Supernatural 8
 4  4  11  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Welcome Essentialism Teachings
No hanky-pankies; certain neurotics don't like that.THESE pages were prepared to assist free and good thinking. Their basic essentialism teachings may help to keep one sound. However, if you find yourself stiffening, getting cramped, and accumulating solid pains from reading it, you might have been taken in beforehand and experience what is called "cognitive dissonance" - there is that chance. Be warned: The guru Paramahansa Yogananda set up a sort of 'hybrid Hinduism', and it has turned into a cult.
We discuss other facets of his teachings here too, and with humour as well. It does not suit everybody.Disciples make all the trouble and differences. They begin to create narrowness and bigotry. The pure Message becomes diluted with ignorance. - Swami Yogananda, "Oriental Christ", East-West, March-April 1930.
"Stopping in perplexity on the brink of a dangerous abyss is a symbol of the folly
of youth."- I Ching, from hexagram 4: Meng. |
Could this be less than fit?
In the quotation Yogananda seems to blame all SRF cultishness on his disciples, but such white-washing of his own contributions is unbecoming, and far from fit. Hence, it is fair to expose some of them. And take heart: "You don't have to take to neurosis-building wails for God Mom just because Yogananda found it good for himself. Neuroses and misfortunes may be yours soon enough anyway." :)It often pays to explore an emotionally intense situation. But one has to mind one's conditions for it. Then, if all involved manage to go on in tact, something good may eventually arise, thanks to large, common goals kept in sight. One of them could be: "Have no other god(s) before me (before "I am")." That's a nice teaching. Decent contemplation (mind diving) can take you into it.
Welcome liberating teachings instead of nonsense
All is not fair as fair seems (Proverb)
CULINARY wisdom is largely essential. It is hardly a benefit to be taken in and made a
fool of through surface spectacles and great, stiff pretences - whatever. To "look before
you leap" signifies ability to inspect fairly well, at any rate, and preferably beforehand,
before hurling oneself into things.
Great wisdom can make you modest, and it could come in handy. You may have found
that some 'man-fishers' opposed to that seem to feign or love great-sounding words and form
snares too. Some may look like soap operas - The surfaces are polished and spectacles are many.
As a matter of fact, digressing soap opera figures and figurines may feel a strong need within to subject their big ones to 'face-lifting' or embellishments. If so, suspect there is an
underlying problem shown by lack of authenticity when it comes to details. Little by little "nasty big guy features seem to disappear" - by being half-camouflaged and retouched and more.
Yoga teachings praise sincere
judiciousness (truthfulness) rather than animalistic training.
Good versus the hard public: a front, a
forerunner, and why not one's own sturdiness?
Learn to be well guarded in public and be reluctant to commit yourself. There may be much help in adding "degrees of maybe" to the all too common 'yes' and 'no' responses. Besides, we recommend the Likert scale*.
* A scale developed by Rensis Likert: "Perhaps five choices ranging from strongly in favour to strongly opposed are provided for each statement, the alternatives being scored from one to five [Ebu" "psychological testing"]." You can use the fingers on your hand to see embodied such as:
- "strong no",
- "no",
- "neutral/maybe/don't know/unsettled",
- "yes"
- "strong yes"
A thumb marking could mean "strong yes", for example, and 5 be used as the number for it. You may next sort and weigh many responses too. This scale is not difficult to work with, and helps you to better sort your likings and responses to many things.
And now for something else:
FIGURE:
WE GIVE you
an 'estimate figure'. It is tentative. It suggests. And what? Maybe your most favourable
responses: (a) in private; (b) among friends; (c) fit for the public. These may
differ.
Here we suggest best responses and ideas meant for a public sphere. "Being sceptical and
not settled may pay well, in time". "Not settled" may be translated into "I haven't made up
my mind on that yet" - it often suffices in public. What you do otherwise in your private
life and among good friends is your own business, presumably you spend your time well. The
good point is: Official statements need to be very careful and well enough guarded, or jarring may set in.
A practical, all right truth may be a rare find.
ALSO look at
this figure:
Out of courtesy we don't define more and better than up to "very credible". To go
further, but outside the simple scheme (the figure), let's maintain many good men and women
think the (a) truth has something about it that is credible. And unwelcome truths are disliked and easily discarded.
It appears that Jesus asked for fit inspections and judgements that are better than mere
superficial ones. And to a Samaritan woman he says the only way to
worship God is in truth and righteousness. So don't leave out truth, but add it to the schemes too.
"TRUTH IS A RARE FIND": The second figure (above) hints at one more thing: A solid and applicable truth may be as rare as a gem. Compare Kurt Lewin's "There is nothing so practical as a good theory" [Sop 11]. Common truths are
tied in with language and its built-in logic and grammar - all of which may (or may not)
correspond respectably with "truths to find out there" somehow. We allow for that. Hence, out of
concern for existential findings we don't have to express ourselves further (in public) than
to a "very, very credible" level.
Lessons fit for kriya yoga study
Kriya yoga: allegedly scientific, but see what happened
If you go public with some tenet and want to be looked on as respectable, not just another humorist or guru entertainer of a sort, learn to count well. That may be needed. Next, if you learn to count, study key notes and go for memorising the savoury points. In this way you build up acceptance in harmony with general knowledge. There are limits to that, but let that matter lie for now.It may not be decent to yourself and others to be merely a "yes-man":
- Some respond by "yes" without verifying. Such folks don't really master basic tenets found inside the lore of many people and of general science. "It is easier to believe than to doubt [American proverb, Ap 166]."
- Others respond "no" without knowing enough. None of these responses are delicate. "Twin fools: one doubts nothing, the other everything [American proverb, Ap 166]."
- The best may stick to a cultivated or cultivable "maybe" and next decide whether and how far they would like to inspect things for themselves or their next of kin. In this way many have progress and may thrive in that way. "When in doubt, find out — Knowledge may grow with skilled doubts [Cf. American proverb, Ap 165]."
Even great sceptics may get a hard time. It is not enough just to be hard-headed. One is supposed to be rational and fair in encounters as well.
Thus, maybe the good men and women are to be found among the men and women of science, the ones Yukteswar and Babaji allegedly wanted to reach and give helping hands across the sea through kriya yoga methods. It's sad that the dispensation is fenced in by metaphorical brambles.
A fair approach rides over and above the merely sluggard "middling" one, for that matter
Knowledge comes within limits. Outside its limits, 'hard facts' of science may be of little value, of little use, That is because the more complex arenas favour much else that strict methods based on rigorous control fads, basically.The figure suggests that truth is not always easy to find or come across. In a medley of sayings, in a version of a tale, opinions vary. Then, what to do?
Stick tentatively to some 'middling course', says an Indian professor that goes into some statements on what is generally found to be a good method, and hindsights into significant facets of the life of Shyama Charan Lahiri, Lahiri Baba.
A sort of middling approach goes fairly much into facets of "maybe" or "well-well" teachings, and what may be evolved from there. Sound scepticism is much into it. It helps to be culinarily sceptical in coming across strange tenets, engrossing tales, and when we are out of our waters in general. Often things are not exactly what they appear to be. Often "good friends" are deadly enemies in disguise - some may wear masks.
Let us dive into the most remarkable tale of the Autobiography of a Yogi at once:
It was at Ranikhet ... that he received the Blessed touch of his Master under whose benign influence he became the greatest exponent of the Yoga Cult in modern times.
There are different and conflicting accounts regarding the meeting of the Yogiraj with his Master ... and his initiation. The conflict seems to be between the spirit which claims to start from a rational and scientific basis and rejects all improbable incidents as entirely unbelievable, and that which blindly accepts everything—facts and legends, however improbable and fantastic—as gospel truth the validity of which cannot simply be questioned. The truth seems to stand midway between these two extremes". [Professor Jogesh Chandra Bhattacharya, in the book Shri Shri Gurabe Namah Yogiraj Shri Shri Lahiri Mahasha, chapter 3.]
The "great ones" of soap operas may fail, and individuals you have not heard of, may help them
WE ARE about to study how to investigate like the good professor says, and hope to do better than the misguided ones. You should note at the start that majestic gurus don't always seem to talk along modest and sensible veins. Fairly often they "fart" big words that may be plays on greatness and holiness, highness and what else?The antidote for what could be braggart poisons are to think the alternative, strong tenets if such asre found and seem fit. It is a standard procedure of basic science.
So, where "great ones" fail and don't live up to their responsibilities towards perhaps far too gullible beginners, sane individuals had better offer the counter-tenets that may help.
If so, what do we end up with through that formalistic process? Basically, it happens to be the approach of general science. It has tenets that are put to the test in certain regulated ways. To neglect this testing is not a work of wisdom. Far from it. And old yoga contains much material tot he same general outlook. Even Yogananda makes big claims that yoga is testable. It's not good to make it detestable out of whim and tactlessness - and not the fault of basic yoga (contemplation) discipline.
Things vary, allow for that
There are many sorts of help. To teach good beginners moderation instead of blunderbus, assertiveness on behalf of (this and that, someone else), can be good help. To learn the essentials of the scientific, regulated "well-well" tradition and approach, may be good in itself, and in very many contexts and settings, as the case may be.Thus, pick your choices. And don't blame your future falls and mishaps on the radionic expert, and don't succumb to romantic things either.
Great assertiveness has many outlets - the antidotes may hire some of them too
To embark on an delicate discovery journey, one has to be prepared for emotionally tinged biases, tense build-ups, intense situations and yearnings, guesswork that "folks agree on" and old rigmarole that just might get the better of some people. Next, there is a need to learn and go into good ways to deal with such facets of such as group snares. There are many.Many followers might want to explore some of the tidings that come up unless bigwigs and group agreements erect blocks in the way - that would not be fair, would it? Many welcome study findings rest on advancements through going against blindfolding snares.
To embark in a group or as a group of five or six mature persons, however, much tact is needed, not just fairness and ideals imposed on oneself by someone else.
Let no one poison you. And let someone proceed in deviating undertakings only if the heart is not objecting harshly - as it should.
Furtive play and secretive silencing is far from God's will, the Exodus maintains
AS IT IS said, common sense is not as common as many think it is.It may be far more economic and valuable to examine inspirations and ideas instead of damages they favour if carried out at the behest of this and that "big guy". If there is enough backbone (truth) in an axiom, it stands being put to the test in good ways.
It's obvious that the guru Babaji's unitiy vision on behalf of Hinduism and Christianity is not factual. Instead of believing a fox is a hare and lore like that, learn to blow your nose. The furtive "play" or halfplay that marks SRF when it comes to dogmatism, has its roots and responsible is Babaji - if we can believe the guru Yogananda who recounted many tales without minding "middling findings" at all here and there.
It is a shame if untrue statements formed by "big wolves" lead sheep into distress and neurosis-forming altar-worship of Hare Krishna and God Mom. Reason should not be driven out the way through service of offending tenets, rituals and worship of such as foreign gods in the mixed name of Jesus and many Hindu "avatars".
Yet, when this much is said, many think that it is fit to conform through faith for a great long while, even if that faith is unfair, not Christian, not savoury, and greatly neurosis-building, in essence. One of the hallmarks of general science is yes to examination (deep study) of tenets, not refusal of investigating them in adequate, fair ways. Fear of punishment by gurus for being "unfaithful" may hinder some throughout a life-time. Instead of daring to stand up for one's insights, allied with rational handling expertise, some try to "stand the SRF tidings" by being cowed. If so, it counteracts further wise decision-making as if by law, if we are to believe existential psychologists like the late Dr. Rollo May - and many others.
Yet, in whatever circumstances you find yourself, try to take stock of the inner life first, at any rate. It's not good to fall prey to dwarfing belief, even if it is shared among - say - half a million Californians, if not more.
The art of finding a fair way
THIS SITE gives you handling tenets that tie in with a very systematic, underlying philosophy, or let's call it a world view. It is rational and maybe tinged with tentativeness. Maybe you have been informed it is the Calvinistic approach, maybe the Calvinistic Daoism-resembling one of building up selfsameness. In fact, it can be applied for that end, and next used well. In essence, that method takes you far above those who get 'strangled' in soap opera rituals and much worse.If you learn to apply these solvency teachings, that quest is likened to looking for eggs of gold and maybe hatching some of them. Unless you learn to apply wisely and well, you harvest mere nuggets - which is not too bad. And gold is a symbol of handiness in these teachings. In some settings gold is also used to denote the handling self that may (or may not) be built.
See if the main line of argument is fit, if it is convincing, if the parts "marry" each one another fairly well. Consistency is a good assets.
See if the tenets match your main experiences or some of those of your forefathers, clan and people, and see how far you might be able to make good use of them.
If you feel greatly or absolutely convinced of one "medley approach", you should form a malleable routine trek, or a "training schedule" in consonance with it somehow. That drill may be multi-faceted.
Now, it is up to you. So is the responsibility. All of it.
Big words aside, be fair inwards, be fair to yourself and try to remain fit as yourself where you are needed a lot. Don't repress. These are good, clear tidings that have helped some already. If results get sinister, maybe the applications halt, or (some of) those around your are at fault. It could happen. It pays to be prepared for unpleasant encounters, whims and arrogance if one is improving and making solid progress, even academically.
|
 |
 |
 |
| Literature | SECTION | First Page |
Ak: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Man's Eternal Quest. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1975.
Ay: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi. 1st ed. New York: Theosophical, 1946. Online. [oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk12.html]
Ebu: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2006.
Pa: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi. 11th ed. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1971.
Say: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Sayings of Yogananda. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1958.
Sop: Smith, Eliot R., and Diane M. Mackie. Social Psychology. 2nd ed. Hove: Psychology Press, 2000.
CLICK on 'Literature' for the references of about 2000
works.
ANNOTATIONS: Code letters (acronyms and initial words) in square brackets in the text refer to works. Click on 'Literature' to see examples. Page references are put right after code
letters. And the abbreviation cf. means "compare". [MORE].
SEARCH: A top left link gives access to site searches and dictionaries.
REFER: Prefer the standard 'location address' on top of the page(s).
PILOTING: The picture and the text links in the top left column are clickable. [MORE]
DISCLAIMER: We use built-in qualifications with the disclaimer. LINKS: [A] [B]
© 2006, Tormod Kinnes. All rights reserved — Revised in August 2006.