VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:28:05 01/14/05 Fri
Author: H - 23 Dec 2004
Subject: Delusions of grandeur


Before Ashok Singh appeared on the board and advertised his army-of-gurus project (some articles now deleted), I had commented on the article "Vedic Kriya Yoga Overview", but as this was part of a thread that too had to be deleted I will repost it below. I found it stored in my cache.

There is one point I did overlook then. Near the end of the article he writes:

"Remember that the VKY practice is to establish your consciousness in the Kutastha (the Third eye) in a breathless (do not hold the breath, practice will get you there), peaceful, loving, anandopranic state."

"anandopranic state" must be what Shibendu so vehemently warns against when he speaks of "indulging in experiences". I am not an adherent of the no-mind faith, but as far as I know it is indeed emptiness of mind rather than anandopranic bliss what serves as an ideal requirement for realization of Atman. Many of the Vaishnavins after Chaitanya fell due to their mixing up bhakti with Anandic indulgence, thereby degrading god-oriented love and devotion to physical enjoyment, emotionalism and sentimentalism. This is also an ideal breeding ground for spawning creeds and sects, and the result will be another misconception about yoga, moving it into close proximity to superstition by making promises that it cannot easily fulfil.

I feel there is an interrelation between the missionary ideal Ashok promotes and the indulging in experiences. The desire for and attachment to glamorous experiences and 'bliss' brings about a more subtle desire to convert people to what is felt to be 'the real thing'. It is like making innocent people indulge in dope. But in yoga, the idea of 'helping others' selflessly and setting oneself up as a teacher - even if justified on the face of it - is held to be a sattwic delusion. It is better to attain perfection first and even afterwards teach others only when necessary. Ashok continues:

"That allows the entry in the Brahma consciousness at the 7th Chakra. After that God takes over and becomes your Guru and companion. All these practices are to get there and stay there."

If this is so, why then doesn't he go to the Brahma consciousness at the 7th Chakra first and get settled there instead of promoting fictitious teaching projects spanning the next 3 to 5 centuries? Rajarsi was granted attainment of this state not before he rejected the Guru role, and afterwards he didn't bother and felt indifferent about such ideas.

There is really no dearth of Kriya teachers these days. It would be better if the qualifications of the existent teachers were checked and raised to a higher level rather than the quantity of teachers increased.

H


---------------------------------

Re(1): Vedic Kriya yoga

IP: 80.133.44.135

Posted on 12/12/2004 at 07:10:18 AM by H

Generally a nice article. However, some points:

The Twentieth century laid a ground work for introducing yoga to the world by the great Gurus like Lahiri Mahasaya, Swami Vivekananda, Paramhansa Yogananda, Swami Muktananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami Prabhupad and their offshoots to name a few major contributors. Except Lahiri Mahasaya, the above Gurus drew attention to their own intellectual abilities, or their own holiness or celibacy, or they assumed divine power as a Guru, or just promoted and preached Bhakti (devotional) aspect of the yoga and totally down played the meditation, intellectual, or karma yoga. Some of them proclaimed themselves as the last Guru of their line in direct contradiction to the Vedic expansion and contraction of the universe. Only Lahiri Mahasaya set an example to teach the yoga by not proclaiming his holiness, nor his celibacy, nor his super-intellectual power, nor his arbitrary authority to discard one aspect of yoga at the cost of the other, nor his imperial-dictatorial desires. The result is that a lowly common man as well as the holiest of man can identify with Lahiri Mahasaya and practice the yoga as it was given by God to all man to practice.

This is a bit misleading, if not to say slanted. First of all, I do not know why Swami Vivekananda was included in the list.

Secondly, as a common householder I do find it more difficult to identify with someone who has been granted Nirvikalpa Samadhi by a deathless avatar right at the outset than with some Swami who started right from scratch, or became one in the course of his sadhana. The way Lahiri Mahasaya is generally portrayed makes him rather unaccessible, someone who was "different" right from the beginning, already in childhood.

There are many people who found and find enlightenment by worshipping Sri Krishna, but a mythological cowherd should be even much less fit to serve as an object of identification than an intellectual swami. A 19th century Bengali Brahmin is so much different from the culture and requirements where I live that a mendicant sadhu or a mythological symbol do not strike me as being more alien to me and all that surrounds me.

There is also an unpardonable bias in that paragraph: He lists controversial people like Prabhupada and Maharishi Mahesh Yoga as representatives of Yoga but does not mention the less controversial and almost universally recognized yogis like Ramana Maharshi or Anandamoyee Ma, or Iyengar of the hatha branch, and other spiritual luminaries of renown. That there are hundreds or thousands of authentic gurus from various, often local traditions who keep a low profile and have no websites he does not mention either.

If you do not have some background knowledge, you easily are led to think that apart from Lahiri Mahasaya practically all gurus either have grave defects in character or teaching, or are unsuited for "modern householders".

He also does not mention the real situation. And this is that many of the present-day teachers of Kriya Yoga are by no means less controversial than the various well-known teachers of other traditions who he lists, and that it appears to be next to impossible to find someone who seems to be near as advanced as Lahiri Mahasaya.

He also forgets to mention that actually, like vichara or bhakti, Kriya Yoga works to the best of effect with only a number of people - those with an inborn compatibility with that yoga system.

After all I have experienced and seen during the last years I would hesitate recommending Kriya to anyone going for sadhana. "Give it a try with SRF and otherwise be careful," would be my advice.

Also, Lahiri Mahasaya did not teach to breath from the mouth while practicing the Kriya as the SRF teaches.

I was taught both methods and found the open-mouth pranayam as taught by SRF to be more effective and wholesome. This pranayam was not introduced by Paramahansa Yogananda either, but some claim it was started by Sri Yukteswar. I doubt that we know how Lahiri Mahasaya originally taught it, or whether there was a uniform method. There is not sufficient documentation and too much claims supporting certain lineages above all others.

Some of them proclaimed themselves as the last Guru of their line in direct contradiction to the Vedic expansion and contraction of the universe.

What a nonsense. What has this to do with passing on spiritual authority, or rather a tradition?

I do not know the background of that site but this sentence can very easily be recognized as the justification of someone praising their own lineage, and jealousy regarding the ongoing success of Yogananda's branch. Understandable, but not fit for generalization. All traditions run out after some time and are replaced by others. In many cases there is also no one considered fit to act as a successor.

Guru Gobind Singh is considered one of the greatest Sikh gurus. Nevertheless he stopped the parampara tradition and set up a book as guru. He will have had his reasons.- If Yogananda had not stopped the lineage with himself, the most charismatic person would eventually have become successor after the passing of the senior disciples. And this might have been J. Donald Walters.

H

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.