The Fine-Line Between Traditionalism
and Superficialism

By Durgadas, Ved Kovid (1200), AYT (1200)
Ayu. Clin, Ayu.Pharm, AMPKT, AMBT, ALC, Ayu. Ast
 
(c) Durgadas (Rodney) Lingham.
All Rights Reserved 

The Fine-Line between Tradition and Superficialism

We often see issues with people stating that astrology and Ayurveda must go together - others reject this. Now, here it is dependent upon what system we are discussing - the western tropical or the eastern sidereal system with its intricate sub-systems. If the latter, such by itself even does not always hold wholesome - yet used and employed in conjunction with Ayurvedic knowledge and deeper Vedanta, is extremely useful; Ayurveda by itself becomes to linear an approach and not integral.

That said, the depth of mastery of both systems and accuracy is required, as also knowledge of variables and when such are to be dismissed and how lightly they are taken. If again applied linearly, such will fail. For this reason, as such a fine-line exists and the majority of practitioners of [American] Ayurveda (in the west) today are no more than "quacks", as also most astrologers, many even Indian movements have rejected astrology and at times Ayurveda, notably Swami Vivekananda! This was not a deep-down personal rejection, but a simplification rather than enumerating the intricacies of both organic sciences to the masses, which is a most arduous task! 
Here, astrology itself is often used as a means of manipulation and misapplied and the symbols and karmic metaphors taken too literally rather than in a symbolic manner, as also assessing again, all the divisions and facets of astrology which, like astrology, rests upon the science of mathematics itself! 

Yet here, while I took up Vedic Astrology, it was after numerous charts were cast and matched medically and cross-examined of over a thousand charts from across the globe and across demographics, also which models suited Indians compared to westerners best, or to other native cultures. Initially however, I did (even against my own family), reject this system - yet in accordance with the Vedic system, we must discover the truth itself rather than merely denigrate an ancient system. This is when I myself discovered the need for what I coined the Purna Jyotisha (Integral Astrology) approach from numerous ancient texts, beyond the 'commonly quoted', also looking at all angles traditionally, in addition to my own research.

Likewise, the commonly misunderstood and projected notions and tenets of Advaita Vedanta as maya, atman, atmajnana and avidya are projected in the world, but in Tantric sects in India, understood within a different model to Shankara Advaita that most in the west professing "Tantric" lore, associate with! While Shankaracharya did deal with such aspects in a more expanded thatn over-simplified forms, as did Ramana Maharishi, Sri Ramakrishna and others - these have often been ignored in the west in favour of the projected Christian-samskara of quick and easy liberation, or escapism by approximation of terms, rather than to understand (a) the context of the tenets and terms (b) the deeper nature of them (c) the fabric of reality as envisioned by Shankaracharya in his more expansive works beyond just a few sutras in his commonly-quoted editions! 

As an example here, the rejection of bhakti, when Shankaracharya's stotras and his puja-system are employed across India today, as well as his karma-yoga facet in his numerous bhashyas or commentaries, his debate with Buddhist and Jain scholars, protection of Sanskrit, Vedas and Vedic dharma and furthering their learning via mathas established, along with temples across India, all testimony to the twin dimensions of Shankaracharya's mind - the spiritual (atmic) and the social or worldly (jagat), of which, the statements of the former, when superimposed upon the latter, don't fit neatly and cause numerous errors in those wishing to espouse Vedanta outside of India and even within the minds of so-called trained Swamis and Acharyas of India itself who fall into this trap of over-simplification and literalisation! 

The BAMS system in India has often, especially in certain regions of India created a closer system to "Traditional Ayurveda" by which practitioners employ vastu, jyotisha, tantra, yoga, vedanta etc. than the western variations that have grown from the poorer versions of BAMS scholars from regions such as Maharashtra.

In a similar vain, the system of marma therapists in India, a highly specified field of original Ayurvedic anesthetists, was handed down, but is nowhere near the same as the superficialised systems found among many tribal people of India and their western counterparts, wishing to learn such within even a few years, let alone a month, a week or a weekend retreat! Due to the dangers of such, I took myself, like Vivekananda's rejection of certain sciences, the path of outright rejection, rather than explain these intricacies and the depth of these to the uneducated masses who, unlikely, would listen due to the wastage of their income upon such courses - in some cases even livelihood! 

This here is a very fine line between what is actually valid in subtle sciences and traditional views (integral and expansive within themselves) and the diminutive pasteurised aspects of them – even often coming from Indian Gurus in India themselves to the western world, which causes much confusion when the two worlds collide, the superficial or pasteurised (“concise Traditional”) to New-Age range on one hand to the integral, expansive and greater system within India and China on the other hand, which require literally decades of sadhana or spiritual practices personally tailored as also study of sacred texts, lineages, traditions and comparative religion, commentaries etc. as also in the original tongues, not simply the English median!

This here causes severe anxiety in many who have become self-proclaimed “Masters” and “Professors” in India and the West of such (concise) versions – their defence usually being that there is no need to bother with “academic study” of texts etc., as the Self alone matters – here also, falling short of the fact that great Indian scholars from Rishis as Agastya, Vasishtha, Vishwamitra, Bharadvaja, Patanjali, Shankaracharya, Swami Rama Tirtha, Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda, Sri Aurobindo and even Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharishi were scholars of numerous disciplines / Vedic systems and Vedantic schools – the two latter themselves, even after their inner experiences, continued to learn about the other systems of philosophy – not simply dismissing them as “food for the plebes”! 

The New-Age (concise to pasteurised Traditionalist) address is reminiscent of the inferiority complex of the typical lay Christian who relies on the values of the repetitive (blind-faith) values of "Holy Spirit" and Jesus' saviourhood alone while remaining ignorant of the Gospels, yet willing to undermine the Church Father who is actually both spiritually more elevated than them, as also an actual scholar of the Gospels and would approach, with more rationale the concepts of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Satan etc. as was also historically employed by scholars of all denominations and cultures!

The New-Age is the culture of wannabes! They are pseudo-Fathers, pseudo-Astrologers, pseudo-Vedantists and others, excusing the gap in their education, either formal or traditional with Theosophy-style Ascended Masters, Spirit Guides or mere 'Inner Emotions'.

Sadly, this brings us to four major schools of thought, as I see it:

i. The School of Rejection of Astrology, Subtle Sciences and such due to the New-Age interpretation of such against the Traditional and Expansive (associating 'Traditional' with Concise-Traditional to New-Age models - Richard Dawkins is a victim of this school)

ii. The New-Age school that rejects the Traditional and Expansive (Pasteurised Traditional)

iii. The Traditional, Organic and Expansive School (The True Traditional School)

iv. The School of Rejection of Subtle Sciences as a result of complexity of addressing such to the masses - hence finding it easier to "dismiss" such rather than elaborate upon the deeper tenets (The School Evading Confusion) 

As we can see, such schools exist in the world today and sadly, the actual Traditional schools are undermined and maligned by the actual traditional, which caused many Indian Gurus and Swamis to either "cash in" on more popular models or simply retire! And we cannot blame them here, either!

As we go forward then, we need to ask ourselves, do we wish to become adherents of the spheres of Integral Traditionalism or Superficialism and of this, to what degree in each?