 |
|||||
| AHYMSIN Newsletter, Issue - Mar 2013 | |||||
|
|||||
An Interview with Pandit Hari Shankar Dabral A disciple of H. H. Swami Rama of the Himalayas, Pandit Hari Shankar Dabral has been trained by Swami Veda Bharati. H. H. Swami Rama sent Pandit Dabral to the United States in 1992 and in 1994. Trained and authorized by Swami Rama to give initiations, Panditji has initiated many hundreds of people. He is a member of the AHYMSIN Adhyatma Samiti, or Spiritual Committee, and the Spiritual Director of The Himalayan Yoga Meditation Center, Calgary, Canada. He is also an international teacher within our tradition. In late August 2011, Panditji gave an extensive interview covering a multitude of questions that his family of students put forth. How did you become a part of the Himalayan Tradition? Philosophically, my luck, my karmas, and my fortune brought me to the Himalayan Tradition. One comes in contact with many traditions, and that attraction, or 'the pull,' towards a teacher one gets if you have some past karmas or some past relationship with the tradition, then you find the same tradition again. So, I believe this is how I became a part of the tradition. What distinguishes the Himalayan tradition from the other traditions or makes the Himalayan tradition unique? 1. It came out of the cave monasteries of the Himalayas. The training comes from the sages who have sat, or they still are sitting, in their meditation in the caves of the Himalayas. 2. This tradition is also known as a living tradition. The teaching is handed down from a guru disciple relationship. 3. And also, it is a complete tradition that does not reject or leave out any other tradition. It includes, rather than excludes and teaches the totality of all yoga science and its whole philosophy. Whereas, other traditions have not gone into the totality of it, they teach only one part of yoga. Swami Veda says it is like a frame. There are pieces to that frame, and as you collect all of them, you are able to see the entire frame and picture. The Himalayan Tradition is like the frame for that whole picture, and all other traditions are like pieces of that frame. How did the process of you coming to the United States come about? The process of coming to the US for me was that Swami Rama of the Himalayas asked me if I could go to the US. So he is the reason, or the source, or cause, for me to come to the US. He brought me to the US and said, “Now you teach here.” Did he say why? Or the purpose? No, purpose was not said as such. Just teach and help, in service. Purpose is to teach, as he himself is teaching, to serve humanity. So he might have seen something in me, or I might come back to the philosophy of karma, that it was something from my karma that made it so he brought me to teach. And so...I started to teach when I came. Does that mean at any point you will complete this task in the West? That nobody knows. I don't know what it means to be done. You continue your journey as long as you live, so that question doesn't cross my mind or, I think, the minds of one who is a real teacher. It’s just serving. So there is no 'done' as such in any place. I still go to many places in the world and teach. I am part of those places and feel a connection to them and the family of students in each place. So if I go somewhere I am serving in the same tradition with the same manner and the same capacity, no matter the location. How have you seen, in your life specifically, how coming to the West has changed your practice and your outlook on the Himalayan Tradition? This question has two parts. Number one, yes, coming to the US, coming to the West, gives you a broad, or a total picture, from where you were before. You are in the West, so you begin to understand the Western philosophy and Western culture. It indeed broadens your vision and broadens your understanding because you are in a totally different culture and accepting and adapting the ways and the manners in which you will conduct yourself. And you are here to teach, so you need to understand some of the philosophy and the culture in order to teach to it. In that way, yes, I have changed and broadened my vision or understanding to be prepared to teach in the West the way the Western style is. However, it didn't change my view of the Himalayan Tradition. It is the same whether you go to the East, West, North, South, or wherever you go. The teachings are the same. The only thing is, how you deliver the teaching may differ depending on where you are. So in Asian countries you may deliver differently then as you would in the West or in Europe because of the language, and culture, and who you are speaking to. The Himalayan Tradition is always there - complete... and you learn from the people about their culture, and learn how to understand or how to approach the teachings to make them understand and make them a part of the Himalayan Tradition. Then you are growing your spiritual family. Swami Rama saw it as very important for the knowledge from the East to come to the West. Would you say it is important to go the other way as well? I think it is important both ways and all the ways. Like in India, Shankaracharya created the four seats, and appointed his disciples into the four seats, in the four parts of India; North, South, East, and West. So Swamiji, by establishing his institutes all over the world, was doing a similar thing. He appointed, or brought, or exchanged, the teachers saying 'You teach here, you teach there' and so on... Now it’s like a team or a family spreading and uniting with the teachings all over the world. At this point Panditji asks - Where are these questions coming from? Everywhere… from your students. To Which Panditji Replied Mine? They are all Swamiji's. I am a student myself, so how can I have students. We are all students of the Master. The Master is the only Master . We all are learning and trying to achieve the final goal in our sadhana. That is what Sadhakam means, I am a Sadhaka, an aspirant. That is why I have that email address. To Sadhaka, in Sanskrit Sadhakam means - To perform Sadhanas... As you see the Westernization of India, what positive and negatives do you see happening? Westernization of India has a lot of positive and lots of negative. Positives are that, yes, people have access, the world has become smaller. They have much more information because the technology is vastly available through internet and television, etc. Everyone has much more access to the Western culture and India has grown through that information and that access, and this is a very good thing. Like I came to the West and broadened my vision and understanding, so India has done the same and grown immensely by understanding and seeing very closely the western system or culture and adopted many good things. However, the part that is not nice or is negative - many Indians are somehow adopting westernization and forgetting their own culture. They are trying to become Westerners rather than 'Indians'. So from that point of view, a lot of culture, a lot of ethics, a lot of principals have been diluted. You can clearly see, in big cities, how people dress and act and how most people speak English now and less and less their own mother tongue. It has become a fashion, or a status; if you look westernized, if you speak English, you think that you are 'somebody' rather than if you are wearing Indian clothes or speaking your own language. But everywhere, no matter if you are West or East... wherever there is positive, there is negative too. They both exist at the same time. It is then that you have to really use your mind and your wisdom not to touch or take the negative things and only to take the positive. That's where Swami Rama's message is needed... when he came here and built all these organizations - Himalayan Institutes of Yoga Science, he said he wants to build the bridge. That was his Guru's message to him. "Go to the West and build a bridge between the East and West. The West has a lot to offer to the East and the East has a lot to offer to the West. So, build so that there can be a well balanced bridge of all the good qualities of the two. " As humans we receive information from our minds, and we get information from our hearts... how do we distinguish what is the Truth... to trust the heart or the mind? It is difficult to know what is the truth anyways... whether it comes from the heart or from the mind. Whatever comes from the heart is based on feelings and your experience. Whatever comes from the mind is more rational and logical. So both can be true and both can be not true, because even in a logical answer, your emotions are involved, and even in an emotional situation that comes from the heart the mind may bring a small bit of logic. If one’s selfish notions are involved, then 'it' may not be true... and the same with the logic. You can justify a logic that suites you and then thereby you can say- yes, this is the right thing. So it is very difficult to know. It could be that they are both true, or it could be that they are both negative. So it is difficult to say one way or the other which one is right and which one is wrong. Pure intentions - That come from the heart - would be right. A logic that is based on a broad understanding and not limited to one’s own justification, then it would be right decision or opinion. What is life? Life is a journey that one is born into to refine, to learn, to understand and to grow into completeness. Life is a journey to understand why I am not complete and what can I do to become complete. Why do we forget our past death and life and lessons? The samskaras. The moment you are born you are covered with many sheaths, many black blankets of karma. You are born with the karmas, and so we are not pure. We have the chain of samskaras... and we forget by the nature or rule that we must forget the past... otherwise it would be chaos in the world. The teachings are not to live in the past; live in the present. Then, make your future brighter by things in the present moment. It is a good thing that we forget. Philosophically, because of ignorance, avidyā, we forget the past. What purpose would it serve if you were to know that you were a multimillionaire in past life... so what... or you were a King... or any example? Put yourself into that situation and think how will that serve. Or I was related to this person, or I was with you... how does that serve this time. I do not know. But then again human beings are such that we are constantly justifying ourselves to not feel guilty. That what we are doing is right or wrong because it is coming either from the heart or mind and supported by either feeling or logic. One has to be very careful there I think. That is why we think we want to know... to justify our actions in this lifetime. Is it possible to believe that at one point we started with no karma? Probably... that is a difficult to answer... but, yes, I think when creation began, we started with no karma... As the scriptures and the sages say - the creation, by the mind born and the thought, and being came into existence... so possibly we started with no existence. That question is not easy to answer because if we started without karma then... where were we before? Or how? It is simply answered in many texts; this is the leela that just creates... (leela - God's divine play.) At the point when you burn through or have dealt with all your karma, then you are enlightened? Yes, you are enlightened or you are not bound by all the karma. That is what enlightenment means. You are not any more in the principal of the karma; you are free. Then you can choose to be reborn or choose not to be reborn. Free from karma means you are no longer bound to be in the world; you have merged yourself with Brahman. But there again there is also a choice because the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman, so then you have choice. If an enlightened soul comes back, it only comes back for a pure reason; it comes back to help lead others out of their suffering. It is absolutely the only reason they would come back, out of compassion of their heart to help others. Is the true self emotionless? Self is ever free, ever pure, ever wise, that’s the simple answer. Ever free means it cannot be deluded or affected by emotions or attachments or anger. Ever pure because it cannot be affected by any karma; it is never bound, so you cannot ever put any stain on it or contaminate it. And ever wise, the Self knows the Self. It’s a complete knowledge and a complete realization. So Self cannot be emotionally attached... emotions are from our emotional state of our being, which is before the Self... emotion cannot affect the atman. You rise above all; one self realized is no longer thrown into the roller coaster of emotion. Whenever the emotional state changes, our feelings change and are not permanent, but Self never changes. It is the abode of ananda, so we are always feeling joy and bliss in the Self. That is why the yoga texts suggests and advise going to the permanent. Once you reach there, you will be forever sane because the waves of your mind never change. When one has an emotional reaction, where is the Witness in that? Self is there, witnessing everything. Self is laughing at you saying "Aw look, there he goes again." Mind also witnesses; that is how you know "I am" having this thought. The Self is always constantly watching and guiding, but it is through the mind we watch. That is why they say, just rise above these emotions. Kids and wife and all of that is part of this. One day they are happy; next day they are upset. It is the nature of the world. It is not wrong or right. We are simply talking about the nature of the world, the nature of the human life and the nature of the body, the breath and the mind. And then in the mind, the emotions and the parts of the mind that everybody is affected by. It may be more or less depending on where one is in their journey, but everyone who has prana is affected by it, unless one is a Master or Self realized. And that is why they say to go toward self realization - because that Master is completely happy. It is the emotions and their changes that decrease your happiness. This understanding doesn't come by listening or reading. It only comes by meditation and contemplation and turning inward. That’s why a lot of people will hear me say this, or hear this, and intellectually understand it... but will they do something about it? Will it change their lives? They don't because it takes true practice and experience to KNOW. Everyone can give a nice lecture about it, but like the Bhagavad Gita says, even the wise ones are confused… even the wise ones behave exactly the same as one who is not wise. Wise means knowledgeable of the scriptures, of the technology of the philosophy and all of that. Meanings, and quotations one knows, but real knowing is Self. Knowing who you really are....Self. Like the quote from Swami Rama... "The greatest book to study is your Self" and then you will know. .. He says, "The interesting part of this manuscript of so called life is the beginning and the end pages are missing... you only have the middle pages with you. You don't know where it began and you don't know where it will end... you have the book, but its incomplete... you carry the middle pages of this life... you no longer have the past and you don't know the future." Study the Self. What is the Universal Power? Universal power is identical... Universal power is unity, friendship, love, commitment, growth. What I mean by this is that the powers that are in everybody and part of everyone’s nature no matter where one comes from; they exist in everyone. They are universal. The powers that are the nature of human being and which are: to be compassionate, to help each other, to give and to forgive. Those are the True nature of the Self and they exist in every human being.. And then the question comes, why does everyone then act differently? That is their ego. Ahimsa. If your truth will cause violence in someone else, is it a violent act to tell them? Yes, there is a verse - Speak the Truth, but do not speak unpleasant truth. If it's a truth that may hurt somebody else, then remain quiet. Don't say it so you are saving yourself from not lying. The philosophy is, if a lie would benefit someone else then that lie is not a lie, because it is said or done for the benefit of somebody. The principal of ahimsa is very unique in that the definition of ahimsa changes depending on where and how you are applying it. It needs a lot of wisdom first to understand what it means and then more wisdom to understand how and where you would use the same ahimsa. If your actions are such that are hurting others, then from an ahimsa point of view those actions are violent actions. If not to do them would be hurting yourself, then that would be violence to yourself. Then one has to go deep into contemplation of what to do. If you doing it will hurt the other, and to not do it will hurt yourself, then one needs to find the middle path. That is why I am saying ahimsa is such a principal that is very difficult a lot of the time. The degree, the who, the how, all depend. There is a small story of a hunter that shoots a deer and then he is running after the deer and he sees the deer go inside a sage’s cottage. So the hunter went inside and said, did you see my deer that I just shot. The sage says, the one who sees cannot speak and the one who speaks cannot see. Which means, yes, my eyes saw, but my eyes are unable to say. My mouth is able to speak, but it has no eyes. The sage did not tell because he wanted to save the deer, and at the same time he did not lie. So this is the practicality of the teachings. It is very vast and it takes a lot of time. You can't understand it just by definition. You have to look at yourself and look at the other and come into the common ground of how far you can save yourself from nonviolence and save the other. It takes a lot of wisdom. Like in Gandhi’s case, he was absolutely against violence, but then he was sending people, and they were being shot and beaten by the British. Was it right or was it wrong? One has to really think what exactly he was trying to do. So this question cannot be understood in a plain manner and also cannot be answered with the simple word – non-violence. What is non-violence to you, where are you applying it, and then what is the result or consequence of the action… all these things one needs to contemplate. Is there difference between focusing on the breath and mantra meditation? Yes, they are two different techniques. Focusing on the breath is the preparation part before focusing on the mantra which takes you deeper into a higher level and is when meditation begins. Meditation is from the mind, so mantra is from the mind, or of the mind or by the mind. Breath is not. They are different stages of meditation. The focus on the breath is the beginning stage, and then going into the mantra recitation, and then no mantra, and then going into your being and doing nothing. Is there a 'best' kind of meditation? The best kind of meditation is when you have reached or obtained total stillness of the body, breath, and mind. There is nothing even in the mind, only an awareness of your being. This is the best. This is a stage of meditation. There is more to meditation; do not limit yourself. Each state or stage is part of meditation and is still meditation, but the final stage is when you are free from all distractions and disturbances. You are there in totality of being aware of yourself. Is the desire for enlightenment or self realization just another attachment? Yes, it is a kind of a desire, but it is a higher desire. It’s a desire that is more pure and much more. It’s not associated with the negative emotions. So yes it is a desire. And when one reaches there, they leave that desire because they are already there. This desire is such a higher desire, so those are very pure, higher elevated desires. Non-possessiveness. How does saving and setting aside for the future play into the eight limbs, into aparigraha and surrender and faith? Aparigraha is that you are freeing yourself by practicing this principle so that you don't accumulate and don't get attached, because attachment is the cause of sorrow, pain, and misery. You don't want to get into pain, misery, and sorrow, so you start to practice this idea. Slowly... to anything and everything... slowly... Don't give up what is necessary to start. And then slowly, slowly you will start cutting that down. If I have ten pairs of pants, do I really need ten pairs? I could probably survive nicely with seven. So if one is practicing non possessiveness, then one gives away three pairs. Then slowly slowly, do I really need seven? I could do well with five and then I give away two. And slowly you minimize and minimize. So if we are planning for the future, and putting away money, does this mean we are lacking in faith and surrender that we will be provided with all we need? Yes, this question has both a practical approach and also a philosophical approach. The practical approach: if you are still not totally sure and not completely able to surrender, then yes, you do need to save for the future and have that peace from being practical. But one who has totally surrendered, then, yes, they never doubt that surrender even. Then it is ok. Then with that surrender the consequences are as such that even if they are painful, one doesn't feel pain. It makes his or her commitment or surrender even stronger. But if you still have doubt then, yes, be practical and save. So then doubt would be attachment? It may not be attachment, but you get attached later… it may be that you are just being very practical and wise in the beginning, but if you get attached by worrying what if, what if, oh the shares are down, oh I should have sold my gold, oh I lost money.. Then you have attachment and worry and pain from this attachment. If for the future you were wise and bought gold because it was there; then if it goes up and down or changes, you will not worry. When the time comes and you need to sell that gold, whatever the value will be will be the value… rather than worrying each day what will happen. So stress and dis-ease could be strongly reduced or eliminated by practicing non-attachment? Absolutely, that’s why they say disease... so you dis-ease… so be more at ease. Disease and Dis- ease. There is a close relationship. You are not at ease; that's why there is a disease. Yes, but getting back to the question. You can accumulate whatever it is you want, but what they are saying is, don't be attached to it. It simply means if that which you have is taken away from you, it should not create pain. That is what non-attachment.
|
|||||
 |
|||||