The bishops of the true faith

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#1

Originally posted by SoonerPaul in another thread:

just because you read the ancient writings doesn’t mean you speak for them! Our fragmented modern culture breeds ego as a defense mechanism to maintain artificial psychological control of our fragile reality. I think Yoga can provide an artifical reality for fragile beings unable to cope with what is percieved as the “modern world”. Yoga should aid us in growth. I get the feeling that some “advanced paractitioners” fear any “heretical” thoughts that don’t conform to their comfotable paradigm. Much like the bishops of the “true faith” during the inquisition. Yoga was developed by people of an ancient culture that questioned everything, and we should too!

Anybody want to respond to this? How about a poll? Words of wisdom or a load of crap?

#2

I will cast the first vote.

Our fragmented modern culture breeds ego as a defense mechanism to maintain artificial psychological control of our fragile reality

Crap.

In what way is our culture fragmented or our reality fragile?

#3

I think that his statement requires a serious approach. He would not say it if he would not be convinced of it’s truth, and people would not be offended by if it did not contain hurtful truths.

Question is not if he’s right or not, but exactly how is he right or wrong, and to what extent ?

How we relate to anyhting represents the depth of our understanding of that phenomena. In this context, as an example, for me crap does not have a meaning, other than Asuri was only able to express his/her strong aversion towards the subject discussed using a word designating fecalia, what usually awakens repulsion and aversion in us. Which is fine, surely he/she has the right to feel that. But why does he/she feel that ? That’s the interesting question.

Thus, those willing to know, must conquer their aversion (if there is such a feeling in them) and analyze the “crap” attentively, it’s color, shape, smell, size, density, viscozity, textural details, than one might arrive to very interesting conclusions about the person who made that “crap”, about his digestion, health, diet, and so on. Indeed, this is what a good physician would do in case of actual “crap”, and this is what we need to do here.
If people would be conscious of how their posts, their “crap” tells so many things about how they really are, how they live, because how they think and express those thoughts is an open book for those who have expereince in matters of human mind and soul, they would be much more careful while making them. :slight_smile:

After manifesting this great wisdom in such a pompous manner, in which I must confess had great fun, let’s continue on a more serious tone.

Our fragmented modern culture breeds ego as a defense mechanism to maintain artificial psychological control of our fragile reality.

Fragmented ? Check. It is fragmented. Todays human thinking is greatly influenced by scientific thought, what works trhough fragmenting the unity of the world. Yes, science is only able to perceive the world in it’s fragments. It would take too long to explain whay is that, but we will see that this is true if we think what is the answer for example to medical sciences: the holistic therapies. Thus, our world view is made up from many fragments and some fantastic theories about how they form an union, but these theroies are not proven, but are only supported by experimental evidence. Thus, SoonerPaul’s statement about fragmented cannot be immediatly discharged, but deserves proper attention and analysis.

Breeds ego. Now, here, I am not sure that the culture is what breeds the ego, or egos breed the culture, probably it works both ways. I mean, what he calls ego, is identifying ourselves with our physical vehicle, and we need to remember that for the scientific world view, this is the only reality. All we are, is this body of flesh, bone, blood, guts, brain, nerves, made up of cells, having genes, born from similar beings, carrying a wonderful organisation, what is result of abiogenesis than biogenesis through evolution and survival of the fittest. Thus, we identify with this body what makes us be separate beings, having certain needs, and these needs are to be aquired in a competitive way. Altruism, sacrificing ourselves for our offspring or fellow man is seen as genetically coded behaviour what’s purpose is the survival of the race, or the human genome. We must realize that there is a connection between such a world-view, and an egoist selfish behaviour. If this body is what we have, and after it dies, we are gone forever, than all what we have is this body, and our life is getting the most of this existence. Thus, we identify with this physical vehicle, as us, and behave it’s existence, life as the most valuable thing in the world. Simply, we are egoists, and selfish. And indeed, until a person expereinces the reality of death, and how it means the end of this self image, ego, he will be satisfied with such a view. He will fear greatly the approach of death, and will do anything to avoid it. We need to identify these roots of egoism, and how it is linked to our world-view. Thus, we work all the time to create, and maintain defense mechanisms, not only to avoid death, pain suffering, but even to prevent the thoughts about their existence.

So far, what we say, seems to be founded. I’ll continue later, about how this might relate to yoga.

#4

I think Yoga can provide an artifical reality for fragile beings unable to cope with what is percieved as the “modern world”

Interesting idea, though i’m not convinced.

#5

I don’t mean to offend anyone here but you could say the same thing about sex,money,religion,food,caffeine, booze and drugs. That they all provide ‘artificial realities’, (not just yoga),escapisms.

But yoga seems to want to move away from those things in life,listed above.

So it does’nt really fit into that category. Or does it?

I guess you make your own reallity.

#6

Hubert,

I figured I’d be taking some heat on this one. Nice job.

I get that science has to divide the world into smaller pieces in order to understand it. And the world has never been homogenous, but is composed of many different cultures. But words like fragmented and fragile conjure up images like a glass jar broken in pieces on the ground. The language is just too hysterical.

This idea of a fragmented culture breeding ego as a defense mechanism is way out there. The problem with the statement is the so-called fragmented culture as the cause and the defense mechanism of ego as the effect. It’s hard to see any cause and effect relationship between the so-called fragmentation of culture and the use of ego as a defense mechanism.

What is the point ? If our culture was less fragmented, let’s say more holistic, would there be less need for ego as a defense mechanism? Would our reality be less fragile, eliminating the need for these defense mechanisms? Or would a holistic culture breed different defense mechanisms in order to maintain artificial psychological control of a still fragile reality?

I don’t believe that SoonerPaul is talking about the physical body as ego. How would the physical body be used as a defense mechanism to maintain artificial psychological control of its own fragility? It doesn’t make sense. Sooner Paul must be talking about something else. Maybe he will enlighten us.

#7

fragmented modern culture…artificial psychological control … fragile reality. …artifical reality … fragile beings… unable to cope… comfotable paradigm.

I’m unimpressed with this kind of psycho-babble. It seems like an inablility to communicate in human terms. He sets himself above everyone else, and sits in judgement.

#8

And you over him. Tidy package, that.

(welcome back, Hubert. I hope your Lent was beautiful and filled with mystery.)

#9

Techne, my Lent indeed was beatiful, but I am far for being able to percieve the mistery you talk about (that of Easter). So far I am only convinced that it is a mistery, but somehow I feel that the required qualities of my soul to percieve it, are yet missing. Not that there would be no longing in me for it … but maybe not strong enough. Thank you for your kind interest in my being.

Asuri, you are right, I extrapolated my own thoughtss on SoonerPaul’s. It was done in order to show, that it can easily be interpreted in the manner I did. Everyone can do the same for him/herself, and arrive to quite other reasonings. Which shows the relative nature of human thinking.

About yoga as a possible escape mechanism, I must admit that it is admittable. Let me quote Pandara from the purpose of existence thread: The purpose of our existence is to escape the cycle of earthy incarnations. (rough quote). Now, I know Pandara to be one of so many yogis around who really deserves this name. Thus, it is not far fetched to make the assumption, that for a yogi, indeed this escape from earthly existence is the main motivational force of his practice. And if we analyze the written tradition of yoga, than we find the same goal. The world is maya, illusion, and only in the Absolute what is eternal, unchanging, timeless, only reality, we find our peace and happiness.

It is understandable, that seen form a wordly point of view, from the point of view of a human being living in the western culture (what today encompasses the whole planet), having a name, a gender, a life partner, maybe children, a job, property, health, friends, and so many other agendas, this motivation seems alien, and because due to the inpatience of their souls, what has grown perhaps too much in a comptetitive, get what you desire attitude, they assume that this goal must be achieved as soon as possible. I mean, if indeed this is the goal, than spending time with anything else is unreasonable, prancing around. Indeed we see the example of the prince of Siddharta, who once the sad reality of human existence dawned to him, he left everything and pursued with all his being a meaning for his life what his soul could accept as truth. Wealth, wife, child, did not satisfy him, as he learnt the existence of pain resulting from illness and old age, and the dreadful and inevitable approach of death.

But what is our culture today, if not a fight against these (and other)causes of suffering ? And indeed, we have succeded in many areas to alleviate the inevitable sufferings, and even hope that one day we will conquer death itself. And people living in this culture, organize their lives so they escape suffering, and exclude the thought of death from their minds. In fact, it is not a great difference between what worldly oriented people have sought in the time of Buddha, and what wordly oriented people do today, they just all focused on material existence, and how to fend off suffering. The difference is that while this approach was suitable for only a few people in the time of Buddha, thanks to the so contempted western world, today we arrived where much more people can afford the luxury of a more carefree life. Not for everyone, far from it, but much more than before. And this makes possible an opening in people, a freedom from necessity, a freedom to realize their individuality, that they are human beings, and the freedom to fully face the problems of the young Siddharta in a similar manner. No matter how healthy you are, what wealth you posess, illness, suffering, death still exist. The pain of being separated from the ones we love, still exists. Death separates us, ignorance separates us, cold hearts separate us. Who is today who never had his heart broken ? Who is who never lost a dear person to death ? Only very young people, perhaps, but than again, under the age of 21, these matters cannot and should not seriously concern a person, whose task is to grow in to this world the best way he/she is able, to face his/her personal karma in a suitable way. Important is, that suffering is pretty much the same today, and the same fending mechanisms are in function, only that more people are in this state where they can expereince them freely. Buddhism indeed is an important step in ones’s spiritual evolution. The time comes for everyone, when one needs to face life as it is, honestly, than learning the teaching of Buddha, the four noble truths, one has to find the strenght in one’s soul to face it. It is important to realize that accepting intellectually, mentally the solution given for example by buddhism, is not enough. To accept any teaching, without really meditating on it for long, without really analyzing every line, thought, idea, conclusion with the most honesty, and openness of our hearts, checking if we can accept it as truth or not, is a defence mechanism. Accepting the teaching of christianity about resurrection, without honesty, without realizing it’s truth, is again a defence mechanism. This is so easy to see, that this is the main argument of most people against these teachings, that people believe them because they want to believe, because they need something to believe in.
But all these, including yoga philosophy (what is not an actual philosophy, but I will not expand this subject now) are defence mechanisms for those who accept them without realizing their truth. What do they defend us from ? From the personal effort to start from scratch, from facing our ultimate loneliness in tha face of suffering, pain and deah.

Yes, there is this characetristic to human beings that they want simple, easy answers, fast solutions. Science, religion, education, schooling satisfy this need.

The question is not if yoga practice is a defense mechanism, but it is: is it a defense mechanism for you ?
This is related also to the question, what is yoga, and who is a yogi ?
We must see, that in the strict sense, a yogi is who follows the path of yoga, a practical tradition of self knowledge helped by a teacher, what cannot be separated from it’s intellectual aspects, it’s explanations and the very presence of the teacher, who must be an advanced, accomplished yogi. Id’ say, that all these must be true for a teaching to be called truly yoga. Again, unbroken continuity with the practical and written tradition, and presence of an accomplished yogi.

Thus, the majority of yoga studios today do not teach yoga at all. They call themselves yoga, but they are not, they are fitness or self applied pshychology classes with an exotic tint. No wonder the need for certification of yoga schools presented itself.

In conclusion, the question if yoga is a defence mechanism or not, can be settled only in first person, asking ourselves the question: is what I practice really yoga, and if it is, than can I fully, and honestly, from the depth of my heart accept what it teaches about it’s purpose, it’s cosmology, cosmogony. and view of the human being ?

The tolerant attitude that yoga works without the belief system it is built on, is not true. It works on the basic level, but it does not work on higher levels, where mental and soul activity is concerned. Yoga done for health, is not yoga at all. It is a defense mechanism against weakness, diseases, illnesses, lets face it. Yoga done for mental equilibrum, peace of mind, blissful states, that is not yoga. That is a defense mechanism against stress, anguish, and boredom.
Yoga is only yoga if it’s done witn it’s original purpose, to solve the riddle of man. True, that it’s byproducts might be (or not) health, peace of mind, and bliss, but those are side products. You do not define a process by it’s side products, you define it by it’s final result.

Those who practice it for it’s side products are like the people in the Johhny Cash/U2 song, The wanderer: [I]“I passed by the churchhouse where people like to sit, they say they want the Kingdom, but they don’t want God in it.”[/I]
Which is perfectly fine. But let’s be honest about it, and this way, when someone accuses us for hypocrisy, we will not be offended, but smile, and say, brother, you are right, this is my choice. That’s not hypocrisy anymore. Or, if we are earnest yogis, than we can just let it pass, because if we are honest, than their opinion, judgement cannot affect us.

#10

I realize that this is part of a discussion you two had. Thus, I think, that your reflection is not actually to his ideas, but the way he said them, not free form a certain agressive element. People tend to do that when they feel they need to underline their opinion. As if the truth of their opinion in itslef would not be enough. But this is usually provoked by adversity.

I’d say, let it go.

#11

I realize that this is part of a discussion you two had. Thus, I think, that your reflection is not actually to his ideas, but the way he said them, not free form a certain agressive element. People tend to do that when they feel they need to underline their opinion. As if the truth of their opinion in itslef would not be enough. But this is usually provoked by adversity.

I’d say, let it go.

Actually, we haven’t had any direct discussion. I don’t believe I was one of the people SoonerPaul had in mind when he used the phrase “bishops of the true faith”. And maybe it is legitimate for SoonerPaul to question some of the posters he called “advanced practitioners” (his dubious quotes). But instead of engaging them in a substantive discussion, he tried to cast doubt on their psychological fitness. So my reaction to this is, that this is somebody who needs to be thoroughly discredited. But on your advice, I’ll let it go.

Oh, and by the way, I enjoyed reading your other post.