Anger marks absence of love, no matter how justified or well disguised. Anger takes many forms. The mild irritation we feel when we are bothered, made to wait or denied something, is a tiny rage in disguise. Is it all right to allow angry thoughts as long as we do not express them or act on them? Is anger or hatred ever justified? Is it necessary to get rid of even traces of anger for our moral well-being? Carol D'souza answers (Dignity Dialogue, June 2004):
Most of us indulge our angry thoughts. We dwell on them....And then finally, we express them—in a wide range of ways. This is why it's so very useful to think of any form of anger as murder. Who hasn't thought "I'm going to kill you" when vexed by people who don't do what they're supposed to do?...These mindless and seemingly harmless idiomatic expressions are confusing because they lead us to accept the notion that figurative killing is okay.
It's okay to indulge hateful thoughts in your own mind so long as you do not act on them. You can indulge in hateful thoughts whenever you want. And you can keep your hateful thoughts for as long as you like, even an entire lifetime. No legal action will be taken against you....
The rules of our legal system, the morals of our social and religious systems, and the lessons we learn about expressing our emotions are not always in sync with the code of our Higher Self. Our Higher Christ Self would have us know that all hate is the same, and that no matter what form it takes, it's all equally destructive....
There's only one conclusion...the presence of hate in your mind blocks awareness of your Higher Self....Every time you make the choice to be angry, you simultaneously make the choice to be unhappy.
What causes anger? It arises, mainly, out of too much identification with the personality. Thoughts are the basis of our actions. "Sow a thought, reap an act." Thoughts are like seeds, which sprout when conditions are conducive. Thoughts seem to be more potent than acts. "Esoterically, thought is more responsible and punishable than act. But exoterically it is the reverse. Therefore, in ordinary human law, an assault is more severely punished than the thought or intention, i.e., the threat, whereas Karmically it is the contrary," writes H.P.B. (Transactions, p. 142)
Mr. Judge warns us that anger is one of the greatest hindrances in the attainment of concentration and that it damages the astral form. He observes that it is immaterial what the cause for the anger may be. There is no such thing as having what is called "righteous anger." It does not matter if one's rights were unjustly and flagrantly violated or not, the anger is bound to cause damage. "Therefore anger must be strictly avoided, and it cannot be avoided unless charity and love—absolute toleration—are cultivated." (U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 18, p. 12)
Mr. Judge advises that whenever our rights are infringed upon, we must forgive the offender. By condemning the offender we disturb the harmony. "Each punitive attitude assumed by me acts both on my brother and myself, producing in him a tendency to repeat the act condemned, and increasing in me whatever seeds of evil I may have." "Do not judge in anger, for though the anger passes the judgement remains."
Philosophically, the ras leela or the dance of the gopis with Krishna can never be regarded as an orgy. "The dance symbolizes the soul's unceasing struggle to break clear of the constraints of the body, to make contact with the supra-reality it sees out there....The whole struggle of the soul's reaching out to the One, is a story of longing and yearning, leading to a state of total surrender," writes Raji Narasimhan. (The Times of India, June 11)
At one level, we may regard the ras leela as "real ecstasy" or "the ardent turning of the soul toward the divine." However, H.P.B. explains in a Note to "The Future Occultist" (The Theosophist, August 1884) that the union of Krishna with the gopis represents the expression of the powers of spirit through matter or the "female principle." Thus:
It will be seen that the marriage of the occultist...is a "holy union," devoid of sin, in the same manner as Krishna's union with thousands of Gopis. Sensual-minded men have taken this fact up too literally; and, out of a wrong interpretation of the text, has arisen a sect which indulges in the most degrading practices. But, in fact, Krishna represents the seventh principle, while the Gopis indicate the innumerable powers of that principle manifested through its "vehicle." Its union "without sin," or rather the action or manifestation of each of these powers through the "female principle" gives rise to the phenomenal appearances.
Celibacy or Brahmacharya has been highly praised by all religious scriptures. Apart from the Vedas and the Old Testament, we find that the Aztecs and the early mexicans held celibacy in high esteem. Like the Vestal virgins in Rome, there was an order of the Sunbrides among the Incas of Peru. Though Buddha praised celibacy, "in Buddhism, only the highest ranked priests, the Bhikshu and the Yellow-capped Lamas of Tibet are actually required to be celibate," writes Sean O'Shea (Purity, June 2004). Physical celibacy counts little if one has not attained to mental celibacy as well. When one is able to remain a celibate at the mental level, one is able to keep one's attention "on the most elevated levels of thought and knowledge." True celibacy purifies consciousness and leads to peace and happiness. "It has been known for many centuries that sex has a draining effect on both the mind and body—an overall loss of energy to the system," writes O'Shea. Pure, ennobling thoughts and spiritual love help an individual to renounce all weaknesses and prevent him from being continually drawn towards sexual matters.
In The Key to Theosophy (pp. 260-61), H.P.B. suggests that celibacy is not essential for a worldly person. There is no reason why an individual should not marry, till he reaches a state when his only desire is to know the truth and help others. Marriage is often the only remedy against immorality. However, it is absolutely necessary to practise celibacy for the person aspiring to go in for Practical Occultism. She writes: "Can a man serve two masters? No! Then it is equally impossible for him to divide his attention between the pursuit of Occultism and a wife."
What is the use of physical celibacy, when the mind continues to dwell on sex? Such a person is described in the Gita as a "false pietist of bewildered soul." Krishna says, "He who remains inert, restraining the senses and organs, yet pondering with his heart upon objects of sense, is called a false pietist of bewildered soul." Sex and unwholesome speech are the two avenues through which we waste the creative power. Celibacy helps conserve the energy used up in sexual activities, which can then be used for spiritual purposes.
In his Yoga Aphorisms, Patanjali recommends, among other things, continence or Brahmacharya as conducive to the practice of meditation.
While writing to a student-aspirant, Mr. Judge puts celibacy and marriage in the right perspective:
Men and women are complementary in character, and therefore adapted to each other. It is natural that each sex should enjoy the company of the other, and what is natural cannot be wrong. Moreover, it is perfectly proper that when a suitable mate is found, a man should marry and settle down as a householder, bringing up a family with right views and high purposes. He contributes a service to humanity, who puts [leaves] children to take his place after his death, and to reproduce his true and altruistic life. Consequently, if you find a suitable match and desire matrimony, there can be no possible reason why you should not carry out such a purpose. Like the abstention from meat, celibacy is essential to [spiritual] advance after a certain stage....There can be no one rule laid down for all human beings, inasmuch as the temperaments and desires are so different. Each must work out the problem of life in his own way. If your aspirations are so set on higher things that you find the lower a hindrance, it is evident that you should not indulge in the latter; but if you are not so hindered, then no less a duty is yours. (Letters That Have Helped Me)
It appears that heartbreaks, trials and disasters are essential for spiritual growth. "Pain and suffering are relative. How life's challenges affect you depends on your understanding, state of mind, and previous experience; it also depends on the arms of divine beneficence that come to carry you above the hottest sands," writes Sharon Janis (Sunday Times of India, June 20). Life's challenges are meant to wake us up from our complacency and limited self-concepts. Suffering teaches us compassion, helps us cultivate detachment and makes us appreciate and feel grateful for what we have. Often, a person turns to Spirituality, God or Religion as a result of some traumatic experience. All suffering, which comes under Karma, must be looked upon as an opportunity to learn. Sharon Janis writes:
Life always brings challenges to deal with....When those difficult moments come, you have a choice: Instead of being swept away into an emotional flurry or numb depression, you can see such times with some objectivity....
Then, even if part of you goes into some agitation or sadness here or there, you can still be aware of the part of you that's witnessing all the play of your life—the still point of the turning world that exists inside of you. From that place, you can remind yourself that after every storm, there is a chance to awaken into a new golden sky and find colourful new rainbows to delight your heart, nourish your soul, and rouse your spirit.
What is the significance of pain? When we learn to see pain in the right perspective, we would not want to shun it. Every unfavourable situation is an opportunity to learn and grow. Growth involves change and every change is accompanied by pain. H.P.B. writes:
Woe to those who live without suffering. Stagnation and death is the future of all that vegetates without a change. And how can there be any change for the better without proportionate suffering during the preceding stage? (S.D., II, 475)
Pain arouses. It is only when we experience pain that we wake up and begin to ask questions of life: "Why me? What have I done to deserve this?" Often pain makes us realize that we need to surrender our personal will to the Divine Will. In fact, it is only when all the earthly possibilities of finding happiness are frustrated, do we turn to God, as a sort of last resort. Pain also softens. Pain arouses sympathy in us. Life is a school. We are put into a certain painful or unfavourable situation, again and again, till we learn the necessary lesson.
In Notes on the Bhagavad-Gita, we are advised to become aware of the changing and unchanging aspects in us and stop identifying with the personality and the passing shows of life. There is an aspect of us, which passes through all the changes, but itself remains unchanged. It is like a centre or a hub of a rotating wheel. When we repose in this unchanging aspect, we are able to take the position of an "observer."
It is a fact that we do identify ourselves with the ever-changing perishable body, and with its conditions and relations, which are also ever-changing. We say, "I am happy, or I am sad," "I am sick or I am well," "I am contented or I am dissatisfied," all of these expressions being due to some form or condition which is changeable. We should observe that the self-identifying attachment is chiefly concerned with the present form and conditions, although we are aware that other forms and conditions have existed in the past, to which we were attached by like or dislike, and that still others will exist in the future. (Notes on the Bhagavad-Gita, pp. 189-90)
National debates spring up, from time to time, concerning the influence of religious beliefs upon the enactment of the laws of the land or the framing of the nation's Constitution. The word "secular," meaning non-religious, if not anti-religion, is used by some as a term of abuse—even in progressive countries like the U.S.A. On the other hand, in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, words like "secular" and "socialist" democracy are used to seek neutrality in the affairs of the state vis-à-vis religious views.
At present there is hardly any state or nation which is truly free from the undue influences of church authorities or powerful religious groups, in their nation-building policy decisions. Nations like U.S.A.—originally independent and secular enough to separate the church from the State—had avoided, scrupulously, even the use of the word "God" in public functions or institutions. Yet in 1954, the phrase, "under God" was introduced, while reciting the U.S. pledge of Allegiance. Surprisingly, in the original pledge, written by Francis Bellamy for the World's Fair in Chicago in 1892, this phrase was missing, writes T. V. R. Shenoy (Indian Express, June 19). On the other hand, in India, some "secularists," as also orthodox Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses joined hands in disapproval of singing the National Anthem because it is alleged to "deify" the Motherland!
Is it not paradoxical in this country where religion and its stripes are exhibited on the sleeves, that it can rightly boast of neutrality of its constitution as regards religions? But it is more surprising that a great nation like the U.S.A.—praised as it was by H.P.B. for its openness and freedom—is leaning towards religious influences.
As H.P.B. says, no one can destroy man's need for Religion. Religious beliefs, which deeply influence man's psyche, cannot be wished away by legislation and enforced social measures. But this overbearing and irrational influence in conduct of the statecraft and decision-making needs to be checked.
Some socially benevolent purposes behind any social change that leads to progress and social order must be allowed a free hand so long as they do not upset the true moral principles enshrined in all religions. A balance must be struck taking in view the time, place, tradition and cultural and social needs of the populace. Moral issues like family-planning, abortion, biological research, religious conversions, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc., are to be rationally approached, based on the eternal guiding principles behind moral decisions, irrespective of the popular uproar or narrow religious beliefs and practices.
The truth is that what the best poets, the greatest writers, bring back from their travels in the realm of fancy is as nothing beside the treasures accumulated by their predecessors. Many others have reaped the same field, it is they who bind the sheaves. When one feels with intensity, intelligence is unnecessary: one has more influence than the cleverest logicians. Even the logicians do nothing more perhaps than express in well-balanced syllogisms the flights of the prophets who are supposed to be lacking in intelligence. Genius owes ninety-nine hundredths to others. Does it, for instance, invent its language? The alphabet it uses? What would its thoughts be without words? What would words be without the letters which enable us to represent them easily? We do not think enough, my dear friends, about the men of genius who conceived the idea of representing sounds by signs. Yet it was they who rendered possible the dizzy mental gymnastics of the Western World. And those who gradually created speech? Did they not furnish us with the very tissue of our arguments? Grammatical constructions govern the habits of the mind. I was wrong in saying ninety-nine hundredths Genius owes to others—I should have said nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandths.
—Anatole France