of karma as "points" in some sort of cosmic game lingers on and placates some. It's a great teaching for lay people, those who don't know about, care about, or have time to learn the intricacies of deeper religious thought or spiritual experience. It's easy for someone who's wrapped up in other things to accept simpler explanations for why bad things happen to good people, and maybe that's all they need. That doesn't mean there's not more there, however.

karma is important in understanding action as a whole. Many descriptions of mokSa (deva: मोक्ष, "liberation" and often used to denote the goal of various mystical practices) include the idea that once it is attained, a person no longer creates karma. karma binds us to life and its woes and joys, and to the cycle of lives and afterlives (beforelives?). The Jain doctrines even consider it to be physical, the weight of which holds us down to life (literally). In fact, many paths teach that to stop karma is to stop the grip of saMsaara. Reminiscent of an old Taoist movement that misinterpreted wu wei, they attempt to create no karma by doing nothing at all, good nor bad. But, as the adage goes, "indecision is a decision." You can assume, as some do, that doing nothing creates neutral karma, but the bigger point is that doing nothing is missing the point. And, as we know from statistics, correlation does not mean causation.

If we see karma as something that binds us to life, then someone who is liberated cannot create karma, otherwise he/she would be bound to life. But, that could also just be a by-product of being liberated. It could also be an assumption based on that particular definition of karma. Dangerous assumptions from dangerous simplifications, and again, karma isn't so simple.

The bigger focus is how we receive actions, how we act, and how we feel we should act and react. Just because we feel a certain way doesn't mean we're justified in doing so. And, when we can choose to receive things differently, why not do so? What's so wrong with doing good? Even if it's for our own sake, the bottom line is that good is being done. And, if it's selfish, at least the karmic equation will account for that...

karma, I

karma. A term many of us hear everyday.

karma (deva: कर्म, from sanskrit root कृ "to do"/"to make") is a very heavily loaded word. It always has been. One can see by the myriad of varied uses it has in sanskrit how loaded the word is. kR, as the "to do" verbs in many languages are wont to do (seriously, no pun intended), you have tons and tonnes of related terms and phrases, idiomatic usages, and loaded meanings associated with the verb. Let's take things a little bit at a time, shall we?

Action. If we take kR as "to do" or "to act," we get "action." Simple enough, at least until we consider the repercussions of an action. When we act, there is a result from that action. We call that a reaction. The idea of karma is that of action and reaction. It's not enough to think of what we do; we must also consider what kinds of effects that has and how those effects propagate. Newton's laws and forces do well to illustrate karma, really.

When we act, the effects ripple outwards. We affect other things and people when we do something, anything, regardless of how small the action. I won't get into "butterflies flapping their wings" here, but it's true. Let's take this into a less concrete layer here. When one acts towards another it can be considered either good, bad, or neutral. After all, when we think of karma, we think of a sort of "point system" do we not? Thus, we see a reaction. Usually, when people are acted upon positively, they respond by feeling positive. Sometimes, they also do positive things back, whether directly to the actor or to others. When people are acted upon negatively, they respond in kind. When people are acted upon by a neutral act, they usually think it's weird, ignore it, or take it as good/bad and act in kind. Sometimes they do all of the above. Now, when we think in the realms of human experience and action, there's one important thing here to consider: the reception of the action. If people take things to be good or bad, they act in a way that propagates that feeling. On occasion, however, we can see people who act differently.

Ever see the annoying optimist? That really annoying person who takes good news from bad news, or tries to always see the bright side of things? How about the nay-sayer? How about those people who really get overly dramatic over nothing? It's useful to try to take a bad situation and make it better, but when someone tries to do things for us, or doesn't do it in an incredibly sensitive way, we easily get annoyed. At the same time, when good things happen, some people just don't want to take it. Usually, it's a way to preemptively divert disappointment that may come when a good thing turns out to not be so good. At any rate, we can see this as a way to change the karmic effects of an action.

People sometimes make something out of nothing, too. Usually, this is because something passive strikes a nerve of a person and they end up taking it in a negative way. Since you can't make something from "nothing," per se, you have to assume there's some sort of action that doesn't have any good or bad effects in and of itself. That's what neutral karma is. And, there are those that try to appreciate the subtleties of life. They look at things that affect them neutrally and change them to have positive effects. Now that I think about it, being genuinely happy for others sort of falls into this category as well.

If you can change your reception of an action, you can change how it affects you, how you respond, and how that response can affect others (depending on their reception). Take that piece of advice any way you will.

Immortality

Something interesting I've noticed.

When looking at the itihaasas and puraaNas, and even epics from other cultures and folk stories in general, you see some interesting similarities. One is the quest for immortality that arises from time to time. More importantly, though, is the secret to it: vengeance.

You have stories of people who were wronged and their family sets out to avenge. Bitter hatred grows over years and years, even over generations. Retribution is craved by those wronged, and once revenge is had, the other side lusts for it. Children are expected to carry out their parents' vengeance whenever possible. Look at dhRSTadyumna, who was born because of his father, drupada's craving for vengeance against droNa. Those who crave it don't give up on life very easily as well. Sometimes, that provides one's sole reason to live. And then there's the idea that people even take it from life to life. shikhaNDii/ambaa, went through the barrier between one life and the next for his/her vengeance.

Most telling of all, however, are the descriptions of ghosts, spectres, and other supernatural beings that exist because of their torment and hatred in life. There are many stories of spirits who were so consumed by their desire for revenge that they are transformed after their deaths. Too many, actually, and I can't even choose one that would do this justice, but you can take a look at almost any given J-Horror or K-Horror flick if you want a modern take on it.

The desire is important. If you crave immortality, then you'd have to seek unrequitable vengeance. The second you get it, you won't be immortal. The motivation would be gone. But, with that desire consuming your very being... Well, it's just not a quality "life," is it?

The interesting thing here, if we are to follow the yogic or one of the various other devotional paradigms, is that this is completely counter-intuitive. The teaching holds that true "freedom" from the cycle of saMsaara, from karma, from everything, entails immortality. That is the true nature of the soul. In order to acheive this goal, to really merge one's self with God, or to see what the self truly is (depending on your point of view), we must strip the conditioning we have undergone. We must let go of the biases, attachments, desires, and influences we have gained by living and experiencing things. God is just but that justice is not formed or influenced by God's experiences. It is absolute. Therefore, if we are to merge with God, we, too, must shed the biases we have from our experiences and gain this sense of absolute justice.

Perhaps I've diverged a bit, and perhaps that's an impossible goal. Regardless, the fact remains that one must strip the "impressions" one gets on their citta one by one. To say that intense desire fueled by more intense suffering and hatred can provide a sort of immortality (or strict binding to the world) seems to not work. Add the idea of forgiveness to this mix. Forgiveness alleviates and undoes the strife and pseudo-immortality (respectively), but then paves the way for the other immortality we've discussed. Attachment goes in the opposite direction of forgiveness.

Now that we can see each and cross between them, maybe we can make our choices. As for me, I think immortality is overrated. Without human experiences, I don't believe we can prepare for further experiences. For us to have our reality shattered, we need a reality, par exemple. But, I wait to be corrected. Divinity isn't hiding.

A Technological Monk (from the Technological Monk)

I thought I'd take the time to transcrieb the following post from the self-titled blog that it is attached to:

A Technological Monk

In it, I discuss a bit of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, how our attention is often divided, the need for developing singular focus, meditation, and how we can incorporate those point in our modern, technology-filled lives. I think you'd enjoy it, and it belongs just as much here as over there. Enjoy!

---

Today, I'm going to elaborate on something I've discussed before: why it's important to take time to slow down.

I am a technological monk, a modern monk. I meditate, though not nearly as frequently as I want (or need) to. Truth be told, we have to make time for the things we enjoy, and one of these days I'll get around to working it into a routine or schedule. Until then, however, I make do by slowing down. I adapt the older techniques to a more modern way of life.

The fundamentals of Eastern meditation can be found from the Upanishads down to Patanjali (Deva: पतञ्जलि, pata~njali), who compiled the yoga sutras. Actually, the first line of the yoga sutras is as follows:

अथ योगानुशासनम् ||१||
atha yogaanushaasanam ..1..
Here (अथ) is the continuation (denoted by prefix अनु-) of the teachings (शासनम्) of yoga. This indirectly (though not merely implicitly) shows that the study of yoga had been going on for some time before Patanjali's formal compilation of sutras. While I'm on the subject, here are the next few lines:

योगश्चित्तवृत्ति निरोधः ||२||
तदा द्रष्टुः स्वरूपेऽवस्थानम् ||३||
वृत्तिसारूप्यमितरत्र ||४||

yogashcittavRtti nirodhaH ..2..
tadaa draSTuH svaruupe.vasthaanam ..3..
vRttisaaruupyam itaratra ..4..

"Yoga is the cessation (nirodhaH) of the turnings (vRtti) of the mind (citta).
Then (tadaa), the seer (draSTuH) resides (avasthaanam) in its own true form (svaruupe).
In other cases (elsewise, etc. ; itaratra), the true self (saaruupyam) [identifies with, "is"] the turnings (vRtti)."

What this essentially means is that:

1. The process of "yoga" is when the mind (in actuality, citta is the amalgamation of three components of sense-related consciousness) stops turning or revolving. It stops creating movement.
2. This is a very bold statement. Most people have never experienced this in a waking state, and so the third sutra serves to allay any fears of death.
3. The "seer" (a metaphor for the true inner consciousness) resides in the knowledge of itself.
4. In other cases, this inner consciousness identifies with movements in the mind. This identification is fallacious.

The idea here is that we have consciousness. It cannot be turned off while we are alive. This consciousness is usually focused "outwards," through the mind and its movements, through sensory perception, and out to the world. However, through careful and sustained practice, prayer, and/or raw discipline, one can turn off perception to these "outward" things, including to one's thoughts. Since consciousness cannot be turned off, it insteads reflects back on itself, and this "self-awareness" is the basis for yoga. Mystics find their liberation from the world through this, and despite being a horrid cliché that I hate, I will buckle and say that a Westerner can think of this as "enlightenment."

(Breakdown here is courtesy of my amazing former professor, Dr. Edwin Bryant, and his amazing Yoga Sutras topical study of religion. My explanation and interpretation exists because of what I learned in his classes.)

Relax, I'm getting to the point.

Nowadays, we're brought up to multitask. Multitasking is great, and useful, and is a great skill. But, overdeveloping that ability backfires. We learn to focus first, before we learn to split our attention amongst other things. When we learn to multitask, most of us continue to develop that without fully developing the ability to truly focus on one or two things. We don't have balanced attention.

Meditation works entirely on focus, especially with only one object. I'm not saying that multitasking has absolutely no place in meditation, but unless you're advanced, have another motive, or are a special case, it primarily hinders progress. That's why I don't buy the excuse that absolutely EVERYONE gives: "I just can't focus." Guess what? NO ONE can! It's nothing that doesn't affect everyone else. "Stopping" thought is not easy. You have to work at it, over a long period of time, and with discipline. Really, that statement is pretty much just a poor excuse; either they don't really care about it or don't realize that they have to invest a significant amount of time. Instant gratification really doesn't apply, especially for things considered "ascetic" arts.

At any rate, the fact of the matter is that we're stuck with a better multitasking ability and we're left wanting in terms of singular focus. My good friend Adam pointed out to me recently that an average pack/day smoker gets to have anywhere from forty to an hour and forty minutes of time that could be considered mild meditation. Adam, being ever the resourceful one, takes whatever opportunity he can to do what he refers to as "bullshit meditations." What a great idea! I, myself, do a lot of these b.s. meditations in my daily routines.

As I've said before, taking time to slow down can really have magical effects for some people. Taking time to focus on doing something in the not-so-efficient or not-so-resourceful way can serve a great deal of purposes, including building character-defining traits, forming idiosyncracies that can enrich your life (for yourself), and de-stressing! These habits give you a chance to concentrate your focus on one or two things, which lets you regroup. Many people think that by constantly checking on problems or worrying (essentially bringing things to the forefront of your mind from time to time) "in the background" that they're doing something good. Actually, it's a lot like flicking Alt+Tab; you're flipping through open programs, but just because you're not seeing some of the programs for more than five seconds at a time doesn't mean that they're magically "in the background." You have to let them sit, until they're tossed into the swap partition. This frees up your RAM to do something else, and when you do finally switch back to your other thoughts, they really are "refreshed." From personal experience, I can tell you this is really conducive to the Eureka Effect.

Understandably, modern life differs from ancient life. We can't all just up and leave our jobs and become ascetics or monks; devoting our lives to a method to free ourselves from life doesn't seem to fit the contemporary mood. On the whole, we don't care, and most of us haven't even thought about our own mortality in a truly life-altering way (aside from the fifteen minutes after somebody close to us passes away). However, why should that stop us from utilizing meditation as a quick tool to boost the quality of our lives? It can boost productivity, balance our moods, give us some greater perspective beyond the immediate here & now of our individual lives, and perhaps give us some spiritual insight in the process.

And why shouldn't we recruit the use of technology for this? As a personal example of how I sharpen my focus, I recently started learning the Linux command-line. I've been learning some scripting so that I could do some batch video conversions for my iPod. While in the future I can convert video really easily and without much thought, I spent two to three hours last night trying to get the script to work just right. That was good, solid focus. No multitasking; I wasn't checking torrents, downloading guides, writing this blog post. I was taking things one step at a time and trying to get exactly one thing working. This is just one example of how I take time to work on laser- or flashlight-like focus, instead of a lantern or lightbulb-like focus (a modern take on a very old metaphor). Slowly but surely I am learning some discipline. Actually, I've read numerous articles on the web that highlight research in education techniques. Doing things for shorter periods of time with a more intense focus and doing them daily is generally much more effective than "brute-forcing" something into your head irregularly and for prolonged periods of time. From my varied sources, this is true of meditation. The misconception is that when you sit down to meditate, you sit down for hours at a time until you get it. Beginners hear this and it really turns them away for the idea after trying it. Actually, it is much more effective to try and meditate for maybe a half hour a day for a few weeks, and as it gets more comfortable/familiar/easier, to increase that time. Very similar to many doctors' recommendations for exercise...

This is another junction where we can identify some of our issues by taking a look at our technological practices, and how some of our technological solutions can trickle back into other aspects of our everyday lives. As if I haven't said it enough already, there's no reason we can't still find ancient wisdom in our cutting-edge laptop or bleeding-edge software release. Similar ideas are at play now that were in effect thousands of years ago. And, at least for some things, that's not such a bad idea.

Aliens and ancients, opinions and opinions.

Let me preface this post by saying that it's full of personal ideas and beliefs, many of which are not exactly mainstream. It's also full of ideas that I think are crazy and don't agree with. Let's hope, at the very least, it's an entertaining, if not wholly interesting read.

After reading a lot about the subject of aliens over the years, and laughing at a lot of the most ridiculous crap ever, and just recently seeing a special on the History Channel about aliens in ancient religions, I have come to a point where I can't remain passively silent anymore. I choose to be passively vocal.

First thing's first. I do believe in "aliens," though I am in no way convinced of alien sightings, contact, and technology. It's fairly simple logic, which while being straightforward, may lead to me being ultimately wrong. If the universe is infinite, conceivably and practically, and has a really large number of galaxies, filled with stars and other matter, then I think it's safe to say there's probably a really large number of planets out there. The more planets there are, the more likely there is to one that is like ours, and can support life. Given the vastness of the universe, there's probably some sort of life out there somewhere.

Also, assuming we don't know everything there is to know in the universe (which is a really safe assumption to me), then there's a chance that there is a way for life to exist outside of our limited experience with it. That is to say, non-carbon-based life may be possible somewhere and under some conditions. After all, most of what we put forth (in invention, concept, and theory) is based on what we know or have experience with. It's extremely difficult, and some may argue impossible, to put forth an idea that has no basis in something we don't already know. When children draw weird animals, rarely do you see animals that are completely unlike what we actually have. Upon explanation, you'll see parts of animals that the child is familiar with put together. Just an example. So let's say it's a possibility, however remote it may be.

So we have aliens. But do we really have "proof" from antiquity? We barely have "proof" now, when sightings are photographed and recorded in video. To say with any sort of certainty that the vimanas (Deva: विमान) that are described as "flying vehicles" are in actuality flying machines not unlike modern aircraft is completely absurd. Yes, there's a lot of stuff in religious texts (especially Hinduism) that may seem really crazy. Actually, there's a lot of stuff in there that IS crazy, depending on who you talk to. But really, that doesn't mean that it's necessary.

Ancient ideas aren't always so remote and fanciful. The same fascination that the ancients had with flight motivated the Wright brothers to create, motivated many of the science fiction and fantasy writers from all eras, and motivated many others to dream. It's much less far-fetched to think that perhaps people from antiquity really just used metaphors or believed in less complicated things, and there was some really huge game of telephone that reached beyond their time. And I'm not necessarily saying that those from years gone by elaborated and exaggerated their own stories. Instead of always arguing how accurate things are due to their source, sometimes it's more prudent to argue how accurate things are due to their transcription. When you think about this through the ages, it adds up. To what degree are WE perverting what came before us?

To me, I don't think you can really call everything cut and dry without being there. A lot of historical inference is based on context, without which you cannot assert that something actually happened. Then again, I don't have a degree in History, or Archaeology, Anthropology, or whatever else. I suppose that while some people will say, "Show me the proof!" when it comes to debatable ideas and theories, I'm the type who'll take it as true in its context. I don't mean that I'll take it for granted; I always want to see the support. I mean that I won't take it as absolute if at all possible. Occam's razor is useful, but from what I've experienced in real life, the whole truth is nowhere near as simple as the first conjecture made.

Anyway, the show mentioned one thing in particular that I thought was note-worthy. "And, each time [the aliens] leave, they make a promise: to return in the distant future" (quoted as accurately as I can remember from a few hours ago). That statement really struck me with the stupid stick. Suppose that aliens did exist, and visited us. Suppose that when they visited us, they visited various different groups/cultures/societies of humans. In all likelihood, they ended up visiting different groups on each subsequent visit, each time promising that they'd return in the future. In that case, they wouldn't be very smart. If each group of people wasn't busy trying to take over the others already, then it surely would try to after "the Gods" visited earth. They'd be just plain dumb to continue to come back, regardless of how much more advanced they were. And, perhaps they were more advanced, but does that prove that they were smarter? Maybe their planet just allowed them to exist earlier than ours did.

To some degree, I think it's better to believe in the "ancient alien contact" theory than in our own religions. Inevitably, some idiot thinks it's a good idea to go literal. Also inevitably, some idiot thinks it's a good idea to go in a completely different direction. It's not so much that their actions make them idiots (also in some cases it's true), but more that they end up with idiot followers who need power, can't think for themselves, and/or are just bigots to some degree. If God exists, and aliens contacted us, who would you rather blame for the horrible paths that some of us have taken?


I don't often speculate on things, especially things that can't be proven in any degree. I also don't get so misanthropic and deterministic. But, I thought that some post is better than none. I also thought that any argument one tries to make about aliens visiting, the same can be said of a time traveler coming back. O Futurama velut luna statu variabilis (an O Fortuna reference, for those that didn't get it).


I mentioned vimanas, but in addition, you have the devas themselves, their various forms and incarnations, the divine weapons, and the "psychic" phenomena classified as divine and/or magical that can be questioned for being alien/extra-terrestrial(/from the future) in origin. Now, your homework for this lecture is to compare and contrast if you are not Hindu, and if you are, then come up with one MORE thing that hasn't been covered that can be construed as such.

In the Name of God

I've only recently picked up on this, and that surprised me.

I'm sure most people are aware that one of Christian commandments is to not take God's name in vain, wrongfully use it, etc. In addition to swearing, it's apparently also not proper to exclaim things like, "Oh my God!" Evidently, people take a lot of offense to that, as it "breaks a Commandment."

I'm surprised at how out of place that is!

Hearing my parents and grandparents exclaim "he prabhuu," and "raam, taarii maayaa," (yes, I'm Gujarati) here and there just jogged me one day. Isn't it a good idea to have God's name on our mouths?

I can't say I know too much about Judaism here, but in Islam, you have a myriad of greetings and pleasantries that name God. "Khoda Hafiz," "Al Hamdulillah," "Insha' Allah," "Masha Allah," take your pick. In English, we say "God bless you," "God forgive," and "God given," just to name a few. Let's even throw in the pan Judeo-Christian "Hallelujah," and the equivalent (in terms of use anyway) "Allahu akbar."

And, for those of you who go on about terrorism the second you hear the word "Allah," shame on you!! "Al-lah" literally means "The God." It's really more of a title when you think about it. "Lah" is a word that applies to all deities, even those of polytheists. Tying "Allah" to terrorists makes about as much sense as tying "the Lord" to terrorists. Which says a lot, actually, when you stop to think about global religous fundamentalism. And, this is me covering my ass and saying "I am not a terrorist, not have I ever been one, nor do I plan on ever being one." Even 7 years later, I'm covering my ass. That's what things have come to nowadays.

But to see someone get so indignant at my use of the word "God" really caught me off-guard, especially since it wasn't used generously as is the status quo. Immediately I was reminded of a Hindu parable.

The 'Pandavas' (Deva: पाण्डव's) eventually die and enter Heaven. Who else would they happen to come across except 'Duryodhana' (Deva: दुर्योधन), their nemesis. Arjuna sees him and can't understand why he would be there with them! As he goes to confront Duryodhana, 'Krishna' (Deva: कृष्ण, kRSNa) appears and explains in kind. "Just as you are here because of your devotion, so is he here because of his. You have spent your life reciting my name in praises, and he has spent his reciting it in curses. But, just as your attention has never left me, neither has his."

Actually, there's another reference related to the Ramayana (Deva: रामायण, raamaayaNa). In the Bhagavata Purana (Deva: भागवत पुराण, bhaagavata puraaNa), the two gatekeepers of Vishnu's abode, Jaya and Vijaya (Deva: जय and विजय) get a curse placed upon them whereupon they must undergo human birth, and thus, work their way up into Heaven again. Vishnu offers to soften this curse by giving them a choice: they may take seven births as Vishnu's devotees, or three births as His enemies." They choose the latter and appear as:

1. Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu (Deva: हिरण्याक्ष and हिरण्यकशिपु) during Vishnu's Varaha and Narasinha (Deva: वाराह and नरसिंह), or boar and lion-man avataras (Deva: अवतार).
2. Ravana and Kumbhakarna (Deva: रावण and कुम्भकर्ण) during Vishnu's Rama avatara.
3. Shishupala and Dantavakra (Deva: शिशुपाल and दन्तवक्र) during Vishnu's Krishna avatara.

Each time, they appear as some of the most vile enemies of God, only so that they may be expedited in returning to Heaven and being near God.


Personally, I think it's great using God's name. Cursing or praise, when we use "God" we think of God.

Metaphysics, related branches, and spiritual physics

Prompted by a conversation I had not so long ago, I will postpone my entry-in-progress in favor of this one. I'll finish and post that one later.

Also, if I haven't mentioned this before, I will be attempting to stick to the ITRANS transliteration of Sanskrit. However, I will be changing a few rules to suit me (ITRANS: saMskR^ita, my rendition: saMskRta), and as such, to prevent confusion, I will utilize Google/Blogger's unicode devanaagarii/Hindi rendering.

Metaphysics is a branch of Western philosophy which originally sought to answer questions relating to the nature of reality. After science developed and branched off, "metaphysics" continued to attempt to answer questions relating to reality that were not answerable by science, probably due to the fact that science was empirical in its process.

The interesting thing about metaphysics is that in conjunction with religion, it essentially becomes mysticism. Metaphysics, at least in the Western Classical sense, is about coming to terms with the nature of reality and life as a whole, and so requires "following" it, or applying knowledge gained in the study of metaphysics to one's actual life. In order to fully appreciate metaphysics, the argument can be made that you must practice, not just study.

However, this is not always the case. I'll illustrate an example from Western tradition, before I go into the relevance in Hinduism. While people may fully follow the Hermetica and its associated practices (what exactly they are I don't very well know), it was not uncommon for people to study it without the intention of applying it. Passing interest in it is one matter, but it is quite another for someone to study it with the intention of better understanding the imagery and inspiration in the Tarot.

(On a different note, Tarot actually isn't Egyptian, as is commonly claimed. Most of the imagery, aside from Christian references, comes from the Hermetica, which is considered akin to the Egyptian book of Thoth. The Moors translated the old texts and re-introduced them to Europeans via Spain. Cards came from China, and the Tarot imagery and reading techniques itself developed in Italy.
The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination - Robert M. Place)

To take a different example, let's take a look at the Hindu philosophical schools. One of the three pairs of sister-schools is "saaMkhya-yoga" (Devanaagarii: सांख्य-योग). SaaMkhya is usually translated as "enumeration." It describes a dualist view on reality, consisting of puruSha (Deva: पुरुष) and prakRti (Deva: प्रकृति), with puruSha being "consciousness" and prakRti being "matter/nature." From there, it goes on to describe how puruSha interacts with prakRti, i.e. how consciousness interacts with and is entangled in matter, via the senses and mind.

I am making it a point to note that in saaMkhya-yoga, the "consciousness" present in all of us is often referred to as a "soul." However, this is not a "soul" by Western standards. What is considered the "soul" by Western standards differs from the "draSTuH" (Deva: द्रष्टुः, "seer/one who is seeing") referred to in the yoga sutra's. In the West, ideas like the "mind," "intellect/reason," and "thought" are elements of the soul. In Hindu thought, the mind is material in nature, as are thoughts and intellect. Only pure, unadulterated consciousness is considered the "soul."

Yoga, however, is the application of that knowledge in order to free one's self from the bondage of matter. Yoga, whose English cognate is found in the word "yoke," expounds on how one can go about separating the inner consciousness from the outside world. As the consciousness cannot be turned off, when it no longer gets input from the senses it turns instead to itself. This "self-awareness" process is what yoga is about. By today's lingo, we'd call this "raaja yoga" (Deva: राज योग) and its process that of "meditation"; the popular use of the word "yoga" revolves around haTha yoga (Deva: हठ योग) which focuses on different postures (aasana's, Deva: आसन's) to make the body full of vigor.

Another example, for those of you who know or would like to research stuff on your own, is that of the nyaaya and vaisheSika (nyaaya, Deva: न्याय ; vaisheSika, Deva: वैशेषिक), the sister schools of logic and proper metaphysics, respectively.

There's a good deal of practicality in studying something without the intention of applying it. It allows you to access related studies and become deeply involved with them and remain focused with them. Studying chemistry allows you to deal with particle physics and biology, without having to become a chemical engineer. You would hardly expect to see yogi's at proper debates between the different schools of Hindu philosophy. The yogi's would pretty much sit and say, "Why bother arguing each other? Why not see for yourselves?" Advocates of saaMkhya would take over for them and debate. And before you say that they were right, think about this: had they not participated in those debates, there would be very sources alive today from which we could understand their school in any tangible way. Participation in debates is what legitimized them, financially and academically. It's well and good to stick to you guns, but if everyone is just sitting and meditating, who's going to provide a means for them to continue doing that? And while we can learn about meditation from Buddhism and Tantra, Yoga is an entirely different beast, especially when you get down to the nitty-gritty details of life, souls, methods, etc.


In addition, for those that merely dabble in studying metaphysics and/or mysticism, without actually practicing it, there's also a purpose. They bring the ideas of the few to the mainstream, regardless of how muddled and riddled-with-defects they may become.

The Beats' understanding of Eastern spirituality was much more accurate than the Hippies' (which isn't saying much, but it's really the fault of the Easterners). However, it was the latter who made much of the overall message available to the general population. And, once you have the idea and a few terms in people's vocabularies, you don't have to do much for people to genuinely become interested and take hold of practice.

Another example was Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Even before it was "properly" confirmed by an eclipse in Australia in 1922, Eddington's calculations from a solar eclipse from Africa brought initial news of the theory's success (despite Campbell's news of failure). British papers - and, indeed, newspapers across the world - ran headlines about how his theory proved what they thought previously of gravity as wrong. Einstein, and his theory, were household names across the globe, despite the fact that most people didn't know what in the universe it was actually saying.

And so, on many levels, it's important to understand that the study of metaphysics without any touch of practice, while seemingly contradictory, provides many uses.

And, the next time I'm cursing some fallacious, self-proclaimed know-it-all, I'll do my best to remember that even incorrect knowledge finds ways to teach people the truth.

Deities and devotion, then and now.

When most people think of Hinduism, what comes to mind is the myriad of Gods and Goddesses (I'll explain why I capitalized them later) that are mentioned and known.

Gods and Goddesses were in prominence primarily in the period of Vedic religion. The idea here was of sacrificing to the deities in order to gain worldly boons and merit for the period of time in-between lives. If you look at Mesopotamian religions, early Judaism and the Greco-Roman religions, you'll see that the sacrifice to God(s) plays a large role in worship. In addition, you also see other practices that are shared, such as purification/cleansing rituals, magic, and divination.

As time goes on, you see that many of these practices fall out of use for one reason or another, and this is especially true of polytheism as a whole, and more specifically animal sacrifice. In India, you have a rise in Puranic religious traditions which manifested as a rise in a trinity. This, depending on your sect, held either Brahma or Shakti/Devi as Creator. Vishnu was primarily seen as the preserver and Shiva as the destroyer. Various sects arose and one of these four deities was chosen as their center of focus, the most important out of the trinity.

In practice, most Hindus today have practices that are based on the sects that arose from Puranic tradition, and only truly worship one deity. All others are seen as "lesser" manifestations of that one Supreme God(dess). As such, you have the ideas that all Gods and Goddesses are legitimate in their own right even though they may not be considered to be the "highest" form of divinity. (Hence my capitalization of "Gods.")

However, there is also another major ideology of the idea of "God." This concretely begins in the Upanishads (उपनिषद्-s). The traditional "books" of Hinduism are the Vedas, and these have been passed down orally for a VERY long time. The samhita-s (संहिता-s) are the original hymns to the deities, and are considered the first of four parts. The fourth section of the Vedas is the Upanishad texts. These are more conceptual in nature.

There are a few general themes that appear, and major concepts develop: the older idea of time as cyclical is reinforced; the other planes of existences (Heavens, etc) are explained; the practice of asceticism and meditation is developed in detail; and, a monist view of the Supreme Godhead is developed. This Supreme Godhead is referred to as "brahman" (IAST: brahman, devanaagarii: ब्रह्मन्, not to be confused with IAST: brahmaa, devanaagarii: ब्रह्मा, the Creator God). This Godhead encompasses all of creation, but is beyond just creation. Some people have told me that they believe in "the powers of the Universe." I think that that phrase defines brahman pretty well.

So now, you have this brahman entity that essentially at the top of the list of Divinity. This gets identified later with devotional Gods such as Vishnu and Shiva. Thus, by worshipping Vishnu, or His incarnations (Rama or Krishna, for example), one is directly worshipping this personal idea of God, as well as the underlying divinity of the Universe.


Using that kind of logic, then why can't the older Vedic Deities also be worshipped? Let's take the Adityas (आदित्य-s) as an example. The Adityas are a group of solar Deities, of which Vishnu was originally a member. Surya (सूर्य) is considered the manifestion of the Sun. He is often identified with SavitR (सवितृ), from the Gayatri Mantra (तत् सवितुर् वरेण्यम्), and with HiraNyagarbha (हिरण्यगर्भ) (via the Sun Salutation). HiraNyagarbha means "golden womb," and appears in the HiraNyagarbha Sukta as the source of the manifested/created Universe. If I choose to worship the sun, or the Adityas in general, then in turn, I am also worshipping the Universe and brahman which is underlying it.

---

Let us keep in mind that even scholar disagree on many points, including: which Adityas are referenced in the Vedas and which are identified later; and which Deities separate and which are identified by multiple names (all referring to the same singular Deity). Thus, it becomes difficult to tell which God is referenced where, and whether that God is another by a different name or a separate deity entirely. My example above is simply my interpretation based on what I've learned. Feel free to do your own research and form your own opinion, and don't be put off by the fact that it's not concrete. That only adds to the fun.

---

This allows us, as educated Hindus, to choose what manifestation of God we want to worship. Here, I am reminded of a famous metaphor. "Just as rain falls and goes to the ocean, so do all prayers to all Gods go to the Supreme." As a Hindu, this is a really important source for religious acceptance of all others.

Perhaps more importantly, we gain the concept of monism. We can interpret anything and everything as a manifestation of God and beautiful in its own way, and thus we can better exemplify the message in the following verse:

यो माम्पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वंच मयि पश्यति |
तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मे न प्रणश्यति ||
(भगवद्गीता ६ - ३०)

He who sees Me everywhere and sees Me in everything,
To him I do not perish and he does not perish to Me.
(Bhagavad Gita 6:30)

This is my own translation; most others translate न प्रणश्यति as "is not forgotten," "is not lost," or even as "dwells in." I chose to stick to a stricter translation, hence "does not perish."

To me, I see this as a practical reminder of the Golden Rule, but taken to an extreme. Instead of just doing to others as you'd have done to you, you are remembering the inherent monism present in all. We all have a spark of the divine in us, and it helps to have a reminder in some of our more difficult situations.



Just as we can choose which deity to worship, I don't see why we can't skip the idea of manifest Gods altogether. I'll eventually outline the benefits of a "personal deity" in a later post, but right now I'd like to point out that many are perfectly fine with and have no trouble paying homage and believing in an abstract, omniscient and omnipotent God. I see no harm in skipping the "middle man" so-to-speak, and going straight for the underlying source. This is not to say that polytheism or panentheism is inferior in some way. Both panentheism and monism have their pros and cons. I'm just saying that having room for monotheism and monism would allow more people to take religion into their own hands, and have it become more accessible to them.

A Modern Hindu's Perspective

My name is Yatri Trivedi, and this is my perspective as a modern Hindu.

Through this blog, I'll be discussing different aspects of Hinduism as they pertain to modern society. I'll be attempting to figure out just what I believe in, why, and how I've come to believe that.

I believe that religions need to change in order to keep up to date with modern perspectives and beliefs. Hinduism is a very old religion and has many different movements and sects, not to mention atheist schools of thought and a rich heterodoxy. My opinions on change and food for thought will be here. I hope that I can help provide some direction for other people in my position, regardless of whether or not they are Hindu, of Indian descent, or have an interest in Indic theology or philosophy.

I've studied various religious traditions for years, and I just received my B.A. in Religion from Rutgers University. In addition to lay religious practice, I will also be citing influences and ideology from traditional philosophical schools and other movements, such as Jainism and Buddhism, that are considered heterodoxy. You may also see Sanskrit terms pop up from time to time, and while my background in Sanskrit is less than fluent, I am actually studying it and I intend to use what I know.

This blog came about because my other attempt at blogging went on a hiatus. I haven't posted here since January, mainly because my mind has been on more concretely religious ideas. This blog is my attempt to catalog that aspect of me without interfering with what I have going on over there. In case you were wondering, my other blog is The Technological Monk. Feel free to check that out as well as, or instead of, this blog.

Here goes nothing.