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 suck 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 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.
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 somethings, 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 Original American Design — A Product of The West
This is just one reason the United States of America was originally designed to be 13 (later to eventually grow to become 48 then 50) different states or countries that were banded together by agreement for certain very specific purposes. Except for a handful of very important basics, there was no all-encompassing "national character" for all areas at all levels of society. Although most of them had the Biblical Laws – the 10 Commandments and sub-statutes – more-or-less in common, they each had somewhat different approaches to various elements of how to structure a society.
If you want proof of this, find an original copy of the Declaration of Independence. It says, right at the top, the united States of America. Notice the small "u" at the beginning of "united." This meant that the 13 colonies were now States on the continent of America that were now, as of the signing of the Declaration, united with each other. And to this very day, the constitutions of each of the states are different than the others.
Not ONE Nation, But Many Nations . . . In Cooperation
Despite what Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address said, this was not originally intended to be One Nation. Each colony, now it's own unique nation, country or state, had it's own character and social order. While there was much in common, the people of America were tired of being told how to live by the king of England, and there was originally no major attempts to impose a national character on all the people in the united States. Directly opposed to the modern United States of the last hundred years, the federal government was highly restricted in how much it could interfere with the lives of the people within each state. The federal government was to be the Servant to the States, and the States were the Servants to The People living within those states. That was government By, For and Of the People.
The philosophy WAS that de-centralization was better, that people should be directly involved with most political decisions, that too much government was a bad or even evil thing.
It Has Turned Upside Down
Today, the opposite philosophy is "The Truth." Now, too little government is considered to be the evil.
The old philosophy — that each state was primarily its own unique entity, and secondarily a member of a loosely confederated groups of mostly independent sates — was one element that prevented an over-arching authoritarian government — like a dictatorial president or legislature with lots of very big guns and bombs — from taking over the lives of all the American People. This arrangement also provided a series of localized social experiments in which each state could and would, based on their unique circumstances, beliefs and desires, develop as its own people saw fit. And yes, they would make mistakes. But the people of each state would also see how things developed in other states, and learn from each other, free to make changes, or not, as they saw fit.
This provided a model for increased diversity and tolerance, and a way to advance or evolve socially, politically and economically with the least amount of friction, rather than be stuck in one model that would be difficult to change because the country and number of people was so big. And if you did not like how it was in one state, you cold move to another that was more in line with your preferences.
Some very misinformed people believe this less centralized united States arrangement would have, for example, perpetuated slavery. But for those familiar with the history and developments already underway in that time period, nothing could be further from the truth. But that is outside the scope of this website, and will be discussed at:
The larger point is:
Ideas — Philosophies – Have Consequences
Psychology First, Then Philosophy
Leave a Comment