Questions re Kriya Yoga, Yogananda and Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF)

Spirituality
#25

[QUOTE=Pawel;67421]

However, I found that often I like to read/listen to really devoted people (including fanatics). Somehow I want to see how blinded they are by their preconceptions and how it drives their thinking/behavior. And how hypocrite are their convictions about purity and high moral standards of their beliefs and usually non-direct aggression toward other faiths/systems. But I avoid expressing those feelings/thoughts, I don’t believe I’m objective myself and I would feel bad after (because at the end my intention wouldn’t be a care about their growth but rather joy of exposing their fanaticism).

I think this behavior is sort of projection. I am exactly like such blinded fanatic but I fail to see it - I project it on others. I want to break free from something in me that I don’t realize. And by seeing it in others and knowing how they could break free from prison of their blind beliefs I’m living through something I want to experience myself.

When I read this discussion I thought about that maybe you are going through something similar (I would think that your prison would be sort of intellectualism). Maybe you are searching for something more but everything you touch turns into theory/concept leaving you empty? Sorry if I presuppose too much.

Regarding science and yoga - I agree with you that term science is misused. I would personally prefer if yoga wouldn’t be related with science too much, that would be narrowing of its meaning.[/QUOTE]

Hi Pawel,

No, I am not going through the same. What you assumed is not applicable to me. I would have been really interested to understand how the advocates of KY can support the strong claims they advertise through the mentioned SRF organisation. On this thread however none of my questions were answered, especially this one is left in the dark:

[B]Why is Kriya Yoga called “science” and “scientific” if it isn’t?[/B]

At the moment we are stuck at yet another critical question, too:

Why is it considered a “protest” if someone asks questions and tries to clarify the truth-value of certain assertions about KY before jumping into KY?
Because someone says/believes/thinks so?

It is a logical fallacy, therefore the exact opposite of scientific and rational, to state that because I - and/or any other number of people - believe something to be true it is true. If one person or more state/think anything, that is not scientific knowledge - it is an individual or shared unjustified belief that may as well come from an individual deception/illusion.

For example - by individual experience we would all report that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Science however reports that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The latter is scientific knowledge, the former is an unjustified belief.
Is this my opinion? No, it is not - I just point at scientific, objective facts, while the yoga advocates point at their own opinions and experiences.

There is no reference to scientific research that would prove that the KY “technique” leads to a person’s unity with God. Instead the scientific knowledge about yoga is that it leads to an altered state of consciousness, which makes it a highly questionable technique, however divine and blissful the “results” may appear. There is no reference to research either as to how the speed of this spiritual path “leading to God” is compared to other paths “leading to God”. If there is any research like that, I would be interested to read them.

#26

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67424]I would have been really interested to understand how the advocates of KY can support the strong claims they advertise through the mentioned SRF organisation. On this thread however none of my questions were answered, especially this one is left in the dark:

[B]Why is Kriya Yoga called “science” and “scientific” if it isn’t?[/B][/QUOTE]

I’m not 100% sure, but I read somewhere that spiritual teachers from the “East” started to use term “science” in relation to yoga/meditation etc. in order to appeal to scientific mind of “western” people. And I guess there is a role of people disappointed in christian faith as too strongly based on faith - “scientific” terminology (plus accent on personal experience) is what speaks to such people.

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67424]At the moment we are stuck at yet another critical question, too:

Why is it considered a “protest” if someone asks questions and tries to clarify the truth-value of certain assertions about KY before jumping into KY?
Because someone says/believes/thinks so?[/QUOTE]

I can imagine if someone would criticize physics for being too shallow (I met once philosopher who just quickly dismissed physics as very narrow empirical description of the world - not sure of exact words but it was dismissive) without understanding of basic laws and way it is used. I would say - learn more and then discuss. It is bit arrogant but that’s reality - not everything can be grasped looking from the side.

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67424]There is no reference to scientific research that would prove that the KY “technique” leads to a person’s unity with God. Instead the scientific knowledge about yoga is that it leads to an altered state of consciousness, which makes it a highly questionable technique, however divine and blissful the “results” may appear. There is no reference to research either as to how the speed of this spiritual path “leading to God” is compared to other paths “leading to God”. If there is any research like that, I would be interested to read them.[/QUOTE]

Scientific claims of speed of reaching God sound funny to me. I didn’t even think to treat it seriously…

#27

How to know that all around me isn’t an hallucination?
The only thing I can be sure about is that I exist…

#28

[QUOTE=Pawel;67425]I’m not 100% sure, but I read somewhere that spiritual teachers from the “East” started to use term “science” in relation to yoga/meditation etc. in order to appeal to scientific mind of “western” people. And I guess there is a role of people disappointed in christian faith as too strongly based on faith - “scientific” terminology (plus accent on personal experience) is what speaks to such people.
…

Scientific claims of speed of reaching God sound funny to me. I didn’t even think to treat it seriously…[/QUOTE]

Pawel:

Thank you for your reply, especially for the above parts in which you answered my question. (one of them)

Thanks everyone for the conversation.

#29

[QUOTE=panoramix;67427]How to know that all around me isn’t an hallucination?
The only thing I can be sure about is that I exist…[/QUOTE]

How to know? Well, I can tell you, how: I am NOT a hallucination because I am also sure that I exist, and I am sure too, that I don’t hallucinate when I read your posts. What this means: it is only you of the two of us who is not sure if you are hallucinating when you read my posts, and who is not sure if I am hallucinating when I read your posts. Your not being sure if my posts here are hallucination therefore also implies that you are not sure that you are a hallucination or not. Therefore you are not sure if you exist.

There is a difference between the distinction non-physical and real-unreal. Even if the world is non-physical, it is a real world and it is logical, and it is a shared world. It is a system with rules that you cannot stretch, and if you try to stretch them, you will see that the rules will hit back and will be stronger than you.

Thanks again for the conversation and I wish you guys the very best.

#30

I don’t have a problem with questions. I never said to stop asking questions. But at some point you have to throw down the book and get busy! :smiley:

I have never said anything is so because Yogananda says so. Look at anything I’ve posted here and you’ll never find that statement from me.

You seem to be working from a premise that anything said by one who practices kriya yoga is based on dogma, mind control and “cult-like” dictatorship! Maybe just maybe it’s from people’s experience. We can take a horse to water but we can’t make 'em drink.

You appear to want empirical evidence that kriya works, there’s only one way to get that. I don’t represent, an organization or anything. I’m speaking as one individual, nothing more nothing less. Take it or leave it!

:wink:

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67415]Kriyayogini:

The wikipedia article refers to scientific sources, contrary to you, who only refer to your own opinion: “I think”

Of course we can discuss whatever we “think” until the end of times, yet the definition of science and scientific remains objective and independent of your or anyone’s opinion. And whatever Yogananda says does not qualify to be scientific either just because he says so.

“Me thinks thou doth protest too much.”

If you, as an apparently devoted advocate of Kriya Yoga, think that my asking the questions I raised here means “protesting”, then it is you who is protesting against reason and scepticism, ie, against the very basis of science. If your opinion represents that of the Kriya Yoga teachers/practitioners/organisations, then with your protest against my questions the rational conversation about Kriya Yoga ends here, all false claims of a “scientific” basis of yoga are dropped, and a cult-like dictatorship, dogma and thought-control around Kriya Yoga have been revealed.[/QUOTE]

#31

[QUOTE=kriyayogini;67439]I don’t have a problem with questions. I never said to stop asking questions. But at some point you have to throw down the book and get busy! :smiley:

I have never said anything is so because Yogananda says so. Look at anything I’ve posted here and you’ll never find that statement from me.

You seem to be working from a premise that anything said by one who practices kriya yoga is based on dogma, mind control and “cult-like” dictatorship! Maybe just maybe it’s from people’s experience. We can take a horse to water but we can’t make 'em drink.

You appear to want empirical evidence that kriya works, there’s only one way to get that. I don’t represent, an organization or anything. I’m speaking as one individual, nothing more nothing less. Take it or leave it!

;)[/QUOTE]

I agree with kriyayogini.

But does not science work the same way as yoga? If a theory is not able to be proved in a scientific subject, then it is only a theory. On the contrary yoga is all about practice. You can experience everything written about yoga yourself. So why shouldn’t it be scientific?
Aren’t psychology, psychiatry, theology, art etc. also sciences?

Here is interesting work of Albert Einstein on “Science and Religion”:
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsgod/einstein-scienceandreligion.shtml
… just keep in mind the time, when he wrote this.

#32

Sounds to me you haven’t fully grasped the concept.

I was talking from an ontological level, I wasn’t talking about me but about our mind and conceptions.

One can NEVER be 100% sure about the reality of the experience one is having because anything endorsing it belongs to that experience. There is no Archimedes point.
Even if the worldview is shared as you say, they (people) too belong to one’s experience and can be part of one’s hallucination.

This is the logic that you should apply to your doubts about the experience of God communion, an experience as subject to doubt as any worldly one.

And what is real and what unreal? Well, reality is nothing but a shared (again) experience, but that does not mean it is ultimate but just “stable”.

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67437]How to know? Well, I can tell you, how: I am NOT a hallucination because I am also sure that I exist, and I am sure too, that I don’t hallucinate when I read your posts. What this means: it is only you of the two of us who is not sure if you are hallucinating when you read my posts, and who is not sure if I am hallucinating when I read your posts. Your not being sure if my posts here are hallucination therefore also implies that you are not sure that you are a hallucination or not. Therefore you are not sure if you exist.

There is a difference between the distinction non-physical and real-unreal. Even if the world is non-physical, it is a real world and it is logical, and it is a shared world. It is a system with rules that you cannot stretch, and if you try to stretch them, you will see that the rules will hit back and will be stronger than you. [/QUOTE]

#33

Thanks again everyone for your replies.

My conclusion from your posts and from my own research I did on the subject in the meantime:

I will definitely stay away from Kriya Yoga and from all forms of yoga and meditation.

Maybe one day you will see why and then you will share my view, too.

In any case I wish and hope the very best for you all. :slight_smile:

#34

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67444]Thanks again everyone for your replies.

My conclusion from your posts and from my own research I did on the subject in the meantime:

I will definitely stay away from Kriya Yoga and from all forms of yoga and meditation.

Maybe one day you will see why and then you will share my view, too.

In any case I wish and hope the very best for you all. :)[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the wishes, wish you all the best too.

#35

I’m afraid you came to this forum already with a conclusion.
Anyway, you don’t need Yoga to be happy.

Good luck!

#36

[QUOTE=yogam;67441]But does not science work the same way as yoga? If a theory is not able to be proved in a scientific subject, then it is only a theory. On the contrary yoga is all about practice. You can experience everything written about yoga yourself. So why shouldn’t it be scientific?
Aren’t psychology, psychiatry, theology, art etc. also sciences?[/QUOTE]

I don’t think yoga works like science. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In “Elements of scientific method” is a scheme characterizing scientific approach:

"A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[49]

  1. Define a question
  2. Gather information and resources (observe)
  3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
  4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
  5. Analyze the data
  6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
  7. Publish results
  8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)"

Art for sure doesn’t follow this path. I’m thinking about yoga… There are some elements but I think yoga practice is not scientific activity. Rather sort of engineering - there is a goal to which we aim according to specific method (which we believe is based on scientific foundation).

#37

[QUOTE=panoramix;67446]
I’m afraid you came to this forum already with a conclusion.
[/QUOTE]

No, don’t be afraid :slight_smile:
I am not here to be right but to be correct.
I came here with my justified and sincere questions and expected that they would be answered in an honest and correct way.

I am here because I read a lot from P. Yogananda and then on the SRF site when I found it. And after that I was left with a lot of questions.
However, rather than answering these questions most of the replies I read here are full of logical fallacies (covert, subtle but very effective methods of deception)

So in lack of answers I can only make my own conclusion from what I observed here. And my conclusion to stay away from yoga has more reasons - one of them is the fallacious philosophy behind it.

I would be able to show you in detail what I mean, but anyone with intellectual honesty and an honest intelligence can figure out the same for himself. It is meaningless and useless to “discuss” a philosophy which stands on an arbitrary premise and refers to its own premise as an “argument” or “conclusion”. It is meaningless to discuss anything in a domain that operates with a “logic” that follows no logical rules, and where all arguments stand equally “valid”, including the invalid ones (logical fallacies) and in which anyone can freely give new definitions to any term, or introduce new terms and give them the definitions of other ones.

If you don’t pursue these deceptive methods on purpose (which I assume) and you simply don’t know about logical fallacies, you may want to look into the subject.

On a side note: if the unconscious or conscious reason behind these fallacies and evasiveness is fear from the truth, I think no one should feel obliged to stay unconditionally loyal to a religion or philosophy even after he realises that it’s false.
Instead of trying to avoid realising its falsehood, one may just get out of that philosophy and out of yoga.

If you don’t believe in God, just leave the deception and your altered state of consciousness just for the sake to preserve your sanity.
If you believe in God, then believe that God is both Love and Truth, who never deceived you with an illusory world, who has created a real world for you and everyone. If you want to honour such truthful God, then you can do your good works out there in the real world to make it a better place.

Either you believe in God or not, the real world out there needs you and your goodness out there - not only within.

If you are truthful to the truth and you mean well, then God will honour your integrity, courage and loyalty to the Truth, and will lead out of this deception. If you believe in a truthful and loving God, trust such God and distrust those who claim that this world is a deception. You can always turn around, - God would forgive you always and will be by your side when you will need him.

And, no, I didn’t conclude in advance to write this. It just happened, hopefully for the benefits for some who needed to read this.

#38

Sorry but you’re a living proof of many things you have thrown in my face. And your last post was considerably disrespectful.

Please read this thread:
http://www.yogaforums.com/forums/f16/yoga-and-science-6537-2.html

#39

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.” -Albert Einstein

#40

“There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.” - Niels B?hr

#41

[QUOTE=panoramix;67474]Sorry but you’re a living proof of many things you have thrown in my face. And your last post was considerably disrespectful.
[/QUOTE]

Panoramix:
Thanks for your reply. If that’s how you interpreted my post, then I failed to express my thoughts properly, for which I apologise. I didn’t mean to hurt your or anyone’s feelings.

If you found it disrespectful that I mentioned about the fallacies I encountered on this thread, I should add: I just meant to explain why I wish not to discuss this any longer. Most of the replies - with some exceptions for which I am thankful - are objectively defined as fallacies, mainly some subtypes of red herring.
But please don’t take me wrong. All of you guys have made some great points, which I’ll take home, but it was only Pawel who finally replied with a specific answer to one of my questions and without a fallacy.

The answer you offered to my questions is your philosophy, which is one without an Archimedes point. In such philosophy, where there is no objective, shared premise, and under the “rules of no rules”, where consistency is not necessary and contradictions and fallacies are allowed, all statements rest on an arbitrary, randomly chosen premise. If anyone may pick and replace his premise with another at any time and anyone can appoint his own premise and “dictate the truth” accordingly, there is no point in any discussion, either in the topic of my questions or in any other subject.

Regarding the logical fallacies I referred to: one of the several examples I can mention your post in which “you’re afraid that I came here with a conclusion.” Your post is objectively defined as assuming behaviour and it also qualifies as the logical fallacy called “poisoning the well” (=when something is presented about a person with the effect of discrediting everything that the target person says)

The same is true about your assumption regarding my last post. Contrary to what you think, my post was not disrespectful. No, I wrote everything here with the deepest respect for you and everyone on this thread - and with compassion, too.

Pawel and Yogam:
Thanks everyone for your replies, and again, my best wishes for you and everyone :slight_smile:

#42

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67490]Pawel and Yogam:
Thanks everyone for your replies, and again, my best wishes for you and everyone :)[/QUOTE]

All the best to you too! Good luck with your search and endeavors!

#43

[QUOTE=Yoga_questions;67490]If you found it disrespectful that I mentioned about the fallacies I encountered on this thread, I should add: I just meant to explain why I wish not to discuss this any longer. Most of the replies - with some exceptions for which I am thankful - are objectively defined as fallacies, mainly some subtypes of red herring.
But please don’t take me wrong. All of you guys have made some great points, which I’ll take home, but it was only Pawel who finally replied with a specific answer to one of my questions and without a fallacy.[/QUOTE]

You are unable to defend your point, that’s all. You every time hide behind the term “fallacy”.
Sorry but you’re a robed skeleton…

Wish you well, take care.

Bye

#44

Interesting thread and interesting questions. I would like to answer your questions, but I don’t have time at the moment. I will respond later.