"Only a close study and contemplation of the saying of Jesus in Mark

II, 17 enables you to understand the Bhagavad Gita better."

"I study the Holy Bible. I study the Bhagavad Gita. I cannot find a single
contradictory thought."
"Why do we look upon Christ, Krishna, Buddha as some kind of
superior person? For a very clever reason-that thereby we escape the
necessity to follow his teaching."
"Except your parents, you choose everything else in life-your teacher,
Guru, religion, the way you worship God-everything is the ego's own
choice."
"There is a distinction between the word of God and the word of man.
In the word of God there is no doubt; in the word of man there is
always doubt."
"Lucifer means 'the Light'. He disobeyed God and from that moment
he bacame known as Satan. In view of this definition almost no-one is
going to disqualify from being called Satan."
 CHRIST
KRISHNA
and
YOU
Swami VENKATESANANDA
In collaboration with Father Terence Melvin O.S.M.
and Swami Hamsa

CHILTERN YOGA FOUNDATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful thanks are offered to:
Fr. Terence Melvin, O.S.M. for his Preface and enlightening
commentary.
Dr. S. Rose and Mrs. Rose for their generous offering.
Swami Hamsa for editing.
Swami Sushila for invaluable help and guidance in preparation of the
manuscript.
W. Zineski and M. Styles for overseeing the whole publication.

First printing 1983

2,500 copies
Published by:
The Chiltern Yoga Foundation
1029 Hyde Street, #6
San Francisco, California 94109

Typeset by Cragmont Publications

Printed by Banta Company

ISBN 0-9612762-0-7
Library of Congress Catalog Number 83-073150

Know this my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow
to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of
God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness
and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save
your souls.
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not az doer, he is like a man
who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and
goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into
the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer
that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.
If anyone thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but
deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain. Religion that is pure and
undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and
widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the
world.
(James I, 19-27)
 Contents

Dedication
Preface
Introduction
PART I-YOGA AND CHRISTIANITY
The Dawn
Union
Tradition and Spirit
Discipleship
Like a Little Child
The Chosen
Tearing the Veil-Evil
Renounce the Unreal
Devotion
Self-Knowledge
Discard the Mental Furniture
Descent of Wisdom
Let's Face It
PART II-QUESTIONS
God and Truth
Religion
God's Will-Free Will
Prayer.
World, Life and Relationship
Lucifer-Light and Darkness
PART III-THE WORD
 DEDICATION
Dedicated to
Lord Venkatesa-whose very name implies "He who destroys our sins
and sinful tendencies."
To Gurudev Swami Sivananda-his life was an illustration of the tenets
of Yoga and the teachings of Lord Jesus.
To a dear brother Mr. W. Zineski who prompted these thoughts.
 Preface
Western Society as we know it is changing. We live in a time of
aggravated doubt and uncertainty. Prospects for the future look none
too promising with the Damoclean sword of nuclear war hanging over
our heads. With rapid increases in technology, familiar patterns of
relating are changing. The significant institutions political, economic
and social no longer appear to provide relevant answers for the
complexity of issues which now face us. Even the established Christian
religions are faced with disenchantment and lack of interest by their
members. Faced now with the limitations of these structures and
institutions, there is an evident air of resigned skepticism, cynicism,
even despair.
This cracking is raising important questions of meaning in peoples'
lives. The disenchantment with traditional meaning-making systems,
particularly the Christian Church, is promoting a sense of alienation
and a lack of commitment. However, the significant rise in interest
over recent years in the occult, meditation and the Eastern Religious
Traditions, would indicate that people have not abandoned the
spiritual quest altogether. There is still the desire for the
Transcendent. While this is a challenge to traditional Western
religious practices, it may be God's providence at work in our time. A
challenge for the 80's will be to formulate new meanings and this may
come through a meeting of the West and the East.
An important consideration, is how are we in the Christian tradition to
do this? There is a very real danger that the crisis as it is experienced
will be met with closed minds. There are already indications of closing
ranks, of a desire to return to the old and familiar patterns, not only
within the Church but in all spheres of life.
Recently, the University Campus where I work, was visited by a group
of enthusiastic young Christians from the U.S.A. They had a message
"Good News" - which they wanted to share. They had discovered Jesus
and he had transformed their lives. We too, if we believed and were
baptized in the Spirit, would be saved and come to the joy of knowing
Jesus Christ.
While one admired their enthusiasm, sincerity and energy, there was
something unsettling about their approach. Any questioning was met
with a barrage of quotations from St. Paul, telling us what we should
or should not do. There was no opportunity given for discussion about
the possible meaning of these quotations. For the unwary, such
meetings degenerated into scriptural ping pong! Their attitude to
those who would not come around to their way of thinking, was one
of pity, with hinted warnings of impending doom and no salvation. I
couldn't help but think of the old cry: "Outside the Church there is no
salvation!"
This return to a fundamentalist understanding of Christianity is a
familiar and recognizable response to crisis or doubt. What they had
discovered was not necessarily the spirit of Jesus, but security and
equilibrium. This is clung to with such tenacity that everything which
seems remotely at odds with what they believe, is rejected as bad.
Initially this "high" of discovering Jesus sustains the unwary, but
eventually it entraps them in intolerance or they become disillusioned
completely.
Apart from this danger of fundamentalism, there is a confusion of
Faith with the act of faith or the belief system. This is the difficulty of
any approach which understands faith merely as orthodoxy - where
the formulation, the doctrine is seen as embracing the totality of what
is revealed: faith is linked with correct words properly formulated. This
has been very much the approach of the Orthodox and Catholic
Traditions, which understood faith to be centered almost exclusively
on the intellectual dimension of the person. The formulation is in a
sense intrinsic to faith itself. So one cannot have faith if it doesn't
adhere to a definite doctrine. These doctrinal affirmations while
necessary and important, cannot contain the transcendent mystery of
faith. Not only do the mysteries of faith transcend the power of the
human intellect, the very expression of what is revealed is historically
and culturally bound. An orthodox approach would only be viable in a
specific and homogeneous world.
While the danger is dogmatism, moralism and perfectionism can also
ensnare us. This stems from an identification of faith with
orthopoiesis. It insists on the moral character of the religious act. The
emphasis here being on doing rather than saying. Protestant
Reformation took this option when it recognized that faith had a
practical and willed element. "Faith without works is dead." (Jas.
2/17). However, to reduce faith to orthopoiesis is to destroy the very
foundation of religion which claims to be more than perfectionism.
Just as faith can be expressed in more than one orthodox formulation,
so too it can be manifest in differing ethical behavior. Again, while still
recognizing the validity and importance of both these instances of
faith, the challenge is to be attentive to the dangers of expecting to
contain faith in one or the other exclusively, which those in need of
security and equilibrium are prone to do.
If we can accept the distinction between faith and act of faith (belief),
we might ask what is faith? Acknowledging that it is not a matter of
simply having the "right" words or the "correct" moral deportment,
we can see that we don't have faith as we have money, property,
friends. Rather, as A. Dulles says in Faith that does Justice: "We live by
faith and from faith; it is always underneath or above, but like any
horizon of reality always just beyond our grasp."
Faith is a gift universally given to all humanity. It is primal. Faith is the
human universal, constitutive of the human person. It unites us to our
foundation, to the cosmos. It gives us the capacity to deny or affirm
objects of belief. Hence, it even allows the atheist to deny there is a
God. It is that disposition within us that allows us to be open to being,
to new possibilities, to the transcendent.
This constitutive disposition is realized in praxis. The person being a
doer, one who acts, praxis is the actualizing of that gift from God. It is
that human activity which modifies and fashions not only the person's
exterior existence, but also the interior dimensions of their life. Praxis
is critical reflective ethical activity which actualizes our capacity of
faith, and in the context of my past and present, it seeks to answer,
"What is God calling me to become?" R. Panikkar says in Myth, Faith
and Hermeneu- tics: "Every action that leads to the perfection of man
in his concrete existential situation, every action that leads man to his
realization is authentic praxis, way to salvation." And again, "if the end
of Man is to become God, he is divinized by orthopraxis." Faith then
as orthopraxis, is that activity that opens us up to the possibility of
perfection permitting us to attain what we are not yet; viz. unity with
God. "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5/48).
To conceive of faith in this way, highlights the dangers of security and
equilibrium in our lives to opt for such is to choose death. As the
prophet Isaiah says: "If you do not believe, you will not exist" (Is. 7/9).
Characteristic of this faith stance is that restlessness of heart which
Augustine says "is restless until it rests in Thee." This is the stuff
growth is made of. This faith requires courage, the courage to be
(Tillich). It engages the entire person both on affective and intellectual
dimensions. It demands active involvement; it asks us to make
choices; it recognizes that it is not automatic progress along the way.
We must bring our own powers of critical reflectiveness to our
situation. It recognizes the centrality of the death-resurrection motif
of Christianity. The faith journey is one of change, of taking risks, of
growth. Without the "letting go," there can be no movement, no
newness. Mark tells us in his Gospel that those who followed Jesus
were full of amazement and fear (Mark 10/32). At the empty tomb
strangely we find the same response (Mark 16/8). Why? What they
thought had ended with death was beginning again. The end of praxis
is more praxis, in an ever upward or inward spiral toward our goal,
whatever we might envisage that to be.
This concept of faith, moreover, opens us up to the awareness that, as
the Second Vatican Council pointed out: "All people form in
community, because all stem from the same stock God created to
people the entire Earth, and also because all share a common destiny,
namely God." (Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-
Christian Religions, No. 1) Built into this awareness of a common faith
journey, but with a plurality of expressions is the call to dialogue.
Pluralism is a fact of our age, significantly recognized by the Church in
her Documents: "Largely because of more frequent contacts with each
other, men have become aware of pluralism and indeed have come to
see it as the hallmark of our age." (On Dialogue with Unbelievers,
1968). It goes on to state that true pluralism is impossible unless
people and communities of different origins and cultures undertake
dialogue together. This dialogue relies on mutual relationships
between the participants and with each party acknowledg- ing the
dignity and work of the other. Dialogue can help increase
understanding of truths of faith which are imperfectly grasped by
believers. Recognizing that not everything that Christians accept
comes from revelation, dialogue can help shed light on what comes
from revelation and what comes from elsewhere. Within the Christian
tradition we can hardly ignore the advances which the Ecumenical
Movement has made. A new spirit of collaboration and co-operation
has emerged. This is a certain indication of God's presence manifesting
itself.
A new call to dialogue which is rapidly being felt, is that with great
religious traditions of the East. The present cracking we are
experiencing in the West is adding strength to this. As I have already
mentioned, one of the consequences of disillusionment, especially
with Christianity, has been the significant rise in interest in the East.
People are discovering in these teachings something which
Christianity has been unable to provide.
The indications are that the challenge for the 80's is the meeting of
the traditions of the East and West. As our planet grows smaller, there
is an ever-increasing awareness of one another. A cursory
investigation of both shows that together they provide a
complementarity and wholeness in understanding the spiritual life
journey. The intellectual West needs the intuitive East; the feminine
East needs the masculine West; the active West needs the
contemplative East. Panikkar refers to this need when speaking of the
fundamental option taken by East and West in their development
India decided in favor of the Spirit, while the West opted for the Word.
The consequences are far-reaching:
"The Word is powerful, is articulate, leads to clarity and distinction, to
science and technology, is sure of itself once it has assumed a critical
stance. The Word organizes, commands, expresses and even cries. The
Spirit is helpless outside its inner realm, it is unstructured and insecure
for it blows now one way, now another, in total freedom that amounts
to disorientation and anarchy; the Spirit feels, is concerned,
contemplates and is easily satisfied at the price of being blind to
externals; it is joyful and happy. Perhaps the time has come when the
twins will have to meet if our world is to survive."
I am hopeful that in some small measure this book Christ, Krishna and
You will contribute to this endeavor. The Fathers of the Vatican
Council have urged us to look to what unites us with other people,
rather than what divides. If we can break through the crust of
religiosity and reaction that so often surrounds our faith and return to
the core issues of what we believe, we may discover that there is more
that unites us than we imagine. We are pilgrims and you never know
who or what will cross our path. I am thankful for the surprise of
Swami Venkatesananda, a man of evident wisdom and insight, of
humor and sensitivity. I am thankful too for the invitation and
opportunity to contribute in this small way.
I am sure if we seek we will find and He, by the power at work within
us, is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think. And
I pray with Paul to the Father, "from whom every family in heaven and
on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may
grant us to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner
man, and that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith; that we,
being rooted and grounded in love, may have power to comprehend
with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and
depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that
we may be filled with all the fullness of God." (Eph. 3/14-19)
Perth, W.A.
August, 1982
Father Terence Melvin O.S.M.
 Introduction
Once a Christian girl asked me, "Why do you Hindus worship so many
gods, whereas we worship only One God?" I replied with a question
"How many Gods are there?" She said, "Only One." "Then why do you
say, 'my God' and 'your God'?"
Those of us who believe in the One God know that, albeit in various
ways and forms, everyone worships Him alone. We may start to climb
a mountain from any place we like, but the higher we get the closer
we get to each other.
Only God can restore this understanding - and He does, by periodically
manifesting Himself on this earth plane. Two such manifestations rule
the hearts of all humanity today - Krishna and Christ. Are they two?
Do not even the names sound similar? And their lives ... and their
teachings?
Christ was born in the manger; Krishna in a prison.
Both were whisked away to a far-off place, immediately after nativity.
The former, for fear of Herod; the latter, for fear of Kamsa both of
whom were the rulers of the country.
Both of them sought early in their lives to effect far-reaching reform
in the modes of worship.
Both of them had control over the elements.
Jesus multiplied loaves and fish (Mark VIII, 1-9); Krishna multiplied
calves and cowherds.
Jesus "straightened" an infirm woman (Luke XIII, 10ff); Krishna cured
Kubja in the same way.
Jesus sought to be baptized by John (Matt. III, 13-17); Krishna sought
to be taught by Sandeepany.
Jesus washed the feet of his own disciples (John XIII, 3ff) as did
Krishna.4
Both of them exalted the power of faith Christ said faith can move
mountains, and Krishna demonstrated it by lifting a mountain with His
little finger.
Both of them taught wonderful ethical and spiritual lessons. The
Sermon on the Mount and the Bhagavad Gita contain the same gems
of Truth.
Both of them were glorified by some as God and ridiculed by others.
Both of them were killed.
Both of them blessed their tormentors. Christ forgave them; Krishna
insisted that his killer should go to heaven first.
Even the legend which says that Lord Krishna married over sixteen
thousand wives might mean no more than this: every Christian nun is
considered the bride of Christ, and it is possible that even at the time
the biography was written down, there were over sixteen thousand of
them.
Are they two or one? Historians charm us with well-reasoned
arguments to prove Christ lived two thousand years ago, and Krishna
nearly four or five thousand years ago. In prehistoric calculations,
thousands of years are but hours in contemporary history! Could it be
that Christ lived a little earlier and Krishna a little later than at present
believed? Could it be then, that we are talking about the same Person,
some calling Him Christ and others Krishna?
There is a missing period in the life of Christ. Some endeavor to fill it
by surmising that He must have travelled East. It is just as possible that
some of the stories connected with Krishna's early life could also have
been "fillers" to link up over the missing period.
Any guess is hazardous. But if He reveals the Truth, may it not unite us
all Hindu and Christian in the realization that we are all truly brothers
and sisters, worshipping the same Divinity?
Let us look at the life and teachings of Christ and Krishna with our eye
of intuition so we may obtain as much inspiration from them as
possible. In the East they do not pronounce the word Christ as we do
in English, but it sounds something like "Hrista." This word in Sanskrit
means literally, one who dwells in the heart. In India Jesus is called
Isha-Mashi; Isha in Sanskrit means Lord, God.
Krishna was born in prison and Christ in a manger. Perhaps the texts
inform us that when the Divine takes birth it need not be under
extraordinary circumstances, it could be in a very humble style. God
can incarnate Himself in the normal way as any other baby is born.
The criterion that determines who an "avatara" is is not supernatural
appearance or disappearance, but the power to establish
righteousness. Hence we regard the human Rama as an avatara and
not the "ten-headed," powerful and "superhuman" Ravana as
described in Ramayana. In this light Rama, Krishna, Buddha,
Zarathustra, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Mahavira, are all avataras
of God.
We admit that the Son of God is God, the son of a lion is a lion. The
messenger sent by light is light only.
Since this avatara effectively veils Himself with His own maya, God's
illusory power, He may behave as God or man. He may proclaim His
divinity or hide it. If He upholds righteousness, He is God.

References
1. The Book of God translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam by Swami
Venkatesananda, reading for August 17.
2. Ibid., reading for September 17.
3. Ibid., reading for September 20.
4. Ibid.
 Part I
YOGA AND CHRISTIANITY
 The Dawn
If this is the dawn of a New Era of religious unity and understanding,
then everyone in the world should join hands and usher in that era.
There is no doubt about that. We cannot afford to talk of differences.
In fact, what is the difference, I ask, between Christ and Krishna - the
two names even sound alike. The people who talk of difference are
hypocrites, not religious men. If God Himself came down to this earth
and proclaimed the unity of religions, then these people would go
away from the religious fold and seek differences elsewhere. If the
doors of religion were closed, they would seek expression in other
fields of human activity.
Instead of worrying our little heads over the differences that exist
among the religions, we really ought to be filled with wonder, that
though the various Prophets lived in different countries and climes,
their fundamental teaching, their basic doctrines were the same.
In finding the common meeting ground we may promote better
understanding and disabuse ourselves of any bias or prejudice that
may linger in our hearts.
I study the Holy Bible. I study the Bhagavad Gita. I cannot find a single
contradictory thought. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these
things will be added unto you" says the Lord. The thought is echoed in
the Bhagavad Gita: "Whoever constantly thinks of Me, I attend to his
needs." Where is the Kingdom of God, so that we may seek after that?
"The Kingdom is within you" says the Lord (ref. Luke XVII, 21). Says the
Gita: "God is seated in the hearts of all beings." "Lo, I am with you
always," says the Lord in the Holy Bible (Matt. XXVIII, 20). Where is the
difference?
Therefore to find not the difference but the relationship between
Yoga and Christianity, we must have some understanding of Yoga and
some of Christianity. Yoga is bringing about the total integration, the
complete harmony which is exclusive of nothing in the world.
Christianity, to my knowledge, is understanding the teachings of Jesus
Christ. It is easy if we also believe that Jesus Christ is an incarnated
Divinity. Why? For the simple reason that the Divine is aware of
Himself, God is aware of Himself. God being Consciousness, God is all
the time aware of Himself. You and I are not aware of ourselves. You
and I are aware of what we call "objects." Awareness has both these
potentialities: awareness is aware of the other, an object; and
awareness, being awareness, is aware of itself. In the case of the
Divine, it is awareness in both senses of the word. The Divine is aware
of itself and aware of everything else. In our case, we are so busy
trying to understand the object, that we ignore the Divine in us and
we remain ignorant. This is the difference between the human and the
Divine. Ultimately, it is possible for the human being to come into this
full and total awareness.
There is a beautiful passage in the Gospel according to St John (XIV,
12) where Jesus says: "He who believes in me" (which is later qualified
to mean "if you do what I say") "will also do the works that I do; and
greater works than these will he do." This is a beautiful interpretation.
It shows that this self-awareness is not the monopoly of even Divine
Beings. The difference between Divine Beings or Incarnations and
human beings is not only of degree but also of direction. The Divine is
descending and we are ascending, and if we do it with grace, with
understanding, self- awareness, then we also will get there.
Christianity is understanding this message and regaining this self-
awareness in which Jesus taught, spoke, healed, blessed.
How do we enter into this spirit? How do we unveil the spirit within
each of us so that the Christ-consciousness, Christ experience, may be
yours and mine; so that the ego, the little "I" and "me", the limited
personality will become completely offered to Christ, so that it
becomes one with Christ-consciousness? This is the question that the
yogi asks himself.
My Guru Swami Sivananda used to say that Yoga does not interfere
with your religious faith or belief. Why? For the simple reason that it
is all-inclusive. Yoga being all-inclusive, excludes nothing and cannot
possibly interfere with anyone's religion. He used to say that the
practice of Yoga makes the Christian a better Christian; the Hindu a
better Hindu; the Buddhist a better Buddhist; even the lawyer a better
lawyer. Self-knowledge does not interfere with your life style. Life is
something to meditate on. In that sense, Yoga is not so much a
philosophy as a technique. It is very well to sit here and talk about, "I
and the Father are One," or "Father, Thy Will be Done," but how do
you know what that will is? How do you even know what it is to be a
Christian?
The previous Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Michael Ramsey) asked
me: "If my religion, my faith, my practices, my approach to God and
all this, leads me there, would you still want me to practice Yoga?" I
said: "You are a yogi. You are using different terminology and that's
not important." Here, one would merely want to investigate with the
other person, if he is willing and open, the phenomenon of faith: Are
you merely blindly accepting that which someone else told you as the
truth, or is your Spirit, the heart of Jesus, awake in you? Are you
investigating the teaching as Jesus himself did in His own time? Are
you blindly clinging to a tradition, which will only throw you into the
same group of hypocrites whom Jesus did not spare in his mission, or
are you alive to the Spirit of religion as opposed to the tradition or
form of religion? Then you are alive; you are a yogi.
Once I was in New Zealand at a church gathering and a young man
walked up to me and said: "Swami do you believe in Jesus Christ?" And
I said, "Yes." "And you know that Jesus said, 'Follow Me'?" I said, "Yes,
I know that he said, 'Follow Me'." "Well, why don't you follow him?"
said the young man. "What does it mean, Sir?" He said, "Come and
join us." I said, "I am sorry, Jesus said 'Follow Me' not you."
I must find Christ-consciousness. Again and again we are admonished
in the Bible, "Why do you call me 'Lord Lord,' and not do what I tell
you?" (Luke VI, 46) and "You must do the will of God" (Ref. Matt. VII,
21).
"I am the way, and the truth and the life." (John XIV, 6) In that
statement there is something fantastically beautiful. When I say "I am
a human being," the "I" is equal to the human being. It is a simple
equation. And when Jesus says: "I am the Way," it means your spiritual
path is Christ-consciousness. "The Way" is the way that you follow.
The ultimate realization of truth or self-awareness is Christ. Do not
take "Me" to be the human personality, for "I am the Truth." Whether
you turn to it or not, "I am the Light." Look for Him there, instead of
trying to manipulate your life, instead of trying to do some kind of
cosmetic, superficial discipline. You know what cosmetic discipline
means? Any kind of discipline that can be washed out: it is shallow,
vain. And discipline that does not stand the test of life itself is useless.
So why do you look for this truth? Where do you look for this God?
Where do you look for this Divinity and how do you find your path?
Jesus says: "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." Instead of
assuming that your life is a good or bad life or an in-between life, go
right down into yourself and see what life means. What is life? Not
what is the meaning of the word "life." Not, "What is the purpose of
life?" What is life itself? Or what are you when you are fast asleep and
the mind does not function, thoughts do not flow, but life continues?
Life is Christ. And no-one comes to the Father but through this door
(ref. John XIV,6). Allowed this Self-knowledge and understanding, the
life itself enters the kingdom of God. There is no Self-realization, no
salvation, no liberation. It is easy, but because of our unwillingness to
face the truth directly, we miss this extremely simple truth. The truth
is hidden in life itself and that life is Divine. It is granted to us by the
Divine, it is the Divine.
Somehow in our anxiety to make something else of that life, we run
away from it. And therefore Jesus in his beautiful Sermon on the
Mount says "Do not be anxious about anything" (ref. Matt. VI, 25).
Drop all anxieties and then allow life to flow on. Whatever that anxiety
may be, drop it, because anxiety is positive proof that you have moved
away from the center. When you dwell in the center, there is no
anxiety. How do you know? When you are fast asleep there is no
anxiety. What more do you want?
In Sanskrit the word for deep sleep (svapiti) literally means "returning
to the Self." We are not talking about dreams and nightmares and so
on. We are talking about profound deep sleep where there is no
thought movement, neither in the form of the waking-state
consciousness nor even dreams. There you are close to the Self- you
are close to God. Why? Because there is peace, joy, delight and
regeneration. You come out of that sleep completely, totally refreshed
without having done anything. My Guru used to say, "Think of sleep,
you do not take any injection, you do not take any vitamins and tonics.
Even here, five minutes later you are fresh." How is it possible? You
are close to your own Self, you are close to God. In that state there is
peace, joy, rejuvenation and most important of all, there is absolutely
no fear or anxiety.
"Is it possible," we ask, "to live in that state?" What are you doing
when you are asleep? You are doing nothing. Sleep is "doing you," if
that makes any sense. When it leaves, you can get up. Even the alarm
clock only pushes that sleep away- does not wake you up. Only when
that sleep is pushed away can you wake up. You are totally at the
mercy of sleep, at the mercy of God. You tell yourself: "We are so
frightened of this and that, of bugs and diseases, all sorts of crazy
things." But when you are fast asleep this whole city might cave in ...
did you ever think of that?
Can we live our whole life in a state of wholeness and total harmony,
the state of non-dualism that is characteristic of deep sleep without
sleeping? Can this Divine state prevail? This is the serious question
that both the yogi and the inquiring Christian seek to resolve.

Reference
1. Interview with Swami Venkatesananda on PRIORITIES (Sept. 25,
1982). Presented by Tony Howes of ABC radio 6WN, Australia.
Union
About twelve years ago, a good Christian who was a yoga student told
me with a smile on his face: "You know, my priest cautioned me
against learning Yoga. He says it is the teaching of the devil." My
response was simple: "Not being acquainted with the devil I don't
know what his teachings are! But I can tell you what Yoga is and what
it is not. That is quite simple."
Then there is the attitude that since Yoga is not mentioned in the
Gospels we should not look at the teachings. Jet planes and motor cars
are not mentioned in the Gospels. But we use them! So one has to
understand the whole concept more deeply and see if there is
anything in the teaching that positively militates against the religion
one believes in.
In order to do that, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of
what is meant by the word "religion." It is a tragedy too deep for tears
and probably it moves you as much as it moves me even to think that
in the name of religion we have promoted numerous conflicts. In the
name of religion. Is it possible for us to understand what the word
religion means? It is interesting to see that Dr. Capra (the author of
The Tao of Physics, and now in another volume, The Turning Point)
suggests that religion is "to bind firmly" religare. That is what the word
"Yoga" also means. One is Latin and the other is Sanskrit. So what! And
of course there is the other suggestion that I will immediately dismiss
as irrelevant: that when Jesus referred to "My yoke," "My yoke is
easy..." (Matt. XI, 29-30) they say he was referring to his yoga may be,
may not be. Religion is to bind firmly, or, as Yoga implies, to link, to
unite, to yoke, two factors together. What these two factors are is not
made explicit in the word "religion" or "yoga."
Now we can contemplate the teaching of the Gospels:
"To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God;
but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see,
and hearing they may not understand" said Jesus. (Luke VIII, 10) Why
speak in parables? Why don't you be explicit? For the simple reason,
as we shall go into in greater detail as we go along with this discussion,
that an immature mind might misinterpret a teaching if it becomes
too explicit. Therefore there is a need to allow this maturity to take
place and for each one of us to discover the truth. As the yogi would
say: the vessel must be prepared before the nectar can be poured into
it. Otherwise you will spoil it. Therefore these things were not made
explicit.
(On this point, Father Terence comments: "Figurative language, that
is the language of love, demands that a certain relationship be
established between the speaker and hearer in order for it to be
understood. Figurative language has a force more binding than direct
speech - it requires that the hearer be ready to enter into a special
relationship with the speaker. Jesus speaks about God in a way that
reaches hearers who will permit themselves to become involved and
who learn how to know the reality which is contained in metaphor by
association with Jesus and through discipleship. The parable then is
incomprehensible to those with hardened hearts and not in that close
and open relationship with Jesus. The context for these sayings about
parables is the blindness of the professors of religion and even of
Jesus' own family and disciples. (Mark VIII, 17ff)")
What is religion? They said, "binding two things firmly together." What
is Yoga? "To unite two things firmly together" - unite means two. What
are those two factors, or many factors? They ask: "Why do you want
everything to be made explicit? Why don't you try to work, at least as
hard as the teacher?" The problem of the majority of people who call
themselves religious is that they are too lazy to work at it. We love to
go to somebody and say, "Please tell me what to do." If you are going
to do it, find out how you are going to do it. You cannot do a thing
precisely the way that someone else does it - impossible.
Having heard the teaching, contemplate and find out how you can do
it, how you can comprehend it, and in that process you may get a
clearer idea of what the teaching itself is. This is the reason why
parables, stories and legends are used. If one doesn't understand this
process you will take the letter as more important than the spirit and
run into the difficulty which Jesus pointed out: "The letter killeth the
spirit" (ref Mark VII, 6-8). You follow the letter but the spirit is gone.
There is another word in Sanskrit which is also used as a synonym for
religion and that is dharma. It means almost what religion or yoga
means but it is a bit more elastic, so you can stretch it to include not
only the spirit of religion but tradition and superstition. What does the
word dharma mean? Dharma is something which brings us together,
which enables us to hold on to each other, to embrace each other. "To
hold on" being the root meaning of the word dharma, to hold, uphold.
There is also the suggestion in the word dharma of a costume. Why is
it a costume? You are holding the costume - we are all walking coat
hangers! Do we not treat religion in the sense of an overcoat or
uniform that is worn and which naturally wears out? A lovely English
word-"to wear" is both to put on and also to wear out. As you can see,
that which you wear wears out in course of time and if religion is used
in that sense, as something that you put on, that you wear, it must
wear out -it doesn't matter what that religion is called. (Thus, we seem
to swing like a pendulum-once this shawl is worn out you take another
shawl and when that is worn out you wear a third shawl.) That factor
is indicated by Jesus when he says: "The Sabbath was made for man,
not man for the Sabbath" (Mark II, 27). That which you wear is made
for you and not you for it. You make the dress to suit you but you don't
undergo plastic surgery in order that you might fit into a dress.
Sabbath was made for man and not man for Sabbath. And this is as
true today as it was 2,000 years ago.
Shall we then discard all these traditions and superstitions? Not unless
you have discovered the spirit, and if you have discovered the spirit
you may feel that you still need some kind of a covering for it. I hope
this is very clear. In a nudist colony they insisted upon walking about
naked and no objection could make them put on their clothes, till
suddenly there was a shower of rain and it was cold. They covered
themselves. That is what dress was originally intended for. Dress was
intended, not to promote the business trade of fashion designers, but
to cover our nakedness and help us endure inclemencies in weather.
So, it is not possible to discard all tradition and all superstition
altogether, even if you are able to rediscover the spirit of religion, and
live it. There are moments of challenge when the human mind longs
to hold on to some form. You will still need something or you will still
do something, even as the nudists covered themselves.
Whereas the letter may kill the spirit (and one has to beware of that)
it is not possible for the spirit to exist and to function independent of
a container, the "letter." It is not possible for one to even think except
in terms of an image, words, expressions. Thoughts are words. So
whereas traditions and traditional practices, which may even border
on superstition, might not be necessary when the spirit is discovered,
you might discover at the same time that they have a role to play and
there is no need to rebel against them. At the same time it is possible
that the traditions might enable you to understand one another
better. As long as there is hair on the head there is a hairstyle, even if
it is a style that is what one might call natural - which means let the
hair grow as it wants to grow and let it be as it wants to be which is
another hairstyle. Even so you may create another thing called a
universal religion (the very word "Catholicism" means "universal") but
please remember that that will become another religion as much
contentious as the other religions in the world.
Right from infancy of humanity and the very beginnings of what we
have called religion, we have struggled and struggled to understand
the teachings of these great ones who proclaimed their vision of a
certain unity called God, a certain something in which we are all linked
together. That something has been sought to be understood in our
own little ways and that is all we could do. It is not our fault; it is not
their fault. But unfortunately instead of recognizing the limitations of
our own understanding and pursuing from there, from a belief system
onward to a discovery of the truth, we elevated tradition, or if you like
superstition, to the status of truth. We regarded the images as God,
which is absurd and a "sin," if you want to use that word. If you use
the image as God, if you use a concept as truth, then the letter has
completely and totally destroyed the spirit and that spirit needs to be
resurrected - they give you "three days" to do that!
In the same context in which Jesus said, "Sabbath was made for man,
not man for the Sabbath," it is said that he also performed a healing
and asked the professors of religion (I use the word "professor" in a
very different sense - professor is one who professes but does not
practice): "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save
life or to kill?" (Mark III, 4) They were stumped. (Father Terence
comments: "If the professors had known their scriptures well enough,
they would have understood what Jesus was saying."1) It is a serious
question. There is some sort of a tradition which lays down "thou
shalt," "thou shalt not;" and this gives rise to a situation in which there
is a dilemma.
There is a lovely verse which occurs towards the end of the
Mahabharata. (The Mahabharata is an enormous epic that lays down
dharma in all its aspects, just as the Bible does: the truth and the ways
in which the spirit of truth is clothed -tradition, superstition,
aberration, and all.) Towards the end the compiler or the chronicler
says "I will declare to you the essence of all scriptures put together":
paropakarah punyaya papaya parapidanam
"To do good to others; to help others is right, good, meritorious,
righteous. To harm, to cause unhappiness to others, to have ill-will
towards others is sin."
So here we are given exactly the same teaching which Jesus implies
when he asks "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath?"
Is it possible then to understand religion as a force, a power that unites
us, upholds us, brings us closer together, one to the other and
eventually closer together to that truth we all adore and worship in
various forms as God? Can the forms all be abolished? It is an
unnecessary and wasteful effort, because having abolished all the
forms you will create your own form. And then we gloss over the
whole thing saying, "Yes we also have an image or a statue, but we
don't regard that as God." It is only a clever argument. Take the case
of the followers of Buddha. Buddha warned against rites and rituals.
Now, we worship the Buddha himself - why not?
There is another example. A holy man has often said publicly: "Yoga
will not bring you clarity of mind." Quite right, perfectly right. If
standing upside down and doing headstand is going to promote
salvation or liberation, or enlightenment, or cosmic consciousness or
total awareness, then these bats must be enlightened - they hang
upside down all the time! I happened to meet a few of this holy man's
disciples (he doesn't have disciples but they consider themselves his
disciples!) One of them had a nervous problem. She would not
practice pranayama, because her teacher was not in favor of Yoga.
Later I happened to meet this teacher; when he heard all this he was
shocked. During his talk the next day he declared: "I practice yoga for
two hours every morning!"
Jesus might not have asked you to practice yoga but that might be
because it was taken for granted. The Essenes practiced breathing and
physical exercises every day as part of the routine (ref. The Essene
Gospel of Peace, E.B. Szekely). They took a bath every day before they
engaged themselves in spiritual practices.
In order to discover the spirit of religion we may need a framework,
any framework, but sleeping on the framework will not enable you to
discover that spirit. It is hard work that is needed. Not struggle in the
sense that you are fighting against yourself, but a relaxed, alert
investigation into the nature of truth which alone will bring an internal
union, harmony, and internal integration.
This integration was pointed out by a very good friend, Rabbi
Gelberman, as threefold. In Hebrew there is an expression "El
Shaddai." "Shaddai" is, according to him, not exactly the name of God
but something like that. (Incidentally when he mentioned "Shaddai" I
thought: "That is what we call satwa or sat as in satchidananda.") And
the letter "sha" in Hebrew is precisely like a trishula, trident, and he
explained that that itself represented a threefold integration.
The first integration is the union of "I" and "me." This is perhaps the
most intriguing, enigmatic and paradoxical situation. You may study
all the text books that you can lay your hands on in psychology but you
will still not understand clearly whether "I" is "me" or "me" is "I," and
why this split takes place. How has it come to be accepted as true? "I
pity myself," "I hate myself," "I love myself"- what do these mean? "I
hate myself." How can you do that? "I kill myself." "I pity myself." Are
you the pitied or the pitier who is on a high pedestal? Is it anything
more than sheer hypocrisy? That is one of the three prongs of the
trident: the "I" and "me" integration. The second integra- tion is
between "I" and "you" - "you being every being that one encounters
in daily life. And the third integration is the integration, harmonizing
or uniting of "I" and "he." "He" is whatever it is that is not in front of
your or in you. What is he? "He" does not only mean some kind of a
god (though it includes it). Maybe it is "she." (I suppose you realize
that he is always part of SHE, so don't get offended if I use the word
"he" - it is more economical than using "she"!)
The following is one of the most beautiful and potent meditations
suggested by the Buddha: the meditation on loving kindness or
compassion. The teaching is, first contemplate they who are good to
you and whom you love, and radiate compassion towards them - that
comes more or less naturally. Then he says extend the same
compassion to those whom you neither love nor hate. There are an
enormous number of people of that type. Then extend the same
compassion to those whom you don't like or who don't like you. And
finally, abolish this distinction between you and them. Be
compassionate towards yourself also or let this artificial boundary
disappear. Realize that the boundary is just artificial: "you" and "I" are
not absolutely independent of each other, totally isolated from each
other. The very fact that you are able to hear and see me, shows that
we are linked at some point or the other. Similarly, if you put a radio
receiver here you cannot pick up sounds to which the receiver is not
tuned. It is when that link is established that there is hearing, seeing
and thinking about.
So there is this unity which is not perceived by us merely because we
are not paying attention to it and merely because we have substituted
something else in its place. There is an idea that "I am I" and "you are
you" and forever unmeetable. The abolition of this idea (and it is only
an idea and does not exist as truth) is religion, dharma, Yoga or
whatever you wish to call it.

Further references suggested by Father Terence:

1. Hosea VI, 6; Amos V, 21-27; Isaiah I, 11-17.
2. John XVII, 20-26; Ephesians IV, 1-6; Galatians III, 28;
Colossians III, 11.
Tradition and Spirit
Recognize that tradition is a benign danger, an unavoidable evil. And
what is even worse, there is a danger in it of a strange type of
fragmentation. You think of a certain outmoded fashion, or culture,
which according to you is not relevant to present day conditions, and
you create a new culture, call it counter-culture. Very soon that
culture becomes the establishment. For some unknown or known
(obvious) reason, we refuse to recognize this. We refuse to recognize
that everything that goes up must come down. (There is no straight
line in this universe.) And if you are not prepared for the change, you
are too rigid, fit to be discarded.
When the spirit goes it creates a vacuum this is the next and perhaps
the more serious difficulty encountered by truly religious people all
over the world. The spirit is gone and nature abhors a vacuum,
therefore that vacuum is instantly filled with what you might call
tradition and what might well be called superstition. This tradition or
superstition may be necessary.
The actual words found in the Bible are much stronger than any I could
command. This is from Mark (VII, 6-8): "Well did Isaiah prophesy of
you hypocrites, as it is written, "This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as
doctrines the precepts of men.' You leave the commandment of God,
and hold fast the tradition of men. Those words are as true today as
they were two thousand years ago. Does that happen to us or not?
To make this a little clearer I might tell you about the Indian railways.
There is an extraordinary form of behavior which you notice
particularly amongst the third class passengers on Indian railways.
Unless you have been there you can't imagine what stampede goes on
in order to get into these third class compartments, which are not just
overcrowded - that is a very tame word - this is incomparable!
Visualize this scene. The train is about to start and people are spilling
over the doors and the windows. Then a young man arrives on the
platform and says, "Can I get in?" And they say, "No, no!" And he begs
and pleads and pushes and elbows and does all sorts of things.
Somehow he is able to get a little more than half his foot inside. Three
minutes later another man turns up. The previous one is the first one
to say, "No room for you." Why not? If there was room for him, why
not push a little bit and make room for the newcomer too? We have
this vicious habit of closing the door behind us. 3 As soon as our
teacher, our prophet, our guru or whatever, has appeared on the
scene, the door is closed: "There can be no more revelation, this is the
last word."
If you are able to look round, you see that neither God nor His nature
(nature is His nature) ever becomes barren. He goes on producing. If
such is the nature of creation, that all living things reproduce
themselves, why do we stupidly imagine that there are going to be no
more God-men, no more revelations? "The tradition to which we
belong holds the truth and it cannot be given to anybody else, and God
himself has not given it to anybody else." Why is this stupid idea?
When this idea is dumped, the next important truth that is revealed
to our own hearts is that which is so beautifully expressed in the
Bhagavad Gita by Krishna:
sa kalene ha mahata yogo nastah paramtapa (IV,2)
"This Yoga by long lapse of time, has been lost here, o Parantapa
(burner of foes)." Time has a beautifully unfortunate knack of wiping
everything out. Beautiful when it comes to our sorrows and sufferings
because time heals. But at the same time, time has this quality of
perverting, twisting, turning, masking and wearing out. In course of
time everything must wear out. If not, it is less living than that which
wears out. Another peculiar aspect of this time and truth: that which
is alive wears out more quickly than that which is not alive. Again a
terribly unpleasant truth, but I hope that you will sweeten it with your
own heart before accepting it. Let it be in someone else's words:
"When the spirit goes, the shell remains, and the shell is very hard to
break." This was what the first Indian Governor General,
Rajagopalachari, said to me when he heard that Swami Sivananda had
passed away. That is enough for two thousand years of meditation.
So if a religious tradition, any religion or revelation, has to be
traditionalized (has to be, otherwise it cannot be communicated), if
the truth that is revealed to you is not clothed in language, decked
nicely in metaphors, and pumped with a lot of formalin (formalin - you
make into a form), it cannot be preserved. It cannot be
communicated. So in order to communicate, you have to do all these.
You have to put the truth into words, clothe it in nice metaphors,
allegories and parables and what have you. That's what Jesus says: "To
you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those
outside everything is in parables..." (Mark IV, 11). Then they go on
repeating the story and forgetting the truth. Already. And then when
it has to be handed down from generation to generation, you have to
write it and print it in a book. The form - formalin - has become more
important than the living truth.
So, it is inevitable that every revelation must be converted into a
religion, full of these rituals and forms. There is nothing wrong with
that. There is something inspiring in a well conducted ritual, and we
are all fond of rituals. Don't let us bluff ourselves that we are so highly
evolved that we don't need rituals. We all love rituals. Even dressing
is a ritual: you stand in front of the mirror, you do this, you do that -
all that is ritual. Eating is a ritual: in this hand you hold a fork and in
that hand you hold a knife. Is it possible to avoid rituals? No. But do
we convert all these into truths? If we do, we are trapped in a cyclical
process of tradition chasing religion. This cyclical process becomes
fruitful only if religion chases tradition too. Otherwise there is one way
traffic, imbalance. That is the danger.
Only a close study and contemplation of the saying of Jesus in Mark
(II, 17)4 enables you to understand the Bhagavad Gita better.
yada-yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bharata
abhyuttanam adharmasya tada 'tmanam srjamy aham
(IV.7)
"Whenever there is a decline of righteousness, O Arjuna, and the rise
of unrighteousness, then I manifest Myself." "Whenever dharma feels
threatened" you wonder how can dharma be threatened at all. Can
anything happen here which is not willed by God or which is not
ordained, preordained? I'm taking it simplistically. Since God's nature
cannot be violated, how is it possible for dharma to be threatened?
The meaning is quite simple. That is, when dharma is threatened by
too rigid a traditionalization, then the spirit of dharma is gone. And
what is extremely interesting here is that you are religious, absolutely
religious, yet totally irreligious: you have all the trappings of religion
but none of the spirit. I have seen this - I grew up with such "pious"
people in South India. You dare not call them hypocrites, they will "kill"
you as they killed Jesus. And if you are inwardly aware of this whole
problem, you are scared to even call them hypocrites, because you
realize, "It is alright, I can destroy this structure, but can I establish the
spirit in the hearts of people without creating another structure? Can
I preserve this body of truth without using formalin?" No. So leave it
alone. If possible infuse a little bit of spirit into it. And that force, that
power that infuses spirit into these existing structures is called
avatara, incarnation or, more aptly "descent."
In a way we are all incarnations. Anything that enters into a living body
and lives in that body is an incarnation. But what is so special about
what is known as divine incarnation, is the fact that it is a descent. And
therefore the word "avatara" is really not incarnation. There is no
word in Sanskrit in this context which could be translated
"incarnation." Embodied beings are called dehi - deha is body, dehi is
embodied. Avatara is really not incarnation as such, but a descent.
That conveys a completely different connotation. It might even be a
descent within yourself.
Before we go on to the traditional view of incarnation, let us look at
one feature. That is, when this God descends we somehow feel that
He must descend in an extraordinary, supernatural manner. You all
know that the birth of Jesus is attributed to the Holy Spirit. Genesis
defines spirit as the breath of life. God breathed the breath of life and
man became a living spirit. So the breath of life is the spirit. There is a
character of immense strength called Hanuman in the Ramayana. It is
said that he was also born of a mother and had no embodied father.
Who was the father? Wind. What is wind? Life breath. Then there is a
sort of expansion of the birth story which says that the mother was
lying asleep on a hillside and wind entered into her and she bore
Hanuman. Lovely. You can interpret it in any way you like: genetically,
biologically, logically, illogically, psychologically! The birth of the
Buddha is similarly described. We always look for some sort of
extraordinary phenomenon, descending - it has to be a descent. So we
think of the Holy Spirit descending into the mother.
What are we trying to imply by all this? That this person was chosen
to be a superior man. Why do we do that? Why do we look upon
Buddha, Jesus Christ, Krishna or "x y z" as some kind of a superior
person-born superior? For a very clever reason that thereby we
escape the necessity to follow his teaching. That is a very dangerous
tradition. Whereas Jesus himself says several times, "Not everyone
who says to me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,
but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt VII,
21)." And "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John
XIV, 15) Who says it is not possible? When you affirm to yourselves
that it is not possible to adhere to the teachings of this man because
he was created perfect and we are all imperfect creatures, it is then
that you invent a short cut, and tell yourself: "I'll worship him or I will
wear a symbol that represents his presence with me by which I'll be
saved." Well, if you have such faith, it is very nice. But faith is not that
easy as we shall discover.
Avatara is a descent in order to restore the proper balance between
tradition and the spirit of religion. If this has not happened, then even
the descent is questionable. Or, since this is the purpose of the
descent, it is better for us to bestir ourselves and study the teachings
very carefully. It must be possible for us to adhere to those teachings
or the teachings would not be there, and the descent was wasteful. If
there have been even a few - and there have always been a few who
have risen to those heights indicated by the teachings, who have lived
as the embodiment of those teachings - it is those few that bear
witness to the fact that this was a descent. Therefore it is in their
teachings that their mission lies.
Krishna mentions something very beautiful and that is given to us in
the story of the vine (John XV, 1-11). What is the purpose of the
descent apart from reviving the spirit of religion? It is:
paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam (IV.8)
"For the protection of the good; for the destruction of the wicked." "In
order to protect the good and to destroy evil." If you go to India and
listen to some of the pundits, they will go into ecstasy conveying to
you what a tremendously uplifting message this is, that God will come
again and again and again to protect the good and "We are all good
aren't we?" Whenever I contemplate this, I feel a shiver along my
spine. What if God suddenly manifests in front of you now and says,
"You first. Are you good? If you are not, you deserve to be dispatched."
So, this is not as much a guarantee of protection as a responsibility
imposed upon us (if you like that expression) to be good. Otherwise
you are not going to be saved.
On the other hand, we have this illustration of the vine and the good
horticulturist who clips off the dead branches and prunes the vine so
that it might yield abundant fruits, the fruits of the spirit of religion.
These two might refer to what happens to those who are not living a
righteous life, the evil, and to those who are living a righteous life, the
good. The Taoist symbol enables us to realize that none of us is
completely good and, thank God, none of us is totally evil. The purpose
of the descent is to chop off those dead branches and to prune the
rest and you find these two things happening in our lives. In some of
the legends connected for instance with Krishna or Rama, the avataras
that are most popular, they are supposed to have destroyed,
physically destroyed the evil-doers, the raksasa, the demons.
That is no problem, that is like cutting off those dead branches. Are
they destroyed? What do you mean "destroyed"? God is omnipotent
but there is one privilege He does not have which we all enjoy: He
cannot throw us out of his house. God being omnipresent, it is not
possible for Him to throw us out of His presence. But He can do
something: instead of putting you on His shoulders as a beloved son,
as a chosen devotee, He can throw you down and stand on you. But
we cannot be banished for ever and ever.
Now, come back to this vine and pay a little attention as you clip those
dead branches. Life was flowing from the root through the stem into
all these branches, some alive, some bearing fruits, and some dry.
"Dry" means traditionalist - there is no spirit in it. That is clipped off.
Why, what for, and what happens then? The energy that was flowing
towards it is contained, conserved, liberated, freed from being wasted
away. A reason why, particularly in the epic know as the Mahabharata,
it is said that all the wicked people who fought against Krishna and his
friends attained salvation first. Why so? Because they were looking at
his divine face and died. You can't stand in front of the Lord and drop
dead and then go to hell. That's an insult to God.
Now, we are not so bad and perhaps the world does not have such
totally bad people as are described in some of these epics and legends.
What happens to us? What happens to us is thus beautifully described
by Lord Jesus: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and
throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that
your whole body be thrown into hell." (Matt. V, 29) If you don't do it,
God does it. That's all. The offending organ is paralyzed. That's just
exactly as good as chopping off the dead branches. That is God's grace.
That is the purpose of descent. God descends into our lives as this
pruning. On the one hand it is cutting away, on the other it is pruning.
When we are deprived of some faculties, it is not as if we are punished.
For me this doctrine of "punishment" from God is very difficult to
accept. It seems to be too arrogant a statement. We are like nothing,
not even mosquitoes, and in order to confront us and to teach us does
this Great God who is omnipotent come with a big rifle and say, "I'll
shoot you!"? My God, you don't have to do all that. And as a matter
of fact I might even tell Him, "It is difficult to shoot a mosquito with a
rifle!" If there is loss of a limb or a faculty, or of something which we
think we possess, of someone whom we regard as "mine" and in that
relationship something happens which is against the divine will, then
that is chopped off, pruned, so that the energy that was flowing in that
direction can be effectively prevented from being wasted and used in
the right direction, so becoming fruitful.
paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya ca duskrtam (IV.8)
"For the protection of the good; for the destruction of the wicked."
Here (in the word "sadhunam") there is no suggestion at all that what
is implied is good people. Sadhunam means anything that is good.
Your good thoughts, good emotions and good feelings are preserved,
protected by the divine. And where there is an aberration, it is nicely
trimmed, pruned, destroyed. Why not use a simple word sometimes
when it can do duty for a whole paragraph. Sin - we don't know what
sin means, but that is what is implied. Please listen to this, it may be
unpleasant again even if it is in strict accordance with tradition, but if
it is against the spirit of religion, that will be chopped off, or pruned.
If you don't like the violent word "destroyed," use the word "pruned"
- it means the same thing in effect, but we like euphemism a lot more
than truth.
sambhavami yuge-yuge (IV.8)
"I am born in every age." This is another enigmatic statement: yuge-
yuge has been interpreted to mean "in every age or epoch called
yuga," which according to some is 4,320,200 years and according to
others much less - you can take your pick. Yuga literally means "two
factors coming together." When two things come together, there is a
yuga. That word can mean that also. Sanskrit words have got many
meanings. What am I trying to suggest? If you suffer at any time from
a genuine, serious, soul-consuming, soul-quaking confusion, there is
the descent of light, the descent of God.
We are all brought up in a tradition and suddenly there is an
encroachment. I don't want to say a new truth, but an encroachment,
and you are sincerely and seriously baffled. "What must I do?" It is not
a superficial inquiry, but a deep soul-full inquiry. It is not an academic
investigation, but one that is more important than life and death
struggle, and at that point you have nowhere to turn to. Why nowhere
to turn to? Because the two directions from which the truths are
coming are the problem. Who will you turn to? Here is the truth given
to you by your tradition and there is the truth revealed to you by
someone else who says, "This is the truth." So you can't possibly turn
to something else, somewhere else in order to escape this dilemma.
And yet you feel that it is extremely important. That is confusion, a
junction where these two things collide with soul-quaking velocity. If
this happens then there is a descent, from within you. You may call it
awakening of the kundalini (primordial energy), you may call it
shaktipat (transmission of spiritual power), you may call it what you
like. And out of these two confusing, conflicting and apparently
contradictory points of view arises a new revelation, a new truth. This
can also be the descent of God. (Father Terence refers to this as the
"Ah ha!' experience. A new meaning comes from this tension
metanoia.")
What is important, especially in connection with an embodied
incarnation, an embodied descent like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus
or your own Guru, is also emphasized by Jesus in that parable of the
vine. That is, if you are the branch, you must be linked to the stem and
the root. He says very explicitly and very plainly: "I am the vine, you
are the branches. He who abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears
much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." (John XV, 5)
Meaning: "If you are connected to me as I am connected to God then
you will be fruitful, and you will be full of the spirit of religion."
There is a lovely verse isvaro gurur atmeti "God, Guru and Self are
one." When the pruning has been accomplished and the energy flows
smoothly, without being wasted, without interference, then the
integrity of the whole is re-established. That is called dharma: when
Isvara, Guru and Self become of one substance. That is what
communion means. You partake of the bread and the wine and by
doing so you transform your body into the body of Christ, then it is no
longer "your" body. Christ has already said, "I and the Father are one."
(John X, 30) So at that moment you become one not only with Christ
but with God. Or to put it more painfully, but blissfully, you cease to
exist. The interfering "you" ceases to exist, and that is when the
totality is restored. That is when the integrity of the vine is restored.
It is no longer a branch: a branch cannot be a branch as long as it is
part of the vine, but when it is cut out and thrown away, it becomes a
branch - dead. Why do you call it a branch? It is vine, it is the vine, the
totality, from the root to the tip, it is all one single vine. To be truly a
branch means abandonment of the idea that "I am a branch and this
is the vine." You cannot have that. The branch that says, "I am a branch
and this is the tree," as if they were separate, is dead. It is outside of
that totality.
So when is the purpose of the descent fulfilled? When they who are
able, partake of the essence of the truth that thus descends and
restore in themselves the consciousness of the integrity of the whole.

Notes
1. Incidentally, "tradition" in Sanskrit is sampradaya. I'm not exalting
one above the other, but just for your entertainment: What does
tradition sound like? Trad- ing. And sampradaya - daya is "to give,"
"donate." Sampradaya is "giving correctly and very well." So the
Oriental always gave knowledge, knowledge of scriptures. The
Occidental however, seems to be very keen on trading in these.
Further comments by Father Terence:
2. This was not a response to a particular abuse, but indicative of a
more profound struggle of Jesus, viz: against a legalistic understanding
of the chief commandment. Jesus seems to have been opposed in
general to this legalistic attitude which seeks honor in the sight of God.
Ref. Mark II, 23ff; Mark III, 1ff; Matt. V, 21ff; Mark VII, 9-13.
3. Ref. Jesus' attack on the Pharisees - Matt. XXIII.
4. "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are
sick; I come not to call the righteous, but sinners." Jesus calls the
outcasts not only to repentance, but to God to the God who confronts
them in Jesus. Temptation of the righteous is to think they do not need
God day by day and as a result they may not recognize him when he
comes.
5. We are reminded here of dangers of discipleship. Also picks up the
theme of the "narrow gate" (Matt. VII, 13). Necessity to do the will of
the Father (as Jesus did) - ref. Luke VIII, 21.
 Discipleship
What is said about the distinction between the spirit of religion and
the inevitable tradition is equally and simultaneously true of the word
of God and the word of man. It is very well to say that the scripture is
the word of God; if you believe in it you can go along with it for some
distance. Suddenly you discover that there are other versions, other
editions, of this word of God. Then you begin to wonder, did God
actually say these words or some other words, and in what language
did he speak? Then it occurs to you that maybe it is the word of God
but it has come through the lips of man. A powerful doubt has arisen:
the "maybe."
A very great contemporary saint in India who lived early this century,
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, once remarked that all scriptures,
irrespective of their origin or the tradition to which they relate, are
polluted. (In India anything that has touched your lips is considered
polluted and cannot be offered to anyone else.) So, even the word of
God, when it passes through human lips, is polluted. The purpose of
this incarnation is to revive the word of God, in distinction to the word
of man. That's why you find Jesus saying again and again: "The words
I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who
dwells in me does his works." (John XIV, 10). Even in this tiny text of a
few pages (in comparison with the Oriental scriptures that we study
as Yoga) you have this statement repeated again and again: "I have
not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself
given me command- ment what to say and what to speak." (John XII,
49)
Then there is the other statement, "...the Father who dwells in me
does his works." (John XIV, 10) These are statements which are very
inconvenient and which need to be contemplated with all our heart
and soul. And if we don't do that there is a problem. It is on this basis
that perhaps one has to accept or regard one's own immediate guru
(teacher, priest or rabbi) as the incarnation of God.
You have been brought up in a tradition and now there is a challenge
from elsewhere, and there is a fusion, confusion. Confusion, not in the
sense of bewilderment based on doubt, but in the sense of the fusion
of these two forces. When there is bewilderment on the basis of
doubt, you tend to drop the whole thing, walk away, and "let's eat,
drink and be merry." But then you realize that "eat, drink and be
merry" also leads you nowhere. So when neither this nor that satisfies
you, neither this teaching nor that teaching seems to be totally valid,
and when there is this soul-quaking collision between your tradition
and someth- ing new, it is possible that this collision might set off a
spontaneous intuitive understanding. That is your guru. One single
experience makes the revelation true, a reality. And when that
revelation occurs, when that understanding arises, you also
understand the purpose of tradition.
The experience is the guru- the teacher; not merely the word, because
the word of however great a person, is still the word of man. When
does it become the word of God? When you realize without a shadow
of doubt, that this is true. Then it becomes the word of God: and the
incarnation, the descent has fulfilled its purpose.
If Jesus himself thought that his teaching was effective, he would have
been the most disappointed person on earth. Why? Why is it that even
he was abandoned? Abandoned by his own disciples, betrayed by one
and disowned by the foremost. Because they had been brought up in
the highly intellectualized, Jewish tradition, and here was someone,
apparently a man, who referred to himself as the Son of man, which
meant, "I am no better than you are," or "What I do, you can also do."
And these words were said by Jesus, "Truly, truly I say to you, he who
believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than
these will he do..." (John XIV, 12)2
Here was someone who appeared in our midst, who lived like us - ate,
drank, slept, taught and even suffered; and he also worked some
miracles and wonders. Concerning those miracles, there is a hint in the
Gospels that the Jewish elders of those days declared that he was able
to work these wonders with the help of the devil (ref. Matt. IX, 34) —
an unfortunate statement which the later church leaders used in
relation to yet other people. Even those miracles did not impress
everyone. Why? It is possible that, as in the story of Moses (Exodus VII
and VIII), others were also able to perform those miracles. When
someone performs a miracle, some people are impressed, the others
sneer at him and go away. Jesus himself warns against placing too
much value on the working of miracles when he says to his disciples:
"Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and
scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt
you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to
you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (Luke X, 19-
20). Maharshi Patanjali in his famous text on Yoga also strongly
discourages the seeker from placing any value on psychic powers etc.
as these can lead to arrogance and thus prove a great distraction from
the quest for God-realization (see the Yoga Sutras III.37).
So, these disciples of Jesus were looking at him, they heard him and
thought, "This seems to be something new." In spite of the fact that
he said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt.
V, 27) Another very important statement: "Not to abolish them but to
fulfill them." He said something which looked new. Why so? Because
they had forgotten the word of God. They had buried it and on top of
it grown their own "plants" of tradition. So you can see that right
through there was this inner conflict. Instead of regarding it as a
confusion (when confusion arises you look within), the disciples
probably felt it as a conflict and therefore they were coming into
conflict with the society.
The disciples had to wait until they experienced the truth within
themselves. Their confusion was probably set in motion by the
resurrection phenomenon (ref. Luke XXIV). They went to the tomb and
found that he was not there. He died and walked about later - that
resolved a certain conflict but also brought about a certain confusion.
They were prepared to see it in a different light, because now it is no
longer a man but something else. What is this? And what is the
resurrection in relation to the descent or avatara that we are
discussing?
It can best be understood when you take the point of view of Yoga.
When does someone become a guru? When there is the descent of
light into him. When does the light of God descend into him? When
what was considered as the "me" is totally consumed by the fire of
knowledge, or in the Christian terminology, has been crucified and
killed, laid into the tomb. If the "me" can be destroyed totally and
buried, into that personality descends the light of God. Can you and I
while still breathing and appearing to live, die so totally that the divine
might descend into us? That is the condition for the descent of God.
You have a beautiful saying by Jesus, "Whoever would save his life will
lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matt XVI,
25) While yet appearing to live, is it possible to so completely abandon
one's life? Then the divine descends into it." When the divine
descends into that soul, into that personality, which has been
completely emptied of the "me," it is no longer that old personality.
Therefore the yogi worships, adores his Guru as God. What we looked
at was of course the physical frame of Swami Sivananda, but we
realized that it was not the Swami Sivananda that was a medicant and
so on, it was not the appearance of a human personality that we
regarded as Swami Sivananda. But when that whole being had been
totally emptied of the "me," the divine descended into that
personality and spoke to us. Even this is not an entirely exotic
doctrine. It seems to have been prevalent in the Hassidic tradition
among the Jews: they regarded their Rabbi as the mouthpiece of God.
That is, here is a man so totally pure, so free of the "me" that he
becomes the channel for the flow of the light of God, the wisdom of
God.
There is a beautiful text called the Philokalia which is the story of the
early Christian monks, known as the desert fathers. Their teaching
asks the Christian disciple to regard this person, (the Starets, the
spiritual teacher, the guru, the priest, the father confessor) as Christ
himself, and get close to him, follow him implicitly. And of course,
there is the obvious parallel in the Christian tradition of the priest's
role: not only is he regarded as the representative of the Christ, but
he is also known as the "alter Christus" (the other Christ). So, the guru-
disciple relationship is there. But there is a problem again: is it possible
or is it even wise to assume that every priest, monk and swami has
reached that point where he has completely emptied himself and
therefore become the most perfect channel for the flow of divine
wisdom? What is the criterion? The criterion is entirely yours, the
disciple's.
There is this distinction between the word of God and the word of
man. In the word of God there is no doubt; in the word of man there
is always doubt. When the word of God is transmitted by or through a
true Guru or Master, it has that ring of certainty. Hence you find,
"When Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his
teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as
their scribes." (Matt. VII, 28)
I believe that there are quite a number of root meanings for the word
"authority" but merely look at that word there is "author" in it. The
AUTHORity is one who is the author of what he is talking about, and
the non-authority is one who is merely quoting someone else. If you
are fortunate enough to meet one who speaks with authority, not
because he shouts, not because he is assertive, but because he is the
author of what he is saying, in his presence all your doubts vanish. Can
one find such a situation in which you are with a Master and he
teaches you? In his words you sense the truth, and you know that "This
is it" - there is no doubt.
Nobody can be an authority on the word of God except God himself.
This person could not be an author of the word of God if "he" himself
was still there. It is when he has completely emptied himself that the
light of God descends into him, and it is the Author himself who is
speaking to you. But when you do not have the good fortune of
meeting such an authority, it doesn't have any effect upon you.
Every word that you hear has a counter-word in you own mind - there
is no authority there, it is all coming from the library. We are not
talking about these people, though they are fulfilling their roles.
Now, it is not as if it is all on the side of the Master, though the
Master's share is quite large in this communication of truth. It is also
the disciple's eligibility, receptivity, that is important. That is
beautifully illustrated by Jesus in the parable of the sower and the
seed (Luke VIII, 5-15).6 The seed of truth is potent. But if the sower
drops the seed on the wayside, birds come and pick them up and eat
them. If the seeds are dropped on rocks, they are fried, they become
ineffectual. If the seeds are dropped on uncultivated soil, they seem
to grow but they are soon overpowered by the weeds, and if the seeds
fall on fertile soil, they grow and yield abundant fruits. It is a beautiful
illustration.
If all of us happen to meet someone who is enlightened, through
whom the wisdom of God flows without distortion, is that sufficient
guarantee that we would all be instantly enlightened? Sorry, no. That
is the tragedy here: even that word of God uttered by the incarnation,
the avatara, might fall on infertile soil. Here is something which is
unfortunately but unquestionably true. It militates against what we
fondly love to believe: that this omniscient God would know what to
do. But look round your own garden, you find that even there there
are no absolutes. You look at a tree which bears a million seeds, not
all of them destined to grow into trees. Does God (nature) not know
which is destined to germinate and endow that with the potentiality
and leave the rest of the fruits seedless? No. That is the law of nature.
It may be that you and I do not understand.
Maybe again, what Swami Sivananda said is true. He used to say, "I
have planted the seed. It will grow in its own , time. Can we perhaps
understand even the parable of the sower in this manner? The seeds
are dropped alongside the road, the birds pick them us, and the Lord
says, "Don't worry, the birds will drop them somewhere else and they
will grow." Possible. Is it possible to see that even the seeds that fall
into the bush grow into small plants; they are choked by the weeds,
but then they fertilize the soil for a seed coming down on the same
place much later. Nothing is wasted in nature. So that even when the
teaching of a Christ, a Buddha, or a Krishna, falls on infertile soil, it is
possible that the seed acts as the fertilizer. Though it does not grow
into a plant instantly, as we would love it to, even that seed is probably
not wasted, ultimately.
But we are talking about the soil - ourselves - we are the ones who are
concerned. Except the ones who are really "fertile" and therefore able
to receive the seed and immediately respond to it, we are not really
disciples, though Yoga also recognizes three or four types of disciples.
In Sanskrit the gradation of discipleship is known as adhikari-bheda;
and that is precisely the same principle as in the parable of the sower
and the seed. Uttama adhikari, madhyama adhikari, adhyama
adhikari: one who is highly qualified, one who is middling and the
lowest type of disciple.
There is another little illustration used to describe the other categories
of discipleship which may be easier to understand: If you have a whole
bundle of cotton soaked in petrol, you dare not even light a match in
the vicinity, that thing will burst into flames. That is the disciple of the
highest order, an excellent type. The most fertile type of disciple is one
who by a mere look from the Master is able to realize the truth. He is
full of the spirit already, though he doesn't know it himself and all he
needs is one spark, one word of instruction, and that gets him. The
second one is like charcoal - you add some fire to it and you keep on
fanning and eventually it will catch fire. The third one is like banana
stem- a spark is no good, even some coals of fire are no good, you have
to very carefully assemble the fire and set it alight, even then it won't
catch for a long, long time. That is like the seed thrown on the rocks,
it doesn't germinate for a long time. However, you can see that even
this can be interpreted in another way. If there is a banana stem, leave
it there; in another two thousand years it will become fossil fuel,
capable of being ignited very easily and quickly!
So we have the Guru and we have the discipleship and it is not a
sequential relationship. One interacts with the other all the time.
When you are immature, even the perfect Guru is inadequate. When
you are highly mature, even an imperfect Guru is sufficient. It is not a
cut and dried system. It is something which is totally interrelated. A
highly disciplined disciple is able to transcend the "me" within himself
and at that moment commune with the truth that dwells within the
Guru, but behind the Guru's own "me." So it is not entirely the Guru's
responsibility, it is not entirely the disciple's responsibility, it is the
interaction between these two that contributes to the awakening of
the divine in one's heart.
Thus, if you are burning with eagerness to discover the word of God
within yourself, it is possible for a parish priest to be the medium for
you to get there. Why? Because the word of God is there, within
everybody, everything. On the other hand, if he is a highly enlightened
person, it is possible that even if you are "a banana stem" he might
invent some way of "drying you out and setting you alight." Also
possible. It is the sincerity and true aspiration that is of vital concern.

Further comments and references by Father Terence:

1. 1 Thess. II, 13. The life of a man risen "in Christ" consists of his living
in his own way the mystery of Christ.
2. Faith in Jesus will bring to the Christian power from God to perform
the same works that Jesus performs, because by uniting a man with
Jesus and the Father, faith gives him a share in the power they possess.
Ref. Matt. XXI, 21 and Mark XVI, 17.
3. Romans XII, 3-8 and I Cor. XIV, 19. "Gifts" in relation to Christ are
services; in relation to the Father, they are workings of the divine
power.
4. More than a new teaching a new Law of Love to be written on men's
hearts. Romans XII, 10.
5. Like the grain going into the ground: John XII, 24. Emptying of self is
the heart of discipleship: Romans VIII, 12-14; Galations II, 20.
6. Importance of being receptive and remaining receptive, like the
child: Mark IX, 36-37.
7. In this context, ref. the Parable of the Patient Husbandmen: Mark
IV, 26-29.
 Like a Little Child
Teaching and learning are not always what we take them to be; there
are levels of communication distinct and completely different from
verbal communication. This the yogi accepts: that one has to learn
Yoga from a teacher, but that that learning is not what we commonly
consider learning to be. It is communication, and that communication
can take place on unknown levels, on unknown planes.
This is not meant as an Oriental mystery. A story is told of St. Francis:
he was a simple, loving, humble saint, teaching people how to be
loving, kind, gentle and particularly how to lead a life of poverty - not
this business of ugly poverty, but to be poor in spirit. One day he was
walking through a small town; there were some people around him,
curious about him. And they walked with him, "A great teacher has
come, a Christ-like teacher has come to our town!" Even then he was
quite simple and humble; probably he was looking down at the earth
and treading very carefully, very gently. He entered this town by one
end and left it by the other. Someone stopped him and said, "Sir, are
you the teacher we have been waiting for?" "You have been waiting
for me?" he asked. "Yes, someone has been saying that a great teacher
is coming to enlighten us and we have been following you - just for
that. Aren't you going to teach us, or tell us something?" St. Francis
looked at this man and said, "If you have not learned so far, I am sorry
- I cannot teach you any more. If you have not been able to observe
the way I have been walking, the way I have been talking, the way I
have been behaving - if you have not had the power of observation,
then no teaching is possible. Saying a few words is not going to be of
any use to you."
So two things are necessary. First, a teacher is necessary, no doubt;
but a teacher may speak to you through "different tongues." Speaking
through tongues in Christianity is the pentecostal experience. To me,
even this pentecostal experience implies speaking through tongues
other than the physical tongue: there is a tongue in the heart, a tongue
in the head, a tongue in the eyes. So we need the teacher, but the
teacher may speak to us in a million ways.
Secondly, therefore, how do you learn? You learn by being observant.
With what do you observe? With what do you learn? Can you learn
through your mind? That is what we are trying to do all the time, we
try to use our brain, and that is why we fail. And if the lens of your
spectacles is dirty, you will find that everything round you is dirty. On
the same principle, if the mind is dirty, filthy, then all that is registered
by that mind must be dirty.
So you must approach the teacher; and when you approach the
teacher you must ensure that your mind is clean, that your heart is
clean. A mind that is absolutely clean, is no mind at all; a mind that is
not conditioned by thinking, not polluted by past impressions, is no
mind. Such a mind was possibly referred to by Jesus when he said,
"Unless you become like little children, you cannot enter the Kingdom
of Heaven" (ref. Matt. XVIII, 3).2 Often this is misinterpreted to
suggest that we must be childish in our behavior, not child-like. My
own feeling is that Jesus referred to babies, little ones, to minds that
have not been polluted by wrong learning.
The difference between you and that little baby is this: whereas the
baby sees only light and shadow, truth and appearance, substance and
appearance, you have an enormous variety of labels. Stand in front of
a little baby not more than six weeks old, and watch how it looks
straight at you with wide-open eyes, as if inquiring, "What is this?"
When you move, the baby's eyes move too. It is certain that such a
baby does not see a swami. It sees neither a swami, nor a Hindu, nor
a Brahmin, nor even a brown face. If you wish to learn to meditate,
the only person to teach you is a baby less than six weeks old. When
you look into its eyes, you will know what meditation means. There it
is in all its absolute purity, gazing at you without projecting a single
thought of what you are.
So that is possibly what Jesus meant: that you should learn to see as
you were born to see - not taught to see. That's beautiful - that is the
essence of Yoga. Learn to see as you were born to see, then you begin
to discover what the Truth is.
So, in order to learn Yoga, you need the help of a teacher, and the
teacher may act best by directing your vision to this inner light within
yourself. The teacher may also, by the grace of God, create such
confusion in you, that you lose all confidence in what you thought was
pure, strong ground before - for the simple reason that unless all that
is thrown overboard, you cannot be like that little child. This may be
considered shocking. People use all sorts of epithets when it comes to
this: terrible... heretical... blasphemous... and so on. But if you go back
to the time of Jesus, isn't that exactly what he did? If you can go back
to the time of Buddha, it is exactly what he did. If you go back to the
time of Socrates, that is exactly what he did. The reason he was
poisoned was for corrupting the morals of the younger generation!
The one who directs your attention to this presence of inner light is
the Guru. The inner light is that in which you are able to see the whole
structure: the presence of the ego and the shadow cast on your life by
the ego. Once he has drawn your attention to this, his job is over, he
can do nothing more. Our problem is that even when the Guru draws
our attention to this inner set-up- the ego, the light, and the darkness
cast by this ego - we still like this darkness. It seems to be so nice that
it is a pity to drop this thing.
So long as the curtain of ego is still here, you will find your life is a
mess. That is the test; not what you say, not the testimony you give or
do not give - the test is to look at your own life and see if it is still in a
mess.
The last hurdle is not for the human personality to cross, it is for the
Divine to descend and redeem the seeker. The veil cannot be lifted by
man. All aspirations, even for liberations cease, and the seeker says in
the words of Jesus: "Not my I will but Thy will be done." It is idle to
repeat the formula, for the Divine will only descend into a pure heart,
and remember that crucifixion must precede resurrection.
Resurrection is a divine act, not a human achievement.

Further refs. and comments by Father Terrence:

1. "Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his
holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not
lift up his soul to what is false (Psalm XXIV, 3-4)
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Matt. V,8)
2. Child-like receptivity is a condition for discipleship - ref. 1 Peter II,
2, and Mark IX, 36-37.
3. Confusion and rejection on the path: John VI, 60 and 66.
 The Chosen
When a disciple who is qualified, eager, receptive and mature, meets
a Master who has had the enlightenment experience plus the ability
to communicate (which means scriptural or theoretical knowledge),
what happens is called Yoga. The rest is exercise, training, some kind
of psycho-physical or spiritual practice. There is nothing wrong with
that- but that is not Yoga. Yoga is two things coming together - this is
the criterion. In this context it is the qualified student coming into
contact with the enlightened Master. Till this contact takes place they
are near each other, not only in the physical sense but in the
psychological and spiritual sense too.
Multitudes heard Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount - they were
all equidistant from him, if we can assume it that way. But how many
were really touched psychologically, spiritually, morally, emotionally
or totally? Very, very few. There is a beautiful expression in the Bible:
"Many are called, but few are chosen." (Matt. XXII, 14)1 Chosen, not
because of the whims and fancies of the chooser or the capricious
nature of the Master, but chosen because. There is no "because." As
my Guru, Swami Sivananda used to say, "If the needle is clean it is
instantly attracted by the magnet, not because the magnet loves this
particular needle and not the other one; the magnet has no such
distinction. It so happened that this was a clean needle, that's all. The
other one might become clean two thousand years later." This inner
psychological, or spiritual contact takes place when the right student
or right disciple meets the right master -that is Yoga.
What happens at that moment is illustrated by the beautiful Easter
ceremony: one candle being kindled with another. The celebrant of
the mass walks in with a big candle and everybody lights his own small
or big candle from that candle. Never mind whether your candle is
small or big, when the wick touches the flame, it is lighted. Is this flame
different from the other flame? No, the flame is exactly the same:
quantitatively different, but the quality is exactly the same. Hence,
Jesus tells us, "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when
he is fully taught will be like his teacher." (Luke VI, 40)2 Why is it so?
Because this candle was kindled from the enlightened one, and there
is no distinction in enlightenment. This is called shaktipata in yoga
terminology: when the Master transmits the spark of enlightenment
to the student and that spark instantly burns away all that was there
as the personality of the student and transmutes him into the likeness
of the teacher.
What if this does not take place? Maybe some more rubbing is
needed, maybe even the anxiety to be enlightened has to be dropped
and one should busy oneself with the preparation. There is a block
within. The rust on the needle is a block. Maybe it is a psychological or
emotional block, or maybe it is something else. Is it possible then,
without getting anxious, to become enlightened? That anxiety is
entertained by the ego, which has to get out of the way.
There is a beautiful saying in one of the Tamil scriptural texts by one
of the enlightened Masters:
asai arumin asai arumin isanodayinum asai arumin
"Cut down attachment, craving, desire even if that desire superficially
seems to be desire for God." The word "even" there is most important,
otherwise you may take it to mean: "Cut down the desire for God, the
rest of it is alright." The orthodox teaching was that in order to destroy
all other forms of worldly attachment you must desire God and this
desire for God gets rid of worldly desires - quite right. On top of this,
the holy man says, "Even that is a desire. See that and drop it." When
that is also gone you will be chosen. There is no doubt.
The difficulty is indicated by Jesus' saying, "Many are called but few
are chosen" as also by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita:
manusyanam sahasresu kascid yatati siddhaye yatatam
api siddhanam kascin mam vetti tattvatah (VII.3)
"Among thousands of men, one perchance strives for perfection: even
among those successful strivers, only one perchance knows Me in
essence." Why is it so? Because even this eagerness to attain Self-
realization may be the movement of the ego, in which case there is no
God-realization- it is not possible. The ego itself will block it by what
superficially appears to be a holy desire. Only the egoless man reaches
Self-realization, but does the egoless man know that "I am egoless?"
What does it mean?
Therefore it is said in the Bible, in the Bhagavad Gita, as also in several
of the Upanishads:
yamaivesa vrnute tena labhyah
"He whom God, the Self, the Infinite chooses, he alone is enlightened."
(Katha Upanishad). This is an almost exact translation of Jesus' saying
in the Bible: "You did not choose me, but I chose you." (John XV, 16)3
Obviously, "If you chose me it was because you had some motivation:
then you are not chosen by me."
Does God or the Self (the atman) also have its own likes and dislikes,
favorite sons and disciples? No. When man chooses God there is
usually a wrong motivation, however altruistic this motivation may be.
If you observe the movements of your own mind you will see this.
Whenever you make a choice, at the same time look within - there is
a horrible craving. Except your parents, you choose every- thing else
in life. You choose your teacher, your Guru, your religion, the way you
worship God - everything is the ego's own choice. Is there one little
action of the ego which is aimed at its own destruction? In other words
- please excuse the gruesome metaphor - do you as fondly embrace a
wild tiger as you embrace your boyfriend or girlfriend? You know that
you will be swallowed, eaten up. Embracing God is like embracing an
unknown wild tiger! God really loves you then, you become one with
God.
So, here is a path that is not difficult in the sense of the difficulties that
we experience climbing a mountain or swimming across the ocean,
but this is an intensely inward, psychological difficulty, to overcome
which the ego has no means at its disposal. This is the spiritual
problem and therefore we all shy away from it and engage ourselves
in various religious activities and console ourselves that God will
somehow be pleased. We reduce God to a human level. An
anthropomorphic concept of God is only a concept but we have a
funny way of treating God in that way. We superimpose on God all the
human qualities, instead of the other way around. We are asked by
scripture to see God in all, which means to superimpose divine
qualities on the human personalities that you see around you. But you
think that God behaves in exactly the same way as a human friend
behaves. However, a human friend may not be able to see your inner
motives, but God dwelling inside sees them. A system of ritualistic
worship is for most of us very beneficial. But if this system of worship
is indulged in as a substitute for this spiritual communion with God, it
is a nuisanace, a block.
Here is a doctrine of "neither-nor:" neither the ritual nor its
abandonment is the road to salvation. The ritual is necessary, but only
as the path to God-realization with all that it implies. The candle that
you are holding, kindled from the other one, behaves in exactly the
same way as the first one: it has light, heat and a little smoke.
Qualitatively there is no difference; quantitatively there may be.
Meaning: your life resembles the Master's. So Jesus asks: "Why do you
call me 'Lord, Lord' and not do what I tell you?" (Luke VI, 46). What a
strange phenomenon! And another quotation: "Not everyone who
says to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who
does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt. VII, 21)
What does the true devotee do? How does he behave? What is his
nature? There is a lovely teaching in .the Bhagavad Gita:
madbhakta etad vijnaya madbhavayo papadyate (XIII.18)
"My devotee, knowing this, enters into My Being." Bhakti is exactly
the same as Yoga: union. When there is bhakti or love between God
and his devotee, between the disciple and the Guru, in that
communion the disciple inherits, as it were, the very nature of the
Master. The devotee inherits the very nature of God. To the questions:
"Have I reached that state of Yoga or not? Have I really received
communion or not?" the answer is found here:
"You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
(Matt. V, 48) If that is not there, it is not there. Let us not compromise
the teaching by saying, "Well only God is perfect. We are all weak and
we can never become perfect." We are blaspheming against the
teaching. You are suggesting that Jesus did not even know what we
are capable of doing.
Two vital statements become relevant here: (1) "Truly, truly I say to
you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater
works than these will he do." (John XIV, 12) and (2) "You therefore
must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."4 These two
indicate the possibility. If you and I are not "there," you and I are not
"there;" the teaching is not wrong. If it was not possible, he would
never have commanded us to be perfect.
Thus, one who is truly devoted to the Master, to God, inevitably
inherits the very nature of the object of worship. What that nature is
and what form this spiritual transmis- sion takes, is symbolized in the
Holy Cross and the verbal teachings of Jesus.
The Cross has been variously described and interpreted. There is even
one Christian sect that claims that the cross was really not a cross.
According to them Jesus was hung up on a pole - a monolithic tree and
the concept of the cross arose later. They have their own arguments,
their own scientific and historical discoveries. One interpretation need
not exclude the other. So it is possible that there was a cross and it is
possible that that was also symbolic. Perhaps it symbolizes the earlier
commandments that Jesus had reiterated: "You shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
mind" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. XXII, 37
and 38) These two are also recorded in the Bhagavad Gita: tam eva
saranam gaccha sarvabhavena bharata (XVIII.62) "Adore your God in
all manner possible" and:
atmaupamyena sarvatra samam pasyati (VI.32)
"Look upon all, treat all as your own self." Exactly the same teaching.
The way in which pious Christians cross themselves has often
suggested to me precisely what the commandment says: "You shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with
all your mind and with all your strength." (Mark XII, 30) Therefore,
during prayers, they touch the head, the heart and the shoulders. This
suggestion seems to be nice. Where is that God? The Cross reveals
where. The vertical beam implies: above and below. Above in the
sense that God is beyond reach of the intellect.
yato vaco nivartante aprapya manasa saha
(Taittirya Upanishad)
"Beyond the reach of the intellect." Your intellect cannot reach the
supreme truth. And that God is not merely beyond your intellect but
deep within your own heart.
isvarah sarvabhutanam hrddese 'rjuna tisthati (XVIII.61)
"God dwells in the hearts of all beings." Is it a sort of selfish game that
you look for God in your heart or in a transcendental state of
meditation? No. The next commandment says: "Love your neighbor as
yourself." The horizontal beam of the cross points out: to your right
and to your left. "To your left" already suggests that you love your
enemies or people whom you don't like or who don't like you. It is
natural to love those whom you consider good - the "right" - but some
people you have "left" behind, calling them evil - love them also. So
the arm stretches out in both directions. That is the teaching that is
given to us.
If you visualize the crucifix with a figure of Jesus on top of it, you see
that the two beams -the vertical and the horizontal meet exactly at
the heart. That is where God dwells. Heart is both physiological and
spiritual. Spiritually the heart is the very heart of your entire being -
physical, mental, moral, the whole lot. That center is not located
anywhere, but is everywhere with its circumference nowhere. If there
is love at that center, naturally, the circumference being nowhere, it
becomes limitless, or in the words of the Buddha, "Unbounded love
which knows no distinction.
There is an absurdity here again, to say that "I love God and therefore
I hate Satan." If you love God, if you love (leave alone God) at all, it is
incongrous that you should have any hate or any form of hate like ill-
will, fear or jealousy in relation to anyone on earth. If these two
emotions can co-exist in the same heart, how can you say that "I love"
even one person? That is not love. That is something else. Maybe that
is an unnecessary compensation for the fear or hate that you
entertain. If there is love in the heart it will not entertain any other
form of emotion: it is not possible for light and darkness to exist
together. That is ridiculous.
There is a beautifully pertinent story about a Muslim girl saint. A
Muslim priest gave her a copy of the scripture and told her to read it.
She went on reading it: "Love God, love God" - it was fantastic! Then
came a portion where it said: "Hate the devil" and she quietly
scratched it out. The priest returned, picked up the book and said,
"You have scratched out the scripture. Blasphemy!" She said, "No, I
could accept the statement 'Love God,' that is natural to me, but then
I thought that this should not be part of the scripture. It's probably a
printing error. Because if I love God with all my heart, how can hate,
even for the devil, arise in it?" What does it mean? If you allow that
hate to arise in relation to what you call the devil, then please
remember that every time the mind wants to hate someone it will first
call him a devil -you give the dog a bad name before hanging it-
obvious. So, loving God naturally means that the heart is incapable of
hate and all its retinue. That is the teaching that is given by all
enlightened beings and rightly comprehended by true disciples or
devotees. If this has not taken place, Yoga has not taken place.
In the cross is symbolized both what we call karma yoga and bhakti
yoga. (Bhakti yoga is an unnecessary repetition. Bhakti means yoga,
yoga means bhakti.) Bhakti yoga and karma yoga must be practiced
together, in as much as you cannot love someone without dedicating
yourself totally, with all your strength, with all your heart, so that all
your energies are directed towards the service of that person. This is
possible only if you love God in all.
The yogi or the devotee of God is intensely interested in the welfare
of all beings. If you are in love with the entire universe, naturally your
whole life is dedicated to the service of the entire universe, all beings
in the universe. That ideal is suggested in the Gita by the words:
sarvabhutahite ratah (XII.4). "Intent on the welfare of all beings." But
to the impure mind, the mind not purified by the touch of this true
spiritual aspiration, even that expression is totally incomprehensible.
How is it possible for one to be deeply interested in the welfare of all
beings? Immediately your mind translates this teaching into some sort
of a practicality: "If I have only one piece of bread and there are six
people hungry, how can I satisfy all these unless I am a Jesus Christ
and can multiply this?" So must you give this piece of bread to one or
two hungry people or not do it at all for fear of discriminating between
some and some others? This is one of the questions that immediately
arises when the heart is impure. What it is to love all and therefore be
totally devoted to the service of all beings is impossible for the impure
and immature human intellect to grasp. Is it possible at all? If it is not
possible the scripture would not say it. We try to put the cart before
the horse. We would very much like to know the result before we
undertake the action and that is not allowed in the practice of Yoga,
in the practice of religion or the spiritual life.
What has been said must be within the realms of possibility. This is the
teaching given by Jesus Christ in the Bible and by the masters of Yoga
in the texts that one studies as a student of Yoga.

Further comments and references by Father Terence:

1. Caution against the false security which thinks that God's salvation
is "in the bag." "Called" and "chosen" are sometimes synonymous.
Called taking up the initial invitation. Chosen persevering to the end.
This call is not anyone's "by right" but must be lived anew each day.
2. Ref. John XIII, 16 and XV, 20.
3. Ref. John VI, 70.
4. Paul is aware of the possibilities of perfection - thus the need to
struggle: Phillipians III, 12-16.
5. Ref. The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures by
Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 1969.
6. Love of the "ungodly" - ref. Romans V, 7-8.
 Tearing the Veil-Evil
That which veils the reality apparently creates a split in it. The first split
is the idea that something is real and something is not real. We can't
even bother to look at the expression on the semantic level. "Unreal"
is not - that is the definition of "unreal." To say that something is
"unreal" is a contradiction in terms. That is where the whole mischief
starts.
First, there is this division: "This is real, this is unreal" and therefore
the next division arises: "I- you" or "I-he." The reality/unreality split
pollutes everything: "I am real, you are unreal. My pain is real, your
pain is not so real.' Others' sufferings and sorrows seem to be trivial
and ours enormous. "I am OK. You are almost OK." Thereby arises this
division into good and evil etc. and so it goes on endlessly multiplying
itself.
It is evil that creates pain, suffering, sorrow; whether it is a sense of
evil within oneself (which is very difficult to perceive) or evil seen in a
certain relationship. This whole equation can be turned upside down.
Whatever causes this psychological distress is evil. In truth, in what
exists, in what is God's creation, there is absolutely no sorrow, no
suffering. And if there is an experienced pain, like in childbirth, that is
simultaneously compensated for by a delight. It is an extraordinarily
beautiful fact which one has to appreciate without any prejudice
whatsoever. Even in what is called "mortal agony" there is an
undercurrent of supreme joy: "I am soon going to be released, freed
from this." But cultural conditioning might mask one or the other,
exaggerate one or the other. That is not the fault of reality, but your
attitude to it.
So, what is called "evil" arises from this division, the split that one
imagines as a fact between the real and the unreal. It is of that split
that all the evils that plague our lives are born - desire, craving, hate,
greed. These are all born of that evil (which is "veil" misspelt), the
veiling of reality which creates the division between the real and the
unreal (as if an "unreal" thing can exist).
The other definition of spiritual life is based upon the description of
God as spirit - "God is spirit" (John IV, 24) - anything that is related to
God as spirit is called the spiritual life. Anything that draws you closer
to God or spirit is also called "spiritual life." In yogic terminology it is
satwa-sat being the same as God, the pure existence. That which
exists, which does not cease to exist, which does not di-minish, which
is infinite, is God. That quality, which is almost indistinguishable from
sat, is satwa. Satwa is then vaguely translated into goodness,
righteousness.
A split arises there and that split creates a certain unclarity of
perception which is called rajas in yogic terminology. Rajas has every
conceivable type of meaning that you can give it - dust, dirt, filth,
dynamism, activity, veil - everything. When activity is motivated by a
"dirty" intention it becomes rajas, otherwise it is divine activity -
activity in strict accordance with God and His will. This truth is veiled
in the ignorant. If you say it is veiled forever, that is the end of it there
is no sense in pursuing this inquiry.
This truth is effectively veiled in the ignorant by a thing called tamas-
the doubting Thomas! How tamas arises is impossible for the tamasic
or veiled mind to understand. This tamas is somehow able to veil the
whole picture so effectively that the knowledge which is God (not
knowledge of God) is somehow veiled from itself and there is an
imagination, an imaginary unreality, an imaginary evil. But as long as
this is experienced, it is real and what is thus experienced as a dream
or hallucination can have experiencable results. The great mystic
philosopher, Shankar- acharya, gives an every-day example: You
dream of somebody strangling you and you scream and wake Up. You
smile - it was only a dream, it wasn't real. But put your hand on your
chest, it is thumping-that is real! How could an unreal dream assailant
produce a real palpitation of your heart? If the dream world was
totally unconnected with your physical being then that unreal
experience could not produce a real experience in another state, but
so it is.
Now the confusion is complete or the unclarity is complete, and evil is
born. How could there be a veil in that which is supreme light? When
one is unable to find an answer to this question, suddenly evil
becomes a reality. When God created the world and saw it was good
(Genesis I, $1) how does evil arise and does evil arise in God too? This
question cannot be answered by anything that is within the purview
of the evil itself - the unclarity, the veil itself. The mind, intellect and
reason are subject to this veil and therefore these things cannot
possibly unravel this mystery and bring about clarity.
So, paradoxically again, the problem of evil can only be resolved when
God is seen and God cannot be seen unless the veil is torn. So where
are we? We're trapped, completely trapped. Therefore these great
ones - the Guru, the Incarnation or the Avatara - emphasize the need
to cultivate the spirit of renunciation, to turn away from darkness and
move towards light. Vasistha puts it very beautifully, unambigously:
"Do not investigate the unreal, because such an investigation gives it
the stature of reality." Investigate what is real and you will find that
these unrealities disappear without a whimper: "Seek first his
kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as
well." (Matt. VI, 33) For without a clear understanding of God it is not
possible to know what righteousness or goodness means.
Goodness is not a mental concept but something which is God, which
is of God. Jesus very beautifully declares: "No-one is good but God
alone." (Mark X, 18) It is good to remind ourselves that all equations
are true both ways. God is good or good is God. So if you keep digging
within yourself into what is good, you must find God. And when you
draw close to this divine presence, goodness arises automatically. You
don't have to put forth the least effort. To be good is not difficult at all
and it does not involve effort. If there is effort there is something
wrong: that is, you are trying to be good, which is good! But you are
only trying to be good. When does one try to be good? When one is
not good! Is it possible for the human being, with a loaded, polluted
mind to be good? No. Krishna rescues us from this dilemma in the
Bhagavad Gita:
sarvadharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja (XVIII, 66)
"Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone."
Precisely the same thing in the Bible: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God
and his righteousness," "Come to me." Turn towards the light, towards
God within and everything else will be taken care of. So all these things
are bound up very closely together.
The abandonment of what is evil, the spirit of renunciation, the
cultivation of goodness and righteousness and faith in the existence
of something that is perfectly good (not to be confused with any
human personality, however great and glorious that personality might
appear to be), are all synonyms. The mind tries to translate all these
words into its own image and the Holy Bible says, smash all those
images that your mind makes. (Exodus XX, 4) On the one hand you
have the teaching that the Son of man, Jesus Christ, is our Lord and
the Lord is perfect; and in the yogic way of life you are asked to regard
your Guru as God. On the other hand, Jesus himself said, "Why do you
call me good? No-one is good but God alone." (Luke XVIII, 19) And
Swami Sivananda says, "Don't be deluded, choose your Guru
carefully." And to those who wish to be gurus he says, "It is a deadly
sin - don't get into that trap." So, where are we? Square one? Thank
God, at least that is there!
We are habituated to living and thinking on the basis of either/or; the
truth may be neither/nor. It is neither that you should look for
perfection in a human form nor turn away from all human form God
is hidden in all these beings. So this needs a lot of understanding - not
so much work as hard inward investigation to raise this understand-
ing. It may be Jesus Christ, your parish priest, your Guru, a great yogi -
he is not perfect and yet there is perfection in him. It is a bit of an
inconvenient truth for us because if we are told that "This is God," we
can fall at God's feet and say, "God, look after me will you?" It is over.
If we are told that "This is evil," we can turn away from it! Finished.
But if we are told that what appears to be appears only to you to be
so- "Oh my God! Again you are harassing me with all these teachings.
Why don't you give me the truth? Why don't you give me God?" Sorry,
it's not a pudding to be handed to you by someone! That which
appears to be God to you is a false god. But does God exist? Sure. What
exists is God. There is perfection in you. But not in the sense that "I"
(the observer) see perfection in you.
When you look within to see what it is that wants to see perfection in
another person and so be devoted to him, you might discover, to your
horror, that that is imperfection. Why are you looking for security in
money and human relationship? When you look within, you realize
that it is a terrible sense of insecurity that thinks there is security
there. If there is insecurity within, why will you seek that security in
someone else's company? When the burden is thus transferred from
the shoulders of the other person to your own understanding, you
reach just the same spot where perfection lies in him. That which is in
him is in you. That which is in the Guru is in you; that which is in the
Christ is in you. Jesus himself says: "I am in my Father, and you in me,
and I in you." (John XIV, 20) We are all occupying a certain space, in a
manner of speaking, and this space occupied by me is in no way
different from the space in which you are sitting. The physical
occupant of that space is different from the physical occupant of the
space here. But the space does not undergo any change whatsoever.
That is so in regard to God. So instead of investigating the external
appearance (that is, chasing the unreal), investigate in whom this
appearance arises. There is someone in whom the experience of
appearance arises. There is the kingdom of God - within - and in that
kingdom we are all citizens. When this is understood, "That" is
instantaneously understood.
Faith arises then, not before. Before, it is merely a belief system- it
may be necessary as a springboard - but faith arises when there is a
glimpse, an inkling of this reality. It is when faith arises really that we
are able to turn away completely from all evil. That is, when the veil is
gone you will see, and when you see the veil is gone. That is
unfortunately the truth: unless you have some direct experience, even
if it is a mere glimpse, faith does not arise. It seems to be possible that
even after having had a glimpse, this faith is still shaky. For instance,
when Jesus walked on water (Matt. XIV, 25-31) and then called to
Peter: "Come." Peter started walking there was faith. Then doubt
crept in and... splash! I don't know if you appreciate the gravity of the
word "faith." If you contemplate this story you might suddenly realize
that all the faith that we profess doesn't deserve to be called faith at
all except for the word - it's just called faith, it is not faith. Faith is an
extremely subtle and difficult thing and it does not arise unless you
have had a glimpse of the reality. Till then it is only a belief system.
Is belief so bad? No. Everything starts with a belief system, but do we
stay there or do we progress further? Do we investigate the truth and
discover it as truth? That requires some amount of sincerity, which we
lack.
Once this faith arises then there is progressive tearing of this veil,
which is evil. Since we are turning away from the darkness of
ignorance and moving towards the light, goodness arises
spontaneously, without effort. Darkness is not a reality, it is defined
as "absence of light." (Even that I am not quite sure of because in the
darkness you can take infra-red photographs, so there must be some
light in that darkness. The cat is able to find its way. There is some
mythical idea of absolute darkness I have not seen it!) Light is the
reality, so instead of saying "turn away from darkness," face the light
and go on. This is called renunciation.
The teachings of Jesus are full of this spirit of renunciation. If you read
the few places where the spirit of renunciation is emphasized you will
readily see that it is not something to be renounced but a certain
attitude to life, a notion or misunderstanding that you have, that is to
be renounced. Take for instance this dialogue: "A ruler asked him,
'Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' And Jesus said
to him... 'You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery. Do
not kill. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Honor your father and
mother.' And he said, 'All of these I have observed from my youth.'
And when Jesus heard it he said to him, 'One thing you still lack. Sell
all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure
in heaven; and come follow me."'" (Luke XVIII, 18-22) That was a bit
difficult! Which means, that he was not really keen on entering the
kingdom of God.
It is not as if Jesus preached renunciation and renunciation alone to
everybody. Renunciation is the abandonment of clinging to a phantom
that you have created within yourself. It is that phantom that
generates insincerity. So if you face yourself- yourself being the reality
- then you will see that your own life is plagued with this insincerity.
But if you adore your father and mother as images of God that is
perfectly alright. If you lead your life in strict accord with the
commandments- the life being what is popularly known as worldly life,
family life there is no problem. If you have the feeling that "All that I
am doing is for God," there is absolutely no problem because there is
the abandonment of the notion of the self as distinct from something
else -a self which has its own ideas and ideologies, as distinct from that
which is determined by the cosmic being. If you want to enter the
kingdom of God, be like little children (ref. Matt. XVIII, 3) and abandon
your petty likes and dislikes.
So, what is to be abandoned is not a certain lifestyle, a certain religious
affiliation, a certain mode of worship or a certain relationship or a
certain possession, but the sense of possession -the sense of the self
as being distinct and different from everything else. To be like a child
acting spontaneously. Unlike the theatricals, this spontaneous action
is not something which you can generate by training.
Thus, in the teachings of Jesus as in the teachings of Yoga we find both
these: a formal renunciation and the spirit of renunciation while yet
living a full life. Whether you are going to be a member of a religious
order or a householder living a righteous life, is not up to you. But
wherever you are it is possible to cultivate and live in the spirit of
renunciation. So the teacher who inspires you to cultivate the spirit of
renunciation may indicate that this spirit might lead you in one
direction or another. As long as you have the light with you, whether
you go north or south you still have the light. The whole path is
illumined.
It seems to me what Jesus demanded of his disciples was total
sincerity. Sincerity is the root of all virtues. The sincere seeking of God
and his righteousness - God and his dharma - is spiritual life. Perhaps
a few letters from that word "righteousness" can be dropped so the
word becomes simply "rightness." What is rightness and what is not
rightness? If you contemplate this perhaps you might discover that
what is rightness is merely an appropriate response, appropriate
action which is again inconvenient to the lazy man. It is not easy for an
immature personality of unclear vision to function where there are no
do's and don'ts, no dogmas, no injunctions and prohibitions which
may easily be observed. When someone says that rightness is
appropriate response or appropriate action, that leaves you again
dangling with nothing to hold on to. We love to be consistent in order
that we might become respectable. But we don't see the absurdity of
the whole concept on the very face of it. Such consistency is often a
symptom of paralyzed intelligence. A truly awakened intelligence
functions very differently-intelligently. For instance, a man may love
his wife, his mother, his sister, his friend, but he dare not behave in
exactly the same way towards all! The love is there but it flows in an
appropriate manner towards each one. So rightness, righteousness, is
an appropriate response, and appropriate action. Thus, if it is your
destiny to be a member of a religious order you behave appropriately
and if it is your destiny to lead a family life, your behavior is
appropriate to that situation. It does not mean that the monk is in any
way superior or inferior to you. You are two limbs of the same person,
the same person of Jesus Christ.
When Jesus instructs his disciples to go and spread the good news he
lays down certain rules: "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your
belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff;
for the laborer deserves his food." (Matt. X, 9-10) The same rules are
found among the religious orders of India though I have seen very few
who really adhere to these principles. Our minds have a strange way
of re-interpreting these rules and regulations and that is where the
spirit is lost.
Whether you are a religious person or you lead what is known as a
secular life, the spirit is very important and a constant re-examination
of that spirit is essential. Is renunciation possible? Yes. But not without
faith, and faith is not possible without a glimpse of the reality. A
glimpse of the reality is satwa which is close to reality itself, and
indicates the existence of the reality beyond all doubt. Though, as the
Yoga Sutras (IV.27) caution us: between two experiences or glimpses
of this reality the old samskaras or tendencies (habit patterns) may
arise again, creating a momentary division or confusion or non-
understanding. But if the faith is there, which means the glimpse has
been there, that glimpse will provide the incentive to go on in spite of
these momentary lapses into misunderstanding.

Referencecs
1. Ref. The Supreme Yoga translation of the Yoga Vasistha by Swami
Venkatesananda. (1.3.2)
Further references suggested by Father Terence:
2. Ephesians V, 7-9; 1 John I, 5-7; 1 John II, 8-11. 3. Ref. blindness cures:
Mark VIII, 22-26; Mark X, 46-52.
 Renounce the Unreal
When the Guru, who is a descent of God - the Avatara - comes into
our lives, he has a twofold message. It is thus very beautifully put by
my Guru, Swami Sivananda: "Detach the mind from the world, attach
it to the Lord" the two being a single movement. It is also stated in the
Bhagavad Gita:
sarvadharman parityaya mam ekam saranam vraja (XVIII.66)
"Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone;" and in precisely the
same words by Jesus in the Bible: "If any man would come after me,
let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." (Luke
IX, 23) In that there are two beautiful statements which seem to
indicate the two ways in which this renunciation-cum-yoga could flow.
One is: "Abandon everything and follow me; take up your cross and
follow me; be prepared even to sacrifice your life in order to follow
me. The other is: "Go forth and serve." In both cases one thing is
absent and that is self, selfishness.
It is not possible to define selfishness because it is not possible to
define unselfishness. Therefore you find in the Bible as well as in the
Bhagavad Gita two statements which could appear to be
contradictory. In the Bible: "Think not that I have come to abolish the
law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill
them." (Matt. V, 17) The prophets say: "Honor your father and your
mother." (Exodus XX, 12) In order to honor your father and mother
you have to leave your own self behind and go honor, work, serve.
Then comes the other statement: "Who are my mother and my
brothers?" (Mark III, 33) There the self is abandoned again but in a
different context - a context in which you feel that the entire universe
is your mother and father, brother and sister (ref. Mark III, 34-5).
Whereas observance of religious, or in this sense, social obligations
may be very important, you will still have to abandon yourself and
dedicate yourself to service. But the other aspect is still there: there
may come a time when those things mean nothing; when the Christ,
the Lord within you calls, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their
dead." (Matt. VIII, 22) We thought a funeral was so important,
especially in respect to those whom we love, cherish, honor and so
on! That may be unnecessary at some point.
If you study all these extremely carefully, you will realize what is really
meant by abandonment of self. They who abandon their self come to
the kingdom of God. They who abandon their lives earn eternal life
(ref. Mark VIII, 35). These things have absolutely no meaning unless
you truly realize what is meant by life, what is meant by self. Can you
abandon life? What do you mean by "abandon life?" "One bullet and
you are dead." But that is not abandoning life - life cannot be killed,
destroyed. What is meant by "life" in this teaching is something
different. What is meant by life is the idea, the false concept that "This
is my life." The simple and direct realization that "This is not my life,"
is the abandonment of life; at that very moment you symbolically lay
it down. If you realize that, not in theory or as an idea, but in fact and
in truth, then you are prepared to lay down this life for the sake of
others. If it is "your" life you will never do that. What is yours you carry
on your shoulders but when you realize that "this is not mine" you put
it down - offer it to God and let His will be done.
Therefore the teaching concerns doing what has to be done in life -
whether you are to be Mary or Martha, cook and serve or sit near the
Lord and press his feet (ref. Luke X 38-42). These two paths are there,
both of them implying the renunciation of the idea of self and of
dedicating oneself totally to God that is Yoga. Taking up the cross and
following Him might lead you along this path or that path, but not for
the sake of the self. If the self is not there how can anyone do anything
for the sake of the self-selfishly?
Until it is realized that the self is not there, there can be a lot of
deception. I do not believe the concept of self-deception. It is always
deceiving others and that is sheer waste of time. You gain nothing by
deceiving others. To think, "I am selfish" or "I am unselfish" is a mere
rationalization till the existence or non-existence of the self is directly
perceived and discovered.
When, in the light of this inquiry, it is realized that what was called the
self, what was mistaken for self, was nothing but a shadow, then the
idea of self ceases to be a reality. Will the idea of self disappear? What
for? Why do you want to beat a shadow? Gaudapada says very
beautifully in his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad:
prapanco yadi vidyeta nivarteta na samsayah
"If this creation has come into being it will cease to be. If the self has
come into being it will cease to be, but it has never arisen at all and it
is an enigma, like a shadow on the wall." You cannot say it is there, nor
that it is not there, like the image in the mirror. This is something
which your brain cannot possibly understand, so how can the self be
abandoned in order that "I" may be selfless? "I want to destroy this
selfishness in order that I may become selfless?" The whole thing
seems to be a wasteful, meaningless and ridiculous exercise.
This is where the real and serious practice of Yoga in all its aspects
becomes very important. You cannot understand unselfishness, nor
how to abandon the idea of the self as reality. The idea of the self as
idea is quite alright. How to abandon all this, how to abandon life? You
cannot understand how unless it is immediately linked with this "Take
up thy cross and follow me" (ref. Luke IX, 23). One without the other
is impossible. You cannot abandon the world unless you have found
something else. Can you examine whatever appears to be yourself? If
what appears to be is a body, examine that. If what appears to be is
life breath, examine that; a thought, a feeling - look at that. And if
what appears to be is a sense of "I am," look at that and when that
goes... it neither goes nor remains. It is illumined, it is enlightened and
in that very "space" you will see the reality - God.
So these two are simultaneous: abandonment of the self (or the
realization of the non-existence of the self) and the realization of what
it was that has always been (the reality).
When the self is gone, or when the idea of "the-self-as-the- reality" is
gone, then suddenly you realize - "Aha, the world is something else, 'I'
is something else too." A new vision arises. Nothing has changed, but
everything has been totally and radically altered. That is when you are
able to say, "Yes, I recognize her as my mother, I recognize him as my
father, but who is my mother, who is my father? The entire universe
is my father and my brother." Not because the universe is a real entity,
but because the whole thing is pervaded by the one essence - thus
described by the great sage Yagnavalkya:
na va are sarvasya kamaya
sarvam priyam bhavati atmanastu
kamaya sarvam priyam bhavati
"All things are dear to you because there is no other." There is none
other than the one- - call it God, atma, Self words are unnecessary
here, because all of us are unpartably one. In that dimension, because
we are indivisibly one like space, we love one another.
On this "stage" of life when we have to play different roles - fathers,
mothers, brothers, friends is it possible that this realization can be
lost? Quite possible. Even if you are an almost enlightened person, as
long as you are caught up in this body-mind complex, it is quite
possible. That is what we usually call attachment. How can we
overcome this attachment? There is a moving story in the Bible of the
last moments of Jesus: "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple
whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold
your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother!" (John
XIX, 26-7) You think at least this relationship is inviolable you may
marry someone and divorce that person a little while later, but you
cannot possibly divorce your father or your mother - that is an event
which took place before you were born. But no, you had a feeling that
"This is my mother" and that feeling was centered in the
misunderstanding that "I am this body," and therefore the woman
who gave birth to this body is "my mother." When this confusion
between the body and consciousness which expresses itself as "I am
this body" is given up, what are the relations that were associated with
this body? They were related to the body no doubt, but "Now that I
am discarding this body, who is my father, who is my mother? She
whom I thought was my mother might just as soon be somebody else's
mother."
There is a lovely story in the Bhagavatam2 where somebody calls up a
departed soul and says, "Look, your father and mother are terribly
worried. Why don't you come back to this earth?" and that person
says: "Father? Mother? Who? I have got thousands of them. I have
had tiger fathers and lion fathers, buffalo fathers, deer fathers, which
one are you talking about? Why should I come back here, why not
there?"
So, what is attachment? Attachment is a dreadful misunderstanding
based upon the primary ignorance that somehow links this body with
the feeling "I am." God or consciousness, who is limitless and infinite,
throws up an awareness "I am" everywhere and that awareness is
free, independent. It is demonstrated to us daily by our own sleep
experience, but somehow it gets caught up in the feeling that "I am
this body." The resolution of this enigma puts an end to that. And
when this enigma is resolved, there is a perception of the impossibility
of attachment. This is important. You cannot fight attachment, you
cannot abandon attachment: you cannot abandon anything that does
not exist in fact and in truth. This is axiomatic. In the very act of trying
to abandon that, you are creating it. That is the reason for Vasistha's
constant and repeated insistence, "Do not investigate what is unreal,
investigate what is real. "3 What appears to be real right now-
investigate that and go on. You will eventually arrive at what they call
God, Braham, atman, cosmic consciousness, the Father in heaven, the
kingdom of God.
The abandonment of what does not exist constitutes renunciation. It's
absurd isn't it? And the abandonment of what does not exist is
simultaneous with the realization of what exists: God. If there are
relationships in the world in which we live, and if they are not brought
about by you and by me, why are we so anxious to preserve or
terminate them? The sun did not rise because you or I wanted it, and
that is precisely true of the events of our own lives. "I did not ask to
be born. I may not want to die, but I will." Yet why is it that in this short
span, while all these appear to be happening, there is so much inner
conflict, confusion, anxiety, worry, fear, hope? The abandonment of
this is not abandonment of anything, but it is the relentless pursuit of
truth.
"What is real in all this?" When that truth is pursued relentlessly, layer
after layer of the veil is lifted. This is where the techniques of Yoga
become meaningful. But you don't sit and merely repeat: "I am
immortal Self." You are not! There is a body, appreciate it. There is an
idea in the mind, become aware of it. There are feelings and emotions,
become aware of them. There is a sense of relationship, become
aware of that. Stage by stage reach out further and further. You
wonder: "What do I do with the sense of relationship that exists now?"
Jesus answers: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to
God the things that are God's (Mark XII, 17). What was held out was a
coin. There is the figure of Caesar on it, so Jesus used that example.
Expressed beautifully in the Bhagavad Gita as: mam anusmara yudhya
ca (VIII.7) "Remember Me and fight" i.e. do what you have to do
without confusion, without division (this is very important). In the
same way when you look at yourself, there are all these things:
emotions, thoughts, feelings that you are somehow related to others,
the feeling that you have some duties and responsibilities in this world
and there is also a sense of God. Do not sacrifice one for the other. Do
not promote one at the expense of the other. As long as you have a
sense of duty towards society, fulfill it, but don't forget God. When
you are devoted to God, it is wonderful, but don't forget your duty as
long as that sense of responsibility is there. Let the world enjoy that
part of you that feels related to the world. There is another part of you
which is related to God or the Divine - let it be devoted to the Divine.
mam anusmara -"Think of me, meditate upon me....
yudhya ca -"fight your battle of life." One does not contradict the
other because ultimately the whole thing converges and that is called
karma yoga. If you understand that one little phrase in the teachings
of Jesus (Mark XII, 17) you have understood the entire message of
karma yoga which is further expanded and illustrated by Jesus: "The
words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the
Father who dwells in me does his works. (John XIV, 10. Also see John
X, 25 and XII, 44-5) This is one of the basic elements of karma yoga; to
realize that it is not "I" that does it. "I" am powerless. God can do all
things - not man, not "I."5 And if that God chooses you as an
instrument for the time being, you can also do wonders, miracles, but
only from the human point of view, not from the point of view of God.
To underline this tremendous teaching, you find in the Gospel of Mark
that Jesus was unable to do all the wonderful things in his own country
that he could do elsewhere: "And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not
without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and
in his own house.' And he could do no mighty work there.... And he
marvelled because of their unbelief." (Mark VI, 4-6) So there is the
suggestion that even that might happen if it is His will. His will is not
for you or me to determine.
In the Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna: "You are a great warrior, no doubt,
but be an instrument in my hands." It is said that when Krishna had
left the world, Arjuna suddenly found that he could not even lift the
weapons that he was formerly handling with such ease and precision.
He realized that it was Krishna's grace, his power or shakti, that was
working through him performing all those fantastic miracles. Without
his grace nothing is possible; with it, everything is possible.
nimittamatram bhava savyasacin (XI, 33)
"Be thou a mere instrument." This is fundamental to Yoga, this is
karma yoga: that is, while being active in this world your
consciousness is linked to God. Karma means action, Yoga means
linking one's consciousness with God. Do whatever has to be done,
but realize that it is God who is doing everything.
The other attitude that is recommended for a karma yogi is enshrined
in a very beautiful and inspiring verse in the Bhagavad Gita:
yatah pravrttir bhutanam yena sarvam idam tatam
svakarmana tam abhyarca siddhim vindati manavah (XVIII, 46)
"He from whom all the beings have evolved and by whom all this is
pervaded - worshipping Him with his own duty, man attains
perfection." This was taught by Jesus in a very simple, direct way: "...
for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me
drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you
clothed me, I was sick and I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison
and you came to me... Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the
least of these my brethren, you did it to me. (Matt. XXV, 35-6 and 40)
It is not as though you serve someone and it is translated like foreign
exchange transac- tion into the currency in heaven and your account
is credited there. Right here is the God who is in heaven. The kingdom
of God is within you (ref. Luke XVII, 21). So what you are doing to this
person you are doing to God. You regard this person as so-and-so only
because you have identified the body with the consciousness that
dwells in it and becomes aware of it, and on the basis of that
misunderstanding of yourself you have a misunderstanding
concerning this person. That creates a lot of inner conflict and
arrogance - a supercilious sense of superiority. If that statement in the
Bible is read and constantly meditated upon, you instantly realize
what was stated in another language and idiom, in another text called
the Bhagavad Gita:
yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvam ca mayi pasyati
tasya 'ham na pranasyami sa ca me na pranasyati (VI.30)
"He who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, never
becomes separated from Me, nor do I become separated from him."
God is not some kind of an old man sitting beyond the clouds. That is
why they use the expression: "The kingdom of God is within you." It is
not as if there is an entity called god sitting in your heart, but it is a
kingdom not in the sense of earth, territory with boundaries - but
because God reigns in it. That kingdom is your heart. He is within you.
Is it possible to live in such a way that every action that proceeds from
you in your daily life, glorifies God and bears witness to the fact that
you are the kingdom of God and your life is presided over by the
divine? That is the question.
Further references suggested by Father Terence:
1. Galatians II, 19-20; Romans VI, 6.
2. The Book of God - translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam by Swami
Venkatesananda, reading for May 27.
3. Ref. The Supreme Yoga: translation of the Yoga Vasistha 1.3.2 by
Swami Venkatesananda.
4. Ref. Martha and Mary story: Luke X, 38-42. 5. Ref. Mark X, 26-27.
Devotion
Karma yoga is yoga in daily life, yoga in action. Activity being inevitable
to life, every living creature is active. A problem confronts us when we
inquire into the motivation for that activity. You cannot really do
nothing, but while you are doing what you are doing, why are you
doing what you are doing? Are you even aware of that?
There are three fundamental statements in the New Testament: 1.
Not even a sparrow falls unless it is the will of God (Matt. X, 29). 2. "I
do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me
does his works." (John XIV, 10) 3. "Father, if thou art willing, remove
this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine be done." (Luke
XXII, 42) One suggests almost total predestination: that is, nothing can
happen that God has not willed, even what you are doing is willed by
God. You realize that you cannot alter destiny, but you can observe
the motivation for this destiny and see if there is any motivation other
than the divine will.
In order to bring this about, what the yogis describe as bhakti is
necessary. Devotion. And to indicate that this devotion is not
emotionalism or sentimentalism, there is a quotation from the great
philosopher saint Shankaracharya:
svasvaru panusamdhanam bhaktiritya bhidhiyate
What is bhakti? This great man defines it as "being constantly rooted
in the inquiry concerning the self." Love is not merely jumping on each
others' necks and strangling one another, but it is constantly being
devoted to the object of devotion. There is a continuous stream of
something other than emotion, something other than sentiment and
other than possessiveness - something mysterious. When this flow is
interiorized, that is what Shankaracharya calls bhakti.
You are not constantly trying to figure out what someone else, God or
the devil is doing; instead you are constantly paying attention to the
source of the flux of your own life, of the actions that flow from this
life. You don't assume that all these things come from God - then you
are asleep, your awareness is asleep but realize that something is
happening. But does this happen or do I wish it should or should not
happen? Thereby hangs the tale, which is not very comfortable for the
souls who rather like to let go and rest, hoping that everything will be
alright.
In this regard, Jesus almost rebukes his disciples on the night of the
Last Supper. Jesus tells some of his disciples, "Sit here, while I go
yonder and pray." (Matt. XXVI, 36) When he returns, they are fast
asleep. "So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray
that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak." (Matt. XXVI, 40, 41)2 For people who are fond
of this sort of psychological or spiritual sleep, a constant awareness of
what goes on within oneself as actions flow in life, is an inconvenient
thing. So we tend to use some sort of cliches, like "Oh God's will be
done." God's will is done. But are you aware of it or not? If you are not
aware, it is not true, it is not realization - it is guesswork. So, all this
involves the realization of God.
What is God? In virtually none of these scriptures is God given to us as
a ready-made "piece of pottery." Why is it so? They realize that this is
counterproductive. Whether it is a graven image or an image put
together by thought, by mind, the image is an obstruction to the
realization of truth and the image is a limitation of the illimitable. For
the same reason Buddha quietly dismissed the whole game by saying,
"Do not measure the immeasurable." Measure what is measurable-
that is, your own thoughts, feelings, emotions, motivations, desires,
hates. Measure them, be- come aware of them, take hold of them. But
there is something beyond which one intuitively realizes or
understands. That is not measurable - leave it alone. However, the
human mind refuses to leave it alone. If you say "the infinite,
immortal," the mind still conjures up a thing called "infinite,
immortal." The mind does not question how a thing that has come into
being, will not cease to be.
The mind doesn't question because we love to fall asleep, and
therefore Jesus uses a few paradoxical expressions paradoxical in the
sense that they are unteachable, beyond teaching.
Sometimes the "Kingdom of heaven" is used and sometimes the
"Kingdom of God," but it is always emphasized that this Kingdom of
heaven is within you. "Our father who art in heaven" (Matt. VI, 9) -
don't look up, you will see only cobwebs and ceiling! God is in heaven
and that heaven is within you. Then there is the expression, "Where
your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matt. VI, 21) Do you
treasure this God within? In which case your heart will be devoted to
that God and you will seek His Kingdom within. But we have neither
time nor the inclination. We collect empty shells and throw away the
pearl. We do not have the wisdom of the woman who chose the King:
Once a wise king had a bright idea. He wanted to know who among
his subjects was truly wise. He had it announced that on a certain day
the doors of the palace would be thrown open and that anyone could
enter and take any one thing that was in it. People came in their
hundreds and took away the valuable jewels, carpets and other
articles of worth. One woman walked right through the corridors,
without taking a second look at the glittering jewelry there, walked
right up to the king and said: "My choice is your Majesty. I want you."
With him, she had everything that was in the Kingdom. Therefore,
seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added
unto you.
That Kingdom of God is within you. As my Master Swami Sivananda
points out again and again, God is nearer to us than the breath that
flows in our nostrils. We should learn the art of finding Him within
ourselves by prayer and meditation. But we only want the objects of
sense-pleasure. Even when we pray we ask only for them. And God
who is all-love and supreme compassion, grants our prayers: we get
what we ask for, but soon discover that the choice was wrong. The
objects only increase our worry and misery. Miseries come to awaken
us. A great Indian saint, Kabir, has said: "If only you had the sense to
worship God when you were prosperous, you need not have to suffer
this adversity." Adversity is a way God calls us to turn to Him. When I
am walking along the road and you are behind me, you call out to me;
but if I do not hear and respond, you tap my shoulders with your
walking stick or umbrella. God has been calling out to us again and
again: "All ye that labor under a heavy burden, come to Me." But we
do not listen and therefore, He gently taps on our shoulders with the
stick of adversity. We have to turn now.
We turn to prayer. We come to the Holy Church and pray. Is it not
significant that we close our eyes when we pray? Does not this act
prove that we intuitively know that God is within? Do we not close our
eyes when we take a beloved child into our arms and hug him close to
ourselves? Does this not prove that the greatest happiness is within -
in God? Seek ye first the Kingdom of God! The Kingdom of God is
within.
When we pray, we commune with Him who is perfect. When we pray,
the sin-hardened heart melts. We feel the Presence of God within. Our
pride and prejudices evaporate. The ego is shaken. We are in the
Presence of God. We open our eyes. The Presence persists. We begin
to see that the Kingdom of God is not only within us, but within all - in
every atom of existence. It is when our awareness or consciousness
flows in a constant stream towards this God "within" that there is right
action, right living or, in the words of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita,
"appropriate action."
There is a lovely expression in the Bhagavad Gita which can be
paralleled with a beautiful illustration in the Bible. The expression is
manmana or maccittah. One is the conscious mind; the other is the
subconscious mind. Maccittah cannot be grammatically translated
into English. Citta is "mind," and mac means "me." (It is God who is
speaking.) How does one make the mind God, God- minded? What can
the Kingdom of God be likened to? Jesus expresses it beautifully: "The
Kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three
measures of flour, till it was all leavened." (Matt. XIII, 33) That is
maccittah. You generate one little spark within and by constantly
dwelling upon this in meditation, in prayer, the entire mind becomes
"saturated," "filled" (none of these words is really adequate). What
happens to the yeast? Does it grow? It seems to permeate every grain
of the dough. You cannot possibly make that happen; it happens.
So, devotion or love of God is not a thing, a part of your consciousness,
or mind, for when it is dropped into this mind, this citta, it (love) takes
over. It doesn't dominate just as the yeast does not dominate the
dough and therefore Jesus used that illustration to point this out. That
is bhakti. It is at the end of this process of "saturation" that you realize
that the entire life is devoted to and is lived in total accord with the
divine will. Which only means that you have no personal will or desire
of your own.
It is then that one really understands what is meant by the other
sayings of Jesus. "Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall
eat, nor about your body, what you should put on... Consider the
ravens: they neither sow nor reap... and yet God feeds them...
Consider the lilies, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell
you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
(Luke XII, 22, 24 and 27) Is this the gospel of the dropout? "I don't have
to do anything. God will do everything." God does not do anything
except through you. (Father Terence aptly comments: "Believe as
though it all depended upon God, but act as though it all depended
upon you.") It is one form of ego that says "I will do this" and another
form of ego that says, "I will not do this." Similarly: "I hope to gain this
and therefore I will do this" and "I am afraid of the consequences and
therefore I will not do this." "Will" and "will not" on the one hand;
hope and fear on the other. Whether or not they are accepted as
things which can be classified as good and evil, they are all based on
the ego. The action is interfered with by the ego. It is not as though if
you willed it would happen. It is not as though if you hoped that the
sun would shine forever it would not set. None of these things has any
regard for your private motivations. But the ego creeps in and usurps
the role that rightly belongs to the Divine. This truth is realized only
when the mind becomes completely saturated by God-consciousness.
One of the most important methods by which this God-consciousness
can be inculcated in us is known as meditation or prayer. You can use
whatever word you like, as long as the principle is understood. Jesus
himself pointed out that prayer or meditation is not intended as more
fuel for the ego to burn more furiously (ref. Matt. VI, 5-6). That is when
you demonstrate. Demonstration is something that is usually resorted
to by one who answers the description of the first five letters of the
word! One who is genuinely interested in the truth doesn't have either
the inclination or the time to go about demonstrating.
There is the suggestion not to use vain repetitions: "In praying do not
heap up empty phrases." (Matt. VI, 7) Repetitions are not cancelled,
but vain repetitions of empty phrases. This is the method of japa. The
Christians, the Hindus and the Muslims all use a rosary sometimes, but
such prayer becomes vain repetition when (and only when) the spirit
is lost. So, we are confronted with the same thing all over again: it is
the spirit that is important. However, to philosophize that: "It is the
spirit that is important. I can do what I like," is a negation of the spirit,
blasphemy against the spirit. Repetitions (japa) are important, but
they must be filled with spirit.
If you are able to engage yourself in the repetition of the name of God
or in prayer, fully conscious of either the meaning of the prayer or the
contemplation of the mystery of the inner sound itself, then that is no
longer vain (empty) repetition. You may need to repeat a prayer a few
times, but that does not make it vain repetition if either the spirit is
entered into (spirit in the sense of "What's happening? Who is praying
to whom?") or you thoroughly understand the meaning and you let it
work as the yeast in the citta, the mind. You repeat "Thy will be done"
a thousand and eight times. The mind does not easily accept, "Thy will
be done," so you keep repeating it. The one thousand and seven times
were fruitless, but maybe the one thousand and eighth time will get
you there.
This focussing all one's attention upon oneself is bhakti.
If there is a God, He is there, just beyond the "me," just beyond the
ego. Beyond, not in a spatial sense, but in the sense of a screen with
the pictures projected on it: the pictures being the ego and the screen
being the Divine. You cannot say they are on it-nothing can be said.
This prayer constantly clarifies (realizes) the "screen," as it were, so
that even while the pictures are on you are able to see that it is the
screen. But for the screen there would be no picture there, but the
screen itself is not the figure. How are the figures formed there? No-
one knows. This constant investigation of the truth concerning
oneself, which is God, is called bhakti.
There is a very beautiful and inspiring dialogue between Jesus and
some of his disciples. They begin to vie for positions in his kingdom (as
if that were possible): "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one
at your left, in your glory.' But Jesus said to them, 'You do not know
what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to
be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?' And they said
to him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you
will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be
baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant,
but it is for those for whom it has been prepared."" (Mark X, 37-40) In
other words, God-realization is not for you to demand, not for
someone to hand over to you. God-realization, by its very definition,
means God is real. It is not that you can make God real, the God that
you "make real" is something else, an image. That God who is real is
known only to God, not to you; that is what it means bluntly.
You can travel up to a certain point, you can go right up to the door
and knock - it shall be opened (ref. Matt. VII, 7). That it shall be opened
is a guarantee, but it is not up to you or someone else to open it. And
when it is opened, it is possible that you might disappear. Swami
Sivananda composed a very beautiful poem: "The darkness of
ignorance knocked, the light opened the door, and lo, the darkness
vanished." So the poor thing never got to see the light! That is the cup.
Are you prepared for this? Or are you still clinging to some sort of
individuality or personality that you want to perpetuate? And if you
are prepared to totally crucify your personality, then who is it that is
hoping to survive? Are you still worried about "my wife and children,"
"my property," "my this and that?" Greater immaturity no man has
seen. All this shows that there is no surrender, no crucifixion and
obviously no resurrection or ascension. If you contemplate this, then
you understand also what is meant by "I am the way, and the truth,
and the life; no-one comes to the Father but by me." (John XIV, 6)
In the New Testament you have the same enigma or paradox that you
find in yoga teachings. The Guru is at once regarded as manifest God,
incarnate divinity, someone who shows the path, someone who is the
path, the truth. It (the Guru) is both human and divine, and something
that links the consciousness with the Holy Spirit. That consciousness-
ness the divine plus the personality then becomes individuality. It is
the Holy Spirit that links these two. The Guru or the Christ-
consciousness is that which is the very basis of the "me," the screen
upon which the "me" appears, which is God, the connecting
awareness. All this is represented by the guru. The Guru is God, the
Guru is human, the Guru is something outside of these, the Guru is the
linking force and the Guru is the path through which we reach the
divine." Ultimately, it is when the seeker's consciousness is totally
absorbed in the Guru's conscious- ness, that he finds that he is one
with God, which Jesus indicates very often: "I am in my Father, and
you in me, and I in you." (John XIV, 20)
Does it mean that we should accept Jesus and Jesus alone? Possibly
yes, why not? If that is what you want, that is what you will do. There
is absolutely no objection to that. But do it meaningfully, not just
blindly. It is then that you may suddenly understand the supreme
mystery that just as you are one with Christ and therefore God,
everyone in the universe who treads this path is also one with Christ
whatever language he uses, whatever name he uses one with God.
There is absolutely no difficulty. Everyone has to use some sort of
approach, some sort of psychological door, spiritual door, through
which to enter into this other dimension called the Divine. It is not a
spatial thing but it is a dimension of consciousness. Whether you call
it psychological or spiritual or whatever, there is a door through which
you get out of this state of ignorance in which you find yourself and
enter into this dimension which is divine. It is a door comparable to
the door through which we pass in and out every day while falling
asleep and waking up, but we are not aware of it; that is unfortunate.
"No one comes to the Father but by me" suggests a parallel to a
statement found in the Bhagavad Gita:
yad-yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va
tad-tad eva vagaccha tvam mama tejomsasambhavam (X.41)
"Whatever being that is glorious, prosperous or powerful, that know
thou to be a manifestation of a part of My splendor." "Look around
and see what is most glorious, most beautiful, what inspires you. See
that as a manifestation of God; for no-one has been able to reach the
unmanifest except through something that is manifest." It is the
unmanifest that manifests itself in infinite ways. The infinite is
unmanifest in itself but the infinite being the infinite also manifests
itself in infinite ways. Therefore when you see a movie on an
enormous screen, whichever be the face or the feature that you focus
your mind upon, there you see the screen. The road to the unmanifest
is through the manifest.
So, come to this door. Knock and wait. Do you become impatient that
the door doesn't open as soon as you knock? That is the ego;
something that feels that it is different, distinct from the totality;
which is an absurd feeling, but it is experienced as truth. Our own daily
experiences, like sleep, suggest that this experienced duality is not
true.
In Vedanta there is a tradition or doctrine that any experience that is
contradicted by another experience is untrue; any experience that is
limited is untrue. That is quite simple. For example, if you pick up a
mirror and see your face in the mirror and say, "Ah, I see my face in
the mirror" and then hand the mirror to someone else, that face is
gone. So it was not true to say that "My face is in the mirror." It is an
impossible proposition. Even so with the false experience of duality.
As long as the division between "you" and "me" persists, as long as
this ego-sense persists, though you can go right up to the door and
knock, it may not be opened: egoistic impatience must go, knowing
that when the time is right the door will open. Not at your time, not
on your terms. On whose terms is not indicated. So knock, keep
knocking till your knuckles (the ego) disintegrate.
There is a little story that illustrates how the true devotee of God is
never impatient and never demands anything of God:
There were two men sitting in a forest in meditation. One man had
been praying for his whole lifetime - he was eighty-five. The other had
been meditating for only three months. The famous sage Narada
happened to pass through that forest on his way to see the Lord Visnu.
Both men entreated him to ask when they might be blessed with His
vision. Narada assented. When he came back he told the young man
that next birth he would see God. This man became distraught and
indignant, forgot all about his prayers and meditations and started
beating his breast. Narada told the old man that he would have to take
hundreds of births before he would receive the vision of God. The old
man was delighted to know that (eventually) he would be blessed with
God's vision. Narada then revealed that he had confused the two
messages - it was the old man who would see God next birth. The
impatient devotee would have to wait longer.
Knock, keep knocking and remember that this unmanifest being can
be approached only through manifest divinity. So to begin with, try to
see God in beings who are apparently divine, spiritual: the Guru, saints
and sages. Then gradually expand your consciousness to see that
there is something good, something great, in everyone that unique
spark in each one is the road through which you reach God. Instantly
all our so-called negative emotions drop away: fear, hate, ill-will,
jealousy, greed. So this "I am the way," though initially might be
restricted in your own consciousness to Jesus Christ, or your guru or
this or that particular being, eventually acts like the yeast and begins
to "rise" everything else. Then you understand the meaning of the
word, maccittah: the entire consciousness is filled with an awareness
of God. This is bhakti and this is also meditation.
Only when this path is trodden with great inner awareness does one
realize a tremendous statement in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali which
describes the path of raja yoga:
trayam ekatra samyamah (III.4)
Yama is regarded as self-discipline. Samyama-sam merely means "to
perfection." Discipline to perfection, discipline which is perfect,
discipline which it total, is called. samyama. But samyama, according
to the Yoga Sutras, means concentration, meditation and super-
consciousness rolled into one. It is discipline itself that blossoms as
super-consciousness or samadhi, God-consciousness.
When there is samyama then it is also called dharma meghah
samadhih. You yourself become a shower of virtue (Yoga Sutras IV.29).
There is nothing but love and righteousness in you because you have
sought the kingdom of God and His righteousness and it acted as the
"yeast" and pervaded the entire personality.
Thus, what is known as bhakti or devotion blossoms into a mystical
experience which is apparently in the field of raja yoga and you
become a total yogi. That's it.
Further comments and references suggested by Father Terence:
1. This attitude is brilliantly dipicted in the Book of Wisdom: "Let us lie
in wait for the virtuous man, since he annoys us and opposes our way
of life.... Before us he stands a reproof to our way of thinking, the very
sight of him weighs our spirits down, his way of life is not like other
men's, the paths he treads are unfamiliar." (Wisdom II, 12 and 14-15)
2. Vigilance = Christian virtue to prepare for the meeting with the Lord.
Prayer is the pre-eminent means for practicing this vigil. See Mark XIII,
33-37; Luke XII, 35-40; 1 Thess. V, 2 and 6; Ephes. VI, 18.
3. 1 Thess. V, 17-18.
4. 1 Cor. VIII, 2-3.
5. John X, 9.
6. Matt. XXIV, 13.
 Self-Knowledge
We have looked into the various aspects of this spiritual adventure
called Yoga. There are not different yogas, though occasionally that
expression is used, just as one can say that there are different limbs of
the body.
You can sit and sing and dance, kneel until your knees turn blue,
worship in various ways, but it would still not be bhakti yoga. You can
do the most fantastic good to the world (which is very good), but it
would still not be karma yoga. There is one essential element that
needs to be added to these: that is the "yeast" - knowledge,
understanding.
There is even an inner state called jada samadhi, a kind of psycho-
physical exercise whereby you make the mind blank. It's not easy but
it is not impossible and I have seen quite a few people who could do
that. One man used to sit in the same posture for a minimum of three
to four hours, absolutely unmoved and immovable - rain, sun, storm,
nothing affected him. At the end of whatever time he had fixed for
himself he would open his eyes. The first thing he did was to burst into
some kind of abuse directed towards whoever was there in front of
him. And if there was nobody, he went on looking straight into space
scolding some imaginary person! Fantastic meditation! But there was
no doubt that one could see in him all the exterior signs of samadhi.
What had gone wrong? To twist the metaphor given by Jesus, it is like
putting the yeast in a plastic bag or some other impermeable
container, then dropping it into the dough. Nothing will happen. It will
remain absolutely still, no rising, nothing. That is the kind of stillness
that was there in this man. He probably started out with some kind of
japa or meditation but it was "encapsuled" and didn't spread into the
other aspects of his personality, and was therefore totally useless.
What is the difference between such a state and real samadhi? The
actual definition of samadhi in the Yoga Sutras finds the best
illustration in this yeast story of Jesus - it is absolutely correct. The
yeast becoming one with the dough has somehow changed the entire
thing and that which was put into it has completely and totally lost its
identity so that the two have become something that never was
before. svarpua sunyamiva "non-existent self-form" (Yoga Sutras III.3).
It is impossible to conceive of this, yet it is not totally alien to us, it is
not a super-normal experience. We have all experienced this some
time or the other and if one can look back to when it happened, it
happened because the ego was suspended: in love, in fear, in panic. It
happens so many times in our lives and luckily those experiences pass
unnoticed because it is when you notice them that they cease. But if
one can look into that memory and see- not think about see what
happened, it is not difficult to discover that at that moment of great
delight or ecstasy, the ego stood suspended.
When this ego stands suspended, the background of the experiencer
is merged in the experience itself. And since there is no difference
between the experiencer and the experience at that point, that is Yoga
- complete and total union. Not union in the sense of two things
coming together, but both things disappearing and leaving the
experiencing alone - nothing more can be said about it. Svarupa
sunyamiva: The identity of "this" and "that," (what appeared to be two
a moment earlier) is totally lost and there arises... nothing arises.
What is, is samadhi.
The essence of this whole thing is what is called self-knowledge. So,
what is called selfless action could be mere action done in an exalted
selfishness. What is called devotional practice could be practice which
looks like devotion. What is called meditation or samadhi could well
be some type of a samadhi, but just a "type." What is called Yoga may
be going through the motions without the spirit of Yoga. And the Bible
reminds you that "God is spirit" (John IV, 24), not a spirit. God is spirit
and if the spirit is not there, whatever is done is done - excellent! - but
it is not Yoga, not spiritual, not religious.
It is interesting that on the cross Jesus says: "Father, forgive them; for
they know not what they do." (Luke XXIII, 34) What you call sin,
transgression or evil, arises because "they know not what they do." I
don't know if one can draw from this an inference that if they knew,
they would not do it - maybe, may not be - but the fact is they know
not what they do. So even if you are doing something good, if you
know not what you are doing, it is useless. Judas hanged himself
because he was considered evil. You and I could be hanged because
we are considered very holy, but the hanging is of a picture - hanging
all the same! So this Self-knowledge is extremely important.
Can that Self-knowledge be acquired or granted by someone? No. It is
a gift of God. It happens when there is complete and total self-
surrender. But we can do one thing that should not be left to God or
some other power: there must be a deliberate turning away from
darkness towards 3 light. You have a beautiful proverb: You can lead
a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Even if the most
brilliant light is shone on your face you can close your eyes and you
will be quite certain that there will be darkness. Therefore Jesus
cautions, "No-one can serve two masters." (Matt. VI, 24) Turn away
from one and face the other. You won't lose anything because your
shadow will follow you.
That (the shadow) is what the Oriental calls your karma, your destiny.
Whether you are facing the light or away from the light is the choice
that one has to make. You cannot serve two masters - you cannot face
light and darkness at the same time.
Once the attention is turned towards the light, naturally you proceed
towards it, towards the source of that light. Here again we have a
fantastic parallel between the sayings of Jesus, Krishna and Buddha.
All three of them say "Come to Me." The yogi is prepared to accept
the "Me" as referring not particularly to the personality called Krishna,
but to the spirit that gave expression through the lips of the person
called Krishna. So when Jesus says: "Come to me, all who labor and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. XI, 28) and a yogi hears
this, he finds no difficulty at all. To him it is exactly the same spirit that
spoke through the personality of Krishna speaking through the
personality of Christ or Buddha or somebody else.
So there is an ambivalent attitude here: that so long as the person is
there, you go to him; not because this person, this body is going to
save you, but the spirit that speaks through that body will save you. It
is very simple and extremely practical. It reminds us of the British
sayings: "The king is dead. Long live the king." The Guru is dead, but
the Guru is not dead. He is there - everywhere. Find him. That Guru
who appeared to my vision as Swami Sivananda is now everywhere, in
all of you. "Come to me!" means face the light and move towards it.
Take a few deliberate steps towards the light and once you are aware
and conscious of the light, you won't want to turn away from that light
towards darkness.
So Krishna says:
sarvadharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja (XVIII.66)
"Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone." Not" Mr. Krishna" -
if you belong to this Krishna cult, they will probably say that unless you
take refuge in Krishna you won't have salvation. Good, a marvelous
idea. But then there is a serious problem- where is Krishna now? Or
where is Jesus Christ or Buddha now? Unnecessarily you have to
create some complication: "Christ and Krishna are all up there
somewhere, waiting to descend again, and I have to recommend you
to him when he descends and so you must follow me." You may not
be quite prepared for that! Find him and follow him. Where is he? He
is in your heart. Look for him in your heart, whatever be the method
you adopt; even through hatha yoga yoga asanas and pranayama,* or
by adoring Jesus, by communion with him in spirit.
"Come to me" does not necessarily imply moving towards a certain
personality but moving towards the light that that personality
manifested while embodied. When the personality was in
manifestation there was obviously no doubt about moving towards
him. And if in your own consciousness there is no other awareness of
another personality, that is, to you God means only Jesus Christ - there
is absolutely no harm, go ahead, find that; instead of trying to suggest
that "This is the only way and your way is not the right way." Don't
worry about the other's way, keep going; don't even waste a thought
on the other's way, even to say that "This is the way of the devil" -
then you are looking at the devil, not yourself, not the light. If you are
devoted to Krishna, go on find this Krishna in you, find this Christ in
you, this Buddha in you. But remember that you cannot serve two
masters - not even to think of the "other man's devil" while
contemplating your "God."
There is a very serious problem here and Krishna refers to this in the
Bhagavad Gita:
dvau bhutasargau loke 'smin daiva asura eva ca (XVI.6)
"There are two types of beings in this world, the divine and the
demonical." There are these two tendencies built into creation, two
paths along which the awareness can flow: one leading towards
darkness and one leading towards light. The divine and the undivine
paths. Deva really means light, and asura where there is no light. You
cannot follow these two. You cannot go towards the light and at the
same time move in darkness. It is not possible. Is there some kind of a
supernormal, supernatural light that one must see? No. I have a much
simpler way of looking at it. Do nothing in a state of confusion, in a
state of unclarity. If everything that happens to you or that you do, if
all experiences and expressions are absolutely clear, then you are
moving in the light, towards the light. It is impossible to do something
in that state and to regret.
We regret only those actions which were done in a state of unclarity.
If you know exactly: "I am doing this, I am aware of the motivation, I
am aware of even the possible consequences, the entire picture" then
you won't blame anybody, not even yourself. There is no sense in
saying "I blame myself." That expression is meaningless. Regret, I
understand, but regret implies some kind of a clever psychological
attitude that says "If only I had not done that, I would have taken the
other road and yet got what I wanted without getting into trouble!"
(That is the "contraceptive" approach.) Without blaming others, and
wi-thout blaming oneself, one remains aware that: "This is an impulse
that arises. It is very strong." If it is not strong, then the very awareness
of the arising of the impulse is enough to deal with it-stop it naturally.
To stop it or let it go depends upon what the action is and what the
awareness decides is appropriate. This happens again and again, and
you observe this, becoming more and more intensely aware of it
because the attention is undistracted. That is meditation, continuous
meditation. That is light, un- dimmed light. It is not a static state you
are able to move. Life moves, life moves you, pushes you in one
direction or the other; but since you have this light "in your hands"
(within you) whichever direction life moves you, it is illumined. This is
precisely what Jesus suggested: "If your eye is sound, your whole body
will be full of light." (Matt. VI, 22)
It is still possible that you commit some errors, but knowingly this
time, not unknowingly - errors in the sense that they inevitably lead
to their own consequences which is unhappiness. You realize that it is
an impulse, a tendency that is built into the system. You are helpless.
Then you try to trace your own source and you come face to face with
some substance over which you have no control - all this is done in the
light that shines all the time in you.
This is not an external affair. This light shines in each one of us. It is
when suddenly we look to some outside agency, outside one's own
consciousness, to support, guide, protect us and all the rest of it, that
the attention is lost and darkness sets in. You deliberately ignore the
light and look to somebody else for help. Even this is not bad, if you
realize that this somebody whom you visualize outside is in you. You
can call upon Jesus Christ, Krishna, Buddha, your Guru, but that
(person) is within you, not outside. Even if that person is sitting in front
of you, he is still within you. It is a physiological fact. If that is realized,
there is no harm in resorting to a "comforter."
There is absolutely no difficulty, no doubt, till one day the big question
arises: "How does this come to an end? You are helpless and you say
"God, God, please help me!" You realize that the difficulty, craving, or
evil impulse that is coming up is within you, the God that you are
praying to is also within you and the prayer is happening within you!
It is a crazy situation, but maybe it is necessary at some point. Then
you come face to face with this groundwork. It is very clear, but even
that clarity does not help. That is the point where the vital questions
arise: "If this is an impulse where does it arise? In me. But then why
does it arise in spite of me and why is it I am not able to control it? Is
there a controller, totally distinct and different from what needs to be
controlled, the impulse, so that the controller could jump on the
shoulders of this terrible thing that is happening?" There is no answer
to that, no answer is possible. The human intellect comes to a dead
end and that is called, by me, the "logical conclusion:" conclusion of
logic. (Not in the sense that you argue and argue and come to an end
of the argument, but it is the conclusion of logic.)
From there on there is nothing that can be done by the ego, by you.
This again is emphasized by all the three Krishna, Christ and Buddha.
Christ suggests again and again: "Follow Me." "Abide in Me." (John XV,
4) Krishna says: "Surrender yourself," but not prematurely. Do all that
you can and when you are utterly convinced that you can't do any
more, surrender yourself. Premature surrender is either impotence or
arrogance. Surrender means that you have struggled and struggled
hard. You have come up to this precipice, but you don't have the
courage to go further. "So please give me a kick in the pants." I think
He would do that!
The same factor is hinted at by the Buddha in this beautiful saying:
atta sarana bhava
atta dipa bhava
"Be your own light, take refuge in the Self, not in anyone else, turn
towards this light within." That is God. This light shines in you all the
time, even when you are doing what you consider evil. Is it possible
that if there is clarity you would not do that? I am bold enough to say
that even if there is this clarity you might still do what you are doing,
(for God's will cannot be defied) - although that is putting the cart
before the horse. Find this inner light first then "All these things shall
be yours as well." (Matt. VI, 33)
Let there be this total inner clarity all the time. In that clarity you will
realize that there is one point beyond which you cannot go. At that
point it becomes necessary for surrender. Surrender is symbolized in
the crucifixion. Even then, right till the last moment there is a
suggestion that maybe without this surrender "I" can participate in
this cosmic being (ref. Luke XXII, 42). It is a fantastic trick that the ego
plays in that last-ditch attempt to save itself. There is still clarity, but
even that clarity is unable to dispel this "primordial ignorance"
mulavidya which is comparable to the blueness of the sky. However
good your eyesight, however brilliant your intellect, and even if you
have been to the moon and back and seen that there is nothing blue
there, look up, you will still see blue. This is called maya. This
primordial ignorance is not your creation and therefore cannot be
brought to an end by you.
As Jesus says: "The cup that I drink you will drink... but to sit at my
right hand or at my left is not mine to grant." (Mark X, 39-40)
Surrender is like dying, but dying with a hope at heart of rising up to
heaven or getting eternal life or being born in better circumstances is
not dying. That is a mere heart transplant from one body to another
what they call "reincarnation." Dying is to die totally and completely.
If that sentence doesn't have a full stop after it then the ego
immediately asks: "What then?" What then? - you are still dead!
Surrender is so difficult, so strange for the human ego even to
conceive of.
Most people believe that human beings are superior to animals. I do
not believe this. When sheep are taken to the abbatoir, they just stick
their necks out to be slaughtered. Can a human being do that? Totally,
without any expectation whatsoever?? When the human mind looks
at that phenomenon it thinks the sheep is a brainless, stupid thing. We
think our intelligence lies in struggling to live, struggling for survival.
We don't survive. Nobody survives.
So it is this terrible misunderstanding of ego that wants to persist in
that misunderstanding and will not give up even if it is very clear that
its existence is the cause of its own sorrow; that veil of
misunderstanding is removed only by God's grace and not by any
amount of self effort. Even if enlightenment appears to drop into one's
lap, it is grace only.
Finally, since it is so, and since we are in a paradoxical situation where
you and I are asked to struggle and struggle, to crucify the ego, the
mind and the flesh, to come right up to that and drink of this cup of
crucifixion, the question naturally arises in the immature mind that
looks at this apparent phenomenon: "I will do that if you will please
guarantee that you will take me..." Where?
Again there are two parallel sayings in the Gita and the Bible. You can
interpret them in any manner you like: "I will not leave you desolate;
I will come to you... I will pray the Father and he will give you another
Counselor, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the
world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you
know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." (John XIV, 16-18)
And in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna tells us that if you cannot reach the
goal right now, strive, strive hard and then you will be given another
chance to proceed from where your are towards enlightenment. (ref.
VI.43). It is in that understanding or realization of the Holy Spirit that
the total merger of what is called human consciousness with cosmic
consciousness lies. Suddenly you realize at one point, when this Holy
Spirit, this Self- knowledge descends into you, that "That which I called
myself is the breath of God breathed into me" (ref. Genesis II, 7). "This
is not my breath, it is His breath and therefore this is not my life, it was
His life all the time. Stupidly I thought it was me. It is not me." This
understanding, as distinct from an idea or a philosophy, arises when
the veil is withdrawn by God Himself.
Having breathed the breath of life into the first man it is perhaps God
who willed that he should regard himself as somebody, something
independent of the totality called God. The final resolution of that
mystery is also His - but it will happen. When that understanding that,
"Even if I am breathing at all it is not I who am breathing, the breath
of life was breathed into me by the Divine," then Yoga takes place.
What was considered "me," "my consciousness," "my individuality,"
"my personality," suddenly... how can you verbalize that? It doesn't
become ONE with the cosmic being, with God, but it is one with God.
There are absolutely no words to describe that. That which was God,
is God and will be God (which is the exact translation of the Hebrew
word which is anglicized into Yahweh, Jehovah ref. Exodus III, 14),
"came to me because I felt I was distinct and totally different from that
cosmic being: come to me as the Guru, as Christ, as Krishna, as
Buddha, in order to lead me on to this path and provided me with a
comforter which is an inner inspiration the Holy Spirit." (ref. John XIV,
16-17). In that inspiration there is a revelation the veil is lifted, not by
"me," or by "my" effort, but the veil is lifted and it instantly becomes
clear that God, Guru and Self are one:
isvaro gururatmeti murti bhedavidhagine
"God, Guru and Self pervade all, though seeming to be divided."
There is a telephone booth installed in a hall. These three spaces seem
to be factually separate: the space inside the telephone booth, the
hall-space and the outside space. You are standing outside when
suddenly there is an earthquake and the whole thing is shaking, the
whole thing collapses and suddenly you realize that space was never
cut up. The inside space has not become one with the outside space,
but "inside" and "outside" were just ideas. When those ideas
collapsed, nothing happened - but everything happened at the same
time.

Further references suggested by Father Terence:

1. John IV, 23-24; 1 Cor. II, 10-13.
2. Ephes. II, 4-8.
3. John III, 19-21.
4. Father Terence offers two very pertinent refs. in this regard: 1 Cor.
IX, 24-27; 1 Cor. VI, 19-20.
5. Matt. V, 14-16.
6. Jeremiah XXIX, 12-14.
7. Christ as the lamb: Isaiah LIII, 7.
 Discard Mental Furniture
Religion is supposed to promote peace. If it has not, where have we
failed? Has religion failed us, or have we failed religion? That is a
simple question. If I am sure that I eat in order to appease my hunger
and if what I eat does not serve that purpose, then either it is not food
or I am not eating and digesting it -something is wrong between us.
Religion is meant to promote peace and harmony. One of the titles
conferred upon Jesus Christ by man is that he is the Prince of Peace. If
religion means harmony, peace, why is it that we have not found it in
religion, through religion? Why is it that we have been subjected to
this criticism that it is religion that creates trouble? Where have we
gone wrong? What is peace? What is harmony? What is religion?
First of all, I feel that in our mutual eagerness to tell one another what
to do there seems to be some mistake.2 When it comes to saying, "Be
truthful," "Be non-violent," "Be kind," "Love one another," what do we
do? Do we digest this truth, digest this message? Or do we try to
impress others saying that "You must be like this?" This is a favorite
pastime, especially in India. In India, wherever you go, lay people, non-
religious people, tell the religious people how they should behave.
And the religious people tell the lay people how they must behave. In
this itself there is trouble.
When it comes to goodness, when it comes to the true spirit of
religion, we are more eager to find it in others than in ourselves. This
has unfortunately become a slogan. Everyone has come to live up to
the same idea - that "It is my business to make others good. It does
not matter what I am but in the name of God, in the name of religion,
in the name of my guru, my teacher, my prophet, I preach the word of
God, the message of God - I am serving the Lord in this manner. It does
not matter at all how I live or what I do." Somehow or other this spirit
seems to be more infectious than the spirit of religion. We are quite
convinced that "However wicked or vicious I am, if I have contributed
in some measure to religion in all of you, then I have served my
purpose."
There is a lovely little story told in India. A minister challenged the king
and said "Your Majesty! Do you think your people love you? Some are
afraid of you but most of them hate you; none of them loves you." The
king got terribly cross and said "I'll chop off your head if you don't
prove this." The minister said "Give me a little time." The minister had
a beautiful plan. He had it announced:
"Tomorrow is His Majesty's birthday and he wants to perform a special
ceremony which involves the use of a phenomenal quantity of milk.
Those citizens who really love the king, please contribute your share
of milk. There is no compulsion at all, it is a freewill love offering. We
are going to place a few tall drums around the palace, you will be able
to ascend a few steps and pour your contribution into the drum. The
king will of course be seated there watching." Well, the drums were
placed around the palace. Streams of people came the next day and
queued up. The procession ended and the king asked, "Now, what are
you going to do with all the milk?" The minister replied, "We'll give
that to the poor people, don't get excited. Let's go down." They both
went down and climbed up the ladder and opened one drum. Plain
water. The king said "What is this? There is something wrong, let us
look into the next drum." Again, plain water. They went round the
palace but all the drums were full of water. The king was really
shocked. "Is this what all those people brought?" The minister said,
"Yes, you know why? Everyone who came had exactly the same
thought: "Ten thousand people are going to pour milk into those
drums and if I pour a bucket of water, who is going to notice it? The
king will see me there and so my loyalty, my love for the king has been
confirmed!"" I often wonder if that is our problem. We think "I'm
alright, I've shown myself, my face in the church."
On the other hand we might adopt the attitude of a young Jewish
religious student who got married. A neighbour asked him "What are
you going to do now?" He said, "I am going to study religion!" "Hah!
But what about your father's business, your grandfather's business?"
He said, "Sir, I will explain to you. My father had three brothers and
his father told him, 'Oh you know I'd very much like to study religion,
the Torah, the Bible and so on. But, you know, if I didn't work and earn,
these boys would starve. And so for the sake of my children, I have
sacrificed my religious aspirations and gone into business to earn
some money so that my children can become religious, learn religion.'
What did his father do? Exactly the same thing. This has been going on
for five generations." Somewhere, someone has to break the vicious
circle of trusting that everyone else will become religious, that it is my
business to promote everybody else's religiosity.
Why do people tell lies and cheat? Why are people so violent,
irreligious and un-Christian? The answer that people give you daily is
"Such is life!" If I'm not beating everybody else up, I myself would be
destroyed." It is then that we might look at the symbol of self-sacrifice,
of Jesus on the cross, and derive one small lesson from it: "What does
it matter if I am destroyed? Does it matter at all? Is it so terribly
important that I should continue to be? Physically, I am not immortal,
eternal, so let me break out of this vicious circle of expecting others to
be good. Let this whole spirit of religion possess me." If one is able to
say this to oneself, then the true religious spirit is awakened. Then we
say, "But what about my friends, my family, my business? What about
my society?" They will probably look after themselves much better.
Can they save me? No. In the inner courtyard of religion this spirit is
there asking, "Are you dependent upon me or am I dependent upon
you?" No, neither. Someone said "Follow me." It sounds very easy, but
is it so easy to follow someone? If one uses the excuse - "I'm not free,
I'm not independent spiritually, because I have all these followers" - is
that true? I think one has to remember the life of Jesus Christ.
When I was in Jerusalem, my host took me to see a beautiful church
built on the spot where (in orthodox terms) St. Peter was converted.
The church is called Peter of Gallicanto and we were shown around by
a very delightful young minister. As we were taking leave of him this
young minister said, "You know, just as I've read the New Testament,
I've also read some Indian scriptures and Buddhist scriptures. I find
there is not much that is unique in their teachings that is not found in
the teachings of Jesus Christ. I said "But in Christ there is something
which is really inspiring." "And what is that?" "That here was a man, a
prophet, a son of God, whatever you wish to call him, who did not
forsake the spirit of religion even when his closest friends and disciples
turned against him. Not deserted him - turned against him. That is a
very stiff test. How many of us would measure up to that?" So must I
bring this as an excuse, that I have followers to look after and that in
order to do it, I may have to compromise? No, rather let the spirit of
religion prevail, whatever be the cost. Maybe neither I am so
important, nor what I regard as my mission. It is the spirit of religion
that is important. If we had understood this and made it a living truth
in us, religion would not have failed us and we would not have failed
it. Then it is possible for us to discover the peace that religion
promises.
What I am trying to convey is that we have never been religious. I wear
these robes, what do they mean? Nothing. Inside there may be a
rogue. People ask me, "What are these orange robes?" If I want to be
polite, I tell them "They are a sort of uniform. So that as I walk along
the road, you will know that it is a swami. Nothing more." Instead of
worrying about all these forms and formalities, can I recapture and
preserve the spirit of religion? Can I visualize Krishna, Buddha, Jesus,
standing there and talking to me, talking not as a routine ritual but as
a living truth? Can I drink of the fountain of living water, of truth? Can
I do this, not being bothered by my own little business and my own
little life, not being worried about what my friends and followers say
and do; knowing that they will do what they want to do anyway; so
why should I not do what I want to do? Why should I not drink of this,
digest this, assimilate this?
Having truly assimilated the spirit of religion, it may be possible for me
to transmit it to someone else. Then there is peace, instantly. I have
got rid of what I am fond of calling "junk!" Junk number one is "my"
sense of responsibility. You may say that "I am responsible for my wife
and children," but are you? Look at your wife - she was born before
you married her - how are you responsible for her? What is
responsibility? Look at the children. Are you responsible for them?
Perhaps yes, it is because you married their mother that they were
born. Children are not really born of you, they are born. If you have a
heart attack now and by some magic you see death knocking, can you
say "Wait! The children are small, I have a responsibility to them.
Come later!" I have seen orphans. After the Muslim-Hindu riots in
North India many of these children were left fatherless, motherless,
but they did not perish. Some did; some do, anyway. It is this false
sense of responsibility that worries us. Realize your state when you
feel that the family, business, and YOU YOURSELF are all His
responsibility He is the Creator and Preserver. You will be ever happy
and active.
The moment all the junk, all the psychological furniture is thrown out,
then immediately there is freedom, peace. There is a beautiful saying
in the Bhagavad Gita:
tyagac chantir anantaram (XII.12)
"Peace immediately follows renunciation." "Discard this mental
furniture, this junk" - that very moment you have peace.
It is not work or life that is bothersome, it is that imaginary sense of
responsibility with its imaginary self- esteem or self-importance that
creates fear and worry. When that is discarded, by the rising of the
spirit of true religion, immediately there is freedom, peace, harmony.
Such a life is a blessing.
Then you do not have to sit and talk. In India many holy men do not
talk at all. When this spirit of religion is kindled in one's heart, then in
that person's very presence there is an infection of that religious spirit.
A very holy man of India called Kabir remarked, "Get close to these
men of God, men of religion, in whom the spirit of religion is alive. You
will also derive peace and freedom and, because their spirit is
infectious, you will be infected, even if they do not look at you, do not
talk to you." Is it possible that by sitting at his feet you can become
infected by the spirit of religion? Kabir declares "If a virus or germ has
such power, then what about a spiritual being?" If sick men have the
power to infect you with their sickness, why cannot the holy man
infect you with his holiness?
If only the spirit of religion can be kindled as one candle is kindled from
another in the Easter ceremony, then there is peace, freedom and
harmony within one's own heart, and it is possible to transmit it from
one to the other.

Further comments and references by Father Terence:

1. Peace was the greeting of the Risen Christ to his disciples (John XX,
19 & 21).
2. The burden of the Pharisees: ref. Matt. XXIII, 2-4 and 13ff.
3. Again Jesus attacks the "religiosity" of the Pharisees who are caught
up with the need "to be seen:" Matt VI, 1-21.
4. Parallel with the Mary and Martha story: Luke X, 38-42.
5. Christ, the model of faith - Phil. II, 5-11. The true Christian, faithful
to the spirit of religion, is called to be a bearer of peace by making it
of his/her life and by allowing it to be seen by others. We witness to
the peace we share with God in our fidelity to His spirit. Ref. James III,
17-18 and Col. III, 12-15.
 Descent of Wisdom
Is the descent of wisdom spontaneous, or are there pre-conditions?
No-one really knows. However, on scriptural authority one might say
that there is a period of preparation and that preparation applies to
all - whether it has a causal connection with what follows, or whether
these two are unconnected events. Like marrying and having a baby.
Everyone who marries does not have a baby, and yet if you do not
have a relationship you cannot have a baby. It's a double negative. It
is not as though this must lead to the other, but without this that may
not happen. Similarly, without the preparation, that enlightenment
experience may not happen.
This problem is discussed at great length in the Yoga Vasistha where
the Master says that by and large one has to pass through all these
stages in order to reach what is known as enlightenment. But in the
case of some it seems to just drop from the sky, whether or not it is
deserved - there are no questions asked. So we find rather intriguing
instances of someone being "forcibly enlightened," if one can use such
an expression.
There is a story of a very great saint in South India who didn't want to
tread the spiritual path at all, who had no use for any of these things,
but grace took him by the scruff of the neck and said, "Go on! This is
your path." your path." When you cannot explain a thing like this, and
when there is an inner compulsion to explain it, you invoke the theory
of a previous incarnation in which this man had struggled and
struggled and did all sorts of things. So in this birth he was born on the
precipice. Tip, and he was off. But we still don't know.
We are bound by no cord, we are trapped in total freedom, and we
suffer in a sea of supreme bliss. How does it happen? No one knows.
Are we bound to this body in some way or the other? Where is the
cord, where are the shackles? You don't find any.
It is rather interesting that the one thing all of us love to do and the
one thing whose deprivation means torture, is sleep. In that state
there is an obvious experience of a "looseness;" there is no bondage.
If you are bound to the body, you couldn't be freed from that body-
consciousness in sleep. Yet you are. Again, there are moments when
suddenly the body consciousness is transcended, when the body
which seems to have a stranglehold on our awareness, appears to
disintegrate spontaneously and completely. In a state of panic,
excitement or total fear, the bonds are loosened again. That makes
you wonder, "Is there a bond at all?" But right now there seems to be,
and yet we all long for freedom from this bondage, a bondage that in
reality does not exist but which is constantly experienced.
Now what on earth is going to resolve this non-existent problem, this
phantom pain? In order to kill it you do something to dull your sense
of awareness, to distract the mind-not from the understanding of the
truth that there is no bondage, but from the experienced situation of
being limited, being bound otherwise the mind constantly broods on
that. When all these so-called spiritual practices are indulged in as a
matter of blind routine, they are mere bandaids. They are very good,
I am not discouraging them, because although they do not directly
give you the enlightenment experience, without them the
enlightenment experience may not be had.
Eventually you may discover that all these innumerable spiritual
practices slowly push you towards the precipice, in order that you may
eventually at some point take a leap into the beyond. You cannot
argue that since taking this final leap is the thing that is indicated so,
"Why should I do all this?" because you have to reach that precipice
in order to take the leap.
The scriptures provide a map. What is a map? The path that has been
trodden by others, by which they reached a certain destination. It
merely indicates that if you want to go from here to there you might
follow this path. But nothing stops you from beating your own path,
creating a Neither the scriptures and all the practices that we indulge
in, nor their abandonment will enable us to realize the Truth, the Self,
God. What is needed is a constant vigilant inquiry into whatever we
are doing, and doing everything intelligently.
But initially, at the onset of the spiritual quest, how does one find "a
chink in the wall?" Normally the ego is absolutely self-sufficient, very
secure, more solid than a wall. It knows what is right, what is not right,
there are no doubts, but... There are no doubts only when things are
flowing smoothly. When everything is going fine, it is fantastic. But a
problem arises in life (and thank God these problems are brought into
our lives) and the whole thing crumbles, because the ego has no
foundation. In a paradoxical way it (the ego) depends upon its own
acceptance for its existence. Therefore it is a completely self-
contained myth. How is a chink formed in that wall? No one has been
able to provide a satisfactory answer to this.
There is a tremendous statement in the Bhagavad Gita:
api cet sudura caro bhajate mam ananyabhak
sadhur eva sa mantavyah samyag vyavasito hi sah
ksipram bhavati dharmatma sasvacchantim nigacchati
kaunteya pratijanihi na me bhaktah pranasyati (IX.30-31)
"Even if the worst sinner worships Me, with devotion to none else, he
too should indeed be regarded as rightous, for he has rightly resolved.
Soon he becomes righteous and attains to eternal peace: O Arjuna,
know thou for certain that My devotee is never destroyed." "If the
worst rascal turns to God and worships Him, he will instantly become
a "3 saint." Why will that worst rascal worship God? Why will a
confirmed criminal want to confess all his sins? How does the spiritual
thirst arise in a person? What makes that chink in the wall? Satsanga
(company of the truth). But why will you go to the satsanga? If you are
an egotist and you are quite secure in your own ego and all its
ramifications- wife, children, money, house, etc. then why will you
attend a satsang? There is absolutely no clear answer to that question.
Once that first hole is drilled, you look through it and the very act of
looking beyond "the wall" enlarges that hole, until you suddenly
realize that the wall wasn't there at all! So, the whole thing is a
complete and total mystery.
In the same way, the other point of view is also not very satisfactory:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a
rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark X, 25) Maybe. But does
that mean that all poor people will automatically enter the kingdom
of heaven? No. Poverty is a curse according to some, wealth is a curse
according to others - both are right.
Are there definite criteria to say that this will lead you there and that
will not lead you there? No. Holy men have fallen from the
penultimate step. How did that happen? Is it possible that someone
who thought he was nearly there - only thought he was nearly there?
Is it possible that the other person whom society considered as the
worst scoundrel was very close to God in his own heart? What are the
criteria for God's grace? And who lays down these criteria? You? A
human being? Are we so high and so great that we can determine
what God shall do and shall not do? These are very pertinent, serious
and impossible questions.
It is possible that there may be spontaneous enlightenment. It is
possible that the veil of ignorance just burns up spontaneous
combustion. You do nothing. You just look at it. But if somehow by
God's grace or disgrace it doesn't happen, you had better get going
and do something - walk over to the precipice. They say that unless
you have taken every step towards the precipice deliberately, with
great inner awareness, even if you get there, you may still turn back
and take another route.
You must wake up to the realization that whatever you thought was
true is not true. All these are based on a certain truth which is not
obvious. What was obvious is not true and what is true has not been
obvious.
The whole problem hinges on this one issue and that is, "What is this
ego and what does it do?" But we often begin by asking, "How to 'get
rid of or weaken the ego?"
The sadhana (practice) Jesus undertook of fasting for forty days5 has
also been undertaken by a number of great saints and sages. In
connection with that there is a parallel quotation from the Bhagavad
Gita:
visaya vinivartante niraharasya dehinah
rasavarjam raso by asya param drstva nivartate (II.59)
"The objects of the senses turn away from the obstinate man, leaving
the longing (behind); but his longing also turns away on seeing the
Supreme." The attraction of the objects of the senses or the objects of
experience is weakened by nirahara. Niraharasya means "in the case
of one who goes without food." But the food here does not mean
merely the food that you eat but the fuel which keeps all these
faculties going - the sense experiences, the thoughts, the
psychological and emotional experiences. When this fuel is
withdrawn, the ego is greatly weakened, "but the taste lingers." It is
like the bed bugs in winter. You think they are completely finished.
Where there was a whole colony of bedbugs, there is now nothing,
just slough. You leave it there and one rain, one shine, ZZZP! Just one
bite and they are back to their old form. So when the senses and mind
are starved, they seem to have died out. But be careful, that taste is
still there. "That taste goes only when the Supreme is seen." This is
hinted at in the famous temptation story. If fasting is also
accompanied by prayer and meditation, obviously the truth is seen
and there is "untemptability." You don't return to this ego trip again.
But if the fasting was merely a starvation you might appear to be a
great yogi, but one little temptation and you fall.
If the person who is so tempted is wise, he realizes that though he
switched off the food intake, he hadn't paid any attention to the seat
of those cravings. It is not the temptations that tempt you but you
tempt temptations to tempt you. Temptation cannot tempt you
unless you are looking in that direction. You look in that direction
because the inner psychic instrument that flows in that direction has
not been treated. The attempt has been to switch off the input, so
everything seems to be fine. But the temptability is still there, the
source of craving is still there, and until that is also disposed of you are
not at the precipice.
A powerful input, what is called a temptation, sense experience,
reveals the experiencer in a very subtle or not so subtle way. Even
while you are enjoying the object of sense, can you remain aware of
the source of the pleasure or pain? That which experiences pleasure
or pain is the bondage. If it is real, the bondage is real; if it is not real,
well of course, bye bye. Now the fasting starts. You withdraw the mind
from the source of pleasure. Why only pleasure? It is only pleasure
that distracts the mind and draws it out. Pain does not do that. While
experiencing that pleasure, is it possible to look at that experiencer?
That is the problem. To do this with a pleasure experience is hard, but
with a pain experience it is much easier. When you switch off the input
it becomes painful at some point. When you starve yourself - whether
it means not taking food or denying yourself certain pleasures, which
might even be considered natural - then you see the cravings arise.
The craving is the relic of memory, of past experience that wants to
become an experiencer again. It is not strong at all - it is the thought
that gives it all its strength.
Now the "chink" gets a little wider and you are able to see beyond and
eventually the whole thing collapses.
What you see into the chink is not what you see, but what is there.

Further references and comments by Father Terence:

1. The Christian example of Paul on the Road to Damascus: Acts IX, 1-
30.
2. Vigilance is also a typically Christian virtue that helps in resisting
temptation in order to prepare for the meeting with the Lord (ref.
Mark XIII, 33-37). Prayer is the pre-eminent means for practicing the
vigil of the will. Vigilance is necessary for the acquisition of wisdom
(ref. Wis. VI, 15; Prov. VIII, 34; Sirach IV, 11-12). Especially ref. 1 Thess.
V, 1 and 6.
3. Example of the rascal recognizing God Luke XXIII,
39-43.
4. Ref. Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector
Luke XVIII, 9-14.
5. See Luke IV, 1-13. Ancient practice in Catholic tradition of
Mortification - root of word is mors/mortis death.
The practice of dying to self.
 Let's Face It
I thought that this time we should contemplate one of the
fundamental views of Hazrat Inyat Khan.
It has been the vision of many of the supreme masters, who have
directly perceived the truth or reality, that they did not function of the
basis of either-or. None of these great masters have really striven to
convert anyone from one faith or one belief to another. Jesus said this
very beautifully, "I have not come to destroy." Krishna pointed to the
same beautiful truth when in the Bhagavad Gita he insists; "na
buddhibhedam janayed." Never disturb anyone's belief. They did not
work on the principle that it is either-or, that either you are right or I
am right - and of course I am right and that means that your are not
right.
In the same manner these great masters did not think in terms of
either unity or diversity. Most of them did not even try to bring about
what we consider a reconciliation between these two. Is it even
necessary for us, if we do not want to choose between these two, to
struggle to reconcile unity and diversity? When do we want to bring
about a reconciliation? When we find there is a conflict. Is there a
conflict between unity and diversity? Where there is no conflict there
is no need for a reconciliation, but there may be need for choosing
one or the other. Now we are also going to look into that factor - is it
necessary to choose between unity and diversity? When you make a
choice you imply thereby that one is superior to the other. As a matter
of fact the great masters have never indulged in this contest - what is
superior and what is inferior. That is the sign of a master. He leaves
things as they are and reveals the spirit in all of them. This is not really
unity in diversity. These are there but there is a unity of spirit
underlying all this diversity.
There's a bit of a snag here - that while seeming to accept all, you
accept none and you are creating something new. This has
unfortunately been the passion of those who profess to follow the
great masters. One of the other great masters of India, called
Shuddhananda Bharati, says they are not followers, they are
swallowers. There are no followers but they who come after the great
masters are swallowers. I look at this word, I listen to it and I see that
if you follow somebody you "fall low." Why do you want to fall low,
why don't you become the master himself? Then you don't fall low,
you imbibe the spirit of the master and while doing so you discover
that to the master there was no difficulty in seeing diversity as
diversity and unity as unity. He saw no conflict between them to
reconcile and he saw no superiority or inferiority between them to
force him to choose one and reject the other.
The truth is so simple and in truth there is no conflict or problem. Truth
does not create a problem. Conversely, only that which does not
create a problem or a conflict within you is true. If it creates a conflict
within you then, naturally, such a conflict extends from you to others,
placing you in a situation of conflict all your lifetime, that is not true
whatever it be. That alone is true which does not create a conflict
within yourself or between you and others. There is absolutely no
problem in truth - truth is. And yet we have made diversity a problem,
we have made even unity a problem because we think unity can arise
only when all this diversity has been abolished or somehow
reconciled.
If we transplant ourselves in spirit to the battlefield and listen to
Krishna, in his message there is absolutely no problem. It is crystal
clear. He does not say that this teaching is superior to the teachings of
Christ or Buddha. Listen very carefully here, he does not even say that
this is the same as the teachings of Christ or Buddha. This is the
teaching. This is the truth. Then we transplant ourselves in spirit to a
remote corner of India where Buddha addressed the assembled
monks. There again the same truth emerges but not the same. It is
Buddha's message. Then we transplant ourselves to Galilee and listen
to the teachings of Jesus Christ. There again the truth is revealed.
Between one and the other there is no conflict and there is no anxiety
to reconcile one with the other. Truth can shine as the sun shines,
without entering into conflict, without needing reconciliation and
without proclaiming superiority or inferiority.
But in our case diversity is a problem because we are unable to see
diversity without somehow judging. That's the problem and that's why
Jesus Christ said, "Judge not." But we are fond of judging I look at two
bodies, naturally these bodies are different, but having seen that, I
can't stop there - I have to say he looks healthier, wiser, cleverer than
the other, it's always comparing, always judging, always distorting.
Can I not see these two men just exactly as they are? Why not? That's
our problem. If we can avoid this judgment and merely become aware
of diversity, it's possible that we shall really and truly believe or enter
into the spirit of creation and see that this is the most beautiful
bouquet that God's own energy, shakti, offers to Him in adoration.
There is absolutely no conflict or problem in this.
Is it possible to abolish this diversity? No, absurd. People have tried
this from time immemorial. The followers have always tried this joke.
When a teaching appeals to someone, it is not always the spirit of the
teaching that appeals to him. That someone has his own axe to grind
and so on. If somebody's teaching appeals to you, go ahead, saturate
yourself in that teaching. It is not even necessary for you to
understand and appreciate someone else's teaching. It is quite
possible that if you, in your own heart, in your own soul, embody that
teaching, you will find your reflection in all. It is possible that if you are
a true christian you might find that your friend who is a total buddhist
is your own reflection, except that he doesn't seem to pronounce
"Christ" very well, he calls it, "Buddha!" And therefore you don't want
to convert anyone, you don't want to transform, reform, lead,
mislead. All these things don't arise at all because you already see in
the other person a perfect reflection of yourself. In exactly the same
way as you have two eyes, two ears, one mouth, one nose, you look
at the other person and find the same thing. You are not interested in
changing all that. You recognize his as a human being- as YOU are. If
you are a human being.
It is something else that seems to disturb, that wants to bring about a
unity in this diversity so that the other person may follow me, not so
much the master. If you follow my master you are my brother but I
want somehow to make you conform to a system of which I am the
head. This is where all our systems go wrong. There is nothing wrong
with systems either. As long as life continues to operate on this earth
there will be systems. Just as there will be diversity. That is how the
universe has been created and nobody is going to change it. As long
as the human being is able to think, that thought will create systems.
This also cannot be avoided. Isms, cults and sections will continue to
proliferate. No one has been able to find a remedy for this diversity
because this diversity does not need a remedy and therefore it resists
all remedies.
Everyone who has tried to abolish this diversity has added one more
to it. If you look around at the present-day religious scene you will see
this very clearly. There are at least five or six universal religious
movements. I am not criticizing any movement or anything - as I say,
these are inevitable. You can see this for instance in the Indian
movements. Buddha's teaching was very simple, very clear, but then
the followers started APPLYING Buddha's teachings to the conditions
prevailing in India at that time, saying that you should not do that, you
should not belong to this school of philosophy, you must belong to
Buddha's school. Buddha himself is no more and so you must follow
me and then we will abolish all the caste systems, we will abolish all
these pernicious elements that prevail in the Hindu system and there
will be one Sankhara. Marvelous. And so what happens? Within
minutes we hold a council. You don't agree with what I say, she has
some other view - three systems come out. We are all very powerful,
highly intellectual people, logicians, charismatic, and so each one
gathers his or her own crowd and different schools are created. So
that today there are as many conflicting and warring sects amongst
these major religious groups as there were before they were ever
founded.
Can we go to the root of this problem and not merely try to
cosmetically treat it? Is it possible for us to look round with both our
eyes open but without accepting or rejecting, without judging one to
be right and therefore the other to be wrong? Is it possible for us to
observe and to see that what is called diversity and what is called unity
are two sides of the same coin? As long as the coin lasts the two sides
are inevitable. You may be able to split a piece of cardboard into
several pieces and it is possible that you can keep on splitting it into
finer and finer paper, but you will never be able to make the paper
have only one side, it will always have two sides. These two sides are
unity and diversity. the world has been created on the principle of
diversity and there is absolutely nothing the matter with this diversity
- it is as it is.
A few days ago we were walking along the seashore and I was
observing the wild flowers and plants, they were most gorgeous and
beautiful. There you see diversity, but one doesn't try to suppress the
other. diversity is nature, nature is diversity. But no quite. The other
side of this coin is unity. What is unity? We observe diversity. This is a
girl and that is a boy, this is obvious. It is from this obvious truth that
we begin our inquiry into this mystery of unity and diversity. This is a
girl and that is a boy, or this is a carpet and these are bricks, now we
begin to inquire into the nature of this diversity. Who created this
diversity, and when does this diversity become a problem for us to
have to deal with? Why do we have to deal with this diversity? Why
are we here discussing this problem at all? If it is not a problem we
would not be here discussing it.
Does diversity itself create a problem? Then the inquiry flows in a
different direction, takes on a very different quality. While you are
aware of diversity your awareness flows towards those objects and
recognizes them as a carpet, bricks, shoes, men and women, chairs,
and becomes aware of diversity. There is the ever-present danger in
that awareness of judgment, appreciation, criticism, conflict and all
the rest of it also arising. One recognizes that Is it inevitable? This is a
carpet, these are bricks, shoes, human beings, chairs. Suddenly a
question arises, a quest arises. The carpet didn't tell me, "I am a
carpet." I called it a carpet, I called these bricks, I called this a building.
What is this phenomenon that thus christens all these objects and calls
them by various names? What is it in me that calls these objects by
various names and then creates a diversity of a different sort? The first
form of diversity has been created by God and in that there is no
problem. Now we are inquiring into the second phase - you can spell
it phase or face - of diversity which seems problematic, which is the
creator of all problems. That is, it's a sort of diversity that I have
created. I call this a carpet or those bricks and then somewhere within
me there is a computer which works out the comparative values and
determines that this is more important than that, that is more
valuable than this, etc. etc. That is the diversity that is dangerous. A
danger to harmony and the source of all conflict and therefore
problems. Who creates them and what are these diversities?
The external diversity is there, but there is a conceptual diversity, a
subjective diversity and this subjective diversity is always in terms of
right and wrong, good and evil, beautiful and ugly, superior and
inferior and all the rest of it. Who is the creator of that diversity? As
you go deeper and deeper and deeper into this question you
inevitably arrive at an extremely simple answer, that, "I have never
bothered to understand what exists, even including this diversity in
nature. I have never tried to understand, to look for what it is. I have
completely ignored it and I have created 'my own world."" Out of
ignorance comes this thing called "my own world." Remember that.
Whether it is wilful ignorance or careless ignorance, this "my own
world" of diversity is born of a complete and total ignorance of the
factual diversity that exists in this world. This "my own world" of
diversity is fictitious.
There is beauty in nature, there are some things which are universally
beautiful- a brilliant sunrise for instance. That thing has been created
by God, the other thing is self-created. When you ignore that beauty,
the diversity that is, God's creation, then you create an internal
diversity which is the source of all problems. This is beauty and you
run after it, that is ugly and you reject it. You consider this good and
seek it, you consider that evil and run away from it and there you are
torn into a thousand pieces.
Is it possible, as you investigate this phenomenon of diversity, to
appreciate that all these are conceptual, unreal? Thereby arises a
tremendous revelation - truth does not cause a conflict or become a
problem. The factual diversity in nature is no problem at all but this
inner diversity that I have created, is a problem. It is born of ignorance
of the truth concerning diversity in nature or natural diversity. This
diversity with all its judgmental factors, evaluating factors and so on is
born of that ignorance, is "my own world" and that is the source of all
my unhappiness, sorrow and conflict.
Thank God that this inner world is not real. It is a problem because it
is born of something that is not real and when this is seen directly, that
very moment it disappears. It is a problem because it is based on
unreality, the unreal does not exist and therefore it ceases to be a
problem. Do you see this? One step further and you realize that this
awareness which became aware of the diversity in nature and which
then became aware of the problems that "my own world" created and
thus dispelled them, this awareness IS and this awareness knits
together all these diverse phenomena in the whole universe. It enters
into them and those phenomena are reflected in it. That is unity. There
is a unity, there is this oneness of awareness in which the entire
diversity is reflected. That is one and that alone is one. That
consciousness or awareness is indivisible. In this indivisible
consciousness everything is reflected. That diversity is reflected in this
consciousness. Consciousness exists but not independent of this
diversity. Diversity exists but not independent of this consciousness.
The two are two sides of the same coin, one complementary to the
other and therefore without any conflict whatsoever.
Then we learn how to live in love. Life has to go on with its diverse
functions. You and I have to do all sorts of things from morning till
night, but that life of diverse activity is also flavored by love which
seems to link all these diverse activities in life. Once again we discover
that there is diversity and unity. You know, even in relationships,
especially domestic relationships, we have all sorts of crazy ideas - that
we should never quarrel with each other, never have hot words. Never
is never right, always is always wrong! Why shouldn't we, with the
greatest joy and affection, tease each other, even disagree with each
other. Must we always agree with each other because we love each
other?
Is it possible for the thread of love to bring together all these various
beings, different colors, different textures? One does not even feel the
need for the abolition of diversity or the forgetting of the unity. Unity
cannot be forgotten. If unity is forgotten and you get lost in this
diversity, then you create problems out of that diversity. If the
diversity itself becomes absolute, it causes a headache because the
next moment you have to say that one is superior to the other, one is
different from the other. So, this diversity has to be seen, observed,
realized, simultaneously with the other side of the coin which is the
unity of consciousness, intelligence, cosmic being. When the two are
seen together, it is then that true love arises which is capable of loving
in all circumstances. The circumstances and appearances will be
diverse and yet this thread of love can be unbroken. That I feel, is the
essential quest of all truly religious people in this world.

Part II
QUESTIONS
 God and Truth
Q. What is God in your view?
Swami: What IS is God! Hence, perhaps the Sanskrit for God is Isa
which is perhaps synonymous for Is [var] a. However, before we jump
to any conclusions we should ask ourselves the right question. Is what
I am seeing in front of me something which IS or something which
appears to be or a mere projection of my mind desire, hope, fear, etc.?
Do I see what is, as it is? Can the finite mind ever grasp the Infinite,
can the conditioned mind see anything as it is, unconditioned? Does
not the mind by its very act of seeing project its own preconception
on to what is? Hence, I feel God is transcendental.
That which IS, is everywhere at all times. And by the mere fact of His
omnipresence, God is the indweller. Not in the sense of coffee in the
cup, but in the sense of space "in" a room. Room or no room, space
does not undergo diminution, division or change. And this
omnipresence is most easily accessible "within" oneself. God is
immanent. Again, when we look without bias at what is, we realize
that there is infinite variety in creation diversity without disharmony.
In this diversity we often see forces which have diametrically opposite
natures for example, water and fire, both of which are parts of one
creation. In the same way there are apparently contradictory forces in
our own body which in fact are complementary.
The world, too, is made up of such complementary forces which
apparently look like contradictory forces. When their complementary
nature is realized, there is harmony. Otherwise, there is disharmony.
Harmony is the synthesis of opposites, where the two forces achieve
their complementary character. It is the subtle middle path.
But the pendulum never pauses in the middle! Hence, in the world
there is constant swinging of forces, one way or the other. It is hard to
realize the harmony. Such harmony alone IS. Hence, God who is
supreme harmony, bursts into manifestation as an avatara (Krishna,
Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad) in order to restore the realization
of harmony, to enable us to realize that harmony alone IS, and that He
is the synthesis of the opposites, which transcends both... a
transcendental Being that the mind and intellect cannot touch, nor
ignore because He is in the depth of our being.
Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita points to it in these words: "Whatever
you are searching for, you are searching for Me, God." You cannot get
away from that. You may love your family, teach your nation, but in
effect you are only trying to reach out beyond the little self, to the
perfect love. Even if we think that we have mastered the scriptures,
deep down within us there is still an urge to reach out, to experience
this. Yet, most often we do not recognize it in the proper light. The
Divine is in us, all the time stirring this Divine restlessness. To
recognize it as Divine requires a certain amount of wisdom and insight.
Why is it that otherwise nothing satisfies us? Because God who is
transcendental, whom the mind, the intellect cannot comprehend, is
deep within us, the very Self. Until that realization is reached through
the love of God, this restlessness is not going to stop. So love your God
with all your heart and all your soul. He is transcendent; He is
immanent.
He is never a God to whom you can dictate terms. He is not dependent
upon what men do.
The God of the Exodus - always before Israel, calling them away from
themselves towards Himself.
Again imaged in the New Testament in the person of Jesus. God as
love - but calling us out of ourselves to follow the Son.
Father Terence comments:
The Judaic-Christian understanding of God as transcendent and
immanent: In Exodus III, 13-15, God reveals his name to Moses -
Yahweh-from the Hebrew verb "to be:" I am Who I am, I will be Who
I will be.
Yahweh is an ever present and active God among his people - the one
who SAVES - Exodus story. But it is a name that cannot be grasped and
dominated by men or the affairs of men. He is INDEPENDENT and
TRANSCEN- DENT.
Q. Where to find God?
Swami: All religions declare that God is everywhere: yet, we do not
experience His omnipresence! There seems to be a veil between Him
and me. If God is omnipresent, what stands between Him and me?
Surely, it is the "me." It is the "me" that has given rise to all these
concepts, symbols, rites and religious organizations. I must get closer
to the reality of God, not by dividing the one into good and evil, divine
and undivine, but by lifting the cover (which is the "me"). This does
not involve division or judgment, but only the realization of oneness
through love.
Q. What is Truth?
Swami: "There is no religion higher than Truth" is the doctrine of the
Theosophical Society. The Upanishads declare, "Truth alone triumphs,
not falsehood." Mahatma Gandhi said, "God is Truth." And Jesus Christ
was asked, "What is truth?" (John XVIII, 38) and he did not answer, for
a very good reason. Truth is not definable and it is not a demonstrable
object, nor something which can be given by one to another.
Throughout history we have consistently and persistently committed
this error: we have endeavored to define Truth, and to hand Truth
down to others, and thus blasphemed against it. The truth that is thus
packaged and handed down is not truth, but it is a thought about
Truth. And the Truth that is thus received by the other person is not
the Truth, but a concept. The conception is always of the same
substance as the conceiver: the conceiver covers the conception with
error, and limits it, thus making it non-truth. Conception can only be
of the description and the description is a thought, not the Truth.
Hence, though the realization of the Truth should make us free (ref.
John VIII, 31-32), the various and different conceptions of what is
described as the same Truth have led to the very opposite of freedom.
It is clear that there is just no alternative to the direct realization of
Truth, and this demands that each one of us should discover it for
himself.
If we pursue the inquiry and inquire into the nature of sorrow, we shall
perhaps discover that sorrow is born of thought, that sorrow is
thought. When thought is absent (for example, in sleep, under
anaesthesia, and in shock) sorrow is absent too. Hence, we realize that
there is a way to end this sorrow, and that there is a way to rise above
thought, while yet living an active life in the world.
This, however, does not mean that we can eliminate thought from life
altogether: a realistic observation of life enables us to see clearly that
this is impossible. Thought has its own role to play in our life. But we
should find a way to ensure that thought does not bring about sorrow.
For it is thought that brings about sorrow and then it is thought again
that experiences it!
When we see this clearly, sorrow disappears! Thought continues to
illumine the world to us: but, in the words of the Upanishads, "even
as the sun that illumines the world is unaffected by what goes on in it,
this inner light that illumines our life does not produce sorrow." There
is freedom!
 Religion
Q. Is Yoga a religion?
Swami: Yoga is not a religion, but just "religion," in its own original
connotation: "that which binds again." And this word "yoga" has its
first cousin in the word "yoke."
Yoga has been made to sound mystifying: yet it has nothing
whatsoever to do with magic or mystery, psychic powers or astral
travel, occultism or other-worldliness. It is closer to life than most
people imagine. It is the art of living in tune with God, yoked to God.
That is what we mean by "religion," though this word has lost its
original meaning in the welter if "isms" that the beast-in-man has
created. When I once stated that "We urgently need a religious revival
in the world," someone questioned me, "Which religion?" Not
Hinduism, not Islam, not Judaism, and not Christianity: but, if I may
use the word, "Religionism." Religion means binding the human soul
with God. Once again: not "my" God or "your" God, but God.
Q. Is religion in opposition to science or is there a common meeting
ground between the two?
Swami: Somehow we have arrived at the conclusion in the world today
that either science or religion is at the base of all our troubles. Men of
religion feel that science is leading man away from God, from the true
values, and by aiding in the creation of weapons of destruction has
brought man close to self-extinction. Scientists take no notice of this,
for in their own mind they are pursuing the noble quest of truth in
their way. On the other hand, inellectuals and rationalists blame
religion for fomenting dissentions and divisions among humanity,
though true men of religion assert that no religion sanctions hatred
and violence and that religious wars are a misnomer.
Religion can be blamed for irreligious consequences and science can
be proved to be unscientific. But how does this solve the problem that
faces us - the Men in the Street? What are our guiding principles -
those of the common men and women who constitute the majority of
mankind? The first and foremost is the instinct of self-preservation.
Man wants to be healthy and happy. If science promises this, he will
accept it. And if religion (e.g. temples, worship, pilgrimage) promises
this, he will resort to it. When he is healthy and happy, the next thing
he seeks is an avenue for self-expression to express or to manifest his
nature. Up to this point he is not essentially different from what we
consider to be the "lower" orders of creation.
Where man can distinguish himself is the third principle self-control.
Self-control implies and presupposes self- awareness. Only one in a
million perhaps is interested in this. Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita
reveals that only a rare seeker discovers the Truth (VIII.3). The Katha
Upanishad echoes this divine utterance: "The senses and the mind
have been created with an outgoing tendency and therefore man
always looks outside, but a rare hero turns his gaze within himself,
aspiring for Self-realization.
Even if we can bring about world brotherhood tomorrow morning,
what then? We shall soon discover that one brother kills another. This
has happened throughout the history of the human race. And this will
go on till that rare hero turns his gaze within and realizes that the real
source of mischief is within. The roots of evil are within, the roots of
hatred are within, the roots of unworthy desires are within. These
have to be pulled out there. If these roots are not there, the evils they
grow into will not appear in your conduct. Whatever be the
provocation, you will not hate or kill. You do not bite a dog because
the dog bit you and thus provoked you to retaliate! Self-control will
become natural when we cultivate this self-awareness, when we turn
our gaze within. This is the first principle of Yoga.
I do not say that all people must practice Yoga and that Yoga will bring
about world peace and brotherhood. This will only start another cult.
But those men who live a life of self-control, who have self-awareness,
who have eradicated the very roots of evil within themselves, are
yogis. Only they will live a life of peace and brotherhood. The vast
majority of other people will naturally look up either to religion or to
science to make their lives a little healthier and happier than they are
at present.
Q. Religions are different throughout the world. But are the people
who practice these religions so different?
Swami: As you travel from what is called one country to another, you
meet different people who look different, who behave differently,
who speak different languages, who dress differently, but underneath
all this you discover that they have a common denominator: they are
all human beings.
You wonder why you did not discover this earlier! You were taken in
by superficial differences: many of them owe their origin to accidents
of history, climatic conditions, and in some cases social upheavals.
Pain and pleasure, hunger and thirst, disease and old age, birth and
death are common to all.
You look at your own life, your culture, your upbringing, your
education, the books and the newspapers that you read, the
propaganda and the preaching you listen to - you hardly find any
serious mention of this commonness of humanity. Even in religious
teaching this commonness of humanity is treated with a flippant
superficiality which makes no impression on anyone. Yet, religion is
not religion if it does not enable us to see that as human beings we
are one.
If you are serious, you discover that somehow something deep within
each one of us has resisted this religious spirit and rejected it. The
spirit of religion has failed to touch and to transform it. On the other
hand, this divisive factor that is deep within each one of us has even
polluted the spirit of religion.
People loosely talk of religious conflicts. But, violence is incompatible
with the universal religious tenet that God is omnipresent. We have
not understood what religion means: we only profess to be religious
and we pay lip-service to religious tenets.
Yet the seeking mind is exactly the same all over the world, and the
obstructions to the seeking mind are also exactly the same all over the
world. There are traditionalists, fundamentalists, die-hards and
dogmatists everywhere in the world. You find them in as many
numbers among the swamis and yogis as you find them in other cults.
So the obstructions are the same, or the "devil's dance" is the same
everywhere. The awakening of intelligence is also the same
everywhere, and the people who experience this inner stirring of
consciousness are, luckily for the world and unluckily for us, very few.
The problems that they experience in relation to the majority of die-
hards are also exactly the same.
The Spirit is free and that Spirit is somehow encased in a body, in a
spiritual, psychological and emotional structure. Then, as you the
seeker struggle with your own trap, you suddenly begin to understand
without any criticism, without the least judgment or condemnation
whatsoever, the problems that confront others, who may be totally
trapped and who may love the trap of tradition, of dogma. You don't
feel like condemning them because you realize that you are also
struggling with your own physical, psychological and emotional needs.
Even though your Spirit is free, you still got trapped in all this. It is then
you realize the extraordinary "play" of the Divine. (It's the only word
that can perhaps explain that even what may be an awakened
intelligence still experiences these limitations.) Therefore the
wandering swami or yogi, the wandering person with an awakened
intelligence, is in sympathy with the entire universe and has not a
harsh word for any living being on earth. He is in love with the earth.
Q. What is the importance of churches and temples? Swami: We do
not have to build temples for the Lord- he has wisely ensured that we
shall never be without one, by providing the head of each one of us
with two "temples," as the sides of our face are called. (Ref. 1 Cor. III,
16). God is within this temple: god is the innermost consciousness.
That is what the ancient sages and seers have said. Too much
preoccupied as man was with the satisfaction of his animal instincts,
he ignored this and erected temples of stone. When he was exhorted
to sacrifice those animal instincts, he substituted the poor dumb
animals which he freely "sacrificed" and "making a god of his palate"
offered them to appease his own appetite. When, still later, other
great redeemers appeared on the world scene (like Lord Krishna, Lord
Buddha, Lord Jesus), he quickly deified them instead of listening to
their counsel and restoring purity to religion.
Hinduism and Judaism had no founders: perhaps it would be wise to
say that they are not religions in the accepted ("theological") sense of
the term. Krishna did not establish a religion. Buddha was not the
author of Buddhism. Nor did Jesus found Christianity. They all
"descended" into the world of man in order to remind him that God
or Truth or reality was within his own temple, that religion did not
consist of rituals but of righteous living, and that the animal to be
sacrificed was not outside him but within his own heart. But our
churches, temples and mosques and the idols of religious ideologies
that we have erected in our own intellect have imprisoned us and we
are unable to see beyond the walls thus erected around us.
The God within our own temple is glorious. He is Peace. He is Bliss. He
is eternal, immortal, the Life of our life.
Q. Is apathy the same as the rejection of established religion, or of
certain beliefs and forms of worship, or of traditional patterns and
authority?
Swami: The established religions themselves drastically change their
doctrines, beliefs and rites. Such "renewal" goes on all the time in all
religions.
On the other hand, such a rejection itself may be the very opposite of
apathy! Docile acceptance of dogma may well be the surest indication
of apathy, a comfortable and dull state in which there is no
enthusiasm at all. Such apathy is found in both the affluent and the
deprived communities in the world. In the former it is born of a faith
in the material acquisition and political or military power (though this
is often rationalized by the clever intellect as the divine will, the divine
plan or divine grace); and in the latter it is born of sheer hopelessness
(which again is somehow masked by the laws of karma or the virtues
of poverty and suffering). Most of the established religions of the
world subscribe to one or the other of these theories, and wittingly or
unwittingly promote apathy.
Yet, their own founders (if one may call them so) were not so
apathetic. They questioned the authority of the self-appointed
authorities. It is the establishment that ploarizes the community into
the authority and the subject: to the authority obedience seems to be
easy, desirable and good, whereas to the subject such obedience is
hard, painful and unjust. This polarity sets one up against the other,
and there is a power struggle which seems to be inevitable to all
establishments.
Rebellion against authority or establishment often produces short-
term enthusiasm, but in the long run the rebel becomes the
established authority, and once again the community sinks into
apathy.
Yet, there is no apathy in life! Apathy exists only in the sphere of the
mind, of thought, of concepts and beliefs. Security, peace, happiness
and order are life's constants. However, the human mind believes that
all these can be easily had by conjuring up palliatives and half-truths
which, if repeated often enough, will banish all the problems that the
mind creates in life. Thus were the various beliefs born, thus did the
religious, political and economic doctrines come into being. These,
again, harden into establishments very soon, and the whole problem
starts all over again - the polarization, the authority and the apathy.
Life does not brook this; and hence, periodically there is a crisis in the
life of human beings individually, and humanity as a whole. This crisis
is really the crisis of conscience. This crisis is a powerful challenge to
authority: awakening apathy has no choice but to challenge authority,
in order to flare up into enthusiasm.
This whole vicious circle will come to an end only when we look at life
and become aware of its truth. We see how life on earth comes into
being, and undergoes the various changes known as youth and
adulthood, and even old age and death: we see how every
transgression is accompanied and followed by a balancing reaction.
The wise man does not wish against any of these. When this truth
concerning the totality of life is seen, at that very instant we are freed
from the resistance to the natural "law and order" of life; we
transcend the pains of these changes and experience an inward peace
and joy which is beyond the division known as time. We realize that
security and freedom do not lie in defying life but in thoroughly
understanding it (standing under, not overcoming). Life organized is
subject to change: but the spirit of life is itself unchanging. Life
organized is the body, the spirit of life is intelligence.
The intelligence in the body is able to nourish the body utilizing the
elements that are freely available in the world - sunlight, water, air
and food. It does not endeavor to abolish diversity. It takes the same
elements, the same food, and is somehow able to sustain the diverse
creatures. The mind, the thinking faculty, treats this diversity as
"difference" and then tries to find the unity in that diversity. Concepts
of difference, diversity, unity, etc. exist in the mind, not in life.
Is it not possible for the mind to drop these irksome and destructive
concepts? Then, the intelligence will similarly be able to nourish the
mind and the spirit of man with healthy spiritual food from every
available source whether it be labelled Judaism, Christianity, Islam,
Hinduism, or non- denominational! Thus nourished everyone will
grow in spirit, without creating an establishment and all the mischief
it gives rise to, without becoming an authority on the subject, and thus
without apathy, as intensely alive as life itself ever is.

1. Interview with Swami Venkatesananda on PRIORITIES, Sept. 25,

1982. Presented by Tony Howes of ABC radio 6WN, Australia.
2. Father Terence aptly quotes from Isaiah (I: 11, 13 & 15-17): "What
to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? I have had enough of burnt
offerings... Bring no more vain offerings... Even though you make
many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your
doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek
justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the
widow."
 God's Will-Free Will
Q. Do we have free will or is everything already pre-ordained by God's
will?
Swami: In the bible, the first "I," the first ego, is represented by Adam.
Adam thought he had free will and sought a way to express it. Now,
watch carefully! As if to sanction his free will, God tells him he may do
what he likes, but he may not eat from one particular tree. How does
Adam exercise his free will? By disobeying. The exercise of free will by
the ego is contrary to Divine will, although on the surface this does not
seem to be so.
Now we come to the life of Jesus. His teaching is very clear. He says
not even a sparrow will fall to the ground unless it is the will of God.
Nothing can happen without God's will! We see that when the ego
exercises its will, it is always guided by pleasure, profit and prestige.
Thus we ask to be saved from pain and ask for that which is
pleasurable. But really and truly it is God's will alone that is done.
Let us come back to the story of Adam. God gave him free will and, in
an indirect way, Adam exercised God's will by denying God's will! God
created Adam in his own image and then indicated that he was free to
choose what he wished to do. By disobeying God's words he
demonstrated that he had free will - yet this apparent disobedience
was still God's will! Nothing ever happens contrary to God's will, but
as long as the "I" is there, as long as the ignorance is there, it has free
will.
Q. Does the operation of God's will depend on our prayer, assertion
or affirmation?
Swami: No. Yet, this prayer is very fruitful, for the simple reason that
it puts us in touch with Him, it fulls our mind with His thought, and it
wipes out selfishness, "Self-willing" and egotism. Nothing ever takes
place in this universe which is not His Will. The impulsive villain and
the restraining hand are both powered by Him. From the human
standpoint, action and reaction both spring from His Will and manifest
His Will. To realize this is to be liberated at once from all idea of sin or
evil: but this concept should not be used as an "escape-valve" to slip
through.
If the realization of the Omnipotence of the Omnipresent and
Omniscient Divine Will (other than which nothing else is), liberates us
from the sense of sin and evil, it should also liberate us from pain and
grief: the man who inflicts it on us does nothing but His Will.
Fulfillment of prayer is a byproduct of this God-contact, granted only
to one who does not seriously wish for it, and is not making such
fulfillment his goal.
The true yogi who lives by this bhavana (attitude), truly feeling that
His Will runs this world-show, will be constantly conscious of God and
the actions that proceed through him will be automatic to the ego, but
conscious and purposeful to the Divinity in him. That is: the ego does
not act, but the Divine uses even the ego as His instrument.
The foolish man often misappropriates all the credit for good work to
himself, and throws the burden of evil doing upon God - "It was His
Will." On the contrary, the godly man would give credit for all the good
that proceeded from him, to God; and if a blameworthy action of his
is brought to his notice, he would hesitate to say, "His Will," even if it
was beyond his control. He would humbly take the blame upon
himself, feeling that God cannot err. Thus, he cuts at once at the root
of the ego and therefore evil. The soul-elevating music belongs to Him
and the false note to the defect in the reed!
Q. How am I to know my duty or His Will, so that I may do it in the
spirit of karma yoga?
Swami: Often this eagerness to know His Will is the worst obstruction
to it. The ego wants to assert, "I do His Will:" and it therefore does not
do His Will. The formula, "Thy Will be done" is only help in this sadhana
(spiritual practice) coupled with humility and meditation. By prayer
and meditation we should be in tune with Him. Any selfish motive or
desire should be ruthlessly hewn down with the axe of relaxed
vigilance. The duty will be clear and the march along the path of His
Will will be effortless.
Father Terence comments: Discernment of God's will is difficult and
complex. Indication that we are doing as He wills is found in the fruits
of the Spirit, e.g. love, joy, peace, etc.- ref. Gal. V, 22-23; Ephes. IV, 15-
16.
Q. "Thy Will be done." How does one understand what "Thy Will" is?
Swami: Here Yoga comes to help as a technique. First of all, we are
cautioned that the earlier teachings are important. In Yoga they are
called yama and niyama. The names do not matter. If you have studied
the Sermon on the Mount carefully, word by word, and if you have
been able to assimilate that teaching to the best of your ability, you
do not need anything else: that is yama, niyama.
So you study the Sermon on the Mount and assimilate the teachings
to the best of your ability. You go on studying, memorizing these
teachings until your heart becomes similar to these teachings, so that
your heart is not your heart any more - it is the Sermon on the Mount.
(And when the doctor places the stethoscope to the heart he hears
the Sermon on the Mount!) Assimilate it, then what the yogi calls the
disciplines of yoga like yama and niyama become effortless, not
automatic - natural, just as the heart beats are natural. Then virtue
and righteousness become natural, there is no effort.
This aspect of Yoga is misunderstood even by yogis who think that all
virtues described in yoga texts are commandments: Thou shalt and
thou shalt not. They look like commandments but they are only
descriptive of a certain state of the yogi. When the teaching has been
assimilated, this is the key to the yogi's heart. Study these teachings.
That is the first step in Yoga and Christianity. Then gradually ascend
the Mount, having laid the foundation of ethics and righteousness.
Jesus is already standing there. He will tell you what His will is!
 Prayer
Q. What is prayer? What is communion?
Swami: Prayer is the key to what yogis call meditation or what
Christians might call communion. There is absolutely no difference
between the true meaning of meditation and communion.
Communion is not just a ceremony. Some say that it is very important
for meditation to buy the right type of cushion, and special clothing;
and you should sit with your back straight and so on. All this is ritual,
ceremony. It may be very important and of great help, but that is not
meditation. I am not saying that these things are unnecessary. All
these may be essential aids, but essential aids only, not meditation.
Meditation is communion. Communion is meditation.
What is communion? "Comme-une," communion is "like one."
Similarly, what is atonement? You were trying to reach out to the
truth, to the Divine and you slipped. Which means you have fallen
away from that. Now you must reach atonement. At-one. We have
this communion- atonement, which are the same: to regain that
oneness. This is Yoga. So, whenever you slip while ascending to the
Kingdom of Heaven, pray.
I do not know if you are aware of how to pray. Most of us do not pray
to God. Most of us prey upon God and upon men. I think that is the
only reason why God keeps Himself so scarce! Can you imagine God
coming here now? You know what His fate would be? All of us would
jump upon Him and tear Him to pieces crying: "Give me this, give me
that. First me!" Communion is just the opposite. Communion is
offering ourselves totally to Him so that we become one with Him. So
prayer is something different from what we have made of it. It is an
expression of one's devotion to God; and since it is an expression, it
involves concepts and words: verbal and non-verbal expressions.
Father Terence comments: The focus for prayer is certainly
communion Christ-consciousness awareness of the Holy within and
without. Highlight of Christian prayer celebration of the Eurcharist
where there is a meeting of God in Word (Scripture) and sign (Bread
and Wine). The sign is incomplete without eating (communion). We
seek to become what we eat, viz. Christ. Hence the name given: "Holy
Communion."
Communion is also sought in other ways- meditation, contemplation,
other prayer forms, other sacramental signs, e.g. Sacrament of
reconciliation (i.e. seeking at-one-ment with God).
Q. In what way do Hindu prayers differ from Christian prayers?
Swami: Prayers are prayers, addressed by Man to God! Why do we
label them Hindu prayers, Muslim prayers or Christian prayers? The
language is different, but the content, the message, is the same.
We use even these words Hindu, Muslim, Christian indiscriminately.
Out of these our mind fashions images, masks. These masks then
collide, bringing in their train disharmony, conflict and violence.
Someone defined Hindu as one who has banished himsa (violence)
from his heart. A Muslim is one who has surrendered himself to God.
A Christian is one who loves God and loves fellowman. Three words
whose meaning is identical, if you are sincerely looking for the
meaning and not for an excuse to distinguish yourself from the other
and to distinguish yourself above the other!
Such indiscriminate discrimination is a sign of ignorance. But, what is
ignorance? It is not an object or an entity which is supposed to
obstruct our vision. Ignorance is a type of knowledge that tells us that
we are looking in the wrong direction or through wrong glasses which
pervert our vision. (Hence, it is denoted by the negatively-worded a-
vidya or a-jnana in Sanskrit.) We are looking: but we are not looking in
the right direction and in the right perspective. We do not bother to
"meet" a brother-seeker professing another faith; and even if we do
meet him, we look at him and his faith through the glasses of prejudice
and indiscriminate discrimination. If we abandon this, we might still
see the distinguishing characteristic of "our" faith, without even
wishing to distinguish ourselves or consider ourselves as superior or
inferior! Allah in Arabic (is) God in English and Isvara in Sanskrit: the
words are different, the languages are different, the spelling is
different: but they connote the one truth.
Father Terence comments: One aspect of true prayer is coming to
awareness, i.e. the removal of the veil which distorts our vision. Ref. 2
Cor. III, 16ff.
Removal of the veil brings recognition of the unity we share: Ephes.
IV, 4ff.
Q. Can the Easter story be paralleled with anything in the Hindu
scriptures?
Swami: Why should we divide scriptures into Hindu scriptures and
Christian scriptures? They are common: they have a common
message; they are the heritage of the whole of mankind. By regarding
some as "mine" and some as "other," we develop blind faith in the
former and equally blind antipathy in the latter. Sanskrit is not my
mother- tongue; nor is English! If I can learn them, there is no reason
why the average "westerner" should think he is incompetent to read
Sanskrit and understand the scriptures in their original.
Translations are always subject to corrpution, though unintentional.
The two words "Durga Saptashati" can be simply translated into "700
verses concerning Durga," not to be deified, not to be feared or
discarded, but to be carefully studied. Even the word "Durga" has a
simple meaning: "difficult to reach or approach." Jesus Christ
illustrated how difficult it is for man to seek true salvation, by
demanding of the man who professed to be a faithful adherent of the
Commandments, "Sell all that you have and follow me:" he did not!
The spiritual truth which is ever-present in all is revealed only by a
crisis. The divinity of Jesus was revealed by the Crucifixion and the
Durga Saptashati tells us that the Divine Mother revealed herself
whenever evil threatened to overwhelm the good. Yet it is the evil that
helps reveal the good: which is perhaps a reason why the day of
Christ's Crucifixion is called Good Friday, and a reason why the demons
that oppressed the devas and challenged the Divine Mother Durga are
also remembered in the scripture.
The Easter story and the stories of the Durga Saptashati have much in
common: the immortality of the spirit, and the availability of
redemption to all are dramatically proclaimed. The words of the
angels in the garden outside the tomb: "Why do you look for the living
among the dead?" remind us that resurrection is not of the dead but
of the ever living.
Jesus spoke in parables; the Durga Saptashati is in parables, too! The
first of the three stories deals with the power of sleep: and one is
reminded of how the disciples of Jesus fell asleep on the night of his
betrayal. You do not sleep, but sleep overpowers you. And so, you
cannot wake up: when sleep leaves you you wake up. Yet, with the
help of an alarm clock you can wake up and throw off sleep. Similarly,
you are in the grip of spiritual ignorance. You cannot shake it off by
self-effort unaided by Divine Grace; the Divine Grace is like the alarm
clock.
The grace is earned by utter devotion to God in humble recognition of
one's own powerlessness to conquer the great delusion. Hence, we
pray, we worship. On the night of the betrayal, Jesus went into
seclusion and prayed fervently. When threatened by the demons, the
gods prayed to the Divine Mother Durga.
Q. Why is it that our prayers seem to go unanswered?
Swami: When you have a headache, you do not go on praying, "I want
aspirin" but you go and find the remedy. You pray for wealth and work
hard to get it. You pray for relief from illness and you do not rest till
you get rid of it. Yet, you pray "Lord, free me from egoism, lust, anger
and hatred" or "Lord, let me behold you," but do nothing more about
it. Even the prayer becomes mechanical, meaningless and insincere.
When the prayer goes unanswered, the sincere man re-examines the
whole position, knowing that either the effort is not strong or it is
misdirected. He wonders, "Where does the prayer arise? What is the
power that makes me think, speak and pray?" Only if that source is
pure, is the prayer granted.
Q. We call ourselves Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Christians. We
worship God in various ways, and we read the scriptures. Yet this does
not seem to have brought about the least change in us. Why is this so?
Swami: We have made images not only of Krishna, Christ, Buddha and
other holy ones, but even of their teachings! Krishna's "Yoga," Jesus
Christ's "Kingdom of God," Buddha's "Nirvana" are all but images in
our own mind to which we pay homage, for to us they are not
meaningful.
Why so? Because we have not started where they began their own
life. We therefore do not see what they saw. We do not understand
what Yoga, Nirvana, Salvation and Liberation truly are: we worship the
words, the images.
A German Buddhist monk living in Singapore is fond of saying: "I do
not want to become a Buddhist, I want to become a Buddha." In order
to do this, you must look at the world afresh: Buddha did so too,
though saying this does not help! When you directly become aware of
the conflicts that are tearing our society apart, and of the confusions
within yourself, then this awareness itself will act instantly,
spontaneously and powerfully. As my Master Swami Sivananda used
to say, "It transcends reason, though it does not contradict reason."
This awareness cannot be taught; and it need not be taught. Have you
ever crossed a road without first looking to your right and to your left,
and have you ever been threatened by a car speeding towards you,
and do you remember how spontaneously and instantly you acted to
save yourself? You did not have time to think, to reason, and to come
to a right decision!
Look within and see. Your actions are either impulsive and motivated
by "feeling" or calculated and motivated by "reason." These actions
always leave you dissatisfied and confused. Hence our life remains
confused and we are However, "spontaneous" action cannot be
"practiced!" It has to happen. It happens when you vigilantly keep a
watch over the fountain-source of action within yourself and ensure
that the action does not spring from feelings and from reason. This
watchfulness or awareness will act spontaneously.
Father Terence comments: Jesus' one request to his disciples was
"Follow me," i.e. do as I do, live as I live.
 World, Life and Relationship
Q. How does the yogi tackle the battle of life?
Swami: Disease, doubt and restlessness of the mind are all obstacles
and they manifest in us because of lack of one-pointed devotion.
Remember the Biblical command- ment: "Love the Lord with all thy
heart, all thy mind, and all thy might and being." We must apply that
wholeheartedness not only to devotion to God but to everything we
do. That is Yoga.
The whole life is Yoga when real integration exists in us and we are
able to apply a totally integrated personality to whatever we do. The
entire message of Yoga is contained in the single commandment to
love with one's entire being. Patanjali echoes this in his Sutras when
he says, "In order to remove the obstacles on the path of yoga, an
integral approach is necessary." (II.29) Whatever I may practice, if I am
not sincere in the sense of whole-souled dedication and an integrated
approach, Yoga is not possible.
Yoga is integration, wholeness. Sincerity here means that I do not only
accept it intellectually, but also emotionally, with my whole being. If
there is insincerity, then only part of me accepts. It is the emotional
assent that provides the energy for what we do. When the emotions
are stirred, they provide an almost constantly increasing supply of
energy. When it comes to intellectual comprehension and dry
discussion, the head becomes heavy, the mind gets dull. There is no
energy. It is the emotion that is needed to supply the energy.
Therefore, if there is not a wedding of intellect and emotion, then
there is no energy available for the yoga that you and I practice.
Q. What is the most important problem the spiritual aspirant should
seek to resolve?
Swami: Our immediate problem is not answering such academic
questions as "Does God exist?" or "Who created the universe?" or
"How many cells are there in an average brain?" The most pressing
and urgent question is of human relationship.
The lives of Krishna, Buddha and Jesus Christ illustrate this truth
abundantly: whereas the natural elements (the wind, the fire and the
waves of the ocean) implicitly obeyed them, man did not! This
rebellious spirit in man will not easily be subdued, not by others'
dictation, nor by mechanical methods adopted by oneself, but by self-
knowledge alone.
Yoga is such self-knowledge. Even the yoga postures are meant to aid
the seekeer to attain knowledge of the physical body. From there on,
he has to seek to know himself - the prana, the mind and its vagaries,
and ultimately his very self. It is only when it is discovered that the
"self" itself is a thought, albeit the first thought, that selfishness or
egolatry will cease to be. That is the end of our problems, and that is
the aim and the culmination of Yoga.
Q. How does one reconcile the apparent diversity of the world with
the unity or oneness described in the scriptures?
Swami: There is a view which is comparable to the dream state, where
we realize that we are all one, created by God, living in God, as part of
God, non-different from God, and yet playing the role of diversity,
which is analagous to the dream state. It is not truly real, the drama is
taking place in someone else's mind. That, I believe, is the esoteric
interpretation of the beginning of the Bible "In the beginning..." The
Jewish Qabbalists interpret this in two ways. Instead of the
"beginning," they substitute the word "head" or "mind." The Hebrew
word given means "head" or "mind." So if you substitute that word
"beginning" with the word "mind," the whole meaning changes.
Where did God create the world? In His own mind. That is, He did not
create something and throw it outside, as a mother giving birth to a
baby, but all this is still taking place in God's own mind!
The Qabbalists also have a beautiful vision of the Truth, where they
say that old Adam is still dreaming in the Garden of Eden. The story
says he fell asleep and that God pulled out a rib and made a wife for
him. That is taken as literally true, that Adam is still asleep and has not
yet awakened; all this diversity, all this creation, etc. is still happening
in Adam's dream.
The third vision of the Reality is:
uttamah purusas tv anyah paramatme 'ty udahrtah
yo lokatrayam avisya bibharty avyaya isvarah
(Bhagavad Gita XV.17)
"But distinct is the supreme Purusa called the highest Self, the
indestructible Lord, Who, pervading the three worlds, sustains them."
Where no diversity is seen at all, but oneness alone is seen to be the
Reality, in exactly the same way as you can visualize this body as
composed of billions of cells, or you can see the one body, forgetting
the diversity implied in it. These are the three views given of God, the
world and the Self.
Father Terence comments: Body image used by Paul - 1 Cor. XII, 12-
31. Diversity, but one spirit.
Q. How can one best relate with the different people one comes into
contact with?
Swami: One is truly good only when one's whole being is good. The
Bible contains a beautiful saying by Jesus, "When your eye is single
then your whole being is full of light." This means that the whole being
is integrated, harmonized in Yoga - and then only does goodness
become spontaneous, natural. How does such a person behave in the
world? Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutras gives us a very beautiful
description: "Be friendly towards the happy ones, sympathize with the
unhappy ones, rejoice with the holy ones and be indifferent towards
the evil ones." (I.33) If you adopt this attitude in all your human
relationships, you will enjoy peace of mind.
Q. The scriptures tell us that the world is a product of our own
ignorance. How do you explain this?
Swami: The first thought is "I." Then this first thought, this "I" creates
thoughts of the world. In the Bible we have the beautiful story of
Adam and Eve - the first romance. If you watch carefully you will see
this same truth in that story. God created Adam, and Eve was
projected out of Adam. The Bible says that God actually created Adam;
He did not take a separate piece of matter and create Eve out of that.
The story goes on to say that, having created Adam, God made Adam
project Eve out of himself. Before Eve could be created however,
Adam was put to sleep! This is symbolic and beautiful. God is
omnipresent and even Adam is part of this omnipresence. First of all
comes sleep, ignorance, and in that state of ignorance Adam (ego) is
born. His ego then projects the world.
Father Terence comments: Ignorance is sin, i.e. our inability to see
reality as it is, to see as God sees. Jesus' call to repentance was a call
to knowledge of the Truth - to be able to "see" again (ref. stories Mark
X, 46-52 and VIII, 22-26).
Conversion and repentance are not only sorrow for sin, but a
reorientation of one's life based on the new perspective of reality. It
is the process we engage in to shake off ignorance.
Q. How do we inspire people to discipline themselves?
Swami: The late Cardinal gilroy answered this question beautifully
during a conversation we had in February, 1972: "By placing one's own
life as an example," he said, but without claiming to be perfect, for
"without God's help it is not possible for man to achieve the ideal of
goodness he sets for himself." This was the Cardinal's sheet-anchor,
as it were. There should be a genuine aspiration to be good and to do
good; and there should be an equally genuine understanding that this
is possible only by the grace and with the help of God.
On the other hand, there is a tremendous pull towards materialism,
towards power and money, which are the two most corrputing
influences in the world and in the life of human beings. "Human nature
is the same all over the world," said the Cardinal. Everywhere people
seek short- term advantage, without realizing that such an attitude
only promotes conflict in society which is in relation to one's
fellowmen. With bliss radiating from his face, the Cardinal said, "I have
retired. I have no power. I am poor, I have no money." And yet, there
was that unearthly glow in his eyes, a wonderful spirit that had the
power to transform the lives of those who were fortunate enough to
seek his company.
"You find good people all over the world, among the poor, among the
simple folk," he said, "and even the wicked man endeavors to
rationalize his actions and his attitude, so that even he does not wish
to be known as a wicked man, but as a good man. Therefore, it is
evident that there is a natural law in the universe that inclines man
towards goodness. We should appeal to that in our own approach.
And again and again we should emphasize that man cannot reach this
goodness without the grace and the help of God." It is that genuine
humility that protects man from the traps of power and wealth, and
sustains his vigilance.
Q. "I and the Father are One." (John X, 30) What was Jesus'
consciousness that made Him make this declaration? How can we
share this consciousness?
Swami: Communion with God. Jesus Christ affirms: "I have become
One with God." Is it possible for you to retain this ego-centered
personality and at the same time aspire to that? This is the greatest
foolishness that we commit. Perhaps that is why Jesus let fall these
words, "Father, let this cup pass" (ref. Mark XIV, 36). To remind us that
even in His case, such a thought could arise. In our case it could arise
a million times over, but the sincere spiritual aspirant keeps on and on
until all traces of desire, craving and will other than the Divine Will
disintegrate. Then we really and truly can feel the truth of what Jesus
said: "What I have done you can also do."
What we need is profound understanding, direct understanding, not
cosmetic or superficial knowledge. Someone described the mind in
meditation, the mind in direct contact with the Divine, (which is the
mind in communion) and gave a beautiful example. Pick up a fairly
large pebble, take it to the swimming pool where the water is calm,
drop it in and note how beautifully, how intelligently that pebble
draws a straight line through the water. Without deviation it goes
straight down, without stopping, without being distracted or side-
tracked. That is the mind in meditation. That is the mind in Holy
Communion.
Can we discipline our mind in this way? Yoga is nothing but a system
of such discipline. Discipline not in the sense of brutal control: "I will
not do this, I will do this." The moment one applies will to this practice
one agitates "the swimming pool," then the "stone" also is distracted,
agitated, side-tracked. The will is the play of the ego. I am not saying
that the will is not necessary for all the other things, but in spiritual
practice one must not use the will at all for the spirit does not employ
will. The spirit employs insight. The spirit is insight.
To kindle the spirit of insight, study the teachings of Christ, study the
teachings of Buddha, Krishna and others. They are exactly the same
and all ennobling, uplifting. But assimilate these teachings so that
whatever disciplines have been described there become natural to
you. We cannot calculate love, humility, without becoming
hypocritical. All these virtues should become natural to us and the
heart should naturally seek the Divine, without being prompted,
without being goaded, without any motivation, without even treating
the Divine as a goal. Then there is Communion. This is Yoga.
Q. How do I know who is holy, how do I know what good company is?
Swami: Am I the one to decide if someone is holy or not? Should I
undertake to discriminate between what is good or what is evil? Such
discrimination involves judgment: and such judgment itself is evil!
Even the word "discrimination" may not mean "divide and decide."
Viveka or "discrimination between the real and the unreal" may really
signify something completely different from what we have assumed it
to be.
All religious authorities declare that God is omnipresent. Surely, that
is what the original mystics saw. If that is the truth, to draw close to
that is satsanga (company of the truth). A study of the history of
religion shows us that it has not been possible to preserve and to
perpetuate the purity of the mystics' vision. The human intelligence
loves to discover; and hence it first covers the reality with ideas,
concepts, symbols, rites and religious organizations.
Unfortunately, this seems to be inevitable and invariable. But,
fortunately, the truth is ever there, only to be discovered. To discover,
one must have the moral courage to see the cover, not to avert one's
gaze from it. To discover, again, one must have the courage to lift the
cover and not be lost in admiration of it, however enchanting it may
be. Such a discovery is satsanga. We draw close to the truth, without
either rejecting the encrustation of the false or getting stuck in it! This
is discrimination.
Father Terence comments: We are called to refrain from judging - we
do not see as God sees - and do not have the ability to look into one
another's hearts. Ref. Romans XIV, 2-19; 1 Cor. IV, 1-5, (don't even
judge yourself!); Matt. VII, 1-5.
Q. What does charity really mean?
Swami: Love of simple life reveals that many of our so-called
necessities are not really such, and love of charity unveils the endless
vista of happiness that can be ours if the objects we call "ours" cease
to be so. We do not do charity because we have no faith in God and
feel that our happiness depends on the objects we "possess" and so
cling to them. Vulture, one of the twenty-four gurus of Lord Dattatreya
(ref. Srimad Bhagavatam, The Book of God, Nov. 22 by Swami
Venkatesananda), taught him that so long as one clung to earthly
objects of enjoyment, one was surrounded by the enemies of one's
happiness who wanted to snatch those objects from him, and that
true happiness consisted in renouncing them.
What one possesses has got to go: letting the possessions go
voluntarily, through charity, is the magic wand that converts pain into
pleasure, the womb of misery into the fountain of happiness. Hence
all saints, sages and prophets, and all the major religions of the world
extol and insist upon charity.
The Taittiriya Upanishad commands: "Gift should be given with faith;
it should be given in plenty, with modesty, with reverence, with
sympathy." The Bhagavad Gita classes that as the best charity which
is given to those from whom we do not expect any help in return
(XVII.20). This doctrine is expressed by our Master Swami Sivananda,
in the words "spontaneous overwhelming generosity."
Lord Jesus was unequivocal in his glorification of charity: "Come, O
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was
thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was
in prison and you came to me." (Matt. XXV, 34-6) Thus does he actually
enumerate the kind acts of charity. And he explains that "inasmuch as
you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to Me."
(Matt. XXV, 40)
Father Terence comments: Charity is another word for LOVE - in
Christian sense of agape, i.e. total dedication and devotion to the
welfare of the other, regardless of sacrifice and personal cost. It
embraces the sharing of possessions (almsgiving). This was an aspect
of the early church (ACTS IV, 32-35).
Those who begrudge the generosity deprive themselves: ref. James V,
1-6; 2 Cor. IX, 6-10.
Q. What is the value and purpose of self-punishment or penance?
Swami: Self-punishment implies the resolve never to commit the
prohibited action. We have always tried to escape the consequences
of our actions. The power of prayer invoked is believed to remove the
sinful tendency, the root of evil. Though we believe that God forgives
our sins, especially when prayed to with sincerity and faith, we
recognize that if this forgiveness is procured easily, faith might be
mistaken for self-deception. Moreover, the mind will not forget the
evil deed and may again be tempted to repeat it.
To prove our faith to ourselves, to act as a powerful deterrent which
would prevent the senses and the mind from committing the evil deed
again, and as an immediate and voluntary attempt at working out the
"karma," we punish ourselves. Prayer and this self-punishment
together wipe out the effects of the sinful conduct -the most
important of which is the impression left by the act on the mind, which
eventually craves for repetition, leading us to perdition. All forms of
self-punishment are effective only if the repetition is prevented: as
emphasized by the command of Lord Jesus, "Go ye and sin no more."
The entire process of confession and atonement releases the tension
created by the sense of guilt. God's Grace is earned by charity and
prayer.
Father Terence comments: Penance is an expression of a conscious
desire to change one's life. Association with "metanoia" (Greek)
conversion "a turning around." Penitence is more than outward acts -
more an inward change of heart: ref. Jer. IV, 4; Ezek. XXXVI, 26.
Q. What (in your view) is the symbolism of the manna God sent to the
Israelites in the desert?
Swami: The Jews were sustained by manna during their exodus from
Egypt. That "manna" was derived from the Hebrew man hu meaning
"What is it?"
Perhaps man hu (manna) refers to the spiritual quest (Who am I?
What is this world? Who is God?) Exodus XVI tells us the story: The
people of Israel saw "it" and did not know what it was and in response
to their query Moses told them, "That is the bread that God gave you."
The spirit of inquiry or the spiritual quest itself is the manna. Inquiry
into the self is the key to immortality or Self-realization.
This manna had to be immediately "eaten" as otherwise "it bred
worms and became foul" (Exod. XVI, 20). This could well mean: Do not
let this quest become an intellectual exercise, but let it be quickly
assimilated so that it becomes the living truth. To do so we should dare
to free ourselves from worldliness and venture into the vast
unchartered and pathless "desert" or spiritual realm. May God lead us
there!
Father Terence comments: Deut. VIII, 3-comments on this event - man
lives authentically only from God's word and law, this manna being
the Word of God.
Wisdom XVI, 20-29 - takes up this spiritualized theme. Same theme
taken up by Jesus:
In his temptation-Matt. IV, 1-4: "man does not live by bread alone."
Then he proclaims himself, not only as the new Moses who gave the
manna, but the new manna itself, in so far as he was the Word of God:
see John VI, 26-58.
Q. Did Jesus Christ teach love?
Swami: I don't know if he was teaching love. He was love obviously,
and when you are love, what you teach is love all the time. Can you do
anything else? He was considered a teacher, there was no doubt about
that. But you know the famous parable about the sower: the seeds
that fell on the rocks perished. You may be the best teacher in the
world, but if the seeds fall on rocks they will get roasted. Nothing
happens to them. Look at the world. This is the world where Jesus
walked, where Buddha taught, Socrates taught, Krishna taught and
look at it now. When you go round the very places where all these
great people are supposed to have walked and taught what do you
see?
Q. But how do you teach love, or is it necessary to teach love?
Swami: No, it's the other way round. If you are love, whatever you say
is love and if a student comes to you, what you teach him is nothing
but love. But unless he is receptive he may turn round and hit you. He
may turn round and say, "Don't talk rubbish." So unless the other
person is receptive, your teaching is of no value. Temporarily you may
have won your point. If you apply the theory of probability to what I
am going to say, what would be your answer? In the Bible, people
brought a woman who had committed adultery to Jesus and wanted
to stone her (ref. John VIII, 1-11). Jesus said, "He who has not sinned
let him cast the first stone." That was a direct challenge to them. His
words were full of love, but unfortunately, to them it sounded like a
challenge. So they hung their heads down in shame and walked away.
Is it not possible or probable that some of them eventually became his
persecutors? It's probable. So although such teaching may appear to
have some effect, it does not change a person until he is open.
Therefore, to teach love is impossible, but to communicate love is
possible, communicate in the sense that when you and I are one at
heart, then it is possible non-verbally to communicate love.
Father Terence comments: Jesus teaches love in Word and Deed. Love
is unconditional. In Jesus' death no greater love than to lay down one's
life for one's friends.
Q. Is there such a thing as a "Holy War?"
Swami: Jesus said: "Ye resist not evil" (ref. Matt. V, 39). This does not
need nor does it permit another word of comment or elaboration.
What seeks such interpretation is already a subtle resistance to the
teaching itself! From then onwards it is easy gliding into rationalization
of violence and perpetuation of conflict, which one endeavors to
exclude from the instruction "What Jesus said does not apply to this
situation." For instance, there are some who insist that self-defence is
not covered by the teaching; then the "self" by vicious stages extends
to one's family, culture, religious group, nation, etc., and of course,
people say that it is one's duty to defend all these, and it is noble to
die for them (which in effect means, the defender isn't prepared to
die but does everything to kill). A lot of bitterness is left behind. The
victor is haunted by fear; the vanquished bears a grudge. The
excavation exposes the simple truth: the defenders and the culture
they defended, the conquerors and the people they conquered, have
all vanished, leaving just a pockmark on the earth. Even while they
were alive none of them was happy, none enjoyed peace: there can
be neither peace nor happiness where there is hate and consequently
fear. The conqueror does not win either a war nor wealth, but he wins
the enmity of the vanquished.
The aggressor is wiped out sooner than the aggrieved; he is dead even
while he is physically alive. Even if the aggressor survives the
oppressed, it is only by lending with, living with, and being absorbed
by the survivors of the oppressed. This (peaceful co-existence) could
have been effected without the aggression and its ugly consequences.
The weak and the oppressed have the strength of the Lord as their
succor: and the Lord is impartial. He who knows this knows what is
meant by "resist not evil."
Father Terence comments: Ref. John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in Terris
(1963) and writings of Vatican II.
War and violence cannot be justified. While they continue to be they
will be a reflection of a spiritual immaturity. An indication that we
have not yet "arrived."
 Lucifer-Light and Darkness
"The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole
body will be full of light; but if you eye is not sound, your whole body
will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great
is the darkness!" [Matt. VI, 22-3]
Q. What is the devil? What exactly does the expression "Prince of
Darkness" mean?
Swami: I'm not familiar with the devil and therefore I really don't know
who and what that is! However, there is an interesting periodical
called "The Plain Truth" and in a recent issue there is a definition given
of Satan, the devil. This "thing" called Satan was originally Lucifer;
Lucifer means "the light." He disobeyed God and from that moment
he became known as Satan. The original word in Hebrew merely
meant "adversary." If you contemplate this, probably you will begin to
realize that everyone is Satan to everyone else: if I don't like you, you
are Satan, if you don't like me, I am Satan.
If we take the original definition - that of disobedience to God - again
I'm nearly certain that no-one is going to disqualify from being called
Satan. So what is the devil? We have the same problem in the Sanskrit
scriptures. First of all the words of angels and demons; angels are
called sura. Sura literally means "being of Light," and asura literally
means a "being of darkness." A being of light is one in whom there is
clarity always, and a being of darkness, in the words of Jesus: "If the
light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness." (Matt. VI, 23) It is
a very important and delightful expression which is not easy to
understand and even if it is understood, it is very uncomfortable. How
can light be darkness?
There are three categories: one, a being of darkness; two, a being of
light; three, a being whose light is darkness.
Jesus says: "Everyone to whom much is given, of him will much be
required." (Luke XII, 48) If you have been given the truth, more shall
be expected of you than of the person who doesn't know what it's all
about: to whom the light has been given an enlightened living is
expected.2
So first you have the enlightened being, one who is a being of light.3
That person lives in clarity: his motivations are clear, the hidden
springs of his own actions are clear, his mind is clear, transparent, and
his values, goal and behavior are clear. Then there are those who are
beings of darkness - they don't know, they are confused, they don't
even think or consider anything. They are what has been very
beautifully described as "frogs in the well." In those of the third
category there is clarity, but that clarity itself is darkness, is perverted.
They say that "All those who oppose us must be destroyed." Which
means "I am the holder of the monopoly of truth and everyone else
who doesn't agree with me must be destroyed." If your pet dogmas
are challenged you are prepared to kill, to murder. They have
somehow perverted Truth and rationalized it to suit their own view.
This they do not see: one small piece of the mechanism is tucked
away. That's what dogma does to you.
So the clarity is there but it is kept in a non-negotiable position - it has
become dogma, and from there the rest of the world is viewed. That
is, you are the dogma - the light has become darkness. You cannot
argue with such people, there can be absolutely no dialogue, no
communication, nothing, because it is the dogma that is looking at
everything else.
Q. Will Life lead them to the truth sooner or later?
Swami: I hope so, but then nobody lives that long! For fifty or sixty
years you can live as a total idiot, but then the mischief is done. Some
person is fanatic and brutal and kills off people because they do not fit
into his dogma; then you say, "Oh yes, but he'll be alright in the next
birth and all those that were persecuted will be better off..." That
doesn't suit anybody, and unfortunately the dogma is left behind.
Hitler is dead and all his aides have been executed, persecuted, but
the dogma is left behind. So it is like the weeds in your garden: you
throw them into the rubbish dump, but they start growing there and
somehow or other come back into your garden.
Q. But if the weeds are always there, is it not up to the person to
choose?
Swami: That's it, that is what is called clarity, and that clarity must be
uncompromisingly clear. This makes life very difficult, uncomfortable.
First of all you do not take anything for granted. When something is
taken for granted that becomes dogma.
A friend asked the other day, "How do I know that I live?" "I am
breathing." No, sorry, if you stick a needle into your tire and puncture
it, your tire will also breathe. Then you say, "I speak, I talk." Look at
the tape recorder, that can also talk. So even that question has to be
asked eventually, till you come to that point where you cannot argue
nor even indulge in internal dialogue any more. Then you see that
something is, but that something cannot be converted into dogma
because it cannot be thought of. Clarity must lead you there, then you
are a being of light. Then you do not have to obey "God" or something
else, you are "That," you are the image of God. Finished. There is no
more trouble, no more division.
When the division arises you think ("think" is another very important
word) that you are the "son of the Being of Light," that everything is
absolutely clear, that God's commandments are absolutely clear to
you. For instance, you become the disciple of somebody and whatever
he tells you you obey. But not quite, because there is an inner
resistance: "Why should I do what this man says?" and that inner
resistance is overcome by another thought which says, "If I obey him
I will become the leader of his group, I'll become his deputy; therefore
when he goes away I will become he, or if I go somewhere else I will
be his representative." Even if these motives are not there, you will at
least think, "If I obey him I will inherit the kingdom of God, eternal
Life." So you are not obeying him, you are only doing what you want
to do.
This "clarity," this "obedience," goes on for some time, but as this
obedience flows, or seemingly flows, the ego also builds up, and it
builds up one little corner that is non-negotiable: "These are my Guru's
teachings, I am going to obey my Guru and build a set of truths. This
package of truths I have inherited." If they are your truths they will be
absolutely clear to you, but they are not, they are too painful. So you
don't examine them, they become something like the tumor with the
fibrous tissue around, and you keep it there comfortably to use against
others.
You started off by saying, "I must obey this person one hundred
percent because he is divine (divine also means light). At some point,
however, you tip out of this compromise and you are content with the
package of luminous doctrines, but when they are packaged they have
become darkness: that which was light has beome darkness. You carry
a brilliant lamp in your hand, but for fear that it may be hurt by
somebody, you put it in a nice tin and then carry it - "I am carrying my
Guru's light." Of course you are carrying your Guru's light, but it is of
no use to you or anyone it is in darkness.
So, the entire clarity has gone, your obedience has gone and you are
merely trying to destroy others. At least if you are selfish enough to
see a little bit of light to illumine your own path that would be good;
here you are not doing anything.
You started out as a Lucifer, fond of Light, the Image of God, reflecting
His glory, love and goodness. Soon all these became a little package of
dogma. The dogma contains the light within itself, but with unclarity,
because to you this has become a dogma. Why? Because it is not clear
to you, and therefore you are not going to spread that light, you are
going to use the container of that light to hit other people.
Q. The concept of obedience is exalted in the scriptures. But what does
it really mean to the devotee, the inquirer?
Swami: While obeying the Master there must be clarity within. Are you
obeying or are you merely thinking that it is good to obey this man?
Then you are obeying yourself, not the Master. That is, while doing
whatever you consider to be the right thing in obedience to the
Master, there is also a resistance in you. Are you the resistance or are
you the obedience? Which one are you?
Every motive is born of resistance. There is a desire or a will to obey
and then there is resistance. So you create a reason why, a motive -
that is not obedience.
You start off as a Lucifer, wanting to inherit the Light, see the Light,
willing to pay any price for this Light, this clarity, from the Master;
therefore you are prepared to obey. Then arises this thought: "My
God, this seems to be very difficult, and the end-result is not
guaranteed." Since the Master doesn't guarantee that you'll become
enlightened, his successor, is it worthwhile obeying him, or is there a
simpler method? Then this rationalization, this motiva- tion gets
better understood so the resistance, the impulse to obey and the
motivation all churn around within you, and immediately the clarity is
gone. The reason to obey is gone, therefore one doesn't even consider
that obedience.
In the Yoga Vasistha there is a beautiful expression:
gamyadesaikanisthasya yatha panthasya padayoh
spando vigatasankalpastatha spandasva karmasu (VI.2, 1:15)
"When one has made up his mind to go to a certain place, his feet
function without any mental activity; function like those feet and
perform action here." You have made up your mind to go to the beach,
and the feet walk without any further problem. It may be said that
your legs obey the intentions of your brain. It is not as if your right leg
says, "Oh no, I would like to stay here" and the left leg says, "We really
must go to the beach" - the whole thing moves without any effort
whatsoever. Similarly, is there such an effortless act in strict
accordance with the Master's will? (We have completely dropped the
word "obedience.") Is there an effortless action in total accord with
God's will? What happens to "me," the ego?
In this concept of obedience is already built a total inner harmony and
integration which is Yoga. You want to do exactly what God or your
Master wills, and when there is resistance this light turns full blast
upon it and says, "What on earth are you doing here?" In that light,
the resistance dissolves- there is effortless action and therefore
motiveless which you can hold in your hand and go - the inner light is
you! That is the "Lucifer" - the spirit of inquiry. Quest and quest and
quest, go on questioning, leave nothing unquestioned forever.

Further comments and refs. by Father Terence:

1. The title "Satan" is post-biblical, given by the early church fathers.
The ref. usually cited is Isaiah XIV, 12ff. "Satan" in the Old Testament
given to mean "an accuser in a court of law, adversary." In later Jewish
literature a heavenly officer or prosecutor whose function it is to
question and test the genuineness of human virtue. Similar meaning
in New Testament of Satan as adversary or stumbling block. E.g. Mark
VIII, 33: Peter has become a stumbling block to Jesus and his mission,
he can't accept the cross, therefore, in that context he is Satan. Paul
refers to Satan disguising himself as an "angel of light" - 2 Cor. XI, 13ff.
Also ref. Rev. XII, 7ff - Satan identified as the great dragon.
2. Having the light, it must be seen: Matt. V, 14-16; John XII, 35-36;
Ephes. V, 8-9.
3. Christ the Light - John I, 8-12; IX, 5.
4. Christ the Light, obedient to the will of the Father: Phil. II, 5-8.
5. Christian prayer: "deliver us from evil (darkness)" - the recogition of
the need for vigilance and prayer-2 Cor. XI, 14; 1 Peter V, 8; Matt. VI,
13.
This story from Srimad Bhagavatam translated by Swami
Venkatesananda [Feb. 16-17] draws interesting and valid parallel to
the story of the Fall of Lucifer.
THE STORY OF
JAYA AND VIJAYA
The body of all beings is the product of the elements.
And through ignorance, the false notions of "I" and "mine" are born.
Then there arise feelings of pain and pleasure, honor and dishonor,
praise and censure, etc. All these are absent in the Lord. Hence, he
who fixes his mind on the Lord, whatever may be his intention, earns
his grace. Many have become one with him by fixing their mind upon
him through love, hate, fear, friendship and devotion. For instance,
the gopi attained him through love, Kamsa through fear, Sisupala etc.
through hate, and Vrsni by being related to him, you by friendship and
we by devotion to him.
One day the sages Sanatkumara arrived at his abode and sought to
enter. The Lord's attendants, Jaya and Vijaya, taking them to be mere
boys, prevented them from doing so. The sages thereupon
pronounced a curse upon Jaya and Vijaya: "You have lost your
discrimination! Hence you are unfit to be here serving the Lord's lotus
feet. Descend as demons." Later they mitigated the curse by granting:
"You will return to your abode after three incarnations." Hence they
were born as Hiranyaksa and Hiranyakasipu, Ravana and
Kumbhakarna, Sisupala and Dantavakra. Purified by their whole-
hearted devotion to the Lord through enmity, they have returned to
the Lord's abode as his attendants.

Part III
THE WORD
 The Word
I am Who I am. I will be What I will be.
Exodus III, 14.
In truth, that energy of the infinite consciousness itself is...all,
whatever is, was and ever will be.
Yoga Vasistha VI.i.45
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not
works? Can his faith save him?... Faith by itself, if it has no works, is
dead...as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from
works is dead.
James II, 14-17 & 26
The Man consists of his faith;
as a man's faith is, so is he.
Bhagavad Gita XVII.2
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Matt. V, 44
Today I have seen the glory of the Lord's devotees: they do good even
to those who have harmed them.
Srimad Bhagavatam IX.5
Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matt. V, 39
Bear insult, bear injury - this is the highest sadhana (spiritual practice).
Swami Sivananda
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Mark XII, 31
He who, through the likeness of the Self, sees "sameness"
everywhere, be it pleasure or pain, he is regarded as the highest yogi.
Bhagavad Gita VI.32
Never hurt others' feelings
Swami Sivananda
Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.
Luke XXIII, 34
The demoniacal know not what to do and what to refrain from.
Bhagavad Gita XVI.7
When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or
your brothers or you kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite
you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the
poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed
because they cannot repay you.
Luke XVI, 12-14
That gift which is given to one who does nothing in return, knowing it
to be a duty to give in a fit (proper) place and time to a worthy person,
that gift is held to be sattvic (pure).
Bhagavad Gita XVII.20
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the
light... But he who does what is true comes to the light.
John III, 20-21
That state which is night to all beings, to the self-controlled man is
watchfulness; when all beings are awake, that is night for the sage
who sees.
Bhagavad Gita II.69
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother
and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own
life, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke XIV, 26
My devotees have abandoned their wives, children, houses, wealth
and even their lives for my sake; how then can I forsake them?
Srimad Bhagavatam IX.4
Non-attachment, non-identification of the Self with son, wife, home
and the rest, and constant even-mindedness on the attainment of the
desirable and the undesirable...
Bhagavad Gita XIII.9
If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the
altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift.
Matt. V, 23-24
Reconciliation must be with the offended:
refer the Ambarisha story.
Srimad Bhagavatam IX.4-5
As the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the
other, so will the Son of man be in his day.
Luke XVII, 22-24
With unequalled splendor he will fly swiftly across the sky, destroying
millions of robbers in the disguise of rulers.
Srimad Bhagavatam XII.12
Watch therefore for you do not know when the master of the house
will come...lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say
to you I say to all: Watch.
Mark XIII, 35-37
Arise, awake, having attained thy boons, understand (them). Sharp as
the edge of a razor and hard to cross, difficult to tread is that path (so)
sages declare.
Katha Upanishad I.3 xiv
God requires a faithful fulfilment of the merest trifle given to us to do,
rather than the most ardent aspiration to things to which we are not
called.
St. Francois de Sales
Better is one's own duty though destitute of merit than the duty of
another well performed. He who does the duty ordained by his own
nature incurs no sin.
Bhagavad Gita XVIII.47
Parable of the Good Samaritan
Luke X, 30-37
The poor man looks upon others as his own self and understands their
troubles and sorrows.
Srimad Bhagavatam X.10
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are
sick; I came not to call the righteous but sinners.
Mark II, 17
Whenever there is a decline of righteousness and the rise of
unrighteousness, then I manifest Myself.
Bhagavad Gita IV.7
Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is sound, your whole
body is full of light.
Luke XI, 34
When through every gate (sense) in this body, the wisdom-light
shines, then it may be known that Sattva is pre-dominant.
Bhagavad Gita XIV.11
It is a deadly sin (to wish to become a guru) don't get into that trap.
Swami Sivananda
You are not to be called "rabbi" for you have one teacher and you are
all brethren... Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the
Christ.
Matt. XIII, 8 & 10
Blessed are the eyes which see what you see! For I tell you that many
prophets and kings desired to see what you see and did not see it, and
to hear what you hear and did not hear it.
Luke X, 23-24
Neither the hosts of the gods nor the great sages know My origin; for
in every way I am the source of all of them.
Bhagavad Gita X.2
Very hard indeed it is to see this form of Mine which thou hast seen.
Even the gods are ever longing to behold it.
Bhagavad Gita XI.52
I and the Father are one.
John X, 30
So'ham: I am He.
What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and
then vanishes.
James IV, 14
Beings are unmanifested in their beginning, manifested in their middle
state and unmanifested again in their end. What is there to grieve
about?
Bhagavad Gita II.28
And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory
of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
Revelations XI, 23
Neither doth the sun illumine there nor the moon, nor the fire, having
gone thither, they return not: this is my supreme abode.
That light which residing in the sun illumines the whole world, that
which is in the moon and in the fire know that light to be Mine.
Bhagavad Gita XV.6 & 12
The sun shines not there, nor the moon and stars, these lightnings
shine not, where then could this fire be? Everything shines only after
that shining light. His shining illumines all this world.
Katho Upanishad II.2.xv

AMEN OM