“I don’t believe in a ‘highest Kriya’ as Yogi Bhajan does call SCK”
Yes, Yogi Bhajan did exaggerate a lot in order to push his kriyas and agendas but I assume that he meant that in his extensive experience, for him this was the highest kriya.
I am more than happy for everyone here to let me know what you do consider to be your most effective path so that we can weigh it up with SCK in terms of speed and holisticness.
Meanwhile there is something to be said of following the best known path with a total commitement in order not to dribble along oblivious as most people without any vision do.
Any path at one stage will turn out to be not useful or necessary to us anymore, just as any studies will, as soon as we are competent, yet in my personal experience it bears many more fruits if one followis a wrong path in full dedication, because that will render so many insights that at one stage it is self-correcting, meaning that the one who did fully comprehend the lesson is able to leave the tool behind.
The worst case in my opinion are lazy nihilists which jump at any occasion to find excuses not to engage in anything which goes beyond their comfort zone.
Such people never will become extraordinary and will dismiss anyone who fully fulfilled ones’ own potential as having an ego – not being aware that their own laziness is driven by a non-concern for others (which is the height of egoism in itself).
Excuses also can be found in very deceiving ways when they come in the shape of wisdom like in this Krishnamurti video. He surely was wise but because he himself was dogmatised into yoga-practices he developed an aversion against it which he then generalised.
In opposition to such dismissals, Guru Singh described in this article how strong the power of total dedication to even a false kriya is if one dives into a possibility to see behind the veil of our ignorance with an open heart. The kriya seems to be a helpful ladder to climb, but climing you can also do on a difficult tree. The only sure failure is not even to start to climb due to a nihilistic attitude.
I would like to draw attention of following 3.5 minutes of last lesson where the root of nihilism is explained:
And this excerpt seems to be the answer to the next question which is:
“I don’t understand why it needs 12 long audio lessons when Vivekananda’s book was only 150 pages short”
The more advanced one is the lesser explanations are needed but we beginners still need a little translation of the divine truth.
Let’s take above lesson for example:
- Atkinson explains the levels of the personality in great detail and the affirmations are designed for it to sink in.
- Vivekananda in a more compressed way just sums up the facts and many read them but that does not guarantee that they fully assimilated the different levels.
- Then in an even more compressed way one could have summed up above 1.5 hours by saying: “The I is like a lamp wrapped in clothes of the ego and powerd by the divine”.
- Such a sentence would probably have passed by many who think that their intellect fully did grasp it whilst their self did not yet.
- And even more compressed Jesus just said “I am” which then got people who didn’t understand him so aggravated that they crucified him.
In the same spirit of this question we could question the value of this entire blog, but I see myself as an intermediate translator which can convey things I start to grasp to others ho might not have been aware of them yet.
That’s why high evolved people often are not as good in explaining questions: They simply moved beyond the unnecessary details the mind of lesser evolved people still bothers.
“It seems that Yogi Bhajan has made up this Kriya or at least added the belly pump to it”
Actually, after decades of having believed that this was an ancient kriya from the rishis I disappointedly also came to the conclusion that he seems to have made up things on the spot, sometimes even within meditation-classes which is why he managed to teach so many kriyas. In short he was like a cook who mixed tantric and Sikh teachings.
Compared to cooking he seems to have been a kind of Bocuse who created own new mixtures in a competent way. His flaw was to sell them like highest ancient kriyas in order to suck respect out of his students. It would have been better to be honest like the actor Alexander who did create an own valuable healing technique, because nowow the aquarian age he promoted so much does backfire on himself and brought his pretences of selling ancient wisdoms to light. Ancient those wisdoms are, but he should have told the world that he mixed them up at his liberty.
I researched Sikh roots in this article about the Siri Granth Sahib,
and the tantric sources are explained in this 4-minute excerpt by Christopher Wallis here:
Notice that if you rewind this video he will tell you in the beginning that what Yogi Bhajan did teach was not Kundalini Yoga, and I actually do agree that all other Kriyas of Yogi Bhajan were not ‘Kundalini Yoga’ as such.
The only kriya which in my opinion is true modification of Kundalini-Yoga is Sodarshan Chakra Kriya, which is why I only do that Kriya and no other, neither do I implement any Sikh-practices except for the Mantra “Waheguru” which I implement for its sound-properties and as an anchor for the divine within myself.
Yogi Bhajan dared to modify ancient teachings just as people do who did master any art and at one stage are able to bend or modify the rules at their own liberty.
Two possible own modifications of SCK slowly dawn upon me,
but until I mastered 1000 days of 2.5 hours of SCK
I will adhere to the strict instructions in order not to confuse things out of ignorance.
Recently I wrote an article about the KungFu principles where I did train in the past. Nam Pai Chuan is a hybrid Shaolin Kung Fu style that combines elements of Judo, Wado Ryu and Tae Kwon Do. The fact that this was a hybrid martial certainly did not make it less valuable for me – vice versa: it diversified my knowledge of martial arts and in the few years I did train there it did open my mind. In the same way SCK did yield strong results for me from mystical insights to maturing ten-fold, so I want to promote it until I accomplished the full 1000 days of 2.5 hours.
Considering that nowadays nearly anything is a hybrid the question is rather whether the one who mixed it up was qualified to do so.
There are actually 3 Kriyas that Yogi Bhajan did push as ‘the highest’ or ‘only’ kriyas:
- SAT KRYIYA : “If you have time for nothing else, make this kriya part of your daily promise.”
- KIRTAN KRIYA (Sa Ta Na Ma) : “a person who wears pure white and meditates on this sound current for 2-1/2 hours a day for one year, will know the unknowable, and see the un-seeable”
- SODARSHAN CHAKRA KRIYA : “Of all the 20 types of yoga, including Kundalini Yoga, this is the highest Kriya.“
Notice that he said that SCK is the highest of all Yogas …
… “including Kundalini Yoga“
So what does that say about SCK? That it is not part of the yoga he mainly promoted.
I believe that in SCK he did mix
* above tantric kundalini-yoga from the video above
* together with roots I found in the Siri Granth Sahib,
* and designed it to cover the 4 major Bhandas of ancient Hindu yoga.
And I even suspect him having included privately other aspects which I will get into at a later stage.
There are three things of his teachings I don’t follow:
1.) his dieatary advice because in my eyes those were cultural impositions
2.) wearing white (including anything on the head) because in my opinion Sikh-turbans are an expression of religion and I don’t follow traditional religions because they are outdated to me. Also, I tried white in many forms and it did not make a change for me.
3.) and tuning in with the Adi-Mantra as demanded to be done before every Kriya, because as Christopher Wallis explained at minute 31:26 above: “you are joining that coiled breath energy [in the belly] with the Kundalini of your lineage“.
In my very personal and unorthodox opinion the Adi-Mantra does direct the yoga-students into the Sikh-lineage, something which to me is not only incompatible with strange cultures but even dangerous because it confuses ones tribal Swadharma (life-path) with the one of the ten Indian Sikh-Gurus. At the very least he should have explained that to people instead of injecting his culture in a sneaky way into the West without allowing people to voluntarily choose their dedication.
What will happen if you leave it out and don’t wear a turban? You will have a much more difficult time to work out your Karma all by yourself whilst when doing it you snap into the Sikh-group-consciousness with its protective single-mindedness. So why not do it?
You can see the difference of those teachers who did snap into it by having an uncompromising attitude with an unyielding “Kundalini-stare”. It gives them tremendous strength and seeming willpower but in the long spiritual run (and I am talking next lifes here) I could imagine that they have to catch up the personality work they missed out upon by having substituted their own will by the Egregore (group mind) of a foreign religion.
If you don’t agree with me, do it before your practice, but I but I personally prefer the slower, harder but therefore more holistic and authentic path. After all I don’t train for comfort but to build up resilience.