Tantra - reincarnated thread

[I, Brian]

Hi Andreas, and welcome to CR.

Interesting replies so far across the threads - glad to have you aboard.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Andreas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Andreas

Namaskar,

Religious or sectarian people will always try to maintain that one type of mysticism is different from theirs or that one type of Tantra is different from another. Tantra however is a science and science is not concerned with such religious bias.

let's talk about this for a moment. what do you feel that "science" is? what is the scientific method and does it apply to Tantrik practice?

The goal of Tantra is liberation from all bondage. One stage is to reach the state of Saguna Brahma (qualified realised state) or Nirvana and the next stage is to reach the state of Nirguna Brahma (unqualified realised state) or Maha-Nirvana.

indeed... Tantrik practice is concerned with liberation. in my tradition, we call these by different terms... generation and effect stages.

The last step from Saguna to Nirguna Brahma can only be bridged with the help of a Maha-Kaula or Taraka Brahma Himself.

this is the role of the lama or guru in my tradition.

Whether you see the mind as expanding into "Nothingness" or into the Infinite Supreme Consciousness is not very relevant for spiritual progress except that the vehicle of Bhakti Yoga ( developing Love for the Supreme) can help you in speeding up the process of spiritual emancipation.

Andrew

i don't see mind expanding into anything or joining any type of consciousness, universal or otherwise. mind cannot see mind like a sword cannot cut itself. of course, i speak from the Buddhist perspective on this so our views may differ to some degree.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Andreas

So are you saying we don't need to follow any instructions or advice from someone who went there before us? Then why do you need to read any book at all about spirituality? Maybe one should just go sit on a mountain and wait for it to happen, is that what you're implying?

You answered my question. As long as we are caught up in the dimensions of time, place and person, we need to strive for liberation. We are already a part of that vast (non-dualistic) ocean of Consciousness, but caught up in the dream that is our individual consciousness (dualism).

Namaskar Andrew,

As you've percieved, maybe even where I wasn't aware of it, I do think a certain amount of striving towards "liberation" is healthy and perhaps necessary for recognizing the ultimate reality of things. Yet, there is striving and striving; it seems to me--from my personal experience--that we as human beings can get so caught up in one system of practice that we become focused to the point of distraction and miss the point. So, I think that exclusively pursuing one system of practice, as with the Guru system, is dangerous, lest we, caught up and perhaps subdued by the peaceful and spiritual flow of our practices, miss the greater point that no matter how hard we strive, we are not going to get anywhere, we are not going to merge in anything, because we are, and always have been, where we are going, fully "merged" just as we are. And, maybe that is a difference in point of view, as you suggestsed when you mentioned "Non-dualistic Dualistic Non-dualism" (what a mouthful!! ) vs. "Pure non-dualism."

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Pathless

. Yet, there is striving and striving; it seems to me--from my personal experience--that we as human beings can get so caught up in one system of practice that we become focused to the point of distraction and miss the point.

Namaste Pathless,

ah.. wu wei. striving without striving... though, i rather perfer the translation of effort without intention....

now.. interestingly enough.. this is almost completely opposite of the Buddhist approach of my tradition.... we are encouraged to explore the various traditions and to determine which one speaks to us most clearly... we are then encouraged to take up the practice to the exclusion of other practices. we should learn about the other practices and traditions, though.

for my school, this is the point of comitting to the path of liberation for all sentient beings.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Andreas

However I do know that some aspect of the description of Taraka Brahma I know coincide with what Krishna says about Himself in the Bhagavad Giita.

I am aware of the Ananda Marga position that Anandamurti, Krishna and Shiva are all different manisfestations of "Taraka Brahma." However, what I am not aware of and what I am curious about is whether or not "Taraka Brahma" per se is mentioned in other Hinduistic literature. Although I was familiar with the Gita before I came across Ananda Marga, I had never heard of the "Taraka Brahma" concept before. Nowhere in the Gita, to my knowledge, does it make any direct mention of this concept. When you say, "I do know that some aspect of the description of Taraka Brahma I know coincide with what Krishna says about Himself in the Bhagavad Giita," you are simply stating that the way Krishna describes himself allows him to be categorized as Taraka Brahma, which to my knowledge is a unique term to Ananda Marga phiolosophy.

Originally Posted by Andreas

Your technique of twisting is very clever. I admire that. Nevertheless I maintain that separating science, even when it is an introspective science, does not make sense.

I was not (and still am not) trying to twist your words against you in vindictive spirit, but I was trying to point out that when a person sets his or her preferred system apart from others, whether he uses claims of relgion or science to do so, he is still setting it apart and creating distinctions. Maybe "bias" was a strong word to use, but usually when people do practice one system over another, they do so because they feel that it is superior in some way.

Pathless

[Avinash]

Vajradhara Namaskar,

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

what do you feel that "science" is? what is the scientific method and does it apply to Tantrik practice?

In objective science data are gathered with the help of our senses and certain conclusions are drawn from the measurements we have taken.
In subjective or introspective science however the mind or individual consciousness (I-feeling) is the laboratory and we use it to explore and change or liberate the mind itself. By cleansing the chakras and expressing samskaras our minds are elevated to more subtle levels untill a stage is reached when we can go beyond the gunas alltogether.

There is a certain lifestyle you can follow with certain practices that will further this process. This lifestyle is called Dharma. The techniques have been developed over thousands of years by yogis and tantrics and have been proven to work. The proof is in the many who have attained emancipation in this way.

Therefore it is a science and not a religion or beliefsystem. The side-effects such as all kinds of powers (not to be used) show us that it is not some kind of imaginative thing but that matter is controlled by (and indeed is made from) Consciousness. The link between matter and consciousness is found in the Microvita, but that's another subject-matter.

this is the role of the lama or guru in my tradition.

In the Tantric teachings of Ananda Marga only the Maha-kaulas are recognized as Taraka Brahma. I have explained what a Maha-kaula should be able of doing.

i don't see mind expanding into anything or joining any type of consciousness, universal or otherwise. mind cannot see mind like a sword cannot cut itself. of course, i speak from the Buddhist perspective on this so our views may differ to some degree.

I know the Buddhist perspective from a friend who is a member of the Western Buddhist Order of Dennis Lingwood (Sangharakshita). The perspective is indeed somewhat different but this may have little influence on spiritual progress, it's our actions that matter, not our understanding of metaphysics.

Andrew/Avinash

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Andrew,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Andreas

Vajradhara Namaskar,

In objective science data are gathered with the help of our senses and certain conclusions are drawn from the measurements we have taken.
In subjective or introspective science however the mind or individual consciousness (I-feeling) is the laboratory and we use it to explore and change or liberate the mind itself.

hmm... science is objective... if we're talking subjective experiences, we aren't talking about science.. at least from the western view of this topic. science is concerned with material phenomena and really doesn't even attempt to address the immaterial in any direct fashion. sure, there are atheists that will do so, however, science, as a linga franca, does not.

the interested reader is directed to this site for more information on the scientifc method:
http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/tea...ncemethod.html

By cleansing the chakras and expressing samskaras our minds are elevated to more subtle levels untill a stage is reached when we can go beyond the gunas alltogether.

what is a guna?

There is a certain lifestyle you can follow with certain practices that will further this process. This lifestyle is called Dharma. The techniques have been developed over thousands of years by yogis and tantrics and have been proven to work. The proof is in the many who have attained emancipation in this way.

interesting. in our view, Dharma isn't a lifestyle.. it simply is. and we respond to it however we are capable.

Therefore it is a science and not a religion or beliefsystem. The side-effects such as all kinds of powers (not to be used) show us that it is not some kind of imaginative thing but that matter is controlled by (and indeed is made from) Consciousness. The link between matter and consciousness is found in the Microvita, but that's another subject-matter.

it's been argued that science is, itself, a belief system... and fairly convincingly i might add... though i happen to disagree with that view.. it's still a powerful view. the link between matter and consciousness has been discovered in the west as well... are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics?

I know the Buddhist perspective from a friend who is a member of the Western Buddhist Order of Dennis Lingwood (Sangharakshita). The perspective is indeed somewhat different but this may have little influence on spiritual progress, it's our actions that matter, not our understanding of metaphysics.

Andrew/Avinash

it may have little or it may have a lot... i suspect that it depends on the individual being. to a certain extent you are correct... however, it's not really our actions either... at least in the Buddhist view. rather, it's our intentions that ultimately determine if our action is skillful or not. in my Buddhist tradition, however, a firm grasp of the metaphyiscs is emphasized.. especially from the point of view of the Madyamika philosophical school.. which my tradition adheres to. thus, i cannot completely agree with your assessment that understanding of metaphysics has little influence on our spiritual practice.

[Avinash]

Namaskar Vajradhara,

Thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

,
hmm... science is objective... if we're talking subjective experiences, we aren't talking about science.. at least from the western view of this topic. science is concerned with material phenomena and really doesn't even attempt to address the immaterial in any direct fashion. sure, there are atheists that will do so, however, science, as a linga franca, does not.

I did mention that Tantra is a subjective or introspective science dealing with the mind. The present western viewpoint of science is of course different. Ananda Marga is a blending of western and eastern ways of thinking.

what is a guna?

In the creation every entity is made up of three gunas, sattva (I am), rajas (I do) and tamas (I have done). The entities are created from pure consciousness and go through a cycle of creation (Brahma Cakra) where they are first crudified (balance goes in the direction of tamas) and when they reach the point of primitive life, the balance starts moving back towards sattva. Therefore in spiritual practices, mystics will try to move in the direction of sattva (sentience) and finally go beyond the gunas to pure consciousness (without gunas = Nirguna).

interesting. in our view, Dharma isn't a lifestyle.. it simply is. and we respond to it however we are capable.

In some religions they speak of Hindu Dharma or Buddhist Dharma etc. In Ananda Marga, Dharma is seen as the natural (desired) way for a human being (Manava Dharma = human dharma) to move or behave. A human being who doesn't follow their dharma is seen to be not really behaving as a human being should do (they move backwards towars crudification).

it's been argued that science is, itself, a belief system... and fairly convincingly i might add... though i happen to disagree with that view.. it's still a powerful view. the link between matter and consciousness has been discovered in the west as well... are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum Mechanics and things like the Relativity Theory were things that fascinated me in the years before I ran into this tantra-yoga path (they still do). Microvita are not yet a part of western thought, although some knowledge of the crudest microvita (viruses) is already there.

however, it's not really our actions either... at least in the Buddhist view. rather, it's our intentions that ultimately determine if our action is skillful or not. in my Buddhist tradition, however, a firm grasp of the metaphyiscs is emphasized.. especially from the point of view of the Madyamika philosophical school.. which my tradition adheres to. thus, i cannot completely agree with your assessment that understanding of metaphysics has little influence on our spiritual practice.

Intentions always precede our actions. Thoughts (including intentions) are indeed also a kind of action which may beget a reaction. In mysticism it is advised to surrender the I-feeling before any intention/action so it may not beget any reaction. In Ananda Marga they use a special mantra before each action to facilitate this surrender.

Andrew/Avinash

[Avinash]

Namaskar Pathless,

I think it would go too far to argue in detail why I think the above philosophy (the "mouthful) is a good one. As your nickname implies you are pathless like so many New Age people in western society. I'm glad we have that freedom in modern society but I myself need discipline, a proper system and guidance in my life. Because I've always disliked dogma, superstition and ritualism and therefore religion, this is a system where I feel I've found my place, although I never actively searched for this path, it just came along "by chance" (although I don't believe in chance or accident).

Andrew

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Pathless

When you say, "I do know that some aspect of the description of Taraka Brahma I know coincide with what Krishna says about Himself in the Bhagavad Giita," you are simply stating that the way Krishna describes himself allows him to be categorized as Taraka Brahma, which to my knowledge is a unique term to Ananda Marga phiolosophy.

Yes, you may perhaps be right. However this would then not only apply to the term Taraka Brahma but also to e.g. the philosophy of Non-dualistic Dualistic Non-dualism which is also nowhere described in the Gita. Shrii Shrii Anandamurti has argued why the life and teachings of Krishna fits best with this philosophy and not with other types of philosophy (if you're interested I could mention them all).

My question would rather be, why had not Krishna affirmed that Lord Shiva was a similar type of teacher to Himself, since both were Taraka Brahma? Why did only Anandamurti do this for both these Gurus? All I can think of is that the Mahabharata was not written down immediately (though not too long) after Krishna lived and that not all the things He would have taught his tantric disciples would have ended up in the Mahabharata epos.

Besides this, tantric teachings were kept very secret in those days and philosphy didn't play a very large role yet in tantric teachings. That the concept of Taraka Brahma is not mentioned in Hindu scriptures is not surprising but perhaps it is mentioned somewhere in certain earlier tantric teachings.

Many (most?) Hindus believe in avatars and believe that figures/gods like Vishnu, Hanuman, Rama and Saraswati really lived. In Ananda Marga there are no incarnations such as avatars and many stories and their "gods" are seen as mythical stories meant for education. You would presumably have less problems with this, since Buddhism doesn't believe in such things either.

I was trying to point out that when a person sets his or her preferred system apart from others, whether he uses claims of religion or science to do so, he is still setting it apart and creating distinctions. Maybe "bias" was a strong word to use, but usually when people do practice one system over another, they do so because they feel that it is superior in some way.

It would be nonsensical to remain on one path when you are of the opinion that another path is actually better for you. Actually unlike in many religions (I won't mention any), in Ananda Marga there is a recognition that all people who follow dharma are on the same path of bliss. In the literature you can find explanations of the teachings of Buddha and other mystic paths such as e.g. Sufism are seen to be genuine paths of spirituality.

The only things that are criticized are things like dogma, superstition and ritualism, the same things which are rejected in modern western society.

There are other paths like e.g. that of Satya Sai Baba who maintain that all religions are equal. In Ananda Marga the whole concept of religion is rejected (just like in New Age). It is a new ideology, so you cannot blame it for having new ideas that set it apart from religion.

Andrew

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Yes, you may perhaps be right. However this would then not only apply to the term Taraka Brahma but also to e.g. the philosophy of Non-dualistic Dualistic Non-dualism which is also nowhere described in the Gita. Shrii Shrii Anandamurti has argued why the life and teachings of Krishna fits best with this philosophy and not with other types of philosophy (if you're interested I could mention them all).

My question would rather be, why had not Krishna affirmed that Lord Shiva was a similar type of teacher to Himself, since both were Taraka Brahma? Why did only Anandamurti do this for both these Gurus? All I can think of is that the Mahabharata was not written down immediately (though not too long) after Krishna lived and that not all the things He would have taught his tantric disciples would have ended up in the Mahabharata epos.

Besides this, tantric teachings were kept very secret in those days and philosphy didn't play a very large role yet in tantric teachings. That the concept of Taraka Brahma is not mentioned in Hindu scriptures is not surprising but perhaps it is mentioned somewhere in certain earlier tantric teachings.

To my mind, this is all just too pat. It very well may be true, but we'll never know because, as you've pointed out, there are no records that concur with the philosophy of Ananda Marga as laid down by Anandamurti. So, it could be true, but who is to say, when there is no evidence to verify it? And doesn't truth need to be objectively verifiable? When it comes down to the wire, Margis will say that it is true because Baba said so and they trust him as their spiritual teacher. Which is okay if that is what one wants, but to me it seems too wrapped up and concise.

Ananda Marga philosophy is a very good package that makes sense when isolated, but when held up to the light of recorded history, the package appears riddled with holes. For example, when Ananda Margiis talk about tantra, it is always in the way that Anandamurti explained it--as a lost science that has been revised and updated for modern man by Anandamurti. As you have written elsewhere, other Hindu and Buddhist tantras, of which there are apparently quite a variety, are viewed by Ananda Marga as corrupted remants of the original tantra given by Shiva. Yet, again, there is no historical record of this tantra, or to my knowledge, of Shiva, who is said by Anandamurti to have lived 7000 years ago, which I believe would be before any written record. This just seems too convenient.

Originally Posted by Andreas

The only things that are criticized are things like dogma, superstition and ritualism, the same things which are rejected in modern western society.

Yet in Ananda Marga it is expected that each devotee practice meditation twice daily, along with yoga asanas. One is to observe yama and niyama at all times, and the list expands as one gets more lessons and roots him or herself deeper in the practice.

Even more to the point, when Anandamurti states in the "Supreme Command," that "Every Ananda Margii will have to perform sadhana twice a day invariably--verily is this the command of the Lord," I think people would be hard-pressed to say that such a statment does not come across as dogmatic. Just so there is no confusion, here is a dictionary.com definition of dogma.

Dogma: A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

Replace the word "church" with "organization" and it will apply to Ananda Marga. The Supreme Command goes on, as you know; to my mind the dogmatism continues, although I will not quote it right now.

Originally Posted by Andreas

There are other paths like e.g. that of Satya Sai Baba who maintain that all religions are equal. In Ananda Marga the whole concept of religion is rejected (just like in New Age). It is a new ideology, so you cannot blame it for having new ideas that set it apart from religion.

I am of the opinion that Ananda Marga is a religion, as much as Margis would like for people to believe otherwise.

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Pathless

To my mind, this is all just too pat. It very well may be true, but we'll never know because, as you've pointed out, there are no records that concur with the philosophy of Ananda Marga as laid down by Anandamurti. So, it could be true, but who is to say, when there is no evidence to verify it? And doesn't truth need to be objectively verifiable? When it comes down to the wire, Margis will say that it is true because Baba said so and they trust him as their spiritual teacher. Which is okay if that is what one wants, but to me it seems too wrapped up and concise.

Yes, if you distrust your teacher or any other teacher, you will be inclined to distrust anything he or she says. Are the "truths" given by Lord Krishna " objectively verifiable? The evidence lies in the effectiveness of the practices prescribed. If you don't trust them, then look for something better.

Ananda Marga philosophy is a very good package that makes sense when isolated, but when held up to the light of recorded history, the package appears riddled with holes. For example, when Ananda Margiis talk about tantra, it is always in the way that Anandamurti explained it--as a lost science that has been revised and updated for modern man by Anandamurti.

This is by no means a unique approach. There are many reform movements who in one way or another say that their founder has come with a "revised and updated" approach of an older science or path. Are you going to blame all these movements for coming with their own new perspective? Again, if you dislike a perspective then find one which you like better.

As you have written elsewhere, other Hindu and Buddhist tantras, of which there are apparently quite a variety, are viewed by Ananda Marga as corrupted remants of the original tantra given by Shiva.

I have not written anything of the sort. Tantra is a very old science, so it is not surprising that older teachings would have evolved into newer and more varied forms as they met with other paths. In the thousands of years that nothing was written down (no script and great secrecy) many of the oldest teachings would naturally have gradually been lost. I have not used the word 'corrupted'. In fact the cross-fertilization of different branches of tantra is supposed to have been beneficial for the science as a whole.

Yet, again, there is no historical record of this tantra, or to my knowledge, of Shiva, who is said by Anandamurti to have lived 7000 years ago, which I believe would be before any written record. This just seems too convenient.

I'm not asking you to believe or trust what Shrii Shrii Anandamurti says. I'm merely presenting the philosophy that I myself find the most convincing. If archaeological data would be found that could show Lord Shiva lived much earlier or much later than 7000 years ago, I would be glad to accept that.

Yet in Ananda Marga it is expected that each devotee practice meditation twice daily, along with yoga asanas. One is to observe yama and niyama at all times, and the list expands as one gets more lessons and roots him or herself deeper in the practice.

This kind of discipline is by no means unique to Ananda Marga but can be found in many mystical paths. Without any effort little can be gained.

Even more to the point, when Anandamurti states in the "Supreme Command," that "Every Ananda Margii will have to perform sadhana twice a day invariably--verily is this the command of the Lord," I think people would be hard-pressed to say that such a statment does not come across as dogmatic. Just so there is no confusion, here is a dictionary.com definition of dogma.

A dogma is an idea which is not allowed to be questioned but has to be accepted blindly. If a guru says you should practice meditation at least twice a day and he then guarantees you will get results ("those who perform sadhana twice a day regularly, the thought of Parama Purusha will certainly arise in their minds at the time of death, their liberation is a sure guarantee") then you can trust him or not. Again, if you don't trust a teacher, then look for something else.

I am of the opinion that Ananda Marga is a religion, as much as Margis would like for people to believe otherwise.

You obviously hold a different view of what religion signifies. In the view I hold, paths like Buddhism, Ananda Marga and other mystical paths do not come under religion because they will never say that spiritual progress is impossible in other organisations (or without any organisation for that matter) and they will rejects dogmatic ideas, superstitions and other irrational aspects of religion. They also reject the idea that scriptures come directly from God and cannot be extended or questioned.

Andrew

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Andreas

Yes, if you distrust your teacher or any other teacher, you will be inclined to distrust anything he or she says. Are the "truths" given by Lord Krishna " objectively verifiable? The evidence lies in the effectiveness of the practices prescribed. If you don't trust them, then look for something better.

As I've said before, the account of the history of tantra given by Anandamurti seems suspect to me. Sure, you can say I "distrust [my] teacher," but I would expect my teacher to be able to point to some evidence for an event that they are claiming to have occured. I don't put blind faith in my teachers, whether they are teaching spirituality or 1+1.

When you mention the "truths" of Krishna, I assume you are talking about the spiritual truth of the Gita. To my mind, spiritual truths are a different kind of truth than historical truth. They are subjective, verified through personal experience rather than documentation. Although I may meditate and have a profound sense of unity with all things, it is highly unlikely that I will be able to meditate and be presented with a record of Shiva's tantra in 7000 BCE.

You may ask, "Why does such a detail bother you?" It bothers me because, when accepted--and we seem to have come to agreement that, as of yet, there is no reason, outside of what Anandamurti has said, to accept it--it puts Anandamurti in a position of authority. His message is, effectively, that he holds the same position of Shiva and Krishna, who are to be looked upon as saviours of humanity. This implication of authority is one of the things that causes me to view Anandamurti's Ananda Marga as dogmatic.

Originally Posted by Andreas

A dogma is an idea which is not allowed to be questioned but has to be accepted blindly.

In my opinion, this is no less true in Ananda Marga. If I seriously doubt that one needs to perform (Annda Marga) sadhana twice a day regularly and stop doing so, then I have effectively made myself not a Margii anymore. In order to truly be a Margii, one does have to accept certain things. If you question them, no one will kick you out--you are right about that--but Margiis will attempt to persuade you back to the accepted principles. Surely you are not going to tell me that a person who has come to the conclusion that they don't need to do Ananda Marga sadhana twice a day is going to be accepted as a Margii? The dogmas may be more subtle, but they are still dogmas.

Originally Posted by Andreas

I have not written anything of the sort. Tantra is a very old science, so it is not surprising that older teachings would have evolved into newer and more varied forms as they met with other paths. In the thousands of years that nothing was written down (no script and great secrecy) many of the oldest teachings would naturally have gradually been lost. I have not used the word 'corrupted'. In fact the cross-fertilization of different branches of tantra is supposed to have been beneficial for the science as a whole.

My bad. Perhaps I read some meaning into your original post in this thread that is not there. It seemed to me to talk about the diversification of tantra as a mistake, and to speak of a need for unifying the different branches into one. On second glance and with what you have written here, I'm willing to accept that I minunderstood what you intended, and that I read your post with a perception distorted by my own pre-concieved notions.

Originally Posted by Andreas

I'm not asking you to believe or trust what Shrii Shrii Anandamurti says. I'm merely presenting the philosophy that I myself find the most convincing. If archaeological data would be found that could show Lord Shiva lived much earlier or much later than 7000 years ago, I would be glad to accept that.

Okay. See, that would shake my faith in Anandamurti. Suddenly he would lose some ground in the authority department. Really, the crux of the matter for me is, a written record of Shiva's discourses on Tantra from 7000 BCE is never going to be found, because there are not written records of anything from 7000 BCE!

Furthermore, as far as I know, the most we know about Krishna is what is written in the Bhagavad Gita. That book says some very beautiful things, but it does not talk about Tantra.

So, for me, it is a matter of what does Anandamurti ask us to believe about him? When he talks about Taraka Brahma, is he talking about a concept that can be found in records or even in mythology? Or is it something new, a philosophical concept created by Anandamurti? If it is the former, I'd like to be pointed to that; if it is the latter, then it becomes a very powerful tool for a person who wants to exercise moral and spiritual authority.

Originally Posted by Andreas

You obviously hold a different view of what religion signifies. In the view I hold, paths like Buddhism, Ananda Marga and other mystical paths do not come under religion because they will never say that spiritual progress is impossible in other organisations (or without any organisation for that matter) and they will rejects dogmatic ideas, superstitions and other irrational aspects of religion. They also reject the idea that scriptures come directly from God and cannot be extended or questioned.

Yes, I would agree that we hold different views on religion.

[Avinash]

Dear Pathless,

Originally Posted by Pathless

I don't put blind faith in my teachers, whether they are teaching spirituality or 1+1.

His message is, effectively, that he holds the same position of Shiva and Krishna, who are to be looked upon as saviours of humanity. This implication of authority is one of the things that causes me to view Anandamurti's Ananda Marga as dogmatic.

I don't agree with your way of thinking. Where did you read that these personalities were "saviours of humanity"? If you don't see Shiva, Krishna or indeed Anandamurti in this way, then so what? Everyone is free to think what they like.

Such things as e.g. saying that Krishna came to change the destiny of humanity would become a dogma only if you were forced to accept them without the freedom to investigate or (dis)prove them. As this is not the case, they are not dogmas at all and consequently the devotees of Anandamurti cannot be accused of having "blind faith" (no faith is needed to practise tantra-yoga).
A dogma is e.g. that the Bible is God's word because it was inspired by the Holy Ghost and if you don't accept that, you cannot be saved from hellfire.

Surely you are not going to tell me that a person who has come to the conclusion that they don't need to do Ananda Marga sadhana twice a day is going to be accepted as a Margii? The dogmas may be more subtle, but they are still dogmas.

The more I read your words, the more I feel you have a distorted idea about what it means to be "in" Ananda Marga or "out" of it. Every living being in this universe is striving for happiness and is already on the "ananda marga".

And you also seem to have a distorted view of what a dogma is.
I have never heard anyone discuss whether or not someone was "in" or "out" of Ananda Marga nor did I hear any gossip about how well one or the other person was into their practices. Spiritual progress has nothing to do with being in or out of any organisation.

You sound somewhat like a distrustful person. Do you have a problem with organisations or group processes?

I'm willing to accept that I minunderstood what you intended, and that I read your post with a perception distorted by my own pre-concieved notions.
Yes, I would agree that we hold different views on religion.

Perhaps you would be willing to give me a glimpse of your own spiritual practices and/or philosophy of life?

Andrew

[Pathless]

Hi Andreas,

Before this discussion gets too heated and one or both of us loses our cool (I don't like being angry ), let me say that the reason I am debating you on these points regarding Ananda Marga originates from my own dissatisfaction on the spiritual path (not just Ananda Marga, but spiritual path in general). I once invested a lot of time, energy, and emotion into Ananda Marga and it has been difficult for me to realize that perhaps Ananda Marga, as an organization, was not the healthiest place for me to be. I discovered that there are some serious problems within the organization, and I decided that I don't want to be part of that. So, I am not motivated by the urge to create mischief or to antagonize; really, I am just trying to work some things out for myself. Writing my thoughts down, especially in debate, helps me do that. So, thank you for being here. As you say in Ananda Marga, Namaskar.

With that introduction, I will address a later part of your post first, then double-back and reply to some of the other points.

Originally Posted by Andreas

The more I read your words, the more I feel you have a distorted idea about what it means to be "in" Ananda Marga or "out" of it. Every living being in this universe is striving for happiness and is already on the "ananda marga".

When I talk about being or not being a Margii, I am talking more about being active in the organization Ananda Marga, not about whether human beings are naturally striving for happiness and therefore on a generalized "path of bliss." Just as it is true that there are people who are active in the Democratic Party and people who are not active in the Democratic Party (for whatever reason), it is true that there are people who are involved with the organization Ananda Marga and people who are not.

Originally Posted by Andreas

You sound somewhat like a distrustful person. Do you have a problem with organisations or group processes?

I'd prefer not to think of myself as distrustful. Many people that know me may tell you that I am too trusting. I have said in the Baha'i/Ananda Marga thread that I do have a problem with organized religion, and I won't change my tune here. As far as if I have a problem with organizations in general, I'm not so sure; maybe I do.

Originally Posted by Andreas

Where did you read that these personalities were "saviours of humanity"?

Those were my words for what I've experienced of the reverence that Margiis and Anandamurti himself have for Krishna and Shiva. You have said in the Baha'i/Ananda Marga thread (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by Andreas

Taraka Brahma is a philosophical concept from Tantric philosophy to explain the advent of great gurus (Sadgurus) like Krishna and Shiva. They are supposed to have come at times when humanity was in great crises and the many prayers of suffering people caused Taraka Brahma to take a human body to change the destiny of humanity by His example, His work and His teachings. He would then move on to different planets in the universe.

This sounds like the role of a savior.

Originally Posted by Andreas

Such things as e.g. saying that Krishna came to change the destiny of humanity would become a dogma only if you were forced to accept them without the freedom to investigate or (dis)prove them. As this is not the case, they are not dogmas at all and consequently the devotees of Anandamurti cannot be accused of having "blind faith" (no faith is needed to practise tantra-yoga).

Well, I suppose I look at it differently (as you are well aware by now ). I am currently uncomfortable doing Ananda Marga sadhana because I am having trouble believing in Anandamurti. Now, according to you, I should have no trouble at all practicing Ananda Marga tantra-yoga even though I don't have faith in the guru. Yet, how can I do guru puja (offering and surrender to the guru) if I don't have faith? How can I sing kiirtan? Are these things part of Ananda Marga's tantra-yoga practice or are they not?

Originally Posted by Andreas

Perhaps you would be willing to give me a glimpse of your own spiritual practices and/or philosophy of life?

You will probably not be surprised to hear that I do not have much of a system of spiritual practice these days. I do meditate every now and then, but mostly right now I just try to be present in the moment and enjoy life. I aim at experiencing interconnectedness, but I don't have specific techniques that I employ.

As far as a philosophy of life, I guess I'd like to say that I'm not wise enough to have one. But, if pressed, I could tell you that right now I am reading about Vedanta. This is something that I am gravitating towards; it is what you described as "non-dualism." Put in Buddhist terms, it would be the idea that Samsara is Nirvana and Nirvana is Samsara; we just have to somehow recognize and experience such a state. Everything is and always has been perfect; it cannot be otherwise... but in our ignorance we fail to recognize it, and percieve all sorts of trouble for ourselves.