The Mystic Sciences

From An Interview with Shamcher Bryn Beorse

J=Jelaluddin Boru, S=Shamcher

J: When I heard you speak on the “mystic sciences”, the I Ching, tarot, astrology, etc. up in Toronto this spring, it kept striking me that you were saying something on a deeper level than that they simply don’t have any value. That they could be aids to developing our insight, but the hold of their attraction over us is such that they have degenerated into something much less than they had been intended to be…
S: Yes. Someone once asked Inayat: “Shouldn’t we sufis get our charts read?” And he answered: “Where are the astrologers?”
That is the whole point.
Swami Yukteswar, Yogananda’s teacher, once wrote a book called the “holy science” that said that Indian astrology, on which is based Western astrology, is about 400,000 years wrong because of a mistake made many, many years ago.
The whole idea of zodiacs, twelve zodiacs–why twelve and not a million?

J: I had this explained to me once that the twelve zodiacs correspond to the six chakras below the crown. That there is a masculine and feminine side to each, and the zodiac was an external correspondence to the pathway of our Kundalini energy…
S: That sounds very good. But some say we have six chakras, some twelve, some three, some four… They are all constructs of the mind, descriptions. Why believe someone else’s descriptions? It is better to wait with a judgment until one has gone very deeply into oneself and seen these things. Then, if you see six chakras, of course for you there are six chakras, and if you see three then of course for you there are three… It is different for each person.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Direct Communication

From correspondence:

All titles or hierarchies expressed in this world, while pretending to be functions, are not true functions but dilettantic games. You have a very good mind. Why do you still worry about these things?

Now as to direct communication: That happens in a world for which the language we use, such as English, French, or Arab or Russian — has no words. Therefore any explanation would be entirely faulty. I knew, not always but often, people’s feelings or thoughts when I was a child. I could communicate directly with Inayat Khan at age 26-29 but not with others at that time. By simple meditations I gradually regained lost talents — though not until I was in the seventies. Patient meditation did it. Often you write to me about your feelings and views that I already know. But it seems to me you are more angry with me than you express in your gracious letters. Your ideas on this would be appreciated.

Can I teach you to thus communicate? No, and I believe nobody can. But I can tell you how I achieved a half-way ability and you might try the same: Meditation at definite hours each day. For example from 4:20 a.m. on in the morning. That suits me. And the breathing I taught you before that, in fresh air. Now, what kind of meditation? For you I would think: No object: no person, no picture but simply void your mind of appetites — for food, sex, possessions, progress, money, wealth, fame. In the emptiness a third part of yourself peeps forth: Intuition. After many or few years. After months or centuries. That is all I can say.

There are psychics. They are called, in my book, distorted. They tell you they can predict events with 80% accuracy. Phooey on them. God has not even decided on those issues and they try to rob God of his options. So many astrologers do the same. You may call the psychic talents “gifts”. Mostly they are gifts produced by a misdirected urge, another appetite. An appetite for being different, able to do what most others cannot do. Not bad in itself, perhaps, but bad when predicting happenings — instead of creating those happenings by our actions. Not merely mystics but doctors, economists, senators play the stupid game of forecasts. Forecasts become excuses for inaction. They are based on past follies rather than the future we should create. In that sense psychics are undesirable. You may reach a stage where you see patterns, but you know or should know that these patterns may not necessarily occur. You try to change what ought to be changed, rather than advertising your wonderful sixth or fourteenth sense.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Mind, The In-between

From the newsletter, Sufis Speak.

Mind obviously is not the physical body, nor is it the spirit. It is the link between the two, the in-between. It is not a straight and simple in-between, it is so complex and tricky that many lose themselves, temporarily at least, in its labyrinths and concepts. Mind plays games. These games are often enjoyable, sometimes useful, often useless and worse. Pride, humility, judgments, grades, ranks, titles, hierarchies are some of these games, devoid of ultimate reality. Politics may sometimes save a person from a limited concept — most often to plunge him down into an equally limited concept, a rip-roaring game. This game may save a nation from excesses, but also prevent a wise council from ever being heeded. The mind jumps quickly from any mere word or gesture to irrelevant and often fateful conclusions.

Religion, is that clean and pure, the opposite of politics? It is only a hair’s breath removed, another entertaining and dangerous mind game, where people cling desperately to a concept which they mistakenly call “faith”. They mean creed. Faith is a larger thing, a surging force that borders on spirituality. In people’s minds this surging force may be confused with the mind concept they have and cause havoc to themselves and others.

Any criticism, expressed in words, of a person or a person’s belief or behaviour, is a mind trap. By that criticism you lie on that person, who is never a belief or a behaviour but a moving, surging power, never standing still or really a captive of any game, not for long at least. Inayat Khan used to say “by mentioning what you think is a person’s fault, you nail him to that fault, although luckily you may not succeed”.

The psychics and fortune tellers conduct not merely an exercise in futility but by their “predictions” may even cause what they predict. The weak-minded persons who commit most assassinations are influenced by the fierce desires of the predictors to see their guesses come true. A wise man, on the other hand, may perceive trends and without saying a word into the world of confusion, works to cause the best solution.

In Mathematics certain minds alert to symbols work their way toward solutions unattainable without the mathematical tool — though not unattainable to certain spiritual persons who arrive directly without the symbols. A similar approach is astrology, similar in that involved symbolism is in it. Astrology has not, in general, reached the level of mathematics. Some mathematicians have sniffed at it, and remark: There are several bases in use, each reaching different conclusions. Do you look at the heavenly bodies from the Earth? (most astrologers do), or from the sun? (heliocentric astrology) or are you based on the constellations? (called Hindu astrology, though all three factions are practiced in India). About the twelve zodiacs, is there anything basic to nature in these twelve
clusters, or are they merely a shortcut from the infinite number of points in the hemisphere? Has this been researched by competents or is the present practice just an inheritance from the past, indiscriminately used?

At the beginning of this century the Indian yogi Sri Yukteswar wrote in HOLY SCIENCE that the hindu astrology as then practiced were many thousands of years wrong in its calculations due to a “mistake that crept into the almanacs about 700 B.C.” As a consequence, he writes, the concept of the astrologers that we are now in a down point in the spiritual cycle is wrong. We are up and rising. Some have accepted this correction. Others have not.

There is no doubt about the close relationship of everything living, including man, woman, trees, animals, planets, sun and stars, all linked in a grand enjoyable rhythm that we should try to feel and know by all means at our disposal. Though a well known American astrologer Dane Rudhyar writes “Astrology, as I understand it, has no concern whatsoever with whether a conjunction of planets causes something to happen to a person or nation.” Paracelsus wrote in the fifteenth century, “Constellations are subordinate to the wise man. They have to follow him, not vice versa. Only a man still on the animalistic level is ruled by the planets.”

Inayat Khan was once asked if we ought not to consult astrologers, have our horoscopes read. From above presentation his answer may be appreciated, “Where are the astrologers?”