becoming

Just wanted to share this quote (from 500 BC):

All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. ... I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived! It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing. You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before.

~Heraclitus

satsang

I think the definition of satsang is "association with truth" which is taken to mean both our inner examination of and relationship to the truth, as well as our relationship with a community of like-minded individuals with whom we share philosophical readings, conversation, examinations, and experiences with and pertaining to the truth. It is quite similar to, if not the same as, the buddhist sangha. The idea is that our associations can keep us focused on the spiritual goal and, since negative associations can undermine a lot, positive, supportive associations are a benefit to cultivate since the path to truth is long and arduous. So, what we are doing in yoga school is also satsang. I don't think the idea is to promote conformity of thinking by surrounding yourself with like-minded people, but rather to have a supportive group you can turn to, talk with, and share with, even when (especially when?) you are struggling with something.

bhakti

My understanding of bhakti, thus far, is that it is the practice of love and devotion, specifically with regards to one's relationship to the divine, however the divine is conceived. In this practice, the love and devotion are valued above ritual and/or pure knowledge, either of which can be approached in a more clinical manner, and with bhakti the heart must be authentically engaged. The object of the devotion is usually god expressed in a form, however, what god means seems more open than what I have typically been exposed to. Still, there are some paths that devote themselves to serving god, and others that believe god is realized within us, in which case a life of service to god results in a merging with the divine, rather than getting to hang out at god's party. In either case, it is a participatory relationship with the divine.

love dogs

dharma

We have been asked about our understanding of dharma, which, as I understand it, has to do with following one’s path and that to attempt to follow a path that goes against your nature will only lead to misery. In some ways this makes perfect sense to me... who hasn't felt like they were swimming upstream when partaking in an activity that is not just foreign, or unfamiliar, but feels plain wrong, like wearing your shoes on the opposite feet.

This metaphoric rubbing the wrong way reminds me a lot of a scene in the film The Men Who Stare at Goats in which Lyn says to Bob:

“Have you ever hear of Optimum Trajectory before? Your life is like a river, Bob. If you’re aiming for a goal that isn’t your destiny, you will always be swimming against the current. Young Ghandi wants to be a stock-car racer? Not gonna happen. Little Anne Frank wants to be a High School teacher. Tough titty Anne. That’s not your destiny. But you will go on to move the hearts and minds of millions. Find out what your destiny is and the river will carry you.”

This is, of course, a bit reductionist, but it resonated with me all the same and very much seems to be in keeping with the idea of dharma. I also think dharma has to do with turning inward to find liberation, rather than seeking it externally. In order to find truth, cultivate compassion, purify the self, etc. one must look inward and develop deep awareness. I'd imagine that having such awareness also makes it much easier to see clearly your path. And perhaps it isn't even necessary to know exactly where the path leads, just that it moves you in the right direction, right, here, being defined as not simply what feels good, but what decidedly does not feel wrong. We waste a lot of hours doing things that, if they don't feel wrong, then at least don't actually move us any closer to what would feel more right.

Oh, now I've wandered into right and wrong territory. Dangerous. Mucky logic problems tend to pop up in here. Best to wander back away now...

guru

What exactly is a guru? And is a guru a necessary part of the path to enlightenment? The word comprises gu, which means darkness, and ru, which means the destroyer of that darkness. As with any great teacher, then, the guru is one who understands darkness and can also dispel the darkness by illuminating it. But what does that mean, exactly? Teachers arrive in many forms... books can illuminate the way. Any of my lovely yoga teachers are continually illuminating the path for all of their students. But does that make them gurus? My understanding of a guru includes the idea that this person possesses the ability to transmit energy to the student and, through this transmission, can dissolve spiritual ignorance or energetic blockages that prevent the student from understanding and dispelling the darkness they possess. So, by this standard, does that mean a person who can bestow shaktipat is necessarily one's guru? I have a friend who has received shaktipat twice now from a local shaman, but I don't think either of them view their relationship as that of guru and student. So what makes a guru more than just a teacher? And how does one determine whether they've encountered a guru? The Dalai Lama says to "rely on the teachings to evaluate a guru: do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism."

karma

The concept of karma is, naturally, a recurring theme in our philosophical discussions at yoga school. Though we have talked about it a lot, I have to say that I don't feel any more comfortable with the concept than I did at the outset. I think I have, perhaps, a better understanding of it, seeing it now as more than simple cause and effect (though, that is related to it) and viewing it more as action that ripples out in all directions, affecting the past, present, and future. So, there are actions and there are responses that correspond to those actions, but it is not necessarily a 1 to 1 linear causal relationship.

What I have trouble with, however, is the notion that somehow we all get exactly what we deserve or require. On one level, I can see the potential benefit from experiencing all things, high and low, good and bad, easy or difficult, because, at least if one is truly present and aware, one can learn from any and all experiences, and thus advance in personal and spiritual endeavors. But, from there it seems to delve into seriously mucky territory, because it is rather a short leap then, to say that the person who was born into poverty or warfare is somehow acting out their karmic inheritance, or working out their karmic relationships, that somehow their previous actions have created or influenced their present circumstances. Again, on some level, I can follow the logic, because a person born to abhorrent circumstances still has the opportunity to respond to them, and, based on that response, may advance spiritually, burning off karmic debt, or what not.

I guess what makes me uncomfortable is this seems like a very easy, too easy, way of accounting for economic inequities and other, worse, injustices in the world, and thereby somehow justify classism and all the other stupid hierarchies and ~isms that are so intensely problematic. You know, logic that says, well, we have been born to privilege and therefore we must have done something to deserve it, or we would have been born into something else... and I can't get on board with that idea. Which is to say, while I feel I have a clearer picture of karma (which is much more nuanced than I've indicated here) I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it.