Amusing ourselves

At first, the attraction to arcana is born of curiosity and intrigue, and probably boredom. Ones ordinary life gets injected with a newfound glimmer, feeling secrecy and mystery now surrounding him. This is only an initial, immature phase of esoterism; and we mustn't linger there.

In the West, fascination with phenomena and mystery keeps one trapped at a lower level-- nevermind the fact that the experience of 'phenomena' certainly doesn't point to having experienced anything of a higher level whatsoever. Your own nature determines whether you stay at this level or are qualified to rise higher, out beyond ordinary life. The trappings of awe are such that they keep us in the psychic realm of amusement-seeking, which is inferior to a truly spiritual domain.

"...how could they affect one who, seeing all things in their principle, knows that no matter what the appearances may be, they are ultimately only elements of the total order?" 

Currently reading

 A new book and a new knitting project, too- finally learning cabling!

The divine state

Abandoning all desires, acting without cravings, free from all thoughts of I and my, that man finds utter peace. This is the divine state, Arjuna, absorbed in it everywhere, always, even at the moment of death, he vanishes into God's bliss.(Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, verses 71-72)

Today's hike up the mountain

One of the joys of hiking is the noticing- rocks, bones, leaves, blossoms, birds, prints, smell of pine, of sage, sound of birds, wind. But we can take it beyond this when the trek up the mountain becomes a micro spiritual pilgrimage. Whether it's one or the other of course depends on our individual constitution. With each step taken toward the ascent, the senses noticing fades to a peripheral blur and the walker and the symbol merge, joined by the hazy euphoria of detachment that washes over when we let the petty fall away, the mundanities of a chattering mind. Timelines intersect- the very long, very large, geographical ones and our own small biology passing through, so relatively short and transient, we bring our whirling minds along the trail, until finally we merge with the symbol and the hike becomes just another practice. Of course it is! The trail up the mountain is a representation of the journey upward, full of struggle, dangers lurking, breathing hard, carrying a heavy load, sun beating down on us... we stumble and are humbled, and we smile, even if consumed, because in our strife there is meaning, purpose, connection, an experience far beyond the ooh of an interesting rock, bone, or leaf. And death is no fear.

Does it matter which path we take to reach the top of the mountain?

Click to listen ^

The idyll

 

I love this painting so much. To me, it represents the idyll- a solitary ascetic life, tending the basics, and otherwise reaching for union with God at every second. There are so many distractions in regular life, such striving to become, so much we mistake as being important.

Currently reading

 

Observation from a coffee shop drive-thru

The perceived dullness and mundanity of modern life is due to the state of modern minds, and does not speak to reality itself. In any given moment, there is much more available to us, so if you feel life to be mundane, boring, dull, trivial... you must call upon yourself to deepen so that more of the experience, beyond the five senses, can be interacted with. 

Rene Guenon, "The Reign of Quantity & The Signs of the Times"

Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance (a rant)

The reframing of dissenting opinions (those that differ from the popular narrative) into "hate speech" is a truly terrifying path we're on in the West. I have watched otherwise decent and intelligent people fall prey to these narratives; I used to be able to disagree with a friend, have conversations, and go on loving them despite, and this is something I'm still willing to do, but I'm seeing proof that the politically correct folk who follow the popular narrative espoused by the establishment and the likes of NPR, are no longer able to do this. Is it their own decision? Their own growth? I have a hard time believing so, as we were able to have such conversations just a few years back, and go on being friends. Instead, I feel that it's the downloads they're getting which relabel disagreement as dangerous, as deadly. It's extreme, it's cult-like, but the programming has happened gradually enough that they see it as normal. But were it not for the media, would they hold these views, these definitions, these filters of seeing through, of categorizing? And with such conviction, like carrying a sacred object! Isn't it proof that the modern mind, steeped as it is in dense matter, believing in only the physical world, in the temporary, who has slain all things of the transcendent nature, still longs to cling to something, to hold something as sacred, and that something just happens to be the current events of their era. It's hard for me to imagine such a void now, such a simplistic way of living, so empty and weightless that it gets carried with the tide of the day, but it's not impossible to imagine as I've been there too. I've thought in that way before, with conviction. I've been a staunch Materialist, a Liberal, a Libertarian, an Anarchist, an Atheist, a Protestant Christian. And I'm thankful for all of these phases as it helps me more easily put myself between the ears of different groups of people who I now vehemently disagree with. 

I am a person who loves nuance- in both the large-scale arena of thought where philosophy, science, history, politics, art, etc. can be torn apart and put back together again if someone is willing to go there with me, and I'm also this way down to my personal relationships and the conversations that happen there. I welcome disagreement, so long as it is done respectfully, and working my brain in that way feels as good as a physical workout at the gym. I believe our brains need various challenge just as our muscles need resistance to stay strong. 

But a realization I've come to over time, sometimes mournfully and other times with deep frustration,  is that hardly anyone is willing to go there in earnest. Maybe we don't have the time, which I understand as these kinds of conversations do take a good deal of that precious resource, but I think mainly what is lacking is the wherewithal, the actual love and care for truth. It seems obvious to me that our preference of comfort and fitting in almost always wins. And who wants to go about the heavy work of changing their whole worldview, I mean fundamentally, anyway? 

My fear is that this trend is only going to continue spiraling downward, to grow increasingly worse, as we continue to get slammed with so much information, less time, and--this is a big one--the more we allow our emotions and sentimentality to pave the path to truth. On that topic, here's a bit of a nuanced digression: I do believe that 'feeling' is an important aspect when seeking the transcendent, but not so much when discussing modern politics, as our "leaders" speeches and media presentations are compiled to cater to and trigger those emotional brains of ours.

A simple quote I came across recently that hits the nail right on the head with a deafening and far-reaching ring is this:

"Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance."*

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could bring back nuance and the real taking of time to study and have exchanges before arriving so firmly at a position?

Concerning many of the pop-up movements that have trended over the last couple of years, I've been slow to come 'round, needing the time for this cherished nuance, desiring to suss out as many angles as possible, and to seek new angles even (original thought is gratifying, no?), wanting to ask questions... but have caught slack for doing so. Even asking questions that aren't categorized as politically correct will now get you silenced, cut off. What happened to engagement? To answering the question? Are people so worked up emotionally, so high-strung, that they no longer trust themselves to engage in difficult conversations?

The Western thought bubble seems to contain a graphic of Occam's Razor. Nuance is not prized, what is prized instead is simplicity. A decreasing of all categories, especially thought, to the lowest common denominator. For a group that claims to be so egalitarian and democratic, they certainly place themselves at the top of the hierarchy of thought, asserting an authority, a monopoly even, on truth.

And this all ties in to a paragraph I read last night in Guenon's The Reign of Quantity and The Signs of the Times, in the chapter entitled Unity and 'Simplicity' --

"We have seen that a desire for simplification can become illegitimate or pernicious and that it has become a distinctive feature of the modern mentality; this desire is so strong that certain philosophers have given way to it in the scientific domain, and have gone to the length of presenting it as a sort of logical 'pseudo-principle', in the form of a statement that 'nature always takes the simplest course.' This is a perfectly gratuitous postulate, for there does not seem to be any reason why nature should work in that way and not in any other; many conditions other than simplicity can enter into its workings, and can outweigh simplicity to such an extent that nature seems, at least from our point of view, often to take a course that is extremely complicated. Indeed, this particular 'pseudo-principle' amounts to no more than a wish arriving from a sort of 'mental laziness': it is desired that things should be as simple as possible, because if they really were so they would be so much the easier to understand; and all this is quite in accordance with the very modern and profane conception of a science that must be 'within the reach of all', but that is obviously only possible if it is so simple as to be positively 'infantile', and if all considerations of a superior or really profound order are rigorously excluded from it."

*quote by filmmaker Albert Maysles

Currently reading

"If our contemporaries as a whole could see what it is that is guiding them and where they are really going, the modern world would at once cease to exist as such..."

Silence as a shattering of ego

 

"Silence is the cross on which we must crucify our ego" - St. Seraphim of Sarov

I came across this quote at a perfect time, when feeling slightly wronged by another, with the cortisol-dread feeling in my chest that I should confront them, but not really looking forward to it. Right away, the words were a salve to my tensed up heart, and it got me thinking...particularly about silence as a response.

Intuitively, this felt right and like the more transcendent, more Godly, patient, gentle approach. As I thought more about it, though, I did come upon a couple of caveats. One is that yes, certainly many issues do need to be talked through, and we do need to hold ourselves and others accountable for behaviors. Confrontation shouldn't be avoided at all costs in favor of submissiveness, but sometimes it might be best to be silent, and to let this silence be its own prayer, a lesson from God straight to us.

Another caveat about choosing silence as a response when we feel defensive or as though we've been wronged is that this silence must not be a pregnant silence, meant to punish or convey upset, disappointment, anger... instead, if we choose this method, we should focus on an internal cleansing in that moment, via prayer or song perhaps, that we may truly let this perceived slight go, and to release trying to control others thoughts, responses, beliefs, or attitudes toward us.

If we feel ourselves emotionally triggered, or if there is enough of a discrepancy in comprehension and emotional intelligence, a solution-oriented conversation is probably not likely, and the exchange will deteriorate rapidly into a fussing of egos, dueling monologues.  

I have found recently that this technique is humbling and helps me feel closer to God, while also training me to detach from this endless cycle of human reaction.

Traditionalism vs Perennialism

Traditionalism and Perennialism- the two words are often used interchangeably, even by myself, though this might not be the most accurate as they do have precise meanings, with distinction. 

Perennialism aims to point out that there are similar veins of truth amongst all religions, so much like a perennial flower will have various blossoms, below the surface lies the root from which all those flowers come. Just as simply, it can be compared to language, where we have different words across cultures to convey the same idea.

I believe it's correct to say that the Traditionalist thinkers believe this to be true as well, so where do they differ? While there are numerous similarities between the two, there seems to be one main difference.

The main distinction, as far as I can tell, is that Perennialists might pick and choose ideas they like, or that resonate with them, from different religious traditions, a la carte style, to form their own path to God. This rubs up against New Ageism quite closely, and even blurs the line at times, with some perennialists fitting into that New Age category. This is actually a postmodern approach to transcendence or union with God, very much individualist, assuming that down here at the lowliest levels, we as nafs, as lowercase-s selves, as egos, might be able to trailblaze a new path up the mountain that is somehow better than, or more true than, the hundreds of thousands of lives and years before us were able to carve out. 

While a Traditionalist would hold that a particular path must be followed, and that the path up the mountain is there, and is so well worn, because it works, because it is true. Therefore, the primary distinction between Traditionalism and Perennialism is that the latter is more self-directed, picking and choosing--even kleptomaniac--while the former is established, disciplined, clearly laid out, and includes the larger scale such as social order and community. 

This is a tough one for me.

I have felt that in this age, perhaps no priests, no gurus or sages, exist out there that I could trust enough to follow on such an important path as the one to Truth, to God, to the immortality of my own soul. Therefore, I've resolved to discover it on my own through personal study of the old texts and prayer, consulting God directly. When it comes to study though, we only have so much, so far we can go back, with the Rig Veda being the oldest text of this category. The Abrahamic approach does feel too modern and corrupted for me, and intuitively... not correct- like a newer modern religion in contrast to, say, Sanatana Dharma. Yet, following this path as an American is very difficult as it so easily gets tangled up in Orientalism and of course the God fabric around me is stamped with Christianity as the way to relationship with God, usually through a Protestant lens which feels very far from the truth, with little to no asceticism, no inward ontological restructuring, more externally focused, where prayer has been shamefully reduced to asking for favors.

So, for now, I continue to pray to the oldest name of God I can find--Narayana--and to replace as many of my profane thoughts with thoughts of Him, praying to be guided to Truth, to know it when I come across it, and guided away from distractions or knowledge that is not aligned with Truth. I learn as much as I can to discover the proper way to behave, to think, to be.

Jaya Srimannarayana.