A Heart Full of Love

Have you ever had that feeling? It can come from many places, but only if you give yourself the opportunity. My personal experiences of this feeling have greatly multiplied over the last year. They have come from events like meditation, singing Kirtan, holding or talking to a child, spending quiet time with someone you care about, watching a sunrise/sunset or even just driving down the road. But you have to be open to receive it. 

The feeling I'm talking about one is where your heart literally feels full. Like there's not enough space in your chest to hold it. It's a feeling of deep connection and resonance between your inner self and the rest of creation. It's a feeling of openness too. Like your heart is directly connected to something else, something greater than you. This isn't quite traditional American emotion love of another individual. That's a more specific feeling, different from this one. When you love a Significant Other, for example, you may be willing to take risks to protect them, to share deep inner thoughts with them, to feel a solid connection based on shared experiences. But that's different and more narrow than what I'm talking about here. Opening yourself up to another person may be a good start, but it's not the end point - you need to open yourself up to everything, to nature, to the world, to the Universe. 

Verily, I cannot find the words to express it more clearly. I hope that you have had the opportunity to experience this at least once in this life so far. It's painful to think that many people out there have never grasped this feeling.  Holding a peaceful mind and a compassionate heart allows you to find this experience in more places and more readily, in my experience.

I do know for certain that there are actions that make this feeling simply impossible. Some examples:

• Being angry - anger at another person or events precludes any possible positive inner emotions to be realized
• Being unkind - differentiated from anger, because you can be unkind in your actions even if you're not angry
• Violence - I am willing to bet not a single human on this planet has held love in their heart during an act of violence. You cannot aim to injure another living being in the name of Love. If you can hold a gun in your hand and feel Love, you have some serious issues that need to be resolved. There may be feelings of power and dominance that narrow minded people attribute to love, but this is self-loving. And one of the causes of personal suffering. 
• Revenge - If another has harmed you or someone you love, revenge is a common modern reaction. "You hurt mine, so I shall hurt you." This is folly. Additional pain and hate does not heal or resolve the initial action. This is a viscous cycle and nothing to do with Love. 
• Over-indulgence - This could cover many things from drinking and drugs to money and physical possessions to sexual or other personal gratification. Yes, there are use cases, in my opinion, where partaking in these events is harmless. Alcohol and mild drugs can ease social tensions and temporarily relieve personal suffering. Most everyone in a modern society needs some money and possessions. Sex and some selfish acts are obviously fun and lead to temporary happiness. The over-indulgence or uncontrolled attachment is where the problems start.

When the true goal is the end of suffering and helping every living being find eternal happiness, these are roadblocks and distractions. One must aim to live their life in harmony with nature and other living beings. This brings you closer to feeling, as best as we can in these temporary earthly bodies, that resonance and connection of the vibrations of the Universe hidden from our plain sight. 

Realize, too, that you don't need to be sitting on a beautiful warm beach watching the sun rise to achieve this ecstatic feeling of Love. You can find it driving down the road, being in tune with the present moment, with the Now, and viewing the leaf-less trees on a bitterly cold winter day. But you have to be personally open and available to receiving it. Then when it strikes.... Oh my! What joy and happiness! Tears well up in your eyes, your heartbeat quickens, and the vibrations of the Universe pass freely through you. Ecstasy. It's available all the time. You just need to put aside the angry mind, the fear and hate preached by so many vitriol people in this world. World peace starts with inner peace. Loving Everyone starts with Loving Yourself.

 

A little tangent here as I was working through these thoughts:  I am not Christian, and many of the words I've used above are from Eastern traditions and not modern Christianity. However, I firmly believe true Christians think of this experience in a similar way. These people are Christians who look to the words and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament and other resources to find the message of Light and Love he consistently preached. Very little of this can be found in the Old Testament world of a vengeful and controlling supreme being. There primary tools in the Old Testament is fire and brimstone, fear and revenge. And the "Christians" who pull from such sources to argue against science, who expound hateful messages against people who are different from them, who self-righteously claim they are due to inherit the kingdom of heaven while shoving anyone else to the side, these are not people of Light and Love. These are not true Christians. These are people full of self-love and are only increasing suffering in the world around them. And they will never find their heart so full of Love that they just need to sit for a moment and weep in happiness. I feel sorry for them.

“The moment you understand yourself as the true Self, you find such peace and bliss that the impressions of the petty enjoyments you experienced before become as ordinary specks of light in front of the brilliant sun.” -- Swami Satchidananda, The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

Credit for the image

The Egg

Ran across this story somewhere (maybe imgur). I did not write this and take no credit, but found it touching. And I thought about several times after I read it, and believe it deserves a wider audience so I'm reposting. The author is Andy Weir and his post can be found here. 

You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And that’s when you met me.
“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”
“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.
“There was a… a truck and it was skidding…”
“Yup,” I said.
“I… I died?”
“Yup. But don’t feel bad about it. Everyone dies,” I said.
You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. “What is this place?” You asked. “Is this the afterlife?”
“More or less,” I said.
“Are you god?” You asked.
“Yup,” I replied. “I’m God.”
“My kids… my wife,” you said.
“What about them?”
“Will they be all right?”
“That’s what I like to see,” I said. “You just died and your main concern is for your family. That’s good stuff right there.”
You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didn't look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.
“Don’t worry,” I said. “They’ll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didn't have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If it’s any consolation, she’ll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.”
“Oh,” you said. “So what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?”
“Neither,” I said. “You’ll be reincarnated.”
“Ah,” you said. “So the Hindus were right,”
“All religions are right in their own way,” I said. “Walk with me.”
You followed along as we strode through the void. “Where are we going?”
“Nowhere in particular,” I said. “It’s just nice to walk while we talk.”
“So what’s the point, then?” You asked. “When I get reborn, I’ll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life won’t matter.”
“Not so!” I said. “You have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just don’t remember them right now.”
I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. “Your soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. It’s like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if it’s hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, you've gained all the experiences it had.
“You've been in a human for the last 48 years, so you haven’t stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, you’d start remembering everything. But there’s no point to doing that between each life.”
“How many times have I been reincarnated, then?”
“Oh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.” I said. “This time around, you’ll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.”
“Wait, what?” You stammered. “You’re sending me back in time?”
“Well, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.”
“Where you come from?” You said.
“Oh sure,” I explained “I come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know you’ll want to know what it’s like there, but honestly you wouldn't understand.”
“Oh,” you said, a little let down. “But wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.”
“Sure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you don’t even know it’s happening.”
“So what’s the point of it all?”
“Seriously?” I asked. “Seriously? You’re asking me for the meaning of life? Isn't that a little stereotypical?”
“Well it’s a reasonable question,” you persisted.
I looked you in the eye. “The meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.”
“You mean mankind? You want us to mature?”
“No, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.”
“Just me? What about everyone else?”
“There is no one else,” I said. “In this universe, there’s just you and me.”
You stared blankly at me. “But all the people on earth…”
“All you. Different incarnations of you.”
“Wait. I’m everyone!?”
“Now you’re getting it,” I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.
“I’m every human being who ever lived?”
“Or who will ever live, yes.”
“I’m Abraham Lincoln?”
“And you’re John Wilkes Booth, too,” I added.
“I’m Hitler?” You said, appalled.
“And you’re the millions he killed.”
“I’m Jesus?”
“And you’re everyone who followed him.”
You fell silent.
“Every time you victimized someone,” I said, “you were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness you've done, you've done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.”
You thought for a long time.
“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”
“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”
“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”
“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you've lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”
“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”
“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”
And I sent you on your way.

The Upanishads - Part 2

Continuation of Part 1, please read the intro/background there.

This post delves into the Chandogya Upanishad, the second 'book' in the translation I am working from.

The Rig is speech. The Sāman is breath (prāṇa). The Udgītha is this syllable "Om."

Verily, this is a pair—namely speech and breath, and also the Rig and the Sāman.

This pair is joined together in this syllable "Om."

Verily, when a pair come together, verily, the two procure each the other’s desire.

A procurer of desires, verily, indeed, becomes he who, knowing this thus, reverences the Udgītha as this syllable.

Verily, this syllable is assent; for whenever one assents to anything he says simply ‘Om.’1 This, indeed, is fulfillment - that is, assent is. 

A fulfiller of desires, verily, indeed, becomes he who, knowing this thus, reverences the Udgītha as this syllable.

This threefold knowledge proceeds with it: saying "Om," one calls forth; saying "Om," one recites; saying "Om," one sings aloud, to the honor of that syllable, with its greatness, with its essence.

-- Chand. 1.1.5-9

A nice little section around the importance Udgitha or "loud chanting". I attend a Kirtan about once a month, and while not tied to a specific religious practice, I find group out-loud chanting very enjoyable. The remaining Khanda in the First Prapathaka speak further to the importance of breathe, meditation and Om, though it reads kind of like creation story.

---

One rubs the fire-sticks together - that is a Hiṅkāra.

Smoke is produced - that is a Prastāva.

It blazes - that is an Udgītha.

Coals are formed - that is a Pratihāra.

It becomes extinct - that is a Nidhana.

It becomes completely extinct - that is a Nidhana.

This is the Rathantara Sāman as woven upon fire.

-- Chand. 2.12.1

Most of the second Prapathaka is all about how the syllables of the chants are related to the world. It feels very light in content to me (being non-polytheistic), but definitely shows how strongly tied they believe human actions of reverence are connected to everything in daily life.

---

Verily, what is called Brahma - that is the same as what the space outside of a person is. Verily, what the space outside of a person is - that is the same as what the space within a person is. Verily, what the space within a person is - that is the same as what the space here within the heart is. That is the Full, the Non-active. Full, non-active prosperity he obtains who knows this.

-- Chand. 3.12.7

Now, the light which shines higher than this heaven, on the backs of all, on the backs of everything, in the highest worlds, than which there are no higher - verily, that is the same as this light which is here within a person.

-- Chand. 3.13.7

More "everything is one" philosophy shining through these ancient texts!

---

He who consists of mind, whose body is life (prāṇa), whose form is light, whose conception is truth, whose soul (ātman) is space, containing all works, containing all desires, containing all odors, containing all tastes, encompassing this whole world, the unspeaking, the unconcerned - this Soul of mine within the heart is smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn, or a mustard-seed, or a grain of millet, or the kernel of a grain of millet; this Soul of mine within the heart is greater than the earth, greater than the atmosphere, greater than the sky, greater than these worlds.

-- Chand. 3.14.2

I was tempted to lump this in with the last two, but its point is much stronger and deserves to stand alone. You are tiny, but you are everything.

---

After having become cloud, he rains down. They are born here as rice and barley, as herbs and trees, as sesame plants and beans. Thence, verily, indeed, it is difficult to emerge; for only if some one or other eats him as food and emits him as semen, does he develop further.

-- Chand. 5.10.6

Much of the Fifth Prapathaka regards the Breath and Soul, and this middle section is about the path of the soul for reincarnation. I believe in reincarnation, but have not learned much about it from the traditional Indian viewpoint. This passage struck me because I've simply never thought about being reincarnated as a grain and the path back into the human circle of consciousness. If you count the myriad of species on this planet, an astronomical number even before considering plants, the odds of a soul "landing" in a human are slim at best. If this is your belief system, all the more reason to cherish life!

---

The plunderer of gold, the liquor-drinker,

The invader of a teacher’s bed, the Brahman-killer -

These four sink downward in the scale,

And, fifth, he who consorts with them.

But he who knows these five fires thus, is not stained with evil, even though consorting with those people. "He becomes pure, clean, possessor of a pure world, who knows this - yea, he who knows this!"

-- Chand. 5.10.9-10

Continuing the previous theme -- advice on how make sure you're working your way up the scale.

---

"How from Non-being could Being be produced? On the contrary, my dear, in the beginning this world was just Being, one only, without a second."

-- Chand. 6.1.2

Kind of a throw-away line in another creation story. But this reminds me of the book Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story by Jim Holt [Amazon link]. A worthy read that hits a lot of different bases.

---

When a person here is deceasing, my dear, his voice goes into his mind; his mind, into his breath; his breath, into heat; the heat, into the highest divinity. That which is the finest essence - this whole world has that as its soul. That is Reality (satya). That is Ātman (Soul). That art thou, Śvetaketu.

--Chand. 6.8.6-7

On death, the concluding part of the root of man as Being. What grabbed me here is the phrase "That art thou". This translates from the original "Tat Tvam Asi", a phrase I have grown quite fond of since hearing it from a wallah during a kirtan. Looking it up on Wikipedia just now, the origin of the phrase is actually this very passage -- I knew there was a reason I was reading this text!

---

 

"Of this great tree, my dear, if some one should strike at the root, it would bleed, but still live. If some one should strike at its middle, it would bleed, but still live. If some one should strike at its top, it would bleed, but still live. Being pervaded by Ātman (Soul), it continues to stand, eagerly drinking in moisture and rejoicing.

If the life leaves one branch of it, then it dries up. It leaves a second; then that dries up. It leaves a third; then that dries up. It leaves the whole; the whole dries up. Even so, indeed, my dear, understand," said he.

"Verily, indeed, when life has left it, this body dies. The life does not die.

That which is the finest essence - this whole world has that as its soul. That is Reality. That is Ātman (Soul). That art thou, Śvetaketu."

"Do you, Sir, cause me to understand even more."

"So be it, my dear," said he.

-- Chand. 6.11.1-3

When life has left it, this body dies. The life does not die.

The Ninth through Sixteenth Khandas provide some nice examples of the Tat Tvam Asi philosophy, for bees, rivers, trees, fig seeds, salt water, blinded traveler, sick man, theif. They're all concise and well worded, but this is my favorite of the group.

---

... even so here on earth one who has a teacher knows: "I belong here only so long as I shall not be released from the body. Then I shall arrive home."

--Chand. 6.14.2

Wow.

---

The seer sees not death,

Nor sickness, nor any distress.

The seer sees only the All,

Obtains the All entirely.

--Chand. 7.26.2

---

As here on earth the world which is won by work becomes destroyed, even so there the world which is won by merit becomes destroyed.

Those who go hence without here having found the Soul (Ātman) and those real desires (satya kāma) - for them in all the worlds there is no freedom. But those who go hence having found here the Soul and those real desires - for them in all worlds there is freedom.

--Chand. 8.1.6

On the soul. I wanted to quote this whole section - there's a great bit on how the small space within a lotus flower is boundless and contains everything. But I think this is the crux - earthly objects will all eventually be destroyed, but the free soul is limitless.

---

So, just as those who do not know the spot might go over a hid treasure of gold again and again, but not find it, even so all creatures here go day by day to that Brahma-world (brahma-loka), but do not find it; for truly they are carried astray by what is false.

--Chand. 8.3.2

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there - false coverings.

---

Verily, these are the three syllables: sat-ti-yam. The sat (Being) - that is the immortal. The ti - that is the mortal. Now the yam - with that one holds the two together. Because with it one holds the two together, therefore it is yam. Day by day, verily, he who knows this goes to the heavenly world.

--Chand. 8.3.5

I'm continually fascinated by how Sanskrit words are constructed from root syllables and sounds. 

---

The Upanishads - Part 1

This post contains some passages of the Upanishads that spoke to me. Or just sounded really too cool not to pass along. If you're interested in these ancient works of India, I strongly recommend the translation found at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2058 and especially not to skip over the introduction. As an ancient collection of works, the Upanishads cannot simply be read sensibly as if they're prose. Much like the early Bible, stories were added and updated. So there are some contradictory pieces and some absurd conjectures that don't fit with modern science or the modern evolution of any philosophy. The introduction helps bring you peace to such issues, which will then allow you to pull what you need from the texts. I have found great joy in exploring this work. I hope some of the quotes I've included below can be translated to inspirational life lessons and/or instill a sense of wonder in how such ancient words can ring true even today.

There are various clashes like pantheistic vs. polytheistic vs. monotheistic or dualist vs. monist or knowledge vs. karma viewpoints, but one need not get bogged down in these. Accept the writings as our ancient ancestors trying to reconcile religious and philosophic concepts. It's easy to slip into a mindset that the authors were simply "wrong" about this or that, but I think that is a disservice. For me personally, the Hindu concept of the Brahman/Atman fits pretty well in line with Akasha, or however you'd like to call the "one consciousness" that ties us all together (a pantheistic viewpoint). Language proves limiting when discussing such topics, and that was no less true 2500 years ago than it is today. You may find it easier to replace some of these words with "God" or "Spirit" to more fully grok and appreciate the quoted content.

One note - the word "verily" is used quite often in these texts. In modern American English, this word is virtually never used. I found it less awkward to see "truly" in its place.

The works are quite long, and so this is Part 1, covering only the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

---

"From the unreal lead me to the real!

From darkness lead me to light!

From death lead me to immortality!"

-- Brih. 1.3.28

I believe this is the Sanskrit transliteration:

oṁ asato mā sad gamaya

tamaso mā jyotir gamaya

mṛtyor mā amṛtaṁ gamaya

The first chant (saman) in the Upanishads. I have found chanting to be a key part of spiritual practices. This particular one doesn't speak to me because the context is really around getting what one desires by prayer. I don't believe prayer works that way!

---

In the beginning this world was just the Self (Ātman), one only. He wished: "Would that I had a wife; then I would procreate. Would that I had wealth; then I would offer sacrifice." So great, indeed, is desire. Not even if one desired, would he get more than that. Therefore even today when one is lonely one wishes: "Would that I had a wife, then I would procreate. Would that I had wealth, then I would offer sacrifice." So far as he does not obtain any one of these, he thinks that he is, assuredly, incomplete. Now his completeness is as follows: his mind truly is his self (ātman); his voice is his wife; his breath is his offspring; his eye is his worldly wealth, for with his eye he finds; his ear is his heavenly wealth, for with his ear he hears it; his body (ātman), indeed, is his work, for with his body he performs work.

-- Brih. 1.4.17

I like this one - it's in the "creation myth" section, but addresses how desire doesn't complete a person, as they are already complete. They just need to realize it!

---

These are all alike, all infinite. Verily he who worships them as finite wins a finite world. Likewise he who worships them as infinite wins an infinite world.

-- Brih. 1.5.13

The "these" here are the three faculties (mind, speech, breath) that make up the Self. I need to think on this one more, but I like the sentiment that if you limit your beliefs you limit your world. Interestingly there's another triad mentioned in Brih. 1.6 of name, form, and work that map to speech, eye and body and phrases to the effect that the Soul is one, but also three. Should sound vaguely familiar to Catholics, although I'm not sure there's a direct connection.

---

Ajātaśatru said: "When this man has fallen asleep thus, then the person who consists of intelligence, having by his intelligence taken to himself the intelligence of these senses, rests in that place which is the space within the heart. When that person restrains the senses, that person is said to be asleep. Then the breath is restrained. The voice is restrained. The eye is restrained. The ear is restrained. The mind is restrained.

When he goes to sleep, these worlds are his. Then he becomes a great king, as it were. Then he becomes a great Brahman, as it were. He enters the high and the low, as it were. As a great king, taking with him his people, moves around in his own country as he pleases, even so here this one, taking with him his senses, moves around in his own body as he pleases.

Now when one falls sound asleep (suṣupta), when one knows nothing whatsoever, having crept out through the seventy-two thousand veins, called hitā, which lead from the heart to the pericardium, one rests in the pericardium. Verily, as a youth or a great king or a great Brahman might rest when he has reached the summit of bliss, so this one now rests."

-- Brih. 2.1.17

Speaks to the importance of sleep, but also how when the bodily functions are restrained you are left with your heart.

Sleep is commonly discussed as where the two worlds are closest. This is even stated literally in Brih. 3.4.9.

---

He who knows this becomes the eater of everything; everything becomes his food.

-- Brih. 2.2.4

This wraps up a short verse around connecting sense organs in the head to the gods. But this is such a great existential phrase! My takeaway: When you realize how connected you are, you can feast on anything in the world.

---

There are, assuredly, two forms of Brahma: the formed and the formless, the mortal and the immortal, the stationary and the moving, the actual (sat) and the yon (tya).

-- Brih. 2.3.1

Yin and Yang much?

---

Then said Maitreyī: "If now, Sir, this whole earth filled with wealth were mine, would I be immortal thereby?"

"No," said Yājñavalkya. "As the life of the rich, even so would your life be. Of immortality, however, there is no hope through wealth."

-- Brih. 2.4.2

You can't take it with you!

---

What they praised was karma. Verily, one becomes good by good action, bad by bad action.

-- Brih. 3.2.13

Karma in a nutshell!

---

"He who passes beyond hunger and thirst, beyond sorrow and delusion, beyond old age and death - Brahmans who know such a Soul overcome desire for sons, desire for wealth, desire for worlds, and live the life of mendicants. For desire for sons is desire for wealth, and desire for wealth is desire for worlds, for both these are merely desires. Therefore let a Brahman become disgusted with learning and desire to live as a child. When he has become disgusted both with the state of childhood and with learning, then he becomes an ascetic. When he has become disgusted both with the non-ascetic state and with the ascetic state, then he becomes a Brahman."

-- Brih. 3.5.1

An argument for asceticism. (BTW, I had to look up "mendicants" which essentially means "beggar".) So when do we start a commune?

---

He is the unseen Seer, the unheard Hearer, the unthought Thinker, the ununderstood Understander. Other than He there is no seer. Other than He there is no hearer. Other than He there is no thinker. Other than He there is no understander. He is your Soul, the Inner Controller, the Immortal.

-- Brih. 3.7.23

A section on pantheism, but I liked the term "Inner Controller". When searching for more on this, I ran across a bunch of modern psych stuff about the "Inner Critic" and a self-help stuff - only skimmed a few pages, but didn't find it enlightening. 

---

"And on what is the heart based?"

"You idiot," said Yājñavalkya, "that you will think that it could be anywhere else than in ourselves! for if it were anywhere else than in ourselves, the dogs might eat it or the birds might tear it to pieces."

-- Brih. 3.9.24-25

This one actually made me chuckle. The preceding section goes through several threads of "on what X is based?" questions. Each of the quarters of heaven are mapped through things like the eye, sacrifice, water, truth, etc. but all end with that they are each based "On the heart". So the final questions is an obvious conclusion. The answer is clear, but the qualification with dogs and birds struck me as silly.

---

When he comes to weakness - whether he come to weakness through old age or through disease - this person frees himself from these limbs just as a mango, or a fig, or a berry releases itself from its bond; and he hastens again, according to the entrance and place of origin, back to life.

-- Brih. 4.3.36

On the soul at death - such nice imagery of ripe fruit falling from a branch, the soul releasing from the body. A softening of the abscission zone.

---

Now as a caterpillar, when it has come to the end of a blade of grass, in taking the next step draws itself together towards it, just so this soul in taking the next step strikes down this body, dispels its ignorance and draws itself together for making the transition.

-- Brih. 4.4.3

On transmigration of the soul at death. But I just love caterpillar analogies (they permeate Ram Dass's works). 

I found joy and wonder in reading all of the Fourth Brahmana of the Fourth Adhyaya. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but much too long to quote in full and too complex to pull out small snippets without explanation. So here's a link: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2058#lf1395_head_097 

---

This same thing does the divine voice here, thunder, repeat: Da! Da! Da! that is, restrain yourselves, give, be compassionate. One should practise this same triad: self-restraint, giving, compassion.

-- Brih. 5.2.3

On the three cardinal virtues (yet another triad!), but all are the syllable "Da". I can't help but remember that old Trio song, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNYcviXK4rg 

---

He lives as long as he lives. Then when he dies, then they carry him to the fire. His fire, in truth, becomes the fire; fuel, the fuel; smoke, the smoke; flame, the flame; coals, the coals; sparks, the sparks. In this fire the gods offer a person. From this oblation the man arises, having the color of light.

-- Brih. 6.2.13

An awesome eulogy I would request to be said at my funeral pyre.

---

If she should not grant him his desire, he should bribe her. If she still does not grant him his desire, he should hit her with a stick or with his hand, and overcome her, saying: ‘With power, with glory I take away your glory!’ Thus she becomes inglorious.

-- Brih. 6.4.7

Yeah, not a fan of this one. Misogynistic and archaic rolled into one.

[When completed, I'll add a link to Part 2 covering the Chandogya Upanishad]

Where is the "ALL" box?

Where is the choice for "All" ?

Dating websites provide you a drop-down box to select your religion. This is understandably often a key part of someone's world view, and so is important in match-making. The list shown here is from POF, but they're all pretty similar. Most include Atheist and Agnostic along with a broad list of world religions, and usually a breakdown for various flavors of Christianity. Some will include things like "New age" shown here, but sometimes also Wiccan or Pagan. And of course, there is the ever-popular "Other".

But where is the option for "All"?

We're all one. It's all the same dance, man. Why can't we all just see that?

We humans just need to see it. Or remember it - I think many of our ancient ancestors got this right. If we could only drop the Ego and desire to be Right. Poof! So many human  world problems disappear instantly.

Then we could all just stand and look at each other and ask, "what were we fighting about?"

Freedom From Religion

I just ran across the following essay in a corner of the web today. A lot of it sounds familiar, so I probably have read it before. However, it's fairly dated now and a quick search didn't find the text in other places as readily as I think it should have. While the message is clearly atheistic and specifically directed towards Fundamentalist Christianity, there's a good deal of Universalism in there as well.

This piece was written by Dan Baker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. The date of the post I copied it from is 1987, but it could have been written earlier. I have not done any research for the original source.

However, I find a lot of value in the essay and will reproduce it here for posterity. This is not my work and I make no claim of authorship, but the version I found did not contain a copyright notice. I do not know if it is in the public domain or not.

Dear Christian:

I have heard the message of salvation many times: we are all sinners, and we can have forgiveness and eternal life if we confess and accept Jesus as Savior and Lord. I have heard that there can be no morality outside of God's laws, and that no one can be truly good without being transformed by the Spirit. I have also heard that there is no peace, love, joy, or meaning without Christ. Christians feel that unbelievers are empty slaves to carnality and selfish pride, unable to grasp the truth, and must humble themselves before God's plan.

I have heard that the bible contains the "inspired word of God" -a message of ultimate importance- and that many scholars claim to have proven its uniqueness and reliability. Some Christians say that they have verified the truth by personal experience.

This is all very interesting. I want the best for my life. If there is an eternal paradise, I would hate to miss it; and I definitely would not want to roast in a literal hell. It would be unwise to ignore something like a god, especially one who takes interest in my life. I would ask a thousand questions of an all-knowing mind.

You and I breathe the air of the same planet, and truth should be the same for us both. The basic question which should be asked about any religion is: is it TRUE? If the basic claims of theism, sin, miracles, and revelation are true, then maybe your "good news" is truly good.

However, I am an unbeliever. It's not that I particularly want to doubt; it's just that I have no choice. I have examined your claims and I am not convinced that they are true. I may even wish them to be true (or I may not) -but I am not so naive to think that something can be true or false just because I desire it. There must be some reason, beyond wishful thinking.

I'm sure you agree. You certainly doubt that thunder is caused by the anger of Zeus, or that Allah is the one true god. Like myself, you see them as myths created to explain the unknown, to give life some kind of meaning, to enhance culture, or to empower the ruling caste. They are born in human imagination, and can be explained without reference to a supernatural world. There are many gods which Christians reject. I just believe in one less god than you do. The reasons that you might give for your atheism toward Roman gods are likely the same reasons I would give for not believing in Jesus.

You and I are alike. We have minds which perceive, analyze, integrate, and react. Our only difference in this regard is that you have judged (or assumed) the premises of your religion to be factual, while I have not. You would not want to commit yourself to an idea of which you were not convinced, would you?

You are welcome to try and convince me that Christianity is true, but you should know that I am not going to "just believe" by faith. I will demand substantiation. If you say that the bible is reliable, I will ask you to prove it. I may ask why the bible contains so many errors and contradictions. If you are not familiar with the findings of critical bible scholars with diverse points of view, I will view your conclusions with suspicion.

Neither will I believe because millions of others do. Truth is not determined by vote. If it were, the earth would still be flat.

I will ask if your conclusions are logical. If you want me to consider your beliefs, then be ready to tackle questions like these:

• Is there a higher judge of truth than reason?
• After centuries of bitter religious fighting, why is your mind suddenly blessed with the true way of thinking?
• What is morality, and is it possible without a deity?
• Is the violent history of the Church consistent with a message of love?
• What is a contradiction, and what would the bible have to say in order to be discrepant?
• Why did your god create evil? (Isaiah 45:7)
• Is there anything wrong with skepticism?
• Why should inner religious experience point to anything outside of the mind?
• Historians must assume natural regularity over time, so how can the bible be completely historical when it contains miracles, which violate nature?
• What is a god, exactly, and why do you think one exists?

What could be said about Christianity which, if true, would make it false? If you can't answer that question, then your conclusions may be based on something other than honesty. You can't expect me to respectfully listen to you if you are closed to full, honest inquiry-if you are unwilling to allow, theoretically, that you might be wrong. I am open-minded and willing to change my position, if warranted. Can you also be fair enough to follow the facts, wherever they lead?

Many unbelievers have carefully considered these questions, perhaps even more deeply than you have. And some of us were at one time just as religious as you are now. After honest examination, I am convinced that the bible is primitive mythology, that there is no evidence for a god, that Christians are not more moral or tolerant than atheists, and that religion has caused more harm than good. Why should my conclusions be less valid than yours?

You feel that the complexity of life demands a designer; but the mind of such a creature would be at least as complex as the rest of nature, requiring a designer itself, wouldn't it? If everything needs a cause, then there can be no first cause; and if you nonetheless assert a First Cause, I will ask how you know (assume) that there can be an uncaused cause. If a deity can be thought eternal, so can the universe. God-belief does not answer any question; it just replaces a mystery with a mystery: if god made anything, who made god?

If the mind of a god is the measure for morality, then there is no way to measure if god's actions are "good." The murderous, sexist, intolerant activities of the biblical deity and the presence of chaos, ugliness and pain in the universe portray your "supreme" god as supremely immoral, by my standards. I could invent a nicer god than that, and so could you.

If you have new concrete evidence or rational arguments, then I will be glad to hear them. But please don't waste my time preaching the same old sermons I have been hearing for years.

I am quite happy with life. I have purpose and peace of mind -I prefer goodwill over repentance. I don't want to die, but I accept death as natural. I sense no need to worship, confess, or apologize to anyone. I feel no guilt, and therefore no desire to be "saved" from anything: sin is a primitive idea, and salvation is religion's offer to solve a problem of its own making.

I happily admit I am a skeptic; and I am proud of the way I think. Although humans are not perfect, I respect the human mind and I am optimistic about our abilities to continue to solve life's problems, with reason and kindness.

I don't claim to have all the answers; but if you want me to hear your message than I will ask you to listen to mine.

Dan Baker

Resurrection Eggs ?!?

OK, I have lots of issues with Easter to begin with. Like any other Christian holiday, much of the themes are from much earlier pagan or local traditions. You bring fir trees inside at the winter solstice to celebrate life through the cold bleak winter season. You celebrate the rebirth of the earth in spring using symbols like eggs and bunnies. But Christian Easter jumps in here with their version of the resurrection story.

Of course, many grade school children who are forced into Sunday school eventually question what eggs and bunnies have to do with Christ being crucified and then apparently rising from the dead. Plus, if it's a Christian holiday, why does its date follow the Hebrew calendar? Except for "educated Christians" who have done their share of reading and comprehending the history of such holidays, most people would probably create some kind of kludgey circular answer.

Now in an apparent attempt to close this gap, some marketing genius has created "resurrection eggs" where you take plastic Easter eggs and fill them with little Christian symbols and hide them around the yard. Now you can turn that fun time into a "fun faith-filled Easter egg hunt". Woohoo - just what every kid wants is more brainwashing while hoping for chocolate goodies.

But just be sure to re-read the gospels before hand and highlight anywhere in there where eggs (plastic or otherwise) are mentioned. (hint: don't spend too much time on this, as there are zero references)

For another year in my household we will be celebrating the coming of spring. This will be via the American traditional Easter basket with colorful fake grass, various egg-shaped objects (plastic or jelly beans), and a chocolate bunny or two.

Happy Spring!

Book recomendation

The God Delusion
I just started reading this book, but already can tell it will be a winner. It's extremely well written with a very logical style. Of course logic doesn't matter that often when speaking of religious topics, but it's necessary when "discussion" turns to "debate". It is also a wonderful source for finding other sources. The varied sources and references are very wide and thorough, so those interested in going deeper have lots of places to start.

I've always loved a good quote, and this book is full of them too. I usually dog-ear the bottom corner of a page where something catches my eye or there's a quote that I want to come back to later. My copies of books like The Moral Animal and The Doors of Perception are full of a dozen or more bent corners, sometimes with margin notes or underlined sentences. I was of course tempted to start doing that while reading this book as well but quickly realized almost every page of the first two chapters would be marked! There are too many good examples and applicable quotes to start marking anything. Plus, I look forward to loaning this book out, and I don't want to bias future readers.

I'll close with the quote with which he opens the book:
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams
(Adam's books)

Highly recommended - the paperback version can be found in any bookstore or ordered online.

Religion leads to war. Spirituality leads to peace.

Religion leads to war. Spirituality leads to peace.


It's an interesting statement. Granted, on some levels it is just another bumper sticker that can say a lot or say nothing at all depending on the reader. But take a minute and think about it. On your way, do a Google Images search for "religion war" and then do one for "spirituality war". Interesting, no? Almost 4 million violent images versus a hundred thousand images, many of which are artful.

I listened to a couple people speak this weekend on the difference between religion and spirituality. While I of course learned something about them, after the fact you start to learn something about yourself as well. I have said before that I like UU because one can receive a spiritual connection to the community without being religious, and this is a key point for me. My issues with organized religion are many but easily illustrated by a few uniquely Catholic issues like the Nicene Creed and the recent discussion of what happens to unbaptized babies. The specific challenges are that you've got a belief system literally configured and shaped my plain old men in fancy hats. Men of power surely, but no closer to God than the guy mopping their floors. Why is it up to them to tell me that an unbaptized baby spends eternity in limbo or they really can go to heaven? Instead of providing structure for one to realize their own personal spirituality, religious institutions dictate a belief system to their flocks. Free thinking is not allowed. The cynic in me says this should be OK for the average American given their typical intellectual capacity - but maybe people are narrow-minded and dim because they've never been forced to think for themselves in the first place? Cause rather than effect.

Forgive the rant. Think about the title.

Peace?

I heard something interesting today. Being a sensible sounding explanation and going along with my experiences of our culture historically modifying whatever it can for odd reasons I was inclined to believe it. But it was something I had never heard before, so I spent a little time just now researching it. Here are the results.

Presumption: the traditional peace sign from the 60s is actually upside down. It stems from the 'original' version of the tree of lift - picture a man with his arms stretched out and up slightly. Turn it upside down, and you've got this 'wrong' peace sign and using the symbol of a sword.

First: My initial gut reaction was amazement and wonder - really? We've gotten it wrong for almost 40 years? My second reaction was a little bit of confusion. Clearly our culture recognizes the traditional version as meaning 'peace'. If you turn it upside down and head off to a peace rally, aren't you just going to cause confusion. Even if you were correct in the history and desired accuracy, you'd spend the whole time explaining why your 'peace' sign is upside down rather than joining the community in protest.

Research: The origins of this sign is not the tree of life, inverted to become a sword. The most obvious and consistent origin I've found so far is that it is a combination of the letters N and D from the Naval semaphore system, the initials standing for 'nuclear disarmament'. In the upside down form, there's the concept of an inverted "broken cross", stemming from a 5th century drawing. This broken cross has several different meanings, but one is the Teutonic rune of death or an inverted 'man rune'. A Christian website positions this as anti-Christian, though I haven't found this to be a general belief. The symbol is currently very familiar in the UK as tied with the CND, but in the US it really just means 'peace' or 'non-violence'.

Conclusion: The 'inverted man of life to become a sword' concept that got me thinking about this is not an accurate history. A majority of web sites (source, source, source) are very consistent with regards to the N.D. origin, though the link to runes and broken crosses is usually mentioned. Given this, in its currently known form of an inverted-Y shape, this is a symbol of peace and non-violence.

Please, please, do not go writing the symbol upside down on protest papers or notebooks or jackets claiming you've got the right story. You don't. And anyone with 10 minutes to spare can prove it to you. If you further want to claim it's a Satanic symbol that is anti-Christian, dig around for news reports from last Christmas (early December 2006) for a peace-wreath that a public figure objected to along these lines. See how far he got before issuing an apology and letting the wreath stay.

We'll discuss the "V" hand symbol for peace another day (a pretty cool history to that one!)

Darwin's God

Interesting article from the NYTimes. Kind of goes along the lines of the latest book I've been reading The Moral Animal. Some thought-provoking concepts.

I wish I had more time to read....

Amish Shooting Update

OK, this gets stranger. On one hand you have a mentally disturbed lunatic with a lot of deep, long-term anger issues. He goes out and kills 5 little girls between 7 and 12 years old. What do the Amish have to say about this atrocity? Here's one quote:

"We think it was God's plan and we're going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going," he said. "A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors."

Hmm. OK. It was God's plan to have this guy molest his relatives 20 years ago, live a life full of hate and anger, and then shoot 5 innocent little girls.
That's some great God you got there, pal.