Thursday, June 14, 2007
Agama Yoga: An Imperfect Machine, A Powerful Practice...A Path To Enlightenment?
Note:
All links to the blog called "Commonsenseananda" (CSA) aren't working now. The site appears to have moved, or been taken down entirely. I'll include a few of Google's cached copies of a few of the most relevant pages; if you want to see more, you'll have to google "commonsenseananda", click on the cache of the main page, and from there when you see an entry you'd like to read, copy either the title or some of the header text, or the links themselves to the specific pages you want to view and go back to google and search again with the text/title/link as a parameter (plus "commonsenseananda"). Then click on the cache link for the pages that come up. it's a bit complicated, but I can't think of any other way to view the site until I receive notice that it's back up and running. The images and formatting don't come up on the cached pages either, so it looks a bit funny.
CSA Main Page
Post titled "Administrative Oddities"
End Note
I'm currently studying the 9th month of the course curriculum at Agama Yoga, in Kho Phangan, Thailand. The school is headed by a Romanian man, Narcis Tarcau, whose teaching cognomen is Swami Vivekananda Saraswati (hereafter referred to simply as "Swami"). I have also completed the Teacher Training Course (TTC) offered by Agama, a 500+ hour program of certification (under International Yoga Federation standards). This is my second year being involved with the school. I'm planning on staying on with Agama for at least another couple of years, if not longer.
This post is essentially written in the name of balance. There's not a lot of information on the internet about Agama, other than from the website itself (plus a few tribe.net posts, message boards here and there, etc.). Now, however, there are two blogs available online, written by classmates of mine from the TTC, which essentially stand as the primary alternative sources of info regarding Agama. These two sites espouse views of the school which, in my opinion, aren't so much invalid as they are extremely biased. I'd like to offer a view of Agama from "the other side", so to speak, and I'll encourage both Derek and Stefan to post a link to this post on their sites. Their own blog URLs are included here:
Agama Yoga Review (AYR):
http://agamareview.blogspot.com/
AYR Tribe.net Posts (also AYR for convenience):
http://people.tribe.net/669a4e62-1660-4ea8-baca-41e14999b085/blog
Commonsenseananda (CSA): http://homepage.mac.com/schneemaennchen/commonsenseananda/index.html
Now then. I'll admit that I've only spent about an hour looking over both of these sites. I've read several posts from AYR, and a couple from CSA. I feel that I've read enough to get a sense for their messages though. Ideally, this post will open a dialog between the three of us -- I'll be clear from the start that I don't at all disagree with everything they have to say! When I arrived here last year, I couldn't go a day without complaining to someone about how much bullshit there was around here, getting in the way of the actual yoga I wanted to study. Even now I refer to Agama as "The Family" or "The Cult" more often than not -- albeit not as seriously as these two do. And in the same vein, I hope they'll both be open to some of the opinions I have to share here.
It seems that Derek's (AYR) main concern is that Agama qualifies as a kind of "mild" cult, and cults have the potential to be harmful to those who choose to open to their influence. A secondary concern of his seems to be the poor quality of teaching offered at the school, especially with regards to the TTC.
Stefan (CSA), on the other hand, seems to primarily be offended with the elements of (sometimes harmful) pseudo-science and patronizing attitudes which exist in the teachings and their delivery. A shaky administrative policy regarding TTC also has his hackles up.
These angles flow together nicely, and each blog draws similar conclusions. I'm going to address each one separately though, starting with AYR.
AYR
AYR quotes Dr. Margaret Thayer Singer, a renowned expert on cultism (now deceased), in looking to define exactly what makes a cult. (I'd actually come across her work in an earlier investigation related to another Agama experience -- the workshop presented here by Jasmuheen in February.) I'll post a quote from Dr. Singer, taken from AYR, here:
"While the conduct of certain cults causes nonmembers to criticize them, the term cult is not in itself pejorative but simply descriptive. It denotes a group that forms around a person who claims he or she has a special mission or knowledge, which will be shared with those who turn over most of their decision making to that self-appointed leader."
I think that's a pretty good place to start. I enjoy that Singer noted the essentially "descriptive" nature of the term "cult". As AYR goes on to examine in depth (link: here), experts identify 10 characteristics of cults or rather, the policies implemented by cult leaders, and many of them (almost all, in fact) -- such as elitism, charismatic leadership, deception, and exploitation -- qualify beautifully to describe most political systems, capitalist business models, militaries, and even fields of academic science and medicine! As an American, I can easily identify 8 out of 10 of the cult trademarks in our current presidency. As AYR notes, it isn't even necessary to have a perfect score to qualify as a cult.
There are two parts to the Singer quote which I find a bit vague or circular. The first is "...claims he or she has a special mission or knowledge" -- if special here were "unique" instead, I'd feel more comfortable. Special by itself doesn't really mean anything. Specifically with relation to Agama, it is first and foremost a school of yoga. Yoga, by any standard, is a type of "special knowledge", in the same way that any specialized field of study is, whether it be Zoroastrianism or particle physics. It's only fair to note here that Swami does claim to offer highly exclusive yogic information. But all of it he's learned from different teachers, and all of which has at least some version or element described in classical texts (or at the very least modern literature from respected yogis). I have never heard him say that any of the teachings here is absolutely unobtainable elsewhere. Difficult to find? Yes. Does he even imply that it's restricted information and you can only get it (easily) here? Yes. But that's not nearly the same as "special knowledge", which I take to imply "...which can't be found elsewhere". For example, there is a teaching given here from the Tibetan tradition, where a certain mantra is given to students. Swami has said things like, "Even the Tibetans don't give this one out too often." That's a far cry from "I am the only person on earth who can bestow this knowledge upon you." Like I said, I'd prefer if the original quote just said "unique" instead.
Even so, it seems that this clause isn't meant to stand on its own as a denotative element for "cult", but rather it's meant to go along with the second half of the quote, which goes, "which will be shared with those who turn over most of their decision making to that self-appointed leader." This also is a bit funny to me -- I can appoint myself as leader of the United Nations right now if I like, but it doesn't mean anything until I'm no longer "self-appointed" but "elected", or in a totalitarian example, until I have the ability to force others to obey my command. A cult doesn't get formed when Joe Swami says so, a cult is formed when enough people choose to surrender some degree of power to a particular individual.
And this is one of my main theses here: Cults are defined by the attitude of their members, not by the head authority itself.
Basically, cults happen when the teacher becomes the focus, and not the teachings. From there the nastier qualities set in, when in order to maintain power, fear, coercion, various depravations, and so forth, are employed. But there needs to be a antecedent surrender of one's discernment before any of that can happen (again, unless force is employed, like the Jones compound in Guyana or something).
Back to Agama -- in a certain way, I am in complete agreement with AYR. There are absolutely people here who are devoted more to Swami (even fanatically so) than to the study and practice of the yogic system offered here. These people already live, more-or-less, as cult members. There is a definite surrender of decision-making over to Swami, by these individuals. And there is certainly a certain elitism, even totalitarianism (in the sense of non-acceptance of other views) which they abide by. It's palpably isolating to spend a lot of time with some of the people here.
I don't support any of this behavior for a second. I think it's immature and, as AYR mentioned, is largely based on fear. However, I don't think that these people and their attitudes are enough to call Agama a cult. As for the teachings themselves, here is another place where I don't think Singer's definitions are completely appropriate, because the study of hatha yoga itself (as seen in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, Gheranda Samhita, Shiva Samhita, and so forth) incorporates -- as essentials! -- some of these very elements (from the "10 cult qualities" mentioned earlier). "Alienation", "fatigue" (to an extent), "totalitarian worldview", and "change in diet" are all stressed as of vital importance for the successful practice of yoga in these texts. And while it's true that you don't really need to go and live in a cave, sleep 4 hours per night, and be vegan to make headway in one's yogic practice, these types of behaviors are by no means exclusive to Agama Yoga itself -- nor are they practices required or demanded of students in this system.
To me it's pretty clear that there are cultish aspects of Agama and some of its practitioners, but that, according to Singer's standards, the school itself (including Swami's attitude about teaching) doesn't qualify as a cult -- not even a mild one. Unless if by mild, Derek, you meant just what I said -- that there is a percentage of the student population here which acts like a cult. In that case, I agree. I also agree that should this (currently minority, in my view) percentage increase to gain a majority, then unless Swami specifically addresses these tendencies, there is the strong possibility that Agama could become a cult.
I'll leave off on this topic for now. I think there's plenty more to be said, on either side, but I'm eager to continue this as a dialogue, rather than a diatribe. I should mention here before I move on to CSA's blog, that I consider the author of AYR to be a strong, inspiring individual. He's intelligent, fair, and extremely knowledgeable in his fields of expertise. He's taught me quite a bit, in fact, about contemporary methods for evaluating teachers, curriculum, and educational administration -- as well as putting forth a good game of chess! I just think there are some fundamental differences between teaching in different disciplines -- as much as I believe there are fundamental similarities. You don't see, say, Mike Krzyzewski coaching his players in the same way, not even a similar methodology, that you'd see done by an AT at a Goenka Vipassana retreat, or by a literature prof at Exeter Academy. At the heart of all these teachers and their teachings though, should be a strong desire to help people grow in a positive direction, and a clear and effective methodology to make this happen. I believe Agama Yoga has these fundamentals, although I completely agree that, evaluated from a different (I'll refrain from using generalizations such as Western or Eastern) perspective, the tools and approaches used might be determined as inappropriate, remedial, or even harmful. The question then remains, I suppose, is there an objective standard for education which can take into account all the myriad styles, cultures, expressions, and goals of all teachings everywhere? That's what I feel AYR is trying to establish, and I don't think that's very fair. Derek? Any thoughts?
Okay, that was a lot longer than I expected. I'll try to give CSA equal consideration...forgive me if I run out of steam. (Must be a weak muladhara chakra. :-) )
CSA
As I mentioned earlier, CSA, run by Stefan, attacks Agama from a more purely skeptical standpoint. Agama exhibits bad (or no) discernment or scientific integrity, it's poorly run, it's poorly taught, and otherwise intelligent individuals seem completely brainwashed by the hogwash and second-rate mysticism. (Whether or not they were like that before they got here, and that's just the sort Agama attracts, or whether they change once they arrive, seems unclear -- both, I guess).
All that is my paraphrasing of CSA's opinion of Agama. And to be honest, I more or less completely agree! This post on CSA is more-or-less 100% accurate, and well-stated, in my opinion.
The administration here is a nightmare, especially with regards to how the TTC was run this year. (Although it deserves to be said that strenuous efforts are being made to completely revamp the TTC experience for next season, and a lot of the problems most frequently encountered this year should be smoothed out for the next one.) Swami is always late, and the more advance planning made for a particular meeting, the later he comes! Last night we began a meeting scheduled to start at 830pm, at 945pm...and the sad thing is, no one really showed up (among the students) until 915 anyhow! it's an awful pattern that has been established from the very top. Apparently, Swami's own first yoga teacher would sometimes show up 3 DAYS LATE . I pray that it doesn't end up going that far here...but something needs to be done.
Anyway, CSA has already articulated most of the other rants I could go off on, so I'll refrain. My main issue with the standpoint of CSA is nicely summed up with this excerpt from the post entitled What Yoga Is:
"If you want to build a bridge, consult an engineer. If you want your computer fixed, ask a software expert. If you want to live a healthy life, live according to what your doctor tells you. If you want to know how your mind works and act accordingly listen to your psychologist. If you want to aet a healthy diet ask your dietary counsellor. If you want advice on how to act ethically, consult a philosopher. ... yoga is ... [a] method for living your life according to the laws of "the universe" ... Just check who you trust about how the universe works."
Again, no disagreements there, not explicitly at least. Implicitly though...essentially what I hear CSA saying is that he believes that if you want to achieve some result, or outcome, you should go to someone whom you believe to excel in accomplishing (or helping you to accomplish) this task. Furthermore, and this is where I must disagree, he is saying something similar to what AYR said, at its core: there is an objective standard by which all "proficiency" can be measured.
I would submit that such a belief is ultimately no more tenable than religious faith, or confidence in a system of psycho-physical/spiritual development, like yoga. Belief in "objective" scientific analysis, or whatever modern methodology is accepted as a base for evaluation, requires you to buy into some core tenets, which often stand in stark contradiction of other opposing systems. Now, okay, you can't really argue that point -- an intelligent response would be, well, if there is no such thing as total objectivity, then it makes the most sense to go for the system that makes the most use of common consensus. If 1000 out of 1000 people experience an apple falling to the floor every time it's pushed off a shelf, then it's more reasonable to believe there is some downward, inevitable, attractive force occuring, than if one or two people claim (without even being able to demonstrate to others on request) that under certain conditions they can oppose and even overcome gravity by means of levitation. I'm all for this, in this extreme example. I don't think it hurts though, to be open-minded enough to admit anything as a possibility, as long as it's not interfering with your ability to meet the outcomes you're trying to achieve, as I mentioned before. I may believe it's possible to levitate, but I don't see a problem with that as long as I don't encourage myself or others to believe and act as gravity doesn't exist (or can be easily overcome). I trust in the laws of physics while bringing my motorbike around a sharp turn -- I have direct experience that something is reliably consistent here! -- but to be close-minded to possibility is not the way that most growth, maturation, and especially scientific advancement has been made throughout history.
However, there are a few examples mentioned by CSA that don't really fall into this "upheld by standards of objectivity", which seem to instead border on blind faith! Let's look again..."If you want to live a healthy life, live according to what your doctor tells you. If you want to know how your mind works and act accordingly listen to your psychologist. If you want to aet a healthy diet ask your dietary counsellor. If you want advice on how to act ethically, consult a philosopher."
What exactly does healthy mean here? Even ignoring this important ambiguity, it's uncontestable that many doctors have been confronted, sued, even stripped of their rights as practitioners for violating certain standards of ethical and moral behavior. Endorsing medicines on behalf of pharmaceutical companies (rather than what the patient may truly need), giving ultra-conservative advice so as to avoid potential malpractice issues, giving preferential treatment to certain demographics of patients...not to mention that, just because you graduate from medical school, doesn't mean you will be a good, even sufficiently knowledgeable, doctor! I and many people I know have had personal experiences with medical consultations which later proved to be completely erroneous, even contraindicatory, to the problem at hand.
Listen to your psychologist? As the author of CSA is a practicing psychologist himself, I'm sure it's just as obvious to him as it is to most that you could have a roomful of psychologists and easily arrive at a case where each one has a different, even contradictory method (and theory) for treatment. For an example involving CSA himself, take NLP, for example, a therapeutic technology mentioned in AYR's blog as practiced by Agama. CSA's author has reportedly said that NLP is an almost completely abandoned technology in modern psychology, having no clinical studies to support its efficacy or successful use (this is also backed up on Wikepedia)...and yet, in one example in the same country where CSA practices, the incoming head of the New Jersey State Psychological Association is a staunch advocate and current practitioner of NLP!
(Admittedly, I like NLP and I chose this example specifically to defend it, although I don't think it'd be hard for either me or CSA to come up with other, less controversial examples of conflicting methods of therapy.)
Moving on...eat healthy? If there is any field in modern "science" which is more fickle and unstable than dietary studies, I can't think of it now. Alkaline/Acid, Low-Carb, Hi-Carb, Atkins, South Beach, Raw, Vegan, Vegetarian, Organic, even protein/carb/calorie basics are disputed now! 'Nuff said here.
And ethics? Consult a philosopher? What is philosophy, if not the institutionalized agreement to disagree on /everything/? Not to mention that Indian Tantric and Vedantic philosophies have both been accepted (and even found widespread in other cultures) as valid, engaging, stable philosophical standpoints for centuries...
My point, by now, should be obvious. CSA is choosing here to surrender just as much (if not more) of his "decision making" (see Singer) to supposed experts in specific fields, as the students here at Agama have chosen to do with regards to yogic teachings (and yes, even Swami's specific take on these teachings) regarding all the aforementioned topics: health, the workings of the mind, diet, and philosophy. His final sentence quoted above is, in my esteem, the most elegant: "Just check who you trust about how the universe works."
Stefan, I believe you have started from a strong system, that of scientific objectivism (which in many cases can indeed hold strong, valid argument against some of the practices taught in yoga), and you've leapfrogged (or been leapfrogged) by a set of beliefs, which, although purportedly coming from that same strong background, are in many ways just as brainwashed and ultimately superstitious as those that talk of levitation, gods, magic, and subtle energies. How many people research the pills prescribed to them by their doctors, to see if they're really exactly what they need? Do you? How many people following nutritionists' advice really go through the time to fully understand how the body and its metabolistic/digestive processes work (assuming these things /can/ be fully understood in the first place!) Do you? If so, I applaud you, but even in this case, I think your encouraging an equally blind faith in those chosen fields or professions which you've mentioned is ultimately culturally and educationally biased and not worthy of the fine standard of logical analysis which you've displayed often in the past.
All the same, I'm open to hear what you have to say, and to explore these points further. In fact, I welcome it! (We never did get to play a game of chess...)
As for now, I'm completely wiped...there may have been things I'd meant to include but whatever's there for now is as it'll stay. Thanks to Derek and Stefan both for starting up this engaging line of discussion. I'll look forward to finding ways in which these issues can be used to make Agama into a system of teaching which is more accepted from all walks of life.
Post-Scriptum: There is one more thing which I'd like to be completely open about (anyone who's read my blog much over the years will be aware of this already), which is the fact that I am extremely open-minded, and more than willing to allow subjective, un-universally-verifiable experiences to color (enliven?) my view of life and the world around me. You may see on the Tribe AYR postings one story entitled "Fire and Ice". That "quite stupid" story was about (and told by) me! And although I can't say Derek told the story exactly as I told it to him, it's more or less accurate -- and I don't think this openness to belief necessarily clouds my ability to be a logical, rational, analytical individual in any way, shape, or form. I believe really weird things are going on all the time! And more likely than not, some of these weird things ARE NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I'm fine with that.
Every single person on this earth, Derek and Stefan included, is walking around, making up a large part of their experiential reality, and it has very little to do with any consensual perspective. The only thing which is consensual, perhaps, is the agreement by a majority to exactly what extent it's acceptable to be creating your reality as you go along. If I pass a girl on the street and she looks at me and I say to myself, "Wow, she totally wanted me." -- sure, I may get a few eye rolls if I pass this onto my friends, but would you label me as crazy or delusional? (I mean, seriously.) But if I walk past that same girl on the street and say to myself, "Wow, her aura is amazingly vivid and she has a little fairy following her around over her left shoulder and I think she's maybe a reincarnated mermaid." -- now if I chose to share this with the person next to me, I'd start getting looks. Consensual, or objective, reality refers here to how comfortable a group feels with any one of its members fantasizing -- or better yet, it refers to how likely other members of the group might be to share a similar fantasy of their own.
I often have perceptual experiences that I'd guess people around me don't share. Both of the "she totally wants me" variety, AND the "auric mermaid" kind. I'm open to being shown how one affects my ability to reason and discriminate more than the other -- because for now I don't accept that any particular quality of subjective experience is causal to rational thinking. Now, that some such quality, or rather, the control over these qualities, could be causal to one's ability to function in any given society is another thing entirely -- John Nash comes to mind immediately as a fine thinker and an absolute mess due to his schizophrenia. I'm happy to admit that my own subjective world would not fit well for very long in, say, the consensual reality of an corporate office job, or a branch of the military. Again, this applies to everyone I think. And I've made my point.
Thanks again, all for now.
Love to all.
Note:
All links to the blog called "Commonsenseananda" (CSA) aren't working now. The site appears to have moved, or been taken down entirely. I'll include a few of Google's cached copies of a few of the most relevant pages; if you want to see more, you'll have to google "commonsenseananda", click on the cache of the main page, and from there when you see an entry you'd like to read, copy either the title or some of the header text, or the links themselves to the specific pages you want to view and go back to google and search again with the text/title/link as a parameter (plus "commonsenseananda"). Then click on the cache link for the pages that come up. it's a bit complicated, but I can't think of any other way to view the site until I receive notice that it's back up and running. The images and formatting don't come up on the cached pages either, so it looks a bit funny.
CSA Main Page
Post titled "Administrative Oddities"
End Note
I'm currently studying the 9th month of the course curriculum at Agama Yoga, in Kho Phangan, Thailand. The school is headed by a Romanian man, Narcis Tarcau, whose teaching cognomen is Swami Vivekananda Saraswati (hereafter referred to simply as "Swami"). I have also completed the Teacher Training Course (TTC) offered by Agama, a 500+ hour program of certification (under International Yoga Federation standards). This is my second year being involved with the school. I'm planning on staying on with Agama for at least another couple of years, if not longer.
This post is essentially written in the name of balance. There's not a lot of information on the internet about Agama, other than from the website itself (plus a few tribe.net posts, message boards here and there, etc.). Now, however, there are two blogs available online, written by classmates of mine from the TTC, which essentially stand as the primary alternative sources of info regarding Agama. These two sites espouse views of the school which, in my opinion, aren't so much invalid as they are extremely biased. I'd like to offer a view of Agama from "the other side", so to speak, and I'll encourage both Derek and Stefan to post a link to this post on their sites. Their own blog URLs are included here:
Agama Yoga Review (AYR):
http://agamareview.blogspot.com/
AYR Tribe.net Posts (also AYR for convenience):
http://people.tribe.net/669a4e62-1660-4ea8-baca-41e14999b085/blog
Commonsenseananda (CSA): http://homepage.mac.com/schneemaennchen/commonsenseananda/index.html
Now then. I'll admit that I've only spent about an hour looking over both of these sites. I've read several posts from AYR, and a couple from CSA. I feel that I've read enough to get a sense for their messages though. Ideally, this post will open a dialog between the three of us -- I'll be clear from the start that I don't at all disagree with everything they have to say! When I arrived here last year, I couldn't go a day without complaining to someone about how much bullshit there was around here, getting in the way of the actual yoga I wanted to study. Even now I refer to Agama as "The Family" or "The Cult" more often than not -- albeit not as seriously as these two do. And in the same vein, I hope they'll both be open to some of the opinions I have to share here.
It seems that Derek's (AYR) main concern is that Agama qualifies as a kind of "mild" cult, and cults have the potential to be harmful to those who choose to open to their influence. A secondary concern of his seems to be the poor quality of teaching offered at the school, especially with regards to the TTC.
Stefan (CSA), on the other hand, seems to primarily be offended with the elements of (sometimes harmful) pseudo-science and patronizing attitudes which exist in the teachings and their delivery. A shaky administrative policy regarding TTC also has his hackles up.
These angles flow together nicely, and each blog draws similar conclusions. I'm going to address each one separately though, starting with AYR.
AYR
AYR quotes Dr. Margaret Thayer Singer, a renowned expert on cultism (now deceased), in looking to define exactly what makes a cult. (I'd actually come across her work in an earlier investigation related to another Agama experience -- the workshop presented here by Jasmuheen in February.) I'll post a quote from Dr. Singer, taken from AYR, here:
"While the conduct of certain cults causes nonmembers to criticize them, the term cult is not in itself pejorative but simply descriptive. It denotes a group that forms around a person who claims he or she has a special mission or knowledge, which will be shared with those who turn over most of their decision making to that self-appointed leader."
I think that's a pretty good place to start. I enjoy that Singer noted the essentially "descriptive" nature of the term "cult". As AYR goes on to examine in depth (link: here), experts identify 10 characteristics of cults or rather, the policies implemented by cult leaders, and many of them (almost all, in fact) -- such as elitism, charismatic leadership, deception, and exploitation -- qualify beautifully to describe most political systems, capitalist business models, militaries, and even fields of academic science and medicine! As an American, I can easily identify 8 out of 10 of the cult trademarks in our current presidency. As AYR notes, it isn't even necessary to have a perfect score to qualify as a cult.
There are two parts to the Singer quote which I find a bit vague or circular. The first is "...claims he or she has a special mission or knowledge" -- if special here were "unique" instead, I'd feel more comfortable. Special by itself doesn't really mean anything. Specifically with relation to Agama, it is first and foremost a school of yoga. Yoga, by any standard, is a type of "special knowledge", in the same way that any specialized field of study is, whether it be Zoroastrianism or particle physics. It's only fair to note here that Swami does claim to offer highly exclusive yogic information. But all of it he's learned from different teachers, and all of which has at least some version or element described in classical texts (or at the very least modern literature from respected yogis). I have never heard him say that any of the teachings here is absolutely unobtainable elsewhere. Difficult to find? Yes. Does he even imply that it's restricted information and you can only get it (easily) here? Yes. But that's not nearly the same as "special knowledge", which I take to imply "...which can't be found elsewhere". For example, there is a teaching given here from the Tibetan tradition, where a certain mantra is given to students. Swami has said things like, "Even the Tibetans don't give this one out too often." That's a far cry from "I am the only person on earth who can bestow this knowledge upon you." Like I said, I'd prefer if the original quote just said "unique" instead.
Even so, it seems that this clause isn't meant to stand on its own as a denotative element for "cult", but rather it's meant to go along with the second half of the quote, which goes, "which will be shared with those who turn over most of their decision making to that self-appointed leader." This also is a bit funny to me -- I can appoint myself as leader of the United Nations right now if I like, but it doesn't mean anything until I'm no longer "self-appointed" but "elected", or in a totalitarian example, until I have the ability to force others to obey my command. A cult doesn't get formed when Joe Swami says so, a cult is formed when enough people choose to surrender some degree of power to a particular individual.
And this is one of my main theses here: Cults are defined by the attitude of their members, not by the head authority itself.
Basically, cults happen when the teacher becomes the focus, and not the teachings. From there the nastier qualities set in, when in order to maintain power, fear, coercion, various depravations, and so forth, are employed. But there needs to be a antecedent surrender of one's discernment before any of that can happen (again, unless force is employed, like the Jones compound in Guyana or something).
Back to Agama -- in a certain way, I am in complete agreement with AYR. There are absolutely people here who are devoted more to Swami (even fanatically so) than to the study and practice of the yogic system offered here. These people already live, more-or-less, as cult members. There is a definite surrender of decision-making over to Swami, by these individuals. And there is certainly a certain elitism, even totalitarianism (in the sense of non-acceptance of other views) which they abide by. It's palpably isolating to spend a lot of time with some of the people here.
I don't support any of this behavior for a second. I think it's immature and, as AYR mentioned, is largely based on fear. However, I don't think that these people and their attitudes are enough to call Agama a cult. As for the teachings themselves, here is another place where I don't think Singer's definitions are completely appropriate, because the study of hatha yoga itself (as seen in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, Gheranda Samhita, Shiva Samhita, and so forth) incorporates -- as essentials! -- some of these very elements (from the "10 cult qualities" mentioned earlier). "Alienation", "fatigue" (to an extent), "totalitarian worldview", and "change in diet" are all stressed as of vital importance for the successful practice of yoga in these texts. And while it's true that you don't really need to go and live in a cave, sleep 4 hours per night, and be vegan to make headway in one's yogic practice, these types of behaviors are by no means exclusive to Agama Yoga itself -- nor are they practices required or demanded of students in this system.
To me it's pretty clear that there are cultish aspects of Agama and some of its practitioners, but that, according to Singer's standards, the school itself (including Swami's attitude about teaching) doesn't qualify as a cult -- not even a mild one. Unless if by mild, Derek, you meant just what I said -- that there is a percentage of the student population here which acts like a cult. In that case, I agree. I also agree that should this (currently minority, in my view) percentage increase to gain a majority, then unless Swami specifically addresses these tendencies, there is the strong possibility that Agama could become a cult.
I'll leave off on this topic for now. I think there's plenty more to be said, on either side, but I'm eager to continue this as a dialogue, rather than a diatribe. I should mention here before I move on to CSA's blog, that I consider the author of AYR to be a strong, inspiring individual. He's intelligent, fair, and extremely knowledgeable in his fields of expertise. He's taught me quite a bit, in fact, about contemporary methods for evaluating teachers, curriculum, and educational administration -- as well as putting forth a good game of chess! I just think there are some fundamental differences between teaching in different disciplines -- as much as I believe there are fundamental similarities. You don't see, say, Mike Krzyzewski coaching his players in the same way, not even a similar methodology, that you'd see done by an AT at a Goenka Vipassana retreat, or by a literature prof at Exeter Academy. At the heart of all these teachers and their teachings though, should be a strong desire to help people grow in a positive direction, and a clear and effective methodology to make this happen. I believe Agama Yoga has these fundamentals, although I completely agree that, evaluated from a different (I'll refrain from using generalizations such as Western or Eastern) perspective, the tools and approaches used might be determined as inappropriate, remedial, or even harmful. The question then remains, I suppose, is there an objective standard for education which can take into account all the myriad styles, cultures, expressions, and goals of all teachings everywhere? That's what I feel AYR is trying to establish, and I don't think that's very fair. Derek? Any thoughts?
Okay, that was a lot longer than I expected. I'll try to give CSA equal consideration...forgive me if I run out of steam. (Must be a weak muladhara chakra. :-) )
CSA
As I mentioned earlier, CSA, run by Stefan, attacks Agama from a more purely skeptical standpoint. Agama exhibits bad (or no) discernment or scientific integrity, it's poorly run, it's poorly taught, and otherwise intelligent individuals seem completely brainwashed by the hogwash and second-rate mysticism. (Whether or not they were like that before they got here, and that's just the sort Agama attracts, or whether they change once they arrive, seems unclear -- both, I guess).
All that is my paraphrasing of CSA's opinion of Agama. And to be honest, I more or less completely agree! This post on CSA is more-or-less 100% accurate, and well-stated, in my opinion.
The administration here is a nightmare, especially with regards to how the TTC was run this year. (Although it deserves to be said that strenuous efforts are being made to completely revamp the TTC experience for next season, and a lot of the problems most frequently encountered this year should be smoothed out for the next one.) Swami is always late, and the more advance planning made for a particular meeting, the later he comes! Last night we began a meeting scheduled to start at 830pm, at 945pm...and the sad thing is, no one really showed up (among the students) until 915 anyhow! it's an awful pattern that has been established from the very top. Apparently, Swami's own first yoga teacher would sometimes show up 3 DAYS LATE . I pray that it doesn't end up going that far here...but something needs to be done.
Anyway, CSA has already articulated most of the other rants I could go off on, so I'll refrain. My main issue with the standpoint of CSA is nicely summed up with this excerpt from the post entitled What Yoga Is:
"If you want to build a bridge, consult an engineer. If you want your computer fixed, ask a software expert. If you want to live a healthy life, live according to what your doctor tells you. If you want to know how your mind works and act accordingly listen to your psychologist. If you want to aet a healthy diet ask your dietary counsellor. If you want advice on how to act ethically, consult a philosopher. ... yoga is ... [a] method for living your life according to the laws of "the universe" ... Just check who you trust about how the universe works."
Again, no disagreements there, not explicitly at least. Implicitly though...essentially what I hear CSA saying is that he believes that if you want to achieve some result, or outcome, you should go to someone whom you believe to excel in accomplishing (or helping you to accomplish) this task. Furthermore, and this is where I must disagree, he is saying something similar to what AYR said, at its core: there is an objective standard by which all "proficiency" can be measured.
I would submit that such a belief is ultimately no more tenable than religious faith, or confidence in a system of psycho-physical/spiritual development, like yoga. Belief in "objective" scientific analysis, or whatever modern methodology is accepted as a base for evaluation, requires you to buy into some core tenets, which often stand in stark contradiction of other opposing systems. Now, okay, you can't really argue that point -- an intelligent response would be, well, if there is no such thing as total objectivity, then it makes the most sense to go for the system that makes the most use of common consensus. If 1000 out of 1000 people experience an apple falling to the floor every time it's pushed off a shelf, then it's more reasonable to believe there is some downward, inevitable, attractive force occuring, than if one or two people claim (without even being able to demonstrate to others on request) that under certain conditions they can oppose and even overcome gravity by means of levitation. I'm all for this, in this extreme example. I don't think it hurts though, to be open-minded enough to admit anything as a possibility, as long as it's not interfering with your ability to meet the outcomes you're trying to achieve, as I mentioned before. I may believe it's possible to levitate, but I don't see a problem with that as long as I don't encourage myself or others to believe and act as gravity doesn't exist (or can be easily overcome). I trust in the laws of physics while bringing my motorbike around a sharp turn -- I have direct experience that something is reliably consistent here! -- but to be close-minded to possibility is not the way that most growth, maturation, and especially scientific advancement has been made throughout history.
However, there are a few examples mentioned by CSA that don't really fall into this "upheld by standards of objectivity", which seem to instead border on blind faith! Let's look again..."If you want to live a healthy life, live according to what your doctor tells you. If you want to know how your mind works and act accordingly listen to your psychologist. If you want to aet a healthy diet ask your dietary counsellor. If you want advice on how to act ethically, consult a philosopher."
What exactly does healthy mean here? Even ignoring this important ambiguity, it's uncontestable that many doctors have been confronted, sued, even stripped of their rights as practitioners for violating certain standards of ethical and moral behavior. Endorsing medicines on behalf of pharmaceutical companies (rather than what the patient may truly need), giving ultra-conservative advice so as to avoid potential malpractice issues, giving preferential treatment to certain demographics of patients...not to mention that, just because you graduate from medical school, doesn't mean you will be a good, even sufficiently knowledgeable, doctor! I and many people I know have had personal experiences with medical consultations which later proved to be completely erroneous, even contraindicatory, to the problem at hand.
Listen to your psychologist? As the author of CSA is a practicing psychologist himself, I'm sure it's just as obvious to him as it is to most that you could have a roomful of psychologists and easily arrive at a case where each one has a different, even contradictory method (and theory) for treatment. For an example involving CSA himself, take NLP, for example, a therapeutic technology mentioned in AYR's blog as practiced by Agama. CSA's author has reportedly said that NLP is an almost completely abandoned technology in modern psychology, having no clinical studies to support its efficacy or successful use (this is also backed up on Wikepedia)...and yet, in one example in the same country where CSA practices, the incoming head of the New Jersey State Psychological Association is a staunch advocate and current practitioner of NLP!
(Admittedly, I like NLP and I chose this example specifically to defend it, although I don't think it'd be hard for either me or CSA to come up with other, less controversial examples of conflicting methods of therapy.)
Moving on...eat healthy? If there is any field in modern "science" which is more fickle and unstable than dietary studies, I can't think of it now. Alkaline/Acid, Low-Carb, Hi-Carb, Atkins, South Beach, Raw, Vegan, Vegetarian, Organic, even protein/carb/calorie basics are disputed now! 'Nuff said here.
And ethics? Consult a philosopher? What is philosophy, if not the institutionalized agreement to disagree on /everything/? Not to mention that Indian Tantric and Vedantic philosophies have both been accepted (and even found widespread in other cultures) as valid, engaging, stable philosophical standpoints for centuries...
My point, by now, should be obvious. CSA is choosing here to surrender just as much (if not more) of his "decision making" (see Singer) to supposed experts in specific fields, as the students here at Agama have chosen to do with regards to yogic teachings (and yes, even Swami's specific take on these teachings) regarding all the aforementioned topics: health, the workings of the mind, diet, and philosophy. His final sentence quoted above is, in my esteem, the most elegant: "Just check who you trust about how the universe works."
Stefan, I believe you have started from a strong system, that of scientific objectivism (which in many cases can indeed hold strong, valid argument against some of the practices taught in yoga), and you've leapfrogged (or been leapfrogged) by a set of beliefs, which, although purportedly coming from that same strong background, are in many ways just as brainwashed and ultimately superstitious as those that talk of levitation, gods, magic, and subtle energies. How many people research the pills prescribed to them by their doctors, to see if they're really exactly what they need? Do you? How many people following nutritionists' advice really go through the time to fully understand how the body and its metabolistic/digestive processes work (assuming these things /can/ be fully understood in the first place!) Do you? If so, I applaud you, but even in this case, I think your encouraging an equally blind faith in those chosen fields or professions which you've mentioned is ultimately culturally and educationally biased and not worthy of the fine standard of logical analysis which you've displayed often in the past.
All the same, I'm open to hear what you have to say, and to explore these points further. In fact, I welcome it! (We never did get to play a game of chess...)
As for now, I'm completely wiped...there may have been things I'd meant to include but whatever's there for now is as it'll stay. Thanks to Derek and Stefan both for starting up this engaging line of discussion. I'll look forward to finding ways in which these issues can be used to make Agama into a system of teaching which is more accepted from all walks of life.
Post-Scriptum: There is one more thing which I'd like to be completely open about (anyone who's read my blog much over the years will be aware of this already), which is the fact that I am extremely open-minded, and more than willing to allow subjective, un-universally-verifiable experiences to color (enliven?) my view of life and the world around me. You may see on the Tribe AYR postings one story entitled "Fire and Ice". That "quite stupid" story was about (and told by) me! And although I can't say Derek told the story exactly as I told it to him, it's more or less accurate -- and I don't think this openness to belief necessarily clouds my ability to be a logical, rational, analytical individual in any way, shape, or form. I believe really weird things are going on all the time! And more likely than not, some of these weird things ARE NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I'm fine with that.
Every single person on this earth, Derek and Stefan included, is walking around, making up a large part of their experiential reality, and it has very little to do with any consensual perspective. The only thing which is consensual, perhaps, is the agreement by a majority to exactly what extent it's acceptable to be creating your reality as you go along. If I pass a girl on the street and she looks at me and I say to myself, "Wow, she totally wanted me." -- sure, I may get a few eye rolls if I pass this onto my friends, but would you label me as crazy or delusional? (I mean, seriously.) But if I walk past that same girl on the street and say to myself, "Wow, her aura is amazingly vivid and she has a little fairy following her around over her left shoulder and I think she's maybe a reincarnated mermaid." -- now if I chose to share this with the person next to me, I'd start getting looks. Consensual, or objective, reality refers here to how comfortable a group feels with any one of its members fantasizing -- or better yet, it refers to how likely other members of the group might be to share a similar fantasy of their own.
I often have perceptual experiences that I'd guess people around me don't share. Both of the "she totally wants me" variety, AND the "auric mermaid" kind. I'm open to being shown how one affects my ability to reason and discriminate more than the other -- because for now I don't accept that any particular quality of subjective experience is causal to rational thinking. Now, that some such quality, or rather, the control over these qualities, could be causal to one's ability to function in any given society is another thing entirely -- John Nash comes to mind immediately as a fine thinker and an absolute mess due to his schizophrenia. I'm happy to admit that my own subjective world would not fit well for very long in, say, the consensual reality of an corporate office job, or a branch of the military. Again, this applies to everyone I think. And I've made my point.
Thanks again, all for now.
Love to all.
