Asanas and Ayahuasca
Last month, Reality Sandwich and Jivamukti Yoga School presented Evolver: Wake Up and Dream, which brought together some 750 people from a diverse array of NYC tribes for a night of presentations, performances, art and dancing. It was in many ways a true success, amazing connections were made across multiple channels, and the party was still driving hard into the wee hours.
The evening began with a discussion between Jivamukti co-founder Sharon Gannon and Reality Sandwich editorial director Daniel Pinchbeck. Within hours of the talk, visitors to RS were posting furious comments, outraged at things either Sharon or Daniel said – or were thought to have said. A few courageous souls replied in defense of the speakers. Debate raged for a couple of weeks before finally settling into more thoughtful ruminations. Finally, in an act that demonstrates the mindfulness of the RS community, a couple of the original flame throwers apologized for kicking off the discussion in such heated tones.
What could Daniel and Sharon have possibly said to spark such controversy? Now you can hear for yourself. Here's a video of the infamous dialog, "Asanas and Ayahuasca."
Video filmed and edited by Drew Meeks. Animation by Travis Spangler.
Tweet
- 3-5-08
- Ken Jordan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Animal vs. Human Consiousness
I noticed a comment or two where someone might be offended. But I think it was obvious that they were not said in a way to offend or belittle anyone.
Putting all arguments aside over misunderstandings of comments..
I want to attempt to frame both Daniel's and Sharon's points of view in relation to my own.
First of all, Daniel gave his understanding of consciousness as it relates to facets of intelligence, comprehension, intelligence, intellect, and things of that nature. By Daniel's definition, he believes that humans have a higher capacity for consciousness. Sharon responded by pointing out that the definition of consciousness refers to "knowing wholly." She used the example of how animals connected into a consciousness where they know wholly their environment and how to be in sync with it. It is a sense that they consciousness is not limited or tainted to a degree where an wild animal would destroy the ecosystem it lives in.Her idea opposes the way that humans destroy their own ecosystems and thus might not be as "conscious" as animals.
I have to say that I cannot disagree with either of them but that I have another viewpoint. The thing I noticed with both of their viewpoints is that they are limited to a certain degree. My viewpoint that I will present is also limited until someone else points out what I miss. However I think it incorporates and expands on both viewpoints. Thus, I agree with Daniel that consciousness deals with intelligence and some of the mental capacities and limits. I also agree with Sharon on the knowing wholly idea; and that animals are very conscious as they are connected to their environment, and even more connected to it than most humans.
This is where I add my thoughts: I believe that humans are conscious no less than animals. I believe that humans are conscious enough to know wholly, and to be connected with their environment just as much as wild animals are. However, I think that humans are unique in that their mental capacities allows them to defy their connectedness to nature. Humans have the intellect to choose not to be connected whereas animals only go on their instinct and consciousness that forces them to be connected.
Furthermore, humans have the capacity to be connected to more than just nature and their environment. Humans have the capacity to know wholly and be connected and conscious of oneness and all aspects that persist beyond this physical life, and these physical limits.
I realize Daniel and Sharon didn't get the opportunity to continue expanding their definitions as I have here. They probably both could have elaborated even more if given the time and place. However, I just wanted to point out the aspects that could summarize and build on their definitions.
What do you think?
zezt asked: { I wonder what
zezt asked:
{
I wonder what you mean when you say:
"Furthermore, humans have the capacity to be connected to more than just nature and their environment. Humans have the capacity to know wholly and be connected and conscious of oneness and all aspects that persist beyond this physical life, and these physical limits."
}
My Response:
I suppose the point I am getting is that humans have the capacity to understand that they are part of oneness. That is, all things are connected and are essentially one. And by all things i mean animal, human, environment, dust, nature, universe, soul, thought, cocoa pebbles, etc. I would argue that the One is what people might think of as God. Personally, I don't see anything outside of anything else in the big picture. I suppose when we try to classify things as you and I have done, we are essentially separating them from eachother. Having said that, I don't discredit animals from maybe experiancing spirituality in ways we don't understand. The dung beetle lives a life that I have no perception of. I can't speak on behalf of the dung beetle or yourself either for that matter. This is why three beings have three different viewpoints- we have different eyes and different perceptions.
And having mentioned that, I am saying that we might percieve that we are not connected to oneness (nature, ecosystems, consiousness, animals, cocoa pebbles). When in reality (if there is such a thing, or an absense of such a thing), we are connected in ways we just don't quite understand.
Feel free to disagree with me. I like to put my thoughts out there. Im ok with taking a beating if I am wrong. The worst thing that could happen is that I am corrected and I will learn.
Animal Consciousness vs. Human Consciousness
After alot of thinking I realized that what seperates animals from humans is that humans can make a decision baised on their beliefs of what they think their diet should be, whereas animals do not have that faculty. The way our society is now I think we should shift our focus away from a diet baised on animal consumption. What seperates us from animals is that we can make the choice to stop eating them.
-Justin Marchi-
justin_marchi@yahoo.com
Character is Fate
Yeats, in his books of occult philisophy, speculates on the reasons for the widely different destiny or fate of various passionate great individuals who had achieved, in Yeats' words, "unity of being." We might today call these people "self-realized," recognising the truth of Heraclitus profound statement that "character is fate." In other words, why do men of extraordinary sensitivity and sensibility, like Shakespeare or Dante or Eliot not renounce the world of illusions, of maya? Why do they continue to act within it? Yeats suggests that they are in fact great saints, but because of the nature of their character, of their soul, they plunged into the world of passionate action - into theatre, love, politics, culture, warfare, and following their true being found enlightenment strengthening its hold on them, transforming them even though or perhaps because they acted in our world of illusion. Yeats himself, who was deeply involved in passionate political action - and yet also translated the "ten principal upanishads" and was intimately familiar from adolescence with Patanjali's work - conceived his task to be the restoration of ancestral heroism and defiance to the subjected and shamed Irish. Can we say that their vision of being is less accurate than that of the great renunciate sages? Yeats has a famous line, "Hatred of God may bring the soul to God." Who can say what consummation in eternity would occur were an individual to take up that eerily numinous machine gun of Daniel's analogy? How many of us would refuse out of fear of death. Maybe for the SS guard those bullets might be a blessing - releasing him from his suffering of ignorance into the transparency of understanding and forgiveness. A thorny issue.
For Yeats, every man or woman has a fate and quest and salvation that is theirs alone. It is a view of life that is fearless and joyous, conceives of eternity and immortality, yet also embraces the profound significance of flesh and blood action and experience. It is ultimately a vision of diversity, in that one woman's salvation is anothers damnation. Passion might drive a man to meditate for decades over some religious mystery or it might equally drive a man to struggle for social justice - "for spirits" as he wrote, "do not tell a man what is true, but create such conditions, such a crisis of fate, that the man is compelled to listen to his Daimon." If that man listens with sensitivity, and honesty, he will hear things that only he can perfectly understand.
Those that I fight I do not hate
Those that I guard I do not love
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds...
We must strive to recognise from our immediate psychic context exactly what our authentic action must be. For one man that may mean turning the cheek, but for another may mean taking up the sword and casting the money changers from the temple. Authentic action unifies the being, inauthentic action scatters it in fear and sorrow. The key is the development of an inner sensitivity that can discriminate between the babbling wants of the fragments, and the authentic needs of the Daimon - that elusive often silent true self that exists free of time, indifferent to fear and death, and recognises no authority but is sufficient unto itself. Difficult of course - as Omar Khayyam writes: "only a hair's breadth separates the false from the true."
All the world's a stage...
It is only fair if you share your elephant
Semi-new lurker posting for the first time.
This may have been covered already, but I feel the need to address the "elephant in the living room", namely Sharon's actions at the outset of the talk. In my opinion they were attention hungry, childish, and rude. (I hesitate to describe her actions as childish because i love kids and their energy but the description still fits. I wouldn't watch a talk on Ayahuasca with Daniel and a three year old.)
If you're going to splay out on a mini-elephant, fine. Just bill the talk as "I'm fabulous and splayed on a mini-elephant" not Ayahuasca and Asanas. At least I can then make an informed decision about weather or not to watch it. I'll leave it at that.
Daniel, I don't know if you read these comments, but if you do I'd recommend you checking out Derrick Jensen. He shares what I can gather is your thinking around the passive tendencies of the New Age movement. I'll share a common analogy he likes to use.
You are locked into a room with a psychopathic killer. There is no way out and you've already seen this person kill others in the room. What do you do?
The killer is a metaphor for the planet killing culture and you are of course you. I'd love to see you two share a stage together, as long as you both got Elephants!
http://www.derrickjensen.org/
jensen etc
Sharon did say before we went on that she wanted to make it light and playful - she thought we were going to do some kind of performance art up there. I take the blame for not being clear enough that I had no concept for a performance art piece and had really hoped we would communicate in a direct way about ideas.
As for Derrick Jenson, I like his work a lot and would love to hold a discussion with him at some point. Yes, his point about the psychopath is exactly what I am saying.
By the way, I also went back and reread the Bhagavad Gita and in it, Krishna states clearly that the warrior should fight against evil, and can't shirk that responsibility. It is not a text of nonviolence.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Light and playful?
I completely agree with ausername (I love your username, by the way!) about the mini-elephant. Maybe that was Sharon's way of making the discussion a performance art piece as you suggest, Daniel. But even before the mini-elephant shenanigans I got the sense she was trying to belittle you and your viewpoints rather than have an intelligent, balanced discussion. The proof stacked up as the video rolled on. And after the lecture she gave Orrin for bringing up some some very good points in a mild, non-combative manner, Sharon's conviction about the superiority of her (fundamentalist?) views seems undeniable.
A little humility goes a long way.
I have no doubt practicing yoga is "the way" for Sharon to find divinity within herself. But to suggest that following the Bhagavad Gita or any other practice is The Way for anyone besides oneself is pure ego-driven nonsense.
mini elephant
I wonder what exactly Sharon meant by performance art with regard to the mini elephant?
I would be nice to have had these ideas expanded on.
I agree 100%
Ms. Gannon had no need for chewing that poor guy out the way she did...it was clearly obvious that she felt the need to do so in order to defend her reputation as an all-knowing-leader who could not dare be "disgraced" within her own halls in front of her dear, well-financed and loyal followers...in doing so, and claiming that Krishna was teaching Arjuna how to "not be" a warrior, she contradicted herself and fell prey to the very thing she was accusing Daniel of...off-the-collar definitions (in this case the definition of a text rather than a single word; she re-wrote the Gita to suit her needs in the moment).
I've only read the Gita twice (though I've spent much time in each reading, re-reading and analyzing stanzas and lines over and over again for hours at a time), and went beyond the first page and then some, and it didn't take a supreme invocation of all-knowing consciousness for me to realize that Krishna was clearly giving Arjuna all this divine wisdom SO he would be motivated to fight! He didn't just say "Do what I say and fight you damn pansy, (btw here's some yogi techniques for when you're done!)", he went through an entire discourse focused on motivating Arjuna by showing him how it was his divine duty to carry out the Dharma (a word you don't see or hear so often nowadays...)
That guy in the yellow shirt deserved a much better response than that since he was clearly educated, well-rounded and engaged in his studies and spiritual path...he brought conscious thought into the matter, not dogmatic tendancies and attachments, and did not have a hidden self-serving agenda. Sharon just didn't want to hear anything about it being "ok" to be volatile, kill and eat animals...apparantly there's a pressing need to make it seem horribly wrong and make the people who don't agree seem bad and stupid. I mean...come on...seriously...why all the passionate insisting and attacking on behalf of the animal topic? How was that relevant at all?
Despite all that I'm saying I'm certain Ms. Gannon knows a lot about Yoga and the deeper esoteric parts of it that are not easily perceived (I listened to one of her seminars through the Omega Institute website and was quite impresssed), but I can't help but say that there's a huge dogmatic addiction in her make-up that's serving her business and the ego.
And yes, I have to agree with someone else here; she was writhing with fear. I could see her literally writhing and then staring off to focus and recollect her mind, probably through some Pranayama (I'm serious not being sarcastic), and try to regain a superficial composure at the very least. There was obviously a large amount of unrest within her that was compelling her to keep pressing certain issues and burn that poor guy in the yellow shirt.
I mean, yeah, no one's perfect (yet ;) but I thought that at the very least experienced Yogi's were supposed to be somewhat selfless, focused on serving others and Compassionate and not so pre-occupied with supporting vegetarian fads and other such idealistic concepts.
Supporting Elitism, bashing anything that is not congruent with your personal views, bashing free-thought and anything that supports free will and sovereignity outside of dogmatic adherance and desperately struggling and insisting on maintaining control over other's perception and the flow of a situation are all signs of the mindset of a tyrannical-type leader...the one who "needs" power and control for a false sense of security. And this is just an objective statement.
Gotta say, she really proved Daniels' initial statements about modern Yoga supporting the consuming Capilotist egoic new-age psuedo culture correct...
following our Will and Wind, we may just go where no One's been
Spiral Out
Communication
Wow... There's so much here. I feel like I could have interjected in at least a dozen places here, not to offer ideas on the subjects, but to point out the failures in communication taking place.
To summarize, it looks very much like a masculine vs. feminine communication battle going on here, where one person says something in feminine language and the other hears it in masculine language, thus distorting it in interpretation. And vice versa as well.
One other small point. At one point, Daniel mentions "you have to make distinctions." And naturally what Sharon is focusing on is the complete dissolving of distinctions to recognize the wholeness and connectedness of things. Again, I see a dichotomy of languages being used here. Daniel speaks in distinctions, individualities, and Self-based language (that is to say, not talking in Collective language).
I find myself caught smack between the two kinds of communication and even here I do not feel that there is a good balance. Unlike these two, I do not perceive myself to have strong language skills that can be used to my advantage, though I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong (I've never tried to prove it much). Rather I tend to speak either in multiple/mixed gendered language, or more often I speak a single wrong language to the wrong crowd.
I think the contention (or just tension) that arose from this discussion is the fact that the audience seemed to be charged to both ends of the spectrum. This is just a perspective from the video (I was not there), but it felt like there were ardent supporters of Daniel there and ardent supporters of Sharon there and few that were neither or both.
This could be an interesting lesson in communication for everyone, especially Daniel and Sharon, and anyone that organized this gathering.
A little civility
Hi cjmoore,
I just want to ask you as a favor to helping support this community that we're trying to build. Perhaps you might refrain from using alienating, fire-storm words like "ignoramus." It's purpose just seems to be to divide unnecessarily, which isn't very in line with the intention of this site.
the yogi-'alien'-shaman thread
debate???
In response to all the nay-sayers...
I personally did not attend the event, but I did watch the video and I read the advertisement. Nowhere did it say that a lengthy, amazing, enlightenment-inducing lecture was going to take place. It was advertised as a discussion. It was a discussion. And if it wasn't what you were hoping for then perhaps you should see if you could put together a better presentation if given similar circumstances.
I understand the concept behind "Mc-jivamukti" and yes, there are some hippie-dippie people out there with their heads simultaneously in the clouds and up their asses and there are some schools and some people out there that are buying all the mats, straps, and balls they feel necessary to keep up with the trend. And the sad thing is I know people personally who feel that this alone, along with regular classes, has somehow given them a karmic advantage. And there are others who are very devout and don't take their practices materialistically and still hold the same superior attitude. To a certain group of people it does incite elitism, I could not agree more with Daniel on that and I think it needs to be addressed because some people truly need a reality check. However, I do not agree at all that that egoism was present in this discussion. I think, if given more time to elaborate, Ms. Gannon would have better explained how she felt about that subject, but because of the setting and the polarized audience it wasn't possible. Seriously, shesravingmad, if you had a problem with the subject matter it was more likely than not your perspective that was causing your unease, and not the content. That appears to be the case with most more often than not...
Seriously Ildri....
sharon is afraid of something...
..
well this is great-
sharon exudes fear like a politician....
i guess all the sucess of the yoga business has made her hold on to her 'eastern' traditions....
it's a pretty box, but still a box.
..
The 3 A's Ayahuasca Ahimsa Asana
Tough Questions
wanderlust
Relentlessely Craving
"I am leaving this harbor
Giving Urban a FareWell
Their habitants seem to keen on God
I cannot stomach their rights and wrongs
I have lost my origin
And I don't want to find it again "
following our Will and Wind, we may just go where no One's been
Spiral Out
Turn the other cheek
Anyway he could have beat her down but he let her stand or lay upon her own folly of a belief that plays the game of all faith and no action except to run away inside (People become wallowers when they do this). Thinks the whole mind game of suttleness will will the world into a grand new day... Yippi hurrah.
Turn the other cheek? Maybe once but after there are no more cheeks to turn you got to let um taste there own medicine. Because after they get done with you they won't stop slapping until finally some warrior slaps them back.
I think Pinchbeck showed us what a fool she is. Enlightened us all I believe. In her speech about elightment is mere folly... nothing about justice in the real world in which most of the issues lay in the shade of gray -- sometimes you got to pull the string of the bow for the justice of surviving. You just have to do what you have to do to -- help yourself and others survive in this wacked out world we live in... Zen for me.
Love? Seeing yourself as your own self? Love (unconditional) is not judgeing yourself but giving yourself limits so you yourself or others around you will not be harmed. And one of those limits to self love is to not allow yourself to be slapped around. Instead of turning the other cheek, become one with them, grab them in a big fat hug and wrestle them to the ground? Or you can really do it in a non-violent manner without ever touching them... spit... it's only a dab of water from your mouth. Never hurts anyone except those that have huge egos. Sometimes that does the trick.
Now, I got to go eat my buffalo burger.
Today is part of forever.
Wade Davis/History Channel: Peyote to LSD- A Psychedelic Odyssey
left brain right brain, asanas and ayahuasca
this discussion has had me
Old Zen Stink (Now Updated With That Smooth Postmodern Shine!)
"Splitters!!" Yeah baby, let's all sit around on 'fair' trade ethnic cushions (made by the hard working indigenous people of.. wherever), trying to out-do one another in the old "I'm more Enlightened than you"™ game. What a crock of the most succulent BS. This reality sandwich smells moldy. Now I dig Dan and what he's saying generally, but this particular video really did sccccratch the present surface of New Age = Sewage 'niceness' that pervades its whole rich, white-skinned middle class Scene.. and what lies beneath reminds me of eg. Wikipedia - slick, smiling and superficially intelligent on top, but in truth completely seething with Ego-driven space monkey idiocy and aggressive assertion - ie. no different or more 'spiritually evolved'® than anyone else! Which should hardly surprise anybody really.. (Having said that however, this Sharon bird really does appear to have several large aquatic Brazilian centipedes stuffed up her AUM-humming, patchouli-scented vagina and should, along with her entire kult of lukewarm Believers, kindly stfu.) // you no eat reality in bits: reality eat you whole L8ers, you crazy kids Henry Swanson
I enjoyed hearing the