dwai

3Bob is quite right. Sanatana Dharma is ahistorical. There is no dependence on any historic figure or group. There is the question of "prasthana tryayi" (the Tripartite conditions of faith) however. In that, Sanatanis consider the following three objects as infallible - The Upanishads The BrahmaSutras The Bhagavad Gita These point to what is considered valid pramaana (evidence) - in absence of direct experiential knowledge (through sadhana), the words of the three documents are considered to be the guidelines towards Moksha (or liberation/enlightenment).

Hinduism is a cultural and traditional fabric. It is a shared narrative with variations between multiple sections, but in general a closely related family of belief-systems. This is of course my opinion and many might disagree. In short, Hinduism is what is called "Samskriti" in India. Samskriti means tradition, culture. It is also Dharma, which is poorly translated to mean "religion" in English. Dharma is much more than religion to those who are born within the culture. It is nature. It is what is the natural state of being. The Dharma of the flower is smell good, the dharma of the tree is to bear fruits and provide shade, and so on... Indeed the term Hindu was coined by those who lived west of the Sindhu river (Indus) in early historic times. The Hindus themselves called them 'Arya' or Noble ones. We tend to refer to it, internally as Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Dharma).

May be think "I am ignorant?"

"Hinduism" today is an amalgam of Vedic Ritual and the Tantras, agamas. The underlying detail/focus changes depending on whether the practitioner is a Vaishnava (Vishnu devotee) or a Shaiva (Shiva devotee) or Shakta (Mother Shakti's devotee). The underlying practical method too changes with that. For most parts, Hindus follow the upanishadic way in life, though many are unaware of this. Most people in most parts of the world probably cannot understand Advaita (Non-Dual) Vedanta concepts and percepts. Some, like the Madhvas (followers of Dualist Madhvacharya) or the followers of Ramanuja (of vishisthadvaita school) are taught to not accept Shankara's treatises/teachings as "true" teachings. In my opinion, the typical Hindu way is both easiest as well as hardest. It is easiest to follow, but provided you overcome the hard part - of surrendering/letting go/giving in to the divine will - so the Bhakti path is most popular. Also, there are no "hard and fast" institutions/doctrines that we have to follow as Hindus. So, as with myself, I added to the Bhakti aspect, Karma and then Jnana (Advaita Vedanta) to it. I am still primarily a Hindu, but I am also a Daoist (since I find that Vedanta and Daoism are very similar). Does it sound a little "new agey"? Perhaps...though us Hindus don't find any dichotomy in being multiple things simultaneously. Spirituality is not a zero-sums game for us...and there is room for all, respect for all (in most cases i.e.)

I'll give you an analogy of the way a "system" can be presented to the public. My teacher (who was also Forest of Emptiness' teacher) is very good at presenting the concepts of Taiji Quan and Daoism in the context of both application as well as meditation (Dao Gong). Despite his being a senior student of Master Waysun Liao (the primary teacher of Temple Style Tai Chi in the world), and a recognized Master (by Master Liao), he does not freely disseminate this information to the public. He doesn't make videos, doesn't write books, etc - all of which he has both the mastery (of the subject) as well technical capabilities to do. He quietly teaches those who are genuinely interested (and I've seen several students come and go over the 12-13 years I've been his student) - and doesn't hold back. But also gives the teachings appropriate to our individual levels... That is true, selfless, and dedicated service, IMHO.

Then don't call it 'Yoga', call it "Hatha Yoga" or "Asana studio". People fool themselves into thinking they are learning yoga..when they are only learning asana. Which is not a bad thing at all...but is incomplete. Also this leads to over-emphasis on the physical body and it's looks/shape/form. Dare I say, many 'pure hatha yoga practitioners' can be pretty narcissistic and ego-maniacal... I remember a very respected member of TTB asking me to post a video of my "asana" form Is that the yoga? Or is that which happens inside, after pratyahara, dharana and samadhi, yoga?

I think most Western Yoga studios are a travesty. You won't get any arguments from me in their defense.

The biggest fallacy of those who start off on the Advaita path is to align themselves to something that is inherently a realized truth, not a learnt one (i.e. at least not learnt via reading/hearing, etc) - "All ways are same and equal". That is the reason for most whitewashing and appropriation of techniques and wisdom-systems from traditional systems/cultures. I agree that many Eastern Gurus and teachers are partially responsible. But in most cases, those who said it meant it from a different perspective. To say that "roads lead to the same peak", is not the same as saying "all roads are equal in length, or all roads are equally easy". The road you take on your journey defines you, as important as the end might be. So, it is important to take a prescribed path (by a qualified instructor). Why do you think that Sri Lahiri Mahasaya's family members don't disseminate this knowledge freely? Because it is not meant for everyone. There is a concept of "yogyata" (or deservedness/qualification) that is important to understand. Just because you or I feel that we are entitled to certain knowledge doesn't make us prepared for it. I can think of many many analogies to help illustrate my point, but I know you are a smart person so I won't belabor it. If you watch the video lecture I posted (on U-turns), you'll know what I mean. And this is not specifically meant for Kriya Yoga alone. I used to learn Tamil Siddhar Yoga (a similar tradition to Kriya Yoga), and I must tell you that it took me 6-8 months of doing a very monotonous (and what I thought was pointless at that time) exercise before I was taught anything else by my teacher. He called it "Meru Danda Shuddhi" (or purifying the spinal column). I would not be able to handle the energy that certain techniques in this tradition released if I had not relied on my teacher and his ability to assess whether I was "qualified" for the teachings. During the purification sessions, the first 3-4 months, I would get intense pressure in my head (where the energy was working itself up the spine) and i know if I had done anything to release the energy any sooner than I did, I would have damaged myself. The problem with most of these "free" lessons is that they don't care for the health and safety of the practitioner. So, imagine how many people can potentially damage their health if I were to release the techniques to the masses?

By that logic, McDonald's burgers are also divine, in that they are cheap, they provide calories and billions eat them every day. We have to use viveka (power of discriminating good from bad). Moreover, being able to detect things before they actually turn bad is a gift that can be and should be developed with time. With spiritual practice and maturity comes a greater responsibility to see the greater good (not necessarily for greater number of people, but of greater intrinsic virtue) and act/speak (or not act/not speak) about it.

What I'm trying to tell you is you have to "earn" the knowledge. This sense of entitlement that people these days have is false. Why do you DESERVE to have this knowledge? What have you done to earn it? In the old days, people would have to spend a lot of time and effort before they were introduced to the teachings. Why? That way the teachers could validate empirically exactly how sincere and dedicated the student was. It also acted a formative training that was required of the students to learn these techniques. Why? Because that's what the system warrants. That's one aspect of the perspective I'm looking at this from. The other perspective is what I've already covered - "Open sourcing" an already open system (where in you put in the effort and get the knowledge as practiced in the traditional societies such as India or China) is not only redundant, it circumvents the safety mechanisms in the original system (put in place for some of the reasons cited above). In the open source world (i.e. world of IT) when a project is "re-opensourced" like that, its called "forking". However, the caveat is that any development made in the process of "forking" a project get contributed back to the original project as well. Those are the terms of the underlying licensing agreement. Not doing so is a violation of legal agreements between two parties and can result in litigation. There are no such mechanisms in place in case of Yogic and traditional knowledge systems. In the old day, the teacher and student had a tacit (understood) agreement that when the teacher selects a student to transmit his/her knowledge, the student is bound by the same rules of conduct, etc to pass that knowledge on to his/her students. If a body was created with the primary sources of these knowledge systems constituting a steering committee/governing body, and formal legalese formulated to prevent plagiarism of said knowledge (and there are many such plagiarists such as Ken Wilber, etc), I think that could truly be considered as being "open sourced". People who don't understand what "open sourcing" is, tout it as a great thing. Without either a formal legal framework around the protection of the intellectual property (knowledge) or a informal, yet honor-bound tradition of respecting and acknowledging the sources/not appropriating the knowledge and usurping the source, I will consider efforts such as these as being plagiarism pure and simple.

I get the feeling that you think of the "Truth" as a commodity that needs to be "liberated" and that those who have it "monopolize" it. I think that is a faulty position to approach this from. The Truth is always there. What is needed is a method to get to it. The traditional systems of India, China etc have been created organically, over thousands of years, with the work of countless anonymous individuals. With this long traditional perspective, comes a repository of "best practices" that will yield best results for the practitioner, with least or no negative effects. These so-called "Open source" and "secular/free" sources are rendering this organic richness of the traditional systems completely defunct. To make this point a little more clearer, some pharma company tried to patent the use of turmeric and tulsi (holy basil) in medical treatments. This was challenged and patent not approved as use of turmeric and tulsi are both practices that have roots in traditional knowledge systems (ayurveda, etc). That doesn't mean India has a monopoly on the system. On contrary, anyone is free to use it.

This is an initial stage of U-turn. When the Open source movement started in the world of Information Technology, they started with an egalitarian motivation. Within one decade of the movement starting, several multi-billion dollar IT powerhouses emerged from there in. Like I mentioned, my objections are two-fold. First, they are circumventing the source of the knowledge. Second, this will invariably lead to complete negation and eventually denial of the original source. Both are a tremendous loss for this world and for Indians in general.

So you mean to say, you and others are somehow "entitled" to this knowledge and should be able to access this without paying any price (not necessarily monetary - it could be effort and time as well)? The "secrecy" associated with these techniques is for safety of the practitioners more than about control of knowledge. Watch the video I've embedded with my post - it will become clear what I'm talking about.

This raises all sorts of red flags for me. I'd rather Kriya Yoga stay a traditional practice and those who are interested, seek out a bona fide teacher. In the indian diaspora's "Thinker's community", we tend to view such books as the first step to appropriating traditional yogic knowledge. The westerner first learns the tradition as an insider, with a Teacher/Guru spending years teaching them. And then the westerner turns around and "frees" the knowledge, rebrands it and commercializes it (to make some money in the process). After a few generations, all references to the parent tradition (in this case Babaji's Kriya Yoga) will be methodically eliminated and it will get a new "secular" name.

See, the activity on this thread by some individuals seems driven by ego. And wait for the responses to start...

It means don't look for something outside when it's on the inside

Chi kung is all internal and there is nothing external about it. Chi is internal, the gong fu is internal so why force the outside on the inside?

Can a moderator please create a Personal Practice thread for me? I like the format and as someone suggested, it might be a good avenue to keep the trolls away (for a while at least). Thanks, Dwai

Thanks BKA.

sometimes you can use a couple of systems to complement each other. But that calls for significant dedication of time and commitment. So, mostly, I think it's best to stick with one system (at least till you have certain degree of proficiency in it).

Not sure whether this would resonate or not. But, in Temple Style Tai Chi (and Dao Gong), the De is considered to be a part of Dao and within each individual. The De needs to be "awakened" using Taiji and Dao Gong, till it can vibrate in resonance with Dao. De is not a abstract theoretical thing (like Virtue) but a very tangibly existent thing.

From an academic perspective, I see that people can conceptualize things in different ways. Some do it with imagery, some do it with text, some with sound. But usually it is a combination of all. I guess it depends on what someone is putting their emphasis on.

Sometimes things will happen on their own. But imho, there are different practices that do that. For instance, when I was doing Tamil Siddhar Yoga, we would sit in vajrasana and hold specific mudras while doing pranayama with breath holds. And the energy would automatically rise up the spine to the crown point. No visualization was necessary. But there was a lot more physiological effort and training required with that. Taiji And Qi Gong are different in that aspect, because while the form is important, the emphasis should be on energy. There are different schools of thought towards that. The better ones (imho) tend to follow these patterns: 1. Learn the physical forms/movements 2. Once you develop Qi awareness, start using mind to drive qi (i.e. via visualization) 3. Once you have enough coherence developed in your energy, the energy will start moving on it's own (in resonance with the energy "out there") That's why learning Taiji and developing skill usually takes many many years. And every year as the skill improves, we feel like we are actually regressing back to a less-skillful state. And it is a humbling experience, since we tend to think in terms of skill attainment and then practice (go get a degree at your university and you are an expert). IMHO, these internal arts don't really have any end. They are infinite just like the Dao. On second thought, perhaps we are not referring to the same thing when using the term "Visualization". To me, there is fantasizing and then there is visualization. Visualization involves intent (yi). And sometimes it might take a student a while to move from fantasizing to visualization even. But then, that's why we are asked to "relax" while doing internal martial arts. Because relaxation will naturally increase our awareness of Qi flow. Once we are aware of Qi, fantasizing will naturally convert to Yi/visualization.

How do you "know" its there before you can feel it. And where is "there"? And even when you feel it, you are still using the mind to send that feeling to a specific point within your body (or follow a specific path). Why is this not "visualization"? We should be careful to correctly differentiate between visualization and fantasizing. http://www.amazon.com/Imagination-Becomes-Reality-Teachings-Complete/dp/0938045091 Remember, I'm stating this with beginners in mind. It is absolutely silly (imho), to tell a beginner that they shouldn't visualize but feel. Visualization will help beginners kickstart their practice. If I tell you "feel oxygen", can you feel it? Or, "Only if you feel oxygen you should breath". I'm being purposely polemic here. But when it comes to internal arts, there are no set rules beyond the guidelines provided. They have been provided for a reason and they work for a reason.

Which is nearly impossible to do If you don't visualize initially, how do you know where to send the energy?