Give Peace a Chance?

Fighting in Ukraine: Russia vs the West? Sarajevo, 1914. One hundred years ago, the assassination of the Archduke, heir to the Hapsburg throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, triggered the outbreak of World War I, the war "to end all wars" among the competing trigger-happy, imperialist western powers. The first fifty years of the twentieth century saw violence and killing on a scale unprecedented in human history. The result has been the collapse of imperialist dynasties and empires. The residue, like acidic ashes, gave rise to the Soviet Union and to America as opposing imperialist forces. Each, though on different timelines, have been steadily weakened. Are they back at it? Will we never learn to be cooperative partners and equals with the rest of the world, especially its emerging nations and cultures? Must we always attempt to dominate?

Now, 2014, one hundred years later, a minor political flare-up in a small state resting on the fault line of east and west threatens to ignite Cold War and maybe Hot War tensions once again.

There exists a fault line through the Asia-European imaginary continental boundary that is not so imaginary and where tectonic cultural plates meet and all too often clash and thrash about for supremacy. Up through the near east (Egypt, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Turkey and right up the line to Scandinavia exists this (I wish it were) imaginary "fault."

The east in its higher values is expansive: Indian cultures inclines towards the impersonal, abstract and cosmic; China inclines to social ethics and responsibilities and harmony. In its darker side it inclines toward ruthlessness and an absence of value upon individual human lives.

The west in its higher values inclines toward individuality, personal liberty of thought and action, exploration of the material world, of nature through science and reason. The west in its darker side is domineering, arrogant, godless, prejudicial and exploitative.

(If I omit the southern hemisphere continents, well, they speak, or don't, for themselves. For whatever reason if any, the southern hemisphere has played a relatively small, perhaps insignificant, role in human history and culture in the few thousand years. Sorry to say this, but it seems self evident. If its a western prejudicial bias, well, there you have it, then!)

In the book, "The Yugas," by Joseph Selbie and David Steinmetz, (www.crystalclarity.com), the authors elaborate on a revolutionary view of history given to us by ancient cultures and specifically the culture of India as this view of history was modified, updated, clarified and corrected by a modern mystic and astrologer, Swami Sri Yukteswar (1855-1936), in the foreward to his one and only book, "The Holy Science."

According to this fascinating view of history, the planet earth and its human inhabitants are on a 12,000 year upward cycle of expanding awareness. The age we are currently in is not terribly enlightened but it is very energetic, rational, and technological. It is lacking, however, in wisdom. According to this account, the age we are in (which will last over two thousand more years before the appearance of a yet higher age), which they call Dwapara Yuga ("The Second Age"), warfare and insecurity (economic, planetary, weather, disease, political, etc.) will be unceasing. There may be periods, even some lasting a century or two, later on in this upward cycle, where peace will be experienced, but overall it is an age of energetic instability.

Well, who knows, eh? What we can see for ourselves, right now, is that on every continent, struggles by the have-nots against those in power and struggles between competing powers, parties, groups, nations, and tribes is unending. Armed now as we are with weapons of mass destruction (from automatic, rapid-fire guns to atomic bombs and everything in between), the causalities are shockingly high and shockingly inhumane.

Why would we expect such troubles to end anytime soon? People like you and I (why else would you be reading this blog), want it to be otherwise. Our own consciousness is peaceful and violence seems foreign to us. That fact, which is not unimportant, does not change the other and much larger fact of global violence and conflict.

Maybe we are still young adults and can still entertain roseate expectations, or not. So, shall we collapse in apathy and immerse ourselves in self-indulgence? Many have and many will continue to go this route. It leads to personal violence against our own health, happiness and well-being. So, in choosing that route, one is saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

But if you are reading this I would guess that's not the route you've chosen. We can give "Peace a chance" (John Lennon's song) by becoming "the change we seek" (Mahatma Gandhi). The odds of any one of us bringing the world to a state of peace by our own efforts is, well......I won't say it.

Our contribution and consciousness unites western individuality (sense of personal responsibility) with eastern expansiveness and cosmic view. As vibrant, conscious, living sparks of a higher intelligence, like points of light, we can reflect the light of wisdom and the healing rays of peace: first in our calm, centered, peace-filled heart; then, in the respect we show others; in the attentiveness, integrity, harmony, and excellence of our actions, no matter how mundane; and finally, in attunement with the great Will and Love of Life, the Spirit behind all seeming, we, as individuals, can know how we can be free from all violence.

Paramhansa Yogananda (1893-1952), author of "Autobiography of a Yogi," predicted that east and west (specifically, America and India) would work together to bring a higher consciousness into being during this energetic age. What he meant by "working together" wasn't explained but I suppose it ranges from the change of individual consciousness all the way "to the top" of international cooperation and exchange.

The tiny worldwide network of Ananda Communities and centers exists as a result of the efforts and dedications of thousands of individual souls. Our efforts provide a model and an example of how people who are otherwise from a wide range of backgrounds, can live together in harmony, serving creatively and being engaged, while yet retaining and refining our individuality towards our highest potential beyond mere ego consciousness.

It is a small step and it won't necessarily bring peace to Ukraine; or, will it? We may not know the consequences of our own consciousness and commitment to expressing it in outward effect, but we can make the effort and if we make no tangible contribution to the world around us, it will not be for lack of interest, but we will be changed for the better by the attempt.

Give a peace a chance!

Nayaswami Hriman

Ahimsa: What is Non-Violence? Is Killing ever Justified?

Ahimsa, or the practice of non-violence, as taught by Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras, is not an absolute standard of behavior, but a relative one. The absolute standard lies in the realm of intention and consciousness. In a world of relativities (aka "duality" or "dwaita") it is often impossible to apply a precept "absolutely."

Thus it is that India's most famous and beloved scripture, the Bhagavad Gita ("The Song Celestial), teaches that one must fulfill his duties to fight injustice and evil by taking up arms against his enemy. Now I am purposely misquoting that scripture because my interpretation is merely a literal one, for the scripture (a dialogue between Lord Krishna and his disciple, Arjuna) takes place on a battlefield (a historical one, in fact) but the dialogue (and the teaching) is allegorical. Nonetheless, Paramhansa Yogananda (author of the now famous Autobiography of a Yogi), and many other respected teachers, concur that in human history and ethics there are times when self-defense and killing one's attackers, when necessary, is the lesser evil and the greater duty than the literal practice of non-violence.

In American culture these last thirty or forty years, the issue of abortion has pitted non-violence against freedom of individual choice. In the mainstream of traditional yoga, it is taught that the soul enters the embryo at time of conception. Hence abortion is traditionally frowned upon. Yet, the astrological chart for the newborn is cast at the time of the first breath, at birth. Add to that all the issues around the mother's or fetuses' health, cases of rape or incest and on and on, and well, you have a very challenging issue on your hands. I am not here to propose a resolution to this social debate. Yoga stands for the principle of individual choice and accountability in the pursuit of an individual soul's many lifetimes of evolution up and down the ladder and spiral staircase of consciousness. The discussion goes beyond my topic today and, even if it did, would do little, if anything, to contribute to the social debate.

A student in one of our classes raised the issue of the killing of a doctor in an abortion clinic. Was the murder of this abortion doctor an example of the lesser "sin" of killing in self-defense (of the unborn children)? Talk about a chicken and the egg intellectual bull fight!

For starters, intuition is the only means by which we can discover the truth of something like this. For another, intuition occurs only through an individual (and yes, perhaps through many individuals). Can two people intuitively arrive at opposite results? In theory, no; in practice, yes. In theory, intuition is unitive but in practice our individual karma and dharma is directional. We only get the guidance from our higher, intuitive self that pertains to us. "Take steps northward" (if you are south of the equator and wanting to go there); "Take steps southward" (if you are north of the equator and wanting to go there).

In society, the murder of the abortion doctor is, simply, that: murder, and a crime punishable by imprisonment. That speaks for itself but while very important, it is not the final statement as to an individual act. 

In the language of yoga, we speak of karma and reincarnation as two sides of the same coin of right action. In a worldview that sees the soul's evolution as extending in time beyond anything we can easily relate to, right action can be extremely subtle. "Karma: represents seeds of past actions which, on the basis of actions taken in egoic self-affirmation, wait, hidden, for their final resolution in the forms of their natural and appropriate opposite responses. If I kill someone, I plant the seed for being killed in return (whether by that soul or another). "Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword." Yet many killers, Joseph Stalin, e.g., die peacefully in their beds. The Bible cautions us not to imagine that one does "not sow what one reaps." This is why many lifetimes are needed. For our actions, which include our thoughts, run into the billions even in one lifetime! (Let's not go there right now, ok?)

The abortion doctor who was murdered presumably, however cruel or clinical the conclusion might seem to others (like to his wife or children), earned that sentence by his actions, not least of which could possibly be the work of performing abortions. We simply cannot "see" the threads of karma and those threads might not have anything to do with his performing abortions. That conclusion is possibly too "pat" and too obvious. The karmic thread may even lie between the doctor and his murderer: meaning, "it's personal."

Such karma may account for the fact of the doctor's murder but what does that fact mean to his killer and the killer's karma? Indeed, it may be the doctor's karma to be killed, but the one through whom, as an instrument of karmic repayment, that repayment is delivered may incur the burden of his own karmic debt for having taken a life! The killer presumably was a fanatical opponent of abortion and we probably do not know wherein lay the seeds of such intensity but it would not be difficult to speculate if one takes the perspective of many lives. Does that "justify" the killing? No, but it might "explain" it. That's all. 

How then do we ever extricate ourselves from the entanglements of karma? Well, that's a big subject. But a few words are necessary here. The one centripetal fact of karma is not so much the act but the intention, or, put another way: the ego. An act which is done without regard to self-interest and which is not an affirmation of the ego principle, but is performed dutifully and in harmony with one's true and higher Self, does not incur a karmic debt or plant a karmic seed. Such acts, however, might, indeed, neutralize or cauterize seeds of past karma, however. Hence the value of such actions in the process of purification and repayment of karmic debts as the soul rises towards ego transcendence. Thus "good works" are useful. But good works performed with the expectation of reward, including recognition, still revolve, at least to some degree, around the ego principle. Nonetheless, it is better to do something good for the wrong reason than not to do good out of fear of incurring more karma. Karmic release is always directional, never absolute. The teaching of karma is such that it recognizes that over many lives we have the karmic burden of "sin" (ego-encased ignorance, in fact) that must be repaid by right action and by the uplifting and redeeming power of grace.

Is it possible to imagine a religious fanatic who kills others (and himself) as making a forward direction towards karmic release? In theory, yes, though the act be condemned in all other respects. Perhaps in a prior life, this terrorist killed others for sport or for money or for revenge. In this lifetime, this karmically inclined murderer kills others and sacrifices his own life for a higher reward or in the name of a higher cause. However ignorant and evil-seeming that intention may be to us, it is at least theoretically possible that it is a step forward for that soul. Could such an act be recompense for cowardliness in past lives? All of these things are theoretically possible but such a person is obviously incurring even more karmic debt by hurting others. 

No wise counselor would suggest such actions. There are other, better, and purer forms of karmic release than killing more people! Nonetheless, the world of human actions is just as subject to the law of cause and effect as are the laws of nature. The difference is that reason and intuition, whether coming from within, or arising from the influence and counsel of others, can accelerate the soul's progress faster than the bullock cart of fulfilling every desire and paying every debt on their own terms and on their own level. We can "outwit the stars" of our karmic debt by other means.

This latter statement is the "promise of immortality" and grace offered, with whatever terminology or spiritual precepts and through whatever means of "being saved," that all great religions and their greatest teachers aver. In part, this power of redemption lies in the existential reality that our soul is eternal, changeless and ever untouched (as God "himself" is) by our ignorant and even evil actions. This doesn't mean we are free to murder and create mayhem but it does offer a back door, so to speak, to win karmic release without cracking rocks day after day in the prison of past karma. We are trapped in the ego and if the ego turns to find the back door for itself, it has already condemned itself. 

Thus in the story of Moses who led his "people" from bondage, he could not enter the promised land. For while the ego may awaken to the desire to win karmic release, the ego, itself, cannot "go there." The ego, like Bhishma in the Mahabharata, must surrender himself to the soul (to God) by self-offering. Hence too the symbol of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, Isaac. There is no real destruction or sacrifice of the ego, but the ego doesn't and cannot know this. That takes faith and intuition: only the soul knows that the ego has no intrinsic, existential reality.

In God, we are free and nothing about us is ever lost. Our release is not destructive to our self-awareness. It is blissful release.

As humans, as egos, we cannot but decry the murder of that abortion doctor even if we, ourselves, do not, perhaps, counsel abortion as a day-to-day means of contraception or family planning. Each act is an individual choice and each act brings to itself its natural and metaphysical consequences. In this we have the opportunity to gain compassion for all beings and wisdom to guide our own actions. It is through the power of grace, which is the divine and latent power within us and which is awakened and transmitted to us soul-to-soul from those who have achieved it, that we can win our freedom from the prison of karma.

Bless all who have done wrong, including any of may have hurt you, that their own actions awaken within them the desire to be free and that you be shown how to be an instrument of that awakening to others. Live in the thought and consciousness of freedom and you will attract the power and light of freedom into your mind, heart and soul.

Blessings to all,

Nayaswami Hriman

What does it mean to say, "I love you!"?

"Love certainly makes the world go 'round." Well, ok, love and its opposite: war (which includes hate, anger, dislike and repulsion). Between these two extremes lies the "soft center" which fills our days with endless preoccupations and activities.

I'm not saying that our daily duties and interests aren't important (to us, at least), but I am saying that they wouldn't exist if it were not for our feelings and our desire for and capacity for feeling.

Do we do anything for which we don't have a compelling "interest," or need, desire, or dislike? Even the most trivial things, like hanging up our clothes, are motivated by some sense of need or feeling for improving or fixing something or avoiding an undesirable result.

So yes, love, feeling, desire, dislike, anger: the emotional and feeling aspect of our consciousness do indeed make us go round and round. Not just spinning moment to moment, day to day, but also, as billions see it and great masters aver, lifetime to lifetime.

"The law was given through Moses, but truth and grace came by Jesus Christ." (New Testament, John 1:17). Or as has been said by others, "love is above the law."

So where does this apparent tangent fit in? Love (ok, "emotions") running amuck are our greatest foe. "Loose lips sink ships." Or, another: "a (wo)man with a six inch tongue can destroy a man six feet tall." All of these cliches point to the power of not just words, but, more importantly, the emotion, feeling, and energy behind our words AND their power to destroy or uplift.

How many crowds of people rioting and making mayhem are whipped into their insane frenzy by slogans, chanting and even martial music? It seems that mass genocide, being itself a form of insanity, dictates such intense froth.

The law fits in to give us a framework of reference and behavior for the channeling and clarifying of our emotional nature. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" my mother used to say!

But that's not possible nor even appropriate sometimes. Nonetheless, calmness, respect, a sense of perspective and even a sense of humor all point to the need to lift the present moment of our emotions into a higher and more impersonal atmosphere. The "law" refers to "right" behavior. Right behavior is calm, respectful and sees the long picture and sees the little self (especially when warped by the intensity of extreme emotions) as biased and even harmful.

When we do respect and feel truly connected to and supportive of another person (regardless of any other aspects of our relationship: child, parent, spouse, employee, employer, etc.), then we are allowed (by the "law") greater latitude to say things which, under other circumstances, would be inappropriate or at best unhelpful.

When we try to tune into divine love, God's love, and when we actually experience a taste of it, we realize both its power and its unconditional, or impersonal, attribute. Oh, it's VERY personal in the sense that "It is I" who am experiencing it. But it's available to all, equally, without personal preference. When I am feeling that love, or even in general feeling "loving," I feel kindly towards others even, sometimes, when they are unkind to me! (A tall order for most people, but not that difficult to experience for those who have an inner spiritual life or are, in any case, dedicated to loving all without condition, for whatever reason or philosophy or inner awareness may motivate them!)

Unconditional and impersonal are more or less synonymous. The "without condition" and the impersonal are in respect to our personal preferences and biases. It is not manifested by aloofness, what to say arrogance, disdain, or indifference! It's the power to forgive, for example. Forgiveness is certainly one of life's greatest tests at least for one who seeks inner peace and divine attunement. "Do not even the tax collectors" love their own friends?, Jesus quipped!

When we say "I love you" our culture and our language tends to reserve this expression for romantic or familial love. Fair and fine so far as that goes. Nor should you go around saying this to just anyone. But what is love, anyway--as distinguished from the forms of relationships it may pour into?

Heck, how mental can a guy get to ask such a question? Well, here I am, and I'm askin' it! What does an orange taste like? Shall we dissect an orange? Love, too?

Heck, why not? Love is perhaps best understood by its synonyms. I say this because of the association of the word "love" all too often exclusively with its romantic or at least intimate forms, such as parent-child.

Love begins within you. If you have calm respect for your own thoughts, feelings and core self, this is a good beginning. Without a sense of well-being (another synonym), you cannot really feel or express love, unless you mean an impure, co-dependent, needy kind of love. And is lust, co-dependency, neediness worthy of the name love? If so, it is only so in the debased and common currency of our culture and language. But not in the language of the soul, of angels, and of the immanent divine within all creation!

What I experienced in the person of my spiritual teacher (founder of Ananda and direct disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda), Swami Kriyananda,, was an aura or attitude of one who was loving by nature and by temperament. When we simply and without outer condition including the condition of being loved by another or being in the presence of a loved one, feel "loving," this, for me, is the experience of love.

It is an inner state that is hardly distinguishable from inner joy and it is effervescent. It simply bubbles over, as it were, in a mellow light of kindness. Whereas as joy might incline in the direct of energy, even laughter, and may bubble "up and down," love bubbles outward you might say spherically, calmly, and with warmth. Joy is "gay" and love is "warm." But they are, essentially, like two sides of a coin: distinguishable but connected.

Spiritually speaking, however, it is deemed safer to focus more on joy than on love because we are so invested by habit towards conditional love. At Ananda Village in California (Ananda's first intentional community), a rule, honored in the breach, is that new members in training (who are single) are asked to not enter into new relationships during their year of training. As one enters the spiritual path and the inner experience of meditation, one works on developing and expressing devotion: love for God. In the awakening of the heart's natural love, its long-established habit of affixing itself to an outer, human form too often means that one "falls in love with the first person one meets!" This is very distracting to the one-pointed focus of one's year of spiritual transition! Like Queen Titania in Shakespeare's play, A Midsummer's Night Dram, the pixie dust of spiritual awakening (of kundalini) can accidentally cause us to mistake the form for the spirit behind the form.

This tendency includes the tendency to place a spiritual teacher or other devotees on a pedestal of one's own making. You can guess what the "end of that story" always comes to! The same ending that infatuation comes to!

So, yes, seeking joy is safer. The litmus test of unconditional love has two sides like that coin: the effervescence of a loving nature and the adamantine ability to accept impartially criticism, dislike, hatred and even injury from others without responding in kind.

"I love you" means I love you as a manifestation of God in human form, and as a reflection of the divine love I feel in my own heart.

Happy Valentine's Day (weekend),

Swami Hrimananda aka Hriman aka Terry aka your own Self!