Yoga Is A Sex Cult!

[RyanO]

Yes it takes two

They might have even trapped him with their sexual wiles - that still doesn't make it right.

Why the need to defend him and bring in the church - religion etc.

I agree with you re religion.

He was teaching yoga - he has the responsibility of a teacher.

This has nothing to do with religion.

Some were his married employees.

 

Yup. Deeply ingrained in the system he was not only teaching, but that he created, was a code of ethics that he broke.

 

So I'll reiterate as others have said that the big issue is hypocrisy.

 

And of course, the fact that it was sexual hypocrisy touches some very deep nerves.

[Immortal4life]

What a Pimp. Maybe I should drop Chi Kung and switch to Yoga lol.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Do some googling.

 

There is too much BS out there, therefore, hard to believe what I find. Hence, why I asked if there were good resources.

[Aaron]

In this case he was the institution. See my reference above Wikipedia

So because other people abuse their students makes it alright - don't think so

 

I never said it makes it right or wrong, you're implying a moral context there. I am much more concerned in whether his actions harmed himself or someone else in an objective evaluation.

 

Yoga is every bit as much a part of religion as any other institution. This is no different than buddhist paying for instruction from a rinpoche. The fact that there is no organized sect within Yoga, doesn't mean it's not an organized religion, it is very much so, in that it has an organized ideology, code of ethics, etc. If you choose to exclude it from the list of religions, that's fine, but I would like some documentation regarding how it is different.

 

This man offended society, certainly, and he obviously caused harm, which is harmful, but in the same light, was it entirely his fault? Did the people he sleep with agree, then suddenly claim innocence later? Don't be so quick to judge is all I'm saying. He is just a human being, so treat him as such. There was nothing that made him special, people chose to treat him that way.

 

Again, the problem is not the individual but the institution. If a man kills another man, do we just blame the knife or hand? Do we just blame the arm? No we blame the whole man, and in this case the whole man is the religion, practice, and person. They all three had a part in this, whether intentionally or not.

 

Aaron

[mYTHmAKER]

I never said it makes it right or wrong, you're implying a moral context there. I am much more concerned in whether his actions harmed himself or someone else in an objective evaluation.

 

Yoga is every bit as much a part of religion as any other institution. This is no different than buddhist paying for instruction from a rinpoche. The fact that there is no organized sect within Yoga, doesn't mean it's not an organized religion, it is very much so, in that it has an organized ideology, code of ethics, etc. If you choose to exclude it from the list of religions, that's fine, but I would like some documentation regarding how it is different.

 

This man offended society, certainly, and he obviously caused harm, which is harmful, but in the same light, was it entirely his fault? Did the people he sleep with agree, then suddenly claim innocence later? Don't be so quick to judge is all I'm saying. He is just a human being, so treat him as such. There was nothing that made him special, people chose to treat him that way.

 

Again, the problem is not the individual but the institution. If a man kills another man, do we just blame the knife or hand? Do we just blame the arm? No we blame the whole man, and in this case the whole man is the religion, practice, and person. They all three had a part in this, whether intentionally or not.

 

Aaron

 

If I ever get in trouble I want you to be my lawyer.

I will consider this your closing argument.

The jury is out and will most likely stay that way.

BAM!!! BAM!!! BAM!!! I missed the first time

[三江源]

.

Edited October 23, 2015 by 三江源

[dwai]

I never said it makes it right or wrong, you're implying a moral context there. I am much more concerned in whether his actions harmed himself or someone else in an objective evaluation.

 

Yoga is every bit as much a part of religion as any other institution. This is no different than buddhist paying for instruction from a rinpoche. The fact that there is no organized sect within Yoga, doesn't mean it's not an organized religion, it is very much so, in that it has an organized ideology, code of ethics, etc. If you choose to exclude it from the list of religions, that's fine, but I would like some documentation regarding how it is different.

 

This man offended society, certainly, and he obviously caused harm, which is harmful, but in the same light, was it entirely his fault? Did the people he sleep with agree, then suddenly claim innocence later? Don't be so quick to judge is all I'm saying. He is just a human being, so treat him as such. There was nothing that made him special, people chose to treat him that way.

 

Again, the problem is not the individual but the institution. If a man kills another man, do we just blame the knife or hand? Do we just blame the arm? No we blame the whole man, and in this case the whole man is the religion, practice, and person. They all three had a part in this, whether intentionally or not.

 

Aaron

 

Well, if you are out in the jungle and a tiger attacks you, do you blame the tiger or the jungle?

:0

Its the same thing...you are blinded by your hatred towards religion. I don't have a problem with that...but you tend color everything with the same brush (more like tar and feather)....I have a problem with such irrational "rationality"

[Apech]

[Aaron]

Well, if you are out in the jungle and a tiger attacks you, do you blame the tiger or the jungle?

:0

Its the same thing...you are blinded by your hatred towards religion. I don't have a problem with that...but you tend color everything with the same brush (more like tar and feather)....I have a problem with such irrational "rationality"

 

Hah... I don't hate religion. Where did you get that impression? I just see it for what it is. It's a way to control people. Must I continue to count the ways? There is no hate in it. I do not hate christians, buddhists, hindus, or muslims, nor do I hate religions either, rather I hope for a future free of it, when men and women can begin to live their lives according to a higher state of being, one intrinsically tied to their original nature.

 

You call it irrational rationality, but I call it an intuitive understanding of a harmful and manipulative ideology, one that is ingrained within society. Lao Tzu agreed with me and stated that it was one of the lowest forms of virtue, so I'm not alone in this respect. Go ahead and try to mar my comments with impressions of spite and hatred, but you wont find it.

 

Two weekends ago I spent the night around a campfire with thirty hardcore Christians. They spoke of Christ and prayed and I never said a thing against them. There are some people ready to hear what I have to say and others that aren't. That's the fact of the matter.

 

If you're ready you'll understand, if you're not you wont. It's as simple as that. I wont be quiet to appease those who aren't ready and forsake those who are. It's really as simple as that.

 

Aaron

Edited March 8, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Eh, cultivation of teh v. 'being led by the balls'.... same old same old....

 

This is really the crux of this entire thread, and a point everyone is missing. Men have an innate desire for sex, as do woman. Can you understand how allowing someone to have control over others on such an intimate level allows people to take advantage of others? Not you per se Cat, I'm just asking everyone in general.

 

If you can understand this, then perhaps you wont look at him as being so evil and despicable. I'm CERTAIN many of the men on this forum would probably fall to the same weakness if put in that position. My answer to this dilemma is to not put people into this position.

 

Women teach women, men teach men. That's a very simple answer. Men are not celibate, nor are women, that is a second answer. Sex is not treated as sacred, but rather as a way for humans to interact on an intimate level.

 

This kind of crap never occurred in Polynesia, well not until Europeans and Asians showed up at least. Why is that? Because sex wasn't a sacred act of god, but a joyful act one shared with another. The Polynesians commonly had sex as a way of saying hello. No love was attached to it, love was thought to hold a much higher place than simply a physical act. You loved your loved ones, not because of the sex they could provide, but because they held a deep place within your heart.

 

That's the problem here, our perverted concepts of sex and love. Once we sort that out, everything else can fall into place.

 

Aaron

Edited March 8, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

To say that what this guy did is anything to do with Yoga (Hatha or Tantric) is the mistake. What he did is to do with being an ordinary person in the ordinary world ... that is he behaved just like thousands of others do in the same circumstance whether they are gurus or politicians or anything else where they find themselves in a position of power. Power is an aphrodisiac they say and most people abuse it.

 

I am NOT saying this to excuse him ... lying and cheating is wrong. What I am saying is that the article is wrong in that it seems to imply that there is something 'wrong' about yoga. Or something about it that makes poor sexual behavior more likely. If you did a statistical survey (if such a thing were possible) you would probably find that there is more of this kind of thing going on everyday in workplaces, political parties, Wall Street, the Whitehouse and so on.

 

I note this

 

could it be that this article is a good plug for his book!!!!!

 

So the criticism should not be that he did yoga but that he didn't do enough.

 

On a personal note, one of my best friends, who is a woman and yoga instructor, left her husband for one of her students. I've yet to hear anyone speak ill of her decision (especially me). She's much happier now and so is her son. The fact was her husband was an ass, she met someone younger and more kind, who paid attention to her. It's apples and oranges, but my point is that when one is instructing someone else, there is an intimate bond. You can't expect things not to happen, or the human heart to be dictated to by rules, order, and dogma, emotion always wins out in the end.

 

Also, modern yoga has little to do with sex, but you ask any young man if they want to have coffee at the shop across from the yoga studio and they'll all say yes. Why is that?

 

Aaron

Edited March 8, 2012 by Twinner

[suninmyeyes]

Twinner , by reading your further responses it seems that your point of view has a lot of some kind of utopian flavour. What we have now and can work with now is whats important.

What you say about Polyinesians having sex as way of saying hello and not nurturing longlasting loving relationships is fine for Polynesians at that time, I havent done research on subject so cant comment further. However this would certanly cause different kinds of problems if it was a norm on my way to work. Intimate sharing is intimate sharing , I wouldnt want to be intimate with my neighbour and a lot of different other males for sure, thank you very much. Not my cuppa.

Not everyone has a very strong sexual urges either ,some may prefer being intimate just in a loving relationship.

During a hard core communist periods they were saying that 'love is only for burgois' . Love had negative connotations and sex was considered a natural function , but this hardened so many people.

We are discussing here is not wherether sexual freedom is OK or not , it is how [you do it, under which pretex and about abuse of personal power . This cant be all put under the same bracket(as I tried to explain earlier), sex is not just sex. It does include certain codes of conduct and consideration in this society.

Personally I am all for common sensical codes of conduct. They keep society in one peace and can be sobering and much needed points of reference if someone severly lacks common sense. Definitions are needed so the boundaries are not crossed and people dont get mistreated. Otherwise the physically stronger ones, the more powerful ones would always be in a position of power .

I also dont think anyone here feels that the guy is evil (as you mention in one of the posts),we are just discussing human behaviour , which may help us all to gain different perspective and maybe deeper understanding of some sort.

Just like to finally add that IMO - yes ,there is right and wrong in this relative world and if we want to keep the fire burning just right we better live by those , till respect becomes our natural drive.

[Apech]

On a personal note, one of my best friends, who is a woman and yoga instructor, left her husband for one of her students. I've yet to hear anyone speak ill of her decision (especially me). She's much happier now and so is her son. The fact was her husband was an ass, she met someone younger and more kind, who paid attention to her. It's apples and oranges, but my point is that when one is instructing someone else, there is an intimate bond. You can't expect things not to happen, or the human heart to be dictated to by rules, order, and dogma, emotion always wins out in the end.

 

Also, modern yoga has little to do with sex, but you ask any young man if they want to have coffee at the shop across from the yoga studio and they'll all say yes. Why is that?

 

Aaron

 

Lycra (spandex)?

[三江源]

.

Edited October 23, 2015 by 三江源

[Apech]

I have a spooky feeling that they will go for coffee because of their natural human urges for sex which are natural and not sacred and shouldnt be shrouded in guilt by religion.

 

Some people are Star-girls and others Star-bucks.

 

OK I'll shut up now.

[dwai]

Hah... I don't hate religion. Where did you get that impression? I just see it for what it is. It's a way to control people. Must I continue to count the ways? There is no hate in it. I do not hate christians, buddhists, hindus, or muslims, nor do I hate religions either, rather I hope for a future free of it, when men and women can begin to live their lives according to a higher state of being, one intrinsically tied to their original nature.

 

You call it irrational rationality, but I call it an intuitive understanding of a harmful and manipulative ideology, one that is ingrained within society. Lao Tzu agreed with me and stated that it was one of the lowest forms of virtue, so I'm not alone in this respect. Go ahead and try to mar my comments with impressions of spite and hatred, but you wont find it.

 

Two weekends ago I spent the night around a campfire with thirty hardcore Christians. They spoke of Christ and prayed and I never said a thing against them. There are some people ready to hear what I have to say and others that aren't. That's the fact of the matter.

 

If you're ready you'll understand, if you're not you wont. It's as simple as that. I wont be quiet to appease those who aren't ready and forsake those who are. It's really as simple as that.

 

Aaron

 

I too am against control and manipulative ideology. But your viewpoint is colored by your western experience. Thats why you should read being different (the book you so vehemently are opposed to).

I have been ready for twenty years...and i never asked you to be quiet. I just noted that the intensity of your feelings are clear despite your attestations otherwise...Lao tzu also said "not too much, not too little"

[mYTHmAKER]

There is too much BS out there, therefore, hard to believe what I find. Hence, why I asked if there were good resources.

 

So long ago so far away - The best source would be someone who was there - maybe maybe not.

Maybe Essene writings or early Christian sects.

You could always ask a priest or write a letter to the pope.

One interesting thing is that Constantine is long gone so why didn't the church reinstate reincarnation?

Might the resurrection actually be referring to reincarnation?

[Aaron]

I too am against control and manipulative ideology. But your viewpoint is colored by your western experience. Thats why you should read being different (the book you so vehemently are opposed to).

I have been ready for twenty years...and i never asked you to be quiet. I just noted that the intensity of your feelings are clear despite your attestations otherwise...Lao tzu also said "not too much, not too little"

 

When is it too much or too little? Who gets to decide? You? Me? Lao Tzu? Buddha? I'm at a loss. Perhaps we should just do what we feel is right, remembering that our aim is to do no harm to others or ourselves?

 

I really don't hate religious people, nor do I hate religion itself, because religion only really exists in the mind. It's very hard to hate an abstract concept. I try not to hate things at all, but I can still disagree, and even passionately disagree, so long as it does not detract me from my daily life, or my practice. If this means I'm attached to this idea, so be it, after all I'm not advocating detachment, but rather the dissolution of this notion of self we're taught to perceive.

 

Again, my life is focused on returning to my original nature and for me, that does not occur with religion. I don't want to be told what truth is, I want to discover it for myself. So long as I accept everything I'm told as truth without examining the nature of things outside of my preconceived notions, I can never be sure if what I'm experiencing is the root of my nature, or simply what I've been programmed to experience.

 

Even more important to me is remembering that these ideas are not the real me, but just a created persona that interacts with the world, the original me is absent of them. To understand my original nature, I must be free of all these constructs and stop learning new constructs. I must examine the world and my nature to understand the mystery of mysteries and understanding that mystery will allow me to understand my own original nature so that I can be like the newborn babe once more.

 

Aaron

Edited March 8, 2012 by Twinner

[dwai]

When is it too much or too little? Who gets to decide? You? Me? Lao Tzu? Buddha? I'm at a loss. Perhaps we should just do what we feel is right, remembering that our aim is to do no harm to others or ourselves?

 

I really don't hate religious people, nor do I hate religion itself, because religion only really exists in the mind. It's very hard to hate an abstract concept. I try not to hate things at all, but I can still disagree, and even passionately disagree, so long as it does not detract me from my daily life, or my practice. If this means I'm attached to this idea, so be it, after all I'm not advocating detachment, but rather the dissolution of this notion of self we're taught to perceive.

 

Again, my life is focused on returning to my original nature and for me, that does not occur with religion. I don't want to be told what truth is, I want to discover it for myself. So long as I accept everything I'm told as truth without examining the nature of things outside of my preconceived notions, I can never be sure if what I'm experiencing is the root of my nature, or simply what I've been programmed to experience.

 

Even more important to me is remembering that these ideas are not the real me, but just a created persona that interacts with the world, the original me is absent of them. To understand my original nature, I must be free of all these constructs and stop learning new constructs. I must examine the world and my nature to understand the mystery of mysteries and understanding that mystery will allow me to understand my own original nature so that I can be like the newborn babe once more.

 

Aaron

 

The paradox of freedom is not in absence of constructs (categorical frameworks) but in awareness of their existence and their limitations.

 

One cannot be free without understanding the relationship between absolute and relative. Also, one cannot access the absolute without abiding in the relative. So, there is no escaping the categorical frameworks...we have to know how to choose which one to use based on context and condition.

 

 

[Birch]

So long ago so far away - The best source would be someone who was there - maybe maybe not.

Maybe Essene writings or early Christian sects.

You could always ask a priest or write a letter to the pope.

One interesting thing is that Constantine is long gone so why didn't the church reinstate reincarnation?

Might the resurrection actually be referring to reincarnation?

I reckon ressurection is referring to the post-awakened person.

 

---sorry OT---

 

I don't know anything about reincarnation as it doesn't exist where I'm at.

[Birch]

There's a book out on "Atheism 2.0" by Alan (sp?) de Botton that argues that interesting stuff can be hacked from religion and put to good use in secular society.

Of course that's already being done by smartypant elitists but I suppose it's worth a gander.

[3bob]

true religion and true nature go hand in hand, there is no separation.

[三江源]

.

Edited October 23, 2015 by 三江源

[Aaron]

If you look hard enough you can find something beneficial in everything. Even poison has its uses, that doesn't mean we're not better off without them. I hate it when people say, "it's not all bad." It's kind of like having your hand chopped off and saying, "it only hurts when I try to do anything."

 

Aaron