Where and What Atman Is, Part 1(?)

January 31, 2009
In the CU 6.9-11 the lessons continue to be about the nature of atman brahman, this living essence, or this essence that pervades and defines our existence. I’m not quite sure if he’s referring to what happens when we die, or what is always true, in reference to the Self – the atman part of each thing/creature. Each verse uses a different metaphor. The first, verse 9, uses honey. Bees collect nectar from all over to create honey, but once it is all together, each part doesn’t say “I came from here, I came from over there, etc.” No, it is just all the one honey. In the same way, our atman does not know it is a tiger, wolf, C (a friend), Me, Indiana (my cat), etc. It is just one thing. In v.10 the metaphor is rivers flowing into the ocean.

Verse 11 is different. Here, the father/guru speaks of sap in a tree; wherever one cuts the tree one finds living sap flowing, and wherever the sap stops flowing, those branches die. In the same way, wherever there is the essence, atman, there is life, or living (jiva). “Know that this, of course, dies when it is bereft of jiva, but life itself does not die.” “The finest essence here – that constitutes the self of this whole world; that is the truth; that is the self (atman). And that’s how you are.”
It takes the animating force of jiva to keep our bodies alive – as C would say, our animal part – but because we are more than animal, because we are Atman, too, the death of the animal part, the shell, is not the death of life. It is not the death of us, though the earlier verses certainly indicate that it is the death of our consiousness as individuals. Do all the Upanishads teach this? I thought this was a difference between Hindu and Buddhist thought. I mean, at the end, at the merging, or moksha or samadhi, of course one lets go of individuality. So it is just a symptom of my spiritual immaturity that this bothers me in the slightest. We are One. Why hold on to the whitethoughts-construct?

V. 12 and 13 are good, short, profound lessons too. In 12, the teacher asks the son to cut up a fruit from a banyan tree, then take a tiny seed and cut it up into quarters. Now point to a quarter. He can’t, because the pieces are so small they’ve disappeared. Just so is the essence that pervades us; atman is invisible to see, but the essence, as in the seed, was/is mighty enough to start and uphold a great banyan tree.
In 13, he gives the son a chunk of salt to dissolve in water, asks him to retrieve it, to taste the water in several locations, and finally to throw the water out on a stone (where it will evaporate and the salt re-emerge). Just so is atman in every particle of our being; not here nor there but everywhere. Just so is it invisible, even when you doubt and disbelieve. That is what and who you really are.

February 1
The Seventh chapter of the Changdogya Upanishad is another treatise – using the “Socratic (how arrogant is that, considering how many others created the method pre-Socrates?)” method – on what brahman is, and what is the “greatest” part of brahman. Since brahman is everything, I guess I don’t really understand these sages’ preoccupation with determining the “most” important or “best” part of brahman. What I am witnessing here is partly to do with the development of the philosophy; they had to go through the stage of questing for most and best. And maybe it’s also about what to focus on. Its fine to know that all the cosmos is brahman, is One, but where does one begin? On what should one train one’s attention in order to really grok that? Theortetically, absolutely anything can be your doorway, but aren’t some easier to enter than others?

So in Chapter 7 a man comes to Sanatkumara and says he’s learned everything anyone else can teach him. He has studied and mastered the Vedas, ancestral rites and histories, mathematics, monologues and dialogues, astrology, mythology, etc. Yet still he suffers from sorrow. He has heard Sanatkumara can teach him about self, and that this will allow him to pass out of sorrow. He begs to become a student and is accepted. The first thing the teacher says – the first lesson – is that everything he has studied is “nothing but name.” We are back to what we talked about a couple days ago; the words for things. But here he just says, “So venerate the name.” Venerate brahman as name. Right, extend it maybe, at least to labels. All those words are just labels, and if you venerate the lables as brahman, you are getting it, you are looking past the label, the ritual, the duty, the chants, whatever, to the real thing, which is One.

The student asks if there is anything greater than name. Yes, speech. Because speech makes all of those things known. Venerate brahman as speech and you can go all the places speech goes. After a bit . . . Is there anything greater than speech?
The mind. The mind envelopes both name and speech. One formulates both speech and names in the mind, so it is greater. Even greater than mind is intention. Samkalpa. Will, purpose. One must have these in order to shape words in the mind. This is a rather longer set of verses that says the earth, sky, the Vedas, rituals, the essence of all of them is intention. There is a whole pattern of intention laid out in the pattern of the cosmos and in the rituals and the body and the vital functions. So venerate brahman as intention.

That isn’t the end of the chain by far. Still greater, in order of ascent, are thought, deep reflection, and perception. So far, all of these seem consistent – logically and with later teachings. But after perception, the student asks again, “Is there anything greater?” And the surprising (to me) answer is “Strength.”
“Even one strong man strikes terror into the hearts of a hundred men of perception. When someone becomes strong, he comes to stand; standing, he moves about; when he moves about, he becomes a pupil; when he becomes a pupil, he comes to be a man who sees, thinks, hears, discerns, performs rites and perceives. By strength does the earth persist . . .” 7.8.1 Without the first sentence, on could argue that this is referring to personal force – that strength/power by which we move ourselves through the day and life, not brute strength that can be used on others, though I suppose the two are necessarily related. If strength is truly better than perception, why not dedicate one’s life to body-building, rather than meditation? Is it that one must keep the body’s strength up through hatha yoga and healthy eating?

Obviously, I was surprised to find this so highly ranked. And look what comes next – greater than strength is food. One must eat to stay alive, and eat well to live well, to be strong, able to perceive, reflect deeply, perform rites, speak, etc. Even more important than food – water. We can go longer without food than water. All the vital functions rejoice over water. Therefore venerate brahman as food and water, which give us strength.

More posers – at first at least – what is greater than water? Well, what can dry up water and prevent it from coming? Heat! And what contains the sun, rain, moon, lightening and more? Space.
Really not knowing what to expect next . . . It is memory. Without memory “they would not be able to hear, consider, or recognize anything. Clearly it is through memory that one recognizes one’s children and one’s cattle.” 7.13
Hope is even greater, since without hope we wouldn’t bother remembering or having intentions or even eating and drinking. And finally, the very greatest . . .
Life breath. All this is fixed to lifebreath, as spokes are fixed to a hub.

There follows an injunction to the student that he must follow a course of learning in order to really master this knowledge of the self. But the teacher seems to contradict his orders. I mean, he seems to lay out what was perhaps a standard belief and practice of the time and say, “but I don’t think that’s true, or right.” What he says is that the student, in order to speak truth, must first perceive it. To perceive truth, he must understand perception, and in building like that, the order is, perceive thinking, perceive faith, produce, act, attain well-being, attain plenitude.

The notes help us understand that there was a belief, to which the teacher is referring, that one’s faith was demonstrable with monetary wealth in Vedic India. Makes sense. The gods reward the faithful, and if you do the rites properly, wealth will flow your way. Plus, one has to have wealth to do the rites and pay the priests and have over all the guests and show proper hospitality to humans, priests and dieties.

Thus the injunction to produce, which requires action and the attainment of material well-being. So here is where this radical Upanishadic thinking breaks with that tradition: The student asks, “Sir, on what is plenitude based?” He answers, “On one’s own greatness. Or maybe it is not based on greatness. Cattle and horses, elephants and gold, slaves and wives, farms and houses – these are what people here call greatness. But I don’t consider them that way; no, I don’t, for they are all based on each other (my emphasis) 7.24”.

Then he says plenitude is below, above, in the west, east, north and south. It extends over the whole world. Now substitue “I.” I am below, above, in the east, east, north, and south. I extend over the entire world. Next substitute the self. The self is below, above, etc. “The man who sees it this way, thinks about it this way, perceives it this way; a man who finds pleasure in the self, who dallies with the self, who mates with the self and who attains bliss with the self, he becomes completely his own master; he obtains complete freedom of movement in all the worlds. Thsow who perceive it otherwise are ruled over by others and obtain perishable worlds; they have no freedom of movement in any of the worlds” 7.25

In 7.26 he says that a person who perceives it this way – for him lifebreath, memory, hope, space, heat, water, food, strength, perception, deep reflection, though, intention, mind, speech, name, vedic formula, rites – all spring from his self. The whole world springs from his (or her!) self.
One sees here both the upholding of the Vedic rituals and the utter breaking with the old interpretations and meanings. Everything is being recast in the light of the new insights, but they are managing to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The search for the greatest makes a little more sense, in terms of developing ever deeper insights. One imagines the dialogue taking place over a long period of ime, as the student goes away to digest the first message and practice venerating brahman as mind, the feels dissatisfied and realizes this is only part of it, “let me go back and ask if there is something more.”

C and I were talking yesterday about how ridiculous it is that we still smoke (cigarettes). With all of the emphasis on breath – that breath is the absolutely most important and fundamental part of life and spirit – which should be kind of obvious – I really wonder if, when I begin hatha yoga, it will help me feel ready to just let go of the cigs. I want to want to. I am getting closer. Just not quite there yet. Hopefully between yoga, meditation, Chantix, a cervical cancer scare and the cold weather, I can give it a try.

Prana 101

January 29, 2009
My Upanishadic lesson today is a parable in which a boy learns from various animals that brahman is far flung, limitless, abode-posessing and radiant. This is in the CU 4.1.1-10. Each of four creatures reveals one quarter of brahman, but he still wants to hear it from a human teacher. I think that is largely out of respect.

Then in CU 4.1.10 that boy is the teacher, and he won’t teach this one student. His wife keeps saying, “You better teach him, before the fire beats you to it.” But he ignores her, and sure enough, the fire tells the student, “Brahman is breath; brahman is joy; brahman is space.” He says he understands the first part, but how can the others be right? How can brahman be joy AND be space? “They are the same thing,” says the fire.

But the explanation is more of those semantic, metaphoric chains of signification they so depend on in their magic; this word is like this word which is like that object which comes into the world the same way this does and therefore this last thing equals the first thing. Huh? [I unfortunately fell asleep here – drugs took me off so the pen just trails into unreadable, which is unfortunate because I think I was onto something.]

January 30
One last health thing I forgot to report that is preying on my mind a bit: my nurse practitioner called to tell me that the results of my PAP were abnormal, so she had them re-tested specifically for the HPV strain that causes cancer, and that was negative. She said that meant all we have to do now is wait and make sure I get tested again in 6 months, and step up the testing schedule. Of course, my mind stattered chattering away; why only the HPV test? Is that the only thing that causes cancer? And for a little bit I felt dismay, that “Oh no! How can one more thing go wrong” feeling. I haven’t even had a chance to demonstrate what I’ve learned from this last round!
I just have to trust her. Take the rest of the winter, spring, summer and early fall to put into practice what I think I’ve learned. Begin to incorporate my body into my spiritual development and discipline by learning yoga, and when I go for my physical in the fall, the results will hopefully reflect a changed reality. We will be eating from our garden and the farmer’s market, getting the exercise from gardening and walking in our neighborhood in addition to yoga, so my body ought to be super happy. We will just make it a place where cancer does not feel welcome and cannot find a foothold.

Turning to the fifth chapter of the CU, it begins with a series of statements that Socrates might not have argued with in principle – to know good is to do it. “When a man knows the most excellent, he becomes the most excellent.” In v.1, the “best and greatest” is breath. V.2, the “most excellent” is speech. V.3 the “firm base” is sight. V.4 “When a man knows the correspondences (sampad) his desires, both divine and human, are fulfilled. Correspondence is hearing.” V.5 Refuge is the mind.

We’ve seen these – breath, speech, sight, hearing and mind presented before in various ways. Sometimes with other things like smell, touch and taste as well. They are, together, the vital functions – prana. Sometimes prana seems to refer only to breath, and sometimes to all of them together. Verses 6-15 explain why, telling the same story told in the BU about how the vital functions argued about which was most important, agreed that each would leave for a year. Speech leaves, and the body lives like a mute for a year. When speech comes back, sight leaves, and the body lives for a year like a blind man. Then hearing leaves, and the body is deaf; when the mind leaves, the body is a simpleton for a year. Each of the years has its difficulties, but the body gets along. Then comes the breath’s turn. When breath tries to leave for its year apart, it so jerks all the other vital functions, in the way a fine horse would jerk all the stakes to which it is tethered, that they all gathered around him and implored, “Lord, please stay! You are the greatest among us, do not depart!” v. 12.

This is really helpful. I found it super confusing in some contexts. Studying the Upanishads sometimes feels like an uphill battle, or like a . . . not useless, but a task that will bring little benefit. A kind of luxury, intellectual playing at something, because the culture of the authors is so far distant from me in time and space and - - culture. How can I possibly know what they might have meant? The translation I have I’m sure is very good, because I trust his notes as a scholar. He explains why he makes the decisions he makes, who he is following and why, etc. But he is not a Hindu. He’s not an Indian. There is much about the culture he can’t explain, and there is much about the philosophy I don’t think he even begins to understand. The more I read, the more I realize that for him the scriptures are a very challenging and intriguing linguistic puzzle/task/work. And for that we can maybe trust his scholarship more; he has no side, no concern for how the chapters are interpreted spiritually. But that doesn’t help me get when I’m stuck philosophically.

So I was saying, sometimes it does get to feeling a bit too dry and scholarly for me. What does it mean that the breath is so important? I mean, both the BU and CU speak endlessly about it, and Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita and the Uddhava Gita said we had to get it under control as part of our devotion and discipline. How could I so blithely ignore that all this time? Doesn’t it mean that it isn’t just asanas I must add to meditation, but pranayama? Likely all the yoga methods include pranayama . . . or all the good ones.
I wonder if, after I have learned experientially some things about breath through those practices, if all the scriptures will take deeper significances. Like the Gita did after I had a mantra, and the U. Gita did after I’d been meditating. It still comes as such a shock to me – the person who has always lived so much in her head – that there are things that MUST be learned that CANNOT be learned with the mind. Whoa! Hunh? As an anthropological theorem I liked the idea of embodiment, embodied culture. It seemed true. But I still wasn’t really getting it, because I wasn’t putting my body through the experiences it needed to learn things.

In the end of the CU 5 comes a description of a collection of wealthy and wise households, all intent on learning more and understanding better what atman and brahman are. They travel together to two teachers. The second asks them each in turn what he venerates as brahman. Each has thought about it, and each has a different answer. Sky, wind, space, earth, sun, waters. The guru says to each, “That thing is brahman, but it is just the (head, foot, breath, arm, etc.) of brahman. Venerating it is good, it has brought you wealth and a family and standing among your people, but if you had continued to be so limited in your conception it would have killed you.” Waters are the bladder; it is good to have one, but if you keep filling it constantly, the bladder will eventually burst and kill you, sort of thing.

He gets them to see that brahman is all of that. All of those things at once. Then he gives them instructions for a ritual which the notes say became a very important one in the brahmanical tradition. In fact, it seems like one I could maybe do. With food, when eating one makes sacrifices in order – to the out-breath, the interbreath, the in breath, the link breath, the up breath, each time saying, “To the out breath, svaha.”
This rite is called praagihotra – the fire sacrifice in the vital breaths. Svaha, recall, is a word used in rituals that has no actual meaning. A ritual call to the gods. This seems an easy enough blessing, right? Especially once one knows what the breaths are?

Oooh. I decided to keep going and stumbled onto a treasure. First, it begins with a father requiring that his son go away and study rather that be a Brahmin in name only, which reminds me to record that there have been several indications that caste is more than a matter of birth at this time; in fact, birth is sometimes demonstrated to be irrelevant.

What Chapter Six is really about, though, is how the universe(s) – cosmos – come into being and how that determines the nature of the composition, development, and relationships. This is presented as a secret teaching; something the son was not taught at his Brahminical, Vedic school where he became arrogant and swell-headed. The father begins by presenting the “Law of Substitution,” which is almost cool enough. He says, “By means of just one lump of clay one would perceive everything made of clay – while the reality is just this, its clay.” He says the same with a copper trinket, by which one can perceive everything copper, and an iron tool, by which one could perceive everything iron, “It is a verbal handle, a name, while the reality is just this, the thing.”
I said this to C (a houseguest), said “think about this for awhile” and he said, “Well now, I’ve been thinking about that, about how the Bible says ‘In the Beginning was the Word.’ Why a word? What does it say there, does it say logos” I was stunned, because the very next part of the scripture is about the origin of the cosmos! “In the beginning . . .” I about fell off my little donut-pillow! How in the world had he made that leap? I said “That’s amazing!” and I read him the next part and we began discussing the merit of various origin stories, the meaning of the Garden of Eden myth and my rocky relationship with it and my current peaceful acceptance of it as a myth that explains god’s gift of choice and the pain of growth and knowledge. Then we got sidetracked by making menus and whatnot and I only just now got back to thinking about what this verse means and I just aksed him what his thought process was, how did he get from the thingness of a thing to the origin of the universe?

His answer made perfect sense; he was thinking about the word. Why IS it a “Word” that exists first? These verses insistence that it is “just verbal handles” while the reality is something else had made the connection. He was thinking about the Bible verse “the Word became flesh” and wondering if things aren’t existent until we name them. Do they have reality in and of themselves, beyond the words for them?

The Upanishad is saying yes – penetrate the word, the verbal handle, the mere name, and you will get to the reality of the thin-in-itself. Once you perceive the reality of copper or clay in one thing, you get “copperness” wherever copper is. Okay, so why does the Upanishad make the leap to the origin? To “in the beginning”?
It explains that this cosmos was “simply what is existent – one only, without a second” CU 6.2. Meaning there was a deity/being/consciousness/thing that existed befere/outside the cosmos. The father explains that some people teach that there was no existence – nothing – and out of that nothing, existence emerged, but that is wrong. The One existed, and it said to Itself, “Let us be many. Let me propogate myself.” And it emitted heat. Out of the heat came rain, and out of the rain came food. So these are the three essential characteristics of the deity and of every aspect of the cosmos; heat, water and food – according to this teaching.

In 6.3 he establishes that there are only 3 sources from which all creatures originate. More importantly, 6.3.2 “Then that same deity thought to itself: ‘Come now, why don’t I establish the distinctions of name and appearance by entering these three deities here with this living self (atman) and make each of them three-fold’.” In every thing, heat, water, food – red, white, black – are present in different quantities and distributions. Is this the origin of the three gunas? Like some of the early teachers/sages were figuring things out and got different pieces, and eventually it coalesced into the formulation presented in the Gitas and Puranas, which hangs together so well it hasn’t been seriously changed or challenged since.
Geez, reading one of the footnotes where he actually provides some insight makes me realize how very much I am NOT getting out of these scriptures. Well, it is a first time through. I’ll have them forever. One has to begin learning somewhere.
A little taste in CU 6.8.7, it concludes with “and that’s how you are, son.” Olivelle defends his translation, saying it is often translated “That art Thou.” The latter is impossible, claims Olivelle, because the pronoun ‘tat’ cannot refer either to ‘sat’ or to ‘animan’. The Sanskrit of the contested text is tat tvam asi. Anyway, the phrase “does not establish the identity between the individual and the ultimate being (sat), but rather shows that (the son) lives in the same manner as all the other creatures, that is, by an invisible and subtle essence; it indicates the cause of his existence.” P.349
The father has shown that the “whole world exists because of the essence, which is the truth and is lasting and real. It is the self, for everything exists in relation and reference to it. Then the father personalizes the teaching by making the son realize he should look upon himself the same way – he, like the tree and the world, is pervaded by the essence, which is his final reality and his true self.”
I was getting some of that, but not all. Ah well, how fun would it be if there was nothing to go back for?

Really Starting to Get It

It has gotten cold again, and snowing again, and very, very busy again. I keep hoping to be able to write a post about what is going on here right now today, but it keeps not happening. On the other hand, I re-read these old journal entries and find I am rediscovering many of the same things all over again, so it doesn't really matter : ) Development really is a spiral path. I might as well have written some of this today as I was reading the Svetasvatara Upanishad, which was written in the early days of the tradition that produced the Bhagavad Gita, maybe 200-400 years earlier.

May 24, 2007

I'm ready to begin the Thirteenth Teaching – Knowing the Field

I'm sure this is more beautiful, less awkward, in Sanskrit. "The field denotes this body" v. 1

The field contains the great elements,

Individuality, understanding,

Unmanifest nature, the eleven senses,

And the five sense realms. v. 5

Are the great elements individuality and understanding? Or something else? I think the latter. Individuality (ahamkara) is the ego, literally the "I-maker". I get that. Understanding (buddhi) is the "collective rational powers, including intuitive intelligence and capacity to make reasoned judgments." It is distinct from mind. In the chariot analogy, the senses are the horses, the mind the reins, understanding the charioteer, and the self the owner of the chariot. So the field, this thing we are to come to know, is all of the above and unmanifest nature, which seems intriguingly out of place in this list. Krishna adds:

Longing, hatred, happiness, suffering,

Bodily form, consciousness, resolve,

This is the field with its changes

Defined in summary. v. 6

So the field is also preference – what I like and dislike and emotional response to having my preferences and attachments fulfilled or not. My body, my thoughts and my will. These are all the parts of the field that I must come to know through disciplined practice. "Knowledge," reminds Krishna, "means humility, sincerity, non-violence, patience, honesty, reverence for one's teacher, purity, stability, self-restraint; dispassion toward sense objects and absence of individuality, seeing defects in birth, death, old age, sickness, and suffering; detachment, uninvolvement with sons, wife and home, constant equanimity in fulfillment or frustration; unwavering devotion to me with singular discipline; retreating to a place of solitude, avoiding worldly affairs; persistence in knowing the self, seeing what knowledge of reality means – all of this is knowledge". v. 7-11.

A pretty tall order. It seems to get harder as it goes along. I am pretty sincere; I am as non-violent as I can be though I do eat meat and I know my lifestyle – using plastic and driving to work – is pretty violent to the earth. I'm working on patience and humility. I can usually be patient with animals, children and students, tho the latter are sometimes a struggle. I am generally less patient with those from whom I expect more; my Dad, my husband, my colleagues. I am consciously working on being more patient with each. I can generally be pretty good with strangers, though I have to be ever vigilant that I don't lash out – in my mind – at other drivers, people in lines, etc.

I am generally honest, but will keep watching myself to see where I am tempted to be dishonest and why. I don't really have a teacher, but I'm kind of using Easwaran, since I get hs "thought of the day' in my e-mail and a monthly newsletter. I wish he were still alive.

Am I pure? Am I stable? I have no idea. How do we even define purity in our culture? Surely not in the same way any Hindu would, and especially one writing c. 150 CE. I'm stable in some ways and not in others. Surely I have a lot of room for improvement in the area of stabilizing my moods. And self-restraint . . . what's that? I have almost none. I eat and drink what I want, when I want. Smoke when I want. Don't exercise, or go for walks. I am not as out of control as I was 2 years ago, but still exert very little pressure on myself. I need to really work on this. Give myself plenty of little tasks thru the day in which I must resist an urge, exercise some self resistance. That will include working on dispassion toward sense objects.

I guess it all works together. Getting better at all the things listed above will help me develop the stuff on the bottom half of the list. I have a long journey ahead of me. I think we Americans begin in a hole, at a spiritual deficit. Because even if we were sometimes poor, we had far fewer opportunities to work on our self-restraint. Of course there are always opportunities for that, a thousand times a day. So I will really try to be more aware of those times and take advantage of them by not letting my will run rampant.

May 25

We are in the 13^th teaching. After describing what knowledge is, Krishna explains what is to be known. "For knowing it, one attains immortality; it is called the supreme infinite spirit, beginningless, neither being nor non-being." v.12. The Sanskrit here is Brahman, the Absolute.

Outside and within all creatures,

Inanimate but still animate,

Too subtle to be known,

It is far distant, yet near.

Undivided, it seems divided

Among creatures;

Understood as their sustainer,

It devours and creates them. v.16

These two verses speak the most to me right now. Brahman, God, the Universe and more, is outside us – is the image Krishna showed Arjuna in that terrifying vision. But that same glorious, all powerful being, infinite and immortal, is also inside us. Doesn't need to be invited in, just recognized as there. It is us – all of us, including my silly kitten Indiana who is laying on this page, and all the critters on the planets in that infinity that is brahman – we are brahman, we make it up. Brahman is across the Universe in a distant galaxy, and brahman is here, next to me in Indy, inside me as well. Which implies brahman knows everything simultaneously – not like a feed, from me to It, but because I am It. So cool. So trippy. This is part of what you see on acid trips, but without the darkness around the edges.

We are all one, undivided. It is an illusion that we are divided into J and I, Iraqi/American, Black and White, Human/Animal/Insect/Grass, and if that isn't trippy enough: earthling/creature from outer space! Supernova and comets, all of that is US, one big brahman, infinite spirit.

And maybe that dark edge is really there – not as an evil (though it makes sense that is how we would perceive it) but because brahman as Vishnu (and Krishna) sustains us, but as Shiva destroys, devours us, only to be created anew by Brahma. Important to understand that all that destruction is us, too.

In v. 17 it says, "Knowledge attained by knowledge, fixed in the heart of everyone." And in v.30, "When he perceives the unity existing in separate creatures and how they expand from unity, he attains the infinite spirit." These speak to me of the idea of brahman as a growing consciousness, one that is learning through its experiences of division. It is an idea I feel comfortable with, that makes sense to me. We expand as a unit from our collective learning. And so, these verses, 19-21, where Krishna explains how nature and man's spirit (atman) are called "causes" because through our agency we produce effects, we produce these experiences, support that conclusion. Our forgetfulness of who we really are and our attachment to our own creation "causes births in the wombs of good and evil." But that isn't a bad thing, it is our purpose. If we all remembered the Truth, we wouldn't be able to keep learning. No wonder this is secret knowledge, hard to obtain.

Witness, consenter, sustainer,

Enjoyer – the great lord

Is called the highest self,

Man's true spirit in this body. v.22

Oh, this really helps! We are our own witnesses. And this the most: a part of me, my highest part, consented to this life I'm living. Consented to the rough adolescence, the molestation, the struggle with drugs, the violence of Roger, and this, the PHN. I consented to this and sustain it because it is teaching me/Us something. We are the enjoyers of what we witness, and collectively we must have realized there was a lot to learn from pain. Krishna reminds us again and again that it isn't some Other, inflicting suffering on us. It is us. And once we really know this, experientially as well as intellectually, we will no longer be born again, no matter, Krishna says, what our current place in life is. This makes sense. Once you've found the hider, the game of hide and seek is over. But us, we, will not be over. We will have just moved off the field to the bleachers.

He really sees

Who sees the highest lord

Standing equal among all creatures,

Undecaying amidst destruction. v.27

When I look at a group of inner city teens, or Mexican peasants, or even George Bush and his neocons, I am looking at God. Though there is destruction, privation, desperation, hate, and evil all around them, in their highest parts, they are God, undecaying. A part of their spirit lives on.

Seeing the lord standing

The same everywhere,

The self cannot injure itself

And goes on the highest way. v.28

But of course. How can I be cruel to God? To myself? This feels like the real goal, the promise for daily life, the thing I want most. To see God everywhere, in everything and everyone, without trying.

Beginningless, without qualities,

The supreme self is unchanging;

Even abiding in a body, Arjuna,

It does not act, nor is it defiled. v. 31

Our true selves are not going to hell or heaven, though there seems room in this philosophy for those who are attached to it; their egos might indeed create and then experience the delights of heaven or the tortures of hell. Sure, why not? But their True self is me. Is J. Is Indy and Isi. No one is really going to hell except as an experience that we will all learn from.

They reach the highest state

Who with the eye of knowledge know

The boundary between the knower and his field,

And the freedom creatures have from nature. v. 34

To conclude the teaching – we are not our bodies or this world. We are completely free of nature. How wonderful if I could truly KNOW this, not as an intellectual puzzle, but with whole heart and mind and being. How can I come to know this that way? Only through meditation. That's it. Disciplined devotion. I did sit on the couch and try again last night. I must keep at it!

May 1-5, 2007

Would you believe we are having the second day over 35 degrees? Absolutely amazing! We haven't had such warmth since November or earlier. The huge piles of snow that piled up in December are slowly beginning to melt. These high temps are supposed to continue for nearly a week - we might even get some rain. If so, we may lose the snow cover and that will help the rest of the winter be warmer, since the sunshine won't all be reflected back into the atmosphere. It will begin to warm up the soil and thaw it out for spring planting. I am getting desperate for spring gardening.

May 1, 2007

In the Gita, Krishna had "finished" describing the disciplined person. Now Arjuna speaks for me by saying "I don't see how this can happen – my mind is as hard to hold as the wind."

Krishna says yes, it is hard, but with discipline you can do it. But if he strives to master himself, a man has the means to reach it v. 36. And Arjuna, thank you, again says, "But what if I can't do it?" What if I try, because of my faith, but find I haven't the discipline, can't get it? Are not I then doubly damned?" v.37-38.

Krishna says no, "He does not suffer doom in this world or the next" v.40. If we die before perfection in discipline is reached, Krishna promises that we will be reborn in a better place, positioned so that we may devote ourselves more fully to it.

"Carried by the force of his previous practice" suggests it's good to do whatever we can even if it isn't much, because that is less we'll have to do next life. We won't have to start from scratch. Discipline and devotion are never wasted.

May 4

Reading the Seventh Teaching again. Here is where Krishna really begins to reveal his true nature. His lower and upper natures (saguna and nirguna brahman?). These are such beautiful, such powerful passages, images – "All that exists is woven on me, like a web of pearls on a thread." He seems somewhat sad or lonely when he says:

All this world, deluded

By the qualities inherent in nature,

Fails to know that I am

Beyond them and unchanging. v.13

Like he created the world to have fellow creatures, and then it turned out that the material of creation made it impossible for creator and creature to communicate. Like an unforeseen problem. But the next verse changes the meaning, I think, and makes in more purposeful:

Composed of nature's qualities,

My divine magic is hard to escape;

But those who seek refuge in me

Cross over the magic.

At first I read this as the willful design of Krishna – his magic makes nature what it is in order to hide him from creatures. But he made a way for those who really want him, who are fed up with the barrier and want to return home, to cross. Then I had a glimpse of it being the other way; that despite being trapped by the things he set in motion, there is still a way for people to get to him. Either way, the point is that if we are devoted we can find him.

Arjuna, four types of virtuous men

Are devoted to me;

The tormented man, the seeker of wisdom,

The supplicant, and the sage.

Of these, the disciplined man of knowledge

Is set apart by his singular devotion;

I am dear to the man of knowledge,

And he is dear to me. v. 17

He goes on to describe the closeness further. I wish I had the Sanskrit here, because of course I want to be the one that is most dear! I believe he is saying the jnana yogi, which makes sense in context. I'm not sure what the difference between "the seeker of wisdom" and "the sage" would be. In English there isn't much difference. I really need to get my hands on an original copy and some other translations.

Jnana is the method/path laid out in the Upanishads. The secret knowledge that we are in fact god. That there is atman brahman inside each of us, and that all we have to do is find it and identify with it. So easy sounding! The "tormented man" and the "supplicant" are/must be practitioners of bhakti or karma yoga, or the former one can be seen as not a yogi at all but someone who throws himself, with complete abandon, on god's mercy.

Krishna promises that the jnana yogi will, after many lives, find refuge in him. He says that others, "robbed of knowledge by stray desires" take refuge in other deities, so those who need something to do with the senses, or individuality, or something like that, get caught up in the promises of other gods, "limited by their own nature." And here is what I love about Krishna and about Hinduism.

Krishna does not speak angrily about these people. He does not condemn them to everlasting torment, to any kind of hell. Amazing, isn't it? Instead of jealously blasting them, he says:

I grant unwavering faith

To any devoted man who wants

To worship any form

With faith.

Disciplined by that faith,

He seeks the deity's favor;

Thus secured, he gains desires

That I myself grant. v. 22

So anyone who devotes themselves faithfully to ANY god receives blessings from Krishna, or from Universal, Absolute Reality, as we understand Krishna to be. There is no punishment, except:

But finite is the reward

That comes to men of little wit;

Men who sacrifice to the gods reach the gods;

Those devoted to me reach me. v. 23

You can have what you want. If all you are able to see is Siva, or Yahweh, then please, devote yourself and you will be rewarded with what you asked for. But you will still be unsatisfied because you are still not united with the Ground of Ultimate Being.

May 5

[Description of rude treatment at town's only Indian restaurant]

There is very little chance I would be welcomed with open arms into the Indian community. And it hurt, and made me sad to remember that in reality, in the world I live in, even Hindu Indians tend to be misogynists. At minimum they are mostly racist, elitist, sexist, patriarchal bigots. Maybe it is just the city Brahmins. One can hope. And yes, I know I am making sweeping, stereotypical judgements. But I'm not wrong about the racism, sexism and classism, am I? So what are the chances of a white woman approaching these guys and asking about learning Hindu rites? Yeah, right. So I feel sad. There is a big Hindu temple not too super far away – about an hour's drive. But I don't think I'll be going unless I can find a woman to invite me. Everywhere, everywhere, people do not practice what they preach. Disappointing.

I am undeterred. Some of the best Christians are people who came to it from different traditions and should shame those born to it. Why should I be different? I can devote myself to jnana yoga under the protection of Krishna if I so desire, and I do, and bigots cannot say no.

. . .

I had an insight last night as I was washing my face before bed. I caught my own eye in the mirror several times as I was saying my mantra, and I remembered back to when I learned how to do that. As a child I sometimes sang to God while looking in the mirror, and I remember doing that in Spokane and a couple of other places and times in my life.

But through the bad years, it was rare. I never – or almost never – looked at my own eyes except by accident. I had too much shame. When I accidentally did, I would look away; my face burning in . . . shame is the only appropriate word. It was actually an assignment that E (a counselor in my late teens/early 20s) gave me as part of my therapy, and it was a big deal that I had to plan for and arrange. I was in the apartment on __________ (J & R's building). I lit candles, and sat on the floor in front of a floor-length mirror, and had to work up to meeting my own gaze.

I had a talk with myself, and I forced myself to admire my face and my eyes, and then to look deep . . . and what I found in there was love. Forgiveness. Even admiration, or no - adoration, peace in my conflict-ridden life; a pool of calm, quiet acceptance. No shame. Nothing to be ashamed of. And I cried and cried and cried, and promised to take better care of me, and I began to heal.

It wasn't long after that that I refused to have sex with people I didn't want to, which meant I soon lost the apartment and was homeless again. But I didn't have to drink as much, and I got more serious about school; I began to build a life for myself. Began journaling not long after.

I realize now that looking into my own eyes and finding that love was a huge part of it. It was a spiritual moment, as I had as a child. And in Spokane and ever since then I have had those moments, talking to God through the mirror.

So last night all of this clicked, and I realized what it meant: I have always found God inside myself. At a younger age I might have interpreted that as Jesus inside my heart, having been invited there at three. And maybe that is also true. But I believe now that is my Atman Brahman, the piece of God that is me.

So I have some experience of this, I know what Krishna means when he speaks of the inner spirit, the infinite spirit inside. I'm so excited, because I was thinking it would be hard to even feel it, or really get it. And so to realize that I have always known this – that God is in me, God is me. I am my own Conscience – it is myself I was afraid of disappointing, of shaming, of letting down. I was afraid the person in my eyes would be cold and unforgiving. Because who knows better than I how bad I've been, who knows every secret mean, envious, untruthful, selfish thought? I was terrified of her judgment of me, and her condemnation. Her contempt. Instead of all those things I found a tender, forgiving, all-encompassing love. Who can love like that but God?

There was and has been since at times also gentle but firm reminders that now I must do what is right, turn away from behavior that hurts me and others. But all in love. At a time, at all the times I hate myself, there was this person inside me, loving me. Wow.

I cannot lie to my own eyes. I need to always remember that as a test. But this is bigger than that. It means I have a platform on which to build. Krishna's next teaching is all about that.

The Eighth Teaching: The Infinite Spirit

Arjuna asks Krishna about his last statement in the 7^th teaching, when Krishna says

Men who know me as the inner being,

Inner divinity, and inner sacrifice

Have disciplined their reason;

They know me at the time of their death.

He asks how this infinite spirit can be in the body. What is it? Krishna answers:

Eternal and supreme is the infinite spirit;

Its inner self is called inherent being;

Its creative force, known as action [karma]

Is the source of creatures' existence.

Its inner being is perishable existence;

Its inner divinity is man's spirit'

I am the inner sacrifice

Here in your body, O Best of Mortals.

A man who dies remembering me

At the time of death enters my being

When he is freed from his body;

Of this there is no doubt. v. 5

Wow. I am really tripping, to use an old phrase. As I wrote this, my mind kept going to Jesus. Don't these words sound familiar? Could it be that Jesus was teaching this exact same stuff, but people around him didn't get it? Brahman is the Sanskrit she's translating as Infinite Spirit. I might prefer she left it as is or used the more common translation – Absolute.

The fourth verse seems strangely worded, and I seem to have struggled with it before. Brahman's inner being is perishable existence? Or is it that brahman is the inner being of perishable existence? Brahman is the inner being of man's spirit. And brahman sacrifices itself here in our bodies. Just like Jesus, except his followers didn't understand that he meant God was in all of us.