1665 From: Lumi S Sammallahti  <lsammall@c...>  

Date: Mon Jul 17, 2000 0:55am

Subject: RE: [SY] Greetings + Old Timers

SD: In SY anybody whose kundalini has supposedly passed through their  topmost chakra is called a realised soul. This does not necessarily  mean that they "are aware of reality, ie of the spirit". They do not  even have to feel the 'cool breeze' to be called 'realised souls' in  SY.

Often people come to SY recruitment meetings, receive  their 'realisation', feel nothing, yet are told that they are  now 'realised' even if they don't realise it themselves. I've even  seen such people told that they now have their moksha (liberation).

I found a list of realised poets and authors when cleaning my closets...all right, it is mentioned that some of the authors are not realised but have something to offer anyway (unfortunately it is not mentioned who are realised and who are not). For example these people  are on the list: V. I. Lenin Walt Disney Mao Tse Tung (in brackets though) Arthur C. Clarke (a well-known  pedophile) Barbara Cartland

L: In my humble opinion: This is clearly a nonsense. The problem  comes from a devaluing of terms by Mataji so that SYogis can be said  to have achieved this or that state. Other examples are 'nirananda'  and 'nirvikalpa' which are wrongly translated in SY as 'nothing but  joy' and 'doubtless'. Nirananda means 'without bliss' ie beyond  bliss. Nirvikalpa means 'without any [conscious] mental process' ie not only the cessation of all thoughts (of which doubts are but one class), but the cessation of all feelings (eg joy) and mental representation of sense perceptions (eg vision, hearing, cool breeze).

I became curious, because words can have hundreds of different  meanings in Sanskrit and they can be quite contradictory also. So I  checked 'Nirvikalpa' and 'Nirvicara' in some dictionaries. Nirvikalpa according to MacDonnell is "admitting of no alternative, changeless, free from distinctions, undifferentiated, unhesitating".

According to Apte it is "not admitting an alternative, being without determination or resolution, not capable of mutual relation,  conditioned, undeliberative, recognising no such distinction as that  of subject and object, or of the knower and the known; as applied to  samadhi or contemplation, it is 'an exclusive concentration upon the  one entity without distinct and separate consciousness of the knower,  the known, and the knowing, and without even self-consciousness'".

Yes, a bit different from the sahaja yoga meaning "doubtless" (read:  having blind faith in Mataji). Nirananda according to MacDonnell  is "joyless, sad". Apte says it is "cheerless, sad, sorrowful". Monier-Williams gives the meanings "joyless, sorrowful, sad,  melancholy".

Bohtlingk says "keine Freude habend, von wo die Freude verbannt ist, freudlos, traurig" (quite the same as the other dictionaries) I don't know where that meaning 'nothing but joy' has come. None of  these four dictionaries gave any meaning like this to the  word 'nirananda'. Strange and interesting...should some further  research be made on the terms used in sahaja yoga?

Lumi     1667 From: jglove7@h...  Date: Wed Jul 19, 2000 4:11am Subject: My Experience

  Hi, Inner peace appears to be purely an individual experience. How can we argue with someone who "feels good"? All I can say is that I was  looking for something, and was not satisfied with the different  things I had tried - until I came to Sahaja Yoga.

Then I felt SATISFIED. That is all there is to it. I am no longer "looking" for something. I feel contented, happy, and joyful. When I see Sri Mataji's picture I feel happy inside. When I meet Her, I feel such a joy like I've never felt before. I cannot deny what I FEEL - And yes, it is a "FEELING", - nothing I can prove to anyone, only to myself.

Even if it is, as one of your members states "like a dog and master", the fact that I am feeling happy, good, and nice inside, is  what it's about. Even those in this chat room who complain, feel good  about their complaining – they may explain it as "therapy", etc., - but they still do it because it makes them feel good.

Who knows whether in the ABSOLUTE sense what they are doing is "good" or "bad" for them? All that matters is that many of you feel good when you participate in this chat room. So, when we in SY feel  good and wonderful in SY, don't criticize us – PLEASE.

If so many of us are happy, joyful and satisfied in SY, why should others want to tell us we are wrong? On the mundane level, a  comparison would be: some enjoy wine; others hate it. Some enjoy  football; others hate it – who is "wrong"? As long as we in SY are  satisfied and enjoy our lives, please don't stop us.

Also, why prevent others from coming to SY – others who may also thoroughly enjoy SY, and find that it fulfils their lives? Regardless of some people's distrust of "things" that apparently go wrong in SY, the fact is that many of us are happy and  totally SATISFIED in SY after a lifetime of "seeking". Thank you.

  1668 From: Miguel Henriques  <migcah@h...>  Date: Wed Jul 19, 2000 8:04am Subject: The drs.feel-gooders

Hi jglove

Actually to feel good is ultimate hedonism, it's the main obsession  in new age circles. You seem a bit uneasy about feeling good. Though  you make it sound like you feel good it seems that it's not good  enough. And to be sure it ain't. The Pink Flloyd went deeper. Their  song "Do you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, joy from pain" is  much wiser, more taoist and broader than a lot of contemporary  voluntarism of happiness.

People can have ecstasies with the tooth of a dog, if they have faith  in it. I agree with you when you say "complainers feel good with  their complaining". And masos with sados, too. Everybody, in fact is  trying to feel good even recurring to feeling bad. Some people need  melodrama, others artificial paradises, others soft cocoons. The  constant pursuit of feeling good is good for gurus. They nourish it.  Their clients (dependents) crave for that nirvana feeling. What if  nirvana is nothing but ultimate hedonism? Why not question all that  indian tradition?

When you apply the dog/master metaphor you seem to be satisfied with  crumbs. Why don't you ask for more? There are many states of mind  described in the Sutras. Why get stuck in one of them? This chat room is not about criticising others, only their ideas,  their opinions. You seem to privilege the "feel-only" line. That's  fine, but let me tell you quite typical of mental laziness induced by  collective pressure. Cults want you happy/happy, with your mind as  well as your individuality abolished to zero point.

Notwithstanding some of us learned to see behind that veil, the cult  maya. To grow, many times implies pain, desillusion, disenchantement.  To grow hyper-protected sooner or later means disaster. The 1st stage  bodhisattva is all sweetnes (many of us here could be so defined not  aeons ago), but if he stays in that smaller mind heaven, he may  regress, instead of progressing the other eleven degrees until  suchness, creativity, equality with light and darkness.

Your comparison of football and yoga is adequate. I think there is a  possible comparison between football and yoga. Though perhaps  football these days is becoming more spiritual than yoga, and yoga  more professional than football. There seems to be collective ecstasy  going on in the football audiences. They love to feel good. Then  football looks more and more like Puja. Everybody sitting, chanting,  movements of hands and arms, mantras, their amrita is beer, of  course, and the football audience also worship the lotus feet of the  players.

In this global culture everything not only looks the same, but "is"  the same. And SY is part of the global show. To remain forever in a  childish state is childish. Though cults exagerate that feature,  because they do have a continuous parental structure to prevent real  growing. But Innocence should be prepared to leap into wisdom, not  into blank thinking. If you nurture innocence wrongly you may end a  stupid saint (read Gurdjieff) all heart, all feeling, with no  discrimination at all. Don't think this stasis in just-feeling will  lead you to prajna. Besides it's too womanish.(Heh, I hear shouts of  reproval from all sides....)

Also, no one here is saying to you to get out of SY. Just suggesting  experience it with open eyes, with your own head and body, test it.  And check the ways of the founder. Are you happy with the money  situation, with the school situation, with the fake miracle  photographs, with mannerisms like pulling your ears, with your  intellectual death, with the set of dos and don'ts, with the amass of  superstition, with mind -control? I mean are you happy being a mind  controlled slave?

Hiding your head in the sand of happiness won't do, I'm affraid. Hitler made people happy too. Inner peace is also expressing  metamorphosis, flowing along with change, not a final state. It goes  deeper than the kindergarten delicatessen of feeling good. As a  matter of fact it includes all, pain and joy. Peace is accepting life  with all its colours and shades, accepting separation and reunion,  tears and laughter. Many years ago the Pink Flloyd said it much  better. Hear them.

Miguel de CH.

 1669 From: Simon Dicon Montford  <sdm@e...>  Date: Wed Jul 19, 2000 8:11am Subject: RE: [SY] My Experience

Hi jglove

SD: Nobody has criticised SYs for saying they feel wonderful. We have  criticised Mataji for being a liar and a thief though. If so many of us are happy, joyful and satisfied in SY, why should  others want to tell us we are wrong?

Firstly, you are not all happy, joyful and satisfied in SY. Secondly, even those claiming to be happy, joyful and satisfied are not necessarily so.

Thirdly, even if ignorance is bliss, some people would prefer to have their ignorance dispelled.

Fourthly, membership of SYoga entail contributing to an organisation that is deceiving people and wrecking some people's lives. Therefore it is not a purely personal decision.

Fifthly, there is a lot of evidence that the basic tenets of SYoga are lies. If people don't have any interest in the facts they don't have to read them. However, if people are curious to know the facts (eg Mataji's multimillion dollar profiteering) then we're willing to give them the information. Is that enough to be going on with?

JG: On the mundane level, a comparison would be: some enjoy wine;  others hate it. Some enjoy football; others hate it who is "wrong"?

SD: According to Mataji those who enjoy wine are wrong. However, she  has zero evidence that moderate consumption is harmful. According to  us Sahaja Yoga is a big lie and can wreck lives. There is plenty of evidence at www.sahaja-yoga.org

JG: As long as we in SY are satisfied and enjoy our lives, please don't stop us. How can we stop you? We can only appeal to your  reason, humanity and sense of justice. Also, why prevent others from  coming to SY others who may also thoroughly enjoy SY, and find that  it fulfils their lives?

SD: We can't prevent them. We can only inform them of the facts that  are omitted from the official propaganda.

JG: Regardless of some people's distrust of "things" that apparently  go wrong in SY, the fact is that many of us are happy and totally  SATISFIED in SY after a lifetime of "seeking".

SD: What about those who aren't? Don't they matter? Many people have  enjoyed membership of organisations like the Hitler Youth. Their  enjoyment does not justify their membership. Such an argument is not  only foolish in the extreme, but also very dangerous. Think about it.

Best wishes, Simon Dicon   

[ Home ] [ Up ]