Slicing Through Spiritual Elitism

OK, let's cut through all the false logic and sensational name-calling to the real crux of the argument.

No one can deny that the original source of all yoga teachings is the Sanskrit Vedas. If modern teachings of so-called 'yoga' offered more benefits or better results than the ancient texts reveal, then we would be perfectly to justified to accept the claim that they are better.

'Better' means, for example, that they would offer the results of the original teaching, plus more. Is this actually the case or not? Actually we see from their own writings and teachings that they offer less benefits and inferior results.

Let's just take a simple example from Krsna's description of astanga-yoga in Bhagavad-gita. Astanga means eight limbs or stages, and these are described by Patanjali and other Vedic authors as yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyana and samadhi.

Do modern so-called 'yoga' schools teach these stages? No, they teach mostly asana and maybe a little pranayama. So their teaching is incomplete; less than the original, not more.

Do any of their students reach samadhi? Well what is samadhi exactly? Bhagavad-gita describes samadhi as follows:

“The stage of perfection is called trance, or samädhi, when one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This is characterized by one's ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness and enjoys himself through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.” [Bhagavad-gita 6.20-23]

I don't know of any teacher of the modern so-called 'yoga' schools who can claim to have attained samadhi or offer their students “freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.” They cannot demonstrate the symptoms of samadhi and other exalted states of transcendental conciousness described in the Vedas. Instead they offer benefits like “lose weight and feel great.” This has nothing to do with real yoga, and it is actually a mockery and mundane perversion of the great tradition of yoga.

The Vedas are transcendental literature of divine origin. So we cannot 'improve' upon or 'evolve' the teachings of real yoga, since they are already perfect and complete. We are only capable of altering the results and diminishing their value by misinterpretations and unauthorized changes – products of limited, imperfect human intelligence.

Any teacher of so-called 'yoga' who rejects the divine origin of the Vedas, is simply sawing off the limb on which they sit. I really don't have anything more to say about this. Either you accept the eternal truths and perfect guidance of the Vedas, in which case we may have something further to discuss, or you don't, and we must conclude that you are a rascal and a cheater.

A little of yoga teachings is certainly better than none. But then why kick and scream and accuse me of elitism, spiritual materialism, fundamentalism, bad breath and who knows what all, when I want to bring the rest? And why claim that you have the whole thing when you don't? That misrepresentation is what I am critical of, along with the commercialization and consequent dilution of the original sacred teachings.

If someone is advertising a car but only delivering a hubcap, that is cheating, and that person is a rascal. Claiming to provide one thing, and then giving something else of inferior value is the definition of fraud. Similarly, advertising yoga and then just delivering a few asanas in a materialistic way is cheating, because real yoga is much, much more than that. Anyone who bothers to read the original Vedic scriptures can verify that in a few minutes. So these phony materialistic yoga teachers spreading misconceptions are rascals, and so is anyone who defends them. That's the truth; I'm sorry if you don't like it.

If you still don't get my point, then let me restate and clarify it. It is erroneous and illogical to think that the teachings of yoga can 'evolve' or 'improve' by limited, defective human interference. They can only devolve because they are already complete and perfect. Any changes we make with our limited intelligence and questionable motivations can only decrease their value and benefits. There is plenty of evidence to establish that this is the case, as I already pointed out.

Is anyone following these teachings of modern origin (anything from Sankara to the present) actually attaining samadhi? Please bring forth even one example. The criterion is that they must demonstrate the symptoms of samadhi as given the same literature that also defines yoga.

The only people that I am aware of who have attained samadhi and can demonstrate its symptoms are the followers of the original yoga teachings. Others cannot, and will not, no matter how much they 'evolve' or 'improve' the original teachings. That is because the original teaching is of divine origin – in other words, it comes from God. It's already perfect, and if you follow it, you will get the result: complete cessation of material suffering.

The material disease – meaning the root cause of all illusion, ignorance and suffering – is thinking that we know better than God. This whole discussion is a perfect example of that aberrant mentality as applied to yoga. What makes it so poignantly tragic is that yoga is the only practical way out of the mess we're in. If we change it to match our own materialistic misconceptions of reality, then we're sunk.

Yes I know the way out, I am actively teaching it to others, and they are also getting results. My guru is a liberated soul, and anyone who follows the original yoga teachings can become liberated too. But first we have to get past the suicidal human tendency to speculate that we know better than the great personalities who originated the Vedic yoga teachings.

Hi Jake!

Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism continues to be an important book to me.

I remember when my Zen teacher asked me to consider taking on the training to become a Zen teacher myself.  Watching my response to the whole thing gave me a glimpse of the things that one should be wary of when searching for a teacher.  I noticed how I began subtly insistent my version of Truth be the only one to consider.  I noticed how my verion of the Truth was slowly becoming the Truth.  I noticed how I would enjoy a sense of power when other students would defer to me in different ways, when they would actually listen and take seriously whatever I was saying.  These and other things were slowly creating an elitist attitude in myself.

For my own safety and the safety of others, I declined to persue the teacher's path.  Now I'm free to share my opinion without worrying whether anyone agrees with me or not.  It also means I can listen to something that I might have some disagreement about and maybe have my mind changed by it.

I'll try to answer your question: without one's own realization, how does a person recognize such a person?  In order to gotten that far on “the path,” one has to have started to realize something.  I don't think the trick is in recongnizing the right, enlightened teacher, the trick's in walking away from the wrong one.

I can do nothing without the energy of the world to enable me.  I am not capable of infecting anyone with knowledge or wisdom or enlightenment alone, because I cannot force a person to believe anything. 

With great respect, Mr. Hughes, I recognize that you have suffered for the cause of enlightenment, but when you speak of “results”-then you are considering that yoga is not an end in itself, but is a practice in which the results justify the act.  If that is how you feel about Yoga, perhaps you should spend your time absorbed in an activity in which the action justifies the action to you.

Im sorry sir, but my path to enlightenment is my own, and the path to your enlightenment is your own..You could explain and show and write about how you got there all day and all night, but in order for me to experience it, I must believe that  me following the soul of the universe to reach enlightenment is just as important as the Vedic's who followed the soul of the world to reach enlightenment, and just as important and valid as your journey…Why would you continue to pursue this argument that one is better than the other?  If its true, then it will manifest in life as truth and change will occur. 

No-we dont know “better” then the great personalities that originated vedic yoga teachings-but we know no “worse” either..and I think that is perhaps the point you are missing.

Much love and peace to both of you…I very much appreciated this interaction, and hope that if it is to continue that we can all maintain openminded awareness of the universe and love of eachother and ourselves.

Namaste.

OK, time for Spirituality 101.

What is the difference between matter and spirit? Matter is temporary; spirit is eternal. Matter's existence and qualities are relative and conditional; spiritual existence and qualities are absolute and unconditional.

Example: If I say “It is raining,” that is material, conditional, relative truth. It may or may not be true, depending on the time and circumstances. All material statements are like that, therefore they require interpretation. But if I say, “The soul and the Supersoul are eternal,” that statement is spiritual absolute truth. It is true at all times, in all places, for all beings, and in all circumstances or conditions of life.

Therefore spiritual truths do not require interpretation like material statements, but stand on their own; we simply need to duplicate and apply them, and we get the benefit. The benefit of duplicating spiritual absolute truth is that we get spiritual vision or eternal, absolute spiritual consciousness, as opposed to relative material consciousness based on conditional truth.

The source teachings of yoga and similar subjects found in the Vedas are examples of absolute truth. If we simply duplicate and apply them, we get the benefits. But if we mistake these statements for relative truths and try to interpret them, we will not get the benefits becuase we are responding inappropriately to the level or quality of truth in those statements.

Therefore the original yoga teachings do not require interpretation, 'improvement,' 'evolution,'' or other adaptation to changing circumstances, because they are absolute truths. They do not refer to the body or to temporary material qualities, but to the absolute, spiritual properties of the soul. The significance, accuracy and potency of these teachings are not subject to the changes of material qualities, because they are given by beings of much greater than human intelligence, ability and consciousness.

All these criteria are given in the original Vedic sources themselves. But since those sources have been deliberately suppressed or misinterpreted by mundane scholars with political motivations, few students have access to unaltered copies of the original documents. The lineage and school of the Esoteric Teaching, which I represent, has translated these original documents into English and other important Western languages.

No human being can claim to be as intelligent, powerful or spiritually aware as Krsna, the speaker of Bhagavad-gita. His activities and qualities are simply unparallelled in human history and literature. It is absurd to think that 'I can speculate my own spiritual path' when the superior directions of the Vedas are already there.

We already accept in ordinary things that experts can do a better job than ourselves. That's why we go to doctors, read books and articles by reputable authors, listen to popular musicians and consult other authorities instead of doing everything ourselves. Why should this suddenly change when it comes to spiritual matters?

It takes almost 25 years of education to become a doctor. My guru studied and practiced with his guru for over 50 years before starting to teach on his own, and I studied with him for almost 40 years, and attained realization as described in the Vedas before starting my spiritual teaching work.

So is it any wonder I am dismissive of lightweight people who practice a few yoga asanas for a year or two and then hang out their shingle and want to build up a big business? They cannot even read the source materials on yoga, much less understand and apply them. They cannot explain the difference between material and spiritual. So what is their qualification to be a spiritual teacher? What is their level of spiritual education? They do not even know the history of the subject they pretend to teach. It's just ludicrous.

Finally, the real meaning of yoga is to bring us face-to-face with God. Any teachings presented outside the sacred atmosphere of the Vedic lineage or the guru-disciple relationship cannot do this. As soon as we commercialize yoga, it becomes a business subject to the modes of passion and ignorance. If you actually read the source materials on yoga (Bhagavad-gita Chapter 15) you would understand that this is a complete disqualification. Yoga cannot be taught as a business without becoming completely ineffective.

Disclaimer: I do teach paid courses in commercial settings, but as soon as possible I graduate the students to an intimate personal group which is without charge.

David,
You may be confusing what you criticize as yoga with a brand of fitness, practiced in health clubs around the country, by former aerobic instructors . This indeed can be a sad state of affairs. I do maintain that even from those humble beginnings, many practioners and teachers can move into a deeper understanding of yoga. As far as teachers who are accredited by Yoga Alliance, and who are teaching in studios, they have completed a basic study in philosphy which always includes patanjali’s yoga sutras and the gita. To what extend they are able to teach this depends on the motivation and the interest of the students and teachers.
Lets understand that most studio yoga teachers do not consider themselves to be spiritual teachers, However through the release of some of the blockages in the body, asana can bring many to a deeper communion with oneself. A good teacher, either with four years of study or forty can support their students on their journey through compassion, intuition and non judgement.
We all have that to share.

I’d like to thank Kamasundari for the input and insight. If you go to a class called “yoga” in a gym or studio, you could be getting anything from someone with a week of experience (those would be the former aerobics teachers) to decades of knowledge. Its not a black and white situation of “good teachers” vs “frauds”.

I’m a studio yoga teacher and I would say that I’ve experienced asana in the space of releasing blockages in my body, and into the deeper communion with myself that Kamasundari references. And that, for me, has been in a sense “touching god”- touching the divine spark within us all. For me, the journey into asana (and pranayama) practice has brought me both into communion with self/nature/God, and into the space which I can relate to students with Kamasundari’s criterion of compassion, intuition and non judgement. Were it not for MY spiritual path, I would not be in he space I am today…a much improved human being.

Kamasundari hit the nail on the head…we ALL have the capacity to teach via compassion, intuition, and non judgement.

Very good; now we're onto something substaintial. Of course, you neglected to quote the original Sanskrit. Here it is:

śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt
svabhāva-niyataṁ karma kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam

saha-jaṁ karma kaunteya sa-doṣam api na tyajet
sarvārambhā hi doṣeṇa dhūmenāgnir ivāvṛtāḥ

You have translated the compound word sva-dharma “as his own nature reveals it,” which is a close enough literal translation for the purposes of this discussion. However, the standard Nirukti Sanskrit dictionary notes that sva-dharma mainly has a technical meaning, in the sense of one's classification in the Vedic varnasrama-dharma system.

Krsna states earlier:

cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māṁ viddhy akartāram avyayam

“According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me. And, although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the non-doer, being unchangeable.” [Bhagavad-gita 4.13]

The four divisions (catur-varnyam) are the brahmanas (sacred intellectuals), ksatriyas (warriors), vaisyas (merchants) and sudras (workers). The brahmanas comprise less than 1% of the population and are in the mode of goodness; the ksatriyas are in the mode of passion and comprise maybe 2%, vaisyas are in the mixed modes of passion and ignorance and make up perhaps 3% of the population, and the rest are sudras in the mode of ignorance. This information is given in Bhagavad-gita Chapter 18 as well as numerous other Vedic scriptures.

The classification is decided at birth by astrological and behavioral tests administered by the brahmanas. In case of a shortage of brahmanas qualified by nature, one can also become a brahmana by a special kind of training. I underwent under the direction of my spiritual master for over 12 years in India. This system is still in use among the Tibetans and the higher classes of Indian society.

Teaching yoga and other spiritual arts is the duty of the brahmanas, who offer their services to the public by donation as spiritual service, and in return are supported by donations from their students. The mercantile class (vaisyas), being driven by passion and ignorance, seeks to exploit various business arrangements for material gain. These are two fundamentally different kinds of energy and consciousness, and to mix them is to invite disaster.

The Vedas consider profit-making business a necessary evil in society for economic development. The idea of teaching yoga as a business is completely unauthorized and non-Vedic, because a yoga teacher must be a brahmana or in the mode of goodness by nature to do the job properly. A business person will tend to change the teachings to maximize profit, and that is exactly what has happened in the so-called 'yoga business' today. The brahminical orientation is different; I would much rather have one pure disciple that actually duplicates the teaching, and be dirt poor.

Sva-dharma is not meant to imply that one can speculate and do whatever he likes, but that the duties in society are determined by one's qualities according to the natural classifications of the modes of nature. These occupational duties are meant for gradual elevation to realization through  offering one's occupational duties to the Lord as a sacrifice. That is the import of these slokas from Bhagavad-gita.

Thank you David for your education on the caste system, a system that Gandhi (who lived by the gita), tried to reform, if not completely eradicate. I can’t even number the times I have been accosted by Brahman priests requesting large sums of money for “blessings” .
The caste system has kept and will continue to keep the mass of the Indian population in poverty, as they have been dictated by religious society to do only what is expected for their caste.

It strikes me that this discussion takes on the same vibe as any fundamentalist conversation about my religion vs theirs… only my system, my God, my way of life is the path… this the last thing I expected to see on Zaadzs!

You clearly are an incredible scholar and I can appreciate that you have given up your life to study these teachings. But lets come out of the bubble and realize whats going on out there! People need asana, they need pranayama and they need to (en)lightnen up

No nonono, the caste system by birth is completely different from the meritocracy of varnasrama-dharma! Caste by birth was introduced during the Muslim occupation of India, just as so-called  'Hinduism' was introduced by the British as a political controlling system.

I am astonished that the participants in this discussion consistently misunderstand my posts and do not address my real points. I am not impressed.
 

Like an old man
with no friends
lost cause he wont change
wont admit
he's been wrong
dropped a million times
for lasting too long
Dont change
You'll be alone
Dont change
You'll be alone
Dont change
cause thats not who you are…

I too am astonish that you, david, are not willing to look at what we are saying. We are not critizing your vast vedic knowledge, we are trying to let you see another perspective. Have you looked outside the cave you are meditating in? The world is a mess, most people on this planet do not have the luxury of bandying about the finer points of yoga. They are overworked overstressed and overdrawn.
If anyone is willing to put themselves out in service, to help ease the slightest bit of tension in the world, they are practicing yoga. There are thousands of people who are performing the yoga of service, in hospitals, in war zones, in refugee camps and though they would not call themselves yogis and wouldn’t give a toss about vedic scripts, they are truly the yogis we need today.
Others are out there simply teaching people how to take three real breaths and are making a difference in these peoples lives.
If you look out into yoga in North America, it is certainly out of control, and this is how this conversation begun. The consummerism that is accompanying yoga’s growth is certainly out of wack with its ancient tenets… and still I am encouraged by the growth, because yoga lives and breaths and where someone may have started on the path, drawn in by its trendiness, a whole new life can unfold with practice.

The truth is found in these bodies, the unfolding of ourSelves.
Hatha yoga has emerged from Kashmir Shaivist Tantra. This path, supported by scriptures, The Spandakarika, the vijnananbhairava tantra, the buddist mahamudra, the great teaching of Abhinavagupta,Padmasambhava etc… They show us how to experience bliss through the body…and thats exactly the path that is needed today

“The more abstract the truth you want to teach, the more you have to seduce the sences to it” – Neitzche

“Dogmas don’t dance” _ Gabrielle Roth

A final comment before I close my participation in this discussion.

When I was very young, about 3 years old, I had a very profound experience in church one Easter afternoon. I saw the stained-glass window of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, and realized that he was having a direct personal conversation with God. My very next thought was, “I will do that.” After all, Jesus said that we would do whatever he did, and even better.

Somehow I understood even at that age that to attain my goal, I would have to find a teacher on the level of Jesus Christ; someone who was himself having conversations with God. So my search began, and did not end until I met my guru in San Francisco in 1968. A few years later, at age 27 I gave up a successful career as a jazz musician to enter Vedic monastic life.

There were a few detours on the path, but early in 2002 I finally attained what I had set out to find. So it took about 50 years to achieve my goal. Now my intention and work is to share what I have learned and realized with others. That is going quite well, actually. The community of students doubles about every year, and the advanced students are progressing much faster than I did.

One of the things I learned along the way is that everyone can't be right. You set your goal as high as you can conceive it, then you accept whatever helps you to attain it. That also means you have to reject what does not help, lest you become too burdened, diluted and confused to advance.

The clear conclusion of the Vedas is the personal form of God, Bhagavan:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate

“Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.” [Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.11]

In my survey of spiritual teachers and teachings on the way to finding my guru, I came across many paths that offered realization of impersonal Brahman and all-pervasive Paramatma. But only the path of Bhakti-vedanta offers realization of Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Bhakti-vedanta (which I term the Esoteric Teaching of the Vedas) follows the interpretation of Vedanta-sutra by the original author of Vedanta, Srila Vyasadeva. Other lineages do not provide this realization, which culminates in the experience of rasa-tattva, or eternal direct personal ecstatic loving spiritual relationship with the Lord.

I made the choice to follow this path after a comprehensive comparative study, and I have not regretted it in the least. I have realized everything offered by other spiritual paths, and a great deal more that is beyond their purview. At this stage there is no way to induce me to even consider any other approach to spiritual life.

Those who have argued with me are perhaps trying to assuage their own doubts and convince themselves of their own beliefs. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand their motivations in attacking me, and their blindness to the truth is sometimes shocking and astonishing.

But it is abundantly clear to me that this kind of competitive discussion is a waste of time. I would much rather invest my valuable time and energy in helping my personal students. If anyone would like to pursue a more practical course of study of the Vedic Absolute Truth, they can contact me through Zaadz or my website at http://esotericteaching.org.

Dear Kamasundari and others,
Namaste.

I think I understand what you're trying to say. Yes, “yoga” courses as a form of “stress relief” and a relaxed social atmosphere certainly plays a positive role in society, at least at one level. I don't think Mr. Hughes is disputing that at all, as he said in his second post – “A little of yoga teachings is certainly better than none. But then why kick and scream and accuse me of elitism, spiritual materialism, fundamentalism….when I want to bring the rest?”

However, I disagree with another statement you made – “…although they wouldn't give a toss about Vedic scripts, they are truly the kind of yogis we need today.” This is precisely the direction some of us saw the subjective relativism of Jake's well-intended  but slightly naive, first post was going – reducing the spiritual quest to a warm-and-fuzzy, “sincere good intentions” form of mundane social work.

Such a mentality tends to treat Absolute Truth with irreverent relativism, and make false absolutes out of relative attirbutes – thereby turning everything on its head.

You have just demonstrated the former. For an example of the latter, take the case of Gandhi ji – by treating physical non-violence as an absolute principle, what did he achieve? After the horror of partition and subsequent geopolitics, the psychic pollution that his acts of artificial restraint and repression caused will probably discharge itself in fratricidal war between two nuclear-armed nations (I'm from India).

The *only* real solution is spiritual realization in its pure, unadulterated form. Now because of the commercial fishmarket of pseudo-“compassionate” babble that has come to surround the subject of spirituality, especially its “Eastern” flavours, it may sometimes be necessary to take an aggressively confrotational, argumentative stance in order to call an audience's attention to the existence of the Source Materials – the Vedas. This is especially so in this Age known as Kali Yuga, the Age of Quarrel (controversy) and Hypocrisy.

Every opinion derives from some authority. Jake himself started by quoting Chogyam Trungpa (whose writings I also found quite attractive in my teens). So why does one unquestioningly accept a position of relativism even when trying to approach a Path that, by definition, is unlike any other material path because it is related to the Absolute Truth?

Similarly, Kiso and Jake psychoanalyzed esotericism as an egoic manifestation. But one can better argue that subjective relativism has a false security and self-delusion of its own. The false ego is what tells us to be suspicious of the world and fear it, because people are out there trying to cheat you. It hates trust and resists authority (and because of the degraded age there are frauds enough to self-justify this fear!). The Psychology of Self-Delusion is well studied, and there is also a famous book by that name. So one can easily paint Jake's well-intentioned post as a panic-reaction by the false-security of one's own unenlightened mind (and all the “lights and sounds” it has to offer).

A lot more can be said on the issue, and a lot of the fears and ideas you and others have expressed are quite understandable. But I would merely like to point out that such premature alarmism and personal attacks are a little out of place, especially when the issue could have been taken up in a much more personal, civil manner at Mr. Hughes' own blog or pod. After all, isn't spiritual progress about developing personal relationships, or is it just about sitting in a circle of “meditators”, exchanging fey glances while mouthing soothing words that take the mind away from the tensions of real life? Without robust debate in a well-moderated atmosphere, what value would zaadz have?

“There are many paths, but there is only One Path”.
 – Luqman (Sufi Master)

No matter whether we derive our initial inspiration from a commercial Hatha Yoga class or reading Chogyam Trungpa, one has to finally find the real Stream (srotA), which is One. If I understand it correctly, each person's experience of spiritual life is certainly subjective, and yet there is common meta-data that can be exchanged.

Hatha Yoga is not a product of “Kashmir Shaivism”. It seems you are biased by your readings, but that's understandable. As Mr. Hughes pointed out, the last 200 years saw a lot of politics in India and “Hinduism”, and a lot of the English-language writing on the subject is corrupted by that can of worms.

Lastly, note that I am not suggesting that, by insisting on the “Vedas”, one must necessarily derogate Tibetan Buddhism, the Spanda Karikas, etc. Rather, as I understand it, the highest truth of all these will be explained as derivative extensions of the Vedic Truth. All “kArikas” are, by convention, usually presented as extensions of the Veda, whether they are the Spanda Karikas or any other.

On the other hand, the “dogmas” you are rightly wary of are in an altogether different category from Vedic Truth as decoded by the Vedanta-sutra. And I fully agree that they don't dance.

Similarly, Hatha yoga and “working through the senses”, and the other stuff you find fascinating are all forms that are valid – most valid when practice in the natural and proper context of this Veda. Whereas they are a shadow of their real significance when taken out of that sacred context.

Interpretation and teaching of Veda is certainly according to time, place and maturity of the recipients (desha, kAla, pAtra). But that process of interpretation and personal understanding is done in quite a different manner from what Jake seems to be talking about. I am interested to hear more from him after his night's sleep. These things should have been discussed with the target author before diving into a crusade of “slicing through spiritual elitism”, a hackneyed, prepackaged critique. Most of the issues brought up here have already been well discussed on Mr. Hughes' blog and website and related literatures.

I hope a more balanced discussion can follow after the initial hot-button reactions of wary members have been pacified. Clear Reason does have a role to play in the path of “Intuition”.

Your fellow-traveller,
Carl

HI Carl,
I would like to close my participation in this discussion by saying that this unbalanced, reactive conversation was initiated by David, who attacked a young girl who was motivated in the spirit of Zaazds to post her life vision. It was a vision very much in keeping with the mission of Zaazds, which is all about supporting spiritual evolution and making money. A concept that America is embracing,and which is certainly out of line with the vedas. I believe that all we are trying to say to David, is lighten up, there is room for yoga to grow and influence the MASSSES, not just the renunciates.

I often discuss the need for a new word for yoga that neither conjures up naked saddhus in pretzel postures or gym bunnies in head to toe matching outfits. I think I can speak for Jess in saying that we may often attract the students who are open and ready to step on the yogic path. When a student expresses the need to move further, I may suggest a spiritual teaching, or an ashram.

I do not think western hatha yoga teachers should be invalidated or called frauds for helping others step onto the path.

Peace…out

Dear Jake,
Thanks for explaining the background to why you made that first blogpost. I stumbled across your blogpost after doing a search for Mr. Hughes' name, since that's the only pod I visit here. So when I saw your post, you can understand why it  seemed premature and uncalled for. :)

I like Kamasundari's idea of a new name for “yoga”. Along with that should go a preliminary explanation to all students about where exactly it comes from and what its true context is. Otherwise, simply bastardizing a select portion of Veda and presenting it in a fundamentally incompatible context is simply not ethical. Whatever socio-cultural or business reasons for such  false advertizing is, its just wrong, and has gone on for too long now. Some of us think that its about time things changed.

I agree with you that most “yoga” teachers do have a love for it that goes deeper than the need for money, but there are also plenty of those who are not averse to cynical exploitation, sometimes even coming up with specious philosophies of spiritual life to justify it. I daresay, we see a trace of that tendency here also.

Also, kindly do not be too upset about my very mild statement calling your post “well-intended but a little naive”. By saying “a bit naive”, I was certainly not resorting to any crushing contempt on your state of enlightenment – something I am hardly qualified to judge. Like you, I am also a student. By “naive”, I was just referring to some of your admittedly wishy-washy commentary on the Vedic path and also your attempts at psychoanalysis. :-) I have made similar comments in the past. Also, by “naive”, I was referring to your being unaware of how yogic texts got conveyed into the English language and all the sordid politics and history behind it. It was something you could not be blamed for not being aware of, though it is about time such things became better acknowledged by academia and the public. For instance, you were appalled that Mr. Hughes dismissed the popular philosopher Shankara, because you thought that his system has been around for “millennia”. But the fact is that it could not withstand Vedic scrutiny the very first time it was challenged centuries ago. Yet, how did “neo-Advaita” (which is not even faithful to Shankara's assertions, much less Vedanta) become such a popular standard of “Hinduism” during British colonial times in India?

Having hopefully cleared up the air on where I'm coming from, let me again press my point about why I think a certain level of criticism is still in order, and need not be so badly received –

I appreciate your sincere effort to substantiate your stand with quotes from the Bhagavad Gita, though I'm afraid I can't agree with some of your translations, or the way you've used any of them. Vedanta is such that every part is understood with respect to the whole. None of your quotes are to be used in the way you just did, as far as I have understood them.

Whatever the arrangement of commercial “yoga”,  some harsh criticism of watered down Vedic practice has to be expected, even if we choose to sell it under a different name. The psycho-social context of varnashrama has been refered to by Mr. Hughes in one of his above posts (when it was conflated with the pernicious caste system). This is a deep subject. Such criticism is healthy, and in the best interests of the purity of Yoga, and society in general.

The tone and tenor of such criticism is also entirely consistent with the Source Texts of Yoga. The words “rascal”, “cheater”, “impostor”, “thief”, “fool”, etc are not a product of Mr. Hughes' supposed distemper, whatever your psychoanalysis may suggest. Rather, they are right out of the Upanishads (see Chandogya Upanishad for example, where the above list of words is from). Such chastisement is also used in the Bhagavad Gita by Krsna (“foolish rascal”, “thief”, “demoniac”, etc). Perhaps you overlooked that part? 

A completely sincere teacher of Complete Meditation will reproduce every part of Veda whenever the situation calls for it, no matter what the cultural awkwardness or “business sense” in doing that is. The terms “foolish rascal”, “impostor” and “thief” are used in the Chandogya Upanishad to chastize an impertinent student Shvetaketu who thinks he knows better than the Vedas, and can rely on his own mental speculation. Do you see the parallel here when it was re-produced?

From my general study of spiritual teachers in many traditions, if find that one needn't take such chastisement as a “personal attack”. All spiritual teachers, even the Great Teachers like Jesus, the Buddha, Muhammad, or Chaitanya – there were people in those societies who felt the hard edge of their personalities. In fact, such  chastisement and warning  are well-intentioned. The Vedas say that the karmic consequences for a false Guru-ship in the name of “Veda”  or “yoga” are very, very severe. In case you take the idea of karma seriously, you would understand that Mr. Hughes sees this whole business as more than just as a discussion about pragmatic commercialism, or hurting someone's feelings.

There are many, many wonderful things about people like Gandhi that we can all appreciate. In fact, if I understand correctly, Mr. Hughes' own Guru had a deep personal affection for Gandhi. However, there were certain things where Gandhi was mistaken, as per the Vedas at least.

In conclusion, I hope that, far from  saying “peace out” and closing the doors on mutual learning and robust discussion, this sharp critique by Mr. Hughes and any others opens the doors for closer inspection of how best to preserve the purity of spiritual ideals in a society dominated by opposite values, as well as to a clearer personal introspective application of the universal, common principles of the science and art of spiritual progress.

Yours in service,
Carl

Hi Jake.
I'm getting a better idea of what the problem here is. As you said in your last para, its really about the way Mr. Hughes came across.

I don't know if he is reading this, so I will just make a couple of replies to those parts of your message that I think pertain to my own comments.

You said: “My personal practice is one of mantra, of meditation, of asana, of study, of contemplation, and of service. […] those who have tread the path of realization ahead and have left markers for us. But realization comes individually and through personal realization of the Truth, does it not?”

Certainly, as far as I currently understand it. No one denied that.

All the limbs of sadhana you mentioned above are also just placeholder terms. As you rightly said, the way we understand “concepts” is relative to our state of realization. Having crossed one threshold, a previous understanding seems unreal and incomplete, and a new understanding takes its place. This happens at several milestones on the way, and not just after “enlightenment”. Even while the placeholders remain, their meaning changes.

What changes? Generally, the Reference Point(s) from which meaning is derived changes. Those reference points are an artifact of one's Intelligence (buddhi), which is part of one's Ontology. Now all those limbs of sadhana have one level of significance in one ontology, and quite another level of significance in another. Similarly, when we read books, different people seem to understand different things. As the saying goes, “you read black where I read white.”

So merely dropping names of tantric or yogic techniques, books, or masters is not a basis for our discussion. My quoting the Veda, or referencing historical personalities was not meant in that sense at all. I should have clarified. The only reason I brought those up is in response to references in your posts. Quoting Veda, etc is important, though, when we put across our understanding of the quotes.

About the main problem – Mr. Hughes' apparently “politically incorrect” style of expressing himself.

Vedic epistemology explains that an Apta-vAkya, i.e., a statement of some inherent truth is said to “exist” depending on (a) the qualifications of the teacher, (b) the qualifications of the student, and (c) the subject matter under discussion. So when a judgment call is made about the propriety of a statement made by one who says he intends to teach something, then that judgment call also includes the qualities of those who heard and reacted. When incompatibility exists, then real knowledge fails to be transmitted.

Thus, the Guru-Disciple relationship (relationship in which anything is learned) are compared to two araNi sticks, used to create sparks by striking against one another. When there is proper alignment of will and intent, then a spark of knowledge may be produced, and then kindled.

In this regard, it becomes all the more important to examine the psycho-social context that large portions of Vedic literature very painstakingly describe as most ideal. Like any experiment, the environmental conditions play a role in the outcome, and the most favorable conditions are desired. Thus, we cannot divorce the fostering of that psycho-social etiquette from our service to the cause of Yoga.

When we judge a certain style of expression to be inappropriate, politically incorrect, etc, it is w.r.t. the prevailing cultural conditions. Now you and I cannot change society overnight, but in places like zaadz at least, which may serve as “incubators”, it may be worthwhile to look at the possibility of inculcating certain yoga-like social values that may be different from those prevailing in our society (I am currently living in the US).

One finds that the average individual today does not like to be told what is right and wrong. Consciously or otherwise, there is a sense that “my feelings at this moment” are the decisive indicator. In fact, kids are taught to think that way in elementary school. I recall a humorous incident recently when a friend of mine, married and with a daughter in elementary school, told me this story. He and his wife are from India, but they're raising a family here in America. He was puzzled recently by the reactions of his daughter. One of her art homework assignments was callously completed, so he told her it was not good enough and asked her to re-do it. To his consternation, she resisted and told him “Daddy, you're hurting my feelings!”, full with pre-rehearsed hand and shoulder movements (it was hilarious when he angrily re-enacted them). When he investigated, he found that this is how they were being taught to evaluate other people's dealings with them in school! She is 7 years old. This is how things are now in most parts of the modern world, including India.

Anyhow, the point is that Vedic values like discerning humility, humble inquisitiveness, a culture of obedience, tolerance and glad acceptance of deserved chastisement, and absolute sincerity of purpose and values, are being diluted these days. After all, these qualities are the “cost of discipleship” (following a bona fide book, tradition or person), a term which derives from “discipline”. Commercialilzation of “yoga” will only catalyze this insidious degeneration, and so timely reminders would naturally appear very sharp – they will seem only as sharp as the contrast between the prevailing and the desired ideal. The reminder of purity will be made in the style and manner of the pure Sources, and they might jar in an atmosphere pervaded by a very different superficial culture.

If one is considering a pragmatic solution of commercial “yoga”, one needs to keep this idea of its dangerous pitfalls before one's eyes at all times. If that was how it was being done, then such a chastisement, however harsh, would have been recieved with a nodding understanding. It would not be received as a wholly “unfair” or “uncalled for” attack out of the blue. Rather, it should have been expected.

Note that Mr. Hughes himself pointed out that earlier he did not shy away from the commercial arena to pick up the few who are interested in going far beyond what is offered there. So pragmatism in terms of working with and through prevailing society is not an unknown concept to him and people like him. But outside those forays, he keeps the relationship quite strictly above any commercial mentality.

Thus, a genuine pragmatism would help sow seeds (“zaadz”) that help cultivate values that approach the ideal given in the Source Texts. The cultivation of good seeds also involves the uprooting of harmful weeds. A community like Zaadz would have to do both. No honest gardener can say that he loves dispersing seeds, but does not have the heart to uproot weeds or cut the grass, just because the rats and bandicoots would raise a moral hue and cry.

We often find that specious compromise philosophies in the name of pragmatism do exactly the opposite of what your intention is – they dilute the context and meaning of Vedic works in the name of making some subsidiary, saleable aspect of “yoga” more “accessible” to the public. The scores of spurious english “translations” (sic) of Vedic materials that have flooded the market in the last century are proof of the damage that can be done. One person quotes another person, who quotes another as a “reference”, but the root of that tree is not in the soil of Veda.

Just in case you think I'm a “Veda” fanatic, I will give you an example from genuine Tasawwuf (“Sufism”) also. Fethullah Gulen is from an authentic line of Turkish Sufis going all the way back to Jalaluddin Rumi and beyond. His own spiritual master was the prodigious Said Nursi. Now you should read what they have to say about the commercial nonsense about “Sufism” and “Rumi” in America and the West in general. You can find his introductory 2-volume book about “Sufism” somewhere on a website maintained by his students (some of whom I have learned from here): www.fgulen.org

In all such cases of genuine, very highly realized practitioners of bona fide spiritual paths, we find that they severely criticize modern, hodgepodge spirituality as ignoring even the basic pre-requisites of the contemplative spiritual discipline. Mr. Hughes' own Guru, who is acknowledged in India as being the foremost exponent of its most ancient Vedic school in the modern era, has said that the “Western disease is to change things whimsically”. Of course, this applies to all of us in today's world. The spiritual masters can and will adapt, adopt, and drop different aspects of the derivative limbs of Vedic culture based on time, place and recipient, but that decision is made by someone in that position of knowledge – and not by the individual, unenlightened student. A couple of examples of historical masters making adaptations is not to be understood as a sign that we all can whimsically do the same.

Lastly, you still seem to be under the impression that practitioners like Mr. Hughes do not have any regard for Tibetan Buddhist or other traditions. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Please do find out more about his background. Moreover, the understanding of how different traditions all present one coherent Truth must be had within the context of the three-fold vision of that Truth as explained in the Vedas themselves, and which I see Mr. Hughes briefly mentioned in his last post here.

Thus, we see that the issue really came down to cultural and personal problems. these are psycho-social in nature, because every person is a psycho-social being (not just an isolated individual). Thus, any useful psychoanalysis would also be individual and social, providing context for the individual. That study is called varnashrama, which Mr. hughes brought up early in the discussion, though the significance of it was lost on the participants. A community like zaadz would benefit by defining its mission in the context of such a holistic context provided by the Vedas themselves.

To sum up: The tree of Veda with all its tendrils, is a delicate plant, requiring very specific and exclusive conditions to germinate and thrive. Its fruits at different levels are also meant only for people who have attained the corresponding height. Arbitrary plucking or acceptance of forbidden fruit before one's mature time is poisonous, just like a girl child exposed to a paedophile's romantic advances. Premature plucking of fruit from forbidden levels of the tree of knowledge results in damage, and not elevation. Similarly, premature imitation of the styles of some maverick masters is not healthy, especially when it is done in total ignorance of the broad and deep context of Veda.

That is the background of where such criticism comes from. In the superficial New Age value-context, even the slightest suggestion of objective criticism is frowned upon. It would be healthier if criticism were not suffocated by superficial political correctness. Note, this is a general comment, and has nothing to do with you Jake. I truly appreciate this exchange with you.

Yours in service,
Carl

Yes, I was going to leave, but I first wanted to share with you my gratitude…this has been a great discusssion thread. Jake, you are an amazing, thoughtful young seeker and a good writer. I appreciate your ability to hold this conversation, and take it back to its pertinence.

I am out of my league, here. I appreciate the conversations of these great jnani yogis, David and Carl. With gratitude, I am now able, with confidence, to recognize that, so far, this not been my evolutionary path. I have been blessed with having studied with great scholars in an entirely different tradition. Scholars who have also devoted their lives to living their truth, who also read sanscrit and have had initiations with great Indian masters. I feel absolutely at peace with continuing my teaching as it has been given to me, and calling it yoga. I am content to continue the studies and practice of the vijnanabhairava tantra and the mahamudra, If that qualifies me in the eyes of some as a bhogi (bhogini?), so be it. As my moniker suggests, mine is the path of enticing the senses, of affirming the beauty and divine spark which can be accessed with ease, not with discplinary measures, and both the teachers who have presented themselves, and my cosmic initiations confirm my path.

I also wish to say, that after reading the first blog on David’s site , entitled Spiritual Society, I was floored by the assertion that “women are sentimental and not very spiritually intelligent” and further along ” …are easily decieved by unscrupulous men” !!!!!
I wish to express deep gratitude that I have never had the (dis)pleasure of encountering a teacher with these core values.
Blessings all,
su

Dear Kamasundari,
As you know, Sanskrit proficiency or no Sanskrit proficiency is not the core issue in spiritual life. Notions of virtue and vice are not the core issue. Practices involving bhoga or tyAga are not the core issue at all, and no one here said they were.

The main discussion on this thread, as I understand it, are the pros and cons of commercialization of yoga, and ideas to insure against unethical damage, if possible.

Related to that, is to speculate on the history and context of “yoga” without taking the trouble to inform oneself. Yes, as long as one is under a bona fide Teacher's guidance (or bona fide literatures), there's no need to be a pundit. Spiritual life is quite natural – simple for the simple, and complicated for the complicated.

But the commercialization of yoga is a decision that involves its fundamental principles and integrity. It is an adaptive venture that does require a certain level of understanding and insight – “under the hood” kind of knowledge. If one wants to talk about things like the essence of yoga, its proper didactic context, etc, then one had better prepare himself/herself. One of the first concepts brought up in the Vedanta-sutra is adhikAra – qualification prior to undertaking a task.

Now if your only intent in making a post is to demonize and misrepresent someone (who has apparently left the thread and is no longer here to respond), how have you contributed positively to the thread that you are so “grateful” for? And where did you learn that the tradition that Mr. Hughes is coming from has ideas and concepts that do not include any of the things you mention as your “evolutionary path”?

Lastly, I am not a “great jnana-yogi”. I'm a rookie, 28, and just finished grad school. Dear Su, usually, “gratefulness”, “peace” and sarcasm go ill together.

Why not express yourself honestly and clearly, open-mindedly demanding reasonable explanations on points you disagree with, rather than littering a thread with sentimental declarations and insinuations – and then saying “over and out”? Why take umbrage prematurely? In Vedic didactics, most teachers used a technique called asura-mohana – deliberately making certain apparently illogical, immoral, or outrageous statements, just to “shoo away the crows” – They did not want students who were moralists, mystagogues, philosophical speculators, esoteric pleasure seekers, or people with mundane perspectives on social justice, political correctness, and the bodily concept of life.

The first precept of Veda (and Mr. Hughes' tradition) is that you are spirit soul, not your body or mind – not human or animal, man or woman, American or Indian, modern or primitive. If you're willing to accept instruction on that platform only, then there is scope for understanding. Otherwise, one may take up another subsidiary set of practices that help one develop some sense of transcendence of this material world and its false identities. Thus, the multi-layered Vedic tradition has the Shaiva, Shakta and Agni tantras, subordinate to the pure Vaishnava tantras.

Commercialization of yoga as a “supplement” to material life panders to lethargic indulgence, and so an integral system is torn-up into nicely packaged soundbites and brand identities with their own Unique Selling Points, such as “through the senses”, “through jnana”, “through bhakti”, etc., as if these were all separate, mutually exclusive paths for the clueless customer's own individual fancy.

The central point of this thread is commercialization of Yoga, and its risk to the integrity of the principles of spirituality as found in its various forms in different traditions.

Masters of different techniques (such as your own teachers) have come to America from different countries and grafted some of that heritage separately in various social groups here. Now its up to us whether we want to re-integrate these tid-bits into its original, coherent whole, or to allow commercial motives to perpetuate the fragmentation and abuse of each isolated bit.

Yours hopefully,
Carl

Hi Carl,
Let me say there was not a trace of sarcasm my remarks, I truly feel blessed that I am on the path that I am on. I don’t feel that my teachers lack integrity, not do they argue about whether one is superior to another based on some ancient Hindu ideal.

I made an assumption that David would still be reading this thread, and truly would love to understand this passage about women. But it have heard it so many times… I could be wrong but is it possible that this old ideal of women’s inferiority has woven itself into Indian society, contributing to infanicide of females?

Getting back to the thread… What do you suggest is a suitable solution to the commercialization of yoga? Pack up all the thousands of hatha teachers who feel they are providing a service and send them to David for a re-education (now I am being sarcastic)
Perhaps we could legislate a worldwide ban on hatha yoga as it is considered fraudulent?

I am a yoga therapist. I spend more time than many of my contemporaries studying scriptures. But I can fully admit to knowing close to nothing of the big picture as written in the great vaishnava texts. Should I stop helping the cancer patients, the ms patients, the fibromyalgia patients…who have recieved great relief from their suffering, because I am not a scholar? Should I stop taking money for my work and live on the street (which in Canada is pretty harsh) so that I am not “commercializing” yoga? Should I give up who I am, with all my love of the senses, to deny my true nature to embark on this truer path…or perhaps wait until my last ashrama?

Yes Carl, lets get back to the thread, and away from the vedic posturing. I really want to know what any wise sages out there would suggest a western yoga teacher to do in these times. Is re-integration a reality? A necessity? Can we not trust the disernment of individuals, and the karma of each soul to find the path that is suitable for them? Can we possibly accept that there are good people out there, helping others, even if they are making a few bucks (almost every teacher I know does seva, and contributes financially to life- affirming organizations) and calling it yoga? Should we allow rascal americans to gather in halls chanting mantras to the Gods without full understanding? Maybe the Gods watch happily, grateful that something joyful is being done in their name for a change. I don’t know Carl, Isn’t yoga a living,breathing art?

namaste.
Su

Dear Su.
Thanks for your post. I'll do my best to reply :)

First, let's be clear about what is under threat, and what is not. Let's be clear about where the “cry in the wilderness” is coming from, and where the derisive dismissals are coming from. There seems to be confusion about who is under attack, and whose mindless arguments employ brute imprecision to drown out the lonely voice of Reason.

Let's be clear about these things, because your posts are painting a picture that is the exact reverse of reality.

The juggernaut of crass commercialism, including of “yoga”, is hale and hearty, its idols laughing their way to the bank…let the integrity of the Vedas be damned. NOTE – Yes, yes, not every yoga teacher is consciously part of this degradation, but one should not be shy to admit that most sincere yoga teachers are unwittingly part of the problem.

For instace, you would know better than me that many “yoga studio” ventures are controlled by business-savvy people who have little interest in the subject, though the teachers on hire may have a passion for it. In such a case, these sincere teachers are manipulated by a system that is controlled by individuals with no clue or interest in yoga. The advertizing and packaging is also under the dictates of this class of individuals.

And you do admit that even the teachers themselves usually do not study the source texts. So even outside of the businessmen and women, among people with a somewhat sincere interest in the true context of yoga, there is a lot of ignorance and confusion. Philosophical confusion. This thread has not even touched that issue yet. Because people like you are still questioning the very relevance of the original context of yoga! You would have me believe that physical postures and practices and mental oohs and aahs are the thing in itself, while the philosophical and social context of Veda is dispensable and relative!

You asked what “sages” would say. Here's what I think they say – Every part seen with respect to the whole is wisdom. Fragmented understanding without context is what causes nonsense and dissatisfaction. Ask any Jew about tiqqun olam, since you must be fed-up with Veda by now.

And guess what – when people take some particular injunction, practice or dogma without understanding it w.r.t. the Whole, then that's when we get bathos, or even perversity. Conditioned, ignorant humans are great at falling from the sublime to the ridiculous, or even lower down, to the perverse.

Thus, varnashrama can become a pernicious birth-based caste-system, and an isolated comment about one psycho-physical attribute of generic female mind-body can make an idiot abort a girl child. He wouldn't notice that the same Veda also said many noble things about womanhood, and many disdainful things about the cupidity of the alpha male. But when he realizes the whole context of Veda, then he sees that the statement is part of an unbiased, balanced, general typology of different psycho-physical bodies. Clear?

Specious arguments using brute imprecision (including sentimental misrepresentation) are difficult to address. That's why politicians love to do it. In this debate to preserve the integrity and purity of the Root Context of Yoga, it is not commercial yoga teachers who are under attack. Rather, it is those who are dedicated to a much higher cause that are making a forceful but lonely plea. One thing this proves is that, if it were not for the strongly worded fashion of this Voice, they would be completely inaudible, unnoticed!

Who said that a general condemnation of the commercializing propensity automatically rejects the use of providing relief to hospital patients?? I made that clear in a previous post, yet you reiterate that sentimental argument to wrongly inflience the discussion. I was a cancer patient once, and my mother, practicing Reiki at the time, often sat by my side during chemotherapy. I am grateful for that. Who said it may not be used??

Let me spell it out, in case you want to misuse more teary chicken-soup stories to wrongly demonize a voice that only seeks to give MORE than what is being provided – NOT LESS (as Mr. Hughes reiterated in the very first line of his very first post on this thread). I quote from a purport to a Vedic shloka written by Mr. Hughes' Guru:

“…[it] is spoken by the Lord so that human society can be perfectly organized from all angles of vision – politically, socially, economically, philophically and religiously. From any point of view, human society can be reformed by [the processes of real yoga]…”
Source: www.vedabase.net/cc/madhya/19/167/en

So a Teacher of Yoga is not indifferent to any aspect of human suffering. What they are pointing out is that the scotch-tape solutions that “modern” civilization offers are useless. Some important ingredient needs to be added to that. This ingredient was called the “ontological aspect of civilization” by Mr. Hughes' Guru. It is the true context that we are all talking about. For some (mystical?) reason, you think that context is irrelevant to how one evaluates its contents.

Instead of making the different degrees of yoga a clear, progressive ascent to effecting this ontological change, we undoubtedly find that most commercialists are just turning yoga into yet another scotch-tape remedy (“no side effects”!).

We can avoid this by doing our bit to educate the public about yoga's true context. NO – “educating the public” doesn't mean suicide-bombing commercial yoga studios, or forcing “yoga” teachers to live under trees in a Canadian winter.

Rather, we just do our bit, within our communities, to uphold certain value-orientations to the best of our ability, and showcase them. And in social discourse with others, we may put forward a strong case and criticism of the problems, such as crass or misguided commercialization. The combination of the two approaches will raise awareness among thinking individuals.

Mature people do not start bawling about how impossible it is to change the world in a day, and therefore the utter futility of even thinking about a “Hindu ideal.” Immaturity might go along with that, and say  – “After all, don't all Hindus kill girl children and practice the caste system? Why should we modern Americans, who never abuse womanhood, children and the elderly, and who never entertain the thought of discrimination based on birth and race even consider anything that came from ancient India?”

Ok Su – In the best traditions of “harmony”, I have danced to your “sensual” tune, step for step, and expressed myself with sarcasm. Come on now, indulge me with one more rant. Just try not to be repetitive though.

Yours,
Carl

Okay Carl,
Are we arguing for arguements sake? Because I love a good banter :) I suspect you seen me as some new age, Osho-tantric wanna-be. Though you mentioned that you are expressing yourself with sarcasm, I am not so sure I can sort out the tone throughout.

I was never faulting yourself or David for wanting to provide more. More is good. Wisdom is good, truth is good. And this discusssion never started as attack on the higher wisdom that David provides. Now if Jess, (the young yoga teacher whose ideals provoked this discussion) had sent a scathing attack on David, in the tone and spirit that he did to her, we could say this is an attack on the higher ideals. I can’t imagine anyone not having the utmost respect for someone who has spent their life in pursuit of higher spiritual knowledge and practice.

No Carl, this discussion was about the reverse, and it seems you don’t entirely share the same opinion as he, which basically has no use for asana; that it is fraudulent to consider it under the term Yoga. If this is repetitive, my guess is its probably an indication that this discussion has reached it natural end.

As the owner of a small, struggling yoga studio that has to compete with the gyms and large yoga studios, I can tell you first hand how hard it is to uphold all the moral, ethical and spiritual ideals of yoga. This was my initial comment to young Jess, who is ready to take on the world with a decidedly commercial slant on yoga. And a gentler approach by an elder such as David may have had a lasting impact if she herself sees herself as something other than a yoga profiteer. I understand tough love, but this was just a judgemental attack.

As for my personal journey, I will be closing my studio as it has pushed me to the brink… thats why I am curious for other opinions about keeping yoga authentic, accessible, provide enough income to have a modest life and the ability to pursue higher knowledge and wise teachers.

The commercial discussion continues… the backlash is happening with a few very well placed, well studied teachers, Jivamukti in New York, Golden Bridge in San Francisco, who have the backing to stand up to the purely commercial ventures and have built centers dedicated to upholding the higher practices of yoga. (they still have to sell smoothies and organic clothing to be able to do it though) We can only look to them for inspiration…oh there I go being airy fairy again :)

Su
PS Do you do asana? the moving body is lovely gift!

Hi Su.
Thanks for sharing the story of your struggle. Please accept my humble respects at your lotus feet. Telling a story is an effective way of providing critical cultural context in which a person's statements may be evaluated.

> Though you mentioned that you are expressing yourself with sarcasm, I am not so sure I can sort out the tone throughout

Yeah, I probably didn't do a good job sustaining it throughout. :) That's always the hard part in yoga.

> No Carl, this discussion was about the reverse, and it seems you don't entirely share the same opinion as he, which basically has no use for asana; that it is fraudulent to consider it under the term Yoga. If this is repetitive, my guess is its probably an indication that this discussion has reached it natural end.

Su, the discussion hasn't gotten off the ground from your end because you are under a false impression about what Mr. Hughes, or even I, think. Who said yoga doesn't include asana?

About Jess, you will have to show me what exactly the conversation was.

In any case, from what I know, Mr. Hughes doesn't have anything against different practices per se. He has personally encouraged people to adopt tai chi, qi gong, and different forms of yoga and tantra if it helps them consolidate all their energies. He gave the analogy of a cold bath – just to get through a cold bath, one needs to be fully present with all one's mind and energy. Its a similar thing with dedicating one's Consciousness to Krsna. The point is the background consciousness in which all these practices are being taught and adopted. Mr. Hughes teaches the use of all such practices in the context of the ultimate and only subject of Veda. Every page of Veda is about that subject only – Parabrahman (God).

All these practices to manipulate mind and energy, when undertaken in a different context, do not deliver the same intended result, or provide only false reflections of it. Contents and context together determine reaction and operation. A piece of sodium metal smoulders when exposed to air. In kerosene it remains without transformation, and glimmers. In water, we have an altogether different reaction. Etc.

So there must have been something else that was being criticized – it was not the utility of asana. Rather, it would have been the futility of asana in a particular context, a context of general ignorance. Perhaps Jess was loosing her footing and slipping the wrong way, in her enthusiasm to teach “yoga with a decidedly commercial slant”? Clearly, this was the issue.

Now if the tone of that criticism bothered you and others, that's understandable. But with the benefit of hindsight, and seeing how far this discussion has come now, surely you can appreciate the fact that it would not have had the desired effect if that tone had not been so cutting. At least now you can honestly acknowledge that. Mr. Hughes' guru, Bhaktivedanta Swami, used to call it “the chopping technique”. Without this, the voice of integrity and reason would simply go unnoticed in today's world of corruption, compromise, people losing hope and faith in ideals of purity, etc.

One need not be too disturbed by this severe demeanor, as long as one sees the point that is being made. Nor should one psychoanalyse it in a premature reaction. I doubt if John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, or 95% of the characters who spoke the Vedas would have passed Jake's “slicing” psychoanalysis of esotericism with flying colours.

There is no reason to feel hopeless or discouraged by the wavering whims and fashions of society. Things are in flux in most societies of the world, and could turn out either way in the near future. In such a situation, its more worthwhile to take a stand based on pure principles, rather than follow a social current that is in a turbulent phase. When Bhaktivedanta Swami came to the US in 1965, he absolutely insisted on things like vegetarianism, sexual continence, no intoxication, etc. He made people sit on the floor and consume food offered to God. He made them sing Sanskrit mantras in kirtan. At that time in America, vegetarianism, celibacy, and no alcohol was thought of as absurd, extreme, unnatural, a loony “Hindu ideal”, etc. One prominent person in society even said that the Swami was “a threat to Western civilization” because of these things.

Today, the intelligent and well-informed class of Americans appreciate the benefits of vegetarianism. Many also  understand that Western civilization will not only remain standing, but even shed some of its less noble aspects by giving up common forms of intoxication. Many also know now, on the basis of scientific research, that celibacy itself is not “unnatural”, though artificial repression certainly is. People also pay to participate in a kirtan at yoga studios, where everybody sits on the floor. What's more, the cross-cultural effect means that even some Easterners, previously blindly following traditional practices, have observed things and gained new insights into the significance of these timeless, traditions.

And its hardly been 40 years since the Swami came here and bore the brunt of media criticism. Many opinions and attitudes have changed. Even the feminist movement has been declared a failure by some of its most passionate exponents. Germaine Greer and other feminist authors publicly admit that the movement has failed to make women any happier, and has even made things much worse for women and everyone else. Clearly, good intentions and a passion for social justice are not enough. The route to happiness is not in making some bodily or social adjustments or re-arrangements. Rather, the route is to cut the knots of ignorance in our hearts. Then everything else automatically re-aligns, in time.

So there's no need to jettison ancient “ideals” that have withstood the test of Time, just because a short phase of constantly-changing society may oppose it during our lifetime. Let's not misuse that short lifetime by contributing to this misdirected social trend, and inventing nonsense philosophies portraying the ancient ideals as “relative” to that time and place.

The Vedas are pretty clear about many things being relative, and equally clear about what is not to be seen as relative. No need for anyone to change that. The Vedas knew about relativism. Contemporary sociologists didn't discover that concept for the first time. I think you Americans take your academic speculators, your traffic lights, and your selves a bit too seriously. :)

So that's all that is being said here. The most important point being made here is to re-insert the most fundamental of things – the original context of all yoga. Apart from the most basic kind of confusion and dullness about recognizing the urgency of this, there is a lot of philosophical confusion to sort out, too. We haven't even gotten to discussing that.

> Do you do asana? the moving body is lovely gift!

I used to, and I probably should, much more than I am doing right now. Right now I just do some surya-namaskaras on weekends. Yes, movement, and the moving body, are amazing. By the way, in Mr. Hughes' tradition, some of their most esoteric literature is based on terminology from the Bharata-Natya-shastras, the source texts of Dance in Vedic culture!

Yours,
Carl

hi Carl,
I feel like we hanging out in someone’s house long after the party has ended…would you like to continue this at my place? why don’t you go direct through mymail. You can also access the original conversation by clicking on Jess in my friends list

In the meantime, I really don’t disagree with anything you are saying, including the validity of the chopping technique. However, I think one must sign-on, and have developed a guru-chela relationship in order to benefit from this technique…otherwise its just a critical voice from the ethers.

Perhaps a superficial correction, I am canadian and we are not nearly as serious about ourselves as americans :)

Take care,
Su

Hi Su.
Sorry for the delayed reply. I didn't see a blog or anything in your pod, so I'll just make one last post here. Need to reiterate what this discussion was really about, from the very start.

> I really don't disagree with anything you're saying, including the validity of the chopping technique.

I'm not surprised you don't disagree. Problem is, you don't seem to disagree with Jake's ideas of what the Bhagavad Gita or other root texts say either. You don't seem to disagree with those “yoga” teachers who “don't give a toss about Veda” either. So you're agreement or disagreement is not very decisive here. The point was to talk about what constitutes some basic objective criteria to judge the purity and integrity of what is being commercialized.

You and Jake seem to have the idea that one's own feelings and mind-experiences are the only criteria, apart from the votes of other fellow-travellers on the path (who may be equally conditioned). But according to Veda, personal experiences are only one leg of a tripod, the other two being Scripture (shruti) and Reason (anumAna). Its the same thing in any integral spiritual tradition. Refer Ghazali, for instance, as an example from another bona fide tradition.

The first and most important of those is being shunted out of relevance by Jake and you, based on some ridiculous idea of cultural and temporal relativism. I take it this is the essence of what you call “evolution of consciousness”. I understand this is what popular New Age icons like Ken Wilber churn out. Wilber clearly takes most of his ideas from Sri Aurobindo. I used to be an avid student of Aurobindo's works, and still hold him in high regard. He was prominent during a time when several “neo-Vedanta” people in India were influenced by the currents of social Darwinism, and were applying that to some sense of progressive, linear revelation of consciousness in humanity.

That idea of progressive revelation is not totally absent in traditional Vedanta, but it took on ridiculous new forms and perversions in this New Age development. Eventually Aurobindo himself turned away in disgust from that mode of thinking, though it was probably too late in terms of what the public took from him. He was probably one of the few of that bunch who said many good things, but some dangerous things also.

What Wilber and others have probably not read is Madhvacharya. He was the Acharya, Teacher, whose commentaries on the RigVeda and the Upanishads impacted Aurobindo. This has been acknowledged (rather late) by Aurobindo and his disciples like Kapali Shastri. So a lot of the “evolutionary consciousness” stuff actually is a perversion of the epistemological hierarchy outlined in the works of the bona fide Teacher, Madhvacharya. And guess what – Madhvacharya is one of the pillars of Mr. Hughes' tradition of Vedanta. That's why Bhaktivedanta Swami called Aurobindo the best of a bad lot.

I doubt if Jake or most people have any clue about the muddy socio-historical circumstances in which these hodgepodge neo-Vedanta theories emerged, which is why most interested readers unwittingly depend on tendentious translations of Vedic texts, and freely speculative theories by modern stars on how the New Age must unfold. It is a fact that very, very few have taken the trouble to access the clear root sources of Vedanta from bona fide Teachers and texts. Accesing the clear wellsprings of those root-sources, combined with inner development is true srotApanna. One cannot call one's inner experiences, without the litmus-test of absorbing shAstra as “srotApanna”. That has been called something very different by authorities in different traditions.

Rather, this shAstra is the interpreter of our experience, the revealer of doctrines, and the judge of character. It goes hand in hand with our churned experience and the development of our consciousness. It gives structure to the evolution of our consciousness.

This rare awareness of original knowledge is a verifiable fact, and no blogpost can “slice through” facts. This rare accessibility is not something that Mr. Hughes or anyone else is trying to create or perpetuate. Exactly the opposite – it is something that is being sought to be reversed, because of the damage that is being done in the name of “Veda”, “yoga”, etc.

The esoteric nature of certain sources is not an artificial human imposition – it is a reflection of the grades of sincerity and drive for authenticity that differents types of humans bring to yoga. According to Veda, there are the cheaters and the cheated. To the extent we want to be cheated, we will find a cheating guru, both of whom may be “sincere”. Note that this “propensity to cheat and be cheated” is cited in Veda as one of the four primary human defects. It is obviously not a consciously exercised propensity, but more in the nature of “sincere” self-delusion.

> However, I think one must sign-on and have developed a guru-chela relationship in order to benefit from this technique…otherwise its just a critical voice from the ethers.

If anyone is genuinely a student of “yoga”, then he/she never “signs-off”. One tries to remain “signed-on” all the time, and even if you fall alseep, you consciously wake up when you hear a “critical voice from the ethers”. You don't angrily dismiss it because it is “spoiling my party”. Rather, the party stops and the hearing begins.

While someone may have a formal guru-shishya relationship with a particular person, one understands that Guru can speak to one from any source in nature, including other humans, even “from the mouths of babes”, as they say. If someone is being critical and is claiming to have the authority to do so, then I would pay very close attention before speaking up. I would not resort to knee-jerk reactions.

It again comes down to a matter of culture. Without those cultural ideas of behaviour, with proper respect for certain forms and values, we cannot adequately negotiate the process of yoga. Culture and social memetics have been recognized as crucial for everything from the successful implementation of democracy in a society, to an individual's ability to go through grad school. So there is no reason to doubt its relevance to practicing the spiritual path. An attitude of “I'm a happy person with good intentions, so don't you tell me what to do, and I don't give a toss about Veda”, is not considered a conducive attitude by any Great Teacher I know of, in any tradition.

To be fair, Jake's blogpost was about the problems with assertions about exclusively higher degrees of understanding, and that's what I've wanted to focus on. But it hasn't turned out that way. Why?

I just read Jess' blogpost, and here's why this whole thing was never about discussing whimsical subjectivism versus the objective qualitative degrees of “yoga”. The main point of starting this was to play knight in shining armour to clueless damsel – which is certainly noble to begin with. So it started off as “Mr. Hughes, you're hurting our feelings.” Even worse, given the flippant and dismissive “discussion”, a better way to put it is: “Mr. Hughes, you're a party pooper!”

That may be true, and for whatever its worth, that should have been said in exactly that way. It would have been appreciated. But if one wants to launch into a general criticical defense (and counter-offense) based on the principles of yoga (under some high-sounding subject line), then one should be prepared to discuss at some length. But I've seen no such thing here. Just a couple of feeble attempts, some moralistic disclaimers, and then silence.

Some people prefer to tell the truth like it is, even though their tone may not be politically correct, or in line with party ettiquette or certain kinds of culture. But hopefully the discussion should go somewhere after the ettiquette part has been smoothed out.

Laters,
Carl