Understanding Death

Well, you know, it is important to realize that there are several religious traditions in the world, but there are two main categories Of course, if each one has to be completely thoroughly understood, it will take many years. But there are many similarities in the Abrahamic tradition that includes Judaism Christianity, Islam, And in the Indian tradition, that includes whatever gets called Hinduism, Buddhism, Janism, sikhism. And there are, of course, many things are common among both of these tradition, large traditions. But there are some quite radical differences, which then have consequences culturally, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable. And here in our particular exchange, I would probably more focus on Christianity in the Abrahamic tradition simply because it's the largest religion in the world.

There are 3,000,000,000 Christians in the world. And as you all know, since the sixteenth century, the whole planet was being ruled by countries coming from the Christian background. So whatever we mean by the Western world is mostly Christian world. So sometimes I call it rather than Abrahamic tradition and the Indian tradition, one could call it the Western and the Eastern traditions. And in the Eastern traditions, I would slightly more focus on Hinduism, but take my word for it that what goes in the name of Buddhism, Chinese sikhism, mostly what I'm saying will be equally valid there also. So first of all, of course, the common features is good to just slightly to focus on it.

That I'm not speaking about what the organized religions might say, but really what the sages in these traditions would say. For example, very strong emphasis say in the remark of Christ, for example, unless you leave yourself behind, you cannot be a follower of mine. So in one way or the other, the call really is to be free of me me me. So that I can connect with something subtler that has actually created not only me, but created the whole universe. And the very strong common feature of all these traditions is that the whole universe is created by this highest level of consciousness, which is completely contrary to modern scientific perspective in which the whole universe is created from the lowest level of consciousness, from matter.

Gradually consciousness may have developed, etcetera. But some of these things are being questioned even in the scientific world now, but in any case, coming back to the main perspective, from the spiritual point of view, the whole universe is created by the highest level, obviously called god or Allah or brahma, different different words are used. One doesn't I also keep reminding people that after all Christ was teaching to people of Jewish origin and speaking in Aramic, the Buddha was speaking to people of Hindu origin and speaking in Pali, the language itself is different, and the background of the people are different. And therefore, the languages themselves create a great deal of separation from one perspective or the other perspective. So one needs to be very careful about all this, not to get stuck with an expression of truth.

I repeatedly remind people, expression of truth is not the truth. Truth is actually carried by somebody who actually lives that. So the call from all of these great sages whether it's in India or in the Christian tradition or Jewish Jewish tradition, to be free of me me me so that I can be more and more connected with something more real and increasingly that the quality of my being will enhance. Rather than being just self centered, what can I gain more? How do I get ahead in the world? But it will be more to do with more freedom from me, me, me, and more compassion, more love, more sense of unity with the others.

And more love, for example, somebody like the Buddha or Christ, if we were to say that the Buddha was enlightened, but was not compassionate. It will be an oxymoron. He cannot be enlightened unless he's compassionate. Similarly Christ cannot be the one with the father unless love is oozing out of him. Every remark of Christ carries the word love in it more or less, you know, which is quite extraordinary, actually. No other really just teaching that at least that I have encountered carries that much emphasis on love.

So As I just said, there are many common features, and the call is that each one of us has two different currents of energy. One is coming from the spiritual side, which is what has created me. Or created you. I did not create myself. I mean, who could possibly disagree with this.

So I did not create myself. And we end up calling that it is I am breathing which is completely silly as if I created this breathing apparatus or that I created the air that I need to breathe to stay alive. If you actually look carefully in the very second chapter of the book of Genesis, seventh verse there says God created human beings from the earth, then he breathed his own breath into them to make them alive. So as long as so called Ravi is alive, It's the breath of god that is keeping him alive, not Ravi's breath. And when that breath of god leaves, so called Ravi will die. And the call is that the reason why this spiritual energy has taken on this body.

I use the word body, but it includes the mind also ordinary mind. Just for simplicity, one uses the word body. So why this spiritual element has taken on the body is so that this body can undertake some appropriate action to assist the evolution of this particle of the spirit to return to the source. Because it is in me in each person, each creature, even, at a certain level. But that level needs to be enhanced so that it can ultimately be able to come back home. Come to god.

My own personal impression is that in human history, extremely few people have actually come to their levels. Somebody like Christ being able to say, the father and I are one, or yagivalakya in in the Indian tradition saying, I am brahma, there are to be sure many sages like this, Raman Maharashi in our contemporary times conveying something like this. So, but my own personal impression is that this is actually a remark of Christ. Many are called, but few are chosen. Many people can be called by this but do they then undertake the effort to be free of themselves.

So that's really there are these are very common features that this is the call to human being to recognize two in me For example, Saint Paul calls them my spiritual nature and carnal nature. Sometimes it is called, for example, my own teacher run the Salzmann. I used to call it angelic nature and animal nature. And sometimes they simply end up calling itself with a capital s and self with a small s of the ego. Or sometimes even simply I and me checking your distinction.

So we don't need to get occupied with one expression or the other. But always the suggestion is there are two directions or two energies in me, and the call is can my lower energy or the, if you like material energy, which is to say my body mind, can actually assist the evolution of the spiritual energy. That's the overall call. We have a very famous philosopher in India, Actually, the Bhagual Gita's philosophical background is very much on sankikarika, and he's the author of sankikarika. He says, spirit without the body is lame, but body without the spirit is blind.

So the body is needed to assist the evolution of the spiritual element in me. That's the call. So these are common features, but the radical differences arise that in the western tradition or if you like the Jude Christian or Abrahamic tradition, we have a myth of creation. God created the whole universe. And there are different levels.

For example, even in the spiritual level, maybe I should make one other sort of like a footnote here. Very strong suggestion that there are many levels of reality subtler than the mind. In fact, that is almost the meaning of the word spiritual that the mind cannot grasp it. Mind cannot describe it or explain it, which is why none of the sages, including the Buddha or Christ are unable to say what God is. They might hint at something because their disciples are always asking for something, but the Buddha refused to describe what Nirvana is, for example. And Christ said the kingdom of god is like a mustard seed, Now, do you think it makes anything clarity to anybody? So one needs to realize that even the greatest sages are unable to describe the ultimate reality.

Partly because description requires a mind, it needs to require their language. So subject, object, predicate, already then it complicates things and reduces the quality. But in any case, even in the spiritual realm, for example, in the just to look at the Bible for a moment, There are nine orders of angels. They're all and very basic idea in the Abrahamic tradition is that every level of creation is radically different from every other level. So strictly speaking, even an angel cannot become an archangel, a human being cannot become an angel, an animal cannot become a human being, etcetera. Which was one of the main objections to the theory of evolution by Darwin.

That because where he speaks about that the animal somehow evolved to become human beings. And if anybody in the Abrahamic tradition ever said that the father and I are one or the, for example, Christ, he was crucified. And Al Hallar in the Islamic tradition said something very similar. He was also crucified. And even the highest angel just to remind people is Lucifer.

Lucifer was the highest of all angels, but he prophet Aziah actually describes this that he wished to be like the most high. Therefore, he was expelled from heaven. So even the highest angel cannot possibly be like god. So these radical differences are very important notion. In the Abrahamic tradition.

Whereas in the Indian tradition, we don't actually have a myth of creation. Strictly speaking. What we have is what I call myth of amonation. By which I mean, let me take a few moments to describe this. The level or the label or the name attached to the highest level of reality is Bram meaning the vastness or the largeness or eternal.

Bram did not create the world. The whole manifested universe emanated from the substance of brahma. So everything including even not only every human being, even the cockroaches, even the rocks have a particle of brahma in them. So very strong emphasis on the oneness of all there is. And for anybody, the call to everybody, and now we can stages with the human beings, the call to human beings is to find the deepest level in themselves where they can find their identity with brahma.

This is actually in the upanishads. It's called the supreme identity. Atma, which is a way of saying, myself, is identically the same as brahman. That is the supreme identity. And the call to every human being is to find that identity. And of course, as I said earlier, also very few people in human history have managed to actually come to that.

But nevertheless, that's the call. And therefore, The whole overall emphasis, there is one mass of all there is. Whereas in the Abrahamic tradition, there is very much emphasis on the uniqueness of all there is. Even you can read this in the what the Christians call the Old Testament that Jews don't call it the Old Testament in the Torah, where Moses is talking to god, as if he's talking as a man to a man. Even in the presence of god, he remains separated as an individual.

Whereas, for example, in the Indian tradition, you would often come across phrases like his spirit merged into the cosmic spirit. If anybody can point out an expression like this to me in the whole of the Ibrahim tradition, I would be very surprised. Their one's individuality always remains completely unique, even after death permanently. And I'll come back to this because this is a very important aspect of it, and I'll be back in a moment because this is what even ends up controlling whether one should be cremated or one should be buried. It results from this idea.

But returning to the previous notion that all there is is brahma and that everything is connected with this. I give you a particular example. I was fortunate to meet a very well known Indian contemporary sage, Shari Anirvan. This was in 1977. I met him.

He was more or less really on his deathbed. But when I was leaving, this is what he said to me. When you realize that god is the same as a dog, you will know something real. You see, that indicates what I've been trying to emphasize. Oneness of all, there is even a dog has an aspect of brahma in it.

And this gets expressed in varieties of ways. For example, Krishna Muurthy would repeatedly keep saying that the observer is the observed. And Raman, we call him Maharushi, literally means a great sage. The word Maharushi means a great sage. So Raman is called Raman Maharishi.

He was asked on one occasion by somebody. How should we treat the others? He said, but there are no others. So you see, this is a classical emphasis in the Indian tradition. To be sure, an ordinary person like me, even though I may come from the Indian tradition, does not necessarily see the unity of all there is.

But that is the overall call. That's the overall emphasis. And whatever we mean by a great sage, that's what the word of Rishi actually literally means is seer. So any of these great seers obviously see the oneness of all there is. And in the upanishads, this gets repeatedly mentioned again and again in one way or the other.

So then when we speak about individuality, your uniqueness from my uniqueness, different. In general, for most human beings, that uniqueness is expressed as my body. Because even our mind may be influenced by other but somebody can take a picture of me and say, this is Ravi. Therefore, so much emphasis in the Abraham tradition to preserve the body even after death. So they would bury it.

And to be sure, especially these days, because of shortage of burial spaces in big cities, some aspects of some features of Christianity allow some cremation. But it is completely forbidden in the Orthodox Christianity. And in the Islamic world, in particular, even if a close friend of yours is being cremated, if you happen to be there, it is considered completely heretical. Absolutely nothing to do with cremation. It has to be there. So that the body is then is preserved and will rise again with the second coming of Christ And of course, the age person is judged, maybe permanently in hell or permanently in heaven, depending on one's quality of what one has done.

But nevertheless, it remains permanently individually me. And it is identified with my body. So even if everybody would agree that my body, even if I bury it, can hardly be alive in any sense of the world, In fact, even Saint Paul himself makes a distinction between spiritual body and carnal body, but nevertheless there is a tendency at the popular level. As if my body will be resurrected again. And if I have done bad things, I'll be in hell forever, but hoping that I will if I give more money to the churches, etcetera, then I will get actually redemption and we'll go to heaven.

So I think this is the root cause of the major differences actually comes from that. Whole notion of individuality. And then individuality in the Indian context, if I am attached to my individuality, it is regarded as a mark of ignorance. That I need to be more and more free of it and to connect with the spiritual aspect of me, not the material aspect of me, which is the individual part. And in the or in the western tradition, or if you like the Abrahamic tradition, individuality is the mark of responsibility. So I often remind people that in a global culture, we don't need to dismiss the understanding of half the sages in the world, how do we reconcile them? And personally, for me, the greatest reconciliation of that was actually brought out by a remark on my own teacher, Rhonda Salzman, she said true individuality consists in voluntarily placing oneself under a law.

An example of that will be the last remarks of Christ in the Garden Of Gethsemane. He's going to be crucified. What does he say? If it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Yet, not my will, but dying be done. So from the perspective of his of his individuality, he's wishing for letting this be passed by However, not my will, but then be done. Summitting. So this is the highest example in which one submits one's individuality.

And therefore, to not to be against individuality because it is also a mark of responsibility. But individuality very soon becomes individualism. Me me me. It can just lead to more and more. What can I gain what can Ravi, how can he enhance in this in the world, etcetera, etcetera? So there is always this kind of everything really has two ends. Every great idea has a negative side to it and also has a positive side.

In India, for example, to be completely free of individuality, then you don't honor different people's actions or work so much. It ends up being as if the whole manifested universe can be just ignored or put down and what what one just needs to go to the highest level. So both of these traditions have their high points as well as their low points. I often say it will hardly surprise anybody that every tradition has produced great sages, but many, many, very stupid and criminal people