please give me your opinion about Shiva Rea's yoga
Mamadu...@gmail.com
As some of you might remember, I am a Yoga newbie (with a great deal of
enthusiasm) who has made his first steps in Yoga with Alan Finger's
ISHTA Yoga DVD Series. I have recently come across the CDs and DVDs of
Shiva Rea and I am extremely impressed by them. I particularly love
her Moon Salutation series (on various CDs and DVDs).
Can anyone tell me more about her? Is her style of Yoga traditional?
How is her reputation among those who know Yoga for many years? Would
you encourage me to pursue her type of work?
I ask this not because I want to skip from one style to another, but
because, frankly, I find her CDs and DVDs vastly superior to Alan
Finger's. While Yoga Zone's material is good, these are essentially
made-for-TV 20 minutes sessions put on DVDs. Her work is polished,
flawless I would say, and she offers much longer sessions (with the
capability to create your own "yoga matrix" or individual program). I
find her DVDs also way better than Rodney Yees (which, frankly, I never
liked very much).
Anyway - any comments and/or pointers about her work and materials
would be of great use to me as I know just about enough about Yoga to
realize that I know nothing at all.
Kind regards & namaste,
M
Stu
>
>
> Can anyone tell me more about her? Is her style of Yoga traditional?
> How is her reputation among those who know Yoga for many years? Would
> you encourage me to pursue her type of work?
I had the opportunity to go to many classes Shiva Rea taught at the
Yogaworks in Santa Monica in the early 90's.
I really liked her classes. I am not sure what you mean by
traditional. Traditional yoga would have you sitting in a dung filled
hut at the edge of a Indian village meditating 24/7 living off the
goodwill of the villagers.
Shiva is influenced by the yoga of Sri K. Pattabhi Jois and its
American offshoot "power yoga" which have been very popular at
Yogaworks. She teachers a flow style yoga. Any form that has you
moving from one asana in a flow style is non-traditional. This style
was developed in the 40's to train wrestlers in Pune. Historically,
asanas have been practiced separately. Sun salutations would be the
only exception and they would not dominate a practice.
I used to like her classes because she would take the time to talk a
bit about the history and teachings of yoga. Her father was an atheist
yet he named her Shiva who is a Hindu Goddess.
I encourage you to enjoy her DVDs. If you ever get a chance to go to
one of her workshops they are great. She travels around the world
teaching them.
--
~Stu
omjaroo
>Traditional yoga would have you sitting in a dung filled
> hut at the edge of a Indian village meditating 24/7 living off the
> goodwill of the villagers.
Stu,
Hmmm, this is nothing like the "traditional" approach I have been using
in the practice of hatha yoga. Would you be so kind as to clarify this
statement for me and others perhaps not so experienced?
Jared
o
^
omjaroo
> I have recently come across the CDs and DVDs of
> Shiva Rea and I am extremely impressed by them. I particularly love
> her Moon Salutation series (on various CDs and DVDs).
You've researched, made comparisons, practiced different techniques and
feel a strong preference for these DVDs. If you have read or practiced
any Sivananda or Hittleman you should have a frame of reference with
which to judge a "traditional" approach.
Seems to me you have answered your own question. I say "go for it!"
Your path is your own.
Jared
o
^
Stu
I understand the Hatha yoga pradipika of Svatmarama is the oldest
surviving text on hatha yoga. I think it was written around 600 AD but
I may be wrong. As always I invite anyone here to correct me. I found
a copy on the internet. I am feeling too lazy tonight to look for the
URL.
Here is a sampling of text:
(12) The student of hatha yoga should practice in a solitary place, in
a temple or a hermitage, an arrow shot away from rocks, water, and
fire. The land should be fertile and well governed.
(13) The hermitage should have a small door and no windows. It should
be level with the ground and have no holes in the wall. [It should be]
neither too high nor too long, and clean and free from insects. It
should be laid daily with cow dung. Outside there should be a raised
platform with an elevated seat and a water tank. The whole should be
surrounded by a wall. These are the characteristics of a yoga hermitage
as described by the siddhas, the masters of hatha yoga.
In addition I highly recommend reading "Play of Consciousness" by Swami
Muktananda.
http://www.amazon.com/Play-Consciousness-Autobiography-Swami-Muktananda/dp/0911307818
Its
the story of his beginnings when his guru tells him to go live in one
of these huts outside a village. These texts describe hatha yoga as it
was practiced before western influences in India.
--
~Stu
omjaroo
> > Stu wrote:
> I understand the Hatha yoga pradipika of Svatmarama is the oldest
> surviving text on hatha yoga.
Could you be confusing ancient with traditional?
Jared
o
^
Stu
Prolly. To me ancient is traditional. Historically yoga doesn't
change much for 2+ millennium until it becomes influenced by the West.
As I understand Swami Vivekananda Yoga trip to the Chicago in the early
20th century marked a huge change in traditional yoga. Other teachers
who traveled to the west such as Yogananda, Satichananda made
alterations to millennium old yogic traditions to appeal to westerners.
They integrated xtian practices. Reinterpreted ancient texts to make
Hindu appear monotheistic. These reinterpretations allowed the xtian
culture accessibility to this very foreign culture. The next
generation of yogis, like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami
Vishnu-devananda, Osho made huge alterations to traditional yoga. They
made asanas physical exercise with an emphasis on health, integrated
scientific principals, and secularized yoga.
As I mentioned before you should read Muktananda's book about his yogic
path. This took place in the 40's but he was not influenced by the
west. Much like your buddy Sivananda who never practiced outside of
India. Their story of the yogic path is as it has been practiced for
thousands of years. But the next generation of students who did travel
west made huge alterations.
As and interesting sidenote there is a huge controversy surrounding the
treatment of ancient texts by the British starting in the 19 century.
As British scholars translated many of these texts they added an
element of monotheism. Many of the originals were lost or destroyed
and the sanskrit text we know now are translations based on the British
translations.
So where does ancient end and traditional take over? And what is
modern western yoga? Does it really matter?
--
~Stu
Richard Corfield
> So where does ancient end and traditional take over? And what is
> modern western yoga? Does it really matter?
If anything this shows that we're getting a more common consensus thanks
to all the communication we're now getting between religions. This is
surely a good thing and hopefully the start of the end of a lot of the
intolerance we have in the world. (It may still take some time though,
as another thread on this group is showing very well).
The abstract Christo-Hindu-Buddhist-yoga seems a good basis for all
getting on nicely together while still allowing people to find "Yoga".
In this case, those that came over and made the adaptations to western
style did a very good job.
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, .
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone 3^
omjaroo
> So where does ancient end and traditional take over? And what is
> modern western yoga? Does it really matter?
I think it is very important to distinguish between, yoga as a
spiritual path (traditional eastern) and yoga as a path to
self-improvement/indulgence (modern commercialized western).
In the same way as it is important to distinguish between nourishing,
life supporting whole-grains (brown rice) and refined, denatured and
fragmented commercial grain products (white rice) which are
un-balancing, un-healthful and addictive.
Jared
o
^
Stu
Then there is no distinction between ancient and traditional yoga.
The ancient ways stayed the traditional until western influences
changed yoga forever. Every Yogi who has traveled to the west reworked
traditional yoga to make it palatable to the western person. The
injection of commercialization is a product of the mere existence of
any organization in the west. There is no immunity. Extremely sincere
yogi's like MMY, Osho, Yogi Bhajan have all needed to make compromises
to get the word out. Your buddies Richard Hittleman and Sivananda are
working inside the same capitalist technological marketplace.
Yoga as a spiritual path IS a path to self improvement. The very act
of attempting to improve oneself is spiritual. It is a truly human
trait.
The only people I have heard criticize yoga to be indulgent or ego
centric are evangelistic xtians and the Church, who find the concept of
a god within to be repugnant. I could dig up a quote from the pope in
this regard if you want.
Traditional or modern, the message of yoga is the same. Its about
reducing the fluctuations of the mind and seeing what really really is.
The rest is fluff. Highbred teachers like Rodney Yee and Shiva Rea
have absorbed teachings from many sources (traditional and modern) and
made their careers and organizations available to the egocentric as
well as the humble.
--
~Stu
Stu
<Richard....@gmail.com> said:
> On 2006-11-11, Stu <Nos...@towel.com> wrote:
>> So where does ancient end and traditional take over? And what is
>> modern western yoga? Does it really matter?
>
> If anything this shows that we're getting a more common consensus thanks
> to all the communication we're now getting between religions. This is
> surely a good thing and hopefully the start of the end of a lot of the
> intolerance we have in the world. (It may still take some time though,
> as another thread on this group is showing very well).
I enjoy reading about the enlightenment during the 16th century when
Europeans first got reports of peoples in distant lands living
prosperous lives without the aid of the king or the church.
Enlightenment authors like Voltaire and Locke began to understand the
myths and manipulation of the traditional religious institutions. As
these institutions lost power we saw a fantastic renaissance of the
human spirit. An example of this is the rebirth of democracy.
This trajectory has a long way to go. Intolerance will go away when
more people move from ethno-centricism to world-centrism. A few may
move towards cosmo-centrism.
This movement will not be complete until religion is put to rest. Much
of the basis for world disharmony today is the inherent ethno-centric
nature of religion.
>
> The abstract Christo-Hindu-Buddhist-yoga seems a good basis for all
> getting on nicely together while still allowing people to find "Yoga".
And what of the Jews? How about the Muslims? Are they going to put up
with Christo-Hindu-Buddhist world?
See my point. Yoga can not be linked to these hermeneutics.
Yoga is a practice. You do the do, you reap the benefits.
> In this case, those that came over and made the adaptations to western
> style did a very good job.
>
> - Richard
Some came over and made adaptations. Others like Ram Dass went to
India and returned with hybrids. But yoga unlike religions does not
base its "message" on ancient texts, dogma, fear of god, love thy
neighbor or any of these folktales.
Yoga is a practice. Once the mind settles, one can see clearly and
with time one learns to act clearly. These actions are no longer tied
to guilty conscience or higher authorities. These actions simply are.
They are tied to a the natural spontaneous growth of the being in a
world subject to the same growth.
Yoga is about moving forward. We should be suspicious of those
ideologies that move us backwards towards the ethnocentric towards the
tribal, and most importantly towards the imaginary.
--
~Stu
omjaroo
Stu wrote:
> Then there is no distinction between ancient and traditional yoga.
> Traditional or modern, the message of yoga is the same. Its about
> reducing the fluctuations of the mind and seeing what really really is.
I was hoping my analogy of whole rice versus white rice would work;
assuming you were a healthy, whole foods kinda guy. I guess it didn't.
Let me clarify. To my mind "traditional" yoga is less a function of
time, place or custom and more a concept of "wholeness," "intention"
and "discrimination." "Traditional" yoga, in all of its varied forms,
no matter where or by whom it is taught, is a path set upon for a
purpose. The purpose is a spiritual one. "Traditionally hatha (a subset
of raja) is taught and practiced to develop sufficient health,
self-discipline and humility to enable the aspirant to effectively
practice one or more of the four basic yogic paths, raja (stillness),
karma (action), bhakti (love) and jnana (discrimination). While an
individual's personal disposition and traits may determine which yoga
they start with and in what order they learn, the intent is that
eventually the practice of all yogas will be mastered. In any case the
goal is the same. That is to "realize" the Truth of Self, Oneness,
Enlightenment, God, etc.
Many "modern, commercialized" yogas, eg. hatha (exercise), meditation
(mind control) and their variants represent a fragmented, denatured and
unbalanced version of "traditonal" yoga (of the same name) that may be
practiced for spiritual reasons or any number of others including sex,
health, material gain, looks and so forth .
I would say the study and practice of any yoga is far superior to
allowing our body and brain free rein to drag our hearts, mind and soul
through the mud of the material jungle like animals. I would also say
eating white rice is much better then eating candy or meat. However
whether it is yoga or food, the whole unadulterated "real" deal (what I
refer to as "traditonal" is infinitely more nourishing then the
refined, fragmented parts stripped of their wholeness, integrity and
meaning.
So I think we do a disservice for new-comers if we characterize
"traditonal" yoga as
>sitting in a dung filled hut at the edge of a Indian
>village meditating 24/7 living off the
> goodwill of the villagers.
This is kind of like saying the "traditional" trip to grandmothers
house for the holidays to honor our older relatives means we would have
to walk or travel by donkey and sit in a dung filled hut. This is
silly. Surely we can use modern methods to learn, practice and achieve
"traditional" goals.
I also believe it is important for new-comers to be made aware of the
fragmented and denatured nature of many commercialized ("modern") forms
of yoga being peddled out in the market place. Surely you can see the
value in this, no?
Jared
o
^
Stu
>
> Stu wrote:
>
>> Then there is no distinction between ancient and traditional yoga.
>
>> Traditional or modern, the message of yoga is the same. Its about
>> reducing the fluctuations of the mind and seeing what really really is.
>
> I was hoping my analogy of whole rice versus white rice would work;
> assuming you were a healthy, whole foods kinda guy. I guess it didn't.
I understood the metaphor. I am a brown rice sort of guy.
>
> Let me clarify. To my mind "traditional" yoga is less a function of
> time, place or custom and more a concept of "wholeness," "intention"
> and "discrimination." "Traditional" yoga, in all of its varied forms,
> no matter where or by whom it is taught, is a path set upon for a
> purpose. The purpose is a spiritual one. "Traditionally hatha (a subset
> of raja) is taught and practiced to develop sufficient health,
> self-discipline and humility to enable the aspirant to effectively
> practice one or more of the four basic yogic paths, raja (stillness),
> karma (action), bhakti (love) and jnana (discrimination). While an
> individual's personal disposition and traits may determine which yoga
> they start with and in what order they learn, the intent is that
> eventually the practice of all yogas will be mastered. In any case the
> goal is the same. That is to "realize" the Truth of Self, Oneness,
> Enlightenment, God, etc.
My understanding of yoga is that there are no goals per se. The very
existence of a goal in consciousness is a distraction from the moment.
This goal thing is a western concept. So Rajasic.
>
> Many "modern, commercialized" yogas, eg. hatha (exercise), meditation
> (mind control) and their variants represent a fragmented, denatured and
> unbalanced version of "traditonal" yoga (of the same name) that may be
> practiced for spiritual reasons or any number of others including sex,
> health, material gain, looks and so forth .
I agree with you on one hand. On the other hand there may be a danger
in passing judgement on one form of yoga versus another one. In some
cases there may be clear cut dangerous schools of yoga - organizations
that brainwash or abuse. Insincere leaders. Even unsophisticated
leaders who innocently may lead their followers astray.
Here is an example of "modern commercialized" yoga, the video series
"Yoga Buns of Steel"
http://www.amazon.com/Buns-Steel-Mind-Body-Yoga/dp/6303195849
We can ridicule it. We can pass judgement. We can be arrogant and
talk about how much more superior we are to this commercial travesty.
Would any of these reactions be yogic?
But look at the reviews in the amazon page. Marguerite Baca has
certainly brought more new people to yoga. As a teacher she appears
completely sincere to me. Who are we to judge?
>
> I would say the study and practice of any yoga is far superior to
> allowing our body and brain free rein to drag our hearts, mind and soul
> through the mud of the material jungle like animals. I would also say
> eating white rice is much better then eating candy or meat. However
> whether it is yoga or food, the whole unadulterated "real" deal (what I
> refer to as "traditonal" is infinitely more nourishing then the
> refined, fragmented parts stripped of their wholeness, integrity and
> meaning.
What you are suggesting is a spectrum of yogic offerings. On one end
"Yoga Buns of Steel" on the other end the dedicated Sadu living and
breathing compassionately in the here and now.
And us, who fall somewhere in between.
>
> So I think we do a disservice for new-comers if we characterize
> "traditonal" yoga as
>
>> sitting in a dung filled hut at the edge of a Indian
>> village meditating 24/7 living off the
>> goodwill of the villagers.
Actually, I would hope a newcomer would understand the importance the
surrender that this lifestyle implies. This text constitutes an
important fundamental text of yoga. Jared, I know you would enjoy
reading what Swami Muktananda has to say in his biography, "Play of
Consciousness". He is the real deal. He lived like that.
http://www.amazon.com/Play-Consciousness-Spiritual-Autobiography-Chitshakti/dp/0911307338
This
book is right up your alley. Swami Muktananda passed away a while ago,
but his organization http://www.siddhayoga.org/ is still around. Year
ago when I lived in Santa Monica I lived down the street from their
temple. They had excellent lecture meetings and yoga classes.
Sally Kempton is one of his disciples. I highly recommend her
workshops and her book, "The Heart of Meditation".
http://www.sallykempton.com/bookexcerpt.html
>
> This is kind of like saying the "traditional" trip to grandmothers
> house for the holidays to honor our older relatives means we would have
> to walk or travel by donkey and sit in a dung filled hut. This is
> silly. Surely we can use modern methods to learn, practice and achieve
> "traditional" goals.
>
> I also believe it is important for new-comers to be made aware of the
> nature of many commercialized ("modern") forms
> of yoga being peddled out in the market place. Surely you can see the
> value in this, no?
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
Yes. I see the value of developing the ideal. I also understand that
many newcomers may have had their interests stoked by "fragmented and
denatured" forms of yoga. We (you, I and the rest of the guys on this
group) do our best to steer people in the right direction.
--
~Stu
Richard Corfield
>>
>> The abstract Christo-Hindu-Buddhist-yoga seems a good basis for all
>> getting on nicely together while still allowing people to find "Yoga".
>
> And what of the Jews? How about the Muslims? Are they going to put up
> with Christo-Hindu-Buddhist world?
Jewish yogi?
I'd read somewhere that a lot of the ideas in yoga are considered
blasphemous to some religions. Even if you take out the obvious
Hindu-Buddhist bits the originators were using that frame of reference
when they devised it.
There really is a fine line between religion and philosophy and
practice. Yoga can be applied as a basic practice. It has done well to
try to make itself independent of religion, but there are still basic
premises that the yogi accepts.
Nice things about yoga though:
You are encouraged to take it at your own pace and not believe anything
without having experienced it for yourself.
Yogis that I've met have been from numerous religious backgrounds, but
have got on with each other very well despite this. Christian yogi can
talk to Sikh yogi and Jewish yogi and scientific yogi without problem.
The practice does have tangible benefits.
> Some came over and made adaptations. Others like Ram Dass went to
> India and returned with hybrids. But yoga unlike religions does not
> base its "message" on ancient texts, dogma, fear of god, love thy
> neighbor or any of these folktales.
The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali
It is a good idea to recognise a higher power.
Ahimsa, Aseteya, Satya, Aparigraha, ...
We all accept that the Yammas I've mentioned are a _good thing_,
though try explaining Aparigraha (non-hoarding) to a lot of people we
see in the world today. The Niyammas are more religion-like. (Which
interpretation of Tapas do you use by the way? I take it as the more
positive "enthusiasm" rather than "you must endure to purify yourself").
> Yoga is a practice. Once the mind settles, one can see clearly and
> with time one learns to act clearly. These actions are no longer tied
> to guilty conscience or higher authorities. These actions simply are.
> They are tied to a the natural spontaneous growth of the being in a
> world subject to the same growth.
A nice feature about yoga, and yet something so hard to explain to
the person who draws strength from their religion. To a person I was
talking to last night, feeling the presence of Christ was The Thing. "You
mean you're doing this for yourself, without Christ's helping hand?"
Christianity teaches that the ideal is so impossibly high that it can't
be reached without help, so it's very hard for a Christian to understand
that someone may take on improving themselves.
Stu
<Richard....@gmail.com> said:
> .
>
>> Some came over and made adaptations. Others like Ram Dass went to
>> India and returned with hybrids. But yoga unlike religions does not
>> base its "message" on ancient texts, dogma, fear of god, love thy
>> neighbor or any of these folktales.
>
> The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali
> It is a good idea to recognise a higher power.
> Ahimsa, Aseteya, Satya, Aparigraha, ...
>
> We all accept that the Yammas I've mentioned are a _good thing_,
> though try explaining Aparigraha (non-hoarding) to a lot of people we
> see in the world today. The Niyammas are more religion-like. (Which
> interpretation of Tapas do you use by the way? I take it as the more
> positive "enthusiasm" rather than "you must endure to purify yourself").
The yamas and niyamas differ greatly from the western concept of
morality. These are not a list of rules to live by. They are not
given set of values.
These are part of the astanga.
With yoga as the mind settles, the mind starts to tune with the
transcendental absolute consciousness. This profound experience is of
pure consciousness. We effectively channel our lifestream into the
flow of the nature. From this point of view we are in the plane of
cosmic or natural law. Naturally and spontaneously we begin to run our
lives in accordance with the laws of nature. All thought, speech, and
action work within the laws of nature working for the maintenance and
evolution of the beings. (this is of course is not my original thought
- it is how I have come to understand yoga through MMY)
The yamas and niyamas are the results of the practice of yoga. They
are not part of the instructions on how to practice it.
This is an important point.
>
>> Yoga is a practice. Once the mind settles, one can see clearly and
>> with time one learns to act clearly. These actions are no longer tied
>> to guilty conscience or higher authorities. These actions simply are.
>> They are tied to a the natural spontaneous growth of the being in a
>> world subject to the same growth.
>
> A nice feature about yoga, and yet something so hard to explain to
> the person who draws strength from their religion. To a person I was
> talking to last night, feeling the presence of Christ was The Thing. "You
> mean you're doing this for yourself, without Christ's helping hand?"
>
Two important distinctions between western thought and eastern in your
above statement.. The first one is the importance of Christ as "the
thing". For xtian mystics an individual is never fully "absorbed" into
the absolute. There is always a distinctions between the created and
the creation. Dualism is the core ontology of the west.
The second is the importance of the Church as a mediator for salvation.
This historical importance of the Church in the lives of individuals
is what led Marx to remark, "Religion is the opiate of the masses".
From this prospective the church operates as a tool of the state to
foster a controllable population. This statement remained fairly true
for Europe up until the enlightenment. The separation of Church from
State has gone a long way to quelling this notion. The reformation
also did much to make xtianity available without the importance of the
clergy as a mediator of god. Today, many xtians look to their churches
as places to reinforce their values and faith in god. But I don't
think the average modern xtian feels their faith is dependent on the
church.
Modern xtianity works more a form of community support. Although the
average xtian today uses the church as a spiritual center, the church
provides much more. It offers rituals (weddings, funerals, baptisms
and the like) that have much positive importance in giving a community
of forum for the group experience of joy or sorrow. Most churches
offer community members ways of helping the needy and other programs of
community support.
I guess what I am saying is that this issue of the xtians relationship
to the church is far more complex than simply being a requirement for
feeling the presence of christ. Religion is not simply a set of values
and some myths. Religion has a very real community function.
> Christianity teaches that the ideal is so impossibly high that it can't
> be reached without help, so it's very hard for a Christian to understand
> that someone may take on improving themselves.
>
> - Richard
There are a number of yogis who argue about the importance of having a
guru and rule out the idea of self improvement as something best
practiced in solitude.
--
~Stu
Sorry about the tangents, just wanted to think this thing through.
Richard Corfield
> transcendental absolute consciousness. This profound experience is of
> pure consciousness. We effectively channel our lifestream into the
> flow of the nature. From this point of view we are in the plane of
> cosmic or natural law.
Although it is a Dharma, natural law rather than father-like-God system,
it has moved beyond what is obviously in front of our eyes and become a
belief system. An obvious question would be to compare it to what some
of the people experimenting with really strange physics are discovering,
but then even the physicists are stating their ideas as conjecture not
fact. Dharma and Yoga do start to look like more religious artifacts,
even if they are the result of early philosophers study of Self.
> The second is the importance of the Church as a mediator for salvation.
> This historical importance of the Church in the lives of individuals
> is what led Marx to remark, "Religion is the opiate of the masses".
Though below you state that a Guru is needed. There are times when help
is useful, though the traditional Guru/Disciple relationship is a very
strong one, stronger than the church one I think.
> From this prospective the church operates as a tool of the state to
> foster a controllable population. This statement remained fairly true
> for Europe up until the enlightenment.
Something to keep in the back of the mind when pondering why a certain
bit of Christianity says what it does.
> Today, many xtians look to their churches
> as places to reinforce their values and faith in god. But I don't
> think the average modern xtian feels their faith is dependent on the
> church.
I'd agree with that. Value is seen in being with like-minded people. It
also keeps things more uniform, and it is hoped if it works properly
that working together can have large benefits for the community. The
strong of the day can support the weak of the day.
> I guess what I am saying is that this issue of the xtians relationship
> to the church is far more complex than simply being a requirement for
> feeling the presence of christ. Religion is not simply a set of values
> and some myths. Religion has a very real community function.
Yes, which makes being more a yogin in a Christian community an
interesting prospect. Obviously rejecting the "myths" or the popular
interpretation of them can cause friction. I'll see how it goes.
I was after finding a middle ground and commonality when I agreed to go
on the Alpha Course. The Alpha Course seems to teach very strongly that
Christ is the only way, and all other ways are invalid. It would have
been nice to have been able to share what I'd learned, a lot I expect
being applicable within Christianity, only I got shot down whenever I
strayed from the party line. Not so bad this week though. If I continue
it, I'll try again to promote the common good.
I'm not sure I'll find a common ground. That said, I hear I'm not alone
in this huge church community so will have to seek out like minded people.
> There are a number of yogis who argue about the importance of having a
> guru and rule out the idea of self improvement as something best
> practiced in solitude.
Though Buddhism seems to tell us the opposite. We can learn from a lot
around us. Not solitude, but not a single guru either.
I'd imagine each mechanism has its advantages and disadvantages.
Stu
<Richard....@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>> I guess what I am saying is that this issue of the xtians relationship
>> to the church is far more complex than simply being a requirement for
>> feeling the presence of christ. Religion is not simply a set of values
>> and some myths. Religion has a very real community function.
>
> Yes, which makes being more a yogin in a Christian community an
> interesting prospect. Obviously rejecting the "myths" or the popular
> interpretation of them can cause friction. I'll see how it goes.
>
> I was after finding a middle ground and commonality when I agreed to go
> on the Alpha Course. The Alpha Course seems to teach very strongly that
> Christ is the only way, and all other ways are invalid. It would have
> been nice to have been able to share what I'd learned, a lot I expect
> being applicable within Christianity, only I got shot down whenever I
> strayed from the party line. Not so bad this week though. If I continue
> it, I'll try again to promote the common good.
I went through a similar thing when I took advanced adult leadership
training in Boyscouts (called Woodbadge). It was run by Mormons who
have co-opted Boyscouts as their official youth program.
They are not really into listening to other peoples views. However I
did not feel nearly as marginalized as a guy I made friends with there
who was a practicing wiccan. The Mormon show hateful intolerance to
pagans. This guy had some nightmarish tales.
>
> I'm not sure I'll find a common ground. That said, I hear I'm not alone
> in this huge church community so will have to seek out like minded people.
>
>> There are a number of yogis who argue about the importance of having a
>> guru and rule out the idea of self improvement as something best
>> practiced in solitude.
>
> Though Buddhism seems to tell us the opposite. We can learn from a lot
> around us. Not solitude, but not a single guru either.
>
> I'd imagine each mechanism has its advantages and disadvantages.
>
> - Richard
Christopher C. who posts here on occasion has a pretty good take on
this. Like Chris I can't help but think that there is an emerging form
of Buddhism in America. I believe the Dalai Lama has commented that it
is not Buddhism. But I can't help but think that our competitive,
science based culture has met with Buddhism and mixed it with the Beat
generation like Alan Ginsburg and Jack Kourac. It has seeped into
popular culture and generated a new form of Buddhism. I think it has
resolved many of the issues you are flagging in your post. It
questions beliefs, authority, doctrine. It shows a reverence for the
earth and other peoples. And it offers yogic practices as aids to
physical and psychological health.
I am a representative of this view.
--
~Stu
Sevenhundred Elves
> On 2006-11-13 01:17:27 -0800, Richard Corfield
> <Richard....@gmail.com> said:
>
> >
> > The abstract Christo-Hindu-Buddhist-yoga seems a good basis for all
> > getting on nicely together while still allowing people to find "Yoga".
>
> And what of the Jews? How about the Muslims? Are they going to put up
> with Christo-Hindu-Buddhist world?
There are Sufis among the Muslims, and there are similar mystics among
the Jews too, but I forget what they are called. I'm sure none of them
see yoga as a threat. Reading a little about Sufism, I found that they
share some of our own experiences. Surely they have some yogic methods
as well.
I guess the mystic experience is truly universal. I think it could unite
people with people, in a horizontal fashion, as a complement to linking
people with God in a vertical manner.
S.
Stu
<sevenh...@elves.invalid> said:
The mystic traditions have always been marginalized from the
mainstream. Sufism is actually outlawed in some Muslim countries.
An excellent book about the differences between Xtian mysticism and
Eastern mysticism is taken up by Aldous Huxley in "Grey Eminence".
There are profound differences.
I agree, for the most part mystic experience is universal, but mystical
traditions tend towards institutionalization and often do not agree.
There are huge rifts among Indian mystical sects. I even see much
splintering between yoga schools like Bikram versus the International
Yoga Association.
Seems to me mysticism is not the answer to moral/ethical question of a
unified humanity. People are going to have to stop identifying with
ego (ego centric) or Tribes (ethnocentric) and move on to worldcentric
and maybe with some luck Kosmocentric.
We can start by dropping the mythical notion of "linking people with
God". How do you make a link when you are already part of the unified
flow? The very act of linking is going to produce separation.
--
~Stu
Sevenhundred Elves
> On 2006-11-21 08:30:24 -0800, Sevenhundred Elves
> <sevenh...@elves.invalid> said:
>
> > Stu wrote:
> >
> >> On 2006-11-13 01:17:27 -0800, Richard Corfield
> >> <Richard....@gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The abstract Christo-Hindu-Buddhist-yoga seems a good basis for all
> >>> getting on nicely together while still allowing people to find "Yoga".
> >>
> >> And what of the Jews? How about the Muslims? Are they going to put up
> >> with Christo-Hindu-Buddhist world?
> >
> > There are Sufis among the Muslims, and there are similar mystics among
> > the Jews too, but I forget what they are called. I'm sure none of them
> > see yoga as a threat. Reading a little about Sufism, I found that they
> > share some of our own experiences. Surely they have some yogic methods
> > as well.
> >
> > I guess the mystic experience is truly universal. I think it could unite
> > people with people, in a horizontal fashion, as a complement to linking
> > people with God in a vertical manner.
> >
> > S.
>
> The mystic traditions have always been marginalized from the
> mainstream. Sufism is actually outlawed in some Muslim countries.
I've read that it has been outlawed during many periods in history and
in many countries. Too bad IMHO.
> An excellent book about the differences between Xtian mysticism and
> Eastern mysticism is taken up by Aldous Huxley in "Grey Eminence".
> There are profound differences.
Thanks, I'll read it if I come across it. I wonder if it's translated to
Swedish. That would increase my chances of finding it in the bookstores
hereabouts.
> I agree, for the most part mystic experience is universal, but mystical
> traditions tend towards institutionalization and often do not agree.
> There are huge rifts among Indian mystical sects. I even see much
> splintering between yoga schools like Bikram versus the International
> Yoga Association.
We humans have a tendency to organize and make institutions and
traditions out of everything we find useful. In most practical matters
this is good and helps society survive, but this tendency can go too
far.
> Seems to me mysticism is not the answer to moral/ethical question of a
> unified humanity. People are going to have to stop identifying with
> ego (ego centric) or Tribes (ethnocentric) and move on to worldcentric
> and maybe with some luck Kosmocentric.
I couldn't agree more, we should be as inclusive as possible when we say
'we'.
> We can start by dropping the mythical notion of "linking people with
> God".
I personally won't drop the notion of linking with God. To me that's an
important aspect of yoga, and also what the mystical experience is all
about. If more people do that, and get the experience that we are not
just lumps of meat walking around in a world of blocks, sometimes
bumping into other moving lumps of meat or blocks of inanimate matter,
but that there is an underlying spiritual something which is far greater
and more holy, more whole, than the separated existence we are most
familiar with, then, through this experience, we also will feel more
kindred to our fellow beings, and an understanding that the others, just
like ourselves, are basicly holy.
That's what I meant, but perhaps you thought that by linking with God I
meant some kind of religious scheme, a plot to force people into bondage
to God, making more institutions? No, but perhaps I used the term
linking in too loose a manner, as a kind of synonym for the word yoga.
> How do you make a link when you are already part of the unified
> flow? The very act of linking is going to produce separation.
Sorry, I didn't quite understand the meaning of the paragraph quoted
above. Unified flow? We being part of that? Linking producing separation
how?
S.
Stu
<sevenh...@elves.invalid> said:
The problem lies in using any verb like "linking". We come to yoga.
The mind settles. A veil is lifts. Spontaneous. Natural. Effortless.
No linking involved. In fact its rather difficult to use common
sentences that require verbs and nouns. Really don't like reducing the
ultimate limitless light to a demeaning proper noun like "god". And
then to add insult to injury by limiting the scope of the eternal by
connecting an action like "linking".
As for Huxley's book it was written in the 40's. A very interesting
book about one of France's most powerful Monks in the 17th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Eminence Huxley was always
interested in mysticism. This book talks about the conflicts between
mysticism and politics as well as the church.
--
~Stu