Govindan - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals > Govindan
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
prssmd Registered User (8/14/03 6:01 pm) Reply	Govindan Someone on SRF Walrus (why is it called that, anyway?)writes: ---------- "To follow up their challenge, I immediately posted all the techniques that are a part of Marshall Govindan's "Babaji's Kriya Yoga". I don't think they were pleased, because I was posting their $300 worth of techniques on the Internet for free." ----------- I'd like to see this posting. Where is it? (Incidentally, Marshall Govindan's name is now "Satchidananda.") Edited by: prssmd at: 8/26/03 4:34 am
Ringbearer7 Registered User (8/14/03 8:32 pm) Reply	Re: Govindan That was Swami Prem who posted that not MastersChela - in case you didn't know. If you want to find that posting he mentioned then why don't you contact Swami Premabrahmanada. He gave his website in the other thread concerning Marshall Govindan. Please don't give "Swami Prem" an excuse to post the spiritual techniques taught by M.G. on this board.
username Registered User (8/16/03 7:28 am) Reply	Re: Govindan Are you saying that the SRF secrecy requirement should NOT be adhered to?
etzchaim Registered User (8/20/03 11:55 am) Reply	Re: Elijah's Kriya Yoga and Buddha's Kriya Yoga prssmd, I've been thinking along the same line with Elijah. I'm formerly Orthodox (Lubavitch) and still very oriented toward much of the strict Monotheistic thinking. I asked my Guru about this when he was last in town (this spring) and he told me that his Guru, Shelley, used Jewish symbolism, not Christian symbolism, that Kriya is a universal technique and he flat out told me to practice the "Yoga of Kabbalah" and not Hindu Yoga, that that is what Shelley did. I have my own personal beliefs about Babaji that fall under the kosher rubric. I don't think he was originally a Hindu. The Kriya technique is virtually the same as a Kabbalistic technique that my Rabbi taught me (he's the professor of Jewish Mysticism at the University of Michigan). I'm not finding that the Chakra's and the Sefirot are exactly the same system, but that the Sefirot are somewhat like matrix areas that form different patterns (like the Ari Zals Partzufim). The rotation of the energy functions exactly the same in both systems, though, with the collapse of the Right and Left Hand Pillars into the Middle. I've started referring to the Right Hand as Adam, the Left Hand and Chava with the Middle Pillar as G-d (the Tetragramaton manifests downward from Keter, the two hei's are Chava, the yud and vav are Adam). If Yechudim are performed on the sephirot of the left and right sides, they collapse much like the Ida and Pingala collapsing into Sushumna. Kinda like Adam and Chava knowing each other... My Lubavitch Rabbi would plotz... It's been really helpful for me to use both an Exoteric Tree and an Esoteric Tree. The Exoteric Tree has Malchut situated at the soles of the feet, integrating into the Earth, and the Esoteric Tree has Malchut approximately where the Muladhara Chakra is, slightly integrated into the genitals and below, with Keter always being where the Sahaswara is located, obviously the Crown. Yesod is the genitals, Netzach/Hod are on the hips and when in Yechud, forming a power center with the genitals and the womb/stomach area, Tiferet is at the Solar Plexus, Chesed/Gevurah at the shoulders, while in Yichud they form the upper heart, in matrix with Tiferet as the lower heart, a higher power center than the genital/womb Yesod/Netzach/Hod area. Da'at is the throat, the chasm between the body and the mind. Chochmah and Binah are the right and left hand sides of the brain, so to speak and in Yichud, form a power center with both Da'at and Keter. Etzchaim Edited by: etzchaim at: 8/20/03 11:56 am
username Registered User (8/22/03 5:33 pm) Reply	Re: Elijah's Kriya Yoga and Buddha's Kriya Yoga The name of the scripture is yoga sutras not kriya yoga sutras
prssmd Registered User (8/23/03 3:50 am) Reply	Re: Elijah's Kriya Yoga and Buddha's Kriya Yoga You're right, I think (although I don't know Sanskrit so I can't say for sure). I don't know why Govindan changed the name of the scripture for his book to "KRIYA Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and the Siddhars." As for how the "Siddhars" got in there, I think he addresses that in his book. Perhaps Govindan was trying to notify the reader that his book is about kriya yoga, which is much broader than just hatha yoga. Most people think that "yoga" means hatha yoga postures, but that's only about 3% (or 0.3%?) of what yoga is all about. But I'm just speculating as I can't read Govindan's mind (isn't life unfair?) and I don't have his book with me. Edited by: prssmd at: 8/23/03 4:31 am
MastersChela Registered User (8/23/03 9:22 am) Reply	Babaji is ALL *Quote:* If Babaji wan't a Hindu originally, what was he? Jewish? Babaji is ALL religions, and NO religions. If you asked Him, you'd see that Etz is right. Babaji's not a "Hindu" (mostly because there really isn't such a thing) He's a YOGI. Yogis don't have to subscribe to ANY relgious dogma or form. NO... He isn't a Jew either... Or a Christian... Or a Sufi... He just is. Plain and simple. And that's the way we ALL should be. It's like the Buddha said: Religions aren't WHO we are. They're a tool... A raft to get us across the river. Once we're across, we leave them asside (aka: stop identifying with them). Why so surprised that Shelly would teach "Yoga of Kabala?" Why so much in doubt that it might be OK for one of Yogananda's diciples to follow Jewish Mysticism? I think it's 100% resonable and entirely possible (It has to be possible, because Etz isn't making it up). Let us not forget that Master's original name for the Holywood chruch was "Self-Realization Fellowship Chruch of all Relgions" Edited by: MastersChela at: 8/24/03 9:56 pm
etzchaim Registered User (8/25/03 5:02 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL MastersChela, that's right, the number of Muslims that Lahiri Mahasya initiated, some of whom were highly realized disciples, speaks for itself. I think it's a mistake to turn the teachings that Yogananda developed into a 'religion', which it sometimes appears, to me, some people are doing. Christianity, in particular, has a very long history of denying the validity of other religious expressions. Both Judaism and Islam also carry this bias. Babaji's directive to Sri Yukteswar and to Yogananda, was to bring the teachings of Kriya to the West and show the harmony between the different religions. Yogananda emphasized Christianity to the exclusion of Judaism. I've spoken with several religious Jews who have read the Autobiography and many are thoroughly turned off by the complete lack of mention of Judaism and Kabbalah. I grew up a Catholic, I know the bias that Christianity has. I grew up thinking that Judaism was Christianity without Jesus. When I found out the history of the repression of Judaism, and learned what Judaism actually is, the huge number of born Jews who know more about 'Christian culture' than Judaism, I was absolutely appalled. Even Martin Luther was writing about burning Synagogues. Christianity is rife with projections of the 'sacrament' onto the Jews. Fantasy's of Jews using the blood of Christian babies to make matzahs (the wafer that turned into the 'Body of Christ' in the Catholic Mass) and crucifying the "host" (there are Medieval illuminations of this). I think Yogananda was in a bind when it came to truly bringing the teachings to the west. Anti-semitism was still blatent in the 20's and 30's, then the Holocaust happened. He wasn't around during the Cival Rights movement, when Jewish and African Americans were marching together to rid our culture of hate and discrimination, a task that is still not complete. I remember an insult that someone wrote on the Walrus when she was trying to berate the people here into towing the Religious SRF line. It was "Don't you believe in Jesus"?!!!! Well, Jesus a Jew. He lived in Roman occupied Israel and practiced Judaism. Sure I believe in "Jesus". He was a Jew. He practiced Judaism. He practiced Judaism. He practiced Judaism. He practiced Judaism. Hellooooooooo................. There is a Mystic named Abulafia who writes about the idea of 'annointing'. This is in the 1200's, in Spain. The word for annointing in Hebrew forms the word "Moshiach". In Greek, this Hebrew word is translated as "Christos". Both words mean 'Annointed' in English. Abulafia says that when a person receives the blessing from God, when the 'spiritual oil' is poured over him, that person's 'Intelligence' is united with the 'Intelligence' of God. In other words, what Yogananda was saying about Jesus, that he was an enlightened saint, is exactly what Abulafia said, centuries earlier about anyone who becomes "Annointed". In my oppinion, both the Christians and the Jews have a small, limited, materialistic and tribal understanding of what a Moshiach is, and both Yogananda and Abulafia have it right. That's the revolution that Babaji is trying to bring to us. No one who is a fundamentalist in any tradition, be it Christian, Jewish, or this new type of fundamentalism that SRF has developed (jeez...fundamendalist Kriya, who woulda thought...) is in a place where that universal understanding can be accepted. They're all still adulating and projecting onto an external form. For the Christians, it's Jesus who robs them of their own enlightenment, for Jews it's the old, dead "laws of Moshiach" that won't let them move into the present and keep them 'waiting' for a single super-human person that cannot be themselves, and for SRF, it's Yogananda, himself who is the "Avatar", the 'last' guru, the only 'true' guru. If we all would listen, the incarnation of God is us, but it's hard to hear that while we are busy being religious in our tribal ways. Etz Edited by: etzchaim at: 8/25/03 5:07 am
prssmd Registered User (8/25/03 5:26 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews Well, I have a tape of Yogananda saying, in reference to his students, something like, "Whether Jewish or Christian, we have taken you all as you know." Edited by: prssmd at: 8/25/03 8:28 am
etzchaim Registered User (8/25/03 5:40 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews I'm not saying that Yogananda did not include Jews, but his teachings do not appear to bring in Judaism, only Christianity. I've seen a list of his tours and he went to Synagogues. I'm not positive, but I can guess that they were Reform. My Guru actually brought in a Lubavitch Rabbi who spoke about the Kabbalah. All the statues were removed from the sanctuary before he would come into the building. Orthodox Jews would not be open to most of Yogananda's teachings because of the influence of Christianity, let alone the Pagan Hindu elements. I actually left the local SRF chapel here because of the inclusion of Jesus in the lineage, and they were really, really stiff, and boring. No one would talk much to me. I also had to deal with the fact that my Guru's name happens to be Kriyananda, so I was immediately 'hated' by an unsuspecting devotee who was trained well to hate Kriyananda. I thought that was really sad. Jesus is just another Jewish mystic. If you ask me, I'd say that there are many others who have done less damage to the world. How many non-Christians died in Jesus name, how many Christians judged as Heretics were killed? At one point, in Germany during the Middle Ages, there were towns with only one or two women left alive in them after the 'witch purges'. Does a dead man get karma from what his followers do with his teachings? Mabe not, people ca misuse anything. Basically, he wasn't in the lineage. He's there to 'catch' Christians and make it easier for them to accept a 'foreign and pagan' teaching. Yogananda dealt with 'marketing' in an interesting way. I see no problem with an individual including Jesus on there altar, because he is their ishta, but for SRF to include him without including, say, Moses, or Muhammed (we know what they looked like as much as we know what Jesus looked liked), is quite weird to me and truly appears to be Yogananda marketing to Christians. I'm assuming that the picture was added during his lifetime. I think that my background disallows me to look at Christianity without thinking about the pogroms, the demonizing, and the deaths of people who were innocent but for the fact that they did not fall into the "orthodox" Christian interpretation and were dehumanized and harmed by it. I left Christianity after seeing a documentary made up of actual films of the Nazi medical experiments. I was 12. Soon after that I found books on Zen Buddhism and the New Sciences (Quantum and later Chaos Physics, and Gaia/Eco theory) that I turned to for religion in my teenage years. Etz. Edited by: etzchaim at: 8/25/03 6:02 am
prssmd Registered User (8/25/03 8:37 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews etzchaim, I wouldn't blame Jesus, as you seem to, for the fact that many non-Christians died in Jesus name, or that many Christians judged as Heretics were killed. I daresay Jesus would have disapproved of much that was done in his name. There's some terrific stuff in the New Testament. I do think it's likely that Yogananda brought in Jesus to market kriya yoga techniques. And why market them? Why not just publish them? Of course, one should have a mentor when one practices them, just as one should have a teacher or mentor when one learns to play the violin, but that fact shouldn't stand in the way of publication, nor of selling violins on the open market (without requiring purchasers to sign a pledge to never teach the violin to others). On the other hand, there are examples prior to Yogananda of merging Hinduism and Christianity. For instance, there is Ramakrishna, who also merged Hinduism with God-knows-what-else. Edited by: prssmd at: 8/25/03 8:41 am
etzchaim Registered User (8/25/03 9:19 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews I don't blame Jesus. I think the teachings got twisted, and some of those twisted teachings are in the New Testament. I blame both the early Christians and the Jews of that time for separating the two teachings, though I think it's human nature to divide into opposing groups. It's a shame that what Jesus was saying was not incorporated into Judaism as a whole and a shame that his teachings became so far removed from their original source. At this point I think both religions are way off course, so I guess it doesn't matter, at least to me. I prefer the excommunicated mystics! Etz
redpurusha Registered User (8/28/03 8:00 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews etzchaim, Thank you for sharing your experiences. I've gone to the NYC SRF temple a number of times, was initiated there, and felt coming out almost every time of the atmosphere being "really, really stiff, and boring." This however, should not reflect on Yogananda's dynamic and never boring style of teaching about God, just as the christian church and christian "following" should not reflect on Jesus Christ. Although all of the major religions of the world do have an underlying unity and connection, especially true for Judaism and Chrisitianity, Yogananda's mission was to focus on bridging Hinduism and Christianity in particular. Obviously, Jesus was a Jew and he taught Judaism in a new way, Christianity being a spin-off from Judiasm. But he also had an unaccounted for period of 18 years or so, in which he is said (by Yogananda and the Masters) to have traveled to the far east, India especially, to learn from wisemen (yoga masters). Thus, you have a connection with Jesus and Hinduism. Not to take anything away from Judaism, Yogananda and the other Masters recognized the over-whelming popularity and acceptance of christianity in the West. Obviously, the focus on Jesus Christ in particular, not Judaism or all of the religions equally, would get Westerners attention much more, and help inspire people to seek communion with God through kriya. So yes, Yogananda was marketing kriya to the west through Jesus Christ, and this was because of both a practical stand point and also a historical one -in my opinion. Personally, I grew up catholic, didn't know what christianity or God was truly about until I read the Autobiography, and currently am drawn to various disciples of P. Yogananda outside of SRF, who's teaching are very closely in tune with Jesus Christ, and of course, Yogananda.
etzchaim Registered User (8/28/03 9:48 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews Redpurusha, I know we've gone over this sort of argument before, but I think that the idea that Jesus went to India during those 18 or so years is really something that cannot be proven or disproven, and it's just as reasonable and more likely that Jesus remained in Judea. Many people who are described as 'Masters' also claim that the Essenes lived in Qumran and were vegetarians, while archeologists are finding chicken bones, a huge number of them, buried in an area just outside the room that most likely was a communal eating hall, judging from the garbage dump, at the Qumran site. The urge to project our own beliefs onto the world is universal. All of Jesus teachings can be understood through the available Judaic sources, some of which describe the exact things that Jesus did, such as walking on water, and there is no reason to assume that he had to leave the area. There are a number of 'theories' proposed by enthusiastic believers that have been debunked. Someone else pointed out that Yogananda was basing his claim about Jesus on a Russian theory that has since been shown to be false. I know we will all believe what we believe, but there is no reason for people to think that Jesus had to go to India and it's rather presumptuous to believe that only Hinduism and Christianity could produce such souls. There were Masters in Judea he could have been learning from during those silent years before he began teaching. Any rudimentary reading of the Zohar will attest to this. You may or may not be familiar with the book, but the "Master" of the Zohar lived in a cave for a good amount of time, became enlightened and began teaching to select disciples when he left his cave. His name was Shimon bar Yochai. As highly advanced as Yogananda was, I don't think that his understanding of Jesus co-religionists during Jesus time period was as vast as his understanding of the core that all of the teachings come from. To find a 12th century Jewish mystic who defines "moshiach/christos" in the exact same way that Yogananda did, without having to rely on Hindu teaching is, I think very telling. I think that at this time in our history, the biases that Christian anti-Judaism has brought about, much of which is unconscious (like believing that Christianity is an 'improved' version of Judaism) need to be looked at, understood and seen for what they are - cultural biases. I don't discount what the "Masters" have said, I simply don't think that they are completely 'clear' of the need to address certain audiences in certain ways that will not alienate those audiences, given the time and place of that audience and we are discussing "Masters" who were presenting to an audience from the first half of the last century. Much has changed since 1952 in both the actual evidence and understanding of what was actually happening in Judea, mystically, during the Roman occupation, and in how contemporary people can handle new challenging ideas, like the possibility that Christianity may not have been as unique an approach to Judaism as we thought - that it may not have to have come directly from the "only Son of God" or from the secret teachings of another culture that many of us hold dear. The culture of Roman Period Judea was rife with "new" versions of Judaism. There is actually much speculation that the Gnostic and Christian writings represent only a small portion of this and may be a collection of legends and myth that were compiled together and developed over time, involving more than one 'yeshua' (the word for 'savior' - a convenient name for one who has that calling, no?). I'm reminded of a story I'm reading in the current Archeology magazine. Recently, great excitement was caused by an ossuary that bore the inscription "Ya'akov bar Yosef, brother of Yeshua". This was an exciting find, because there is literally no archeological evidence for the historicity of any of the figures in the Gospels, and the statements in Josephus about Jesus are very likely a later, medieval, addition, so this was finally proof! It's turned out to be a fake. The enthusiasm of those who wanted to believe, or who wanted the fame and publicity that would be given to anyone involved in such a find, over-road the normal caution that usually surrounds an archeological find. All the evidence that would normally have been red flags to the scientists involved was easily overlooked due to the implications of having finally found direct evidence of St. James and his brother Jesus. Etz Edited by: etzchaim at: 8/28/03 9:50 am
nagchampa2 Registered User (8/28/03 10:56 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews etzchaim, How has it been proven that Notovich's claim is false? There are others who have seen the Buddhist text. What all this would lead me to believe then, is, the Buddhist monks are lying. They wrote the text themselves. I guess I see no reason for their lying.
redpurusha Registered User (8/28/03 11:22 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews etzchaim, you want evidence? What can be more credible than this tree that has been recently found in northwest India, clearly carved into the bark is Jesus' initials, date, and even a fish. Seriously, I guess the ultimate and only way of knowing the actual events behind Jesus's life is to go directly to the source, God and the saints who are one with Spirit, and hear from their own lips the truth. Even this way, if accomplished, the truth would only be known to the devotee. Like most others, not being fully self-realized, I put my trust to some degree to those who, by virtue of their saintly lives, appear to be credible, enlightened souls, who have successfully communicated with God, and who do have the knowledge of these events. When Yogananda was asked a series of very complicated questions concerning God, he replied, "Leave a little mystery to be solved inwardly. Find God and from his own lips you will recieve the answers you seek." Edited by: redpurusha at: 8/29/03 9:03 am
etzchaim Registered User (9/2/03 5:24 am) Reply	Re: Buddist Jesus in Tibet Um, Jesus studied Buddism in Tibet, but Buddhism didn't reach Tibet till the 7th century. Maybe it was Bon Po Shamanism? The other thing that strikes me as odd, is that in the Tibetan story, St. Issa left his original home at age 12, the year before his Bar Mitzvah, but his Bar Mitzvah is described in the New Testament, the story of him impressing the Rabbis. Honestly, folks, if it works for you that Jesus was in Tibet, go for it. Obviously it's a rather emotional issue. I personally don't belief that having a "belief" is part of Yogic understanding unless it helps you to achieve more consciousness, and claiming that Jesus practiced Kriya Yoga may help Christians to accept the fact that they are practicing something that is "OK" because "Jesus did it". There's room for different beliefs, but it is probably wiser to focus more enlightenment than on personalities, in my opinion. I tend to shy away from the Bhakti approach to elevate certain personalities to a level that negates my own search for True knowledge. Being wrong on this issue will in no way affect the quest for enlightenment unless one becomes attached to the belief - in the attachment is where the danger lies. Etz
etzchaim Registered User (9/2/03 5:43 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL; Jews Redpursha, The first time I downloaded this page, the image didn't show up. That's really funny! Etz
dawnrays Registered User (9/2/03 6:32 am) Reply	Re: Buddist Jesus in Tibet I think that on the other hand, it is good spiritual progress and shows a more mature understanding of the New Testament simply to see Jesus as an enlightened yogi, practicing tried and true yogic techniques like the breathless state (accounting for his death and resurection). There are other references to this made in the Bible as Master points out such as St. Paul's statement of "I die daily". I think the fact that Jesus was a yogi practicing Indian techniques is probably a leap in consciousness for the average Christian. In 1959 the head of the Swami order visited srf mother center for an audience with daya mata and a few others I guess. It was announced a few years ago in one of the temples that they had brought with them the documentation that Jesus had stayed in an ashram in India for a while. Apparently this was accepted by the Swami order and had been for a long time prior. This of course, sheds some favorable and disfavorable light on the their situation as Jesus was kicked out of this ashram for his outspokeness against the Indian caste system, much as he was persecuted at later dates for his outspoken opinions on the Jewish systems and religeous heirarchies and their obsession and attachment to outward ritual, status, physical cleanliness and outward piety. I never heard that the monestary in Tibet was Buddist, however it was in the documentary I saw (based on the Russian traveler) that he did go to Tibet after India as well as some other countries in the mediteranian. dawnrays Edited by: dawnrays at: 9/2/03 7:33 am
etzchaim Registered User (9/2/03 8:44 am) Reply	Re: Buddist Jesus in Tibet The man who debunked Notovitch was the Orientalist scholar Max Mueller, who had stated that he really would like to see a connection between Buddhism and Christianity, but found numerous problems with Notovitch's text. Aside from him, there was another traveller whose account is given here: "...several witnesses came forth shortly after the publication of The Unknown Life of Christ, who claim that Notovitch never discovered the manuscript. In a finely detailed article published in a scholarly journal called The Nineteenth Century, in April 1896, Professor J. Archibald Douglas recounts his trip to the Himis monastery to check up on Notovitch's claims. Douglas says he was open-minded and initially expected to confirm Notovitch's discovery. He seems to have had no personal or monetary motive to discredit Notovitch. Douglas begins by agreeing that Notovitch visited the monastery, noting that the chief lama remembered several European gentlemen visiting in 1887 and 1888, which could very well have included Notovitch, a Russian.[26] But Douglas notes that Notovitch's name does not appear on the list of travelers kept at the bungalow in the city of Leh, where Notovitch said he stayed. Douglas did find that a Notovitch was treated there--not for a broken leg, but for a toothache.[27] A translator was enlisted by Douglas to read extracts from Notovitch's book to the chief lama, in order to gain his response. The lama's comments were recorded in a statement signed by the lama, Douglas, and the translator, Shahmwell Joldan, late postmaster of Ladakh. In the document, reprinted in the journal, the lama contradicts all of Notovitch's major assertions. When asked about the Issa document, the Chief Superior Lama replied: I have been for forty-two years a Lama, and am well acquainted with all the well-known Buddhist books and manuscripts, and I have never heard of one which mentions the name of Issa, and it is my firm and honest belief that none exists. I have inquired of our principal Lamas in other monasteries of Tibet, and they are not acquainted with any books or manuscripts which mention the name of Issa.[28] When asked if the name Issa was held in high respect by Buddhists, the lama replied, "They know nothing even of his name; none of the Lamas has ever heard it, save through missionaries and European sources."[29] The lama further denied that any Westerner had stayed there to nurse a broken leg (contra Notovitch)[3 ; he denied having spoken with Notovitch about the religions of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and people of Israel (contra Notovitch) and even denied knowing anything about these religions[31]; he likewise denied that the monastery contained any Buddhist writings in the Pali language (contra Notovitch).[32] Beskow confirms this, saying (contra Notovitch) that "Pali, which is the sacred language of Theravada Buddhism, has never been used in Tibet, and the Tibetan translations have usually been done from Sanskrit or from Chinese."[33] Douglas reports that when parts of Notovitch's book were read to the lama, he burst out with, "Lies, lies, nothing but lies,"[34] and on another occasion asked Douglas if Notovitch could be punished by law for his untruths.[35] Douglas also questions Notovitch's reference to using a resident (shikari) from a nearby village as an interpreter, because such a person is always a simple peasant, unable to handle the theological and philosophical concepts found in Notovitch's book.[36] In response to these charges, Notovitch later claimed that the lama lied to Douglas because he was afraid the precious manuscripts would be stolen by Westerners; only Notovitch's "Eastern diplomacy" put him on the good side of the lama.[37] This is very unlikely. Even if the lama had confessed to the existence of such a manuscript, he would not have needed to reveal its location in the large collection. He could certainly have refused to show it, sell it, or donate it to foreigners. I also assume that the monasteries had adequate means to keep their precious documents secure. Further, if the monks were so reticent, how did Notovitch, visiting there for the very first time, gain access to the manuscripts, despite his "Eastern diplomacy"? We should remember that Douglas was accompanied by the postmaster of Ladakh--someone surely on better terms with its citizens than Notovitch, a total stranger." Apparently, it was Notovitch who lied and not the Monks. The big question is, has the original text/texts (according to Notovitch, he compiled the text from 2 texts or more than 2, the number appears to change, been made available for a real scholarly study? Max Muller was THE leading Orientalist in his day. The original texts need to be looked at by people who have the training and discipline to look at them dispassionately to discern there authenticity or lack of authenticity, and would need to be able to discern, if the texts are indeed ancient, that they are not the work of Missionaries trying to convert the 'Pagans'. Missionaries today will use deceit, I've seen this quite frequently because I worked for some time in Counter-Missionary activity, and it would not surprise me if they did the same to "save souls by any means necessary" in the Ancient period. I believe it was the Nasturtians who were there very early. Many, many texts have been written, particularly in the Middle Ages that 'rewrite' history in order to support religious beliefs. If a real scholar could actually look at these texts, including the many and scattered texts that Notovitch claims to have compiled his book from, the issues may be cleared up. On the other hand, if the belief helps you to practice Kriya, it's probably harmless, but there does not appear to be actual, real, scholarly support for these claims. In my opinion, any true Mystic that you come across will sound similar to any other true Mystic, simply because they are talking about the same thing, or no-thing, if you prefer. The differences are merely in the languages/symbols they use, and many of the symbols are universal. I've seen statements that use the idea of reincarnation that Jesus seems to be talking about, rather than ressurection, in order to prove that he went to India. Reincarnation is a Jewish belief as well as a Hindu belief. It was the Christians who discarded it. Whether that originally came via India to Judea or developed out of the natural mystical growth within Judea and Israel, is an interesting question, but it's an accepted belief in Judaism today (called Gilgul) and was so in the time of Jesus. As for similarities in the teachings of Jesus with others, he actually resembles Hillel, who was an older contemporary of his. There is also a reference in the New Testament that he learned with Gamliel, another leading Rabbi. I don't think it shows anything to think that Jesus was practicing Indian techniques, other than that people are assuming that the only available techniques are from India. There is now plenty of real evidence to show that Jesus was practicing Merkava Mysticism, using the Names of God (basic Jewish Mysticism...) and the other available techniques that were prevelent in Judea in his lifetime. There is even a text with a technique for walking on water that is now being preserved in Israel. It seems to me that there is more of an emotional need to make Jesus over into a Yogi so that Christians can feel OK about practicing Yoga, than there is any real evidence that he left Judea and did his rather marvelous 'tour' of India and the Himalya's, or for that matter, went to India after the Crucifixion and died there - another tale that has been circulating. Incidentally, there is a tale that tells of his stay in Britain, a tale of his journey to France, and probably a tale about his journey from outer-space, which is rather interesting, given the web sights that purport to prove that all Jews are extra-terrestrials. The Shadow knows... Etzchaim Edited by: etzchaim at: 9/2/03 8:56 am
dawnrays Registered User (9/2/03 8:44 am) Reply	Re: Babaji is ALL Also I think it might be helpful to remember, in the context of the times (the 20's to the 50's) when Master lived, that the civil rights movement had indeed not yet occurred and that Master was considered by many to be "colored". This did most certainly hinder his ability to get around and he encountered much of the prejudices of his day. He was even asked on some occasions to sit in the back of theaters and such. Also, Master did travel to Germany in pre-wwII Germany and seek an audience with Hitler. He was of course unsuccessful in this meeting (but not for lack of trying) and pronounced the situation hopeless and I believed described Hitler as "ignorance in motion". I know of no other yogi, before or since, who has shown such willingness to bend over backwards to accommodate his chelas and humanity in general. I don't believe that too many Christian Churches were open to Master at that time, either. As far as I know, he did his lecturing in public halls (to overflowing capacity audiences of all religeons and backgrounds). He still holds the record I believe for this country's most popular lecturer. At one lecture in particular, thousands were turned away because of lack of seating. The furthest south that he ever was to my knowledge was Washington, D.C., where he made a point of starting a meditation group for blacks there and I have seen a picture of him posing with them. The only church that I know of that was ever open to him (as a church, not an individual from a church) was the Unitarian Church, which sponsored his orginal visit in 1920 and which I now attend. I have also known many people with Jewish backgrounds in srf. I dare say they were probably not "religeous Jews" but I think anyone, Christian, Jew or Muslim who is thinking too stringently along those lines (religeon) is not going to be too open to outside (or inner) influences, anyway. The practicality of bhakti is that it does open up your heart to these things (and consequently is followed by the mind and the intellect.) My feeling with Master has always been that he was trying to appeal to the individual's sensiblities with broadest background in mind. Jesus also, according to the AY, is just as much a part of the lineage as Babaji is. It is a "belief" in as much as the "belief" in Babaji is as it was Jesus who orginally requested from Babaji his assistance and blessings in taking kriya yoga to the west in the first place. dawnrays Edited by: dawnrays at: 9/2/03 11:47 am

Page 1 2 3

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals -

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