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.

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 13^th 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.