I have read God Without Religion several times and have met SS in person during one of his GWR retreats. The guy is very funny, but he is no joke. He is incredibly controversial, but as far as promoting narrow viewpoints (being divisive) that would seem kind of contradictory to his life’s work.
His comments on abortion, buddhism, SRF, government, etc. are not, as far as I can tell, examples of non sequitars if one has actually read the book and realize they are presented as following logically from the principles of the expansive sense of self.
For example, his perspective on degenerative buddhist practices are just that, comments on degenerative practices. Although buddhism has merits insofar as it employs asceticism and pranayama it tinges these practices with obvious add ons from dark age thinking that we would be best to reject it outright and simply employ pranayama directly. What possible advantage comes from a practice that by definition is narrow because it confines the sense of self to a particular worldview?
In many ways he is like Sri Yuktesvar whose neighbors would close their shutters and doors when he walked down the street in order to avoid confronting his barbs.
Hi Joshua, and welcome!
And isn’t it interesting that we probably never would have heard of the grumpy Sri Yukteswar had it not been for the dedicated bridge-building and constant outpouring divine love of his disciple, Paramahansa Yogananda? And also interesting that Sankara Saranam, man of many scruples, considers Yogananda to be his guru.
It just goes to show that we each will carry our own torch, regardless of who may have inspired us. Some will use their torch as a light, while others may go about setting fires. It all works out in the end. 
The guru is in you.
God Without Religion was the first book on spirituality I ever read. I was quite fortunate when I found it because it was exactly what I was looking for at the time. I had been getting back into christianity, but there were some unanswered questions about it in the back of my mind, and I was looking for some philosophy or ideal that would not make me feel guilty for turning my back on it (i.e. ideas of heaven & hell, not going to church, etc.)
The book introduced me to the world of yoga, and the possibility of finding God outside of the church. This made me very happy. The book presents the theory of self, based on the ancient Indian model of how our thoughts and actions expand or narrow our sense of self. Tying it together with yoga practices, critical thinking, and physiology made it a real winner. I reread the book and also recently purchased the audiobook. There is so much food for thought in this book that is helpful for expanding your sense of self, much of it being more effective than what modern psychology has to offer.
I must admit that the ideas in the book caused me to feel bitter towards religion for a couple of years, but part of it was because I hadn’t completely understood what it presented. He actually tells the reader to respect other people and their religions and suggests bringing up difficult conversations in terms of religious stories the from the person’s religion. Personally, I think it is important that people know the divisive histories of religions and those that continue into our day. The worst thing that we can do is to continue living as we have.
Contrary to what a lot of people here have said regarding Sankara Saranam’s ideas, i just want to point out that they come from people who have not read his book. If they had read the book they wouldn’t have said that Sankara wants to abolish religions. On the contrary, his message is rising above religious intolerance - not by doing away with it but by expanding the sense of self to eliminate the divisive tendencies within religions.
Also, his stance on abortion is taken out of context within the general theme of his message. As it stands, the quote given above from his website is perfectly logical.
As for Buddhism, you should read his lengthy article on it at his website pranayama.org. It’s no good picking little snippets of his words here and there and condemning him without placing them in their proper context of his overall message.
So before people judge, they need to read the book.
aum
divine kirtanman / sankara saranam and all who contributed on this page- this is noble thought of the newer age of higher consciousness that awakens us to eternal wisdom of oneness!
a cat’s god must be cat and the uniqueness of perceiving source as in oneness is being awake!
awake in the inner light of oneness, we are set free from the prison of collective intellectual ego to recognize the lord of life in all as source and source forms.
gratitude!
aum
I found this post after posting a question about Sankara’s description of correct meditative practise.
I began reading his book, discovered yoga and realised that an instruction book on Pranayama was needed…and so I bought the Yogani books on that and deep meditation, so there is method in all of this.
One thing I would say is that GWR makes a point of incouraging group discussions with all religious/spiritual practises and any none inclusive individuals in order to understand different points of view. His own forum obviously only allows his viewpoint and I think this is probably because he wants to make that clear. In a sense he is saying ‘go out and form your own groups as I am no leader’ (thats my perspective anyway).
Coming from an atheist back gound maybe I do not read the book as a snipe at religion (but maybe that is because my background is atheist). Seems to me that he clearly feels that religion has been twisted either by those that seek individual goals, or by those who just misinterpreted the message. He seeks to promote inter discussions between groups and expanding openess and expansive self.
However there is a bit of me that cant help but be slightly unconvinced that he is trying too hard to convince that he is not self interested.
This is the difference when I read Yogani, it’s more like a coaching session, the encouragement is to discover your own self belief while simply following a method.
Gumpi,
I’m coming in very late in response to your message. I missed your original posting and only saw it when the thread was re-activated by new postings.
I made no bones about the fact that I haven’t read the book, and I was explaining why I wasn’t going to read it. If I see it in a library, I may take a look at it though.
Joshua said:
For example, his perspective on degenerative buddhist practices are just that, comments on degenerative practices. Although buddhism has merits insofar as it employs asceticism and pranayama it tinges these practices with obvious add ons from dark age thinking that we would be best to reject it outright and simply employ pranayama directly.
If he wants to comment on degenerative buddhist practices somewhere, he can do it wherever he does exactly that. But he’s responsible for what he says on his website about Buddhism and the context he gives it there. I stand by what I said about it.
Sectarianism is a human nervous-system behavior. It doesn’t dissolve in the Theory of an Expansive Sense of Self. It doesn’t dissolve in the Theory of How Bad Religious Sectarianism Is. In fact, the concept of an ‘expansive sense of self’ can be used as a sectarian fighting-tool just as easily the concept of ‘God’ can. Can and will.
It is possible that his book doesn’t have the problems I’ve seen in his website. It’s possible that, on his website, he’s guilty of nothing more than sloppy, insensitive, sectarian-sounding promotion of his counter-sectarian book. All that is possible. But for the reasons I say, this one hasn’t made it onto my reading list.
Namaste Friends,
I may join this discussion in more detail later, but for now I needed to respond to Yogani’s post below…
Hi Yogani,
I politely disagree with you here…Any business (and this is what a religion is, as they do not exist without financial contributions) will do what it takes to stay in business. This means in most cases resisting change. The entire of humanity can be screaming for change, but if a single corporation decides that it values profits over saving humanity from suffering, (which it will, because if it doesn’t it will no longer be in business) then nothing will change. This is because a corporation/institution is not a human being. It has no conscience, no morals, and noone it is accountable to except it’s shareholders who demand higher and higher profits every year. To hope that organized religions will play a part in the spreading of the individual spiritual sciences is a little idealistic I think. Not very realistic IMO. I hope I am wrong.
Love,
Carson 
P.S. Thanks for allowing this post Moderator…wasn’t sure how I could say this any differently (after a couple of tries) and still get it posted.
Hi Carson,
As you probably can see all around you, people of all ages and beliefes are getting disapointed with established religious institutions. They just don’t fit clearly anymore. Hence the spread of all kinds of small churches, spiritual movements, sects, etc. People are looking for alternatives in spirituality. The old form does not fit anymore. Some are lucky and open minded enough to find yoga and applied spiritual practices. That is lucky indeed, in my opinion.
As far as institutions and resisting change goes, an institution does not exist by itself, it is mantained by humans. If humans do not cooperate with it it will die, there is no doubt about it. The reason that so many of us still maintain some of these institutions is because (1) people are still able to cope with it no matter how horrible they say it is (i.e., things are not that bad that they feel the need to change) and/or people find no real or better alternatives. But when sufficient momentum is built (i.e. sufficient people get dissilutioned AND/OR find better alternatives) then the old institutions fall. They must, there is no doubt about it. Then maybe new ones will come along, but that is another story…
YIL
Hi YIL,
Oh yes, I can see this all around. But I can also see people all around asking for alternative energy sources but that isn’t happening on a mass scale anytime soon either. Same reasons.
This is not necessarily true anymore unfortunately. Institutions were created by men yes, and they are maintained by men yes, but now, they run themselves. And because of this, there is noone who can stop them. It’s like a runaway freight train in which the conductor, the only one who can apply the brakes, has jumped ship to save his own life, but there is noone left aboard to stop the runaway train. We built a world system based on trading goods and services for cash, and this created something we can not stop. Wild competition stemming from an intense need for increasing profits year after year in a market that is fragile at best. With institutions, especially corporations, there is one motivation only…to stay in business as long as possible/continue to grow corporate profits. There is no-one person saying “To continue to grow profits we are going to have to cross the line into indulging in immoral business practices” but this is what happens BECAUSE there is no-one person in charge saying “we can’t do this because it is wrong”. Instead there are millions of shareholders who say “we want our yearly dividends no matter the cost” and so this line is crossed without a second thought. And no amount of human change is going to make any difference to this. Because it is not humans who are the problem anymore. It is the SYSTEM that we humans have created that is the problem now. And the system is running itself.
Love,
Carson
Edit* Just for an example, I work for General Electric during the day. GE chooses to make many products, including both health care equipment and weapons of mass destruction and much more. If humanity decided that they did not want companies making weapons of mass destruction anymore, how exactly do you think we would stop GE from continuing to do this?? WHO do you think you would talk to about this? You think GE would willingly stop making these products even though they constitute a large portion of their yearly profits? Do you think the US government will make them stop since they are the ones buying them? You could not stop this if the whole world turned on them and boycotted everything made by GE. Because corporations are driven by profits not morals. And there is no single person at the top of any one corporation with the ability to say “enough is enough”. These corporations have built in mechanisms to stop that from happening because if it did, they would go out of business. And I use the word corporation to include organized religion of course. Hope this clarifies what I am trying to get across here.
Hi Carson,
I see no point in actually fighting over this as I think you will stick to your point and me to mine but none of what you say de-validates what I am trying to say. Humans created this system, and the system does not exist without humans feeding it. It is just logically impossible. Take your passions out of it and you will see it clearly for what it is: a system run by humans, by all of us, you and me included.
It is not us versus them, we are all in the same boat, either people want to see it or not. It is not about GE making weapons of mass destruction. You are right, they make it for profit, but they make it because somebody else buys it. And why do they buy it? Well, if you trace it all to its root, going furtehr and further, you will clearly see that you and me are directly responsible to GE making weapons of mass destruction, as is everybody else. It is not a matter of somebody’s fault over another anymore, it is the choices we, as a group and individually make. I believe in change. I believe because it is inevitable, it just happens, and will ocntinue to happen forever. So now the world is like this. We can argue endlessly why it is like this and not like that and then we will want to make it like that because it is “better”. Later on (hopefully much later) we will find that that “better” is no good anymore and we will want to move to something else. Things are forever changing, they are neither good nor bad, but have only the colours we decide to paint on them. I just point to the fact that institutions are run by people, and we are all involved in it simply because everything is connected, it does not matter if we see it or like it or not. I try to do my part by trying to see it, live it, even touch the truth spiritually. I also don’t “like” many things I see around me. Does that make them better? Not really, nothing really changes as we would like them to, as you so well point with cleaner energy for example. Things will change when they have to, as I explained above, when there is enough momentum. That does not mean I remain inactive. Not at all, quite the contrary, I do my part for what I believe is best. And I believe momentum is building. In the meantime, as I see it, it is better to be well rooted in deep inner silence, beyond the “goods and bads” and “likes and dislikes” of this world.
All the best my brother 
Hi Carson:
Institutions, religious or otherwise, can only survive if people are buying what they are selling. The ones that adapt to the changing needs of the people will survive and thrive, and the ones that don’t won’t.
The place where change originates is with the people. In spiritual matters it is pretty obvious what must be done: The people should have access to effective tools to purify and open themselves according to their own desire, individually and collectively. As the process of inner divine unfoldment advances, the institutions that support the global transformation that is underway will continue to have relevance.
It does not happen overnight, but it does happen.
Clearly, it is happening. Power to the people!
The guru is in you.
Carson said:
Institutions were created by men yes, and they are maintained by men yes, but now, they run themselves. … We built a world system based on trading goods and services for cash, and this created something we can not stop.
If you saw the British East India Company start up in 1601, before Shakespeare had written most of his great plays, would you have said the same thing then?
If you feel a company is immoral in their business dealings, you should not work for them, unless you are making some kind of continuous effort to correct them.
If not, then you shouldn’t talk against them, because you are a part of it.
Hi Ether,
that’s a bit harsh I think. Talking against an institution can be
helpful, because it points out what is wrong, thus increasing
consciousness in people, and then creating the possibility of change.
And sometimes pointing out the wrongs may be the only action we have
(at least for initial action).
Of course I agree, if talking against an institution is just shifting
the blame to some impersonal entity, then that is not helpful
and is avoiding responsibility.
The guru is in us
Be the change you want to see in others.
Hi Yogaislife,
I’m really NOT trying to fight or even argue with you or anyone here for that matter. Humans DID create the system we are living under, but that doesn’t mean that we humans have the ability to stop the system. A+B does not always =C. We have built a system that has enough checks and balances that prevent any single person or single culture or any group with a single goal, from changing the way the system works. Each one of us is part of the system yes…but each one of us if we don’t pull our weight or don’t agree with the system are easily replaced or evicted from the system (jail, insitutions or death). This is how every major corporation and institution is structured. You can deny this all you want, but it is reality. No one person or group will be able to change this system. The spiritual revolution will not take place over the course over many hundreds of years. It will be fast and it will be painful. Like any other revolution. To think otherwise is overly optimistic. I work for one of these companies and I have been trying since I started to make major changes here and all I get is marginalized and demoted. Hence why I am leaving this job to work full time at a homeless shelter.
You missed my point about GE completely. The only reason I brought them into this is because the “people” who keep GE in business are YOU AND ME( the US governement). The US Government purchases all the weapons GE makes for example. With your and my money. AND your and my consent. (basically) And it isn’t ONE person at the US government that decides this is what they are going to do with the US taxpayer dollars. It is a group of people, some opposed, but all overruled by the elite minority. So what I was trying to say is that, sure, you and me and the entire world can be against the way things are running, but it makes no difference because in order to make changes the entire status quo has to change. FULL OUT revolution is what will create changes. Minor slow moving changes don’t actually change the entire environment. They may change “small pockets” or sections of the environment in a certain area, but those small pockets are easily wiped out over time due to pressure from the rest of the “large” area to conform.
Exactly. But yet, if YOU decided you didn’t want the US government to buy WMD anymore, what are YOU gonna do about it? Everything you can think of, but it won’t make one lick of difference will it? And that is what I am talking about. You aren’t going to get EVERY shareholder or even a majority of shareholders consent on anything other then increasing profits, which makes changing the direction of a multinational corporation next to impossible.
I believe in change too! Why do you think I am here everyday? I just think I am more realistic then some of you who think that organized religions will play a part in their own demise into individual spiritual practices. It just isn’t going to happen…That is like saying that we can expect Big Oil to start bringing in alternative fuel sources even though they are making a killing by selling us gasoline everyday. That just isn’t good business.
Love,
Carson
Hi Yogani,
Yeah but “people” are buying some terrible stuff these days and it isn’t about to change anytime soon. And so in order to change what the people “need” you have to change the people’s opinions as to what is “needed”. And people are “sheeple”. If one person says I need this, then all his neighbors need that too. But this doesn’t seem to apply to spiritual practices. In fact spiritual practices seem to DIVIDE people more then unite them. Noone can seem to agree on what set of practices/kind of worship is best. (often even here at AYP!) And I don’t think THAT is going to change anytime soon either. I wish it was as simple as “The ones that adapt to the changing needs of the people will survive and thrive, and the ones that don’t won’t”, but in reality, advertising, peer pressure and more, play much too large of a part to hope for this. If a company isn’t selling enough, they beef up their marketing ploys until they are again. And if they can’t make profits again they go under…they don’t change, they just cease to exist and are replaced by another, more immoral company.
Yes Yogani, but you can’t instill DESIRE in anyone, and desire for union with God is the only thing that will push people to pick up spiritual practices. And until the mass population of the world decides that what they want is union with God, what you are proposing will happen, will never happen.
I disagree. If it is going to happen at all, it will most likely happen in a relatively short period of time just like any other revolution. It will be too easy to squash the revolution if it happens slowly over a long period of time.
Love,
Carson
Hi David,
I think so, but maybe I don’t know enough about the B.E.I.Company or the time period. History isn’t as strong a suit for me as PRE-history
Love,
Carson
Hi Etherfish,
I feel that just about every company is immoral in their business dealings. And believe me for the past two years (that’s how long I have worked for GE for) I have done more to try and change this company from the inside out then probably anyone who has ever worked for OR against GE. I’ve even succeeded in getting myself demoted over the sending of unsolicited emails to the heads of specific GE departments telling them of ways I think they could improve our company image and focus better on more positive technology. But all GE cares about is how it looks in the eyes of the worlds governments and not in the eyes of the people. Because it is the worlds government’s who keep them in business, not the people directly themselves. So you see, I AM making a constant effort to change my company from the inside out, but it is not possible. Even if I DID manage to make it to a position of high import where my opinion did make a difference, if I voiced an unpopular opinion, I would lose my position if nothing else. This is how big business works. If it didn’t work like this, they wouldn’t be in business for long. And like I said to Yogaislife above, this is why I am leaving GE to work at a homeless shelter full time.
Love,
Carson