Tuesday, March 31, 2009

January 2008

Here's an old one while I'm busy. Just two more after this one. Then what will I do for a quick fix?

January 9, 2008

I've just finished Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials" trilogy. There has been a lot of talk about the books and the movie they've already made of the first one. I was attracted to it when I first saw the trailer; it looked like a fun fantasy. I had no idea what the story was. Then came the talk about banning the books, or reserving them for adults only (he wrote them for teens, tho he can't have been aiming for much younger than 14). A school district in a nearby city pulled them from their library for a time. I think they put them back. But the Archbishop for this region said he thought they ought to be required reading.

When our friend (whose books I first started reading, as she was visiting) first told me some of the story, she only told me the most simple levels of the story. And I suppose that is the level at which many readers will read them. I assumed from her description that the trouble was over the fact that in the world he's created – or one of them – the humans all have daemons. Now, he's doing something far different here than Davies or anyone else I know of has done with the concept, but in fact it so resonates with what I myself was just writing and thinking about. Pullman's daemons are not "other." They are a part of us, a physical manifestation of our spirit. We find out later in the story that humans have three parts – body, spirit and soul. In Lyra's, the heroine's world, spirits take animal form, usually opposite sex, so they are also kind of our anima/animus.

So, since the folks in the film all speak with British accents, they pronounce the word more like "demon" (according to my friend), and the idea that every human has a sort of guardian demon, rathen than a guardian angel, and that demon's aren't all bad – too much for the "Christian" public to handle. Plus the church is portrayed in a negative light, tho not too terribly so in the first book. Or is it?

But I'm getting ahead of myself. I thought the hullabaloo was about daemons, and it may have been, so far. If and when they make the rest of the movies, there'll be some serious banning and book burning going on. Why? First, let me say I think the books are extraordinarily well done. A truly fascinating, plausible, intriguing, thought-provoking story with characters so finely drawn I feel I really love them. And it has complicated physics, philosophy and theology, and it is written such that teens can understand it. And it is ballsy as hell. Literally.

The central argument of the books is that God, if he exists, has done terrible things to us, and must be destroyed. All of history has been a battle between wisdom and stupidity, with God using his power and the power of his church (es) to keep people stupid. God is petty, mean, envious, and cruel. He must be overthrown. Lyra's father assembles an army from many worlds for the second battle for heaven. As it turns out, God turned things over to Metatron long ago, and God himself is a frail, befuddled ancient of days, who falls apart into atoms as soon as he's exposed to air.

So what was god? Was he the creator of the heaven and eath, etc.? Not at all.


January 10

The world(s) were created, came into being, in an unexplained way. Probably thru the big bang or a similar process, and life began in the way modern evolution describes. But Pullman posits an element that in some worlds is called Dust, some Shadows, and in ours, Dark Matter. It is conscious. And where consciousness arises, or minds capable of it, Dust is attracted – created even. I'm still not completely sure which comes first. Anyway, long before there were humans in our universe, there were beings made of pure Spirit, or consciousness, or something. Angels. Made of something quite different from us, in that they have no real bodies, tho they do have forms, and as the Bible faithfully records, they were able to take the form of humans later and come and mate/have sex with human women.

One of the earliest angels, and smartest, was able to convince the later angels that he had created them – a bald faced lie – and therefore had authority over them. He claimed credit for having created everything – not just the angels but the universe and all that was in it. One of the other early-born/come-into being angels knew that for the lie it was, and she gathered a force around her who rebelled against the self-proclaimed Authority. Of course they lost, but they were not destroyed, and they've been fighting an underground, guerilla war for Wisdom and freedom ever since, against Stupidity and Authority/control. Since the Authority, God, won, he can place his people in all the positions of power, and thus all rulers (secular and religious) ultimately are on the side of Stupidity. Even if they are engaged in research, it is with one eye closed and one hand tied behind them, because they can't really search for the truth, seeing as how all their power rests on a lie.

The books, therefore, are deeply heretical. To any and all religions. They teach children to doubt whether there is a god, to wonder, if there is, if he might be a bad guy, and they encourage children to mistrust all agents of all churches and governments. And there are homosexual angels, good witches, and the idea that Eve's Fall is the greatest boon to all humankind. A wonderful trilogy! I think all teens should read it.

Not because I want them all to be little atheists, but because they should all have at least one time in their lives where they are given an opportunity to seriously question their faith. They ought to have some tools, some complexity, with which to do that.

In the meantime, I read Connie Willis' Passages, about near-death experiences, and it also spurred some new thinking. Right now I'm reading Annie Proulx's Postcard's. But I have got to get to work.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Decision Time

It is one am, or a little after, on a Friday night, and I'm doing what I always seem to be doing these days - trying to decide what I should do. It strikes me again that I have to do this myself. I can talk things over with women who have walked this road; I can read blogs and discussion boards; I can call my Mom and sisters for comfort and support. And J is always there. We have talked it through again and again. He listens to each new piece of information I share, each ramification that occurs to me. But ultimately, no one can make this choice for me, and no one else will have to live with the consequences.

Am I ready to give up my womb? Am I truly okay with closing the door on all possibility of having my own children? And more - am I ready for menopause. Am I ready for all the signs and symptoms of aging that will come with losing my ability to create my own hormones. My doctor thinks (and I've found support in the literature) that because of my particular circumstances, I should not start hormone replacement therapy right away - if at all - if I decide to have the hysterectomy. Likewise, we can't leave the remaining ovary there.

I keep thinking I've made up my mind, and then a new option is presented and I have to choose again. It is hard. I don't want to do something I will regret, but I can't bear to live this way any more. It doesn't feel fair to my students, my employers, my family, and certainly not my husband. And me - I'd like to have a life I can enjoy a little bit more if that is possible. I would love to have a little more energy.

I have hashed and rehashed all the pros and cons in so many places; this isn't the place for that. I don't feel like it, anyway. I just wanted to put it out there, how I'm feeling. How scary it is. All of my readings lately - in the devotional book and the U. Gita - have been about trust. I have realized I have a hard time trusting the universe. I don't trust my Self to work things out. If I did, I wouldn't worry so much. One of the recent entries in Gates' book said, "You either believe in God or you don't. God is there or He isn't."

That's right. I either believe in brahman or I don't. Since I do, I need to act like it, and trust. I am so grateful for prayer. I'll be doing a lot of that this weekend, and talk to the doc again on Monday, when I'll make the final decision.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

December 2007 - Break on Through . . .

December 3, 2007

5:30 am. I've been reading Barbara Kingsolver, and then Tom Robbins books in the mornings and evenings, and together with a return to saying my mantra and occasional meditation (tho not a firm habit again yet), its all helping me get my priorities back in order and my perspective back straight.

I just finished Skinny Legs and All [by Tom Robbins] and want to record the message of the seven veils, the illusions destroyed by each one, so that I can more easily keep them in mind. They are things I've known a long time; Heck! I first read the book in 1991 or 1992! But we forget. The illusions are so powerful; they creep back in without our realizing it. Another reason daily meditation is necessary – eternal vigilance against maya.

Veil One –
Life is a sexual dance.
Sex requires male and female as equal partners. Even molecules bond. There is even molecular rejection. And as we know now, the female has more control than we ever gave her credit for (eggs choosing the sperm) and more than the male in many cases. It's hard not to read patriarchy as a massive attempt to compensate for insecurity about inadequacy. Any religion that doesn't acknowledge, openly, the female aspects of the Divine is a religion based on fear.

I am becoming even more of a feminist because I've about had enough of the double-talk, the hidden and commonly accepted sexism.

Veil Two – Humans do not have dominion over plants, animals and minerals. "Humanity was a function of nature. It could not, therefore, live separately from nature except in a self-defeating masquearade. It could not live in opposition to nature except in a schizophrenic crime. And it could not blind itself to the wonders of nature without mutating into something too monstrous to love" p.404.

Veil Three – This is one it is really hard to remember. "It is futile to work for political solutions to humanity's problems because humanity's problem's were not political" p.405. They are [the problems], of course, philosophical. Trying to solve philosophical problems politically means solving them over and over and over. I realized this a good year ago. Stopped reading the paper, stopped getting so excited about the news. But when I stopped doing my own spiritual work, I got caught up again, and began all over to try to solve the problems in a wrong-headed way.

Veil Four – Religion is the improper response to the Divine. Religion tries to pin down something forever in flux. "To say that the Divine was Creation divided by Destruction was as close as one could get to definition. But the puny of soul, the dull of wit, weren't content with that" p.407. "The Divine is expansive, Religion reductive." "Since religion bore false witness to the Divine, religion was blasphemy" p.408.

Veil Five – Money is an illusion. 'Nuf said.

Veil Six – Time – past and future don't exist. All is present. Time isn't linear, etc. No "after" life, no after. No judgment day. All days are judgment days.

Veil Seven – Everyone has to figure it out for themselves. Apparently many times!!!! How I wish I could keep my insights fresh every day! Live them as easily as think them!

December 9

I'm reading Robertson Davies' Deptford Trilogy, and in The Manticore David's analyst, a Jungian, says "The unconscious chooses its symbolism with breath-taking artistic virtuousity" p.179.

I was getting sleepy, so shortly after I read that, I closed the book and my eyes and I asked my unconscious to tell me something about myself in a richly symbolic dream. I asked specifically for a metaphor – I wanted a show of this artistic virtuousity. How it delivered! And in a 10-minute nap!

[There follows a long description of a detailed and vibrant dream – full of symbols (about barbecuing, of all things) – which I realize is about a personal relationship]

What really, really pleases me is how receptive and friendly and downright accomodating my unconscious was! Can we build on this? I am certainly going to try. I don't know why I never thought of just asking myself for what I want!

December 16

Still reading Robertson Davies. What's Bred in the Bone right now. Tell's the story of Francis Cornish through the eyes of the Recording Angel and his personal Daimon. And in addition to some of the other things I've been thinking, and other things I now believe, it's shed new light on my own biography.

If we look at our lives as things planned, to a certain degree, by our larger Selves, to teach us particular things . . . or to put it less pedantically . . . If our souls, our Selves, have at least a moment of knowing the greater picture, the full spread and direction of our many lives between one life and another, and if they (we) can then choose, to a certain or full extent the circumstances of our next life, such that it will provide the opportunities to grow in the directions we most need `or will satisfy a hunger or thirst we most feel, or however it actually works – then very little of our lives in the early parts at least can be said to be due to chance.

We've chosen them for reasons. And might that extend through much of our life? Might not we have laid out a pattern that would unfold? And if so, how different would that really feel from having a personal daimon, or a guardian angel (two very different kinds of beings) guiding, interfering and making things happen?

In the book, the daimon talks about how he purposely provides Francis with some very unpleasant experiences, a generally unhappy childhood, an extended illness later (age 10-11) to allow him an escape from the small minds at school and give him time for reflection and creativity.

Why? The Recording Angel asks if he has no pity, if he/it isn't cruel, etc. The daimon replies that those are human attributions, that what he's creating is something special, and that greatness isn't born from happy childhoods, free of reflection, etc. Humans do not come to know themselves or to know charity, art, compassion, truth, or wisdom from easy lives.

Something in me felt a joyous leap of recognition and freedom as I read these words. What a wonderful way to approach the past. I am not a victim. The troubles I had as a child – the molestation, etc., were things I was giving myself – gifts, to help me become more fully human. Hell, I even gave myself a sickness of long duration so that I could write a novel at 12! Forget the petty, drivelling, conventional morality that for so long made me feel guilty about that! About lying to my parents and doctors about being sick and celebrate the guts of a child who dared to grab what she needed from a world that was too routinized and institutionalized to give it to her!

And the same applies to R [the abusive boyfriend] and the drug use and the selling of sex and all the other experiences I've had – probably – well of course not probably!!! Dummy! The shingles and the PHN! All the pain and every other single thing.

The pattern isn't clear at all to me right now. I think that it's related to myth. I haven't a clue what kind of a myth I am. But it's about time to start finding out. I know this is big, because I had been allowing myself to start feeling like a victim again. I've been struggling so hard and feeling so embattled and dragged down.

I refuse! I reject it! I refute it! I am the Self of my own life! Nothing happens but by my own will – conscious or un. If there is pain and unpleasantness, I must need to feel it for some good reason. But I'm not going to blame it on fate, or God, or anyone else. And I'm not going to wallow in self pity, either. Look what beauty all the childhood pain brought into my life! What in the world is there to be pitied about?! Would I rather be one of those self-righteous, self-ignorant morons walking around? Brahman forbid! I'll take the pain and mess any day.

I don't imagine I'll be able to let go of the complaining and sniping immediately, but I'm sure going to try, because I am heartily sick of being unhappy. Goodbye to the stinky pity-pot.

December 19

Gave my last finals yesterday.

I've been thinking a lot about my own spiritual/psychological life. What is the next step? It is to find my myth, the myth that is living me; the mythic, or allegoric, or metaphoric pattern that shapes/informs my life. How does one go about doing that? There are so many myths, so many mythic traditions. Why should I believe a Swiss psychiatrist identified all the relevant ones? Still, I do think that Jung is a frutiful place to begin, but I'm not looking to adopt his whole system. I don't want any one else's system. I think I have finally truly understood what it means that these ultimate answers must be worked out individually by each of us.

Wish that I had more time to devote to these things during the semester. It isn't just Jung; I need an education in allegory and the allegorical symbols used in art, especially in the middle ages and Rennaissance. I want SO much to be able to read those paintings, to understand them for the stories they told to the people of the time. I wonder if I could sit in on a few art history classes? The problem is, the professors here probably don't even know how to read the allegories unless it is their own little niche of expertise. They teach history and technique and composition and color and light and other important things I am not focused on right now.

See, if I could learn to think allegorically, even kind of medievally, I might be able to see a pattern in my life that would be meaningful to me. Like Cornish, my mind is not necessarily the most comfortable in the idiom of today. Maybe none of our minds are. And maybe, by stumbling around in the religion of our history, I can find something that works on multiple levels.

Be careful how you interpret that.

  1. By "religion" I do not mean anything organized, but more the patterns – maybe the psychological or spiritual or (isn't there a better word?) _________ patterns that underlie the European search for meaning which has expressed itself in the mythologies of many cultures, along with their superstitions and folk tales, their local saints (who are often just their indigenous religious figures dressed up in Christian clothes), the ways in which they interpreted Greek and Roman myths in their art in later periods, their astrology and cosmology, etc.
  2. The pattern I'm searching for is above all the one for my own life. It is ultimately only my own life I am in charge of, responsible for, and have any hope of being able to understand.
  3. Having said that, if I found a useful methodology – well, I am a social scientist trying very hard to understand human development, especially the development of identity. If I found something that worked for me personally, I'd want to see how far it could be stretched professionally, or at least communally. Write a book, maybe.

So for now it seems my routes are to learn the languages of symbolism and allegory and to become familiar with the myths. That is so that I can take the next step, which is to begin thinking about my own life in those terms.

For example, if my life were a fairy tale, who would the characters be? Or if it were an allegorical painting in the Pre-Raphaelite style, who would be in it and how would I represent them? Would it have a biblical theme, given my childhood? Or a pagan/classical theme given my later sensibilities? A King Arthur/Grail Quest theme given a long-standing obsession? Who would be the heroes and who the monsters? Who the hidden beauties? The betrayers/false-faces? These are the kinds of questions I want to be asking myself, and thinking about, and struggling (?) with.

Struggle. Do I even like that word any more? Why do I need to struggle? I am doing exactly what I am supposed to be doing, when I'm supposed to be doing it, and I'm excited about it and looking forward. What does "struggle" have to do with anything?

Here's a quote out of context. Its about a real horoscope, which would be fun to have done, by someone who knows what they are doing and speaks this ancient language of symbols: "Your Saturn has the same relationship to your Moon that Mars has to your Sun, but it's a giver of spiritual power, and takes you deep into the underworld, the dream world, what Goethe called the realm of the Mothers. There's a fad now for calling them the Archetypes, because it sounds so learned and scientific. But Mothers is truer to what they really are. The Mothers are the creators, the matrixes of all human experience" p.308, Davies, What's Bred in the Bone.

That's essentially what I want to do. I want to journey to the Mothers, and humbly ask them if they will let me know anything. I am sick nigh unto death of the fathers.


Now I'm reading my old book on myth by Leonard Biallas. What a wise person! Many of the things I highlighted at age 20 or 21 I still find important today. He really seems to understand this process I'm going through – have been going through for at least 2 decades now, of trying to discover who I am. To discard what is "not essential to me," but to embrace both the light and the dark that are truly parts of myself. I don't want a religion that is aimed only at making people good. I want one that aims at making people whole. Making them "real" "honest" with themselves and with others. I guess I'm looking for the word 'authentic.' As in Hinduism – a dialogism, a dialectics that transcends dualities.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Why I Don't Know My Body

I've been putting off writing this post. I think its because the subject could get so bogged down in the history of Western thought. I mean, the splitting of the mind/soul/body has long roots in Western philosophy and culture. But I don't necessarily want to go there. Can we take that as read?

Of course that is an important part of my cultural training. What's a body? Who cares? It is just something to cart around your soul, which is the only part that matters to God, and houses your mind. Of course, the body can get you into all sorts of trouble, and is a source of sin, if anything. Sure, there are references in Christianity to the body being the temple of God, but except for its use in exhortations to quit (or never take up) smoking, avoid promiscuous sex, exercise restraint in use of alcohol - in short, don't allow the body to lead you into sin - I don't recall anyone ever taking the "body as temple" thing too seriously.

And then in my parents I had examples of downplaying or outright ignoring messages from the body. Dad thought orange juice ought to cure whatever ailed you. He is one of those people that just never gets sick; I think the first time I ever saw him with even a head cold he was in his fifties or sixties. Mom is a different story. She has had so many different kinds of pain - severe pain - that she developed her own methods for dealing with it. One never knows what is in another's head or heart, and I don't know for sure how she coped. But to me it seemed that she coped mainly by just powering through. The lesson I learned, whether it was what was intended or not, was definitely an overwhelming "IGNORE THE BODY - IT IS IRRELEVANT". If it gets in your way - if it is weak, or painful, or sick, or deficient, just ignore it. Push it away and pretend it isn't there. That's what I took away.

More - I saw Mom turn inward and "upward" - turn to God for assistance with her pain. So what it looked like was that one should kind of retreat from the body and ask God for help in dealing with it. The idea of making friends with the pain, or even with one's body was never introduced to me. To be fair - that could be because the notion is so obvious to both parents that it never occured to them to say outloud. But I never got that message.

So, between the deep philosophical divide provided by our culture, the religion and the socialization provided by my parents, there was a pretty strong foundation for pushing away unpleasantnesses of the flesh.

Then I was molested. And then I was raped and beaten. These events drove further wedges between my self and my body. For years afterword - more than a decade actually - I did not feel that I even lived in my body. It took a lot of work in therapy just to inhabit my skin, to know that gnawing pain in the belly meant hunger, or to notice that my arm or leg had been asleep for some time.

That killed any athleticism I might have had, too. I was going to say that I had never had any attraction to sports, or had not a single athletic bone in my body. But that isn't true. I reveled in the suppleness and strength of my body as a child. I loved riding horses and hiking and swimming. I was on the swim team, in fact. I roller-skated with passion. I loved to ride my bike; I mean loved. I remember the feeling of balance and speed and grace that both bikes and skates provided. But the development of breasts and the dark attraction of evil men stole that innocent pleasure away, and I never regained it. Pleasure in the body turned to deep, deep shame.

So really it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that I deal with pain by ignoring it, and that I do not feel like my head, soul, heart, mind, breath, body, identity and self are integrated into a complex and complete whole. It should not be shock to anyone that my search for wholeness took place almost totally in my head. Come to think of it, except for extremists, what role does Christianity have for the body? In Catholic ritual there is at least kneeling, but in Protestant worship services the closest one gets is standing and sitting. I do remember one of the 12-step groups I went to introduced me to the idea of kneeling, which I found very useful. But where has that idea gone in American Christianity? There is no prostrating oneself before the Lord in public or in private. Do any children still kneel by the bed to say their prayers? I was not taught to kneel; we said our prayers laying down. But I digress.

I came to Hinduism - or the Sanatana Dharma - in ways that are familiar to anyone who has been reading this blog. All through scripture and study and pondering and thinking. And there is room for that - that's fine. Plenty of respect for study of scripture in this religion, and a whole path - jnana yoga - dedicated to pondering (in the mind) the difference between the self and the Self. But somehow, I guess for all the reasons I've detailed here and maybe others I haven't figured out or spelled out, I kind of forgot, or just plain skipped over, this fact:

As I studied all of the different paths, karma, jnana, bhakti and raja, and tried to determine which was for me, or how best to combine them in ways that fit my self this life - I noted that all presuppose certain things, like adopting or practicing the yamas and niyamas. But I conveniently just didn't see or notice that all paths presuppose the practice of pranayama and asana, too. Of hatha yoga, in other words. How? Now that I can see it, it is so hard to understand how I could have NOT seen that!!

I had been going around for a month thinking about blind spots. Since Christmas I had been praying for God/brahman to show me whatever I needed to see about my self that I couldn't see. And there in late January, all of a sudden it hit me, and it was an epiphany, a revelation. Yoga! I am supposed to be doing yoga!

I guess that was even before I had surgery, because I had gone to the library and checked out a few books. And it was standing in the library looking through the selection that I realized another reason that I had avoided the conclusion that I should take up asana practice (asana = posture) as part of my overall spiritual development: there is a tremendous amount of junk out there.

I have to be really careful about being a spiritual snob; I realize that wisdom can come from the strangest and most unexpected places. For example, one of the best books I got first was written by a fashion model!!! Shock! I forced myself to give it a try just because my first instinct was to snort and boy did I get taught a big lesson. Christine Turlington has certainly done her homework and she knows a lot more about hatha yoga than I will for a long, long time. I wanted to be picky with her about some of the other parts of her book - like the history and scripture parts - but there wasn't that much to pick at, really. Moreover, I learned a lot about grace and humility; learning to love one's body for what it is, healing and peace.

That was an exception. There were so many books on the shelf about "power yoga" and "speed yoga" and "yoga for executives" and other titles that just struck me as oxymorons. Opening them, they were utterly stripped of everything meaningful. They were teaching yoga poses - marginally - if you stretch the term past its meaning - but nothing else about what yoga is. Is it yoga if your sole purpose is to lose weight or make money, and you have sped it up so that there is no time for reflection or contemplation? Why bother? Why not just stick to aerobics?

I guess the search for yoga lessons and teachers is a whole 'nother post.

What's relevant for now is that I had finally seen the light. I'd woken up and realized that there was a way, had always been a way right in front of me, interwoven into the very scriptures I read every day, to connect with my long-lost body, befriend it, and begin to be whole. That there might just be a path to true health for me, a way for mind, body and self to procede together rather than fighting against one another. It really did feel like coming home.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

A Real-Time Update - Really!!

It is Spring Break at last, and I am nearing the end of my old journal entries. I think there are just six or maybe eight more. So I thought I would take this time to dip my toes in the pool - get a feel for what it is like to compose on the computer for the blog. It is different, isn't it?


What I need to share is my experience this winter and how I finally came to realize that I had been pursuing spiritual growth for the last few years with only part of my self, and how I have been trying to fix that, and how there have been all kinds of starts and stops and backtracking since that moment.


Some of you know and some of you may have gathered that I have had a lot of health problems this year. I guess I am one of those people that have to be hit over the head - several times and with something hard - in order for me to learn my lesson! And even then, the odds are only 50/50 that I'll take the hint.

In 2005 I got the shingles, and that turned into post herpetic neuralgia which did permanent damage to my nerves and probably my spinal column itself. So I've struggled with just dealing with that pain, and really, as a permanent source of unrelenting pain that will never cease and that has no known cure, you would think that should have been enough to give me a hint that I might want to find some ways to begin to work with my body, to incorporate it into whatever healing and growth I entered into. But that really did not occur to me.

I did do quite a bit of work on trying to learn to stop fighting my body, and to stop thinking of it as my enemy, and I guess I do need to think of that as progress. It is a long way from the kind of hatred and pure loathing I used to spew at the poor thing. When I was working my way through the Tao te Ching I especially focused on trying to accept the pain as it was and not label it as "bad" or undesirable. But that did not really translate into a broader approach to checking into my body as a whole.

I'm not sure why I didn't go there; I even bought one of Mantak Chia's books on Healing Through the Tao, which I know uses Taoist concepts to help us connect to our physical forms. The notion of xi ought to have alerted me to the idea that I could indeed come to see myself as something more than a floating head, or a head attached to a bothersome ball of pain-we-must-learn-to-ignore-or-no-I-mean-fully-accept. I just wasn't ready, I guess.

So beginning last spring, I began feeling even worse. I didn't know what was wrong with me, but over the summer we began sorting things out and in July I had my gallbladder removed. In August I had my right ovary and fallopian tube taken out. Recovery from both went fine, and I was rapidly enmeshed in the fall semester.

My body, all through the fall, kept disappointing me. Instead of just bouncing back and being all fixed up, it seemed like it kept getting weaker and weaker, and it kept losing weight, and I continued to have all sorts of pain - some new ones and some old ones. I began to feel really betrayed and confused and concerned. Come winter break, and a new set of problems pounces on all my free time; oral surgery is required, then a pesky infection, and then I am told I need a more invasive surgery (for hemmorhoids) that was going to be really difficult and require a long, brutal recovery period. That was the week before classes were starting up again.

So - I began to figure out about then, but it wasn't until after that surgery that I actually truly put the pieces together for the whole picture. I wrote, on January 22, having just arrived home from that surgery:

"Have I learned the lessons I was supposed to learn from all of this? Probably not. But I do believe I've had a major breakthrough or insight. Was given the grace to have a major blind spot illuminated. The short version - I cannot keep leaving my body out of all the spiritual growth. All the efforts I've made to come to know and walk with the Divine have been in my head and heart. Intellectual and some emotional. But we have bodies, as has been made immanently plain to me. Mine has asked politely to be included. It has whined, and then it began screaming non-stop. My response was to shut it out. And then to shut it out even more competely. I've made some attempts here and there to be kinder and more inclusive; to feed it better, get more exercise, etc. And we've gotten along better when I've made those efforts. I've come a very long way from the days of hating its looks and being verbally abusive and mentally brutal to myself in that way. No more "ugly, fat" taunts all day long.
But I am not conscious of this vessel my soul has chosen for a house. I don't listen to it. I don't attend to its needs and desires. The more it hurts, the more I tune it out, the more I consider it an irrelevancy. That is wrong. I believe all these surgeries, this cascade of problems is/are the result of that shutting out. Not in a punishment or blame sort of way - just cause and effect.
I have to begin to integrate my body - this temple of god, into my spiritual development plan. If I don't, it will contine to break down, and it will hold back my intellectual and psychological development. So - hatha yoga it is, as soon as I'm able."
I have several ideas as to why it took me so long to come to the realization that my body might be important, and that hatha yoga might be part of the solution. I'll save those for next time. In the meantime, I wonder if there are others out there who also have a hard time remembering - or ever realizing - that we are more than just the thoughts in our heads?

Saturday, March 14, 2009

July 5-15, 2007

July 5, 2007

I am beginning to feel the lack of a dose of Krishna's wisdom. It's been a few days since I opened the Gita. My meditation went much better yesterday, though I may have drowsed. I'd like to believe I actually had some moments in which I thought of nothing at all, but it seems much more likely I fell briefly asleep. Easwaran notes we will, if we fight drowsiness now, one day be wholly conscious when we descend deeply into ourselves. Now that I have the passage memorized and it comes easily to me, it is easier to get bored, and to wonder what is supposed to be happening. I mean, I get that my job is to keep my mind focused, with one-pointed attention, on the passage, on each word. And I've managed to do that for small stretches – sometimes long stretches.

The goal is not to analyze the words, or apply them to one's life – though I can't help, yet, those images/word-associations sometimes springing up. I let go of them as quickly as I can. OK, but, though the meaning is assumed to sink in thru repetition, the goal is not to actively think about meaning. So one begins wondering, what will happen? Or is anything supposed to happen? Easwaran and others talk about pyrotechnics, and deep emotions and insights – but we aren't supposed to focus on those – just stick to the words of the passage.

I do see the value simply in getting one's mind to do as one asks for 30 minutes. That ought to be goal enough. And I oughtn't to allow it to claim boredom with the passage we've only used for 2 weeks or 3. Probably I'm just being impatient. I've sat, what – 10-12 times? And haven't yet reached enlightenment? Silly girl. It is that, but it is also anxiety that I'm not doing something correctly. Need to just reassure myself by checking Easwaran, and then direct my energies to doing what I am supposed to be doing – training my mind to be one-pointed and my heart full of compassion.

7-am now. I've re-read what I needed to in Easwaran, and it helped. Just keep doing what I'm doing. I'm also going to begin work on memorizing (finding first) some new passages, too.

July 6

What an interesting day I had yesterday! To begin, in my meditation I tried something hinted at in Easwaran – to slow down the passage by letting each word fall, "like a pearl into water," and to follow it down. It's kind of hard to explain. But I did it, dropping each word in and letting it stay by itself until the ripples of it, or the resounding of it, wear off. E says in time we'll be able to follow it all the way to the bottom.

Well, it enriched my meditation more than I would have believed. For one thing, the time flew past, and for another, I went much deeper, much faster. That in itself is hard to describe – the senses withdraw; one becomes less aware of all the sounds smells, aches and pains – kind of like being lowered into a tank, or being sealed up. It gets easier to focus on the one thing. One's breathing becomes deep and slow.

Yesterday I was rewarded with something new; a buzzing energy in my body, centered on the lowest chakra. The hairs on my arms stood up! It was pretty amazing. Do you suppose that was the prana that Krishna was talking about? Wow. I guess what you are supposed to do is push that energy up your spine and into your heart chakra – or your head. I have to re-check. We'll see if I can ever even feel it again. I was at the end of my time, and Easwaran warns against following the side shows. I wanted to, but he is my only teacher and I have to trust him, so I shut it down.

But then I went to work and had an amazing day – did my first television interview – all sorts of wild things.

July 15

Today makes a week of uninterrupted first-thing-in-the-morning meditation. May be beginning to make some progress. Much less chatter today.

I finished Roy's God of Small Things. A beautiful, heart-breaking book. I think that between coming from the horror at the end of Disorderly Knights, and the way Roy lets you know her story is going to be horrifying, I shut myself down. I admired the skill with which she weaved her plot; I so appreciated the child's eye view she so clearly understands/remembers, and I loved the little twins a little bit. But I never surrendered myself to the story. It was so powerful that I feard it, and didn't give myself to it.

Now I'm reading another Indian writer, a book called Vishnu's Death. Anil is the author, I think. It at least has given me more of what I was looking for, more understanding of daily life in India, of a Hindu, of food and when one eats what. Was pleased that now I recognize many of the stories from the Mahabharata and more of the allusions make sense to me.

One thing I must face; there are virtually no happy stories coming out of India, and haven't been for 40-50 years. When I want to judge Christianity by its fruit, I can't close my eyes to the atrocities of caste, of Hindu-on-Muslim violence, or the everyday violence of grinding poverty. I can say to myself, and do, that anyone practicing bigotry, cruelty, etc. is not practicing "real" Hinduism. They may be following Vedic ritual but they are not following the Upanishads or the wisdom of Krishna, and that's true. They aren't. But wouldn't every Christian say those doing evil in Christ's name aren't practicing the "real" Christianity? Of course.

I can make a better argument because there are actually 2 different doctrines – the incarnation of Krishna splits off from the Vedas in the same way Jesus' life and teachings break away from Torah. Its just that in the West, the religion of Judaism couldn't contain the alternate, whereas Hinduism could, can, and continues to hold within it a hundred or a thousand different belief systems.

Nevertheless, one can't be honest and deny that most Indian lives for a very long time have been wretched. Even in a land where poverty is not seen as something awful, like it is here, and where lots of people are happier in their slums or ancient villages than we typically are in all our luxury. Even in a place like that, the poverty is deep, the inequality too unequal, the random cruelty of the government unspeakably hideous and wrong.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

June 30- July 4, 2007

June 30, 2007

I went to meditate just before dinner. It went okay. Not great, not terrible, but I'm really glad I did it.

Back to the wise and compassionate words of Krishna. Dialogue 14 ended with Krishna enjoining us to cease making judgments between "good" and "bad." In Dialogue 15 Uddhava begins by asking the obvious next question – But wait! You tell us to stop making these judgments but the Vedas and even your own words talk about what is right and wrong ~ I'm confused! Are we to be good? Or are we to cease seeing good and bad?

I think I know where Krishna is going to go. It's something of a paradox so I don't know if I can explain. I think it is something like – in reality there is no distinction between good and evil because all is one. You can't have only one side of a coin. However, if you would like to experience that oneness, there are certain things one ought to do, which we'll label "good," and other things one ought to avoid.

It isn't wrong to take a path that leads into darkness; it just won't bring you into light. Remember that King Kamsa, who hated Krishna and kept trying to kill him even when he was a babe, achieved liberation because even though it was hatred and fear that motivated him, still he had one-pointed attention, and thought of nothing but Vishnu/Krishna.

So even dedication to evil can bring one enlightenment. Nothing is inherently good or evil. Yet Krishna's purpose is to lay the path to Himself for us; to pave it, make it as direct and easy to follow as possible. Thus all things that keep one on that road are good, those that don't, aren't. Let's see if that is actually what he means!

Yes! Krishna begins by saying there are 3 and only 3 paths to spiritual enlightenment – jnana, karma and bhakti yoga. He describes them again, and says who each is for. The duties each of us has because of our caste and station he says, we should do "until you lose interest in the world, or until an intense faith and devotion arise in your heart" v.9.

People who just go about their duties, simple people who just live their lives will go neither to heaven nor to hell. They'll just be reborn again and again until one of those two things happens. He says that souls in heaven and hell covet a life here on earth because it offers opportunities for growth, for liberation, for enlightenment. They are like side worlds. You can make trips out to them but neither is actually on the main path.

One must be human to make spiritual progress. This is the vehicle designed exactly for that purpose.

[Entry ends abruptly because our vaction was at an end – it was the last day, and time to pack. Several days of driving and unpacking and recovering later . . .]

July 2

Dialogue 16 is about how the deep meaning of the Vedas is knowing the Oneness of God, and NOT the lists of rules and rituals. Krishna is still answering Uddhava's question about making distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong. And basically what he is saying is: there are no hard and fast rules about this – it all depends on context.

Actions, thoughts, words, etc. are never wrong/evil in themselves, nor are they right/good in themselves. Just saying a prayer or chanting a mantra or doing a ritual isn't necessarily "good" even if it was good at one time for some one. Krishna sounds an awful lot like Jesus when he says that the instructions, the laws in the Vedas, as in the Old Testament, were given by Him to the ancestors "as a guide to how to conduct one's life." Like the Torah, the Vedas are full of discussions and lists of things that are pure/clean and things that are impure. About these Krishna says that what makes things pure is the presence of god, the pure and devoted heart.

People who have come to read the Vedas literally and rigidly are incorrect and are missing the whole point. There are injunctions in the Vedas, promises of reward for good behavior, placed there to entice people into their spiritual journey. Instead, people have often become fixated on the rewards and therefore fail to progress at all.

Heedlessly they indulge in ritual acts

Only to choke on the smoke

Of their own ignorance v.27


A strict adherance to ritual

Will be their only theme:

They will not even recognize me

Dwelling in their own heart

And in the heart of this entire creation v.28.


In sacrifical rituals

These cruel people

Will slaughter innocent animals v.30


They fantasize in their own minds

About a heavenly world after this one

And then imagine

That like merchants in a market

They can trade rituals

For a place in such a heaven v.31.


Doesn't this sound, not only like what Jesus said to his contemporary Jews, but also like what needs to be said now? Like all these Christians who are arguing for the arrest and deportation of undocumented workers because they "broke the law." At the end Krishna says, "I am the sacrifice the Vedas speak of." Just what Jesus said. And what is really intriguing, has the seeds of radical re-interpretation of Jesus is: Krishna, the man, was NOT killed. He means he is a sacrifice in a different way. I don't think I clearly understand it. But couldn't Jesus have also meant it differently? I mean, couldn't he have meant it however Krishna means it? That he would have been the sacrifice regardless of whether he was crucified?

With all of the parallels between their words, I feel I am coming to understand and appreciate Jesus through coming to know Krishna. More than I ever did when studying the Gospels alone. And it confirms in my mind that the doctrine does not reflect what he was really saying.

July 3

I should record a couple of things. One – meditation seems easier in some ways now that I've truly got the prayer in my memory. I don't have those long gaps between words as I struggle to recall the next one. I also didn't have too much trouble with drowsiness yesterday. I did have a hard time concentrating, keeping focused on the words, without analyzing them. I started out well, but the phone rang in the middle and then I kept being distracted by outside noises. Will see if I can do better today.

July 4

Meditation yesterday was awful. I didn't get to it until after 8 pm. We had a thunderstom that terrified poor Indy. So I went up with her and sat in the closet where she was hiding but my mind just wouldn't stay still. I grew frustrated. I couldn't find a position that didn't pain me. The only good was that I did make myself sit there, and my cat was calm and reassured when I left.

Also, when going to sleep at night, I've learned I had better go back to saying the mantra. I had purposely stopped to allow my mind some free time in which ideas could freely associate. I learned yesterday that Easwaran is right – again. You can't expect the mind to be quiet and lie still for 30 minutes a day when it has free reign the other 23:30.

Discipline requires being disciplined all the time. I resist the idea, but will eventually cave, because I fear it is correct. A person in training to be an Olympic athlete can't be fit or work out just ½ an hour a day. They are always at it. And the payoff – just remember the payoff. Muscles that respond, almost on their own, with all the strength one needs. I recall from skating and swimming what a glorious feeling it was, to have finally mastered a routine – whole body doing exactly what you asked of it, all smooth and effortless. How much more glorious for the mind to respond like that?

Well, it takes practice. Training. So the mantra is back in at night, and I will be more contientious about working it in everywhere in my day. The mind is screaming "that will kill creativity," but of course it would say that. Mind, this training will get you in shape to be more creative, to tap inner reserves of insight, to make more brilliant theoretical analyses. You'll be more nimble than ever! Just give it a try!

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

God Having Sex - June 29, 2007

June 29, 2007

I guess I have a little more to say about Krishna's life. It's really funny to me how intellectually I find it quite reasonable for God incarnate to have sex, and I have always said it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me if Jesus had been with – especially if he had married – Mary Magdalene. And it makes a lot more sense in a culture where young men are expected to get experience and in which people do not equate sex with sin.

And yet . . . I confess to feeling a little disappointed in Krishna, like he's lost stature or become tarnished by his carnal exploits. Part of it is my culture which reserves sex for marriage. Well, wait a minute. That isn't true at all. My culture doesn't in practice – but it preaches that, still. Part of it is the idea that God should be above mundane sexual seduction. Which is silly. Of course he's above sex. He's above eating and shitting and being a cowherd, too. Isn't that the point about being incarnate? To be human is to become human. And if so, why would one limit oneself to some human things and keep off others? Particularly when you haven't designated any human function as evil? I think it may be that it seems like a weakness to me. And/or like someone using his power to exploit. But that's me not really getting it. Krishna remains celibate even after having sex with an entire village, because the sex was NOT for him, did not grow out of HIS desire, and did no harm that would incur karma.

With the villagers, it was a way to lead the women to total devotion, submitting their egos, their selves into Him. And they became the example of perfect bhakti devotion – so much so that Krishna later sends Uddhava to learn from them. And later, when Krishna returns to his rightful place in the palace, he goes to a courtesan who helped him "in the form with which she approached him." Being a courtesan sex is all she knows, so he comes to her as a sexual partner. In the same way, the scriptures say, that because Kamsa approached Him as an enemy, He came to him as his slayer. Okay . . . but I've become cynical and I see how easily someone could say this, could use it to fulfill their own desires. And if that's true, then Krishna becomes like any conquering hero, and that bugs me.

Especially when we are given to see the pain the gopilas suffer when he leaves them. They moon about, unable to do their daily tasks because everywhere there are reminders of him, and they have utterly lost all sense of themselves as separate without him.

I realize the scriptures are trying to show the truth that we ARE incomplete without Him, that he is our very Selves, and that the goal of human life is to shed our attachment to this ego and merge with Him. But in my culture, that kind of submission to a lover is bad news, a sign of pathology and exploitation. Of course, that's men we are talking about, male lovers – not God Itself, which changes things. I guess I'd feel better if Krishna inspired and expected the same devotion from men.

And I guess he does. Else why send his servant and colleague Uddhava to learn from them? But it seems a different quality. The men get made more themselves, while the women become nothing. They aren't even mentioned by name (except one), even though Krishna promises their names will be remembered forever. Maybe that's my author, though, not the scriptures.

I'm just going to have to keep working on it in my heart. I mean, isn't my goal to get to the place where I can let go of my ego, my self, and merge with Absolute Supreme Reality? That is what I want, what I'm working for in meditation, so why begrudge it to these ancient cow girls? Actually, isn't this what an encounter with the Infinite ought to do? Shatter your social conceptions, your limited, confining views? Just strip them off, one by one?

Maybe this is how Mom feels about all the things Jesus does that don't seem to make sense, that it is God saying "Don't pigeon-hole me! Don't even begin to think you can bind Me with your silly social conventions, your extremely limited view of morality." And maybe one day I'll be able to see Jesus' actions that way, too. Right now I'll stick with Krishna. Obviously I recognized His words as Truth in the two Gitas. I will just have to reconcile my feelings. That's my problem, not God's. Brahman is.

Its back to that mind-blowing idea that Krishna is All, Brahman is All, God is All. God is not an old man, a priest, a celibate, a dead thing on a cross; is not limited in any way. Even the Christian god is limited, required to be "good." Brahman is not so bound, as It is good and evil, is everything. I have to stop using mainstream, American Protestant ethics and morality in my subconcious view of god.

See, I've already learned a ton from Krishna's sexual episode. I believe I've gotten my heart and mind into the right place to learn again from Krishna's dialogue with Uddhava at the end of his earthly life.

Oh – I know now who Uddhava is/was. He was a sage – a jnana yogi – who was part of the court of the Yudavas when Krishna got rid of the evil king, Kamsa, and restored his clan to power. I believe Udhava will play important roles later in the story.

In Dialogue 14, Krishna provides a lot of information and answers a long list of Uddhava's questions. Big chunks would be good for memorization and meditation, as he repeats and puts into a few words much of what has already been said. One could call it repetitious, but it is very consistent – every text that refers to Krishna's teachings says the same things. There are no contradictions. In fact, what I've read of Patanjali, the Upanishads, and the references to the Mahabarata are all consistent as well. Odd, as it is on the whole not a religion that claims to value consistency. It's fine with everyone that gods have thousand names and a hundred forms; that at one moment Indra is supreme; then Vishnu, or Brahma, or Krishna. None of that matters and in those ways, of course, one would NOT find consistency if one searched for it. But for the core messages, the texts, written over a span of more than a thousand years and by people whose native spoken languages were widely divergent – scattered over an increasingly diverse land mass. One is led from the Western scholars of Hinduism to expect multiple schools of thought and much disagreement. But the reality is that Krishna's message is very simple. It is only the humans, Arjuna, Uddhava, me – that make things more complicated with our questions, because we don't really get it. Much like it seems to me it was with Jesus and his followers. All Jesus really said was "Love." The imperative. "Love yourself. Love your neighbor. Love your enemy. Love the Lord your God." That's it. That's the whole of the law and the whole of life.

Krishna says, "Recognize that all is god. Even you. Even your enemy. Even your neighbor." But we humans want complicated, detailed instructions. How do I love my enemy? How do I come to see that I am brahman? So in Dialogue 14, Krishna again provides some answers.

He makes clear right off the bat that just philosophizing – the part I'm good at – is not enough. He begins:

The sannyasin who has learned

All that is required

To know the Self

And for whom such knowledge

Is not mere theory but direct experience,

And who knows the phenomenal world

To be an illusion,

Such a one,

Known as a vidvat-sannyasin,

Should surrender all that knowledge

And all that experience,

To Me, the Eternal v.1


Only those who have been purified

Through both knowledge and experience

Know my true and supreme nature.

Truly it is these souls that are my support

And are much loved by me v.3.


Verse 10 contains a prayer for me:

O Great One, lift me up `

For I have fallen into the pit

Of unremitting pain.

Further down Krishna summarizes again the constituent parts of creation. The earliest quantum physics? He says that these parts permeate all of creation, from Brahma "to the smallest ameoba," and that one Supreme pervades them all.

How do you know when you are there, when you really get it? Krishna says – and note this is experiential, not theoretical – that knowledge becomes a realization "When one no longer sees multiplicities pervaded by the One, but experiences the One as the only reality" v.13.

Wow. Can you imagine even truly doing the first – seeing all things and people as pervaded by the One? I especially am going to require grace to see George W. Bush and Karl Rove, Bill Krystol, etc. as part of the same One as Indy, butterflies, puppies, brand new babies, and warm spring breezes. However, reading these stories of evil kings and demons, and Krishna's appreciation for and absorption of them is very helpful on that score. It is very good to have a model for how that kind of love works; especially from a position of strength.

I remember a short story I once read in which there was a machine, or an object of food or something, that allowed a human who used it to perceive the forest around him as one organism (Michael Crichton?). We know that is true, scientifically/ecologically, and biologists now speak of forests and even the planet as one organism. But this guy in the story gets to experience it that way for a moment. Actually 2 guys do, and one goes crazy, catatonic. The other can just barely stand it, but not for long. The complexity and grandeur, the awe of all the bugs (the number and diversity of the insect life alone is enough to send the one over the edge), the dirt, the bark and the sap in the trees, the living branches in every single tree, the leaves, the grass, the shrubs and other plants, the rotting wood, the birds, reptiles and mammals, the fungi, the wind, the dew, the sunlight – all of it not just working together but ONE THING!!! Now imagine not just a little patch of forest but the entire planet, and not just that but the entire universe, and not just that but ALL of the universes (if there are more than one, however many there might be). It does seem too much for the meagre human mind to grasp. This is a good reason for making it difficult to attain. We need time and practice to literally expand our minds enough to hold such an image.

To continue, and begin to wrap up, Krishna says that there are things before us/with us, that can corrobrorate the notion that all is One, before we can fully grasp it. The four most authoritative are: The Vedas which teach it (the Upanishads), direct experience, tradition, and inference.

In none of these can experience

Of multiplicities find support v.17.

Then he gives a long list of activities we can do in pursuit of this Oneness. Finally, a brilliant quote at the end.

What are the definitions of good and evil?

Judging another to be good or bad is evil.

To cease making judgements between good and bad,

That is true goodness v.45.

And yes, I get the irony and hypocrisy of me being gleeful at finding that to pass on to all those I deem judgmental! : ) I am a work in progress.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

June 21-27, 2007

June 21, 2007

I waited for J's call, and then sat down to meditate. It was a struggle. This time the words came alright, but I felt I was racing through them. I was afraid that if I allowed any space between the words, the random associations and tangents would crowd in and take over. I didn't have sleepiness issues because I couldn't really relax. It's a new challenge every day, isn't it? They'll soon have to repeat themselves! I suppose I'll get better at dealing with them as I get more practice. I mean, Easwaran speaks in years.

[Description of doctor's appt and errands, writing a political protest letter we e-mailed to news orgs] But then I became super-irritable. I don't know what was up with me, but I just lost it. I forgot to say the mantra when it began, so it just grew and grew. It was all directed at my computer. It just really pissed me off. I'm ashamed of having allowed a piece of machinery to control my feelings and behaviors. As Easwaran said, we lose our freedom when we allow things outside of us to control how we feel. I put myself in bondage to reaction. It felt really bad. It felt completely out of my control, which is ridiculous. We always have choices.

The Gita reading for today is beautiful. Krishna describes himself again. It is a refreshing reminder of what is really important, and also that He is in everything, and can be worshipped in the people around us. I'll hold on to that.

June 22

In Dialogue 11, as translator Saraswati notes, we can see the spiritual growth of Uddhava as he no longer begs Krishna to take him with him, but accepts his mission, his dharma. Saraswati says some helpful things. First, that Uddhava's path is our path: we begin our search for God by looking for it outside of ourselves, but "as that wish begins to shape our life, we see the Divine reflected in ourselves and in all material existence" p.104.

Second, she says this dialogue "allows us to begin to view the Divine with a human mind, though through the veil of the mind's perceptions . . . Krishna allows us to 'see' the embodied Divine through our bodily senses ` as the stars, the planets, the creatures of the earth and sea, and so on." As we begin to recognize the divine in all these things, "the quality of our experience of the world must change." Haven't we all felt closer to God when out in nature, closer to the unmediated earth, and looking up at the stars?

The difference for me is that I used to recognize God as the creator of the universe. Now I am learning to see God as not only creator but also IN the creation. The created universe IS god itself. That may seem a small semantic difference, but it is great. It must change, ultimately, everything about the way we approach and treat and deal with the earth. We are not the masters having dominion over the planet. No! No! No! We are another part of God, and granted the blessing of living on God and in god, with all the other tiny fragments of His/Her being. No wonder it wasn't India that invented industrialization.

Third, Saraswati says we must remember that we will never "see" brahman, as a physicist will never "see" a quark "until we have gone beyond the limits of individual perception. There is nothing more we can add to ourselves to see the Divine better. All we can do is look about and remind ourselves of what Krishna has said, that all this is the Self." And as we keep walking the path, she says we'll gradually be stripped of all that prevents us from seeing it directly – which, I'd add, includes our bodies, eventually.

Verses 9-11 would be good for meditation:

I am that which you and all seekers seek.

Among things difficult to conquer, I am the mind.

As he goes on, naming the things of this world that he is, it's important to me to note that there are "negatives" as well as "positives." God isn't just good, it's everything.

June 27

In dialogue 12 I find the answers to many of my questions. Here Krishna lays out the plan for life, for living together in society; the varnashrama. He explains the idea of caste and the four seasons of life, as well as a little of the history of the system and of the Ages. Uddhava has asked him:

How may we fulfill this devotion

While maintaining our own

Allotted duties according to the social order? v.2

If we don't become hermits or sannyasin, in other words, how can we live our normal lives and still show our devotion? A very pertiment question for me, because I'm not ready to give up living with J and the kitties, or teaching and researching. I am in the householder stage of life and I mostly enjoy it. But I certainly don't want to put off devotion and spiritual learning until I'm ready to leave it all. In fact, I'd never become ready to leave without more growth first.

This is not wrong; Krishna (brahman) made this world, made humans, and made it so that there must be people in all different stages of growth in order for the system to work. So Krishna answers by first establishing this point, that all the castes and stations emanate from Him, all are loved and desired. And his point is that the varnashrama exists to promote the good of all, if practiced correctly.

Recall that in Hindu cosmology, there are four stages of creation, or Ages. Each creative cycle begins as a kind of utopia, then people forget who they are, chaos and destruction, as well as evil enter the creation and it gets steadily worse, until finally it must be destroyed.

This seems at odds with the other big plan, that humans are fragments of brahman who willingly immerse themselves in maya in order to have learning experiences. Those lessons eventually lead them to remember who they are and re-merge with brahman. The two probably fit together and I just haven't learned enough to see how. Because doesn't it seem that as more souls learned more, the world would become better . . . Aha! Oh, duh! It's that as more souls take the path that leads to enlightenment, they are liberated and are no longer re-born. So over time the world comes to have higher and higher proportions of those who chose explore evil, darkness, and inertia. That solves the paradox.

Okay, so Krishna begins by saying that the first age of this creative cycle was the Krita Yuga, the Age of Accomplishment, in which all people belonged to one caste, the hamsa caste. All people were "virtuous from birth," and "had everything they needed." The pranava mantra "Om" was the only scripture, and dharma was as "firm as a bull standing on four legs."

The next was the Treta Yuga, the Age of Three, because it was like a bull standing on three legs. The scriptures of this age were the Vedas: Rig, Sama & Yajur. These Vedas "flowed from my heart, borne by my exhalation" v.12. And now Krishna explains how a variety of people sprung from different parts of the one cosmic Supreme body.

Brahmin – those disposed to spiritual learning, from the mouth.

Kshtraiya – those disposed to rule, defend justice and truth, from the arms.

Vaishya – those disposed to "bring comfort and prosperity", from the legs

Shudra – "those who wished only to serve humanity, the servants and tillers of land", from the feet.

Then he describes the stages of life, and their dispositions, saying students came from the heart, householders from the loins, retirees from the chest, and sannyasin from the crown of the head.

It is clear from the rest of the dialogue that Krishna means that people are NOT born into caste. That instead one should examine oneself, and compare to his descriptions of each varna, and then decide which fits their disposition. There should be no compulsion, and each person should have enough learning and opportunity to be able to make such a decision.

Another clear theme is that all of the castes are there to serve one another. Shudras may be labeled "servant" but in fact service to the community is the heart of each job. All are required to be truthful, free of desire, anger, greed, "always seeking the happiness and well-being of all" v.21.

He also talks about how all have the duty to remember the Self. That busy householder, raising children, working, serving the community, should also study the scriptures, perform the rituals and worship the deities. At the end, he reminds householders not to get too attached to the people and things of his or her life. The wise one will cling to that which is imperishable, and let go of that wich perishes.

Remember always the associations made

With relatives, spouses, children and friends

Are like the chance meetings of travellers –

Brief, and only for the duration of the lifetime.

At the end of each life these relationships end –

Just as dreams end upon awakening v.53


Keeping such an awareness

The householder can live free from entrapment

In the ideas-of-I and "mine" –

Even while performing the required duties v.54.

Krishna warns against the dangers of getting caught up in ideas-of-I and in entanglements with others. These hold us back, so that at the moment we should be retiring to the forest or to a monastery, we "will always be given to creating reasons for forgetting the Self and not moving on to the next stage of life."

"Oh" they will say "My parents are sill alive, my partner cannot cope, my children cannot live without me" v.57. "With an unfocused mind, such a person will continually be distracted by foolish thoughts of "I" and "mine" and on death will go to a great darkness" v.58.

So, that is the whole of the answer. One can and one should continue to live life according to one's dharma. In my case, being wife, daughter, sister, aunt, teacher, researcher, community servant, activist, and colleague. But at all times remember the Self and keep focused on the true goal. Attach to no one and nothing. Be ready to shed it all and move on to the next stage.

Our culture is so focused on the stage of youth that it will be a challenge to recognize it as such in myself. Does the use of anti-wrinkle cream mean I'm clinging too hard to one stage? Or is that an acceptable part of taking care of the skin I'm in?

Friday, March 6, 2009

June 28, 2007

June 28, 2007

[On vacation at friend's summer cabin on Illinois River]

Easwaran was right about not taking any days off from meditation. Geez was it difficult to make my mind stay on track! I had to coninually bring it back, had to start over multiple times, and wasn't really making much progress by the end of 30 minutes. But the first step is taken. It should be easier today. I better understand why he insists on 30 minutes. For someone like me, my mind is just beginning to settle down at the 15 minute point. If I was quitting then, I don't see how I'd make any progress. Even yesterday, the half hour sped by rapidly as I wrestled with my mind. I began to get a little frustrated, and then remembered that's precisely what the mind wants; to create a diversion. So I let go of my anger at myself and just went back to the passage. Decided it was better to say it fast than to get caught in the spaces between words, but I still lost myself over and over.

It is kind of cool. Yes, my mind is utterly undisciplined and makes crazy connections, but instead of just admitting defeat, I am actually doing something about it. I understand it may take years to see a real difference, but it feels good to be "in training" for something again. I was always attracted to things one had to practice to do well, as long as they were solitary efforts, like skating and swimming.

I am eager to see improvement, but I am also going to take enjoyment and satisfaction from the daily practice, the rehearsal where one must do the same step a thousand, ten thousand times to get right.

This morning I think I'll begin reading my book on Krishna. Right now I am ready for the next dialogue in the U. Gita. The 13th Dialogue is mostly about how to become and how to live as a sannyasin. It is interesting to read to see what the earthly goal is. It would be awfull hard to live that way in America. Funny, it is supposed to be the "land of the free," and yet anyone truly living the life which leads to liberation – anyone truly free, would be arrested as a vagrant.

We really mean, "The land in which one is free to pursue wealth at all costs." Poverty is a crime in the United States. Wealth is god, and anyone who chooses to give up their belongings and go wandering MUST be insane and in need of help. Plus, Krishna suggests the sannyasin should freely roam the earth, visiting its sacred places, "its flowing rivers and soaring mountains with their deeply penetrating solitude" v.24. But in the US, those places are usually "private property" where trespassers can be shot or at least arrested.

No, this is not a friendly place for holy people. Not like I'm ready for that personally anyway, but it really highlights some very ugly things about our society. And it isn't as if the religion – the religion they claim to practice – of these people forbids the actions prescribed for sannyasin. Their god – Jesus - tried to tell them the exact same message. You could find a verse in the Gospels to match nearly every injunction. "Leave your nets and follow me." "Do not worry about where your next meal is coming from; does not the Father take care of the birds of the air?" "Does a father on earth give his children a stone when they ask for bread?" "Give up your posessions." "If a man asks for a shirt, give him your coat also." "The rich man, in order to get into heaven, ought to give away all his posessions."

Over and over, Jesus tried to convey the message: if you really want to find God, you need to stop what you are doing, give up your schemes for earthly success – oh yes – lay up your treasure in heaven – give up your wordly identity, stop worrying entirely about the future of your body and concentrate on that of your soul. Walk away and follow me.

And he led those who followed an itenerant's path, moving constantly, visiting holy sites, begging for food, not hunting but relying on the kindness of strangers, repaying them with kindness and blessings. He taught them that religious ritual isn't enough, that going through the motions in order to look holy or achieve some worldly end would not only not work but was ridiculous. Basically, he said everything Krishna says here about the way to live a life in search of God and eternal liberation, everlasting salvation. The message of the two religions in terms of behavior is nearly identical.

Yet, whereas in India and throughout Asia they've built their societies such that spiritual mendicants and wanderers are cared for, sustained and treasured by the people, Christian societies have structured themselves such that it is next to impossible to do as Jesus commanded and not end up in jail or another institution.

Another difference is in our view of the life course. Youth is worshipped here, and old people are ever striving to be young again – a hopeless venture, it should be obvious. Mecca for us is to have no wrinkles, no sagging skin, no yellow or broken teeth, and no silver hairs. To be able to have sex twice a day and to eat and drink whatever one wants. We try to make no concessions to/for the ageing body. Dance all night at 79!

Silly! The rest of the world treasures their elderly. People look forward to being older, largely because their societies are structured such that in old age one receives more prestige, power, and a relaxation in one's workload. An obviously realistic hope and plan. I think for us, part of it must be our approaches to death. Americans are terrified of death. We abhor and fear it, and seem to be always trying to escape backward in time and elude its clutches. Why? If you believe you are going to heaven to be with God, why run away?

Hindus have built a culture that helps people prepare for death. There is a cycle of birth and rebirth that can be comforting, but better is the belief that all souls already are eternal and divine. Every soul will eventually realize that. There is no winning and losing because from the start it is accepted that we all will win eventually.

One lives a busy life, doing all life has to offer, but at the end of life, Hindu religion and culture makes a time and space for people to devote themselves to meaning-making and to preparation for their own death (and possible re-birth). And so, by the end of this dialog, Krishna has answered the question and explained how it is that all people, wherever they start in caste or station, have their own duties, and that by doing them, all can reach Him, the Supreme Self of all.


I'm hungry for more, and everyone but Isi is still asleep, so I think I'll read my book about Krishna's life. I'm so excited to learn more and develop a better devotional image.

The Play of God, by Vanamali Devi. I've just waded through all the prefaces, introduction and benedictions. Reading the author's explanation of the life of Krishna, of how the Divine can incarnate, and the pupose of incarnation, one cannot help but be struck by the commonalities with Christianity. For example:

"The simplicity of his teaching was such that it could by followed by any man, woman or child, unlike the Vedic teachings, which were meant only for the elite. The Vedic system had become elaborated into a vast system of complicated sacrificial rituals, which could only be performed by the brahmins and conducted only by the Kshtraiyas." The glorious Upanishads were there, but required a teacher and fine intellectual ability to grasp (p.xiv).

Could this sound anything more like the situation within Judaism at the time Jesus came? And really, it is very similar to what was going on when Buddha arrived on the seen a bit earlier.

"The Bhagavata Dharma provided a devotional gospel in which action, emotion and intellect played equal parts, and proclaimed Krishna as Ishvara (God), who had incarnated Himself for the sake of humanity, who could be communed with through love and service, and who responded to the earnest prayers and deepest yearnings of the ordinary person" (p.xiv-xv).

One difference is that while Jesus is thought to be all-god, all-human, and therefore limited by His human form, Krishna is not. He is fully tapped into his Divinity from childhood on, and thus has total control over nature. Jesus does too; I mean, he walks on water and turns water into wine, but He does so rarely. I guess Krishna uses His power more regularly.

Krishna is also of a royal lineage but born to humble circumstances. One difference; he actually becomes the King Jesus' followers wished He would be.

"All His human actions during the span of His earthly life are meant not only to bless His contemporaries and establish righteousness on earth, but to provide a spiritually potent account of His earthly deeds for the contemplation of posterity. By meditating on them they could establish with Him a devotional relationship like that which His great devotees had with Krishna during His lifetime. He is the expression of the redeeming love of God for man which manifests itself in different ages and in different lands, bringing spiritual enlightenment and bliss into the otherwise dreary lives of humanity" p.xv.

While I am comparing, I'm noting some competetion in my mind, like "At least Hindus make room and allowance for other faiths, unlike those rigid and ethnocentric and snobby Christians." While that may be doctrinally true, there are probably plenty of closed-minded Hindus, and competition is not the point. There is no winning! Jesus and Krishna, I believe, are both incarnations (of a different sort than the rest of us) of the Supreme Reality, the Sat-Chid-Ananda (existence-knowledge-bliss). We can follow either and be saved. On points of disagreement, I have come to believe that Jesus was actually teaching a message closer to Krishna's, but that his followers didn't understand him. That may sound arrogant, or misguided, or ethnocentric, but that is what I currently believe.

11 am. I've read the first two chapters, The Advent, and The Birth. Its amazing how, even tho the stories are quite different and conform to their respective cultures, there are still many common elements. For instance, there is an evil king whose death is predicted to come at the hands of the baby. The evil king responds by trying to kill the babe by killing all the other infants around. There is another woman pregnant with a different special child. There is the attempt to hide the child, this time by switching with the other special child, whose mother is in her 40s and had given up on having children.

Krishna is also conceived in a special way. His mother was not a virgin, having already given birth to six children (note he is the seventh child), but before her marriage was considered the purest in the land. She had already lived two lives of austerities in order to earn the honor of housing the divine. She and her husband have been chained in a dungeon, in such a way that they cannot touch each other. But the Supreme, whom they are here calling Vishnu, entered into Vasudeva, the father-to-be, and he was so filled with bliss and wonder he called out. His wife, Devaki, asks her husband what could possibly give him such joy when they are in a situation in which they cannot conceive the child who will be their salvation. He explains, and then "Vasudeva transmitted to his wife through the medium of the all-comprehensive Being present in all, including herself, and she received the mental transmission even as the eastern horizon receives the glory of the full moon. Thus did she conceive the Lord mentally thru her husband Vasudeva" p.11.

As in the birth of the Buddha, and the Christ child, the whole earth trembles at the birth – flowers bloom, stars shine more brightly, birds sing, etc. The differences that stand out to me – none of the prudishness or devaluing of women that one might expect from modern-day Indian culture or that one sees in the modern translations of the Gospels. The parents of Krishna are depicted as clearly sexual beings and Devaki is important, learned, and earned the honor through spiritual discipline.

Both stories have the element of recognition; it is clear to all around that this infant is special, and all are charmed by him immediately. From here, the stories ought to diverge, since we know little of Jesus' early life, but let's see. Oh – I forgot to mention the theme of all people who know bringing the babe gifts. And of others who act in ways that stir up trouble in order that God's purpose will be fulfilled.

In Krishna's infancy, before even he is named, the king sends many demons to kill him. But by his divine knowledge and strength he defeats each one. He also blesses them. Even though they are pure evil, just by touching the babe they are cleansed and achieve liberation, moksha.

Everyone senses he is special but no one yet knows who he is. Since her son keeps narrowly escaping death, Yahoda, his foster mother, becomes consumed with worry, feeling he's been super lucky so far but that she just can't protect him. And so Krishna, in his great compassion, seeks to reassure her. One day, she sits on the verandah worrying how to protect him; he opens his mouth and allows her to see the entire universe inside him. Of course she is stunned and forgets as soon as he closes his mouth, but something of his nature stays with her and reassures her.

There are a bunch of stories of him as a toddler, getting into all kinds of mischief, and getting away with it because he turns on the charm. These are stories that would enchant children and mothers, particularly Indian peasant mothers who do indulge their children. He steals things (food) and does other naughty things, but it is always so can make some boon or blessing to those he stole from – like breaking clay pots so the owners will receive pots of gold, or giving a poor woman 5-6 grams of wheat instead of the bushel he owed her, only for those grams to turn into precious jewels. The villagers love him so much that they hold a meeting to discuss all the trouble and in their fear for him agree to pick up the whole village and move it.

I remember being a child and asking Mom what Jesus was like when he was little. She had to disappoint me. I imagined things kind of like this – working small miracles all the time. These stories of Krishna illuminate what Jesus' childhood might have been like. What the gospel of John lends some credence to. But the other gospels either give no hint or suggest he had no idea of his power until much later, so who knows?

One of the things I love, and which seems to me the mark of a good god, is that every enemy he bests – even purely evil demons – are not sent off to hell to be punished, or treated badly in any way. Because when they enter into the Lord's presence, they see clearly, and often they simply merge into Krishna. Isn't this wisdom? Love? True power?

Krishna takes delight in all and everything around him. He is genuinely amused and entertained by demons' attempts to murder him. They are demons, after all. They do what demons do. He is never angered, never vengeful. He is calm and never disturbed. He reaches out in love and embraces all to him. This is a loving god! A God whose mood one can be sure of.

I think the key here is non-duality. Krishna is all. He is both good and evil. There is no battle between good and evil, because there is nothing outside of God, thus nothing outside of His control. With the mystery of maya, He allows this creation to play out how it chooses to. There is complete free will. But it doesn't matter in the end, because we'll all collapse back together into one. A One that is now wiser.

I guess what I'm getting at is that at least in some parts of the Bible, one gets the distinct impression that good and evil are at war, and that one must pick a side. If you choose wrong, you'll spend eternity in hell. Even if you choose correctly, and you try your best to serve God, he may smite you for reasons you don't understand.

Especially in Calvinist Protestantism, there is an overwhelming insecurity. Was I one chosen to "get it" and be saved? Or will it make no difference how well I serve him? If I'm already predestined for hell? It really confuses me. But I bet that basic insecurity about whether one is going to heaven or hell drives most of the intolerance of Christians. Hate the Jews because they are Chosen and know for sure. Hate the Muslims because they believe they are all going to heaven. Of the monotheists in the West, only Christians can't be sure. And like miserable people everywhere, they want to take away others' happy security.

There is none of that here. Krishna extends love to all. With the confidence of a king who already knows all are His. All are HIM. Even tho Krishna is less confusingly all-deity in human form, not the fully human, fully divine combination, his point is very clear – you can be like me! You ARE me! It would be like me being jealous of my own toe, or angry at my nose for smelling a bad smell,

Oh – here is a good story for teaching children how Krishna (brahman) is all of us. One day Brahma kidnapped all the cows and all the cowherds. Not wanting anyone to worry, Krishna made himself into all the missing boys, animals, flutes, flowers, staffs, etc. For one whole year he did this, and all the parents treated their children as if they were Him, and they loved their cows as if they were Divine, because of course, they all were! For a year, everyone in the village loved as we are supposed to love, each recognizing God in the other.

3:30 Meditation went better today. Mind much less monkey-like, though I did have random images arise that my brain wanted to follow. Drowsiness a bigger opponent. But it felt very much like time well spent.

I'm up to chapter 7, in which Krishna is 12. I've followed him thru many exploits, and I'm coming to love him as much as I'd hoped. Now all the girls are becoming smitten with him a different way. Nice to have a God who flirts and will fall in love.

I wondered what would happen with all the village girls in love with Him. What he ends up doing is teaching them to expand their obsession with him into an almost ceaseless meditation. Then, when he's got them all naked, he promises Himself to them – but he teaches them that carnal love is good, but a mere shadow of the bliss of merging with and housing the divine. The divinity they, too, have within them. And then he also teaches the young men about the Lords inside themselves.

Oh! I have to comment on this! In Chapter 8, the village makes ready a sacrifice to Indra to get just enough rain. Krishna says to his father that all beings are where they are because of their karma. Karma will determine their fate as regards rain. And then he gives an explanation of meteorology, how the hill makes the clouds drop their water – so cool! And he says – what do we need Indra for? Better to celebrate the hill, the cows, the ocean, the clouds, etc.

Part of Krishna's job is clearly to teach us to look inside for God, not outside of ourselves in whimsical and demanding gods like Indra (or Yahweh).

Well, I didn't expect that! Krishna had sex with all the girls and women in the village! Even the married ones. In the B. Gita it says that He will come to each soul the way it comes to him. These women could not grasp the finer points of the philosophy or become sannyasin, but they came to him as a lover, and so he was a Lover to them! Imagine suggesting that Jesus did such a thing! : )

In the next chapter Krishna uses a delightful way to teach the gopis and us that he is still celibate. Why? How? Because those who are identified with the Self cannot be held by karma; karma does not attach to them. In the Gitas he says this over and over, but here he shows it. The laws of cause and effect do not apply when we are not invested, attached, to the action and its fruits.

Blog Rankings

Religion Blogs - Blog Rankings