The Human Union

The burning issue of the day, and I'm finding myself to be pretty liberal on the subject, is whether animals should be allowed to join the Human Union.

Those who take the conservative position say, "It is called the Human Union," which is a great point. And they are 100 percent correct that since the inception, all these years, only humans have had admittance. But whether that's the way it should remain, of course that's key to the issue.

I don't think I'm too far off the mark to say, Just because something's been that way for a hundred years (or whatever it is) doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. On this issue, how do we know our forefathers were correct in their judgment? It's not like we were there to give our opinion or the opportunity to hold sway with decent arguments in favor of animals. So, say they made a mistake in excluding them, should we and the animals of today have to to maintain it? I don't think so.

And another thing, not just looking at the past but at the future, if we kept the argument that the forefathers' system should stand, those of the future will look back to our ratification of it for further justification that it should remain that way. And if we're simply ourselves ratifying the past because it is the past, then I can't see how we're passing on a valid basis for future generations to make their own determination. In that case, they would be as foolish (or more so) than we are now -- I know the word foolish is harsh -- and there will never be progress.

It seems that common sense cries out that the forefathers' opinions and choices are not of necessity more valid than our own. What leads us to think they would be? That they happened to live before us? So what? There's no infallibility because you live before someone else. In that case, we also have infallibility in relation to future generations. I don't see it!

Let's say we allowed animals in the Human Union, but future generations, as opinions shifted, thought animals should be excluded, would they then be prevented from making that determination simply because some conservative voice of the future reverences our present generation as past and thereby infallible? It's lunacy, and ironic, that conservatives now would say one thing, yet conservatives of the future would take the exact opposite side, simply out of a reverence for past opinion or precedent.

I say, let's debate it rationally, then decide the issue, not centering on precedent. Let's look at the actual implications of what it would mean for animals and humans both. It could very well usher in a new age of animal-human relations, where we're not always simply at one another's throats. Yes, it might make the separate Animal Union somewhat obsolete, somewhat, because animals of course could maintain their own union if that were their choice. They've already said as much, with some of their conservative members already saying, That's the way it's always been, and that their own forefathers knew what they were doing when they set it up that way.

The truth, of course, is far murkier. As I recall the history, the Animal Union started as an animal version of the Human Union. It looks like the animals never would've thought of it on their own, previously being content just to eat each other, yet complain that no one was doing a damned thing about it.

Masturbananda -- The Need For Seed

You've got seed and you've got need.

The need is a personal, discernible need, often with personal motives. But the need is also part and parcel of nature's drive, there of course being no clear division between the two needs except what we see as true because of our sense of a personal consciousness.

Where the seed comes from and the compulsion behind it, these things obviously arise from beyond our individual personal consciousness and choice. They are a given in nature to the nature we are. The nature has one path leading toward regular replication. It also takes an evolutionary path, going toward higher expressions of nature. Then, ultimately, there is union with the Divine at the heart of it all. You can probably tell I'm thinking of concepts that come from a mix of Sri Aurobindo and Ken Wilber's teachings, as well as the teachings of Sri Masturbananda.

Of the masters who deal with seed and the various needs of seed, Masturbananda is no doubt the preeminent authority. This is right at the heart of his teachings, and in light of that, we find him to be very practical. Because this is at the center of every man's life. (We're excluding eunuchs and possibly the Pope. Note to women: You're going to have to look elsewhere. We know there is some psycho-physical corollary in your experience, but what it is and how it works is a complete mystery to us. We basically know where the off/on switch is, but how the apparatus behind it should most accurately be described is so far unknown.)

Sri Masturbananda's teaching is in agreement with the mainstream of science as to the properties and "needs" of seed, while going beyond them in terms of the hidden potentialities of the same for man's union with the Divine. He bases his teaching not on speculation or doctrine handed down but on personal experimentation and discovery. And so he passes it on, that his chelas (students) may discover it for themselves. He's not asking them to take anything simply by belief or trust, but calls on them to test the teachings and see.

As I've written before, Masturbananda teaches that real glimpses of the Divine are given to us through our best devotions. And he shows the way. How many times I can remember the Master retiring to one of the ashram's outhouses! Everything is as normal. Then there's an obvious fervency at work and we can tell there is something of greatness in our midst. An intensity that you can just feel is building in the atmosphere.

Suddenly all of your senses hone in on the outhouse! The sounds are greater and greater, even becoming ethereal and less distinguishable as mere sounds and become a feeling, like a shroud of intuition covering you! The eyes behold a glow covering the facility! Everything is working itself up in a wild crescendo. And then, we duck for the cover, the roof is blown clean off, and a jet stream of the purest light arises from the earth and meets another beam coming from somewhere beyond!

That's leadership. That's showing the way. I say it like that because the Master is always in unity with the Divine; he doesn't need to do this, but he takes part in the grosser forms of devotion to be our example. And you got to love him for it! It certainly inspires us, and how much greater then is our own fervency upon retiring to our chambers in the light of the Master's blessed condescension. The big difference, of course, is that none of us has yet caused real roof damage; perhaps some ceiling spotting, some of the bigger guys, but that's about it.

The more I concentrate on his blessed teaching, the more inspired I am, and that's the way it is for all of us. Because this isn't just something that arises from us, but is part of the Divine plan. Once you see it, you can't see it any other way. These potentialities are with us, but clearly they are from beyond us, speaking from an egoic perspective. That the Divine wills for union with us, and finds equal or exceeding joy in that, is all the added inspiration we need to be faithful to our devotions!