December Marks the 60th Anniversary of Autobiography of a Yogi

Was the archbishop one of the men up to be the pope? I recognize that name. Is he the archbishop from Africa or South America...because I remember pulling for both of them...I'm not the greatest fan of Pope Benedict, I must say...

Yes, I def. could see the Dalai Lama chilling with Yoganandaji...I would love to be a fly on the wall of that lunch...

 

Desmond Tutu is an Anglican - he was deeply involved in the anti-apartied movement in the old days in South Africa - I believe he is a nobel peace prize winner (1984).
As for Benedict 16th - I think he's softened somewhat since he became pope. And in reality, given his age, he can't last more than a few years.


Desmond Tutu

 

I also read "The Art of Happiness" a few years ago...very good. The Dalai Lama is certainly the world's most visible and positively regarded living representative of Eastern spiritual thought and practice...a great saint IMO, a shame he's a singular figure...more are needed.

Pope Benedict is an obvious interim caretaker choice...status-quo, elderly, not likely to make big moves. He's giving the Vatican some breathing and thinking room.

 

I think John Paul II was always going to be a hard act to follow. It's wierd, but since his death I've actually revised my opinion of him somewhat in a positive direction. When he was alive, I had a kind of respect mixed with uncomfortable feelings about what I saw as right wing attitudes. But given the fact he came out of communist Poland, it's not really surprising.
Overall, I think he was a great pope - and it was quite amazing watching his funeral on TV, and seeing how much he obviously meant to so many - even if I would have prefered him to be more liberal and supportive of left wing 'liberation theologists' such as the Jesuits, and less inclined to favour right wing groups within the church, such as Opus Dei, and to have come down harder on paedophile priests, and allow condom use to control the spread of HIV.
Nonetheless, he had a kind of definite charisma - and I believe he was sincerely doing what he thought to be right.
It's actually the case though that as Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict was very much the man behind JP II. And I think that's why he was elected pope - as you say, to allow thinking room, and to ensure that meantime, continuity is guarunteed.

So - another 'dodgy' organization, along with ISKCON that has influenced me - the Catholic Church.

 

haha...I always laugh when I hear things like that about the Catholic Church because I think mine was either a) a bit more liberal and/or b) I was just too young to notice...

 

It's an institution which is a mixture of good and bad elements. I think maybe now, in this period of history, the good elements have good chance of sweeping away the abuses of the past. Even JP II was instrumental in that process in some ways, like apologizing for historic abuses of Jews, Muslims etc. Still, there's further for them to go yet.
Generally, I prefer Catholicism over other forms of Christianity, and I think some of the contemplative traditions within the church are very interesting. I have great respect also for a number of catholic saints.

 

::nods:: I generally prefer it myself. I don't know...its perhaps because of the mystecism...and also, I have found it less evangelical... but that's just in my experience...particularly because I've never heard of a Catholic trying to "save" anyone. And I love the oldness and the deep symbolism...something I've grown to love in Hindiusm as well...

 

There's certainly some similarities with Hindu devotionalism. But you know what they say ...'once a catholic...'

 

...in an Italian-American family...you're not escaping that easy

 

I also am inclined toward both Catholicism and Orthodoxy because of their longstanding aesthetic, monastic, and contemplative traditions, and their reverence for saintly personalities. There are many similarities to Hinduism in these regards.

Our trip to Rome in 1998 was truly a pilgrimage in many ways, as we spent most of our time there exploring the Vatican and other important Christian churches and places.

In terms of philosophy and doctrine, I find Catholicism and Orthodoxy nearly as repressive as Protestantism; at this point I appreciate them only for the reasons I gave above.

BTW, I was raised as an Anglican, or Protestant Episcopalian as generally referred to in the USA.

 

Mainstream catholicism can be repressive I agree, and perhaps Orthodoxy more so. Then again, so can some aspects of Hinduism.
I think it's more that tradition itself tends to become reactionary and conservative rather than anything inate in the belief sysytem involved being to blame. I think in general, a kind of universality has to be the goal, where members of different religions come to see the similarities and place more emphasis there than on the differences. However, to get to that universality, most people have to accept some kind of tradition as a basis.

My own background is that my family were half catholic on my father's side, and I was sent from ages 4 -8 to a catholic school run by nuns - of whom, incidentally, I have nothing but positive memories. Later I was sent to an ordinary Church of England school. But the catholicism somehow got into my blood I suppose - I never really got used to the differences as a child - the add on bit at the end of the Lord's Prayer, the absence on the Blessed Virgin and the Saints....Also as a child, I used to find the Mass, said back then in Latin still, quite awesome.
Now and then, I go into a Catholic church and sit quiet for sometime, sometimes even saying a few prayers, just as now and then I join with Krishna devotees singing Kirtana. I don't find any contradiction in that. It is in a way as Bede Griffiths said, there is no contradiction, and it is more an expansion of things than a turning against anything that is involved.

On another note - it is possible that the world needs conservative as well as progressive voices - I find that a lot of the practical morality preached by Prabhupada for instance, is actually not that different from catholic morality, if you exclude diet. Illicit sex, intoxication, gambling etc, are roundly condemned by both. Focus on God and the spiritual life is promoted by both, although in different, but in my mind, not incompatible forms.

 

Bill...what I find repressive in both Catholicism and Protestantism is the doctrine of Original Sin that is based on the Biblical story of Adam and Eve...pure BS; as well as the attitude of conservative Christianity that it is the only way to salvation and the extreme arrogance that I have seen evangelical Christians exhibit as a result.


I attended an Episcopal Church school my first couple of years and in many ways it was a great experience and background; it gave me an innate sense of the sacred, the priest-headmaster was a spiritual role model and kindly family friend with whom I maintained contact until his death at 90+ years in 2000, and the hellfire-and-brimstone stuff was minimal. But, even at an early age I found myself questioning what was taught there.

You know, I've been through a process of spiritual maturation in the last couple of years and my involvement on this board has been a big part of that...many thanks to all of you! I can look back and see that over 20 years I had pretty well solidified into an ISKCON fundamentalist, albeit a comparitively lightweight one. Though I still personally adhere to the philosophy and principles of Srila Prabhupada and Gaudiya Vaisnavism, I'm now very much a universalist in my overall spiritual outlook and feel much happier and mellower for it...the burden of fundamentalism is a hard one to carry, and it actually separates one from truth.

 

I think the idea of 'original sin' has to be taken on a symbolic level, like a lot of the OT. I dislike any literalist type view of it, and I certainly have little sympathy with those who say Christianity - and usually their own brand of it - is the 'only way'. My complaint about protestantism in general is that it tends to become quite worldly in its outlook on the liberal wing, and narrow and fundamentalist on the other side, and I find the spiritual landscape a bit empty and de-populated!


For what it's worth, I think 'original sin', in one interpretation, could represent the instinctual, animalistic side of human nature which has to be controlled and channelled in any kind of civilized culture. It's inate in everyone, and the potential is there for good or evil in everyone.
But also, the idea of a 'fall' from a once higher status seems to be present in a different form in Sri Chaitanya's version, where the soul has fallen into the cycles of the material world. Some more philosophical and esoteric christians have seen the fall of Adam in a similar kind of light.

I think many of us are going through processes of change in our spiritual lives continually. It is like a refining process. And since God is infinite, how could we hope to ever arrive at a neat and complete set of ideas that would wholly encapsuate or 'explain' Him.

That's one of the things I like about Christianity in a way - the idea that God 'dwells in mystery' - He will always surprise us, esp. if we think we've got it all down pat.
But I think your right to stick to Krishna Consciousness as a basis, as I think as I said before, that tradition is important. Forms within traditions take on a great power, whether it's particular prayers or chants, or 'Iconic' type images etc. Also. traditions are guardians of knowledge, some of which they may not even fully understand.
Myself I've found that knowledge from Indian traditions and philosophy has led me to a deeper understanding of Christianity, and sometimes, Christian ideas have shed light on things in Hinduism. The more I look into it, the more I see just different forms of the same thing. The same ideas surfacing in different times and places under slightly different forms.

But the whole question of 'universality' brings us back to Yogananda, who was certainly a champion of that kind of view.

 

I meant to mention this before - He wouldn't have been my choice of pope either.
That said, on his recent visit to Poland, I thought it was good that he went to pray at Austwich - There is some poingiancy (more so for europeans perhaps) to see a German pope praying at such as place. Perhaps in some small way it helps to bring some kind of healing - not perhaps to the remaining survivors of Nazi atrocities, but to the collective psyche of europe - assuming such a thing exists. Lays ghosts to rest. Anyway, even as a symbolic gesture I give him due credit.

 

its amazing really to see how pope is still so popular and very powerful after so many centuries in western politics...
Sorry for side tracking.. but BBB, you are from UK right? so whats with the queen and her royal family? I never understood why most of britain still believes there should be a king/queen/royal family.

 

::nods:: I agree that the literal this is the way it is adn the only way is actually my big turn off from Christianity because I am a big supporter of interfaith (and most of the ideas come from that one essay by Yogananda..."A World Without Boundaries")...

As for original sin...I think it, like most of the old testiment stories are very symbolic more than literal...

"Original sin! What a hellish idea that is! People have to go, 'Father, bless me for I have sinned, I did an original sin… I poked a badger with a spoon.'
'I've never heard of that one before! Five Hail Mary's and two Hello, Dolly's.'

'Oh, all right...'

'less me, Father, for I have slept with my next door neighbor's wife.'

'Heard it! I want an original sin.'

'Oh, I'm terribly sorry!'



The Anglican faith doesn't have that. You'll never go, 'Vicar, I have done many bad things.'

'Well, so have I.'

'What shall I do?'

'Well, drink five Bloody Marys and you won't remember.' "- Eddie Izzard, Dressed to Kill

 

One of the things Yogananda got wrong in his book and others, probably due to his numereous experiences with otherwordly phenemonon, caused him to dimiss humans evolutionary connection to the animal kingdom... Yes there is rapid quantum evolution, (see my post in the evolution thread for more info and dicussion), There is much he got write about a period of extreme divine connection and harmony in the human species, but this was evolved to, from the slime...

One must intergrate even more spirituality with science, and the writings of Amit Goswami on quantum mechanis in physics of the soul and self aware universe, help this so much... he wrote an amazing article about evolution and quantum mechanics...

It just makes too much sense... and God materealizing two orginal human beings indepedant of apes doesn't make sense with the evidence...

We must admit that the great mystics though they got MUCH right, also got some things wrong... Yogananda's text must not be seen as total 100% right on every account even though it is accurate in many ways...

I'm sure BBB will be sympathetic.


Although perhaps Yogananda was aiming at more unity between religions and thus compromised the unity between religion and science even though he was a strong advocate of such.


The creation stories when seen as even more symbolic can be fit into evolution, and that doesn't dismiss the power of God to bend all the rules of creation...

Earth is in a sense ONE BEING connected to the one consciousness beyond time/space and in all time/space... it evolves life from the slime, connected to it's core intelligence and the god star of the sun, also conscious beings... Eventually all life will evolved into a state of cooperative harmony different from the competive ecological harmony, but such things takes thousands of years... we will live off light energy almost like plants, and inner energy... then we will reach the levels that other advanced UFO civilizations have reached... they are planet hive minds that are seeking the eventual unity of the entire universe... once this universe is unfied... it can collapse itself into the trasendent GOD MIND, or merge more with heavenly astral realms... and see all the other thoughts (unvireses) that exist in membranes (the heavy ones) in the infinite thought verse.



So many mystics and religious people are earth centric... thinking everything evolves around the dramas of earth... forgetting the infinite variations of specieis and of astral and causal entities existing in heavy and lighter realms of BEING...


The other night... I met this guy Kamul and his girl at a hindu temple... we talked about meditation and what night and got invited to a rave in the jersey pine barrens... There I did one tab of acid...

I went out of my body and saw infinite forms and manifestations in a flash of the multi thought verse... humbled by the smallness of my own body and life drama... I pleaded for mercy.





Babbbling of another lost mystic or truth, you decide.

 

Ok - brief English history lesson.
Under king Henry VIII, the English church split away from Rome as part of the Protestant Reformation. The reason behind this was not so much that ordinary people were disatisfied with the Catholic Church, but because King Henry wanted a divorce, and the Pope wouldn't grant him one.
So a national church was set up, (amidst much bloody persecution and destruction) with the monarch as the head, independent of Rome and the Pope. Catholics were heavily censured (it wasn't until 'the emancipation of Catholics' act of the late 19th century that they were restored equal civil rights with protestants). A few years later under 'bloody' Queen Mary, there was counter-reformation, again with much bloodshed, and briefly, Catholicism was restored, but it didn't last long. Next came Elizabeth I, and the counter-counter-reformation, which re-established the protestant Chuch as the state church. It was then used as a mechanism of social control, and a tool in the game the Tudor dynasty were playing of nation building, and ultimately, empire building. Perhaps a national church = greater cohesion etc.

That is still the situation to-day - the Queen is head of the Church of England, although only in ceremonial way. She has no actual power over the church, which is headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and run by councils of bishops and lay people (the synod).

As for the state itself - the Queen is once again, only a symbolic figure with no actual political power or influence. The monarchy are supposed to stay out of politics.
Myself, I'm not really very enamoured of the monarchy - it's a bit out of date and panders to hereditary privelige etc. On the other hand, I think we'd be insane to do away with the monarch and set up a president as head of state. For one thing, since the Queen's role is purely ceremonial, it's hard to see what they would actually do, and no doubt some complete pig would get elected. (Thatcher might have been a candidate, Blair might be in future under such a system - I prefer Queenie to Pesident Blair!) At least the Queen is a cultured woman.

Like the Beatles said:
'Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl
but she doesn't have a lot to say'

My own view is that Prince Charles, who is due to succeed her, will not be so easy to keep quiet, as he is quite outspoken on a number of topics. I actually agree with a lot of what he says, and his concerns - preservation of spiritual traditions, greater environmental concern and action, and other things are issues many of us would probably agree with. He is able to say things in effect which no politician can say, and to address areas they prefer to ignore.
So although as I say, I'm not really a royalist, I don't see any point in changing things just for the sake of being modern.
I think our British system works as well as any other established in to-day's world, and of course, it was the model for many other nations. That said, I guess it all does look like archaic bullshit to some, and it is up to a point. But as they say, 'if it's not broken, don't try to fix it', and as I say it works as well as anything else.
Many British are quite nationalistic, and proud of the monarchy and our other ancient institutions. I see all that as a bit negative - I have no time for flag waving, and as a student of history, I'm all too aware of the basis of violent subjection on which the power of the monarchy was originally built.

As for the Pope - there's been a lot less politics involved over the last couple of centuries. The period of abuse and corruption in the papacy was at it's height in the renaissance period. To-day, I think most people in europe, catholic and non-catholic, regard the Pope as a spiritual/moral leader. Others of course, hate him and everything he stands for.
But actually in some cases where the Vatican has spoken out on political issues, I agree with them. They were against the invasion of Iraq for example.
Once again there was a poigniancy in the shots shown on global TV of Bush's meeting with JP II prior to the start of the war, where the very decrepit and ill old man presumably told Bush straight to his face that he was wrong.
Now - both claim to 'speak to God'. I wonder which one God would be more likely to respond to?

 

I agree Prince - the great mystics etc got some things right and others not.

On the subject of the origins of life, I don't think any pre-scientific ideas are to be taken literally, other than in a general sense. It's ok to say in a general sesne 'God made the world', but we have to see that ancient cultures had no way of coming to understand the mechanisms by which He made it.

It is only now, in really the last 100 years or so that we as a spieces are beginning to gain some possible understanding of all that. No doubt, the truths of science and spirituality can be brought together, and people like Goswami and others are working on that direction.

On the other hand, as well as the external phyisical universe, there is another level of the spirit and the inner universe. The origins of the soul and such questions are matters which science hasn't done much to address, and I wonder if it can, considering that it relies on physical methods of sense observation etc.
I think anyway that many of the ancient accounts of creation and so on are interesting not from a literal or a strictly scientific point of view, but from the viewpoint of the subtle and symbolic meanings in them. Akin to meaning we find in poetry, art and music, but perhaps deeper than that. Even the old garden of eden story has, over the ages, given rise to some great inspired art.

In the end, it's impossible to point to any one man or teacher or philosopher and say they got everything 100% correct. Everyone here is on some kind of learning curve I think. Even the greatest don't know or understand everything. But I do believe in progress and evolution, and it could be that in our time, we're seeing the start of a kind of new-knowledge. A marriage of science and spirituality and everything else.

 

Thank you BBB, you see here in USA with poor history education in High school and obviously zero history education in college for Biochemistry students, you miss alot of stuff. Its just interesting for me to see it in a perspective of a person living in UK.