Atheist yoga

 

We now resume our regular programming...

Rational guy

 

Have I finally found my guru? ;-) OK, don´t take that comment too seriously...

Can you tell me more about Swami Abhedananda and the differences/similarities between his message and that of the Ramakrishna Order?

Swami Abhedananda (1866–1939) was a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna and an important early figure in spreading Vedanta in the West. While he is not as widely known today as Swami Vivekananda, he played a major role in the early dissemination of Vedantic teachings, especially in the United States.

Although closely associated with the early Ramakrishna movement, Abhedananda eventually separated from the formal Ramakrishna Order, and his message and legacy reflect both continuities and divergences with the mainline tradition.

---

🧘‍♂️ Swami Abhedananda: Brief Biography

• Born as Kaliprasad Chandra in Bengal.

• Met Sri Ramakrishna in 1885, shortly before Ramakrishna's passing.

• Became a monk under the guidance of Swami Vivekananda.

• Sent by Vivekananda to lead the Vedanta Society of New York in 1897.

• Spent about 25 years in the West (mainly the U.S. and Europe) as a teacher of Vedanta.

• Returned to India in 1921 and later founded the Ramakrishna Vedanta Math in Calcutta (a separate organization from the Ramakrishna Math and Mission).

---

🟣 Similarities with the Ramakrishna Order

Despite the institutional split, Swami Abhedananda remained deeply devoted to Ramakrishna and shared many core values with the Order:

Theme	Shared Orientation
Vedanta philosophy	Strong emphasis on Advaita Vedanta (nonduality)
Universal religion	Accepted the unity of all religions and saw Ramakrishna as an embodiment of that ideal
Spiritual practice	Advocated jnana yoga, raja yoga, and some devotional practices
Social ethics	Upheld moral discipline, selflessness, and service (though less activist than the main Order)
Ramakrishna as avatar	Revered Sri Ramakrishna, though with some nuanced differences in interpretation

---

🔸 Key Differences from the Ramakrishna Order

1. Organizational Independence

• After returning to India, Abhedananda did not rejoin the Ramakrishna Math and Mission.

• He founded his own monastic institution—the Ramakrishna Vedanta Math in Calcutta—which exists to this day as a separate lineage.

2. Philosophical Emphasis

• Swami Abhedananda strongly emphasized jnana yoga (the path of knowledge) and rational spirituality.

• He was less devotional in tone than the mainstream Ramakrishna Order, which balances bhakti (devotion) and jnana (knowledge).

• His presentation of Vedanta was more intellectual, analytical, and skeptical—especially appealing to modern Western audiences.

3. Rejection of Blind Faith

• He explicitly rejected superstition, dogma, and uncritical belief, especially in his Western lectures.

• He was open to scientific approaches to spirituality and often discussed psychical research, reincarnation, and consciousness studies in modern terms.

4. Views on Ramakrishna

• He revered Ramakrishna deeply but did not always highlight the mystical or bhakti dimensions of Ramakrishna’s life the way other disciples did (such as Swamis Saradananda or Premananda).

• In his writings, Ramakrishna often appears as a great teacher of Vedanta rather than an ecstatic, divine incarnation—though this varies depending on the text.

---

📘 Representative Works

• Self-Knowledge (Atma-Jnana) – Based on his lectures in the U.S., emphasizing jnana yoga and the identity of the self with Brahman.

• How to Be a Yogi – Covers Raja Yoga and methods for mental discipline.

• Reincarnation and Immortality – A rational and scientific discussion of afterlife concepts.

• Doctrines of the Vedanta Philosophy – A philosophical exposition of Advaita with minimal devotional language.

---

🧠 Orientation Summary

Theme	Swami Abhedananda	Ramakrishna Order
Vedanta Style	Strongly Advaita, rational	Balanced Advaita with bhakti and karma
Tone	Intellectual, philosophical	Devotional, spiritual, service-oriented
View of Ramakrishna	Great teacher and Vedantin	Avatar of the age, divine incarnation
Public engagement	Lectures, publishing, teaching	Broader social service, education, relief
Institutional affiliation	Independent (Vedanta Math)	Ramakrishna Math and Mission

---

🕊️ Legacy

Swami Abhedananda’s work is still respected—especially in Bengal and among Western students of Vedanta. However, his independent stance and rationalist style meant that his influence within the official Ramakrishna Order was more limited over time, particularly as the Order developed its own structured identity and theological emphases.

His contributions are often seen as:

• A complementary voice within the broader Ramakrishna movement.

• A pioneer in rational Vedanta teaching in the West.

• A defender of spiritual universalism without excessive ritualism or emotionalism.

---

Would you like a sample or analysis of one of his writings—perhaps a comparison of how he and Vivekananda each present the self or Brahman, or their attitudes toward science and spirituality?

What was Abhedananda´s view of raja yoga?

Swami Abhedananda held Rāja Yoga in high regard as a vital component of spiritual practice, but his presentation of it was distinctly rational, scientific, and non-mystical—especially tailored to modern, Western audiences. His view aligns with the classical understanding of Patanjali’s Yoga, yet filtered through an Advaita Vedanta lens and framed in terms appealing to intellectual seekers.

---

🧘‍♂️ Swami Abhedananda’s View of Raja Yoga

🔹 Core Perspective

• Rāja Yoga is the science of controlling the mind and attaining direct experience of the Self (Ātman).

• It is a practical path—less reliant on faith or devotion, and more on discipline, concentration, and self-analysis.

• He saw it as a method for:

  • Quieting mental distractions

  • Awakening inner powers

  • Achieving samādhi, the superconscious state

  • Ultimately realizing the identity of the self with Brahman

“Rāja Yoga is not a belief but a science… It teaches us how to reach the highest truth by self-control and concentration.”

— Swami Abhedananda, How to Be a Yogi

---

📚 Key Text: How to Be a Yogi (1902)

This book is Abhedananda’s most sustained exposition of Rāja Yoga. It includes:

1. Scientific framing of Yoga:

   • He frequently refers to yoga as a science of consciousness.

   • Emphasizes experiment, observation, and verification in spiritual practice.

   • Avoids religious dogma and focuses on universal psychological truths.

2. Fourfold foundation:

   • Yama (moral restraints) and Niyama (disciplines) are essential.

   • Prāṇāyāma is emphasized not just for health, but for stilling the mind.

   • Dhāraṇā, dhyāna, and samādhi are seen as progressive internal states.

3. Mind as the key:

   • He emphasizes mind control as the essence of yoga.

   • Yoga is not “belief in God” but direct experience of pure consciousness.

   • He identifies ego (ahamkāra) and restlessness as key obstacles.

4. No theistic requirement:

   • Unlike some yoga presentations, Abhedananda’s Raja Yoga does not require belief in a personal God (Ishvara).

   • His version is compatible with Advaita Vedanta, where the goal is to realize one’s identity with the Self, not union with a deity.

---

🧠 Differences from Vivekananda

While both Vivekananda and Abhedananda admired Raja Yoga, there are some contrasts:

Theme	Swami Vivekananda	Swami Abhedananda
Tone	Majestic, devotional, sometimes theistic	Rational, scientific, empirical
Presentation	Popularized Patanjali + added bhakti overtones	Stuck closely to classical Patanjali
Audience	General public, spiritual seekers	Educated skeptics, rationalists
Goal	Union with the universal Self (Brahman/Ishvara)	Realization of the Self (Ātman = Brahman) through mind purification

---

🔍 Summary of Abhedananda’s Raja Yoga

• Practical path to Self-realization through mind mastery.

• Framed as a science of consciousness, accessible to rational minds.

• Rooted in classical yoga, interpreted through non-theistic Advaita.

• Emphasized psychological transformation and direct experience over dogma or ritual.

• Avoided emotionalism and religious exclusivism—universally applicable.

---

If you're interested, I can provide:

• A breakdown of his understanding of samādhi,

• His views on prāṇāyāma and psychic powers (siddhis),

• Or how he addresses skepticism about spiritual experience in the modern age. Would you like that?

Did he ever discuss kundalini?

Yes, Swami Abhedananda did discuss Kundalini, though not as extensively or dramatically as some other teachers. His treatment of Kundalini aligns with his overall approach to spiritual subjects: rational, understated, and framed in psychological and scientific terms rather than mystical or symbolic language.

---

🔥 Swami Abhedananda on Kundalini

🔹 Core Perspective:

• Kundalini is presented as a latent spiritual energy or psychic force residing at the base of the spine.

• He regarded the awakening of Kundalini as a scientific process connected with Rāja Yoga and the control of prāṇa (life force).

• He emphasized that Kundalini awakening is real but should be approached with discipline, preparation, and caution, not sensationalism.

---

📘 Key Source: How to Be a Yogi (1902)

In this work, Abhedananda discusses Kundalini in a chapter titled "The Awakening of the Kundalini", where he offers a relatively brief but serious treatment.

✦ Main Points:

1. Kundalini as dormant energy:

   • Describes it as a coiled power (as the word literally implies) at the base of the spine.

   • This energy can be awakened and made to rise through the sushumnā nāḍī, the central channel in the subtle body.

2. Relation to the chakras:

   • As Kundalini rises, it pierces the chakras (psychic centers), culminating in samādhi at the sahasrāra (crown center).

   • He does not dwell on the symbolism or mythology of chakras, but treats them more like states of consciousness.

3. Method of awakening:

   • Through prāṇāyāma, concentration, and ethical purity, one can awaken this latent force.

   • He warns against premature attempts to awaken Kundalini without adequate moral and psychological preparation.

4. Scientific framing:

   • He links Kundalini to the subtle forces of the nervous system and the mind-body relationship.

   • Abhedananda saw it not as “occultism” but as a spiritual technology.

---

🧘‍♂️ Comparison with Other Teachers

Teacher	Approach to Kundalini
Vivekananda	Described Kundalini vividly, using both tantric imagery and spiritual psychology. Gave dramatic accounts of its power.
Abhedananda	More restrained, emphasized rational understanding, psychic discipline, and scientific explanation.
Modern Kundalini teachers	Often emphasize energy sensations, visions, healing powers

---

⚠️ His Cautionary Tone

Abhedananda was skeptical of exaggerated claims around Kundalini. He considered such energy real, but warned that:

• Improper practices can lead to mental imbalance.

• True awakening requires moral purity, self-control, and a steady, calm mind.

• One should never seek powers (siddhis) or psychic thrills as the goal.

---

🧠 Summary

Swami Abhedananda’s teaching on Kundalini can be summarized as follows:

• A real but subtle spiritual energy, linked to consciousness and the nervous system.

• Best awakened through Rāja Yoga, particularly prāṇāyāma and meditation.

• Should be approached scientifically and ethically, not mystically or emotionally.

• Ultimately leads to samādhi and the realization of the Self (not occult powers).

---

If you're interested, I can excerpt or paraphrase his full discussion of Kundalini from How to Be a Yogi. Would you like that?

Cosmopolitan

 

 

I actually have this book (400 pages) but only skimmed it. I suppose I have to read it, maybe later this summer...

Short form: Mystical experiences are also "empirical" and therefore prove God. Also, the witness of mystics count as evidence for the rest of us. Long form: Two YouTube videos with a total running time of two hours plus a 400+ pages book. My present form: Why can´t God just show his ass to me stat, so I don´t have to sift through all this content? 

Most interesting idea: Most people are *really* atheists, for while they may pretend to believe in God, they act as if He (or She!) doesn´t exist. Would explain a lot of things. Once you see it... 

Dogs and hogs

 

Some sectarian ISKCON-related stuff, from a group that claims to be the really real ISKCON. They have the really real edition of their sacred writings, too! You know the drift. Probably only of interest to really hardcore Hare Krishna-watchers. 

Ecstatic pantheism

 

This particular YouTuber, Nish the Fish, talks too much in his videos (which are *very* long), but he does say interesting things in this one – if you can spare one hour and a half of your karmically conditioned existence in Kali Yuga to listen and (perhaps) learn. Nish is a supporter of the Ramakrishna Mission, but “spins” Ramakrishna´s and Vivekananda´s message in the direction of Kashmir Shaivism (alias Non-Dual Shaiva Tantra). Or one particular version of it. I´m tempted to call it ecstatic pantheism.

When you realize Brahman through yoga (counted as “jnana” or knowledge), you will realize that the whole manifested world is divine and exists for your aesthetic enjoyment and ecstatic pleasure. Your whole life will then become one long kirtan to the Divine – the same Divine you realize within yourself – and hence resemble bhakti (devotion to a personal god). The point being that true bhaktas often act as if mad or intoxicated. In a sense, then, we´re dealing with a kind of creative synthesis of jnana and bhakti. At least in its modern “Western” form, Kashmir Shaivism strikes me as very yogic and jnanic in character. It also emphasizes the impersonal or formless aspect of God, while Nish (and his role model Ramakrishna) rather prefer one of its personal aspects. Yes, that would be Mother Kali and her play…

Nish also discusses the magical aspects of puja, presumably a “Tantric” take on the matter. The point of puja is to quite literally conjure the deity and make it possess the idol, but also to stop any unwanted presence (demons?) to show up instead. Nish also mentions the more terrifying and esoteric forms of Kali, dancing on the charnel ground. These energies are used to overcome fear (almost through shock therapy) and thereby come closer to enlightenment.

He may say something else, too, but I really don´t remember! 😉

How pluralist is pluralism?

 

Some reflections on pluralism…

There seem to be two main versions of religious pluralism. We could perhaps call them “moderate” and “radical”. I suppose it could be seen as ironic that there is a plurality of pluralisms!

Moderate pluralism, often associated in Christian circles with John Hick, is the idea that all/most/many religions are true since they lead to the same goal. In other words, even religions that are very different in theology and practice (such as Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism) point towards the same god or divine reality. With all due respect to Hick, I think many would attribute this position to Swami Vivekananda. And precisely therein lies the problem, at least as far as many Christians are concerned. Vivekananda believed that the ultimate divine reality towards all religions are striving is Nirguna Brahman. But Nirguna Brahman is a distinctly *Hindu* theological concept. Indeed, Vivekananda might have subtly revised it, making the ultimate reality *his* concept of the Nirguna Brahman! But how is this “pluralist”? Isn´t it really a form of Advaita Vedanta Inclusivism? Inclusivism is the theological position that although only one religion (your own) is true, people can get saved through other religions as well, but only because your god chose to arrange salvation that way. Within Christianity, this may be the official position of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church and is also found in the writings and novels of C S Lewis. Isn´t Vivekananda simply preaching a Reform Hindu version of the same thing? (His book “Raja Yoga” could be given an even more narrow interpretation, with Raja Yoga being the supreme path, and all other paths being lower, although perhaps necessary for beginners.) As for Hick, he clearly revised traditional Christian theology (including Christology) to harmonize Christianity with other religions, which may not accept the Trinity or Jesus as the Son of God, but this simply confirmed to his more conservative critics that he was indeed adapting himself to alien creeds…

But what about radical pluralism? That´s the idea that all/most/many religions are true despite the fact that they have strikingly different goals. This position is also (!) associated with Vivekananda, but is perhaps more similar to that of his teacher, Ramakrishna. All religions are true since whatever salvific goal they seek will be accomplished (except, of course, at the expense of any other religion). But even this could be criticized as just another form of Inclusivism. Ramakrishna believed that the Ultimate Divine Reality was Shakti, a cosmic energy or force that can take many different forms. Indeed, Shakti can out of grace take exactly the form religious devotees expect. The implication is that even entirely new religions worshipping fictitious gods could be “true”, since Shakti simply takes their forms! (I´m not sure if Ramakrishna explicitly drew this conclusion, however.) In Hinduism, Shakti is personified as a goddess, and Ramakrishna did indeed worship Her in one of Her personified forms: Kali. Thus, Ramakrishna´s radical pluralism turns out to be the idea that *his* god-concept (or goddess-concept) is the ultimate one, and subsumes all other. A form of Shakta Inclusivism, in other words. No form of pluralism seems to be truly pluralist.

What´s my take on this? For one, I don´t really care. What makes pluralism vulnerable to the criticism that it´s really Inclusivism (and perhaps that Inclusivism is really a form of Exclusivism since, of course, it excludes such people) is that pluralism is usually put forward as a liberal, tolerant doctrine. For example, Hick was an anti-racist/anti-fascist/pro-immigration activist in his native Britain. Thus, critics can shame pluralism for not being really pluralist, or for being intolerant to Christianity (be it Inclusivist or Exclusivist). Personally, I don´t really care about this aspect of the equation. Pluralism could be true even if it isn´t “really” pluralism, after all. In other words, Ramakrishna or Vivekananda (as interpreted above) could be right! Besides, conservative forms of pluralism also exist, for instance the version proposed by Frithjof Schuon (which I suppose is “really” also Inclusivist – we could jokingly call it Schuonian Traditionalist Inclusivism).  

Second, there is another distinct possibility: that the correct position to take is something we could call “agnostic pluralism”. That is, while spiritual reality looks pluralist, it might not actually *be* pluralist. Maybe we simply lack the spiritual “sixth sense” to see Divine Reality as it actually looks like. For all we know, it could be very exclusivist indeed. Or even more pluralist?

With that, I end my little reflections.

I got my mind set on You

 

Ex-Beatle and pop icon George Harrison looks like Eric Idle and talks like Alan Watts, making morse sense than the latter (and perhaps the former) when discussing his interest in Transcendental Meditation (TM) and "Eastern" spirituality in general. 

Posted on various YouTube channels, including this one, associated somehow with the Ramakrishna Mission.  

Ramakrishna´s work in progress

 

Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1836-1886) was a well-known Hindu mystic from the Bengal. One of his disciples, Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), founded the Ramakrishna Order and Ramakrishna Mission, being one of the first Hindus to proselytize in the Western world. At least to an outsider, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda look very different, message-wise. And also mentality-wise! Vivekananda promoted himself in the West as a teacher of Advaita Vedanta, the “pantheist” school of Hinduism associated with the ancient sage Shankara, according to which only Brahman is real. He comes across as a serene and modern meditation practitioner, with a slight New Thought air. By contrast, his guru Ramakrishna was an ecstatic and “crazy saint” who lived most of his life in a Kali temple outside Calcutta! Not very modern, and probably not very serene either.

Since the Ramakrishna Order upholds both, the order must harmonize their respective approaches or philosophies. Luckily, both teachers had “pluralist” tendencies, themselves attempting to harmonize various Hindu traditions and practices. Also, Advaita Vedanta can be interpreted in different ways, not everyone taking the super-strict approach that the world is a literal illusion, that Brahman is wholly passive, and so on.

One possible way to harmonize Ramakrishna with both Shankara and Vivekananda can be seen in the clip above. Since this particular monk usually sounds very Advaita-orthodox, I was surprised by what he says here. It´s more in line with the perspective of Ayon Maharaj (Swami Medhananda), which I discussed before on this blog. Essentially, Sarvapriyananda argues that Ramakrishna´s “Vijnana Vedanta” *is* Advaita, or more specifically, an extension of it, but still dependent on Shankara´s basic non-dual perspective. He points out that Shankara himself wrote devotional hymns to personal deities. Vivekananda apparently established two Ramakrishna-related monasteries in India, one devotionalist, the other non-dualist. Yet, after an intervention of Sarada Devi (Ramakrishna´s “widow”, who was a spiritual teacher in her own right), the non-dualist monks were allowed to worship Ramakrishna´s portrait!

The solution to the conundrum, such as it is, is that the non-dual realizer decides to stay in the phenomenal world. Indeed, this becomes *easier* if he/she has a non-dual realization of Brahman being everything. When the wave realizes that it´s part of the sea, it can easier become friends with other waves, since they are all one. The lecturer also points out that Sarada Devi called Ramakrishna “non-dual” rather than “a non-dualist”, the point being that Ramakrishna was a personal incarnation of an impersonal Divine. Both the personal and impersonal are equally important. Usually, I get the impression that Sarvapriyananda regards devotion to a personal god as a lower stage of realization. Perhaps it is. Here, we have in effect a stage of realization beyond Brahman, with the mystic “descending” again, precisely because everything is God…

In the end, the lecturer admits that these questions are difficult and a work in progress.

Whitehead in the temple of Kali

 

Dakshineswar Kali Temple in Calcutta,
where Ramakrishna spent most of his life.
Credit: Knath

“Advaita and Dvaita: Bridging the Gap. The Ramakrishna Tradition’s both/and Approach to the Dvaita/Advaita Debate” is an article by Jeffery D. Long, originally published in “The Journal of Vaishnava Studies”. Long describes it as an essay in the service of cross-traditional philosophical diplomacy. The author is a member of the Ramakrishna Order, a Hindu organization associated with the 19^th century Bengali mystic Ramakrishna, but actually founded by his disciple Swami Vivekananda. A promoter of the monist Advaita Vedanta philosophy (or perhaps a revised “Neo-Advaita” version of it), Vivekananda was one of the first Hindus to actively proselytize in the Western world. He is probably the main “culprit” behind the Western view of Advaita as “the” Hindu philosophy per excellence. Presumably, he is also chiefly responsible for interpreting Ramakrishna in an Advaitist manner.

I think it´s obvious that Ramakrishna was a very different kind of cat, and while Long tries to harmonize the two gurus, my take is that he tilts in Ramakrishna´s direction. This makes it possible for him to do some intra-Hindu ecumenism, since the actual positions of Ramakrishna were hardly Advaitist. The main target for the cross-traditional diplomacy are the Vaishnavas, that is, the devotees of Vishnu or one of his avatars conceived as the supreme personal god (Ishvara or Bhagavan). Vaishnava bhakti presupposes that there is a distinction between God and humans, which in turn makes the monist Advaita philosophy anathema. To Advaita, the goal is for the human soul to merge with Nirguna Brahman, the impersonal “god” beyond all form or attributes. In some versions of this perspective, devotion to a personal god is incorporated as a lower stage of practice, but as the practitioner progresses on the path, he is supposed to realize that “god with form” is just as illusory as our separate human souls and only has a relative existence. (This seems to have been Vivekananda´s view.) To a Vaishnava, this is of course unacceptable.   

Long believes that what he calls “Ramakrishna Vedanta” is closer to mainstream Vaishnava schools of thought than to Advaita Vedanta. He compares it to Vishishtadvaita, Bhedabheda and Acintya Bhedabheda, which could be seen as intermediary positions between the strict dualism of Dvaita (another Vaishnava school) and the monism of Advaita. A Christian might presumably call these schools “panentheist” in contrast to both pantheism and theism. Long points out that bhakti (devotionalism) played an important part of Ramakrishna´s spiritual practice, making it close to Vaishnavism. Nor did Ramakrishna subordinate bhakti to jnana (here translated “gnosis”) in the Advaita manner. Rather, Ramakrishna believed that both bhakti and jnana were equally valid paths to liberation (not to mention several others!). He incorporated some ideas from Advaita Vedanta, such as the existence of Nirguna Brahman, while affirming that there are many paths to the divine. Indeed, Ramakrishna had intense mystical experiences of both a “dualist” and a “monist” nature, and even saw Jesus at one point!

Long is fascinated by Alfred North Whitehead´s process philosophy and attempts to interpret Ramakrishna Vedanta in this light. In a short article like this one, I don´t think he succeeds very well, but the gist of it is that he identifies the basic metaphysical principle of Whitehead´s system as “Creativity”, which takes many different forms. Says Long: “In mokṣa, one becomes consciously and joyfully what one has actually always been unconsciously (and not so joyfully)–a co-creator, with God, in the ongoing process of the universe, with unlimited creativity. One can submerge oneself in the infinite bliss of Nirguṇa Brahman, enjoy eternity in Heaven with God, or return to help others, like a Bodhisattva. The forms which mokṣa takes vary with the paths that are taken to it. This is apparent from the traditional accounts of Ramakrishna’s sādhanas, in which the type of experience he had at the culmination of his practice varied with the practice itself.” 

I´m not sure why Whitehead is needed at all, since Ramakrishna´s ideas seem to work pretty well all by themselves. Long points out that Ramakrishna is sometimes referred to as a “Shakta universalist”, and this does indeed seem to be the solution to the puzzle. As Long also points out, Whitehead´s Creativity could be seen as another name for Shakti. Shakti (worshipped by Ramakrishna as Kali) is the creative energy or force behind the universe, taking countless of different forms, both personal and impersonal, while also transcending them all. 

Does more really need to be said? 😉

Love is One

 

"Bhakti Yoga" is a book by Swami Vivekananda. The publication date is unclear. After reading a reprint of the 1959 edition on the web, I realized that the original version (perhaps from 1896) is much longer! That could explain various strange discrepancies in the 1959 text. Also, the various reprint editions treat the text as an actual book, when it´s really a series of stenographed lectures. I should really read the 1896 edition, and maybe I will at some point, but since I spent the last two days reading the truncated version, I decided to comment on it anyway. Take this commentary with a grain of Indian sea salt, if you wish!

Vivekananda was the founder of the Ramakrishna Mission, named after his master Ramakrishna. Yet, the two men obviously had different orientations, Ramakrishna being a "mad saint" and Shakta mystic who lived in a Kali temple in Calcutta, while the more cultured Vivekananda introduced a modernized form of Advaita Vedanta philosophy to the Western world, most notably the United States. There are even suspicions that Vivekananda was heavily influenced by New Thought and other forms of very liberal Christianity, American Transcendentalism, and so on. Of course, another possibility is that he referenced such things in his writings as a way to "hook" American spiritual seekers...

Vivekananda tries to harmonize belief in an unpersonal Absolute (Brahman) with worship of a personal god (Ishvara) and unabashed polytheism and "idolatry". At one point, he uses the simile of a bird, which needs both wings and a tail to fly: the two wings are "jnana" (knowledge) and "bhakti" (devotion) respectively, while the tail (the rudder) is "yoga" (presumably he means Raja Yoga and by *that* I think kundalini yoga is meant). The goal of the seeker is to realize that Lover, Beloved and Love are One. Merging with the Absolute thus becomes a kind of bhakti or devotion. I suppose this is bhakti towards Nirguna Brahman (the "formless" Brahman without attributes). 

However, most humans simply can´t reach this stage of realization without intermediary stages. Therefore, various lower stages of bhakti are necessary, when worship, love and devotion are directed towards God conceptualized in human form. Indeed, it´s inevitable that humans see God as human-like. Vivekananda actually says that waterbuffalo would see God as a waterbuffalo! This bhakti is directed towards Ishvara ("the Lord"), the transcendental and yet personal creator and sustainer of the cosmos. Bhakti towards lower beings such as demigods or spirits isn´t necessarily "wrong", but it will not lead to moksha (liberation). However, if you imagine yourself to worship Ishvara in the form of a demigod, or even a cult object, that counts as worship of the Lord. At several points, Vivekananda actually criticizes Protestantism for having scrapped all the old Church rituals, a somewhat unexpected position of somebody who supposedly was heavily influenced by ultra-liberal Protestants!

Vivekananda expounds at some length on the various forms of Vishnu-Krishna worship: seeing God as your master, friend, child, licit lover and (the most extreme version) illicit ditto. Here, the really existing bhakti shines through in all its crazy ecstasy. At one point, Vivekananda quotes an unnamed sage who I assume is Ramakrishna. To paraphrase: "The world considers me mad, but at least I´m mad for God." At the same time, I get the distinct impression that Vivekananda´s real orientation is the exact opposite of this bhakta madness. The point is to get higher and higher, until all your desires melt away, and you love the entire universe with perfectly poised equanimity. 

The path to this point doesn´t really seem to go through bhakti as usually conceived, but rather through purity, renunciation, stillness, desirelessness, and so on. Vivekananda does talk of Love, but is there really any love if everything in the cosmos is "Love", and the Lover, Beloved and Love itself is really one? Also, the idea that everything in the universe is Love sounds like New Thought or Christian Science! Vivekananda also says that we should love God even if we don´t get any love back, as a way to train our selflessness, but isn´t the point of bhakti precisely that the devotee´s love activates God´s love for the devotee? Harmonizing bhakti for a personal god like Krishna with a more monist pespective turns out to be...difficult. 

An interesting aspect of "Bhakti Yoga" is that Vivekananda emphasizes the need for physical training and a good diet. Only strong-willed people will reach Brahman, and that includes having a strong body, due to the exertions necessary to reach the goal (presumably he means some kind of difficult body postures when doing yoga). As for the diet, it has to be "sattvic", although the author also warns his readers against "kitchen religion" (an obsession with pure and impure foods, and so on). He even provocatively says that a sage who is a paragon of moral virtue while nevertheless eating meat from swine (considered impure animals in Hinduism) is better than a moral reprobate who only eats pure foods.

Vivekananda´s "pluralist" perspective is also touched upon several times in the book. All religions (or "ideals") are equally valid in his eyes, since they all manifest the Divine and ultimately converge on the same point. He criticizes religious exclusivism and fanaticism, seeing this in effect as a lower form of bhakti, a very low form in which love of one´s own god is expressed as hatred of all the others! It was Vivekananda´s recasting of Hinduism as a tolerant religion (in the modern sense) that made his fame at the World´s Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. 

With that, I end my little reflections. 

Vivekananda on Protestantism

 

[Swami Vivekananda on Protestantism, especially liberal Protestantism.]

The dry fanatical forms of religion which attempt to eradicate all that is poetical, all that is beautiful and sublime, all that gives a firm grasp to the infant mind tottering in its Godward way—the forms which attempt to break down the very ridge-poles of the spiritual roof, and in their ignorant and superstitious conceptions of truth try to drive away all that is life-giving, all that furnishes the formative material to the spiritual plant growing in the human soul—such forms of religion too soon find that all that is left to them is but an empty shell, a contentless frame of words and sophistry, with perhaps a little flavour of a kind of social scavengering or the so-called spirit of reform. 

The vast mass of those whose religion is like this, are conscious or unconscious materialists. The end and aim of their lives here and hereafter being enjoyment—which indeed is to them the alpha and the omega of human life, and which is their Ishtâ-purta (sacrifices and philanthropic works), work like street-cleaning and scavengering, intended for the material comfort of man—is, according to them, the “be-all” and “end-all” of human existence; and the sooner the followers of this curious mixture of ignorance and fanaticism come out in their true colours and join, as they well deserve to do, the ranks of atheists and materialists, the better will it be for the world. 

One ounce of the practice of righteousness and of spiritual Self-realisation outweighs tons of frothy talk and nonsensical sentiments. Show us one, but one, gigantic spiritual genius growing out of all this dry dust of ignorance and fanaticism: and if you cannot, close your mouths, open the windows of your hearts to the clear light of truth, and sit like children at the feet of those who know what they are talking about—the sages of India. Let us then listen attentively to what they have to say.

The highest accomplishment

“Raja Yoga” is a famous book by Swami Vivekananda, first published in 1896. Vivekananda was the founder of the Ramakrishna Mission and one of the first Hindu teachers to visit the United States. He is often regarded as a Hindu reformer, Neo-Hindu or Neo-Vedantin. According to De Michelis´ book “A History of Modern Yoga”, Vivekananda was heavily influenced by Western neo-esotericism, including New Thought and Transcendentalism. If so, I didn´t get it, since I think “Raja Yoga” sounds traditional enough. But then, at least in the West, this is how almost every Hindu or Buddhist teacher sounds like, no doubt due to the success of “Raja Yoga” back in the days. I suppose you could say that it has become “traditional” after a fashion. Presumably, the original audience gasped in awe and wonder at the swami´s teachings…

The book is divided into two sections. The first contains a number of lectures on the topic of Yoga. The second is a series of commentaries on Patanjali´s Yoga aphorisms. The term Raja Yoga refers to Patanjali´s system and is Vivekananda´s own designation of it. One thing that immediately struck me was that Vivekananda doesn´t connect yoga to any health benefits, the power of positive thinking or what have you. No New Age fare in this one! Yoga is forthrightly said to be a mystical technique to attain either godhood or complete liberation from the material world. The next thing that struck me was how freely Vivekananda talks about some pretty extreme practices. He accepts both hatha yoga and kundalini yoga, indeed, Raja Yoga seems to be a form of kundalini yoga. He also seems to accept that yogis can attain supernatural “siddhi” powers and essentially become “gods”. The author even mentions alchemical attempts (via mercury and sulfur) to make the physical body immortal. As usual, siddhi powers and godhood is said to lead away from liberation, and the yogi should therefore renounce them in order to attain genuine enlightenment.

Vivekananda points out that Yoga is based on the ancient Indian philosophy known as Samkhya. This is something of a problem, it seems, for many Hindus. Samkhya could be described as an atheistic and ontologically realist form of dualism. There is no creator-god, but rather an infinite number of spirits or “purushas”, many of whom are stuck in the material world for eons before attaining liberation. The world is real, not a mayic illusion. And since all spirits are distinct from each other, there is presumably no Brahman either. I suspect that many Hindus, while generally appreciative of Patanjali, nevertheless want to complete his system by introducing a creator-god, a kind of Über-Purusha controlling the entire cyclical process of the world. Others want the world to be an illusion and are hence monists. It´s not clear to me exactly what Vivekananda wants, but he treats the Purusha as one. The Purusha is a trans-personal (critics would say impersonal) god permeating the entire cosmos and somehow also standing outside of it. Unity with this divine reality is the goal of Raja Yoga. The author emphasizes the distinction between pre-personal and trans-personal states (today, this is the shtick of Ken Wilber and his fans) and occasionally sounds like a Theosophist, when he argues in favor of a cyclical involution-evolution.

“Raja Yoga” is not a textbook of instructions, although Vivekananda does mention a few typical practices, such as the importance of a correct body posture or various exercises involving inhalation and exhalation. He also discusses mantras. Following Samkhya, the author argues that sense perception or empirical experience is the ultimate ground of all knowledge. Of course, he regards mystical experiences as empirical. The only true religion is the one that isn´t based on blind faith, but invites people to come and see for themselves. In this particular book, Vivekananda seems to regard all “official” religions as false, while in other works, he rather emphasizes that most people can´t attain liberation unless they worship a personal god or even a human saint, although the ultimate goal can only be the trans-personal Divine. An ironic confirmation of this is that Vivekananda´s admirers on YouTube claim that he was actually Shiva! It seems some people can´t be liberated from samsara without worshipping a personal destroyer-god in the shape of one Narendranath Datta from Calcutta…  

The edition of “Raja Yoga” I have on my desk has a sub-title not present in the original: “A Scientific Method for Mental Modification”. This kind of “scientism” is rather typical of the New Age. As already indicated, however, there is very little New Age feel in this work. If anything, it has a “Buddhist” vibe, perhaps because a Western reader like yours truly rightly or wrongly associate “atheistic dualism” with Buddhism. I think “Raja Yoga” can be read with some benefit by those seriously interested in real yoga, and it could also be important for students of comparative religion, the history of religion, and the contemporary spiritual landscape.

Condensed and retold

“The Nationalistic and Religious Lectures of Swami Vivekananda” is a somewhat problematic book, since the lectures have been “condensed and retold” by Swami Tapasyananda, a leading member of the Ramakrishna Mission (Vivekananda´s ministry). We are never told exactly what this means. Condensed, how? What does “retold” even mean? Tapasyananda wasn´t a contemporary of Vivekananda. The book seems to be a teaser trailer to Vivekananda´s Collected Works – let´s hope they are unabridged! With the risk of sounding disrespectful, I have to say that these lectures (at least as retold) are also incredibly boring. But then, Vivekananda wasn´t a crazy saint in contrast to his peculiar master Sri Ramakrishna.

Vivekananda (1863-1902) became famous after giving a highly acclaimed speech at the Chicago World Parliament of Religions in 1893. In it, he painted Hinduism as a tolerant religion able to embrace or encompass all the others. Vivekananda was one of the first Hindu gurus who disseminated his message in the West, but there are also suspicions that his message really *was* Occidental in character, Vivekananda essentially being a liberal Protestant in Hindu garb, whose esoteric practice was a highly revised version of Yoga. For more on this, see “A History of Modern Yoga” by Elizabeth de Michelis.

Be that as it may, Vivekananda was a reformer exoterically, too. In his lectures, he makes a distinction between the ritual Vedic scriptures, which he regards as having fallen into abeyance, and the Upanishads, which are still normative. All other Hindu scriptures, such as the Puranas, must be interpreted according to the Vedas, which (of course) means mostly according to the Upanishads. Apart from the Upanishads, with their mystical and pantheistic message far removed from caste and purity laws, Vivekananda really only recognizes the Bhagavad-Gita. It is this core Hinduism, to coin a term, which is the religion Vivekananda wants India to adopt. Somebody might consider it a bowdlerized version. While calling for modernization and attacking really existing Hinduism as “a kitchen religion” (obsessed with purity laws), Vivekananda fears complete secularization. It would destroy India, since India´s only raison d´être is its unique form of spirituality. He seems to be calling for a new India based on tolerant reform Hinduism. Caste privileges are also attacked, Vivekananda saying that only people who actually live like ascetic and learned priests are true Brahmins. Presumably, most “Brahmins” in Bharata have other pastimes…

Vivekananda´s main theological selling point is the tolerance or pluralism of his reform Hinduism, with its “scientific” nature perhaps being second. Since everything is Brahman (the impersonal world-spirit), all religions are in some sense “true”, their gods and holy men all being manifestations of this Brahman. God reveals himself according to the culture and spiritual development of each nation. At the highest level of spiritual accomplishment, however, Advaita Vedanta (pantheist monism) is true. All other systems are lower stepping stones to this absolute truth. Vivekananda tries to harmonize the two main strands within Hinduism: worship of a personal god and the mystical quest for Brahman. He also attempts a harmonization of the different “yogas”, such as karma-yoga, jnana-yoga and bhakti-yoga. In this, he is of course harking back to the Bhagavad-Gita and also to his master Ramakrishna (for more on this, see my review of “Sri Ramakrishna: Life and Teachings”, also by Swami Tapasyananda).

Vivekananda at no point attacks “idolatry”, rather defending it from its Christian and secular detractors, simply giving it a more philosophically sophisticated justification. Although Brahman alone is real, humans can´t approach the Divine in this way. Humans need personified deities. Even better are the avatars, actual living persons who perfectly reflect the Divine in all their actions and words. Indeed, most humans can´t move closer to Brahman without first worshipping an earthly master. Jesus, Buddha and Ramakrishna are examples of such. Here, the reformer sounds distinctly old fashioned! He also has a problem with Buddhism, perhaps because it (or its modernized versions) are so similar to his own brand of Advaita. At the same time, he is close to what I presume is the orthodox Hindu and Indian nationalist take on Buddhism: that it was a heresy adopted by foreign barbarian tribes invading and weakening India.

I get the impression that Vivekananda sometimes indulges in a kind of “reverse Orientalism”. He depicts the Hindus as gentle, peaceful, long suffering and immensely spiritual – apparently a common stereotype at the time (presumably a colonialist one). Rather than seeing this as proof of the effete nature of Hindus, Vivekananda turns it into something positive. It means that the new India won´t become an aggressive great power, just as India never invaded anyone else in the past. Today, these words – perhaps directed at Western or Westernized audiences – sound idealist in the extreme, and they probably sounded strange even at the time they were uttered, except maybe for hopeless dreamers in California or Chicago…

As for science, Vivekananda´s strategy is to simply bypass the breakthroughs of 19^th century science, which strongly suggested that religion was simply wrong, Darwinian evolution being a case in point. Christian missionaries often argued that the historical character of their religion proved it was true, at which Vivekananda shrewdly responded that the non-historical character of his religion proved *it* true. Christianity is dependent on Jesus and the Bible actually being historically accurate, and that veracity was challenged by modern Western science. Advaita Vedanta by contrast isn´t dependent on the Vedas or the Puranas being historically accurate, since Advaita deals with phenomena transcending history, such as the relationship between the Atman (the spirit in each human) and Brahman (the world-spirit). This relationship can be proven by yogic practice here and now. Vivekananda therefore believed – quite rightly – that only an ahistorical religion would be able to withstand the challenges of secularism and scientism. As a complete side point, I noticed that the swami doesn´t believe in the Indo-European invasions. Presumably, this is a common position not just among Hindutva nationalists, but among Indians in general. They are wrong of course: get over it, the Urheimat was a kurgan north of the Black Sea…

It´s intriguing to reflect on the heritage of Vivekananda. Today, even Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Modi pretends to worship images of Vivekananda, yet something tells me Modi doesn´t see Islam or Christianity as legitimate avatars of the Dharma. Meanwhile, Vivekananda´s disciples at YouTube claim that he was Shiva! In a weird way, they therefore proved Swami´s point: yes, it seems most humans really do need to genuflect in front of an anthropomorphic savior figure. If that drives them closer to Brahman is perhaps another matter entirely…