What if we are all kidding ourselves?

Do you guys ever worry that maybe at the time of your death, all of your spiritual effort will have turned out to have been completely pointless? We have no way of knowing that what we are doing is realisic, besides the word of a few proclaimed mystics and trust in scriptures. Perhaps you have proofs of some sort? It's not easy for me to have faith in something unfounded...I've always questioned everything...it's what brought be here in the first place. What do you guys do if you start feeling doubtful like this?

 

Several things I'd say here.
First - death is inevitable for the body, we know that. Some continuation of consciousness is possible, but maybe it will just be snuffed out. However - let's not think or focus too much on death, rather, let's look at the life of man/woman here on earth. Are humans living to their full potential? It seems given the evidence of yogis and other illuminates that generally, that is not so. Only a fraction of the potential is actually realized. Thus, if through spiritual sadhana or any form of self-development we can have a greater life -'living more abundantly' as Christ said, then clearly it is worthwhile anyway. After all, no-one really wants to be only half awake or half alive.

Myself, I consider some form of immortality to be quite likely. I can't offer 'proof' of that, but just look at all the human cultures that have believed it. it is only modern industrial materialism that has lost sight of this. Proof in the scientific sense is out of the question, but one can certainly have experiences of various types that give an assurance that death is not the end for our consciousness. That doesn't mean to say that what we now think of as 'me' ie the outer personality will continue very long, but the inner essence, the spark of consciousness within will continue.
Hence the emphasis in yoga on transcending the individual, and the individual attachments etc.

Faith and doubt is a big subject, and can't be covered adequately here, but I'd just say that faith is something which can be easily misunderstood.
Let's say what faith is not - it is not simply an intellectual assent to a series of propositions. It is more an acceptance of the highest truth as seen by the individual.
Faith in scriptures etc is ok on one level, but even if you have experiences, faith is still needed - faith in the veracity of the experience. However, if you do have an experience of the Divine, it leaves little room really for doubt at the time. Later on, doubts may creep in.
And doubt, or questioning are very necessary. If we didn't question anything. we could easily end up believing total nonsense. However, doubt can also become a kind of vehicle for the lower forces in oneself to seek to assert their dominance. Yoga is in one sense 'against nature', in that it means being open to the higher side of the nature only, and a rejection of the usual dominace of desire and so on.

Here is an extract from Sri Aurobindo's 'Synthesis of Yoga' which deals with this. IMHO it's worth reading this slowly and with care.



"The perfect faith is an assent of the whole being to the truth seen by it or offered to its acceptance, and its central working is a faith of the soul in its own will to be and attain and become, and its idea of self and things and its knowledge, of which the belief of the intellect, the heart's consent and the desire of the life mind to possess and realise are the outward figures.

This soul faith, in some form of itself, is indispensable to the action of the being and without it man cannot move a single pace in life, much less take any step forward to a yet unrealised perfection. It is so central and essential a thing that the Gita can justly say of it that whatever is a man's shraddha, that he is, yo yacchraddhah sa eva sah, and, it may be added, whatever he has the faith to see as possible in himself and strive for, that he can create and become.

There is one kind of faith demanded as indispensable by the integral Yoga and that may be described as faith in God and the Shakti, faith in the presence and power of the Divine in us and the world, a faith that all in the world is the working of one divine Shakti, that all the steps of the Yoga, its strivings and sufferings and failures as well as its successes and satisfactions and victories are utilities and necessities of her workings and that by a firm and strong dependence on and a total self-surrender to the Divine and to his Shakti in us we can attain to oneness and freedom and victory and perfection.



The enemy of faith is doubt, and yet doubt too is an utility and necessity, because man in his ignorance and in his progressive labour towards knowledge needs to be visited by doubt, otherwise he would remain obstinate in an ignorant belief and limited knowledge and unable to escape from his errors. This utility and necessity of doubt does not altogether disappear when we enter on the path of Yoga. The integral Yoga aims at a knowledge not merely of some fundamental principle, but a knowing, a gnosis which will apply itself to and cover all life and the world action, and in this search for knowledge we enter on the way and are accompanied for many miles upon it by the mind's unregenerated activities before these are purified and transformed by a greater light: we carry with us a number of intellectual beliefs and ideas which are by no means all of them correct and perfect and a host of new ideas and suggestions meet us afterwards demanding our credence which it would be fatal to seize on and always cling to in the shape in which they come without regard to their possible error, limitation or imperfection. And indeed at one stage in the Yoga it becomes necessary to refuse to accept as definite and final any kind of intellectual idea or opinion whatever in its intellectual form and to hold it in a questioning suspension until it is given its right place and luminous shape of truth in a spiritual experience enlightened by supramental knowledge. And much more must this be the case with the desires or impulsions of the life mind, which have often to be provisionally accepted as immediate indices of a temporarily necessary action before we have the full guidance, but not always clung to with the soul's complete assent, for eventually all these desires and impulsions have to be rejected or else transformed into and replaced by impulsions of the divine will taking up the life movements. The heart's faith, emotional beliefs, assents are also needed upon the way, but cannot be always sure guides until they too are taken up, purified, transformed and are eventually replaced by the luminous assents of a divine Ananda which is at one with the divine will and knowledge. In nothing in the lower nature from the reason to the vital will can the seeker of the Yoga put a complete and permanent faith, but only at last in the spiritual truth, power, Ananda which become in the spiritual reason his sole guides and luminaries and masters of action. And yet faith is necessary throughout and at every step because it is a needed assent of the soul and without this assent there can be no progress. Our faith must first be abiding in the essential truth and principles of the Yoga, and even if this is clouded in the intellect, despondent in the heart, outwearied and exhausted by constant denial and failure in the desire of the vital mind, there must be something in the innermost soul which clings and returns to it, otherwise we may fall on the path or abandon it from weakness and inability to bear temporary defeat, disappointment, difficulty and peril. In the Yoga as in life it is the man who persists unwearied to the last in the face of every defeat and disillusionment and of all confronting, hostile and contradicting events and powers who conquers in the end and finds his faith justified because to the soul and Shakti in man nothing is impossible. And even a blind and ignorant faith is a better possession than the sceptical doubt which turns its back on our spiritual possibilities or the constant carping of the narrow pettily critical uncreative intellect, asuya, which pursues our endeavour with a paralysing incertitude. The seeker of the integral Yoga must however conquer both these imperfections. The thing to which he has given his assent and set his mind and heart and will to achieve, the divine perfection of the whole human being, is apparently an impossibility to the normal intelligence, since it is opposed to the actual facts of life and will for long be contradicted by immediate experience, as happens with all far-off and difficult ends, and it is denied too by many who have spiritual experience but believe that our present nature is the sole possible nature of man in the body and that it is only by throwing off the earthly life or even all individual existence that we can arrive at either a heavenly perfection or the release of extinction. In the pursuit of such an aim there will for long be plenty of ground for the objections, the carpings, asuya, of that ignorant but persistent criticising reason which founds itself plausibly on the appearances of the moment, the stock of ascertained fact and experience, refuses to go beyond and questions the validity of all indices and illuminations that point forward; and if he yields to these narrow suggestions, he will either not arrive or be seriously hampered and long delayed in his journey. On the other hand ignorance and blindness in the faith are obstacles to a large success, invite much disappointment and disillusionment, fasten on false finalities and prevent advance to greater formulations of truth and perfection. "

http://intyoga.online.fr/ysp_18.htm

 

Thank you for the enlightening article BBB. It certainly helped me sort a lot of stuff out. What triggered my doubts was the fact that nearly every branch of Hinduism has some dogma, when I'd rather there be none at all. Traditional Theravadin Buddhism to me is based soley on logic, and the goal is only rarely mentioned, let alone a personal god. This makes it much easier to practice, because it makes perfect sense. You don't really have to have faith in anything, because it is already confirmed through logic. Hinduism just relies to much on the belief in the authority of scriptures, revealed by God. I always think I find a form of Hinduism that suits my needs, but than sooner or later something I can't take in fully comes along. I thought that advaita was for me, but than it seems that the only logic Shankara uses is the fact that he believes in the divine potency of the scriptures. "Oh the Bhagavad-Gita said this so it must be true, and it MUST mean this..." and so on and so forth. I've had experiences that confirm my belief in the basic doctrine of Advaita, but there always has to be the "you must do this, you must read this, you must believe in this, you must worship this way, you musnt do this, if you don't practice the prescribed method revealed in the so and so..." and so on and so forth. To me spirituality should be a very simple thing, where it is ultimately the individuals heart that chooses how to worship, or how to meditate etc. I just want to find a practical, logical way to find truth. It seems to be Buddhism as far as I can see. Gautama seems to have found a very convinient way to work around the whole God idea leaving little room for doubt, although I do believe it is still there in the end one way or another.

 

Razor...I'm glad Bill got to you first...I was going to quote a list of Gita verses.

 

I'm glad if the item helped.
Really though I think Buddhism can be just as dogmatic as Hinduism. (Theravada more so perhaps than Mahyana) For instance there are the 4 noble truths - they come from a spieces of logic no doubt, and they are logical in form, but still, one has to accept 'all life is suffering' which is a premise which one wouldn't necessarily arrive at on purely logical grounds. Also, a faith in the possibility of attaining Nirvavna would seem a requirement. And faith that Gautama at least achieved this.
There are many schools of yoga and of Hinduism - some get very complex. I agree that simplicity is better. But even in the Gita, it can all be brought down to a very simple formulation, usually the verse cited is xh 18 vs 66:

"Abandon all dharmas and just take refuge in Me alone. I will deliver thee from all sin and evil, do not grieve"

or

"Give up all varieties of religion and just surrender to Me. I shall protect you from all sinful reactions. Therefore you have nothing to fear"

The big mistake that is often made is to think that what works for one will work for all. Thus if a person attains something they may begin to try to teach others, and just assume that because a particular formulation such as a scripture, or a given method has worked for them it will be effective in every case. But things aren't like that. Various formulations of truth, even when they apparently contradict each other can be valid and useful. A method which helps one person may not help another at all.

Also, and of great import, it is neccessary to see that there is a difference between what can be called 'popular' religion, ie exoteric outward forms etc, and the path of the initiate, the esoteric or inner path. Often, the adherents of outer religion are only repeating what they've heard - they don't have the inner realization. This accounts for many of the errors of religion, and also for the growth of an unwieldy 'superstructure' of over constructed dogmas and so on. All that belongs more to the human need and drive to have everything spelled out in purely mantal, linguistic terms, but as Sri Aurobindo says in the piece I posted:

"at one stage in the Yoga it becomes necessary to refuse to accept as definite and final any kind of intellectual idea or opinion whatever in its intellectual form and to hold it in a questioning suspension until it is given its right place and luminous shape of truth in a spiritual experience "

The real 'Hinduism' doesn't rely on scriptures any more than any other religion. It relies on the living experience of initiates who have seen or realized the truth for themselves. I think that applies across the board to all religions. Scriptures, theologies, philosophies, prescribed practices etc are really only an aid - not the thing itself.

 

I suppose I question finding my own means to the goal. My own practices and rituals. I guess my problem here is a lack of faith in my lack of faith. Its like I get scared, all of these religions teach their own ONE way to the goal, proper practices and the like, and when they seem not to be my cup of tea I begin to question my faith. What if these people are right? What if you do have to speak the so and so mantra 1000 times a day with ash on your eyelids facing the north? What if simply sitting and feeling a presence, making mental offerings(because it feels right) is useless, only a high hope? Why do they have to go and make it so damn complex and ridiculous? I feel like its so absurd that the only logical explanation is that it must be truth...maybe you do absolutely have to practice a certain way. I'd rather just listen to some good music, meditate, or go outside to get in touch with my spiritual nature. But what if that leads to nothing? Sure it makes me feel joyful and spiritual, but will it take me to the end goal? Do I have to practice a certain way with an extreme amount of effot to reach the goal, or is it okay to let spirituality come to me?

 

All traditional schools of mystical philosophy stress some kind of practice and discipline...you need to try some practices and see which produce results. Results aren't difficult to come by in the early stages..."take one step toward God, He takes ten toward you"...sustaining the discipline over the long intermediate haul is the killer.

Without following a disciplined path, you'll have no real direction, and sustaining faith won't develop...just a New-Agey dreamy wandering.

 

First off, my advice is calm down! You can't expect to get full reaization of the truth in five minutes!
It is absurd to imagine that only a particular form of spiritual endeavour can lead to realization. If you study the works of Hindu and Christian mystics and saints, you will soon discover that through utterly different practices and forms of belief, they have all arrived at the goal of knowing God.
There is no one 'right way' which will work for everyone - it's as simple as that. The truly great seers often begin in a given tradition but end up with universality - an appeal to all.

What really matters in my view is to have aspiration - aspiration to rise to the highest level possible for you at this time, and aspiration to know the Divine and work for Him or Her or It.
Thus if you believe in the Divine Mother, reciting a Durga mantra and saying Hail Mary's can both be a channel for that aspiration. So can dancing - both Hare Krishnas and Sufis do this, listening to music or anything which carries you out of yourself and gives that feeling of the Divine you mention.
Trouble is that we have all been educated to think there's a right way and a wrong way to do anything. From a worldly point of view, that is often true. Driving a car for example means we have to all accept the one set of rules of the road and operate the machine in a given way. But spirituality is different. Many would like to monopolize it and say they have the only way - some are mistaken, others are 'on the make'.

My advice would be to deliberately look at different things - and try to see what it is they have in common. Things are not as black and white as they seem. I know, because I have learned to respect saints of various traditions, as they seem to have something to say to me. I recently sent an Indian friend a copy of the autobiography of St. Therese of Liseaux for instance - he is as 'Hindu' as you can get, but agrees with me that she was a spiritual giant and a great lover of God. There are Buddhist figures, Sufis, Chinese sages and other 'modern' teachers I also respect. Thing is, it all takes time......

Have you ever looked into the teaching of Sri Ramakrishna? He too said followers of all paths will get realization.

 

I agree spook - what can prove difficult is finding what is appropriate to the given individual. I don't mean to say that one need do nothing, or that a 'laissez faire' (excuse my French) type attitude is at all useful on the spiritual path.

I agree too that sustaining it all esp. through hard times is the real challenge. But it's all 'grist for the mill' in the end. Periods of doubt etc are sure to come on the path - no matter what particular direction one takes. Ultimately, they can serve to stregnthen one's faith and resolve.

 

Discard all teachings, scriptures, thoughts, everything. That is not the proof you seek. That proof you can only find for yourself in an intimate inner experience of truth. Without that everythign else is merely intellectual masturbation.

 

Bill...before I attempted to follow any spiritual path seriously, I had some non-drug-induced spontaneous personal revelations, feelings of supernormal love and universal unity, as well as drug-induced transcendental experiences a couple of times...but relatively little to relate it all to, so I just let it all pass and got on with my life, which turned out to be a good path to follow...I was in my mid 30's before I took an interest in spiritual matters again and really only since I passed into the 50's that I've gotten "more serious".


Speaking of practices, I never was a very good quiet meditator...always full of energy and movement...the active approach of Krishna Consciousness suits me. Results come, sometimes iduring a good kirtan or bhajan, sometimes during japa, sometimes during reading, listening to a class or discussing spiritual matters with others...and it's tangible results plus philosophical grounding that assure me of the validity of the entire spiritual experience. Many other folks find the Hare Krishna thing to be an overload and I can certainly understand that...we're all spiritual individuals and God has a place for each seeker.

I picked up on Gurdjieff's concept of the "stupid saint" in reading related to Sri Krishna Prem...it certainly seems to test out in real life. I've always had the assumption that if one achieved significant spiritual advancement, the intellectual realization that a universal truth underlies the "dogmas" of all faiths would automatically follow. This seems to substantiate the need for a guru or spiritual teacher and a working knowledge of comparitive religions.

 

Spook - I agree that drug induced visions etc tend to evaporate rather rapidly. I don't mean to say that it's not necessary to find a path which one feels comfortable with, or that a vacuous 'new-age' type of mentality is at all desirable.
Often it is neccessary to limit oneself to a given set of practices, the only difficulty being in finding what is appropriate to the given individual. But this limitation can actually be expansive, or lead to a spiritual expansion. If someone has something which works for tham, I certainly wouldn't say they should drop it - all I would plead for is an acceptance that there are different paths, and as I said earlier, what works for one may not work for all.
I am not a catholic - but I can appreciate the deep realization and love of some catholic saints, and by a kind of empathy even get a taste of their experience.
I also agree that some sound philosophical basis is a highly desirable thing. With the proviso that this shouldn't become too dogmatic or inflexible.

Where Gurdjieff's idea of the 'stupid saint' is concerned, I don't know how much of the backgound to this statement you or others may be aware of, so I'll try to briefly explain the basis of his thinking.

Gurdjieff, like the yogis of India, and the Sufis of central Asia, from whom he learned a great deal, separates the being of man(woman too!) into various parts, levels or centres.

According to Gurdjieff, there are three main centres (also other more minor ones). These are: the moving centre, the feeling centre and the thinking centre. The moving centre means really the physical, but also the movements etc of the body, and that which directs these movements. The feeling centre is concerned with emotion, with 'gut feelings' etc. The thinking centre, naturally enough is concerned with thought, with reason and knowledge.

G says that for any kind of self development, work on these centres is necessary. In terms of traditions of India, Asia, the Middle East and also esoteric Christianity, he says there are three basic types of person who seek such a development, but they usually work on one centre, or at least concentrate their efforts at a given centre. This gives rise to G's 'three ways' viz. the way of the 'fakir', by which G means the ascetic type who practices physical feats etc, and to a lesser extent those who rely on outer physical means of working, the 'monk' by which he means the devotional type, and the 'yogi', by which is meant really the jnana yogi.

Thus, the man who develops only the thinking centre may attain great hights of knowledge, and what G terms 'objective reason' (ie pure thought, freed from any influence of the lower centres etc), but still remain cold and aloof. The 'monk' develops the feeling centre, often to a very high degree, but still because the work on the thinking centre is neglected, he remains 'stupid'.
The ascetic may often be capable of physical feats that defy reason - there are many cases of hatha yogis and ascetic sadhus who have performed exraordinary feats, but still they reamain 'stupid' and they have probably killed off any possibility of real feeling in themselves.
Obviously many 'mixtures' also exist.

Gurdjieff says there is also a fourth way - where all three centres are worked on at once, the goal being a rounded and balanced development.
In many ways, all this reminds me very much of the three yogas of the Gita - Bhakti, Jnana and Karma. The 'fourth way' would be represented by a synthesis of all three ways.

 

I once read somewhere Tim Leary describe meditation as 'transcendental masturbation'!

Not that I agree necessarily, although I know what he was getting at - nor do I accept that one can simply discard any intellectual basis for spirituality. It is only the dominance of the intellect that can be a problem.

 

Intellect is useful, a valuable asset, but it is not essential. Love is more than sufficient. Purity of heart and silent meditation is enough. Ramana was not an intellectual. He failed his way through school. After realization he wrote several wonderful texts, but that is a different matter altogether. Same with Ammachi. She was an uneducated fisherman's daughter, who was an outcaste even in her own family. She was not intellectual, but a pure loving soul.
Also, as long as there is intellect, there is doubt also. Only when we finally leave it behind nd rise on its shoulders to higher and truer things, that doubts finally are destroyed. So if an ultimate proof, an end doubt is to be found, it is not in the intellect, for the intellect is the very seat of all doubt.

The thing is the intellect, the heart, the body, are all tools. Does not matter which chisel you use, so long as the final sculpture is a beautiful image of the lord.

 

What I meant to emphasize is that some a priori intellectual knowledge can help one understand the nature of transcendental or spiritual experiences that the average seeker may have very early on...like having become familiar with the road map of an unknown country before venturing across the border. Ammachi and Ramana Maharshi are very clearly far, far beyond "average seekers"!

Yes, surrender of the heart is the key and western people, especially Americans, often have a very hard time with this...we get turned on by all the cool stories and intellectual stuff involved in Vedic philosophy and spirituality but are also steeped from an early age in a wierd combination of rigid scientific thought, lack of personal discipline, heavy materialism, and orthodox Christianity, Judaism, or outright atheism...the transformation into a simple, pure-hearted bhakta can be like turning lead to gold.

Great book I'm now reading, "In Seach of the Unitive Vision", examines the psychology and difficulty of this transformation from the perspective of an American seeker and his inner struggles.

 

Intellect is the knowing part of the mind. Without intellect, the mind is simply moved by feelings and does not have lasting knowledge of what has happened to it. An abiding love resides in knowing God and souls, not simply feeling joy in the moment, with no knowledge of another moment. The intellect detaches us from now and makes us deeper beings, with deeper comprehension of love.

Sure, one can feel bliss without intellect, but one does not love without it (the knowing portion of the mind). Even a puppy's recognition of its provider resides in the pup's intellect (knowing portion of its mind).

 

Intellect, buddhi, in Hindu shastras is treated as the analytical portion of the mind, not the recognizing factor, which is chitta.

 

I agree both Ammachi and Ramana Maharishi are great beings - but Spook is right, they are not ordinary seekers.
Also, it's a fact that there have been great spiritual personalities who had very highly developed intellect - Swami Vivekanada and Sri Aurobindo for two.
Both were experts in many branches of philiosophy.

One person inclines one way in line with their right path in life, another person goes a different route .
The intellect can be a seat of doubt - or it can be a great asset, it is necessary to know its limits. Also never to mistake the pre-rational or sub-rational for the supra-rational.(not that I think you do Bhaskar, but it is something that happens).

 

Intellect: 1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will : the capacity for knowledge b : the capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed

Lost in translation.

 

My understanding is that buddhi is something beyond what western philosophy defines as intellect. I also think it above manas in the scale, not actually part of it?