The real question - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > The real question
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
etzchaim Registered User (1/7/04 12:12 pm) Reply	Re: The real question "We of course disagree on these issues regarding Yogananda and his teachings, but to call an alternative perspective a "distortion" is a bit unfair." Reminds me of someone... Can you see the mirror, YB?
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/8/04 7:41 am) Reply	Re: The real question > SayItIsntSo: "Why do you talk in a third person?" See YellowBeard's 12/24/03 post on this thread entitled "I Me Mine" for more info on this. Speaking in third person is something YellowBeard just use to do occasionally, the more people have made an issue of it, the more he would end up doing it because he tends to be of a rebellious nature and chooses not to "fit in" by coercion or insult. There's really 2 reasons that he does it. First, it focuses the awareness off the ego. It trains one to look at their self objectively and not as a special "me" as opposed to "others". It depends on why one does it as to whether it is healthy or not. Doing a practice of detachment can be unhealthy psychologically for an everyday person, so to speak. But if someone does it as a spiritual practice, it's effects can be altogether different. Reason number 2, is that it's kind of amusing to through it in occasionally in one's speech. YellowBeard admits that he over does it now, but that's simply because people have been making an issue out of it lately. When things die down a bit, he'll mysteriously tone it down.
SayItIsntSo Registered User (1/8/04 9:10 am) Reply	Re: The real question Hi Yellow, I only asked about the third person because I'm a writer and I'm interested in point of views, or POV as it's called in the business.
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/14/04 2:57 pm) Reply	Co-Dependency & the Guru-Disciple Relationship > Jaded wrote (10/28/01): "The assumption I see, explicitly and implicitly, is that Yogananda and 'his teaching' is fine, it's all the people who have come after who are ruining things. But how do you all know this? If everything about SRF is lousy, why do you think "the teaching" is great? Why doesn't anybody consider the notion that the whole thing is like the Mormons, or Scientologists, or any other group. The people who resonate with it get something, but it is all self-generated. > Who am I? I've been beating my head against the wall, trying to get something out of the SRF way of meditating for about 30 years. I've talked to just about every minister and been there and done that. 90% of SRF is the same basic Perennial Philosophy that Aldous Huxley talked about. But if you step back for a moment, all you see is the same stuff every other little group does: our founder was the greatest, our group is the greatest, we will take over the world." --------------- The Bhakti Yoga approach is particularly troublesome because of this "self-generated" response that Jaded has brought up here. If we focus our devotion on anything, including a rock, we can 'bliss' ourselves out on that activity. When we do it towards a guru, we're taught to believe that it's coming from the guru, when in fact, it's 'self-generated'. Don't take YB's word for this here, or anything he says for that matter. You're use to being told what's truth instead of actually figuring it out for yourself. So what we're going to do here is a quick experiment to verify if what YB is saying here is accurate or not. Focus your devotion on any nearby inanimate object. Do it seriously, give your full love and attention to that thing. See what happens? Now, do you see the danger of this if someone claims that this love is coming to you because they're a conduit to God for you? A very serious co-dependency is the ensuing result. The guru-disciple relationship (aka narcissist plot-submissive game relationship) is the ultimate co-dependent relationship because it literally takes on Divine proportions in the disciple's mind. ------------ "Codependency means we are depending on something outside of ourselves to provide our sense of wellbeing. When we rely on an outside source for happiness, we create tension and stress in our mind-body; we can never be sure we are going to get what we need to make us feel complete. To return to our state of feeling harmonious in our mind and body means we must provide our own happiness, internally and externally; not be dependent on another person or source to make us happy." -- Conquering Codependency; From a Spiritual Point of View by Susan Kramer www.susankramer.com/Codependency.html ------------------ Ever look at the portrait of your guru and see the eyes twinkle at you with a seemingly Divine sparkle? Many view this and other similar phenomena as proof of their "Divine" relationship with their guru. Now take a look at this photo of Charles Manson: www.charliemanson.com/gra...son-36.jpg Look at him as though he is a representative of God sent to help you. Close your eyes and bow to his picture. Rest in the bowed position for a little bit and try to really believe just for a moment that he is truly a man of God sent to ferry you to the Divine shores. Slowly raise your head and look into his eyes. The more you convince yourself that this is a man of God sent for you, the more those eyes will twinkle. The picture used needs to be fairly charismatic like we see here in Manson. Yogananda was also a very charismatic person. Your mind will turn that charisma into "Divine Light". A guru's success depends on their level of charisma, intelligence and originality. Fear not to see these things, for we're maturing spiritually. This is not the end of your spiritual life, but the beginning. The co-dependency of the guru-disciple relationship is no longer needed. We can now have a real relationship with that Infinite intelligence known as the Self. The Divine is not something that is outside ourself, this is why YB uses the term "God" sparingly, it conjures up images authority and feelings of separation. Much anger and hostility arises when we hear this message of Self-reliance. We've been taught all our life that everything comes from the outside, when in fact it has always come from the inside. This message brings much fear, we don't want to lose that which we have clung onto for support for so long. We need to grow out of this co-dependency. This is not the end of our freedom, but the beginning of it. The beginning of true Freedom, where your life is no longer someone else's property. We may like the feeling of being owned and clung onto, but this is the creation of the ground of suffering. Love is not something to be owned. It's not even something for us to give (like it's an object). It simply is when our attachments are gone.
redpurusha Registered User (1/15/04 7:22 am) Reply	Re: Co-Dependency & the Guru-Disciple Relationship The ocean doesn't need the wave to exist, but the wave needs the ocean. The quality of both is the same but the quantity and depth is much different. The wave comes from the ocean and will eventually return to it, not the other way around. For the wave not to even acknowledge the ocean makes it rather a very ignorant or arrogant wave. (analogies aren't perfect but may be helpful)
etzchaim Registered User (1/15/04 7:35 am) Reply	Re: Co-Dependency & the Guru-Disciple Relationship Redpursha, Etzchaim advises that a full withdrawal of troops is most expedient do to futility of expedition.
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/15/04 1:03 pm) Reply	Re: Co-Dependency & the Guru-Disciple Relationship > Redpurusha wrote: "The ocean doesn't need the wave to exist, but the wave needs the ocean." This is direct Yogananda ideology, which probably is an analogy from the Dvaita (dualistic) school of Vedanta. Yogananda even occasionally uses some concepts from Advaita (non-dualistic) Vedanta. Then we have the Kevala Advaita (pure non-dualistic) school, which Yogananda doesn't get anywhere near. Yogananda's Dvaita Vedanta mixed somewhat well with Christianity. Many mistakingly consider Yogananda's approach to be non-dualistic, but it only looks that way through monotheistic eyes. Yogananda brings the concept of God extremely close to man in comparison to the Christian view, so this is mistakenly called non-duality. But the separation is maintained in his philosophy no matter how much he would use lines like, "My Father and I are one." This Oneness he speaks of merely ends up as a carrot dangling ever unreachable in front of us because of the ultimate duality that is maintained. The differences can be subtle, but on the spiritual front lines (meaning actually doing it instead of reading about it), the smallest dualistic concepts grow into huge impassable canyons as we approach. It's like seeing something from a distance, as we get closer, the actuality of what we're dealing with gets larger and larger. Problems which seem like non-issues, become huge issues. This is where a pure non-dualistic approach comes in. The jiva (individual self) is Atman (pure consciousness), and Atman is Brahman (infinite consciousness of the universe). Here there's no division between the lower self and the higher Self. No creator as separate from the created. We run into no problems here; when face to face with the Self, we do not worship it, which is a defense mechanism to push away from being absorbed within it. Through actual union and not lip service about Oneness, there is Love. It is not created, it is when separation is truly gone. > Redpurusha: "For the wave not to even acknowledge the ocean makes it rather a very ignorant or arrogant wave." I think you may have made this statement a bit hastily, because it's only separation here that is not being acknowledged and not the Ocean. When we say "Self", we mean the core Self of the universe itself.
etzchaim Registered User (1/15/04 1:33 pm) Reply	Reengaging "But the separation is maintained in his philosophy no matter how much he would use lines like, "My Father and I are one."" Please explain further, YB. So far all I see are semantics and a way to rationalize the fact that you have an aversion to Guru's and prefer to make a drug your teacher. The Monist Kashmiri Shaivites consider even Kevala Vedanta to be dualist because Shankara declared Maya to be an illusion. Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/15/04 1:36 pm
Punk Yogi Registered User (1/16/04 4:19 am) Reply	The Four Spiritual Journeys When spiritual seekers find a path that works for them, they often try to convince others of the superiority of their path. In reality, people can only successfully follow a path which matches their innate temperament. We can enlighten others to the sublime nature of our quest, but we can never make our path fit a person who belongs on another. Anyone convinced to the contrary is pursuing a fruitless Pygmalion Project. According to Peter Tufts Richardson, there are four spiritual journeys a soul can embark on. Each path has a special relevance to a personality style and can be noted as the distinguishing characteristics of the major religions and philosophies of the world. The four spiritual journeys are ... Journey of Unity Journey of Devotion Journey of Works Journey of Harmony I'll now list the various typologies with their path using the typological identities... Journey of Unity: ENTJ, INTJ, ENTP, INTP -- Rationals Journey of Devotion ESFP, ISFP -- Artisans ESFJ, ISFJ -- Guardians Journey of Works ESTP, ISTP -- Artisans ESTJ, ISTJ -- Guardians Journey of Harmony ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ -- Idealists Now I provide you an outline and key phrases for further meditation... *Quote:* NT: Journey of Unity Key issues: Organizing principles operating throughout life and nature Truth that can be global, honest and clear Social justice as the aim and context for involvement (opposing ignorance with education) Clarity as the basis for spiritual enlightenment Mentors (12% of population): The Buddha, Buckminster Fuller Gifts: researchers, literature, peacemakers ** SF: The Journey of Devotion Key issues: Importance of pilgrimage Attraction of heroes Agency of stories Hands-on approach to spirituality Appearance of archaic forms Orgiastic mysteries; incarnational presence Centrality of Personal experience Importance of simple things Direct service Bhakti yoga: the path of devotion Mentors: (38%) Mohammed, St. Francis Stress: Problems arising from NT bias; SF seen as common or anachronistic; Need to find mutual support Gifts: traditionalists; continuity * ST: The Journey of Works Key issues: Law, Covenant, and Order Strong sense of right and importance of righteousness Sense of responsibility and stewardship for personal, social and natural resources Clear-cut identity as essential Work itself as life's aim Realist orientation Proclivity to administration Sense, often tragic, of justification Mentors (38%): Moses, Confucious Gifts: practicality; definition, plans and rules (often resistant to psychologizing religion) *** NF: The Journey of Harmony Key issues: Quest toward authentic, actualized selfhood Mystical harmony Life attitude of expectancy Importance of openness to healing and place of the dream in this process Social idealism Focus on process in relationships, familial and social. Mentors: Rabindranath Tagore, Jesus of Nazareth Gifts: carriers of tradition from one culture to another: common in neo-pagan, Hindu and native American religions; peacemakers home.att.net/~revdak/spir...ture05.htm
Punk Yogi Registered User (1/16/04 4:43 am) Reply	Absolutely true for himself ... not for others Yellowbeard is doing the journey of unity. Etz and Punk are doing the journey of harmony. Yellowbeard, the NT Rational, is seeking a unified explanation for the universe -- aka nondualism. *Quote:* They seek to bind life and nature into a unity.� Buddha is an example of someone who became exposed to the world of the sick, old, and dead and wanted to learn what life was all about.� He meditated and fasted to discover the inner knowledge of the truth of life.� Under the Bodhi Tree of life, beside the flowing river, he avoided the temptations of the flesh and became a conqueror of his most inner enemies. This is the journey of unity, to transcend ego and lose our attachments to the material plane, and live ultimately in the present.� cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teac...step_7.htm Etz and Punk seek an understanding of harmonic flow.... *Quote:* NF is the child in the fairytale, the character in the myth who is on a journey of self discovery. Harmony is not the path to order of the ST, or the logic of the universe of the NT, here harmony is something different.� Harmony means that there is a flow to the humanity of life, and it is the job of the NF to self-actualize while taking their voyage of discovery. Harmony is life in a world and a cosmos the Intuitives can see in all its complexity, but F's like to feel good. Harmony is a voyage of self-actualization in the great spiritual flow of life and chaos. In this definition of harmony, disharmony is a given and the flux of change is the challenge of life. cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teac...step_7.htm In temperament theory, the NT (intuitive thinkers) are opposite the SF (Sensate Feeling) types. Punk has identified Yellowbeard as an NT Rational. Many "zombie elves" in SRF are the Artisans and Guardians who are on the journey of devotion. What is interesting is that the typology opposite to NT's are the SF's. Richardson identifies the SF's as the ones walking the journey of devotion... *Quote:* The SF is the spiritual opposite of NT.� The SF will take off their shoes and feel the Earth between their toes. They will also remove their shoes at the door, and join in the festive and spontaneous moments of life.� The SF likes a good pilgrimage, heroes for their worship, likes good stories, and will be festive in human experience.� They prefer direct acts of service and devotion to abstract discussions of theology. Likes the flesh and blood of a Dionysian Festival, that is animated and present, rich in experience, and lots of feeling and good old natural images. Celebration is the nectar immortality.� Mother Teresa is their role model. Mohammed (ISFJ) is another example. Islam means peace and submission; Muslim is one who submits.� Every detail of life is significant, subject it to intricate social and legal rules. A life without guidelines is just unthinkable. Then there is St. Francis of Assisi who kissed the Leper, saw the face of suffering, and sought a life of service. cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teac...step_7.htm Thus we can see that our very own resident expert of nondualism is caught in the dualistic throes of miscomprehension about his spiritual brethren. Miscomprehension and under-appreciation of any part of the whole cannot lead to the beatific vision of unity. Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 1/16/04 5:00 am
Punk Yogi Registered User (1/16/04 5:59 am) Reply	Disclaimer None of the above is meant to undermine Yellowbeard's well-meant counsel about being wary of charlatan spiritual leaders. Punk merely asks Yellowbeard to be extra careful in examining whatever motives he may have for wanting others to share his paranoia of authority figures. It is significant that most NT Rationals aspire to power and competence. They also prize autonomy. In their pursuit of personal power and mastery, the Rational has a heightened sensitivity to the games of one-upmanship, domination and manipulation of those who wear the robes of authority. As they say, "It takes one to know one." In renouncing authority figures, Yellowbeard is unconsciously rejecting the possibility of perverting his natural inclination to master nature into an undesirable will to dominate others. This is a noble cause. His need to convince others of such abuses vindicates his own internal struggles. This is the source of the projection. In truth, Punk is trying to maintain a neutral stance on the issue of Yogananda's character. What this means is Punk is keeping an open mind to the possibility that Yogananda might be a self-promotor who used mass hypnosis to gain a following. Punk also is keeping an open mind to other theories, including the one that states that Yogananda is a man of pure realization. So far, not one person on this board has produced enough convincing evidence to hang a sentence on Yogananda. The fault lies in the fact that very little is known about the man. SRF has done everything possible to shroud the real Yogananda in mystery. His writings have been edited and amended, movies of him are being kept from the public, and a home spun legend has been spewn from the founts of Mt. Washington, the Board of Directors, and the gullible disciples who have demonstrated a pathological tendency to sanitize and denature every bit of Yogananda they touch. Yellowbeard simply wants us to relinquish participation in this dysfunction. Punk supports Yellowbeard in this endeavor. But mere opinion and propaganda is not enough. Yellowbeard, who is suspicious of all authority, is not to be trusted as an authority on all illegitimate authority. What seems to be true about this world is that there are many more people who abuse authority than use it wisely. However, there are also some who use authority correctly. Punk believes that each spiritual journey and each typology has a functional and dysfunctional expression. In order to know the difference, one must develop discernment, not paranoia or globalized disdain. Such an approach is gross and immature. Punk believes that each individual has an innate sense of what works best for his or her typological needs. For example, an NT Rational such as Yellowbeard, walking the path of unity, cannot function by following the archetypal guru-disciple relationship. He will shun it as he should. Moreover, he will try to convince others to shun it as no other path makes as much sense as the one he walks on. But as he matures in his understanding, he may come to realize that each has a place in the All ... Each and All by Ralph Waldo Emerson Little thinks, in the field, yon red-cloaked clown, Of thee, from the hill-top looking down; And the heifer, that lows in the upland farm, Far-heard, lows not thine ear to charm; The sexton tolling the bell at noon, Dreams not that great Napoleon Stops his horse, and lists with delight, Whilst his files sweep round yon Alpine height; Nor knowest thou what argument Thy life to thy neighbor's creed has lent: All are needed by each one, Nothing is fair or good alone. I thought the sparrow's note from heaven, Singing at dawn on the alder bough; I brought him home in his nest at even;� He sings the song, but it pleases not now; For I did not bring home the river and sky; He sang to my ear; they sang to my eye. The delicate shells lay on the shore; The bubbles of the latest wave Fresh pearls to their enamel gave; And the bellowing of the savage sea Greeted their safe escape to me; I wiped away the weeds and foam, And fetched my sea-born treasures home; But the poor, unsightly, noisome things Had left their beauty on the shore With the sun, and the sand, and the wild uproar. The lover watched his graceful maid As 'mid the virgin train she strayed, Nor knew her beauty's best attire Was woven still by the snow-white quire; At last she came to his hermitage, Like the bird from the woodlands to the cage,� The gay enchantment was undone, A gentle wife, but fairy none. Then I said, "I covet Truth; Beauty is unripe childhood's cheat,� I leave it behind with the games of youth." As I spoke, beneath my feet The ground-pine curled its pretty wreath, Running over the club-moss burrs; I inhaled the violet's breath; Around me stood the oaks and firs; Pine cones and acorns lay on the ground; Above me soared the eternal sky, Full of light and deity; Again I saw, again I heard, The rolling river, the morning bird;� Beauty through my senses stole, I yielded myself to the perfect whole. Or as the Thom Yorke sings in a famous Radiohead song.. "Everything in its right place..." Those whose journey is devotion must decide from themselves who to follow and who not to. It is their journey. The sky fits the bird, and the water fits the fish. But the sky does not fit the fish. Each journey has its joys and its perils, and the evolution of consciousness depends upon a person making the best of the world in which he or she belongs. Your key cannot open my lock. On the other hand, we can learn from each other. Yellowbeard's easy disdain and mistrust of authority figures can be used by devotional types as a humble reminder to use discernment in seeking for an object of devotion. But, if you are a fish, don't follow a bird into the sky. Nor let the bird make you feel that the sky is superior in essence because it is positioned above the sea in which you swim. Everything has its right place. Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 1/16/04 6:04 am
etzchaim Registered User (1/16/04 6:37 am) Reply	Re: Disclaimer Thanks Punk. ----------------------------------------------------------- "Each journey has its joys and its perils, and the evolution of consciousness depends upon a person making the best of the world in which he or she belongs. Your key cannot open my lock. On the other hand, we can learn from each other. Yellowbeard's easy disdain and mistrust of authority figures can be used by devotional types as a humble reminder to use discernment in seeking for an object of devotion. But, if you are a fish, don't follow a bird into the sky. Nor let the bird make you feel that the sky is superior in essence because it is positioned above the sea in which you swim. Everything has its right place. " ------------------------------------------------------------ ...and I appreciated the description of the NT type...Etzchaim is thinking she needs to focus on increasing her expression of chivalry. She is thinking Don Quixote may not be the mentor for her current needs. Etz, NF: "NF is the child in the fairytale, the character in the myth who is on a journey of self discovery. " Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/16/04 8:03 am
ugizralrite Registered User (1/16/04 8:25 am) Reply	Wedding of Heaven and Earth Like a large family swept up in the festivities, walrus is filled with commentary and spectacle. The guests are full of joy and expectation bearing gifts of insight and wisdom. The wedding of Heaven and Earth is enacted as of old. Auspiciousness and celebration abounds. Words fail to express it. Edited by: ugizralrite at: 1/16/04 8:27 am
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/16/04 8:29 pm) Reply	Monism and the Art of Typecasting > Etzchaim wrote: "The Monist Kashmiri Shaivites consider even Kevala Vedanta to be dualist because Shankara declared Maya to be an illusion." Good call. YB really doesn't know why Shankara is generally considered a pure non-dualist. He jumps through a lot of hoops to reach the non-dual conclusion, which kind of defeats the purpose of the non-dual approach in YB's opinion. As YB sees it, the non-dual approach is to avoid subtle errors that become fatal errors as one approaches the Self (as described in more detail in YB's last post). YB believes this is why a Upanishad follows each of the Vedas. Looking at Maya as an illusion definitely creates dualistic thought patterns. Shankara does do some fancy footwork to get around this problem though. But it's just too much of a feat of intellectual gymnastics, which leaves many readers behind that can't quite follow. Interesting that Etz has brought this up. In YB's last post, he wrote on Yogananda's ideas on Maya to help show his dualistic approach, but erased the material before posting because he thought it was going too much into details which may have obscured the main point. >> "But the separation is maintained in his philosophy no matter how much he would use lines like, 'My Father and I are one.'" (YellowBeard) > "Please explain further ..." (Etzchaim) Looks like YB should have left his previous commentary on Yogananda's views on Maya. ------------- > Punk Yogi wrote: "... people can only successfully follow a path which matches their innate temperament. We can enlighten others to the sublime nature of our quest, but we can never make our path fit a person who belongs on another." YB presents information on a guru-less, non-dual approach for those who are having trouble with the guru-disciple relationship (or simply with Yogananda's religious philosophy) and wish to explore an independent approach that requires no faith, beliefs or submissive behavior. YB has strongly recommended several times that readers disturbed by this approach should not read his posts. YB is not shoving this message down anyone's throat. > Punk Yogi: "Yellowbeard, the NT Rational, is seeking a unified explanation for the universe -- aka nondualism." Unless one is a pagan, all religious approaches seek a unified explanation for the universe. Probably even some pagan philosophies do as well underneath their pantheistical assortment of deities. This has nothing to do with personalities. It's a fact that the universe in unified, science just doesn't know exactly 'how' yet. Many experiments show this, such as if a pair of subatomic particles are created and separated and if the spin of one of the particles is changed, the spin in its mate instantaneously changes as well regardless of their distance apart -- they could theoretically be on opposite ends of the universe. The concepts of time and space is just how our minds attempt to deal with the world. But the universe truly is unified. This is why science is looking for the "Unified Field Theory". They know it's unified, they just don't know how. Punk seems to approach life, like most people do, by attempting to compartmentalizing it. A quote Punk provided (by Richardson?) even attempted to typecast the Buddha. YB thinks that the Taliban did him more justice by blowing up his statue. At least they freed his image instead of attempting to bind it within a certain thought pattern. The non-dual will not fit into one of these tight little mental boxes. The universe is non-dual no matter how uncomfortable that may make one feel. > Punk Yogi: �Etz and Punk seek an understanding of harmonic flow.... 'NF is the child in the fairytale ...'� This is fine. YB doesn't want to stand in anyone's way with however they choose to approach life (unless it's actually harming others). But this approach is not one that seeks Self-realization. We should not confuse the two. YB speaks on Self-realization. Punk speaks on fairytales. > Punk Yogi: "Punk has identified Yellowbeard as an NT Rational." YB does not fit into any tight plastic boxes with clearly written labels on them because as Punk has said: > Punk Yogi: "Miscomprehension and under-appreciation of any part of the whole cannot lead to the beatific vision of unity." We cannot label and compartmentalize the non-dual. The universe is non-dual. The Self, which is the universe, is non-dual. The individual, which is the Self, is non-dual. All our problems lie in attempting to make dual that which is not. The true challenge of life is not to "figure" it out. This is just an attempt of the mind to grasp and shape it into something that it can understand. We need to deal with reality as it is. Reality is non-dual no matter how much we would like it to be otherwise. The real challenge is to deal with the non-dual as it is. We want external authorities to lead us because we're scared to deal with the unknown face to face. We compartmentalize life in an attempt to control it. We believe in heaven because we've turned life into a hell. Once we stop trying to box, tag, and stick Reality up on a shelf in the closet, then we can see it for what it is. Our huge libraries on the subject mean nothing. No words can grasp it. Our huge assortment of glorious gurus can not lead us there. It is not a location to travel to. > Punk Yogi: "Those whose journey is devotion must decide from themselves who to follow and who not to. It is their journey." This is very true, but YB would like to stress again that co-dependency is not a path to Self-realization, it's a path to the psychiatrist's office. Contrary to what we've been taught that "all paths leads to the same place", this is far from true. The path of excessive alcohol consumption leads to alcoholism. The path of typecasting leads to a room filled with stacks and stacks of labeled boxes which shields us from the world around us. The phrase "all paths lead to the same place" was coined to help bring peace between waring religions. It's not meant to be taken as legitimate spiritual advice. No path leads to the non-dual since it's not a location to travel to. There's no "activity" that can take you there. We already are the non-dual, so all we need do is stop trying to divide the world and stop trying to arrive there (or anywhere for that matter). One cannot Awaken by "trying to fall asleep consciously" (to use Forkhand's expression).
redpurusha Registered User (1/17/04 7:23 am) Reply	Re: Monism and the Art of Typecasting The goal is to rise above duality. But according to YB, in the act of rising (because this implies moving somewhere? somehow?) you are contributing to your delusion of seperate existence from the universal non-dual Self. While the dualistic approach might confuse and disturb some personality types, it has an opposite effect on others. Obviously, terms like "path" and "the great goal of life" are only figures of speech, which help some but hinder the progress of others. When Jesus went to be crucified, it was an outward symbol of killing of the ego or the idea of seperate existence from the universal Self. You might be in heaven, and you might tell yourself all day and all night "I'm in heaven... I'm in heaven", but if you don't take the thick cloak off yourself you might as well be in a dark closet. (again, for the non-dualists, "in heaven" is another figure of speech) Edited by: redpurusha at: 1/18/04 11:42 am
etzchaim Registered User (1/17/04 11:51 am) Reply	Not Typecasting, Understanding Maya YB, the main issue I have with you is that in order to have a conversation with you, I have to jump through hoops of insulting misunderstanding of other peoples paths, including my own, and far-fetched comparisons between Adolf Hittler Y"Sh, who ordered and facilitated the deaths of millions of human beings and Yogananda, who was a great Yogi who made a few personal and philosophical mistakes. It's like a piece of Conceptual art. Once you've seen it, you don't really have to see it again. Etzchaim agrees with many of YB's statements, being a Monist herself. Etzchaim just likes to play in the Creation with symbols and systems that indicate a unity within the plurality. Pluralism, Dualism and Monism are all part of a single, well-knit whole. She apparently tolerates and even likes the clutter of the Creation and has little patience for the air-like world of Philosophy. She was also a Monist Shaivite before she became a Monist Jew, and considers them two different expressions of the same thang. She likes to cross cultural boundaries, and other sorts of bounderies too, but I digress. Shiva = YHVH. Shakti = Elohim I rather like the symbolism that PY brought up with the two paths represented by air and water and that a water person should not try to be an air person, etc. I think that YB should work to perfect his path for himself and that Etz should work to perfect her path for herself, and also that Redpurusha should work to perfect his path for himself because it's right for him (and he's teaching me to like Christianity and see it's roots in early Jewish mysticism, which is a feat unto itself, so I want him to perfect his path, as it teaches me things). Shiva/YHVH = air/thinking, Shakti/Elohim = water/feeling. I almost hate to use the word "paradox", because it's something of a cliche of mystical jargon, but to get to the point where total Unity can exist, there seems to have to exist a Plurality, which is really a Unity, but the Unity is also really a Plurality. Each one of us, being a Unified Whole of Plurality, blah, blah, blah, seem to need to exist in order to allow the Unity to exist and vice-versa. There is a healthy way for each one of us to exist, there is an unhealthy way for each one of us to exist, and all those ways in between. Most of us are in between somewhere. My brain tires. Etzchaim is going to go paint a fire horse and an earth mouse into her painting. She's on an elemental-animal theme this year, I've noticed. Le'chaim! Captain, Etz = Tree Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/17/04 12:17 pm
Punk Yogi Registered User (1/17/04 12:23 pm) Reply	Tight Little Boxes *Quote:* YB does not fit into any tight plastic boxes with clearly written labels on them I see... yet, on 11/29/03 when someone asked you about Eckhart Tolle and Ramana Maharshi, you wrote the following response: *Quote:* I feel these simple approaches are the most effective. For me, taking these simple approaches has been the most beneficial. Maybe it's just because of my personality (and perhaps yours as well), but I haven't been terribly impressed by the spiritual statements (or I should say lack thereof) from the "Kriya path" types and those involved in other overly complicated approaches. More than anything else, they seem to set people up for all kinds of troubles. [emphasis added] Punk is merely agreeing with Yellowbeard's statement. We both seem to be agreeing that spiritual preferences has a lot to do with one's personality. This is why Punk cautions Yellowbeard to avoid condescending about other approaches just because they fall lower on the hierarchy of preference for Yellowbeard. The universe is both dual and nondual. Those who are fascinated by the creative principle of the One need not feel uncomfortable by concepts of unity. Standing beside a prism, one can feel a sense of wonder looking in the direction of pure white light which is the unity of all colors; then one can turn and become ecstatic pondering the wonder of that light in its differentiated expression. Granted the word "typecast" is a pet label for you. Still Richardson was not putting Buddha in a box. Instead, he was pointed out that Buddhism, as illustrated by the life of Buddha, is a nondual path which leads to the perception of unity. One cannot understand Richardson merely by reading that quote in isolation. You also have to consider what he's saying about other paths. Then it becomes crystal clear that Buddha can not be considered a proponent of devotion in same way that Mirabai was. But I shouldn't have to teach you this. You have already demonstrated awareness that the choice of spiritual approaches and one's personality have a direct bearing on each other. *Quote:* This is very true, but YB would like to stress again that co-dependency is not a path to Self-realization, it's a path to the psychiatrist's office. Punk is glad you agree. The challenge in life is to opt for the functional over the dysfunctional. Punk has already written about this when he wrote: *Quote:* Punk believes that each spiritual journey and each typology has a functional and dysfunctional expression. In order to know the difference, one must develop discernment, not paranoia or globalized disdain. Such an approach is gross and immature. Punk believes that each individual has an innate sense of what works best for his or her typological needs. *Quote:* No path leads to the non-dual since it's not a location to travel to. There's no "activity" that can take you there. We already are the non-dual, so all we need do is stop trying to divide the world and stop trying to arrive there (or anywhere for that matter). Agreed. In the mid-1980's, Punk wrote a poem about his experience with the nondual titled "I Have Never Moved." There's a big difference between dividing up the world and being aware of actual differences. The ability to differentiate leads to vivika, discrimination. It is also what makes art so enjoyable. Only a psychotic would try to mix all his paints together in order to achieve the ultimate synthesis of color! What is differentiation? Why is it important? I've copied this from the C.G. Jung site: *Quote:* Differentiation .The separation of parts from a whole, necessary for conscious access to the psychological functions. "So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions-thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.-that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies." [� Definitions ,� CW 6, par. 705.] About creating peace and harmony, on the temperament thread we can read this quote: *Quote:* "The MBTI was developed by Isabel Myers and Catherine Briggs.�Their work was based on Carl Jung's theory of Psychological Types.� Having been influenced by World War II, they hoped to develop an inventory that would lead to greater understanding among people -- an effort to lead to a world harmony.�" From the Myers-Briggs website: *Quote:* The shared vision of Isabel Myers and her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs, developers of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator� instrument, was to enable individuals to grow through an understanding and appreciation of individual differences in healthy personalities and to enhance harmony and productivity through diverse groups. Punk's ultimate goal is to promote understanding, not to lock Yellowbead up in a semantic cage. Anyhow, Yellowbeard seems perfectly capable of doing that himself. Punk merely wants to point out Yellowbeard's errors in thinking so that the good parts of Yellowbeard's message aren't trampled on by some of his more egocentric claims. Punk totally agrees that SRF and the guru could use extra objective scrutiny. But Punk wonders why Yellowbeard, a person who professes to abhor all labels and acts of boxing people in, nevertheless does it to others. Remember in early November in his second post, how he implicated that Yogananda was a sexual abuser? Using labels, Yellowbeard calls Yogananda a "soul snatcher." How does Yellowbeard know? Actually, Yellowbeard doesn't know. He speculates. He says so. Maybe he's correct, maybe he's not. That's up for debate, and it certainly is a mystery that ought to be solved. For the purposes of this conversation, Punk simply wants to point out that if Yellowbeard can make speculative pronouncements about others and about organizations based on even the scantiest observations of behavior, why would he protest to others doing the same to him. Punk calls Yellowbeard an NT Rational. That's a typological label. Punk has identified Yellowbeard's temperament based on the way Yellowbeard conducts himself. Punk never put a label on Yellowbeard's soul. Punk is merely identifying the phenomenon called Yellowbeard as it presents itself to us through the window of the Walrus. Yellowbeard is consistent and identifiable in his point of view. His thought process and use of language are very much in line with the Keirsey Rational typology. The most important thing about dealing with reality is to call a spade when it is a spade and not a screwdriver. It seems that Yellowbeard would have us calling everything by the same name. Of course those rules don't apply to Yellowbeard himself. *Quote:* YB speaks on Self-realization. Punk speaks on fairytales. Again, our resident circus geek bends another bar... The original quote, which Yellowbeard distorts and uses out of context, is: *Quote:* NF is the child in the fairytale, the character in the myth who is on a journey of self discovery. The child in the fairy tale is the archetype which reprents the one whose eyes are open to wonder, the pure self, the one who is unencumbered by conceptual distortions. The one who embarks on a mythic journey. Self discovery is ultimately Self-realization. As Yellowbeard says: *Quote:* The true challenge of life is not to "figure" it out. This is just an attempt of the mind to grasp and shape it into something that it can understand. Looks again as if Yellowbeard agrees. Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 1/17/04 1:15 pm
YellowBeard420 Slow Down (1/17/04 3:34 pm) Reply	Soul Snatchers > Punk Yogi wrote: "Yellowbeard calls Yogananda a 'soul snatcher.' How does Yellowbeard know?" From YB's own experience. Isn't it Punk's experience as well? Hasn't Punk noticed, not only within our individual self, but with many others on the Walrus as well. One day someone questions the guru, the next they praise him. We've seen this happen again and again, it's a fact. We may disagree as to why it happens though. Now this attachment is greater than what we would normally experience to ideologies and people. There's an extra pull on the 'other side'. Punk may shake his head and think, "no no no, that's paranoia', but hasn't Punk noticed this more than normal 'pull'? Some may think that this is 'Divine". YB says that you have another thing coming. A true spiritual teacher works to ferry those interested to the 'other shore'. They never try to coerce. And they part ways once Realization is attained. Their job is done. Those of Self-realization see clearly that others are actually themself. Because of this fact, they do not do anything to take advantage of people or to get them to serve and worship to aggrandize their ego. This is why YB stresses Self-realization (the perception that all beings are actually yourself) so much over all other aspects of spirituality. Punk is correct in mentioning that there are other avenues of exploration, but YB feels that Self-realization should come first to establish oneself in unshakable morality. Fear not, knowing that others are actually ourself will not turn us into Mother Teresa. We still retain our gritty personalities, but we do not do anything to entrap others or to try to get them to worship us because we would see that we would be actually degrading ourself in this process. Yogananda did achieve higher levels of realization, but never true Self-realization. Read his descriptions of his realizations in Autobiography of a Yogi if the reader has any doubts on this. His ego not only remained intact through the process, but grew in size. Because Yogananda was not truly absorbed within the Divine, he uses the conscious attention of souls to nourish his megalomania. One who is truly absorbed within the Divine doesn't require any attention, for they become attention itself. They help others when they want it, and let them go after with no thoughts of receiving anything in return for their efforts. Now, doesn't the reader notice something extremely unusual about the guru-disciple relationship in regard to Yogananda? He even flat out states that the devotee should remain united with the guru after he finds God. Why is he so interested in entrapping the devotee when they're suppose to be let free at this time? It's because Yogananda is a 'soul snatcher'. He claims to be a mediary for God, but really he's working for himself. He feeds off conscious energy from people. This is not much different from televangelists. They claim to be working for God, but really they're just after your money. Yogananda is a more 'larger' and dangerous version of this. In a conversation between Yukteswar and Yogananda in Autobiography, they speak of a realm where those who "love" Yogananda will go when they die. This is the activity of a 'false prophet'. They gather souls for themselves claiming that they're bringing them to God. But since God is not a 'destination', these souls can not 'arrive' to the Divine from this way station. Instead we end up trapped on our faces worshiping Yogananda thinking that somehow in time he will reach the Divine. YB is not a Christian, but he feels that all humanity would be wise to heed Jesus's words here: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke, 17:21)
etzchaim Registered User (1/17/04 4:42 pm) Reply	Re: Soul Snatchers Etzchaim thinks that both YB and Punk Yogi are stressing Self-Realization. YB says: "This is why YB stresses Self-realization (the perception that all beings are actually yourself)" But this should not be taken to mean that all beings Self-Realize the same way. Some approaches work better for some people, and other approaches work better for others. We all do not need to be like YB in order to Self-Realize. Punk Yogis methods include assisting others, as well as himself, to understand just how they can best Self-Realize. This irks YB, because YB interprets this method as 'pigion-holing', because that is how it feels to him, since his personality feels confined by concepts that describe his personality. Perhaps this feels limiting and YB does not want to be limited. Other people like the assitance that Punk Yogis method gives them and can use it to assist them in Self-Realizing because it helps to guide them. Some people, no doubt are neutral about Punks method. YB doesn't like the method, prefering a simple, stripped down method that suits his personality. YB should follow his method and attempt to not condescend or misjudge Punk Yogis method simply because it is not a method that works well for YB. (Deleted section because Etzchaim needs glasses and misread what was written.) So - Etzchaim is not very brushed up on Yogananda's teachings, since she has another Guru who doesn't have a Bhakti approach, and would like to know where Yoganada tells people to stick with the Guru after they have realized God and what context it is in, i.e., is he speaking to a specific disciple when he says this, is he refering to a general concept of 'Guru'? What is meant by 'sticking with the Guru'? Also, is this really an issue after one is Self-Realized? Will there be a difference between oneself and the Guru once one is Self-Realized? It would seem that it would be strange for a person to reject their Guru after achieving Self-Realization, so I'm not quite sure of the meaning of the statement and really need context. Shelley decided not to stay with Yogananda at Mount Washington, because he saw a number of issues with how things were being run, disagreed strongly with some of what Yogananda was doing, and yet remained a disciple, having a strong and very open relationship with Yogananda at the distance that Shelley felt comfortable with. Shelley was by no means anything near a 'zombie elf', and wasn't shy about telling Yogananda how he felt. There was no rejection from Yogananda. In fact, Yogananda actually confided some very interesting things to Shelley about his worries over his (Yogananda's) next earth incarnation. Anyone who is trying to appear like a god is not going to do this. There are definate issues in how Yogananda dealt with his organization that Shelley spoke of - he felt that Yogananda had gotten in over his head and was trying to do too much, initiating too many people, and expanding the organization beyond the point that a healthy spiritual institution should grow, which resulted in Yogananda's systemitizing of the teaching and trying to control things more than he should have. Etzchaim would go into the issues of Yogananda being a Capricorn, which would typically do things this way, but YB would role his eyes and say something condescending... As for soul snatching, Etzchaim thinks that YB believes Yogananda is a "soul snatcher" because YB tried to be a Bhakti and it didn't suit his personality, not because Yogananda did anything to 'steal his soul". The idea sounds more like a medieval mans waking nightmare. In Etzchaims sometimes strange logic: "Satan snatches souls, Yogananda was not smart enough to be Satan, therefore Yogananda did not snatch YB's soul". From what Etzchaim has gathered from her Guru, who gathered his information from his Guru, Yogananda was more OVERLY concerned with helping people, tried to do too much and that is where many of his problems lie. Etzchaim also marvels at the joys of speaking in the third person. Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/17/04 8:35 pm
SerenityNow7 Registered User (1/17/04 7:15 pm) Reply	Re: Soul Snatchers Oh have mercy on Serenity! All these people talking in the third person is making Serenity's head spin!!!! She must keep checking the top of the post to make sure which person is talking. Suddenly YB will be saying things most uncharacteristic of him, but then she realizes it's someone else talking. And then someone is talking about what Etzchaim thinks, is it Etzchaim or someone else! Edited by: SerenityNow7 at: 1/17/04 7:16 pm

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Core Issues -

Powered By ezboard� Ver. 7.32
Copyright �1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.