|
|
Post by TW on Jul 17, 2009 10:22:31 GMT -6
So I finished I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges. It wasn't a hefty volume but I took my time because as I read I liked and disliked what I read, and where I disliked, I would take a long break. So it took me a couple of weeks. In any case, the sensation I am left with is one of relief... relief that its over. Like that one feels at the end of a clancky carnival ride where there was exhiliration around the curves and down the drops, but mostly one felt every metal parts poorly joined and where the bolts and screws were a bit too loose for safety. Chris Hedges is a reporter, a newsman. His especiality has been war coverage, and as such he has of course built an informed opinion on human violence. However informed though, his point of view as a reporter is what prevails. He simply acertains again and again that human beings are violent by nature and there is nothing to be done about it. Nothing except to become less violent, which, in the next page, he again demonstrates to be basically an utopia because above all humans will be just humans, i.e., violent. He reasons that it is a violence in itself to believe that human beings can progress to a higher state of being, to a state of purity and perfection, because such belief generates a false sense of entitlement, a false claim to superiority. And he says such false sense of righteousness is shared by religions and science/atheism alike. They both promote the same irrational goal, which is the utopia of a reasonable, developed, pure human society. He is not wrong evidently where the transgression of others' rights is unacceptable, even if apparently justified. But he does not resolve the question of it being a fact that it is also human that we seek perfection. If perfection is not achievable, then why is there hankering for it? And if imperfection (which manifests as violence) is our becoming state, what is the point of complaining about it as he does? What is the point of showing who is being violent against whom throughout history, of taking sides, of waxing a moral discourse, if such state is existence itself? What is the point of complaining about a thing which will not be anything but what it is?
Hedges complains about the ignorance of the new atheists - their ignorance of the cultures and the humanity of other peoples, the enemys the west powerfully wages wars against. In the name of protecting the civilized world against irrational religious fanatics, he says, atheists advocate rationality which must be had by the same irrational means as those used by the agressors. He exposes neo atheism as nothing more than the result of western ignorance and laziness, an uniform group of westerners snug in their material comforts who must now protect themselves from the agressor, the terrorists. Near the end of his speech he comes to his actual agenda: The war on terror of the USA which he covered as a reporter. He quotes Harris who says, "our real enemy is not terrorists, our real enemy is Islam."
Well, Harris happens to be right if by "our" he meant our self interest as a species. Hedges dennounces the lack of nuance by religionists and atheists alike, but fails himself to understand the nuance in Harris argument. And he fails to detect the lack of nuance in hiw own view of humanity. If his case against atheism is the current world situation where there is a rational reaction against the the extremism of an unaccountable party, then he does not have a case against atheism. He has a case against the United States of America's foreign policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 17, 2009 11:16:34 GMT -6
So I finished I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges. It wasn't a hefty volume but I took my time because as I read I liked and disliked what I read, and where I disliked, I would take a long break. So it took me a couple of weeks. In any case, the sensation I am left with is one of relief... relief that its over. Like that one feels at the end of a clancky carnival ride where there was exhiliration around the curves and down the drops, but mostly one felt every metal parts poorly joined and where the bolts and screws were a bit too loose for safety. Chris Hedges is a reporter, a newsman. His especiality has been war coverage, and as such he has of course built an informed opinion on human violence. However informed though, his point of view as a reporter is what prevails. He simply acertains again and again that human beings are violent by nature and there is nothing to be done about it. Nothing except to become less violent, which, in the next page, he again demonstrates to be basically an utopia because above all humans will be just humans, i.e., violent. He reasons that it is a violence in itself to believe that human beings can progress to a higher state of being, to a state of purity and perfection, because such belief generates a false sense of entitlement, a false claim to superiority. And he says such false sense of righteousness is shared by religions and science/atheism alike. They both promote the same irrational goal, which is the utopia of a reasonable, developed, pure human society. He is not wrong evidently where the transgression of others' rights is unacceptable, even if apparently justified. But he does not resolve the question of it being a fact that it is also human that we seek perfection. If perfection is not achievable, then why is there hankering for it? And if imperfection (which manifests as violence) is our becoming state, what is the point of complaining about it as he does? What is the point of showing who is being violent against whom throughout history, of taking sides, of waxing a moral discourse, if such state is existence itself? What is the point of complaining about a thing which will not be anything but what it is? Hedges complains about the ignorance of the new atheists - their ignorance of the cultures and the humanity of other peoples, the enemys the west powerfully wages wars against. In the name of protecting the civilized world against irrational religious fanatics, he says, atheists advocate rationality which must be had by the same irrational means as those used by the agressors. He exposes neo atheism as nothing more than the result of western ignorance and laziness, an uniform group of westerners snug in their material comforts who must now protect themselves from the agressor, the terrorists. Near the end of his speech he comes to his actual agenda: The war on terror of the USA which he covered as a reporter. He quotes Harris who says, "our real enemy is not terrorists, our real enemy is Islam." Well, Harris happens to be right if by "our" he meant our self interest as a species. Hedges dennounces the lack of nuance by religionists and atheists alike, but fails himself to understand the nuance in Harris argument. And he fails to detect the lack of nuance in hiw own view of humanity. If his case against atheism is the current world situation where there is a rational reaction against the the extremism of an unaccountable party, then he does not have a case against atheism. He has a case against the United States of America's foreign policies. Great review. Very thoughtful and insightful. Please contribute some more. I will do something like this for Dawkins and Blackmore when I finish them. I also want to take up Hawkins' On Intelligence. Anyone out there read this one? |
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jul 20, 2009 19:26:08 GMT -6
I am near the conclusion of "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramamsa Yogananda*. What strikes me incredibly fantastic in this biography is the ring of fantasy it has to it. Virtually all events in the life of Paramamsa Yogananda are touched by magical-like incidents and beings. Almost like witches and wizards and their related routines. The people and events he featured as significant in his life were so because of never short of impossible turns, never devoid of improbable feats. Some great sadhu was great because he "never slept". A great lady gained a place in his memory forever because she "never ate", a European saint made into the narration because Paramahamsa saw that her body would "infalibly turn up wonded like Christ's and bleed copiouly every Friday". All these magical things are relevant, muses Paramahansa, because it explains the oneness of it all and how we all belong.
Do we ever...
But between one miracle and the next those who didn't know learn, and those who already knew are reminded, that Paramansa Yogananda was a deeply compassionate soul who wanted to see the world united by the miracle of yoga disciplines. He was one of the pioneers in bringing such dsiciplines to the US - from his great first encounter with Americans in 1920 his presence remained great until his dead, also great, in Los Angeles in 1952. It is said that he planned the manner in which he would die, and that his body remained fresh without decomposing for twenty days after his death. His legacy through the Self-Realization Fellowship, his organization established in California also in 1920, has been a landmark in the history of East-West exchanges. He was clearly a compassionate man who, albeit devoid of firecrack-like feats of his own, nevertheless produced a chain of social wonders such as school for empoverished boys in India, which still operate in many parts of the country, and meditation colonies <i>that endure</i> in the west.
Nowadays the wonder of Paramahansa Yogananda's influence is not in the fantasticity of the life tales he told but in how their improbability has not affected the yogi's credibility a bit. That is perhaps the yogi's greatest miracle of all.
*I know I know everybody read this classic like 70 years ago but I only read it now, hey, who among us did NOT read all of the Harry Potter exactly when they came out? Yet, everybody hardly remembers each plot. I tell you: read the old Harry Potter series today again and see how much you missed <i>then</i>.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sakhicharan Das on Jul 20, 2009 20:36:05 GMT -6
I am near the conclusion of "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramamsa Yogananda*. That is a wonderful book! Before coming to CV I read it and reread it until the pages were falling out. Autobiography of a Yogi is what brought me to CV. In the book Yogananda Ji mentions Bhagavad Gita and Krishna frequently. It made me very curious so I went to the local bookstore and purchased The Song of God: Bhagavad Gita by Isherwood and Prabhavananda Swami. By the time I reached the second chapter I realized that I was seeking Krishna all along and three weeks after that I called an iskcon center asking if they had room in their ashram for me to stay so I can do bhajan!  Not the best move on my part as things turn out.  Batch of rascals. ;D Anyway, it's kind of funny to see this book spoken about because I came to this thread this morning wanting to post about a book titled, Autobiography of a Blue-eyed Yogi, by Baba Rampuri. He is the first westerner to take initiation in the Juna Akhara of the Naga Yogis. There is a short review here. I thought it would be an interesting book to take a look at. Has anyone here read it? |
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Jul 21, 2009 10:03:50 GMT -6
"Autobiography of a Yogi" has done a lot to draw positive attention to India, but at the time I read this book (about 70 years ago) I was disappointed at the way he approached Divinity, in his case mainly Lakshmi-devi. His bhakti was 'just ask, and continue to ask till She'll give you', like most ordinary people in most religions. But if you get a bit further into mysticism, you leave that behind, as also that insistence on miracles. In a way he is rather materialistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by saag on Jul 21, 2009 10:10:50 GMT -6
" Autobiography of a Yogi" has done a lot to draw positive attention to India, but at the time I read this book (about 70 years ago) I was disappointed at the way he approached Divinity, in his case mainly Lakshmi-devi. His bhakti was 'just ask, and continue to ask till She'll give you', like most ordinary people in most religions. But if you get a bit further into mysticism, you leave that behind, as also that insistence on miracles. In a way he is rather materialistic. I think you need to re-read the book, in his early adventures has dealings with Ma Kaali of Dakshineswar (Ramakrishnas beloved Deity) not Ma Lakshmi. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jul 21, 2009 11:06:46 GMT -6
Agree. AOAY is a very interesting book. Some sections of it still inspire me.
|
|
|
|
Post by saag on Jul 21, 2009 12:46:34 GMT -6
Even as a Child Yogananda references Ma Kaali:
Quote from AOAY:
"Our family moved to Lahore in the Punjab. There I acquired a picture of the Divine Mother in the form of the Goddess Kali. It sanctified a small informal shrine on the balcony of our home. An unequivocal conviction came over me that fulfillment would crown any of my prayers uttered in that sacred spot."
You see he was Bengali which was largely Tantric at that time, thus you have worship of Ma Kaali and Ma Durga.
|
|
|
|
Post by gerard on Jul 21, 2009 16:34:00 GMT -6
" Autobiography of a Yogi" has done a lot to draw positive attention to India, but at the time I read this book (about 70 years ago) I was disappointed at the way he approached Divinity, in his case mainly Lakshmi-devi. His bhakti was 'just ask, and continue to ask till She'll give you', like most ordinary people in most religions. But if you get a bit further into mysticism, you leave that behind, as also that insistence on miracles. In a way he is rather materialistic. I think you need to re-read the book, in his early adventures has dealings with Ma Kaali of Dakshineswar (Ramakrishnas beloved Deity) not Ma Lakshmi. Thank you, I stand corrected, but this is not for me a reason to reread it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jul 21, 2009 17:41:11 GMT -6
I'm currently halfway through this book, a collection of biographies for four prominent Kriya Yoga gurus. There are some mentions of Chaitanyadev, Vijay Krishna Gosvami, Atul Krishna Gosvami, and others. Apparently Yogananda's guru, Sri Yukteswar, was quite close to a certain Goswami family in his youth (the book doesn't mention which) and that he was well respected by them and vice versa. Given that both these traditions have arisen in Bengal, I've sometimes wondered to what extent they interacted and influenced each other. I don't remember much if any mention in AOAY, but I presume one will find more if one digs deep into the histories of the Kriya teachers. |
|
|
|
Post by saag on Jul 21, 2009 18:44:43 GMT -6
I'm currently halfway through this book, a collection of biographies for four prominent Kriya Yoga gurus. There are some mentions of Chaitanyadev, Vijay Krishna Gosvami, Atul Krishna Gosvami, and others. Apparently Yogananda's guru, Sri Yukteswar, was quite close to a certain Goswami family in his youth (the book doesn't mention which) and that he was well respected by them and vice versa. Given that both these traditions have arisen in Bengal, I've sometimes wondered to what extent they interacted and influenced each other. I don't remember much if any mention in AOAY, but I presume one will find more if one digs deep into the histories of the Kriya teachers. Ekatin, You may want to check out Yoga Niketans on-line Kriya Yoga Shrine and Library (publishers of the book your reading) with many others on-line books there: www.yoganiketan.net/ |
|
|
|
Post by saag on Jul 22, 2009 10:57:05 GMT -6
Ekantin , Here is an interesting site from Swami Satyeswarananda who is quite prolific in his writings about Kriya and claims Yogananda did not teach authentic Kriya Yoga as was given by Lahiri Mahasaya of Benares. www.sanskritclassics.com/aboutbaba.html |
|
|
|
Post by saag on Jul 22, 2009 10:59:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by saag on Jul 22, 2009 11:01:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Jul 22, 2009 11:29:22 GMT -6
|
|
Not the best move on my part as things turn out. 
Batch of rascals. ;D