Depending on the group of practitioners, I’ve noticed that the chant of Om is sometimes harmonious and sometimes discordant, creating a different but equally interesting effect. The YMCA yoga class I attend offers a harmonious, almost unison rendition of the mantra. This class is composed mostly of women, and I’ve always wondered whether females have (overall) a greater sensitivity to tone and musical pitch.
The other class I attend in Philadelphia chants Om in as many tones as there are students (this class tends to include males and females). Unlike the even euphony of the former class, this group’s chanting creates some aural friction, resulting in a dynamic vibration created by the discord.
Which do I prefer? I like them both, and in fact look forward to hearing and participating in the different ways this universal sound can be expressed.
Another place I’ve discovered Om is at the Philadelphia Orchestra! The next time you go to an orchestral concert, note how the event begins when the concertmaster strides onto the stage and signals the oboist to play the note “A” for the orchestra to get in tune. If this isn’t the sound of Om, I don’t know what is! Go ahead: hum along with it. You deserve to be in tune!
]]>
http://www.religiousscholar.com/storage/Threads%20of%20Yoga%20by%20L%20B%20Holt.pdf,
I describe them as follows:
(Edwin F. Bryant translates these as sense perception, logic, and verbal testimony. The Yoga Sutras, North Point Press, 2009.)
Direct perception is when you actually see or experience something. In a lecture at Thomas Jefferson University on Jan. 15, 2012, Dr. Vijayendra Pratap, psychologist and yoga teacher, offered the example of a building on fire. You see the fire, and you know it exists.
Inference is when you perceive traces or suggestions that something exists. If you see a red glow on the horizon, hear fire trucks, and smell smoke, you may infer that there is a fire.
Reliable testimony is when you are not present, but an informed source, such as a journalist, your trusted neighbor who actually witnessed it, or a firefighter who was there says there has been a fire.
Applied to religion and spirituality, these are the tests of truth. You know your faith is true because you have experienced it directly. You infer that it is true because you have seen evidences of it in the world around you. And in divine scripture, you find the testimony of revered sages who assert that it is true. As these tests apply to knowledge, they also apply to Divine Love.
]]>This sutra applies readily to the proliferation of uncontrollable thoughts and negative thinking in our own time. The brilliant translator, commentator and teacher, Edwin F. Bryant, likens our unwelcome and unhealthy thoughts to weeds in a garden:
“In even the best-tended gardens, weeds inevitably pop up from time to time…As in a garden, the more one makes an effort to uproot weeds, the more the bed will eventually become a receptacle for fragrant flowers, which will then grow and reseed of their own accord until there is hardly any room for the weeds to surface.” (Edwin Bryant’s text on The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, North Point Press, 2007, pp. 255 and 257.)
]]>In the past two centuries, many governments throughout the world embraced the concept of tolerance in matters of religion. Our Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” implying a tolerant attitude. But lately, it appears that tolerance must be worked for, pro-actively, especially when it comes to matters of faith. Many of those with a white-knuckle grip on religious dogma have embraced a worldview in which tolerance is a devilish ploy to lead believers down the path to eternal damnation. But there is an even more disturbing trend.
Recently, one of my students cited a Web site in a paper that led me to seek out its source. Like many sites with the appearance of authority, this one was a shaky construct at best, run by a person with weak credentials in the subject matter and besotted with delusions and prejudice. While I didn’t tarry long at his site, my eye did catch one provocative opinion: the ancient Greek god Zeus, he raged, was Satan!
Oh? Really? In many years of reading and teaching about ancient cultures, I had never run into that concept before, though I’m sure it must have festered long in the nether world of uncritical thinking. It reminded me of a similarly startling declaration made in confidence to me by a priest last year. Without blinking an eye (except, perhaps, to look over his shoulder for eavesdropping aliens), the priest said in low, solemn tones, “The gods of Ancient Egypt were Satan!”
Oh-kay, hmmm. Let’s see. You don’t belong to someone else’s religion…you don’t like someone else’s religion…therefore, you brand that religion’s idea of the Deity as Satan? Snap! Was that someone’s mind closing, like a steel trap?
Humanity has come a long way since the Dark Ages when people lived in fear of The Other. Most of us just want to get along. One of the ways to do that is to accept that people have different ideas of God, and as long as they don’t hurt anyone, they should be free to believe and practice what they choose. In a world in which a small percentage of fanatics of every faith threaten discord and destruction, doesn’t it make sense not to take potshots at other people’s religion?
Shrugging our shoulders, smiling kindly, and going on our way is the lowest form of tolerance, for sure, but better than calling names, wrapping ourselves in a mantle of self-righteous superiority, and fearing the unknown. The highest form of tolerance flows from understanding, learning to appreciate other viewpoints, listening to what people have to say.
When it comes to matters of faith, the best approach is to just say, “Know.”
]]>I fear, though, that the field of critical thinking is being usurped by conservative sceptics (Christopher Hitchens springs to mind). Why can a person not follow a belief system such as an organized religion and still be a critical thinker? I often recommend that my students read Erasmus if they want to discover a powerful intellect supported by a believing heart, or, in our time, the Dalai Lama or Pema Chodron.
The conservative sceptics who extol critical thinking are often men, citing examples of female behavior and practices as the disastrous consequences of uncritical, hysterical minds. I sometimes wonder, reading these men's works, whether we have gone back to the Dark Ages when women were considered unruly beasts at the mercy of devilish forces (which today we would label "hormones").
Critical thinking is what will save our planet. But only if it is balanced with inner reflection, study and cultivation of wisdom, and emotional warmth (called love by some believers, compassion by others). Critical thinkers may be believers or sceptics, men or women. There is no reason to force this separation. Both impulses, joined in harmony, will lead to greater understanding and a more peaceful, happier world.
]]>
Emptiness: A Receptive Mind;
Acquisition? Enslavement to Appearances;
Poverty of Spirit: Welcomes the Divine.
]]>