Tag Archives: Hinduism

Harsha's avatar

I am not this, I am not that; who am I? – Gururaj Ananda Yogi Satsang

. Advaita and Yoga, TEACHERS . , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

-This is an edited and unpublished satsang of Gururaj Ananda Yogi. If you want to watch the video of the whole satsang you can get it in Gururaj’s channel at Vimeo

Question: I am that which causes awareness to flow from the grossness of the lower mind to the un‑differentiated bliss of the superconscious.  I am not mind, but upon me the mind rests.  I do not move, yet through me all things move.  I am neither this nor that.  What am I?

Gururaj Ananda: That you are.

Who am I if I am not the mind?  Who am I if I am not the body?  What makes you presume that you are not the body and not the mind. What point of reference have you to tell you that I am not the mind and neither the body?  Show me that point of reference.

When I say to myself, “I am that I am,” who is this that I am that I am?  Who is this Brahmas mi‑‑I am Brahma?  Who is this that could say, “I and my Father are one?”  Who is this that could say that I, as the mind and body, is non‑existent?

Then what part of you is existent to make you cognize your non‑existence?  You don’t know, that is for sure.

Your mind is a reality, your body is a reality, and the spiritual self within you is a reality, but it is only the mind that could cognize its own realness which is also, at the same time, erroneous.

Gururaj Ananda and Cansita
Gururaj Ananda and Cansita

You say I am this body.  Now this body has been changing so much.  I was an infant, then l grew up into adolescence, became an old man…

So this body is the same body, but over a period of time ‑‑ which you regard to be time ‑‑ has gone through various changes.  Who is that which perceives this particular form of reality?

The spirit that is within you, the Divinity that is within you, is non‑cognizable and neither would it cognize anything besides itself in its own cognition.

The mind says this is a handkerchief.  Why does the mind say this is a handkerchief?  Because my mind, or a certain recollection or experiences that has gone through me in this lifetime or even in past lifetimes, perhaps, make me cognize this to be a cloth, a piece of cloth to be used on my nose.

Now, where does this come from?  What tells you that this is a nose and that’s a handkerchief?  So you go further back to realize that my mind is saying that, then you will ask yourself what perpetuates this mind in this mold of having this particular kind of cognition?

And like that you go on and on and on until you reach a point which is zero.  Then only can you say, “I’m not the body.”  Then only can you say, “I’m not the mind.”

Look, I can touch, feel, smell, taste, go to bed and make love, go to the toilet.  Is the body then not functional?  Of course  it is functional.  Then why do I deny the body?

I deny the body because I feel within myself‑‑or rather some force is feeling within myself‑‑that I am far beyond the body and the mind.  Now, the greatest mistake that has been made‑‑or is being made by various theologies‑‑is the denial of the body and mind.  Let’s look at it from a different angle.  Do not deny this body.  Do not deny this mind.  And do not deny that which cognizes the body and the mind.

So how are you dealing with yourself, then?  We’re still going to come to the cognitive factor.  But at this moment how do you stand?  You stand in the position of saying, my body exists, my mind exists, and the cognitive factor also exists, so therefore I am existence and being existing I can deny nothing.  For I am that I am.

There is no differentation between your body and your mind and your cognitive self.  The I that cognizes the very existence of this body and this mind is thought forms which we can call the ego self that is forever trying to preserve itself in the cognitive factors of saying I am this handsome guru [comments and laughs from audience].   Who’s saying that?  That stupid ego self.

Now, what is the ego worth?  The ego is worth nothing, because it is just a formation of patterns which you have superimposed upon yourself through the various experiences that you have gone through, and that has left impressions.  And those impressions is that which we call the ego.

Now, I put my hand on this table and I remove this hand.  But an imprint is there.  The hand is not there anymore, but an impression or an imprint of the hand is existing on this table.  Get out your magnifying glass and you will see it.  What reality is there in this imprint?  Nil!

This very imprint that cognizes me as a body, this very imprint that cognizes me as a mind.  So my body and mind is totally dependent upon that imprint.  And yet, what is the reality of this imprint? Nil.  It’s an impression created through patternings of experiences.

So now if I deny this imprint, or if I do not attach value to this imprint in bringing about the recognitions of the existence of this body and this mind, then I am basing the existence of this body and this mind with something that has no substance but which has just created an impression there, presuming that this mind and this body is real.

So now, what have we done so far?  We are accepting the reality of the mind and the body, and, at the same time, we are denying the mind and the body.  Because both are true. You are not the body, yet the body; you are not the mind, yet the mind.  Then what is your reality?  And how are you going to prove this reality?

You can only prove it by inference.  Or by the very factor that reality requires no proof.  It exists because of its own existence.  The only time you can prove reality is when you have a reference point.  And where can there be any reference point as as far as Divinity is concerned.

There is consciousness and non‑consciousness.  Non‑ consciousness means you are not aware.  And conscious means that you are aware.  Now, what proof is there of awareness.  Does awareness require any proof?  Does the light burning there require any proof that it is burning?  Its very act of giving light is its own proof.

You do not need to prove anything.  Because when it comes to the highest level, you need a point of reference, and the highest level being the one, without a second, cannot have a reference point.

I exist, I exist, because I exist.  That’s all.  And because I, the real me to which I have no reference point exists, I can only refer it back to a grosser level of the mind and the body, which finds its existence in that which I cannot prove is existing.Gururaj Ananda

I’m taking the highest factor in life and bringing it down to the grossest factor and that is what I could compare things with.  But when we reach the point beyond comparison ‑‑ Beautiful word.  You’re pairing up things in comparison.  There have to be two to compare.  But what if I want to exist as I am in my full totality, then will I not lose the idea of comparing myself to anything else?  And the very moment I lose the idea of comparing myself to any subject or object, that is the very moment when I will lose the ego self, that imprint that is existing in my experience.  Or the impression of the experience.  Then where will I be?  I shall be incomparable.

I shall be the source of existence itself, which I am.  Not in reality, but in actuality.  For reality changes from day to day.  What is real to you today might be unreal to you tomorrow. You see.  But when I become actual, when I become the source and recognize that source within me, or the source recognizes itself, then I will say, let me enjoy this body.  Let me enjoy this mind, for it is a product of a collection of impressions.  And if they are there, let me make the best use of it.

Here we are fusing two factors.  The fusion lies in the fact that that which is created by impressions‑‑or maya or illusion‑‑, is brought into reality, and reality is converted into illusion.  So I make the best of both worlds.

For example, let’s see what example we can use.  Say I loved a woman very much, I was deeply involved with that woman.  Fine. And she has left me.  She has jilted me or died or whatever or jumped in the lake.  Now, is she there or is she not there?  She’s dead, we know.  But is she there or is she not there?  She is there because you think she is there.  What makes you think she is there is because those impressions, those experiences, and you are reliving something so far in the past which has no reality today, which has become an illusion.  Because she is not there.  I have developed a dependency upon her when she was there.  So what am I living on now?  On dependencies.

I am existing with a reality, which is my body and my mind.  Though in essence it is unreal, but for the moment of three score years and ten, let me do the best with it I can.  Why not. Who would deny me that right?  And why should it be denied to me? You think all these organs we have are there just for the fun of it or for the show of it?  You think I have ears and I must not hear?  Or I have eyes and I must not see?  Or a nose and not smell?  Or any other organ of my body that has been there created through an evolutionary process and not to be used.  Why should I not use every organ in this body of mine to its fullest value? Honestly and sincerely.

So these monks  say become celibate, become this and that, become this and I don’t know what all.  I say, “become yourself!”  Be yourself!

Be yourself.  How can I make myself be myself?  Ahh!  How can I make myself be myself?  And the answer to that riddle is so simple.  Do you know that beautiful hymn which I like very much, lead thou me on, kindly light, one step at a time is enough for me.  Don’t you know that beautiful hymn?

Firstly, I must admit to myself that  I’m living a fragmented life.  Part of my mind is pulling that way, part of my mind is pulling that way, part of my mind is floating up there in Chicago and another part somewhere in some heaven or some hell which has no existence in reality.

Admit to oneself that I’m fragmented.  Lead thou me on, kindly light to integration away from fragmentation.  Let me be whole.  Let me function in this life holistically.  Let me not find any more the discriminatory factors between body, mind, and spirit.  Let me regard it to be one continuum.  And this continuum, after finding through spiritual practices and meditation, when you find this continuum of yourself, mind, body, and spirit, this continuum will extend and extend and develop so much that the entire universe becomes you and you become the universe.

Existence and non‑existence, what am I going to do about it?  I’m both.  I am existing, and at the same time, the impressions which I’m existing upon is non‑existent.

So let me tell you this, that 99.999% of your problems in your mind are self‑created without any damn substance.  So that which you have created without substance… very easy way out of it‑‑pull the chain!

That is the secret of life.  Forget the past.  It is gone. Do not project yourself into the future, it might not be there. But live for this moment.  Live for this moment.  And then you’ll preserve your physical health, you’ll preserve your mental health, you’ll become integrated in mind, body and spirit, and you’ll enjoy life.  For life is joy.  So, as I always say, enjoy the joy.  Why deny yourself of that beautiful joy of this so‑ called existence when you can have fun.

What’s wrong with fun. Enjoy it.  But be honest and sincere, that’s important.

MEDITACION BARCELONA

Harsha's avatar

What is Saguna and Nirguna Brahman? By Dr. Harsh K. Luthar

. ADVAITA & YOGA, Advaita and Yoga, INSPIRATIONAL, PERSONAL, TEACHERS . , ,

Harsh K. Luthar in Madison, WI

Questioner: What is meant in Hinduism by “Saguna Brahman” and how is that different from “Nirguna Brahman”

Answer: The term Saguna means “with attributes”. The term “Saguna Brahman” implies that God has a name and form and other attributes. Many Savikalpa Samadhis give rise to the (living) form of the Ishta Devata. Ishta Devta is one’s favored way of visualizing the divine. It might be Krishna, Jesus, Rama, the Goddess or some other Deity of choice.

Nirguna means “without attributes”. The term “Nirguna Brahman” implies that God as the Absolute Spirit and Pure Consciousness has no name and form or attributes. Nirvikalpa Samadhi reveals the Nirguna nature of the Self.

There are a number of books on Hinduism that discuss Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. Classic yoga texts like Patanjali’s yoga sutras explain various types of Samadhi states. All of such concepts and topics of discussion can also be found in the conversations Sri Ramana had with various visitors, scholars, and yogis for over 50 years.

The book I recommend for the devotees of Sri Ramana is “Talks with Ramana Maharshi” as it gives the context of the conversations and the flavor of the essential teaching of Sri Ramana. “Day by Day with Bhagavan” capturing the Ashram atmosphere in the 1940s is very good as well. In addition, the recollections of various devotees given in many books are quite good.

One sees that Sri Ramana was very flexible and open to people who came with a sincere desire for self-knowledge. A person’s religion, philosophy, background, race, all of that, made no difference to him. In his acceptance of all, even the monkeys and squirrels and animals who were always around him, Sri Ramana emanated a perpetual aura of kindness.

Those interested in Advaita Vedanta and Self-Realization will find the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi to be very helpful.

Namaste and Love to all

Harsha's avatar

Nature of Reality: By Dr. Harsh K. Luthar

. Advaita and Yoga . , ,

Nature of Reality

It seems to me that Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism and other religions and spiritual traditions use different words and concepts to describe the nature of Reality.

Even within the Shiva and Shakti traditions there are great debates about the nature of the highest state of existence. If we are speaking of the highest state, then differences can only be in the words used to describe it, not in the experience or in understanding of great Sages.

My teacher once commenting on the Buddhist teaching of Shunya (Emptiness) said that the ultimate state is not “nothingness” but No-Thing-Ness.  He meant that it is empty of all things, concepts, images.

That is my experience as well. The highest reality is nothing less than our own Reality. The Reality of the Self, the Heart, that the ancient called Sat-Chit-Anand. Truly, although we call it an experience for lack of words, it is the end of all experiences.  It is it self the foundation of experience.  That is the nature of the Self.  It is simple and pure being,  both fullness itself and also empty of all things.

Even the notion of no-self and self are concepts only and cannot do the Self justice.  In order to communicate, words have to be used to indicate the experience of the Reality. What ever term one uses to describe THAT, It is what It Is. We can call it God, God Consciousness, or the Self, or the no-self or Shunya, etc.

The words we use to describe reality are not independent of our culture, language, religion, and are historically embedded.  Knowing this, we should keep the company of the Truth, or Truth seekers.  This leads to refinement and Self-Awareness.

With gentle compassion for oneself and others, one should remain aware with a feeling of surrender to Lord of the Heart within whose very nature is that of Awareness.

Whether we meditate or engage in contemplative prayer, absolute awareness dawns in perfect stillness with clarity when the mind subsides into the Heart. The Unlimited Nature of “Now – The Present Moment”, becomes fully Self-Evident. The Self Sees It Self by It Self and Through It Self.

It is the Pure Self Seeing Eye. One without a second.

Namaste

Harsha's avatar

The Ribhu Gita: By Richard Clarke

. Advaita and Yoga . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Your true nature is always the undivided, nondual Brahman,
Which is a mass of Being-Consciousness-Bliss,
Motionless, ancient, still,
Eternal, without attributes,
Without confusions, without sheaths,
Without parts, without impurity,
Completely free from any illusion of duality,
Full, peerless, and the One.

From Song of Ribhu, Chapter two.

The Ribhu Gita is a spiritual text that was extensively used by Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. It was one of the first books he read after Self-Realization, one whose message clearly accorded with what he had realized within himself. For many years during his life it was read to those at Ramanasramam. It is still read at Ramanasramam today. Ramana’s use and recommendation of this text has brought it into much wider visibility among those interested in his teachings and Advaita Vedanta.

Papaji reading from The Ribhu Gita

A number of teachers in the tradition of Sri Ramana have been using these translations of the Ribhu Gita in their teaching. Above is a picture of Papaji reading from the English Translation of the Sanskrit version.

The Ribhu Gita is a book that is best read aloud, a few verses at one time. It is in an ancient form designed to be chanted, and they way it is written is most conducive to reading aloud, even if one is reading it to oneself.

The Ribhu Gita presents the timeless teaching of Self Knowledge, emphasized by Advaita Vedanta. Its fundamental tenet is the identity of the Self with Brahman, a term signifying the vast Absolute. This scripture presents the teaching given by the sage, Ribhu, to Nidaga to become enlightened into his true nature.

According to Annamalai Swami, “Bhagavan often said that we should read and study the Ribhu Gita regularly. In the Ribhu Gita it is said, ‘That bhavana “I am not the body, I am not the mind, I am Brahman, I am everything” is to be repeated again and again until this becomes the natural state.”

In describing the Self or Brahman, negation is primarily used because the Self can never be an object, can never be what is perceived or conceived. By negation in the process of Self-inquiry, the ignorance of identifying ones own existence with an individual body and mind is destroyed. This “destruction” of ignorance is really not the destruction of anything real, as the false identification as an individual just consists of assumptions, ideas. What remains after this so-called destruction is not anything new. It is not something achieved. It is not a transformation. It is what has been your innermost identity all the time.

As all differences are an illusory appearance
On Brahman, which is not different from the Self,
Due to conditionings of the Self like the defect of nescience (ignorance)
And conditionings of Brahman like maya (Illusion, delusion),
One should realize, by a practice of negation,
That all appearances are not a whit different from the substratum
And one should cognize the originless, endless,
Undivided identity of the Self and Brahman.

From Song of Ribhu, Chapter One

“The text is a relentless reiteration of uncompromising Advaita―that the Supreme Brahman, ‘That,’ is all that exists and exists not, that nothing else exists, the Self is Brahman and Brahman is the Self, I am that, I am all, and That is myself. This Awareness is moksha (liberation) which is attained by the way of knowledge and the certitude I-am-Brahman,” says Dr. H Ramamoorthy, one of the co-translators, in his Translator’s Introduction to the English translation of the Sanskrit version published by The Society of Abidance in Truth in 1995.

The origins of the Ribhu Gita are uncertain. It is contained within the Sivarahasya, an ancient Sanskrit epic devoted to Siva. It has been compared to the better-known Bhagavad Gita, contained within the epic, Mahabharata. Similar dialogs between Ribhu and Nidagha on the Self and Brahman are also found within the traditional 108 Upanisads, so it appears that the origin of the Ribhu Gita dates from the Upanisadic period, generally thought to be about 600 BCE.

The Ribhu Gita exists in two forms, the traditional Sanskrit version, and a Tamil version rendered in the late 1800s by Bhikshu Sastrigal, also known as Ulagantha Swamigal. Both versions have been translated into English by Dr. H. Ramamoorthy, a Sanskrit and Tamil scholar, and Nome, a Self-Realized sage in the United States of America, who realized the Truth revealed by Sri Ramana Maharshi and the Ribhu Gita in 1974. Both books, The Ribhu Gita and The Song of Ribhu (the Sanskrit and Tamil versions of the text) have been printed by the society of Abidance in Truth (SAT) and are available from their website (www.satramana.org).

These English translations have become the basis for a widening appreciation of this ancient nondual work. Translations have been made from these English translations into a number of other languages, including Italian, and Hindi. The Song of Ribhu has also been reprinted by Sri Ramanasramam and is available from their bookstore.

In addition to these two complete translations, there have been a number of partial translations published. One is a small pamphlet, Essence of Ribhu, available by download from Sri Ramanasramam – www.sriramanamaharshi.org . The other is The Heart of the Ribhu Gita, by F Jones, Los Angeles: Dawn Horse, 1973.

Nome at satsang

Nome has been teaching Self-inquiry, as taught by Sri Ramana, for about 30 years. He gives satsangs and holds retreats at the temple of The Society of Abidance in Truth (SAT), in Santa Cruz, CA, USA. For more information go to http://www.satramana.org. He has translated and published a number of books of Advaita Vedanta that otherwise would not be available in English. Many of these translations were done in collaboration with Dr. Ramamoorthy.

Harsha's avatar

Rajindar S. Luthar (1926-2004): By Harsh K. Luthar

. PERSONAL . , , , ,

The Last Summer

Yesterday was the fourth anniversary of my father Rajindar S. Luthar passing away. I think about him often. He was my guide and counselor.

Like me, my father was a professor. His area was mathematics which he loved teaching. He was also a scholar and enjoyed publishing. He founded a Math Journal called Delta which eventually merged with another journal. He was an excellent cook and enjoyed entertaining at parties. He was truly multidimensional in his views and approach to life. We talked about everything. Politics, food, men and women, money, religion, gurus, relationships, marriage, sex. No topic was off bounds.

My father was not much into visiting temples or holy places but was a staunch Hindu and exemplified all that is best and noble in Hinduism. He often had dreams of various saints, rishis, munis, and gurus and loved to describe them in minute detail to me. He told me that he dreamt about Jesus Christ as well. I asked him how he knew it was Jesus.

“I just knew”, he said, in a matter of fact way.

Throughout his life, my father was very psychic. One time when he was in America, he dreamt that someone very close to him was being electrocuted. He immediately woke up and started praying. The person in the dream was my younger four-year-old brother who had been caught in live electric wires when we (our cousins and us) were playing on the roof of my uncle’s shop in India.

That was back in 1964. From 10,000 miles away, my father had dreamt that someone he loved was in trouble and acted to send his protection and prayers. My brother was very badly burned all over his skin but miraculously survived. He gradually recovered fully and the burn marks on his body eventually disappeared.

Although he was a mathematics professor, my father enjoyed talking about philosophy and religion. He was tolerant and liberal and accepting of all people but at the same time full of humor; sometimes irreverent humor, about religion and gurus. He told me many stories about fake gurus in India. “All these gurus, pretending to be so holy and pious; they love women, sex, and money!” He would say and then have a hearty laugh.

Because I was interested in all those things having to do with yoga and meditation, my father often cautioned me about gurus when I was a teenager and suggested that I be very careful. “Many gurus even like young boys!” he said to me many times in warning. My father left no stone unturned doing his best to make me aware of the realities of life when I was young. Sometimes I thought he was way too overprotective and controlling.

When I reached 30, I started thinking that he did his duty as a father well. When I reached 40, I realized that he was much wiser than I thought. By the time he passed away, I had realized that he was a sage.

Now, I remember my father as kind and generous with smiling eyes. At times, he had a huge all consuming laughter that drew others in. I miss him every day.

Harsha's avatar

Bhagavad Gita and the Sattvic Diet: By Dr. Harsh K. Luthar

. HEALTH & NUTRITION, LIFESTYLE . , , , , , , , , , ,

img_2719

Sri Ramana used to say that of all the yogic rules and regulations, the best one is taking of Sattvic foods in moderate quantities. This view is consistent with that expressed in the Bhagavad Gita, and indeed most of the Yoga Shastras.

The logic is that since food consumed has a major effect on the body and the mind, a Sattvic diet should be adhered to in order to enhance both the health of the body as well as purity, strength, and calmness of the mind. An agitated person will find it difficult to sit quietly and meditate.

A disciplined and one pointed mind is an aid to ones’ learning and education as well as having success in business and other worldly affairs. A clear, pure, and a reflective mind is, of course, essential to self-enquiry which leads to Self-Realization.

The question then becomes, “What is a Sattvic diet? What is the authority for saying that certain foods are Sattvic and lead to good health, mental clarity, poise, and spiritual advancement, while other foods do not?”

There is much yogic literature on this topic and also some disagreement among experts depending on their school of thought and background. Since most Hindus generally accept the Bhagavad Gita as the final word, I will refer to that as my primary source on the Sattvic diet.

We should keep in mind that Sri Krishna, who speaks in the Bhagavad Gita with complete spiritual authority, is also considered the model of exceptional and abundant physical health and perfect mental poise. He is depicted in the ancient writings as slim, active, energetic, graceful, and attractive.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna demonstrates profound insight into not just the spiritual nature, but also human nature and physical nature. By inference, Sri Krishna’s words on food and the Sattvic diet carry much weight for those who study the Bhagavad Gita.

What foods should one minimize according to the Bhagavad Gita?

In Chapter 17 (verses 8, 9, 10), Sri Krishna makes clear the type of foods to be avoided by those who seek good physical and mental health, worldly success, and progress on the spiritual path.

According to the Bhagavad Gita, foods which are too bitter, sour, salty, pungent, dry, and hot can lead to pain, distress, and disease of the body. Further, Sri Krishna says that foods cooked more than three hours before being eaten, foods which are tasteless, stale, putrid, decomposed and unclean should be avoided by spiritual aspirants and those who seek excellent physical and mental health.

What foods should be eaten according to the Bhagavad Gita?

In Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna states, “If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit, or water, I will accept it:” (Bg.9.26). To me this seems to suggest that Sri Krishna is sanctioning a diet based on leaves and fruits and water as the best one for spiritual growth. I am no scholar on the Bhagavad Gita, but my liberal interpretation of this verse would be that the Sattvic diet is generally plant based and includes all or most vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds, etc.

Because Sri Krishna gave cows sacred status similar to that of a human mother and favored raw butter for personal consumption as a child, one could reasonably argue that dairy products (such as yogurt, milk, kefir, lassi, sour cream, etc.) belong to the Sattvic food category.

Many yogis hold the view, however, that dairy products can only be considered Sattvic if these are obtained respecting the cows and goats who are shown kindness, love, and humane treatment. According to the principle of Ahimsa (nonviolence), any food procured through violence to living beings cannot be considered Sattvic.

Yogic Sattvic Diets

Some yogis that I have met favor a completely raw vegetarian diet with a primary focus on sprouted grains and beans (such as Garbanzo, Blackeyed peas, etc.) along with raw fruits and vegetables. Their diet is essentially vegan and contains no animal products. However, modern science teaches us that since vitamin B12 is missing from a purely vegan diet, supplementation is necessary.

A number of medical and scholarly references can be found on this issue on the web.

Other yogis have felt that a raw vegetarian diet is too limiting and include cooked foods as well as dairy products (milk, yogurt, lassi, etc.) in their diet. This diet, known as the lacto-vegetarian diet, is probably the most wide spread among Indian Hindus and Jains.

A few well known yogis have also traditionally included not only dairy but also eggs and egg products in their otherwise vegetarian diet. This is known as the lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.

Although very few Indian yogis include any kind of fish, fowl, or meat in their food, there are exceptions. Buddhist yogis, for example Dalai Lama, do eat meat. A few Hindu yogis also eat meat pointing out that some ancient scriptures sanction meat eating for certain religious rituals.

For most Hindu and Jain yogis, however, there is no convincing argument for eating meat if one wishes to uphold the supreme principle of Ahimsa and follow the philosophy of nonviolence.

What is the best Sattvic Diet?

The general answer from my study is that foods which cause the body to gain health and for the mind to be calm and peaceful constitute the Sattvic diet. To some extent, this requires knowing the needs of one’s own body and being sensitive to the effects of various foods on our system. Foods which are very suitable and nutritious for one person may not be right for another. Common sense and wisdom are the essential ingredients to find the best Sattvic diet for yourself.

In terms of particular foods to be eaten, the yogis and sages have answered this question, but the answers have different variations. One common element of a yogic Sattvic diet is that it is primarily vegetarian. This is true at least for Hindu and Jain yogis.

Within the broad framework of vegetarianism, a number of dietary systems are possible where certain foods are included and some are excluded. In the most liberal vegetarian diets, eggs and dairy products are included. Some people include dairy in their vegetarian diet but not eggs. Some include eggs but not dairy. In the most strict vegetarian diet, eggs and milk are excluded. Supplementation through certain vitamins is needed in such diets, according to modern medical opinion.

My personal experiences

Having experimented with a variety of diets for decades, I feel that a vegetarian diet can be healthy or unhealthy depending on many factors. For example, if I am a lacto-vegetarian and eat too many pizza pieces, the feeling of discomfort is likely to follow. In fact, after experimenting with eating pizzas thousands of times in my younger days, I am fairly certain that this is indeed true. I believe this also holds if one eats bucket loads of ice cream on a frequent basis. So, is lacto-vegetarian diet healthy? It depends on how lacto you are and how often you go lacto with heavy fat and fried lacto foods!

The point is that a vegetarian diet can be either healthy or unhealthy depending on the nature of food eaten as well as the quantity of food consumed.

In Chapter 6, verse 16, Sri Krishna specifically emphasizes moderation in eating and sleeping. He states, “There is no possibility of ones’ becoming a yogi, O Arjuna, if one eats too much, or eats too little, sleeps too much or does not sleep enough.”

Clearly, overconsumption of food leads to problems and one can logically conclude that the quantity of food consumed is probably an important element in a diet being considered Sattvic.

Sattvic diet is also a matter of degree. Some diets may be very Sattvic, while others may be moderately Sattvic.

Finally, the thoughts and the emotional balance while eating the food have an effect on our system. This is why in many religions, prayers and showing of gratitude for the food being consumed is offered. This mental state while eating helps the diet become more Sattvic.

What does it all mean?

So what does it all mean and what are the lessons from Bhagavad Gita and our discussion of the Sattvic diet? Here is what I think some of the lessons are. See if you agree.

1. Whatsoever you eat, eat in moderation.

2. Educate yourself on proper nutrition, be sensitive to your body, and see what foods work for you.

3. Emphasize fresh vegetables and fruits and eat a diet which is mostly plant-based.

4. Do not eat foods which are too salty, bitter, or have gone stale and putrid.

5. Regardless of the food being eaten, eat with gratitude, prayerful attitude, and with mental poise.

6. Chew the food carefully and taste it deeply without rushing.

There are literally thousands of great sources on the web and hundreds of books in stores to help you educate yourself on the Bhagavad Gita, vegetarianism, and nutrition. Go do some research and find out for yourself!

That’s my homespun wisdom for today. Like Captain Planet used to say, “The Power is yours!”

Given below are some pictures of plant based dishes that I made keeping the principles of Sattvic food in mind. Wishing you all abundant physical, mental, and spiritual health. Namaste.

Harsha's avatar

Vegetarian Lifestyle: By Dr. Shyam Subramanian

. LIFESTYLE . , , , , , , , ,

Question from a student: As a Hindu living in the U.S., should I remain a vegetarian? If I include meat in my diet there are so many more choices in restaurant menus. Also, when I go to parties I feel awkward telling the host that I can’t eat many of their meat dishes. It is really uncomfortable. I see many of my Indian friends eating meat and fish and caviar and whatever is available and I feel they are more accepted socially in the western culture and that will help them get ahead professionally as well and make more money. As an American born in India, I feel very conflicted about this whole vegetarianism issue. There is pressure from my family to remain a vegetarian but my friends who are not vegetarians are having a better time at my college it seems.

shyam

Answer By Dr. Shyam Subramanian

Continue reading →

Harsha's avatar

Moksha in Hinduism: By Dr. Shyam Subramanian

. Advaita and Yoga . , , , , , , , , ,

A seeker asks: In Hinduism, there is a belief in reincarnation. The idea of reincarnation is that when the body dies, I will be born again. However, we are taught to pursue Moksha (salvation) which puts an end to the cycle of birth and death. As a Hindu, why should I pursue Moksha? Is that not a permanent death forever? At least with reincarnation, I have a chance to be reborn. Perhaps I will get to meet old girl friends in my next birth and go to Las Vegas and Bombay again. But if I get Moksha, according to Hindu teachings, I will never be reborn. That is scary, is it not? Why should I then seek Moksha as stated in our scriptures? How does this idea of Moksha as salvation or liberation make any sense?

Editor’s note: Moksha in Hinduism is not viewed as permanent death but an awakening into eternal life. Moksha is essentially the recognition that one’s very nature is that of freedom and wholeness. The questioner’s presumption that his next life would be according to present desires or expectations (going to Las Vegas or Bombay with his old girlfriends) is not consistent with the doctrine of Karma. According to the doctrine of karma, the next birth is determined by a combination of actions taken in previous lives and the present life. The merits and demerits generated thus will determine future experiences of pleasures and pains. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the expectations to be with specific individuals and repeat pleasurable experiences would come to fruition in the next life. Although the seeker premises the question on a faulty understanding of the ancient teachings on karma and reincarnation, Dr. Subramanian clarifies logically the nature of Moksha and why it is considered the most worthy goal in Hinduism.

shyam

As a way of introduction, Dr. Shyam Subramanian is a professor of medicine and also well trained in the classical traditions of Vedanta. Shyam-Ji’s knowledge of Sanskrit and understanding of subtle truths of the Upanishads makes him a brilliant exponent of various Eastern philosophies and religions from a Vedantic perspective. His writing is clear and easy to follow and very helpful for the novice and the advanced students of Hindu philosophy. If any errors have crept in Shyam-Ji’s presentation due to my minor editing, these will be corrected as soon as pointed out.

Continue reading →

Harsha's avatar

The Hindu Doctrine of Karma: By Dr. Sunder Hattangadi

. Advaita and Yoga . , , , , , , , , , , ,

Editor’s note: The doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation play an important role in laying the ethical foundations of conduct in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. In Bhagavad Gita, the sacred scripture of Hinduism, the path of Karma Yoga (The Yoga of Action) leading to liberation (Moksha) is laid out and explained by Sri Krishna.

In popular understanding, the term Karma can have connotations of both cause and effect. Karma can mean action and activity. It can also mean the fruit or the results of such action and activity that we have to bear. For example, ethical, noble, and selfless actions (karmas) are said to lead to good fortune in the future or in a future life. The opposite of that is true as well.

According to Hinduism, how one leads one’s life determines the mental state in the last moments. The mental atmosphere, ideas, and images occurring in the last moments of life lead to a particular type of rebirth (Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 8, verse 6).

In the article given below, Sri Sunder Hattangadi, a retired psychiatrist and a serious student of Sanskrit, discusses the concept of Karma with references to the classical scriptures of Hinduism. This piece is written at a very high level and a short bibliography is provided at the end for those interested in more information. Even though many Sanskrit terms are used in the text, Sunder-Ji provides excellent English translations to the Sanskrit verses which makes the article very readable by people of all backgrounds.

The original writing was posted by Sunder-Ji to the Advaitin list. The Advaitin list is one of the largest lists in the world to discuss the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta as taught by Adi Shankracharya. Sunder-Ji is a member and a moderator of the Advaitin list. His exceptional mastery of both English and Sanskrit make his works of great value.

I did restructure Sunder-Ji’s article a bit but not with much confidence in my judgment. If any errors have occurred, these will be corrected as soon as pointed out by Sunder-Ji and other learned members of the Advaitin list.

image

Sri Sunder Hattangadi

The Hindu Doctrine of Karma

Perhaps no word captures the mystery of human existence as suggestively as the word Karma. It is a word that evokes such a host of associated ideas – ethical-moral, psychological, metaphysical, and mystical – that one can easily lose one’s bearings in trying to understand it.

Krishna himself declares in Gita (4:17) – gahanA karmaNo gatiH – “hard to understand is the true nature of action”[`viShamA durj~neyA…yAthAtmyaM tattvam’]. It may be compared to exploring the Himalayan ranges to reach the peak of Kailasa, Shiva’s abode.

Simply defined, karma means action. The stem word, karman, is derived etymologically from the root verb (dhAtu) kRRi, to do, which also generates a multitude of other cognate words that are inextricably related to Karma – e.g. kartA (doer), kartavya/kArya (duty), kAraNa (cause), karaNa (instrument), and so on.

The definitions of Karma are modified by the prefixes, or adjectives, or compound words that are added to it, for example: Karmas may be described as sAtvika, rAjasika or tAmasika; nitya, naimittika; sa~nchita, kriyamANa (Agami), and prArabdha; kAmya, niShkAma; nyAyya, viparIta; shAstra-vidhanokta or avidhipUrvaka; akarma, vikarma, naiShkarmya; svabhAvaja/sahaja.

The Bhagavad-Gita, which Shankara has called `samasta-vedArtha-sAra-sa~Ngraha’ or the `epitome of the essentials of the whole Vedic teaching’ (or Spiritual Knowledge), is the incomparable vade mecum in explaining all the implications of the word Karma. It is a triune synthesis of dharma-shAstra, karma yoga-shAstra, and mokSha-shAstra. Any reader has a wide choice of verses to select in understanding this unique word. The present article is only one such selection, by no means exhaustive, and is only meant to serve as a pointer to other treasures.

Karma and Moksha: Action and Liberation

The word `karma’ yields over 300 words when associated with other prefixes and words to form compound words. The frequency of the word is relatively small in the Vedas & Upanishads, though the major portions of the Vedas (saMhita-s, brAhmaNa-s) are known as Karma-Kanda, i.e. dealing with rituals of worship. They, and the `dharma-shAstra’-s (scriptures on conduct), deal with the do’s and don’ts for the effective functioning of individuals, families, and society. The word has been repeated over a hundred times in the Gita.

The whole pursuit of Reality, the abode of Immortality (13:13) and Imperishable Bliss (5:21), is the effort to transcend the bondage or limitations caused by action. Every ego-centric action leaves an impression (vAsanA) on the mind (or chitta – the memory store-house) serving as a seed to germinate into further action, and results in consequences (karma-phala), that have to be experienced (enjoyed or suffered) in the present or subsequent life. These tendencies (vAsanA-s) can be countered by proper discipline of unselfish actions which leave impressions (saMskara-s). This wiping out of vAsanA-s (vAsanA-kShaya) itself is known as liberation (mukti).

The goal of action is to attain `actionlessness’, (naiShkarmya – Gita 3:4, 18:49). Immortality, freedom from delusion and sorrow and sin, peace, bliss, freedom from desire and anger, are the fruits of this pursuit, as attested in the following verses.

Gita 18:5, yaj~na-dAna-tapaH-karma pAvanAni manIShiNAm – purifiers of the wise.
5:11: “yogins perform action, without attachment for the purification of self.”
4:24 – “Brahman verily shall be reached by one who always sees Brahman in action.”
4:33 – “All action is comprehended in wisdom”.
4:37 – ” Wisdom-fire reduces all actions to ashes.”

Shankra Bhashya on Gita 3:16 states: ` ….till one attains the qualifications for Devotion to the knowledge of the Self, one who knows not the Self and is therefore qualified (for action only) should resort to Devotion to action as a means of attaining Devotion to knowledge.”

In Gita 4:25-32, Krishna defines the manifold yajna-s which are born of action (Bhashya: “in deed, speech and thought”, the not-Self, for the Self is actionless. If you realize that these are not my actions, I am actionless, I am unconcerned, you will be released by this right knowledge, from evil, from the bond of samsara”).

In Gita, 5:8-9, are described other actions (“seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping, breathing, speaking, letting go, seizing, opening and closing the eyes”,) which are expressed by a truth-knower as “I do nothing at all, the senses move among the sense-objects.”

Actions, or the flux of events or changes in phenomena, happen in Prakriti (Gita 7:4) or in Kshetra (13:5-6) when applied to an individual. 3:27 – “Actions are wrought in all cases by the energies of Nature (Prakriti). One whose mind is deluded by egoism thinks `I am the doer’. ”

How does Vedanta view Karma?

Gita 18:13 – (also 2:46, 4:33) Bhashya – “all action ceases when the knowledge of the Self arises, so that Vedanta, which imparts Self-knowledge, is the `end of action’; (sA~Nkhye kRRitAnte)”.

Other References From Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita on Karma

The classical definition of karma is given in Gita 8:3: bhUtabhAvodbhavakaro visargaH karmasaj~nitaH – “The offering which causes the origin of physical beings is called action (Karma)”.

Shankara Bhashya on this is: “The sacrificial act which consists in offering cooked rice, cakes and the like to the Gods (Devatas) and which causes the origin of all creatures, is known by the term Karma; for it forms the seed as it were of all beings; it is in virtue of this act that all beings, animate and inanimate, come into existence, after passing through rain and other regions of life.”

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1:6:1, states: “This Universe is formed of three entities: name, form, and action.”

Taittiriya Upanishad, 1:11:2-4, gives the guidelines – “……should you have any doubt with regard to duties or customs, you should behave in those matters just as the Brahmana-s (learned ones) do, who may happen to be there and who are able and noble thinkers, who are adept in those duties and customs, who are not directed by others, who are not cruel, and who are desirous of merit…..”

[Jaimini’s Karma Mimamsa codifies in aphorisms (3,454 in 16 chapters) the Karma Kanda (`dharma-jij~nAsA’) of the Veda-s, just as Badarayana’s Brahma Sutra-s (555 in 4 chapters) formulate the Upanishadic `brahma-jij~nAsA’ (Jnana Kanda).

Gita 3:14-15 – “From food creatures come forth; the production of food is from rain; rain comes forth from sacrifice; sacrifice is born of action; know thou that action comes from Brahman; and Brahman comes from the Imperishable. Therefore the all-pervading Brahman ever rests in sacrifice.”

Shankara Bhashya : “…Yajna or sacrifice spoken of refers to what is called `apUrva’; and this is the result of the activities of the sacrificer and his priests (ritviks) engaged in a sacrifice. These activities are enjoined in the Veda (Brahman), and the Veda comes from the Imperishable, the Paramatman, the Highest Self. Because the Veda has arisen from the Highest Self, the Akshara, the Imperishable, as the breath comes out of a man, therefore, the Veda, though all comprehending as revealing all things, ever rests in sacrifice, i.e., it treats mainly of sacrifices and the mode of their performance.”

As the reader can see, the word Karma has a rich history and heritage. A discussion of it is intimately tied to other topics such as reincarnation (rebirth) and moksha (liberation). Please review the following references for more information.

References:

http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/gitaindex.htm [Complete Works of
Shankara]

http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/ [various commentaries on
Gita]

https://luthar.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/karma_mimansa.pdf [Jaimini
Sutra-s on Karma Mimamsa]

http://www.archive.org/details/thekarmamaimaacm00keituoft

http://www.mimamsa.org/articles/brief_introduction.html

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/contentsbeach11.html (waves
9&11) [by Prof.V.Krishnamurty]

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/2/1994-2-09.shtml

https://luthar.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/waystotruth.pdf [by Ananda Wood]

Back To The Truth – Dennis Waite ; 2007 Ch 2; O Books, UK

Harsha's avatar

Hinduism and Vegetarianism: By Dr. K. Sadananda

. TEACHERS . , , , , , , , , ,

image

Editor’s note: Sada-Ji (Dr. K. Sadananda) is well known to the Hindu community in both the U.S. and in India. He is one of the most brilliant and thoughtful exponents of the Bhagavad Gita as well as the ancient philosophy of Advaita-Vedanta.

In this article, Sada-Ji discusses a practical question that frequently comes up among many students of Hinduism as well as many Westernized Hindus. The question is, “Should I become a vegetarian?”

I took the liberty to edit and restructure Sada-Ji’s original e-mail answer to this question for the purpose of this article to give it an easier reading flow. I hope that justice has been done to Sada-Ji’s explanations and that I have stayed within the limits of editorial license. Of course, any errors are mine and as soon as these are pointed out will be promptly corrected. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

***************************************************

Should I Become a Vegetarian?

Recently two questions were asked – Does Hinduism require one to believe in God? Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?

In a recent article, I have addressed the first question. Here I will provide some thoughts for the second question. In relation to the first question, I have discussed what Hinduism stands for and who is truly a Hindu. In essence, Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, and that Dharma is from time immemorial; it involves pursuit of Moksha through self-reflection, inquiry, and Self-Knowledge. Self-Knowledge in Hinduism is synonymous with Moksha (Liberation from the cycle of birth and death).

Therefore, the one who is seeking to understand the ultimate mystery of existence and thereby gaining salvation or release is a true Hindu, irrespective of the nationality, caste, creed or gender. With that catholic understanding, one can see that Hinduism becomes a way of life because the pursuit of the essential purpose of life is the goal of the ideal Hindu life. If you ask most Hindus whether they believe in God, you will get a firm “Yes”, in response.

With this perspective, it is easier to analyze all other questions including whether Hinduism requires one to be a vegetarian. Since the purpose of life is securing liberation or Moksha, until we reach that we need to maintain our body. Keeping the body healthy through proper nourishment is the Hindu Dharma. The human body is considered a temple of God. Therefore, it is sacred and should be treated with respect.

You asked whether a Hindu has to be a vegetarian. Well, it is a fact that not all Hindus are vegetarians. Hindu kings and princes and the warriors have eaten meat for thousands of years. So your question is not whether a Hindu should eat but whether you should eat meat. Since such a question has already arisen in your mind, perhaps you have developed a degree of sensitivity about harming other living forms to satisfy your physical hunger. If that is true, you may be better off not eating meat. That way you will be at peace with yourself. Since you are sensitive to this issue, your intellect may be directing you towards being a vegetarian. It is a possibility. However, your mind wants the pleasure of eating meat and your body may crave it due to past habits. So you have to reflect on this. Why has this question come up for you? What is the right thing for you to do?

Follow Your Self-Nature

When you go against your own intellect and good understanding of life you commit a sin. An act that is contrary to your SWADHARMA (your own nature) creates a conflict within you. So you have to reflect on whether being a vegetarian is natural to you or not. Now, of course, even the traditional non-vegetarians are choosing vegetarianism not because of any compassion to other animals but they are recognizing that meat is not good for their health.

I have already mentioned that Hinduism does not say to you “don’t do this and don’t do that”. You must determine your own actions based on your intellectual values, culture, education and primary goal in life. You will find that following your Swadharma (your own nature) will make you comfortable with yourself. It is not for others to judge what food is right for you! It is for you to decide.

While you are trying to decide whether to be a vegetarian do this experiment. Imagine your self to be a chicken or cow who is about to be slaughtered for food. Would you not advise the guy who wants to make a dinner out of you to be a vegetarian instead? The golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” can sometimes help shape our analysis.

Life Lives on Life

Life lives on life. That is the law of nature. Whether I eat an animal or plant, I am destroying a life in some form. Among all life forms, Man is different from the rest. He has the capability to discriminate right from wrong. That gives him the freedom of choice which animals and plants lack.

According to ancient teachings and our observations, plants have just a body and perhaps a rudimentary mind. Animals have both body and mind to express their feelings and suffering, but rudimentary intellect. Man has not only body and mind but also a well developed intellect to discriminate between good and bad, and to choose.

Man always has three choices: He can choose to do something, not to do it, or find another alternative way to do it that is more satisfactory. For animals and plants there is no freedom of choice. They are instinctively driven. The cow does not sit down before meals and inquires whether it should be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Same with the tiger or the eagle. They don’t say prayers before eating like we do. They just act according to their nature. No one can hold that against them.

Man and Sin

For a Man the discriminative intellect is much evolved. Plants and animals do not commit sin in their actions because there is no will involved in their actions. For a human, the story is different.

You may wonder why I brought sin in the argument. Let me explain. Sin is nothing but agitations in the mind. It is these agitations that prevent me in my journey to Moksha. Mind has to be pure (meaning un-agitated) for me to see the truth as the truth. (Bible also says blessed are those whose minds are pure).

To define sin more scientifically: It is the divergence between the mind and intellect. Intellect knows right from wrong. But we feel like doing things even though we know they are wrong . That is, the intellect says something but mind which should be subservient to the intellect rebels and does whatever it feels like. This divergence is sin.

After a wrong action is performed there is a guilt feeling. Intellect, although it was overruled, does not keep quiet. It keeps prodding “I told you it is wrong. Why did you do it?” With peace of mind gone, Man goes through a “Hell”. Man is not punished for the sin; he is punished by the sin! Think about it. All the Yoga schools, if you analyze clearly, are bringing this integration between the body, mind, and intellect so that there can be harmony. With harmony, there is peace.

For a true Yogi, what he thinks, what he speaks, and what he does are in perfect alignment. In our case, we think something but have no guts to say what we think. Our lips say something different from what we are thinking. Sometimes people say, “Watch My Lips or Read My Lips “. They mean to emphasize that what they say can be counted on. However, if you watch their lips as requested and follow their actions these are again different! There is no integration anywhere. Our lips and our hips have divergent paths. We live a chaotic life of freestyle dancing! Besides deceiving others, we deceive ourselves, and the worst thing is sometimes we don’t even realize that.

Animals and Sin

Now, when a tiger kills and eats, it does not commit a sin. Because its intellect is rudimentary, it does not go through any analysis before it kills and asks “should I kill or not kill this cute deer”? A tiger does not ask itself, “Should I be a non-vegetarian or a vegetarian?”. When it is hungry, to fill the natures demand, it kills its prey and eats what it needs and leaves the rest when it is full. A tiger does not overeat. There are no fat tigers in nature.

A tiger is not greedy either. It does not seek luxury beyond satisfying its needs. Animals and plants and birds and bees and insects and all living things follow a beautiful ecological system. It is only man who destroys the ecology by being greedy. But Man also has the beautiful instrument of the intellect and the ability to develop it and to meditate on the reality of the universe.

Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?

So yes, “Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?” is asked only by a man. Why does that question come? It comes due to reflection. Because man has a discriminative intellect, he can reflect on the nature of pain and suffering. Perhaps a man may think at some point in his life whether it is justifiable to harm and kill an animal to fill his belly. A person may reflect whether eating animals is consistent with the golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A man may consider whether this maxim applies to all forms of life or just other human beings.

Plants are life forms too. “Should one hurt them?” you may ask. If one can live without hurting any life forms that is the best, but that is not possible. Life lives on life – that is the law of nature. My role as a human being with discriminative intellect is to do the least damage to the nature for keeping myself alive and well.

At least, I am not consciously aware of suffering of the plants. That is why eating to live and not living to eat is the determining factor. In Bhagawad Geeta, Sri Krishna emphatically says that a Sadhaka (one who is in pursuit of Moksha) should have a compassion for all forms of life. There may come a point when it is advisable to be a vegetarian – only taking from nature what you need to keep the body in optimal health.

In one’s spiritual growth, one develops subtler and subtler intellect. That is, the mind becomes more sensitive, calmer, and self-contented. Your sensitivity to suffering of others also grows. Hence, the thought about becoming a vegetarian may come. Only you can decide what is right for you and not someone else. Any decision that is imposed on you from the outside does violence to your nature.

Many young people are now becoming vegetarians. They all have their own reasons. Fortunately vegetarianism is mainstream now and accepted. Most schools and universities offer vegetarian and even vegan meals and so the option to become a vegetarian is easier today than ever before.

Flowers grow in their own time. Whether you are vegetarian or not does not matter ultimately.

You are all flowers blooming in the light of the divine.

Hari Om and Tat Sat. – Sadananda