We choose our mindset and therefore our karma/future/destiny

Research reveals that if a reader doesn't agree with what an author writes they will quickly move onto something else. You only have a few chances to grab their attention somehow. By the third sentence you've either lost them or won them over.

They call this selective '_ _ _ _ _ _ _' (insert noun here). It may be selective cognition, selective attention, selective perception, selective reasoning based on selective recall, or how about this one - selective memory, often used by politicians when sitting in the witness box.

We know what we like and don't like. These preferences dictate pretty much the whole of our lives. It is only when we face a dilemma - when the feedback from reality says it isn't working - that we take the time to look deeper or explore outside of ourselves for other possibilities. 

Sense gratification involves our sense organs, the object of our senses, and the network of nerves that connects it all to our brain via electrochemical stimuli. Different stimuli produces different hormones and complex molecular compounds which then affect our mood. Like rats up the proverbial labratory corridor we are treated by commercial interests as mere money-making lifeforms that predictably repeat the same things over and over. For those moguls it is simple - give the consumer what they want and the public will hand over their money without so much as a blink of the eye.

Now.. if you have read this far it means you are most likely open to suggestions about how you can change your life. I'm not going to sell you anything. I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to agree with my way of thinking. All I am going to do is respect you because you are aware that you have choices in life and know you don't have to react knee-jerk fashion to social elbowing, including the latest fashion, popular buzz words, facebook memes and trending wokeisms.

Congratulations. Keep up the good work. Most don't even realise they have choices!

Karma is usually held in abeyance

Three situations are operative all the time and it's a little more complicated than a simple 'past, present and future' scenario. There's reaction coming back at you from what you did in the past. There's reactions that haven't yet come back at you that you'll suffer or enjoy at some future time. And there's karma you do now that may be 'instant' but most likely you won't reap until the future. Only very rarely is it immediate - and for good reason! John Lennon popularised the concept of instant karma and as a result created a false impression... more on that later...

Actually there are three or more types – karma, vikarma, and akarma:

» Karma ('good karma') is action commended in accord with one's prescribed duties eg good deeds, helping others, or "doing the right thing", "obeying the law", "following my religion".

» Vikarma ('bad karma') is unauthorised action that is against or avoids the responsibility of carrying out one's duties eg dirty deeds, harming others, or "doing the wrong thing", "breaking the law", "going against your religion".

» Akarma ('cancelling karma') is action that frees oneself from the reaction to past deeds whether they be karmic or vikarmic ie "good or bad". Technically even good deeds cause bondage to the Material World because they come with a reaction such as a reward, a distinction or high place in society. Akarma frees oneself from even good reactions.

» There is another type of akarma known as naiṣkarma. This doesn't really apply to the average person because it only applies to highly realised souls who are either eternally transcendental or have achieved liberation. Naiṣkarma doesn't mean no action, it is spiritual action without any reaction that is performed 100% on the spiritual level – by elevated fully-realised Holy Teachers, Saints and Gurus such as Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Prabhupāda and numerous others. Such souls do not care for rewards, medals or sainthoods and go about their business without attachment or attraction to the fruits of their labour. These wise people are totally are karma-free, actually!

Back to karma and reaction being held in abeyance, and John Lennon's "Instant Karma". In hindsight there is no apparent connection between him being about to enter his apartment after returning from a recording studio and then being shot in the back other than that he was facing the door. Like most of us and our karma, he didn't see it coming.

The reason most karma isn't instant is to create the illusion of freedom from reaction so that the soul seeking happiness independently can do so without a constant reminder. This acknowledged accountability is for the theist ->to the Supreme Being, for the mystic or impersonalist ->to the Supreme Absolute Truth, and for the agnostic ->to the Universe or some other Higher Power. The atheist assumes total unaccountability. It is this very attitude that enables and maintains their illusory concept of life.

More on abeyance:

A thief would never commit a robbery if they knew they were going to be caught immediately. They only do so because they think they're going to get away with it. In this case it is obvious that the reaction to their deeds are held in abeyance unless or until they get caught. Even if they are arrested they may be let out on bail. Only on final sentencing might they actually have to pay for their misdeed. Even then, they could be later freed if there was a mistrial. Oh, how little we understand the workings of karma!

As for karma and vikarma, it is practically impossible to be able to tell if we are presently enjoying a reaction to something from a previous lifetime, something done in the past such as earlier in the day, last week, last year or even our childhood; something done in the present (virtually an immediate reaction, "instant karma"); or whether the effect will be held over – even into a future lifetime.

Often it can be very confusing. For instance, let's say a good Samaritan driving to Church stops to help a motorist who appears to have broken down, only to beaten up and robbed. A lot of people would think it makes no sense, making this world is unfair and meaning that there is no God. Well, these things happen without any apparent 'justice' because we don't understand what karma or vikarma is coming back from abeyance, which is being held over, and which is being created for the future; or which is "instant karma" (in this case none).

We have no idea when the results of all our pious impious activities will end, when 'our luck will run out', indeed how or when we will die - either meeting it accidentally, tragically or peacefully. But one thing is sure. We all have more than enough karma to force us to be reborn over and over again because we never stop accumulating it!

[Definitions of karma are as found in the Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita] 

आसन Āsana means sitting.

 आसन Āsana means sitting. 

"Eh what?" I hear you say, "I thought āsana meant a yoga posture!" (ha ha) 

Please allow me to explain. Contrary to popular misconception, what mostly everyone calls 'yoga' i.e. Haṭha-yoga, is actually just one small part of Aṣṭanga-yoga, which is in turn part of Jñana-yoga, a part of the larger picture of the three main yogas:-

1. Bhakti-yoga 

2. Jñana-yoga 

3. Karma-yoga

The practice of sitting to meditate is one of the Eight Limbs of Patanjali's Aṣṭanga-yoga. Separately, Haṭha-yoga is one such limb, a subset consisting of the discipline of regulated breath control achieved though various postures. Āsana actually means sitting - it wasn't until modern times (19th century) that it was used to mean the various yoga postures i.e. standing, lying, bending, etc of Haṭha-yoga. 

To Patanjali, āsana meant holding a positition in order to meditate. The best posture to maintain prolonged trance is sitting. If you lie down, chances are you'll fall asleep. If you stand, you'll fall over. To the modern yoga practitioner in the West it means anything but sitting! This is because the first Indian yogis who introduced it to America and Europe did not emphasise meditation - they were stuck on that level, that yoga rung, and could not rise higher on the yoga ladder due to bodily identification - possibly from doing too much Haṭha-yoga and not enough meditation haha! (or japa, or kirtan, or bhajans etcetera) 

To this day, mention the word 'yoga' and the first thing that enters people's minds is 'exercise positions'. It is a sad state of affairs because that posturing only makes up about 1-5% of the complete Yoga Ladder with all its various rungs. You can blame that on Vivekanda. 

The idea is to start at the bottom and work one's way up once each level of perfection is attained on subsequent rungs. It begins with Karma-yoga, charitable work. Practically every thing we do in life is aimed at reaping the fruits of our labour - and the first principle in yoking with the Divine (the etymological root of yoke is 'yog' Sanskrit for to 'join up') is letting go of selfish gains. 

Karma-yoga is a 'physical' yoga (if you like), and Haṭha-yoga is the next logical extension, using the body and controlling the breath in order to balance the airs, the vital life-forces that move between the chakras.

The purpose of all this is to be able to meditate undisturbed as in Jñana-yoga. By practicing breath control and postures (Haṭha-yoga) one is able to quieten the body so as to be able to sit (āsana) for long periods in order to go deeper and deeper into meditation.

The focus, the object of meditation (Jñana-yoga) is the Supersoul, the part of God that resides in the heart of every living being. The Yogi meditates on the Supersoul to seek union with the Divine. That is the true meaning of yoga - not a paid-for workout on foam mats in a class, or a trendy display of gymnastic ability. That is not Yoga, real in its true essence! 

#Note: I heard from one source that in 1811 or 1834 possibly the Sritattvanidi of the then Maharaj of Mysore, Krishnaraj Wodeyar III (1794 to 1868) wanting to compile a manuscript/treatise of South India of that time, funded the effort to put everything together including instructions and illustrations of 122 postures. 

Some of the first Haṭha-yogis who became famous in the West after introducing 'yoga' were Swami Vivekanda in the late 1800s and his disciple Pramahamsa Yogananda in the 1920s. They did not teach much (withheld?) if anything of the rest of the limbs of Patanjali's Eightfold Yoga System and virtually nothing on the other two main paths. Although karma was discussed there was little mention of Karma-yoga eg the kind of community service performed by Christians and other charitable institutions and philanthropists. There was no emphasis on Bhakti-yoga as introduced by Śrīla Prabhupāda in the 60s, and only a little of the Jñana-yoga of meditation popularised from the Hippie era and onwards by 'hip gurus' such as Gurdjieff, Rajneesh (the Orange People), Muktananda, Chinmoy, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi of TM (Transcendental Meditation) and Maharaj Ji (Prem Rawat) of the Divine Light Mission etcetera. That is why everyone thinks of āsanas when you say the word 'Yoga'. 

Very sad indeed. Only 1-5% of the real meaning of yoga.

Cosmology is not astronomy!

Astronomy and Astrology (which is generally considered a 'pseudo-science' in Western academia) is used to calculate movable feasts and Holy Days in religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Vaishnavism, etc.  

Old observatories located in Greenwich, Baghdad, Ujjain, and even Beijing were and still are used to monitor the movements of heavenly bodies, continuously making minor adjustments to their astronomical and astrological tables and refining the methods of calculating and predicting such movements.

In ancient ages planets moved at different speeds to the present time and continue to change velocity over extended periods. Even in our relatively short lifetimes, perceptible errors are recorded – as for instance, over decades the Earth's orbit varies and doesn't always concur to expected movement! Hence the need for observatories.

Puranic or Vedic Cosmology is a separate field of knowledge and is never used for such calculations. It deals with the mysterious heavens and the spiritual and metaphysical nature of the Cosmos. Most of this cosmology deals with the Universe outside our Solar System – what might be termed an impartial objective view as opposed to the purely subjective view of the heavens as seen from Earth. Therefore Vedic Cosmology does not necessarily represent an "Earth-view" of the Universe. Astronomy can only be subjective. It indeed has to be or it wouldn't be relative to us on Earth and wouldn't work. Even if the Universe is viewed from a satellite launched into space it still represents a singular subjective view. Combining several of those to get some sort of perspective still doesn't amount to objectivity. It is only collective subjectivity.

The original Surya-Siddhanta was spoken by the Sun demigod (Surya is another name for Vivasvan, there are many) at the end of the last Satya Yuga. Vedic scholars date this to over two million years ago, circa 2,163,102 BC. The Surya-Siddhanta closely aligns with the understanding of our solar system as western astronomy. Without it there would be no calculation method for Ekadasi.

Śrīla Prabhupāda's spiritual master, as a young scholar named Bimal Prasad, translated Surya-Siddhanta into Bengali around the turn of the 19th century (1800/1900), for which he was later awarded the title Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. It is highly unlikely that as pure devotees in the line of disciplic succession neither would Bhaktisiddhanta have ever touched nor would Srila Prabhupada ever mentioned such books if they were bogus just because they align with western astronomy.

We should therefore accept the Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Surya-Siddhanta as bona fide even though they appear contradictory, because they are accepted by great Vaishnavas, Their Divine Graces Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta.

All this Flat Earth, Moon Landing Hoax, the Moon is further away from the Sun arguing, etc is a complete waste of time. It distracts us from the real point of Bhakti-yoga and appears to be prajalpa, idle talk, nonsense jibber-jabber.

I present my unqualified opinion in the hope that we can all drop this endless riddle and move on. 

Hare Kṛṣṇa 

Pure tuning for guitar

How to tune a slide guitar to pure pitch: (you might first like to skip to the paragraph titled 'Important'). QUICK METHOD just tune the top two. 

Tune the low E to a D, but 2 cents sharp. For the time being we will leave the A and D in standard tuning to make this simple. Later you can make them beatless using harmonics if you can be bothered.

Using the G string as our root note (you may therefore want to tune your A string to a G as well) the B string is a major third up, so we will tune this 14 cents FLAT (it's actually closer to 13.7 but 14 will do).

The top E we now tune to a D (the perfect 5th of G) but again, 2 cents sharp so that it is 702 cents (perfect) instead of 700 cents (Equal Temperament).

We now have DGDGBD. The D's and G's should be 2 cents wide. You can check this by playing the harmonics, which should be beatless (not the band). The B is 13.7 cents flat to the G.

Playing the slide across any part of the neck, or indeed fingering a Grand Barre chord across a single fret, will result in a Pure Major Chord, absolutely beat-free and solid. At first this may seem dull and lifeless because all your life you've been listening to beating thirds that are slightly out of tune. You may hear this beatlessness as a lack of 'vibe' but actually the notes are all vibrating together better than ever but our ears aren't used to the different tuning or the lack of beating. Of course you can always later on add vibrato to get it back but that's not the exercise here.

This is what Beethoven, Mozart, Strauss and all the Masters heard when they composed music BECAUSE EQUAL TEMPERAMENT WASN'T UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY until at least the late 19th century. In fact it wasn't until 1917 that W.B.White came up with a formula for tuning a pianoforte accurately to ET, all based on the piano tuner counting the beats between every single string and note, sometimes as much as 7 or 8 beats per second (a real skill). 

That's what piano tuners do - what makes ET what it is and facilitates total freedom in modulation. Every INTERVAL must BEAT on a well tuned ET piano because they are all somewhat out of tune. 

Up until 1917 it was hit and miss, actually constituting a type of quasi-equal temperament. Some of the black keys were still "off" a little! Like harpsichords and clavichords, the first pianos (invented by Bartholemew Christofori) were tuned to meantone or well-temperament as made famous by Johann Strauss and his Das Wohl Temperirte Clavier 24 Preludes.

So when the Grand Masters played music, composed music, or listened to music, equal temperament did not exist (hadn't been invented) so therefore the majority of it was either in pure tuning, meantone, or later, well-temperament. String quartets invariably played using pure tuning, the strings tuned to beatless perfect fifths or fourths (eg viol, viol de gamba) depending on the instrument. Inherently the open high E string is therefore quite out of tune with a fingered low C. Violinsts therefore will always use their fingers to play a high E. Learners use the open strings which is why they sound so bad.

Open strings must be used judiciously, usually only played simultaneously with stopped strings as a fourth or fifth drone, the thirds and sevenths being avoided because of the out-of-tuneness. Interestingly, fiddle players do the opposite and may utilise the open string/s as a major or minor third to add an 'edge' to their playing. That's why fiddles are so often 'off' yet raucous!

Pianos were originally shunned by orchestras because they didn't fit in with the strings and brass which naturally tend towards pure intervals. In those days they weren't yet used to Equal Temperament. In fact a modern violinist has to learn to play their major thirds deliberately sharp by 14 cents to make their instrument be in tune with the other ET instruments. A well-made violin will often "go dead" playing an ET major third because the ribs were filed and sanded by luthiers back in the early days so that the strings resonated with all the main keys eg C, F, G, Bb, Eb etc (or so the myth goes... why the Stradivarius was so special, apparently). The quarter comma meantone that I use on piano was common in the period of the Masters, especially on harpsichord and clavichord, meantone having being developed and formularised by Pietro Aaron since before the 1500s.

Important:

The Human Ear has difficulty discerning difference in pitch of a few cycles per second and only begins to hear separate notes at around half a dozen cents (5-6 % of a semitone). Worth noting here is the difference between cents and cycles per second. Two notes that are X cycles per second apart will beat at X cycles per second. NO-ONE can hear one cent difference as a difference in pitch. But anyone can hear two notes beating, wo-wo-wo-wo-wobble, because of the difference in air pressure as the sound waves hit the eardrum.

Octaves represent a doubling of Hertz eg A as 220, 440, 880 etc. Cents on the other hand divide each semitone into one hundred. At high frequencies a cent may be several Hertzes; in the low register it is the other way around - for instance, the difference between a low E on a bass guitar at 41.2 Hz and the F at the first fret 43.6 Hz is only 2.4 Hertz yet they're still 100 cents apart.

In Equal Temperament the only interval that is perfectly in tune is the octave. The fifth is two cents flat and the fourth is two cents sharp - which explains why it is impossible to tune a guitar using harmonics unless you count the beats and tune adjacent strings so they waver a little - about two beats per second. It is a skill I have yet to master and thus I still rely on a digital tuner. If you tune the A to the E using the harmonics at the 5th and 7th frets, the resultant interval between the two strings will be 2 cents wide - 702 cents instead of 700 in ET. By the time you get to the G (E-A, A-D, D-G) you're 6 cents wide - an out-of-tuneness that the ear CAN discern. That resulting G will sound terrible when fretted to make the major third G# in E major because the ET maj 3rd is already 14 cents sharp and adding 6 cents results in a fifth of a semitone difference. If we can't hear that, we should give up playing music. 20 cents is WAY out of tune in anyone's book.

Roughly speaking pure major intervals (3rd and 7th) are 14 cents flatter than ET, and pure minor intervals are about 17 cents sharp. As mentioned before, the so-called Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth are anything BUT perfect, both being out by 2 cents, but we can't hear it other than the beating. The minor and major seconds and sixths are far closer in both temperaments, so much so that substituting them will hardly cause any noticeable difference. But once the ear has learnt pure major and minor thirds and sevenths there is no denying the difference. It is sort of like not having enough sugar in your tea or coffee, or too much, more than the usual. There is a Goldilocks zone where the pure intervals sound 'just right'. It has to be learnt - ear training - if one is accustomed to only hearing music played in Equal Temperament.

Perhaps the most obvious example, where everyone can perceive the difference, is like when listening to a brass band or a string quartet (those musicians if unaccompanied by ET instruments will automatically gravitate to pure intervals because they sound 'thicker', 'stronger', 'better') ... and then the piano or guitar comes in and ruins everything. Whether or not you have realised it, in listening to the brass or strings playing pure intervals for some time, your ears have adjusted and gotten used to it. The introduction of ET piano or guitar will invariably seem an out-of-tune intrusion, an uncomfortable awkward mismatch. In the same way that brass bands sound out of tune (although they're actually playing in tune!), once the ear adjusts to pure intervals suddenly Equal Temperament doesn't sound "quite right". It's a subtle difference but well discernable once learnt.