A client comes into practice. At some point she indicates that she believes that the course of her life, which hasn't been easy (and still brings the necessary challenges), is determined by karma.
Karma is also called the law of cause and effect. This means that everything we do (action) is a cause that has a consequence at a later date. That later time can relate to this life or a next life.
I ask the client what it means to her that she believes in reincarnation & karma.
She says: "It must have been my own fault that my life has run like this, I am the cause of it. Is that right? I ask. Is it your own fault?
Do you know what all your actions were in a past life that makes your current life run as it is? No, she says.
Do you have the control of your life? Did you choose the nest in which you were born? The conditions as they look like? Have you chosen your parents? Were you doing that? I don't know, she says.
Is it your Life or Life that is living you?
And which voice do you hear when you say:'It is all my fault?'
Is that the voice of the heart, the voice of compassion and love?
Or the voice of your parents, the voice of the past, the voice that is connected to painful memories, the voice of the mind, that keeps repeating the same scenario: it is your fault that your life runs like this... Is that true? And are these convictions helpful?
As long as we are programmed and conditioned beings, can there be freedom of choice? The freedom to act differently from the scenarios written in our program?
What is the use of looking at yourself and existence in this way (guilt and penance)? Do you see that the mind seizes everything, even the concept of karma and reincarnation to keep you trapped in guilt, in condemnation of yourself?
Yes, says the client, that is what I realized later..., it isn't helpful. The only thing what I can do, is how I deal with this life in this moment. Exactly, I say, taking responsibility for what comes on your way, waking up from the conditioned state of being, awakening from all those learned reaction patterns and beliefs that don't support Life. That has nothing to do with guilt or punishment.
In the end we don't know if karma exist, we don't know if reincarnation is true or untrue. And does it matter?
Your life take place here and now, focus on that.
Meditate and use self-examination to escape from the grip of the mind, which terrorizes you with thoughts and emotions such as guilt, fear, not being good enough, karma etc.
And: Life remains a mystery. Fortunately…, we can philosophize about it, but we don't know the final answer. And that's a good thing too.
Having said that, I feel an affinity with the concept of 'reincarnation'. In other words: the Consciousness, Life itself (not an 'I' or 'ego') chooses the circumstances (life after life), to come home to the Self (which we already are, but don't remember) from where we are released from the wheel of rebirth.
A while ago I read a book by Osho (Until you die) in which he gives a refreshing view of the basic concepts of religions such as Hinduism (reincarnation/karma), Sufism and Christianity. It fascinated me.
I would therefore like to share with the reader what Osho has to say about these topics. A few pages from the book (page 144 and further), in a shortened version, form the basis for the text below. The italics of certain Osho statements comes from me, as well as some words that are written in brackets. By 'false' is meant: the conditioned, mechanical structure (ego/mind).
Okay, here we go:
'The truth can't be told directly to you. Something needs to be done so that you gradually follow your path to truth. (...) Knowledge must gradually grow in you through certain circumstances. And of course only false circumstances will help, because you are unreal. (...)
To give an example: suppose you live in a closed house, a house you have never been out of. You have never seen the sun, you never heard the birds, you never felt the wind going through the trees. You have never been outside, you have never seen flowers or the rain. You have lived in a closed house, completely closed, not even a window. Then I come to you and I want you to come out and sing with the birds and dance with the wind and be like the flowers that open (...) for the infinite. But how can I tell you something about the world outside? There is no language for it. If I talk about flowers, you will not understand. 'Flowers?', you will ask, 'What do you mean by flowers? Prove first that they exist.' (...) And with whatever proof I come, you can refute it, you can come up with counter-arguments. (...)
'You dream,', you will say. 'It is your imagination', you will say, 'there is no outside world'. This is the only world; there is no other world. What are you talking about?' (…)
The difficulty is: in which language should I speak to you, which parables, which symbols should I use? Whatever is said, it will evoke misunderstandings - because you can only understand something when you have experienced it. (...)
I will have to apply some method.
That method is neither true nor false. (…)
For example, I can create a fever situation: 'The house collapses. Come out as soon as possible! (...) Jesus did that.
He said, 'The whole world will collapse. (...)
The end is near - The Day of Judgment.'
So far it hasn't happened. And Jesus said to his disciples, 'Before you die the day of judgment will come. Make sure you undergo a transformation, change yourself, repent! Come to repent! Because time passes quickly and the house collapses.'(...)
What does he say?
You can't understand the language of freedom, only the language of fear. That is why he says that the day of judgment is near.
Jesus says: 'There is only one life. Once lost, always lost.'
That is why Jesus never used the Indian tool of reincarnation. (...) Jesus says, 'This is the only life', to induce a fever in you of fear. Because if he says that there are many lives, you can relax; then you can say: 'There is no hurry. This house will not collapse during my life and there will be more lives, so why should I hurry now?'(...) This way you can keep postponing. Jesus rejected procrastination. He said, 'There is only one life, this is the only life.' (...) 'And soon in this life, before your death, the day of judgment will dawn. Then your sins will be judged and you will be punished.'
What does he say? (…)
He is trying to get you out of your house. (...) As soon as you follow Jesus, as soon as you leave the house, you know that it was a ruse, that you were lured out. But then you are not angry: you feel grateful because it was the only way. And you were so unreal that even a Jesus had to use a lie to get you out of it. But once you get out, you forget everything about the day of judgment and god and his kingdom; then you forget everything about death and fear. As soon as you are outside, in the open air, in the wind and sunshine, you celebrate that, then you enjoy, then you are eternally and forever grateful to Jesus, because he showed such compassion that he even lied to you to be able to bring you outside.
In India we have used a different method and there are several reasons for that. India is very old. (...) The West is young. When you talk to an old man, you talk differently than when you talk to a young man - because their attitude is completely different. A young man always looks to the future. An old man always looks at the past, because there is no future for an old man. (...) The Eastern spirit wants to be delivered from both life and death. The East is bored, like every old man. (...) The East has enough of life. You can't promise more life. That is not a promise, on the contrary, that seems like a punishment. That is why we have used a completely different method in the East and that method is: the wheel of life and death. We say that you were born millions of times (...). And everyone continues to repeat the same pattern - childhood and the fantasies of childhood; youth and the follies of youth; old age and boredom and then death. And the wheel keeps moving. (…)
What is the message behind reincarnation theory?
The message is: enough is enough! Take it for granted now! Come out now! If you stay in the wheel, it will keep running. (...)
That is a language that a bored person can understand.
But both the one and the other are methods. Don't ask me if they are true. They are neither true nor untrue. Once you are out of the house, you will know if it is true; if you stay inside, you will never know the truth.
Everything that helps you on your way to the open air, to freedom, to openness, is true. If a religion can no longer help, it is false.
The idea of Jesus will not help the West much now. That is why the Western spirit turns to the East. Now the philosophy of boredom will be better because you are now old too. Christianity is less appealing. Hinduism, Buddhism are more attractive. You have grown old! (...) Reincarnation speaks more than one life. The Day of Judgment seems childish and one life doesn't seem sufficient. How can you judge a person by giving him only one chance? At least more opportunities will be needed to make a judgment, because he can only learn by trial and error. By giving him only one chance, you don't actually give him a chance. If he makes a mistake, he is mistaken. Then there is no time to correct the error. (…)
They are tools. 'A tool' is something that is neither true nor false.
It can help. If it helps, it is true. If it is a hindrance, then it is false. (…) And when you really are out, there is no need for any method anymore. All methods serve only to get you out of your closeness, out of your grave, out of your insensitivity, out of your unconsciousness.(...)
Sufis say that everything in life is so interrelated that the karma theory can't be right. And they are right, because their method is true too. If everything in life is so interrelated, how can karma theory make sense? According to karma theory, you are connected to your previous life, only with your previous life; you are a result of your own karmas and you reap the results of your own karmas.
But Sufis say that there is a connection between everything that lives: the karma of everyone else is my karma and my karma is the karma of everyone else. It is a network of mutual affinity. (...)
You throw a stone in the lake and the whole lake comes into turmoil. Everyone is like a stone in the lake. Whatever you do, you produce waves, vibrations. (...) The whole is whole thanks to everyone.
Sufis say that the karma theory basicly testifies to an egoistic attitude. And they are right!
According to the theory of karma you are - so what you sow you will harvest. That strengthens you, the ego. Sufis use a different pattern to take you out. You are no longer there. The whole is. You're just a wave. What does it make sense to think you are? Sufis say, if you understand the interconnection of everything, you simply let fall the point of view of an ego, then you are no longer a me. (...)
It is a method.
Hindus have their own method (karma theory). They say: 'If you sow, you will reap.' They mean: if you are in a bad mood, you yourself are the cause of it. If you are in fear, you have sown the poison somewhere in some kind of life and you now harvest the result. Why do they put so much emphasis on this?
For two reasons: First. If you feel that you are responsible, only you can let go of your misery and fear; there is no other way. If you think someone else is just as responsible as you are, you will stay as you are. What can you do about it? You alone can't change anything about it. This makes it impossible to let go of your misery and your fear.
Secondly and of greater significance: the Hindu method teaches that the whole phenomenon of the past - whatever you have done, whatever you have thought - is present in you right now. People think that the past can't be undone. Hindus say it can be undone because the past is part of the present. You carry it with you. You can't only change the present and the future, you can also change the past, you can drop it.
And, they say, freedom is possible, because you are the only one who is responsible for your life.(…)
Hindus believe that you are responsible for your karmas. Which is good. If you are responsible, then you can change, then transformation is possible. You are the only one involved. You can let go of your karma or you can carry it with you, whatever you want? And who would like to carry fear, misery, hell with him? You'll drop it all.'
End of a shortened version.
'Religion is opium for the people', a statement by Karl Marx.
It keeps people asleep. They remain slaves to those who are the rulers - whether this is the pope in Rome (etc.) or the big capital. And so it is..., any form of religion that doesn't bring us home in our hearts, keeps man in a coma.
Through the centuries we have been poisoned by the religions with guilt, penance, duty and hatred to ourselves and to others who live or think differently (homosexuals etc.) then that what is proclaimed.
The head (commandments/prohibitions: no abortion, monogamy, no homosexuality etc.) instead of the heart (open and free).
Identification with a belief (I am a Christian, Muslim, Jew etc.) has led to many conflicts and wars - and still does. With the mouth 'peace' and 'humanity' is preached and at the same time the sword is raised against everyone who lives and think differently. Or the opposite: there is being threatened with hell and damnation under the guise of Love and redemption of our suffering.
The word 'religion' etymologically refers among other things to the word 'religare' which means 'reconnect'. An interpretation that resonates with me, like the interpretation of Osho: religion is a tool - to turn inward (instead of outward).
Religion can be a tool to reconnect us to the divine essence that we are, beyond belief and unbelief, beyond any rule or doctrine, beyond the mind. And if a religion doesn't bring you home..., release it, it doesn't serve you. And go in search of a living master who can guide you on your path to awakening.
Everything that helps you on your way to the open air, to freedom, to openness, is true.
(Osho)
www.thehealingcircle.one
LinkedIn: Caroline Ootes
Enige tijd geleden ontving ik een mail waarin Wim (gefingeerde naam) aangaf dat bepaalde persoonlijke informatie, die ik met hem deelde niet resoneerde bij hem en dus ook niet klopte voor hem. Hij gaf aan bij zijn waarheid te willen blijven.
Niets mee mis, allebei een andere kijk op dat wat werd gedeeld, zou je zo zeggen. Ware het niet dat ik enige verkramping voelde in de vasthoudendheid van de opmerking die Wim plaatste. En dat wat ik deelde ging niet over hem, maar over mij waarbij het delen niet bedoeld was om enig advies of een mening van hem te ontvangen; ik deelde gewoon in alle openheid het een en ander. Opvallend dat Wim blijkbaar niet vanuit diezelfde openheid kon luisteren. Integendeel: hij liet naderhand weten dat als iets niet resoneert, het dan ook niet klopt voor hem.
Na een eerste uitwisseling tussen ons, zijn reactie gelezen hebbende, de bevestiging van hem gekregen hebbende dat hij open stond voor wat nadere feedback, stuurde ik hem onderstaande mail om een ander perspectief aan te reiken.
Zie hieronder:
Ha Wim,
Dank voor je reactie.
Je geeft aan dat als iets niet resoneert, je het gewoonweg niet vertrouwd.
Daar wil ik graag op ingaan. Ik wil niets afdoen aan jouw gevoel…en wil toch de nodige vraagtekens stellen bij de zin waarin jij aangeeft dat je ‘jouw’ waarheid niet teniet wil doen.
Wat is waarheid? En in hoeverre is ‘mijn’ waarheid waar?
Even een uitstapje:
Gisteravond lag ik op de bank en luisterde ik naar een satsang van Osho en de volgende zinnen raakten mij:
This is your understanding. You hear according to yourself. You see according to yourself. Because you have a fixed pattern of hearing and seeing. This has to be dropped. To know existence all fixed ideas has to be dropped.
Your eyes should be just windows, not projectors. Your ears should be just doors, not projectors.
Jij zult mogelijk aangeven dat er geen sprake is van fixed ideas (als het niet resoneert, dan klopt het niet voor mij) of van projectie, maar dat het gewoon je gevoel is. Maar in hoeverre is je gevoel zuiver of ‘waar’ als het hart nog niet volledig open en schoon is?
De hoogste waarheid is de taal van het hart: dan ontmoet je de ander zonder de drang van het ego (zoals je aangeeft in je reactie) om er iets van te vinden; dat leeft niet, je stemt je af op de innerlijke stroom van de ander, je bent de ander…, van waaruit je de ander kan verstaan. Dat is de taal van het hart.
Wanneer het hart nog niet volledig open en schoon is, dan luisteren en kijken we vanuit de mind: we projecteren, we interpreteren, we vinden er wat van…en dat is wat de ander voelt. De luisteraar is dan meer met zichzelf bezig, dan dat hij/zij aanwezig is bij degene die deelt.
Overigens wil dat niet zeggen dat op enig moment wat feedback gegeven kan worden…, als de ander daarom vraagt of als de ander bevestigend antwoordt op de vraag of er wat feedback gegeven mag worden. En soms vindt ongevraagd gegeven feedback plaats, ook dat komt voor; de ander wordt een ander perspectief aangereikt wat in een proces dienend (en confronterend) kan zijn, ook als de ander het op dat moment niet als zodanig ervaart. En soms is er geen herkenning van de feedback. Het is niet zwart-wit; het een of het ander.
Wat ik in de afgelopen jaren heb ontdekt is dat alles projectie is, werkelijk alles, totdat het hart transparant is. Op het moment dat dit diep doordringt, ontstaat er als vanzelf enige voorzichtigheid met het ventileren van een waarheid (over de ander), die voort komt uit ‘dat is gewoonweg mijn gevoel’.
Als jij aangeeft dat je mij niet wil weg zetten of verwerpen zoals je in het verleden met mensen deed, en je aangeeft dat je wil vast houden aan jouw waarheid (gevoel/mening) en tegelijkertijd wil ontdekken hoe je dan toch de ander kan ontmoeten, dan vraag ik mij het volgende af: Wat maakt dat je wil ‘vasthouden’ aan ‘jouw’ waarheid? Heeft degene die in openheid over zichzelf deelt naar ‘jouw’ waarheid gevraagd?
Ergens voel ik een verkramping daarin…hoe zou het zijn om gewoon aanwezig te zijn bij de ander, je te verplaatsen in de ander, in de achtergrond of innerlijke stroom van de ander, zodat je de ander wellicht wel kan horen, zien en voelen?
En zou het zo kunnen zijn dat je vast wil houden aan ‘jouw’ waarheid, omdat jouw waarheid in het verleden werd weg gezet of direct werd ontkend en verworpen, van waaruit je een drang voelt om, tegen alle stromen in, jouw waarheid overeind te houden: als het niet resoneert, dan klopt het niet voor mij.
Dit zijn zo wat overwegingen; het is aan jou om te onderzoeken (of niet) of iets resoneert en wat die resonantie jou dan te vertellen heeft. Ik ben benieuwd wat er in beweging komt…
En fijn, dank je wel dat je je open stelt voor feedback ook al voelt het mogelijk wat spannend zoals je zelf aangeeft in onze vorige uitwisseling.
Veel liefs,
Caroline
Een samenvatting van zijn reactie:
Hoi Caroline,
Dank voor je mail., deze mail ervaarde ik heel anders dan de vorige. Bij het lezen van je mail voelde ik gelijk een warm gevoel in m'n hart. Nu ik 'm weer lees is dat weer zo.
Ben nu al een paar dagen niet lekker. Ik hang op de bank en kijk wat tv.
Ik voel me daardoor ook wat kwetsbaarder en de gedachte aan je mail kwam weer op.
Net weer gelezen. Ja, ik voel dat er inderdaad een verkramping zit.
Wat is dan waarheid? Geen idee. Weet wel dat ik dat altijd onderzoek op het level dat ik kan zien of horen.
En juist door dit aan te gaan met jou en erover te sparren komt er weer wat meer ruimte. Alleen al de mogelijkheid het open te laten dat ik geen gelijk hoef te hebben of dat wat mijn gevoel zegt niet hoeft te kloppen doet dat al.
Dank voor de uitwisseling Caroline.
Liefs,
Wim
Voor de lezer: Observeer jezelf eens in intieme uitwisselingen met anderen.
In hoeverre ben je werkelijk aanwezig bij de ander? In hoeverre voel je en zie je het wezen van de ander van waaruit je de ander kan verstaan? Je zou kunnen zeggen: in hoeverre staat jouw wezen ‘aan’, waardoor je de ander in en vanuit het hart ontmoet?
Luister je vanuit openheid, afgestemd op de innerlijke stroom van de ander, zodat je de ander kan ontvangen, horen en voelen?
Of luister je vooringenomen? Luister je vanuit de mind, vanuit de criticus? Weeg en beoordeel je de informatie, die in een persoonlijke uitwisseling wordt gedeeld? Betrek je alles op jezelf, terwijl het niet over jou gaat, maar over de ander? Luister je vanuit een fixed idee: klopt dit wat de ander zegt of klopt dit niet?
Check ook eens gaande de uitwisseling of je ander wel juist hebt verstaan.
Enkele jaren geleden wisselde ik samen met een vriendin uit. Op enig moment moesten we allebei heel hard lachen en vroeg zij: waar lach jij nu om? Wat bleek: we lachten allebei om iets totaal anders, terwijl we beiden dachten dat we om hetzelfde lachten. Allebei lachten we vanuit een eigen projectie. Heel vermakelijk.
We denken de ander te verstaan, maar heel vaak horen en zien we alleen dat wat in ons leeft: onze overtuigingen, aannames, onze inkleuringen dus.
Tot slot:
Onderzoek eens wie de ander is voorbij jouw gedachten en evaluaties over de ander.
Wie is de ander werkelijk, voorbij jouw beeld en interpretaties over de ander?
Mensen zijn niet wat wij over hen denken…
Nogmaals: mensen zijn niet wat wij over hen denken...
Kijk eens naar de mensen waar je dagelijks mee leeft en optrekt: wat is de box waar je hen in hebt gestopt (zo zijn zij/aannames/oordelen) waar je aan hecht?
Zelfs de mensen die we het beste kennen, zijn eigenlijk diep mysterieus.
www.bewustzijnscoaching
LinkedIn: Caroline Ootes
Facebook: Caroline Ootes, Ontwaken, Bewustzijnscoaching
