Meditation: Is it Just Me, or, Is Anyone Om?

I was re-listening to a recorded talk by Paramhansa Yogananda today while jogging, and he reminded his audience how easy it is to be "out of tune with God" while meditating. It was an odd way to put it and he may have meant more than I could glean from it, but the basic interpretation is one I can relate to: "I can meditate" and that's all I am doing. Let me try that again:

Over the years as I've been in the position to teach meditation, I've reminded folks to not mistake the "path for the goal." I think this is basically what Yogananda was saying. Patanjali (think Yoga Sutras) described "missing the point" as one of the yogi's spiritual traps. It is very easy for those who meditate to focus on the techniques of meditation and never get beyond their own thoughts and preoccupations.

Now this subject is going to take a little work on my part. So let's sit back, take a deep breath and be still.

First: many meditation teachers and students approach meditation as a mindfulness exercise involving just "me" and not "Thee." This is as far as millions of people even intend to go when they meditate. So these folks aren't really in the "game" of this article at all! To paraphrase a Sixties song, "It's my mind and I can do what I want to." (Leslie Gore) So, fine....to quote another Sixties song, "Is that all there is?" (Sinatra) This use of meditation (probably the most common use) is like flossing between the ears. Good mental hygiene with many medical and psychological benefits. End of my article? (You wish!)

This psychological approach may be healthy but I suspect it is difficult to sustain unless the meditator achieves sufficient depth often enough to be desirous of continuing. The simple fact is that meditation takes self-discipline; self-discipline takes motivation; motivation requires necessity. So either one's life is intensely stressful and meditation is a life saver, or, you're likely to be distracted by surfing the net or answering emails or writing blogs, or simply going to bed on time.

Second: traditional use of meditation as a spiritual exercise, including a form of prayer, might be wholly centered on God, Christ, Buddha, Krishna or one of an infinite number of deities or one's teacher. I say "traditional" but I don't say that with complete confidence. Let's simply say, perhaps instead, that when meditation takes a more strictly or more focused devotional form it would be something like that. In this case, too, but for opposite reason, there's no question about "Who's who in meditation." In devotional forms the issue that arises is "When will you come to me?"

The counsel that wise teachers (which includes Yogananda and my own teacher, his direct disciple, Swami Kriyananda) give is that one should be non-attached in meditation and not engage in merchant consciousness, expecting results ("Or, I'll take my cushion and go home!") There's a lovely song, "Keep Calling Him" inspiring the devotee to be steadfast in his devotions whether it takes lifetimes. There's also the thought of "divine impatience" countered by "Patience is the shortest route to God." Now are we getting fuzzy (warm, too?) here?

By impatience we mean that the sense of energy, commitment, zeal and wakefulness of a sort that never gives up is essential. By patience we mean the depth of intuitive knowing that God is always with us and we are ever content in our Self. Yogananda would tell the story of St. Anthony of the Desert. After years of intense prayer and meditation and right on the cusp of his being destroyed by Satan and his minions and calling to Jesus Christ, Jesus finally appears and drives Satan away. Anthony is grateful but chides his Lord asking, "Ahemmm, and, Where were you all this time?" Yogananda would quote Jesus as saying, "Anthony (in a mildly rebuking tone), "I was always with you!" When we meditate with the thought of God's eternal presence we find blissful contentment and waves of grace flowing over us!

Nonetheless, the prayerful and meditating devotee can get discouraged if her entire focus is upon her Lord and he remains ever silent. How many lovers can sustain their love only in silence? In this case the I-Thou becomes one-sided: focused on Thou but Thou art AWOL! Certainly extraordinary bhaktis (lovers of God) will carry on for an eternity, but such devotees are in short supply at this time (of Dwapara Yuga, the age of energy and egoic self-interest).

So, the rest of us are somewhere in between. I assume that many of today's "modern" meditators would identify themselves with the motto, "Spiritual but not religious." Spirituality among this group is somewhat vague and fuzzy, ranging between "feel good" and "feel God," where the emphasis is on "feel." But even among my friends who, like me, are disciples of Paramhansa Yogananda and practitioners of Kriya Yoga, we find the range of intellectual, active, and feeling types.

For example, for years, considering myself more mental than devotional, my emphasis was on my practices (i.e. Kriya Yoga) and the uplifting, calming, and expansive effect meditation had upon me. With steady practice of devotion, including chanting which I love, I gradually became more steady and deep in my comfort with and feeling of and for Yogananda's presence during meditation (and during activity). I discovered from time to time that even with a great meditation, it could be all about having a great meditation and nothing more (devotional, that is)!

Meditation, in other words, can become self-preoccupying. I have often had the sense that some meditators around me (I spend many hours per week in group meditations) are simply sitting there quietly; perhaps contentedly; but essentially "doing nothing": neither striving for depth in meditation, nor offering themselves devotionally to God or guru, nor transcendent of passing thoughts having achieved (or even seeking) a deep state of inner stillness.

In meditation, then, there are several stages:   1) Withdrawal from outer activity;   2) Relaxation, mental as well as physical;   3) Internalization of mental focus;     4) Practice of and concentration upon one's chosen image, state or technique;    5) Having the desire to use one's technique to go beyond it;     6) Achieving a quiescent, inner state of awareness ; and, 7) Achieving upliftment into a higher state of being (than passive quietness).

The active or feeling types all have the same trap: engaging in their respective practices without going beyond them into the very state they are focusing on.

I have concluded after years of practice and teaching that a meditator needs to remind himself to go beyond himself. It's like being "Beside myself" except really, really different, as in "Being inside my Self." When therefore you sit to meditate remind your Self of the difference between your practices and their goal. Always desire and intend to reach your goal, "making haste slowly." Practice with infinite patience and with unstoppable determination. Attempt in every meditation to quiet the heart and breath and achieve a true moment (a moment can be infinite and eternally NOW) of perfect stillness and spiritual wakefulness.

We need the Thou (whether Thou is your practice or Thou is your "God") to replace the "i" and we need to replace the Thou with the I. The one seeks the Other and in the seeking we become ONE.

Are U Won, yet?

Ascending now, au revoir,

Nayaswami Hari-man

Search for Meaning - Part 6 (of 7) : God as Consciousness; God as Joy

Part 6 - God as Consciousness; God as Joy

Science, technology, education and travel have expanded our view of reality beyond our nuclear family to include not just our city, county, state, and nation but the planet Earth! Indeed, we gaze into the heavens above and consider the possibilities of intergalactic travel. Similarly, the great preceptors of humanity have taught that Consciousness is a core attribute of God, the underlying substrata of matter. As our cosmos and as space would seem to have no end, so God, as Consciousness itself, is Infinite. There is no realm limited to our imagination and thought, neither time nor space can constrain our idea-mind. By our attunement with God, we, then, too, potentially have no limit to the expansion of our awareness. Thus it may be that by admitting the independent existence of mind, consciousness, and feeling (happiness) one has articulated synonyms for “God.”

You see, the innate sense of satisfaction, fulfillment and well-being which result from an expansion of our awareness and sympathies to include others are indirect testimonies to the existence of consciousness independent of matter and, by extension, then of God. When we are angry, resentful, jealous or vindictive we are upset and unhappy. The opposite is self-evidently true. It may be true that happiness and contentment “enhance” our chances of survival (though hardly a truism) but such actions are not rooted in mere (or is it “sheer”) survival. Instead, it is the deep memory of our latent or potential for transcendent awareness. For sure, it is happiness that we seek, not only mere survival. Born from the beginning of time out of the womb of God’s bliss, we are endowed with the silent, knowing memory that happiness born of perpetual existence and self-awareness is our nature, our birthright, and our destiny.

It is simply that the drama of creation cannot perpetuate itself if all beings could achieve this final state all at once or too easily. The nature of a good drama is conflict and resolution, good and bad, birth and death. As our true nature is eternal, the impulse of the creation is to perpetuate itself. But the nature of movement is that it swings back and forth, in and out, up and down, hot and cold and, like a perpetual motion machine, it is caught in its own machinations of movement. This is the nature of creation for it is Spirit cloaked in matter. Matter cannot recognize its dilemma, only Spirit, immanent within, can cognize itself. When it withdraws back into it-Self, matter continues more or less untouched. For now, it is not important to argue or explore duality vs nonduality, for that is beyond our subject. Suffice to see that the qualities inherent in matter and creation tempt spirit-incarnate to look for itself (like the Musk deer) in all the wrong places where it cannot be found.

I say to the agnostic scientific mind, you can just as easily contemplate countless  galaxies, the history of nations, the infinitesimal world of quantum physics as to contemplate where you will go on vacation. The vacation may come and go soon enough but the galaxies remain forever (well, at least for a long time). The vacation is an unmanifested idea that has captured your fancy, while the distant galaxies are real whether you think about them or not.

Which, then, is more real? We must conclude that reality is a matter of personal interest and awareness. I am not saying that reality depends on your awareness, so much, as your perception of reality depends upon your interest and awareness.

The world teacher, Paramhansa Yogananda, taught that the joy of meditation is proof of the existence of God. That isn’t literally or logically true but it is intuitively so. The actual inner experience of a state of joy that has no outward source in pleasure, material or egoic fulfillment of any kind, and that can be experienced even in the midst of trials, tribulations, and pain shows that there exists a level of consciousness unaffected by matter. With practice and depth of intuitive perception, this strata of unconditional joy is experienced as self-existent, self-aware, and self-satisfying (needing nothing beyond itself). You need not take this on belief. Be a metaphysical scientist, and prove this for yourself.

But, there’s a catch! I cannot give this to you, like writing a check. One can inspire you; teach you; give you suggestions and counsel, but you must seek and earn it yourself, for it is within you. You have to know about it and want it. Living next door to an excellent restaurant but not being hungry does not give you the pleasure of its fare. Nor is this joy merely a product of an overactive imagination. Anyone who has experienced it would scoff at the accusation that this inner joy was imaginary. Indeed, it can transform your life. That’s reality, so far as you are concerned. And it isn’t a merely subjective reality if it helps you cope creatively, efficiently, and successfully with day to life and life’s up and downs. Nor is it merely subjective if anyone else, making a similar sustained and intelligent effort, can have the same experience. Millions of people now meditate and millions testify as to the consistent results. What more is the scientific method?

Stay tuned for our last section, Part 7 – Meditation & Freedom

Search for Meaning - Part 4 (of 7) : Inquiry into Consciousness

Part 4 - Inquiry into Consciousness

Skeptics or scientifically minded people who turn away from any inquiry into the meaning of life, into life after death, into the existence of God, or reincarnation, ought to simply admit that they lack the interest, confidence, courage and/or willingness to make the effort to investigate. Just as billions of dollars were spent on building the large Hadron Collider in Europe to conduct sophisticated experiments on subatomic particles, so too investigation of fundamental consciousness takes focused commitment and years of rigorous inquiry. Some scientists, atheists, etc. are surely as bigoted in their refusal or denial of the possibility of subtler levels of reality and consciousness as the most self-righteous religious scripture-thumping fundamentalist.

Let the rationalist consider, too, the hypotheses of science which we readily accept but which lie far beyond reason or the senses: From astrophysics, geology, genetics, and astronomy to quantum physics, string theory and the “God-particle,” we readily accept as true, realities that can only be described (from the point of view of our actual sensory experience or our reason) as “metaphysical!”

Proofs of subtler truth teachings do exist for those who are interested. It’s really that simple. Well, ok, maybe simple but not so easy. Just consider what it takes to be a top-notch physicist these days. Inquiry into consciousness can only be conducted on its own level. There are no tools or machines that can do anything other than hint at the effects of consciousness. Consciousness is the only “tool” to perceive itself. The Greeks counseled: “Know thy Self.” Only by mental and mindful inquiry might we perceive the vastness of the halls of consciousness, opening up to first contemplate and then aspire to become infinity itself.

We are taught to begin with simple inquiry: “Who am I?” Examine your every thought minutely, as if under a microscope, and wonder not at the absence of God. Our daily preoccupations with matters mundane and egocentric number into the thousands. Clear your mind of such thoughts for increasingly long periods of time, and, wonder of wonder, what appears but a window onto Superconsciousness and a universe of Inspirations, insights, creativity, vitality, and joy that has no outer conditions!

Just as to become a scientist or doctor takes years of training, so too one who would plumb the depths of consciousness would have to expend years of concentrated effort under the mentorship of one who has mastered the art. His tools would include introspection and the science of meditation

The agnostic will say “I don’t know, I am interested only in tonight’s dinner and whether I get that promotion.” Both dinner and the promotion however are but thoughts in your mind. They have no reality (at that moment, at least) outside of your mind. The educated agnostic will certainly have no problem believing in science’s tenet that there are at least a hundred BILLION galaxies and that our earth has existed for billions of years and the humans have been on this planet for some six or seven million years? He will admit that his life of eighty years in the context of the length of time humans have lived on earth isn’t all that significant. Further he must admit that his life is not more important than that of the other six billion people on this planet. His temporary delight at gobbling down turkey on Thanksgiving is no more significant than his neighbor’s enjoyment of his vegetarian nut loaf. He might fight back and conclude, claiming to be rational, that all inquiries beyond his own material, bodily, and egoic interests are unnatural and unworthy of contemplation, but he cannot say, objectively, that his personal realities are more real or more important than another’s.

The “enlightened agnostic,” by contrast, will go further and recognize that to be virtuous, honest, loyal, hardworking, and compassionate is a better and more honorable way to live. He will surely believe in the golden rule. If he writes off his belief on the basis of obtaining better treatment from others, then he is but a cynic. What satisfaction or happiness would accrue to such a one who appears friendly only to curry favor? How would he view his love for his wife, mother or his child in the context of his philosophy of life?

There are of course varying levels of such agnostics ranging from cynical to noble but they all at least recognize that we must deal responsibly with the realities we face in life. “Responsibly” is something of a subterfuge for a realization of which few such agnostics contemplate the potential implications. What is the meaning and philosophical significance of that intangible but valuable satisfaction that is achieved when we relate to others along the lines of the golden rule? Those who have lived by this rule know that life is more satisfying, more complete, and, yes, more meaningful. C’mon now: why not admit it: one is happier!

Once again, the hard crust of reason and narrow self-interest, indeed egotism, which like prison walls, begin to crumble as our heart and mind expands to include others. The law of the jungle, while presumably the fate of lions and tigers and bears, is something most of us do our best to avoid! And even in the jungles of concentration camps or in times of war, famine, or catastrophe, there were and are those who reach out to help others. To them is bestowed nobility, strength, wisdom, contentment and inner satisfaction that the bitter and selfish will never fathom.

While reason can endorse this enlargement of sympathies and self-identity, it is first and foremost a matter of the heart. Only in the crucible of testing is the metal of our character forged. Some are born with this enlargement; others earn it in their current life.

And what about the phenomenon in human experience we call the “conscience?” More survival tactics, I suppose? Based on lack of conscience, one will steal and enrich himself; based on the whispers of conscience, another will turn away from the temptation. Which, I ask you, is the more successful survivalist? The former may outlive, out-propagate, and out-prosper his more scrupulous friend. But will he be happier?

Whence cometh this realization, this power of the knowing of our shared humanity, the nobility of self-sacrifice, this reaching for the stars? As we acknowledge biological evolution, is there perhaps a psychic or soul evolution? As we cognize the ever-changing interchange between matter and energy, is it possible consciousness evolves also as it takes on new forms?

Stay tuned, then, for Part 5, Evolution of Consciousness!

Search for Meaning - Part 3 (of 7) - Consciousness, God & Intuition

Part 3 – Consciousness, God & Intuition

The “God” word is troublesome in these days of “spiritual but not religious,” of separation of church and state, and freedom to think what you want and be who you want to be. The word implies we are being watched, and, worse yet, judged. Or, that there are limits on what we can or cannot do. The strong implication is that our actions have consequences beyond the immediate.

Now don’t get too riled up. I can’t prove that God exists. Fact is, you can’t prove that God DOESN’T EXIST; you can’t even prove that YOU exist. For all you know, you live in the Matrix, or, at best, in your own mind. So forget that approach and fear not, for I have no intention of proving to anyone that God exists. (This doesn’t mean we won’t talk about it though!)

Indeed, even the scriptures of India admit that “God cannot be proved” (by the senses or by reason alone). But can science or reason prove that God does NOT exist? Surely no one expects to find Him in a test tube? God, if He exists, is not an object in His creation. He is THE SUBJECT, so to speak. That the creation appears to perpetuate itself is by no means proof of anything. Unless the painting is signed, who can know its artist? Does Shakespeare appear in his plays? Is not the father also present in the son? Science, indeed human life itself, would be untenable were it not for faith in the principle of cause and effect. How can science, of all human pursuits, dismiss a First Cause simply because they haven’t or mightn’t ever find it?

What, then is the First Cause of creation? The Big Bang? Well, they are still banging their heads around that one. No “matter” what “matter” they posit, it will only and always be a theory insofar as the beginning of creation was, ‘er, well, how do I say this: a long, long time ago? And, like, we weren’t there? But no matter what they come up with it can never answer “Why.” At most it will be the “how” but only from a starting point beyond which by definition is material or maybe abstract mathematics. Just as bad is the fact that scientists will reevaluate and change their theories with each generation!

Definitely no absolutes in nature and in creation. Nowadays they are just happy to find something that works; a formula in which Y finally finds X! (I read a joke the other day: “Y, stop trying. Your X is never coming back. Y even try?”) They will no more find God in His creation with their scientific instruments or formulae anymore than they will find “the missing link.” Consciousness cannot be proved but only identified second-hand, by its manifestations as electro-magnetic radiations, articulated thoughts, emotions, and actions.

Would the most sophisticated computer-robot ever become human? Logic does not a human make. Feeling, too, is inextricably linked, even with our logic. Feeling is the doorway to our sixth sense: intuition and is that which distinguishes us from robots. A robot could mimic emotions but cannot “feel” them. No robot will come up with ideas outside its logic circuits and programming. As my teacher, Swami Kriyananda, was fond of pointing out: even an earthworm has more consciousness than a computer, no matter how sophisticated the computer. Spike Jonze’s move, Her, notwithstanding, all the clever algorithms cannot produce consciousness: it can only mimic feeling. Feeling and perception are inextricable elements of consciousness.

Consciousness is self-aware, and self-awareness is its own proof. There is no other, for consciousness is not an object, but the observer. Intuition, our sixth sense, is the only means of arriving at that proof. Reason is inadequate to prove that we even exist. In this lies, in part, the fascination such plots as in the movie, the Matrix, challenge us to define: what is real? Who are we? Are we a part of something greater?

Intuition is the state of awareness in which “knowing” exists independent of reason or the senses. The human experience of “knowing” which appears spontaneously without being based on any material, sensory, memory-based, or intellectual rationation is personal “proof” of Mind as independent of matter. This knowing we call intuition. The existence of intuition is experienced by almost everyone at various times in life. Some draw upon it more frequently; some receive it unaware of its own nature, others, receive more consciously; others, yet, with great success.

Where do new ideas come from? It may be reasonable and acceptable for us to say “I had an idea” but it is more true and accurate to say, “An idea came to me.” And, from where did it come, may I ask? You don’t know. It’s that simple. Let me repeat it because you probably missed it: you don’t know where the idea came from. Are you willing to ponder the possibilities? Good, I thought you might. So, now, you’re still with me, then. Good.

Paramhansa Yogananda used the term superconsciousness to designate that realm of thought that might be called, in essence, the Universal Mind. From this unitive realm of pure consciousness, he taught, flow all forms and ideas. “Thoughts,” Paramhansa Yogananda wrote, “are universally, not individually, rooted.” It has been amply demonstrated that discoveries can take place more or less simultaneously by unrelated researchers.

With meditation practice we can learn to open our access to this level of Being and enhance our ability to find solutions to life’s challenges, even at will. Now, this, I admit, as stated herein, comes to you, the reader, as a theory, or even as a dogma, perhaps. But it is one that can be proven by actual experience by those willing to take the effort. Inspiration, solutions, answers can be received with greater and greater frequency, clarity and confidence with the intelligent and disciplined practice of established meditation techniques.

Paramhansa Yogananda was asked this question in his hotel room by a reporter once as he was preparing for a lecture that he was to give that evening. Yogananda turned to his secretary and said: “Write this down.” He then instantly dictated a poem. This poem subsequently appeared in a book of Yogananda’s poetry and this particular poem was singled out by a literary critic in a printed review as the best example of Yogananda’s collected works.

My teacher, and founder of Ananda, Swami Kriyananda, showed this ability to channel inspiration at will in his writing of some four hundred pieces of music and nearly 150 books. While most authors take years to a write a book, Kriyananda could write a book in days or weeks: at most a few months. Unfortunately, scientific funding for developing intuition has not yet materialized.

Yogananda described intuition as the “soul’s power to know God.” Through the sixth sense of intuition, we cognize supersensory realities. The unitive field of Mind is no less one of an infinity of possible definitions for Infinity itself, also sometimes called “God.”

 In areas of psychic abilities, however, intuition has been amply studied and proven even if given different names and even if scientists can give no rational explanation. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that telepathic communication can transcend both time and space. Material science, at a loss to explain these things, turns aside, choosing to ignore what they can neither explain nor control. This is their choice and a reasonable one at that, but few scientists have the courage and clarity to articulate the implications of both these phenomenon and their inability to explain them.

Repeated cases of reincarnation that have been critically examined around the world are so plentiful that, once again, science can only shake its head and turn elsewhere. 

Stay tuned for Part 4 - Inquiry into Consciousness

Search for Meaning - Part 2 (of 7) - What, then, is Happiness?

Part 2 - What, then, is Happiness?

If scientists, materialists or scoffers were more self-honest, they’d simply have to admit that these questions are outside the scope of their inquiry or their personal interest. Just about any “man on the street” can supply the most obvious answer to the purpose of life: we want to enjoy life and to perpetuate that enjoyment. It’s happiness we seek, silly! Most men and women, looking at life’s wonders, mystery, complexity, order, and beauty, see that the cosmos is veritably bursting with intelligence. The observant and aware human experience is sufficient to tip the odds strongly in favor of creation being both a product of, and directed toward increased awareness of, Consciousness, Intention, and Purpose! Albert Einstein, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, was in awe of the universe and saw beauty and intelligence where other more pedestrian observers see how to make better bombs or grow food more profitably.

Most weekend-Darwinists would fall into the trap of admitting that mere existence isn’t enough, at least not for them personally! “Sure, I wouldn’t want to be in a coma or paralyzed for life. I’d want to enjoy life!” In any case, they can’t help but allow a higher purpose to enter which I will call simply, happiness. Right there they’ve forfeited the match by admitting to something, “happiness,” that cannot be defined and that constitutes a non-material reality -- in fact, a reality which is a product solely of consciousness and feeling! Bingo, ‘ol boy! I think I’ve just won!

And if you’d be tempted to say that happiness is the result of material satisfactions (home, hearth, money, pleasure, success, etc.) I would counter with the well established fact that the human experience discloses ample examples of people under the most harrowing conditions of pain, suffering or lack experiencing happiness (in the form of joy, contentment, and focus) like the full moon appearing in the sky, untouched in its beauty by earth bound devastation. The potential for human consciousness to transcend seemingly impossible physical conditions can never be circumscribed. Score one for metaphysics, I say!

You might still object by saying that desiring happiness (in any form) doesn’t make life necessarily meaningful, just purposeful? Hmmmm, hair splitting, are we? Even a scientist would say you have to limit your inquiries to what you know and can test. The meaning of life isn’t likely to found in a rock or in outer space. The very inquiry suggests consciousness & intelligence and, besides, intelligent or not, it is we who are asking the question, not the rocks or the whales. So we must be the measure of the response and the inquiry into whether and what is happiness and whether our pursuit of it is meaningful!

In any case, to admit happiness into the discussion is certainly a crack in the materialistic egg of strict Darwinism. You might object that seeking happiness doesn’t answer the question for the lower life forms and their respective stages of evolution. Hmmm, I would say, really? Are not earthworms and plants “happy” if they get sustenance and favorable conditions for living? Well, ok, we can’t say for sure they are “happy,” but as their simple needs are more fulfilled they are at least, well, “more fulfilled!” It’s at least as good as your survival of the fittest theory, I’d say. It supplies at least a motive, as it were, for their compelling interest to survive. Survival for its own sake has no logical explanation by itself without the squishy appearance of consciousness and feeling. A kind of primordial, “What’s in it for me?”

I will admit that we have yet to grapple with what is happiness. For one question that remains is not so much why we want to be happy (that is intuitively and innately self-evident even if beyond logic and reason), but what parameters foster this happiness. A murderer might imagine (presumably does) that killing his enemy will make him happier in ridding his life of some terrible pestilence. But remorse and regret may set in, afterwards, or the hangman’s noose, descend. Either way the happiness achieved by the murderer may be fleeting, at best. But, let’s explore the nature of happiness in another section.

Positing that happiness is the goal and purpose of life isn’t all that much of a threat to anyone, now that we’ve dismissed the Darwinists from the room, that is. It’s the atheists and the agnostics who are now left standing, quietly muttering to each other and suspicious of what’s to come next.

Our AA friends (agnostics and atheists) are suspicious because once you introduce meaning or happiness into life, then a higher octave than material fulfillments of the law of cause and effect is admitted into the conversation. The causes of achieving meaning are as insubstantial and lacking materiality as meaning and happiness itself. A metaphysical truth can only be dismissed when one lives comfortably, if narrowly, under the umbrella of materialistic, present life realities.

Right now, however, these baddies think that the meaning of life is to “get mine” and the only cause and effect they care about is how to cause mine to be got. Now I admit that some of ‘em are actually really nice people who love whales, pets, lovers and mothers. They just don’t cotton to that God thing. We’ll call this a sub-group of AA’ers, humanists.

You see: all of these people, nice or not, are wedded to the idea that the only realities worthy of note are the ones that they are interested in. Such realities are likely to be things they can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. The idea of a broader, intangible reality is, for them, dismissible on the grounds of “Frankly, I’m not interested.” Even the billions of galaxies or the bad things that live under their fingernails are generally of little interest to this group of people. Maybe they love puppies or buy organic produce, but these they can touch.

Is there a way to bridge the happiness motivation into something less subjective? Can “God” enter the picture through the backdoor of happiness? Let’s wait and see….stay tuned for Part 3 – Consciousness, God & Intuition

Is it unnecessary to follow a particular spiritual path?

Recently, I assisted with the planning towards offering a specially designed meditation support group for those in the "recovery" movement. The eleventh (of the now well known "Twelve Steps") step in the recovery process is prayer and meditation. So, we figured, since Ananda has much to offer in regards to both, why not offer such support to others?

The first question that arose, however, was "Wouldn't it be more acceptable to more people if what we offered drew upon a variety of universally acceptable prayer and meditation sources (and not just Ananda's)?

I had to admit that such was likely to be the case. The further statement to the question was the assumption that by only offering what Ananda had to share we'd be seen as promoting our own way, indeed, perhaps proselytizing. I had to admit, again, that, well, yes, some would certainly view it that way.

My musings here are not really about how best to format the meditation support group. In that particular instance, I had several, not entirely irrelevant, objections: 1. What we would offer would be universal and not particular; 2. The mere fact that we would draw on Ananda sources doesn't, in and of itself, make it self-promoting. 3. Self-promoting is an aspect of both intention and delivery and in this case there was to be neither. 4. What we have to offer is effective and helpful to people. There is nothing lacking in it and there is no need, therefore, from the standpoint of the goal of the support group to seek out other sources. 5. The public service we wanted to offer is not merely the use of our physical space but to share something valuable that we have to share.

I admit that to many people these distinctions are just too subtle and human nature too suspicious to carry the day against the objections raised above. I figure, well, ok, then if fewer come and fewer therefore benefit, that's their choice. Why should we dilute what we have when we know it is effective and offered in good faith?

In my last blog article I explored the question of whether heretofore "secret" teachings and techniques should be made free (or mostly free) and public. Is to do so to "throw pearls before swine?" Is there any harm done? For those exposed to sacred teachings who spurn them because not spiritually ready, such persons may, karmically and psychologically, defer their own acceptance for having rejected them. Aren't material objects which are considered precious generally costly, scarce or otherwise difficult to obtain?

Still, one could also argue that more people will have access and therefore, following the spiritual lottery odds given to us in the "Bhagavad Gita" by Lord Krishna, "out of a thousand, one seeks Me."

My conclusion in that blog article was not a call for secrecy but a reminder that what makes such teachings and techniques precious is that one must have, by self-effort and grace, have advanced sufficiently spiritually and sensitively to recognize their value and to plumb their depths through discipline, self-control and devotion.

So, now, what then, is best? A synthesis of yoga techniques and philosophies or a singular lineage and spiritual path? I say, "There's something for everyone." When searching it is useful to explore different traditions and teachers. To draw the best from each and incorporate it into one's "sadhana" (spiritual practices) can be helpful.

But how many frogs does one kiss before finding a prince? There is, so I believe and believe I have observed in others, a restlessness and dissatisfaction in a concatenation of disciplines and methods. It is not uncommon, when yoga practitioners of different lineages assemble together, to feel a different "vibration" in another tradition, even when outwardly very similar (practicing meditation and yoga, e.g.)

There's another point however. This must be either experienced by oneself or observed sensitively in others. When one approaches spiritual disciplines like a smorgasbord, the ego engages in a "like and dislike" weighing and comparing attitude. The sense of personal ownership and "doership" is increased, not lessened. It is an axiom of spirituality that ego transcendence is an integral part of the path to the goal. "I have chosen this technique, that method, this book or teacher" to satisfy "What I think is right for me!" The resulting direction of consciousness is opposite to that of the soul, which is surrender, self-giving, devotional and so on. There is, further, a tendency toward pride over having learned or studied all these different philosophies or techniques, or having studied under this teacher or that. It may even be the ego's excuse to remain "above it all" (meaning above a personal commitment to ego transcendence) -- best to study everything, you see.

Yes, the ego does have to make decisions, spiritually and otherwise. Those decisions, however, which incline one towards ego transcendence will advance the soul toward freedom ("moksha") faster. As I stated in the prior blog, there is no one "right" yoga practice or meditation technique. What is right is that which brings you toward soul freedom!

This idea leads one naturally, indeed, inexorably to the need for the guru. But I have written on that subject in numerous other blogs. Suffice to say that anyone who sincerely and with energy seeks spiritual freedom, such a one will be guided to those teachers, teachings, and techniques best suited to his own unique and individual path to God.

The simple fact is this: in the practice of yoga and meditation today (and, let's face it, in the multitudinous practices of religion and spirituality generally throughout the world), most seek something far less. In yoga, it's often health, inner peace, well-being, muscle tone, stress relief and so on. For students of philosophy there are just never enough time to read all those cool books. For others, there's always a newer and more popular teacher coming to town. Even for the vast majority of devotees (those who undertake yoga disciplines, prayer, or charitable service for spiritual growth or to do God's work), we are working out karma: we feel better living this way; we feel compassion for others; we want to give back; and sometimes it's less ennobling, as, for example, we engage in practices because we are expected to, or otherwise for approval and recognition.

You see, and now I get to the meat of things, we have this deeply embedded tendency to mistake the form for the spirit (behind the form). Thus, we get attached to doing yoga; or meditating; or reading and learning; doing charitable work; or going to church on Sunday. We mistake the outer act (even meditation performed mechanically is a kind of outer work) for the presence of God, or joy, or upliftment. We too often settle for the outer act because we know we can't control when the "spirit will move and come upon me." And, of course, we should never so presume.

Thus we think that if we can learn dozens of yoga poses or meditation techniques we will be better at yoga or meditation. Little do we realize how little it takes; or, put more intelligently, that it's the attitude and consciousness with which we pray, meditate, or stretch that awakens the Spirit within. When, far along our spiritual journey, we realize that "joy is within you," (Ananda's motto), and that spiritual growth is not a matter of accumulating more techniques, or reading more books, and that it is, after all, really simple, then we let go of our "romance with religion" (its outer trappings), and seek, as one great modern saint was apt to counsel, "God alone."

I'm not saying we throw the "baby out with the bath water." I'm saying that we realize that one, true path, one true teacher, one effective technique is sufficient in regards outer practices and that what we really need is attunement with divine realities. And this is where it gets "good." Good because so subtle. Good because God, being the Infinite Power, the Supreme Spirit, has no form; no name; all forms; all names! It's just too confusing. Monism? Dualism? Where to start? Where does it end?

Are you ready, yet, for a guru? Ok, later, then. Nonetheless, my point is that, using the analogy of human love, we don't need five wives or husbands: we need only one if we want to know what the potential of human love might be. And so it is with God. Being everywhere (and nowhere), we don't need to "kiss every frog." Rather, simplicity of outer practice; purity of heart; selfless hands in service; and devotion to the Supreme Spirit (in whatever form is your "Ishta devata" -- that which inspires you to seek Truth and Freedom).

It would not be my intention to discourage you if you are enthusiastically engaged in learning and practicing (or teaching) yoga, meditation, or other worthy spiritual practices. Energetic engagement of will towards and for Good is necessary for the refinement of our consciousness and nervous system, and the purification of our karma and dross.

Further, there are those whose syncretic methods are helpful to them, and, if they are teachers, perhaps helpful for others. I maintain, however, as stated above, that this a phase one goes through. A necessary phase for some, to be sure, but a phase nonetheless. I object to what is sometimes the pride and even arrogance with which some syncretic teachers and students look down upon those poor slobs "stuck" in one path or lineage. But, well, I have spoken above of the drawbacks to this form of "fast lane" eclecticism.

Nonetheless, I hope some of distinctions made here can be helpful. For, very often, given the tendency toward sectarian rivalry with which spirituality and religion is too often a victim, a sincere person hesitates to make the plunge toward a singular path, leaving behind the garden of syncretic delights (like leaving behind dating in order to marry).

No step, taken sincerely and intelligently, with energy and faith, toward God, toward Truth, can ever lead us astray. Lessons we may have yet to learn, to be sure, but if we take one step toward God, Spirit takes two toward us. As we increase in purity, wisdom, and energy our path to God will surely lead us home.

There is no God, but God. There is no good, but God. There is no Thing, but God.

Peace! Shalom! Shanti!

Nayaswami Hriman

The Cosmic Drama Continues: part 4 of 5: In Walks the Devil!

The Cosmic Drama

Part Four (of Five) - In Walks the Devil!

This is part one of a series of articles. It has its origins in a prior blog article entitled, "Who is Jesus Christ?" You may wish to read that first, though not absolutely necessary. This series attempts to describe the Trinity, or, how God can be omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, and immanent in creation at the same time. And, what significance this has for the reality we face as individuals. As the prior article on Jesus Christ noted, "Who Jesus is says a great deal about who we are." So, too, who God is addresses who we are.

When God “sent out” His power through vibration (“Aum”) and seeded it with His reflected Intelligence, the creation (especially the powers and intelligences behind matter) are endowed with procreative power, desire, intelligence, and individuality. Just as the son, who may resemble his father in many ways, is given free will to make his own choices in life, so too, the creation and the souls in creation have been given, and have, made choices. As vibration acquires form, individuality and intelligence it acquires a relative degree of independence. Not absolute, but relative. This power, force and intelligence assumes unto itself a self-perpetuating momentum, not unlike the famous computer HAL in the movie: 2001: A Space Odyssey. The outflowing power of God becomes, by degrees, not only independent but, as it begins to assert its self-identity, either rebelliously or ignorantly, it become satanic. The term “satanic” implies a conscious intention to remain apart and independent. It implies a purposeful rebellion against harmony and attunement with the Creator. It is not sharp line in the sand, but a gradual continuum from divine attunement to forgetfulness to restlessness to ignorance to harm and to conscious evil.

Endowed with intelligence and empowered to go out and multiply and then acquiring the form and feeling of separateness (from God), this outgoing power takes onto itself the responsibility and desire to create, multiply, dominant and remain its own “god.” (Think of the myth of Lucifer or Adam and Eve wanting to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.) Thus does the outflowing force begin gradually to make its own way. The further from God its consciousness inclines, the more the good intention becomes gradually an evil one, usurping God’s power and worshipping itself as godlike. (Thus was Jesus tempted by Satan to have dominion over all the earth if he would but worship Satan as the creation itself.) Thus humans set up false gods, worshipping money, the pleasures of the senses, power over others, addictive substances, and so on. Satan, in the form of the creation, invites us to worship him as the summum bonum of existence. In the end he takes our souls, metaphorically speaking (only), in the sense that we lose (temporarily) our soul joy and innocence in God’s bliss. Death, old-age, disease, disappointment—at last, he reneges on his promise leaving us with neither God’s peace nor our moth-eaten treasures on earth.

There is another aspect to this loss of innocence. As Spirit is cloaked in form, individuality, and separateness, it finds itself competing for survival in a world of the senses. Forced to feed, clothe and shelter itself, it finds that the compelling necessities of its outer form cause it to look outward through the senses. The outer world gradually becomes its reality and lost is the divine memory of its own omniscience and immortality. It will take untold incarnations for this lost soul to (ascend first to the human level, and then untold more incarnations to) rebel against the “anguishing monotony” of continued rounds of rebirth, struggle, pleasure, pain, illness and death after having exhausted every avenue of sensory and ego-affirming, but ultimately disappointing, fulfillment.

Thus, the macro-characters in the cosmic drama are God (as the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and the satanic force which opposes harmony with and union with God. Paramhansa Yogananda put it this way: the satanic force has sowed the creation with patterns of imperfection (pain, disease, & physical death) so that our memory of divine perfection will impel beings to want to return to the creation to make it perfect. But alas, the cosmic drama requires the villain that we might love the hero. The villain must be punished and the hero is applauded. As we act more like the hero we come closer to God. In this way, even the satanic force of maya (delusion and ignorance) act to sow the seeds of our longing for perfection. This perfection, this bliss, this union is found only within our souls—in God alone. We have an eternity of free choices to discover and seek this re-union, just as the prodigal son in Jesus’ story, hungry and famished, decides to begin the journey home to his Father. There he is welcomed and embraced (not punished).

Whether we view the betrayal of God’s divine purpose as the result of the “first man and woman” (Adam and Eve) or as a choice we all make, especially beginning with puberty, is perhaps a matter of taste. The reality is that, from the human point of view, evil exists, ignorance exists, wrong choices and bad things happen and we need to make things better. Blaming God has its place, but only to a point. Doing so doesn’t change the bad things. We have to take action and we have to take at least some responsibility for ourselves and our neighbor. Without this, life would be not worth living. Besides, in truth and at the present moment, most people wouldn’t have it any other way and are not the slightest bit interested in knowing, loving, serving and uniting in love with God.

The "devil made me do it",

Nayaswami Hriman

How Can I Know God?

The Indian scriptures state that “God cannot be proved.” Jesus said “No man hath seen God.”

But neither tradition is remotely atheistical and great saints of East and West have faithfully told of their experiences of mystical union with God in many forms and in many ways.

When I was a boy I read the lives of the Christian saints but I despaired for the fact that they all lived long ago. “Where is Jesus Christ now” I wondered? “Why are there no saints living today” I cried! But no one could answer me.

Most orthodox faiths pray to or praise God, Christ or others but few affirm that we can know God. Fewer instruct their adherents in how to know God. Instead we are counseled to obey the scriptures, go to church or temple, be good, help others and, with a little luck (grace), we will go to heaven and receive our reward!

Admittedly that’s a lot like what happens on earth. We are taught to study hard, work hard, and, if we are very good, we will be successful, we will be liked and respected, and if we save our money we can retire and live happily ever after at our cottage by the sea.

Hmmmm……makes you wonder, don’t it?

It might work that way on earth, or, it might not. It depends. So why would we believe that line in regards to something we don’t know and can’t see: heaven?

One of my favorite chapters in “Autobiography of a Yogi” contains a story wherein Paramhansa Yogananda has this mind-blowing experience of cosmic consciousness given to him by his guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar. 

Sometime afterwards however, he begins to doubt and question his experience. One day he asks his guru, “When will I find God?” His guru chuckled merrily saying, “What did you expect to find, a venerable personage sitting on a throne in some antiseptic corner of the universe?”

Then, consolingly he explained to young Mukunda (Yogananda’s birth name) that God is the joy born of meditation and the adequate response to every need.

God is not limited to these manifestations (God is infinite and all pervading, eh?) but certainly that quiet, bubbly life giving joy one can feel in and as a result of deep meditation is as tangible as the fingers of my right hand. Further, a life of faith yields in every circumstance the subtle and hidden guidance, comfort, and insight of the divine hand.

It was a stunning revelation to me when I first read Yogananda’s autobiography that God could be known as joy, as peace, as a deep and pure love in my heart, as an expanding light or an expanding sense of power or calmness. No more would I have to pine away thinking God as “other” and beyond the pale of possible knowing.

Later as a disciple of Yogananda and as my attunement to him (and his life and teachings) grew, I began to see that in knowing him, and in feeling his presence in subtle but consistent ways, by this too, I had the direct perception of God’s presence. For as Yogananda said to his disciples, “I killed Yogananda long ago. No one dwells in this form but He.”

Many people like to imagine or feel God’s presence in nature, in kindness, and in creativity. This too is possible, certainly, and saints have so testified.

How can we distinguish our desire and active imagination or subconscious promptings from the real deal?

That takes practice, calmness, and intense self-honesty. But it is not as difficult as you might think. To know God, we must be still and very quiet; humble and reverent; we must ask that He come to us; we must be open to His coming in any form but especially open to His coming in the form of those whom he sends: those Christ-like saviors who in every age descend for the upliftment of mankind.

To “worship God in spirit and in truth” means also that we must act in God-like ways: charitably, without ego, unselfishly, acting in moderation and self-control, and actively seeking His will in everything we do.

As Krishna promises devotees everywhere, “Even a little practice of this inward religion will free you from dire fears and colossal sufferings.” And as St. John the Apostle wrote in the first chapter of his gospel, “As many as received Him gave He the power to become the sons of God.”

Meditation is the science of religion. If we will learn a tried and true technique and follow the counsel given above in attitude and in activity, we WILL KNOW GOD. Paramhansa Yogananda said, “The time for knowing God has come!” The means he brought from India for this is the technique he called Kriya Yoga.

For more information on Kriya Yoga, you can begin at our website: www.AnandaWashington.org

Blessings and joy to you,

Nayaswami Hriman

What does it mean to "Worship"?

The word "worship" is second only to the word "God" in creating a slight flutter somewhere deep inside me. I'm fairly well past the "God" word flutter at this point in my life, for I see it as a kind of shorthand and an arrow pointing to something very sacred and deep, even if I can't give it a more complete name and "it" has no form. But I feel God's presence in my heart and that's all that matters to me. I have put the intellect and past baggage back in the baggage car at the rear.

But "worship" conjures up mindless followers bowing and scraping to a man-made statue or image. "Thou shalt not worship false gods!" As if I wanted to worship anyone at all!

As the world integrates and we have the inflow of Indian culture and people throughout America and elsewhere, one encounters the phrase "worship of the idol." Sometimes just the word "idol" and other times only "worship." Wow. A Christian will bristle at the thought of worshiping idols and there is no distinction between false ones and real ones!

Students who come to Ananda see the pictures of the gurus of Self-realization (which includes Jesus Christ) and sometimes say, "Do you worship them?"

The feeling of God's presence and the more abstract experience of sacredness and reverence (however stimulated) naturally and appropriate inclines one in the direction of "worship." Oh, perhaps not at first but if we are drawn magnetically and repeatedly back to such a state of consciousness, the experience causes us to approach an attitude that might reasonably be called "worshipful."

Think of it as a state of hushed reverence, quiet, inward joy, gratitude, self-forgetfulness in the Presence, and a kind of love that does not derive from excitement, pleasure, or anticipation of reward.

From the experience (and even from the concept) of God's presence can come the realization that God is present in the world in innumerable forms and places, and certainly within ourselves. There can come a time when it appears in one's intuitive awareness that perhaps God has incarnated into human form: and not just theoretically, as in the of God being in everyone. Rather, the possibility occurs to one that God might actually incarnate into the human form of one who partakes in the Godhead presence.

Now many scoff of course at the very possibility. Some, like the Jewish priests of Jesus' time, consider it blasphemous. I'm not interested in debating the theology of such a possibility, for I am referring to an intuitive awakening to the presence of such a one, or even just to the possibility of such an incarnation.

Now, just to be clear, my reference point is not to the idea that God Himself squeezes himself down into a human body suit, saying "Ta-da! It's magic and here I am!" No I am referring to the possibility that one human being, through many lives, through the effort that attracts divine grace (God's power and presence), incarnates on earth to bring God-consciousness into human form. Not in a theatrical or dramatic way but in the very way many people live: sometimes simply and unnoticed othertimes more openly and dramatically, but always as a human being living in a very human way.

Only those who have "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" will detect the God presence of such a one. God does not reveal himself unto the "prudent and the wise, but unto babes." This avatar (divine incarnation) doesn't limit God nor act as God's soul, solitary or exclusive mouthpiece, but instead comes more like a family emissary, appropriate to the time and the clime of space and time and to specific individuals and groups of individuals.

The very thought of this possibility unleashes joy, admiration, gratitude and much more. To return to worshipfulness, let us say that we have here in this thought of or actual presence of such a soul, the awakening of each of these attitudes: gratitude, reverence and so on. With this, then, we can try to understand the words, writing, voice, image, and being-ness of such a one as emanating God consciousness in order to transmit this to us, personally and relevantly.

This understanding of "worship" is not the worship of a person as a mere human being but arises from the recognition of a quality, a presence, a vibration of consciousness that is so magnetic, so joyful, so wise, so compassionate, so safe and true that one cannot but help to desire to take into oneself the vibration and consciousness being transmitted through such a one (again: through his image, voice, teachings, example, etc.). This kind of worship is a thus the magnetic draw and intention to enter into and BE that consciousness. The intention, feeling and attraction is, ultimately, nothing less than an act of pure love.

There is no sense of loss of self but, rather of Self discovery, like the prodigal son returning to his father. It is a sense of coming home and of Being. There is no sense of self-abnegation but of Self-fulfillment. There is no sense that something is being taken from you but that everything is being given to you. God-consciousness has no desire and is above doing harm. It is love pure and simple and merges into joy and into bliss.

Thus true worship is the joy of the soul finding itself: at first, in the Being of another but ultimately in Being of Self. Therefore, think of worship as that draw within you for complete and permanent fulfillment, inner contentment, unending and ever-new satisfaction, and as that which exists everywhere, in everything and as the Being of everything and everyone. That's not so difficult, now, is it?

Blessings to you,

Nayaswami Hriman

Does God Exist?

How Can We Know God?

God seems distant from our daily lives, our sufferings and our joys, and He seems irrelevant to our desires and ambitions, unless, of course, by invoking Him, we believe that He will fulfill our material desires! Humankind views the existence of God through the entire spectrum of belief to nonbelief: atheism, agnosticism, stoicism, humanism,  blind belief, worship, devotion and, finally, seeking union with God.

Even scriptures and spiritual teachers reflect, at least in part, much of this spectrum. India’s Shankya scriptures declare “Ishwar ashidha,” God is not provable. No wonder the never-ending debate and argument — no one can win! The modern mystic, Frank Laubach, campaigned among ministers that they would even mention God in their sermons! Perhaps, discouraged by the wide range of opinions, these ministers thought it easier to skip the subject!

While saints do not come to dash humanity’s hopes for a better world through God’s grace, or to suppress our faith in Providence, there is, nonetheless, a need, spiritually, to understand the role of self-effort and personal responsibility. Self-effort is the first step towards attracting divine grace. Buddha emphasized the former while those bhaktis (worshippers of God) in all traditions, like the Hare Krishna’s who insist that by only chanting God’s name can one be saved, emphasize the transforming power of divine grace. Somewhere in the middle path lies the truth.

Buddha urged his followers to be spiritually self-reliant, compassionate, noble in thought and deed, and to meditate. He also came to free people from Brahminical power and complex and costly rituals, and to reawaken their understanding of the need for personal effort and away from passive dependence upon an unseen and fickle deity.

But the followers of Buddha wrongly mistook the Buddha’s silence on the subject of Providence as disbelief. I read of a court case in Los Angeles where a Buddhist sued a school district for a school prayer because the Buddhist declared that he did not believe in God. But the Buddha’s motives were as simple and earthy as his teachings. His silence implied nothing except, by its own good example, an affirmation of the words of Lahiri Mahasaya of Benares, “He only is wise who devotes himself to realizing, not reading only, the ancient revelations.”

Buddha was a Hindu as Jesus was a Jew. Neither essentially rejected their spiritual heritage so much as they came to correct misunderstandings that had emerged, and to offer a new understanding and a renewal of spirituality. As Jesus put it; “I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them.” Buddha openly taught meditation and reincarnation whereas Jesus, though he remained silent or circumspect  on both subjects, at least publicly, taught the Old Testament precepts to love God with all one’s heart, mind, and soul and to love others as one’s very Self. Buddha minimized the importance of his role but of course that was fitting in the context of his teachings. Nonetheless, Paramhansa Yogananda taught that Buddha was no less than an avatar (a “savior”).

Jesus’ teachings went a different direction, concurrent with his teachings. Jesus declared “I and my Father are One.” At another time he added, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” Not only was he killed for his blasphemy, but, as if to balance the equation, Christians decided to emphasize the “I” rather than the “Father,” and thus have overly personalized Jesus as the only savior down through the ages. This dogmatic insistence runs counter to Jesus’ teachings, for as St. John declared in the first chapter of his gospel, “As many as received Him gave He the power to become the sons of God.” Jesus was an individual incarnation of the Father-Spirit both beyond and immanent in creation. He did not limit or define that Spirit. “Tat twam asi,” as the Hindu scriptures aver: “Thou art THAT!”

Paramhansa Yogananda asked his audiences, “How can the wave call itself the ocean?” It is correct to say God has become manifest in me, and in all creation, though, as Spirit, He is hidden by the outward forms of creation, but it is incorrect to declare “I am God.” Only when the soul has become fully realized in his Oneness can he declare openly with divine inner sanction, as Yogananda did, “I killed Yogananda long ago, no one dwells here but He.”

It has been popular in recent years for certain scientists to disdain, scoff and mock belief in God. So, of course, have many people down through history. It is perfectly correct for a scientist to say “We cannot prove the existence of God,” but science has no basis to disprove that existence, either. The true scientist must remain silent on the subject if he is to represent science itself. It is just as rational to say this universe was created intentionally by an Intelligent, conscious Force as it is to say it came from nowhere and evolved more or less randomly to produce the profusion, quantity and complexity of life forms, the probing intelligence and creativity of the human mind, and the boundless capacity and drive of the human heart for feeling, compassion, and love. Well, actually, of the two choices, the former seems the safer bet. But never mind, let them feel like they have a choice since they can neither prove nor disprove either!

In the midst of all this confusion, the question some ask is, “Why does God hide Himself?” Paramhansa Yogananda said “You will know when you will know!” So long as we are caught up in the wheel of karma and unceasing duality, it is difficult for us to have the perspective that God has in being untouched by it. What is suffering to us is not suffering to God. The playwright is no less a good person for writing the villain into the play. Without an antagonist the play is uninteresting and will never be performed. Without suffering we would never delve deeper into the mysteries of our existence: why? How?

God manifested this dream universe, it is said, that He might know Himself and share his Bliss nature through others in a grand show and entertainment. Well, that grand show is all too often not very grand from our point of view. So, “you will know when you will know.” As unsatisfying as it may be, our more practical question is, “What can I do about it?” “How can I achieve freedom from suffering?” Besides, never has there been one who testified as to God’s presence who declared “What a mess He has made!” Admittedly, however, Yogananda said that he often argued with Divine Mother over the fact she did create this world and she owed it to us to help us.

Indeed, Buddha also asked the same question: How can I achieve freedom from suffering? Through his seeking and through his meditation-samadhi, he pierced the veil of delusion (maya) and declared his freedom, and, by extension, our potential freedom, for all eternity. Buddha saw through the unreality of pleasure and pain and, identified with his transcendent, omnipresent and eternal Self, could no longer be touched by the roiling oscillations of the play of opposites.

Paramhansa Yogananda taught that God has hidden Himself and His true nature from us that we might seek Him by choice and for His love, the one thing He does not possess unless we give it to Him. He is so humble even as the creation hangs upon His power. He will not disturb our free will except through his law of karma (consequences of our own actions) through which we have the opportunity to question, to wake up, and to yearn for freedom from error.

Paramhansa Yogananda also declared that “The time for knowing God has come.” By this he meant that in this age we would begin to prefer direct perception and personal experience over dogma and beliefs. To this shift in consciousness would come from God the means to fulfill this desire through the art and science of meditation. He also put it this way: “Intuition is the soul’s power to know God.” Now, of course, with intuition we can know all sorts of things, far more mundane than knowing God. But it’s by the same power that we receive an idea that is important to our daily life that we experience the ineffable presence of Peace in our hearts.

Paramhansa Yogananda described his life’s work as a new dispensation. One important part of this was his bringing the technique of kriya yoga, an advanced meditation technique. Kriya shows us how to retrace our steps from identification with the body and matter to soul realization by directing the Life Force through specific subtle nerve channels  which are the paths through which we have descended from Spirit into matter. In reversing the “searchlights of the senses,” we discover the “great Light of God” as our own and the only Reality.

He also brought a new understanding that has the potential to sidestep centuries of debate on the subject of the existence of God. He brought forward into modern culture the ancient teaching of the Adi (first) Swami Shankycharya that the nature of God is bliss, or, more correctly, Satchidanandam. Yogananda translated this to say that God is, and our soul’s purpose in being created is, to achieve the state of immortality, omniscience, and ever-new Bliss.  It is by seeking and experiencing the ever-new joy of the soul through meditation that the proof of God’s existence is found. And, as his guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar added to this, “His adequate response to our every need!”

Thus one who seeks God as the joy (or peace) of meditation finds Him and finds Him ever increasingly the most relishable. From this contact we find, as Jesus promised, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and its righteousness (meaning in right attitude and action), and all these things shall be added unto you.” Let inner peace, even-mindedness under all circumstances and cheerfulness be your religion born of your direct perception in meditation of the truth that shall make you free from, as the Bhagavad Gita puts it, “dire fears and colossal sufferings.”

Blessings to you,

Nayaswami Hriman

The "God" Word?

When you hear the word “God” do you flinch, grimace, or roll your eyes? Imagine how many books, sermons, and scriptures have been written referring to and attempting to describe (or worse yet, define) “God.” Surely you don’t expect me to join the jostling crowd of theologians, ministers and preachers?

Well, don’t look now, but . . . . .

Many people reject the word “God.” And I have been one of them for many years. But now I see the term more as a symbol, or a pictograph. As such, each person using it  or hearing or reading it can fill in his own definition, description, feeling, or intention with respect to it. (“With respect to it” has at least two meanings, by the way!)

If your temperament inclines to the impersonal you might interpret the word as a cosmic force, the primal ground of Being, an infinite Light, cosmic consciousness or any number of such terms denoting an intelligent, presumably beneficent, if impersonal, energy or force. This is all well and good and perhaps even possessing a philosophical purity, but, let’s face, it is  also rather sterile. Who in his right mind would want to love a Cosmic Ground of Being? The heart says, “And where, perchance, does one find Him?” And, “What relevance, meaning, or interest in me and my problems has such a Force?”

We might consider the life within ourselves to be the Life Eternal. When we are feeling especially vitalized, for example, whether in strenuous or otherwise energetic actions such as sports, art, drama and countless other peak experiences or where the “force is with you” and energy is flowing: here we might say God’s power is animating your form and consciousness. A nice touch, to be sure, but still somewhat mental, although the delight inherent in the feeling of energy, vitality, confidence, and accomplishment  is certainly strong and satisfying. When it inevitably wanes, however, we are left perhaps inconsolable or moody. In a more refined (and at times even devotional) way, some meditation techniques concentrate the mind upon the life force (“prana”) flowing in the body (physical and astral). 


This form of meditation is very helpful and not difficult. But the leap from “energy” to “divinity” and to a “personal God” is more of stretch for some. We can feel the joy of energy but can we say it’s God’s energy or simply our own?

The peace-feeling of meditation or prayer certainly constitutes a form of worship or mindfulness in respect to the Presence of God. Other aspects frequently identified include deep calmness, transforming love, a flow of insights and intuitive wisdom, and the appearance of the subtle astral sense perceptions such as inner sound or inner light. All of these can be viewed and enjoyed whether devotionally, energetically, or in the light of understanding. Nonetheless, these impersonal forms leave many seekers wandering the labyrinth of the mind without clear sense of direction or heartfelt satisfaction.

It becomes more complex or controversial when one’s view of God turns towards the anthropomorphic, that is, towards the human form. The more common range of such forms includes worship of the monotheistic God who sits upon a throne, dis-incarnate deities (gods or goddesses), angelic beings, incarnations of God in human form (saviors), and saints, sages, and avatars.

Here we become wary, perhaps taciturn, skeptical and stand offish. And, with good reason considering how ripe for exploitation and fraud the human psyche is when trying to convert the usual human experience into the appearance of the Godhead in human form. This latter tendency is not unlike the more normal experience of falling in love with a goddess only to be disillusioned when the goddess you formerly worshipped turns out to be a she-devil (or the god whose power you so admired turns out to be an unfaithful drunkard).

This is where the rubber of “God” meets the road of the “human experience.” It’s like the galloping horse who suddenly comes around a corner to face a face or ditch and stops dead in his tracks, throwing his rider head over heels into the bushes.

But consider this: is it God we confront here, or ourselves? Let us put aside the question of who and what God is. After all, can we really answer that question? Maybe we should start with the question: “Who am I?” Are we merely the obvious, if regrettable, reality of random and unkind thoughts, harmful emotions, and futile actions that passes for the life of most people? If so, our pusillanimity is depth less. 

On the other hand, who seriously accepts that definition of ourselves? Well, many do in saying “We are all sinners.” Falling into this camp are most of the world’s religious adherents. They accordingly  have had to conclude that salvation in one lifetime  is hopeless without a savior to redeem them by superhuman acts of grace and goodwill. Perfection lies so far beyond what any one person could aspire and accomplish that the best we can aspire to is modestly good behavior, belonging to the right church,  and clinging to  the right savior. So, “like yeah, we gotta be saved by the blood.”

In this interpretation we can try to be good but we can never be sure of our fate. The inherent uncertainty causes either disillusionment or fear. Whatever the result it is unsatisfying and leads, for all but rare souls, to sinning up to the border, so to speak: what can I get away with and still be saved?

The other direction is to affirm that we are made in God’s image. This means there is something innate in our nature and being that is godlike and inherently good. To achieve and fulfill this potential perfection cannot, however, be achieved by most people in one lifetime. Hence, onto the stage trots the doctrine of reincarnation. It would be far too involved to pursue this dogma to its intellectual lair but suffice to say that it solves a lot of human problems: injustice and suffering of innocents, just to count two immensely important questions of human existence. 

Science gives us a view of creation, time, and space that fits rather nicely with the concept of many lives and the evolution of those lives from lower life forms to the human level and upwards to Spirit. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed is a scientific version of the metaphysical doctrine that the soul is eternal and unchanging through its many lives.

If we begin to explore the possibilities of our higher, soul nature as incarnate in human form we begin to turn our face towards the face of God. If we can perhaps (in time and with sustained effort and grace) achieve perfection, we eventually are forced to imagine the possibility that there must other souls who have, in fact, achieved God-realization. The very fact that much of humankind accepts the concept of a "savior" in human form sent by God, and the universal fact of acclaimed spiritual teachers in every age, and saints and reformers in every religion suggests precisely this. That most spiritual teachers are a "work-in-process" or the fact of even frauds and imposters, nor yet the difficulty of knowing one from another, does not change the tantalizing prospect. Great men and women, true masters or geniuses, exist in every field of human endeavor. With the vastness, complexity, and unlimited possibilities of the universe before us, this possibility seems all but a fact.

Does such a prospect however in some way limit the infinity which must also be an attribute of the Deity? Well, what does infinite mean if not also infinitesimal? The testimony of great saints and mystics in every age and every religion affirms the experience of Oneness in God as the greatest beatitude and summum bonum of life, and indeed, as the only true purpose to the creation itself!

If God is One, then we are One with God. If God is One then God is all there is and the multitudinous forms of creation must be His cosmic dream and manifestation. The free will that we as souls have must reflect, however imperfectly, the power of God to act and to create. The separateness of all objects in creation must be an illusion, therefore, just as science tells us that all objects are but manifestations of energy. Monotheism is not really threatened and indeed it is a logical flaw to say "God is One" and then to ignore or reject God's presence in every atom! There is no inherent conflict between monotheism and the creation as a manifestation of God. The separateness is in appearance only and not in reality.

Besides, is this not the de facto testimony of the great Ones? Jesus Christ, Krishna and so many others?  Jesus, when condemned for claiming to be the son of God, retorted (quoting the Old Testament), "Do not your scriptures say, 'Ye are gods?'" If their words of the prophets have been twisted, crucified, and made sectarian by ignorant followers, well, that’s no surprise, is it? Why blame God for our stupidity?

The word “God” therefore ought not to be so irritating a word. It is, after all, only a word. But can also be like a vessel of pure gold reflecting God's eternal promise of our soul’s immortality. God is as much in the smallest atom as in the vast creation; as much in our passing thoughts, our daily challenges, and to our highest aspirations, all as manifestations of the One.

Most of us, however, need a clearer and sharper focus to divinity than the word God. If I place a phone call to the President of the United States I can’t possibly expect to get through. Going directly to “God” is just, if not more, unlikely. If God is One and God is everywhere why look so “far away” when His presence can be found, as Jesus put it, “within you?” And are we so puffed up with ourselves that we are unreceptive to the simple fact that there are living men and women who possess this grace, this presence and have lived it with great intensity and self-sacrifice and are willing to share it with others who are sincere? Why insist that the "old buster" is on his throne up in his heaven and not standing right in front of you? That's a bit convenient, don't you think. Even the "devil quotes the scriptures," but a living saint can correct society's misunderstandings, give guidance, and provide much needed inspiration and an example of how-to-live a spiritual life.

It may be so that it is safest for the ego, beginning its spiritual journey, to approach God with an appreciation of impersonal, divine qualities like inner peace, unconditional love, calmness and wisdom. But as we grow in spiritual understanding and the ego loosens its grip upon our mind and heart, there will come into our life others in human form who can guide us. In some lifetime, now or in the future, as we progress and advance in God consciousness we will begin to meet and train with the “pros,” the saints. We will eventually go from the local, farm teams to the major leagues.


Step by step we grow from infancy to adulthood and step by step we grow in God realization. Those steps take place here on earth amidst those of like mind doing practical God-mindfulness actions for the upliftment of ourselves and others. Seek Divinity in your Self through the science of meditation; seek Him in the beauty of flowers, in the majesty of mountains, in the hearts of all, and most of all, in the wisdom and compassion of those who can truly Know HIm as their own true Self.

Good God! That wasn’t so difficult, was it?

Blessings,
Nayaswami Hriman

The Singularity is Near?

I just learned a new phrase, The Singularity! It's not a new concept, however, because though it is a term borrowed from astrophysics describing a point in time-space where none of the usual rules of physics applies, it now refers to the prediction that computers will someday be smarter than we. With the exponential growth in their computing power Raymond Kurzweil author of a book by the title of this article thinks, as evidently some others, that in the year 2045 computers will overtake us and the end of civilization as we know it will occur. Golly, as if we didn't have enough to worry about!

It's hard not to laugh at such hubris. Oh, I don't mean that computers won't keep getting smarter and do lots of things, both beneficial and potentially destructive, but that such seemingly "smart" people can be so "dumb." I don't mean to be arrogant or unkind, here (after all I hardly know the fellow), but only that our super-rational scientific types still thoroughly believe that consciousness is a by-product of the process of evolution that has produced the human brain. I admit that why should they bother with the concept that this vast, complex, beautiful and awesome universe could be, itself, the manifestation of a supreme, overarching, or infinite consciousness?

But it's not as if they can admit that it's just as possible as their own theory, and, in fact, given our interest in the subject, probably slightly more likely than theirs. All the lightning fast intelligent computations imaginable are not going to randomly produce the Mona Lisa or the Tempest or the Bhagavad Gita, unless by prior (human) programming.

I don't really want to argue with anyone, nor will I pretend to know anything. It feels silly for a chump like me to take exception to smart guys like him, but I posit for your contemplation that the essence of consciousness is a combination of self-awareness and feeling. I, at least, cannot fathom how any machine, no matter how intelligent, can feel or be self-aware except mechanically by being programmed to label certain processes or conclusions as being one or both.

Some might say, "How can a computer have a soul?" Problem is, who knows what a soul is? Well, that's true for happiness, too, or, for that matter, consciousness itself. Only intuition attests to the state of happiness or self-awareness. It cannot be proved. So too the Indian scriptures aver: "Iswar Ashidha" - God cannot be proved. Does that mean neither you nor I can say that the computer ain't got one? Well, ok.....we've painted ourselves perhaps into a corner. Sure, the computer might insist it has feelings, or a soul ..... does that make it so?

Well, perhaps this is all too academic for most of our problems today! I just thought I'd share with you something I read about in my weekly TIME MAGAZINE (how embarrassing to admit I read it at all!). I find it slightly amusing, that's all. I suppose what harm can these nerdy types inflict as a result of their grand predictions? I'm sure their machines will inflict all sorts of harm but I won't blame the machines.

I was alive (or I think I was) when TIME MAGAZINE pronounced GOD IS DEAD. Now it has declared that humanity - our bodies, our minds, our civilization - will be completely and irreversibly transformed. Not only inevitably but imminently. "Beam me up, Scotty!" I'd be age 95 in 2045, so sorry, friends, I'll probably miss the event.

Blessings, Hriman