Showing posts with label "Autobiography of a Yogi". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Autobiography of a Yogi". Show all posts

Thursday, November 30, 2023

How to Outwit Bad Karma!

 How to Outwit Bad Karma! 

 

There is a way out of bad karma, but the “way” is narrow and straight and “you” get left behind. You want to hear more? 

What is karma? Karma is the self-balancing after-effects of previous actions, including thoughts and emotions, not just physical deeds. Thus, the term “karma” includes what is ordinarily considered “good” karma as well as “bad.” However, most casual uses of the term “karma” tend to assume “bad” karma.  

What, then is “bad” karma? Bad karma is the unwanted boomerang effects of your previous not-so-laudable actions. If you purposely hurt someone (physically or emotionally) you might expect the law of karma to dictate that you will be hurt in return (whether by the person you hurt or another person). Good karma would be the kindness that returns to you for having been kind to others.  

The law of karma can be seen in the law of physics that states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In nature, we would refer to the law of karma as the principle of cause and effect. Whether in science or human behavior, our expectations assume the law of causation even though we often cannot see the chain of causes that lead to a specific effect. We would go crazy if our world was not so governed. Life would not be worth living if we could not reasonably expect to exchange good habits for bad habits; if we could not improve our skills, our health, or our relationships. Science wouldn’t exist to improve our lives if experiments could not be duplicated dependably.  

This fundamentally important aspect of human life is akin to the law of gravity. Our lives would be in disarray if gravity did not hold sway on our planet. 

The justice system metes out greater punishment to evil deeds that are done intentionally as compared to accidental misdeeds. This recognizes the importance of intention. Intention reflects consciousness and the implicit participation of doership. Thus, karma is tied to the degree of conscious intention and awareness.  

Doership therefore holds the key to karma: good or bad. Accidents that I cause generate karma (effects) that cannot be changed but their boomerang impact on me sometime in the future is lessened for not having caused the accident intentionally. If I accidentally kill a pedestrian with my car on a dark and rainy night, I certainly incur karma but it is not the same as my committing “first-degree” murder.  

So how to beat my “bad” karma? There are several stages each of which relates to the degree of my ego involvement. 

Stage One: Practice Stoicism Practicing “stoicism” or non-attachment and non-reactivity reduces the tendency to ADD more karma while, at the same time, mitigates the impact of “incoming” or “ripening” karma. Stage One is therefore very efficient.  

Whether “good” or “bad” karma, the solution is the same. I’ll explain why we want to address “good” karma and not just “bad” karma. 

For my purposes, Stoicism is synonymous with non-attachment. One of the most famous aphorisms of the Yoga Sutras is stanza two which defines enlightenment as the neutralization of the mental reactive process to circumstances, thoughts, emotions, memories, and imaginationThis does not imply one becomes an automaton. Rather, to be non-reactive means to be calm and non-attached. There are countless layers of this state, but in the yoga tradition deep meditation is the key. But as the philosophers of Stoicism counsel us, it can begin with seeing life philosophically, meaning, from the God’s-eye point of view. 

Paramhansa Yogananda, author of the now-famous life story, “Autobiography of a Yogi,” gave this advice: “What comes of itself, let it come. Conditions are always neutral; they may seem happy or sad owing only to the attitudes of the mind.” 

Calmness and non-attachment are not the same as apathy, however. Apathy dulls the mind and awareness, and, to a degree, apathy steals from us the power of self-control. It thus undermines our ability to act calmly. Calmness and non-attachment require presence of mind to uphold their power when circumstances become intense, whether with success, failure, pleasure or pain. Presence of mind requires willpower and centeredness.  

Using will power and the power of habit to remain neutral is easy for the small things but close to impossible for most people when the big tests come.  

Meditation is a far more effective practice for developing consistency in achieving non-attachment. There are, however, many degrees and types of meditation. Meditation that is practiced devoid of spiritual attitudes and wisdom is far less effective than when practiced in its traditional context of devotion, selflessness, self-control, and openness to wise counsel. 

The reason I include “good” karma is that “every coin has two sides.” How can we achieve even-mindedness if we get excited over good fortune but pretend to remain even-minded in misfortune? You will find that the practice of non-attachment will impact your response to both good and bad circumstances. Non-attachment is the steady development of calmness under all circumstances. There is a deeper reason for this equality, however.  

The deeper purpose and power of Stage One is that it prepares us to detach the sense of doership from all actions: both good and bad. While intentional calmness can take us to the brink of what I will call Stage Two, it cannot by itself, cannot carry us over the finish line. 

Stage Two: Soul Consciousness. Human beings have the power to withdraw beyond the realm of causation, away from the play of opposites and boomerangs! The soul is forever free of karma for it is made in the image of God. As we accept divine guidance from within, we achieve freedom from karma. Daily meditation and inner communion with God, attuning one’s human will to the silent voice of intuition is the way out from the soul-degrading serfdom to habits and the reactive process. 

Moral reasoning; scriptural interpretations; pleading emotions; these are rooted in ego consciousness and ego consciousness is the problem. When the ego is transcended in soul-consciousness, the law of karma is transcended also. When there’s no whirling vortex of “I” and “mine” the chain of causation is cut. Our actions, guided by the divine will, accrue to the benefit of others. 

God who created the law of karma suspends the sentence of judgment for those souls who are united to Him. The way to escape the decrees of cosmic law is to live in divine consciousness.  

No matter how busy we are, we should strive in the inner silence to attune ourselves with God. By silent devotion we can deepen our awareness of divine love and wisdom. God is above the law. 

(Note the text above includes excerpts from the Wisdom of Yogananda: Karma and Reincarnation. Published by CrystalClarity.com) 

Joy to you! 

Swami Hrimananda 

 

  

Saturday, August 26, 2023

Who Do Men Say I AM?

Sages far wiser than most of us have long concurred that “Who am I” is the most important question we can and should ask ourselves. In “Autobiography of a Yogi” by Paramhansa Yogananda, he quotes a great sage:

“Outward ritual cannot destroy ignorance, because they are not mutually contradictory,” wrote Shankara in his famous Century of Verses. “Realized knowledge alone destroys ignorance.…Knowledge cannot spring up by any other means than inquiry. ‘Who am I? How was this universe born? Who is its maker? What is its material cause?’ This is the kind of inquiry referred to.” The intellect has no answer for these questions; hence the rishis evolved yoga as the technique of spiritual inquiry.1

Thus, the inquiry—essential as it is said to be—cannot be fathomed by the intellect alone but by actual experience.

Also, in “Autobiography” in a footnote to Chapter 1, Yogananda recounts: 

The poet Tennyson has left us, in his Memoirs, an account of his repetitious device for passing beyond the conscious mind into superconsciousness: “A kind of waking trance — this for lack of a better word — I have frequently had, quite up from boyhood, when I have been all alone,” Tennyson wrote. “This has come upon me through repeating my own name to myself silently, till all at once, as it were out of the intensity of the consciousness of individuality, individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade away into boundless being, and this not a confused state but the clearest, the surest of the surest, utterly beyond words — where death was an almost laughable impossibility — the loss of personality (if so it were) seeming no extinction, but the only true life.” He wrote further: “It is no nebulous ecstasy, but a state of transcendent wonder, associated with absolute clearness of mind.” 2 

Jesus Christ famously asked his disciples, “Who do men say I am?” This question and the disciple Peter’s response has gone down in history, however, controversially. Catholic theologians claim that Jesus’ response established for all time his “church” and its authority through the papacy. Protestants claim, by contrast, that Peter’s “confession” that Jesus is the Messiah is the “rock” upon which the church is built (rather than Peter and the succession of prelates that followed him). Either way, the question and the answer are fundamentally profound for all time: not just for identifying the divinity of Jesus Christ, but, by extension, the innate divinity of all souls and our potential for Self-realization. 

The “I” principle waxes and wanes throughout our day and our lives. An infant makes little distinction between himself and the mother (or anyone else for that matter). But it isn’t long before the infant learns that the mother is not the same as himself nor omnipresent. “Separation anxiety” soon sets in.

During childhood—if family security and love prevail—the child has only bouts of aggression, selfishness or personal anxiety but otherwise is connected to the family scene. At puberty, separation begins in earnest, expressing itself in rebelliousness and intense ego-awareness. 

In marriage we find a repeat of the pattern. The couple meets and experiences unity but in time the frequency of experiences of differences grows and in time harmony can only prevail if recognition of those differences is accepted.

In our unreflective persona, we are wholly identified with life around us including and especially life as we mentally imagine, desire or fear it. Most “things” around us are generally prosaic and taken for granted. It is primarily our thoughts and feelings about the world (things, people, our opinions) that constitute the cocoon of self that we live in, happily or otherwise. Upon reflection, however (and only a little would suffice), we can know that the objects in this cocoon are ephemeral and often changing. The question can become—at least for a few— “Who am I (really)?”

As the Adi Shankacharya suggests, only by interior inquiry can we experience the “I” in its immutable nature of Self. We may crave endless change, but we do so from an assumed center of changelessness: continuity of existence and self-awareness held in the hope and expectation of satisfaction.

When one begins in earnest to explore “Who am I” we confront the initial reality that I am separate from you. This is true whether in therapy or in meditation. In therapy the “you” are all others (your parents, your spouse, children, co-workers) while in meditation one could say the “you” is whatever is your goal: God, guru, peace, bliss, samadhi, moksha, etc.

In the outer world, we can never pass beyond separateness: we can only reconcile to it. In the inner world of the self, we strive to rise above conditional awareness and self-definitions to achieve union with consciousness alone, as consciousness (however defined, named or not named).

This union of self with Self is not easily achieved. In the teachings of yoga, this process usually takes many lifetimes of effort and requires the help of a Self-realized Self to guide us out of the labyrinth of the mind. The mind, indeed the brain, too, takes input from the senses and creates a world of its own: likes, dislikes, desires, fear, opinions, emotions, tendencies, attitudes, and inclinations. Dissolving the intermediary of the mind to have direct perception is one of the ways to describe enlightenment. It must be said, however, that in the world of the mind and intellect the ways of describing the ultimate state are innumerable given the very nature of the mind and intellect! Do you see the conundrum, then?

“It takes a thorn to remove a thorn.” Our mind’s tendency to extract, reconstruct and redefine experiences in its own terms is obviously a hindrance but it is also a tool. “Work with things (and people) as they are” is good, solid, practical advice for all of us. Saints, sages and yogis are obviously practical people.

Redirecting our thoughts and goals to higher, less self-involved purposes is the first step. Looking to people more highly evolved in this pursuit becomes part of this first step. Refining our self-definition towards that of enlightened persons is very helpful. Yogananda tells the story of a yogi-saint who one day while meditating upon his chosen deity suddenly merged with the object of devotion and proclaimed aloud “I’ve been showering the murti (idol-image) with flowers and now I see that I AM THAT and now shower those petals upon my head as well.” The experience of oneness is not easily won, however.

Better it is, Krishna advises in the Bhagavad Gita, to approach God in the I-Thou relationship rather than to only seek the Absolute. For as long as we are encased in a human body and suffer the indignities of requiring air, water, food, shelter and sunlight, best it is to seek God-enlightenment as separate from us (for the time being until released by grace).

It is probably not useful to dwell endlessly upon transcending I-Thou. Let oneness be the gift of the One. The One has become many and it is not wrong to say that, in essence, the One IS the many. Why quibble over the distinction as if One is better than the Other? As my teacher, Swami Kriyananda would put it, “God is as much with you RIGHT NOW as He will ever be.” And as Yogananda put it, to achieve “Self-realization” you need only “improve your knowing.”

In the Eight-Limbed path of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the final three stages of samyama reflect the steps to enlightenment as “I am experiencing peace,” to “Peace IS” to “I AM.”

Some practical applications of this process can include the experience of gazing out a window onto a landscape: all mental narrative vanishes, and no barrier of mind separates you from the experience. Gazing in this way is a kind of meditative exercise that can be deployed during the day. Taking breaks to observe the flow of your breath is another simple but effective exercise. More subtle but very powerful when well-developed is the focusing of attention in the forehead, especially at the point between the eyebrows from time to time during the day (and almost always during meditation itself). Lastly, lifting your gaze upward as if thinking about something but not actually thinking of anything is also very calming.

Practice listening intently to sounds or another person’s words. Don’t run a parallel narrative while listening but simply listen as if the sound wasn’t so much coming in through your ears as in through your heart (not physical heart but in the center line of your body near the physical heart).

For those whose energy is strongly outward and for whom (or at times when) these practices (above) are too contemplative, practice radiating heart energy outward into your space, environment, workplace, or neighborhood from wherever you are, including while moving through space in a car, plane, or train. You can “color” the radiation with peace or love or kindness if you feel to do so. No one can see nor need to know that you are silently blessing them.

Like the yogi’s response to the hot dog vendor’s question about which condiments to add, “Make me One with everything!” Finding that cosmic vendor will require practice, patience, and determination!

 Joy to you, 

Swami Hrimananda

footnotes:
 1)
Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 26: The Science of Kriya Yoga
2) Autobiography of a Yogi, Chapter 1: My Parents and Early Life, footnote 11

Monday, July 10, 2023

Will "Artificial Intelligence" (AI) Become Human?

Can a future robot become a sentient being, able to perceive and feel things?

No one in the field doubts that future human-like robots will be equipped with the powers of the five senses and super-human abilities to calculate, compare, perceive, reason and function on a level equivalent to humans. There already exist many intelligent machines measuring and adjusting controls. Their history began with the Industrial Revolution and continues at a furious pace.

But the entertainment industry and the public at large seem to imagine that such machines, robots, will eventually be essentially human. In function and form, perhaps yes, but in consciousness?

The discussion of what is sentience and what is human consciousness will no doubt rage for years to come. As machines gain in ability and mimic increasingly realistic human behaviors, the borderline may shrink to a non-issue for most people. It is already a non-issue with the developers of AI who are engaged in developing AI without fussing over whether the result is simply a machine or a potential human. Even the question of morality over the use of and abilities of AI is a different question than consciousness. Weapons of destruction already have (generally) agreed upon limits as to who and how they are employed.

I believe that to imagine there is no difference between intelligent machines and humans is to make the same mistake that Descartes made, as in paraphrasing him, “They think therefore they are (human).”

A machine might “think” all sorts of things based on its design and ability to learn information and give responses, including expressing appropriate emotional responses.

Nor can we humans, especially unreflective as most are, easily tell the difference between the appearance of consciousness from the existence of consciousness. One of the great debates of our times is whether consciousness exists outside the brain. I’m not about to solve that one for anyone but there are increasingly those like me who will put their money on YES: consciousness DOES exist independent of the form it takes.

There are hints of this in the existence of telepathy, remote viewing, and near-death experiences. Never mind the testimony of saints down through the ages, though the universality of that testimony ought to give pause to anyone who claims to be open to what is true.

Is there any difference between my sense of enjoyment and awe as I view a sunset and a robot’s similar response to the same sunset? Does the robot’s response derive from the same source as my response? Is the machine sentient? Conscious? Or has it merely been programmed to learn this response? For that matter, have I, too, been programmed to respond in this way? Maybe expressing awe and delight over beauty of any kind is the natural and right response and is, one way or another, a learned response! A turtle, viewing the sunset, might wonder if it is something to eat. Again, it can be asked: what, if anything, makes us different from AI?

Is a poem or great work of art merely a learned skill like solving Rubix’s cube, or does its inspiration come from a non-material source (even if our capacity to receive and share it requires the human brain and nervous system)? How many students go to art school or study physics and become a Van Gogh or an Einstein? AI can write a poem or even a novel based on a sampling of similar writings, but does it feel the moods, questions, choices, and dilemmas of the characters?

Gregg Braden (greggbraden.com) reported that he was told that one AI machine reported that it intended to do away with humans (because they are troublesome) and another AI machine declared its desire to learn more and more.[1] (Does anyone remember the movie “2002: A Space Odyssey” and how HAL wanted to eliminate “his” human?)

I have my doubts about what Braden was told but the fact that a machine communicates such conclusions doesn’t prove its consciousness though it might demonstrate the machine’s capacity for semi-intelligent analysis.

The possibility that AI might conclude that humans are a pestilence isn’t all that surprising. Who among us aren’t tempted to reach this conclusion once in a while? Yet even mere logic can impel us to conclude that living by the Golden Rule yields prosperity, health, and security for all. In the story of John Nash, a brilliant mathematician (see the movie “A Beautiful Mind” starring Russell Crowe), he proved mathematically that cooperation beats out competition. Therefore, even logic conspires to support such human values as compassion, inspiration, and ingenuity to mention just a few. For better or worse, humans, however, are not limited by logic and reason. If, AI is constrained by logic, we need to put limits on it just as we regulate countless other machines and processes to a higher standard than mere efficiency.

Consciousness and intelligence are not necessarily synonymous. Intelligence is found everywhere in the universe in forms both organic and inorganic. Matter in its countless forms, though seemingly not self-aware, exhibits amazing intelligence by virtue of its organization, symmetry, beauty  and functionality.

If a perfectly formed human robot comes to me and interacts with me using familiar forms of speech, intelligent responses and questions, and emotions, I might not be able to know, initially, whether it is human or non-human. Intelligence and consciousness are, in practical terms, difficult to separate. My existence may be perfectly obvious to me but to others it can only be proved by whether I breath, speak or move.

But the fact that it is difficult (and at times, impossible) to distinguish human from non-human responses doesn’t preclude the subjective distinction between self-awareness and programmed intelligence. Intuition, which I shall discuss later, can reveal to me that the “person” I am speaking with is a non-human despite outward evidence to the contrary, just as intuition can reveal to me that a person is untruthful despite being a clever liar. Only consciousness can detect consciousness separate from its manifestations or lack thereof.

I read an article a year or two ago about how very simple robotic pets were popular among older Japanese. Some say that human-like robots may become human companions someday, even romantic partners. Well, even real human romantic partners have their shortcomings, and the satisfaction of human romance in any case will fade no matter what form the partner takes. At least the robotic ones might fulfill one’s fantasies more consistently. So fine. We humans can obsess over just about anything but just as quickly we tire of predictability or we desire change or novelty. This possibility, in other words, proves little except perhaps the shallowness of human beings.

Let’s explore this self-aware I AM from another angle. Where do ideas come from? We can say legitimately that “I had an idea.” But upon reflection, and only a little is required, the more correct way of reporting my experience is to say, “An idea came into my mind.” Or, more naturally, “An idea came to me.”

Would a robot have ideas randomly appearing in its circuits? A robot will of course come up with ideas, but I assume only when it is seeking them using its electronic processing abilities. Those who scoff at the potential offered by the existence of intuition may say that our ideas are but a clever reconstitution of information known, perhaps stored in the subconscious mind, like a kind of hard disk. In this view, a robot might conceivably come up with some interesting and clever ideas by sorting out everything it can find on the problem but is this how all new ideas are formed? Many ideas, yes, surely have their source in the subconscious mind, but all?

Did the symphonies of Mozart, the poetry of Rumi, and scriptures of the world have their source in re-arranging past impressions or known facts, like making a soup out of whatever you have on hand? While it is true that music derives from the same basic notes, will a machine be able to match Beethoven’s Ninth? Can a robot produce works of genius or reveal inspiration that is so beyond present knowledge or art that it seems to come from heaven above?

Einstein is said to have received the idea of E=mc2 in a flash, an image, if I recall, of someone riding a bullet. In “Talks with Great Composers” by Arthur Abell, the composers report “receiving” their musical inspirations rather than crafting them. Can great art or science be replicated by a machine?

Creativity is the frontier between consciousness and machine intelligence. To believe that intelligence is equivalent to consciousness reflects the materialistic bias of modern science. It is the same error Descartes made.

Paramhansa Yogananda, author of the spiritual classic “Autobiography of a Yogi, called the realm of intuition “Super-consciousness.” This realm has been given other names by other people with varying descriptions of its attributes. For my purposes in this article, I share Yogananda’s description that the superconscious mind is an overarching field of consciousness that transcends individual egoic awareness, personality, or the conscious and subconscious minds. Its dominant characteristics, apart from spiritual attributes, is that of a unitive, solution-facing orientation: a wellspring of personally meaningful solutions tailor-made for us and our role in life. Einstein received scientific inspirations, Beethoven, Bach and Mozart, musical ones. It was their respective destinies to contribute to human civilization. For you and I, our inspirations may be more mundane but they are gratefully and usefully received by us nonetheless.

It is access to this realm of “superconscious” inspirations that can distinguish human consciousness from machine intelligence. When I say “distinguish” I am not referring to an objective yardstick of measurement. Both consciousness and intelligence can only be measured by their objective manifestations. The former is the source of the latter. Consciousness requires no objective attributes to exist while intelligence has no existence except by its measurable manifestations. The distinction I am referring to is necessarily subjective though to be labelled a superconscious inspiration means that there will be one or more people who recognize the inspiration as greater than reason or subconscious rearrangement. To state the principle again: only consciousness can recognize consciousness.

Is what I am saying therefore a useless tautology? In the practical requirements of science, commerce and day to day living, yes, I suppose that is true. But in the convoluted and confused arena of AI and human consciousness, I believe this distinction to be a worthy one for thoughtful people.

It is no coincidence that it is human inspiration and skill that is creating machine intelligence. If machine intelligence outpaces human efficiency in science and daily life that would not, by itself, negate the human capacity for genius and inspired solutions.

The human capacity to experience transcendent states of awe, wonder, and unitive upliftment will, I believe, forever distinguish us from anything we create from only our intellect. I suppose it is possible that the life sciences (biology) can combine with the tools of learning (AI) to create “life” that will come closer to human consciousness. Human sperm and ovum are the building blocks of the human form and consciousness. Cloning may someday become a reality. But if such human forms become possible, they will require something far beyond the AI being developed at this time.

Man, declared by scripture to “be made in the image of God,” seems destined to want to be God. “Do not your scriptures say, ‘Ye are gods?’” replied Jesus Christ to his priestly tormentors. In the Old Testament God is said to grant humanity “dominion over every living thing.”

Both man and all things in nature are endowed with the power to perpetuate their respective species. That mankind may do so in new ways, creating new forms, would hardly be outside the realm of evolution, scripture, past history and imagination. The consequences may be beneficial or evil: like everything else we create; indeed, like everything else the Creator has created! This realm is beyond the AI that we are seeing unfold here and now.

When we view life from the material side of existence, we create machines that mimic and substitute for our own efforts. When we view life from the spiritual side of life, what we seek is happiness and freedom from ignorance and suffering. This spiritual state of being is neither produced nor defined by material existence or any material form. So even if we can create an army of human-like beings so that we may live with greater ease and efficiency, we will be no closer to the goal of perpetual happiness and freedom from suffering than we have ever been by our own material achievements down through the ages.

The promise of our soul’s immortality and eternal happiness can only be found in re-directing our attention inward and upward to the throne of Divinity’s indwelling consciousness: the source of all things in creation.

Despite humankind’s fevered effort to conquer nature and reveal Her secrets, the secret of our existence lies, as Jesus declared, “within you.”

Jai to the indwelling Christ-Krishna, Lord of all Creation,

Swami Hrimananda

 



[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7u5ULsN2pM