WE HAVE MOVED!!!

Visit our new, improved website at www.beyondorange.org

ARTICLE IN SLOVENIAN JANA MAGAZINE:

Original

ARTICLE IN SLOVENIAN PRIMORSKE NOVICE MAGAZINE:

English, Hungarian

ARTICLE IN AUSTRIAN PROFIL MAGAZINE:

German, English, Hungarian, Czech, Serbian, Slovenian

CALL TO ALL OFFICIALS OF THE ORGANIZATION

English, Croatian, Czech, Hungarian, Slovenian, German, Serbian

Re-evaluation of the situation or "where do I stand?"
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    Along these debates about the happenings in YIDL and people who are thinking of what is their position in relation to YIDL and swAmi right now, after the sexual allegations and let's say general upheaval that is happening, my starting question for a possible debate is: "What are the consequences for people who decide to leave the path, i.e., does leaving the path mean to 'throw' it all away or just continue with the practice (as it is a part of person's history) while disconnecting with the organisation?; and do the actions of swAmi throw strange light on the whole lineage or not? If you decide to leave this path and still practice mantra and still continue to revere the lineage except the swAmi, does that make you still a disciple, if in fact you want to be one at all? Is the practice of mantra, though it's not a personal possession of swAmi, as Chidanand said in his statement, is it still a link and a connection to swAmi, as a medaitor, a Guru of the lineage, and in what light do the people see his Grand-Masters and how it affects their whole picture of things?" Do people remain the followers or not or they are being totally disilusioned as to every kind of path or just this one? In general, it would be interesting to hear, as I didn't stumbled upon this subject anywhere in these new discussions about personal self-analysis of "what does it mean to the people, after their projections about this and that were torn apart"??? I would say , these are relevant questions as for the people who practice yoga and put their energy into practice, etc.,can they brush it all aside?; what does this mean to them now; will they just reduce everything to hatha yoga practices and remember the good all days (which in fact all this questions as it looks do not pertain only to the personal aspect of practice but collective, group oriented practices and spiritual-family-ties within the organisation) or will they leave all this yogic pursuit and cut this spiritual "golden chains of dependence"? It would be nice to hear some thoughts on this...
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    whomever finds it interesting:
    http://chi-ting.blogspot.com/
  • Durchanand April 2011
    Posts: 74
    Dear batawe and all posters, there are some answers to your many questions in http://www.esoterikforum.at/forum/showthread.php?p=3173362#post3173362
    a big portion of the posts is in German but you will also find english posts. My posts are nearly all in both languages.
  • %5BDeleted+User%5D[Deleted User] April 2011
    Posts: 0
    thx a lot, roman, for creating this open discussion forum. i was about to create one myself... now i don't have to :)

    i very much wish to hear what others are saying, especially those who have left yidl recently... does anyone have a guess of how many people may have left in serbia, bosnia, austria and in other places? i received rather few emails and most of my information comes from what is available on the net in english, although i also google-translated from serbian, croatian and german.

    as far as i am concerned, for years i visited two yoga classes a week on average and an increasing number of summer programs and week-end seminars, especially those with swami chidanand (i don't think i missed any of his week-end seminars in hungary in the past 5 years), did some hatha yoga kriyas, and lots of asanas on my own, and used various other techniques, and studied languages and philosophy related to yoga and buddhism... without wanting to be swAmi's disciple. then, a few years ago, i decided to become a desciple. and my greatest inspiration was swami chidanand - in general and also in my decision to become a disciple. so now i have a hard time...
    i decided to continue to visit the local yidl yoga classes, but stopped two projects related to yidl. i never went to satsangs apart from the summer programs, week-end seminars and webcasts, so this has not changed. for a month, I was not sure whether to go to vep this year or not... finally i decided to go. a few weeks ago, i also started looking for other yoga centres, studios, classes outside yidl but haven't found anything yet which seems attractive enough for me to give it a try...
    so, i'm not decided yet who and what to believe... if i decide to believe that people were sexually or otherwise abused by swAmi, then i will also decide to leave yidl... which will be a huge loss to me. there's so many people in the yidl community i like and would miss terribly, especially my yoga teachers... and i would also terribly miss the local yoga classes i visit, and the summer and week-end seminars, and those other projects which i stopped or stopped thinking of... but i don't expect it would change my life, my views etc. in any other way and i would try to find another yoga community or at least some yoga courses.
    until i can't decide who and what to believe, i think i will continue with the yidl yoga classes, participate in some (parts of some) seminars, continue to help with practical things, repect others views, be grateful for what i get... but consider myself again someone who is not swAmi's formal disciple... as i used to be for years.

    i wish everyone all the best,

    someonefromhungary
  • Roman April 2011
    Posts: 347
    Hello someonefromhungary,
    I fully understand the way you feel. As I've mentioned, the hardest was to leave my friends. They did not do anything wrong. It seems that you are willing to evaluate, not just blindly accept. Keep it up.

    Roman
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    I agree with Roman; finally everybody has to decide on his/her own...

    ...supposedly once the Buddha was asked (it could be Peter-the-Buddha or Mark-the Buddha etc...or maybe the Peter asked the Buddha in himself;), if he's a human or a god, and he's answer was: I am awake!

    I remember some words from a certain youtube video in a sense that, Jesus, Buddha, Rama, Krishna, Lao Tze etc...that they are good company, they can help us etc...but don't give too much faith in them, you can also get stuck; let's get to basics of why are we here, to re-discover our own divinity, divinity of our soul; aren't they teaching this?, they say "one without second", than this "one" must go beyond all this guys also...or should we just worship all the time "that Other" and remain divided...
    but than again, the soul is presupposed as a kind of 'solid' subtle entity, behind this mortal organism and taken apriori as immortal etc...and just a belief in our immortal souls somehow saves everything; what if that is just plain belief...what if, in a Gurdjieff-an sense, soul has to be acquired, worked upon, gained, and nothing is given freely...well, there are many things to inquire if one really seeks to find out; nothing is served ready-made...

    ....that's why they all disagree on their own chosen God which many times is just mental idea, which is also limited, hypostazing it into a concrete object, limited form of some sort and than playing the game of hide and seek with your God, but all the time, the basis of all this 'projections' is your own self, you as the subject, the subject who desires, who maintains its chosen object in his own consciousness or subjectivity...the object of my own desire is the object within my own subject-ivity; what I reflect through the other as object is my own subjective self, which doesn't mean that the real other doesn't exist, but what makes a sense to the experience is the awareness that it is filtered through my subjective standpoint; what I see in you as the Other, the object-reason of my love, that "which I love in you more than you" is the fantasm, that in me which desires, perpetuates itself as desire, the compromise between the direct confrontation with the object and my own desire is the mediation of the fantasm, imaginary screen upon which I cast my projections, about my self and "what I see in the Other"...

    beyond rama, beyond krishna, beyond this and that, what remains than?,,who knows,,maybe the trees and the wind and our own self-forget-fulness, not only "here and now" which at the same time as it appears also disappears and has some sense only when I make statement about it, every moment of the time that passes, when I state it, it is already gone, "here and now" is also just a statement about it, about something which is all the time irrevocably already lost (object)...

    one more thing...the beggar who thinks that he is a king could be crazy, but the king who really thinks he is a king must be really crazy;)...who or what is a king? just an empty name...it's not at all the attributes of a person that makes a king,,,it's a radical and 'violent' gesture of the symbolic itself (the of the the king), the symbolic position of the one that we crown as king, a mandate that is given to someone that he must fulfill this empty-symbolic-name with his/her kingness...King is symbolic fiction, King does not exist, but the people need the king to rule them and give them a meaning, otherwise king is just like them, the name-of-the-king, symbolic reality intrudes into the subject's life, the language as such mediates between what is real and non-real..."I am enlightened!", from where does this statement states itself, from which position or place does it states its own enlighttenment..."I" is an empty grammatical subject (it means nothing, it's empty), that everybody can fill it with whatever meaning s/he desires, at particular act of speaking: "I am strong, I am bright, I am rambo, I am - this and that/undefined structure of the grammatical "I".......I am a king!;))))
  • %5BDeleted+User%5D[Deleted User] April 2011
    Posts: 0
    Legal advice and wisdom: It is a gross error to 'believe' in any allegation or rumour to be true, this is how 'witch-hunts' start.

    One can never know what has happened from hearsay, no matter how tasty it appears with 'reputations'.

    There are many power plays within YIDL for a long time: "Who will succeed SwAmi?" is one unofficial mantra, and now, since the appearance of little Avatar-puri , the power play looks to have soured.

    Shane, Australia
  • Shane, first, I was not aware that my beliefs are subject to legal scrutiny. Second, since I was not all days and hours and always together with SwAmi, what I think to be true or not about his private life will always involve a certain degree of belief. So I weigh the evidence and draw my conclusions.
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    Legal heed is the thought-fence/do not think further beyond certain limits/law is the limit...people can think what they want (as long as it stays in their head?!) and in fact, if things didn't came out as through a legal means, both positions remain structurally as a "belief", one say yes, the other one says no, maybe the legal heed is the answer, that through the public law-mediation both can back up their "evidence", so this legal 'threat' can work fine in any case...about the wisdom of the witches: when they hunted the witches down, there were no questions, they just took them and burned them or whatever, there was radically concrete action against them, that's blindly moronic and brutally sadistic; of course every kind of rumours and consequent conclusions can be based on empty air; but I guess this process is made 'public' as to get more relevant information about the scrutinized subject...is there any "objective" point of view that can stand outside both positions and find their validity/truth, no, law also does not stand "outside" it just mediates, so there is always this subjective position and the conclusions that everybody can make on their own intelligence and decision...unless the one who has been 'charged' says directly once and for all, if there is any truth in allegations or not...and even than not all will believe in any statement that can be said; so, again, everybody decides on their own and believe what "they want to believe", and the ones that really know if they know, they only know...
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    from Aziz Kristof aka Anadi: "Human Buddha":

    student: There is such a strong pull to go inside!

    Aziz: There are different stages in life. When the Soul wants to complete herself in
    the Inner, there is no choice. One has to temporarily sacrifice the outer and retire
    inwards. After this primal desire is fulfilled, you can relax and adventure in the outer
    reality as well. Because you are a human being – you are here also to live and enjoy
    this dimension. There are however, Souls who are already complete in the outer, and
    for them renunciation is a natural phenomenon. There is a danger that Souls who
    follow a particular master, might want to copy the master's behaviour and
    personality. For example, one may try to renounce sex or live in solitude, even
    though it may not be the desire of that particular Soul. Here, we have an example of
    suppression. Most Souls apart from their inner evolution require the outer fulfilment
    for their completion too. Now, you can see how important it is to be in tune with
    your Soul's evolution. Without this connection, you can hurt yourself, following an
    idea which does not reflect your Soul's blueprint. Discover the purpose of your
    evolution; use your passion to go inside and do the inner work.

    student: But sometimes I am distracted by outer desires and then I feel guilty!

    Aziz: Guilt is an unintelligent emotion, for it does not bring about anything positive.
    You do not need to be extreme. You can allow yourself to realise some of your
    desires in the world too. Learn the balance. You do not necessarily want to be as
    extreme as a Zen nun is, for instance; you can learn how to grow harmoniously in
    the inner and the outer as well. What you need to renounce, beloved, is not sex,
    money, dance, or meetings with friends. What you need to renounce is forgetfulness!
    You need to be dedicated from moment to moment to the task of remembering the
    Self; this is the only true renunciation. This is the Way… The true practitioner is not
    conspicuous but invisible to others. In Dzogchen, you can find stories about Selfrealised
    adepts who never made it obvious they were practicing anything at all. It is
    usually just before their death that people realise they have lived with a Buddha! The
    ideal is a practitioner who does the inner work so secretly that nobody knows about
    it.
    You do not need to walk around, making claims to your practice. Practice, similar to
    renunciation is an internal, not external phenomenon. Be playful in the outer, not
    taking it too seriously but remember the Self! Do not lose yourself in the outer.
    Retain your dignity.
  • joyriver April 2011
    Posts: 101
    Is it possible, that a friend would stop being a friend, just because your beliefs are differing? What kind of friend is this? Such person I would not call a friend.
    And why the only way to be together and enjoy friendship is to belong to a belief and
    deny diversity?
    What has changed in you? Are you not still the same person now? And if your point of view has changed, that doesn't make you another person. You are still the same person as before. Your beliefes might change, but You are still the same.
    It is a pitty that people turn away from you because you decided to leave yidl.
    It seems to me, that you were never respected for who you are, but only for what you believe...
  • joyriver April 2011
    Posts: 101
    Batawe....
    To say something about: "what does it mean to the people, after their projections about this and that (yidl) were torn apart". I can say how I experienced this myself.
    I felt a great releif... An incredible feeling of freedom.
    Suddenly the realization that my life belongs to me only and not to my guru.
    And also the feeling of personal empowerment... that what I felt and intuited about swAmi was actually true.
    I still practice yoga. But that does not mean i do not intend to experience also other paths to spirituality.
    I do not practice mantra any more, although I must say it was very difficult to have it stopped! It just kept on going on in my subconscious.
    I do belive in god. But not in a guru any more. And probabbly wont trust any master ever more.
    I belive that being human is good enaugh and I do not have to practice austerity to acheive enightenment.
    I also think and feel that this tiny voice of intuition that all of us have inside, is a real master and teacher.
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    Joyriver...
    Yes, beliefs can differ but you are still the same, many times they are just some vague mental ideas and to even call them mental ideas is also too much - thinking as such, as many people can criticize the "mind" etc...especially the spiritual people who are transcending the mind all the time;); thinking as such and some crystalized formation of thought demands much mental energy and emotional backup which pushes and drives your pursuits like in all other activity; so I would more stand by the hypothesis that "people usually do not think really much"; it depends where people "find their meaning" and what do they want, some need just some things to believe in and they are satisfied, other need something different and the only problem with spiritual people is that they are becoming more religious than spiritual - like a drunkard they sing their songs and paraphrase the woren out lines and statements and spirituality is all about transcending and going beyond the mind, beyond the thought etc...that if you think and analyse, you become just a dry intellectual and speculator and that is not good,,it's too much mind in there;), but at the same time they use the same concepts that same philosophical thought was trying to solve and was also caught in this endless dichotomy between appearance:phenomenon/essence; finite/infinite; matter/spirit etc...this same conceptual apparatus is there for them to even know what they practically want to pursue and in experience to transcend and reach the Infinite...and we have to pursue it always somewhere "there behind all this appearances" that are illusion etc...as if the eternal truth in its essence is just transcendental truth beyond all the phenomena, same phenomena which is just a reflection, imperfect approximation of the perfect truth of the Absolute/Beyond/Transcendental Personage etc...this division always remains...and to use the Shankaracharyan example of "the pot and clay", thing is not so simple as it seems, as if, the clay is only reality, the pot is just the temporary form of the clay which is real (substance) and a pot just a mere appearance (illusion)...

    Ram Shankar Mishra: "The Integral Advaitism of Sri Aurobindo":
    THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT PROVE ITS UNREALITY!

    Sankara and Sankarites call the universe unreal also because of the fact that it is temporary and perishable and not eternal and imperishable. In support of his theory of the unreality of the universe Sankara quotes the famous illustration given in the Upanishad of clay and the pots. There it is said that different modifications of clay are merely a name born of speech and have no substantial reality.
    The clay alone is real.

    The modifications of the clay perish and go back to the earth leaving behind them nothing but clay.
    Hence this analogy, according to Sankara, goes to prove that the supreme Brahman is alone real and the world being the manifestation of Brahman is unreal.

    But this analogy, according to Sri Aurobindo, can tell more convincingly the other way. The pot is real on account of being made out of the substance of clay which is real. Even if it disappears, its previous existence cannot be denied or thought to have been unreal or illusory. So the relation between the clay and the pot or between Brahman and the world is not that of an original Reality and a phenomenal unreality but is that of dependence.
    It has to be admitted that the pot as such cannot exist apart from clay. In the same way it may be said that the world as such being the manifestations of Brahman cannot exist apart from Brahman.

    So the significance of the analogy of clay and pot is to show the dependence of the world on Brahman and to prove their essential oneness and not to signify the unreality of the world.

    Sankara lays great stress on the word "alone" where it is said, the clay alone is real. But the word "alone" does not mean that pot is unreal but that it has no other existence apart from clay.
    Moreover, the pot-form according to Sri Aurobindo, is an eternal possibility of clay and it can manifest at any time if the clay exists.

    So, we may suppose that the "power of manifestation is inherent in Brahman and continues to act either continuously in Time-eternity or in an eternal recurrence".
    The universe has a different order of Reality from the transcendent Brahman, but for that very reason it has no need to be called transcendentally unreal or unreal to that transcendence. But Sankara's main difficulty in regarding the universe as real is that he regards the Real as immutable, eternal and differenceless. But this definition of the Real is, according to Sri Aurobindo, a purely intellectual conception, an ideative distinction, a mental construction and has no binding for a substantial and integral experience.

    The contradiction which seems which seems to exist between the eternal supracosmic Reality and the temporary world is merely verbal. The world-existence is in fact not contradictory to the supracosmic Existence but is dependent on it.

    -----------
    Beyond this "illusion of appearance" there must be some fixed point, primary principle, unchanging reality etc...and even philosophical/metaphysical thought was trying to find this true and real substance...

    But for Hegel, for example, his famous statement, "the substance is the subject" tells something completely different...according to the basic proposition in sentence-Logic, the structure of a sentence has this form: S=P; S=subject, P=predicate, for example "God (S) is eternal (P)".

    If "the substance is the subject" than everything in the substance that is substantial must be 'thrown' out, God as S/subject is all in the predicate, what we define as God in all his/her attributes of eternal nature is just a predicate and without the predicate which retroactively gives the meaning to the "empty name of God", there is no movement ...this substance (God/Eternal Self-likeness...) must go "out of itself" and its self-likeness into its 'opposite', its otherness, in the realm of appearance and difference (out of its supposed substantial unity) - even before the concept of Unity which means to unify something or that something is unified, there is already at work a "Difference as such", which is already presupposed in the Unity itself. The metaphysical and cosmological consequence would be that, not only that Eternal substance (of God) which is eternally same towards its own 'relation' to itself, must in fact come out of itself, to the appearance of itself in itself as to find itself again in a different way of self-divison and self-otherness and to reaffirm itself also through "form" and not just some direct essence of itself...its appearance is much important as the essence itself....its Appearance/Creation is as much as important as the substantial Reality of its own Essence. Thus, this reality of appearances becomes and has some different meaning than just plain hopes of direct experiences of essential dimensions of Truth, somewhere there - beyond...transcendence is already happening here and the Truth seeks itself in its own outward manifestation...so this world is Maya, doesn't work in realtion to the interpretation that "we must transcend this maya" as it is unreal...it is as real as it can get...all on its proper level...we can speak of gradations of Reality, much better than talk in terms of black&white truth and unreality...pot is as much as important as the clay, its the eternal possibility of the clay...
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    Joyriver: Thanks, I appreciate your post and comment on your own experience regarding the practice, mantra etc...mainly I was interested to hear what people think, where do they see themselves now, those who decided to leave and how do they percieve their practice which is (was) part of their life; like the Chidanand's line in the statement: "Your mantra is pure. It is not made by swAmi, it is not his ownership. It is pure Vedantic way to our Param Para which is spotless. ... Through them or through your deep longing for freedom, purity, peace, completeness or oneness, pranayams, meditation and mantra will undoubtedly lead you to Self-realization. Freedom cannot be given it could be only achieved."
    According to this line (don't know what is Slobodan's attitude right now) you can (if you wish) still practice your mantra like any other for example, what is the fundamental difference? But the main problem occurs, which is more psychological: you received mantra through this lineage and it is a mantra of that lineage, one of the masters and now when some people lost their faith in swAmi, can you go "pro" all the other teachers in the lineage and only "contra" to swAmi or all of them? In fact this are also touchy subjects as it represents the main practice...is Mahaprabhuji than still (our) God?, or which God do we believe than if we believe whatever we believe or maybe we don't believe no form of God anymore?! Will we believe now in Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad?;)
    Will you be accepted in Gurudev's Kingdom if you repeat the mantra but reject one of the Masters form the same lineage, namely swAmi? This sounds like politics already.;)
    But still these absurd questions surge up and you ask yourself, is spirituality a local club? and if you remain in the club , you will be protected if you step out of the club you are F...ed!?
    The consequences can be fundamental and radical for some, leaving the thing alltogether, even loosing all the curiosity of what are other teachings like (especially in practical aspect); yes we can read and learn much wisdom already through the books, we can still study things, but wherever you go, especially regarding the spiritual practices and practical teachings of some schools, there you will find maybe different techniques etc., but basically structure of those schools is the same, you will find superiors who will teach you and you'll have to be a follower; how much of your own freedom and investigation of the theories and practices you will be allowed is questionable...sooner or later if you start problematize things you will have to leave, in this or some other way, cause you are not the master nor teacher or if you will become one, than you will become one in that particular line of thought or school...
    Question still remains, what exactly "do You want?"
    What can I want if what I want was already told through this or that person, of what is "desirable to want",,,they say "desire is the desire of the Other"...
    How can I know who am I, if what I need to find is said already, even if it is said "You are That"...whatever That is, certainly I have to re-discover it through my own phenomenon, but am I not already That? Isn't a wave as a part of the ocean already a water? Do we need to follow and remain followers or do we need to become self-standing, fearless people and independent, i.e, reagining our freedom in choosing what is best for us; but what is best for us definitely depends of the level of awareness, recognition, understanding, comprehension, non-identifying with all the unnecessary outbursts of emotional energy etc...and as I read in one book, it was said, that nothing in this universe is for free, for everything you have to pay and gain things through hard work and conscious intent and that's not easy...
    http://www.gurdjieff.org/sayings.htm
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    If somebody knows the situation that is happening in Serbia, hopefully he or she will respond...question is as follows: "According to the Slobodan Milicevic's statement, including the mantra etc...does this mean he still propagates the same spiritual path, with swAmi excluded, or is his own position in regarding all the happenings 50/50, meaning that he did not quit all the activities related to Yidl, in a sense, that he gives consolence to the ones who have been dissilusioned in this or that way, so that practice as such still remains...meaning again, that if somebody is more authentic to propagate the spiritual lineage that cojmes form certain part of Rajasthan, than it is swAmi, even more than ex-Chidanand; is Slobodan finally freeing himself totally form the grip of Yidl or is it just unofficial fraction of the original Yidl, thus becoming its unofficial derivative?..." Question is posed in relation to all the people who have some sort of respect or acknowledge the Slobodan's position/thinking etc...and if we are more radical in analysis of his statement, than the question still remains: about what does Slobodan speak when he speaks what he speaks?...just going away form the grip of the Master, but retaining all of its elementary spiritual structure as practice?;;; the question is simply, where is Slobodan now, and in what way is he Slobodan/free? (serbian: sloboda=freedom)...
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    well, in the spirit of my own posts I will continue and just share thoughts about things, maybe we can come to our own conclusions, it's good to have possibilites in our head...this is just a reply to someone that I had through mail, and even if it sounds 'disconnected' here it is:

    ..it looks as if these swami's, whoever goes into sexual escapades, he still has some remnant, which is quite natural in fact, milleniums of sexual reproductions and we are composed of sexual cells after all, we are sexual beings in a sense that we are the product of two sexual cells and the innate program to reproduce, to have sex is by the default built inside...you can go beyond it, or behind it or whatever, without the problem,,many people live alone and have no problem with it...butn if things are not cleared out,,,and even if meditation and all the askesis doesn't help,,,it means that , what is called "vital nature", sexuality and 'lower movements' of being are not so easily transformed,,,I already read in some books and aurobindo said many things about that...for example...many can attain some enlightened states but their prakriti/nature still remains more or less the same (anger outbursts, inclinations to certain things, physical or pshychological...), so what is enlightenment after all, here things aren't much clear and to transform the prakriti/nature is the hardest thing, whatever that means...and all the spirituality is built upon the "negation of sex", excluding the traditions that involve or incorporate sex...but sex was always this final problematics, the core of the problem;)))....and it just shows that swami's are also not immune to certain impulses,,,but their status, their social role as swami's, the belief that swami's are now beyond that, that his/her life is totally god-consciouss etc...that makes the whole thing look ridiculous,,,this projection and idea of a holy person who doesn't f...k as he transcended it;)------

    anyway,,,if someone is really sincere, if he has a robe and he is officially monk or swajmi,,the most sincere thing would be, to put the robe away, if you are not maintaing brahmacari principles,,,after all, it's the rules of the game that are put by the same poeple,,,so, it's not a problem that you have or had sex,,,so what?...but please put the robe away,,,that would be most honest gesture....and I know that in other orthodox traditions, if it surged up that somebody had sex or anything, he would be disrobed and he/she wouldn't be monk anymore,,,depends what you want....like I said,,,this collision between the social role, principle and than the thing itself (sex) which downfalls this idea of what the role represents...sex as such, so what...people have sex...but if monk has sex ,,,if swami has sex if avatar has sex,,,of course it's odd...something smells here..we are all vistims of the roles I guess than, but we should follow them, but not just follow them (if I only follow it means that I am distant form it also...), either I am or I am not,,,outer rule for the authentic man or a woman is unneccesary, you are That, or you are not..and this role as such, of monk and this and that, not to have sex,,,this Law has already this element of perversion in itself..............it is said..."surpressed desire and the law" are one and the same!..........do not desire other man's wife!...the same law that prohibits the desire , maintains the desire itself (and it gives you an idea what to desire - that is your friends' wife;)

    do not have sex!...sex becomes thing that must b surpressed,,,it becomes magickal...and if it is not clear,,,than it will manifest sooner or later,,,

    and as much as this things are weird and strange, and I never thought that YIDL, swAmi , hariharanand etc...old gUru.l..that these stories are possible in yidl...but strangely,,,though we don't want to believe, something in us still rejects the idea,,,it's a big possibitlity that it did occur,,,and people must be really sick in their head to come out with bunch of lies...I don't buy that either...I think stuff really happened...and it's not easy,,,even for the girls/victims....it's like , now going against the father of your family,,,,these are strong energies here....and even the story however it's schocking about old gUru...I never thought about that....this girl sounds pretty real and I leave the possibitlity open....but it truly breaks the projections about the guru stature....

    and if we are honest, we really don't know who is old gUru nor who is swAmi,,,whatever we know, it's just our belief...

    small village in rajasthan....old gUru mahaprabhuji's bhakta...real bhakta,,,but maybe nothing else than that...is swAmi didn't come to the west, he would be definitely unknown and taking care of his guru, who didn't bother much I guess what was happening around, his bhakti to mahaprabhuji and prayers all his preoccupation-------what if lila amrit is masterfully constructed story for the authntification of the lineage as it starts with the same logic as all the myths of great personages loike krishna or jesus etc....divine voice or person appears,,,gives blessing, gives promise,,,than appears the avatar, not born by mother and father...than this and that happens and already within the story third person is anticipated in the scheme, devpuriji's promise about the great soul who will come and transfer the message to the world...etc----

    and what i didin't like when I read lila amrit after several years ...this small passages,,,about the West who has lost their way,,,and that East (our or some other lineage of masters),,,must enligjhten the west......for example...many disciples beacuse of their desire for ritches are now born in the west and satgurudev will come to rescue them also...

    this sounds naive...this west/east dichotomy is also just some empty repetition

    first of all, west is not devoid of spirituality at all, nor culture nor traditions...whoever says that it is, doesn't know what s/he is talking about,,,and as if India and East has all the problems to our questions,...which of course are the universal questions of the meaning of life who ever seeks for it...

    if East has answers and long traditions let's see to what extent and what were the consequences; there is still so much poverty in India etc...and if you look at it from different perspective, what is the effect of all those teachings, which are mostly world-negative,,,what is this East than in relation to the lost West...this is just another ideology...West has much and it has much wisdom also, from poets to musicians, philosophers, thinkers, spiritual figures/mystics etc...you can find whatever you want and I am not saying now the wisdom-heritage of India is useless, no...but if wisdom and knowledge has that universal character of knowledge as such, that is just knowledge going beyond all traditions, than there is no East nor West at all....but if we want traditions and games than we can have it.....hindu has certain hindu throughts, christian christian thoughts,,,just mere culutural thoughts...and within this culturality we speak about the great Knowledge going beyond all this,,and at the end we find again, fetishism and parafernalia of the culture....hindu than meets hindu god, christian meets christian god etc...

    sri aurobindo:
    Action in the world is like a deep forest, gahana, through which man goes stumbling as best he can, by the light of the ideas of his time, the standards of his personality, his environment, or rather of many times, many personalities, layers of thought and ethics from many social stages all inextricably confused together, temporal and conventional amidst all their claim to absoluteness and immutable truth, empirical and irrational in spite of their aping of right reason.
  • %5BDeleted+User%5D[Deleted User] April 2011
    Posts: 0
    I'm part of yidl, be it not part of the hard core but more in the periphery, and I'm slowly starting to take into account that the accusations towards swAmi may be true.
    It helps that I'm not a hardline yidl, that makes it easier for me to detach from it, but even for me it's painful. I can understand how hard it must be for people who are deeper into it, so I don't blame them for systematically denying the accusations. The guru trap is well known, I noticed a book about it some time ago but dismissed it as having a negative approach back then. I guess I was naive. http://www.strippingthegurus.com/ebook/Stripping_the_Gurus.pdf

    Now where do I stand at the moment? I think I will dissociate with the religious part of yoga and focus only on the exercise part. There are many great techniques in yoga, so why not use them for the better? I also want to maintain the spiritual and moral rules written down in for example Mahaprabhuji's golden teachings. These teachings are universal and independent of any religion or ideology. As we all know the world is in desperate need of spirituality and morality (I think the two are very closely related by the way), so I think it would be a big mistake if we would have these events make us bitter and we would become cynical, selfish persons.

    I'm thinking of a set of guidelines to help us make good decisions about joining certain organisations. I think we must be very careful when the organisation has a commune-like (1), hierarchical (2) structure with a leader that is seen as a god or having a special connection to god (3), to whom everybody has to be obedient (4) and who is able to perform miracles (6), who sees certain places as 'holy' (7) and who likes to hang out with politicians and ambassadors (8) and erect grand buildings in honour of himself or his organisation (9). This also rules out becoming a Roman-Catholic, by the way :)

    Does anyone have more suggestions what to be careful of?
  • %5BDeleted+User%5D[Deleted User] April 2011
    Posts: 0
    I'm not the same person as the other anonymous3 by the way.
  • batawebatawe April 2011
    Posts: 409
    Thx Anonymous 3, for your reply. I am also just a guy from periphery, never had been in the hard-core center of it, had many projections about myself in the beginning of yogic practice, but that was just my own superimposition on my newly born yogic person; in fact I got in contact with yoga already in the primary school when I was 11 years old, with my best friend at that period of time, we practiced from two books of Selvarajan Yesudian (Yoga and sport & Yoga and health) etc...In the second one I read first excerpts form famous spiritual teachers and philosophers, like Nietzsche, Vivekananda... and I remember I was thinking "what does it all mean?", I was intellectually inclined already and after some years when I went to study philosophy, yoga and all the stuff surged out and I was searching for something and was trying to live and practice in the spirit of yoga, but like all good dramas, there are always obstacles, outer and inner and they slowly push you to certain realization of "where do you stand" eventually...my realization is: you can think whatever you want about yourself, being this or that, but life shows you where and what you are, in everyday situations and happenings and your reactions to them...but we can learn from everything, so it's not a problem, the process of forming yourself and learning about your self and ho do you perceive yourself and the world and making some clear attitudes which are again the effect of your own comprehension how do you view life, all this differs according to person and his/her experience, knowledge, feeling etc...that's why we differ in our inclinations and understanding and it's just the way it is...but to know "where you are" and what "should you do" or "where to go", my opinion is that you don't have many options;), there are already certain options which are conditioned by the environment, yourself, your past, your present actions and you already pretty much know "where you are" and what can you do...we can not fly to mars or be an astronaut (maybe some;), but we can be whatever we think we can be, to create our own place, where you can feel at home and we can do it without tutors; we can learn form everybody and everything but it's necessary that we have our views cleared out for ourselves and it's not so easy...Today the biggest problem is this ready-made answers you can find everywhere about the happiness and joy and enlightenment, if we talk about spirituality and all looks promising and wound-healing etc...
    Maybe it's already enough if we live, however we already live, do what we think should be done and be as much conscious as we possibly can and that is definitely connected with everything that we do; we already practice it everyday, sometimes we get more lost in things and sometimes we are more awake and do it more consciously, but still even this can sound vague...overall, you don't need anybody to tell you how should you live or express yourself, main problem lies in "not doing what you think you should do", or better in "compromising your desire"...the question what is the meaning of the world really is concerned "what is the meaning of my world?" and for that meaning we must answer ourselves and structure our lives according to that, and the people with whom you can eventually share your knowledge and experience...I think things are in fact very simple, but we are not pushing our own limits in life, finding excuses, rationalizations etc...and if we look honestly we can see "we are not striving enough to realize ourselves" in things we choose...that's my own personal experience and here I see the "flaws of life", but which again just show you where to dig more..."obstacles show us the way", flaws can become points of power, if we work on them---

    yes, I already read "stripping the gurus" and it has some interesting information...
    this one would be interesting to read also: Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna
    http://www.amazon.com/Kalis-Child-Mystical-Teachings-Ramakrishna/dp/0226453774/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1304165878&sr=8-16
    (it looks like more concrete study of his life in connection to eroticism behind the spiritual conceptual umbrella)

    here is also an interesting site and many links and topics and guru (pretty objective and not cheesy) evaluation,...

    http://www.kheper.net/topics/index.html
    http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/index.html
  • michalsladek May 2011
    Posts: 17
    Batawe, you are right, there are too many ready-made answers out there about living a happy or perfect life and it is very confusing to choose between them- IF you are using your head.

    Batawe, you can never figure this one out just with your brain. That is why so many people out there want simple answers, someone to tell them what to do or some teaching that promises perfection or happiness. In this way swAmi or Jehova's Witnesses provide a valuable service. Many people want to belong to a crowd of believers because it is so lonely out here, being so far from God.

    People do go closer to God sometimes, but never as a result of thinking. As I observe what brings people closer to God is suffering or love. To go up through spiritual ranks always requires ordeals and sacrifice. When the illusions fall it always hurts, because they were OUR illusions, part of us...

    There is help, it comes from above, and we need to be able to receive it and align with it. It is beyond words and it can manifest through elevated states and knowing.

    When this thing with swAmi happened, I was actually quite optimistic and I believed that this was the best thing that happened to YIDL for a long time. I was hopeful that this would lead to an honest opening, communication and organisation would 'grow up'. Alas, I was wrong. Only some individuals will benefit, the rest of the organisation will continue functioning in exactly same way as before. Shame, it was a great opportunity.

    Especially swAmi missed the opportunity and he is locked into a course towards ...well, it's not looking good for him. One lie leads to more lies. I am sorry for him. He had a lot of potential when he started.
  • truthseeker May 2011
    Posts: 541
    Michalsladek, I thin that you are right, that not much will change in yidl, most followers refuse to accept it because of their emotional attachment to their own illusions and to their yogafriends and master.
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    Thanks for reply Michal, yes, I agree with what you said, and would just add, that we use the brain much less than we think we use it;)...what pissed me most often when talking to spiritual people and I talked to various calibers, this talk about transcending the mind, going beyond, not to be too much intellectual etc...of course, I am intellectual guy myself and it was always puzzling to hear it as something which is not condoning to spirituality, my god, please go and read some real texts and tell me,,are they the products of idle mind and happy naive people? if they are happy it's ok, I have no problem with it, but this narrowness in approach and fixed ideas and talking about subjects while nobody at the same time never really studied anything, you just come to the conclusion that people need the joy-pills and soothing pillows and feeling happy and protected...there were many thought systems that fuc...d things up, and many misinterpretations, but I never saw, like I read somewhere, that a philosopher killed anybody, because someone differed in their thoughts, and as we can see, the religious minds killed many real people throughout history...now, what is happening with spirituality? Spirituality was for me never a religion, it beared that independent spirit, it should transcend the religious limits and their rigid dogmas but here you also find almost in all schools, dogmatic texts, someone who can interpret them better than you etc...the point is, that these are self-styled schools, even if they have some kind of history and what is important is that they are not oriented as to produce "empowered subjects too think for themselves"...today's universities as the centers of modern knowledge, however dispersed it is, gives at least some information/knowledge and orientation, which you can use and you are left to yourself of how will you use and apply it and that is good, you don't have nobody who will tell you, do this or this...you study, you learn and than go, do something with it...in this sense, the universities are indifferent formal structure that can produce also young 'biscuits';) but all is left upon yourself, there is no guru, no authority you can confide yourself...you can talk to your mentor, but mentor only helps you with your own work...point is this: as you go through phases and mature through your own work, you go beyond this initial 'discipleship', and you are left alone with the work that you have to do, that you have chosen and the reality is "that whatever needs to be done, must be done by yourself"...we would all want some shortcuts, some quick approval and to have things without hard work, in every sphere of life...you are alone with yourself and your own work, there are no shortcuts in anything...in that spirit, now please check today's spiritual people talking about enlightenment etc...it sounds like peeling some potatoes, it's piece of cake, and you even don't know what are the ingredients for the cake to make, yes, maybe the ingredient is you, yourself, and your self-removal and negation of the false ego and personality, so that you can leap beyond into the vastness of emptiness and light...small things and things that are here, near, are already the things to be worked upon, distant enlightenment is just nice mind-projection and imagination of what you shall achieve in some distant future while neglecting and not-seeing what is in front of your eyes all the time...

    F. Nietzsche, "Human, All Too Human":

    Enemies of truth . Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

    Delight in oneself . "Delight in an enterprise," they say; but in truth it is delight in oneself, by means of an enterprise.

    The life of the enemy . Whoever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy`s staying alive.

    Fantasy of fear . The fantasy of fear is that malevolent, apelike goblin which jumps onto man`s back just when he already has the most to bear.

    Martyr. The disciple of a martyr suffers more than the martyr.

    Idealists` delusion . All idealists imagine that the causes they serve are significantly better than the other causes in the world; they do not want to believe that if their cause is to flourish at all, it needs exactly the same foul-smelling manure that all other human undertakings require.

    Not too deep . People who comprehend a matter in all its depth seldom remain true to it forever. For they have brought its depths to the light; and then there is always much to see about it that is bad.

    from "Also Sprach Zarathustra":

    I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may perish through a small matter: thus he goes willingly over the bridge.

    I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgets himself, and all things are in him: thus all things become his down-going.

    I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causes his down-going.

    I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowers over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and perish as heralds.
  • %5BDeleted+User%5D[Deleted User] May 2011
    Posts: 0
    Romane,
    byl jsem s tebou kdysi v Indii, ale to s tebou byla ještě řeč.
    Sleduji tě v poslední době a tvé výlevy - jsi nechutný mystifikátor a hlavním důvodem toho je (i když si to nepřiznáš), že jsi zhrzený, zklamaný a neúspěšný exsvámí.
    Stydím se za to, že takový nevděčný ztroskotanec jako jsi ty, je také Čech. Nemáš vůbec ponětí, kvůli čemu doopravdy spustil Čitánand svoji očerňovací kampaň a ty ho teď v tom ještě hloupě a trapně podporuješ. Jednou se budeš kousat do jazyka až se dozvíš motivy a celé pozadí Čitánandovy kampaně.

    Petr
  • Chava May 2011
    Posts: 45
    translation of the first message from Peter to Roman:
    Roman,
    I have been with you in India long time ago, in that time it was possible to speak with you.
    I am observing you in last time and your outbursts - you are disgusting mystificator and the mail reason for it is (even though you don´t admit it to yourself), that you are lovelorn, disappointed and unsuccessful ex-swami.
    I am ashamed of that such an ungateful loser as you is also Czech. You don´t have even an idea because of what Citananda started his smear campaign and how you are supporting him in that foolishly and embarrassingly. Once you will bite your own tongue when you learn motives and whole backround of Citananda´s campaign.
    Petr

    Next Peter´s message from 2:53 I will try to translate in the evening, hope to have a time for it. Chava
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    ----------------
    there is a long tradition and notion that enlightened people don't have sex, they are beyond it, they are not subject to the longings of the body, they know how to restrain themselves and if they realized the Truth and all those sayings that are reapeated thorughthe periods of time "that I am not the body" etc...than how come this things happen,,,and who said that if you are realized/enlightened etc., that you won't still smoke, eat sweets, swear, have sex etc (it is clear form several from some authors that to have a spiritual experience or some sort of enlightenment doesn't mean your nature is tranformed; there are stages they say, partial enlightenments but that does not neccesarily mean that you are going to be even more ethical person than you already are; there is no certain evidence that just by some enlightenment you will be the possessor/knower of the Absolute Truth and you will beome all-knowledgeable in everything; there is one brutal story of a medieval priest who used to write such a deep mystical poems but through the day he was responsible for poisoning many people etc...and in the evening he would write his poems and by reading them you wouldn't say that this man doesn't have no experience...), and in spiritual literature of the most hardcore style, sex is out, forbidden, should be avoided etc...well there should be some explanation here and nobody delivers it...probably it's just some rationalization like in this jokeof Osho:
    An old Chinese man is walking down the road when he comes across a small Chinese boy who is cutting his nails. "Little boy," says the old man, "stop cutting your nails!" The small boy looks up at him and then carries on cutting his nails.
    "Little boy," repeats the old man, "I say, you stop cutting your nails!" Again the boy looks up at him and then continues cutting his nails.
    "Little boy," exclaims the old man, "why when I have told you to stop cutting your nails do you carry on?"
    "Because my neighbours beat their child," replies the boy.
    "But what has that got to do with you cutting your nails?" asked the old man.
    "What has cutting my nails got to do with you?"

    No real reason is there, but if you repeat a certain thing for thousands of years people become conditioned to it, they start thinking that it really is a reason. A rationalization can appear as a reason if repeated too often, and India is very repetitive: it has been repeating the same nonsense for thousands of years.
    http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Zen_Zest_Zip_Zap_and_Zing/Osho-Zen-Zest,-Zip,-Zap-and-Zing-00000008.html

    ...because everyone can fail on the most touchy and slippery subject which is sex...and for spiritual reasons it was always a taboo, not really reflected upon...just mere repeatings without making some substantial explanation of what is the main weakness of it and why does the whole spirituality depend on the infrastructural pillar of sexuality and in what way it is connected to the Spirit and makes the Spirit feeble...

    ...it is definitely understandable without any deep explanations if somebody decides for seclusion and some sort of spiritual practice that he will avoid all unneccesary actions which will only defocus him in his/her pursuits,,,and on the other side you have traditions that use the sexuality as a means etc...

    ...we urinate, defecate and have sex..they are the functions of the body...when masters do it (we usually don't see that) than it's like shock...does master really defecate? that only shows that we all in our dealings with people see this ideational image, this minimal fantasmatic screen before our eyes and suspend the human in front of us , seeing him not only in his Real of the bodily functions, but see him/her through this ideational image of a 'virtual' person...

    anyway...it's not sex that is the problem but if you give and have rules and you break your own rules than why are the rules there...there are hardcore schools that explicitly prohibit sex, and if guru has sex than what is the message,,,somebody is fooling somebody....let's simply put all those high figures down to the real earth, as we put them up to the sky in the first place, with our psychological consent of accepting the role of the disciple and role of a guru, as who are wallowing in the mud of ignorance and immaculatness of the guru figure (which is a socio-symbolic function, not only a self-representational thing standing on its own, rooted in some concrete actuality beyond the function itself) and simply acknowledge our common humanness,,,and if we can not perceive and recognise someone who is a true guru/beyond human, than we can not judge ourselves, as we don't have the instruments nor capacity to recognise someone as something which supposedly surpasses our humanness,,,

    again, my opinion is that the gurus "also" fall under the schemes and traditions, things that are accepted for centuries, the rules and the laws and as human beings, they also become split in relation to the Law, which means they also become 'victims' of the system, formal structure of rules that are layed upon and in human weakness/freedom? are broken down...

    it seems that more or less, males are the ones who always wanted to transcend, excluded women, prohibited sex and automatically things were rationalized and finally became the truth...follow the rules and nobody knows why...just follow them and you will get there...

    have sex if you want but than let's not play this game of division, either sex or god, or either woman or god etc...whoever will seek the truth, whatever it may be, she or he will do it regardless of rules, neither will one who has a orange or a black robe give him or her any more realization of understanding just for the mere fact of joining the monk-club...if they want it,,than it's ok,,,but neither those who have sex, have less privilege/capability to know, than those who don't have it, neither the ones who have robes have any more privilege to become bigger (inner) renunciates than those who are not officially renunciates of some order...

    many of those roles are just social functions like other roles in life and they serve the social agenda and not only the hardcore discovery of Absolute Truth...what if that discovery entails to break with the tradition, whatever it may be...not breaking as if destroying it,,but in upgrading it...going beyond it...but by serving the established orders it does not mean that the higher truths (whatever that is) will be discovered...
  • batawebatawe May 2011
    Posts: 409
    and I am speaking here in general terms, as I am questioning myself from the structural standpoint--different orders, establishments, the dissemination of knowledge and means to disseminate them, like universities etc...but here we have guru-disciple relationship which in its less or more rigid forms comes predominantly from India...and the social and psychological function it plays in the society of a specific culture...

    but this social structure and its structural disposition of a Master-Slave, is ingrained in all Symbolic relations, up to the president on top of the country or a state...and we all payed a Symbolic price, for our Freedom/or Slavery?, even for a President to Exist at all---
  • someonefromhungary May 2011
    Posts: 334
    “I am dependent on what and how I think because I speak accordingly and I act accordingly. I am turned inside out. By the fact that I exist, I am forced to think and to speak, and to act. To behave as a person. I have to become personal and there is no escape from this personalness. Nothing can be hushed up, and if it can, it will only have an effect on me. We cannot adduce others and we cannot adduce objectivity. The only thing we can adduce is passion but even that adduction is unnecessary as it is obvious anyhow. Noone helps and noone prompts and noone will tell, and it is like as if this whole world would only exist to cover it from my sight. Yet, I have to give an answer to it. Yes or no. I have to answer immediately, without hesitation.” (Béla Hamvas: Maayaa)
  • joyriver May 2011
    Posts: 101
    "I only have to answer to another human being. The highest principle is to be respectful and responsible to you, o beautiful human. There is no god above you and me. And there is god, when I love you and when you love me... No fire of hell will burn me, nor you. The only thing that hurts as fire is your harsh word, your disrespect, your denial of ME being equal to YOU." (Brina Roza)
  • someonefromhungary May 2011
    Posts: 334
    Reply to @joyriver: :) :) :) :)
  • someonefromhungary May 2011
    Posts: 334
    "
    Behind the mask of love I find my innate selfishness. What a predicament I am in if someone asks, "Do you really love me?" I can't say yes without saying no, for the only answer that will really satisfy is, "Yes, I love you so much I could eat you! My love for you is identical with my love for myself. I love you with the purest selfishness." No one wants to be loved out of a sense of duty.

    So I will be very frank. "Yes, I am pure, selfish desire and I love you because you make me feel wonderful—at any rate for the time being." But then I begin to wonder whether there isn't something a bit cunning in this frankness. It is big of me to be so sincere, to make a play for her by not pretending to be more than I am—unlike the other guys who say they love her for herself. I see that there is always something insincere about trying to be sincere, as if I were to say openly, "The statement that I am now making is a lie." There seems to be something phony about every attempt to define myself, to be totally honest. The trouble is that I can't see the back, much less the inside, of my head. I can't be honest because I don't fully know what I am. Consciousness peers out from a center which it cannot see—and that is the root of the matter.
    "
    (Alan W. Watts: The Joyous Cosmology)
  • PallasAthene May 2011
    Posts: 246
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

In this Discussion

Devotees' testimonies:

Devotee #1

---------------

Devotee #2

---------------

Devotee #3

---------------

Devotee #4 - Contact: valika.balazova@centrum.cz

---------------

Devotee #5 - Contact: synapseproblem@yahoo.de

---------------

Devotee #6

---------------

Devotee #7

SiteLock