Individual and Social Ethics

What an incredible discussion here! I have had many experiences involving "light" and I can attest to being quite imbalanced. (Thank you for not using the word "crazy.") I never asked for these experiences; they came unbidden. However, they have kept me searching for the Light outside of the Darkness I have all too often found myself in; a darkness of the mind.

I am so glad you are posting these discussions for all of us who can't be there... they are *almost* as good as the real thing. I feel that I am being given a chance to learn from many different viewpoints, all from the comfort - or distance - of my home. Gracias amigos; bendiciones. Little by little Grace will come.

"The winds of grace blow all the time. All we need do is set our sails."

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa ~ Gospel of Ramakrishna

Many thanks for your kind message brother Sanjeev. As you will see soon, I'm only a fierce mirror reflecting the light of the universe. What you are seeing/reading is no other thing but you ;-) This is my job: to live in radical joyous shared servanthood, and the way that I do it, is through finding the incredible inspiration inside each one of us. When the time comes, I'd be delighted to attend to the Wednesdays hosted by you so that we can connect further at the SOULlular level. Certainly, I promise to be an attentive guest _listener_ ;-) 

Dear Friends  I just found your forum.  I must first say Thank You to All for your very kind

reception on Wed. Dec. 22, 2010  and ask your kind permission to say a few additional

words in your forum.                                                                                                                     

I very much enjoy your spirited dialog.                                                            

There are many points to be clarfied, but I'll just address a few for the moment

A persons Reality is based on their experience,  But have you experienced everything?

No.

So we must say honestly, My experience is incomplete.

Incomplete knowlege or experience can not give a complete picture.

The student of the supreme truth must honor their experience,  But always hold the word

possibly  or better yet,  Perhaps in their mind.

This openess can lead to unimagined  possibilies.

This prudent openess honors the fact , that our understanding is constantly evolving.

There is truly very little black and white in life.  Much depends on your present level of

perception.  Each of us, does the best we can, with what we have. Considering this type

of openess,  it may be wise to soften  our hard / harsh judgements about life's various issues.

My Guruji  Sant Keshavadas would always say    " every saint has a past and every sinner has

a future".

We must be mindful of our limitations, the senses -  the ego -  the mind itself.

As vastly powerful as the mind is,   Yet  the Reality / God  exist beyond the mind.

Another topic,  to my surprise,that is reoccurring is  Mysticism.

Mysticism is the natural events,  and  experiments taken, as one thoughtfully approches God.

This process is intrinsically bound to the sacred heart / the inner heart.

The more selfless the pursuit, the greater the mysticism.

Dear Friends, I hope my few simple words aids in bringing deeper insight to these very subtle

topics. With good fortune I pray to engage your many questions personally in the future.

With Great Respect,

Haricharan Das

 Pancho,

Thanks for summarizing your thoughts so nicely. Probably you should become our guest speaker in one of our wednesday meditation. I liked the way you presented your thoughts.

The true spirituality is about connecting with one self--meditation helps us in this process. You have summarized it so nicely:

"May all become compassionate,courageous and wise"

True spirituality is about becoming compassionate, truthful and honest human being--in fact we can add a lot to this long list of virtues.

Also I agree that Nature is our great Guru--the keen observation of nature with meditative mind has led to lot of discoveries in physical and spiritual sciences. 

You then mentioned that Conscience is our Guru-Meditation helps us in this process--when we sit quietly then we connect to our "True Self" or conscience--we see ourselves in "pure" or "true"  form.

In fact, word "Mantra" means state of deep meditation and most of the discoveries-both in physical and spiritual world- happens through "Mantra" or deep meditation. Ancient Rishis ( or professors) made lot of discoveries through "Mantra" or deep meditation. "Mantra" is not about reading a "hymn" in Sanskrit--when we say that certain event or discovery happened through a "Mantra"--that basically means that a certain Rishi or professor discovered certain mystery in the physical or spiritual science through deep meditation or research--not much different from the discoveries made by present day "PhD" student or researcher.

The books on spiritual sciences such as "Gita", "Guru Granth Sahib", "Vedas" and "Upanishads" are also our Guru since they guide us in the  discovery of "Mystical"  world of spiritual sciences.

[...] 

I just want to make some clarifications here. I am not presenting any theory or new interpretation of "Vedas" or "Mantra". The word "Veda" has come from sanskrit word "Vid" or Knowledge. Vedic hymns are called "Mantra" because the spiritual knowledge in these books was acquired through deep research or meditation by Rishis or Professor in the field of Spiritual sciences. 

[...]

My family calls me Pancho and I'd like you to know that I love you all. 

"If you have the fortune of living with a Guru, a true master, at the end of the day, you only have two statements: 'Yes' and 'Thank You'. 'Yes' to his instruction, guidance and mission and 'Thank You' for the opportunity and his infinite blessings."

 Somik,  thanks for a your thoughtful and detailed reply.

I guess that we have to sometime sit together and discuss the issues in detail. Sometimes, it is not that easy to discuss spiritual issues over the message board. In addition, I am not good at writing long emails. Anyway, let me summarize my thoughts and we could take our discussions further when we next meet in person.

I am against organized religion because it is relatively a new concept--may be few thousand years old. There is no mention of word "Hindu" in anyone of the so called Hindu scriptures-Vedas, Gita, Ramayan etc. Gita and Vedas talk about Manav Dharma and do not address a particular sect or community. We limit the scope of a book on spirituality to a section of society once we start using word "Holy" before that.  This does not happen in the world of physical sciences and this has lead to the tremendous progress in the realm of physical sciences. Like Physical science, spiritual science is also for the benefit of humanity and should be shared and should not be associated with an organized religion or sect.

I believe that Physical science has its limitations--even characteristics of sub-atomic particles are known through inference and one needs the help of spiritual science to look at the world subtler than sub-atomic particles. We can go into that world through practice of meditation and Yogic sciences.

I think that there is a bit of confusion when we talk of  "Mysticism". Respected Haricharn Das ji made a very interesting observation--no one would believe him if he could travel on a space ship to Galaxies come back to the earth and tell people about his experiences--I agree with him on that--there are still some people who do not believe that man ever went to moon. If a master or enlightened person comes to me and says that enlightenment is like seeing million suns at the same time then I would believe him.  I believe in this kind of "Mysticism"--I believe that Yogic science teaches us how to reach there and there are people, who have reached there. It is not easy but possible--it is about going in a world subtler than sub-atomic particles.

However, I would not believe in miracles seen through naked eyes. I think that Physical science can explain everything that we see from our eyes. For instance, our mythology says that Prahalad was thrown in to the fire and nothing happened to him--this kind of things are unbelievable and I refuse to believe them--the Dharma of Fire is to burn and it will burn irrespective of whether  the body thrown into Fire is that of a godly person or sinner. Physical science can not explain things that are subtler than sub-atomic particles--you have to go to spiritual scientist for that. However, it can explain most of the things that we through naked eyes. I agree that there can be some unknown things and God will let us know about those things through in course of time through some scientist in future.

Sanjeev, you raise some very interesting (and important) questions.

Some random reflections.. At the end of the day, we live in action. So, it matters little if I believe in the pink fairy in the sky or am a devout atheist, as long as my decisions don't change. It seems to me that with your worldview, you value much the same things as I do - that is what counts. This is even more fascinating if one reads Russell's passage - it is deeply spiritual in the truest essence. Russell is asking us to think about what makes life meaningful. Feynman was no different, and both were proclaimed atheists. Feynman writes that it does not matter how we arrive at our scientific theories, as long as we do. One could have been soaking in a bathtub when the bulb went on, or one might have been riding on a bus when an aha moment appeared. No one really knows what inspiration led our scientists to come up with their imaginative theories. The realm of science only begins once the theory is in front of us and we can test it.

However, I guess that we need to talk a bit more about "mysticism". For instance, it was difficult for me to believe the story regarding the column of light that he saw in his Guru during his birthday celebration. I would like to be proven wrong.

To tackle the major premise itself - I am not convinced of the helpfulness of craving supernatural experiences. Many crave such experiences and then become imbalanced, sometimes even after getting it. That may also be the reason that Hari had to really be coaxed into sharing such a personal story (it certainly was the reason why I didn't consider it important to share earlier).

The rest of this post is on the minor premise - whether we can then claim any of this to be a science if we cannot experience what someone else claims to have experienced. You and I can watch the same movie, and have a very different experience. To expect to have the same experience is to have an unrealistic expectation, simply because we have different starting beliefs.

But then, how is this a science?

I have found two ideas helpful. One is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Conflating the two would be a mistake of logic. Including this principle in our reasoning would help us expand our field of examination.

The second comes from Swami Vivekananda's remarkable introduction to Raja Yoga:
"The teachers all saw God; they all saw their own souls, they saw their future, they saw their eternity, and what they saw they preached. Only there is this difference that by most of these religions especially in modern times, a peculiar claim is made, namely, that these experiences are impossible at the present day; they were only possible with a few men, who were the first founders of the religions that subsequently bore their names. At the present time these experiences have become obsolete, and, therefore, we have now to take religion on belief. This I entirely deny. If there has been one experience in this world in any particular branch of knowledge, it absolutely follows that that experience has been possible millions of times before, and will be repeated eternally. Uniformity is the rigorous law of nature; what once happened can happen always.

The teachers of the science of Yoga, therefore, declare that religion is not only based upon the experience of ancient times, but that no man can be religious until he has the same perceptions himself. Yoga is the science which teaches us how to get these perceptions. It is not much use to talk about religion until one has felt it. Why is there so much disturbance, so much fighting and quarrelling in the name of God? There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause, because people never went to the fountain-head; they were content only to give a mental assent to the customs of their forefathers, and wanted others to do the same. What right has a man to say he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite."

"In the first place, every science must have its own method of investigation. If you want to become an astronomer and sit down and cry "Astronomy! Astronomy!" it will never come to you. The same with chemistry. A certain method must be followed. You must go to a laboratory, take different substances, mix them up, compound them, experiment with them, and out of that will come a knowledge of chemistry. If you want to be an astronomer, you must go to an observatory, take a telescope, study the stars and planets, and then you will become an astronomer. Each science must have its own methods. I could preach you thousands of sermons, but they would not make you religious, until you practiced the method. These are the truths of the sages of all countries, of all ages, of men pure and unselfish, who had no motive but to do good to the world. They all declare that they have found some truth higher than what the senses can bring to us, and they invite verification. They ask us to take up the method and practice honestly, and then, if we do not find this higher truth, we will have the right to say there is no truth in the claim, but before we have done that, we are not rational in denying the truth of their assertions. So we must work faithfully using the prescribed methods, and light will come."

Based on this logic, the question is whether we have setup, conducted and finished the experiment properly to be in a position to judge its outcome. Those who feel they have done the experiment properly and have not received the results are totally justified (and perhaps morally obligated) to denounce the claim. In the context of last night's assertion, if we clean our heart, and the good guests don't come, then we can rightly proclaim that that assertion was wrong.

Now, just for fun, here's a kicker - compare the following:

Swami V in Introduction to Raja Yoga:
"The end and aim of all science is to find the unity, the One out of which the manifold is being manufactured, that One existing as many."

Feynman, in The Uncertainty of Science, writes the following about Michael Faraday's discovery that led to electrochemistry:

"He had discovered that the thing that determined the cominbations of iron and oxygen which make iron oxide, is that some of them are elctrically plus and some of them are elctrically minus, and they attract each other in definite proportions. He also discovered that electricity comes in units, in atoms. Both were important discoveries, but most exciting was that this was one of the most dramatic moments in the history of science, one of those rare moments when two great fields come together and are unified. He suddenly found that two apparently different things were different aspects of the same thing. Electricity was being studied, and chemistry was being studied. Suddelny they were two aspects of the same thing - chemical changes with the results of electrical forces. And they are still understood that way."

What I find fascinating about all this is that I can be an atheist on some days of the week, and this unity principle still does not leave me alone - it is there, dancing its dance :). The biggest irony of all is that the secular humanists, although usually against organized religion, proclaim this underlying unity as the basis for their moral philosophy. Hmm.. so what was the debate about again? :)

Happy Holidays!

 Somik,

Thanks for capturing the important points from yesterday's talk. I also really enjoyed respected Haricharan Das ji's talk and  was impressed by him.

However, I guess that we need to talk a bit more about "mysticism". For instance, it was difficult for me to believe the story regarding the column of light that he saw in his Guru during his birthday celebration. I would like to be proven wrong. I had heard these kind of stories about other Gurus also but I have never had this sort of personal experience. Sometimes, my feeling is that some followers of Gurus treat their Gurus as God and start seeing super natural powers in them. For instance, I recently met San Rajinder Singhji Maharaj ( www.sos.org) and I heard similar stories about him from his followers. I am also following his Path but I do not see God in him like his other followers.

I do believe in the existence of spiritual people, who bring to us the science of spirituality but I only see in them a spiritually advanced person-not God. These people are much closer to God than many of us are.  

Sanjeev

I am so glad I made it last night, for we were treated by the presence of Haricharan Das. The irony was not lost upon me that the Wednesday focused on Bertrand Russell's reflections was also the Wednesday with the most mention of God. :)

Hari shared many stories, which have been beautifully captured by Richard Whittaker far better than I could possibly attempt. Instead of recounting them here, readers can refer to In the Company of Saints. I will instead focus on Hari's philosophy.

He started out by saying that feelings of goodness are not enough. There must be action, otherwise the feelings are just entertainment. When one is moved to help others, one must get up and do so. Bravo! He also clarified at the beginning that he uses the word "God" to denote "reality as it is" and encouraged people to replace it by whatever word they preferred.

He shared about Gandhi - the man was shot dead, and with his last few breaths, he uttered the name of God. Hari reminded us how at the slightest difficulty, we forget God altogether, and instead uttery "Oh no!" or "Why me?" It is only possible to die with God's name if like Gandhi, we've practiced living with God's name.

He shared how he got into his spiritual quest through his candle flame story (see Richard's interview). That made him realize there were things that he really did not know. He emphasized a ruthless determination to get to the truth that is a hallmark of the spiritual quest. To me, this is the essence of science. I would be committing intellectual fraud if I claimed to be a scientist, and yet, closed my mind to phenomena that I did not understand. Reading Richard Feynman (in The Uncertainty of Science) last night, I came across the following:

"When the scientist tells you he does not know the answer, he is an ignorant man. When he tells you he has a hunch about how it is going to work, he is uncertain about it. When he is pretty sure of how it is going to work, and he tells you, "This is the way it's going to work, I'll bet," he still is in some doubt. And it is of paramount importance, in order to make progress, that we recognize this ignorance and this doubt. Because we have the doubt, we then propose looking in new directions for new ideas. The rate of the development of science is not the rate at which you make observations alone but, much more important, the rate at which you create new things to test."

My professor, who is uber-rational, taught me a thing or two on scientific attitude. He used to organize a group called "Beyond Rationality," which we restarted, where only topics that could not be discussed in a classroom could be brought in. The requirement of the participants in the group was to come in, neither as a believer, nor as a disbeliever. In my mind, that required presence and openness. So, when someone claimed that his sister had an eerily lucky hand in her die rolls whenever they played board games, that would invite questions like "What about when she rolls the die for other people?" and not "Are you taking grass?" Hard to put a label on the third attitude (neither a believer nor a skeptic), but sufficeth to say that it is possible to come from that space, and experience the learning that results.

Hari kept using the word "mysticism" and this brought up an interesting question after-hours on the connection between mysticism and science. Mysticism is the science of the future that we haven't caught up with. It was not that far back when thunder was the weapon of the Gods. Today, it is the play of the clouds rubbing against each other. To explain this phenomena to one who does not possess the language of electricity or physics is like explaining a mystical subject. Interestingly, Swami Vivekananda firmly rejected all mysticism not by dropping down to the level of intellectual dishonesty and ignoring phenomena, but by encouraging us to raise our level of science with a ruthless determination to penetrating the deepest mysteries of the universe. I think that was also the essence of Hari's talk yesterday.

One question that came up was how to balance service with spirituality. Hari said they were no different. To serve others selflessly was the highest spiritual practice. Another question was on music and stillness. Hari said that music and stillness were both valid paths to reach God. Art was also a valid path - the first thing he sees in art is the "I" of the artist perceiving the universe, a deep spiritual act. There are many dimensions beyond that which takes the viewer even deeper.

To a question on what people with no Guru should do, he responded that everyone had a Guru at their personal level - their own conscience. At another level, nature is also our Guru - it teaches us so much. We find layers of Gurus. He talked about having one root Guru who guides us and blesses us to be able to gain knowledge from several other Gurus, but this root Guru is the one who opens the door for the disciple directly to God (or reality). He also said that liberation is the destiny of all - it is not a matter of "if," but a matter of "when," and to him, the mercy of God was in the infinite cycle of birth and death where we get to try again and again.

To a question on whether women could be gurus, he responded, "Of course! There is absolutely no difference between men and women in terms of spiritual ability. The only reason we don't hear about women teachers is because men control the press." When asked if his day job in painting was a mystical experience, he responded, "No, it is hard work."

What touched me the most was his total acceptance. In response to a question, he said, "God(Reality/Truth) opens many doors for us. When the door of teaching opens for me, I go and teach. When it closes, I do what is in front of me. It is all God's work." Later on, I asked him why he closed his ashram. His response, "Oh, the lease expired." That's it. He didn't fight it, or try advertizing campaigns. So he now paints houses to pay the bills and shares his journey with whoever asks for it. That blew me away.

Another gem: "The Universe is putting on a galactic show for our benefit, which is on all the time. We somehow choose not to see it." Recalling Feynman (same essay as quoted above),

"... there are the atoms. Beautiful - mile upon mile of one ball after another ball in some repeating pattern in a crystal. Things that look quiet and still, like a glass of water with a covered top that has been sitting for several days, are active all the time; the atoms are leaving the surface, bouncing around inside, and coming back, What looks still to our crude eyes is a wild and dynamic dance."

Interestingly, Hari does not prefer to share much about his mystical experiences. He shared in the interview and last night that people draw wrong conclusions and turn away. He prefers to focus on meditation and practical questions, from his own experience and the knowledge of the Yoga Sutras. One gem was "Treat your heart like your home. When you keep it clean, (good) guests will come." That was the message of his life - he kept purifying himself and found himself in the company of saints. Another thing I liked about him - he did not engage in false modesty. He told the truth as best he could.

Upon requests to share an unbelievable story, he shared about a time when he knew a person whose Guru was not alive. This person had a deep connection with her Guru and told Hari that she was talking to him. Hari decided to test it, as it was too crazy to believe. He walked into his library, picked a book, opened a page, and then asked this person to share the contents of the page by asking her Guru. The next thing he knew, she rattled off the entire page.

When someone later on went to him for advice, he shared, "People look at me differently - as a guru, teacher, friend, painter, etc. I cannot control what they think. But I can control my practice. So the most important thing is that no matter what other people think about you, stick to your spiritual practice." During his talk, he also emphasized not caring about what other people think, and the importance of settling on any one practice that we can go deep in, and not be forever sampling at the surface level.

After-hours, when pressed further about the need for a Guru, he said something very interesting. When we practice by ourselves, and start to gain benefits, it is easy for us to lose our minds and think that we are big achievers. That stops our progress. When we have a Guru who we see as a manifestation of God, we have something to compare to, and will keep ourselves humble. The essence of what he said, in my mind, is universal, in that, when we surround ourselves with saintly people who serve as an example for us, they are in a sense taking the position of a Guru we look up to, and compare ourselves to whenever our ego tries to rise up.

The penultimate question in the circle was from CFDad, who asked about Gurus who would perform  miracles to impress disciples. Isn't that a distraction? Hari totally agreed, and called it magic, distinguishing it from mysticism. He opined that most people were not trained to distinguish between the two. Magic to him was about self-aggrandizement, inflating the ego. Mysticism was about relinquishing the ego, letting go of all and going toward reality/truth/God. Interestingly, he also said that "yogis know the difference, but are too kind and don't say too much. Ultimately, the kingdom takes care of it." And he laughed, as he often did last night.

To me, a sign of spiritual depth is how someone laughs. Haricharan Das laughs like a man who has found his peace.

It was interesting to listen to thoughts of guest others and others on wednesday meditation.

Someone mentioned that she was new to spirituality. My feeling is that everyone is spiritual. Anyone, who is connected to his/her spirit is a spiritual person..anyone who is truthful, honest or has compassion in spiritual. If you have element of aforementioned virtues then you are a spiritual person. I have not met a single peson, who is a personification of all vices or devil--similalrly I have not seen or met any person, who is a personification of all virtues or God.

Couple of weeks back, i quoted a hymn from Yajusveda that says--God is perfect, formless and unborn. I tend to agree with this notion. Humans can not be perfect and hence I do not believe in the notion of Avatar or reincarnation of God in human form. personalities like Ram, Krishna, Gandhi were great souls but they were not perfect--they all made mistakes in their lives.

My spirtual training has taught me to do "Charitra" Puja ( emulate great people-learn from their lives) not "Chitra" Puja ( worshipping of pictures or idols).. If you want to worship Ram then become courageous like him and fight against injustice.

I fully agree with Respected Dineshji regarding his question on mysticism. I have met many Gurus but i have not seen any miracles with my own eyes--my feeling is that all this talk of miracles is nothing but illusion. I beleive in great masters and Gurus but I do not believe in any miracles. Every one is bound by the Physical laws or Nature--again created by God. Respected Haricharn Das ji mentiojned that Nature was also a Guru. I agree with him on this but I do not belive that any Guru or Master can do something that goes against the physical laws.