Talk:Living Ethics

Untitled

Yes, there is such a page.

Janosabel 15:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Living Ethics

I want to comment some points connected with recent redirection of an article “Agni Yoga” by new article “Living Ethics”.

Looking through a discussion about this I think that indignation of co-author of the article “Agni Yoga” Asiaj is quite explainable, he (or she, or they) is right in something. However, in common sense the redirection made is not only justified but reasonable too. Why? I give some considerations below.

At the very beginning of the article “Agni Yoga” the readers have learned that simultaneously with creation of the Living Ethics Teaching the Agni Yoga Society was found. What for this information is here? All the more that Asiaj said he is not a member of this Society. So, the reader must think that AGS is only true follower of the Teaching. Where is information about other societies, which were founded later but were also important for the Roerichs? I mean Riga’s society; many members of it were in correspondence with Helena Ivanovna, and also Roerich’s societies of other Baltic and European countries.

In the same place of very beginning the name of Roerich’s Teacher is mentioned. Why? Is this necessary? It is most deep name for any Roerich’s follower… And then nothing about who is this Person…

Very disputable issue is Asiaj’s statement about that his article is more corresponding for the name “Agni Yoga”. The article “Agni Yoga” really complicates the question since it declares many incomprehensible notions for reader unknown with Oriental terminology. For example, Mother of the World, Maytreya, Shambala. Last notion Asiaj determines as “a mysterious abode in Central Asia”. I think Roerichs would be very amazed at such determination. It is widely known how Helena and Nicholas Roerich negatively related to the word “Mystic”.

It is clear that to reveal such complex notion as Psychic energy can only Roerichs themselves (excluding A.I.Klizovsky, his book “About psychic energy” was approved by H.I. Roerich). And small wonder that the authors of article “Agni Yoga” can’t do this, in my opinion. numerous citations from the Teaching only confuse the readers.

The main reason of Asiaj’s irritation is, in my opinion, usual Russophobia. The first point of his discussion remarks is:

“Article is basically a (poor) translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on “Living Ethics.” It was written in Russian for Russians who may have access to the Russian sources cited and may be impressed by a quote from a Russian Cabinet minister. The previous article was written for readers of English.”

This statement can be understood as full unwillingness to learn Russian sources and to divide the world on Russian and English parts. Why? But Russian readers would respect with great interest to the quotes from American government about Roerichs or Living Ethics (if it will be, certainly). Poor English of the article “Living Ethics” can easily be perfected; it is not problem for English readers. The new article “Living Ethics introduces the English-language readers not only the Teaching, which is elucidated from point of view modern philosophic and science studies, but also with modern cultural and public achievements of Russian followers. I mean an activity of International Centre of the Roerichs, other Russian societies, international scientific conferences, philosophic works of L.V.Shaposhnikova and other interesting things what are little known for English readers.

In conclusion, I think that main difference between two articles is that the first of them shows the Teaching as esoteric Teaching of Yoga, the second elucidates it as deep philosophical and ethic conception. In my opinion, the last approach is more interesting and useful for modern readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayupp (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Living Ethics" and "Agni Yoga" seem to be two different names for the same movement, or body of teachings. (If I am wrong, can you point me to some source that distinguishes the two?) This means that the two articles must be merged, as soon as we can figure out how to do it. I think "Agni Yoga" would be the more familiar name (at least in English), since that is what the U.S. society is called, as well as the book series.

Whatever it is, it is not a science, or a scientific activity. Rather, it is a spiritual group with some interest in, and influence from, the sciences. The history, teachings, practices, and demographics of this group (including various sub-groups or schisms) should be the focus of the article, whatever name we decide to call it.

A big problem is that--in view the diffuse nature of the AY books, and the lack of good secondary sources--any summary of AY risks becoming "original research" or even POV. (Hence the disagreement here over what the Roerich movement "is".) I think this can be finessed, with enough cooperation and goodwill from participants. At least this underscores the necessity of making use of what reliable sources we do have. Dawud (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Different conceptions of the Agni Yoga

I find there is a big problem with this article which comes to be a POV. It is really disturbing seeing this article coming suddenly, two years ago, as a strict translation of a russian one, which has been translated into english and french. This article has simply erased all the ancient versions of the Agni Yoga article.

The problem is as follow : after Roerichs death, there were two kind of legacies : some in Russia and some in USA and Europe.

US New York Agni Yoga Society, in association with the New York Roerich museum, tries to protect paintings from Nicholas Roerich and to distribute Agni Yoga teachings by Helena Roerich by paper and in a numeric way ( http://www.agniyoga.org ). This association is ofter in relation with small associations in european countries, responsible for the translations of Agni Yoga books and trying to make this teaching be available (by paper ou by numeric ways), for example in France. However, these associations are different ones.

On the other hand, there is the russian legacy, which is almost unknown in western countries (USA and European countries) and seems to be close to politics and social local investments, in particular coming from the ones who claim to be responsable for the idea of the Roerich legacy.

USA and European countries know well Roerich legacy as "Agni Yoga" ; Russia more the idea of "Living Ethics". Even if the two expressions seems to recover the same idea, it is in fact two visions of what is trully the Roerich legacy.

That is why I think we should keep two separate articles : Living ethics and Agni Yoga. And we should do the same in french Wikipedia (this is what I'm going to propose).

Urobore (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---

This text creates an automatic translator. My tongue is Russian. I'll tell you one thing, if you put the words in the columns of this book, we get a basic vocabulary of random neural correlations for vertical reading. (As crossword puzzles). And I found there is not a single decent ethical word: solid ezhakuliation orgasm dirty depraved sex and hyperactive brazen debauchery. Thus in origenale a treatise on sexual commitment!

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.153.188.14 (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)