(I recently conducted a four-week course called "What is the Self of Self-realization." This article is a summary of the key points of that course.)
What does
Paramhansa Yogananda, author of the now spiritual classic, Autobiography of
a Yogi, say about this?
·
In his famous poem, “Samadhi,” he describes a
vision of the universe as residing at the heart-center. Yogananda writes: “I
cognized the center of the empyrean as a point of intuitive perception in my
heart. Irradiating splendor issued from my nucleus to every part of the
universal structure. Blissful amrita, the nectar of immortality, pulsed
through me with a quicksilver like fluidity. The creative voice of God I heard
resounding as Aum, the vibration of the Cosmic Motor.” Later he adds:
“Spiritual sight, x-raylike, penetrates into all matter; the divine eye is
center everywhere, circumference nowhere.”
·
In the same chapter of his autobiography, he
describes his experience in prose rather than poetry, and it is similar: the
experience takes him beyond the mortal frame and able to “see” through all
things surrounding him and then beyond into final Bliss.
·
Swami Kriyananda, founder of Ananda worldwide
and a direct disciple commissioned by Yogananda, describes unconditional love
as “bliss in motion.”
·
Yogananda
describes the process of ascension as experiencing the primordial “Word,” Aum,
first in the body, then beyond the body, and then in all space; then entering
Christ consciousness, the reflected bliss state, in the body and then in all
creation; then, finally, beyond this into Cosmic Consciousness, Infinite Bliss
and beyond all creation.
We humans are prone to see a goal as “out there.” God, the
Father, then is seen “out there” in heaven (above). Heaven, itself, is “out
there.” Death conveys us to that “place.”
Yogananda’s translation of Satchidanandam incorporates
references to both stillness and perpetual change and motion. Yogananda was a
bhakti who worshipped God in the form of Goddess Kali. He saw God in the form
of his guru, and the other gurus of his lineage as well. His poetry celebrates
the divinity hiding within nature and within all beings. Yet he also taught
that the goal of our soul is to unite with our Creator, Satchidanandam.
Advaita Vedanta, classical nonduality, speaks of that state,
Brahman, as the essence of all created things and yet is untouched by or
unchanged by all created things; as if existing both within and apart from all
change. This is the "both-and formula" but Advaita Vedanta expresses
a clear and even severe preference for Brahman Untouched and Beyond all name,
form, and change.
Again, we are led to an impression of Brahman as somehow
apart, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary. One who “knows” Brahman
is one who has experienced the transcendent reality of Brahman. This
transcendent state is, relative to ordinary consciousness, “out there.” It is
beyond ordinary consciousness even if it resides within or at the heart of all
things and consciousness. It is difficult, logically at least, to wish-away the
innate duality of this non-dual definition.
While the attribute of the eternal and changeless Brahman
(or God) satisfies our need for a First Cause which
is without beginning or end (and beyond change), it tends to imply to us that
it is somewhere else; that it is something else; that it is NOT name and form.
This is merely a logical deduction. Logically how can that which is ceaseless
change be that which is not ceaseless change. There’s no escaping this:
logically.
When Yogananda added the “ever-new” he opened a doorway to a
modified view. How can bliss be “ever-new” unless it is ever changing,
ever-freshly experienced? It might not change its nature as Bliss but being
ever-new suggests something has been re-experienced and refreshed.
It is taught that the universe is brought into and out of
manifestation over vast epochs of time. Could this “rhythmic reversion” be an
eternal flux, an integral part of Satchidanandam? Can Satchidanandam be
ever-new, both-and, encompassing change and changelessness simultaneously?
It’s not that we should suddenly worship change, worship the
creation AS Brahman. It is always God AS immanent within change, not the change
itself. God the “Father” is that aspect untouched and the origin of creation;
God the “son” is that part of God the Father reflected at the still point of
vibratory creation; God as “mother” or “Holy Ghost” is the very vibratory
foundation of all created things. It is the “Word,” the primordial vibratory
movement that produces the sound called the cosmic Amen or Aum that makes
possible the illusion or the appearance of all things being separate. All
created things are vibrating with energy. Energy is the mother of creation and,
as such, is in ceaseless flux.
Therefore, nothing exists outside of God; outside of
Consciousness, even if the spectrum of degrees of consciousness and
self-awareness vary greatly.
Yogananda says that when we achieve moksha and our soul is
freed from all delusion and karma we enter Satchidanandam and no longer
are forced to reincarnate to learn new lessons. He also re-affirmed the
teaching that for one to become free one must (help) free other souls (he said,
at least six other souls). He added that one of those souls whom one has helped
can, by the power of their devotion, call our form (in vision or in physical
form) back out of Infinity into view. This can even take place if we have
reincarnated into a different name and form. Our soul's essence, you see, is
eternal and changeless. God, as our soul, will appear to the sincere devotee in
whatever form and by whatever name is dear to the devotee.
He goes on to say that in God (Satchidanandam)
nothing is ever lost. How can Infinity be anything less than everything past,
present and future? All our past lives of misidentification exist in God but
“we”, our divine essence as the Atman, are no longer identified with such
experiences. The “we” must be that part of God which achieves Self-realization.
Perhaps Yogananda is saying that we, a drop in the sea, can
still be extruded from the sea by the magnetic pull of other drops who remain yet
self-enclosed.
Patanjali describes the state of yoga as the cessation of
mental reactions (thoughts, memories, imagination and reactions etc.). Not
unlike Buddhist language, this is a negative description: what yoga
(enlightenment) is NOT. By contrast, Yogananda’s poem (Samadhi) and the
description he gives of his own actual experience is positive. (By
negative/positive I don’t mean good/bad. Rather the former says what it is not
and the latter describes what it is like.)
Then there is the well-known Zen expression: “Before
enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry
water.”
So, which is it? Negative or positive? The former sounds
rather prosaic, or at least extremely stoical while the latter seems like a
hallucinogenic LSD trip. Since Infinity encompasses a rather broad spectrum of
possibilities (tongue-in-cheek), I can only conclude that it is BOTH-AND.
What seems clear is that it is not the content of
enlightenment but the consciousness of enlightenment: the absence of ego
involvement combined with the fullness of awareness. Whether that awareness is
simply “in the moment and here and now” or coursing through the galaxies or
immersed in cosmic bliss is a “mere” matter of content. Since awareness is
always “of the self or Self” there is always “someone there” but the difference
between the “someone” and the “something” (the experience) is irrelevant. As
the Samadhi poem puts it: “Knowing, knower, known as One!”
Thus, Yogananda’s experience in cosmic consciousness can
vary from seeing through a stone wall to observe a cow, to observing
“sextillion worlds passed by in diaphanous lustre” or to an experience of an
“oceanic joy upon calm endless shores of my soul.”
Enlightenment literature also refers to an experience of a
darkless dark or a lightless light when every “thing” has vanished and only a
void remains. Yet self-awareness persists. The implication is that this
experience is not permanent or final. How could ultimate consciousness be a
“nothing?” At minimum, it is self-aware, and such a state is a positive one.
The only negative aspect is that there are no objects—whether subjective or
objective—perceived by this Self. The Self isn't an object; it is an
experience.
In any case, doesn't the so-called “survival instinct” form
the foundation of consciousness? It would seem to be so in the famous
definition of God as Satchidananda: ever-existing, ever-conscious,
ever-new Bliss. How could such a state be a negative one? How could such a
state aspire to nothingness?
“When this “I” shall die, then shall I know, who am I!”
declared Paramhansa Yogananda. The death of ego is the birth of the soul. And,
of course, technically, nothing dies. Instead, the ego expands beyond its
self-imposed prison of body and mind. But the discipline needed to curb the
ego’s impulses suggests a kind of annihilation and, as such, is emphasized in
religion and by great saints, especially during the dark age of the Kali Yuga.
(700 BCE – 1700 CE)
The medieval emphasis on ego-annihilation is now, in Dwapara
Yuga (1700 – 3100 CE) being transmuted into ego transcendence by means of
Self-expansion. The consciousness of these times is expansive, not contractive.
We are eagerly exploring the atom, space, and all facets of nature and
consciousness.
Who now sees joy and fulfillment in suffering? We all suffer
by the nature of duality; so, equanimity and faith are of course perennially
important. But in these times, we seek fulfillment. Most people seek
fulfillment of their material desires, but devotees seek divine grace knowing
that God’s nature (and our own) is joy. We seek “true joy” as St. Francis put
it, or at least calm acceptance when suffering must needs come. Medieval
spirituality mistook the suffering for the joy of the soul, as if suffering
were the point.
This error in perception was born of the Kali Yuga
consciousness and was the natural result of the intense suffering by
crucifixion of Jesus. Yet, the same attitude existed in the East during the
medieval period. Why? Because during such times (Kali Yuga), suffering was the
dominant experience of life. But now humanity has an expectation of a better
life even when for so many people today it hasn't arrived yet for them. That
expectation did not and could not exist during the past two thousand years or
so. Now, when we turn to God, we perceive the goal in terms of fulfillment
rather than denial.
I come at last to my denouement: that enlightenment is not
limited to any form but is a state of consciousness; it exists free from
unfulfilled desires or fears; free from the limits of personality, habits, or
self-definitions of any kind. Free from any definition or form. Truth simply
IS. This does not intend to imply that anything less than union with the
Infinite qualifies as enlightenment; it is, instead, only to say that no fixed
state or experience can define the very nature of reality and truth.
A suggested meditation practice: At any time
during your day, “stop, look, and listen” as the old-time railroad crossing
signs commanded. Stop what you are doing; look straight ahead, take a slow but
"happy" breath; gaze outward embracing whatever enters your field of
vision; silently open the door of your heart; let all inner self-talk, thoughts
and emotions subside as the Christ within you commands the stormy sea of the
mind and body to be calm. Rest in this poise. Repeat as often as you are
inspired to do so. Teach the mind and heart to be still, leaving behind body
and ego activity. Expand your field of Self to include all that surrounds you.
Aum, peace, amen.
Nayaswami Hriman
No comments:
Post a Comment