Fanatical vegetarianism

Sw. Venkatesananda:

A vegetarian - she's a fanatical vegetarian - asked me, "Is pure vegetarianism necessary for yoga practice?"

I said, "Not so important. Let's talk about something else."

And she was horrified. She came back to me and said, "How can you say that? You can't say that vegetarianism is of secondary value. You must say it's of primary value."

I replied, "Forgive me - I said something, but it doesn't really matter."

I then asked her, "Do you believe in war, defence forces, defending your country, and so on?"

"Yes," she said, "otherwise how can we live? We have to."

I replied, "If I call you a cannibal, how do you react to that? This man kills a small animal to sustain his life, but you are willing to kill people to sustain yours. Like a cannibal."

She didn't like that, but I think she saw the point later.

Pp. 190-1, discussions between Swami Venkatesananda and J. Krishnamurti, Four sayings chapter, The Awakening of Intelligence, J. Krishnamurti, 2016, KFI.

I am not against a vegetarian diet, and Krishnamurti was a strict vegetarian throughout his life (as far as I know). But ahimsa (non-injury), one of the bases for vegetarianism, is unconditional and applies to all actions, not just eating.

Sahaj Marg recommends vegetarian food primarily to match with spiritual growth. But, if necessary to save a human life, non-vegetarian food is not forbidden. Better use of resources (a kilo of rice costs less to grow than a kilo of meat) and consistency in ahimsa are other reasons to be vegetarian.

Spiritual experiences and religions

I believe spirituality is essentially spiritual experience. One who experiences does not need a theoretical explanation, though it is helpful in interactions with others. Someone experiences and then may talk or write about it, with more or less success.  Others try to explain the experiences in their own words, and then, an organisation is created, primarily to support others trying to get the same experience.

For example, Indian ṛṣis had spiritual experiences. The major Upaniṣads came out of the description and discussion of these experiences with fellow ṛṣis, or with their families and students. Consistency, or an overarching conceptual framework, was not important as the experience which came from some-thing or some-where or some-when beyond the ṛṣi, and was subject to unknown rules. An experience was generally unique and called śruti, hearing/heard (rough translation) because a ṛṣi tuned-in to the flow of a universal, dynamic consciousness in as egoless a state as possible. Words emanating from such experiences were considered sacrosanct and may have been transmitted across millenia without so much as a syllable being changed.

From the personal experiences of the Indian ṛṣis to Indian temples is an interesting conceptual journey, generally portrayed as going from intensely-inward focus and general, but simple, lifestyle to an outward or material focus and specialised, elaborately delineated, lifestyle. Thus, ṛṣis probably focused on meditation, few rituals, and farming in their ashrams, possibly bartering with other ashrams for non-local produce. By the time temples were prevalent, societies had specialised occupations, rituals conducted by priests, and currency-driven transactions.

Religions or religious systems are discussed differently in The Commanding Self by Idries Shah [1]:

All religious systems are based on personal experience (stage 1), which has been codified (stage 2), and applied to a community (stage 3). When the 3 ranges become confused, or if one or other is forgotten, people imagine that the organisation is all, or that the rules are paramount, or that neither of these matters since they are seeking only personal illumination.

When people agitate for personal experience, they may attack institution or dogma, imagining that these are what stand in the way. What they have in fact encountered as problems is the growth of those areas until they claim to represent, extinguish or replace personal experience. What has happened is that the balance between the 3 elements is lost, not that one or another is paramount or interchangeable with others.

[1] Section II, 3 Significant Modes of Human Organisation and Learning, The Commanding Self, Idries Shah, 1997 ed., Octagon Press, London. ISBN 0-863040-70-5

Questions from universal consciousness

My answers are intuitive and common-sensical. (See Meditation on Universal Consciousness post for context.)

1. Which is your particular body or mind?

Consciousness is now the subject and it permeates all bodies and minds in its space.

2. Are the thoughts, emotions, or physical sensations of one body-mind complex any qualitatively different from those of any other body-mind complex?

No, they shouldn't be.

In heartfulness meditation, I have fleetingly experienced thoughts and images unconnected to my life. But there was no attachment or even much curiosity.

2a. Are they any more or less important?

No, I don't think so. A universal standpoint seems to preclude prioritisation of one body-mind complex over another.

3. What distinguishes consciousness in one body-mind complex from the consciousness in another?

Samskaras. They colour the actions and reactions of each BMC.

5. What about the consciousness existing in the space between the two complexes? How is it different?

It is not localized, and so has no ahamkara or has a universal ahamkara.

The term vaiswanara is close, but encompasses too much technical detail. Para Brahman is better.

Meditation on universal consciousness

At some point, advaita started making sense experientially. It needs a complete change in perspective [1], transcendental rather than localized to a single body.

Try this meditation/visualization:

Imagine the place you are seated in is filled with consciousness (or awareness).

Imagine that you are that awareness.

Feel that you are filling that space completely.
Feel the presence of every living being there (human beings, animals, insects, plants, sub-microscopic things,...) [2]
Then the presence of every non-living thing (furniture, soil, water, air, ...) [2]

Let the space of awareness expand gradually, stepwise.
With each expansion, feel the presence of everything in that space. [2]

Continue till the entire universe is included. [3]

Questions:

You are the consciousness spread over a large space, both inside and outside all the body-mind units in that space.

1. Which is your particular body or mind?
2. Are the thoughts, emotions, or physical sensations of one body-mind complex any qualitatively different from those of any other body-mind complex?
2a. Are they any more or less important?
3. What distinguishes consciousness in one body-mind complex from the consciousness in another?
5. What about the consciousness existing in the space between the two complexes? How is it different?

[1] Trying to merge into universal consciousness while aware of your individual consciousness is probably impossible. Ramana Maharshi has termed this as trying to stand on your own shoulders.
[2] Details may become fuzzy after a point, don't fret.
[3] Consciousness fills the entire universe, you are simply dissolving the artificial boundaries of your localized awareness.