Open Source Kriya

[forestofclarity]

For the yogis and pranamayans out there, it looks like Kriya Yoga has been open sourced:

 

Kriya Secrets Revealed by J.C. Stevens (step by step guide with pictures, I have this book)

 

Kriya Yoga by Ennio Nimis (the free version; similar material, but much harder to read)

 

 

 

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Thanks for the link man.

 

I've skimmed a little, quite interesting.

 

If I only had time to read all this stuff!

 

XXX

...

Edited April 29, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Creation]

There is a very experienced kriyaban on the AYP forum. His thread (where he posts as kriyawit and later Experientialknowing) here:

http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12849

is a very enlightening read.

 

He recommends Swami Nityananda Giri's book over the books mentioned in the OP, as you can read here:

http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13604

 

Thanks for bringing this topic up.

[amoyaan]

this is neat, thank you! I've always been very curious about Kriya yoga since reading Autobiography of a Mystic years ago....well, listening to it, I downloaded the audio book. I may check this out.

 

Does anyone here practise KY?

[Satya]

I have practised it in the past (you can read my practice history in the lobby).

 

It did result in a good amount of presence, bodily awareness, but, that could have been just doing Ujjayi breathing for extended periods.

 

Now I'm re-starting Kriya practice, in accordance with my previous initiation and the stevens, ennio nimis and nityananda books (mainly stevens and ennio at the moment).

 

Obviously from the post, I've got all 3. I've read part 1 and most of part 2 of ennio's book and am dipping in and out of the stevens one; I'm not doing a thorough read of the stevens one ATM as the course [to me it seems anyway] starts as if for a beginner, so I've skipped between bits, but I'm also reading it linearly at the same time (as I like to know I've covered a book properly). The nityananda one just arrived the other day and I've dipped into it. I intend to read this one cover to cover too, but it's quite dense and only get's to the practice about 3/4s of the way in, if not further.

 

The practice bits that I have read don't read as clear as either the nimis or stevens book, but I guess that's due to english being a second language for nityananda; BUT, for theory, the nityananda book looks very interesting (from preliminary reads), going into detail that I haven't heard or seen before re: Kriya Yoga, energy/Prana, specifics of prana, Prana Vidya.

 

I'll be updating about my practice on my latest thread probably http://thetaobums.com/topic/34480-looking-into-new-practices-for-mental-health-enlightenment-and-then-perhaps-immortality-;-in-woteva-order-formerly-taoist-systems-of-practice/ , but I'm unsure about a lot of things at the moment, looking at many different practices/theories/techniques, so we'll see. I'd be interested to hear from more/any Kriya practitioners who have a good Neidan/Taoist Internal Alchemy knowledge.

[dwai]

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.

 

Edited April 28, 2014 by dwai

[Satya]

People may disagree with me here, because there seems to be a general support of the idea of a teacher on the forums, but I'm not going against that idea/support with the below, teachers are needed/important/great, but I'm stating that, I don't think secrecy is ever a good thing, and that it creates dark spaces/shadows in which corruption, inaccuracies and out right lies can form. Ironically, one of the main reasons for secrecy in the past - to ensure accurate execution of technique - doesn't only seem to not be effective in preventing this improper technique from being practiced (information always gets out), but conversely, through faux teachers/organisations etc forming, secrecy seems to be actually CAUSING situations where improper technique is performed. The past reasons for secrecy largely don't apply anymore. I think that all techniques should be open (with disclaimers), to prevent corruption, lies, improper technique etc. Spiritual practices are about finding out what is True. In my opinion, secrecy goes against the very heart of this.

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.

If you haven't already, if you read part one of Ennio's online books: http://www.kriyayogainfo.net/ you'll see that "seeking out a bona fide teacher" can often be a bit of a minefield when it comes to Kriya Yoga. A particular point to highlight, specifically one organisation that most people go to as a first port of call when looking into Kriya Yoga, teaches a technique that pretty much ALL the other teachers/organisations disagree with (open mouth breathing during Kriya pranayama/spinal breathing), a technique that is seen to be highly ineffective.

 

In my opinion, teachers are important, they're useful, and masters (Enlightened People [unless you don't believe in enlightenment]) obviously, are also important, for pointing the way. However, secrecy of techniques provides a breeding ground/the possibility for many bogus teachers, many charlatans and wasted time, efforts and sometimes even damage for the seeker.

 

I don't think secrecy is EVER a good thing (unless necessitated for protection, like people hiding Jewish people in WW2). Why the reasons for secrecy in the past? Well, just a few theories: when a lot of these ancient traditions were formed, many people couldn't read or write, so vocal transmission from teacher to student and so on, was the only option in a lot of cases.

Also, perhaps, historical phenomena like the salem witch trials, the spanish inquisition and other such occurrences resulted in secrecy to prevent persecution of the practitioners.

 

An additional theory, that doesn't look so favourably on spiritual traditions, is that techniques are kept secret so people can make money. Obviously there are a huge number of teachers who are honest, true, brilliant beings, so, this doesn't apply to a lot of them.

 

The main reasons for secrecy/lineage I see most people say are: Getting transmission from the teacher (but arguably, if a technique is effective, then surely transmission isn't needed, but provides a pointer/goal for which a practitioner can aim for), and specific instruction (to ensure you do the practice correctly, so you don't do any damage, and you get maximum results).

 

Now, most everyone can read and write, so, clear instruction can be given through the written word. Yes, it's good to clarify technique with a more experienced teacher if you're unclear/or perhaps as a general rule, but, also, the same Truth/True-Self/Inner Guru/Tao lives in all of us, flows through all of us, IS us, so, given the descriptions, I think that once people attune to that, then often they can work it out for themselves. If instructions are written with meticulous clarity, then there's not much that can't be learned from the written word. In addition, these days we've got DVDs to show real life demonstrations of practices.

 

Teachers = great, Gurus = great, but secrecy is not so great. All techniques should be out in open (with disclaimers about not practising without a teacher) so people can see if what they're getting is genuine and do research on practices to find the most effective one, and/or, get to the routes and find out what the true original techniques are.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Satya

[dwai]

People may disagree with me here, because there seems to be a general support of the idea of a teacher on the forums, but I'm not going against that idea/support with the below, teachers are needed/important/great, but I'm stating that, I don't think secrecy is ever a good thing, and that it creates dark spaces/shadows in which corruption, inaccuracies and out right lies can form. Ironically, one of the main reasons for secrecy in the past - to ensure accurate execution of technique - doesn't only seem to not be effective in preventing this improper technique from being practiced (information always gets out), but conversely, through faux teachers/organisations etc forming, secrecy seems to be actually CAUSING situations where improper technique is performed. The past reasons for secrecy largely don't apply anymore. I think that all techniques should be open (with disclaimers), to prevent corruption, lies, improper technique etc. Spiritual practices are about finding out what is True. In my opinion, secrecy goes against the very heart of this.

If you haven't already, if you read part one of Ennio's online books: http://www.kriyayogainfo.net/ you'll see that "seeking out a bona fide teacher" can often be a bit of a minefield when it comes to Kriya Yoga. A particular point to highlight, specifically one organisation that most people go to as a first port of call when looking into Kriya Yoga, teaches a technique that pretty much ALL the other teachers/organisations disagree with (open mouth breathing during Kriya pranayama/spinal breathing), a technique that is seen to be highly ineffective.

 

In my opinion, teachers are important, they're useful, and masters (Enlightened People [unless you don't believe in enlightenment]) obviously, are also important, for pointing the way. However, secrecy of techniques provides a breeding ground/the possibility for many bogus teachers, many charlatans and wasted time, efforts and sometimes even damage for the seeker.

 

I don't think secrecy is EVER a good thing (unless necessitated for protection, like people hiding Jewish people in WW2). Why the reasons for secrecy in the past? Well, just a few theories: when a lot of these ancient traditions were formed, many people couldn't read or write, so vocal transmission from teacher to student and so on, was the only option in a lot of cases.

 

Also, perhaps, historical phenomena like the salem witch trials, the spanish inquisition and other such occurrences resulted in secrecy to prevent persecution of the practitioners.

 

An additional theory, that doesn't look so favourably on spiritual traditions, is that techniques are kept secret so people can make money. Obviously there are a huge number of teachers who are honest, true, brilliant beings, so, this doesn't apply to a lot of them.

 

The main reasons for secrecy/lineage only I see most people say are: Getting transmission from the teacher (but arguably, if a technique is effective, then surely transmission isn't needed, but provides a pointer/goal for which a practitioner can aim for), and specific instruction (so to ensure you do the practice correctly, so you don't do any damage, and/or get maximum results).

 

Now, most everyone can read and write, so, clear instruction can be given through the written word. Yes, it's good to clarify technique with a more experienced teacher if you're unclear/or perhaps as a general rule, but, also, the same Truth/True-Self/Inner Guru/Tao lives in all of us, flows through all of us, IS us, so, given the descriptions, I think that once people attune to that, then often they can work it out for themselves. If instructions are written with meticulous clarity, then there's not much that can't be learned from the written word. In addition, these days we've got DVDs to show real life demonstrations of practices.

 

Teachers = great, Gurus = great, but secrecy is not so great. All techniques should be out in open (with disclaimers about not practising without a teacher) so people can see if what they're getting is genuine and do research on practices to find the most effective one, and/or, get to the routes and find out what the true original techniques are.

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.

[Satya]

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.

Ennio Nimis has released his book for free, online, and regularly updates it, putting a lot of time and effort into the writing, without receiving ANY financial return; compare this to some who claim to be "bona fide teachers" who create organisations around Kriya (which Lahiri Mahasaya specifically said NEVER to do) and receive large sums of money for Kriya initiation.

 

Putting information out there doesn't stop the need for good teachers/gurus and doesn't stop initiations occurring, but actually prevents sincere seekers from coming across faux teachers/gurus.

 

I maintain, I don't think secrecy is ever a good thing, unless if protecting someone from harm. You could argue that keeping powerful practices secret prevents harm, but, A: as I said, putting the information out there with disclaimers, not to practice without checking with experts would largely prevent this (and information still gets out, regardless of secrecy) and B: I mean, overt harm, like protecting an individual.

[dwai]

Ennio Nimis has released his book for free, online, and regularly updates it, putting a lot of time and effort into the writing, without receiving ANY financial return; compare this to some who claim to be "bona fide teachers" who create organisations around Kriya (which Lahiri Mahasaya specifically said NEVER to do) and receive large sums of money for Kriya initiation.

 

Putting information out there doesn't stop the need for good teachers/gurus and doesn't stop initiations occurring, but actually prevents sincere seekers from coming across faux teachers/gurus.

 

I maintain, I don't think secrecy is ever a good thing, unless if protecting someone from harm. You could argue that keeping powerful practices secret prevents harm, but, A: as I said, putting the information out there with disclaimers, not to practice without checking with experts would largely prevent this (and information still gets out, regardless of secrecy) and B: I mean, overt harm, like protecting an individual.

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.

[Satya]

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)?

I think sincere time and effort in seeking out and performing a technique is paying a price of effort, no? It doesn't matter where the information is sought from, IMO. Seeking out the information in books is still 'paying a price'.

 

But, regardless, I don't think that anyone should have a monopoly on anything, especially information that points to Truth.

 

Surely everyone is entitled to Truth, the Truth of themselves? And shouldn't have to pay any price to find this Truth? Of course, apart from the price of giving up illusion.

 

It's all One, Brahman, Tao, God. Does/can anyone own anything? Doesn't everyone have equal right to all things?

 

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.

I understand the idea behind the secrecy of course, but as I said in my prior post, secrecy in my opinion has caused more harm than it has prevented in this instance. There are many tails of misery, poor mental health and addiction throughout various Kriya organisations (as I already said, Lahiri was strongly against forming organisations around Kriya), possibly caused by dissemination of ineffective techniques that people practice sincerely and diligently for years with poor results (wondering what's wrong with them, why they're not getting anywhere), OR, in some instances, completely incorrect techniques.

 

Some secret organisations around Kriya even teach through written lessons ANYWAY, so, why not have it out in the open?

 

And, like I said in the previous posts. A lot of the previous reasons for secrecy are no longer legitimate. With DVDs, the internet, skype, telecommunications, a majority of humans able to read and write etc, there's not much that can't be taught through non person to person means. Like I said before, teachers are still hugely important, but, I don't think that secrecy in this context (or any, unless protecting from harm) is ever a good thing.

 

I don't have time to watch the video right now, but I'll attempt to give it a look at some point.

[Satya]

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.

Yes, but that doesn't exactly apply here. The two situations are quite different. Information Technology, resulting in products etc is quite different from information/knowledge itself. YES, anything can be commodified, but, that still doesn't mean that all information should not be freely available.

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.

First and Second: Transparency allows the True source of the knowledge to be known MUCH more than secrecy does. Secrecy creates uncertainties, various different sects and schools that all come up with their own 'Truth' about sources and creations, original ideas etc. This results in the True source of knowledge becoming twisted, clouded and unknown.

 

By being open and transparent this both highlights the direct source of the knowledge, rather than circumventing it, and results in the possibility of the complete acknowledgement of the original source.

Both are a tremendous loss for this world and for Indians in general.

The above shows the previous argument to be incorrect. And, I don't think that any person, country, organisation should have a monopoly on any thing. Truth is universal. I agree that it's nice/can be important to acknowledge the specific route and the identity of the original walker who got to the top of the mountain (the top being Truth), but, like I said/have shown, secrecy doesn't help this, but rather hinders it, resulting in issues/sources getting shrouded in mystery, allowing false prophets/greedy opportunists to come forward and lay claim to this path/Truth/technique.

 

To repeat. Teachers are great and important, but I don't thin that secrecy is ever a good thing.

 

Hope you're not getting argumentative vibes from this, that's not how I'm writing/not how it's intended. Just trying to explore issues and end up in what's best/good/True.

[dwai]

I think sincere time and effort in seeking out and performing a technique is paying a price of effort, no? It doesn't matter where the information is sought from, IMO. Seeking out the information in books is still 'paying a price'.

 

But, regardless, I don't think that anyone should have a monopoly on anything, especially information that points to Truth.

 

Surely everyone is entitled to Truth, the Truth of themselves? And shouldn't have to pay any price to find this Truth? Of course, apart from the price of giving up illusion.

 

It's all One, Brahman, Tao, God. Does/can anyone own anything? Doesn't everyone have equal right to all things?

 

I understand the idea behind the secrecy of course, but as I said in my prior post, secrecy in my opinion has caused more harm than it has prevented in this instance. There are many tails of misery, poor mental health and addiction throughout various Kriya organisations (as I already said, Lahiri was strongly against forming organisations around Kriya), possibly caused by dissemination of ineffective techniques that people practice sincerely and diligently for years with poor results (wondering what's wrong with them, why they're not getting anywhere), OR, in some instances, completely incorrect techniques.

 

Some secret organisations around Kriya even teach through written lessons ANYWAY, so, why not have it out in the open?

 

And, like I said in the previous posts. A lot of the previous reasons for secrecy are no longer legitimate. With DVDs, the internet, skype, telecommunications, a majority of humans able to read and write etc, there's not much that can't be taught through non person to person means. Like I said before, teachers are still hugely important, but, I don't think that secrecy in this context (or any, unless protecting from harm) is ever a good thing.

 

I don't have time to watch the video right now, but I'll attempt to give it a look at some point.

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.

Edited April 28, 2014 by dwai

[Satya]

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.

No, I don't see Truth as a "commodity". Truth is Truth, Truth is "What Is", Truth is: God, Buddhahood, Allah, Tao, Brahman.

 

Techniques COULD be seen as a commodity, but I don't exactly see them that way either. Though, I, and countless others, have experienced/known/seen that people do monopolise or at least attempt to monopolise information (techniques are information). For example, most ALL of the Kriya organisations are doing, by definition, EXACTLY that, they are attempting to monopolise the Kriya technique, saying that their and their Kriya alone, is the "True Kriya", and all others are false.

 

I don't think monopolies (except for the board game) or secrecy are ever a good thing. Open source/transparency prevents such occurrences.

The Truth is always there. What is needed is a method to get to it.

Indeed (even the method of no method).

 

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.

I mostly agree. Systems have been created and used, maybe for some not over thousands of years (we don't know how some techniques originated and can't know), but, I think in some instances they came directly from one Sage/Master/Guru, deep in contemplation. Though, this is irrelevant. I agree that this is largely the case.

These so-called "Open source" and "secular/free" sources are rendering this organic richness of the traditional systems completely defunct.

This is where I disagree. As per my above points, I think I clearly illustrate how secrecy often results in more harm than good. Perhaps not in all traditions where it is easy to trace lineages to find true masters, but, Kriya is one particular lineage that has MANY different organisations and teachers, each claiming to be the "ONLY TRUE KRIYA". I'm sure there must be similar instances involving other lineages/techniques.

 

Transparency and openness enables the organic richness of these techniques and systems to be properly maintained, prevents faux gurus from teaching false techniques, and results in sincere seekers being able to know whether or not the technique that they have learnt from a teacher/the teacher themselves, is genuine.

 

Open information doesn't stop the lineages from existing, people still go to teachers, and many will probably always shun learning from open sources, but, I'm not necessarily talking about learning from open sources (as I think I have clearly outlined), but simply that information should be open and freely available.

 

Driving = the technique. Information on driving = Information on technique. Instructor = teacher. Open field = sincerity, good amount of time, patience.

 

There's loads of information freely available on how best to drive a car. But, people don't just get in a car and drive on the roads. This would be dangerous. They need an instructor to show them what to do. Though, some are lucky enough to own their own land, and this enables them the space to safely practice without an instructor. In addition to reading information, they'll still probably have the odd lesson with an instructor, but, with the information being freely available, they can know whether or not what the instructor is teaching them is safe/legal, and then, whether the instructor knows what they are talking about and can be trusted.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Satya

[dwai]

No, I don't see Truth as a "commodity". Truth is Truth, Truth is "What Is", Truth is: God, Buddhahood, Allah, Tao, Brahman.

 

Techniques COULD be seen as a commodity, but I don't exactly see them that way either. Though, I, and countless others, have experienced/known/seen that people do monopolise or at least attempt to monopolise information (techniques are information). For example, most ALL of the Kriya organisations are doing, by definition, EXACTLY that, they are attempting to monopolise the Kriya technique, saying that their and their Kriya alone, is the "True Kriya", and all others are false.

 

I don't think monopolies (except for the board game) or secrecy are ever a good thing. Open source/transparency prevents such occurrences.

Indeed (even the method of no method).

 

I mostly agree. Systems have been created and used, maybe for some not over thousands of years (we don't know how some techniques originated and can't know), but, I think in some instances they came directly from one Sage/Master/Guru, deep in contemplation. Though, this is irrelevant. I agree that this is largely the case.

This is where I disagree. As per my above points, I think I clearly illustrate how secrecy often results in more harm than good. Perhaps not in all traditions where it is easy to trace lineages to find true masters, but, Kriya is one particular lineage that has MANY different organisations and teachers, each claiming to be the "ONLY TRUE KRIYA". I'm sure there must be similar instances involving other lineages/techniques.

 

Transparency and openness enables the organic richness of these techniques and systems to be properly maintained, prevents faux gurus from teaching false techniques, and results in sincere seekers being able to know whether or not the technique that they have learnt from a teacher/the teacher themselves, is genuine.

 

Open information doesn't stop the lineages from existing, people still go to teachers, and many will probably always shun learning from open sources, but, I'm not necessarily talking about learning from open sources (as I think I have clearly outlined), but simply that information should be open and freely available.

 

Driving = the technique. Information on driving = Information on technique. Instructor = teacher. Open field = sincerity, good amount of time, patience.

 

There's loads of information freely available on how best to drive a car. But, people don't just get in a car and drive on the roads. This would be dangerous. They need an instructor to show them what to do. Though, some are lucky enough to own their own land, and this enables them the space to safely practice without an instructor. In addition to reading information, they'll still probably have the odd lesson with an instructor, but, with the information being freely available, they can know whether or not what the instructor is teaching them is safe/legal, and then, whether the instructor knows what they are talking about and can be trusted.

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.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

I maintain, I don't think secrecy is ever a good thing, unless it is to protect someone from harm.

 

Yes.

 

This is an initial stage of U-Turn.

 

Yes.

 

To repeat. Teachers are GREAT and important, but I don't think that secrecy is ever a good thing.

 

Yes.

 

I don't think monopoliez (except for the board game) or secrecy are ever a good thing.

 

Yes!

 

Ha ha ha!

 

I will consider efforts such as these as being plagiariZm pure and simple.

 

Great artists steal!

 

X Act Lea.

 

XXX

...

Edited April 29, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[forestofclarity]

For my part, I find that the more I practice, the more faith I have in things that are not my own ego, intellect, or body-mind. We human beings are poor judges because we lack complete information, living as we do in such a small sliver of the totality. If Kriya Yoga is a divine path, then clearly the divine has brought it to the public.

 

I see two possibilities: 1) the practice will not be effective or fruitful, in which case it will die out and be forgotten OR 2) the practice will be effective and fruitful, in which case it will continue.

[dwai]

For my part, I find that the more I practice, the more faith I have in things that are not my own ego, intellect, or body-mind. We human beings are poor judges because we lack complete information, living as we do in such a small sliver of the totality. If Kriya Yoga is a divine path, then clearly the divine has brought it to the public.

 

I see two possibilities: 1) the practice will not be effective or fruitful, in which case it will die out and be forgotten OR 2) the practice will be effective and fruitful, in which case it will continue.

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.

Edited April 29, 2014 by dwai

[3bob]

most everything along (the purpose's) of these lines has long been available as an openly given teaching through two words and their meaning - Love/compassion

Edited April 30, 2014 by 3bob

[Satya]

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?

Earn knowledge to help find the Truth of ourSelf. I think it's a birthright of any being. There's no one that does not deserve it. I think it's a bit exclusive to say otherwise.

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.

Of course, with genuine masters and teachers this is a useful approach. But, now, what often needs to be 'spent', rather than time, is money (people have busier lives now perhaps/there are more specialists these days); the problem here is, if someone spends a lot of money on an initiation, and time practising it, it could turn out to be bogus, or harmful, if they are unfortunate enough to be charmed by a charlatan.

 

Open information enables people to determine if a teacher is genuine. It doesn't get rid of the need for good teachers, but helps weed out the fake/'bad' ones.

 

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).

Kriya isn't "already an open system. And, to repeat, with Kriya a lot of systems have been altered so they are either possibly too weak to have good benefit, or, if there is a bad/false teacher who's just got some information and starts off on their own to make money without knowing what they're doing, then they can teach stuff that's too strong. So, again, secrecy does not ensure safety.

 

Having practice information out in the open enables people to know what's a genuine practice and what's safe/not safe.

 

In the books I have come across where practices are outlined, there are always strict instructions/warnings for what practices to do/not to do/wait to do. Of course people can ignore these, but that's their own doing.

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.

In a way, there are no mechanisms like this in place because bringing in legalese/litigation into matters of finding our True Self/Truth/Self seems at one end inappropriate and a coming from a limited viewpoint of needing to control "What Is/Life/The One" - which of course goes against the enlightened perspective (which entails realising Truth/Oneness, letting go of all attempts to control and realising there's nothing separate from you to control anyway), and at another end it seems outright ridiculous.

 

Also,

 

"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."

 

Though, transmission/passing of technique/information/knowledge can now occur in many different ways, due to modern developments (as mentioned in one of my first replies to your objections of free/open information). So, now a teacher can pass on the same knowledge that they did vocally, through CD/DVD or book. There were no printing presses, DVD or CD players in ancient China/India to do this. Now there are. For the many reasons that modernisation/technology has mucked up the world, this is one of the good outcomes, free, open, easily, widely available information and communication. Evolution, progress.

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".

Yes, not for the purpose of preventing plagiarism, but just for the purpose of being able to certifiably know/determine what an original practice was, something like this would perhaps be a good thing. Then a techniques alterations could be tracked and the original known. This way, someone could know they were getting the original Kriya teaching. If Lahiri Mahasaya had registered the technique, then, the true source could be known for sure, but, he didn't. He is a Master, so, I'm sure he knows what he is doing (not trying to control what is), but, perhaps before he left this physical plane, he didn't know that SO many different variations of Kriya would form, all purporting to be the only, one, true Kriya Yoga. But, still, some might find this a limited/ego approach.

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.

If there were lawyers around at the time of the ancient masters to verify patents/etc on information, then, this could be workable viewpoint/approach. However, there weren't and we all stand on the shoulders of giants, of the people before us who paved the way, and there are countless individuals who have contributed to these systems, so, the issue of plagiarism, in a way, goes out the window. Now, with modern formulations, it can be done easily. I don't know what I think about it in the modern context. On one hand if a person has come up with a technique that works, and has spent a long time practising/researching to formulate it and they have no other means of financial support, then it seems right that they receive contributions for their work. In this modern instance, then a techniques origin can be known, and, people don't have to spend lots of money trying to find the original/best/true KAP, or Kunlun system, because they can easily find the source.

 

On the other, I still think open information/discussion/non-secrecy is a good thing. But, still, these modern formulations are openly discussed in the real world between people I'm sure. Taking the technique and teaching it by yourself without authorisation is one thing, but talking about it is another, and I don't think these strict views of secrecy apply in a modern context.

 

All of my prior points remain. Secrecy largely leads to more harm than it prevents.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Satya

[Satya]

If Kriya Yoga is a divine path, then clearly the divine has brought it to the public.

Yes, the One/Brahman knows what it's doing. To say otherwise is the arrogant, limited viewpoint that is Un-enlightenment (I currently suffer from this viewpoint often, with shoulds and shouldn'ts about my life/the world).

By that logic, McDonald's burgers are also divine, in that they are cheap, they provide calories and billions eat them every day.

Nothing is not One/Divine. That's what Non-Dual Truth/Brahman is. Everything.

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.

Most people don't have this gift to detect what's effective and not effective (rather than good or bad). So, to have open information so they can know if a technique works or not and then know whether a teacher is genuine is valuable.

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.

I think greater good generally involves the greater number of people.

 

The greater good is for information to be open, free, to help people find Truth and avoid charlatans.

 

I understand where you are coming from Dwai, that there are good reasons for secrecy in some instances, but, A: many of these reasons no longer apply with modern technological development, freedom of speech and freedom to pursue any religion/spiritual tradition that we want (no burning at the stake for us). And, B: When it comes to, specifically, the practice of Kriya Yoga, it's a bit complicated. With techniques in lineages of renunciants/monks/sannyasins, etc, then there were specific schools that people stayed in all their lives, learning from text and teacher, ensuring that systems stayed intact.

 

With Kriya Yoga, as it was formulated/brought to the world as a lightning path, to take the householder to God/Truth, the same systems/logistics/processes didn't apply/weren't in place, and now, what we've got is a load of various schools and/or teachers, all purporting to teach the one, true Kriya Yoga, and many of them are different and some of them are even bogus.

 

In this complex situation, opening up the information allows individuals to know what works/what's true/where the deviations lie, the different approaches, what teachers/organisations to avoid and then they can make up their own mind, without wasting valuable time, or money on bogus systems.

 

Ennio Nimis was actually granted permission to teach Kriya in one of his lineages, but having been on such a roller-coaster ride, involving a lot of disappointment, insult, uncertainty and disparate and/or ineffective practices, he decided to write about his experience and release it for free, to help save a lot of other people from falling into the same traps that he did.

 

I think he has done the world a service in writing his books. I would have liked to have seen a practice manual from him, but, he and Stevens are good friends, so, Ennio's many years of experience, I'm sure, contribute to the Stevens book. And regarding Nityananda, I think it's brilliant that a Swami with deep insight has written a book elucidating on the theories and specific in-depth, underlying processes of Kriya Yoga. I think that it's an incredibly valuable resource that the world/Kriyabans, advanced or novice, deserve.

 

Releasing information doesn't stop the need for teachers, it just helps people avoid the bogus ones.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Satya

[3bob]

_{Brahman chooses Brahman, Brahman reveals Brahman, man does not choose and then get Brahman as other things are gotten.}

 

_{Much can be corrupted and misled within the manifest, thus Brahman unfailingly chooses and reveals to the Brahman in those open to Grace and that have passed (or one might say earned a passing grade) on the tests of possible corruption and being misled in the manifest. -Something has gotta give and it won't be the truth of Brahman.}

Edited May 2, 2014 by 3bob

[dwai]

Yes, the One/Brahman knows what it's doing. To say otherwise is the arrogant, limited viewpoint that is Un-enlightenment (I currently suffer from this viewpoint often, with shoulds and shouldn'ts about my life/the world).

Nothing is not One/Divine. That's what Non-Dual Truth/Brahman is. Everything.

Most people don't have this gift to detect what's effective and not effective (rather than good or bad). So, to have open information so they can know if a technique works or not and then know whether a teacher is genuine is valuable.

I think greater good generally involves the greater number of people.

 

The greater good is for information to be open, free, to help people find Truth and avoid charlatans.

 

I understand where you are coming from Dwai, that there are good reasons for secrecy in some instances, but, A: many of these reasons no longer apply with modern technological development, freedom of speech and freedom to pursue any religion/spiritual tradition that we want (no burning at the stake for us). And, B: When it comes to, specifically, the practice of Kriya Yoga, it's a bit complicated. With techniques in lineages of renunciants/monks/sannyasins, etc, then there were specific schools that people stayed in all their lives, learning from text and teacher, ensuring that systems stayed intact.

 

With Kriya Yoga, as it was formulated/brought to the world as a lightning path, to take the householder to God/Truth, the same systems/logistics/processes didn't apply/weren't in place, and now, what we've got is a load of various schools and/or teachers, all purporting to teach the one, true Kriya Yoga, and many of them are different and some of them are even bogus.

 

In this complex situation, opening up the information allows individuals to know what works/what's true/where the deviations lie, the different approaches, what teachers/organisations to avoid and then they can make up their own mind, without wasting valuable time, or money on bogus systems.

 

Ennio Nimis was actually granted permission to teach Kriya in one of his lineages, but having been on such a roller-coaster ride, involving a lot of disappointment, insult, uncertainty and disparate and/or ineffective practices, he decided to write about his experience and release it for free, to help save a lot of other people from falling into the same traps that he did.

 

I think he has done the world a service in writing his books. I would have liked to have seen a practice manual from him, but, he and Stevens are good friends, so, Ennio's many years of experience, I'm sure, contribute to the Stevens book. And regarding Nityananda, I think it's brilliant that a Swami with deep insight has written a book elucidating on the theories and specific in-depth, underlying processes of Kriya Yoga. I think that it's an incredibly valuable resource that the world/Kriyabans, advanced or novice, deserve.

 

Releasing information doesn't stop the need for teachers, it just helps people avoid the bogus ones.

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?

[3bob]

"The problem with most of these "free" lessons is that they don't care for the health and safety of the practitioner." By Dwai

 

Also how many westernized yoga studios does walk into and see the teachings of yama and niyama posted front and center?

I'd say forget about most of the energy stuff except for that related to normal and balanced health through very basic hatha yoga for without yama and niyama we would be mostly getting way ahead of ourselves. (at least I know I would and it seems to be very prevalent at this site considering the number of posts on kundalini and so forth...)

Edited May 5, 2014 by 3bob

[Seth Ananda]

No one is 'entitled' to anyones information, regardless of the subject, unless it was always legally meant to belong to 'everyone'..

 

I have a ton of stuff in my head that relates to 'freedom' and the 'spiritual quest' and no one is automatically 'entitled' to it, just by virtue of wanting it.

 

Also the secret stuff i have learned stays secret as I keep my word. The only grey area for me is when things become public knowledge that were once secret, and occasionally it starts to seem trite to bother with the secrecy anymore.

Still though there are a few things that have finally entered print that for the unready are very unstabilizing and potentially dangerous, and I still wont share them, 'just because' someone wants them.