A Philosophy, Psychology, Science of Being Human

Notice I said “A” philosophy of being human, not “The” philosophy of being human.

I would not be so presumptuous to tell you what your philosophy is, nor what it should be. We all have unique viewpoints and ideas about what it is to be a human being, and how best to be one (the good), or how not to be one (the bad).

A philosophy is generally defined as:

 the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

. . . Apple On-Line Dictionary

The Traditional, Eastern Yogic Viewpoint

If we study yoga from a traditional, Eastern perspective, yoga is presented more-or-less as an all-encompassing philosophy of living. It tells how (supposedly) “things” really are, what the objective of life is, why we are here, how to live, about the hereafter, and so on.

It also tells us WHY we should do yoga, and what its purpose is, and how to do it.

A (Not THE) Non-Traditional, Western Viewpoint

Yet as the very NON-traditional Joel Kramer pointed out, yoga — as he practiced and taught it here in America, and very similar to J. Krishnamurti’s perspectives — is not in itself a philosophy of life. Yoga, especially the mental/meditative & relational component, is a way of looking at life, a way of discerning, to the best of our ability, what’s really there.

Along these lines, Krishnamurti said that real intelligence is the ability to discern the essential. … What are the essential elements of being human?

Of course, one could argue that saying that yoga is a way of looking is in itself a philosophy, in that this is supposedly a good way of going about living. But that would be a very open-ended one.

Jnana (Mental) Yoga  . . . A Path to Wisdom?

Now, Joel and Krishnamurti taught Jnana Yoga, or mental yoga, or the yoga of (so-called) wisdom.

Now, at least one modern author (actually many of them) on Jnana yoga states that the purpose of jnana yoga is to discover that the human  physical body is but an illusion, and that we must discover the so-called “True Self” beyond that illusion. And then, of course, they tell you what that True Self is, based in great part on what the ancient sages said it was. Taken to an extreme, some of these belief systems go to the extent that the physical body was just an unfortunate accident that we some how got stuck with … or in.

Yet using Jnana Yoga the way Joel taught it, you could come to the exact opposite conclusion. You might very well decide there is no soul or spirit disconnected from the physical body. Most of this depends on what your biases are when you begin to examine the subject.

So . . . Who’s Right?

We could argue all day about this, just as a large handful of people have been arguing on these points for, oh … a few thousand years or so. No one, to date, has come up with sufficient evidence or proof to convince a significant portion of the opposing viewpoint to change their minds very much. Yes, a few switch sides now and then, some getting into religion and mystical beliefs, some becoming more atheistic and materialistic. But both points of view — and many sub-points, variations and nuances — continue to debate or argue the question, far from any clear winner.

The point here is that I am not, when it comes to the process of physical / mental / relational yoga itself, recommending a particular philosophy of life; that is up to you to develop for yourself. I believe that, if you leave your mind open, that is inherent in the yogic process.

And while you will read about and figure out some of what my personal philosophy is, and some of the philosophy that drives the DSL Yoga, Bodywork & Whole Health System, that is more presented at AmericanYogi.us, which you might say is an extension of this site, and/or vice versa.

BUT . . . When It Comes To Social Harmony

However it IS true that to a certain degree, unless a particular group or society has enough philosophical outlook in common, it can be very difficult to maintain a harmonious social order. This is where the idea of the Common Law came from. What are the rules of living, the mores and morals — Laws — that The People have In Common, based on many generations of social evolution and trial and error.

Look at it this way: If you get a house with ten bedrooms, and invite nine other people to come live with you, yet everyone is living under a different set of rules, what is going to happen? … Most people say CHAOS. … There must be some agreed upon rules that everyone follows most of the time, otherwise, unless very lucky, you end up with a disaster on your hands. The degree of disaster depends on how much out of alignment people are with their own and each other’s personal morality and ethics. So most people will sit down with the group and use their reason and logic to come up with their rules of living together.

Usually, Morals & Ethics are considered to be synonymous, two different words for the same thing. Yet there are clearly two different phenomena we humans encounter in our day-to-day existence that are embraced by making an important distinction. Allow me to take liberty with the English language and elaborate certain points made by Robert LeFevre in his very important book The Fundamentals of Liberty:

MORALS: An objective observation of a scientifically determinable fact of Human Nature, of immutable Right and Wrong, already determined by the “Laws of Nature” itself. Morals are universal principles of human behavior that can be observed, such as in the fact of gravity. It is, at it’s essence, beyond opinion. But because its results often occur over large expanses of time, it is not easily discerned or accounted for by in-the-moment reason or analytical intellect alone. … A religious view of morals would be: What is the Mind of God and his Immutable Laws (as opposed to statutes), and how can we discover them?

ETHICS: A subjective opinion, a variable sense of good and bad, based more on an utilitarian or a currently practical approach to achieving a goal. Ethics are situational, and are malleable as to current conditions and the desires & needs of those involved. Ethics can change with the times, conditions and objectives of the human beings involved.

PROBLEMS between Morality & Ethics might arise when current ethics encounter discordant long-term morals. If the current ethics are not in conflict with long-term moral view of the situation at hand, then, No Problem. If, however, they ARE in conflict, the Moral Law will, eventually, win. It is only a matter of time, and how many generations an break the moral law before the Laws of Nature and Human Nature reassert themselves.

Reason Does NOT Always Work

Yet with the tens of thousands of pages written on unintended consequences leading to social disasters, and how human reason, though really good for some things, often let’s us down, how sure can we be that a path being pusued is truly a good and productive one?

Sometimes, rules that sounded good or complete have to be modified or scrapped all together. So how do you know, from the beginning, that your reason and logic took everything into account?

The Answer is … that, unless you are in a situation that has been tried before, and you can learn from others how best to arrange things, you do not know for sure without a fair amount of trial and error. Some VERY smart people have over the centuries come up with some very intelligent looking ideas that failed miserably. Even the 20th Century, after thousands of years, came up with social systems (most of them not really new, however) that not only failed, but killed well over a hundred million people.

You would think that after all these centuries, we’d have figured it out by now, wouldn’t you?

The larger point is:

Ideas — Philosophies – Have Consequences

Psychology First, Then Philosophy